March Response - Workshop 9 GLIT 6728

March Response

In this response I will address the interesting stance re: the position that illiterate people are not social failures or social outcasts (Frank Smith) and the over-selling of evaluation practices. I will also review the political critique of reading intervention programs available in our school systems.

Society plays up the fact that literacy opens the door to the world and opportunities and in contrast those that are not literate will miss out on all of this. I found the position that Frank Smith takes and his evidence to support his view was intriguing and explains many examples I have seen in communities around me. In certain areas of Toronto, there is a concern for high –drop-out rates at the high school level (Jane and Finch area). One reason is due to the fact that these students who don’t fit into our education system and view themselves as potential illiterates and are considered social outcasts. They are individuals who will lose their self-esteem and will believe they can’t be readers and writers. Thus, they feel no purpose or gratification from school and see no purpose in continuing in a system that has defeated them. These students are subconsciously told from society that to be a success there is a specific pattern /method a student needs to follow to allow this to happen. If students do not fit into the mould of the perfect student as set out by the teacher (and this set of patterns varies from teacher to teacher or school to school), then they are considered failures. The overuse of instruction and evaluation is often self-destructing to the student just described. School boards and educators must understand which types of classrooms are worthwhile (when they promote interest, collaboration, confidence and learning and sensitive to cultural differences) and which classrooms are detrimental (boredom, disinterest, competitive, and condescending). “Every effort needs to be made to look at classrooms, not for just the instruction and evaluation aspect, but for the affective and the effects on the students and teachers” (Frank Smith 1995-Overselling Literacy). If the ultimate goal is to raise and develop learners who are confident and able to navigate throughout our world, then all aspects of learning needs, for all students ,need to be analyzed.

We are caught up in a system where there is an over-selling of evaluation practices and then set practices that are supposedly going to make students improve. What is missing is the understanding that literacy needs to be powerful. In becoming powerful, literacy needs to be enjoyable and relevant. Imagination is the foundations of comprehension, learning, remembering and reasoning (Frank Smith pg. 61). In order for students to learn, they must be shown from role models who are experiencing literacy in ways that we want our students to learn- through enjoyment and imagination and that literacy can be powerful.
From my reading this month, I noticed that evidence has shown that not only do disadvantaged students, from poverty and discrimination, don’t have their needs met in our school system, but research also indicates that school discourse practices favour students who enter school with a certain kind of “cultural capital” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977), specifically those ways of talking, thinking, acting, doing and valuing associated with White, able-bodied, middle and upper-class students (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). The literacy practices found in the white middle-class neighbourhood classrooms resemble those practices from middle-class homes – these children learn to talk about and do literacy. These same practices are visible in classrooms across our city. My concern is do remedial and special education programs in cultural neighbourhoods preserve the status quo of struggling students or ,as presented by Dudley-Marling , is there more of a concern to protect the structure of our schools? Are the reading intervention programs putting a “band aid” on a problem, when we should be addressing the inequities related to race, class, gender and language?

In our school board (TCDSB) we have a primary remedial literacy intervention program – 5th Block. This is an early intervention program that identifies students who are behind in reading levels in grades 1 and 2. The understanding is that students who need a “boost” will get the small -group instruction setting one hour /day. This instruction is an intense remediation program for duration of 17 weeks. The focus is on addressing the needs of the students based on pre-program assessments, mid- program assessments and monitoring of students after demission of the program (end of program assessments). This program also assists with early identification of students that may require further testing of learning needs. This is a prescribed program that although needs of the student are the focus, the instructional practices are set and implemented by all of the 5th Block teachers across the system. The instructional practices are based on the gradual release of responsibility instructional approaches. The content of resources used in the program is the same across our system- regardless of cultural diversity. Initially the focus of the program was primarily on decoding and moving the students across the reading levels chart (A- P). On many occasions, the students who are demitted from this program are successful- according to the standards described above.

As an extension to the 5th Block Intervention Program, and as comprehension needs for students in the junior division grew, a Junior Intervention Program was initiated. It was answering the needs of those fourth and fifth grade students who were decoding, yet did not comprehending what they were reading. The focus of this oral – based program is to assist students with strategies in becoming thinkers as readers, to improve comprehension, to provide situations to discuss texts, and to develop oral language. Again, this program is centred on the needs of the students through assessments (pre, on-going and post). As a teacher of this program for five years, the benefits to students also included an increase in confidence and desire to read. Students’ enthusiasm and interest in literacy increased tremendously as a result of this program.

One concern I noticed, and often wondered about, was that on many occasions the students who attended the Junior Literacy Intervention Program (JLI) were the same students who had in the primary years, attended the 5th Block Program- this was witnessed by other JLI teachers across the city. Are these students going to have on-going learning needs or have these programs only fulfilled institutional needs by appearing to explain and solve the problem of school failure? The students in this community are from Portuguese-speaking homes. Literacy was not modeled and defined as it is in many middle-class white homes. The majority of the parents were working in construction or mothers were cleaning offices in the night hours. The children went to school and then would often have to go home to help care for siblings or accompany their mothers to work as the fathers arrived home after long hours of work. The parents would often mention how they could not assist their children with their work but also supported the work being done by the teachers and valued the advice that teachers offered regarding methods of improving school grades. Rarely, in my five years at the school were the teachers questioned or challenged on advice or suggestions for the children. The parent community had a great deal of faith that what was being done in the school was in the best interest of their children.

In attempting to define students ‘gaps in learning from the community that I worked with, I found the students required a great deal of oral language at this junior division age because their vocabulary development was low and understanding the nuances of the English language was very simple. Again, the JLI program was successful in attempting to address these learning needs. However, these students also experience gender biases and often the girls felt their only goal in life was to get married and become cleaning ladies or to work in daycares. Many felt their road to education ended in grade 12. Although many of the teachers attempted to break these patterns through informal class discussions, did we really did address the cultural, language and gender biases that existed in the community.

I am aware that I have presented one small example of learning in a cultural community, I do, however, believe that the same holds true for many other students within the various diverse Toronto communities. I am uncertain what the answers is and know that both of these intervention programs have resulted in many success stories, but is this all sustainable for these students? As the JLI program does attempt to address the various learning needs for the junior learner, what happens to these students in high school? Have we addressed the cultural, language and race biases these students encounter and will continue to encounter after they leave us in the elementary system?

Written Response - Workshops 7 & 8 - GLIT 6728

Written Response – Workshop 7 and 8

In response to my readings for these workshops I have focused on the craft of teaching and the skills required developing literate learners. Heath’s article exemplifies situations both in the home and school environments where learning is limited for students/children if there is not a well rounded, relevant, active transmission of information focusing on addressing the decoding, meaning, and critical analysis of texts. Situations where students undergo the steps of answering pre-determined, explicit-type questions do not foster the deeper understanding of texts and skills necessary to survive in the twenty-first century. Heath’s study with the Roadville and Maintown communities and their experience with bedtime stories display an example of students in a passive role of learning and how it is imperative for them to learn to become more active information givers.

In addressing these points, I believe it is important to address the role of effective teachers, the type of questions students are trained to address through early interactions with parents and the continuation of this type of discourse in the school environment and its possible stifling effects on the literate learner. Finally, the necessity of addressing all roles of the literate learner as presented by Luke and Freebody and how this compares to the learning environment of the Roadville and Maintown children will be highlighted.

The role of a teacher and the craft of teaching have a great deal to do with the success by which students learn. Evidence has shown that students learn best from a teacher who reveals rather than one who tells. Teaching by telling is defined as a teacher standing up in front of a class, on many occasions the students’ desk or chairs are in rows and the students are to listen and learn. This type of teaching is a passive activity and can be described as being a one-way path of communication between the teacher and student. In comparison, teaching by revealing is similar to Frank Smith’s demonstrations/ modeling pedagogy of teaching. The teacher is learning, the student is learning and they are revealing their learning to each other. The teacher models the strategies and skills that are required in becoming literate learners. Errors and mistakes made by both the teacher and student are more productive and everyone learns from them. This teaching – learning process is active and includes constant communication between both teacher and student.

An important aspect of my job this year is to help support and model the Gradual Release of Responsibility instructional approach. This instructional approach includes modeling and scaffolding students’ learning until the student has successfully mastered the skills and strategies required to become independent literate learners. The first step in this instructional approach is the modeling and think aloud used during a read aloud. The students watch as the teacher models the skills and strategies good readers use. As the teacher moves the students through the instructional stages, the shared reading/ writing block is when the teacher and students participate 50-50. Both the teacher and student are doing together- students’ learning is scaffold by the teacher. Learning is consolidated and independently practised during the independent reading/writing block of the instructional approach. Students who require more assistance and modeling will receive focused individualized help during the Guided reading/writing block.

Literacy is a complex interaction of skills and resources that the literate learner draws upon to make meaning from texts of many types. Allan Luke and Peter Freebody offer one approach to understanding this interactive process in their “four sources model” (1990). The four resources are also referred to as the “four roles of the literate learner”. This approach explains that to be literate, students must learn to (1) to make meaning from texts, (2) to break the “code “of texts, (3) to use texts to acquire knowledge/information and perform tasks, and (4) to analyze and critique texts. One family of practice does not stand alone; students integrate all four at the same time when they read, write, listen and speak. An effective program of literacy instruction will address all of these roles.

It is important for teachers to integrate these roles in a context that is meaningful and relevant to the students in all subjects across the curriculum. The roles are not meant to be addressed in a linear sequence, for example by addressing code breaking skills first and then moving to meaning maker, etc. All students can develop critical and analytical thinking skills as they are acquiring literacy skills. Effective teachers will intentionally, purposefully, and explicitly plan and teach keeping in mind all four roles of the learner. Students will experience difficulty and boredom in school when there is an imbalance or an overemphasis on one of the roles.
Students who are taught to focus on decoding skills (code user) will not develop the skills required in becoming meaning makers or text analyzers. When students reach the later primary and early junior grades comprehension is weak. Students experience a great deal of difficulty with the more complex texts and the understanding of the text features that accompany more difficult texts.

A prime example of this was described in Heath’s article: What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at home and School. Children that grow up in mainstream communities learn certain customs, beliefs and skills in early enculturation experiences with written materials. The bedtime story is a literacy event which helps set patterns of behaviour that repeat themselves throughout the lives of mainstream children.

This is an example of Primary Discourse in which children understand who they are, things they need and how people similar to them, value and believe. These children learn through patterns (initiation-reply-evaluation) through different literacy events i.e. bedtime story. These patterns are then repeated throughout lessons in a classroom. The student is often asked question that are pre-specified and answers are pre-determined in the minds of teachers.

Reading texts and asking children to repeat from texts and to answer lower- order thinking questions of explicit nature do not facilitate the development of skills required to be meaning makers or text analyzers. The text is used to remind students how to behave, to compare similar life situations, lessons to be learned from a recount of a story, and connection to similar real life situations are connected to stories read. These students have difficulty answering questions that require an opinion, an emotional commentary, extend understanding of one text and connecting it to understanding of another text, an inference – higher order thinking type of questions. Students do not know how to answer these types of questions and do not know how to ask their teachers questions to help them take apart the questions to figure out the answers. These children have learned to decode the words and apply the patterns of “initiation-reply-evaluation” type of responses. They have not learned the interactive process of “four roles of the literate learner”.

Heath also describes that during the bedtime story- the parent will seek “what – explanations”, asking what the topic is, establishing it as predictable and recognizing it in new situational contexts by classifying and categorizing it in our mind with other phenomena’. (pg. 264) In learning to read, children move through the sequence of skills that teach what-explanations. This view of teaching also correlates with the passive transmission and explained by Barnes in “Transmission and Interpretation”. The “what-explanation” requires no correction, no comments and the product of the questioning are the purpose. The learner plays a very passive role and teachers see themselves as having access to knowledge that students don’t have and can easily obtain from memorization and literal regurgitation of text. What lacks in this view of teaching is the students’ active role in learning. When expected or required to interpret, persuade, or to take responsibility for their learning and actions, the students lack the skills or strategies to do so.

A large problem with this passive transmission view of teaching is that students enter into a “fourth grade slump” (Heath). They succeed in the first few years of their education. They are able to answer questions from a text, follow the rules of decoding and literal meaning of texts; however, they have great difficulty gaining meaning from higher order thinking and deeper understandings of texts. Students have not developed the skills and strategies required to deepen their understanding and meaning of images, graphs, diagrams equations, and gestures. The ability to produce meanings in different situations, contexts, or practices has been compromised and students are not adequately prepared for their everyday life and understanding of everyday literacies.

Effective teachers will provide the texts children encounter in schools; these texts must resemble the texts they see in everyday life. In order to deepen their understanding and move literacy understanding from the text to the image, visual literacy requires explicit teaching. Visual literacy includes the understanding that images are not simply illustrations or decorations. They exist purposefully to add meaning to a text and are their own system of meanings. To develop literate learners, we need to teach our children to read images as well as text. The meanings and understanding require semiotic understandings based on both situation and context. Different skills and strategies must be taught in order to understand visual images. In order to lessen the gap, and to align everyday life with school life, as educators we need to bring everyday literacies into the schools (i.e. CD covers, You tube, political cartoons, graphic novels). Some considerations in helping understand visual literacies would include the learning of composition and perspective, symbolism, significance (colour and position), framing (sequencing from right to left), modality ( reality level to level of abstraction), and design elements ( font, border, orientation, Para textual information ) (Frank Serafini 2009).

A problem exists when the acquisition of discourse in the home environment is not mastered and then learning in schools is not supported by the home environment. In other words, the learning in the school and home environments is not aligned.

The development of literate learners is a complex integration of a variety of factors: effective teaching that acknowledges all aspects of the role of the learner (meaning maker, code user, text use and text analyzer), active transmission and communication between the teacher and student; opportunities to model skills and strategies necessary to comprehend (of both text and visuals) the variety of texts of the twenty first Century.