Saturday, December 19, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Written Response - Workshop 9
My understanding of critical literacy has been like a journey where at times I feel as if my analysis is on the right track, but after reading another article I will find that I have more questions than answers. However, after the seminar on Saturday, November 7, I feel as if I am beginning to see the light. It is Allan Luke’s video that did the trick! Luke’s video: New Literacies and this week’s articles help me find some of the missing pieces so that I can have a more in depth understand of critical literacy. After Saturday’s seminar, I have also read other literature about Luke’s sociological models for the study of language, discourse and text in education. As I read his model, I was able to reflect on some of our previous readings and gradually I am finding the answers to some of my questions, regarding critical literacy that has been bugging me for a while.
Luke’s theory that the teaching of phonemes is necessary in literacy learning but not sufficient is the answer to a question that has been bouncing around in my head. It has been bothering me that the teaching of phonemes, in literacy learning, is not being recognized for its full benefit. I support Luke’s argument that the benefits of the traditional phonemic awareness teaching cannot be completely ignored. I strongly advocate for the teaching of phonics especially in kindergarten and primary classes. Phonemic awareness skills enable children to use letter-sound correspondences to read and spell words. Research has shown that children who have studied phonics in their primary grades are able to demonstrate more consistent progress than those who did not receive early instructions in this skill (Juel, 1988). It is a program that “works” at shaping different pathways and practices of literacy” (pg. 306, Luke 1988). I agree that, in the shift from cognitive and psycholinguistic teaching to sociolinguistic pedagogy, phonemic awareness is not enough. However, I envision the learning of phonemes to be like a flashlight that a student will need in his/her literacy journey. Therefore, let me introduce a new terminology in the concept of inquiry learning, it will be called “critical phonemic awareness” where the teaching of phonics will be done in a critical way.
In keeping with these changing times, literacy now includes such a broad spectrum of components that it should be referred to in the plural (Lankshear, 1989). The word ‘literacy’ has taken a whole new set of processes. According to Rowan et al, there is more to literacy than the “decontextualized and repetitive practices” involved in this mindset (Rowan et al., 2000, p. 80). Actually, it is only after reading the assigned articles for this graduate program that the meaning of literacy has changed for me. I now perceive literacy as a process of practices that are influenced and shaped by political, social and cultural influences. It should be the goal of every educator to provide their students with the tool to question, explore and value their uniqueness and identities during their literacy development. I agree with Luke’s suggestion that in keeping with Paulo Freire belief, teaching of literacy is as “teaching kids to "read the world", beyond the mechanics of reading” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Luke).
Another missing piece of the puzzle, for me, is coming to terms with the challenges being faced to have the benefits of critical literacy included as a component of schools’ literacy programs. Luke’s articles has brought things into prospective for me. The discourses of critical literacy are not welcomed, by those in authority, as they will introduce a new wave of social practices and literacy activities that will eventually erode the current American two tier education system. Although America promotes universal literacy, their education system is far from reaching that goal. Finn (1999) acknowledges that in America, there is a two-tier education system: an empowering education system for the elites that promotes power and authority; and a domesticating education system for the working and underclass which leads to production and dependability. With critical literacy teaching, the students of the later system will learn how to deconstruct gender roles, racist practices, and government policies which will eventually free them from their pernicious effects. As such, the cycle will be broken and power, prestige and position will no longer be for the fortunate few.
Once again I will reiterate my belief that one of the primary barriers in achieving literacy for all students is the fact that meeting the needs of the bureaucracy takes precedence to improving the literacy skills of students. However, this side of literacy is not transparent especially to those who are being discriminated by social practices within the education system. It is like being in a no win situation, as students in the working-class schools look towards education for their ‘freedom’ – to be free from the dependency of the welfare trap; to be free from gang warfare; to be free from ghetto living and most of all to be free from literacy challenges. However, it is the same policies, practices and methods in the schools that undermine the ability and potential of these students that are yearning to be literate. Again, this leaves me with yet another question: When will it end?
References
Finn, Patrick (1999), Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in their Own Self-Interest, SUNY Press, Albany.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to rd and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
Lankshear, C. (1989), Reading and Writing Wrongs: Literacy and the underclass. Language and Education (Vol.3, No3,).
Luke, Allan (1988) The non-neutrality of literacy instruction: A critical introduction, Australian Journal of reading, p. 79-83.
Rowan, L., Knobel, M., Bigum, C., Lankshear, C., (2002) Mindsets matter: an overview of major literacy worldviews: Boys, Literacies and Schooling: Open University press. pg.77-98.
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/ed270/Luke/SAHA6.html. Retrieved Nov 9, 2009
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/lloyd/. Retrieved Nov. 9, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Luke. Retrieved Nov. 9, 2009
Luke’s theory that the teaching of phonemes is necessary in literacy learning but not sufficient is the answer to a question that has been bouncing around in my head. It has been bothering me that the teaching of phonemes, in literacy learning, is not being recognized for its full benefit. I support Luke’s argument that the benefits of the traditional phonemic awareness teaching cannot be completely ignored. I strongly advocate for the teaching of phonics especially in kindergarten and primary classes. Phonemic awareness skills enable children to use letter-sound correspondences to read and spell words. Research has shown that children who have studied phonics in their primary grades are able to demonstrate more consistent progress than those who did not receive early instructions in this skill (Juel, 1988). It is a program that “works” at shaping different pathways and practices of literacy” (pg. 306, Luke 1988). I agree that, in the shift from cognitive and psycholinguistic teaching to sociolinguistic pedagogy, phonemic awareness is not enough. However, I envision the learning of phonemes to be like a flashlight that a student will need in his/her literacy journey. Therefore, let me introduce a new terminology in the concept of inquiry learning, it will be called “critical phonemic awareness” where the teaching of phonics will be done in a critical way.
In keeping with these changing times, literacy now includes such a broad spectrum of components that it should be referred to in the plural (Lankshear, 1989). The word ‘literacy’ has taken a whole new set of processes. According to Rowan et al, there is more to literacy than the “decontextualized and repetitive practices” involved in this mindset (Rowan et al., 2000, p. 80). Actually, it is only after reading the assigned articles for this graduate program that the meaning of literacy has changed for me. I now perceive literacy as a process of practices that are influenced and shaped by political, social and cultural influences. It should be the goal of every educator to provide their students with the tool to question, explore and value their uniqueness and identities during their literacy development. I agree with Luke’s suggestion that in keeping with Paulo Freire belief, teaching of literacy is as “teaching kids to "read the world", beyond the mechanics of reading” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Luke).
Another missing piece of the puzzle, for me, is coming to terms with the challenges being faced to have the benefits of critical literacy included as a component of schools’ literacy programs. Luke’s articles has brought things into prospective for me. The discourses of critical literacy are not welcomed, by those in authority, as they will introduce a new wave of social practices and literacy activities that will eventually erode the current American two tier education system. Although America promotes universal literacy, their education system is far from reaching that goal. Finn (1999) acknowledges that in America, there is a two-tier education system: an empowering education system for the elites that promotes power and authority; and a domesticating education system for the working and underclass which leads to production and dependability. With critical literacy teaching, the students of the later system will learn how to deconstruct gender roles, racist practices, and government policies which will eventually free them from their pernicious effects. As such, the cycle will be broken and power, prestige and position will no longer be for the fortunate few.
Once again I will reiterate my belief that one of the primary barriers in achieving literacy for all students is the fact that meeting the needs of the bureaucracy takes precedence to improving the literacy skills of students. However, this side of literacy is not transparent especially to those who are being discriminated by social practices within the education system. It is like being in a no win situation, as students in the working-class schools look towards education for their ‘freedom’ – to be free from the dependency of the welfare trap; to be free from gang warfare; to be free from ghetto living and most of all to be free from literacy challenges. However, it is the same policies, practices and methods in the schools that undermine the ability and potential of these students that are yearning to be literate. Again, this leaves me with yet another question: When will it end?
References
Finn, Patrick (1999), Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in their Own Self-Interest, SUNY Press, Albany.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to rd and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
Lankshear, C. (1989), Reading and Writing Wrongs: Literacy and the underclass. Language and Education (Vol.3, No3,).
Luke, Allan (1988) The non-neutrality of literacy instruction: A critical introduction, Australian Journal of reading, p. 79-83.
Rowan, L., Knobel, M., Bigum, C., Lankshear, C., (2002) Mindsets matter: an overview of major literacy worldviews: Boys, Literacies and Schooling: Open University press. pg.77-98.
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/ed270/Luke/SAHA6.html. Retrieved Nov 9, 2009
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/lloyd/. Retrieved Nov. 9, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Luke. Retrieved Nov. 9, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Workshop 7 & 8 Written Response
Lookjen Tang-Prescod
Literacy Learning II
Activity II
Most of the readings for Workshop 7 highlight the fact that there is a great need for an expanded definition of literacy which focuses on multiple socially constructed practices. The vast majority of educators seem to still uphold the traditional meaning of literacy. Heath (1998) reinforces this belief when he notes that many educators, researchers included, are still not aware that “ways of taking from books are as much a part of learned behavior as are ways of eating, sitting, playing games, and building houses” (p. 258). For the purpose of this response, in the first part, I will focus on the Trackton community which is discussed in Heath’s article.
Although the Trackton “communities of practice” did not seem to support learning and literacy, Wenger (1998) highlights the fact that communities play an important part in people’s daily lives. In discussing the ways the children from the Trackton community “[took] from printed stories” (Heath, p. 259), Heath acknowledges that the literacy events for these children were unstructured. In many more ways than one, it seems that these children build their literacy skills in a ‘no frills’ environment. For example the children in Trackton did not spend quality time reading bedtimes stories nor did they live in homes that were conducive to learning. To be literate, it is not enough to be knowledgeable without experiences, therefore the social events, the conversations and the games in Trackton will play an important part in the children’s thinking, judgment, representation and the development of literacy skills.
The learning and the social identities of the children in the Trackton community is embedded both in their primary and secondary Discourses (Gee, 1996). From a very early age, the children use the knowledge, practices and events that they acquire in their natural environment to shape their experiences. For example, the children use nonverbal action in order to obtain adults’ attention and the manipulation of household objects as toys. However, in institutions such as in schools, systemic frameworks such as the curriculum do not promote the three interrelated dimensions of literacy: operational, cultural and critical. According to Manning (1993), the “real curriculum is what goes on in the mind of the student” (p. 2). He further explains that the ‘real curriculum is the one that “really counts, why learning and teaching are two different things” (p. 2). Schools focus on the envisaged and the enacted curriculum which promotes secondary Discourse. Therefore, students are usually assessed by the learning practices of secondary Discourses which are based on the values, perception and sociocultural norms of the mainstream pattern. Unfortunately, the clash of these two discourses cause students, such as those from Trackton, to be marginalized as they are labeled as being ‘different’ by social, political, cultural and systemic factors. According to Gee (1996), one of the main goals of literacy should be the ability to critique ones primary and secondary Discourses. This requires exposing children to a variety of alternative primary and secondary Discourses in an environment where one social practice does not take dominance over others.
After reading the articles for Workshop 8, I began to reflect on my teaching styles especially as an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher. In this environment, it is very easy for an educator to intentionally or implicitly become a Transmission teacher. The mandate of the school curriculum fosters the banking model which describes the teachers’ role as “to ‘fill’ the students by making deposits of information” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 214). For example for the ESL student, the instructions in English may sometimes become too overwhelmed with the formal aspect of the language, therefore the acquisition of fluency in the new language is hindered (Brown, 2001).
I particularly like the analogy of a teacher as a midwife, although one may argue that the analogy is sexist, it gives a different personality and role to the teacher (Belenky et al., 1986) It is recognized that the position of an educator carries with it a position of authority, however good teaching requires a teacher to reposition his/herself from the transmission pedagogy that vests an active, dominant, powerful role to teachers and a subordinate, docile, powerless role to students (Osborne, 1991). Recommended by Belenky et al., is the connected class model whose pedagogy focuses on an informal class community in which teacher and students are engaged. This approach will allow the teacher to connect to the students in such a way that each one nurtures each other thoughts to maturity (p. 221). Furthermore, this approach will provide meaningful opportunities for ESL students to engage in interactive, fun and practical activities that foster literacy and learning. For example, literacy skill can be taught through art, drama, storytelling and games. Consequently, in such supportive and relaxing experiences, the students will acquire a greater sense of confidence in using the targeted language.
Another article to which I could have related was Cambourne’s article regarding the model for dependent a-literate learners (Cambourne, 1987). As an educator, I must admit that I have used some of the activities that Cambourne has identified in his article. For example, I have used some written exercises to help students retain or remember what has been taught. However, I think that written exercises can be used in conjunction with other pedagogies, such as the Inquiry and Discovery approach. In this way, the written activities will become more meaningful and they will not contribute to the dependent a-literacy syndrome.
In reflecting on the strategies that I employ in my ESL classes, I can also identify with the Inquiry/Discovery approach which I use extensively. Actually, I find this approach to be more meaningful when teaching ESL students as it requires teaching from the known to the unknown. As such, I start with the information, content or skills with which the students are familiar and from that, new skills are taught. Furthermore, I find that with this approach, the students are more eager to share their information and at most times the teaching shifts from the teacher to the students. As such, I believe that there is an unquestioned need for ESL teachers to be aware of the stages of acculturation. This knowledge will not only be valuable in helping the teacher to be sensitive to the student’s needs, but also to identify the appropriate and effective pedagogies that will meet the needs of the students.
As an educator, the readings have introduced me to alternative pedagogies that will assist me in meeting the needs of my students. It is my belief that no one pedagogy is complete, a mixture of pedagogies may be necessary for students to develop the acquisition and learning processes. For ESL students, it seems that the jury is still out on whether a student can “learn" a language or is it "acquired". However, the goals of all literacy programs should acknowledge the students unique social identities, not as a problem, but rather as profound sources of knowledge.
References
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing, extract from, Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York, NY: Basic Books (p. 214-229).
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. New York: Longman.
Gee, J. P. (1996) Discourses and Literacies, Chapter 6 in Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology and Discourses, Taylor Francis, p. 124-148.
Heath, S. B. (1982) What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and at School Language and Society 11, p. 49-76.
Manning, A. (1993). “Curriculum as conversation”. Keynote Address, Western Australian Reading Association.
Osborne, K., (1991) Teaching for democratic change, Montreal: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation, p. 26-35).
Wenger, Etienne (1998) Introduction: A Social Theory of Learning, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity Cambridge, p. 3-11.
Literacy Learning II
Activity II
Most of the readings for Workshop 7 highlight the fact that there is a great need for an expanded definition of literacy which focuses on multiple socially constructed practices. The vast majority of educators seem to still uphold the traditional meaning of literacy. Heath (1998) reinforces this belief when he notes that many educators, researchers included, are still not aware that “ways of taking from books are as much a part of learned behavior as are ways of eating, sitting, playing games, and building houses” (p. 258). For the purpose of this response, in the first part, I will focus on the Trackton community which is discussed in Heath’s article.
Although the Trackton “communities of practice” did not seem to support learning and literacy, Wenger (1998) highlights the fact that communities play an important part in people’s daily lives. In discussing the ways the children from the Trackton community “[took] from printed stories” (Heath, p. 259), Heath acknowledges that the literacy events for these children were unstructured. In many more ways than one, it seems that these children build their literacy skills in a ‘no frills’ environment. For example the children in Trackton did not spend quality time reading bedtimes stories nor did they live in homes that were conducive to learning. To be literate, it is not enough to be knowledgeable without experiences, therefore the social events, the conversations and the games in Trackton will play an important part in the children’s thinking, judgment, representation and the development of literacy skills.
The learning and the social identities of the children in the Trackton community is embedded both in their primary and secondary Discourses (Gee, 1996). From a very early age, the children use the knowledge, practices and events that they acquire in their natural environment to shape their experiences. For example, the children use nonverbal action in order to obtain adults’ attention and the manipulation of household objects as toys. However, in institutions such as in schools, systemic frameworks such as the curriculum do not promote the three interrelated dimensions of literacy: operational, cultural and critical. According to Manning (1993), the “real curriculum is what goes on in the mind of the student” (p. 2). He further explains that the ‘real curriculum is the one that “really counts, why learning and teaching are two different things” (p. 2). Schools focus on the envisaged and the enacted curriculum which promotes secondary Discourse. Therefore, students are usually assessed by the learning practices of secondary Discourses which are based on the values, perception and sociocultural norms of the mainstream pattern. Unfortunately, the clash of these two discourses cause students, such as those from Trackton, to be marginalized as they are labeled as being ‘different’ by social, political, cultural and systemic factors. According to Gee (1996), one of the main goals of literacy should be the ability to critique ones primary and secondary Discourses. This requires exposing children to a variety of alternative primary and secondary Discourses in an environment where one social practice does not take dominance over others.
After reading the articles for Workshop 8, I began to reflect on my teaching styles especially as an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher. In this environment, it is very easy for an educator to intentionally or implicitly become a Transmission teacher. The mandate of the school curriculum fosters the banking model which describes the teachers’ role as “to ‘fill’ the students by making deposits of information” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 214). For example for the ESL student, the instructions in English may sometimes become too overwhelmed with the formal aspect of the language, therefore the acquisition of fluency in the new language is hindered (Brown, 2001).
I particularly like the analogy of a teacher as a midwife, although one may argue that the analogy is sexist, it gives a different personality and role to the teacher (Belenky et al., 1986) It is recognized that the position of an educator carries with it a position of authority, however good teaching requires a teacher to reposition his/herself from the transmission pedagogy that vests an active, dominant, powerful role to teachers and a subordinate, docile, powerless role to students (Osborne, 1991). Recommended by Belenky et al., is the connected class model whose pedagogy focuses on an informal class community in which teacher and students are engaged. This approach will allow the teacher to connect to the students in such a way that each one nurtures each other thoughts to maturity (p. 221). Furthermore, this approach will provide meaningful opportunities for ESL students to engage in interactive, fun and practical activities that foster literacy and learning. For example, literacy skill can be taught through art, drama, storytelling and games. Consequently, in such supportive and relaxing experiences, the students will acquire a greater sense of confidence in using the targeted language.
Another article to which I could have related was Cambourne’s article regarding the model for dependent a-literate learners (Cambourne, 1987). As an educator, I must admit that I have used some of the activities that Cambourne has identified in his article. For example, I have used some written exercises to help students retain or remember what has been taught. However, I think that written exercises can be used in conjunction with other pedagogies, such as the Inquiry and Discovery approach. In this way, the written activities will become more meaningful and they will not contribute to the dependent a-literacy syndrome.
In reflecting on the strategies that I employ in my ESL classes, I can also identify with the Inquiry/Discovery approach which I use extensively. Actually, I find this approach to be more meaningful when teaching ESL students as it requires teaching from the known to the unknown. As such, I start with the information, content or skills with which the students are familiar and from that, new skills are taught. Furthermore, I find that with this approach, the students are more eager to share their information and at most times the teaching shifts from the teacher to the students. As such, I believe that there is an unquestioned need for ESL teachers to be aware of the stages of acculturation. This knowledge will not only be valuable in helping the teacher to be sensitive to the student’s needs, but also to identify the appropriate and effective pedagogies that will meet the needs of the students.
As an educator, the readings have introduced me to alternative pedagogies that will assist me in meeting the needs of my students. It is my belief that no one pedagogy is complete, a mixture of pedagogies may be necessary for students to develop the acquisition and learning processes. For ESL students, it seems that the jury is still out on whether a student can “learn" a language or is it "acquired". However, the goals of all literacy programs should acknowledge the students unique social identities, not as a problem, but rather as profound sources of knowledge.
References
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing, extract from, Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York, NY: Basic Books (p. 214-229).
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. New York: Longman.
Gee, J. P. (1996) Discourses and Literacies, Chapter 6 in Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology and Discourses, Taylor Francis, p. 124-148.
Heath, S. B. (1982) What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and at School Language and Society 11, p. 49-76.
Manning, A. (1993). “Curriculum as conversation”. Keynote Address, Western Australian Reading Association.
Osborne, K., (1991) Teaching for democratic change, Montreal: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation, p. 26-35).
Wenger, Etienne (1998) Introduction: A Social Theory of Learning, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity Cambridge, p. 3-11.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
The Hidden Side of Literacy
Every educator will agree that the word literacy is well known in the educational realm. As Lankshear (1989) notes the word ‘literacy’ should be referred to in the plural as it includes a broad spectrum of components. There is empirical evidence that literacy has political, social and cultural influences that impact the value, the attitude and the teaching methods used in classrooms. The low literacy achievement of minority students, especially blacks, in America has been the focus of attention, for educators, for some time. The aim of this paper is to examine the meaning of literacy and identify the transparent and hidden side of literacy as it pertains to students from low socioeconomic communities in America.
Literacy
The word literacy has been traditionally perceived by many as the ability to read, write and understand. However, there is a lot more to literacy than the acquisition of these skills. In time, the word ‘literacy’ has taken a whole new set of processes. According to Lankshear “literacy does not refer to a specific skill or technology. It is an umbrella term covering a vast range of actual reading and writing practices” (1989, p.167). Actually, it was only after reading the assigned articles for this course that the meaning of literacy has changed for me. I now perceive literacy as a very broad term under which there are many subheadings which include several reading, writing and comprehension processes. Language is the root of literacy and through literacy one’s knowledge and action are expanded. Literacy is also influenced by complex social, political and economical factors.
The Transparent Side of Literacy
The transparent side of literacy is the common belief that it is the mere ability to read, write and understand. It seems that this is the misconception that most people have of literacy. In our interview assignment for this course, this fallacy was also evident in the responses of most of the interviewees who were not involved in the academic world. This belief may have stem from the fact that traditionally, in terms of literacy, significant emphasis was placed on the acquisition of reading skills. One of the oldest strategies for teaching reading was the study of phonology and grammar. Finn (1999) refers to this level of literacy as the performative level which is the lowest and most basic of all the levels. There is one school of thought that this approach to reading is an excellent way to begin to acquire reading skills, since the focus of a phonemic awareness approach is to decode and encode words (J. Chew, 1997). However, in terms of the mindset theory, the “mastering [of] the building blocks of code breaking: knowing the alphabetic script visually and phonetically” is referred to as the old basics (Rowan et al., 2000, p.78). It is also argued that there is more to literacy than the “decontextualized and repetitive practices” involved in this mindset (Rowan et al., 2000, p. 80).
The Hidden Side of Literacy
Underlining the term literacy are also social, political and cultural issues that are of great concern. Luke et al, note that “as long as literacy teaching is tied up with the state, the church, and the school, there will be powerful hidden agendas at work, even in the most apparently neutral programs” (1990 p.134). For example, in America, there is an increase in “black underclass isolated from the nation’s economic and social mainstream” (Garland et al., 1988, p. 60). Ironically, the education system is one of the contributors to this ballooning socioeconomic issue among the underclass. One of the main problems is that schools are just not meeting the needs of black youths, instead “they are fostering naive literacy” (Lankshear, 1989 p.175). In Teaching Language in Open Admissions (1972), Rich provides insight into her experience in a working class school of mainly immigrant students. She notes that in this school, her “daily life as a teacher confronted [her] with young men and women who have had language and literature used against them” (1979, p.63). Schools are expected to be institutions where students are treated with respect and are educated so that they can achieve economical, political and cultural advancement. Instead, these students are marginalized by those who they have entrusted to help them become literate. According to Finn (1999), these students are at the functional level of literacy which means that they are sufficiently literate in order to function in their daily lives. However, life is significantly different in the executive elite school where the dominant theme is excellence. Teachers respect students and sarcasm and negative remarks are unheard. Needless to say, these students are at the powerful literacy level, the goal of which is for them to be able to “evaluate, analyze and synthesize what is read” (Finn, 1999, p.124).
Close examination of literacy also reveals that teaching strategies are complex, varied,
and can be used to achieve different goals. This is another hidden side of literacy that plays a major role in the explanation of how literacy is geared to a privilege few. This argument is supported by Cummins (1989) and Finn who have identified one of the solutions to this problem as the “need to increase [underclass] students’ powers of critical thinking and higher-order cognitive skills” (1999, pg, 126). What do these researches, if anything, tell us about the education system? Literacy involves a more elaborate and highly complex form of instructions. However, there is a very important distinction between the way knowledge is imparted to students of working-class, middle-class and affluent professional schools (Finn, 1999).
Finn exposes how the teaching strategies used in schools are helping to retain the status quo of students in underclass communities. In so doing, he first established the fact that the populations of most working-class schools are students from underclass communities, which are mainly immigrants, the majority being blacks. Finn’s message is supported by Rowan et al., (2000) and Lankshear who suggest “current economic policies and conditions are creating, and in some countries consolidating, an underclass” (Lankshear, p.167). In working-class schools, the teaching methods limit thinking as the focus is basically regurgitating information given by teachers. According to Goodman’s books, Growing Up Absurd (1960) and Compulsory Miseducation (1964), this type of education “[prepares] students to fit into society and the workplace rather than to critique and reform it” ( 1964, p.21).
Similar to Finn (1999), Goodman blames the education system for focusing more on reforming underclass students, than enhancing their literacy skills so that they can rise above their political, social and financial position (1964). Some of the methods used, in schools catering to the underclass, require little or no critical thinking. As such, the answers to questions can be copied directly from the text; the evaluation of assigned work is the step by step repetition of notes and the use of lots of photocopied worksheets is prevalent. On the other hand, powerful literacy, taught in elite schools, teach students a schema for literacy. In so doing, at a very early age these students develop higher thinking skills such as questioning, analyzing, drawing conclusions, inferring and synthesizing (Finn, 1999).
Conclusion
Many of the advocates for the underclass agree that one of the primary barriers in achieving literacy among the underclass is the fact that meeting the needs of the bureaucracy takes precedence to improving the literacy skills of those involved. However, this side of literacy is not transparent especially to those who are being discriminated by social practices within the educational system. It is like being in a no win situation, as students in the working-class schools look towards education for their ‘freedom’ – to be free from the dependency of the welfare trap; to be free from gang warfare; to be free from ghetto living and most of all to be free from literacy challenges. However, it is the same policies, practices and methods in the schools that undermine the ability and potential of these students that are yearning to be literate.
Furthermore, in recent years, many studies both quantitative and qualitative have highlighted the issues surrounding literacy and the underclass. In some cases, very effective solutions have been noted and supported by statistical data. However, this issue remains and in fact is escalating globally without any successful intervention being implemented. It leaves one to wonder what is the true purpose of educational reforms and policy decisions regarding this topic. One possible response to this question is that these reforms and policies are geared towards ensuring that the power, prestige and privileges remain in the elite schools so that in the long run, students in elite schools will remain in positions of authority and decision making.
References
Cummins, J. (1989), The sanitized curriculum: Educational disempowerment in a nation at risk. Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students: New York: Longman, pg. 19-38.
Chew, J. (1997). Traditional phonics: what it is and what it is not. Journal of Research in Reading, 20(3), 171-183.
Christie, F., (1988) Language, access and success. Language and Education pg. 1-12.
Finn, Patrick (1999), Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in their Own Self-Interest, SUNY Press, Albany.
Garland, S., Therrien, L., & Hammonds, K. (1988), Why the underclass can’t get out from under. Business Week, New York: McGraw Hill.
Lankshear, C. (1989), Reading and Writing Wrongs: Literacy and the underclass. Language and Education (Vol.3, No3.).
Luke, A. (1991). Literacies as social practices. English Education: National Council of Teachers of English. pg. 131-147.
Rich, A. (1979), Teaching language in open admission. On Lies, Secrets and Silences: Selected Prose 1966-78.
Rowan, L., Knobel, M., Bigum, C., Lankshear, C., (2002) Mindsets matter: an overview of major literacy worldviews: Boys, Literacies and Schooling: Open University press. Pgs77-98.
http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca/publications/lacmf/Vol15no2/38-39.htm Retrieved on May 25, 2009.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/33/58/5a.pdf Retrieved on May 25, 2009.
Every educator will agree that the word literacy is well known in the educational realm. As Lankshear (1989) notes the word ‘literacy’ should be referred to in the plural as it includes a broad spectrum of components. There is empirical evidence that literacy has political, social and cultural influences that impact the value, the attitude and the teaching methods used in classrooms. The low literacy achievement of minority students, especially blacks, in America has been the focus of attention, for educators, for some time. The aim of this paper is to examine the meaning of literacy and identify the transparent and hidden side of literacy as it pertains to students from low socioeconomic communities in America.
Literacy
The word literacy has been traditionally perceived by many as the ability to read, write and understand. However, there is a lot more to literacy than the acquisition of these skills. In time, the word ‘literacy’ has taken a whole new set of processes. According to Lankshear “literacy does not refer to a specific skill or technology. It is an umbrella term covering a vast range of actual reading and writing practices” (1989, p.167). Actually, it was only after reading the assigned articles for this course that the meaning of literacy has changed for me. I now perceive literacy as a very broad term under which there are many subheadings which include several reading, writing and comprehension processes. Language is the root of literacy and through literacy one’s knowledge and action are expanded. Literacy is also influenced by complex social, political and economical factors.
The Transparent Side of Literacy
The transparent side of literacy is the common belief that it is the mere ability to read, write and understand. It seems that this is the misconception that most people have of literacy. In our interview assignment for this course, this fallacy was also evident in the responses of most of the interviewees who were not involved in the academic world. This belief may have stem from the fact that traditionally, in terms of literacy, significant emphasis was placed on the acquisition of reading skills. One of the oldest strategies for teaching reading was the study of phonology and grammar. Finn (1999) refers to this level of literacy as the performative level which is the lowest and most basic of all the levels. There is one school of thought that this approach to reading is an excellent way to begin to acquire reading skills, since the focus of a phonemic awareness approach is to decode and encode words (J. Chew, 1997). However, in terms of the mindset theory, the “mastering [of] the building blocks of code breaking: knowing the alphabetic script visually and phonetically” is referred to as the old basics (Rowan et al., 2000, p.78). It is also argued that there is more to literacy than the “decontextualized and repetitive practices” involved in this mindset (Rowan et al., 2000, p. 80).
The Hidden Side of Literacy
Underlining the term literacy are also social, political and cultural issues that are of great concern. Luke et al, note that “as long as literacy teaching is tied up with the state, the church, and the school, there will be powerful hidden agendas at work, even in the most apparently neutral programs” (1990 p.134). For example, in America, there is an increase in “black underclass isolated from the nation’s economic and social mainstream” (Garland et al., 1988, p. 60). Ironically, the education system is one of the contributors to this ballooning socioeconomic issue among the underclass. One of the main problems is that schools are just not meeting the needs of black youths, instead “they are fostering naive literacy” (Lankshear, 1989 p.175). In Teaching Language in Open Admissions (1972), Rich provides insight into her experience in a working class school of mainly immigrant students. She notes that in this school, her “daily life as a teacher confronted [her] with young men and women who have had language and literature used against them” (1979, p.63). Schools are expected to be institutions where students are treated with respect and are educated so that they can achieve economical, political and cultural advancement. Instead, these students are marginalized by those who they have entrusted to help them become literate. According to Finn (1999), these students are at the functional level of literacy which means that they are sufficiently literate in order to function in their daily lives. However, life is significantly different in the executive elite school where the dominant theme is excellence. Teachers respect students and sarcasm and negative remarks are unheard. Needless to say, these students are at the powerful literacy level, the goal of which is for them to be able to “evaluate, analyze and synthesize what is read” (Finn, 1999, p.124).
Close examination of literacy also reveals that teaching strategies are complex, varied,
and can be used to achieve different goals. This is another hidden side of literacy that plays a major role in the explanation of how literacy is geared to a privilege few. This argument is supported by Cummins (1989) and Finn who have identified one of the solutions to this problem as the “need to increase [underclass] students’ powers of critical thinking and higher-order cognitive skills” (1999, pg, 126). What do these researches, if anything, tell us about the education system? Literacy involves a more elaborate and highly complex form of instructions. However, there is a very important distinction between the way knowledge is imparted to students of working-class, middle-class and affluent professional schools (Finn, 1999).
Finn exposes how the teaching strategies used in schools are helping to retain the status quo of students in underclass communities. In so doing, he first established the fact that the populations of most working-class schools are students from underclass communities, which are mainly immigrants, the majority being blacks. Finn’s message is supported by Rowan et al., (2000) and Lankshear who suggest “current economic policies and conditions are creating, and in some countries consolidating, an underclass” (Lankshear, p.167). In working-class schools, the teaching methods limit thinking as the focus is basically regurgitating information given by teachers. According to Goodman’s books, Growing Up Absurd (1960) and Compulsory Miseducation (1964), this type of education “[prepares] students to fit into society and the workplace rather than to critique and reform it” ( 1964, p.21).
Similar to Finn (1999), Goodman blames the education system for focusing more on reforming underclass students, than enhancing their literacy skills so that they can rise above their political, social and financial position (1964). Some of the methods used, in schools catering to the underclass, require little or no critical thinking. As such, the answers to questions can be copied directly from the text; the evaluation of assigned work is the step by step repetition of notes and the use of lots of photocopied worksheets is prevalent. On the other hand, powerful literacy, taught in elite schools, teach students a schema for literacy. In so doing, at a very early age these students develop higher thinking skills such as questioning, analyzing, drawing conclusions, inferring and synthesizing (Finn, 1999).
Conclusion
Many of the advocates for the underclass agree that one of the primary barriers in achieving literacy among the underclass is the fact that meeting the needs of the bureaucracy takes precedence to improving the literacy skills of those involved. However, this side of literacy is not transparent especially to those who are being discriminated by social practices within the educational system. It is like being in a no win situation, as students in the working-class schools look towards education for their ‘freedom’ – to be free from the dependency of the welfare trap; to be free from gang warfare; to be free from ghetto living and most of all to be free from literacy challenges. However, it is the same policies, practices and methods in the schools that undermine the ability and potential of these students that are yearning to be literate.
Furthermore, in recent years, many studies both quantitative and qualitative have highlighted the issues surrounding literacy and the underclass. In some cases, very effective solutions have been noted and supported by statistical data. However, this issue remains and in fact is escalating globally without any successful intervention being implemented. It leaves one to wonder what is the true purpose of educational reforms and policy decisions regarding this topic. One possible response to this question is that these reforms and policies are geared towards ensuring that the power, prestige and privileges remain in the elite schools so that in the long run, students in elite schools will remain in positions of authority and decision making.
References
Cummins, J. (1989), The sanitized curriculum: Educational disempowerment in a nation at risk. Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students: New York: Longman, pg. 19-38.
Chew, J. (1997). Traditional phonics: what it is and what it is not. Journal of Research in Reading, 20(3), 171-183.
Christie, F., (1988) Language, access and success. Language and Education pg. 1-12.
Finn, Patrick (1999), Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in their Own Self-Interest, SUNY Press, Albany.
Garland, S., Therrien, L., & Hammonds, K. (1988), Why the underclass can’t get out from under. Business Week, New York: McGraw Hill.
Lankshear, C. (1989), Reading and Writing Wrongs: Literacy and the underclass. Language and Education (Vol.3, No3.).
Luke, A. (1991). Literacies as social practices. English Education: National Council of Teachers of English. pg. 131-147.
Rich, A. (1979), Teaching language in open admission. On Lies, Secrets and Silences: Selected Prose 1966-78.
Rowan, L., Knobel, M., Bigum, C., Lankshear, C., (2002) Mindsets matter: an overview of major literacy worldviews: Boys, Literacies and Schooling: Open University press. Pgs77-98.
http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca/publications/lacmf/Vol15no2/38-39.htm Retrieved on May 25, 2009.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/33/58/5a.pdf Retrieved on May 25, 2009.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
I Am
I’m from “Run, Jane, Run;
See how Jane runs”,
That precious book, in my early years, that highlighted more action words than any other.
I am from Stone Soup the folk tale that everyone truly enjoyed
Although silly, unrealistic and highly cultural, it sure was a pleasure to read.
I’m from Shakespeare in all its glory
The plays, the essays, the discussions, the frustration
My high school years were unforgettable
“The world is a stage and we are the actors”
“Oh, Juliet, where art thou”?
My favorite, to my surprise was Macbeth –
“Fair is foul and foul is fair”
“High school! That is a step on which I must fall down or else o’erleap”.
Then came those tiresome and sleepless nights, yet enjoyable
Without a doubt, university was a blast!
From electives to core subjects, from Piaget to Research Methods.
Although many years have passed, I have now found myself walking the same path.
By Lookjen
I’m from “Run, Jane, Run;
See how Jane runs”,
That precious book, in my early years, that highlighted more action words than any other.
I am from Stone Soup the folk tale that everyone truly enjoyed
Although silly, unrealistic and highly cultural, it sure was a pleasure to read.
I’m from Shakespeare in all its glory
The plays, the essays, the discussions, the frustration
My high school years were unforgettable
“The world is a stage and we are the actors”
“Oh, Juliet, where art thou”?
My favorite, to my surprise was Macbeth –
“Fair is foul and foul is fair”
“High school! That is a step on which I must fall down or else o’erleap”.
Then came those tiresome and sleepless nights, yet enjoyable
Without a doubt, university was a blast!
From electives to core subjects, from Piaget to Research Methods.
Although many years have passed, I have now found myself walking the same path.
By Lookjen
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Literacy For All
As an educator, one of my main objectives is for my students to enhance and gain confidence in their literacy skills. Although this week’s readings highlight the importance of literacy for all, the readings also acknowledge that equity of access continues to be a major problem in education (Christie, 1988). According to Lankshear (1989) literacy includes such a broad spectrum of components that it should be referred to in the plural. However, for this reading response, I choose to focus on literacy as it is linked to social practices and secondly, what it means to have literacy not work for the marginalized groups.
I agree with Luke (1991) that there is a lot more to literacy than learning to read and write. During my years of teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) to students in all the stages of second-language acquisition and literacy development, my role as a teacher very often changes to provide support and intervention to these students. In planning an effective program for ESL students, it is impossible to separate the social practices embedded in the teaching of literacy. Culture and cultural awareness are two of the key words that must be considered in the development of the coursework. For example, due to the cultural differences of the students, the communicative language approach is used as the bases for the selected teaching strategies. These approaches provide opportunities for ESL students to engage in interactive, fun and practical activities that foster communication. For example, language components are taught through drama, storytelling and games. Consequently, in such supportive and relaxing experiences, the students acquire a greater sense of confidence in using the targeted language (Coelho, 2004).
Furthermore, Luke (1991) acknowledges that teachers who teach language addresses the academic as well as the social development of students. ESL teachers provide a listening ear to ESL students when they discuss family issues, adjustment challenges and other systemic barriers. Willms (1997) has further explained that people are accepted in a culture with the acquisition of its language that allows them to socialize and to increase their knowledge (http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/jul97/willms.pdf).
Another focus in this week’s readings is the identification of factors that contribute to the low literacy rate among the underclass, working class and visible minorities. Seven out of the eight readings for this week identify and highlight groups that are at risk of low literacy. Lankshear (1989) identifies the underclass as “exclusively black” (pg. 170); Rich’s article (1979) notes that there has been an assumption, in one school, that the black and Puerto Rican freshmen are of “inferior intelligence” (pg. 55) and Stuckey (1991) describes the working-class people as “getting their living primarily by addressing things. They work on or beside machines” (pg.7).
It is good to see that many of these researchers are able to identify the problem and the causes of the increasing number of illiterate students. However, the readings left me with more questions than answers. Some of the questions are: why is nothing being done about the welfare trap? Most single women will be elated to be given their independence. Secondly, is the education system a systemic process of intimidation and discrimination for blacks and visible minorities?
I know it might take decades before the root sources of these societal issues pertaining to literacy and the underclass, working class and visible minorities can be resolved. However, it is one of my greatest hopes that these issues will one day become a priority in the political and administration realm, and not just topics of discussion that can generate a barrage of statistical data.
References
Christie, F. (1988). Language, access and success, Language and Education, pp.1-12.
Coelho, E. (2004). Adding English: A Guide to Teaching in Multilingual Classrooms, Toronto: Pippin Publishing Corporation.
Lankshear, C. (1989). Reading and Writing Wrongs: Literacy and the underclass. Language and Education. Vol. 3, No. 3.
Luke, A. (1991). Literacies as social practices: English Education, pp.131-147. ISBN/ISSN: 78204.
Rich, A. (1979). Teaching language in open admission, in Lies, secrets and silences, Virago Press, pp. 51-68.
Stuckey, J.L. (1991). Literacy and social class, in J.L. Stuckey, The Violence of Literacy, Heineman Educational Books, pp.1-20.
http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/jul97/willms.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2009.
I agree with Luke (1991) that there is a lot more to literacy than learning to read and write. During my years of teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) to students in all the stages of second-language acquisition and literacy development, my role as a teacher very often changes to provide support and intervention to these students. In planning an effective program for ESL students, it is impossible to separate the social practices embedded in the teaching of literacy. Culture and cultural awareness are two of the key words that must be considered in the development of the coursework. For example, due to the cultural differences of the students, the communicative language approach is used as the bases for the selected teaching strategies. These approaches provide opportunities for ESL students to engage in interactive, fun and practical activities that foster communication. For example, language components are taught through drama, storytelling and games. Consequently, in such supportive and relaxing experiences, the students acquire a greater sense of confidence in using the targeted language (Coelho, 2004).
Furthermore, Luke (1991) acknowledges that teachers who teach language addresses the academic as well as the social development of students. ESL teachers provide a listening ear to ESL students when they discuss family issues, adjustment challenges and other systemic barriers. Willms (1997) has further explained that people are accepted in a culture with the acquisition of its language that allows them to socialize and to increase their knowledge (http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/jul97/willms.pdf).
Another focus in this week’s readings is the identification of factors that contribute to the low literacy rate among the underclass, working class and visible minorities. Seven out of the eight readings for this week identify and highlight groups that are at risk of low literacy. Lankshear (1989) identifies the underclass as “exclusively black” (pg. 170); Rich’s article (1979) notes that there has been an assumption, in one school, that the black and Puerto Rican freshmen are of “inferior intelligence” (pg. 55) and Stuckey (1991) describes the working-class people as “getting their living primarily by addressing things. They work on or beside machines” (pg.7).
It is good to see that many of these researchers are able to identify the problem and the causes of the increasing number of illiterate students. However, the readings left me with more questions than answers. Some of the questions are: why is nothing being done about the welfare trap? Most single women will be elated to be given their independence. Secondly, is the education system a systemic process of intimidation and discrimination for blacks and visible minorities?
I know it might take decades before the root sources of these societal issues pertaining to literacy and the underclass, working class and visible minorities can be resolved. However, it is one of my greatest hopes that these issues will one day become a priority in the political and administration realm, and not just topics of discussion that can generate a barrage of statistical data.
References
Christie, F. (1988). Language, access and success, Language and Education, pp.1-12.
Coelho, E. (2004). Adding English: A Guide to Teaching in Multilingual Classrooms, Toronto: Pippin Publishing Corporation.
Lankshear, C. (1989). Reading and Writing Wrongs: Literacy and the underclass. Language and Education. Vol. 3, No. 3.
Luke, A. (1991). Literacies as social practices: English Education, pp.131-147. ISBN/ISSN: 78204.
Rich, A. (1979). Teaching language in open admission, in Lies, secrets and silences, Virago Press, pp. 51-68.
Stuckey, J.L. (1991). Literacy and social class, in J.L. Stuckey, The Violence of Literacy, Heineman Educational Books, pp.1-20.
http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/jul97/willms.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)