The article by Myers, Changing our minds: Negotiating English and Literacy was an interesting read and really framed for me the ever-evolving role literacy has in our lives. I enjoy learning about historical events from "then" that have shaped our "now."
For example, "Thus, from 1870 onward, most males were employed away from the home, away from their children, and largely away from the all-day responsibility for the assimilation of their children into culture" (p. 64). So as fathers found employment away from their families, more of the responsibility of learning fell to teachers. (No mention of mothers' roles here, but I digress!) (We'll leave that discussion for another day) This explains why there was an emphasis on schoolmasters to be rule-enforcers and use a curriculum that involved highly disciplined routines. I think it's important to mention here that the one room schoolhouses held children of various ages and ability levels. Not to mention children who might not attend school on a regular basis. Perhaps we can forgive our forefathers for being too authoritarian if we consider the context in which they "taught" (!) On page 80, Myers says, "A toe-the-line culture was possible because the teacher and his or her texts or works were the source of knowledge and moral authority." Teachers held all the power as they dispensed knowledge to their pupils. Not that I agree with these practices, but perhaps it worked for the time in which they occurred.
Several ideas separated the decoding literacy from the recitation literacy. An emphasis on parts rather than whole (that did not reappear until the whole language movement during the 1980s), silent reading, the link between literacy and language, and the belief in literacy as a way to prepare students for the "real" world (that might or might not involve college) were prevalent during this time. Standardization gained prominence as well as an influx of immigrants to the United States that created a need to educate diverse populations.
Considering how far we have come as a literate nation, I am still discouraged by the public's perception of lack within our public schools. Myers quotes many statistics regarding the increase in reading achievement. He states on page 100, that the "general population" has shown an overall increase in test scores measuring comprehension of "unfamiliar materials" and that 3/4 of our entire population reaches a reading level only realized by a few that benefit from learning opportunities in other countries.
Although literacy practices have changed and evolved over time in the U.S., I believe that we have achieved great success in the world of education. Changing from an agrarian to an industrialized economy, the arrival of diverse cultures with various educational needs, as well as the changing political influences have created many demands on the teachers and administrators responsible for providing an opportunity for everyone to learn. I believe that we as future leaders in the field of education must provide not only leadership but optimism for what is to come. We must remember that although the system we have may be imperfect, it will continue to improve and evolve as it has for the last several hundred years. Public schools will continue to provide an opportunity for those who choose to learn.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
In reading Menand's article, Show Or Tell I was reminded of some experiences with creative writing during my own journey as a writer (I've never considered myself a writer until this very moment. I have always enjoyed writing...for myself or for an assignment when I feel passionate about a topic. I just don't believe I do it well yet. :) Obviously a career in higher ed involves much writing, so I'm very deliberately try to soak up as much as I can about the process of producing the written word from the great people around me.
In high school I had an incredibly progressive creative writing teacher who insisted that we refer to him by his first name. I remember sharing my own poetry as well as listening to others share poetry and short stories. I don't recall having writing techniques scaffolded for us or learning about other writers. What I do recall is that we were told "there is no such thing as constructive criticism, all criticism is critical." Hmm...kind of makes me wonder about my teacher's own experiences as a writer and how they influenced his approach to our class.
I really loved when Menand says, "Surely the goal should be to get people to learn to think while they're writing, not after they have written" (p. 111). The idea resonates with me so strongly since I am engaged in thinking these days while I'm reading, writing, speaking, listening, driving...! This quote is aligned with my belief that learning should encompass meaning making above all else. More to think about. :)
In high school I had an incredibly progressive creative writing teacher who insisted that we refer to him by his first name. I remember sharing my own poetry as well as listening to others share poetry and short stories. I don't recall having writing techniques scaffolded for us or learning about other writers. What I do recall is that we were told "there is no such thing as constructive criticism, all criticism is critical." Hmm...kind of makes me wonder about my teacher's own experiences as a writer and how they influenced his approach to our class.
I really loved when Menand says, "Surely the goal should be to get people to learn to think while they're writing, not after they have written" (p. 111). The idea resonates with me so strongly since I am engaged in thinking these days while I'm reading, writing, speaking, listening, driving...! This quote is aligned with my belief that learning should encompass meaning making above all else. More to think about. :)
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Ways with Words
I have just finished reading Shirley Brice Heath's Ways with Words. Her landmark book details ethnographic research completed by Brice some forty years ago in the Piedmont Carolinas. Tracton, an African-American community, and Roadville, a white community, are both mill towns with very different approaches to the acquisition of language.
Heath explores the local environments at length and discusses the way language is learned by emphasizing the differences in titles of the chapters: Learning how to talk in Trackton and Teaching how to talk in Roadville. In Trackton for example, "Everyone talks about the baby, but rarely to the baby" (p. 75). In Roadville by contrast, "As adults talk to their children, they teach them how to talk and how to learn about the world. They sort out parts of the world for them, calling attention to these, and focusing the children's attention" (p. 127). These different experiences had implications for the way children from both environments approached school and learning.
What fascinated me most however was the last chapter entitled, Learners as ethnographers in which a fifth grade science class engaged in gathering information about growing food from their local community members. Students were required to use both written and oral data sources. After gathering data, students were to compare "local people's folk concepts" of growing food to "scientific" methods. Interviews with the "best farmers" were summarized and placed in a "science book" along with growing information compiled from research. The published "science book" served as the culminating activity for this science unit. What a beautiful illustration of authentic learning! Students engaged in real inquiry with real purposes and were highly motivated during the process. In the midst of this information gathering and reporting students learned to negotiate the language differences between home communities and school communities.
I have not started Local Literacies yet, however I am interested in how literacy will be discussed by Barton and Hamilton and if I'll draw parallels between the two ethnographies. Looking at these studies provides helpful information to educators concerned with meeting the needs of their diverse populations.
Heath explores the local environments at length and discusses the way language is learned by emphasizing the differences in titles of the chapters: Learning how to talk in Trackton and Teaching how to talk in Roadville. In Trackton for example, "Everyone talks about the baby, but rarely to the baby" (p. 75). In Roadville by contrast, "As adults talk to their children, they teach them how to talk and how to learn about the world. They sort out parts of the world for them, calling attention to these, and focusing the children's attention" (p. 127). These different experiences had implications for the way children from both environments approached school and learning.
What fascinated me most however was the last chapter entitled, Learners as ethnographers in which a fifth grade science class engaged in gathering information about growing food from their local community members. Students were required to use both written and oral data sources. After gathering data, students were to compare "local people's folk concepts" of growing food to "scientific" methods. Interviews with the "best farmers" were summarized and placed in a "science book" along with growing information compiled from research. The published "science book" served as the culminating activity for this science unit. What a beautiful illustration of authentic learning! Students engaged in real inquiry with real purposes and were highly motivated during the process. In the midst of this information gathering and reporting students learned to negotiate the language differences between home communities and school communities.
I have not started Local Literacies yet, however I am interested in how literacy will be discussed by Barton and Hamilton and if I'll draw parallels between the two ethnographies. Looking at these studies provides helpful information to educators concerned with meeting the needs of their diverse populations.
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Reader, The Scribe, The Thinker...
Love the title. Two sides of the same coin and all that jazz. But seriously folks, the article by Monaghan and Saul was a real eye-opener for me. I've identified myself as a reading teacher for quite some time now...and as a reader for even longer. Aside from several notebooks full of teenaged angst-filled poetry I've never really identified with the writing side of the coin. This article made me think about my own beliefs about the value of reading (and writing!) for myself and for my students.
When I taught at the primary level I emphasized to my students that it was important to learn how to read and write well. Reading and writing is how we communicate with each other. If you want to learn about what others are thinking you must learn how to read well. If you want others to understand what you are thinking, you must learn to write well. But I must confess, the emphasis was not so much on communicating well as it was on having neat handwriting. (there, I said it) As an instructor of pre-service teachers, I still emphasized reading and writing as a form of communication. Reading was the receptive and writing was expressive form of communicating. Which made the "Issues of control" section on page 90 so fascinating to me. Was I perpetuating the idea that children should be seen (reading) and not heard (writing)? Was it more important to me for students to learn what I said they should learn?! Giving students a voice was important to me; however I wish I'd emphasized it more.
Another piece of this article that spoke to me was the discussion on progressive education on page 97. To think that the sight word approach had been used as far back as 1870! Who knew?!Also interesting to me was the idea that "around the turn of the century" a principal in Chicago believed that reading should reflect student interests. "Reading Leaflets" that were designed by children and were used in place of reading textbooks for instruction. Unbelievable! All this was set aside as the scientific method and the use of sequential skills became predominately used with (choke) basal readers. Fascinating also as to how professional organizations have exerted their influence and maintained a political leverage that influences how both reading and writing are valued in the classroom.
Since this article was published in 1987, I found the prediction at the end quite telling. The authors hoped that the influence of the computer would help to reinstate writing as an essential part of literacy. As I type on my laptop keyboard and recall the texting discussion we've had in class and through email...I can't help but appreciate the irony.
When I taught at the primary level I emphasized to my students that it was important to learn how to read and write well. Reading and writing is how we communicate with each other. If you want to learn about what others are thinking you must learn how to read well. If you want others to understand what you are thinking, you must learn to write well. But I must confess, the emphasis was not so much on communicating well as it was on having neat handwriting. (there, I said it) As an instructor of pre-service teachers, I still emphasized reading and writing as a form of communication. Reading was the receptive and writing was expressive form of communicating. Which made the "Issues of control" section on page 90 so fascinating to me. Was I perpetuating the idea that children should be seen (reading) and not heard (writing)? Was it more important to me for students to learn what I said they should learn?! Giving students a voice was important to me; however I wish I'd emphasized it more.
Another piece of this article that spoke to me was the discussion on progressive education on page 97. To think that the sight word approach had been used as far back as 1870! Who knew?!Also interesting to me was the idea that "around the turn of the century" a principal in Chicago believed that reading should reflect student interests. "Reading Leaflets" that were designed by children and were used in place of reading textbooks for instruction. Unbelievable! All this was set aside as the scientific method and the use of sequential skills became predominately used with (choke) basal readers. Fascinating also as to how professional organizations have exerted their influence and maintained a political leverage that influences how both reading and writing are valued in the classroom.
Since this article was published in 1987, I found the prediction at the end quite telling. The authors hoped that the influence of the computer would help to reinstate writing as an essential part of literacy. As I type on my laptop keyboard and recall the texting discussion we've had in class and through email...I can't help but appreciate the irony.
Interesting look back in time at the way reading and writing instruction has evolved in this country over the last several hundred years. This article made me examine my own ideas regarding the value of reading and writing in the classroom; both yesterday and today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)