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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)