Paulo Freire, in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, describes what he terms the “banking” concept of education. Freire is referring to the tradition of ‘teacher knows all and will kindly fill the empty vessels that are his or her students. I have often said of students that I am just as concerned about the student that doesn’t not question my knowledge, reasoning or authority at all as I am about the student who rebels simply because I am the source. Upon reading his explanation for this term, I was struck with frustration. While I was quite good at filing the necessary information to get either an A or B on a test, I could never retain the information. I have since realized that the reason was that I didn’t internalize those facts and make them mine by incorporating them into my own thoughts, with my own voice, through my own conversations and communications with others engaged with the same material. Morrell, like many of the authors cited in this series of blog posts, Ernest Morrell, in Critical Literacy and Urban Youth, reflects this sentiment in seeking to make connections to students and their lives, particularly when there is much to be ‘critical’ about in their lives. Students, instead of learning what must be random facts for many of them, are inspired by questions about their lives and their communities they have probably entertained for much of their reflective lives. By beginning with those relevant questions, Morrell’s students can create nothing like internal filing systems; they create Wiki’s, networks of information they’ll retain because each bite is connected to real and motivated learning. Lynn Astarita Gatto had similarly inspired her students with the engaging project of creating a butterfly vivarium. So many of our authors have tried to discover where their students might want to go but as yet could not, then created an environment through which, with skilled facilitation, they would achieve their goals. Carter Forshay inspired students who had been through uninspiring volumes of seemingly context-free ditto exercises through music and stories his students could relate to and James Paul Gee sought to realize how new literacies of the computer and the internet might empower students to be teachers just as teachers become most humble students. These exchanges were also reflected in attempts to invite students’ home languages into the classroom in an effort to validate them and bridge from these home languages, not to a singular, correct form of English, but rather a common English.
In closing, I’d like to thank those educators who have read these posts and contributed commentary. While I have held these philosophies for some time, trying to exercise them in what sometimes seemed to me like fits and starts, I have been lapse in researching the successes of notables in the field through which I might have reflected more deeply on my own practice. As this exercise, as well as my adventure back to grad school has shown me, despite possessing ideas on the dangers of educators becoming sealed away in their classrooms, juggling so many balls they have little time for a ‘big picture’ view, I am guilty nonetheless. Having thus been reintroduced to community, I will endeavor to remain connected, to share my own successful experiments in bringing students in by connecting curriculum to their lives, their identity and their interests as well as seeking help from colleagues as well as researchers discovering the evidence and direction I’ll need to improve upon my practice.
Thanks again.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Assessment
In his article, “Language, Culture, and the Assessment of African American Children,” Asa G. Hilliard III argues that assessment must accurately reflect the educational philosophy of the teacher, the goals and objectives of that teacher for his/her students. This being the case, how can this be fair to those students who find themselves growing up outside ‘the culture of power,’ outside the culture of people who grow up fluent in “Standard English”?
Hilliard argues that assessment often does not reflect the ideals of educators, and that educators must be prepared to consider and perhaps even teach about a system that assesses students not on their ability but “the words they speak” (Hilliard, 2002). When one culture and language is set as the basis for all worthy knowledge, vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar and by default, even intelligence, it will inevitably create the self-fulfilling prophesy of poor results on standardized assessments found in many areas where Standard English is not the standard. I wonder in how many other cultures of the world this dynamic of subtle oppression has played out. And once again, I wonder what is to be done? Supporting the notion that grammar is grammar regardless of the dialect, Rebecca Wheeler writes, "We know that the most effective way to teach Standard English to speakers of a non-mainstream, stigmatized dialect is to use an ESL technique - Contrastive Analysis. In Contrastive Analysis, the practitioner contrasts the grammatical structure of one variety with the grammatical structure of another variety (presumably the Standard) in order to add the Standard dialect to the students' linguistic toolbox (Fogel & Ehri 2000; Rickford 1999; Taylor, 1991; Rickford, Sweetland, Rickford 2004; Sweetland, ms.; Wheeler & Swords, 2006). This approach, as I have suggested in previous posts, is an ideal way to bridge from a students prior knowledge as well as validate a student’s home language. Indeed, the research is robustly clear: "teaching methods which DO take vernacular dialects into account in teaching the Standard work better than those which DO NOT" (Rickford, 1996)" (Wheeler, 2006). Isn't this approach possible in other areas? How much ‘non-standard’ English can be brought into the English Language Arts class? I suppose the emphasis of the class should lean toward Standard English as a 'common language,’ but, getting back to the original question, how should assessment be addressed so as to address a ‘child’s aptitude and not the words she speaks’? Beyond explicitly teaching ‘the big picture,’ as Hilliard calls it, of historic denigration of non-standard forms of English, I am not sure what else should be done. Thoughts from the blogosphere?
Hilliard, Asa. "Language, Culture, and the Assessment of African American
Children." The Skin We Speak. Edited. Lisa Delpit and Joanne Kilgour
Dowdy. New York: The New Press, 2002. Print.
Wheeler, Rebecca. "“What do we do about student grammar – all those missing –
ed’s and -s’s?” Using comparison and contrast to teach Standard English
in dialectally diverse classrooms ." English Teaching: Practice and
Critique . 5.1 (2006): 16-33. Print.
Hilliard argues that assessment often does not reflect the ideals of educators, and that educators must be prepared to consider and perhaps even teach about a system that assesses students not on their ability but “the words they speak” (Hilliard, 2002). When one culture and language is set as the basis for all worthy knowledge, vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar and by default, even intelligence, it will inevitably create the self-fulfilling prophesy of poor results on standardized assessments found in many areas where Standard English is not the standard. I wonder in how many other cultures of the world this dynamic of subtle oppression has played out. And once again, I wonder what is to be done? Supporting the notion that grammar is grammar regardless of the dialect, Rebecca Wheeler writes, "We know that the most effective way to teach Standard English to speakers of a non-mainstream, stigmatized dialect is to use an ESL technique - Contrastive Analysis. In Contrastive Analysis, the practitioner contrasts the grammatical structure of one variety with the grammatical structure of another variety (presumably the Standard) in order to add the Standard dialect to the students' linguistic toolbox (Fogel & Ehri 2000; Rickford 1999; Taylor, 1991; Rickford, Sweetland, Rickford 2004; Sweetland, ms.; Wheeler & Swords, 2006). This approach, as I have suggested in previous posts, is an ideal way to bridge from a students prior knowledge as well as validate a student’s home language. Indeed, the research is robustly clear: "teaching methods which DO take vernacular dialects into account in teaching the Standard work better than those which DO NOT" (Rickford, 1996)" (Wheeler, 2006). Isn't this approach possible in other areas? How much ‘non-standard’ English can be brought into the English Language Arts class? I suppose the emphasis of the class should lean toward Standard English as a 'common language,’ but, getting back to the original question, how should assessment be addressed so as to address a ‘child’s aptitude and not the words she speaks’? Beyond explicitly teaching ‘the big picture,’ as Hilliard calls it, of historic denigration of non-standard forms of English, I am not sure what else should be done. Thoughts from the blogosphere?
Hilliard, Asa. "Language, Culture, and the Assessment of African American
Children." The Skin We Speak. Edited. Lisa Delpit and Joanne Kilgour
Dowdy. New York: The New Press, 2002. Print.
Wheeler, Rebecca. "“What do we do about student grammar – all those missing –
ed’s and -s’s?” Using comparison and contrast to teach Standard English
in dialectally diverse classrooms ." English Teaching: Practice and
Critique . 5.1 (2006): 16-33. Print.
More Doors to New Literacy
More than ever, educators will need to identify and create opportunities and environments that encourage general tendencies and skills in old literacies to blossom in all the directions required of the 21st Century. Girls, still quite often influenced by traditional gender roles, need to be encouraged to engage with the various literacies of the internet. Luckily, as women tend, in general, to be more interested in cooperation and relationships over competition, these new “literacies of the internet” provide some new and enticing doors to fluency.
Wiki’s and Blogs provide wonderful opportunities for collaboration. Whether in class or, in many cases, from their homes, students can communicate and work together using new literacies that are quickly changing traditional means of public expression. In working on a class project in poetry, I wanted students to post the drafts of their poems onto our class Wiki and then have peers comment. Each student was given a color that would identify him or her, so I could really deliver the message of what constructive feedback was and encourage each student to do so. By revising their comments where necessary, I was able to teach them how effective real collaboration can be. In the end, many students expressed their appreciation for the guidance of their peers.
A colleague of mine had students post ‘high interest’ reading selections from the internet and then required they read and comment on at least three. In addition to encouraging the many ‘non-readers’ to develop reading as a good habit, this project, as it came from the students, would do wonders in bringing the class on board. The class could examine which selections were the most popular and why. What would the answers to these questions suggest about the class and how did they feel about this? Projects such as these also provide a bridge from the tendency to appreciate cooperation over competition and from the skills developed in the traditional literacies of reading and writing to expression in new literacies that increasingly demand fluency. They allow a greater access to a much broader swath of learning styles, opening the traditionally narrow sense of traditional education that frankly left many feeling unintelligent.
In addition to collaboration, students interested in and engaged via seeking to understand relationships are finding avenue to fluency in new literacies via such platforms as role-playing games and My Space or Facebook. Many girls who had once been seen as uninterested in computers, are now "now in the majority" in playing popular role-playing games like "The Sims" (Williams p303). While many girls did not seem to be attracted to video game violence, The SIMS focused attractively on relationships by SIM-ulating human interaction in a number of different scenarios. And while, to be honest, I have not thought to use either Facebook or MySpace in the classroom, I recently spoke with an English teacher who wanted to use My Space for a project on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (she was complaining about the large number of internet sites blocked by her district!). She wanted to her students to form groups, choose characters from the play and then create MySpace pages for each. Each character’s page should reflect their personalities, interests, and ‘recent events,’ all of which would be discovered as the students read through the play. Students interested in relationships would have an engaging time visiting and commenting on the sites of other characters in the group, inspiring students to really get ‘into the heads’ of their characters and reflect on how the characters should interact.
And while this entry dealt primarily with how educators might invite more girls into developing fluency in ‘new literacies’ of the internet, it must be said that the main thrust of my argument is that educators attempt to discover the incentives for all of their students to explore and develop such fluency by exploring as many possibilities as they can.
Wiki’s and Blogs provide wonderful opportunities for collaboration. Whether in class or, in many cases, from their homes, students can communicate and work together using new literacies that are quickly changing traditional means of public expression. In working on a class project in poetry, I wanted students to post the drafts of their poems onto our class Wiki and then have peers comment. Each student was given a color that would identify him or her, so I could really deliver the message of what constructive feedback was and encourage each student to do so. By revising their comments where necessary, I was able to teach them how effective real collaboration can be. In the end, many students expressed their appreciation for the guidance of their peers.
A colleague of mine had students post ‘high interest’ reading selections from the internet and then required they read and comment on at least three. In addition to encouraging the many ‘non-readers’ to develop reading as a good habit, this project, as it came from the students, would do wonders in bringing the class on board. The class could examine which selections were the most popular and why. What would the answers to these questions suggest about the class and how did they feel about this? Projects such as these also provide a bridge from the tendency to appreciate cooperation over competition and from the skills developed in the traditional literacies of reading and writing to expression in new literacies that increasingly demand fluency. They allow a greater access to a much broader swath of learning styles, opening the traditionally narrow sense of traditional education that frankly left many feeling unintelligent.
In addition to collaboration, students interested in and engaged via seeking to understand relationships are finding avenue to fluency in new literacies via such platforms as role-playing games and My Space or Facebook. Many girls who had once been seen as uninterested in computers, are now "now in the majority" in playing popular role-playing games like "The Sims" (Williams p303). While many girls did not seem to be attracted to video game violence, The SIMS focused attractively on relationships by SIM-ulating human interaction in a number of different scenarios. And while, to be honest, I have not thought to use either Facebook or MySpace in the classroom, I recently spoke with an English teacher who wanted to use My Space for a project on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (she was complaining about the large number of internet sites blocked by her district!). She wanted to her students to form groups, choose characters from the play and then create MySpace pages for each. Each character’s page should reflect their personalities, interests, and ‘recent events,’ all of which would be discovered as the students read through the play. Students interested in relationships would have an engaging time visiting and commenting on the sites of other characters in the group, inspiring students to really get ‘into the heads’ of their characters and reflect on how the characters should interact.
And while this entry dealt primarily with how educators might invite more girls into developing fluency in ‘new literacies’ of the internet, it must be said that the main thrust of my argument is that educators attempt to discover the incentives for all of their students to explore and develop such fluency by exploring as many possibilities as they can.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Gender, Motivation and New Literacies
When it comes to the new literacies of the internet and technology, the common belief is that boys tend to be more adept than girls. And while it is important for educators to recognize that gender is socially, not biologically constructed, it is also important not to deny the powerful cultural dynamics of gender. Bronwyn Williams, editor of the Literacy and Identity Department at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, further emphasizes that “looking at how the culture at large constructs expectations of gender identity is important examining and understanding the forces at work on individual boys and girls and how they adapt or oppose such forces…the cultural power of conventional gender roles seems inexorable.” And so, educators must be sure to create opportunities that reflect the tendencies of both gender roles.
Typically more competitive than girls, boys have been perhaps most highly motivated by video gaming. This, however, seems to translate into a myriad of related skills that develop with the organic dynamism of their youth, helping them achieve fluency that is both automatic and instinctual. And while girls are pulling ahead in the traditional literacies of reading and writing, “they lose ground in other ways, particularly development of skills in alternative and computer-based literacies” (Sanford, 2005). As James Paul Gee suggests, the demands on younger generations are increasing as they are expected to compete with an increasing global population of educated workers. Basic skills will no longer be enough for our children to survive as they may have in the past. Now they need to achieve high degrees of innovative and creative fluency in many literacies in order to stay afloat in a world of 'new capitalism.' How are educators to help create those opportunities for girls? What are the motivators that will encourage ‘the cultural power of conventional gender roles’ to draw in those not attracted to the competitive nature of video games?
Sanford, K (2005). Gendered literacy experiences: The effects of expectation and
opportunity for boys’ and girls’ learning. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 49, 302-315.
Williams, B. T. (2007). Girl power in a digital world: Considering the complexity
of gender, literacy, and technology. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 50:4, 300-307.
Typically more competitive than girls, boys have been perhaps most highly motivated by video gaming. This, however, seems to translate into a myriad of related skills that develop with the organic dynamism of their youth, helping them achieve fluency that is both automatic and instinctual. And while girls are pulling ahead in the traditional literacies of reading and writing, “they lose ground in other ways, particularly development of skills in alternative and computer-based literacies” (Sanford, 2005). As James Paul Gee suggests, the demands on younger generations are increasing as they are expected to compete with an increasing global population of educated workers. Basic skills will no longer be enough for our children to survive as they may have in the past. Now they need to achieve high degrees of innovative and creative fluency in many literacies in order to stay afloat in a world of 'new capitalism.' How are educators to help create those opportunities for girls? What are the motivators that will encourage ‘the cultural power of conventional gender roles’ to draw in those not attracted to the competitive nature of video games?
Sanford, K (2005). Gendered literacy experiences: The effects of expectation and
opportunity for boys’ and girls’ learning. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 49, 302-315.
Williams, B. T. (2007). Girl power in a digital world: Considering the complexity
of gender, literacy, and technology. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 50:4, 300-307.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Literacies Old and Young
In the digital age, new digital literacies are a cornucopia of opportunties to motivate students. In his article “Video Games, Learning About Learning” James Paul Gee tells of his experience with his son being highly motivated to problem solve while playing certain video games as a child. Gee was often surprised by the complexity of the challenges put before his son, particularly as his son grew in age. Where he would once play these games before his son so he might coach him, he now finds that his son is much more adept at quickly navigating the many challenges put before him. Gee’s experiences reminded me of my own son and how impressed I was that he would spend as much time as I would allow on a video game that taught phonics by having him move the cursor over onsets and rimes until he found the correct combination. As he moved the cursor, a cartoon mouth would pronounce the sound of the onset or rime and my son would have to click on the combination that would match a picture. Brilliant. And now, at eight, I teach him how to be a patient teacher as he teaches me how to play some of his more complex games (Dad makes sure he steers our purchases toward games that involve strategy and problem solving).
Though not a very complex insight, it is certainly one that invites a teacher or parent into the potential not only for such engaging new literacies, but for the opportunity for our students and children to be empowered as they teach us these new literacies in exchange for the training in the skills of more traditional reading and writing. There are opportunities here in the bridges that educators can create between these literacies, new and old. My son may have begun his training in decoding on a computer screen, but he now itches to page through the next Harry Potter.
Though not a very complex insight, it is certainly one that invites a teacher or parent into the potential not only for such engaging new literacies, but for the opportunity for our students and children to be empowered as they teach us these new literacies in exchange for the training in the skills of more traditional reading and writing. There are opportunities here in the bridges that educators can create between these literacies, new and old. My son may have begun his training in decoding on a computer screen, but he now itches to page through the next Harry Potter.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
“Made for all’ Reading Programs kill Motivation
It had always seemed strange to me that schools are charged with killing the natural curiosity of school age children. When they are so naturally curious, how can this be? Surely there must be ways to encourage fluency in the skills they will need through their interests and, once able, encourage them to appreciate increasingly challenging text. And surely the path to such motivation for reading and writing increasingly complex text is not in ‘cookie cutter’ reading programs that take the teacher out of the teaching. In her essay, “Success Guaranteed Literacy Programs,” Lynn Astarita Gatto argues that there is no such thing. In this article, she details her flexible approach towards engaging, project-based instruction, a successful approach that makes “literacy a practice, something that gets done, not skills to be learned for use at a later date” (Gatto 2007). She searches for and discovers the means to get the balls of intrinsic motivation rolling at just the right gradient to allow for clever facilitation and to keep them rolling in common and constructive directions while so many educators are trying to force all of their balls to roll uphill. It may be appropriate for me to apologize for that analogy, so perhaps I can do so in detailing a bit of Gatto's approach.
In her essay, Gatto cites a project through which students, in an effort to learn about butterflies, create a butterfly vivarium. In planning this unit, she collects the materials they will need to answer the questions that will inevitably arise. They do, and her students engage in ‘dialogic instruction, where the children can express their opinions and disagree with others, self-select the turn-taking during conversation, initiate topics of conversation, offer ideas for activities and discuss and question concepts” (Gutierrez, 1993). Gatto's project immediately got her class buzzing with excitement and questions that she recorded with the express intent of incorporating into the unit. She allowed this interest to guide her choice of additional reading materials, extension activities as well as the lessons she needed to teach to support her students’ authentic efforts. When opportunities arose for her to bring culturally diverse students aboard, she did so. She brought readings in Spanish and had letters intended for the Mexican government translated by bilingual sixth graders. This not only motivated the native Spanish speakers, but sent the message that such interaction was purposeful. Gatto also allowed "students to construct purposes." Students were constantly taking ownership of their project, coming up with questions such as how they will present and manage the vivarium once it is open to the public as well as answers. As her students were obviously inspired by the works of Jacob Lawrence, Gatto made connections to her students lives, found more of the artist's books and led a trip to a museum where students could view his paintings. Gatto's work with spelling dictionaries illustrates how she builds "into explicit instruction into reading frameworks" (Gatto, 2007).
Having won awards and received continued recogntion for her work in motivating students to become truly engaged fluent readers and writers, her argument against Success Guaranteed Reading Programs is all the more powerful. “The mandated reading program just does not provide this kind of motivation or meaningful connection to content for reading” (Gatto, 2007).
I’m sold on the idea. I know from working with my son to encourage reading that once his fluency grew, I simply needed to pay attention to his interests and then keep a steady supply and the right environment (just before bedtime is a great one), and his ability grew at a faster rate than any capsulated reading program could hope to achieve.
However, Lynn Gatto wrote that, while frugal, she needed to spend her own money to secure appropriate materials. She explored libraries and more. Having only recently gotten a job teaching 11th and 12th grade English Language Arts, I must admit that applying the concept as openly as Lynn seems like a recipe for chaos. The availability of materials is a problem and so is my ability to prepare myself to facilitate the reading and connections of a very large number of interrelated works. So I ask, what, at the Secondary level, are the baby steps to a program like Ms. Gatto’s?
Gatto, LA. (2007). Success guaranteed literacy programs - i don't buy it!. In J Larson
(Ed.), Literacy as Snake Oil (pp. 73-90). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
In her essay, Gatto cites a project through which students, in an effort to learn about butterflies, create a butterfly vivarium. In planning this unit, she collects the materials they will need to answer the questions that will inevitably arise. They do, and her students engage in ‘dialogic instruction, where the children can express their opinions and disagree with others, self-select the turn-taking during conversation, initiate topics of conversation, offer ideas for activities and discuss and question concepts” (Gutierrez, 1993). Gatto's project immediately got her class buzzing with excitement and questions that she recorded with the express intent of incorporating into the unit. She allowed this interest to guide her choice of additional reading materials, extension activities as well as the lessons she needed to teach to support her students’ authentic efforts. When opportunities arose for her to bring culturally diverse students aboard, she did so. She brought readings in Spanish and had letters intended for the Mexican government translated by bilingual sixth graders. This not only motivated the native Spanish speakers, but sent the message that such interaction was purposeful. Gatto also allowed "students to construct purposes." Students were constantly taking ownership of their project, coming up with questions such as how they will present and manage the vivarium once it is open to the public as well as answers. As her students were obviously inspired by the works of Jacob Lawrence, Gatto made connections to her students lives, found more of the artist's books and led a trip to a museum where students could view his paintings. Gatto's work with spelling dictionaries illustrates how she builds "into explicit instruction into reading frameworks" (Gatto, 2007).
Having won awards and received continued recogntion for her work in motivating students to become truly engaged fluent readers and writers, her argument against Success Guaranteed Reading Programs is all the more powerful. “The mandated reading program just does not provide this kind of motivation or meaningful connection to content for reading” (Gatto, 2007).
I’m sold on the idea. I know from working with my son to encourage reading that once his fluency grew, I simply needed to pay attention to his interests and then keep a steady supply and the right environment (just before bedtime is a great one), and his ability grew at a faster rate than any capsulated reading program could hope to achieve.
However, Lynn Gatto wrote that, while frugal, she needed to spend her own money to secure appropriate materials. She explored libraries and more. Having only recently gotten a job teaching 11th and 12th grade English Language Arts, I must admit that applying the concept as openly as Lynn seems like a recipe for chaos. The availability of materials is a problem and so is my ability to prepare myself to facilitate the reading and connections of a very large number of interrelated works. So I ask, what, at the Secondary level, are the baby steps to a program like Ms. Gatto’s?
Gatto, LA. (2007). Success guaranteed literacy programs - i don't buy it!. In J Larson
(Ed.), Literacy as Snake Oil (pp. 73-90). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Linguistic Bridges to Prior Knowledge
As I have suggested in a previous post, linguists have long argued that there are no inherently superior languages. A people’s native tongue serves them just as they need to be served, and it changes as they need it to be changed. Why then, have so many speakers of nonstandard dialects of English or even other languages been made to feel inferior simply because Standard English is not their mother tongue? I have taught on the Navajo reservation and spoken with parents who, when they attended public school, were struck for speaking Navajo. None of my immigrant ancestors fought very hard to ensure subsequent generations held onto their native languages. When I moved to teach in North Carolina, the very first thing my students asked me was if I would stop them from saying ‘ain’t.’ I explained, prior to any reading or research into the current debate over literacy in America, that I would not stop them from saying ‘ain’t.’ I did, however, mention that there was both a very good reason for them to keep and honor their home language and culture as well as a very good reason to learn and hone their skills in a common English, and we would honor BOTH in our English classroom.
While I understand the rationale behind the assumption, perhaps well intended, that students must make a choice between their home language or dialect and Standard English, this is both morally and effectively a serious mistake. Standard English, while useful as a national or global common language, should not be seen by disenfranchised students as an attempt to insult and eclipse all local languages. If it does so, it will function as usurper, alienating all those who do not grow up in its cultural midst.
“English in our schools seeks to establish standards for aesthetics and to establish a national cultural heritage based on it. Instead of thinking of ‘standard’ as common or ordinary, ‘standard English’ is thought of as a standard of quality. The effect of this thinking is to subordinate any alternative and to label that alternative inferior” (Hilliard 87-105).
“For many…students, speech is important to their expressions of their identity (Fordham, 1999; Milroy & Milroy, 1991; Ogbu, 1999; Rickford, 2000)” (Gayles, and Denerville 16-23).
If the words of their families are not accepted as valid, how are these minority students supposed to develop the confidence or the desire to adopt Standard English?
“Jesse Jackson fired out with his customary passionate oratory, ‘You don’t have to go to school to learn that garbage’… The even deeper secret was that even those of us that had acquired the “standard dialect” still loved and used aspects of Ebonics all the time. From the call and response rhyming speeches of Reverend Jackson…to all of our mothers, brothers and ourselves, our language has always been part of our very souls” (Delpit 31-48).
No people should be expected to forgo their language that reflects their home culture and identity. The good news is they should have to do so. The promotion of literacy across America hinges on this very notion of academically rich, cultural and linguistic exchange. “I have come to realize that acquiring an additional code comes from identifying with the people who speak it, from connecting the language form with all that is self-affirming and esteem-building, inviting and fun” (Delpit 31-48). As all languages share common elements and, as we all know as educators, it has been proven wise to try to connect new learning to a student’s prior knowledge, shouldn’t teachers of literacy in America use the nonstandard forms of English many students bring to class with a fluency that simply must be a source of motivation and confidence as an introduction, a bridge to Standard English instruction. Students will have their fluency validated and experience the motivation of success while they are then explicitly shown how common English works through the same basic concepts. Once again, the very same general concepts, whether we are speaking of grammar or aspects of language, exist in all modern languages. There need be no wasted time or diversion.
“any linguist (and thus far, apparently, only linguists) will tell you that student vernacular grammar has nothing to do with mistakes in Standard English” (Green, 2002). Instead, we linguists see the patterns of African American English, the most extensively studied American English dialect across 50 years of sociolinguistic scholarship. We know that correction does not work as a method for teaching the Standard dialect to speakers of a vernacular” (Gilyard, 1991; Piestrup, 1973; Wolfram, Adger & Christian, 1999). We know that the most effective way to teach Standard English to speakers of a non-mainstream, stigmatized dialect is to use an ESL technique – Contrastive Analysis. In Contrastive Analysis, the practitioner contrasts the grammatical structure of one variety with the grammatical structure of another variety (presumably the Standard) in order to add the Standard dialect to the students’ linguistic toolbox (Fogel & Ehri 2000; Rickford 1999; Taylor, 1991; Rickford, Sweetland, Rickford 2004; Sweetland, ms.; Wheeler & Swords, 2006). Indeed, the research is robustly clear: “teaching methods which DO take vernacular dialects into account in teaching the Standard work better than those which DO NOT” (Rickford, 1996)” (Wheeler 16-33).
Assuming you are willing to consider the idea; what would this class look like? Are there other methods, in addition to Contrastive Analysis, that would engage students to learn and become fluent in Standard English?
Gayles, Jonathan, and Daphney Denerville. "Counting Language: An Exercise
in Stigmatization." Multicultural Education. Fall. (2007): 16-23. Print.
Delpit, Lisa. "No Kinda Sense." The Skin We Speak. Edited. Lisa Delpit and
Joanne Kilgour Dowdy. New York: The New Press, 2002. Print.
Hilliard, Asa. "Language, Culture, and the Assessment of African American
Children." The Skin We Speak. Edited. Lisa Delpit and Joanne Kilgour
Dowdy. New York: The New Press, 2002. Print.
Wheeler, Rebecca. "“What do we do about student grammar – all those missing –
ed’s and -s’s?” Using comparison and contrast to teach Standard English
in dialectally diverse classrooms ." English Teaching: Practice and
Critique . 5.1 (2006): 16-33. Print.
While I understand the rationale behind the assumption, perhaps well intended, that students must make a choice between their home language or dialect and Standard English, this is both morally and effectively a serious mistake. Standard English, while useful as a national or global common language, should not be seen by disenfranchised students as an attempt to insult and eclipse all local languages. If it does so, it will function as usurper, alienating all those who do not grow up in its cultural midst.
“English in our schools seeks to establish standards for aesthetics and to establish a national cultural heritage based on it. Instead of thinking of ‘standard’ as common or ordinary, ‘standard English’ is thought of as a standard of quality. The effect of this thinking is to subordinate any alternative and to label that alternative inferior” (Hilliard 87-105).
“For many…students, speech is important to their expressions of their identity (Fordham, 1999; Milroy & Milroy, 1991; Ogbu, 1999; Rickford, 2000)” (Gayles, and Denerville 16-23).
If the words of their families are not accepted as valid, how are these minority students supposed to develop the confidence or the desire to adopt Standard English?
“Jesse Jackson fired out with his customary passionate oratory, ‘You don’t have to go to school to learn that garbage’… The even deeper secret was that even those of us that had acquired the “standard dialect” still loved and used aspects of Ebonics all the time. From the call and response rhyming speeches of Reverend Jackson…to all of our mothers, brothers and ourselves, our language has always been part of our very souls” (Delpit 31-48).
No people should be expected to forgo their language that reflects their home culture and identity. The good news is they should have to do so. The promotion of literacy across America hinges on this very notion of academically rich, cultural and linguistic exchange. “I have come to realize that acquiring an additional code comes from identifying with the people who speak it, from connecting the language form with all that is self-affirming and esteem-building, inviting and fun” (Delpit 31-48). As all languages share common elements and, as we all know as educators, it has been proven wise to try to connect new learning to a student’s prior knowledge, shouldn’t teachers of literacy in America use the nonstandard forms of English many students bring to class with a fluency that simply must be a source of motivation and confidence as an introduction, a bridge to Standard English instruction. Students will have their fluency validated and experience the motivation of success while they are then explicitly shown how common English works through the same basic concepts. Once again, the very same general concepts, whether we are speaking of grammar or aspects of language, exist in all modern languages. There need be no wasted time or diversion.
“any linguist (and thus far, apparently, only linguists) will tell you that student vernacular grammar has nothing to do with mistakes in Standard English” (Green, 2002). Instead, we linguists see the patterns of African American English, the most extensively studied American English dialect across 50 years of sociolinguistic scholarship. We know that correction does not work as a method for teaching the Standard dialect to speakers of a vernacular” (Gilyard, 1991; Piestrup, 1973; Wolfram, Adger & Christian, 1999). We know that the most effective way to teach Standard English to speakers of a non-mainstream, stigmatized dialect is to use an ESL technique – Contrastive Analysis. In Contrastive Analysis, the practitioner contrasts the grammatical structure of one variety with the grammatical structure of another variety (presumably the Standard) in order to add the Standard dialect to the students’ linguistic toolbox (Fogel & Ehri 2000; Rickford 1999; Taylor, 1991; Rickford, Sweetland, Rickford 2004; Sweetland, ms.; Wheeler & Swords, 2006). Indeed, the research is robustly clear: “teaching methods which DO take vernacular dialects into account in teaching the Standard work better than those which DO NOT” (Rickford, 1996)” (Wheeler 16-33).
Assuming you are willing to consider the idea; what would this class look like? Are there other methods, in addition to Contrastive Analysis, that would engage students to learn and become fluent in Standard English?
Gayles, Jonathan, and Daphney Denerville. "Counting Language: An Exercise
in Stigmatization." Multicultural Education. Fall. (2007): 16-23. Print.
Delpit, Lisa. "No Kinda Sense." The Skin We Speak. Edited. Lisa Delpit and
Joanne Kilgour Dowdy. New York: The New Press, 2002. Print.
Hilliard, Asa. "Language, Culture, and the Assessment of African American
Children." The Skin We Speak. Edited. Lisa Delpit and Joanne Kilgour
Dowdy. New York: The New Press, 2002. Print.
Wheeler, Rebecca. "“What do we do about student grammar – all those missing –
ed’s and -s’s?” Using comparison and contrast to teach Standard English
in dialectally diverse classrooms ." English Teaching: Practice and
Critique . 5.1 (2006): 16-33. Print.
Monday, October 19, 2009
What is the end goal?
What is the purpose of Literacy education in America? My guess is most do not spend much time trying to figure this one out. We take it as 'given.' The purpose of Literacy Education is, of course, to teach the population how to read and write in Standard English (the home language of American middle and upper classes). But why Standard English? Might not the goal be to teach students how to read and write in a common language and, if so, perhaps the end goal might involve some deviation from what we now consider Standard English? If, however, nationwide fluency in Standard English is the end goal, how are educators to engage students when, as is most often the case, students not immersed in Standard English at home are made to feel as though there home language is wrong? Linguists do, after all, agree that no language is inherently superior to another even though their voice on the subject, as was the case in the recent debate of Ebonics, often goes unheard "Lost in this debate is the fact that numerous scholars have entered their support for Ebonics as a rule governed linguistic system (Baugh 1983, 1999, 2000; Dillard, 1972; Ewars, 1996; Poplack 2000; Rickford 1977, 1997, 1999; Stewart 1967; DeFranz 1979; Ewars n.d.; Honda 2001; Placas 2001)" (Gayles, and Denerville 16-23)
I'd like to tip a bit into the overly idealistic and suggest that certain aspects of nonstandard English dialects be introduced and actually taught in English classrooms. After all, if the end goal of Literacy Education in America is fluency for all, might not a bit of compromise help to bring the nations diverse speakers closer to a common language? This might be done as practically as possible, involving small bits for recognition at first. Whatever gains nationwide acceptance, might become a part of a new Standard English. I can think of two reasons why this idea is not in sync with current realities. One is that Standard English is the language in the corridors of wealth and power and fluency in it gains one access. This might not be wholly fair, but it is our current reality. In addition, I believe it important to consider the idea of working toward the goal of not only a national common language but also a global one. This suggests that in the US, educators should work toward a global standard of English and avoid the kinds of changes in parlance that would deviate from a global norm. And so even the idealistic must accept that formal Literacy education in America be focused on fluency in Standard English despite the fact that this goal is likely to alienate and put at disadvantage those students whose home language is a nonstandard dialect of English. What message might be sent to these students by their teachers that would bring them on board in working toward acheiving this goal?
Lisa Deplit suggests that students need to be ensured that the language they speak at home is as valid as any other, but that learning a common language is necessary for broadening their worlds and gaining access to mainstream American society; "students must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American life, not by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors that the must be allowed the resource of the teacher's expert knowledge, while being helped to acknowledge their own expertness as well; and that even while students are assisted in learning the culture of power, they must also be helped to learn about the arbitrariness of those codes and the power relationships they represent." And yet, how are educators to create "context of meaningful communicative endeavors" that encourage students whose home language is not Standard English to join in?
I'd like to tip a bit into the overly idealistic and suggest that certain aspects of nonstandard English dialects be introduced and actually taught in English classrooms. After all, if the end goal of Literacy Education in America is fluency for all, might not a bit of compromise help to bring the nations diverse speakers closer to a common language? This might be done as practically as possible, involving small bits for recognition at first. Whatever gains nationwide acceptance, might become a part of a new Standard English. I can think of two reasons why this idea is not in sync with current realities. One is that Standard English is the language in the corridors of wealth and power and fluency in it gains one access. This might not be wholly fair, but it is our current reality. In addition, I believe it important to consider the idea of working toward the goal of not only a national common language but also a global one. This suggests that in the US, educators should work toward a global standard of English and avoid the kinds of changes in parlance that would deviate from a global norm. And so even the idealistic must accept that formal Literacy education in America be focused on fluency in Standard English despite the fact that this goal is likely to alienate and put at disadvantage those students whose home language is a nonstandard dialect of English. What message might be sent to these students by their teachers that would bring them on board in working toward acheiving this goal?
Lisa Deplit suggests that students need to be ensured that the language they speak at home is as valid as any other, but that learning a common language is necessary for broadening their worlds and gaining access to mainstream American society; "students must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American life, not by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors that the must be allowed the resource of the teacher's expert knowledge, while being helped to acknowledge their own expertness as well; and that even while students are assisted in learning the culture of power, they must also be helped to learn about the arbitrariness of those codes and the power relationships they represent." And yet, how are educators to create "context of meaningful communicative endeavors" that encourage students whose home language is not Standard English to join in?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
In Diverity We Stand...or Fall?
Where do you stand between the following points of view about either welcoming or rejecting local culture and dialect into the English classroom in order to promote literacy?
1. Local culture and dialect, particularly the aspects of which are particular to teenage popular culture are like candy – too much is not healthy for children and likely to adversely affect their nutritional needs. Whether you find these cultures and dialects valid or not, they take away from a teacher’s effort to promote literacy in Standard English, a language children must adopt because it is the language of money and power. Fluency in the teenagers own social language is ensured by their interaction, but fluency in Standard English is not. Without it, these students , particularly those of minority cultures in the US, will be increasingly marginalized. Time is limited and bringing local culture and dialect in, while engaging, will only serve to dilute curriculum and underserve the very students in the greatest need of being empowered by fluency in Standard English. Therefore, teachers must focus lessons exclusively on Standard English at the exclusion of local dialect/culture if he/she is to enable students to gain access to the mainstream culture of money and power
2. All students come to school literate and only through the fair and validating exchange of diverse literacies will students avoid feeling threatened by Standard English and be willing to embrace it. Teachers must bring diverse dialects into the classroom and then proceed to bridge, to make connections between them and Standard English. All versions of English used in the US utilize the same basic concepts of grammar and usage. Can a teacher not discuss how time is expressed in a local dialect in contrast with Standard English as well as which would be more appropriate when? Don’t all languages require a writer or speaker to consider audience? Since both are valid, both used effectively for communication, can they not both be taught in a way that strengthens a student’s overall literacy? In fact, this is the only way to bring all students ‘on board’ and if they are not ‘on board,’ many will reject Standard English as foreign subjugation.
As with many issues in America, this one has taken on the polarization of our divided political system, as system that pushes unrealistic and oversimplified answers onto complex questions. What is needed is what Soja terms 'thirdspace.' a solution that attempts to address the concerns of both of the views listed above as well as some others; or perhaps neither of those views but something entirely different. In this series of blog posts, I would like to explore and perhaps identify a 'thirdspace' (Soja 1996).
Soja, E. 1996, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places,
Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
1. Local culture and dialect, particularly the aspects of which are particular to teenage popular culture are like candy – too much is not healthy for children and likely to adversely affect their nutritional needs. Whether you find these cultures and dialects valid or not, they take away from a teacher’s effort to promote literacy in Standard English, a language children must adopt because it is the language of money and power. Fluency in the teenagers own social language is ensured by their interaction, but fluency in Standard English is not. Without it, these students , particularly those of minority cultures in the US, will be increasingly marginalized. Time is limited and bringing local culture and dialect in, while engaging, will only serve to dilute curriculum and underserve the very students in the greatest need of being empowered by fluency in Standard English. Therefore, teachers must focus lessons exclusively on Standard English at the exclusion of local dialect/culture if he/she is to enable students to gain access to the mainstream culture of money and power
2. All students come to school literate and only through the fair and validating exchange of diverse literacies will students avoid feeling threatened by Standard English and be willing to embrace it. Teachers must bring diverse dialects into the classroom and then proceed to bridge, to make connections between them and Standard English. All versions of English used in the US utilize the same basic concepts of grammar and usage. Can a teacher not discuss how time is expressed in a local dialect in contrast with Standard English as well as which would be more appropriate when? Don’t all languages require a writer or speaker to consider audience? Since both are valid, both used effectively for communication, can they not both be taught in a way that strengthens a student’s overall literacy? In fact, this is the only way to bring all students ‘on board’ and if they are not ‘on board,’ many will reject Standard English as foreign subjugation.
As with many issues in America, this one has taken on the polarization of our divided political system, as system that pushes unrealistic and oversimplified answers onto complex questions. What is needed is what Soja terms 'thirdspace.' a solution that attempts to address the concerns of both of the views listed above as well as some others; or perhaps neither of those views but something entirely different. In this series of blog posts, I would like to explore and perhaps identify a 'thirdspace' (Soja 1996).
Soja, E. 1996, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places,
Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)