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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment