Reflection November 23, 2009

Throughout the semester, I think that my questions and thinking seemed to be centered on students’ and teachers’ positions and identities relative to literacy. It was hard for me not to address the issues relative to positions and identity maybe because these issues are my current areas of interest. Woodside-Jiron’s article in particular enlightened me by addressing how policy documents used language in order to reinforce the ideas centered around neoconservatism and neoliberalism in relative to Language Arts (or maybe general) curriculum. Her work initially helped me think about how students and teachers are positioned in the policy documents and NRP.  I continued considering these issues in relative to each issue that each group addressed – using hip-hop music for literacy class (popular culture), multimodality, critical literacy , and bilingual education. Throughout these issues, I found that broadening our views of literacy and encompassing the unaddressed areas of literacy in the current curriculum can contribute to positioning students and teachers as more active beings who have agency and power over handling literacies in creative, flexible, and strategic ways.

In terms of the ways in which I draw on issues and trends, it was somewhat challenging for me to think about issues and trends based on the readings. I found that there was a gap between what I can understand (or imagine) relative to issues and trends in language arts by reading articles and what actually happens in the field of schools. At times I felt that the gap was a great barrier that made me feel distance from the issues discussed in the articles and sometimes prevented me from giving my opinions on those issues. Whenever I felt so, I tried to think about the issues relative to my Korean school teaching or some relevant issues in Korea, or other articles that I have read. Probably in that reason, I just saw one side of RTI program without thinking critically about this program.

Not to mention our readings (esp. the first article – Woodside-Jiron’s), our classroom discussions also encouraged me to thinking more critically about educational issues in relative to literacy, news articles, and even other books. Not only our classmates’ sharing of their experiences with students in the field, but also their ways of looking at the issues inspired me to approach the issues differently from what I used to do.

Probably in this reason, I tended to start my postings with summary of each article. I tried to summarize each article first in order to make sure what I have understood and what I have noticed. Summarizing article helped me organize the points from the article that spoke to me and my thoughts about the article. It also helped me become clear about what I was wondering or questioning. In the meantime, I was wondering how my posting would have been different if I made postings after our discussion.  Our oral discussions always helped me a lot to understand issues addressed in the articles better because I could learn from our classmates who have different perspectives and rich experiences in school.

Learning to teach and teaching to learn November 12, 2009

Morrell’s study on critical research seminar involving students, teachers, and university researchers highlights the significance of using critical literacy approach in professional teacher education program. The focus of Morrell’s study is on the teachers who are participating in this seminar and the ways in which they were participated in the “community of practice” of critical inquiry. Collaborative and critical inquiry based on their own teaching could allow teachers to position themselves not only as self-regulated professionals but also as ones who pursue social actions through teaching.

In order to describe teachers’ experience in the seminar, Morrell employed the concept of “peripheral participation.” According to this concept, learning as situated activity takes place as practitioners acquire knowledge and skills for participating in the community. In addition, their identities are shaped through their participation. In the critical research seminar, participant teachers are new to critical literacy. Thus, they participate in the seminar as peripheral participants by acquiring knowledge and skills for critical literacy practices. Morrell highlighted four features of teachers’ peripheral participation: 1) teachers’ teaching episodes were important artifact through which they reflect their teaching; 2) teachers collaboratively planned and debriefed sessions in order to modify their teaching while avoiding problematic teaching practices; 3) teachers could have opportunities to watch professional practices, which led conversations “about styles, approaches, and philosophies that are often absent from the culture of teaching (p. 95); and 4) teachers also had extensive opportunity to consider philosophical ideas about teaching by making a connection to their own teaching practice and situation. Morell indicated that peripheral participation allowed teachers to take risk to share their teaching moments and their opinions while they are taking a position as learners. In addition, teachers could also gain agency over teaching practices and shape identities as professionals who are collaborative and flexible to reflect and modify their teaching, yet also have power to avoid what it not right for thier students and to pursue social justice.

One thing that I thought interesting was from one of the teacher fellows, Ramon’s comments. He mentioned that there is no inappropriate topic to talk about with students. I agree with him in that any topic generated from students can be a important moment to lead meaningful discussions with students. In that way, I think that their learning come from their own experiences. Then, how can we strategically and systematically approach students’ wonderings and noticings from their life experiences? How can teachers also prepare to organize the discussions?

In the similar vein, I became also wondering how critical literacy approach can be employed in preservice teacher education program. Even though preservice teachers’ teaching experiences are somewhat constrained by their internship program, they do have teaching experiences not only from their teaching placements, but also from observations of their cooperating teachers’ teaching practices. I wonder in what ways critical literacy practices can be employed in teaching methods class.

Bilingual education and equity in education November 5, 2009

This article led me to think about so many things related to bilingual education, policy, and assessment. According to Palmer and Lynch, bilingual children and their teachers are challenged by the standardized testing and curriculum that stress bilingual children’s acquisition of English and mono-lingual environment. Their struggles and challenges come from the constraints and control from the standardized testing: Teachers could not employ alternative instructions to support bilingual children better; teachers made decision to change instructional language due to transition policy rather than as a pedagogical decision. In fact, it is frustrating to imagine that teachers have to make a decision for students not because of their pedagogical or philosophical intent, but by force.

 I really wonder how transition works. In my mind, I do not understand the basic assumption of transitioning that the policy has. It seems to me that this transition policy does not reflect dynamic changes of the world. As Palmer and Lynch indicate, children who come to US after certain grade level cannot get a primary language support. In addition, even if children could get an institutionalized primary language support, not every child could achieve the same level of language competence at the same time.

 This article led me to think about “aims of education” in terms of purpose of curriculum, purpose of testing, and purpose of policy, and purpose of language choice at school (Noddings, 2003). According to Noddings, our pedagogical choices, purpose of instruction, and what needs to be addressed are depending on our aims for education. She indicates that the aims of education in our current society are focused on equity – more specifically economic equity in children’s future. From this perspective, it seems that acquiring English is important for bilingual children to achieve such equity. In other words, English seems a tool that bilingual children need to gain an access to mainstream values that is recognized and emphasized in school. 

However, it is questionable that such economic equity can be achieved by children’s master of English and assimilation with mainstream culture (Noddings, 2003). It seems that under the name of equity, not only bilingual children but also other children who are underrepresented in society are getting lost of their agency over their knowledge from their experiences, language, and culture. In addition, while struggling with system (e.g. testing), it seems that they lose opportunities to think about they who they are, who they could become, and who they want to be(come).

If we think about why it is important for bilingual children to acquire English and/or to improve both languages, we might be able to consider how we can support these children. Then, it might not be important when they need to transit from their first language to English or whether they need to take test in English or in their first language.  If they really need to learn and acquire English or mainstream language due to either social expectation, I guess that children need more scaffolding to make sense of themselves and make sense of their world that they are experiencing in both languages. At the end of this article, the authors call for policy for bilingual and biliteracy education. I agree with their idea that bilingual/biliteracy policyat least may open an opportunity to revive meaningful and constructive discussions on language policy and education.

After thoughts…. October 29, 2009

I really appreciated our discussion on critical literacy today. After our discussion on children’s books, I began to wonder how much teacher can involve in children’s critical questioning. While I was talking with my group, I thought that it might be somewhat attempting to lead the conversation toward what I would notice from the book instead of what children would see.  As Toni suggested, modeling can be beneficial for children to get familiar with critical questions. As Michelle pointed out,  I agree that it really can help them internalize how to pose questions. In addition to that, maybe valuing children’s questions about issues around their life and inviting them  to talk about those issues might be another way to open critical literacy in class. 

I really love thinking about critical literacy. Today’s discussion really made me become interested in doing critical literacy practices with my students in Korean school. However, it is challenging for me to think about doing critical literacy practices in several ways. One of the reasons, I think, is that this class is almost considered as a foreign language class becuase students who are in my class have just started to learn Korean. Thinking of my class really made me wonder whehter critical literacy can be possible in a foreign language classroom.  Hmmm … Then, how can I address critical literacy to my class??

Critical Literacy October 29, 2009

Luke and Freebody revisited the model that they had suggested in 1991 in order to critique and reformulate. Here are the points that they highlighted.

• Teaching literacy could not be simply dependent on “scientific” methods, but moral, political, and cultural decisions should be considered.
• Experiences in literacy practices can influence learners’ (people’s ) formation of agency over cultural, semiotic resources.
• The three dimensions of literacy capabilities include: 1) “the breadth of an individual’s or community’s repertoire of literate practices; the depth and degree of control exercised by an individual or community in any given literacy activity; and the extent of hybridity, novelty, and redesign at work.”
• Four  resources of model: 1) Code Breaking is recognizing and handling fundamental features of text; 2) Meaning making can be achieved through participating in reading and writing through different modes in order to create meanings; 3) Using texts encompasses understanding cultural and social functions of different texts, which affect structure, tone, degree of formality, and components: 4)By critically analyzing texts can show how power relations affect design, structure, and inclusion of particular contents. 

I really enjoy “Critical literacy in reading workshop.”  I appreciate the way the author (teacher/researcher) addressed critical awareness to young children by asking to think about disconnections between their lived life and life in Henry and Mudge and what they wanted to modify in the story. I was smiling when Sarah was mimicking her teachers’ questions about changes that they wanted to make. Even though the conversation went a bit awry, I thought it was really nice that Sarah was thinking about the questions from the teacher. In the meantime, I was wondering how critical literacy practices could influence these girls’ life and their literacy practices in later years.  Were these girls able to take what they had thought about with their teacher in order to think about other issues that they encountered in their readings or in their life?

The girls in this article reminded me of the students in Dr. Martinez’s study: The children did code-switching butdid not realize it until Dr. Martinez asked about. I was wondering whether lingusitic awareness can also be part of critical literacy pedagogy. It seems that there are several aspects that bilingual/multilingual children could talk about their language use in terms of language ideologies in schools, society, and their communities, linguistic differences, social contexts and language use, and even power relations regarding language use.

Popular cultural pedagogy October 14, 2009

 

Reading this article reminded me of my world history teacher in high school. FYI, teaching and learning at school in Korea are so much bound to the required curriculum. In Korea, students at the same grade level learn the same contents through similar textbooks or same textbooks regardless of regions or teachers. In a way, there is very little room for teachers to use various reading materials that motivate students. However, my world history teacher in high school used stories from movies, comic books or fiction in order to engage us in understanding historical events that were unfamiliar with or even far from us.  He also encouraged us to read comic books based on the world history and to watch movies based on the historical events that we were learning. In fact, most of the students at my grade level were excited about learning world history while this particular teacher was teaching us. Without the connection he made between particular popular cultural texts and the historical events that we were learning, reading the popular cultural texts might have been only for our enjoyment. In addition, we might not have noticed that the popular cultural texts that we were engaging in were meaningful.

Duncan-Andrade and Morrell indicate that “it is the task of the teacher to persuade students that this knowledge (tacit knowledge derived from the cultural resources that students already possess) contributes to helping them learn what they need to know (p. 290).” It seems to me that my world history teacher was trying to help us know that popular cultural texts could support our understanding of content knowledge of world history. In addition, teacher’s use of popular cultural texts could empower students to become aware that their ability to use texts is not very different from the academic ability curriculum requires them to have. Even in some cases, by using popular cultural texts, teachers may be able to engage students to analyze, criticize, and challege the texts – those skills that are supposedly acquired through academic literacy practices.

I also like the idea of incorporating popular cultural texts that students are familiar in order to engage students in questioning and pondering upon power relations, the dominant ideologies and a variety of social issues that might be related to their lives. I think this could be the core of the curriculum using popular cultural texts. Celebrating students’ engagement with popular culture can motivate students to learn school sanctioned knowledge. However, students may gain critical thinking skills from becoming aware of and critical about social issues around themselves.

I agree that incorporating popular cultural texts is one of the culturally responsive ways of teaching. However, while I was reading the article on one teacher’s experience with using popular cultural texts in her classroom, I started to wonder how teachers would make a choice of popular cultural texts teachers can integrate into their curriculum. The way in which Alexander-Smith chose the type of popular cultural texts sounded so simple, but it might not be that easy before the teacher knows and understands her students’ life. I also wonder how we can address diversity issues in relation to popular cultural texts. My concern is that using one type of popular cultural texts over others might exclude studetns who are not consumers of that particular popular culture. Then, what do teachers need to consider when their students are from culturally diverse backgrounds and might experince different types of popular cultural texts?

RTI October 6, 2009

It is interesting to read this week’s articles on RTI because I felt that RTI seems to concern carefully how to approach struggling reader and it seems helpful for both teachers and struggling readers. Based on the descriptions in both articles (Gersten & Dimino, 2006; Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008), RTI seems a very systematic and data-driven approach to discern problems that students have and to provide them with appropriate intervention before it is too late for them to improve their reading skills. It also can provide framework for assessing students and collect data for instructional decision making.  I can appreciate the fact that there are several responsive steps of measuring students’ reading and monitoring their progresses and responses. As Gersten and Dimino imply, this model seems a quite sound way of identifying students with reading difficulties and their areas of growth.

The basic assumption of this model is that “if students become proficient readers by the end of first grade, then they will remain good readers (Gersten & Dimino, 2006, p. 101).” Despite the soundness of RTI, this assumption actually makes me wonder what RTI means by proficiency or proficient readers. According to Gersten and Dimino imply, it seems that the areas RTI focuses include decoding skills such as accuracy and fluency. Given the fact that RTI is a kind of assessment model of identifying students with reading disabilities, this assumption might be understandable. However, as Gersten and Dimino concern,  it is somewhat questionable that students in the intervention implemented via RTI would develop comprehension skills and vocabulary.

I really wonder how this program would contribute to children’s reading motivation, self-efficacy and development over time as they engage in the intervention that is implemented based on their needs  and how students, teachers and parents would respond to the results that this model would bring to students’ reading.   

I wonder how this model would approach ELL readers who are often placed in special education because they do not speak either English or their home language at school. I wonder how researchers who develop RTI address this issue.

What is missing? September 22, 2009

The findings of NRP were vague and ambiguous due to the limited range and number of studies included in NRP report, as well as due to unreliable analytical method. Program effectiveness and achievement seemed to be the words, to me, that represent the findings of NRP because the report is only based on intervention studies without considering the results from other types of studies. Heavily relying on NRP report, NCLB and Reading First seem to deal with educational issues with a functionalistic approach focusing on measurement, effectiveness, reform and intervention. Thus, NCLB and Reading First initiative seem to assume that a certain program can improve low level of reading ability among students ignoring students’ different social/cultural backgrounds, individual differences, and other various factors that affect students’ learning.  In addition, NCLB and Reading First initiative assume that children at the same age go through the same developmental stage regardless of their biological and psychological differences.

Both Stevens’s (2003) and Gerstl-Pepin and Woodside-Jiron’s articles seemed to show how the assumptions behind NCLB and Reading First initiative define readers and the roles of teachers. As for students, Gerstl-Pepin and Woodsid Jiron indicate that NCLB considers students with low reading scores as problematic ones who need intervention in order to fix the problems. The types of readers that NCLB expect students to be is well defined in the Reading First program, as an exemplary intervention program implemented in Laurel Ridge. According o Stevens, Reading First program prioritize decoding fluency over comprehension.  In addition, the program is based on the idea of linear model of reading development according to age which assumes that children’s reading development occur as expected developmental patterns.

As for teachers, Gerstl-Pepin and Woodside-Jiron indicate that NCLB minimize the roles of teachers and their expertise by not including teachers’ roles and by implicitly blaming teachers for school failure. Thus, the roles of teachers implied in Reading First program is to impose knowledge that the program expects students to learn and to follow passively the program directions  rather than to use teachers’ professional knowledge and experiences to develop lessons appropriate for their students.  

What made me sad is that NCLB and Reading First program position students as passive readers not as ones who actively negotiate meaning, interpret and criticize texts using their own experiences and knowledge. In addition, it positions students as mechanical readers who have automatic decoding fluency while completely ignoring affective aspects of readers – motivation, interests, and emotions that influence students’ choice of books, comprehending the texts, and their continuous engagement in further literacy practices. NCLB and Reading First program also positions teachers as passive follower of direction as ones who fail to solve students’ problems properly and effectively while ignoring teachers’ motivation to support students to become competent, engaged and critical readers like teachers in Laurel Ridge.  As Gerstl-Pepin and Woodside-Jiron imply, scientifically-based research may help educators understand children’s weaknesses and strengths in reading skills. However, they also indicate that scientifically-based research limit and minimize important components in reading development (e.g. teachers’ passion and students’ interests and motivation) because scientifically-based research only tries to quantify and measure while avoiding to consider or simply ignoring the components that it can quantify or measure.

Gerstl-Pepin, C. I.,& Woodside-Jiron, H. (2005). Tensions between the “science” of reading and a “love of learning”: One high-poverty school’s struggle with NCLB. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 232-241.

Stevens, L. P. (2003). Reading First: A critical policy analysis. The Reading Teacher, 56, 662-668.

NRP report and Allington (2005) September 17, 2009

Allington indicated that NRP report was written under the condition of insufficient fund, time, and staff. As I read this, I came to understand why I couldn’t help but feel that the report seems incomplete in some reasons. In fact, while I was reading NRP report, I could sense that NPR report was based on ‘rigorous methodology research.’ I appreciated that the board was careful to choose and include studies by setting high criteria in order to find more research based evidence.  I also appreciated the board’s effort to listen to the public who would particularly influenced by NRP report. I could see that the board purposefully chose empirical /quasiexperimental studies in order to see the impact of five aspects of reading instruction (Alphabetics, Fluency, comprehension, teacher education and reading instruction, and computer technology and reading instruction). Nevertheless, I was wondering why the board did not broaden search and inclusion criteria depending on the topics that might be less studied in empirical/quasi-empirical way (e.g. teacher education)and why the board decided to focus persistently on intervention studies without getting informed from other types of studies.  If the board could broaden their review of literature, wouldn’t the final report become different from what it is now?

In addition, what made me sad was that NRP report has been misrepresented due to the dominant ideology about children’s reading. As examples, Allington indicated that Put Reading First published by NICHD misused and misinterpreted the information from NRP in order to serve the organization’s ideology. Thus, the reading programs implemented by Put Reading First provide anti-scientific teaching methods and reading materials to the children – such as “whole-class reading instruction using a sicentific’ reading series with remediation”, about which Allington raised awareness that such ‘one-size fits all’ instruction and material could not support children with reading difficulties, as well as teachers. It is so deplorable that NRP’s intention to support teachers and children was distorted to give harms rather than benefits. It seems that continuous skepticism and awareness as researchers, teachers, and teacher educators are possible ways not to fall into the logic of misrepresenting ideas.

What I found interesting in the NRP report about teacher education programs was that  two of the studies included in the review reported the inconsistent effect of in-service teacher education programs on teachers’ behaviors and attitudes. In addition, these studies also reported that teachers reverted the strategies and methods informed from the programs. This made me wonder about the possibilties of other factors influencing on teachers such as teachers’ intial attitudes, the implicit messages from schools and mandates, and students’ characteristics. Such factors might also affect teachers when they decided to choose strategies in order for them to serve their teaching and students’ learning better. This also made me think that the effect of teacher education programs might be one of challening area for researchers to look into not only because of the reasons that the NRP subgroup pointed out, but also because the nature of teaching deals with such a broad range of issues.

High-stakes testing – a necessary evil? September 9, 2009

Hoffman, J. V., Assaf, L. C., & Paris, S. G. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow? The Reading Teacher, 54, 482-492.

The main concern in this article is to raise attention to the impact of High-stakes testing in Texas (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) on teaching  and learning in reading. According to the authors, the accountability system and standards-based reform of Texas has been considered “a model” for other state in that they were systematic ways of monitoring factors related to students’ status in schools. In order to explore how TAAS  tests impact teaching and learning in reading, the authors used surveys, which were designed to ask specifically about teachers’ responses and experiences to TAAS. A group of teachers who participated in the survey consisted of teachers were members of the Texas State Reading Association and experienced teachers.

Questions from the surveys asking about the following categories: 1) General attitudes and perceptions of others; 2) preparation and administration of the TAAS; 3) effects on students; 4) uses of TAAS; and 5) Overall impressions on TAAS.  The findings revealed that teachers in this study had negative attitudes about TAAS: they thought that TAAS did not support teaching and learning and that it was not an effective ways of measuring achievement of minority and limited English-speaking students. In addition, teachers generally agreed (M = 2.8) to the elimination of TAAS while reporting that TAAS accounted substantially for the curriculum and the time to prepare. Regarding preparation and administration toward TAAS, it was noticeable that teachers took time and efforts to explain how to take tests.  The effect of TAAS on students were psychologically, physically, and emotionally negative.  Teacher’s perception on the administrators’ emphasis on TAAS was confirmed by the responses from school principals. Principals in this study reported that TAAS could be positively used to improve instruction, to categorize children, and to evaluate effectiveness.  The findings from the overall impressions showed that a half of the teachers thought rise in the test scores did not reflect improvement in teaching and learning. Instead, teachers reported possible increase in cheating. In addition, they considered that TAAS controlled what to teach in schools and that TAAS had negative effect on children by giving them pressure. 

The authors concluded that TAAS had negative impact on teaching and learning as other studies on the negative effects of high-stakes testing showed.  They also concerned the detrimental effect of TAAS on minority students. Finally, they suggested possible ways to overcome the problems caused by the overemphasis on TAAS. Their suggestions included: 1) independent research on the effect of high-stakes testing from multiple perspectives; 2) careful examinations and exploration of the alternatives ; 3) advocating reasonable assessment with challenging  to the high-stakes testing; and 4) never being silent about the harmful influence of TAAS on learning and teaching. 

“Silence prevails in educational circles with respect to TAAS-type testing because it is viewed as a necessary evil to achieve other goals (p. 491)”

One thing that shocked me was the way of silencing the teachers and minority groups who are against high-stakes testing. In fact, it actually made high-stakes testing a necessary evil through political and economic forces. As the authors described, such forces are formidable because they made people consider high-stakes testing an effective and necessary means to determine students’ status and to improve instruction despite its harmful effects on teachers and students. As the authors of this article suggested, therefore, it is important for educators to be aware of the harmful effects of high-stakes testing and  to continue challenging while constantly researching on the effects and considering the alternatives.

The results from the survey briefly illustrated students’ affective and physical discomforts caused by high-stakes testing. The results made me wonder how high-stakes testing affected students in terms of their self-images, motivation, and self-efficacy not only as learners but also as people. High-stakes testing does not only control what to teach and how teach, but it also controls what to learn and how to learn. Focusing on tests does not help improve higher-order thinking skills, creative ways of problem solving, and collaboration with others that are necessary and beneficial for students’ future. While learning to the test, how do children see themselves? In addition, considering that high-stakes testing is be used to categorize students, what are the hidden assumptions that standards /policy make? Howare children positioned in standards and policy?