Readings 2/23/2012 - Merging Worlds - What are my limitations?

Readings: Beers et al. Chapter 14

                 Hull and Schultz "Literacy and learning out of school"
                Phalen et al " Adolescent Words: Donna and Ryan"


“Reading a book is like re-writing it for yourself. You bring to a novel, anything you read, all your experience of the world. You bring your history and you read it in your own terms.”  Angela Carter

As I skimmed each of this week's readings I began to feel overwhelmed. I derived motivation to actually begin reading the first by explaining to myself that the best way to teach about reading is to actually have students read. :)

The readings were in no way difficult to comprehend, but I got a sense that the articles were more substantial in breath than in depth. I felt as if I had read the same things before and that it was a waste of my time to be reading them again. However, as I actually read and began to make connections and synthesize the information I realized that I also began to derive new meanings from what I thought was the same ideas or concepts. Interesting food for thought.

The readings were all different but the theme of using students out of school literacy experiences to get a sense of where they are was apparent in all four pieces.

The Hull and Schultz article focused mainly on the concept of literacy and learning out of school and the implications of this 'educational experience' on a child's 'schooling'. It emphasizes that the focus should be on out of school and in school movement from one context to the other, where learned out of school literacies should not be ignored when students are in school but used as a spring board for teaching literacies in school. The authors also noted how accomplishments outside of school contrasted with poor school based performances. This concept was also brought up in the Beers chapter the author stated that there was value in knowing how kids engage in the use of technology outside of school. The author states that there is value in finding out how students engage with technology that may enhance reading and find a way to merge that with out teaching to make learning more meaningful.

The Ryan and Donna article were studies about students whose engagement in school was based on their cultural backgrounds as well as the value they and their families placed on education. It was postulated that students were highly likely to live up to expectations if these expectations were meaningful and realistic. Ryan and Donna were from different backgrounds and had different experiences but had a lot in common in respect to education - they both wanted to be successful and both oriented towards friends who shared their backgrounds and sociocultural components.

In really constructing meaning from the readings I would be inclined to say that the Beers Chapter stood out to me the most. I am aware of most of the technology tools that can be used in a classroom to enhance literacy instruction as well as the ones students access outside of school and how to integrate those into the classroom so students experiences merge at some point. I have tried a couple of these and some were easier to access than others. Working in a school system, that in my opinion, has little knowledge of how effective technology can be in enhancing instruction if teachers are trained to use them appropriately and the resources are available is a constant pain.

Most websites and software that students would access outside of school are block in school, hence not only restricting our ability to use them to enhance instruction but to teach students to use them appropriately. Students want to have experiences that matter and as an educator I want to be able to provide those experiences, but with little or no support because of the litigious nature of our society is very de-motivating.


Iffeisha

Readings 2/16/2012 - Validation for what I do?

Assignments: Beers et al Chapters 5, 6 and 10       

"Teaching reading IS rocket science."   

— Louisa Moats

As I read through the assigned chapters realized that the main focus was on getting students to work hard using text that interests them and focusing on the skills needed for the ‘flat’ world. There are many teaching models and concepts that exist today that support this such as workshop model, expeditionary learning model, and six plus 1 traits among others.

I gained much insight form all three chapters, but chapter 5 resonated with me more than the other two. 

Chapter five talks about the use of the workshop model to facilitate instruction. The author explains that the workshop model has demonstrated its effectiveness in eliciting hard work from students on both their reading and writing. I agree with the author wholeheartedly because I work in a school where we actually use the workshop model and I have seen how effective the model can be in getting students to actually do work. Students develop accountability and learn over time to take ownership of their learning and as a result I have had moments (rarely of course) where I can sit back and let the students manage and monitor their own progress independent of me. I also do a lot of dialogue and sharing of work as a par of our expeditionary learning model, so my students have no choice but to speak and learn to present their work. I find this to be one of the easiest parts of my class to monitor, as my students love to share their knowledge and their work. I suspect this is because of their self-centeredness due to their developmental stage. J

Of course getting them to this point took a lot of hard work and debriefing of challenging moments, but students enjoy sharing things that interests them and knowledge they have.

Teaching...can be likened to a conversation in which you listen to the speaker carefully before you reply.
Marie Clay

Iffeisha

Readings 2/09/12 - Conscious Reflections

Assignments: Beers et al Chapters 2 - 4          


The dream begins with a teacher who believes in you, who tugs and pushes and leads you to the next plateau, sometimes poking you with a sharp stick called "truth."  ~Dan Rather

As I read the readings from this week I was thrown into a mindset of conscious reflections.  All three chapters had sections that as I read I thought to myself, I know that. Other sections led me to think about where I am as a teacher and how I relate to my students, especially my goals for them.

Chapter two, the title of which was 'flying blind' was the chapter that made me reflect the most. As an educator I enter the classroom on a daily basis and subconsciously think about how I feel and what I want to achieve and assume that my students want the same things. I am conscious of some of my students situations but rarely stop to focus on how those  situations impact their learning on a given day.

After reading this chapter I had a conversation/confrontation with one of my students who bluntly told me how different my life was from hers that that I could never understand what she goes through on a daily basis outside of school and then I expect her to come to school and smile and act like everything is ok when in reality it wasn't. That conversation gave me pause and made to reflect on the chapter two to the point of coming to the realization that like myself many educations were flying blind.

The other chapters, three and four also had sections that made me reflect. I reflected on how do I 'reduce my blindness' in a situation where encounter five different groups of students in a given day without turning my classroom into a counseling center?

I concluded that I could be more meaningful in my teaching, instead of thinking about what I enjoy teaching and or learning I could think about what interested my students more, sometimes not even content, but rather engaging activities through which to learn that content.  I realized that I did try to utilize engaging activities in my classroom presently, but they were mostly activities that I found engaging, topics that I was passionate about.

As that one student's voice resonated in my mind, expression that I could not expect her to pretend everything was ok because I wanted it to be ok I realized that I couldn't make it ok and I really could never understand. However what I could do was to try and let go some and begin to let my students guide my teaching more. Look inward a bit more and let my students understand that I might be flying blind but that I am open to seeing.

I know it is going to be a struggle letting go and allowing my students more say in what and how I teach them. But more powerful is the idea that if hey aren't interested they aren't learning so I'm wasting my time anyway.

I end my conscious reflection with the thought that I will change, at least I will try to be more conscious of my students and their situations and needs, I need to not only teach but like a partial quote from Chapter 4 states.... teach with my heart as well as my mind.


Iffeisha

Readings 2/02/12 - Enlightenment

Assignments: Hooks "Engaged Pedagogy"
                      Moje (2008) "Complex World of Adolescent Literacy",

                      Gee "Literacy and Linguistics"                                

“It is not enough to simply teach children to read; we have to give them something worth reading. Something that will stretch their imaginations--something that will help them make sense of their own lives and encourage them to reach out toward people whose lives are quite different from their own.” Katherine Patterson

This week's readings were very enlightening. All three articles focused on some of the influences of critical and social perspectives on adolescent literacy. The authors used their writings as a medium in which to express their justifiable beliefs in how one or more aspects of literacy are shaped by both formal and informal education.

The articles were quite stimulating, the authors called for deep thinking and great analysis of the foundations and influences on literacy throughout different life stages as well as how different perspectives helped shaped one's literary thinking. The Hooks article focused a lot on the feminist perspective and also mindfulness in learning, while the Moje article was written from a blended perspective point of view and finally the Gee article was written from the point of view supporting the concept of discourse.

As I read all three and highlighted different sections and made my 'mind- map', the similarities as well as the differences among them became clear and my mind began to imagine the difference a literacy teacher could make by being aware of the different perspectives and how they shape the literary journey of the students we try to teach.

The Hooks article was the one I found most interesting because of the introduction of the concept of 'wholeness' in teaching, where the author stresses the importance of seeing education as the practice of freedom, where the mind is not the only focus, but the body and spirit as well. The author mentions Buddhist Monk Tich Nhat Han, whose work I've read before for personal growth, but never from the perspective of a teacher. In reference to this 'teacher' the author states that Tich Nhat Han cites the teacher as not just an educator but a 'healer' as well, managing a classroom where the banking system of education was challenged and students were seen as and became active participants instead of passive consumers. This author discussed the feminist perspective through the introduction of the female teacher as the 'better educator', from the perspective that  feminist classrooms were the ones that allowed students to be able to share and participate. She also discussed the concept of engaged pedagogy as that which values student expression. The Moje article supported this concept/belief in that they express the fact that reading and writing for adolescents occur in a wide range of literary text outside of school and that young people are so diverse that it is challenging not to take this into account as we prepare to teach these students. Although the Moje's article supports the Hook article to some extent, whereas the Hook article is focused more on a feminist perspective, Moje believes that literacy is and should be defined form multiple perspectives as the definition of literacy based on research put forth by him states that the 'definition of literacy varies widely based on different belief system and experiences even among people who are thought to be alike'.

All three articles in my opinion focused on the fact that students should be taught how to live in the world through critical thinking. As educators, if this is our goal then we need to understand the 'whole' child when we attempt to teach students as well as teach them the different contexts in which literacy defines who they are and what they do.

According to research it is basic human need to be part of a community or group and the Moje article highlights this through stating that having access to socially constructed and conventionalized code is central to being part of a community and means having access to certain kinds of power. The Gee article also touches on this when the author explains that acquisition of discourse often occurs from being with a group as well as the fact that literacy should be taught in many different social contexts as they occur as such. The author cites examples of being at a bar and the language she would use that would be socially acceptable although the  grammar is incorrect as to the other way around.  It is interesting that as a teacher I never considered teaching my kids from this perspective. I always assumed that they came with their 'street/bar' language and also that is wasn't my job to teach them that, but to teach them 'proper language'. The thought just never crossed my mind, although I would often say it to them, to actually teach them when and where certain types of language, as in speaking and/or diction is relevant or acceptable and others are not.

Through reading these articles and actually paying attention (they were interesting) I learned that so much of what our students learn and so much of the way they learn are based on social and cultural practices, that if as educators we do not find a way way to combine the two there will always be a divide that will go way beyond just being digital. Gee discusses this from her discourse(way of being in the world) in literacy point of view, where she states that what is important is not language but saying (writing), doing, being, valuing and believing combinations. She believes that language should be taught in a socially acceptable context. She believes students learn through practice, and that discourse in her opinion is acquired through interaction with people who have already mastered discourse. She also believes, and I agree that discourse changes our outlook as our experiences does. I believe that it changes it as well as shapes it. Moje points out in her article that even though young people are different/diverse that they still share patterns of at least one group's literacy practices. This in my opinion implies that our students learn so much more from their peers and group relationships than they learn from us as educators in an academic setting.

My greatest take-away from this week's readings would be based on the fact that although we know how different or should I say how diverse our students are as individuals and as learners, as educators our teaching styles do not reflect that. There are so many studies about how to teach and how to reach our students that it is hard to keep up with them, but we still have students graduating high school who can't read and write 'well'. With the materialization of this thought many questions arise in my mind, is reading and writing 'well' overrated? Or is it based on the the perspective of merely academics? Are our failing students succeeding in a more social or cultural context? Are we actually measuring the 'whole' individual or just one aspect? From which perspective REALLY is our education system based, and is it the best one for such a diverse system?

As I try to think of ways in which I can utilize my new scope of enlightenment in my own daily practices, I think of our culture as an education system. One in which inclusion is fought for, and wonder if in embracing the diversity of our learners and accepting or just merely acknowledging the concept of diversity in learning and knowledge that our kids bring as well as their cultural and social experiences, if inclusion is the best practice. Our learners have their own belief systems that serve them and their own social 'circles' in which they thrive and are comfortable. Is it our responsibilitiy as educators to try and change that to teach them what we see as the norm or what we consider to be acceptable values, or is it our responsibility to teach them how to continue to be accepted and survive in the context which they know, plan to remain in, and from which perspectives their value systems are based?

As a teacher in a city school I believe it is my responsibility to, like the Moje article stated, support my students in developing sophisticated academic, community and workplace literacy skills. But who decides what students REALLY need which skills, and if differentiation in this instance is not discrimination?

I guess my lingering thoughts leave me with the knowledge that a teacher's role and responsibilities are undefined and differ based on different perspectives. Therefore each learning experience for the teacher and the students he or she teachers occur within the context of which perspective has shaped that teacher's experiences and more so the experiences she chooses to share with her students.

Learning is as complex as teaching.

“It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it.”

- Jacob Bronowski

Iffeisha