Struggles

This is not the paper I wrote. It may have been the paper I intended to write, but I'm not entirely certain. What I know is that what I did write made me ashamed to be called a grad student. A writer.

Right now I feel like Paolo at the knee of Luis, learning how to write. It is with shaky, unsure hands that I attempt to put together my thoughts, my understandings, what I have learned. I am Paolo, writing the five words I know in the mud with a whip, then with a red face, erasing them, embarrassed.

I wonder how much of my struggle with putting the words on the paper has to do with shift in identity. The more I read, the more unsure I become about myself as an educator. I want to say that I agree with the social constructivist approach, that learning can/should be scaffolded, as we build our new knowledge by connecting it to something we already know, but at the same time, I want to step back and allow my students to discover. To take control of their learning and learn not only what is being taught on the surface, but the hidden curriculum (because teachers have it too, though some are more aware than others) as well.

I struggle to find the balance between supporting my students' learning with direct instruction, allowing them to support each other, and requiring independent practice. Te way we read it seems like one theorist says "This is the way is should be," and another says "No, this is the way it should be," and I forget that a balance is necessary and I don't have to agree with all of what a theorist purports.

Glassman (2001) explains that "Dewey places interest at the center of the educational process [because] interest is not something that can be created within the educational context, but must come from the interaction between the person and the situation" (p. 10). From this account, it seems like Dewey is in favor of problem-based learning, combatting issues of student motivation with interest. Additionally, if inquiry is built through the educational system, then the act of stopping at the next problem disappears and humans are no longer comfortable with a simple, pleasant lot.

But interest is another thing I struggle with. Because of phantom policies in place in schools, those policies that determine what students will learn. Why read Romeo & Juliet? Why read The Odyssey? How do we get past that these texts so culturally entrenched in our society that everyone must read them? (Franzak, 2008). Who decides what texts should hold value, what the purpose of reading is, and what we should teach in language arts classes? All of that said, what, even is the purpose of a language arts class? Sumara (2002) suggests that from reading literature and from learning close reading skills he learned how to pay attention to small details outside of the text, too.

We talk a lot about the need for culturally relevant texts--texts that our students can identify with. I can't remember whether I made this point in class or not, but that's easier to do in places like southwestern New Mexico, where the majority of the population is Latino. In bigger cities, in places where it is more culturally diverse, it's difficult to choose texts that cater to the myriad languages and cultures that a school's students represent. Understand, however, that I am not posing an argument for the canon. I do think that the texts we choose shouldn't be bleached, which is my issue with the common core suggested texts for language arts. Many of the texts are in the public domain, and represent a time and place that is not accessible to many students.

"Five Things I've Gained from Reading Literature"

This was the NCTE Inbox blog post by Traci Gardner that I thought of while I was reading through Sumara's Chapter 2 "Learning how to create insight".

The post was a response to a report written by Carol Jago (who I believe is the current president of NCTE), which I have attached. Instead of being told the reason to read literaature, the idea is that by answering five questions, people can come to see the importance of reading literature on their own. The five questions are as follows:

1. What piece of literature has stayed with you, even though you haven't read it recently?

2. What character or story has influenced something you've done?

3. What character or piece of literature seemed to relate to a recent news story or personal experience?

4. What character has made you wonder why he or she did/said something?

5. Name something from a work of literature (such as a character, setting, or quotation) that you find beautiful or vivid.

At the very least, it's something to think about.

 

The original blog post can be found here: http://dft.ba/-fivethings
Carol Jago's report can be found here [PDF]

Sumara, Dennis. (2002). Why reading literature in school still matters: Imagination, interpretation, insight. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoicates.

Always On

Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world [Kindle DX Reader version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com

"In Always On, Naomi S. Baron reveals that online and mobile technologies--including instant messaging, cell phones, multitasking, Facebook, blogs, and wikis--are profoundly influencing how we read and write, speak and listen, but not in the ways we might suppose. Baron draws on a decade of research to provide an eye-opening look at language in an online and mobile world. She reveals for instance that email, IM, and text messaging have had surprisingly little impact on student writing. Electronic media has magnified the laid-back "whatever" attitude toward formal writing that young people everywhere have embraced, but it is not a cause of it. A more troubling trend, according to Baron, is the myriad ways in which we block incoming IMs, camouflage ourselves on Facebook, and use ring tones or caller ID to screen incoming calls on our mobile phones. Our ability to decide who to talk to, she argues, is likely to be among the most lasting influences that information technology has upon the ways we communicate with one another. Moreover, as more and more people are "always on" one technology or another--whether communicating, working, or just surfing the web or playing games--we have to ask what kind of people we are becoming, as individuals and as family members or friends, if the relationships we form must increasingly compete for our attention with digital media." --from Amazon.com

Reading this text did bring a sense of awareness to the way I interact and the way my students interact with people (or even choose not to interact with people) using technology. It often isn't enough to be engaged in one activity. With the proliferation of mobile technology, it is increasingly more "necessary" to be engaged in more than one activity at a time. But what does this multitasking to do to the quality of the activity we are engaged in, whether it be writing a paper or talking with a friend or parent on the phone?

Exploring the connections between biliteracy and bilingualism

Reyes, I. (2006). Exploring the connections between biliteracy and bilingualism. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(3), pp. 267-292. doi:10.1177/1468798406069801

Through three case studies of four-year-old children of Mexican descent, the author explores emergent biliteracy and bilingualism in southern Arizona. Using observations of both home and classroom notes the children’s use of language and the factors that contributed to that language usage. The author references code-switching as a process used frequently by emergent bilingual and biliterate children. She also suggests that teachers use kid watching for lessons that connect to children’s’ development of literacy and biliteracy.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Secondary-level literacy coaching

Gross, P. (2010). Not another trend: Secondary-level literacy coaching. The Clearing House, 83, pp. 133-137. doi:10.1080/00098651003774844

​In this article Gross examines the attitudes of content-area teachers over the period of two years. These teachers are engaging in a voluntary literacy program designed to better their instruction through literacy strategies. She used one-on-one semi-structured interviews to ascertain the interests, backgrounds, teaching philosophy and reason for joining the initiative. Participants in the initiative found the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues from different places and the learning of strategies beneficial, even though some ad never seen them before.

​This article is beneficial in situating me as literacy coach of in-service teachers. While it doesn’t currently relate to my research, it does relate to the climate in my school district surrounding literacy instruction in the content areas. This article can be useful in a literature review in a study on secondary content area teachers and their resistance/acceptance of compulsory literacy strategy instruction.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Kid watching

Goodman, Y. (1978, June). Kid watching. National Elementary Principal, 57(4), pp. 41-55.

Goodman asserts that children learn language through their natural environment, thus testing that language development is inappropriate. Language learning is like testing a hypothesis: a language learner makes hypotheses about language and adjusts responses based on the responses they receive in their environment. Standardized testing does nothing to aid in language development. If anything, it stifles a child’s development. Goodman stresses that watching kids is the best way to assess their development and that observing mistakes in language usage over time can show how a child is developing. Additionally, kid watchers must take dialect and culture into account when taking assessments.

When I approached this article, I thought the information would be out of date. Instead, it holds consistent with other texts and research on miscue analysis and kid watching both by Goodman and by other authors.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Literacy coaching and reading achievement

Ellish-Piper, L. & L’Allier, S. K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between literacy coaching and student reading achievement in grades K-1. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, pp. 162-174. doi:10.1080/19388070902913289

​Ellish-Piper & L’Allier studied three groups of reading coaches from schools who had received the Reading First grant. They examined the roles of the literacy coaches within the context of their school, the aspects of literacy they typically focus on, and the relationship between literacy coaching and reading achievement in grades K-1. Their findings about how literacy coaching effected reading achievement were inconclusive because of other mitigating factors.
​
This article was helpful in pointing me to other literature about the roles of literacy coaches and the different levels of literacy coaching that exist. The article also suggests that ongoing professional development in terms of literacy instruction is warranted for, at least, this school district. The researchers suggest that the literacy coaches should spend more time working directly with teachers, rather than doing paperwork or inputting data. They should also schedule plenty of time to observe teachers.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Studying Writing

Dyson, A. H. (2008, March). The pine cone wars: Studying writing in a community of children. Language Arts (85)4, pp. 305-315.

​This article discusses how children navigate written literacy practices within a time where approaches to instruction are becoming focused on a specific type of evaluation. The approach observed is how children have a sense of play when writing, transferring the idea of a playground game into their written worlds. Through the study, the author follows three children to gain access to the children’s world in the classroom. She theorizes that the play of children informs the curriculum. The textual representations, both in written text and in pictures, display their understandings of and connections to both the world outside them and print conventions not explicitly taught. Children are agents—they act using their own interpretations of the world and what can happen in it.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Literacy coaching

Cassidy, J., Garrett, S. D., Maxfield, P., & Patchett, C. (2009). Literacy coaching: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. CEDER Yearbook, pp. 15-27.

Cassidy, Garrett, Maxfield and Pratchett outline the history of the literacy coach, from the 1930s to the present. Literacy coaches have been called myriad names throughout history. In the 1980s, Joyce and Showers pioneered peer coaching strategies designed to aid teachers in the implementation of new strategies. However few teachers actually implemented the strategies taught in workshops. The goal of peer coaching was to eliminate the hierarchal ideas behind the idea of “coach,” instead creating an equality between participants. The authors also discuss the IRA’s four roles of literacy coaches and how school districts tend to restrict those roles significantly.

This article is important as I try to define myself and role as a literacy coach as well as I try to find the theoretical lens through which I will operate.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Theory of literacy of learning

Cambourne, B. (1995, November). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49(3), pp. 182-190.

​Cambourne discusses theorizing literacy learning. He finds difficulty in calling children deficient because of the negative stigma attached, especially since it is not relevant in most area of the child’s life. Forming habits, guided by the teacher, is an important part of the learning process. These habits must be broken down into smaller parts and presented gradually.

Camborne also discusses conditions of learning and the ability to apply these conditions to literacy teaching. The main finding of the researchers is that engagement with language is the most important factor of literacy learning. Additionally learners need to engage in reflection to make their understanding of literacy and language explicit.

​The goal of this source is to provide guidance about literacy theory to readers. The author, at the time of publication, was a practicing teacher. This information demonstrates his reflexivity in practice. He not only is reflective, himself, but puts value and emphasis in moving literacy learners to become reflective about their literacy learning process as well.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

What is Reading?

Today, two other colleagues and I were talking about what makes a struggling reader. My response was, "it depends on your definition of reading."

Here's the situation: a colleague's student (we're taking a literacy assessment class and tutoring elementary students) is struggling with oral fluency. Even though he is having issues reading aloud, he has good comprehension. Colleague #2 says that this student is a struggling reader because he struggles with one aspect of reading.

What do you think? Should he be labeled a struggling reader?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Defining Reading

Defining Reading

Transacting with a text, both the author and the reader come out differently in the end. Reading is about making meaning, not just decoding.

Fluency: we need to redefine what fluency means. It's not about how fast one reads but also the comprehension, inflection. Programs like Reading Street and DIBLES focus on how fast one reads.

We are conditioned to believe that if we repeat words when reading aloud then we aren't good readers. This isn't the case. It's a strategy that good readers use to make sure they're making meaning.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad