Friday, June 19, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
workshop 3, synthesi
Workshop 3, Synthesis Paper
Current educational practice varies across different socioeconomic groups and cultures in a way that preserves the gaps in equity between groups of students that perpetuate the power of a limited few.
In his book, Literacy with an Attitude, Finn describes the many factors and conditions that result in students from varying cultural backgrounds and different socioeconomic classes being taught differently. Finn uses the research of Jean Anyon to describe the disparities in the delivery of education along the socioeconomic continuum of working class to gentry. Working class students are taught using prescriptive lessons with minimal higher order thinking questions and minimal problem solving in an atmosphere of strict rules and compliance. This is labelled as learning literacy to be controlled. Conversely, J. Anyon observed that upper middle class students and the gentry were taught in a way that involved ample practice in decision making and higher order thinking skills in an atmosphere of greater flexibility for rules and regulations. This is labelled literacy for control. The discrepancies between educational practices disadvantage the poor and perpetuate the societal control of more affluent students. Therefore, effective literacy instruction that promotes critical thinking is not always available to all students and is more apt to occur in schools with affluent students. Poor literacy instruction, devoid of critical thinking and missing the discourse that leads to power is more likely to be presented to students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As a result of the discrepancies in literacy instruction, schools become institutions that are either delivering literacy for control or literacy to be controlled. Finn suggests that school with low expectations of student achievement, cycle further and further away from effective teaching, ultimately reaching a point where only good behaviour or a good attitude is necessary to succeed.
Finn describes the two outcomes of these two opposing instructional practices as either the make believe school model or the real school model. He compares his two models of schools to P. Freire’s theory that education either liberates or domesticates. The opposing outcomes described by both Freire and Finn result in inequities of opportunity for students and the maintenance of the status quo of a powerful few. The ineffective instruction provided to the poor serves as a form of oppression in terms of participation in a democracy.
In addition to the discrepancies in instructional practice between the rich and the poor, Finn uses the research of Heath to suggest that students who are not socialized to the task of school dialogue and behaviour are further disadvantaged in schools. Finn suggests that the primary socialization of working class students at home is most likely inconsistent with the explicit language necessary to participate in classrooms discussions. Schools fail to support and teach students whose home language discourse is inconsistent with the language of the classroom or the teacher.
I agree with Finn’s concept that educators are trading student cooperation with lower academic expectations. Although, I believe that this cycle of reduced expectations may be more prevalent in working class schools, it is not limited to working class students. Ineffective instruction that focuses on the transmission of knowledge producing uncooperative bored participants is present in many public schools. I thought that Finn’s argument of a reduced cycle of expectations was consistent with K. Stanovich’s biblical analysis to long term literacy failure; the Matthew Effect, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
My own reflections and observations of current educational practices have left me wondering if we are teaching children or just managing students. I believe that classroom management strategies and school rules often get in the way of effective instruction. I have often observed educators spending a great deal of time and energy ensuring that schools are orderly and students are well behaved. It frequently seems more important that students are following the rules than thinking. I have always thought of this teaching as ineffective, but have come to realize that the real travesty is the social injustice of limiting individual opportunities for learning.
If you want to measure whether a school is liberating or domesticating students, you only need to take a peek into the recycling bin in the photocopy room. If the bin is filled with meaningless, closed worksheets activities, then the teaching is likely one that promotes domestication or control of students. If the bin is filled with open –ended, rich questions that promote higher order thinking then it may be a school that liberates.
I have observed teachers as the ‘gate keepers’ of the opportunities of education. It seems easier to limit the learning experiences of children who have no parent advocacy. I have witnessed and participated in teacher-parent conferences that dismiss the concerns of parents who are purposely intimidated or confused by the educational jargon of the teacher. It is easier to give a poor evaluation to a student whose parent will not complain and prompt an investigation of instructional practice.
I have observed my own ‘make believe schools’ where cooperation is the currency for reduced learning expectations. Many a student watches an irrelevant ‘movie’ on Friday afternoons as a reward for good behaviour. Lots of struggling students sit alone in the hallway to think about the class rules. As teachers we are quick to use the deficit model to describe children who are difficult to teach or difficult to manage rather that reflecting on our own teaching. Despite all recent evidence to the contrary, we continue to use the transmission model of instruction. Are teachers oblivious to the injustice of teaching for low expectations and control?
Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986) may be the cause of a downward cycle of expectations. Students who struggle with literacy acquisition in the early grades begin to fall further and further behind as their time spent engaged in literacy learning is reduced and their skills get less practise. Conversely, higher achieving students begin to spend more and more time engaged in literacy activities and their skills improve. Struggling students begin a downward cycle of improvement and better students begin an upward cycle of improvement or, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Finn’s make believe schools may be the long term outcome of the struggling students receiving no early intervention for literacy learning.
In order to make literacy instruction more equitable there needs to be a prerequisite understanding among educators that all students can achieve and all students are deserving of effective literacy instruction. Professional development for teachers is necessary to help them recognize ineffective practices that permeate ‘make believe schools’. There needs to be a sense or urgency and a willingness to take action to improve instruction and keep expectations high for all students. Early intervention is critical to prevent the long term literacy failure. Teachers have a professional accountability to reduce the equity gaps in education and by delivering literacy for control. Teachers need to stop making learning contingent on home environments and begin to explicitly teach students the language of the classroom as they enter schools. Early intervention for struggling students is necessary to reduce the downward cycle of achievement and expectations.
Finn, P. J. (1999). Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, State University of New York Press
Stanovich, K.E., (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly 16: 32-71
Current educational practice varies across different socioeconomic groups and cultures in a way that preserves the gaps in equity between groups of students that perpetuate the power of a limited few.
In his book, Literacy with an Attitude, Finn describes the many factors and conditions that result in students from varying cultural backgrounds and different socioeconomic classes being taught differently. Finn uses the research of Jean Anyon to describe the disparities in the delivery of education along the socioeconomic continuum of working class to gentry. Working class students are taught using prescriptive lessons with minimal higher order thinking questions and minimal problem solving in an atmosphere of strict rules and compliance. This is labelled as learning literacy to be controlled. Conversely, J. Anyon observed that upper middle class students and the gentry were taught in a way that involved ample practice in decision making and higher order thinking skills in an atmosphere of greater flexibility for rules and regulations. This is labelled literacy for control. The discrepancies between educational practices disadvantage the poor and perpetuate the societal control of more affluent students. Therefore, effective literacy instruction that promotes critical thinking is not always available to all students and is more apt to occur in schools with affluent students. Poor literacy instruction, devoid of critical thinking and missing the discourse that leads to power is more likely to be presented to students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As a result of the discrepancies in literacy instruction, schools become institutions that are either delivering literacy for control or literacy to be controlled. Finn suggests that school with low expectations of student achievement, cycle further and further away from effective teaching, ultimately reaching a point where only good behaviour or a good attitude is necessary to succeed.
Finn describes the two outcomes of these two opposing instructional practices as either the make believe school model or the real school model. He compares his two models of schools to P. Freire’s theory that education either liberates or domesticates. The opposing outcomes described by both Freire and Finn result in inequities of opportunity for students and the maintenance of the status quo of a powerful few. The ineffective instruction provided to the poor serves as a form of oppression in terms of participation in a democracy.
In addition to the discrepancies in instructional practice between the rich and the poor, Finn uses the research of Heath to suggest that students who are not socialized to the task of school dialogue and behaviour are further disadvantaged in schools. Finn suggests that the primary socialization of working class students at home is most likely inconsistent with the explicit language necessary to participate in classrooms discussions. Schools fail to support and teach students whose home language discourse is inconsistent with the language of the classroom or the teacher.
I agree with Finn’s concept that educators are trading student cooperation with lower academic expectations. Although, I believe that this cycle of reduced expectations may be more prevalent in working class schools, it is not limited to working class students. Ineffective instruction that focuses on the transmission of knowledge producing uncooperative bored participants is present in many public schools. I thought that Finn’s argument of a reduced cycle of expectations was consistent with K. Stanovich’s biblical analysis to long term literacy failure; the Matthew Effect, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
My own reflections and observations of current educational practices have left me wondering if we are teaching children or just managing students. I believe that classroom management strategies and school rules often get in the way of effective instruction. I have often observed educators spending a great deal of time and energy ensuring that schools are orderly and students are well behaved. It frequently seems more important that students are following the rules than thinking. I have always thought of this teaching as ineffective, but have come to realize that the real travesty is the social injustice of limiting individual opportunities for learning.
If you want to measure whether a school is liberating or domesticating students, you only need to take a peek into the recycling bin in the photocopy room. If the bin is filled with meaningless, closed worksheets activities, then the teaching is likely one that promotes domestication or control of students. If the bin is filled with open –ended, rich questions that promote higher order thinking then it may be a school that liberates.
I have observed teachers as the ‘gate keepers’ of the opportunities of education. It seems easier to limit the learning experiences of children who have no parent advocacy. I have witnessed and participated in teacher-parent conferences that dismiss the concerns of parents who are purposely intimidated or confused by the educational jargon of the teacher. It is easier to give a poor evaluation to a student whose parent will not complain and prompt an investigation of instructional practice.
I have observed my own ‘make believe schools’ where cooperation is the currency for reduced learning expectations. Many a student watches an irrelevant ‘movie’ on Friday afternoons as a reward for good behaviour. Lots of struggling students sit alone in the hallway to think about the class rules. As teachers we are quick to use the deficit model to describe children who are difficult to teach or difficult to manage rather that reflecting on our own teaching. Despite all recent evidence to the contrary, we continue to use the transmission model of instruction. Are teachers oblivious to the injustice of teaching for low expectations and control?
Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986) may be the cause of a downward cycle of expectations. Students who struggle with literacy acquisition in the early grades begin to fall further and further behind as their time spent engaged in literacy learning is reduced and their skills get less practise. Conversely, higher achieving students begin to spend more and more time engaged in literacy activities and their skills improve. Struggling students begin a downward cycle of improvement and better students begin an upward cycle of improvement or, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Finn’s make believe schools may be the long term outcome of the struggling students receiving no early intervention for literacy learning.
In order to make literacy instruction more equitable there needs to be a prerequisite understanding among educators that all students can achieve and all students are deserving of effective literacy instruction. Professional development for teachers is necessary to help them recognize ineffective practices that permeate ‘make believe schools’. There needs to be a sense or urgency and a willingness to take action to improve instruction and keep expectations high for all students. Early intervention is critical to prevent the long term literacy failure. Teachers have a professional accountability to reduce the equity gaps in education and by delivering literacy for control. Teachers need to stop making learning contingent on home environments and begin to explicitly teach students the language of the classroom as they enter schools. Early intervention for struggling students is necessary to reduce the downward cycle of achievement and expectations.
Finn, P. J. (1999). Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, State University of New York Press
Stanovich, K.E., (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly 16: 32-71
Monday, May 25, 2009
Where I'm From - Christine Jenkins
I am Hey Diddle Diddle and ‘mares eat oats’
I am Jack and Jill and very neat printing
I am grade level anthologies and cartridge pen cursive script
I am Nancy Drew and perfectly parsed sentences and i before e except after c
I am encyclopedia that come free with each week’s groceries
I am the clandestine surveyor of National Geographic photographs
I am Bible Club, 40 days of rain and no room at the inn
I am Archie and Veronica and Betty
I am molecular models and cellular labels,
I am mathematical equations and chemical formulas
I am the periodic table and numbers
I can spell Drosophila melanoganster
I am newspapers, McLean’s and crosswords
I am picture books and Newberry Medals
I am book club and CBC and Canada Reads
Mostly, I am a story teller.
I am Jack and Jill and very neat printing
I am grade level anthologies and cartridge pen cursive script
I am Nancy Drew and perfectly parsed sentences and i before e except after c
I am encyclopedia that come free with each week’s groceries
I am the clandestine surveyor of National Geographic photographs
I am Bible Club, 40 days of rain and no room at the inn
I am Archie and Veronica and Betty
I am molecular models and cellular labels,
I am mathematical equations and chemical formulas
I am the periodic table and numbers
I can spell Drosophila melanoganster
I am newspapers, McLean’s and crosswords
I am picture books and Newberry Medals
I am book club and CBC and Canada Reads
Mostly, I am a story teller.
Friday, May 15, 2009
reflection of workshop 1 & 2
Response to Workshops 1 and 2
Allan Luke’s question about what literacies give our students political knowledge, cultural knowledge and power has created a real shift in my thinking as an educator. I used to believe that literacy was a meaning making activity and that meaningful literacy learning instruction rooted in authenticity would be sufficient. I am coming to realize that although meaningful instruction is necessary for learning, it is not sufficient for the real end goal of active participation in a democratic society. Our students need a set of literacies that will provide opportunities of power as members of a larger community.
In addition to effective literacy instruction giving power to individuals of a society, it should also give them a sense of identity as they use language to deal with uncertainties, engage in collaborative problem solving and explore social justice.
If good educational practice means all students, across all social strata, are taught how to think and write as citizens participating in a democratic society, then our current professional development for teachers needs to change. How do teachers come to adopt a theoretical stance about learning that serves the well being of all students, regardless of socio-economic status? It could be said that student needs are just a representation of teacher training needs. As teachers, our own professional collaboration should be built on the same language of uncertainty that needs to be prevalent in classrooms. We should learn to disagree, articulate our own thinking and have opportunities to build on the ideas of others before we take the necessary action to improve our own instructional practice. We keep teaching the same way we did 50 years ago because I’m not sure we have the information or the knowledge or the power to make the necessary shift in thinking. Maybe that shift in thinking needs to begin with becoming aware of the gross inequities across different schools and school districts. Are we aware that we have different theories of learning and teaching with different students? Are we aware that we keep defending the status quo or looking for quick fixes instead of moving towards continuous improvement and collaboration?
If we are going to set high expectations for all students and believe that all students should be educated like people rather that training for a predetermined station in life, then we need to adjust our professional development of teachers.
Allan Luke’s question about what literacies give our students political knowledge, cultural knowledge and power has created a real shift in my thinking as an educator. I used to believe that literacy was a meaning making activity and that meaningful literacy learning instruction rooted in authenticity would be sufficient. I am coming to realize that although meaningful instruction is necessary for learning, it is not sufficient for the real end goal of active participation in a democratic society. Our students need a set of literacies that will provide opportunities of power as members of a larger community.
In addition to effective literacy instruction giving power to individuals of a society, it should also give them a sense of identity as they use language to deal with uncertainties, engage in collaborative problem solving and explore social justice.
If good educational practice means all students, across all social strata, are taught how to think and write as citizens participating in a democratic society, then our current professional development for teachers needs to change. How do teachers come to adopt a theoretical stance about learning that serves the well being of all students, regardless of socio-economic status? It could be said that student needs are just a representation of teacher training needs. As teachers, our own professional collaboration should be built on the same language of uncertainty that needs to be prevalent in classrooms. We should learn to disagree, articulate our own thinking and have opportunities to build on the ideas of others before we take the necessary action to improve our own instructional practice. We keep teaching the same way we did 50 years ago because I’m not sure we have the information or the knowledge or the power to make the necessary shift in thinking. Maybe that shift in thinking needs to begin with becoming aware of the gross inequities across different schools and school districts. Are we aware that we have different theories of learning and teaching with different students? Are we aware that we keep defending the status quo or looking for quick fixes instead of moving towards continuous improvement and collaboration?
If we are going to set high expectations for all students and believe that all students should be educated like people rather that training for a predetermined station in life, then we need to adjust our professional development of teachers.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Reflections of Workshop #9
Response Workshop #9
Christine Jenkins
March 6, 2009
Education in the 21st century must make a fundamental shift in the academic experiences of students. We need to change our definitions of school and learner to fit with our technological world. The common practice of setting standards for learning and applying those standards in a traditional classroom, and then measuring student achievement with paper and pencil tests is not the course for student improvement. It does not make economic sense to perpetuate classrooms of the 1950’s when we live and communicate in a global community. Current classroom systems will not be effective in this global community so we need to think of a new community system where school exists as only one way to learn.
Publishers and educators who believe that there is a panacea cure for reducing long term literacy failure are heading off in the wrong direction. Literacy in the 21st century will not be simply about learning to read and learning from reading. Students will need to be able to use a variety of global connections to find and validate information. As they synthesis new information, they will also need to collaborate with others as they use the information to problem solve.
I was reminded of the brave Ontario high school student who used “facebook” to organize young teenage drivers across the province to collectively express their displeasure at proposed legislation for newly licensed drivers. The premier of the province recanted the proposed legislative changes as direct result of the electronic petition. The speedy and effective campaign was initiated by a single student who had learned how to think and how to take risks in a community system.
I am also reminded of the two high school students who used the internet to express their outrage after witnessing a peer being harassed and bullied for wearing a pink shirt to school. Their global connection was the beginning of the pink T –shirt campaign which allows everyone to take a stand against bullying.
The combination of global connections and a community system of learning is the way that literacy can bring about social change. As educators we can no longer think about literacy as learning the basics of reading and writing. We can no longer think of curriculum as a prescriptive approach to content learning. In schools of the 21st century, students need think, reason, make decisions and demonstrate values that are consistent with a democratic society. Teachers need to engage students in real-world problems and questions that matter. If educators use a student-centered collaborative approach, using schools as a way for students to come together for joint projects, then literacy may be a way to create social change and schools may meet the needs or marginalized or at risk students.
Christine Jenkins
March 6, 2009
Education in the 21st century must make a fundamental shift in the academic experiences of students. We need to change our definitions of school and learner to fit with our technological world. The common practice of setting standards for learning and applying those standards in a traditional classroom, and then measuring student achievement with paper and pencil tests is not the course for student improvement. It does not make economic sense to perpetuate classrooms of the 1950’s when we live and communicate in a global community. Current classroom systems will not be effective in this global community so we need to think of a new community system where school exists as only one way to learn.
Publishers and educators who believe that there is a panacea cure for reducing long term literacy failure are heading off in the wrong direction. Literacy in the 21st century will not be simply about learning to read and learning from reading. Students will need to be able to use a variety of global connections to find and validate information. As they synthesis new information, they will also need to collaborate with others as they use the information to problem solve.
I was reminded of the brave Ontario high school student who used “facebook” to organize young teenage drivers across the province to collectively express their displeasure at proposed legislation for newly licensed drivers. The premier of the province recanted the proposed legislative changes as direct result of the electronic petition. The speedy and effective campaign was initiated by a single student who had learned how to think and how to take risks in a community system.
I am also reminded of the two high school students who used the internet to express their outrage after witnessing a peer being harassed and bullied for wearing a pink shirt to school. Their global connection was the beginning of the pink T –shirt campaign which allows everyone to take a stand against bullying.
The combination of global connections and a community system of learning is the way that literacy can bring about social change. As educators we can no longer think about literacy as learning the basics of reading and writing. We can no longer think of curriculum as a prescriptive approach to content learning. In schools of the 21st century, students need think, reason, make decisions and demonstrate values that are consistent with a democratic society. Teachers need to engage students in real-world problems and questions that matter. If educators use a student-centered collaborative approach, using schools as a way for students to come together for joint projects, then literacy may be a way to create social change and schools may meet the needs or marginalized or at risk students.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
reflections of workshop 7 & 8
My theory of learning confirmed by the articles is that all literacy learning needs to be rooted in a foundation of authenticity and meaning. Literacy learning is an active process, a problem solving approach of getting messages from text and sending messages in dialogue or writing. Learning is an interactive process as learners bring their own experiences to text and come to new understandings. Learners build new understandings by making connections to prior knowledge within the context of their own culture. Learning is thinking and thinking is represented by language. My adjusted theory of learning now includes critical literacy or using literacy and language as the foundation of citizenship and an agent of social change.
Not only do learners construct their own knowledge by making connections between known and new but they form that knowledge from their own perspective under the influence of what they value or through the filter of their own culture. Learning is a problem-solving, interactive process of making knowledge fit with prior knowledge. Teachers must teach from the perspective of the learner and assume nothing. Teachers must be wary of prescriptive programming, and even more wary of claims made by research conducted in a laboratory. Teachers must also be aware of how their own preconceptions such as the role of phonics or how their own middle class perspectives influence their thinking.
Learning is an interactive process carried out in a meaningful context. Learning is not a sequence of parts that come together to produce whole thinking. Literacy rooted in social practice highlights the merits of reading as a message getting and writing as a message sending activity. Message sending and message getting activities can be very complex when the social component is considered. Deeper understandings become possible in the context of authentic, purposeful negotiations of meanings. Deeper understandings mean thinking about the text or beyond the text not just within the text.
Talking is a representation of our thinking. As we interact with talk and explain our thinking, we can bring ourselves to new understandings as we negotiate meaning in dialogue with others. It reminds me of Vygotskian theory-Cognitive growth is “more likely when one is required to explain, elaborate, or defend one’s position to others as well as to oneself: striving for an explanation often makes a learner integrate and elaborate knowledge in new ways.” Vygotsky 1978
My theory of how we teach is driven by how we learn. Children come to school socialized to the task learning that is consistent with the primary culture of their home and family. Some students may have been socialized into a home environment where the parents value explicit teaching of item knowledge like the students from Roadville who are taught how to talk. Others may arrive at school from a home culture that values modelling like the students from Trackton who learn how to talk as a function of their environment. Gee, 1990, described two processes, learning and acquisition. It is as if Roadville parents represent learning and Trackton parents represent aquistion. As presented in Health’s article, ‘What No Bedtime Story’, neither process in isolation demonstrates long term positive outcomes in the secondary culture of school. It is more likely that a balance of showing and telling might represent the best instructional model of effective instruction. However, the balance of instruction might be very different for each child based on their home culture. The teacher needs to consider the social context and culture of prior learning to support the unique balance needed for new learning.
In addition, the primary socialization of children may be consistent or in stark contrast to the culture of the classroom. Orienting the child to a new culture, while valuing and supporting the primary culture is of utmost importance. Teaching from the perspective of the child, means understanding and valuing the child’s cultural perspective. I believe that school is very easy for children whose primary socialization is consistent with the culture of the school or the teacher. This thinking gives merit to the idea of the new ‘black” school soon to be coming in Toronto.
The culture of the classroom becomes the filter and the foundation for learning in school. Learning is fundamentally social so the classroom culture must support participation in cooperative learning activities and a safe environment to express ideas or questions. The language or the discourse of the classroom is representative of the thinking and therefore the culture. Teachers help students to develop the language that encourages critical thinking and reflects a democratic culture. Discourse that values the perspectives of others, words that encourage imagination, and phrases that suggest an equal distribution of power would be evident in a classroom culture that values citizenship and character education.
If the essential outcome of literacy is citizenship and social change then the culture of the discourse needs to be democratic. It could be said that citizenship, like learning, is a active, problem solving process serving as a catalyst towards social change. The discourse of the classroom becomes the language of the citizen. I believe that the character education focus in Ontario’s school might be much more successfully implemented if it was connected more clearly with Osbourne’s description of critical pedagogy.
My own teaching has been influenced
· The importance of process over content and product
· Creating dialogue with equal balance of power
· Supporting risk-free active participation
· Using dialogue to get to robust thinking
· Selecting resources representative of a pluralistic society
I was reminded of a quote from O’Reilley’s, The Peaceable Classroom, 1993, ‘I had gone off to be a teacher, asking myself from time to time if it might be possible to teach English in such a way that people would stop killing each other.’ The quote has a new meaning for me.
Not only do learners construct their own knowledge by making connections between known and new but they form that knowledge from their own perspective under the influence of what they value or through the filter of their own culture. Learning is a problem-solving, interactive process of making knowledge fit with prior knowledge. Teachers must teach from the perspective of the learner and assume nothing. Teachers must be wary of prescriptive programming, and even more wary of claims made by research conducted in a laboratory. Teachers must also be aware of how their own preconceptions such as the role of phonics or how their own middle class perspectives influence their thinking.
Learning is an interactive process carried out in a meaningful context. Learning is not a sequence of parts that come together to produce whole thinking. Literacy rooted in social practice highlights the merits of reading as a message getting and writing as a message sending activity. Message sending and message getting activities can be very complex when the social component is considered. Deeper understandings become possible in the context of authentic, purposeful negotiations of meanings. Deeper understandings mean thinking about the text or beyond the text not just within the text.
Talking is a representation of our thinking. As we interact with talk and explain our thinking, we can bring ourselves to new understandings as we negotiate meaning in dialogue with others. It reminds me of Vygotskian theory-Cognitive growth is “more likely when one is required to explain, elaborate, or defend one’s position to others as well as to oneself: striving for an explanation often makes a learner integrate and elaborate knowledge in new ways.” Vygotsky 1978
My theory of how we teach is driven by how we learn. Children come to school socialized to the task learning that is consistent with the primary culture of their home and family. Some students may have been socialized into a home environment where the parents value explicit teaching of item knowledge like the students from Roadville who are taught how to talk. Others may arrive at school from a home culture that values modelling like the students from Trackton who learn how to talk as a function of their environment. Gee, 1990, described two processes, learning and acquisition. It is as if Roadville parents represent learning and Trackton parents represent aquistion. As presented in Health’s article, ‘What No Bedtime Story’, neither process in isolation demonstrates long term positive outcomes in the secondary culture of school. It is more likely that a balance of showing and telling might represent the best instructional model of effective instruction. However, the balance of instruction might be very different for each child based on their home culture. The teacher needs to consider the social context and culture of prior learning to support the unique balance needed for new learning.
In addition, the primary socialization of children may be consistent or in stark contrast to the culture of the classroom. Orienting the child to a new culture, while valuing and supporting the primary culture is of utmost importance. Teaching from the perspective of the child, means understanding and valuing the child’s cultural perspective. I believe that school is very easy for children whose primary socialization is consistent with the culture of the school or the teacher. This thinking gives merit to the idea of the new ‘black” school soon to be coming in Toronto.
The culture of the classroom becomes the filter and the foundation for learning in school. Learning is fundamentally social so the classroom culture must support participation in cooperative learning activities and a safe environment to express ideas or questions. The language or the discourse of the classroom is representative of the thinking and therefore the culture. Teachers help students to develop the language that encourages critical thinking and reflects a democratic culture. Discourse that values the perspectives of others, words that encourage imagination, and phrases that suggest an equal distribution of power would be evident in a classroom culture that values citizenship and character education.
If the essential outcome of literacy is citizenship and social change then the culture of the discourse needs to be democratic. It could be said that citizenship, like learning, is a active, problem solving process serving as a catalyst towards social change. The discourse of the classroom becomes the language of the citizen. I believe that the character education focus in Ontario’s school might be much more successfully implemented if it was connected more clearly with Osbourne’s description of critical pedagogy.
My own teaching has been influenced
· The importance of process over content and product
· Creating dialogue with equal balance of power
· Supporting risk-free active participation
· Using dialogue to get to robust thinking
· Selecting resources representative of a pluralistic society
I was reminded of a quote from O’Reilley’s, The Peaceable Classroom, 1993, ‘I had gone off to be a teacher, asking myself from time to time if it might be possible to teach English in such a way that people would stop killing each other.’ The quote has a new meaning for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)