Monday, December 14, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Three Little Myths
Interestingly enough, I found these three readings very fun and easy, yet the thoughts they provoked were far from that. The follow up activity of recording the various myths really brought home the point that I myself am at fault for permeating several of these so called “literacy truths”; a fact I now hope to change.
The myths that really struck a chord with me included: ‘Literacy Equates to Moral Development’, ‘Literacy Leads to Better Employment’, and ‘Determination and Effort Equals Literacy’. The reason they resonated so much with me is the fact that I have found myself also preaching them to my students. I grew up listening to them, and thereby believing them. As such I felt compelled and even obligated to dispense them to the next generation of students without really delving into the truthfulness of them.
Of the three myths mentioned above, the second one seems to be the most mainstream. Almost everyone talks about: “stay in school ... you can get a better job, if you do”. The first and second however are much more hidden, especially the first. At first glance, I don’t think many would admit that literacy leads to better morally developed children, yet if you delve deep enough into your subconscious, it does ring somewhat true. A common belief that our society has is that individuals who turned to a life a crime more than likely dropped out of school. The last myth will probably be the hardest one to “falsify” since effort is always equated with success. The problem is that it isn’t always true. How many students do you have in front of you that try and try and still can’t achieve higher than a C grade. Is it because they didn’t try enough? Or is it because we haven’t found a way to reach them?
On a side note, this past week I found myself biting my tongue when I overheard a teacher telling her student that he needed to practice reading so that he can get into college and in turn get a good paying job. Boy oh boy did I want to start a discussion right then and there!!!
Overall, I think what is needed now is a culture change. One whereby we as teachers look at literacy more as a social activity. One where discussion and asking questions are at the centre of our planning. Maybe then we can create new and truthful literacy myths.
The myths that really struck a chord with me included: ‘Literacy Equates to Moral Development’, ‘Literacy Leads to Better Employment’, and ‘Determination and Effort Equals Literacy’. The reason they resonated so much with me is the fact that I have found myself also preaching them to my students. I grew up listening to them, and thereby believing them. As such I felt compelled and even obligated to dispense them to the next generation of students without really delving into the truthfulness of them.
Of the three myths mentioned above, the second one seems to be the most mainstream. Almost everyone talks about: “stay in school ... you can get a better job, if you do”. The first and second however are much more hidden, especially the first. At first glance, I don’t think many would admit that literacy leads to better morally developed children, yet if you delve deep enough into your subconscious, it does ring somewhat true. A common belief that our society has is that individuals who turned to a life a crime more than likely dropped out of school. The last myth will probably be the hardest one to “falsify” since effort is always equated with success. The problem is that it isn’t always true. How many students do you have in front of you that try and try and still can’t achieve higher than a C grade. Is it because they didn’t try enough? Or is it because we haven’t found a way to reach them?
On a side note, this past week I found myself biting my tongue when I overheard a teacher telling her student that he needed to practice reading so that he can get into college and in turn get a good paying job. Boy oh boy did I want to start a discussion right then and there!!!
Overall, I think what is needed now is a culture change. One whereby we as teachers look at literacy more as a social activity. One where discussion and asking questions are at the centre of our planning. Maybe then we can create new and truthful literacy myths.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Literacy
What struck me from the various readings of Workshop 7 and 8 are the notions that Literacy is socially constructed and it helps us understand the world around us. The underlying and often forgotten result of this is the fact that how an individual uses language to understand the world is very dependent on the social environment or discourses they partake-in. This was an interesting notion for me because it emphasizes the point that literacy is used and internalized differently for different people. It is dependent on the person’s experiences and cultural upbringings.
Why do we as teachers then, try to teach literacy in very narrow-specific ways? Why do we tend to teach using a top-down model instead of a student centered one that allows the learner to use their own knowledge and their experiences to further their understanding of the world around them. Personally I believe this occurs because we as teachers grew up with social discourses that emphasized Friere’s notion of traditional teaching as being similar to the banking system. The teacher’s role is ‘to fill’ the students by making deposits of information that he/she considers true knowledge, while the students were simply supposed to ‘store the deposits (Belenky, p. 214). Fortunately for us, we are now able to change this discourse through our experiences from our masters courses. We are learning to change our ‘teaching ways’.
The article that really emphasized the folly of continuing to teach ‘traditionally’ was Brian Cambourne’s article: “A sure-fire, Never-Fail K-12 Recipe for Producing Dependent A-Literate Learners”. Cambourne’s article criticizes traditional teaching styles or models that create dependent learners, i.e. learners that cater to the demands of the teacher’s assignments. These students read when and what they are asked to read. They write about what is requested of them. Consequently they become individuals who can read and write, yet they do not use language (literacy) to learn more about the world around them.
Essentially, what we need to remember is that students need to be able to work with others. They need to take an active role in their learning so that they can be active members of society. We as teachers therefore, need to introduce new learning opportunities that are contextual (based on the students’ social discourses and life experiences). We also need to allow for the students to ask questions and learn from the new paths these questions will steer the learning towards. It is by doing this that we can help create independent, social and critical thinkers and learners.
Why do we as teachers then, try to teach literacy in very narrow-specific ways? Why do we tend to teach using a top-down model instead of a student centered one that allows the learner to use their own knowledge and their experiences to further their understanding of the world around them. Personally I believe this occurs because we as teachers grew up with social discourses that emphasized Friere’s notion of traditional teaching as being similar to the banking system. The teacher’s role is ‘to fill’ the students by making deposits of information that he/she considers true knowledge, while the students were simply supposed to ‘store the deposits (Belenky, p. 214). Fortunately for us, we are now able to change this discourse through our experiences from our masters courses. We are learning to change our ‘teaching ways’.
The article that really emphasized the folly of continuing to teach ‘traditionally’ was Brian Cambourne’s article: “A sure-fire, Never-Fail K-12 Recipe for Producing Dependent A-Literate Learners”. Cambourne’s article criticizes traditional teaching styles or models that create dependent learners, i.e. learners that cater to the demands of the teacher’s assignments. These students read when and what they are asked to read. They write about what is requested of them. Consequently they become individuals who can read and write, yet they do not use language (literacy) to learn more about the world around them.
Essentially, what we need to remember is that students need to be able to work with others. They need to take an active role in their learning so that they can be active members of society. We as teachers therefore, need to introduce new learning opportunities that are contextual (based on the students’ social discourses and life experiences). We also need to allow for the students to ask questions and learn from the new paths these questions will steer the learning towards. It is by doing this that we can help create independent, social and critical thinkers and learners.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
"Liteacy with an Attitude"
After reading Patrick J. Finn’s book, Literacy with an Attitude, I find it interesting that I believe it was both and an easy and a challenging read. It was easy in the sense that I read through it effortlessly. What made it hard were the challenges that it raised in both my beliefs and ideologies about learning.
One theme that seemed to weave itself throughout the entire novel was that of accessibility. Before reading this book, naively, I believed that simply attending school would allow for any student to improve their lot in life; if they just worked hard enough and wanted it badly enough, they could and would succeed.
Finn’s novel brought to life the realization that accessibility to a ‘good’ education is not a given. It depends greatly on one’s upbringing, social class, school environment and also the teacher. Hard work it seems is not a prerequisite to success in education. Instead, Finn explains that a student’s future can in essence be predestined according to the school he/she goes to and the job his/her parents hold. This is a very scary notion for me because the more I think about it and compare it to my present teaching situation I am starting to see some validity in it.
When I first began teaching, the school could be considered one for the better to do working middle class. They valued education and thusly pushed teachers to provide the best education possible for their children. Now I currently work at a school whose students come from low income and/or welfare homes. Education is mandatory; however, its importance can be questioned. Students come to school because they have to. Many of them seem to be floating through the system, happy to simply pass from one grade to another. In contrast, at my previous school students believed that if they worked hard enough, they would be able to get into University and in turn find a well paying job (just like their parents). The gap Finn described in his book came to life for me.
In all, Finn’s novel opened my eyes to the need for teachers (myself included) to examine the social practices that are at play within one’s school and in turn question why certain strategies and practices are being followed while others are ignored. We need to become more reflective in our choices and actions, but most importantly, be open to change, even if others around us are not so willing. When I first entered the profession, I was full of energy and enthusiasm. I wanted to incorporate many of the progressive strategies that I learned in teachers college, yet over the years I have been falling under the pressures to conform to the more ‘traditional authoritarian’ or ‘gatekeeper’ approaches. This book has provided the much needed spark to rekindle my flame.
One theme that seemed to weave itself throughout the entire novel was that of accessibility. Before reading this book, naively, I believed that simply attending school would allow for any student to improve their lot in life; if they just worked hard enough and wanted it badly enough, they could and would succeed.
Finn’s novel brought to life the realization that accessibility to a ‘good’ education is not a given. It depends greatly on one’s upbringing, social class, school environment and also the teacher. Hard work it seems is not a prerequisite to success in education. Instead, Finn explains that a student’s future can in essence be predestined according to the school he/she goes to and the job his/her parents hold. This is a very scary notion for me because the more I think about it and compare it to my present teaching situation I am starting to see some validity in it.
When I first began teaching, the school could be considered one for the better to do working middle class. They valued education and thusly pushed teachers to provide the best education possible for their children. Now I currently work at a school whose students come from low income and/or welfare homes. Education is mandatory; however, its importance can be questioned. Students come to school because they have to. Many of them seem to be floating through the system, happy to simply pass from one grade to another. In contrast, at my previous school students believed that if they worked hard enough, they would be able to get into University and in turn find a well paying job (just like their parents). The gap Finn described in his book came to life for me.
In all, Finn’s novel opened my eyes to the need for teachers (myself included) to examine the social practices that are at play within one’s school and in turn question why certain strategies and practices are being followed while others are ignored. We need to become more reflective in our choices and actions, but most importantly, be open to change, even if others around us are not so willing. When I first entered the profession, I was full of energy and enthusiasm. I wanted to incorporate many of the progressive strategies that I learned in teachers college, yet over the years I have been falling under the pressures to conform to the more ‘traditional authoritarian’ or ‘gatekeeper’ approaches. This book has provided the much needed spark to rekindle my flame.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
A Literacy - Where I’m From
I come from an empty slate of literacy learning.
A period of time where math is remembered and reading is forgotten.
I am from a school where you bonded with one teacher all afternoon,
In a country where rows of students practiced “drill the skill”.
The move back to Canada caused the belief that these kids were slow,
Reading nursery rhymes and adding double digits was child’s play
For someone who read chapter books and was multiplying and dividing.
I am Nancy Drew, Choose Your Own Adventures, Romance novels,
And stories ‘chosen’ to be literary masterpieces.
I am biology textbooks, social behavior articles and reading about Germany's rise to power in the 1930's and the subsequent destruction of human life because one's beliefs and ideologies claimed supremacy over that of others.
I am a teacher and a learner.
Someone who loves to read and wants to instill this love within students who would rather spend time watching t.v. or playing video games.
I am a librarian.
Someone who loves to read both for fun and learning.
Vampires and Werewolves take over my evenings and weekends,
While picture books about squirrels with OCD and grumpy birds take over my day.
A period of time where math is remembered and reading is forgotten.
I am from a school where you bonded with one teacher all afternoon,
In a country where rows of students practiced “drill the skill”.
The move back to Canada caused the belief that these kids were slow,
Reading nursery rhymes and adding double digits was child’s play
For someone who read chapter books and was multiplying and dividing.
I am Nancy Drew, Choose Your Own Adventures, Romance novels,
And stories ‘chosen’ to be literary masterpieces.
I am biology textbooks, social behavior articles and reading about Germany's rise to power in the 1930's and the subsequent destruction of human life because one's beliefs and ideologies claimed supremacy over that of others.
I am a teacher and a learner.
Someone who loves to read and wants to instill this love within students who would rather spend time watching t.v. or playing video games.
I am a librarian.
Someone who loves to read both for fun and learning.
Vampires and Werewolves take over my evenings and weekends,
While picture books about squirrels with OCD and grumpy birds take over my day.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Literacy or Not to be Literacy?-That is the Question
As a teacher in today’s literacy rich society, I am very fearful that I am doing a disservice to the students that cross my path. When it comes to teaching, the area of language/literacy education has always felt as one of my week areas. I attribute this to the fact that there are so many different viewpoints and ideas regarding how and what should be taught and the vastness left open to everyone’s own subjectivity when it comes to “language”.
The idea that really struck me from the articles was the notion of context. O’Neil mentioned that “pushing reading into context-less space is the first phase in the deconstruction of coherence” (p.77), a belief that I agree with entirely. In order to help students learn new concepts, they must be taught within contexts that are meaningful to them. Photo-copy upon photo-copy of worksheets will not create literate students. Instead one tends to think we will create mindless droids capable of only completing single task exercises that require no real thought. Activities that have meaningful context will in contrast encourage the students to delve into what they know and then in turn use that knowledge to try and gain meaning of what is unknown. The procedures involved with writing will then naturally follow once the students have expanded that knowledge.
The notion of needing to teach using meaningful contexts led me to think more about Differentiated Instruction. Differentiated Instruction (DI) involves teachers leading-not as a teacher at the front of the classroom dictating to the students. But rather, the teacher taking on the role of a “coach” and giving the students options as how to go about completing the task-not necessarily meaning in a pen to paper format. By allowing the students to take ownership of how they are going to complete their work, and in which way they will complete it successfully, we allow them to become critical thinkers experiencing success. We all know that at some point of our own education, we often questioned “why” we had to do it this way and how things could be much better if we tried it this way.
DI is a wonderful tool that will enable teachers to keep the students engaged in meaningful (context-filled) activities. The concern I have now however, is how this will help students perform at the appropriate levels on standardized tests. Where do we find the “perfect” balance between DI and standardized tests? Even better, if DI is the tool of the future-allowing students to experience significant gains in their own education, why then are we still administering standardized tests and who do they actually benefit?
Literacy is not only a thing of the past and it is by no means a perfected concept in the world of education. How then do we all stop and take a step back to see what really matters-our students-the future leaders of our world.
The idea that really struck me from the articles was the notion of context. O’Neil mentioned that “pushing reading into context-less space is the first phase in the deconstruction of coherence” (p.77), a belief that I agree with entirely. In order to help students learn new concepts, they must be taught within contexts that are meaningful to them. Photo-copy upon photo-copy of worksheets will not create literate students. Instead one tends to think we will create mindless droids capable of only completing single task exercises that require no real thought. Activities that have meaningful context will in contrast encourage the students to delve into what they know and then in turn use that knowledge to try and gain meaning of what is unknown. The procedures involved with writing will then naturally follow once the students have expanded that knowledge.
The notion of needing to teach using meaningful contexts led me to think more about Differentiated Instruction. Differentiated Instruction (DI) involves teachers leading-not as a teacher at the front of the classroom dictating to the students. But rather, the teacher taking on the role of a “coach” and giving the students options as how to go about completing the task-not necessarily meaning in a pen to paper format. By allowing the students to take ownership of how they are going to complete their work, and in which way they will complete it successfully, we allow them to become critical thinkers experiencing success. We all know that at some point of our own education, we often questioned “why” we had to do it this way and how things could be much better if we tried it this way.
DI is a wonderful tool that will enable teachers to keep the students engaged in meaningful (context-filled) activities. The concern I have now however, is how this will help students perform at the appropriate levels on standardized tests. Where do we find the “perfect” balance between DI and standardized tests? Even better, if DI is the tool of the future-allowing students to experience significant gains in their own education, why then are we still administering standardized tests and who do they actually benefit?
Literacy is not only a thing of the past and it is by no means a perfected concept in the world of education. How then do we all stop and take a step back to see what really matters-our students-the future leaders of our world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
