Changing Perceptions--Literacy and Learning

Gee’s readings have had me reflect on how I learn as a student and how I teach as an educator.  His main focus is how he identifies that students are all capable learners—as long as learning is presented in an inviting, engaging and “situated” manner.  He often refers to the educational system as very “content” laden—and he is right!  This is not so very surprising when our teaching is very “curriculum focussed”.  Our politicians want us to prove to their constituents that their children are learning.  I can’t help but wonder where else we could have spent the millions of dollars that is spent on EQAO every year? Just last week a teacher at my school asked if she could have a projector in her portable classroom.  If the EQAO tests were abolished, we could probably have bought net books for every student in the province.  Criticisms are often made about how teachers are teaching.  Today’s students are so technology oriented that it is difficult to engage them without having these tools.  I believe that effective teachers create and engage in a two way dialogue with the students and themselves.  I remember feeling as a student that if I was able to “connect” with my teacher I would have better success in the course/class/lesson.  Even as a teacher, I still feel that if there is a connection, then the students are better learners.  I have also learned that not all students learn in the same manner and boys do not learn the same way as girls. If boys become disengaged, they tune out much more quickly than girls do.  My goal, as a teacher is to engage each of these groups.  If technology allows me to engage in more effective learning situations—then I want to have access to these technological tools. Yes, books are great, but if we do not have books which connect with the learners, the learners will tune out. 

What Gee has made profoundly apparent to me is that literacy is not just books. Gee made a very compelling argument about how some students in traditional and structured educational environments succeed while others fail.  I agree with Gee when he postulates that learning has to be engaging and connected to the individual.  Effective reading occurs when readers can make sense (connect) with what they read.  An interesting comment by Gee was how does one get poor readers to develop their vocabulary?  As a literacy teacher, I encourage students to read MORE as a means of developing their vocabulary proficiency.  I believe that vocabulary development occurs when one hears, speaks, reads and writes it.  Gee recognizes that learning does not occur in a vacuum, and that literacy is not just “book reading” but comes in various forms.  It is this concept that many adults find challenging.  Parents need to be educated about what literacy is in the 21^st century.  All too often parents reflect on their own learning experiences as students and expect their children to learn the same way. When kids play computer games they are learning—not necessarily what we, as adults, appreciate, but they are learning.  What is important, is that we need to recognize why these are learning experiences. When students play these computer games, they are utilizing many strategies that facilitated successful learning environment.  From “fish-bowl” tutorials that utilize “just in time learning”, to a multi-modal approach in a contextual environment, students should to be encouraged to read and to develop their literacy skills. As teachers, we need to make sure that the purpose for learning is not just for “marks” but for meaning.  Struggling students need scaffolding from their peers and teachers and they need to see what is expected. I believe that effective teachers already do this.  Gee was right when he recognized that literacy needs challenges but only to the degree at which children are able to achieve success.  Isn’t this what our board has been doing with the literacy programme—identifying the student’s reading level and encouraging reading from this level?  As a Junior and an Intermediate teacher, I have been trying to engage all of my students to read, write and present their thoughts by utilizing social justice issues as they pertain to human rights, health concerns, Remembrance Day and anti-bullying awareness campaigns.    

But the question still remains, “Why are kids being “turned off?” Is it because we do not have the materials/resources?  Or, is it different from the way the educators were taught?  I have to admit, I think that many educators are in a rut.  They have not kept up with the pace of today’s technology. It’s not easy! Time constraints and mounting volumes of paperwork make everything “extra” like personal development, a luxury. Educators need to show more initiative and expand their understanding of what literacy is in the 21^st century if they are to succeed with their 21^st century students. Input is necessary from all of the involved parties—not just political leaders and theorists. 

Literacy, Schooling and Social Justice – October 27th 2012

Literacy involves being able to read and write in a socially appropriate context (Blackledge).  Cultural literacy acknowledges how the context of culture is crucial in the development of a person’s literacy.   As Comber and Cormack articulate, children come to school with different literacy skills.  In Canada, those students who come to school literate with a western cultural approach, aka upper middle class schools, have a distinct advantage.  Student’s who come from an oral storytelling culture, tend to struggle in school.  Wenger identifies us as social beings.  Western culture values students to ask “explicit questions” and to “synthesize the knowledge with the world around them”.   When students are able to develop knowledge and connect it to the world around them, they are proving their literacy.  Learning does not only take place in the classroom from textbooks—it takes place all the time—it’s human nature to understand things and to want to learn.

 Students from lower socio-economic groups who challenge authority and try to “save face” and maintain their culture, are significantly less likely to achieve success in school.   Many of the students from these lower socio-economic groups do not see the point in education and many are blamed for “not trying”.  They believe that by becoming educated, they are adopting the culture of the middle-class and betraying their own cultural community.  Freire believes that these students need to see how literacy and education can make their own lives better—to figure out how literacy will help them.  Students from many  voluntary “immigrant” families frequently see literacy and schooling as the key to mobility. 

 Luke identifies how different literacy approaches have serious political and economic consequences.   Government wants educators to be more accountable.  It’s not surprising then that a technocratic data driven approach is what is preferred by governments today.  This is particularly true in our “data” driven board.  It is not surprising that many “inner-city” multi-cultural neighbourhood  schools struggle to achieve acceptable standardized results compared to their upper middleclass suburban schools.   A technocratic approach assumes that literacy can be accurately measured through this “neutral” and “efficient” approach.  This approach ignores the unique personalities and challenges in multi-culturally diverse schools.  For example, I remember one EQAO assessment story where students were to relate and reflect on their camping experiences.  This assumption that all students would be familiar with camping proved particularly challenging for students who lived in downtown Toronto.  This socio-cultural experience is similar to Gregory’s article about the Chinese immigrant child in Britain.   The article extrapolated how not all cultures place the written text on as high a pedestal as the Western culture had.  The article identified how a British advertisement equated the cultural practice of the bedtime story ritual to that of washing with Persil soap.  It related how the Western culture valued both cleanliness and the bedtime stories with your child; how both were a given.  The article implied that there must be something wrong with a family that did not read to their child.

 Although I read bedtime stories with my sons when they were small, I did so with the belief that it would develop their love of reading.  I also believed that this experience would strengthen the relationship we had with each other.   I never thought how this might not be the experience for children of different cultures. 

Western governments and educators tend to prioritize their culture above others.   Even when I taught grade 6 History, rarely did the text book relate to the Native Canadians.  The vocabulary used was from the European perspective—“the European explorers discovered North America”.  The vocabulary in the text comes across as rather insulting to the Native Peoples.   Thankfully, teachers are able to use critical literacy to debunk insufficient text and open the student’s eyes to different perspectives.   However literacy is taught--it is never taught through a neutral lens.  Many of society’s educators and successful individuals believe that everyone has had an equal chance to achieve success in life.  That if you study and work hard, a solid education will give you an equal opportunity to rise up into a higher social class than one into which you were born. The reality is quite different.  It is much easier to maintain the social class into which you are born than to “jump” up to another one.  A socio-cultural approach to literacy helps to explain how the student’s own culture plays a pivotal role (both positive and negative) in their acquisition to the dominate culture’s literacy.