2. possession of education: to question someone’s literacy.
3. The condition or quality of being knowledgeable in a particular subject or field: cultural literacy; biblical literacy.
Having completed my Masters of Education in Literacy in July 2006, I learned much more than I ever expected to learn. It is here that I shall share my written papers as well as my thoughts.
FALL 2004
The first two readings as per the Conversation and Uncertainty workshop are wonderful pieces to have begun delving into with regards to Literacy.
I quite agree with Walter MacGinitie when he states that “uncertainty is frightening”. He is quite right. It is this very same fear of the unknown that always seems to invoke our most deep-rooted emotions, thereby putting us on edge. How interesting to read that Andrew Manning correlates this feeling of being on the edge with actual learning. I am beginning to wonder if I can even go so far as to say that existing on this edge might well bring about our best learning.
With regards to literacy and literacy learning, I feel very much in the dark, having never taught in a regular classroom setting. In this light, I feel very much uncertain about this course (in terms of having something illuminating to say), but I am willing to embrace this uncertainty that I feel.
To be a good teacher, one must have doubts. Believe me, I have many of those!
To be a good teacher, one must both accept and acknowledge that he/she will always have much to learn. Believe me, I am far from having all the answers. In fact, I am not sure if I even have all the questions!
There seems to exist much irony between the envisaged (or envisioned) curriculum, as set down by the Department of Education, and the real curriculum. I have often asked myself, how is it that governmental department individuals (whose contact with students is limited or nil) are the ones who create the curriculum that teachers are expected to implement in the classroom? The answer to this very question continues to elude me. I quite agree with Andrew Manning in that it is time to “reclaim the classroom”.
Countless atrocities are committed by individuals who absolutely, and without reservation, believe themselves to be right, as is brought to the fore by Walter MacGinitie. This may invoke visions of war, famine and natural disaster to most. Despite the drastic comparison, can we not philosophically say that atrocities are being committed within our very classrooms when, at the upper levels, regurgitation appears to have more importance than actual learning? This is what creates stagnant learners.
Not only do we all learn different things, but we all have different learning styles. We need to accept and work with these learning styles, be they auditory, visual or tactile/kinesthetic. We need to continue to learn which accommodations best meet these learning needs. This is beginning to happen, courtesy of Pathways, but it is not without its downside. Married with large class sizes and literacy difficulties, can one teach a Math course to 40 students when at least 10 significantly struggle with reading of text? How can we best embrace the Pathways documents? In failing to provide teachers with the much needed supports (i.e. student assistants for academic reasons for the Criteria F and/or Criteria G student), we are also failing individual learners. If, as a result of literacy learning difficulties, they do not meet with success in the school environment, what message of learning does this send?
Life is not a transmission of knowable facts. Life is about learning. As responsible educators, we must learn to create better classrooms that allow for and encourage learning. We must allow for our students to make the much needed connections between personal experiences (what is known) and learning (what is newly experienced). It is only in having experienced this ourselves that allows for the lightbulb moment that Oprah Winfrey is so fond of reiterating.
I appreciate the fact that every new connection changes what we know. How delightful to know that we are dynamic individuals. I welcome the process whereby both the knower and the knowing change on a frequent basis, hoping that I model it well for my students.
How does one do this? By learning to abandon the quest for perfection and certainty.
With all that we have to contend with in our daily lives, we have, unfortunately, become quite complacent. Susan Garland cites middle class complacency to “drug related crimes and gang wars”. Although she feels this sums up the complacency felt towards the underclass of her study, I do not agree. As educators, I believe that we really do care about the students. I believe, wholeheartedly, that we truly want to make a positive difference in their lives by letting them know that we care about what happens to them. When we find ourselves caught up in a system that reflects the top-down power issue, as illuminated by Jim Cummins, it is not surprising that teachers become disenchanted. Disempowerment has a way of doing that to individuals. It is this top-down power system that disables both students and teachers alike. In retrospect, perhaps it is this same system that breeds complacency in an attempt to control the teachers.
When teachers gather in our staff room during break times throughout the day, it is clear that many feel this way. In hoping that they can significantly impact upon the lives of their students, only to find themselves tied to a system that dictates the curriculum content to be delivered, it becomes the role of the teacher to become the mere deliverer of a service mandated by the powers that be. The role of the student becomes that of a receptacle, a most passive and boring role, where no real learning takes place. Jim Cummins refers to the current curriculum as being a “sanitized” one; so sanitized to the point that students seldom focus on issues (as in global issues like racism, environmental pollution, genetic engineering of food, global nuclear destruction) of chief importance to us all, but significantly to themselves as our future leaders.
I had considerably difficulty with Colin Lankshear’s article. I believe that school does play a role in shaping one’s consciousness, but cannot adequately state to what degree although it is the premise of this author that school is a major shaper of consciousness for all. Quite simply, for me, the question becomes … what is it that we wish to create?
Students who sit and passively accept all that we impart? Students who are willing to become critical analyzers and challengers? How does one work towards promoting critical literacy by way of a top-down power system and still maintain one’s teaching position? How does one turn the student onto learning? By discovering “the validity and variety of their own experiences” as per Adrienne Rich, which is in keeping with Wayne O’Neil’s proper literacy (that which enables the reader to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on what is being read) as well as Jim Cummins Interactive/Experiential teaching model. One’s personal experience(s) is one’s connection to the real world. How do we convince our students that they have important things to say/share in their writing? In fostering an environment of honesty, trust and respect for the individual as a person, one can further enhance their feeling(s) of self worth. One has to believe in each child, for it is in this believing they can succeed that they may learn to begin to believe in themselves.
There appears to me to exist a contrasting connection between the naive consciousness of the young child first entering school (in the belief that they cannot significantly change their world) and the naive consciousness of the young educator beginner their new career (in the belief that they can significantly impact their students in a positive way). If “contemporary education is largely responsible for the prevalence of naive literacy within our society” as Colin Lankshear states, what is the top-down power system responsible for? I see this system as a means of turning a willing and able educator into one that may become critical, hardened, and, in some cases, cynical. Unfortunately, this particular system seems to abound in great numbers everywhere.
Wayne O’Neil talks about improper literacy (being able to follow words across a line of text, superficially understanding what one is reading) versus proper literacy (the reader bringing their knowledge and experience to bear on what is being read). It appears to me that our primary classrooms focus more on proper literacy in that students are encouraged to talk about their personal experiences, which also serves to validate them as individuals. As these same students enter into upper elementary and junior high grades, the model seems to gravitate more towards improper literacy. He further states that improper literacy begins with the teaching of reading (as in the relationships that are shown to exist between letters and sounds). I disagree with this particular connection in that I am currently using the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) program which focuses on phonemic awareness vis- -vis how sounds are made by the lips, mouth, teeth and tongue. For students who have significant difficulty learning to read and write, I believe that their phonemic awareness needs to be stimulated directly through experimentation and discovery as is utilized per this course. If these students cannot perceive the specific differences in the number and order of speech sounds in spoken patterns such as at, pat, tap and apt, the written representations of these sound patterns have no tie to reality. This belief is also supported/validated by the Speech/Language Pathologist assigned to our school.
The reading of Literacy and Social Class by J. L. Stuckey was an incredibly difficult read for me. So much so, in fact, that I did not feel overly literate, and yet I attempted to reflect upon this frustration in a positive light, in an attempt to try and understand what it must be like for students who struggle greatly, on a daily basis, with reading, writing and spelling. As citizens, the lives we make for ourselves are created as a function off-shoot of our job. Unfortunately, this also determines the class of individuals; hence, class and work are interrelated. My parents were of the working class poor system. They both had low paying jobs. As a result, we also relied on additional monetary support from the Department of Social Services. This served to shape what particular leisure activities we could engage in as well as the specific food and clothing items that were bought. In deciding to better myself by going off to University, I was able to advance socially towards the ranks of the middle class. As a result, my children have access to experiences and situations that would have been foreign to me. Literacy clearly has had an important part to play in this social advancement.
Individuals with the best education appear to get the better jobs. In this regard, literacy has become highly intertwined with labor. In my job as a Criteria teacher, working with severe LD students has further solidified my belief in the need for oral language literacy validation by way of using assistive technology (text reading software, text prediction software, voice recognition software) to overcome difficulty with the written component. In this way, through these assistive technology means, they are able to attain both access and success, despite their struggle with written literacy. Individuals who have a good handle on language (expressive and receptive) become empowered. “Language is learned in use”, as per F. Christie. There exists, therefore, a need for the learner to participate. In keeping with the cognitive growth, emotional growth and social growth of the individual student, what can be done to encourage contemporary classroom discourse in a top-down power system; discourse whereby the teacher seeks to create situations for the students to initiate and organize their learning experiences, working alongside students, at upper elementary and junior high levels? This, I believe, is a very valid question. As a result, I feel that I have now come full circle.
While I was engaged in the reading of Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, by Patrick J. Finn, I found myself resonating with components of chapters 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14. It was here that a central literacy theme became more than apparent; namely, that of discourse.
Our primary discourse is that which we learn, informally, at home. In this light, oral communication is of significant value and importance. As educators, we acknowledge the significance behind the first five years of a child’s life, and yet there are dramatic changes that take place in the lives of our children, both before and when they go to school.
Why is it, in some cases, that discourse is not encouraged? Why is it, in some cases, that discourse is not seen as an important and integral factor with respect to literacy?
One means of attempting to answer these important questions pertains to the study as conducted by Jean Anyon, introduced in chapter 2. Jean Anyon conducted a study that involved five public elementary schools in New Jersey. Some schools were situated in rich neighborhoods; others were located in not-so-rich neighborhoods. This made for an excellent cross-reference study. Her focus was on that of the Grade 5 classroom. With regards to the schools studied, there were noted similarities: most students were white; all schools were located in northern New Jersey, thereby adhering to the same state requirements; all schools used the same Math books; all schools were subject to the same Language Arts program(s). That is where similarities end, given the startling differences that were discovered (refer to the information that follows).
Working Class
Knowledge presented as fragmented facts. Little decision making or choice. Teachers rarely explained work. Very little discourse encouraged. Every effort made to control the student. Students demonstrate mechanical and routine behaviors. Theme: resistence
Middle Class
Job of teacher is to impart knowledge (socially approved sources). Getting the answer right was the focus. Not rewarded for critical analysis. Creativity is rare. Decisions made based on known rules. Knowledge viewed as valuable possession (to be traded for good grades, credentials). Theme: possibility
Affluent Professional
Independent thinking and discovery are encouraged. Creativity and personal development are seen as being important. School knowledge presented as relevant to life’s problems. Constant negotiation (means of control). Direct orders rarely given. Social strife acknowledged and discussed. Current events discussed. Theme: individualism (major) and humanitarianism (minor).
Exclusive Elite
Knowledge is academic, intellectual and rigorous. Reasoning, problem solving, rationality, and being able to analyze are important. Insistence upon self-discipline. Theme: excellence
As I was attempting to make personal connections, within this compare and contrast model, I was remembering childhood background experiences. Despite my having grown up as a member of the working class poor, my educational experiences revolved around the middle class model as imparted here (courtesy of Jean Anyon). I strived to receive good grades (mostly through rote memorization and regurgitation), knowing, in the end, that going off to University (acquisition of necessary credentials) would enable me to break free of the working class system.
A second attempt at trying to answer these discourse questions is reflected in chapter 7. It is here that Finn writes about Basil Bernstein, an English Sociologist who studied two class systems in Britain; namely, the working class and the middle class. Bernstein talked about the language habits of both class systems, comparing each to success in school. Given that language habits are hinged upon school success, “savage inequalities” result. The findings of Bernstein, as indicated below, also seems to further substantiate the findings of Jean Anyon.
British Working Class
• implicit language (context dependent)
• conformity expected
• rigid sex roles
• opinions dictated by group consensus
• authoritarian home/community
• society of intimates that relies on shared knowledge and information
• powerlessness (dominant theme)
British Middle Class
• explicit language (context independent)
• collaborative home/community
• democratic decisions
• willing to discuss reasons for rules and decisions if challenged (continuous need for explicit language)
• society of strangers (do not rely on shared knowledge and information)
Given that school language is explicit in nature, it is clear that members of the working class are at a distinct disadvantage from day one. As this particular group of children progresses through school, their reading scores appear to fall farther and farther below that of their peer group. It then is presumed, unfortunately, that because they are not making the gains that they should be making, there are somehow lacking in the basics. How have we tended to respond in the past? Merely by bombarding them with more and more phonics. Where one’s primary discourse is inconsistent with that of the school (environment as well as text books), how can these children succeed? Are these the students that we like to categorize as the “core” special education students? As a teacher in this specialized field, it appears that I must rethink my previous understandings as to what these students actually need.
A third attempt at trying to answer these discourse questions is reflected in chapters 8 and 9. This is where we learn about scaffolding (conversation leading from behind) and make additional comparisons between Roadvillers and Maintowners.
Roadvillers (Working Class)
Scaffolding involves the parents staying on a topic long after the child has gone on to something else. Parents are conscious of the importance associated with “pay attention … listen … behave”; hence, this is deemed as the primary purpose.
• exposure to books (the alphabet, simple shapes, basic colors, name pictures and parts of pictures)
• parents ask questions (expect answers they taught)
• no special bedtime routines
• stories have morals or lessons
• rarely provide emotional or personal commentary in recounting real events or book stories
• do not understand hypothetical questions
• primary discourse is in conflict with school discourse
• do not see the relevance of school work to their own lives
• society of intimates (powerlessness)
• conformity is expected
• parents are authoritarian
• implicit language (context dependent)
Maintowners (Middle Class)
Scaffolding involves asking questions, rephrasing or stating what has been said, adding new information to extend/support current topic of conversation (exaggerate and repeat new words). Purpose is to keep the conversation going.
• exposure to books (natural flow of language that parents engage in with their children)
• reading lessons in school very similar to bedtime routines at home
• primary discourse is similar to and congenial with school discourse
• constant contact with strangers (more at ease with strangers) as in associations and friendships
• society of strangers (do not rely on shared knowledge and information)
• sense they are not without power
• parents are democratic (collaboration encouraged re decision making)
• willing to discuss reasons for rules and decisions if challenged (continuous need for explicit language)
We are now starting to piece together why such discourse discrepancies exist. It is becoming clearer that every discourse also involves “values, attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, ways of learning, and ways of expressing what we know, which persons must accept and conform to in order to operate within the discourse” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, page 108). It is also clear that where discourse is consistent with that of school discourse, students cannot fail.
How, then, can we make the primary discourse of predominantly working class children more consistent with that of school discourse?
In reading from chapter 11, I was completely captivated by the degree of powerful literacy that was prevalent as a result of the inception of The Corresponding Societies, in England, of 1792. Membership was not limited. Unless one were incapacitated as a result of crime activity, no one was excluded. This, then, encouraged “people from different walks of life to come together in a society of strangers, to question authority and exercise power. Their whole point was for members to reflect on society and their place in it, to learn what others were thinking, to discuss it, evaluate it, come to conclusions, formulate new ideas and opinions, and exchange those conclusions, opinions and ideas with others in the form of correspondence” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, page 133). Every time I reread this particular paragraph, I just want to get up and shout it out to the powers that be. There is no better descriptor of powerful literacy than this! How is it, then, that we can begin to work towards advancing our students (and ourselves) to this very level?
It is shocking to note that the reaction, on behalf of the British government, was one of panic and repression. To think that one could be tried for treason during this historical time frame is no different from one having been deemed a heretic during the Inquisition. Both have served to silence open-minded, literate and hence, powerful individuals, so that one could maintain control of the so-called masses.
The Corresponding Societies represented education for liberation. They were dismantled, never to be seen in over two centuries, until Paulo Freire, a professor at the University of Reclife (northeast Brazil), started an adult literacy program “for the city’s teeming, illiterate poor” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, page 1). It was Friere who observed that education is never neutral. To acknowledge that we are still failing so many children in the 21st century, in this age of technological advancement that relies on literacy, is completely and utterly deplorable. This is a fact that needs to be acknowledged and addressed, on behalf of all.
How can one sum up what needs to be done to correct the discourse problem that clearly exists? It appears that the working class, predominantly, needs the following:
• to be introduced into a school community whereby explicit language makes sense
• to be introduced into a school community whereby explicit language is necessary
• to be part of a community where authority is viewed as being a collaboration effort
• to see the relevance between the school community and their personal lives
In a conscious working effort towards alleviating the problem, what can one do? This is where chapters 13 and 14 began to made sense to me. I was deeply encouraged by the work of Paulo Friere. Here was an individual who was willing to undertake a most radical and dangerous role, in a “country where a huge divide separated a small number of the very rich and a vast number of the very poor” where he asked his students “what they might do to secure justice and suggested that literacy would make them far better able to engage in the struggle they would certainly face if they tried to get a better deal” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, page 2).
In addition, I found it very interesting to read that the poor in Brazil are “so submerged in their daily lives that they have little or no awareness of the possibility for change, much less what they might do to bring about change. They view their condition as natural, the will of God, determined by fate” Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working ClassChildren in Their Own Self-Interest, page 157). Might this be akin to what the working class feel? Might this be akin to what the Roadvillers feel?
The Frierean Culture Circles recipients are introduced to many concepts along the way, a chief one being that … the literate are powerful … you’re not … what are you going to do about it? This instantly brings to mind a personal reflection regarding the current state of educational affairs … the working class are not literate … the working class are not powerful … what am I (as an educator) going to do about it?
As per chapter 14, I have appreciated what I have read about Robert Peterson, a follower of the Frierean tradition. I believe that we need more educators who think along these lines, for they are the ones who serve to help us challenge ourselves so that we can “involve students in probing the social factors that make and limit who they are and … help them reflect on what they could be” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self Interest, page 180). Although I know naught how to go about making this type of teaching my own current reality, it is my wish to become more like Robert Peterson, William Bigelow and Linda Christenson, all of whom emphasize Freirean dialogue and “conscientization”. In this light, I feel that Finn has merely served to whet my appetite.
I am not overly bothered by these feelings of uncertainty and doubt, especially as MacGinitie has linked them with “good” teachers, for it is a “good” teacher that will readily admit, accept and acknowledge that they will always have much to learn.
One way in which genuine and dynamic dialogue can take place is within the interactive teaching model (also referred to as the experiential model). This model is culturally fair in that all students are actively involved in expressing and sharing personal experiences. There is much student-student talk, guided and facilitated by the teacher, whereby all persons are validated and empowered. This takes me back to the classroom of Robert Peterson, a follower of the Freirean tradition, who created a positive atmosphere “through activities that stressed self-affirmation, mutual respect, communication, group decision making, and cooperation” which, to my mind, serves to develop higher level cognitive thinking (explorer of meaning, more critical thinker, more creative thinker, increased ability to interpret and analyze facts) and intrinsic motivation. Unfortunately, within this province, we see few of this type of classroom.
How do we go about embracing this new frontier? We know that language (discourse) can be used as a means of changing one’s reality. Manning says that classrooms need to be “places where kids get to answer their own questions”. How does this manifest if classroom discourse is not encouraged? In this light, there exists much irony between the envisaged curriculum (as established and mandated by the Department of Education, deemed socially approved and acceptable sources) and the real curriculum. The envisaged curricula is one that has been devised by individuals who have little or no contact with the students themselves, and yet the teacher is mandated to teach to specific programs. In addition, these days the teacher is mandated to teach to both CRTs and public exams.
Learning is not a matter of accumulating information and adding to one’s knowledge base, as the envisaged curriculum appears to have been created for. One must make sense of the experiences in one’s life for real learning to occur. In this instance, I quite agree with Manning when he states that now is the time to “reclaim the classroom”.
Clearly, “… nothing short of dialogue, conscientization, and explicitly teaching school discourse and powerful literacy will give all students a chance at an empowering, liberating education” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self Interest, page 190).
We have our answer to what needs to be done in order to validate every student with regards to both written and oral discourse. It is up to us to begin applying what we know and feel to be true, whilst abandoning our quest for perfection and certainty.
Until beginning this particular Foundations of Literacy Learning course, I never would have associated literacy with politics and hidden agendas, nor would I have delved into truly associating that, over time, “political, social, and economic forces have brought us to a place where the working class (and to a surprising degree, the middle class) gets domesticating education and functional literacy, and the rich get empowering education and powerful literacy” (Literacy with an Attitude, page x). I think that this has been the most daunting and profound realization for me.
I went to school already reading (from the “See Dick. See Jane. Run Dick, run!” type books as denoted in the “Mindsets matter: an overview of major literacy worldviews” article, a series which was key to the Old Basics mode of iteracy learning). As bland as it may have been, I excelled at reading (decoding) and spelling (encoding), but had some difficulty with creative writing and independent thinking. Having been a member of the working class, I am now able to see that I was very much able to personally relate to the literacy model of an authoritarian home and a society of intimates (which merely serves to breed a sense of powerlessness). Very much a loner, I spent my time reading (my means of escape) and listening to music. I believe it was my continued reading of a multitude of material, first from my school library, where I thrived on the antics of The Bobbsey Twins, and later from our local Colchester Regional Library, that enabled me to view literacy as my ticket to a better life. Perhaps this is why I felt a strong sense of kinship with Paulo Freire and his wish to help the Brazilian poor work towards literacy as a means “to engage in the struggle for justice” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 2).
When first introduced to Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self Interest by Patrick Finn, there was a quote (on page eight) that clearly stood out for me … “when I suggest to my hard-bitten tudents that poor children are not being as educated as they could be, they are not amused”. I was quite shocked to learn that domestic education began about 1800, following the demise of The Corresponding Societies of 1792. I have been even more disturbed to come to the stark realization that it is still continuing to this day, some several hundred years later. Why is it that we have a difficult time facing this fact? Until we come to accept the current state of educational affairs, until one delves into the why’s of the situation, one cannot take a more active stance towards attempting to do something about the social injustices that continue to exist.
I found myself resonating with the Freirean model wholeheartedly embraced by three individuals living in the United States, namely; Robert Peterson (a Grade 4/5 inner-city teacher in Milwaukee, Wisconsin), William Bigelow and Linda Christensen (both high school teachers in Portland, Oregon). Having accepted the stark reality that “our schools liberate and empower children of the gentry and domesticate the children of the working class, and to a large extent the middle class as well” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 189), I find myself becoming more and more incensed by these truthful remarks; so much so, in fact, that I have upgraded my personal views. I now believe, unequivocally, that the teaching of literacy is necessary so as to empower all. I have never considered myself to be a very political person, but one cannot make a more profound political statement than that.
I have become as “mad as hell” by the inconsistencies and social injustices that continue to plague and prevail, well into the 21st century, and, quite frankly, also feel that I am “not going to take it anymore” as Finn refers to the last chapter title in his book. As Andrew Manning has stated in his “Curriculum as conversation” article, it is time to “reclaim the classroom”. No longer can we afford to teach to the envisaged (envisioned) curriculum as such ties, too heavily, to the Transmission, lecture style, model as discussed in Jim Cummins’s article entitled “Sanitized Curriculum” in which we merely continue to turn out passive students who know naught how to analyze, think for themselves and problem solve with respect to current planetary issues. Instead, this traditional method serves only to further disable and disempower both students and teachers. The teacher is seen as the deliverer of a service; the student merely the receiver. Can we possibly get any more passive than that?
Our primary discourse is that which we learn, informally, at home. In this light, oral communication is of significant value and importance. As educators, we acknowledge the significance behind the first five years of a child’s life, and yet there are dramatic differences that take place in the lives of our children before they go to school which then serve to further impact upon one’s educational experience(s). As long as the discourse of the student is in conflict with the discourse of the school, these are the students that shall continue to fail. It is only in introducing them to powerful discourse that we can even attempt to give them a better chance at both access and success. As F. Christie states in “Language, access and success” … social injustices (such as language dialect(s), understanding of language, use of language, social class, cognitive ability and gender) negatively impact all.
We must brave the uncertainty that we feel in order to venture towards the teaching of the real curriculum (via the Interactive/Experiential model that is culture fair and empowers all students); a method that allows the learner to become an explorer of meaning by way of critical thinking, creative thinking, ability to interpret and analyze the facts, otherwise we will continue to commit countless additional atrocities in the name of literacy.
The comparisons between Roadvillers and Maintowners in chapter 9 of Literacy with an Attitude really seemed to send the message home for me. Roadvillers were akin to members of the working class whilst Maintowners were akin to that of the middle class.The discrepancies are shocking, to say the least.
Roadvillers (Working Class)
Scaffolding involves the parents staying on a topic long after the child has gone on to something else. Parents are conscious of the importance associated with “pay attention … listen … behave”; hence, this is deemed as the primary purpose.
Maintowners (Middle Class)
Scaffolding involves asking questions, rephrasing or stating what has been said, adding new information to extend/support current topic of conversation (exaggerate and repeat new words). Purpose is to keep the conversation going.
Dramatic differences in pre-school entry educational experiences begin here.
Roadvillers (Working Class)
• exposure to books (the alphabet, simple shapes, basic colors, name pictures and parts of pictures)
• parents ask questions (expect answers they taught)
• no special bedtime routines
• stories have morals or lessons
• rarely provide emotional or personal commentary in recounting real events or book stories
• do not understand hypothetical questions
• primary discourse is in conflict with school discourse
• do not see the relevance of school work to their own lives
• society of intimates (powerlessness)
• conformity is expected
• parents are authoritarian
• implicit language (context dependent)
Maintowners (Middle Class)
• exposure to books (natural flow of language that parents engage in with their children)
• reading lessons in school very similar to bedtime routines at home
• primary discourse is similar to and congenial with school discourse
• constant contact with strangers (more at ease with strangers) as in associations and friendships
• society of strangers (do not rely on shared knowledge and information)
• sense they are not without power
• parents are democratic (collaboration encouraged re decision making)
• willing to discuss reasons for rules and decisions if challenged (continuous need for explicit language)
If I may reiterate, once again, as long as the discourse of the student is in conflict with the discourse of the school, these are the students that shall continue to fail. It is only in introducing them to powerful discourse that we can even attempt to give them a better chance at both access and success.
How can one sum up what needs to be done to correct the discourse problem that clearly exists? It appears that the working class, predominantly, needs the following:
• to be introduced into a school community whereby explicit language makes sense
• to be introduced into a school community whereby explicit language is necessary
• to be part of a community where authority is viewed as being a collaboration effort
• to see the relevance between the school community and their personal lives
Robert Peterson managed to create “a positive atmosphere in the classroom through activities that stressed self-affirmation, mutual respect, communication, group decision making, and cooperation because he knew that these values and skills are associated with the gentry” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 175). One must “master school discourse and powerful literacy in order to struggle for justice and equity” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 206). It remains our job, therefore, as advocates of social responsibility, to “involve students in probing the social factors that make and limit who they are and … help them reflect on what they could be” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 180).
Are there any Canadian teachers that have also embraced the Freirean model? If we are to make the changes that are necessary, these are the people that we, as educators, need to meet and dialogue with. Nothing short of … “dialogue, conscientization, and explicitly teaching school discourse and powerful literacy will give all students a chance at an empowering, liberating education” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 190). Is this not where we should be as a planet? The experiences of all people deserve to be validated.
If I may quote from James Paul Gee in “New People in New Worlds: Networks, the new capitalism and schools”… “The only real solution, of course, is to change the game, that is, to change our society. The only real solution is to imagine and begin to implement a society in which success in school and having access to specialized forms of knowledge are not markers of class and race and, in some cases, gender … Ultimately, our failure of minority and poor children in school is rooted in our unwillingness or inability to give them the forms of instruction that are theirs by right and that are necessitated by the doors that have and continue to be closed to them.”
Further to this, I wish to end with powerful John Lennon Imagine lyrics …
Imagine there’s no countries,
It isn’t hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too.
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace …
You may say that I’m a dreamer,
But I’m not the only one,
I hope someday you’ll join us,
And the world will be as one.
I have never believed myself to be a political person, but I find that the literacy stance that I have taken the time to share here is, indeed, most political in nature. Perhaps all current individuals enrolled in this Literacy Education course should take the time to forward a copy of their Literacy Position papers to our current provincial members of Parliament. Would this not be an interesting way of bombarding them with literacy tidbits to debate in the House of Assembly? I, for one, would be most interested in seeing the literacy stance that they would take for all children, the future leaders of this planet.
I was most confused when Gee wrote that there is “no reading in general, at least none that leads to thought and action in the world” as I beg to differ. I am an avid reader of spirituality based material. As a result of this personal engagement, I find that I am relating to text outside the sociocultural norm, of which Gee speaks. I could, therefore, easily be seen as “deviant” in my beliefs in this area, given that they do not mimic those of the organized religious multitude. This continued reading at a personal level has led me to a change in thought patterns, which, also, has resulted in a change of action. To be quite frank, I still have no idea as to what Gee means.
It certainly takes much effort on the part of an author, for example, to be recognized in a certain way. In my reading of deeply spiritual and unorthodox material, I am actively engaged in recognizing the efforts each individual author has made; hence, my personal “configurations” or patterns are changing. Over the course of these spiritual journeying years, I have learned to become most reflective when engaged in the reading process.
With regards to The New Literacy Studies, I was, at first, very much interested in reading about the new capitalism, especially as it was of the same understanding that “reading, writing, knowledge, work, meaning and value” are important components with regards to the social turn away from the old capitalism (individual behavior and individual minds). In my continued reading of this article, I was quite shocked, as well as angry, to discover that so-called new capitalism leads to very poor pay, temporary (service type) work, total commitment to the business, very little social responsibility towards less-advantaged citizens and creation of cultural/class-based affiliations among wealthy individuals around the world.
New capitalism, apparently, thinks very little about these increased social injustices. It seems to me that validation of people, as important individuals, is key to resolving the numerous social injustices of the world; something that does not exist in either old capitalism or new capitalism. As long as social injustices remain, there will always exist a “we versus them” mentality. As a planetary member, I feel all have to work towards eliminating social injustices. We can begin to tackle this daunting task by powerfully educating those that will become the future teachers and leaders; namely, our students.
Heath: “the culture children learn as they grow up is, in fact, ways of taking meaning from the environment around them”.
Harris: talks about coming to know the world by way of a subject, the knower and an object (the world to be known).
Paulo Freire: states that the world and men do not exist apart from each other; they exist in constant interaction, hence, the world is the context for existing and knowing.
Guba and Lincoln: talk about individuals attempting to make sense of their experiences through interaction (constructivist approach) where making sense of the interaction (engagement with others) leads to the development improved joint constructions with values providing the basis for ascribing meaning.
Marjorie Siegel: states that learning is a social process in which students actively construct understandings, using multiple ways of creating/demonstrating knowledge and meaning: oral language, music, dance, visual arts (draw, paint, collage).
Étienne Wenger: we are social beings who actively engage in the world (communities of practice) in order to construct meaning.
Britton: “We construct a representation of the world as we experience it … a cumulative record of our own past”.
In keeping with each of these points, all of us have ways of talking, listening, acting, interacting, believing and valuing that are privy to a specific discourse (social identity) as discussed by James Paul Gee in Discourses and Literacies. Our primary discourse (first social identity) is mastered through a combination of scaffolding and interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse.
“As parents and their children interact in the pre-school years, adults give their children, through modelling and specific instruction, ways of taking from books” (Shirley Brice Heath, What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School, page 258). In some communities “these ways of schools and institutions are very similar to the ways learned at home; in other communities the ways of school are merely an overlay on the home-taught ways and may be in conflict with them” (Shirley Brice Heath, What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School, page 258). Heath speaks to the mainstream where a literate tradition is evident and children succeed in school. She also speaks to the non-mainstream where there exists no literate tradition; hence, these children are not likely to succeed in school.
James Paul Gee (Discourses and Literacies) states that Discourses are ways of being in the world. It is through one’s Discourse that one displays membership to a particular group or network of individuals. It is our primary discourse (first social identity) that is mastered through scaffolding and interaction with people who are Discourse adepts. Generally speaking, it is through exposure to models, trial and error, and practice within our social network groups that we come to control our first language. Gee states that “Discourses are mastered through acquisition, not through learning” (page 138). What happens, then, when one’s primary Discourse is in serious conflict with the secondary Discourse of school, especially as Gee states that “traditional schools/classrooms are poor at facilitating acquisition” (page 146)? I believe this to be connected to what Heath is saying above.
Étienne Wenger states that our personal perspectives on learning matter. Do we believe that knowledge consists solely of information stored in the brain? I, for one, do not. On the other hand, do we believe that the information stored within the brain is but a small part of knowing, and that knowing involves both active participation within one’s social community as well as other communities of practice? This is the perspective that I fully embrace.
I also believe, as Britton states in Language and Experience that we construct (and reconstruct) a representation of the world as we experience it. As experiences change, so does one’s representation of the world. Knowing that we are social beings with differing experiences of the world, we cannot expect that all representations of the world will be the same, for they cannot. “Our world representation is a storehouse of the data of our experience” (page 28).
How can we then, knowing what we know about ourselves as social beings, work toward taking the child from where he/she is to where he/she needs to be?
We speak of the literacy tradition as pertaining to different components; namely, reading, writing and oral language. Each community has “rules for socially interacting and sharing knowledge in literacy events” (Shirley Brice Heath, What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School, page 259).
Mainstream
[1] bedtime story, [2] initiation-reply-evaluation (central feature of classroom lessons),[3] what-explanations (utilized in school),[4] any initiation of a literacy event makes interruption acceptable, [5] success in school
Roadville
[1] bedtime story, [2] adults teach them how to talk, [3] cooperative discourse is practiced, coached, rewarded, [4] adults believe in instilling proper use of words,[5] children introduced to bits and pieces of books,[6] adults use print to entertain, inform, instruct, [7] children introduced to pre-school workbooks, [8] adults do not extend content (habits of literacy) beyond book reading … do not engage in commentary upon seeing an item/event in the real world and making a comparison to a similar item/event in a book, [8] require children to repeat from books and answer questions about contents (nursery rhymes, alphabet books, books about animals, simplified Bible stories), [9] coach children in the re-telling of a story (almost as if pre-composed or pre-scripted in head of adult), [10] perform well in initial schooling stages, [11] if asked to write a creative story, they retell from books and rarely provide emotional/personal commentary, [12] begin to fail rapidly by Grade 4
Trackton
[1] bedtime story, [2] children learn to talk, [3] children go to school with certain expectancies about print,[4] children have a keen sense that reading is something one does to learn something one needs to know, [5] parents do not simplify their language, focus on single-word utterances, label items or features of objects in books or environment, [6] do not decontextualize: heavily contextualize nonverbal and verbal language (they, themselves, must select, practice, determine rules of production and structuring), [7] seem to develop connections between situations/items not by labels and features, but by configuration links, [8] face unfamiliar types of questions when go to school (ask for what-explanations, identify items by name, label features), [9] generally score in the lowest percentile reading readiness tests, [10] do not sit at desks and complete workbook pages, [11] their ability to metaphorically link 2 events/situations are not tapped into, [12] seem not to know how to take meaning from reading, [13] expression of themselves on paper is very limited (oral stories better), [14] continue to collect very low or failing grades and many decide by end of Grade 6 to stop trying
These children, simply because they have learned different methods and degrees of taking from books, respond differently.
Roadville children have less exposure to content of books than do Mainstream children. As they have been trained to be a passive learner, they must “learn to be active information-givers, taking from books and linking that knowledge to other aspects of their environment” (Shirley Brice Heath, What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School, page 280). Trackton children use “narrative skills highly rewarded in upper primary grades” and are able to “distinguish a fictionalized story from a real-life narrative” but they seem to have skipped learning to label, list features, and give what-explanations (Shirley Brice Heath, What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School, page 280). It also appears that reason-explanations and affective comments are the next step in the literacy hierarchy.
In keeping with our social natures, can we not assist in directing our students to acquire these pertinent skills through modelling, trial and error and social practice within the school (secondary) Discourse? After all, Gee states that “Discourses are mastered through acquisition, not through learning” (Discourses and Literacies, page 138). This also reflects the enquiry model, in contrast to the transmission model, as proposed by Marjorie Siegal in More Than Words: The Generative Power of Transmediation For Learning.
Enquiry Model
• learners see themselves as knowledge makers
• learners find problems worth pursuing
• learners frame problems worth pursuing
• learners negotiate interpretations
• learners forge new connections
• learners represent meanings in new ways
Transmission Model
• instructional routines
• no ambiguity in learning
• no risks to be taken
• no new knowledge to be made
• passive learners
“Instructional strategies involving transmediation, the process of translating meaning from one sign system (such as language) into another (such as pictorial representation), are critical to enquiry oriented classrooms because they promote the kind of thinking that goes beyond the display of received meaning to the invention of new connections and meanings” (Marjorie Siegal, More Than Words: The Generative Power of Transmediation For Learning, page 456). Throughout this very course, we have been involved in sketch-to-stretch activities which is clearly representative of transmediation. As an adult, this type of activity can be a very awkward and difficult one to engage in due to the fact that it is unfamiliar. If one were to engage their students in this exercise on a routine basis, one would allow all students (Mainstream, Roadville and Trackton) to display their knowledge/understanding without feeling unworthy. “Learners must actively transform the text to make it their own” (Marjorie Siegal, More Than Words: The Generative Power of Transmediation For Learning, page 463). We, as teachers, must give them both permission and space in order to do just this, as transmediation “promotes generative and reflective thinking” (Marjorie Siegal, More Than Words: The Generative Power of Transmediation For Learning, page 470).
I used to dream of being a teacher and having access to a multitude of books. Even from a young age, books were representative of knowledge, of everything that I wanted to learn. It was a delight for me to go to school because of the many books, and yet, after having read The Importance of Pedagogy, I kept reflecting on the Teacher A versus Teacher B comparison, knowing that I had been educated by many within the Teacher A model, and yet, I still wanted to be a teacher. Why? What was it that I hoped to be able o achieve?
Teacher A
• feels society is generally fair and open
• believes people can succeed if they want to
• believes people can succeed if they make the effort
• believes much is possible when people apply themselves
• discipline, perseverance, effort are the key words
Teacher B
• feels society works against particular groups of people
• believes society rewards the privileged and penalizes the unprivileged
• believes no matter how hard individuals work, success is unlikely for many
• believes social change is what is needed (in order to make society is fairer and more democratic)
In the end, I opted not for regular classroom training but specialist training so as to work with the needier of the school population (mentally and physically challenged). To date, I have dedicated nearly 20 years to the realm of Special Education. Not having taught to the mainstream of the school populace, it is still clear to me that we have been giving too much attention (time) to the content of the curriculum (and is clearly being reflected in the need that our teachers feel must be spent teaching to the CRT’s) and not enough attention (time) on how best to teach the curriculum, given the ever changing needs and belief systems of society.
Pedagogy. An interesting word. Talk about trying to wrap my tongue around how to pronounce the word, let alone assimilate the meaning. One’s method of teaching is one’s pedagogy; hence, one’s method of teaching reflects one’s personal position with regards to power, authority, work and learning. I am in total agreement with the four propositions presented, each of which demonstrated the importance of teaching, or pedagogy; namely, (1) students learn from how we teach as well as from what we teach; (2) students learn critical lessons from how we teach that have lasting effects; (3) decisions made on how we teach reflect basic fundamental philosophical and political choices; and (4) a wider and more varied pedagogy will make classrooms more interesting/rewarding/effective.I quite agree with the connection that K. Osborne makes between “assertive discipline” and education. “No child will stop me teaching for any reason”, the key message behind “assertive discipline” is not a philosophy that appeals to me. Like politics, pedagogy can never be neutral. We all make choices with respect to the pedagogical approaches and techniques we decide upon, which have much to say about how we view both authority and power.
The traditional view of teaching reflects the transmission model, a pedagogy that assigns “one particular role to teachers – active, dominant, powerful – and another to students – subordinate, docile, powerless” (Some Recent Pedagogies, page 27). This is a method that I do not embrace at all for I do not believe that students are “clean slates” or “empty vessels”. It does not sit well with me that our current public school model has attached itself to this pedagogy. I appreciate the philosophy behind the tradition of inquiry and discovery, not because this approach to pedagogy that has had “obvious consequences for the roles of teachers and students” (Some Recent Pedagogies, page 31). I applaud how such has “drastically reduced the importance of transmission, and put much greater emphasis on students’ own ideas and contributions” (Some Recent Pedagogies, page 31). Having learned that our brains our continually learning, it is clear that children are active learners, as are we. We must also remember that this “discovery” learning “does not free the teacher from responsibility. Instead, it makes the teacher responsible for ensuring that what is discovered is educationally valuable” (Some Recent Pedagogies, page 34) for it is this approach that lends itself to “teaching students a problem-solving method capable of general application, both inside and outside school” (Some Recent Pedagogies, page 35).Would we want any less for ourselves? I think not.
For myself, teaching has never been about authority and power, although one does have to maintain a sense of control with respect to the classes they teach. To read Talcott Parsons’ definition of school bothered me; namely, that schools are “a sort of half-way house that moves children from the subjective, personal emotion-laden world of the family to the impersonal, rational, objective world of society at large” (The Importance of Pedagogy, page 17). These very words, impersonal, rational and objective, seem to equate to the prevalent societal view of materialism as opposed to actual understanding (caring for) the individual. Is this what we really want?
In addition, “the way in which students experience authority and power is not only important in itself, it also has important consequences for students’ life beyond school and for society at large” (The Importance of Pedagogy, pages 17 and 18) which arises, largely, from the pedagogy that teachers, themselves, adopt. Like K. Osborne, I believe that education can lead to the creation of active, critical and participatory citizens (students). I feel, very strongly, that this is the issue we need to contend ourselves with.
I was first introduced to Frank Smith while in attendance at Acadia University. He is most accurate when he talks of there being some extravagant literacy claims, which also encompass both literacy instruction and literacy research.
If I may interject some observations pertaining to the school in which I am employed as a specialist. There seems to exist much controversy with respect to the CRTs. Over the past 4 years, our school has scored extremely low with respect to primary CRT results; so low, in fact, that our previous Director of Programs (Dr. Barbara Barter) became quite involved in the politics of how to “solve” the problem. Our primary teachers were asked to evaluate and critique results while also devising possible solutions in order to “correct” the problem. Weekly visits from the Language Arts coordinator and the district Reading Recovery Training Specialist became the norm.
Literacy is not a set of skills and competencies to be learned. Unfortunately, CRT scores (which can be directly equated to that of normed, standardized tests) seem to indicate otherwise; hence, our teachers are feeling that they have no choice but to teach to the CRTs themselves. A shocking state of affairs, if you ask me!
Quite simply, literacy “is an attitude toward the world” whereby learning to read and write becomes both possible and productive (Overselling Literacy by Frank Smith, page 55) when we fully understand (come to terms with) and accept that literacy is a social practice. The war should not be on the illiterates of the world. This is just a round about way of not dealing with the cultural/economic/social issue as pertains to literacy. To use such terminology that compares illiteracy to a disease to be treated or cured, an epidemic that must be eradicated or an enemy that must be wiped out merely shows emphasizes just how little respect we actually have for each other.
“Individuals don’t become literate from the formal instruction they receive, but from what they read and write about, and the people they read and write with” (Frank Smith, page 57). Not only is literacy a social practice, but such is also true with regards to learning: “a simple consequence of the company you keep” (Frank Smith, page 57).
If we discriminate against minority groups, women, indigenous peoples, low class persons, to name but a few … because they are illiterate and we are not, what is that we are really saying about the company that we keep?
If, indeed, “we wish to create democratic, inclusive schools that make room for the voices of all our citizens” (A Political Critique of Remedial Reading Programs: The Example of Reading Recovery by Curt Dudley-Marling and Sharon Murphy, page 463), then discrimination can no longer be tolerated.
To have read that “… school literacy does not just involve mastering a set of technical skills for making sense of print. It also involves learning to read in ways appropriate to dominant groups. Learning to talk about language, learning to talk like books, and learning to tell fanciful stories are not about learning to read as much as they are about learning to read, write and talk like White, middle class people” (Curt Dudley-Marling and Sharon Murphy, page 464), was an absolutely horrifying revelation. To insist upon such serves merely to maintain the status quo. I find this totally unacceptable.
All of us use literacies to shape our “values, ideologies and identities, and to design and redesign the practices of civic and community life” (Getting Over Method: Literacy Teaching as Work in New Times by Allan Luke, page 306). Who am I to say that my literacies are the correct ones?
Prepackaged instructional programs are not the answer to increased literacy. North American literacy seems to be pre-occupied with the new materials and approaches that are introduced every year. This is merely a “distraction from what seem to be the central issues that ultimately influence who succeeds and fails” (Allan Luke, page 308).
Teaching has become a matter of coping with government downsizing and cutbacks. This will only serve to intensify the workload, leading to additional deskilling of teachers. “The press and politicians have become artists at playing the literacy card, directly and indirectly blaming schools and teachers for systemic economic and social problems, from unemployment and underemployment to linguistic and cultural change in communities, to shifting formations of cultural identity and family” (Allan Luke, page 311).
If we learn to acknowledge literacy as a social practice, we can learn to challenge school discourse on ideological grounds. In keeping, this “enables us to see students not as illiterate, but as differently literate, not as deprived of literacy experiences, but possessing different literacy experiences” (A Political Critique of Remedial Reading Programs: The Example of Reading Recovery by Curt Dudley-Marling and Sharon Murphy, page 464). Surely it is now time for teachers to take back what belongs to them (the classroom) so that education can truly begin to lead to the creation of active, critical and participatory citizens (students).
SPRING 2005
Having never been employed as a regular classroom teacher, I have never looked upon myself as a teacher of literacy. In this light, I have never had to apply as much thinking to what literacy entails. This is why I am enjoying this course, despite some of the awkward moments.
As a specialist teacher who works with severe Learning Disabled students, part of my course focus has been to assist these students with skills that will better allow them to break the code (graphophonemic system). In both feeling and seeing how sounds are physically made, we focus on 28 consonant sounds (including the borrowers: c, qu, x and y). We track these sounds by way of mouth pictures, colored blocks and letter symbols. They are introduced to the 15 vowel sounds (vowel circle) and associated mouth picture labels that then lead to CV, VC and CVC tracking of syllables, by way of mouth pictures, colored blocks, letter symbols. Such is applied to both spelling and reading activities. There are also orthographic expectancies to be taught. For each student in question, both Psycho-Educational and S/L assessments indicate a weakness in the area of phonemic awareness/segmentation and pseudo-word decoding; hence, they become a recipient of this program. Generally, they are quite apt with regards to the text participant, text user and text analyst modes of the same model. I enjoy knowing that I am assisting with the remaining piece of the Four Resources Model puzzle, put forth by Peter Freebody and Allan Luke, that they have great difficulty with. In this way, I hope that I am serving to add to their overall literacy education.
Freebody and Luke write that “literacy education is ultimately about the kind of literate society and literate citizens that could and should be constructed”. The emphasis here is my own. A profound statement of this caliber continues to take me back to Paulo Friere and his strong belief system regarding the poor living in Brazil. At some point, I fully intend to do research with regards to Canadian classrooms that may well be applying this model to their classroom teaching.
It is my belief that many individuals do not accurately understand literacy and literacy education, for it is this very segment of the population that believes teaching and learning are mere matters of skill acquisition and knowledge transmission. Therein lies the problem. The question that we must begin asking of ourselves becomes how does one educate individuals to the reverse?
Freebody and Luke state that literacy education is all “about building identities and cultures, communities and institutions … about access and apprenticeship into institutions and resources, discourses and texts”. The Four Resources Model speaks of four practices (code breaker, text participant, text user and text analyst), with each “being necessary for literacy, but in and of themselves, none is actually sufficient for literate citizen/subjects”.
I see this statement as serving to further the job that I am doing. Becoming a better code breaker, in and of itself, will not allow my students to become more literate, but it does build upon the specific area of practice that they show deficiencies in so that they will be able to better round out their overall repertoire of literacy skills.
In Examining Our Assumptions: A Transactional View of Literacy and Learning, the authors make mention of functional language situations where all components (namely, the graphophonemic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic systems) are allowed to transact with other systems (such as art, music, math, gesture, drama) which naturally co-occur. This is the state of the world in its reality. This is what needs to be fully realized by the multitude as literacy. I fully appreciated the fact that these authors also took the time to compare/contrast/define the term ‘scaffolding’ (where one assumes the adult is in charge, simplifying, manipulating, structuring the environment for learning) with ‘tracking’ (processes or strategies actively engaged in by both participants who are seen as actively structuring the event). They also made mention of Vygotsky as having helped individuals see that thought and language transact, together becoming more than their individual and independent selves.
Vygotsky was also referenced in the online article, Further Notes on the Four Resources Model by Freebody and Luke … “all teachers should have a training in: critical discourse analysis and critical literacy, second language acquisition, related critical social theory and Vygotskian sociocultural learning theories” reiterating that the four resources model is “one way of gluing together these approaches.” Just enough to tweak my interest in wanting to do some further research on Vygotsky.
The criteria we hold for what makes a literacy experience good for us cannot be used to judge the value of a literacy experience for another. This must be done by each language learner on his or her own terms. This cannot be stressed enough. Likewise for the fact that the process children engage in is not a pseudo form of the “real” process; it is that process.
In Parallels Between New Paradigms in Science and in Reading and Literary Theories by Constance Weaver, she writes that modern subatomic physics speaks of transactions between entities. What a reader brings to the text (schemata: lifetime of knowledge and experience) is crucial in determining the meaning. Meaning is the continuous process of transaction between the individual and the environment, between old schemata and new. Due to the fact that there exists constant interplay between and among levels, processing being as much (or more) top-down (schemata to words or letters) as bottom-up (letters or words to schemata), each level potentially affects all other levels at the same time. When the reader interprets a text in a particular way, he or she simultaneously negates, for that particular moment in space/time, all other literary works. This is what they refer to as the “quantum leap”. Thus concepts from science parallel a model of language processing.
In Toward A Unified Theory of Literacy Learning and Instructional Practices by D. Taylor, it bothered me to read that “when an individual does not fit the instructional training program, “problems” are diagnosed and “remediated,” using more intensive doses of linearly sequenced decoding skills. Children are labeled and pigeon holed, and their own learning is denied” (page 33), for this has been my experience as a Special Education teacher. They go further to say that we must “give up the security of prepackaged programs built upon stage theories and stop trying to fit children’s early reading and writing experiences into some model or other. This is the only way that we will ever be able to see how language is both constructed and used by children when adults are not blatantly distorting the process” (page 34). This seems to say, to me, that all children will progress at their own pace, if they have not been disenfranchised, if their experiences have not been marginalized. The development of reading and writing is very complex. As educators, we must try to understand literacy from the child’s perspective, as has been clearly evident in the provided examples of literacy biographies that show the functions, uses, and forms of written language in very personal ways.
This article also makes mention of three key questions to ask children in the evaluating of their own literacy development; namely, (1) How have you changed? (2) What do you do well? (3) How do you want to improve?
I appreciate these questions, and see the validity to their very asking, in that serve to show that children and their experiences are valued and have merit. We need to see more classrooms where teachers and children work together, becoming co-informants, as the reading and writing strategies of the “one serve to inform the other”. This particular approach clearly enables teachers to rethink the ways in which they can provide realistic instruction that make sense to the children and to themselves. It also enables the children to become involved in personal evaluations of the ways in which they are becoming literate.
When we arrive at the fork in the road, unsure of which direction to take, clearly, this is the road (approach) that must be taken.
