A Reflection

Hello Bloggers! I began this blog for a summer course on diversity and literacy. Blogging was a brand new to me, so it has been a learning experience. Now that my course is quickly ending I would like to wrap up this blog by discussing the main purpose and concepts of it. In essence, this post serves a reflection on my experience blogging as a whole. My blog served two purposes. The first purpose was to give me multiple opportunities to learn and reflect on the readings for my course by writing about them. As I mentioned in several of my posts, people learn through writing. As Reif states, “Writing is one way of representing and communicating our thinking to others, using our experiences, our knowledge, our opinions, and our feelings to inform and negotiate our understandings and misunderstandings of ourselves and the world in which we live” (191). In other words, writing is one way of learning to communicate and deeply think about the information we receive.  One way to provide students’ time to reflect and to check their understanding is having them do an exit slip. An exit slip is an inquiry/reflection question that students have to answer before leaving class. I have seen exit slips used successfully in several classes. Here is a link that has a template and sample questions for exit slips; http://cityteacher.wordpress.com/2007/05/06/student-reflection-ticket-out-the-door/. You will find that it is a great writing reflection activity. Writing this blog has not only given me time to reflect using digital literacy, but allowed me to organize and build upon my knowledge of diversity and literacy. The second purpose of this blog was to share and communicate with an audience real issues that affect everyone. After all, education affects the lives of every U.S. citizen. I hope you were able to gain knowledge and interest in diversity and literacy from this blog.

In May I began my first post with the question of what Americans need to know and introducing the debate of how literacy should be taught. Then, in June I explored the challenges and problems in literacy education including racism, segregation, neoliberalism, ineffective assessment, and sameness as fairness along with some possible solutions to the problems. Lastly, this month I investigated critical literacy learning, which I believe brought the topics discussed in the previous month together. In the later posts of my blog the over arching ideas became clearer because as the course progressed I gained more experience and insights found in the themes of the course. Also, as I became more acclimated to blogging and as a result I gained confidence in my blog writing. Overall, I believe the theme of this blog is exploring issues in literacy education and discovering new pedagogies and theories to improve literacy education for diverse learners. Common sub themes that ran through my blog include neoliberalism, diversity, multiculturalism, social injustice, oppression, inquiry, and critical literacy. There were many recurring ideas in this blog which were a result of the major theme and sub themes that unified my posts as I mention above. I think a major idea was neoliberalism or No Child Left Behind Policy being the source of problems in literacy and education in general. Although it was not the focus of all the posts, I brought it up in most of them because the idea was imbedded in most of my readings. Overall, the neoliberalism and NCLB was discussed by most professionals as the problem in education and something teachers have to resist or work their pedagogies around. Another running idea in this blog was teachers learning about students, so that they can incorporate students’ cultures, litearcies, and experiences in lessons.  For instance, Carini, Delpit, and Gatto are just a few authors I discuss in my blog that argue students should be involved in their own assessment. Jackson and Cooper, Purcell-Gates, Delpit, Gurtierrez, Wiliams, and Gee are just some of the authors I explored in my posts that provided pedagogies and example activities that support using students’ interests and experiences to engage them in lessons that have meaning to them. Specifically, I explained in this blog several times that using students experiences helps students build or scaffold new knowledge. Also, it is brought up in my multiple literacy post and critical literacy posts that involving students’ communities helps them connect to the topics they learn in school. Overall, I think the basic ideas of involving students’ worlds into lessons benefits students in multiple ways as oppose to the current high stakes education which does not acknowledge students as individuals with experiences.

I have made a significant turn since my first blog based on Hirsh’s theory. As I gained more knowledge about multiculturalism, bilingualism, and neoliberalism I changed my perspective that students should all know the same list of terms or the “same” education.  At first, I agreed with Hirsch that the aim for literacy education should be a “universal literacy”. During that first week it seemed like a good theory to have students learn and practice the same literacy, so that the nation communicated effectively. But as the course progressed I realized that students’ diversity and multiple literacies need to be incorporated in schools because the “sameness as fairness approach excludes groups of students. This is shown in my posts on neoliberalism and “sameness as fairness”. Moreover, in these posts I am clearly against high stakes education and students having no connection to what they are learning, which is the exact opposite of Hirsch’s pedagogy. It is evident my perspective changes in my later posts because I support Gutierrez and Gatto in that students should be taught and assessed as individuals and not as cookie cutter objects. Hirsch is against what he calls cafeteria-style education and schools that provide “the offerings include not only academic courses of great diversity, but also courses in sports and hobbies and a ‘service curriculum’ addressing emotional or social problems” (20). In other words, Hirsch does not support schools that match students’ diverse needs through a variety of courses because he has a more traditional theory that students should be taught the same curriculum. All in all, my view on Hirsch’s theory turned as I learned more about diversity and involving students in their own education.

The authors that had the most influence on me and my blog are Delpit, Apple, Guttierez, Freire, and Gatto. Their pedagogies, ideas, and theories were constantly integrated in my blog because they had the biggest impact on literacy education.  Delpit had a major influence in my blog because she is in the frontline of advocating for oppressed students and fair education/social justice. She connected how the use of different literacies impacts the amount of power or lack of power students and teachers have. I used Apple and Guttierez theories in several posts when I wanted to explain the negative effects of high stakes education and using the same curriculum for diverse learners. In other words, their works were the base of explaining the current problems in literacy education. The pedagogies of Freire and Gatto connected to so many of the previous posts. Also, I was able use their works to bring the themes of my blog together in the critical literacy posts. Freire’s argument that problem-posing education should be used helped me understand the importance of students using higher order thinking and connecting to their environments. Gatto’s butterfly unit is proof that Freire’s work can be put in to practice. Delpit, Apple, Guttierez, Friere, and Gatto were most influential because their theories pulled the themes of my blog together and they sparked my interest.

There are some unanswered questions I have still on the topics I have covered in my blog that you might also be pondering. Here I will address them and hope to read later comments from you with possible answers.  I mention several times in my blog the negative effects of neoliberalism and NCLB.  An unanswered question I still have on these topics is: What should the national education policy be if NCLB is dismissed? Another unanswered question is: How can all of the themes and theories I discussed in this blog be used to create an effective education policy that acknowledges diversity? Carini and other authors in my post on assessment suggest unique or out of the box ways of assessing students.  I am still left wondering how I would get support from administration and parents if I were to use the forms of assessment suggested by Carini. Gatto suggests great activities and ways for students to learn. However, she admits she does not get support from her peers. How would I facilitate a unit like her butterfly unit without the funds and support from peers and school administration?

There were some unexplored connections hidden in my blog that I would like to address now. There is a connection between Hirsch’s theory of a universal literacy and neoliberal policies discussed by Apple that was missed in my blog up until this post.  Hirsch can be seen as a neoliberal because he argues that students should be treated as the same and prepared to contribute to our modern society and economy. As I stated earlier, by connecting Hirsch’s theory with neoliberalism I realized that I did not agree with his theory. Also, the connection between identity and technology was not highlighted in my blog. Although I briefly mention the two in the identity and literacy post I think I could have dug deeper. Specifically, teenagers use technology such as Facebook to explore their identities. Another unexplored connection in my blog is between the multiple literacy posts and Engaging students in critical literacy post.  Both Gatto and Haneda both stress the importance of engaging students in a wide range of literacy practices. In addition, both authors provide examples of students using other methods of communication to support what they are saying in words. For instance Haneda states, “Nan was able to draw on her existing artistic and performance skills to compensate for her limited English, whereas at school she was not able to access them fully” (138). Similarly, Gatto does not limit students to textbooks, but allows them to construct and use their butterfly museum to convey information about butterflies to their audience. Gee’s language based perspective on assessment links well with Hilliard’s theory on assessment. Both authors argue that current assessments are not fair because one type of language is used on the test that not every students has had experience with.  Hilliard states, “the results of standardized testing favor children who speak common American English simply because these children are able to respond to questions that are couched in a familiar language based upon familiar experiences” (98). In connection Gee states, “an evaluative assessment is invalid and unjust if the people being assessed have not had, in terms of the sorts of principles I have developed here, equivalent opportunities to learn” (44). In essence, some groups of students have an advantage to high stakes tests because they have more experience with the literacy used to make the tests.

This is the final post of Jessica’s Blog, but this is not my final blog. Now that I know more about Blogger I will be more creative choosing a title for my next blog. Starting in September I will be taking two more courses on literacy. Pending on the amount of time I have I would like to start a blog based on what I learn from those courses. Specifically, one course is about multiculturalism and literacy, which I believe will connect nicely with what I have discussed in this current blog. It would be neat to also link themes from this blog to my new one. My reasoning for starting a fresh blog is that I want to work on formulating a blog that has a clearer theme then this starting with a more poignant title. Moreover, I would like to work on the voice and tone of my blog so that it is a little bit more conversational like this post. It has been a pleasure writing this blog and I hope you find my next blog informative and engaging.

Problem Solving: The Aim Of Critical Thinking

Hello Bloggers! I have discussed the practices of critical literacy and how to engage students in critical literacy in the past two posts. The purpose of today’s post is to explore more deeply the purpose or aim of teachers and students collaborating using critical literacy learning. Critical literacy is a response to injustice and the production of illiteracy in which students and teachers work together to communicate and learn about topics relating to the world to solve injustice. The diversity of teachers and students’ experiences allows them to learn from each other by scaffolding or building upon their knowledge by connecting old and new knowledge.  Unlike high stakes education that I have discussed in previous posts, critical literacy learning has meaning to students because they make personal connections, engage in topics, and perform higher order thinking other than memorization. As a result, students become problem solvers that have the knowledge and skills to fight injustice.

Part of educating students to become critical thinkers or problem solvers involves teaching them to make connections with their experiences to understand and gain new knowledge.  This concept is based on the well known Vygotsky. He believed students learn by scaffolding from their experiences and interacting with their surrounding environment. Also, teachers should start at students’ zone of proximal development. Below is a diagram to help you visualize his theory.

In connection, Freire proposes, “Problem-Posing education affirms men and women as beings in the process of becoming –as unfinished, uncompleted beings in and with a likewise unfinished reality” (65). In other words, people are constantly evolving and learning through their interactions with their environment. They need to be treated not as empty containers, but as people have knowledge that can be built upon. Furthermore, the title Freire creates for his suggested education shows that teachers and students aim should be to problem solve. Moses’ Algebra Project is an example of how Vygotsky and Feire’s pedagogies are being used to by teachers and students collaborating to find a solution to social injustice. Moses explains, “The Algebra Project is not about simply transferring a body of knowledge to children. It is about using that knowledge as a tool to a much larger end (15). The teachers and students set a goal which is like the zone of proximal development.  Also, the teacher is not making students memorize math facts; they are using math literacy as a tool in their environment to fight injustice. Moses states, “It is the floor, not the ceiling, We’re not trying to put constraints or limits on what any group of children might learn” (15). In other words, the teachers have students start from the base and then they are encouraged to build on their knowledge. Jackson and Cooper, who I mentioned in  a previous post, also support Vygotsky and Freire’s works when they claim, Teachers show belief in students “by bridging required content to students’ personal frame of reference” (246).  The bridging of content and students frame of reference is the same as Vygotsky’s concept of students scaffolding from their Zone of Proximal Development.

Collaboration and communication is vital to helping students and teachers problem solve. As I discussed in my last post, teaching talking is a major aspect of critical literacy learning. However, it can be a challenge for teachers to teach conversation. Hilliard states, “We have a major communication problem, especially since few professionals understand language issues either” (102). So, a problem that has to be solved is miscommunication. Similarly, Kohl states,  “It has everything to do with the way in which language is heard and interpreted, with tone, presentation, attitude, implication, and an understanding of how to convey complex meaning in a way that is understood by the spoken-to” (Kohl 151).  I believe miscommunication can be solved by teachers and students practicing conversation. As I mentioned previously, we have to reflect on the way we and our students are talking. Teachers can help students become better talkers and problem solvers by, “Pushing the discussion further with your questions doesn’t ignore or diminish the significance of the students questions if you’re cautious –it simply indicates that you, too, wonder, question, doubt, speculate. In other words, you, too, are a reader who sees the possibility for inquiry in anything you read and seeks others with whom to discuss it” (Probst 54). In other words, teachers have to model the type of question one asks when analyzing and solving problems. Probst digs deeper in the skills required for collaborative problem solving stating conversation “…includes such matters as listening more carefully; calling for, providing, and questioning evidence; accepting and examining other points of view; and dealing tactfully with one another” (59). Delpit, discussed in a previous post, also supports the use of collaborative conversation stating, “I believe students must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American life, not only by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors; that they must be allowed the resource of the teacher’s expert knowledge, while being helped to acknowledge their own ‘expertness’ as well…” (45). Like Moses and other authors, Delpit suggests that minority students can fight injustice through meaningful conversation. It requires collaboration between teachers and students using their knowledge. Collaboration is also discussed by Jackson and Cooper who state “relationships that are built on genuine dialogue in which students and teachers communicate what’s meaningful and relevant to them both” (246). All in all, teachers and students need to collaborate together through conversation if they are to solve problems in education and other social spheres. It is the teachers job to design an environment that students feel they can talk in.  

I have mentioned inquiry as an element in critical literacy learning before, but I am discussing it again because it sparks problem solving conversation. Wilhelm and Smith argue, “Teachers can meets these situational condition of engagement or flow by constructing inquiry units that both address students’ needs for personal relevance and promote disciplinary understandings that clearly count and have functional value in the world” (233). That is, students engage in a deep flow of learning when inquiry is used in relation to students’ worlds. Moreover, they explain, “Inquiry is not simply thematic study, but the exploration of a question or issue that drives debate in the disciplines and the world” (233). Once again, students and teachers engage inquiry to explore problems found in the real world. Gutierrez describes “A visitor to the school would hear children speaking bilingually in English and Spanish, working collaboratively across subject matter areas” (120). In this case, students are encouraged to connect all of their language and content knowledge to problem solve across disciplines.  In connection, I discovered this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eyucHMifto  which is on five year olds that create unit themes, problem solve, critically think, and make meaning from authentic activities. When you watch the video you will see these small children fully engaged in learning and solving real world problems, such a dealing with death. Although the students are having great fun doing inquiry activities the teacher points out that they are not nonsense games. The video also points out that questions from peers help these students develop their story telling or talking skills. In many ways the five year olds in this video are learning the same ways that the older students do in Gatto’s butterfly unit, which I discussed last week. Lastly, I want to show my support for this pedagogy by sharing my own experience of collaborative inquiry activities. Like many of my classmates I found trigonometry and geometry difficult to grasp because they are abstract concepts that held no meaning to me. However, when my teacher and my class developed a unit using the math concepts to build bird houses I began to learn and enjoy math. We asked each other questions and worked together problem solving to construct a useful object. Learning had meaning then.

I believe writing functions as a form of communication and help both teachers and students make inquiries and formulate connections. Reif supports this stating,  “Writing is one way of representing and communicating our thinking to others, using experiences, our knowledge, our opinions, and our feelings to inform and negotiate our understandings and misunderstandings of ourselves and the world in which we live” (191). To put it differently, writing is used to “talk” to authors about our feelings, experiences, knowledge and problem solve. This idea relates to Freire’s theory that people and the world are not static. Teachers and students develop or evolve together through conversation. A strategy from my readings that inertest me is the use of Post-it notes to mark thoughts and questions on readings. Gatto and other experts have explained how this form of writing prepares students for meaningful conversation. In fact, I too use Post-It Notes to help me understand academic reading. I would introduce this to a class by modeling my thought process out loud, so students learn the type of questions and comments that are useful to mark on readings using Post-It Notes.

 It is clear that modeling is a part of my pedagogy. Therefore, I think teachers should model how to collaborate, communicate, and problem solve. Egawa states, “When coaching is part of a coordinated and interdisciplinary literacy program, all of these educators can work together to create the real changes needed to support all struggling students” (296). Teachers practice what they preach when they practice the same skills they ask their students to perform. The work from Egawa demonstrates how literacy coaches and teachers can work together to solve the problem struggling students getting the education they deserve to succeed. Specifically, Egawa explains “Teaching includes about one’s practice, and coaches can support that thinking by bringing learning and literacy expertise to enhance your subject matter knowledge” (298). Just like we ask students to connect their knowledge of multiple literacies and disciplines, we also must practice sharing and connecting our content knowledge with our coworkers to make a change in the present failing education system. I will be student teaching next spring and I know I would love to have the support from teachers and my peers to problem solve issues that come up when I students teach. The following video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4ZnMLflGq4  demonstrates how student teachers communicate and inquire with the use of technology. If teachers are educated in college the importance of talk and problem solving then they will be better prepared to teach their students how to perform these skills.

In this post I have described the importance of collaboration and problem solving among teachers and students through conversation, writing, and authentic activities. Thus, it only makes sense that we evaluate our students based on these skills. Gatto states, “I fill out report cards with each child and we decide together what the grades and comments should be. This way, report cards are meaningful documents to the children, and when parents receive them, their children can explain and discuss the grades and comments” (86). Again, communication and meaningful learning is integrated in how students are graded on their performance. Allington also argues, “If we are interested in a broader view of  “intellectual life’ (Vygotsky 1978) that is exhibited on standardized achievement tests, then we will also have to consider the use of other tools to better assess a variety of potential outcomes” (284). He also supports the idea that high stakes test based on memorization skills are not valid and that teachers must think of ways to evaluate students on higher level thinking skills such as problem solving and critical thinking. It is also evident that Vygotsky’s theory plays a major role in changing/improving education and is the base of many author’s theories that I have talked about in my blog.

I hope by reading this point you gain new insight in the importance of collaboration between teachers and students and that higher learning involves communication, inquiry, and problem solving. Through critical literacy learning teachers and students gain meaning from experiencing the world together and education is no longer about filling students up with facts. Ultimately, the new aim for education is creating problem solvers that can change the world and stop the injustice created by neoliberal policies, high stakes test, miscommunication, and sameness as fairness. As always, please come back soon for a new post on literacy!

Engaing Students in Critical Litercay Learning

Good morning Bloggers! Last we I discussed critical literacy learning as the literacy topic of the week. Critical literacy learning involves the collaborative efforts of teachers and students learning together through conversation and multiple literacies. I would like to continue to discuss critical literacy learning more deeply this week with a focus on how to engage students in critical literacy learning. Lynn Gatto’s work is mainly used in the post because she masterfully cultivates critical literacy in her class. She engages students by ignoring commercial literacy programs and creating her own units that are rich collaborative work, meaningful activities, and multiple litearcies You will find that many of the themes I have discussed in previous weeks are integrated in critical literacy practices. 

Gatto does not use the commercial literacy programs and commercial products created for a scientific approach that satisfies high stakes education. She states, “Textbook publishers’ expensive sales brochures claim their programs will help students become successful, motivated, confident readers and writers”, but she does not believe them (74). Moreover, she goes on to explain that NCLB has impacted every classroom and that “Most districts are adopting curriculum and textbook programs designed to prepare students for these tests” (74). You may remember the post on neoliberalism in which I discuss how Apple and Lipman argue the negative effects neoliberalism and high stakes testing has on both teachers and students. The agenda is to make a profit and mainstream students. When Gatto’s district began conforming to the Reading First Grant she refused to buy into it.  Freire’s work on the pedagogy of the oppressed supports Gatto’s decision to go against the commercial literacy program. As an example, Freire claims, “The capability of banking education to minimize the students’ creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed” (54). In all, the authors I have mentioned claim that policies and commercial or Banking Education do not stimulate students critical thinking because their agenda is based on mainstreaming and profit to suite them.

Instead she designs her own literacy units that stem from silent sustained reading.  Gatto explains, “My approach is to provide experiences and problems that engage students in expanding their existing literacy practices in order to construct and use new ones” (75). Overall, her she engages students by introducing experiences and problems that students can scaffold off of their present knowledge. To accomplish this she considers “the individual students, planning carefully, selecting appropriate materials and activities, and adjusting activities” (77). It is clear from this that she is not the giver of knowledge and does not support what Freire describes as Banking Education, which is when teachers treat students as objects to fill knowledge with (52). Her role is “…constructing an atmosphere where the children see themselves as valuable to the process of learning within the classroom” (75).

She creates a community for learners to have engaging discussions and activities. As I mentioned last week, students need to be treated as members of the academic community. Gatto explains, “Within a community of learner’s framework I make sure the children in my class have multiple opportunities for literacy events and practices within social contexts” (75). In other words, her students are constantly practicing literacy with their peers. This refers back to Allington and Rief from last week who stress students need to be immersed in continuous literacy practice. It is taken a step further by Gatto who designs her classroom off of her unit themes. As supported when she states “I begin every unit by crating an environment for immersion into the topic” (78). Furthermore, she illustrates this idea when she describes how she filled the classroom with books, periodicals, posters, and models relating to the unit theme on butterflies.  

Another practice she uses to engage students in critical literacy is using multiple literacies that are authentic to students. Gattos students can build connections and gain real meaning from the literacies that they practice in class.  For example, in their butterfly unit they read James and the Giant Peach. They were able to connect science with English in a cross discipline study on insects.  Another example is the two times in the butterfly unit in which students connect the litearcaies of America and Mexico. The students were not simply translating their writing from Englsih to Spanish, but expanding their community and literacy practices. A bilingual class was called upon to enter in their community to help them with their task of translating and revising a letter. Also, they cared about performing the activity because there was a meaningful goal.  As the unit progressed they began to care about the butterflies, so they wanted to write a letter to the Mexican government in regards to preserving them. Gatto was luck to have a school with bilingual classes. After exploring bilingualism in a previous post and reading this aspect of Gatto’s teaching I wanted to find a way that I could incorporate bilingual activities for my students. After some research and thought I found penpals via Skype© a great way to include not only bilingual cultures and literacies, but technology literacy as well. Here is a video clip of fifth graders communicating with German students via Skpe, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG4Vt8lQ8dU.

Most importantly Gatto engaged her students because her unit was authentic. Gatto’s persistence for her students to have an authentic education reminds me so much of another famous teacher, Ms. Frizzle from the popular Magic School Bus series. I have provided a link to show my connection between the two teachers, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPp0tCLIEFM . After watching the clips you will notice that both teachers first engage students by immersing them in the unit topic through the classroom environment. Then they have students physically and mentally interact with the topic through questioning, problem solving and field trips. Another supporter of authentic education is Freire who explains, “The teacher’s thinking is authenticated only by the authenticity of the students’ thinking. The teacher cannot think for her students, nor can she impose her thought on them. Authentic thinking, thinking that is concerned about reality, does not take place in ivory tower isolation, but only in communication” (58). One again, it is stressed that learning must be student centered with students doing the thinking. It involves students interacting with reality or the real world through conversation.  All of the activities created by Gatto were based off of questions students had at the start of the unit. As Gatto states, “Authentic questioning generates in-depth and sustained student conversation or dialogical instruction” (75). Real thought provoking questions lead her students to have deep conversations. Similarly, last week I talked about the importance of inquiry in the classroom studied by Wilhelm and Smith.  Dialogical instruction or inquiry happens when students participate in deep meaningful conversation that leads them on the pursuit for knowledge and answers.

These conversations lead to enriching activities that had meaning to students. It is said by Gatto “Authentic literacy includes activities that allow children to communicate about real things of interest to them and to a real audience”(76).  So, authentic activities involve students performing real world tasks for an audience. I think an audience engages students because they have a reason to do the activity. This supported by Rief who claims an audience is needed when writing. Examples of authentic activities in Gatto’s butterfly unit include trips to museums, writing to local newspaper, and designing and running a butterfly museum vivarium for the public. I was amazed at the responsibility the students took in researching, communicating with public (governments, newspapers, peers, teachers, community members), and organizing a museum. In all, the butterfly unit supports Gatto’s comment, “My classroom was a community of learners in which students and teacher work together in goal-directed activity” (85).  Freire supports the idea of teacher and student working together to learn when he states, “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students” (53). To put it differently, education can be improved when both teacher and students agree to learn together.

The following line from Gatto helped me consider how I would use her pedagogy to promote critical literacy in my future classroom, “I use their experiences, interests, history, culture, language, and literacy practices to develop the literacy program in my classroom. The children know they are valued as learners within our classroom. Their ideas and opinions count…In my classroom, literacy is the bridge between the exciting and meaningful hands-on unit of study and the minds-on construction of knowledge that is central to providing challenging curriculum” (88). Like Gatto, I will take my students’ interests, backgrounds, literacies, and experiences into consideration when developing authentic units. I have mentioned several times that teachers must have a positive relationship with students to create lessons that will benefit them and match their learning styles. Furthermore, I will show that I value them as contributing members of the academic community by taking their ideas and opinions into account. Inquiry or dialogical learning will be vital if I am to achieve this. Students must be heard and I wish to learn from them during inquiry conversations. I found that the students involved in the butterfly unit took on a lot of responsibility and challenged themselves. They were in charge of their learning and as a result they gained meaning and performed higher functioning thinking because of it. As a result of the success of Gatto’s butterfly unit, I would like to mimic these qualities in my own units. Already, I have begun to brainstorm ideas for authentic units and I came up with an idea for a newspaper unit. Inquiry would be necessary for students to brainstorm ideas for running the newspaper and writing articles. Authentic activities would also be key like in the butterfly unit because students would have to take filed trips and communicate with community members to perform research for articles. Of course, multiple literacies would be incorporated as well because students would have to read and talk about the production of newspapers and topics they wish to write about. I found this article, http://barnegat.patch.com/articles/barnegat-high-schools-newspaper-a-class-act, about a class that runs their own newspaper that I can use for the future.

I hope you have gained something from this post my blogger folowers! Check back for more discussion on literacy.

Critical Literacy Learning

Hello Bloggers! This week I will continue to discuss diversity in literacy with a focus on critical literacy learning or learning through literacy. Students use multiple literacies in school to learn. Specifically, math reading, and writing are ways that students think and learn. There are a variety of ways literacies can be taught and multiple views on how students critically learn using literacies. Continuous practice of literacy, multiple texts, critical class discussion, engagement, and connection are some common topics related to critical literacy learning. Professionals present many possibilities for students using literacy to learn and there are drawbacks to their theories.

 It is suggested by many professionals in the field that students need to be immersed in the literacy they are being taught. Learning to speak French comes to mind in this case because I was able to appreciate and deeply learn the language when I was in a community that used it regularly. Supporting this is Allington who states, “struggling readers need high quality instruction all day long, in every class, as well as a well-crafted daily intervention class” (275). In other words, students need constant practice and reinforcement in critical literacy skills. Rief also concludes students need time to practice literacy when she suggests, “We need to give students ample opportunities to write on a continuous basis, with choices of topics and genres that engage their interest and/or to which they can connect” (192). Like Allington, Rief stresses the importance of routine practice of literacy skills. The drawback is that some groups of students are not provided the time experiences they need to learn literacy and there is not enough time in the school day to provide students adequate time using literacy.  For instance, Moses argues, “…the most urgent social issue affecting poor people and people of color is economic access. In today’s world, economic access and full citizenship depend crucially on math and science literacy” (5).  That is, groups of students are denied access to math and science literacies, which in turn is denying students economic success. From the information presented by the three authors it is clear that the first crucial step for students to enage in critical litearcy learning is for them to have routine access to it.

Another common suggestion is that students need a diversity of texts. Allington explains in his study “… far more students were routinely engaged in academic work in these classrooms that was the case in more typical classroom, largely because having a variety of texts available meant that virtually all students could find texts that they were able to read accurately, fluently, and with comprehension” (278) Teachers provided managed choice to students by allowing them to choose literature from a selection of books they picked. As a result, students are able to use critical thinking skills because they are choosing texts that math their learning level.  I have observed several teachers that provide students choices in the novels and projects they do. There students appreciated having claim over their work and were willing to work hard because they picked topics they were intersted in. Likewise, Wilhelm and Smith explain to “maximize textual power and diversify literate skills, we need to put different kinds of texts with different readerly demands and rewards together in conversation with each other” (238). To expand knowledge and literate skills a variety of texts needs to provided in the classroom. Furthermore, Wilhelm and Smith believe, “Alternative texts already count in the world and in students’ lives” (238). Alternative texts or popular texts are important in students’ lives. When they are matched to traditional texts students are able to make connections, which is a part of critical literacy learning. Companies such as Sparknotes have already began to market on this with their comic books based on classics such a Romeo and Juliet. Here is a link to multiple Romeo and Juliet comic books for my curious followers http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/romeo-and-juliet?store=ALLPRODUCTS&dref=1,52&startat=1&size=.   If you read the discriptions of a few of them you will find the general theme remains the same while alterations, such as the setting be in the future, have been made. I think the ideas is to get students to think critically about concepts/themes before jumping in to a high level litearcy like Shakespeare. In a previous blog I discuss how Gee argues the imporatnce of a variety of popular texts that match girls and boys interests. One could argue the negative to diversity of texts in school is that students are not prepared for the standardized curriculum created by the government. Also, supporters of ‘sameness as fairness would say a diversity of literacy results in an unfair education.  On the other hand, I mentioned in a previous post that sameness as fairness is not actually fair as discussed by Gutierrez. Further counter arguing the stance that diversity of texts is not a good method are Wilhelm and Smith stating, “Given the headlong push for coverage, exacerbated by information-driven standardized tests, students are often unable to develop competence and control, or display it any visible way, before being asked to once again confront their ignorance head-on as the next disconnected topic is introduced” (239). Once again, I stress with the support of the authors that students need a variety of text, so they are confident and can incease their litearcy skills.

Discussion or communicating is another technique to help students in critical literacy learning. Inquiry is the base of Wilhelm and Smith’s study and they suggest “Inquiry is not simply thematic study, but the exploration of a question or issue that drives debate in the disciplines and the world” (233). The critical thinking of inquiry involves academic debate or conversation among students.  Critical thinking happens when students use their literacy skills to explore a an issue that involves deep thinking. Along the same lines Allington  “…found discussion-based classrooms more effective at enhancing reading and writing achievement after controlling for prior achievement and other background variables” (278). Literacy skills are improved when students learn from each other through discussion.  Allington mentions the drawback to discussion is when students’ levels and other variables are not considered by the teacher prior to the discussion based lesson. Class discussion fails when not carefully planned and facilitated by teachers. As an example of the planning that is involved in discussion based lessons, here is a link to a lesson I created for a unit on The Great Gatsby, http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/60286767?access_key=key-yc1jh5yf0m7j7vnlenn. As you can see it is student centered, but organized so students stay focus on the goal of critically thinking and inquiring about texts. Writing also translates as a form of discussing or communicating with others. Rief explains, “We want our efforts to mean something; we want to know that our words made someone think, or feel, or learn” (192). To put it differently, students need to practice writing to a clear audience, so they have a purpose for writing. Writing means something to students when they write as if they are discussing their topic with peers. Moreover, Moses highlights the value of students discussing and using their voice in his Algebra Project claiming, “Young people finding their voice instead of being spoken for is crucial part of the process” (19). All in all, critical literacy learning involves peer learning and not just the teacher relaying information.

Engagement through connections is also vital in critical literacy learning. Allington explains in her study, “As these teachers encouraged literate discussion, they also made overt connections between knowledge, skills, and ideas and across lessons, days, units, classes, and grades” (284). So, there is continuity between what students are learning that guides them to make connections. In connection with Allington, Wilhelm and Smith argue, “Developing the strategies and stances of a reader or writer depended on upon first seeing the connections between one’s current identities, values, and strengths (as a garner who likes to make decisions and is good at evaluating choices, for example) and the new identity to be developed (as a reader who can see implied patterns and therefore discern subtexts that will help one understand irony, for example” (241). Improving literacy skills requires students to make connections between their old knowledge with new knowledge. This is also called scaffolding. Moses also discusses engaging students through connections by stating math needs to be taught as a unified subject (as oppose to geometry, algebra, etc) and students need to be taught math literacy in relation to how it is used in the real world. Students will find meaning from the literacies they learn if they are able to make the connections to the real world and themselves.

Most importantly students need to be treated as a part of the community and disciplines they are learning. Joining the Honors English Society at my college made me feel a part of the community of Englsih majors and I grew to take my Englisg studies even more seriousley. Therefore, I think students will be more likely In Allington’s study the teachers, “fostered students’ identities as learners and their sense of agency as participants” (285). The students are treated as important active participants in the academic community. They begin to identify themselves as learners. Wilhelm and Smith state, “In any discipline, the learner is expected to continually proceed toward doing and thinking about the discipline more like experts do” (240). In order for students to learn a discipline or literacy they have to be guided to think and perform the skills as experts do. Moses also argues the importance of students becoming equal citizens and participants in math literacy in his study.

In sum, there are many views on critical literacy learning, but there are some common themes among them. There are positives and negatives to the suggestions and theories on critical literacy learning. I think the importance of looking at various professionals’ theories is to take from them the strategies and methods that work for you and your students.  Please check back next week for a new post on literacy.  

Idenity and Literacy

Hello bloggers! These past weeks I have discussed topics involving diversity and literacy. This week I want to take a close look at the relationship between identity and the new or digital age of literacy. Students use their personal and school literacies to find their identities. In turn, school and larger society influence students’ identities. Specifically, we can see how schools influence gender identity and type of profession students will be fit for. It is important to remember that students are searching for that their identities and to critically look at how the literacy we provide influences them during this search.

Adolescence is a time when students are figuring out who they are. In past weeks I have discussed multiple literacies and multiple cultures. These are just two aspects of our students’ identities that students bring into class. Identity is complex and diverse, so students struggle to find themselves. Williams states, “it is a time when boys and girls alike are torn between forming an individual sense of identity and establishing group identities; gender is a central part of these explorations and negotiations” (2004, pg. 512).  In other words, students in their teen years formulate multiple identities. This relates to how students code switch or choose what literacy they are to use depending on the situation they are in. Part of teenagers’ search is observing the people and media around them. Supporting this claim is Williams that explains, “But the reality is that most adolescents spend a great deal of time and energy observing adults, popular culture, and their peers and then obsessing about how to interpret  and incorporate what they see into their values and actions” (2007, pg. 301). Teenagers are critical observers of their world around them and use the information from adults, peers, popular culture (through media and technology) to create their identities.

Since we are adults that students see every school day that provide them with multiple literacies we have an impact of their identities. Moreover, we bring to the class room our own expectations or assumptions of who our students should be. As Williams states, “The troubling aspect of any discussion of cultural constructions of identity is that we must inevitably engage in generalizations that, if we are not careful, can become calcified ways of perceiving individuals and result in rigid equations about behavior” (2007, pg.  302). Generalizations about our students can lead to false views of who our students are.  For instance, assumptions are made based on the literacy that students use. As a result, their school career can drive them to certain profession.  Gee asserts, “teenagers from different social classes fashion themselves in language as different kinds of people oriented in quite different ways toward the ‘new time’ stemming from the new capitalism” (2000, pg.412). To put it differently, Gee believes that students are drawn to one of two paths of the “new capitalism” depending on their social class. Furthermore, he describes the languages as, “social languages are distinctive in that they are sued to enact, recognize, and negotiate different socially situated identities and to carry out different socially situated activities” (2000, 413). Social languages students use are a part of their identities and the activities or type of work they will perform. The two identities maintain the social hierarchy as described by Gee,“ Though both versions often involve teamwork, one version focuses on technical social languages and deep conceptual  understanding for future symbol analysts, while the other focuses on collaborative talk and skills, often in everyday language, for future enchanted workers” (2000, 415). Based on Gee’s work the pedagogies schools use sort students into categories with one group at the top of the New Capitalism or technology driven capitalism.

Gender identity is also influenced by pedagogies and generalizations used in schools. It is generalization that boys are influenced violence in fiction writing; therefore, curriculum lacks the genres and themes that many boys enjoy in literacy. Williams points out, “These kind of literacy practices to which boys are often drawn-connected to action, violence, and popular culture- are usually prohibited in the classroom where the emphasis is often on ‘high-culture’ literature driven by character and nuance” (2004, pg. 512). Despite that many high schools curriculum includes the violent and action packed Odyssey or Gilgamesh, boys are told to refrain from creating their own adventure stories. It is explained by Williams that, “Schools  have traditionally assumed a civilizing mission as well as an academic one, and socializing boys away from violence, unruly behavior, and the popular culture that celebrated such actions is part of that mission” (2004, pg.  512). Basically, schools feel that they have to tame boys aggressive ways. Unfortunately, boy’s creativity is squashed and they lose opportunities to role play. Action or adventure stories provide boys opportunities to role play being heroes and taking on bigger responsibilities (2004, Williams). Girls are also influenced by school practices. Most agree that girls are better at literacy skills than boys. Consequently, “By quietly doing their work well, girls also may find that do not receive as much of the teacher’s time and consideration” (Williams, 302). They do not get the feedback from their teachers to push their skills to a higher level. In addition, Williams argues that girls are more submissive than boys, so they follow the rules and do not take chances. Boys and girls are also not provided equal experience with technology and digital literacy. As we have learned from Gee, technology plays a major role in New Capitalism, so students must be provided a pedagogy that incorporates digital literacy. Williams supports, “The astonishing growth of the computer and video game industry as a dominant force in popular culture has reinforced the sense that boys are dominating computer use in terms of interest and abilities”(2007, pg. 303). All in all, students need to use their creativity with digital litaercy.

Evidence from the authors proves that we need to evaluate how the pedagogies we use influence our students’ identities. Instead of forcing students to fit generalizations, we must provide them equal experience with the digital literacy that is needed in today’s world and opportunities to use literacy to explore their identities. For instance, “Adolescents role play board and video games –it offers a way to transcend the often powerless world of children into a fictional world where they can ‘claim power and privileges they could never claim in real life” (2004, pg. 513). They use popular culture and technology to find their identities through creativity and games. Another way to help students in their search for identity is to allow them to tell their stories while teaching them how to use digital literacies that will be vital when entering the work force. I am reminded of a friend that kept a digital journal all four years of high school where she was able to socialize with others. In a school setting the site, Center for Digital Story telling http://www.storycenter.org/stories/index.php?cat=5   is an excellent tool to get students using literacy to express themselves. I recommend you watch a few students’ digital stories because you will be amazed at the well organized and profound stories they share using technology. Topics such as abuse, alcoholism, and poverty are found in the stories. Burke too argues that students need technology skills when he states, “ In addition to such technology-based approaches, I have explored the use of various protocols originally designed to facilitate discussion in meetings and the world of business but which adapt themselves well to the classroom and develop skills kids need to succeed in the world of work” (2007, pg. 161).  Like the other authors, Burke suggests that students use digital literacy. Specifically, he explains how he uses School Loop to facilitate online discussions. In sum, students should not be subjected to generalizations, but offered to explore their identities through a variety of literacies that include their interests with popular culture and technology.  

What is fair education?

Hello Bloggers! This week I will focus on the concept of “sameness as fairness” in literacy education.  The concept causes much debate in the education world. Topics such as neoliberalism , NCLB, and diversity from previous weeks will be brought up again in connection with this week’s topic.  “Sameness as fairness” is the idea that a fair education for all students means giving all students the same education.  Over the course of the week I have struggled to decide my stance on this issue. After carefully looking several professional’s views I have decided that I am against “sameness as fairness”. The main reason why I am against “sameness as fairness” is because it takes away from diversity.

It is mentioned that neoconservatives and NCLB support the concept of “sameness as fairness”. Gutierrez explains, “The domain of literacy, the subject matter focus of the neo-conservative and neo-liberal educational agenda, serves as the most significant example of the unequal effects produced by policies that only favor dominant groups with economic, social, and political capital (111). As I mentioned in my previous blog, standardized tests and mainstreaming limits diversity and supports only one group of people. Later on Gutierrez claims “There is a perfect storm at work as the national educational agenda and anti immigrant hysteria combine with neo-conservative narratives of fear around  national security, heightened xenophobia, and neo-liberal goals of marketplace reform, privatization, and the larger ideologies of common culture, common language, and common values” (114). In essence, the political atmosphere is driving the idae that sameness or commonality is positive. Moreover, ‘sameness as fairness” corresponds with the idea of   “colorblind” practices. People do not acknowledge diversity and treat everyone the same. The problem with this is that there is diversity and it can not be ignored in the class room.

The main reason for “sameness as fairness” not being an effective approach is because every student is different, so various methods need to be used when teaching diverse classes. The following article, “Sameness does not Mean Fairness” http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm11.htm , explores how the concept is not effective because it “normalizes only one approach to performance” (Sturm and Guinier). Also, the study examines that using the same education practices is not fair because white males do better than females and non white males. Also, “cultural experience is what makes something relevant and meaningful”, so culture and variety need to be included in the classroom (Jackson and Cooper 251). This can not be achieved if teachers are “color blind” and teaching one narrow way of learning. Gutierrez describes that “writing has become a disembodied practice in the classroom for both students and teachers; that is, detached from literacy practices and contexts that bring meaning and purpose to people in sense-making activity” (111). Writing has no meaning to students because they can not connect to it.  Purcell-Gates tells the story of a student named Donny who had difficulty learning literacy the same way his peers were taught. Donny had difficulty because  he did not have the literacy knowledge or “concepts children acquire during their preschool years, during the years preceding the beginning of the formal literacy instruction, in kindergarten and first grade, in reading, writing and printed language” , while his peers did (124). His teachers taught him as if he had the literacy experiences his peers did instead of changing their teaching practice and providing him with the experiences he needed. It is evident from the various professionals work that “sameness as fairness” is not fair.

I believe that there are better teaching practices that provide all students with quality education instead of the same education. As Gurtierrez states, “The ‘sameness as fairness’ framework must be replaced with race-, class-, and gender- conscious equity framework that will make such inequities visible and a humanist vision of education reality” (121). In other words, we have to acknowledge diversity and use a different approach to teaching. Carter, discussed in Ladson-Billings work, was determined that all of his students were to learn to read and write. In that way he treated them all the same, but he also made lessons relatable and meaningful to his students. “Each group made suggestions for change and the students began a rough draft of the story. Carter had the students compare their rough drafts with the premises on which their stories were based” (Ladson-Billings 114). His students related to what they were writing about and all of their voices were heard when they performed collaborative work revising their stories. Jackson and Cooper also support students voices being hear when they state, “educators comb through research to make judgments about how to improve adolescent learning, but they rarely use the most valid, informative source to determine student needs: the student themselves” (246). Clearly, it is vital to listen to our students if we are to create lessons that will engage and connect to them.  I once had to help students practice for the listening part of ELA Regents Exam. They disliked the practice exam and were detached from the listening passage. So, I started asking them questions about listening: In what circumstances do you listen the most? When is listening important to you? Do you like to listen to music or books on tape? The questions jumped started a discussion about listening and the students were able to see the importance of practicing listening skills. Moreover, I found that they liked listening to music, so I facilitated a lesson where they practiced listening using their favorite types of music. My method is supported by Jackson and Cooper when they state, “Frames of reference based on concepts from disciplines provide entry points for bridging student culture to curricular content” (251). That is, find out students’ base knowledge or experience with the concepts that are being taught to guide them to the content material. Students need to be hooked into the lesson and the teacher has to help them scaffold their knowledge.

 Fairness is providing every student with adequate and effective education. Adequate and effective education does not mean providing the same education to students. In order for education to be effective teachers must use practices that will match individual students learning styles and cultures. We have to make an effort to learn about our students, so that we can provide meaningful lessons that students can connect and expand their knowledge with.  

Assessment and Literacy

Dr. Tuck states that, “ after all of these years of common schooling,  we still have no real way of knowing if students are learning”, and I have to agree with her. This week I will continue to discuss literacy, but with the connection literacy has to assessment. Delpit, Hilliard, and Luna take a close look at the relationship between language and how students are assessed. Carini writes about assessing students by ‘describing’. After reading their works I have come to the realization that the assessments that we use today do not tell us if our students are learning because they are biased, not valid, and do not reveal the actual process students take when learning. We need to let go of the high stakes or mainstream testing and hold on to evaluating students based on their progress and learning process. In order to do this, we have to involve students in their own assessments.

As of right now there is no real way of finding out what students have learned because assessments are created and targeted for one group of students, which is the white middle class. Specifically, high stakes tests are made for mainstream students with out diversity in mind. Assessments are closely related to literacy as Hilliard states, “…testing and assessment, as we now see them in education, are rooted in and dependent upon language” (97). Part of the reason why assessments are not effective or accurate is because only one form of literacy is used. As supported by Hilliard who claims, “the results of standardized testing favor children who speak common American English simply because these children are able to respond to questions that are couched in a familiar language  based upon  familiar experiences” (98). It is clear that children who grew up using common American English have an advantage over students that use other literacies.  Delpit provides an example of an African American women who “none of the companies that hired her could move past her language to appreciate her expertise” (38).  Similar to how the companies evaluated the woman as a potential employee based on her literacy and not her actual knowledge; some teachers evaluate students based on the literacy they use to share their knowledge instead of the actual knowledge they have learned.

Luna also comments on how people assume assessments should be standardized stating “this assumption –that mismatches between students’ diverse abilities and standardized practices indicate a difficulty within the student, rather than within the academic context –supports the provision of academic accommodations” (600).  In other words, it is seen that the standardization of assessments is not the problem, but students who do not fit in the main stream are the problem.  These students are forced to fit the main stream by being labeled and provided with accommodations instead of assessments changing. Even with accommodations, diverse learners are limited in expressing what they have learned. Carini’s idea of “manyness” goes along with Luna’s work.  She claims that there are so many students to educate and assess that we leave some behind (168).  Later on Carini explains that diverse students are seen as “…not us or ours. They threaten ‘our’ standards as teachers, as parents, as a school, as a nation. By lumping them together, we are sorting them out: They don’t fit into our picture of school, teaching, and learning. ‘Our’ solidarity as a community is affirmed at the expense of their individuality”(168). In essence, all students are forced to fit the main stream because they do not want students to challenge the norm. Also, it is easier to assess students as if they all learned the same standard way as oppose to creating assessments for all diverse learners. After years of common schooling the same assessments are being used because there is a false validity to them. It is believed that they are valid because upper white children achieve high sores. Moreover, there is no way to separate their knowledge with the skills they learned from growing up in their particular culture (Hilliard).

I firmly believe that we need to involve students in the assessment process. Involving students in the creation of assessments would allow for us to accurately assess students’ learning. In addition, we could observe and assess students learning process along with the final product.  Another reason for involving students in their own assessment is because it reduces the stress and fear that high stakes tests typically causes them. Students’ feelings need to be taken in to account because their emotions affect their performance.  Describing is a form of assessment that Carini discusses.  It involves closely looking at the journey students take to learning material. Unlike standard assessments, describing is not about hastily judging, but honoring the process of learning (Carini).  I like this concept because it shows respect for students. The teacher looks at the process and final product before deciding a final evaluation. From asking two female students that are labeled with learning disabilities, Luna learned that providing students with choices and not having restricting time limits are ways to improve assessments for diverse learners. This shows that students input is valuable in forming assessments that will really show what students have learned.

Inviting students to have a say in how they are assessed does not mean that expectations we have for them should decline. As Delpit explains, “the object is not to lower standards or just teach what is interesting to the students, but to find the students’ interests and build an academic program around them” (Delpit 45).  In fact, working with students on assessment and curriculum would challenge them more. If they have a say in their education they will be more likely to care about learning and work hard at it.  The  video,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXCE3BnMTsc&feature=grec_index,  demonstrates how involving students in the assessment process engages students in the learning process and helps them realize what they have learned along with what they need to work on.  In particular, I liked the segment of the video that suggests allowing students to take part in creating rubrics and evaluating themselves. Besides involving students in the assessment process, we can take also examine what other professionals are doing. For instance, Luna suggests learning about how elementary teachers are using alternative ways to assess students. 

All in all, finding a real way of knowing what students have learned involves students having a say in how they area assessed. We need to let go of the idea that standardized tests are valid and embrace diversity. It will take getting to know students as individuals and appreciating their unique learning processes. Please check back next week for a new discussion on literacy.