Upon reviewing notes made, passages underlined and reflecting on seminar conversations, some of the issues I’ve encountered in the course come to mind. How readers are positioned, seeing reading as a social practice, the most effective pedagogy, how to ensure students see the power of their own literacy, and what kinds of bias and experiences do I bring into the classroom every day?
I believe a key issue for me this course has been to understand how a reader is positioned by the texts we use in our classrooms. I often think about the hidden messages in media and advertising, but in out classroom materials? Shocking! When I was a newly graduated teacher, the anthologies and programs were a lifeline for me. I felt I needed those programs to ensure my students were receiving adequate instruction. The programs were purchased by the board, they met the curriculum expectations. What could be wrong? I recently looked through some of those books again, and continued to be surprised how subtly positioning happens in many cases. Indeed “student-readers’ sense-making procedures can be brought into alignment with those of the text without their awareness of participation in the procedure” (Freebody, Luke & Gilbert, 1991). Reading the passage describing the Spanish invasion of Central America (Freebody, Luke & Gilbert, 1991) illustrated further such positioning. I was obviously reading the passage from a Eurocentric position, as I didn’t even realize the bias until it was pointed out in the text. It is clear to see positioning happens to readers of all ages and abilities. How powerful language is!
In Osborne’s chapter “Some Recent Pedagogies” (Osborne, 1991), he raises the issue of curriculum. “...curriculum is a selection from the culture” and goes on to question “Who does the selecting? For what purpose? What has been emphasised? What has been omitted? What alternatives exist?” Educators need to always be thinking of these questions, and how the reading materials chosen can position readers.
Also imperative to consider is our own personal bias. While things such as curriculum and text books may not seem to be something that can be controlled by teachers, we can certainly be reflective, questioning educators. During this course, the research project has been a valuable experience. I feel it has enhanced my understanding of my own literacy development and also that of others. The discussions in our groups about our early literacy provided an opportunity to learn from each other- what it was like to learn English as a second language, books that made an impact, meaningful experiences we had around literacy. In a small group of people, no one had the same experiences. Clearly, if in a in a room of educators, we all had unique experiences, our classrooms must reflect the same diversity. The research and reflection upon my own literacy has allowed for insight to the choices I make as a teacher. Through my reflections, I am also aware that I was adept at school discourse early on. I was read to frequently as a child and I suppose was like the “mainstream children” Heath wrote about (Heath, 1998). Not all students entering school have had the same experiences with books as I did, and that is clearly evident in my Kindergarten classroom. Reading Heath’s articles have been helpful to see how other communities experience literacy. My own experiences with reading and writing are with me each day as I plan teach and assess. The research and readings in this course have made me mindful of that. The choices I make each day are now more deliberate.
The ideas of literacy as social practice and school literacy have also been an enlightening topic for me during the course. I think I have always been cognisant of the different experiences children bring to school each day, but more on the surface- mom works the back shift, dad and mom are fighting, I didn’t sleep well last night, there was no breakfast today... Many of the articles read this course look deeper into cultural experiences and the effects of different experiences on school success. “Prior knowledge figures prominently in various versions of ‘reading’ ... the use of text about which learners have limited background knowledge can be a hindrance to comprehension” (Freebody & Luke, 1990). If a child cannot demonstrate those things which indicate comprehension and reading ability, he or she is seen as a failure. That failure can follow that child through his lifetime. It raises the question for me- what else can that child do? What are the strengths that child possesses? “ Acknowledging literacy as social practice...enables us to see students not as illiterate, but as differently literate, not as deprived of literacy experience, but possessing different literacy experiences”( Dudley- Marling & Murphy 1997). Do those differences make a child’s contribution any less valuable?
I have come to understand that it is crucial for children to see the power of language, no matter what the age of stage of development. “What is critical is student’s growth into confident familiarity with many processes, and that begins with believing that they can and will succeed. The wider objective, critical literacy, encourages them to think they can, because it involves them in using language to serve their own purposes, and to interpret the events and institutions and power structures that determine their existence” (McLeod, 1986).
Articles Cited
Dudley- Marling, Curt & Murphy, Sharon (1997) A political critique of remedial reading programs: The example of Reading Recovery The Reading Teacher Vol 50 No 6
Freebody, Peter; Luke, Alan & Gilbert, Pam (1991) Reading Positions and Practices in the Classroom, Curriculum Inquiry Vol 21, No 4, Winter, John Wiley & Sons
Heath, Shirley Brice (1998) What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school, Language and Society Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
McLeod, Alex (1986) Critical Literacy: Taking control of our own lives, Language Arts Vol 63, NCTE
Osborne, K (1991) Some recent pedagogies Teaching for Democratic Citizenship
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Response to Workshops 7 & 8
Response to Seminar 7 and 8 Shelley McKenney
“What is your theory of learning?” Just one question posed during an entire day of discussion stopped me cold. The knot in my stomach was not to be ignored. Just what is my theory? My mind raced for a moment before I was brought back to the conversation happening in the room. I left the seminar feeling tense and unsettled, and not sure why.
Had the question been posed five years ago, it would have been an easy answer. I had recently finished my education degree at Acadia University and had spent the previous two years reading Vygotsky and Piaget. Developmentally appropriate activities needed to be considered Children needed opportunities to talk and collaborate, learn in a safe environment, and bring prior knowledge to the classroom. Teachers were to work hard to provide experiences that would facilitate learning. We needed to provide authentic experiences and appropriate materials and teach through problem solving. Not all students learn the same things or in the same way. I was uncomfortable with any lesson that required me to talk me more than the students. Community circles were important to hold at least weekly, if not daily to raise student issues, not my issues. I wanted students to feel valued and empowered every day. My last practicum placement was in a fourth grade classroom, and I loved it.
Since then I have been teaching Kindergarten. I started with no experience with this age and was really unsure of how I could facilitate this kind of learning with 3 to 5 year olds. I had many days of self doubt and my philosophy seemed so far off from what the other members of my team were doing. Here were teachers with years of experience- I watched and what I saw was transmission pedagogy at work. I did not recognize it as that though. I made the mistake of keeping my thoughts to myself and not honouring my beliefs. I began to think that maybe I was expecting too much from these little ones. I didn’t recognize their potential and began to use the transmission method with more and more frequency. Certainly there was a lot they didn’t know and it was my job to teach (tell) them. The joy in teaching was disappearing. Kindergarten didn’t feel like the right fit for me. I wanted to change grades where I could do the kind of teaching I really wanted to do. I have realized that it isn’t the age of the children that was the source of my discontent. It was the assimilation to the transmission method of teaching that wasn’t the right fit for me. If I wasn’t excited about what I was teaching, how could the students ever be excited about learning?
Monday morning after our last meeting, I walked into my classroom and took a good look around. Did this room reflect my philosophy of teaching and learning? A small voice inside of my head said maybe not. The table in the centre of the room had diamond shapes on manila tag for the students to trace and cut out kites. Had anyone of the 36 children I teach ever mentioned a kite? Would making cookie cutter kites to decorate the room provide a rich learning opportunity? How did I get here? Once (and not even that long ago!) a passionate critic of cookie cutter crafts, and there it was, staring me in the face. I thought to myself that it would be good fine motor practice, and they would brighten up the room hanging on the walls. As I began to talk to the students about the kite “activity”, one of the children in the class asked where we were going to fly them. I have since scrapped the “decorator” kite idea. We will make kites, but they will not be attached to the wall.
Clearly it was time for me to step back and consider where to go next. I have thought a lot about the readings for Workshop 7 and 8. The readings and the seminar have allowed me to reconsider my own literacy learning, my methods of teaching, and what I believe about learning. I know that Kindergarten kids can be critical learners. These kids have lots to say and bring experience and excitement to the classroom. It is important to listen to what they are saying and take cues from their conversations. In Rethinking Early Childhood Education (Rethinking Schools Publication, 2008) there is a great chapter by the book’s editor, Ann Pelo entitled “Where are the Game Girls?” A question posed at the lunch table of 4 and 5 year olds- “Why are there Game Boys but not Game Girls?”- led to an unpacking of “girl stuff” and “boy stuff”. It provides an excellent example of critical literacy in Kindergarten. The curriculum can be met through such explorations and students learn their questions matter. All students have potential, we need to recognize it.
So what is my theory of learning? What sort of pedagogy supports my social constructivist theory learning? When considering Osborne’s chapter on recent pedagogies, I see the critical pedagogy as a good fit. Freire’s refers to three qualities necessary for successful dialogue and collaboration- love, humility, and faith. I couldn’t agree more.
“What is your theory of learning?” Just one question posed during an entire day of discussion stopped me cold. The knot in my stomach was not to be ignored. Just what is my theory? My mind raced for a moment before I was brought back to the conversation happening in the room. I left the seminar feeling tense and unsettled, and not sure why.
Had the question been posed five years ago, it would have been an easy answer. I had recently finished my education degree at Acadia University and had spent the previous two years reading Vygotsky and Piaget. Developmentally appropriate activities needed to be considered Children needed opportunities to talk and collaborate, learn in a safe environment, and bring prior knowledge to the classroom. Teachers were to work hard to provide experiences that would facilitate learning. We needed to provide authentic experiences and appropriate materials and teach through problem solving. Not all students learn the same things or in the same way. I was uncomfortable with any lesson that required me to talk me more than the students. Community circles were important to hold at least weekly, if not daily to raise student issues, not my issues. I wanted students to feel valued and empowered every day. My last practicum placement was in a fourth grade classroom, and I loved it.
Since then I have been teaching Kindergarten. I started with no experience with this age and was really unsure of how I could facilitate this kind of learning with 3 to 5 year olds. I had many days of self doubt and my philosophy seemed so far off from what the other members of my team were doing. Here were teachers with years of experience- I watched and what I saw was transmission pedagogy at work. I did not recognize it as that though. I made the mistake of keeping my thoughts to myself and not honouring my beliefs. I began to think that maybe I was expecting too much from these little ones. I didn’t recognize their potential and began to use the transmission method with more and more frequency. Certainly there was a lot they didn’t know and it was my job to teach (tell) them. The joy in teaching was disappearing. Kindergarten didn’t feel like the right fit for me. I wanted to change grades where I could do the kind of teaching I really wanted to do. I have realized that it isn’t the age of the children that was the source of my discontent. It was the assimilation to the transmission method of teaching that wasn’t the right fit for me. If I wasn’t excited about what I was teaching, how could the students ever be excited about learning?
Monday morning after our last meeting, I walked into my classroom and took a good look around. Did this room reflect my philosophy of teaching and learning? A small voice inside of my head said maybe not. The table in the centre of the room had diamond shapes on manila tag for the students to trace and cut out kites. Had anyone of the 36 children I teach ever mentioned a kite? Would making cookie cutter kites to decorate the room provide a rich learning opportunity? How did I get here? Once (and not even that long ago!) a passionate critic of cookie cutter crafts, and there it was, staring me in the face. I thought to myself that it would be good fine motor practice, and they would brighten up the room hanging on the walls. As I began to talk to the students about the kite “activity”, one of the children in the class asked where we were going to fly them. I have since scrapped the “decorator” kite idea. We will make kites, but they will not be attached to the wall.
Clearly it was time for me to step back and consider where to go next. I have thought a lot about the readings for Workshop 7 and 8. The readings and the seminar have allowed me to reconsider my own literacy learning, my methods of teaching, and what I believe about learning. I know that Kindergarten kids can be critical learners. These kids have lots to say and bring experience and excitement to the classroom. It is important to listen to what they are saying and take cues from their conversations. In Rethinking Early Childhood Education (Rethinking Schools Publication, 2008) there is a great chapter by the book’s editor, Ann Pelo entitled “Where are the Game Girls?” A question posed at the lunch table of 4 and 5 year olds- “Why are there Game Boys but not Game Girls?”- led to an unpacking of “girl stuff” and “boy stuff”. It provides an excellent example of critical literacy in Kindergarten. The curriculum can be met through such explorations and students learn their questions matter. All students have potential, we need to recognize it.
So what is my theory of learning? What sort of pedagogy supports my social constructivist theory learning? When considering Osborne’s chapter on recent pedagogies, I see the critical pedagogy as a good fit. Freire’s refers to three qualities necessary for successful dialogue and collaboration- love, humility, and faith. I couldn’t agree more.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Synthesis Paper
After reading Literacy with an Attitude, a predominate theme appears to be that teaching our students to be literate is not enough. We need to operate real schools in order for students to become critically literate, and that it is the responsibility of the teacher to create this model. Finn states teachers need to move away from being a gate keeper (p.142) to providing real schools where the students will desire the knowledge the teacher has. Students will recognize that they can change their world and teachers can help them achieve that. Once they desire the knowledge, they will work hard to get it. (p.179)Only then the real school model will be in operation.
In the opening chapters Finn describes social class and the discrepancy of education that children are receiving in school based on social class. I found it difficult to imaging this and began to doubt Finn. After all, who could make such grandiose statements after teaching the “poor” in the public school system for 8 years? Just the term “gentry” made me feel that this had nothing to do with me. Does Canada even have gentry? I had difficulty believing that schools such as Roadville, Freeway and the Brownstones could be the rule rather than the exception. How could he possibly propose that social class is directly related to education in our schools? Isn’t there a much broader basis for social class? What could I, a Kindergarten teacher have to do with all this? When beginning to read this book, I wasn’t entirely sure I truly understood what critical literacy was. Finn took me on a journey which at times made me feel uncomfortable and hopeless, and at others excited about the possibilities of teaching in the real school form.
In chapter two, Finn discusses the differences Anyon found in the education children were experiencing in executive versus working class schools in America. He continues in the next few chapters to examine examples of other communities and schools that support the theory that the executive class are educated in a very different way than those children in the working class. By looking at communities such as Maintown, he illustrates the different ways parents teach their children and thus set the tone for their relationship with schools and teachers. Students such as the Lads and pupils at Freeway had a distinctly negative view of education. These students did not value education and school- they did not need it for what they saw for their future. They did not want the knowledge that the teachers had. Was that because they were not given opportunities to interact and learn in the same ways Anyon’s executive class did? Finn portrayed this discrepancy in as being entrenched in schools and society, so if this was all true, what could be done? How could critical literacy make an impact when a child’s expectations are determined on the day she or he enters kindergarten?
When Finn began to examine the historical perspective of critical literacy, things started to make more sense. It was particularly interesting to read about the Corresponding Societies and I began to consider the idea of education as being either liberating or domesticating. I understand that there was a time in history that education was used to domesticate, but could there still be such a hidden agenda in the world today? We teach our students to read and write, to navigate through web resources, solve problems, and examine media with a critical eye. We hold book talks, read rich literature (most of the time!), teach history and science and use portfolios to assess our students. This doesn’t seem domesticating to me. What else do I need to do in order for my students to be critically literate and open all the doors critical literacy promises?
I began to wonder if I am kidding myself and if I am really like the teacher who Finn describes on page 93: “It is not unusual for the same teacher to conduct a very progressive collaborative lesson with the top group and a very traditional, directive lesson with the bottom group.” Truthfully, at times I am sure I am. Perhaps I don’t feel the lower students can manage with a collaborative teaching style, and that they require more direction and structure. I am making an effort to monitor this and stop myself when I recognize it. However, not all educators have read this book and are considering their attitudes toward the elite, the working class, high achievers and low achievers. I would like to suggest that all education students should read Finn’s book, but I’m not sure it would have the same impact until you have had an opportunity to teach in schools and witnessed the manner we use with our students.
So what about real schools? Educators need to use curriculum to liberate students. We need to specifically teach school discourse. We need to overcome oppositional identities, make the curriculum something they can relate to and give them opportunities to have first hand experiences in their learning. We need to teach them not only to question their teachers and the world around them, but that they need to act as well. We need to create a safe, caring classroom community and treat all students equally. Most importantly “the students must want the knowledge ...badly enough to cooperate and work hard to get it.” What a challenge this is!
I recently had a “Freeway” experience. Late last May, word came down from our school superintendant that staff had to develop a “TLC”-teaching and learning cycle. Only a handful of teachers received release time to receive instruction on the process. We were told exactly what we needed to do: a baseline, develop lessons to teach to what we thought students required based on the data collected, and create rubrics to assess student performance and the success of our teaching and finish it in a few weeks. We became like the students Finn described in chapter 2 “.... engaged in relentless slowdowns, subtle sabotage, and other modes of indirect resistance...” The timing was bad- we were stressed enough with the end of the year work approaching. We heard that other principals were not asking their teachers to do this task, so we didn’t feel it was fair. Many did the TLC with little care or concern for validity and real teaching, and did not at all see the potential benefits to us or the students. Much like the students at Freeway, it was widely viewed as just another top down decision imposed by someone who had no connection to us or what we were doing every day. We were just happy it was done and over. This September, we learned that the TLC was here to stay. There was a different approach taken to re-introduce the process to us. All staff met to learn about the rationale behind the TLC (while we were meeting we discovered we didn’t even have the name right!). Our resource teacher explained to us the premise and we viewed a video by the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat in which we heard Allen Luke and others speak to the advantages of this strategy for teachers and students. The mood of the staff after the meeting was much different than last May. While watching the video and listening to the presentation, we became more interested. While maybe not all of the staff was sold on the process, we could see that this was backed in research and knowledge and it could be valuable to us as teachers. We became more engaged and I personally wanted to visit the web site to learn more.
It’s clearly not enough to teach our students to read and write, and it is not enough for us to “have classrooms that “support the status quo”. We need to be aware of what our actions say about our beliefs and what they are saying to our students. It’s time to get an attitude!
After reading Literacy with an Attitude, a predominate theme appears to be that teaching our students to be literate is not enough. We need to operate real schools in order for students to become critically literate, and that it is the responsibility of the teacher to create this model. Finn states teachers need to move away from being a gate keeper (p.142) to providing real schools where the students will desire the knowledge the teacher has. Students will recognize that they can change their world and teachers can help them achieve that. Once they desire the knowledge, they will work hard to get it. (p.179)Only then the real school model will be in operation.
In the opening chapters Finn describes social class and the discrepancy of education that children are receiving in school based on social class. I found it difficult to imaging this and began to doubt Finn. After all, who could make such grandiose statements after teaching the “poor” in the public school system for 8 years? Just the term “gentry” made me feel that this had nothing to do with me. Does Canada even have gentry? I had difficulty believing that schools such as Roadville, Freeway and the Brownstones could be the rule rather than the exception. How could he possibly propose that social class is directly related to education in our schools? Isn’t there a much broader basis for social class? What could I, a Kindergarten teacher have to do with all this? When beginning to read this book, I wasn’t entirely sure I truly understood what critical literacy was. Finn took me on a journey which at times made me feel uncomfortable and hopeless, and at others excited about the possibilities of teaching in the real school form.
In chapter two, Finn discusses the differences Anyon found in the education children were experiencing in executive versus working class schools in America. He continues in the next few chapters to examine examples of other communities and schools that support the theory that the executive class are educated in a very different way than those children in the working class. By looking at communities such as Maintown, he illustrates the different ways parents teach their children and thus set the tone for their relationship with schools and teachers. Students such as the Lads and pupils at Freeway had a distinctly negative view of education. These students did not value education and school- they did not need it for what they saw for their future. They did not want the knowledge that the teachers had. Was that because they were not given opportunities to interact and learn in the same ways Anyon’s executive class did? Finn portrayed this discrepancy in as being entrenched in schools and society, so if this was all true, what could be done? How could critical literacy make an impact when a child’s expectations are determined on the day she or he enters kindergarten?
When Finn began to examine the historical perspective of critical literacy, things started to make more sense. It was particularly interesting to read about the Corresponding Societies and I began to consider the idea of education as being either liberating or domesticating. I understand that there was a time in history that education was used to domesticate, but could there still be such a hidden agenda in the world today? We teach our students to read and write, to navigate through web resources, solve problems, and examine media with a critical eye. We hold book talks, read rich literature (most of the time!), teach history and science and use portfolios to assess our students. This doesn’t seem domesticating to me. What else do I need to do in order for my students to be critically literate and open all the doors critical literacy promises?
I began to wonder if I am kidding myself and if I am really like the teacher who Finn describes on page 93: “It is not unusual for the same teacher to conduct a very progressive collaborative lesson with the top group and a very traditional, directive lesson with the bottom group.” Truthfully, at times I am sure I am. Perhaps I don’t feel the lower students can manage with a collaborative teaching style, and that they require more direction and structure. I am making an effort to monitor this and stop myself when I recognize it. However, not all educators have read this book and are considering their attitudes toward the elite, the working class, high achievers and low achievers. I would like to suggest that all education students should read Finn’s book, but I’m not sure it would have the same impact until you have had an opportunity to teach in schools and witnessed the manner we use with our students.
So what about real schools? Educators need to use curriculum to liberate students. We need to specifically teach school discourse. We need to overcome oppositional identities, make the curriculum something they can relate to and give them opportunities to have first hand experiences in their learning. We need to teach them not only to question their teachers and the world around them, but that they need to act as well. We need to create a safe, caring classroom community and treat all students equally. Most importantly “the students must want the knowledge ...badly enough to cooperate and work hard to get it.” What a challenge this is!
I recently had a “Freeway” experience. Late last May, word came down from our school superintendant that staff had to develop a “TLC”-teaching and learning cycle. Only a handful of teachers received release time to receive instruction on the process. We were told exactly what we needed to do: a baseline, develop lessons to teach to what we thought students required based on the data collected, and create rubrics to assess student performance and the success of our teaching and finish it in a few weeks. We became like the students Finn described in chapter 2 “.... engaged in relentless slowdowns, subtle sabotage, and other modes of indirect resistance...” The timing was bad- we were stressed enough with the end of the year work approaching. We heard that other principals were not asking their teachers to do this task, so we didn’t feel it was fair. Many did the TLC with little care or concern for validity and real teaching, and did not at all see the potential benefits to us or the students. Much like the students at Freeway, it was widely viewed as just another top down decision imposed by someone who had no connection to us or what we were doing every day. We were just happy it was done and over. This September, we learned that the TLC was here to stay. There was a different approach taken to re-introduce the process to us. All staff met to learn about the rationale behind the TLC (while we were meeting we discovered we didn’t even have the name right!). Our resource teacher explained to us the premise and we viewed a video by the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat in which we heard Allen Luke and others speak to the advantages of this strategy for teachers and students. The mood of the staff after the meeting was much different than last May. While watching the video and listening to the presentation, we became more interested. While maybe not all of the staff was sold on the process, we could see that this was backed in research and knowledge and it could be valuable to us as teachers. We became more engaged and I personally wanted to visit the web site to learn more.
It’s clearly not enough to teach our students to read and write, and it is not enough for us to “have classrooms that “support the status quo”. We need to be aware of what our actions say about our beliefs and what they are saying to our students. It’s time to get an attitude!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)