This picture is too funny! How many times have we seen this face in a Math class as student works to find his or her Literacy?
June 20, 2009
Special Topics in Literacy: Communication and Mathematics Eductation
This picture is too funny! How many times have we seen this face in a Math class as student works to find his or her Literacy?
June 16, 2009
Special Topics in Literacy: Equity Issues in Mathematics Education
There are always issues of equity in any classroom or learning community. Having been first a learner, and then a teacher, in a mixed gender classroom, I experienced the stereotypical boys are math students and girls are language students. I feel I never truly questioned this stereotype until I began teaching at an all girls’ school. I do know that there were always girls in my class who were strong math students, just as there were always boys who were strong language students, but for the most part gender stereotypes did exist within subjects. Longstanding questions still exist that ask teachers to consider subjects, and aspects of teaching and learning, based upon issues of gender. How do you engage girls in math is just as relevant as how do you engage boys in language today as it was when I was a student in primary school.
As a learner, I found math classes typically competitive. Whoever knew the answer first was good at math. Typically it was a boy! I also found that typically math questions were set up as personal challenges. Boys seemed to like the competitive dynamic in the challenge and possessed the confidence to both answer and ask questioned. They appeared to me to not be afraid to be wrong while I couldn’t bring myself to shared my thoughts publicly. I didn’t have the confidence nor did I have the mathematical processing speed the boys to have.
As a teacher of the early years, I found my math classes competitive because of my students. Boys seemed to want to take control of manipulatives and want to verbally share their answers. They were quick to respond and took academic risks. They wanted to work independently. This seemed to validate my experiences as a learner. Girls were the opposite. They were more comfortable working in collaborative groups and did not exhibit that competitive confidence the boys did. What I know now is that boys and girls benefit form different instructional approaches to math explorations.
I am now teaching at an independent single gender school, a girls’ school. The stereotype of gender and predisposed ability cannot exist in this environment. At my independent girls school, girls excel in all subjects not because of their gender but regardless of the gender: gender in not a variable to be considered here. We program with girls in mind and professional development is always gender and brain focused. Dr. Deak’s work on what makes girls tick has been explored. Deak’s understanding of brain research along with Dr. Cox’s work on executive control has helped my teaching and learning community continue to consider gender and brain research as important to student success.
Most recently, an investigative report from UCLA’s Graduate School of Education & Information Studies found that “48 percent of female graduates of independent single-sex schools rate their math ability as either “above average” or within the “highest 10 percent” compared to 37 percent of independent coeducational graduates” (Sax, 2009, pg. 7). The report also found that girls, coming from a single gender classroom, are three times more likely to consider a career in Engineering. What I find most fascinating and important in Dr. Sax’s report was that girls in an independent single-sex school environment feel they have higher academic self-confidence.
I am committed to my students. I program appropriately for them considering their learning styles and I insist on group explorations to build confidence. We “talk the math” in my class. Everyone contributes, right or wrong, because they feel safe to take academic risks. A wrong answer is always a learning opportunity and in safe and collaborative environment girls will take mathematical risks.
Work Cited:
Sax, L. J., Arms, E., Woodruff, M., Riggers, T., & Eagan, K. (2009). Women Graduates of Singe-Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in the characteristics and the Transition to College. Los Angeles: The Sudikoff Family Institute for Educational & New Media UCLA Graduate School Studies & Information Studies.
www.gseis.ucla.edu/sudikoff
As a learner, I found math classes typically competitive. Whoever knew the answer first was good at math. Typically it was a boy! I also found that typically math questions were set up as personal challenges. Boys seemed to like the competitive dynamic in the challenge and possessed the confidence to both answer and ask questioned. They appeared to me to not be afraid to be wrong while I couldn’t bring myself to shared my thoughts publicly. I didn’t have the confidence nor did I have the mathematical processing speed the boys to have.
As a teacher of the early years, I found my math classes competitive because of my students. Boys seemed to want to take control of manipulatives and want to verbally share their answers. They were quick to respond and took academic risks. They wanted to work independently. This seemed to validate my experiences as a learner. Girls were the opposite. They were more comfortable working in collaborative groups and did not exhibit that competitive confidence the boys did. What I know now is that boys and girls benefit form different instructional approaches to math explorations.
I am now teaching at an independent single gender school, a girls’ school. The stereotype of gender and predisposed ability cannot exist in this environment. At my independent girls school, girls excel in all subjects not because of their gender but regardless of the gender: gender in not a variable to be considered here. We program with girls in mind and professional development is always gender and brain focused. Dr. Deak’s work on what makes girls tick has been explored. Deak’s understanding of brain research along with Dr. Cox’s work on executive control has helped my teaching and learning community continue to consider gender and brain research as important to student success.
Most recently, an investigative report from UCLA’s Graduate School of Education & Information Studies found that “48 percent of female graduates of independent single-sex schools rate their math ability as either “above average” or within the “highest 10 percent” compared to 37 percent of independent coeducational graduates” (Sax, 2009, pg. 7). The report also found that girls, coming from a single gender classroom, are three times more likely to consider a career in Engineering. What I find most fascinating and important in Dr. Sax’s report was that girls in an independent single-sex school environment feel they have higher academic self-confidence.
I am committed to my students. I program appropriately for them considering their learning styles and I insist on group explorations to build confidence. We “talk the math” in my class. Everyone contributes, right or wrong, because they feel safe to take academic risks. A wrong answer is always a learning opportunity and in safe and collaborative environment girls will take mathematical risks.
Work Cited:
Sax, L. J., Arms, E., Woodruff, M., Riggers, T., & Eagan, K. (2009). Women Graduates of Singe-Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in the characteristics and the Transition to College. Los Angeles: The Sudikoff Family Institute for Educational & New Media UCLA Graduate School Studies & Information Studies.
www.gseis.ucla.edu/sudikoff
May 10, 2009
Special Topics in Literacy: Assessment Knowledge and Beliefs
As an early years teacher I know the importance self-esteem plays in my classroom. Students need to feel safe and part of the learning community to take academic risks and celebrate their personal achievements. In my grade one classroom our motto is be the best you can be. As an intermediate special education teacher and tutor I know the importance that self-esteem can and continues to play in students’ lives and the evident need for assessment for learning plays in preparing for assessment of learning tasks. I’m always saying things live give it a go and what a smart mistake. I believe students do need to give it a go and that mistakes are smart; they are opportunities for learning. Mistakes show thinking, right or wrong; the student that is willing to give an answer, right or wrong, I can help be the best they can be.
Primary teachers are use to scaffolding concepts for their little learners and recognize that classroom talk or discourse is important. I know that a teacher’s observations are very important. Teachers are leaders of the curriculum in the classroom but they are also the adult and in many ways the parent in the room. The role of teacher has expanded and evolved and the curriculum that calls for skill and drill can appear outdated or archaic by today’s socio-standards. “Yesterdays education for tomorrow’s kids” (Pensky, 2005, pg. 62) seems ridiculous. In my early years classroom, teaching and learning depends greatly on two things: student self esteem and student engagement. Prensky noted that “All the students we teach have something in their lives that’s really engaging-something that they do and that they are good at, something that has an engaging, creative component to it” (2005, pg. 62). I would add, students we teach need to feel safe and valued in a classroom if they are to reach their full potential and share their literacies while learning new ones.
I ask, why change classroom assessment? I answer, because society changes, and the learning and motivation of our students change. Assessment needs to be looked at differently so that all students benefit, differentiated learning can assist in bringing about quality in classroom assessment. As teachers what have we looked at in the past?
1. Credentials
2. Manufacturing the lie: 75.8% is better than 75.4%
3. Socio-economic background: the doctor’s kids
4. Automatic reactions
Learning needs to be the higher priority and learning happens when those things we believe to be true are challenged with new evidence. Adults seem to find this harder than children.
I ask if assessment is so important, why were we not taught how to do this effectively in our teacher education programmes? I feel cheated in some ways. I really should have had a solid grasp of assessment as a graduate from an education programme! “Lacking specific training, [we] rely heavily on the assessments offered by the publisher of their textbooks or instructional material… [we] treat assessments as evaluation devices to administer when instructional activities are completed and to use primarily for assigning students’ grades” (Guskey, 2003, p. 6). It shouldn’t be this way at all! Assessment should be a large component of teacher training programmes and teachers should feel that assessment is valuable because it improves student learning, it services the students needs. Assessment should be meaningful, on going, and achievable. Do we, as teachers, really need to include the “gotcha” question on a test if our goal is to watch our students succeed? NO. There is no need for test secrecy. Students should know what is expected of them clearly so that they can meet their full potential.
We, teachers, have perpetuated the lie. Changing assessment and assessment practices is a huge shift. High quality education for all is about excellence and equity; we should not comprise this! We need to come away from excellence and equity as a privilege as it is not fair to our students. When did we move from teacher as coach to teacher as judge? “Assessment can be a vital component in our efforts to improve education. But as long as we use them only as a means to rank schools and students, we will miss their most powerful benefits” (Guskey, 2003, p. 11). There is much, I still need to learn. I recognize that education cannot stay static. Just as society continues to evolve, so must our education system for administrators, teachers and students alike. There is much to gain if we support a change in assessment practices, think of the possibilities!
Work cited:
Guskey, T. R. (2003) How classroom assessments improve learning. Eductional Leadership, 60(5), 6-11.
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/teachbehave2/el200302_guskey.html
Prensky, M. (2005). “Engage me or enrage me”: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 60, 62, 64. http//www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0553.pdf
Primary teachers are use to scaffolding concepts for their little learners and recognize that classroom talk or discourse is important. I know that a teacher’s observations are very important. Teachers are leaders of the curriculum in the classroom but they are also the adult and in many ways the parent in the room. The role of teacher has expanded and evolved and the curriculum that calls for skill and drill can appear outdated or archaic by today’s socio-standards. “Yesterdays education for tomorrow’s kids” (Pensky, 2005, pg. 62) seems ridiculous. In my early years classroom, teaching and learning depends greatly on two things: student self esteem and student engagement. Prensky noted that “All the students we teach have something in their lives that’s really engaging-something that they do and that they are good at, something that has an engaging, creative component to it” (2005, pg. 62). I would add, students we teach need to feel safe and valued in a classroom if they are to reach their full potential and share their literacies while learning new ones.
I ask, why change classroom assessment? I answer, because society changes, and the learning and motivation of our students change. Assessment needs to be looked at differently so that all students benefit, differentiated learning can assist in bringing about quality in classroom assessment. As teachers what have we looked at in the past?
1. Credentials
2. Manufacturing the lie: 75.8% is better than 75.4%
3. Socio-economic background: the doctor’s kids
4. Automatic reactions
Learning needs to be the higher priority and learning happens when those things we believe to be true are challenged with new evidence. Adults seem to find this harder than children.
I ask if assessment is so important, why were we not taught how to do this effectively in our teacher education programmes? I feel cheated in some ways. I really should have had a solid grasp of assessment as a graduate from an education programme! “Lacking specific training, [we] rely heavily on the assessments offered by the publisher of their textbooks or instructional material… [we] treat assessments as evaluation devices to administer when instructional activities are completed and to use primarily for assigning students’ grades” (Guskey, 2003, p. 6). It shouldn’t be this way at all! Assessment should be a large component of teacher training programmes and teachers should feel that assessment is valuable because it improves student learning, it services the students needs. Assessment should be meaningful, on going, and achievable. Do we, as teachers, really need to include the “gotcha” question on a test if our goal is to watch our students succeed? NO. There is no need for test secrecy. Students should know what is expected of them clearly so that they can meet their full potential.
We, teachers, have perpetuated the lie. Changing assessment and assessment practices is a huge shift. High quality education for all is about excellence and equity; we should not comprise this! We need to come away from excellence and equity as a privilege as it is not fair to our students. When did we move from teacher as coach to teacher as judge? “Assessment can be a vital component in our efforts to improve education. But as long as we use them only as a means to rank schools and students, we will miss their most powerful benefits” (Guskey, 2003, p. 11). There is much, I still need to learn. I recognize that education cannot stay static. Just as society continues to evolve, so must our education system for administrators, teachers and students alike. There is much to gain if we support a change in assessment practices, think of the possibilities!
Work cited:
Guskey, T. R. (2003) How classroom assessments improve learning. Eductional Leadership, 60(5), 6-11.
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/teachbehave2/el200302_guskey.html
Prensky, M. (2005). “Engage me or enrage me”: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 60, 62, 64. http//www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0553.pdf
May 4, 2009
Special Topics in Literacy: Language Literacy
There are few issues that have emerged for me from my readings that “burn” me: race, gender, and inclusion. Inclusion, I feel, bothered me most because I can discuss inclusion from perspectives of race, gender, ability, economics and the list goes on.
As a teacher who deals with special needs of students, I become frustrated by the exclusion my students’ experiences. I cannot count the number of times I have had to approach a colleague to say Mary’s IEP states this or that so that she can better complete the task you have assigned. They do not always agree with me. Sometimes, I wonder if this is how my students feel, 15 and taking on a 50 year adult as to why the process has to be changed if they are to meet their personal best and full potential as students! It is frustrating to discuss and/or debate the need for change with someone who is not ready to listen, or someone who believes teaching is a top-down process. Sometimes when a teacher stops talking is when the learning really begins. The dialogue that occurs in a classroom, the questions that are asked and the responses given, is important for a teacher to observe and use when planning. How are we to challenge our students to think critically if we don’t listen to them? How are we to know what critical tools to plan for introduction? How are we to discover the tools that we may be missing critically?
I really do believe everyone has something to contribute to the discussion and that the classroom has to be a safe place where students can be encouraged to do so. I have discovered as a teacher that I have had similar experiences as some of my students and some experiences I will never have. I have had many experiences. I have been the English as a second language student and the Latin student but I have not been the student of colour, physical disability or learning disability. I have something to share, my experiences, but also have something to learn about, the experiences of others.
In the last 3 years I have worked to foster self-advocacy in my students. I want my students to know and understand who they are and what they need to be successful and present. I want them to feel and know they are “someone”. I want them to read the world around them, examine it and question it. I do not want my IEP students to accept things as they are; they should know that in our school setting they can and should examine the world and how they fit into it, and are part of it, while being supported. They should feel that their teachers are on their side, that teachers want the best for them. When students do feel that their teachers are on their side, the classroom becomes inclusive, becomes accepting and safe. Teachers have the opportunity to be positive role models of inclusion; I feel they have the responsibility to be the best role models possible.
As a teacher who deals with special needs of students, I become frustrated by the exclusion my students’ experiences. I cannot count the number of times I have had to approach a colleague to say Mary’s IEP states this or that so that she can better complete the task you have assigned. They do not always agree with me. Sometimes, I wonder if this is how my students feel, 15 and taking on a 50 year adult as to why the process has to be changed if they are to meet their personal best and full potential as students! It is frustrating to discuss and/or debate the need for change with someone who is not ready to listen, or someone who believes teaching is a top-down process. Sometimes when a teacher stops talking is when the learning really begins. The dialogue that occurs in a classroom, the questions that are asked and the responses given, is important for a teacher to observe and use when planning. How are we to challenge our students to think critically if we don’t listen to them? How are we to know what critical tools to plan for introduction? How are we to discover the tools that we may be missing critically?
I really do believe everyone has something to contribute to the discussion and that the classroom has to be a safe place where students can be encouraged to do so. I have discovered as a teacher that I have had similar experiences as some of my students and some experiences I will never have. I have had many experiences. I have been the English as a second language student and the Latin student but I have not been the student of colour, physical disability or learning disability. I have something to share, my experiences, but also have something to learn about, the experiences of others.
In the last 3 years I have worked to foster self-advocacy in my students. I want my students to know and understand who they are and what they need to be successful and present. I want them to feel and know they are “someone”. I want them to read the world around them, examine it and question it. I do not want my IEP students to accept things as they are; they should know that in our school setting they can and should examine the world and how they fit into it, and are part of it, while being supported. They should feel that their teachers are on their side, that teachers want the best for them. When students do feel that their teachers are on their side, the classroom becomes inclusive, becomes accepting and safe. Teachers have the opportunity to be positive role models of inclusion; I feel they have the responsibility to be the best role models possible.
April 7, 2009
March 16, 2009
Seminar 9: Literacy and Teachers' Work
Literacy and instruction are often over sold according to Frank Smith. Literacy is promoted as the key to success in our communities and society at large as if were a set of prescribed essential basic skills. Literacy, as Smith notes “is an attitude toward the world. A literate attitude makes learning to read and write possible and productive.” (p. 55).
We know that prepackaged instruction has a history of failure for our students and Smith knows “the only rationale for the new material and approaches that are introduced every year must be the inadequacy of everything produces previously” (p. 57). How many times have we, as teachers, followed the prescribed program, designed by professionals, only to witness our students alienated and frustrated by the program itself? I agree with Smith, the personal relationship that exists between student and teacher may very well “determine whether a student learns to read” (p. 56). We cannot minimize the role a teacher has in the classroom, a role that can greatly impact a student’s conscience and collaborative spirit and empower and engage a student in their learning. Is there really a prescribed program that can do all that? Programs have failed to acknowledge that a social phenomenon occurs with learning. Smith is right that “learning is a simple consequence of the company you keep” (p. 57) and “learning is produced by mutual participation in interesting activities” (p. 58).
As a teacher I know that literacy is powerful. I know that when I model my literacy behaviour for children it makes a difference. For example, I offer my students twenty minutes of uninterrupted independent reading time every day. During this time, I read because I feel it is important for them to see me reading! Sometimes I may be enjoying Fancy Nancy or a good Junie B. book other times I may be reading an assigned MSVU reading. The dialogue that occurs after an independent reading session is also just as important. Students may express that they didn’t the like the book they read because it was too hard, or they prefer something else because they were disinterested in the topic or story. Sometimes a student might conclude that the book wasn’t really for them because of something but perhaps so and so might enjoy it because of they are interested in such and such thing. Students will express that they found their books funny, interesting, factual, or magical and help hook other students into exploring the literature; students may enjoy a book because they have made a connection to the text. It is a powerful moment when another child says I think I might like to read that or try that or has a flood of questions or comments based on the in class talk that is occurring. So I do believe that the modeling of good reading and dialogue are valuable and essential to my classroom practice. No prescribed program can plan or do what I do in 40 minutes because it takes away from the authenticity of the moment. “All the prescribed programs, all the pre-specified and detailed objectives, and all the mandated assessments are impositions from outside. They interfere not only with the autonomy of teachers but [also] with the ability of teachers and students to act together in pursuit of learning” (Smith, 1995, p. 62).
Allan Luke also believes that literacy is a social practice. It is one that is “constrained and enabled by the changing economics and politics of schooling and communities” (p. 305-6). He argues that literacies are shaped and that the teaching of literacy has favoured advantaged groups. The world is changing and literacies are changing along with it. We need to stop with the nostalgic debates about the instruction of reading and writing and start discussing the literacies of tomorrow and work to help aide all our students in being literate members of their communities. What will the literacies of tomorrow look like? How will we, as educators, help reshape the teaching of literacy so that all students are treated equitably, not just the advantaged groups?
When examining remedial programs we have to be careful of the lens we use. In one instance, a student’s success with a remedial program narrows the reading (and learning) gap: a positive. Under a different lens, that same student is helping to preserve the archaic status quo: a negative. Dudley- Marley and Murphy (1997) noted that remedial reading programs “emerged to contain school failures” (p. 461) and although such programs support students who struggle to meet curriculum expectations, they also perpetuate that the set curriculum and expectations by the ministry and school are correct. Reading Recovery helps narrow the gap for our struggling students but it also “satisfies the needs of the dominant group… by sustaining structures of schooling” (Dudley-Marley and Murphy, 1997, p. 462). This is a double-edged sword! We, as teachers, want our students to be successful but what does it cost us all in the end if the discourse stays the same and the status quo is never challenged? This takes me back to September, all that is certain is uncertainty but where there is uncertainty there is hope. Long term change is what is needed.
References:
Smith, Frank, (1995) “Overselling Literacy”, Chapter 5, Between Hope and Havoc, p. 53-64.
Luke, Allan, (1998) “Getting Over Method: Literacy Teaching as Work in “New Times”, Language Arts, Vol. 75, p 305-313.
Dudley-Marling, Curt, and Sharon Murphy, (1997) “A Political Critique of Remedial Reading Programs: The Example of Reading Recovery”, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 50, p. 460-468.
We know that prepackaged instruction has a history of failure for our students and Smith knows “the only rationale for the new material and approaches that are introduced every year must be the inadequacy of everything produces previously” (p. 57). How many times have we, as teachers, followed the prescribed program, designed by professionals, only to witness our students alienated and frustrated by the program itself? I agree with Smith, the personal relationship that exists between student and teacher may very well “determine whether a student learns to read” (p. 56). We cannot minimize the role a teacher has in the classroom, a role that can greatly impact a student’s conscience and collaborative spirit and empower and engage a student in their learning. Is there really a prescribed program that can do all that? Programs have failed to acknowledge that a social phenomenon occurs with learning. Smith is right that “learning is a simple consequence of the company you keep” (p. 57) and “learning is produced by mutual participation in interesting activities” (p. 58).
As a teacher I know that literacy is powerful. I know that when I model my literacy behaviour for children it makes a difference. For example, I offer my students twenty minutes of uninterrupted independent reading time every day. During this time, I read because I feel it is important for them to see me reading! Sometimes I may be enjoying Fancy Nancy or a good Junie B. book other times I may be reading an assigned MSVU reading. The dialogue that occurs after an independent reading session is also just as important. Students may express that they didn’t the like the book they read because it was too hard, or they prefer something else because they were disinterested in the topic or story. Sometimes a student might conclude that the book wasn’t really for them because of something but perhaps so and so might enjoy it because of they are interested in such and such thing. Students will express that they found their books funny, interesting, factual, or magical and help hook other students into exploring the literature; students may enjoy a book because they have made a connection to the text. It is a powerful moment when another child says I think I might like to read that or try that or has a flood of questions or comments based on the in class talk that is occurring. So I do believe that the modeling of good reading and dialogue are valuable and essential to my classroom practice. No prescribed program can plan or do what I do in 40 minutes because it takes away from the authenticity of the moment. “All the prescribed programs, all the pre-specified and detailed objectives, and all the mandated assessments are impositions from outside. They interfere not only with the autonomy of teachers but [also] with the ability of teachers and students to act together in pursuit of learning” (Smith, 1995, p. 62).
Allan Luke also believes that literacy is a social practice. It is one that is “constrained and enabled by the changing economics and politics of schooling and communities” (p. 305-6). He argues that literacies are shaped and that the teaching of literacy has favoured advantaged groups. The world is changing and literacies are changing along with it. We need to stop with the nostalgic debates about the instruction of reading and writing and start discussing the literacies of tomorrow and work to help aide all our students in being literate members of their communities. What will the literacies of tomorrow look like? How will we, as educators, help reshape the teaching of literacy so that all students are treated equitably, not just the advantaged groups?
When examining remedial programs we have to be careful of the lens we use. In one instance, a student’s success with a remedial program narrows the reading (and learning) gap: a positive. Under a different lens, that same student is helping to preserve the archaic status quo: a negative. Dudley- Marley and Murphy (1997) noted that remedial reading programs “emerged to contain school failures” (p. 461) and although such programs support students who struggle to meet curriculum expectations, they also perpetuate that the set curriculum and expectations by the ministry and school are correct. Reading Recovery helps narrow the gap for our struggling students but it also “satisfies the needs of the dominant group… by sustaining structures of schooling” (Dudley-Marley and Murphy, 1997, p. 462). This is a double-edged sword! We, as teachers, want our students to be successful but what does it cost us all in the end if the discourse stays the same and the status quo is never challenged? This takes me back to September, all that is certain is uncertainty but where there is uncertainty there is hope. Long term change is what is needed.
References:
Smith, Frank, (1995) “Overselling Literacy”, Chapter 5, Between Hope and Havoc, p. 53-64.
Luke, Allan, (1998) “Getting Over Method: Literacy Teaching as Work in “New Times”, Language Arts, Vol. 75, p 305-313.
Dudley-Marling, Curt, and Sharon Murphy, (1997) “A Political Critique of Remedial Reading Programs: The Example of Reading Recovery”, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 50, p. 460-468.
March 14, 2009
Discourse, Language and Learning and Teaching and Learning
Books and talk were always readily available in my home growing up. I remember looking forward to receiving my monthly Dr. Seuss selection in the mail and visiting the local public library with Daddy. I also remember that the books that were read to me as a child were not the ones I selected at the library or received via mail. The literacy of home was predominately Portuguese. The literacy of school would be in English. I came to know the world around me, first in Portuguese, second in English. There were many similarities between my worlds but there were also differences.
The dominant discourse at home, with my parents, was, and still is today, Portuguese. The dominant discourse of all my formal schooling was obviously English. What I actively participated in at home and in social contexts within my local community as a young child did eventually translate into my school settings and English speaking community; I feel home helped start to prepare me for sharing my knowledge. Many literacy events from home prepared me for events at school; I would however have to be taught or assisted to translate these events and add on to them using at first a lingua franca. If I were going to succeed in my school career, I would have to become literate at school. You see, I had literacy, my Portuguese language and culture, my school teachers did not!
Heath wrote “Familiar literacy events for mainstream preschoolers are bedtime stories, reading cereal boxes, stop signs, and television ads, and interpreting instructions for commercial games and toys” (259). These at home literacy events are deemed normal and mainstream in many places around the world. Heath points out that these events are sometimes similar for students at school and other times may be in conflict with them. We, as teachers, know that not all our students come to school with the same set of skills or literacies. We may see this daily in our classrooms when dealing with ESL students, LD students, gifted students and for the lack of a better world “average” students. In fact, we may have experienced this ourselves when we began school. Heath notes that “as school-oriented parents and their children interact in pre-school years, adults give their children, through modeling and specific instruction, ways of taking from books which seem natural in school and in numerous institutional settings” (258). Parents help to foster and develop their children’s literacies and thus these literacies are dependent on what is being modeled and specifically instructed. Everything stems from something, every understanding and every misconception.
I agree with Heath’s belief that “children growing up in mainstream communities are expected to develop habits and values which attest to their membership in a “literate society” (260). However, it is important that we understand that children growing up in mainstream communities will be exposed to many things that will help develop their literacies. Social situations call for different discourses to be used and we know that discourses are related to the distribution of social power. Gee, in Discourses and Literacies, points out that “a person’s primary Discourse serves as a ‘framework’ or ‘base’ for their acquisition and learning of other Discourses later in life” (141).
There is and always will be sociocultural differences in the use of Discourse between speakers of the same language. Therefore, it is important that we, as educators, understand that the literacies of our students at home may differ from the literacies that are expected of them within their school community. Also the literacies we may understand personally and socially may differ from the literacies we are exposed to professionally. Therefore, what is important? Shouldn’t students learn in meaningful ways? As educator, we can agree that students need to be engaged in their learning so that different practices of literacies are understood and truly valued.
Teaching and learning are not the same thing. The role of a teacher is an important one. Barnes, in Transmission and Interpretation, compares the teacher as transmitter versus the teacher as student aid to interpretation. The literacies we, as educators, are comfortable with will place us in one of these two categories. What literacy is valued when it is the teacher under the microscope rather than the student? Does a good teacher transmit or does a good teacher aid? We as educators are divided! If learning is to be meaningful to students, if the goal is to engage students in their learning, then it becomes evident to me that a good teacher should step away from the transmission model and engage students and aid them interpreting the world around them. A good teacher will do all they can to understand the literacies their students will bring to a school setting to engage them in learning.
The dominant discourse at home, with my parents, was, and still is today, Portuguese. The dominant discourse of all my formal schooling was obviously English. What I actively participated in at home and in social contexts within my local community as a young child did eventually translate into my school settings and English speaking community; I feel home helped start to prepare me for sharing my knowledge. Many literacy events from home prepared me for events at school; I would however have to be taught or assisted to translate these events and add on to them using at first a lingua franca. If I were going to succeed in my school career, I would have to become literate at school. You see, I had literacy, my Portuguese language and culture, my school teachers did not!
Heath wrote “Familiar literacy events for mainstream preschoolers are bedtime stories, reading cereal boxes, stop signs, and television ads, and interpreting instructions for commercial games and toys” (259). These at home literacy events are deemed normal and mainstream in many places around the world. Heath points out that these events are sometimes similar for students at school and other times may be in conflict with them. We, as teachers, know that not all our students come to school with the same set of skills or literacies. We may see this daily in our classrooms when dealing with ESL students, LD students, gifted students and for the lack of a better world “average” students. In fact, we may have experienced this ourselves when we began school. Heath notes that “as school-oriented parents and their children interact in pre-school years, adults give their children, through modeling and specific instruction, ways of taking from books which seem natural in school and in numerous institutional settings” (258). Parents help to foster and develop their children’s literacies and thus these literacies are dependent on what is being modeled and specifically instructed. Everything stems from something, every understanding and every misconception.
I agree with Heath’s belief that “children growing up in mainstream communities are expected to develop habits and values which attest to their membership in a “literate society” (260). However, it is important that we understand that children growing up in mainstream communities will be exposed to many things that will help develop their literacies. Social situations call for different discourses to be used and we know that discourses are related to the distribution of social power. Gee, in Discourses and Literacies, points out that “a person’s primary Discourse serves as a ‘framework’ or ‘base’ for their acquisition and learning of other Discourses later in life” (141).
There is and always will be sociocultural differences in the use of Discourse between speakers of the same language. Therefore, it is important that we, as educators, understand that the literacies of our students at home may differ from the literacies that are expected of them within their school community. Also the literacies we may understand personally and socially may differ from the literacies we are exposed to professionally. Therefore, what is important? Shouldn’t students learn in meaningful ways? As educator, we can agree that students need to be engaged in their learning so that different practices of literacies are understood and truly valued.
Teaching and learning are not the same thing. The role of a teacher is an important one. Barnes, in Transmission and Interpretation, compares the teacher as transmitter versus the teacher as student aid to interpretation. The literacies we, as educators, are comfortable with will place us in one of these two categories. What literacy is valued when it is the teacher under the microscope rather than the student? Does a good teacher transmit or does a good teacher aid? We as educators are divided! If learning is to be meaningful to students, if the goal is to engage students in their learning, then it becomes evident to me that a good teacher should step away from the transmission model and engage students and aid them interpreting the world around them. A good teacher will do all they can to understand the literacies their students will bring to a school setting to engage them in learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)