Tuesday, May 4, 2010

What I have learned...

It is hard to believe that this semester is coming to a close. It seems like only yesterday, we were sitting in our first class listening to Dr. Kist review the syllabus and discuss the expectations of the course. Many students, including myself, were quite overwhelmed at the beginning of the class. However, like all dedicated, competent scholars and researchers, we persevered.

This class truly introduced me to the often neglected "R"-writing. As a literacy educator, I have focused much of my attention on reading, my true love and passion. However, I now truly value writing, as well. I see the need to devote more time to teaching about writing and how to teach writing with my undergraduate students. Reading and writing are so intertwined, yet often taught as two separate entities. It is time for the silenced "R" to be heard.

I would like to thank my peers for sharing their numerous lines of inquiry. I learned so much about inference in writing, new literacies, multigenre writing, reflective writing, writing circles, ELL students, African American identities and writing, a/r/tography, and writing as healing with LGBTQ students. Our interests are varied, yet connected by the art of writing and the desire to engage our learners in authentic, collaborative, and meaningful reading and writing assignments.

Dr. Kist, thank you for an informative, interactive, and resourceful semester. The knowledge and understanding I gained as a result of this class is invaluable.

Friday, April 30, 2010

"Literacy is luggage for life..."

The IRA conference featured several keynote speakers. I was happy to have attended the address given by Queen Rania of Jordan al Abdullah to the general assembly of IRA attendees on Monday, April 26, 2010. Queen Rania stressed in her remarks the importance of literacy throughout the world and the need to combat the illiteracy rate, especially the high percentage of females, who cannot read and write. She also expressed how our two countries, although vastly different, have many similarities as well. Her new book, The Sandwich Swap, is a positive way to expose children to the similarities between cultures, instead of focusing on the differences. Perhaps this book will inspire students to develop their own identity as readers and writers while maintaining their individuality and cultural ties. "Building on Gee's (2001) notions of discourse and affinity, cultural identity is viewed as a way of being, as a way of seeing oneself that is negotiated through communication and through one's participation in practices as a member of the group" (Ball & Ellis, 2008, p. 502).



A quote that resonated with me during the Queen's speech was, "Literacy is luggage for life; the kind of luggage you want to carry." Queen Rania stressed how the literacy skills that we possess enable us to be productive, contributing members of society. Without literacy in our lives, our world and opportunities would be vastly different and limited.

Although the majority of us work with literate children and adults, it is imperative to make reading and writing a part of their real world. "Involving learners of all ages in real, relevant opportunities to involve reading and writing in their lives can make the difference between learning that is superficial and shallow and learning that is deep and internalized" (Gambrell, 2010, IRA Conference).

This again ties into my work on middle school boys' reading motivation, which Linda Gambrell and Barbara Marinak addressed in their presentation at IRA on April 27, 2010 entitled "Motivation to Read: What Matters Most?". The presenters' main findings from research include the topics of choice, challenge, collaboration, and authenticity regarding reading motivation. However, I would argue that the same criteria can and should apply to writing motivation, as well. That is why strategies such as multigenre writing and writing circles should be increasingly used in the classroom. Both of these techniques enable the writer to choose topics and genres of interest, create the challenge of working with narrative, as well as expository text, collaborate with peers and writing instructors, and provide authentic writing experiences.

Although IRA is indeed a reading conference, I wish I could have seen more of a connection between reading and writing throughout the presentations. The two subjects are so connected, yet still viewed as miles apart by some educators. More cross curricular themes would also have been beneficial.

As I review my notes and handouts from various presentations which I attended, I will share further implications for us as literacy professionals.

International Reading Association

I had the pleasure of attending and presenting at my first IRA conference earlier this week in Chicago. I was amazed by how many teaching professionals attend this annual event. The attendees are all employed in various roles in education including classroom teachers, literacy coaches, reading specialists, administrators, and college/university faculty. Although the participants represent various disciplines, personal beliefs regarding literacy, and utilize a myriad of teaching materials and strategies, what connects them all is their love for reading and education.

During our institute on Sunday, Julie and I presented our findings from the forty-two teacher interviews that we conducted with K-8 reading teachers. This definitely appealed to the practitioners in the audience who listened intently to the voice of the classroom teacher. Petra and I then shared the results of our study on state standardized reading assessments and state standards. We looked intently at four states which represent different geographic locations across the United States, have large populations, and often are relied on by textbook publishing companies when revisions to editions are needed. Since high stakes testing continues to be a "hot topic" in schools, the audience was very interested to learn which states explicitly contain the word "inference" in their reading standards, and how often inferential questions are asked on the state reading assessments. We were fortunate to have representatives from the states we researched (Ohio, Florida, Texas, and California) in our audience who shared their thoughts and frustrations with the testing process.

On Tuesday morning, Liz, Julie, and I presented at a Special Interest Group (SIG). The format differed a bit from a session by highlighting the research from three studies based on the theme "Teacher as Researcher". Although we presented to a small audience, the experience was truly beneficial. Tuesday afternoon brought us to our final presentation, a one-hour session on the pedagogical implications for teaching inference. Petra, Liz, Julie, and I shared further findings from our research and focused more on practical classroom applications, such as finding books with text potential to teach inference. We were ecstatic with the attendance, approximately 75 individuals, who each expressed a desire to learn more about inference and how to teach it in their classrooms.

Our trip provided a wonderful professional opportunity to disseminate data that we have been collecting and analyzing for over a year and a half. Although we were exhausted by the end of our journey, each of us was so grateful for what the "Inference Project" has provided. Who knows, the four of us may just decide to write our dissertation on different aspects of the study!

Saturday, April 17, 2010

OCTEO Conference

I have just returned from the Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations (OCTEO) conference in Dublin, Ohio. This conference is attended by representatives from the fifty-one colleges and universities in Ohio that have teacher education programs. The attendees are usually deans and chairs of the education departments, as well as professors, field coordinators, and licensure specialists/officers. The conference includes keynote speakers, breakout sessions, and organizational meetings.

Since the conference discusses current and future laws and policies regarding educational programs, it often becomes quite heated and political. There are many changes on the horizon for teacher education in the near future, however, the Ohio Board of Regents and the Ohio Department of Education do not seem to have any clear answers to the myriad of questions that were asked regarding the new Residency Program which will be in effect during the 2011-2012 academic year, or the Transition Residency Year Program, effective 2010-2011, that replaces the previous entry year Praxis III requirement.

Tom Bordenkircher, Associate Vice Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents, was in attendance and addressed during many of the meetings which I attended. He was quite bombarded by questions, but as previously stated, could not provide definitive answers to issues involving the future of teacher education in Ohio. Since many doctoral students are pursuing positions in higher education, I would encourage them to get involved in these issues. Being on the faculty encompasses so much more than just teaching, researching, and advising students. Professors must keep current with the numerous changes that are part of academia and our state department of education.

On a more positive note, I had the pleasure of presenting research that I conducted during the fall 2009 semester with a fellow colleague. Our presentation was entitled "Faculty to Faculty Collaborations and Student to Student Mentoring: Preservice and Inservice Teachers Using Electronic Journals to Dialogue about the Foundations of Literacy Instruction". The presentation described a collaborative project developed by myself and a full professor and completed by undergraduate preservice teachers and graduate inservice teachers enrolled in their respective literacy courses at Baldwin-Wallace College in the fall 2009 semester. My co researcher and I established critical colleague pairings between the preservice and inservice teachers. The critical colleagues were expected to read and respond/react to professional journals on the topics of literacy instruction. They were then required to dialogue via electronic journal with their critical colleague. We shared our findings of the study which included analysis of the dialogue and the mentoring relationships established between the participants.

The presentation went very well, with a lively interactive audience, and again stressed the importance of writing in teacher education programs. It is amazing how topics do overlap when they are truly your passion. Several audience members recommended that we submit our research for publication, so we will be sending a manuscript to The OHIO Journal of Teacher Education. Another audience member from southern Ohio also told me yesterday at breakfast that she will try to replicate our study in her institution. That positive feedback seems to make all the hard work and hours spent coding data and preparing for a presentation worthwhile.

I hope that some members of our class will consider attending the OCTEO conference in the future. It is held each October and April and is also a great opportunity to network. I was able to chat with Dr. Tricia Niesz at breakfast, caught up with Sandra Pech, a former doctoral student from Kent State, and saw Dr. Joanne Arhar leading many meetings. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend Tricia and Joanne's presentation since it was at the same time as mine. However, I hope to hear more about their study between Kent State University and St. Joseph Academy in Cleveland, as well as keep informed in decisions that will affect teacher education in the state of Ohio.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Inference and Reader Response Theory

I have been involved in researching the topic of inference with Dr. Bintz, Petra, Julie, and Liz for the past year. Our studies have enlightened me to the various definitions of inference and perspectives on this reading topic. Through our interviews with forty-two K-8 reading teachers, we have concluded that several teachers feel that "inference is life" and therefore, spend a considerable amount of time implementing the concept into their daily literacy and content area classes. However, we have also interviewed teachers who were uncomfortable with the topic, or chose not to teach inferential thinking due to limited time and concentration on standardized testing.

Petra's inquiry paper and presentation for our class, takes our research one step further, to an area that has been unexplored so far in our research group. Her research on inference and implications for writing is an area that warrants further discussion and research. Perhaps, this will even become Petra's dissertation topic!

One of the components that I found the most interesting in Petra's presentation was her linkage of inference and reader response theory. As you know, this theory was my assigned topic for the Wiki and continues to be of great interest to me. I do believe that when a student infers from a text, he/she is making a connection and creating a personal response based on the written word. It is truly an interaction between the reader and the text. As Rosenblatt (1978) stated, reader response does not prescribe to an "anything goes attitude". Although there is not a traditional right or wrong answer, the responses and inferences generated are based on the material being read and the background knowledge or "suitcase" that is carried by the reader. "Reader response theorists share two beliefs: (1) that the role of the reader cannot be omitted from our understanding of literature and (2) that readers do not passively consume the meaning presented to them by an objective literary text; rather they actively make the meaning they find in literature" (Tyson, 2006, p. 170).

I had the opportunity to interview Lois, a reading teacher and media specialist, for the inference project and gained further perspective into her literacy work with first grade students. Lois takes the time to allow her students to make predictions, use picture cues to support inferences, and discusses books in detail. Through the dedication of teachers and staff members, students are given the opportunity to identify their voice and make connections with a text.

As I continue to research my topic for the inquiry paper, I am becoming more and more convinced by the need for preservice teachers to bridge theory and pedagogy in order to become effective reading and writing teachers. Only by strong role models will students begin to move beyond literal, contrived responses and structured writing assignments to explore their world with greater depth and inquiry.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The Teaching of Writing Teachers

My inquiry paper connects my passion for teacher education and literacy instruction in preservice teacher education programs. As I began to learn more about the history of writing throughout our course this semester, I have found that writing instruction has received less attention and devotion than reading instruction in the classroom. This is not just the case in K-12 classrooms. It seems this dichotomy carries through to teacher education programs, as well. The majority of courses taken in teacher education literacy programs focus their attention on the theory and practice needed to successfully teach reading. However, very few courses are solely devoted to teaching students how to become effective writers. My preliminary research has found that this lack of preparation creates a feeling of apprehension and lack of confidence in preservice teachers, with many reverting to teaching writing as they were taught, or relying heavily on professionals in the K-12 classrooms to compensate for their lack of writing instruction at the college level.

Various studies have determined that many instructional practices during literacy methods courses have had a positive impact on creating more effective writing teachers. I will explore the areas of literacy histories, increased collaborations with K-12 students, writing circles, book clubs, and multigenre writing as opportunities for preservice teachers to bridge theory and practice in literacy instruction and become more confident, effective teachers of writing.

I will be drawing background knowledge from Chapter 22: Teaching of Writing and Writing Teachers Throughout the Ages in the Handbook of Research on Writing. Roen, Goggin, and Clary-Lemon (2008) provide an overview of writing instruction from the classical period through the twentieth century. My main area of interest focuses on the latter sections of the chapter that are devoted to the writing instruction of elementary, secondary education, and post secondary instructors.

The following are key components from Chapter 22:

  • Perceived literacy crisis in the United States resulted in more government funding and value on the teaching of English including writing.
  • The National Writing Project (NWP) was established in 1974 at the University of California-Berkely as a commitment to strengthening the writing instruction of K-16 teachers across the United States. "The NWP's mission is to improve the teaching of writing by developing and sustaining university-based writing projects" (Roen, et al., 2008, p, 353).
  • A shift in focus from product-oriented to process-oriented writing was seen in the 1970s and 1980s with the publication of a variety of articles devoted to composition in NCTE's journals.
  • The 1980s and 1990s, saw an emergence of writing workshops and instructional techniques from researchers and educators including Donald Graves, Lucy Calkins, Tom Romano, and Nancie Atwell. These names are still widely read and cited in writing research today.
  • There is still a predominance of writing instruction that workshop oriented compared to effective teaching of English.
  • There are vast discrepancies between writing instruction for K-12 teachers and instruction for college writing teachers. As previously stated, K-12 teachers are given less preparation for the teaching of writing.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

New Historical Criticism and Multi-Genre Writing

After Julie's Wiki presentation last week, I decided to read further about New Historical Critical Theory. As Tyson explains in Critical Theory Today, there is a distinct difference between what questions historians and new historians ask. "Traditional historians ask, 'What happened?' and 'What does the event tell us about history?' In contrast, new historicists ask, 'How has the event been interpreted' and "What do the interpretations tell us about the interpreters?'" (Tyson, 2006, p. 282).

Looking at this theory with a writing perspective in mind, led me to the topic of multigenre writing. I have recently been researching this topic as an concept for my Inquiry Paper, and I began making the connection between this topic and New Historical Critical Theory, after Katie made the suggestion in class. I was introduced to the topic of multigenre writing in the professional book club in which I am a member with Petra, Karen, and other former members of the National Writing Project. The group, which is comprised of a wide array of instructors, from a kindergarten teacher to a graduate school professor, meets periodically to discuss Calkin's The Art of Teaching Writing and share our own accomplishments and challenges with teaching writing in the classroom.

Based on the work of Romano (1995), "A multigenre research paper involves students in conducting research, and instead of writing in a traditional research paper format, they write in a range of genres. Each genre reveals one facet of the topic, and it can stand alone to make its own point" (Allen & Swistak, 2004, p. 224). This writing format, enables students to share their interpretations of an event using various forms including poetry, art, diary entries, journals, broadcasts, and newspaper articles. Allen & Swistak's (2004) research with multigenre writing is shared in Multigenre Research: The Power of Choice and Interpretation, which involved the collaboration between fifth grade students and preservice teachers. Both groups were responsible for writing a multi-genre paper. However, the preservice teachers also served as guides and writing role models for their middle school counterparts. View the Annotated Bibliography of Allen & Swistak and various others researchers of multigenre writing for further information.

During their research, the authors developed a new strategy referred to as FQI (Facts-Questions-Interpretations), which enabled students to chart facts on a topic, determine questions that need to be answered, and suggestions for interpretations through various genres. The article included an example based on the life of Eva Peron, otherwise known as "Evita". Through multigenre writing, Allen and Swistak's students were taught to interpret a historical event or an individual's life through various lenses and write about their research using genres that were appealing to them. This seems to relate to New Criticism and how specific interpretative questions form the foundation of an event or a person's life. "For new historians consider history a text that can be interpreted the same way literary critics interpret literary texts, and conversely, it considers literary texts cultural artifacts that can tell us something about the interplay of discourses, the web of social meanings, operating in the time and place in which those texts were written" (Tyson, 2006, p. 287). One of the key components that Tyson (2006) describes in New Historical Criticism is that the writing of history is not just facts, but on the interpretation. Therefore, students' multigenre research papers are just that-the interpretation of facts garnered through research, expressed and articulated in myriad ways that foster creativity and enable students to make instructional choices in their own assignments.

I am exploring the use of multigenre writing with preservice teachers, and I am hoping to use this strategy in future classrooms to advocate a greater sense of student choice and use of personal interpretations on pedagogical practices and theory in literacy methods classrooms.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

New Criticism

Since Reader Response Theory, my assigned area to study, is a response to the New Criticism of the 1940s-1960s, I decided to explore this theory further to investigate if the notions of New Criticism are still relevant today. Tyson (2006) states, "'The text itself' became the battle cry of the New Critical effort to focus our attention on the literary work as the sole source of evidence for interpreting it"(p. 136). Although Tyson claims that New Criticism is not a contemporary literary criticism, and no longer practiced by literacy critics, I beg to differ.

The standardized manangement system that still dominates the majority of our school systems today, relies heavily on the use of high stakes testing, including the Ohio Achievement Test and the Ohio Graduation Test. The results of these assessments often determines funding, programs, and sometimes the faculty/staff for the subsequent school year. Test preparation dominates many districts, often from the first day of the school year. Students are often taught that only "one correct" answer exists, based on the format of the testing that the students are preparing to take. To me, this is the underpinnings of the New Criticism movement-the interpretation lies in the text, not in the reader.

Last spring, I had the opportunity to interview several K-8 reading teachers in order to collect data for the inference project that I am researching. I spoke with Cathy, a third grade teacher in a large public school system, who candidly admitted that test preparation begins on the very first day of school in her building. She teaches her students to answer literal questions by retrieving the answer from the actual text, often marking the page number on which the "correct answer" can be found. She does not spend any time introducing or reinforcing the concept of inference, since she beleives the Ohio Achievement Test at the third grade level asks very few higher-level questions that would require students to make an inference. I am currently researching standardized reading tests in five states, inclusdng Ohio, so I will be interested to determine if Cathy's statements are justified, or perhaps, just a response to the system in which she teaches.

Another premise of New Criticism that still pervades high school and college classrooms, is the concept of "close reading". This theory states that the "formal elements" of the language of text leads to its interpretation. The McClennan's Close Reading Guide defines several of the "formal elements" that Tyson (2006) describes in Critical Theory Today, including imagery, irony, and theme. Purdue University's Online Writing Lab also states that "close reading" is making a comeback and provides students a sample of applying "close reading" with a Shakespearean sonnet. Again, students are being taught to focus on the specific syntax and semantics of a text instead of making a personal connection.

Last Monday, during class, it was suggested that Advanced Placement Testing, may be another avenue to explore in relation to New Criticism Theory. It was somewhat ironic, that on Tuesday, the topic of Advanced Placement Tests was brought up by my dentist. Dr. F. began by asking my opinion on where his current eighth-grade son should attend high school next year. His son is deciding between the local public high school and an all-boys Catholic school in Cleveland. Dr. F stated that his son is already enrolled in advanced classes and plans to take Advanced Placement courses while in high school. A little research has revealed that the number of students taking Advanced Placement tests has significantly increased in the past years. However, the percentage of students passing the tests has decreased. Students can earn college credit by receiving a passing score of 3, 4, 0r 5 on the assessment. The New York Times and USA Today have both published statitistics on this area of concern for eductors. In the past, Advanced Placement tests were taken by "elite" students hoping to jumpstart their college career. Now, it seems that a different popluation of students are taking these exams. Has this contributed to the increased failure rate? Or, does the test perpetuate the notion of the "one correct answer or response," which disallows students' variations in the interpretation of the material? I hope to explore this area further, and look forward to sharing my findings.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Reader Response Theory

By luck of the draw, I happily selected Reader Response Theory to read, reflect, and respond to as a form of literary criticism. The first theories posited about reader response are attributed to Louise Rosenblatt and her description of Transactional Reader Response Theory. This theory, generally stated, "analyzes the transaction between text and reader" (Tyson, 2006, p.173). The text and the reader are considered equally important and require that an aesthetic approach be taken by the reader in order to create the "poem" or interaction between the two factors.

Read more about The Significance of Louise Rosenblatt on the Field of Teaching Literature.

Since Rosenblatt's initial work, other theorists, most notably Stanley Fish and Norman Holland, have expanded the views of Reader Response Theory to include the importance of the social environment that affects a reader's interpretation, as well as the personal revelations about the reader based on psychological responses. As Tyson (2006) states, "A literary interpretation may or may not reveal the meaning of the text, but to a discerning eye it always reveals the psychology of the reader" (p. 183).

Much research can be found on reader response theory, and fortunately, many educators are including reader response journals and critiques as part of their literacy instruction, in order for students to make a more personal connection to the text being read. To truly interpret a piece of literature, a student's background knowledge and experiences must be taken into consideration and valued as integral components of response to literature.

My first concerted effort to focus on reader response theory as an educator occurred almost four years ago, when I was still teaching fifth grade language arts full-time, and teaching part time at Baldwin-Wallace College. I engaged in an action research study with a colleague which entailed pairing teacher education candidates enrolled in a literacy methods course at Baldwin-Wallace College with my fifth grade students, to read and respond to the Newbery Award winning novel, Bud, Not Buddy by Christopher Paul Curtis. The students and candidates dialogued about the novel through a weekly online journal. The interactions were printed, analyzed, and coded, based on the work of Marjorie Hancock. Our study revealed the types of questions asked and comments shared by the students and teacher education candidates. Our results were further disseminated at the annual College Reading Association conference in October, 2006.

Students, in both classes, benefited from the opportunities provided to engage in reader response through online dialogue journals. My students truly moved beyond asking and responding to literal questions, and began using higher-level thinking skills to question the author, make text to self connections, and discern relevant information from the text. Their background knowledge and experiences were key to sharing their thoughts, as well. I also valued the writing connection that was a central component of this research. Many students expressed themselves more deeply and candidly in writing, rather than in general oral discussions. I also found this to be true when conducting literature circles in my classroom. It was the journal writing component that led to critical thinking and deeper ponderings, prior to sharing their thoughts with others aloud.

It was somewhat ironic that I happened upon an article on reader response theory that was very similar to my action research using Bud, Not Buddy. I wish I had published my findings year ago! Perhaps, it is not too late. In the meantime, I will add the article's link to my Wiki page, as well as other useful documents and teaching strategies.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

What Gets Written Down is Important

Chapter 18 "History of Schools and Writing" by David R. Olson in the Handbook of Research on Writing, continues to build my educational foundation of the historical perspectives on the role of schools as literate institutions. The formalized system of schooling continues to determine how reading and writing are viewed and valued in our classrooms today. I laughed to myself after reading in Chapter 18, "Children learn that talk is cheap; what gets written down is important" (Olson, 2008, p. 286). Earlier in the week, my colleague, Gail, came to my office after teaching her "Introduction to Early Childhood" course for preservice teachers. She told myself, and a fellow colleague, that she had just had an epiphany while teaching. She was discussing with her students the writing of lesson plans with an emphasis on developmentally appropriate practices, and turned and wrote the word "objectives" on the chalkboard. As Gail turned around, she witnessed twenty students writing the word "objectives" in their respective notebooks. Just the act of the teacher writing something, anything, on the chalkboard, was enough motivation for students to copy the word. The students were perpetuating the notion that anything written down by the instructor was important, regardless of the fact that Gail had spent a considerable amount of time discussing other aspects of the lesson plan assignment verbally. She stated that very few students seemed engaged or wrote anything in their notebooks during the lecture format. Gail admitted that she herself, is not a visual learner. Therefore, she conducts most of her classes in a lecture format, uses very few Power Point presentations, or other forms of notes/handouts to disseminate her information. She feels it is the students' responsibility to listen and note important information during her sessions. This, however, has led to some apathetic students who seem disengaged during her classes, or perhaps, unable to differentiate the information of critical importance. This makes me wonder...Does Gail need to change or enhance her teaching practices, or do her students need to learn the art of notetaking?

The importance of writing down pertinent information has been ingrained in students for the past few centuries, when reading competence began to be assessed on the written responses that students provided. No longer were oral recitations the norm, and a way for instructors to view the strengths and weaknesses of a child's literary skills. Instead, it was through the written word that teachers began to discern who was a skilled reader. "Today, ironically, children's reading ability is assessed almost exclusively through writing, that is through written tests" (Olson, 2008, p. 286).

The reliance on high stakes testing, entrance examinations to colleges and universities, and certification examination, such as Praxis II, are all written assessments of students' competence. This fact strengthens the importance of writing instruction in today's schools, from early childhood to college classrooms. Too often, students are able to articulate their knowledge and understanding of a subject, but fail to demonstrate that same understanding in a written format.

Through recent readings, past and current research, and personal reflection, I have narrowed my literacy interests and line of inquiry, which now includes a specific focus on writing. I am looking forward to sharing my growing passion later this semester.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Colloquium

I enjoyed attending my first colloquium at Kent State University earlier this week. The "job talk" given by the candidate provided an overview of her current research in middle school literacy classrooms and its implications for the future. As a member of the audience, I began envisioning myself in her place, perhaps in a few years. The most important aspect that I gained from my attendance was the realization that I have the desire and confidence to engage in these components of the interview process. I attribute this to my work in higher education for the past five years. My position and duties have steadily evolved at Baldwin-Wallace College, from teaching one night course a semester, to working full-time in the Division of Education. In addition to teaching literacy and teacher education courses, I spend many days presenting on various requirements of our undergraduate program, from freshman completing introductory field experiences, to student teaching orientation sessions, and cooperating teacher and college supervisor meetings. The unique audiences often require different presentation formats, and provide me the opportunity to discuss course requirements, strengths, and challenges across our educational program. These opportunities, along with professional presentations on my own research, should help sustain my comfort level with different audiences and interview formats.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Changing Our Minds

I continue to be intrigued by the various history of reading and writing articles and chapters that I have read in the past few weeks. As someone with an innate passion for reading, I do not think that I have given the art of writing equal justice. These readings have enabled me to learn the history of these two subjects and how the past has influenced current theory and practice. Changing Our Minds: Negotiating English and Literature provided the reader with a more thorough grasp of recitation literacy and decoding/analytic literacy, which differed in six distinct ways. "The first difference was that decoding/analytic literacy defined reading as decoding and analysis of parts and, thus, required students to be able to understand materials they had not seen or heard before, unlike recititation literacy, in which students were only required to read (or recite) the preannounced materials" (Myers, 1996, p. 86).

Decoding/analytic literacy also differed from its counterpart in the structure of school organization in which it was taught. The decentralized school system, supported by Stanford's first dean of education, Ellwood P. Cubberly, is a prime example of the emergence of the standardized management system, in which teachers were regarded as "supervised workers" and students were viewed as the "products of a school-factory system" (Myers, 1996, p. 87).
Viewing pupils as products stifled students' learning and offered little to no choice in the classroom. I am once again reminded of the image and metaphor of the traditional school desk, whose construction has retarded the intellectual growth, as well as the spiritual growth of children for centuries. Montessori (2009, in The Curriculum Studies Reader, Flinders & Thornton, Eds.) expressed her concern regarding her research on scientific pedagogy, stating, "The principle of slavery still pervades pedagogy, and therefore, the same principle pervades the school. I need only give one proof-the stationary desks and chairs" (p. 28).

The design of the school desks and chairs may have evolved throughout the years, however, standardized testing and limited choice in curriculum materials has contributed to a lack of motivation and student choice in education . "It behooves us to think of what may happen to the spirit of the child who is condemned to grow in conditions so artificial that his vary bones may become deformed" (Montessori, 2009, in The Curriculum Studies Reader, Flinders & Thornton, Eds.) Recent research on the use of basal readers in the classroom, estimate that nearly 90% of elementary teachers use basal reading programs to teach literacy components. I intend to explore this area in depth, as I conduct research with Julie and Liz on reading selections in middle school basal reading series, and the effect these selections have on adolescent boys' motivation to read.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Local Literacies

I have been intrigued by the ethnographic research by David Barton and Mary Hamilton in Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. Lancaster, or Lancashire, England, was the setting of this study in which various residents were interviewed in order to determine the local literacy practices that were present in the everyday lives of those who call Lancaster home. Four main individuals were followed throughout the study: Harry, Shirley, June, and Cliff. Each of them viewed literacy in a very different way.

HARRY...
"Harry appears to view the world as being divided between educated people and uneducated people. It seems to be his yardstick for talking about people, including himself" (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, p. 88).
This quote made me reflect on the difference between schooling and education. This is a topic that is of focus during my first few classes of my Introduction to Teaching and Education course at the undergraduate level. Many students initially believe that the terms are synonymous. However, they soon realize that, "In contrast to education, schooling is a specific, formalized process, usually focused on the young, and whose general pattern traditionally has varied little from one setting to the next" (Ryan & Cooper, 2007, p. 26 in Those Who Can, Teach). In contrast, education is formal and informal learning that occurs on a daily basis. It is apparent that Harry views formal schooling as a true measure of a person. Perhaps, this is based on the fact that he was unable to attend a particular grammar school that he had gained admittance to due to financial circumstances. Harry has failed to realize that life experiences help educate an individual, in addition to the traditional educational setting.

SHIRLEY...
"Shirley's mother also has some writing difficulties, and Shirley has researched the possibility that there is an inherited tendency to dyslexia through several generations of her family, talking to her own parents and grandmother about their experiences of reading and writing. This is probably one of the reasons she was interested in taking part in the research project with us-a strong interest in reading and writing difficulties prompted by her son's experiences at school" (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, p. 102).
The majority of us, prompted by doctors and medical research, make it a priority to learn our medical history. However, I wonder how many individuals investigate their literacy history? It would be quite interesting to discover the reading and writing habits of our families and the impact this has had on our literacy skills and preferences. Shirley is an advocate of her community and social change, thereby using her literacy skills in multiple ways. However, it is her son's struggles with literacy that seemed to compel her into further research and investigation. While reading about Shirley, I recalled a few of my teacher education candidates who entered the field of education based on their own child's struggles with literacy. One woman commented that after her son was identified with special needs, she knew she wanted to learn about various reading and writing strategies in order to help her own child succeed in the future.

JUNE...
"There is a sense in which literacy is not important to June. Nevertheless, literacy seems to be something she uses as it is needed in order to get things done. She does not go out of her way to do things with literacy and it does not particularly interest her. It arises in her daily life in an incidental way, when she draws on reading and writing in order to get things done; or she uses it to pass time, such as browsing in the bookshop by the bus stop" (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, p. 128).
June's background clearly indicated that literacy was part of her everyday life and enabled her to complete the tasks needed to work, organize a household, and communicate with family and friends. Many adults equate literacy with reading and writing in scholarly formats, forgetting the many avenues in which reading and writing skills enable them to lead productive lives.

This concept brought to mind an article I recently read on document literacy. The research involved a sample of 472 adults from North Carolina. Each participant was asked to indicate on a visual scale his/her familiarity with 74 document elements (i.e. bar graphs, pie charts, address lists), as well as how frequently he/she used the element in daily life. Cohen & Snowden (2008) state that, "Document literacy is a core component of an individual's ability to function in modern society" (p. 9). Therefore, document literacy needs to be further addressed in classrooms and the creation of more user friendly documents needs to be considered.

Read more about this study:
Cohen, D.J. & Snowden, J.L. (2008). The relation between familiarity, frequency, and prevalence and document literacy performance among adult readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 9-26.

CLIFF...
"Although he did not spontaneously talk a great deal about literacy, when we asked Cliff in a later interview about his theories of literacy and how people learn, he responded with stories about the cruelty of teachers at his school when he was learning to read. His observation about literacy was that associating reading with punishment did not encourage him to learn, and he thinks that children probably learn better nowadays because schools are more enjoyable places" (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, p. 136).

Cliff's negative attitude towards reading was based on his past experiences as a student who was subjected to "cruel teachers". Therefore, he expressed a penchant for writing because it appealed to him and engaged him in an active way.

As educators, we must be cognizant of the influence that we have on our students each day. A misconstrued comment or action may affect a student more than we realize. This can result in lower levels of motivation and engagement in various subject areas, which he can note from Cliff's responses, can be easily carried into adulthood.

I am looking forward to the completion of Local Literacies and the themes and patterns that will emerge from the data.

The History of Writing



Cuneiform Writing

The History of Writing: View to learn more about the materials that were used as writing evolved in our world.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

The Reader, The Scribe, The Thinker...

Monaghan and Saul's article, The Reader, The Scribe, The Thinker: A Critical Look at the History of American Reading and Writing Instruction exemplifies the notion that the disciplines of reading and writing are not equally recognized, regarded, or perhaps, even taught by players in the field of literacy. A disparity has occurred throughout the history of education in which reading has been more valued than its writing counterpart, although reading is indeed a receptive skill while writing is defined as a productive skill. It was interesting to learn that writing has been viewed as more synonymous with the mechanics of the process, as well as penmenship instruction. "The pedagogical emphasis was perscriptive: 'good' writing was taken to mean a mastery of capitalization, punctuation and syntax as well as correct spelling and pleasing handwriting" (Monaghan & Saul, 1987, p. 87).

This quote resonates with me since I have instructed several students who initially equate writing with handwriting. Often responses on "Reading Interest Inventories", that I have administered in the beginning of the school year, focus on the product of writing rather than the process. I am also realizing that the title of my interest inventory needs to address writing, as well. Perhaps I am perpetuating the stereotype that reading is more important than writing.

It is somewhat ironic that educators tend to concentrate their efforts on the reading currciulum when one of the loudest complaints is often the inability to have choice in the reading program or materials mandated by the school district. The use of basal reading programs and scripted teacher materials began to be used in earnest across the nation as one response to A Nation at Risk. Published in 1983, this government document advocated more "teacher proof" materials in order for American students to raise test scores and compete with their global counterparts. Although progress has been made since that publication, it is hard to ignore the fact the inordinate amounts of money are spent each year on reading programs that have not resulted in all children reading at or above grade level.

Writing instruction, on the other hand, offers teachers and students more choice and control. Student choice is continually advocated in terms of motivating readers, of all ages. Are students being given choice in terms of writing assignments, as well? Or are contrived writing prompts leading to poorly written responses and a lack of motivation in this area? With less materials needed and more control afforded, why isn't writing on equal footing with reading?

I am currently in my sixth year of teaching an undergraduate "Teaching of Phoncis" course to preservice teachers. The beginning of the course always begins with a history of phonics research and terminology, since many students have not focused on this topic since their own childhood days. Although we define synthetic, analytic, and anologic phonics approaches, I want my students to be aware that one specific approach has not been truly advocated by research. Cunningham (2009) states that, "Children need systematic phonics instruction but there is no best systematic approach (p. 247). I found it enlightening to read that Flesch's Why Johnny Can't Read and What You Can Do About It (1955) opened the dialogue among teachers regarding students' phonics instruction and its place in the broader reading curriculum.

In the phonics course, I also try to stress the key component of writing in early literacy skills. "Writing is perhaps the best opportunity for developing young children's print concepts, concrete words, phonemic awareness, and knowledge of letters and sounds. Because they are writing what they want to tell, children become perfectly clear about what reading and writing are for" (Cunningham, 2009, p. 24). Future teachers need to see this connection.

As literacy instructors, we must all continue to advocate for effective reading and writing instruction, even if we have a particular passion for one over the other. Continuing to explore the verticality of writing instruction is empowering. "Without knowledge of the intellectual history of curriculum studies, without understanding of its past and present circumstances (both internal and external to the field), one cannot contribute to the field. One cannot advance its conversation and thereby complicate our understanding. Nor without such knowledge can one claim expertise" (Pinar, 2007, xv).

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

NCATE

Scholarly writing has been a recent area of concentration for me during the last few months. I have been enlisted to help write the NCATE report for the Early Childhood Education program at Baldwin-Wallace College. The report will be sent to NAEYC (National Council for the Education of Young Children) this month. So, needless, to say, many hours have been devoted daily to the writing of contextual statements, compiling, disaggregating, and interpreting data, and aligning rubrics and course assignments to standards. This is not an easy fete, however, it has enabled me to experience yet another aspect of higher education. I will keep you posted on my progress!

Sunday, January 31, 2010

"Teaching Together"

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to present at the third annual "Teaching Together" Conference at Baldwin-Wallace College. "Teaching Together" is an organization of approximately 300 pre-service teachers who are at all different points in their educational journey. The conference was attended yesterday by 60 students who participated in sessions on Praxis II exams, resume building, constructing a professional portfolio, interviewing skills, resources for ESL students, and my presentation on creativity in the classroom. My fellow presenter and I were able to share various resources and opportunities to engage students, particualry in reading and writing, in other avenues than traditional literacy activities. As I was presenting, I began to think about the use of new literacies in the classroom. I shared with my audience how simple it was to create a blog last week, and the importance of utilizing various media and stratedies to motivate and engage our learners. The audience seemed interested and receptive, and I hope that a least a few future teachers will remember to broaden their horizons in future lesson planning!

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Show or Tell

Menand's article Show or Tell: Should Creative Writing be Taught? made me recall my first creative writing course at Magnificat High School several years ago. As a senior, I had originally registered to continue my foreign language studies in a Spanish IV course. However, I impulsively decided prior to the commencement of the class that I wanted to take a risk and move beyond my comfort zone of traditional coursework. Enrolling in a semester of Ceramics and Sculpture in fall term, and then Creative Writing in spring, was the opportunity I needed and desired to find my "voice" as a student, artist, and writer.

I agree with Menard that "few activities make people more self-conscious than participating in writing workshop. Reflecting on yourself-your experience, your "voice", your background, your talent or lack of it-is what writing workshops make people do" (2009, p. 109). The creative writing course I took did not focus on teaching the mechanics of writing or the conventions of print. The foundations of those concepts had been laid many years prior to my enrollment in the class. However, what I did learn was how to express myself in a variety of styles and genres. Most importantly, I learned to share my words and experiences with others. I was initially surprised by the interest others gave to my writing, and I learned to accept compliments and constructive criticism, as well.

As an English teacher for twelve years, educating fourth and fifth graders, I conducted many Writer's Workshops in my classroom. I was always pleasantly surprised with with how willing my students were to share their words with their teacher and peers. At their age, I was always hesitant. However, I realized that the child-centered structure of my classroom enabled my students the atmosphere to be themselves without fear of making a mistake or being judged. Students learned the valuable lesson of listening to others' words and giving constructive feedback. They also had the opportunity to see me write and listen to my words. "Teachers are the books that students read most closely, and this is especially true in the case of teachers who are living models for exactly what the student aspires one day to be-a published writer", (Menand, 2009, p. 112). It is my hope that these lessons and examples were carried with them into the junior high years and beyond.

I cannot answer the question, Can creative writing be taught? There will always be some students who have an inherent talent for writing, as others do for mathematics or science. However, some students need more guidance, patience, practice, and opportunities to hone their craft. Picasso one said that, "Every child is an artist." I believe that all children are writers, as well, with multiple stories to tell. We must enable our students the chance to take a risk, write, share, and find their true "voice".