As I thought about this reading on "new literacies" & how technology is impacting education, my 1st thought was this graduate class: the majority of our class is done online thru our blogs. We communicate with each other thru posting, reading & responding to one anothers blog posts. Would this same method of instruction & communicating have been used 10, even 5 years ago? That's proof right there of how big a role technology is playing on society- as educators, we have to keep up to date with the rapid changing technological growth. Technology & new literacies are impacting literature instruction in classrooms from preschool through graduate school.
Quoting the "Toward a Theory of New Literacies" article, "Traditional definitions of literacy and literacy instruction will be insufficient if we seek to provide students with the futures they deserve." (pg 1571). As scary as this sounds to me, it's so true! We can't continue to teach reading instruction how it's been taught the past decade if we want our students to succeed in our technologically advancing world. We have to update our practices to fit with society & how people have come to communicate- via the Internet, for example.
Language Arts curriculums are going to need to broaden & include objectives such as knowing how to locate useful information on the Internet, how to evaluate search engine results, how to correctly draft an email message. Also, comprehension takes on a deeper meaning now that the Internet is included. Basically, comprehension has always meant being able to construct meaning from text. It now includes being technologically savvy.
An interesting fact I read in the article that I didn't know before is that NCLB has an entire section devoted to technology, demanding that all students will be technologically literate by the end of the 8th grade, regardless of their race, gender, etc. While I'm not a fan of NCLB, I do agree with this goal. I'm predicting that in a few years, it will be nearly impossible to acquire a job if you aren't computer & technologically literate- it's become a necessity to communicate.
Another point I found very true is that in some instances, students may actually be more literate than the teacher, in terms of technology. As rapid as these advances are, children seem to pick up on it much quicker than most adults do. Therefore, I think its ESSENTIAL that districts provide professional development on technology and new literacies so teachers can be up-to-date as much as possible.
For the most part, I think technology is great. I can't imagine not having a computer with Internet access at my fingertips. My mom constantly reminds me of "the good old days" when she had to use the old fashioned encyclopedias to do research papers & that I shouldn't take the Internet for granted! However, after teaching 8th grade language arts, I see some downfalls of technology, too. Many of my students have become grammatically lazy, not capitalizing the beginning of a sentence, not using punctuation, etc. I could be wrong, but I blame text messaging & instant messenger. Slang & "quick" improper language is used with this technology, which is fine. What's not fine is that language translating over to their school work. It worries me that it becomes so natural for these kids to write this way.....we can't have a society that doesn't know how to write properly because they rely so heavily on slang language.
If we can find a happy medium, and if educators can get the proper updates they need, technology will serve as an excellent tool in educating our youth.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Sunday, July 15, 2007
My Thoughts on NCLB & the Politics of Education (Especially Reading)
Being a first year teacher, I feel a tremendous amount of pressure because of NCLB. Like many others have already stated, I agree that the act had good intentions, but somehow along the way, it went bad because of unrealistic goals & requirements. According to the Wikipedia article, NCLB's goals are to improve performances of U.S. schools by increasing the standards that states & schools are accountable for, to give parents more flexibility & choice in where their children go to school, and put more of a focus on reading. While these goals sound good on paper, they are unrealistic & causing some schools to actually harm the education they provide their students.
I truly think NCLB needs to be done away with or at least completely revised. Statistics show that there have been increased test scores & levels of proficiency in reading & math, but so what??? I don't think this proves that students are actually becoming more successful learners; it just proves that some districts have found ways to manipulate the system & teach skills necessary to do well on the standardized tests. In some aspects, I don't blame schools for "teaching to the test" because they are scared of what low test scores will mean for the future of their district. It scares me that the Dept. of Ed. even threatens to withhold funding if a school doesn't abide by the "rules."
One part of NCLB that I agree with is requiring all teachers to be "highly qualified." Teachers SHOULD be an expert in their specific field so they can give their students the best education available. The problem though: where does the funding come from to allow current teachers to become highly qualified if they aren't?....
Also, I am "on the fence" on the issue of standardized tests. Yes, I agree that there should be a benchmark we hold all students to so we can compare & assess the students of our country. However, there are SO many downfalls of these tests. They put way too much pressure on teachers, students, administrators, etc. Too much is riding on these tests. I don't think they truly assess student ability either. For example, in no shape or form do these tests show students' enthusiasm & love for reading. Shouldn't that account for something? For example, there could be a student who scores very high on a Language Arts Literacy standardized test but HATES to read. Down the road, this students' hatred for reading will without a doubt affect his reading abilities & job performance, regardless of his high test scores when he was younger. I wish teachers were given more freedom to teach a love & appreciation for reading, and not just drill work so their students will score high on the tests.
I read in the Wikipedia article that NCLB has actually caused some schools to LOWER their standards so more students can perform well on these tests. (ie: only focusing on how to manipulate a multiple choice question) This is awful! How can anyone argue this is a good, beneficial Act if schools are LOWERING their expectations for their students.......awful.......
I hope that NCLB gets revised & made more realistic. I also hope that TEACHERS have more of a say in how NCLB looks in the future. We are the professions here, aren't we? I'd want a trained doctor making the rules & regulations for a surgery I had to undergo, not the president. This is no different; the experts, aka teachers, should have more of a say in making this NCLB Act work.
I truly think NCLB needs to be done away with or at least completely revised. Statistics show that there have been increased test scores & levels of proficiency in reading & math, but so what??? I don't think this proves that students are actually becoming more successful learners; it just proves that some districts have found ways to manipulate the system & teach skills necessary to do well on the standardized tests. In some aspects, I don't blame schools for "teaching to the test" because they are scared of what low test scores will mean for the future of their district. It scares me that the Dept. of Ed. even threatens to withhold funding if a school doesn't abide by the "rules."
One part of NCLB that I agree with is requiring all teachers to be "highly qualified." Teachers SHOULD be an expert in their specific field so they can give their students the best education available. The problem though: where does the funding come from to allow current teachers to become highly qualified if they aren't?....
Also, I am "on the fence" on the issue of standardized tests. Yes, I agree that there should be a benchmark we hold all students to so we can compare & assess the students of our country. However, there are SO many downfalls of these tests. They put way too much pressure on teachers, students, administrators, etc. Too much is riding on these tests. I don't think they truly assess student ability either. For example, in no shape or form do these tests show students' enthusiasm & love for reading. Shouldn't that account for something? For example, there could be a student who scores very high on a Language Arts Literacy standardized test but HATES to read. Down the road, this students' hatred for reading will without a doubt affect his reading abilities & job performance, regardless of his high test scores when he was younger. I wish teachers were given more freedom to teach a love & appreciation for reading, and not just drill work so their students will score high on the tests.
I read in the Wikipedia article that NCLB has actually caused some schools to LOWER their standards so more students can perform well on these tests. (ie: only focusing on how to manipulate a multiple choice question) This is awful! How can anyone argue this is a good, beneficial Act if schools are LOWERING their expectations for their students.......awful.......
I hope that NCLB gets revised & made more realistic. I also hope that TEACHERS have more of a say in how NCLB looks in the future. We are the professions here, aren't we? I'd want a trained doctor making the rules & regulations for a surgery I had to undergo, not the president. This is no different; the experts, aka teachers, should have more of a say in making this NCLB Act work.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
My Thoughts on Assessment
Assessment is a crucial part of the learning process, for it shows us how our students are progressing & it allows for us to plan appropriate instruction. Routman noted that the "usual" definition of assessment deals with collecting data, but that the "original" definition meant sitting beside someone, as in observing them. I found that interesting. Why isn't our "usual" definition closer in meaning to what it originally meant? It should be.... I truly agree with the text that without evaluating assessment & applying it to future instruction, assessment is pointless. What's the point of giving a test or creating a portfolio if you're not going to do anything with it? I can see where with the everyday hassles of teaching, it would be easy to fall into this trap, but we teachers need to make it a personal goal to use our assessments to benefit our students & our instruction as much as possible. I also agree with the text that informal "on-the-spot" authentic assessment is the best; observations, anecdotal records, conferences, 1-on-1 writing, basically, anything that's done in the classroom. Seeing our students "in action" is the best way to assess their strengths & weaknesses. A few tests can't give an accurate evaluation of a student's knowledge- all testing needs to be supplemental with other assessments.
I just finished my 1st year of teaching. I taught 8th grade Language Arts, but it was a supplemental class to their regular L.A. class. My class was a remedial class that was basically GEPA prep work. (unfortunately- but you can't be picky taking your 1st job, right?!) anyway, it aggravated me that I was so locked into teaching "GEPA prep" strategies, but it further annoyed me that at the end of the year, I wasn't even allowed to see the scores. How am I supposed to know if what I did was beneficial to the students if I can't use the scores as a tool in my further instruction?
I noted from the text how students should self-assess themselves. This helps them take accountability & responsibility of their learning, & it helps them reflect & understand what their strengths & weaknesses are.
Portfolios are also a great assessment tool. In addition to setting up literature circles, creating portfolios with my students is another thing I want to incorporate in years to come. Rubrics are an assessment tool that I am very familiar with. I really like using them, especially to assess writing. It helps make it more concrete for myself & the students.
Finally, I agree that standards tell us what to teach, not how to teach, which is a good thing. They should serve only as a guide for curriculum. However, the issue is that are the standards actually impacting student achievement? I think they force too much emphasis on isolated skill work, which isn't beneficial.
I just finished my 1st year of teaching. I taught 8th grade Language Arts, but it was a supplemental class to their regular L.A. class. My class was a remedial class that was basically GEPA prep work. (unfortunately- but you can't be picky taking your 1st job, right?!) anyway, it aggravated me that I was so locked into teaching "GEPA prep" strategies, but it further annoyed me that at the end of the year, I wasn't even allowed to see the scores. How am I supposed to know if what I did was beneficial to the students if I can't use the scores as a tool in my further instruction?
I noted from the text how students should self-assess themselves. This helps them take accountability & responsibility of their learning, & it helps them reflect & understand what their strengths & weaknesses are.
Portfolios are also a great assessment tool. In addition to setting up literature circles, creating portfolios with my students is another thing I want to incorporate in years to come. Rubrics are an assessment tool that I am very familiar with. I really like using them, especially to assess writing. It helps make it more concrete for myself & the students.
Finally, I agree that standards tell us what to teach, not how to teach, which is a good thing. They should serve only as a guide for curriculum. However, the issue is that are the standards actually impacting student achievement? I think they force too much emphasis on isolated skill work, which isn't beneficial.
Friday, July 6, 2007
TIP Chs. 5, 6, 7: What I Understand from the Text about Reading
After reading about the detailed theories & models that attempt to explain literacy development, I realize how broad & detailed these findings really are; I never realized before how learning to read can be broken down into so many different but similar processes.
Ch. 5 focused on developmental theories & looking at behaviors over time to answer the question, "How do early reading abilities develop & how can we facilitate it?" Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development said that play equates to intellectual growth & kids learn thru their experiences. He also said that children's' thinking changes over time, based on physical growth & social experiences. I like how he broke the types of thinking into stages ranging from birth till adulthood. However, it surprises me that in the final stage (formal operational) he groups 11 yr olds with adults. Is he implying that an 11 yr old can generally think as abstractly as an adult? From a teaching perspective, these stages will help me understand how my students are thinking based on their age & stage of development. Next, I found the Maturation Theory extremely odd- while I understand that kids need to mature before they do certain things, it seems absurd to me to delay reading instruction until a child is 6 1/2 yrs old. I couldn't believe that parents were encouraged NOT to teach reading at home because they thought it would cause damage to the child. This theory goes against all literacy practices that I've been taught & that I believe in! The only part of the theory that I can relate to is it's connection to inventive spelling. Holdaway's Theory of Lit. Development in the late 70s I really liked & agree with. To me, it makes perfect sense that reading is a natural occurrence that should begin @ home, with parents serving as models. I also agree with his ideas of peer interaction thru "big" books & shared reading. Beginning in the 80s was the Stage Model, where developing word rec. goes thru 3 stages, going from memorizing letter shapes, to using letter-sound cues, to using automatic knowledge & word families. I liked this model except for the fact it didn't focus at all on comprehension, which I feel is so crucial. Also in the 80s was the Emergent Lit. Theory, meaning birth thru reading/writing conventionally. What I liked about this theory is how it included all the aspects of literacy that we discussed in class: reading, writing, speaking, listening- stressing they're all interrelated. I also liked that this theory stresses the importance of a good literacy based home environment. Last in this ch. was the Family Lit. Theory. Again, I liked that this theory believes that a good literacy based home helps a child with their reading abilities. I found it interesting that they claim a good home helps more so than a preschool/kindergarten program. I wish some parents of the students I teach read that!
Chapter 6 took a look at how social aspects affect reading. I can see why these theories are still popular in schools, since school is obviously a place where there's much social interaction, especially among peers. The Sociolinguistic Theory from the 70s, like some theories from the previous chapter, stress the social home interactions as a crucial role in literacy learning. It also focuses on oral language- claiming it to be the foundation for reading & writing. This theory provided very interesting statistics to me, explaining that kids from professional homes are exposed to about 11.2 mil. words within a yr, kids from working class homes, 6.5 mil, & kids from welfare homes, 3.2 mil words. This is proof that language is learned as a result of peoples' social interactions. The less interaction, the lower reading skills the child will probably have. Next was the Socio-Cultural Theory, which is broader than the previous theory. Basically, what I got from this theory is that children from minority cultures may suffer in school b/c culture environments affect reading in school. If stories rarely deal with their cultures, it's hard for them to relate & form connections. Vygotsky's Social Constructivism was somewhat fresh to me; I am very familiar with zone of proximal development & scaffolding. His theory contrasts to Piaget's beliefs b/c Piaget claims that development comes before learning & Vygotsky claims that learning happens as a function of interacting with others. Vygotsky said that adults must demonstrate to kids higher thinking before they can do it independently. I noticed how they made a connection between zone of prox. dev. with differentiated instruction. The Social Learning Theory claims that we learn from observing others; we model what we see, & teachers should reinforce when they see good behaviors modeled. This theory is very helpful with classroom management- to encourage good behaviors. Emerging in the 60s, the Critical Lit. Theory delved into the political aspects of teaching literacy. They claim that illiteracy isn't a personal problem, but more so the fault of a poor society--very interesting. I somewhat agree with this. However, I think people also need to take responsibility for their own education. In this chapter, I found the "Classroom Applications/Teaching Ideas" very useful. They discussed language experience charts, morning messages, literature circles, and cross-age/buddy reading. I really enjoyed reading detailed info on literature circles, because while I think they are excellent, I haven't tried to implement them yet in my teaching practices, partly b/c I didn't know much about it. This explanation helped.
Finally, ch. 7 discussed cognitive processes, from the 50s-70s. Overall, the chapter claims that we learn as a RESULT of our attempts to make sense of the world around us- that we're active learners- but learning is internal & therefore can't be observed directly. So, these few theories focus on thinking, remembering, prob. solving (unobservable mental activity). Dominant the past 20 yrs is the Info Processing Theory, dealing with how we process, store and retrieve what we learn. The info moves thru stages, where info is 1st perceived, we interpret it, it goes into short term memory, & eventually saved into long term memory. I couldn't believe they went into FURTHER detail about different kinds of long-term memory; I had no idea. However, it did make sense that only info that gets lots of attention in short term mem. will transfer to long term, where we file the info away into schemas. ( I like to think of schemas as a mental filing cabinet.) Also, while you can study for a test & then forget the info afterwards (aka- short term), learning to read is stored in long term. You don't forget those skills. I found that really interesting & true. I found the Substrata-Factor Theory odd & confusing. Bringing statistics into it made the theory a little hard for me to grasp. However, I really understood the Rauding Theory from the late 70s. This theory came up with terms we use everyday (skimming, scanning, typical reading, learning, memorizing). The theory focuses on accuracy level (vocab knowledge) & rate level (fluency), which are crucial to measuring comprehension. This theory hypothesizes that to improve reading, texts @ the reader's ability level must be used. While this seems like common sense, it's extremely important. Gough's Model & the Automatic Model are both "bottom-up", linear models, where it goes from low order to high order stages, info being passed in one direction. I found Grough's Model very interesting & I never before thought about how broken down the reading process can be, going from the eye seeing the visual icon, the brain trying to identify it, decoding it, attaching phonemes to the letter, recording it as a sound, searching for word meaning, & eventually putting together meaning for an entire sentence. Who knew ALL that went on?! Talk about unobservable mental processes....wow. The main point I took from the Automatic Info Model is attention, internal & external. This is interesting for teachers- are students mentally drifting while reading in class? Also, it makes sense that when a child has to spend so much "attention" on decoding, that it negatively affects their comprehension of the text. Finally, the Interactive Model is NOT linear one direction. This model allows for higher level thinking to influence lower level thinking. Basically, comprehension can assist with identifying words, not just the other way around. For example, using context clues to define a word in text is higher level thinking; decoding the word would be a linear, bottom-up way to approach the situation. Finally, I found it reassuring that this chapter suggested using guiding reading to monitor reading development & to assess by using running records. This is something I've learned to practice with students & seeing it as a good approach is reassuring.
Ch. 5 focused on developmental theories & looking at behaviors over time to answer the question, "How do early reading abilities develop & how can we facilitate it?" Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development said that play equates to intellectual growth & kids learn thru their experiences. He also said that children's' thinking changes over time, based on physical growth & social experiences. I like how he broke the types of thinking into stages ranging from birth till adulthood. However, it surprises me that in the final stage (formal operational) he groups 11 yr olds with adults. Is he implying that an 11 yr old can generally think as abstractly as an adult? From a teaching perspective, these stages will help me understand how my students are thinking based on their age & stage of development. Next, I found the Maturation Theory extremely odd- while I understand that kids need to mature before they do certain things, it seems absurd to me to delay reading instruction until a child is 6 1/2 yrs old. I couldn't believe that parents were encouraged NOT to teach reading at home because they thought it would cause damage to the child. This theory goes against all literacy practices that I've been taught & that I believe in! The only part of the theory that I can relate to is it's connection to inventive spelling. Holdaway's Theory of Lit. Development in the late 70s I really liked & agree with. To me, it makes perfect sense that reading is a natural occurrence that should begin @ home, with parents serving as models. I also agree with his ideas of peer interaction thru "big" books & shared reading. Beginning in the 80s was the Stage Model, where developing word rec. goes thru 3 stages, going from memorizing letter shapes, to using letter-sound cues, to using automatic knowledge & word families. I liked this model except for the fact it didn't focus at all on comprehension, which I feel is so crucial. Also in the 80s was the Emergent Lit. Theory, meaning birth thru reading/writing conventionally. What I liked about this theory is how it included all the aspects of literacy that we discussed in class: reading, writing, speaking, listening- stressing they're all interrelated. I also liked that this theory stresses the importance of a good literacy based home environment. Last in this ch. was the Family Lit. Theory. Again, I liked that this theory believes that a good literacy based home helps a child with their reading abilities. I found it interesting that they claim a good home helps more so than a preschool/kindergarten program. I wish some parents of the students I teach read that!
Chapter 6 took a look at how social aspects affect reading. I can see why these theories are still popular in schools, since school is obviously a place where there's much social interaction, especially among peers. The Sociolinguistic Theory from the 70s, like some theories from the previous chapter, stress the social home interactions as a crucial role in literacy learning. It also focuses on oral language- claiming it to be the foundation for reading & writing. This theory provided very interesting statistics to me, explaining that kids from professional homes are exposed to about 11.2 mil. words within a yr, kids from working class homes, 6.5 mil, & kids from welfare homes, 3.2 mil words. This is proof that language is learned as a result of peoples' social interactions. The less interaction, the lower reading skills the child will probably have. Next was the Socio-Cultural Theory, which is broader than the previous theory. Basically, what I got from this theory is that children from minority cultures may suffer in school b/c culture environments affect reading in school. If stories rarely deal with their cultures, it's hard for them to relate & form connections. Vygotsky's Social Constructivism was somewhat fresh to me; I am very familiar with zone of proximal development & scaffolding. His theory contrasts to Piaget's beliefs b/c Piaget claims that development comes before learning & Vygotsky claims that learning happens as a function of interacting with others. Vygotsky said that adults must demonstrate to kids higher thinking before they can do it independently. I noticed how they made a connection between zone of prox. dev. with differentiated instruction. The Social Learning Theory claims that we learn from observing others; we model what we see, & teachers should reinforce when they see good behaviors modeled. This theory is very helpful with classroom management- to encourage good behaviors. Emerging in the 60s, the Critical Lit. Theory delved into the political aspects of teaching literacy. They claim that illiteracy isn't a personal problem, but more so the fault of a poor society--very interesting. I somewhat agree with this. However, I think people also need to take responsibility for their own education. In this chapter, I found the "Classroom Applications/Teaching Ideas" very useful. They discussed language experience charts, morning messages, literature circles, and cross-age/buddy reading. I really enjoyed reading detailed info on literature circles, because while I think they are excellent, I haven't tried to implement them yet in my teaching practices, partly b/c I didn't know much about it. This explanation helped.
Finally, ch. 7 discussed cognitive processes, from the 50s-70s. Overall, the chapter claims that we learn as a RESULT of our attempts to make sense of the world around us- that we're active learners- but learning is internal & therefore can't be observed directly. So, these few theories focus on thinking, remembering, prob. solving (unobservable mental activity). Dominant the past 20 yrs is the Info Processing Theory, dealing with how we process, store and retrieve what we learn. The info moves thru stages, where info is 1st perceived, we interpret it, it goes into short term memory, & eventually saved into long term memory. I couldn't believe they went into FURTHER detail about different kinds of long-term memory; I had no idea. However, it did make sense that only info that gets lots of attention in short term mem. will transfer to long term, where we file the info away into schemas. ( I like to think of schemas as a mental filing cabinet.) Also, while you can study for a test & then forget the info afterwards (aka- short term), learning to read is stored in long term. You don't forget those skills. I found that really interesting & true. I found the Substrata-Factor Theory odd & confusing. Bringing statistics into it made the theory a little hard for me to grasp. However, I really understood the Rauding Theory from the late 70s. This theory came up with terms we use everyday (skimming, scanning, typical reading, learning, memorizing). The theory focuses on accuracy level (vocab knowledge) & rate level (fluency), which are crucial to measuring comprehension. This theory hypothesizes that to improve reading, texts @ the reader's ability level must be used. While this seems like common sense, it's extremely important. Gough's Model & the Automatic Model are both "bottom-up", linear models, where it goes from low order to high order stages, info being passed in one direction. I found Grough's Model very interesting & I never before thought about how broken down the reading process can be, going from the eye seeing the visual icon, the brain trying to identify it, decoding it, attaching phonemes to the letter, recording it as a sound, searching for word meaning, & eventually putting together meaning for an entire sentence. Who knew ALL that went on?! Talk about unobservable mental processes....wow. The main point I took from the Automatic Info Model is attention, internal & external. This is interesting for teachers- are students mentally drifting while reading in class? Also, it makes sense that when a child has to spend so much "attention" on decoding, that it negatively affects their comprehension of the text. Finally, the Interactive Model is NOT linear one direction. This model allows for higher level thinking to influence lower level thinking. Basically, comprehension can assist with identifying words, not just the other way around. For example, using context clues to define a word in text is higher level thinking; decoding the word would be a linear, bottom-up way to approach the situation. Finally, I found it reassuring that this chapter suggested using guiding reading to monitor reading development & to assess by using running records. This is something I've learned to practice with students & seeing it as a good approach is reassuring.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
How do children (and adults) acquire language? What might this have to do with reading?
I think that language is acquired as a combination of innate abilities that children are born with & personal experiences that are learned, a combo of the popular debate of nature vs. nurture. From the Wikipedia article, the idea of Universal Grammar is a new theory to me; while it makes sense, I never heard of it before. This theory, where some grammar is innate to all humans, was developed by Chomsky & he argued that children have innate abilities that allow for language to be acquired. He also says that children are born with LAD in their brains (a Language Acquisition device). I agree with the Nativist Theory, also from the Wikipedia article, saying that it's a combo of nature AND nurture. I also agree with the Nativist theory that learning language is natural, like a dolphin learning to swim. I believe that the Critical Period plays an important role in acquiring language. This is the time frame in which children can learn a language; after a certain age, it's almost impossible to learn the syntax, or the rules for how sentences are structured. However, I found the age limit in the Wikipedia article surprising for the end of the critical period. They claim that the crucial period lasts till around the age of 12 & I assumed it would be younger than that.
While the second article by Ciaran O'Riodan was more based for time after the critical period & for learning additional languages, I found he made a few interesting points in relation to how children & adults acquire language. First, he says that learning a language takes several years, which of course is true. To truly master a language, even a first language, it's an ongoing process. Also, O'Riodan mentions that it's important to first learn to pronounce because if you learn to read before you know the sounds, you'll learn wrong pronunciation, which is hard to later fix. So, he suggests first just listening to get the basics, then imitate it. This made me think of babies as the develop language: it's natural that youngsters listen for almost a full year before they start pronouncing & imitating words.
I found the third article "Mama Teached Me Talk" very interesting in relation to our central question of acquiring language. I agree that even though our parents didn't necessarily "teach" us how to walk or talk, we still "learned" from them. Like in the other article, we begin by imitating what we hear our parents say as best we can, & then we repeat phrases. However, this isn't ALWAYS the case. As the article states & I truly believe, children don't always repeat like a parrot. Instead, they take it all in & absorb what they hear, learn the "rules" & create their own grammar to create their own phrases that they've never heard said by an adult. For example, a three year old that I babysit will often say things like, "I have two foots!" or "I holded the phone." This proves to me that this young child understands the basic rules that to form a plural, we add "s" & to to make a verb past tense, we add "ed." This further proves that the child isn't simply repeating back what he hears adults say. It proves that this three year old already understands the basic rules, but he just hasn't learned the many crazy exceptions to our English language. I don't know if it's the "right" thing to do, but I usually correct this three year old when he says a sentence like that. I'll say back to him, "No, you have two FEET," or "No, you HELD the phone." He usually repeats it the correct way, but has no concern as to why his way wasn't right. I think that comes with time & constantly hearing how phrases are said. I found it interesting that this last article said that kids will constantly adjust their grammar until it matches correct grammar, all through their Critical Period.
Lastly, two of the articles mentioned Genie & how she failed at learning language after the Critical Period. I remember watching a documentary on her in high school in my sociology class, & now it makes a lot more sense. At the time, I didn't fully understand why this girl couldn't grasp the concepts of language. Now, it's much more clear: after that Critical Period, acquiring language is a much more complex task.
As a final thought, this question has made me think about teaching a foreign language at a young age. I personally am AWFUL at Spanish & French (the two languages I attempted to learn in high school & college) For whatever reason, I can't grasp it. On the other hand, my sister is practically fluent in Spanish & wants to eventually be a Spanish teacher. My point is that I don't know why she seems to learn foreign languages so much easier than I do, but I do think that the younger we start children in school in learning a foreign language, the better. If we reach them before their Critical Period is up, they will probably absorb much more of the language than they would if they waited till high school like I did.
The analogy I like to think of is that we have to reach students during their Critical Period, when their brains are like sponges, able to absorb MUCH information.
While the second article by Ciaran O'Riodan was more based for time after the critical period & for learning additional languages, I found he made a few interesting points in relation to how children & adults acquire language. First, he says that learning a language takes several years, which of course is true. To truly master a language, even a first language, it's an ongoing process. Also, O'Riodan mentions that it's important to first learn to pronounce because if you learn to read before you know the sounds, you'll learn wrong pronunciation, which is hard to later fix. So, he suggests first just listening to get the basics, then imitate it. This made me think of babies as the develop language: it's natural that youngsters listen for almost a full year before they start pronouncing & imitating words.
I found the third article "Mama Teached Me Talk" very interesting in relation to our central question of acquiring language. I agree that even though our parents didn't necessarily "teach" us how to walk or talk, we still "learned" from them. Like in the other article, we begin by imitating what we hear our parents say as best we can, & then we repeat phrases. However, this isn't ALWAYS the case. As the article states & I truly believe, children don't always repeat like a parrot. Instead, they take it all in & absorb what they hear, learn the "rules" & create their own grammar to create their own phrases that they've never heard said by an adult. For example, a three year old that I babysit will often say things like, "I have two foots!" or "I holded the phone." This proves to me that this young child understands the basic rules that to form a plural, we add "s" & to to make a verb past tense, we add "ed." This further proves that the child isn't simply repeating back what he hears adults say. It proves that this three year old already understands the basic rules, but he just hasn't learned the many crazy exceptions to our English language. I don't know if it's the "right" thing to do, but I usually correct this three year old when he says a sentence like that. I'll say back to him, "No, you have two FEET," or "No, you HELD the phone." He usually repeats it the correct way, but has no concern as to why his way wasn't right. I think that comes with time & constantly hearing how phrases are said. I found it interesting that this last article said that kids will constantly adjust their grammar until it matches correct grammar, all through their Critical Period.
Lastly, two of the articles mentioned Genie & how she failed at learning language after the Critical Period. I remember watching a documentary on her in high school in my sociology class, & now it makes a lot more sense. At the time, I didn't fully understand why this girl couldn't grasp the concepts of language. Now, it's much more clear: after that Critical Period, acquiring language is a much more complex task.
As a final thought, this question has made me think about teaching a foreign language at a young age. I personally am AWFUL at Spanish & French (the two languages I attempted to learn in high school & college) For whatever reason, I can't grasp it. On the other hand, my sister is practically fluent in Spanish & wants to eventually be a Spanish teacher. My point is that I don't know why she seems to learn foreign languages so much easier than I do, but I do think that the younger we start children in school in learning a foreign language, the better. If we reach them before their Critical Period is up, they will probably absorb much more of the language than they would if they waited till high school like I did.
The analogy I like to think of is that we have to reach students during their Critical Period, when their brains are like sponges, able to absorb MUCH information.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
My Thoughts on the Three Online Articles
After reading the 3 online articles about literacy, the last one on silencing teachers is the one that stands front runner in my mind. The 1st thing that got my attention was the picture at the beginning of the article, of a person being decapitated. While it made no sense to me at 1st, once I read the article, I understood the connection- stripping teachers of their voices, abilities & professionalism. This article truly scares me; this poor teacher that got punished for advocating for her students. What kind of message does that send to society, other teachers, students? It tells others that you will be punished for standing up for what you believe in. It's awful. I didn't even know what scripted reading was before I read this article- it seems like such an absurd idea- to script teaching. I didn't go to college to become an actress & follow a script. That's basically how I interpret scripted reading- it's acting & it doesn't belong in the classroom. Teachers are professionals & this program doesn't allow for teachers to use their expertise to best serve their students. Anyone off the streets can read a scripted curriculum to students- it's just ridiculous. This article proved to me that students of various abilities will suffer with a program such as this, because it doesn't allow for teachers to differentiate to their individual needs. Another thing in the article that grabbed my eye was that K & 1st graders only focus on letters & sounds- & not at all on meaning & comprehension- that all they see are decodable texts. While decoding is essential at this age, these students also need to being learning to comprehend. I just don't understand a program where teachers read a script & call that teaching, & the students are silent. As a teacher, how can you even informally assess a silent student? In my opinion, this seems like a downward spiral & I hope that I never face a situation such as this, where I have to choose between staying silent to keep my job, or truly teaching my students so they will benefit.
I didn't find the other 2 articles nearly as controversial, but I didn't find them all that helpful either. While I enjoyed the 1st article on illustrations in children's books, I didn't connect with it that much. It made me think of the Caldecott children books that win awards for their pictures, & I try to have some of those books in my classroom library, but besides that, I wasn't all that engaged. I did like though, how the author mentioned that it's interesting to see how these artists are able to "bring the books to life." Also, I kinda liked how the exhibits they have show the illustrator's thoughts & processes behind their finished pictures. This is comparable to the writing process, how before the published story, there is a beginning of pre-writing & brainstorming, or similar to in reading, how there is a beginning of activating prior knowledge & predicting before reading the story. Still, my overall impression of this article was how will this really apply to me teaching literacy?
The wikipedia article was neutral; it was factual info that I had no feelings to, good or bad. It was interesting that the "traditional" definition of literacy differs from the more modern definition, in that now it includes being able to read & write so you can COMMUNICATE effectively in society, so that others will understand you. I liked this since I believe that comprehension & critical thinking is the goal of all reading. Finally, I also agree with the article that literacy is a continuum of learning.
I didn't find the other 2 articles nearly as controversial, but I didn't find them all that helpful either. While I enjoyed the 1st article on illustrations in children's books, I didn't connect with it that much. It made me think of the Caldecott children books that win awards for their pictures, & I try to have some of those books in my classroom library, but besides that, I wasn't all that engaged. I did like though, how the author mentioned that it's interesting to see how these artists are able to "bring the books to life." Also, I kinda liked how the exhibits they have show the illustrator's thoughts & processes behind their finished pictures. This is comparable to the writing process, how before the published story, there is a beginning of pre-writing & brainstorming, or similar to in reading, how there is a beginning of activating prior knowledge & predicting before reading the story. Still, my overall impression of this article was how will this really apply to me teaching literacy?
The wikipedia article was neutral; it was factual info that I had no feelings to, good or bad. It was interesting that the "traditional" definition of literacy differs from the more modern definition, in that now it includes being able to read & write so you can COMMUNICATE effectively in society, so that others will understand you. I liked this since I believe that comprehension & critical thinking is the goal of all reading. Finally, I also agree with the article that literacy is a continuum of learning.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Hello!
Hello! My name is Kelly & this is my very 1st blog. Welcome to my page! I've never blogged before, so bare with me! This is my 1st graduate course towards my Masters of Arts in Reading & I just completed my 1st year of teaching- 8th grade Language Arts. Anyway, enjoy my page!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)