I like that the author takes a wide view of literacy and how it can benefit the students, but I don't necessarily agree with all of the points that she counted as literacy. I like that she felt it was important and possible to emphasize literacy in subjects like music and theater, but I don't agree that musical literacy and the body language of acting should be lumped in with traditional literacy. I think there are some similar skills like reflection, evaluation and goal-setting but that could be said of topics outside of literacy as well. When the students are playing sports for example they can reflect, evaluate and set goals for themselves, but when they are reading about science they have trouble.I look at tying in reading comprehension and writing ability to the particular subject you're teaching as the main goals of content-area literacy because those are the skills that I see students struggling with.
One thing that struck me while reading this article is the ambiguity in common parlance of the word "literacy". In one sense, literacy is indeed limited to one's ability to interact effectively with a written text. In a much broader sense, literacy has come to be used to refer to fluent knowledge of any field; for instance, "math literacy" doesn't refer to one's ability to read texts about mathematics but rather to one's ability to understand and interact with mathematics problems.
I feel as if Draper is conflating these two concepts, although I'm unsure whether her motivations are positive or cynical. I do think that when politicians and administrators discuss the need for content-area literacy, they do mean to restrict that to the ability to parse written texts. I think it's worthwhile to challenge the parameters of what constitutes a "written text", but I also feel that Draper's expansion of literacy to apparently compass all of Gee's concept of "Discourse" muddies the water to an ineffectual level.
After all, isn't the primary goal of teaching any specific content to educate students to fluid mastery of content? If I take a figure drawing class in which I learn to draw the human form realistically, I've learned the content I appeared to be set to learn... to what degree can I be said to be "literate" or have acquired a literacy? On the broadest sense, yes, I have a higher literacy rate, but I feel like that's perhaps missing the point of "content-area literacy".
For me, one of the important questions revolves around what a "text" is, for the purposes of literacy. Let's take an obvious example: A short story. Effective reading of a short story involves a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. The linguistic tasks, in turn, can be roughly grouped in strictly language-based mechanical tasks (parsing sentences, interpreting the objective meanings of words, and so on) and more complex tasks involving social understandings. The non-linguistic tasks involve even more abstract social and psychological understandings.
The challenge: Which of these levels must be mastered for someone to be called "literate"? Certainly someone reading a short story who cannot parse it or make sense of its words cannot be called literate, but what of someone who understands the meanings of the words and how they work together but can't properly contextualize the events in a meaningful way? I would argue that such a person is indeed literate in the relevant sense, but I sense (perhaps incorrectly) that Draper would be more hesitant.
For me, then, I think it's important to distinguish literacy (the process of fluidly converting written symbols into semantically meaningful structures) from the effective interpretation of deeper meaning from any communicative event, be it textual, musical, kinesthetic, visual, or what have you.
(apparently Blogspot thinks I talk too much and made me cut it in parts.... ;) )
That's not to say there aren't blurry lines: The lines are very blurry indeed. What constitutes a text? Our written language evolved from a pictographic system, and Chinese's modern system is composed of such symbols, albeit with increasingly opaque semantic connections to the original pictures. Is a printed musical score a "text"? After all, it has somewhat arbitrary meaning and requires parsing by someone fluent in the system of marks for proper interpretation.
Where is the barrier between linguistic processing of a text and non-linguistic (i.e., post-)processing of a text? Converting written words mechanically to mental representations is a linguistic act; understanding the meaning of, say, Marcel referring to Blaise as "tu" rather than "vous" has both linguistic and non-linguistic aspects.
While I disagree with what I interpret to be Draper's very broad definition of "literacy", I do agree that it's important to minimize the extent to which we limit literacy to traditional texts. As a teacher, I'm reflecting on how to include a sense of literacy that has a more moderate scope as I encourage students to engage with "texts" in a mathematical setting.
Interestingly, the distinction between the literary act of producing text and the semantic act of producing meaning is embedded in our language. I was reading an article in French (http://www.lemonde.fr/style/article/2012/06/17/la-fille-de-la-photo-sort-du-cliche_1719507_1575563.html#xtor=RSS-3208), in which a photographer is referred to as "l'auteur du cliché", i.e., "the author of the photograph". I wasn't aware of this use of "auteur" before, so I looked into it.
In French, "l'auteur" is defined as "créateur, personne dont un objet est l'œuvre; écrivain, créateur d'une œuvre littéraire" (http://www.le-dictionnaire.com/definition.php?mot=auteur), "creator, someone who produces a work; writer, creator of a literary work". "Auteur" and "author" derive from Latin "auctorem", "master, leader" ("authority"), eventually from "augere", "to increase" ("augment"). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=author&searchmode=none
"Writer" and "scribe", meanwhile, come from words that refer to the physical act of creating marks; "write" is Germanic while "scribe" is Latin.
The point being, etymologically, an author is someone who creates any artistically meaningful work, who a writer is someone who sets language into permanent form.
This article did a lot to expand my concept of literacy. I think it is common for literacy to be limited to reading a hard text, but in today's world of technology this term is becoming more and more flexible. Even without technology, true literacy in a content area depends on the content being studied. Literacy in my science classroom is going to look very different than literacy in a music classroom. With that being said, I think that there were some things in the article that were oversimplified. For example, the people that the author observed in practice were obviously examples of educators excelling at their craft. Unfortunately, the extent of their understanding and practice are not represented in every classroom, therefore I think it is important to judge this on an individual basis to really understand how much literacy training is needed. This concept ties to what we have discussed in class this semester. It is important to have an end goal in mind when planning any strategy. If a literacy strategy is just being used for the sake of including a literacy strategy then it will not be an effective method. Instead these activities should be planned with an end result in mind. As long as they fit that end result it will no longer matter whether they are content specific or something prescribing to a more traditional look at literacy. This is applicable for all learners, no matter what ability, native tongue, or socioeconomic status. The important thing is to plan with an end result in mind that is applicable for students, then the literacy strategies will instead support the learning program, instead of adjusting a learning program to fit the literacy strategies.
Another part of the article that specifically spoke to me was to include literacy experiences that will prepare students to gain the Discourse of the subject. Many times when I integrate reading and writing into the classroom I am finding activities that fit my student’s Discourse or the Discourse of ELA. I think that the more interactive reading practices are still good for my students as they help to give students practice and the feeling of success without intimidating them with a science thesis. That being said, I would like to integrate more scientific writing into my class such as having students keep a science journal, write lab reports, and use a claim, evidence, reasoning approach, as these are all skills students will need to gain in order to be successful with science.
"How would you do this without a music background?" Sometimes as the educator, it is hard to place yourself in the shoes of the student. We are experts in our field and occasionally forget to meet students where they are. We can talk about content literacy all day and how we will make a class more understanding and engaging which is great, but we must also acknowledge that students need to have the curiosity and drive to find answers for themselves as well. We need to encourage them to research topics on their own, search for the "right" answers, write it down and reflect. This is how students really learn. We can’t spoon feed them information and expect them to remember it. Remember to let them find the answers with your help, instead.
I agree that as an educator, it is my responsibility to find engaging material that sparks the interest of the students. I consider it to be rewarding not only to them, but myself as well. Who wouldn't want students who remember more information and who are excited to learn more? I also believe that I am there to give them an extra push to search on their own and find more information about the subject which possibly could also relate to their own lives.
"Language is highly problematic for fields such as music and theatre that rely on other forms of meaning in addition to language." "The inner life...and stuff you can't talk about very well...the under layers of conscience." Researching materials and artists before creating is beneficial but adding text to works can take away from the piece. As an artist, we want the viewer to search for the meaning. The meaning could be completely different for the creator and viewer. The mystery is sometimes the best part and so I would not encourage my students to add text to art but instead express a meaning in art.
Draper has taken the time to analyze and attempt to re-define what it truly means to teach content-area literacy. Throughout the semester, we have discussed numerous times on the “language” of our specific content areas. As a science teacher, articles, graphs, charts, tables, figures, and drawings are of common use to depict information. When I say photosynthesis what comes to mind? Possibly the drawing of a sun, with rays of light beaming down to a plant leaf with carbon dioxide riding an arrow going in and water and oxygen coming out? Or do you have the chemical formula scroll through your head? When I mention DNA- do you think deoxyribose-nucleic-acid or do you picture the double helix? There are so many forms of literacy, and Draper now understands that. What it takes to decode a section of say Romeo and Juliet or The Odyssey for understanding, is very different from decoding and understanding a section of Darwin’s The Origin of Species or Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac.
To have content specific literacy courses makes sense to me. I can’t teach someone the literacy tools that work best for Social studies or Art- those are not subjects that I commonly read, learn, and then teach. There are certain strategies that work better for different content areas.
I found it interesting that according to this article “Over 60 percent of U.S. states do require a content-area literacy course as part of the preparation of secondary teachers.” (pg. 65) As educators, we may be proficient in our content, but if we are not able to communicate it or assist our students, then how effective are we truly as educators? I personally had a number of teachers/ professors throughout school and undergrad who were content knowledgeable, but did not (or could not) teach how to read for a specific subject. I wonder how I would have fared in physics or chemistry if this had been the case…
Today we have to closely consider the changing sources of literacy and how the focus is changing to non-print sources. I recently interviewed at a school where almost everything is online- textbooks are nearly non-existent. This past year, I had to design the curriculum for Environmental science and supplement with a variety of internet-based sources: government sources, virtual labs, articles, etc. Trying to find sources that are wrote in a “science” specific language can be difficult, because often they were at a university level of research/ writing or newspaper/ magazine. If I could find more science journals that are wrote to a level for my students, then that would be more beneficial. These tend to include data charts and figures to support the article.
I look at literacy as a tool used to attain a goal. By using strategies, teaching these to my students, then they can use them to enhance their knowledge and understanding, communicate what they’ve learned, and then pursue further inquiries- additional learning.
I appreciate Draper’s commitment to help content area teachers infuse their content instruction with literacy instruction. As I reflect on my learning experiences, throughout grade school (which was many moons ago), most subjects were taught in a bubble and typically didn’t overlap. So, if I were in a math class, then the emphasis was solely on mathematical concepts. So, there was little to no infusion of other subjects such as writing, reading or science. Today, research shows that educators should not settle on a single subject but should use content area literacy as a tool to enhance student learning.
In fact, Draper encourages educators to investigate content-area literacy instruction and find ways to help students read a variety of textbooks. Draper also describes the journey of reflecting on one’s own practice as a content area literacy educator. During this journey and the collaboration with other educators helped Draper to rethink the efficacy of content area instructional practices across all disciples. After collaborating with several educators and observing non-print and print literacy examples, Draper discovered that all educators must be prepared to support the literacy development of their students. Actually, this article really reinforces why it is important to get teachers out of the comfort of their classroom and to collaborate with other teachers within various disciplines.
In this article, Draper attempts to redefine her role as a content area literacy educator by observing three teachers in three separate disciplines. Throughout her research she tries to find the common underlying literacy tones that exist in every discipline and strives to come up with strategies that can be beneficial for all subject matters. Her overall goal is to validate that all teachers should have some proficiency in teaching literacy, all service teachers should incorporate content level literacy in their lesson plans, and that all pre-service teachers be mandated to take literacy classes.
Throughout this article there were many statements/examples that stood out to me. One statement was when she reflected on Gee’s notion of “Discourse”. She links the notion of “Discourse” to her own notion of content –area lessons. She states that “content-area classrooms can be seen as helping students master or control a particular Discourse by helping students learn how to appropriately act and interact with the texts used to communicate and participate within disciplinary communities of practice”. I agree with this statement because as a teacher I do believe that it is our job to help students to understand how to effectively read and communicate the subject matter. In doing this, it is the first step to helping the student to learn the subject matter. Another example that stood out to me was when the music teacher broke his class into groups and instructed them to create a version of “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star”. In that example I believe that it really gave clarity as to how vocabulary can be used as a tool to help students to communicate subject matter.
After reading this article, I strive to be more mindful of the “Print Literacy” that relates to my subject matter. “Print Literacy” refers to the connotations that lie within the text. One way that the author suggests to remedy this is to ask yourself, “How would I learn the material without any prior knowledge?” This means constantly placing yourself in the students’ shoes. Another way that the author suggests is to think about “How did I get the answer?” In thinking about how you got the answer, you constantly are justifying why each step works and relating what it means.
This article helped me to understand more about what content area literacy is, however I still have some bit of uncertainty. I still would like to understand if there are some connections that could be made from literacy in non related subjects, or if it would be more feasible to have content-area literacy just focus on one particular subject?
Draper’s article discusses literacy on a very broad scale and she attempts to define content-area literacy and help teachers integrate literacy into the classroom. Draper takes an unbiased approach to identifying literacy in content specific classrooms as she describes her teaching experience as a content literacy teacher, her collaborations with music, theater and mathematics teachers and how these experiences have redefined her perception of texts, content-area literacy and literacy itself. Draper raises some interesting points within her research about content literacy, how it should be used within a content-area classroom, reflecting upon literacy integration, and cross-curricular collaboration, especially with literacy teachers. During her experience while collaborating with several other educators, and observing different literacy examples, Draper discovered that all educators must be prepared to support the literacy development of their students at any given time. To me this article reinforces the importance of literacy in the classroom and its use as a malleable tool with can be molded to master other content areas. This article really spoke to me when considering content area literacy within the classroom and reflecting upon my own successes and failures. It is also a good reminder that all teachers should approach new material as if they knew nothing. “Placing yourself within the students’ shoes”, is a lot easier said than done. This is especially hard for content area teachers since they have already mastered the material, and rarely remember how exactly they learned in high school. But as teacher we must make it one of our top priorities to help students make connections and meet them at their levels’. By integrating literacy into the classroom you are teaching students to teach themselves, but modeling how to read a text book, or how to approach a problem. This article was very longwinded, but contained some important notions about literacy with every content-area teacher should have a chance to read.
The first article describes literacy teacher’s journey to understand her role in helping content area teachers find meaning within their field to teach literacy. The author worked with three different professors that teach content classes to educations students. It was fascinating to see how she impacted each professor and their views on the importance of teaching teachers to teach literacy in their content areas. Although, it was even more interesting to also see how they took her suggestions and created better methods to teaching content literacy, given their knowledge of their subject area. Sometimes the author would state that she was happy they were not using her suggestions because their implemented instruction ended up being more effective than her initial ideas. It was understandable that she included this in her article; however, I think there was more to take away than the idea that content area teachers can create better suited activities for teaching literacy in their content areas. The author gave suggestions and was patient in helping the teachers find meaning behind teaching how to teach literacy. She then let the individuals find their own best strategies to teach the content and allow the education majors see the importance as well. In the end it was their methods of instruction but she planted an idea that enriched their teaching, the teachings of future teachers, and the learning of future students. By the end I was impressed by the strength in collaboration that had been demonstrated among each of the teachers. This particular article related back to much of what we have discussed in class. Content area teachers are the best resource for students to learn literacy in that area but it can be difficult to find methods to help infuse other content into our teachings. I like that there has been an emphasis on reworking the focus of the educator from explaining algorithms or content, to providing students with tools that make them lifelong learners.
The second article was about creating conversations within a math classroom to help enhance student understanding of the material. It gave a detailed description of how one teacher implemented the Socratic method to create discussion among her students. This was a great article because it provided detailed description of how she implemented the method in the class, her observations, and the results of implementing the strategy. When reading how she initially implemented the discussions I was impressed by the set up and structure that she had in place to ensure that it was effective and met the intended objectives. She also included enlightening observations on the lack of ability to create a dialog on mathematics no matter the communication ability of the student. It reinforced the fact that students no matter what their ability level must be taught to write, read, and communicate in a discourse that is foreign to them. Throughout the article she also included student feedback. Interestingly, students had a lot of input on how to better implement the discussions, necessary and unnecessary components, and how the discussions were helping their understanding. I think student feedback is an underrated and often overlooked tool in teaching. In my future teaching I would like to incorporate ways for students to decide if a lesson or activity is helping to aide their understanding (with reasoning). I think there is something very powerful in students being able to voice ways that a lesson is not meeting the intended objectives.
This article started with the author going through her evolution on how she became interested in content reading. She started to question her role as a content literacy teacher after observing a teacher and not having anything of value for him to add to his lesson that was related to literacy. This made her question her perspective on content area literacy. She did some research and observed more teachers and she saw that as a literacy teacher because she wasn’t an expert in the subject, she could potentially give strategies that are not beneficial for the teacher to use in his or her classroom. She realized that the focus needed to be more on letting the teacher be the literacy expert in their classroom and her role will be one of a consultant that will be present to support and educate the teachers. She feels that collaboration between the content literacy consultant and the teachers is vital to make content literacy more supported in the classroom. I think that collaboration of a content literacy teacher would be beneficial to provide dialog of strategies that can be used. They may be better equipped with the expertise to provide content literacy suggestions that will be most effective when working with ELL’s and students with learning disabilities. I agree that the teachers are the experts in their content and they are the best ones to evaluate when and where to implement the content literacy but they have to be equipped with the knowledge of content literacy and some strategies so that they can effectively integrate it into their curriculum. So I think taking classes like RLL 6121 should be required so that all teachers can have some tools to start the integration of literacy in their content area.
Enhancing content-area literacy in classrooms is Draper's main objective. Draper points out the vital role that teachers play in classrooms, while teaching content-area reading and literacy. Draper emphasizes the importance of content-area of literacy for all students. She highlights the role of the teachers in planning lesson plans that actually incorporate reading and literacy. She points out that as teachers we should teach content-area literacy, not only by reading and writing but also at times during art, theater and math. Based on Drapers findings we can clearly see that some studies show that content-area literacy can be seen as instructional avenue, while others see it to increase learning. Much attention is also paid to content-area reading and writing literacy based on practice and then the understanding of the material. I always say that teaching is a complex issue, but as teachers we have to decide what works and what does not work in that classroom, that we teach. We should have an open mind and develop a classroom atmosphere that will enhance open reading and writing for content-area literacy.Therefore specifically, highlight the importance of teaching techniques and schemas and also describe them orally and write them down, on the board so the students can understand and comprehend the material. Further, Draper gives us an example on how to deal and how to work with other teachers regarding and understanding comprehension, across the curriculum, regarding reading, understanding and comprehension while teaching content-area literacy. "As such, we have established co-ownership of our research and have opened ourselves to interrogation as we have simultaneously interrogated each other. Participatory action research is preferred when individuals seek ways to research with other rather than on other, with the goal of understanding and improving practice." Based on my experiences as a teacher, I should be able to come up with the best possible learning theories to implement into my lesson plans, while teaching students in content-area literacy.
This was a good article in that Draper is really committed to teach all subject area teachers how to incorporate literary strategies in the classroom. It was interesting going through the article and reading about how literacy was developed in art, math, science, etc. classes. The role is to teach teachers how to incorporate literacy in all disciplines. It is extremely important to teach literacy to students. Especially in mathematics, students need to understand the concepts and content surrounding the procedures they are learning to use. By understanding what they are doing and why they are doing it, they will be able to research and seek help on their own if necessary. Becoming literate in a content area will help students to learn and teach the subject for which they are literate in. The procedures will make sense to the student, and the student will be able to make connections within that content. This works for all disciplines. Also, when talking about pushing cross-curriculum instruction, I think that students who are literate in their content area will be able to not only make the connection with content in a class, but also be able to make these connections between classes.
An example of the above would be of the “twinkle, twinkle little star” song in the music class in the story. Students were to make this song using whatever tune they wanted, and had to use the words of the song. In addition, vocabulary words that had to be used were also given to them.
All of this talk about literacy is very enlightening and very interesting; however, I’m having a hard time understanding how to incorporate some of these literacy ideas. I don’t remember where in the article I read it, but I think I read something implying that we shouldn’t teach content area literacy with an emphasis on student reading/writing (literacy as how we know it)…we need to teach content literacy in a way for students to understand to content so that they can apply their new knowledge between disciplines. I know that I need to teach reading mathematics to my students. I know that in order to do this I need to teach reading to some of my students. I know that before I can even do this I have to teach some basic math to my students. I know that there are too many levels in the classroom to “teach” literacy such as what I described above. My goal next year is to tackle these by providing student activities that incorporate mathematics and content literacy, while slowly requiring students to read and build their skills. Also, I think by providing many different activities and student unit contracts, and various means to measure growth (mathematically and with literacy) within the course, the various levels of students will be reached. My unit that I presented in class is a decent foundation of what I’m going to try to do…but first, I’m going to enjoy at least 6 weeks of summer and gather my thoughts.
This article caused me to rethink my approach to content area literacy. Instead of focusing on infusing more reading and writing into the course as a goal, I now focus on reading and writing as tool to increase my students’ participation in scientific discourse. When I couple this article with the Delpit article about discourse, I now am looking at how I can strategically include literacy as a tool to this end. Draper’s autobiographical self-study research chronicles her journey into content-area literacy for mathematics, music, and theater education. Her first observations of her team members from these areas had her thinking of ways to incorporate literacy, i.e. print media, into the instruction. However, closer examination made her realize that the definition of text needed to be expanded to account for symbols and images (mathematics), music scores and oral melodies (music), and scripts (theater). Her observations lead her to the major questions of: How does one teach these subjects without a written text? How does one acquire the foundational knowledge upon which the current instruction is based? I found Dan’s ideas for mathematics teacher education to be the most revealing in relation to these questions. Dan looked at literacy development within the context of mathematics and mathematics instruction. There is a certain discourse; way of doing, being, and saying that takes place within Mathematics. His view was that literacy within mathematics should enable math students and mathematics instructors to become more adept at Mathematics discourse. That discourse focuses on the use of symbols and why mathematical arguments / statements are written in the way and sequence that they are. A student’s proficiency at mathematical discourse cannot be determined by the student’s ability to explain how to solve a problem. That is merely algorithm description. When the student can explain to you why the algorithm is written the way that it is, using the vocabulary and appropriate symbols of mathematics, she has demonstrated competency in mathematics discourse, which is literacy to Dan. After reading this article, I look again at how I am going to teach literacy in Chemistry. My initial approach through the reading and summarizing of articles for student learning logs, may not be that effective. The students will gain some knowledge and vocabulary, but will they really be able to communicate the way chemists do? Will they approach research literature with the mindset of scientists if they simply read and summarize scientific journal articles? I have questions of how I will scaffold them to understanding and analyzing written lab reports compiled by the American Chemical Society for example. The vocabulary and the chemistry tends to be beyond the students’ current level, and in some respects, beyond mine as well. Where do I go to increase my literacy in Chemistry while continuously improving in my knowledge of secondary science pedagogy?
Though I agree that content area literacy is used more as a tool than a goal of education, I also believe that one cannot function well without the other. No I do not believe that content area teachers should be reading and writing teachers as well, but I recognize that they have no choice if students are going to achieve. Without it, we would have to assume that all students already arrive in our classrooms with the necessary skills to transfer what they know of literacy to the content and even my limited experience has shown that this is not often the case. In these instances, science and/or math becomes an increasingly difficult exercise in futility bringing higher levels of frustration and possible burnout for both students and teachers. Every subject area has its own language and/or text. Just as kids need to learn English, Spanish or Arabic in depth (whether it be their first language or not), they must learn the language of each science, math, art or other content area class as well. If we treated content as we do learning a second language, it could assist all students to achieve much more than the common, current curriculum affords. The problem is as the author said, “…I have faced teachers,…who question the efficacy (effectiveness) of literacy instruction for their classrooms; who question their ability to promote literacy; and who question whether doing so will take time away from content instruction.” I believe that teachers are not properly trained, in most instances, to handle such an undertaking. We ourselves have only received one course in special needs that was combined with one course in assisting the English Language Learner and now only this one course in Literacy. Due to this, many would not understand the value of literacy instruction and most will question their ability to carry out such an undertaking. Worse yet, is the issue of time. For as long as teachers are still held under pressure to achieve test scores more heavily than they are held accountable for truly ensuring student learning, there will never be enough time to properly include literacy within content instruction. Pacing charts and standardized test scores have become “do or die” situations for teachers and the end is not immediately in sight. Unfortunately it is our children, their educations and all of our futures that we are holding hostage by refusing to finally correct our broken educational system.
Redefining Content-Area Literacy Teacher Education: Finding My Voice Through Collaboration
I have to admit that prior to taking RLL 6121, I had not considered the relevance of including literacy in my mathematics classes. As was shared in the article, “I questioned the efficacy of literacy instruction, questioned my ability to promote literacy and questioned whether doing so will take time away from content instruction”.
In this article, Draper shares her experiences as a content area literacy teacher educator. She collaborates with three teachers who specialize in content areas of mathematics, music and theatre. Draper shares her experiences and how she has reevaluate her thinking as it relates to teachers’ necessity of incorporating content literacy in their instruction. Draper discovered that “content-are literacy is more valuable to content-area teachers when it make space for nonprint/non-language-based texts, and when teachers use print texts in discipline-appropriate ways”. Draper further concluded that content area educators and literacy educators should continue to collaborate with one another. The ultimate goal for both the content area teachers and literacy educators is to produce effective educational and learning opportunities for all adolescents.
I liked the Draper article, particularly when apired with th Delpit articles about Acquisition of Literate Discourse. I believe that I am at heart a pragmatist more than a theorist, and I believe that many committed teachers are similar to me. I want to use what "works" for students more than I want to spend time discussing theories. From that standpoint, I can admire Draper's evolution as a literacy expert. She modified her thinking after she had the opportunity to collaborate with teachers in their content areas.
I have been lucky enough to observe excellent mathematics teachers like Dan mentioned in the article. In fact, my menttor teacher this last semester is one such person. She challenges students to use correct vocabulary, approach problems froma number of perspectives, articulate their thinking either in group discission or in written reflection. Like Dan, she does these things because she is expert at teacher her subject and uses a number of strtegies that support content area literacy( expertise) rather than literacy as a separate goal of her instruction.
This is where the Delpit article has significance. Delpit talks about teaching literate discousre as going beyond the teaching of the "mechanics". There is in a sense the necessity to help students become expert in the "cultural" cues of a given discourse. She descibes how committed teachers accomplish this by having high expectations and going the extra mile to help students meet those expectations.
The teachers that Draper collaborated with were committed to having their students acquire "literate discourse" and did those things that helped students become successful - this being done in service to the student and their overall success, than for the the purpose of increasing textual literacy. The teachers pushed back at Draper when they believed that her recommendations were not appropriate or effective within their content discipline.
That being said, the most important thing I got out of the Draper article was the concept of collaboration between content area teachers and literacy specialists. I came to realize that it would do me well to find out what resources are available to me at my new job assignment. How can I collaborate with district reading specialists so that they become familiar with my goals and issues in the classroom and I could possibly benefit from their perspective?
I observed this when I was working on the implementation of the Carnegie Learning math curricula in Yakima (WA) schools. The implementation was district wide, and included support from and collaboration with district reading specialists. The results can be powerful when everyone is "on the same page (please excuse the pun)."
I like that the author takes a wide view of literacy and how it can benefit the students, but I don't necessarily agree with all of the points that she counted as literacy. I like that she felt it was important and possible to emphasize literacy in subjects like music and theater, but I don't agree that musical literacy and the body language of acting should be lumped in with traditional literacy. I think there are some similar skills like reflection, evaluation and goal-setting but that could be said of topics outside of literacy as well. When the students are playing sports for example they can reflect, evaluate and set goals for themselves, but when they are reading about science they have trouble.I look at tying in reading comprehension and writing ability to the particular subject you're teaching as the main goals of content-area literacy because those are the skills that I see students struggling with.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that struck me while reading this article is the ambiguity in common parlance of the word "literacy". In one sense, literacy is indeed limited to one's ability to interact effectively with a written text. In a much broader sense, literacy has come to be used to refer to fluent knowledge of any field; for instance, "math literacy" doesn't refer to one's ability to read texts about mathematics but rather to one's ability to understand and interact with mathematics problems.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if Draper is conflating these two concepts, although I'm unsure whether her motivations are positive or cynical. I do think that when politicians and administrators discuss the need for content-area literacy, they do mean to restrict that to the ability to parse written texts. I think it's worthwhile to challenge the parameters of what constitutes a "written text", but I also feel that Draper's expansion of literacy to apparently compass all of Gee's concept of "Discourse" muddies the water to an ineffectual level.
After all, isn't the primary goal of teaching any specific content to educate students to fluid mastery of content? If I take a figure drawing class in which I learn to draw the human form realistically, I've learned the content I appeared to be set to learn... to what degree can I be said to be "literate" or have acquired a literacy? On the broadest sense, yes, I have a higher literacy rate, but I feel like that's perhaps missing the point of "content-area literacy".
For me, one of the important questions revolves around what a "text" is, for the purposes of literacy. Let's take an obvious example: A short story. Effective reading of a short story involves a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. The linguistic tasks, in turn, can be roughly grouped in strictly language-based mechanical tasks (parsing sentences, interpreting the objective meanings of words, and so on) and more complex tasks involving social understandings. The non-linguistic tasks involve even more abstract social and psychological understandings.
The challenge: Which of these levels must be mastered for someone to be called "literate"? Certainly someone reading a short story who cannot parse it or make sense of its words cannot be called literate, but what of someone who understands the meanings of the words and how they work together but can't properly contextualize the events in a meaningful way? I would argue that such a person is indeed literate in the relevant sense, but I sense (perhaps incorrectly) that Draper would be more hesitant.
For me, then, I think it's important to distinguish literacy (the process of fluidly converting written symbols into semantically meaningful structures) from the effective interpretation of deeper meaning from any communicative event, be it textual, musical, kinesthetic, visual, or what have you.
(Cont)
(apparently Blogspot thinks I talk too much and made me cut it in parts.... ;) )
DeleteThat's not to say there aren't blurry lines: The lines are very blurry indeed. What constitutes a text? Our written language evolved from a pictographic system, and Chinese's modern system is composed of such symbols, albeit with increasingly opaque semantic connections to the original pictures. Is a printed musical score a "text"? After all, it has somewhat arbitrary meaning and requires parsing by someone fluent in the system of marks for proper interpretation.
Where is the barrier between linguistic processing of a text and non-linguistic (i.e., post-)processing of a text? Converting written words mechanically to mental representations is a linguistic act; understanding the meaning of, say, Marcel referring to Blaise as "tu" rather than "vous" has both linguistic and non-linguistic aspects.
While I disagree with what I interpret to be Draper's very broad definition of "literacy", I do agree that it's important to minimize the extent to which we limit literacy to traditional texts. As a teacher, I'm reflecting on how to include a sense of literacy that has a more moderate scope as I encourage students to engage with "texts" in a mathematical setting.
Something I learned today:
DeleteInterestingly, the distinction between the literary act of producing text and the semantic act of producing meaning is embedded in our language. I was reading an article in French (http://www.lemonde.fr/style/article/2012/06/17/la-fille-de-la-photo-sort-du-cliche_1719507_1575563.html#xtor=RSS-3208), in which a photographer is referred to as "l'auteur du cliché", i.e., "the author of the photograph". I wasn't aware of this use of "auteur" before, so I looked into it.
In French, "l'auteur" is defined as "créateur, personne dont un objet est l'œuvre; écrivain, créateur d'une œuvre littéraire" (http://www.le-dictionnaire.com/definition.php?mot=auteur), "creator, someone who produces a work; writer, creator of a literary work". "Auteur" and "author" derive from Latin "auctorem", "master, leader" ("authority"), eventually from "augere", "to increase" ("augment"). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=author&searchmode=none
"Writer" and "scribe", meanwhile, come from words that refer to the physical act of creating marks; "write" is Germanic while "scribe" is Latin.
The point being, etymologically, an author is someone who creates any artistically meaningful work, who a writer is someone who sets language into permanent form.
This article did a lot to expand my concept of literacy. I think it is common for literacy to be limited to reading a hard text, but in today's world of technology this term is becoming more and more flexible. Even without technology, true literacy in a content area depends on the content being studied. Literacy in my science classroom is going to look very different than literacy in a music classroom. With that being said, I think that there were some things in the article that were oversimplified. For example, the people that the author observed in practice were obviously examples of educators excelling at their craft. Unfortunately, the extent of their understanding and practice are not represented in every classroom, therefore I think it is important to judge this on an individual basis to really understand how much literacy training is needed. This concept ties to what we have discussed in class this semester. It is important to have an end goal in mind when planning any strategy. If a literacy strategy is just being used for the sake of including a literacy strategy then it will not be an effective method. Instead these activities should be planned with an end result in mind. As long as they fit that end result it will no longer matter whether they are content specific or something prescribing to a more traditional look at literacy. This is applicable for all learners, no matter what ability, native tongue, or socioeconomic status. The important thing is to plan with an end result in mind that is applicable for students, then the literacy strategies will instead support the learning program, instead of adjusting a learning program to fit the literacy strategies.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of the article that specifically spoke to me was to include literacy experiences that will prepare students to gain the Discourse of the subject. Many times when I integrate reading and writing into the classroom I am finding activities that fit my student’s Discourse or the Discourse of ELA. I think that the more interactive reading practices are still good for my students as they help to give students practice and the feeling of success without intimidating them with a science thesis. That being said, I would like to integrate more scientific writing into my class such as having students keep a science journal, write lab reports, and use a claim, evidence, reasoning approach, as these are all skills students will need to gain in order to be successful with science.
"How would you do this without a music background?" Sometimes as the educator, it is hard to place yourself in the shoes of the student. We are experts in our field and occasionally forget to meet students where they are. We can talk about content literacy all day and how we will make a class more understanding and engaging which is great, but we must also acknowledge that students need to have the curiosity and drive to find answers for themselves as well. We need to encourage them to research topics on their own, search for the "right" answers, write it down and reflect. This is how students really learn. We can’t spoon feed them information and expect them to remember it. Remember to let them find the answers with your help, instead.
ReplyDeleteI agree that as an educator, it is my responsibility to find engaging material that sparks the interest of the students. I consider it to be rewarding not only to them, but myself as well. Who wouldn't want students who remember more information and who are excited to learn more? I also believe that I am there to give them an extra push to search on their own and find more information about the subject which possibly could also relate to their own lives.
"Language is highly problematic for fields such as music and theatre that rely on other forms of meaning in addition to language." "The inner life...and stuff you can't talk about very well...the under layers of conscience." Researching materials and artists before creating is beneficial but adding text to works can take away from the piece. As an artist, we want the viewer to search for the meaning. The meaning could be completely different for the creator and viewer. The mystery is sometimes the best part and so I would not encourage my students to add text to art but instead express a meaning in art.
Draper has taken the time to analyze and attempt to re-define what it truly means to teach content-area literacy. Throughout the semester, we have discussed numerous times on the “language” of our specific content areas. As a science teacher, articles, graphs, charts, tables, figures, and drawings are of common use to depict information. When I say photosynthesis what comes to mind? Possibly the drawing of a sun, with rays of light beaming down to a plant leaf with carbon dioxide riding an arrow going in and water and oxygen coming out? Or do you have the chemical formula scroll through your head? When I mention DNA- do you think deoxyribose-nucleic-acid or do you picture the double helix? There are so many forms of literacy, and Draper now understands that. What it takes to decode a section of say Romeo and Juliet or The Odyssey for understanding, is very different from decoding and understanding a section of Darwin’s The Origin of Species or Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac.
ReplyDeleteTo have content specific literacy courses makes sense to me. I can’t teach someone the literacy tools that work best for Social studies or Art- those are not subjects that I commonly read, learn, and then teach. There are certain strategies that work better for different content areas.
I found it interesting that according to this article “Over 60 percent of U.S. states do require a content-area literacy course as part of the preparation of secondary teachers.” (pg. 65) As educators, we may be proficient in our content, but if we are not able to communicate it or assist our students, then how effective are we truly as educators? I personally had a number of teachers/ professors throughout school and undergrad who were content knowledgeable, but did not (or could not) teach how to read for a specific subject. I wonder how I would have fared in physics or chemistry if this had been the case…
Today we have to closely consider the changing sources of literacy and how the focus is changing to non-print sources. I recently interviewed at a school where almost everything is online- textbooks are nearly non-existent. This past year, I had to design the curriculum for Environmental science and supplement with a variety of internet-based sources: government sources, virtual labs, articles, etc. Trying to find sources that are wrote in a “science” specific language can be difficult, because often they were at a university level of research/ writing or newspaper/ magazine. If I could find more science journals that are wrote to a level for my students, then that would be more beneficial. These tend to include data charts and figures to support the article.
I look at literacy as a tool used to attain a goal. By using strategies, teaching these to my students, then they can use them to enhance their knowledge and understanding, communicate what they’ve learned, and then pursue further inquiries- additional learning.
I appreciate Draper’s commitment to help content area teachers infuse their content instruction with literacy instruction. As I reflect on my learning experiences, throughout grade school (which was many moons ago), most subjects were taught in a bubble and typically didn’t overlap. So, if I were in a math class, then the emphasis was solely on mathematical concepts. So, there was little to no infusion of other subjects such as writing, reading or science. Today, research shows that educators should not settle on a single subject but should use content area literacy as a tool to enhance student learning.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Draper encourages educators to investigate content-area literacy instruction and find ways to help students read a variety of textbooks. Draper also describes the journey of reflecting on one’s own practice as a content area literacy educator. During this journey and the collaboration with other educators helped Draper to rethink the efficacy of content area instructional practices across all disciples. After collaborating with several educators and observing non-print and print literacy examples, Draper discovered that all educators must be prepared to support the literacy development of their students. Actually, this article really reinforces why it is important to get teachers out of the comfort of their classroom and to collaborate with other teachers within various disciplines.
In this article, Draper attempts to redefine her role as a content area literacy educator by observing three teachers in three separate disciplines. Throughout her research she tries to find the common underlying literacy tones that exist in every discipline and strives to come up with strategies that can be beneficial for all subject matters. Her overall goal is to validate that all teachers should have some proficiency in teaching literacy, all service teachers should incorporate content level literacy in their lesson plans, and that all pre-service teachers be mandated to take literacy classes.
ReplyDeleteThroughout this article there were many statements/examples that stood out to me. One statement was when she reflected on Gee’s notion of “Discourse”. She links the notion of “Discourse” to her own notion of content –area lessons. She states that “content-area classrooms can be seen as helping students master or control a particular Discourse by helping students learn how to appropriately act and interact with the texts used to communicate and participate within disciplinary communities of practice”. I agree with this statement because as a teacher I do believe that it is our job to help students to understand how to effectively read and communicate the subject matter. In doing this, it is the first step to helping the student to learn the subject matter. Another example that stood out to me was when the music teacher broke his class into groups and instructed them to create a version of “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star”. In that example I believe that it really gave clarity as to how vocabulary can be used as a tool to help students to communicate subject matter.
After reading this article, I strive to be more mindful of the “Print Literacy” that relates to my subject matter. “Print Literacy” refers to the connotations that lie within the text. One way that the author suggests to remedy this is to ask yourself, “How would I learn the material without any prior knowledge?” This means constantly placing yourself in the students’ shoes. Another way that the author suggests is to think about “How did I get the answer?” In thinking about how you got the answer, you constantly are justifying why each step works and relating what it means.
This article helped me to understand more about what content area literacy is, however I still have some bit of uncertainty. I still would like to understand if there are some connections that could be made from literacy in non related subjects, or if it would be more feasible to have content-area literacy just focus on one particular subject?
Draper’s article discusses literacy on a very broad scale and she attempts to define content-area literacy and help teachers integrate literacy into the classroom. Draper takes an unbiased approach to identifying literacy in content specific classrooms as she describes her teaching experience as a content literacy teacher, her collaborations with music, theater and mathematics teachers and how these experiences have redefined her perception of texts, content-area literacy and literacy itself. Draper raises some interesting points within her research about content literacy, how it should be used within a content-area classroom, reflecting upon literacy integration, and cross-curricular collaboration, especially with literacy teachers. During her experience while collaborating with several other educators, and observing different literacy examples, Draper discovered that all educators must be prepared to support the literacy development of their students at any given time. To me this article reinforces the importance of literacy in the classroom and its use as a malleable tool with can be molded to master other content areas.
ReplyDeleteThis article really spoke to me when considering content area literacy within the classroom and reflecting upon my own successes and failures. It is also a good reminder that all teachers should approach new material as if they knew nothing. “Placing yourself within the students’ shoes”, is a lot easier said than done. This is especially hard for content area teachers since they have already mastered the material, and rarely remember how exactly they learned in high school. But as teacher we must make it one of our top priorities to help students make connections and meet them at their levels’. By integrating literacy into the classroom you are teaching students to teach themselves, but modeling how to read a text book, or how to approach a problem. This article was very longwinded, but contained some important notions about literacy with every content-area teacher should have a chance to read.
The first article describes literacy teacher’s journey to understand her role in helping content area teachers find meaning within their field to teach literacy. The author worked with three different professors that teach content classes to educations students. It was fascinating to see how she impacted each professor and their views on the importance of teaching teachers to teach literacy in their content areas. Although, it was even more interesting to also see how they took her suggestions and created better methods to teaching content literacy, given their knowledge of their subject area.
ReplyDeleteSometimes the author would state that she was happy they were not using her suggestions because their implemented instruction ended up being more effective than her initial ideas. It was understandable that she included this in her article; however, I think there was more to take away than the idea that content area teachers can create better suited activities for teaching literacy in their content areas. The author gave suggestions and was patient in helping the teachers find meaning behind teaching how to teach literacy. She then let the individuals find their own best strategies to teach the content and allow the education majors see the importance as well. In the end it was their methods of instruction but she planted an idea that enriched their teaching, the teachings of future teachers, and the learning of future students. By the end I was impressed by the strength in collaboration that had been demonstrated among each of the teachers.
This particular article related back to much of what we have discussed in class. Content area teachers are the best resource for students to learn literacy in that area but it can be difficult to find methods to help infuse other content into our teachings. I like that there has been an emphasis on reworking the focus of the educator from explaining algorithms or content, to providing students with tools that make them lifelong learners.
The second article was about creating conversations within a math classroom to help enhance student understanding of the material. It gave a detailed description of how one teacher implemented the Socratic method to create discussion among her students. This was a great article because it provided detailed description of how she implemented the method in the class, her observations, and the results of implementing the strategy.
DeleteWhen reading how she initially implemented the discussions I was impressed by the set up and structure that she had in place to ensure that it was effective and met the intended objectives. She also included enlightening observations on the lack of ability to create a dialog on mathematics no matter the communication ability of the student. It reinforced the fact that students no matter what their ability level must be taught to write, read, and communicate in a discourse that is foreign to them.
Throughout the article she also included student feedback. Interestingly, students had a lot of input on how to better implement the discussions, necessary and unnecessary components, and how the discussions were helping their understanding. I think student feedback is an underrated and often overlooked tool in teaching. In my future teaching I would like to incorporate ways for students to decide if a lesson or activity is helping to aide their understanding (with reasoning). I think there is something very powerful in students being able to voice ways that a lesson is not meeting the intended objectives.
This article started with the author going through her evolution on how she became interested in content reading. She started to question her role as a content literacy teacher after observing a teacher and not having anything of value for him to add to his lesson that was related to literacy. This made her question her perspective on content area literacy. She did some research and observed more teachers and she saw that as a literacy teacher because she wasn’t an expert in the subject, she could potentially give strategies that are not beneficial for the teacher to use in his or her classroom. She realized that the focus needed to be more on letting the teacher be the literacy expert in their classroom and her role will be one of a consultant that will be present to support and educate the teachers. She feels that collaboration between the content literacy consultant and the teachers is vital to make content literacy more supported in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteI think that collaboration of a content literacy teacher would be beneficial to provide dialog of strategies that can be used. They may be better equipped with the expertise to provide content literacy suggestions that will be most effective when working with ELL’s and students with learning disabilities. I agree that the teachers are the experts in their content and they are the best ones to evaluate when and where to implement the content literacy but they have to be equipped with the knowledge of content literacy and some strategies so that they can effectively integrate it into their curriculum. So I think taking classes like RLL 6121 should be required so that all teachers can have some tools to start the integration of literacy in their content area.
Enhancing content-area literacy in classrooms is Draper's main objective. Draper points out the vital role that teachers play in classrooms, while teaching content-area reading and literacy. Draper emphasizes the importance of content-area of literacy for all students. She highlights the role of the teachers in planning lesson plans that actually incorporate reading and literacy. She points out that as teachers we should teach content-area literacy, not only by reading and writing but also at times during art, theater and math. Based on Drapers findings we can clearly see that some studies show that content-area literacy can be seen as instructional avenue, while others see it to increase learning. Much attention is also paid to content-area reading and writing literacy based on practice and then the understanding of the material. I always say that teaching is a complex issue, but as teachers we have to decide what works and what does not work in that classroom, that we teach. We should have an open mind and develop a classroom atmosphere that will enhance open reading and writing for content-area literacy.Therefore specifically, highlight the importance of teaching techniques and schemas and also describe them orally and write them down, on the board so the students can understand and comprehend the material. Further, Draper gives us an example on how to deal and how to work with other teachers regarding and understanding comprehension, across the curriculum, regarding reading, understanding and comprehension while teaching content-area literacy. "As such, we have established co-ownership of our research and have opened ourselves to interrogation as we have simultaneously interrogated each other. Participatory action research is preferred when individuals seek ways to research with other rather than on other, with the goal of understanding and improving practice." Based on my experiences as a teacher, I should be able to come up with the best possible learning theories to implement into my lesson plans, while teaching students in content-area literacy.
ReplyDeleteThis was a good article in that Draper is really committed to teach all subject area teachers how to incorporate literary strategies in the classroom. It was interesting going through the article and reading about how literacy was developed in art, math, science, etc. classes. The role is to teach teachers how to incorporate literacy in all disciplines. It is extremely important to teach literacy to students. Especially in mathematics, students need to understand the concepts and content surrounding the procedures they are learning to use. By understanding what they are doing and why they are doing it, they will be able to research and seek help on their own if necessary. Becoming literate in a content area will help students to learn and teach the subject for which they are literate in. The procedures will make sense to the student, and the student will be able to make connections within that content. This works for all disciplines. Also, when talking about pushing cross-curriculum instruction, I think that students who are literate in their content area will be able to not only make the connection with content in a class, but also be able to make these connections between classes.
ReplyDeleteAn example of the above would be of the “twinkle, twinkle little star” song in the music class in the story. Students were to make this song using whatever tune they wanted, and had to use the words of the song. In addition, vocabulary words that had to be used were also given to them.
All of this talk about literacy is very enlightening and very interesting; however, I’m having a hard time understanding how to incorporate some of these literacy ideas. I don’t remember where in the article I read it, but I think I read something implying that we shouldn’t teach content area literacy with an emphasis on student reading/writing (literacy as how we know it)…we need to teach content literacy in a way for students to understand to content so that they can apply their new knowledge between disciplines. I know that I need to teach reading mathematics to my students. I know that in order to do this I need to teach reading to some of my students. I know that before I can even do this I have to teach some basic math to my students. I know that there are too many levels in the classroom to “teach” literacy such as what I described above. My goal next year is to tackle these by providing student activities that incorporate mathematics and content literacy, while slowly requiring students to read and build their skills. Also, I think by providing many different activities and student unit contracts, and various means to measure growth (mathematically and with literacy) within the course, the various levels of students will be reached. My unit that I presented in class is a decent foundation of what I’m going to try to do…but first, I’m going to enjoy at least 6 weeks of summer and gather my thoughts.
Peace!
This article caused me to rethink my approach to content area literacy. Instead of focusing on infusing more reading and writing into the course as a goal, I now focus on reading and writing as tool to increase my students’ participation in scientific discourse. When I couple this article with the Delpit article about discourse, I now am looking at how I can strategically include literacy as a tool to this end.
ReplyDeleteDraper’s autobiographical self-study research chronicles her journey into content-area literacy for mathematics, music, and theater education. Her first observations of her team members from these areas had her thinking of ways to incorporate literacy, i.e. print media, into the instruction. However, closer examination made her realize that the definition of text needed to be expanded to account for symbols and images (mathematics), music scores and oral melodies (music), and scripts (theater).
Her observations lead her to the major questions of: How does one teach these subjects without a written text? How does one acquire the foundational knowledge upon which the current instruction is based? I found Dan’s ideas for mathematics teacher education to be the most revealing in relation to these questions.
Dan looked at literacy development within the context of mathematics and mathematics instruction. There is a certain discourse; way of doing, being, and saying that takes place within Mathematics. His view was that literacy within mathematics should enable math students and mathematics instructors to become more adept at Mathematics discourse. That discourse focuses on the use of symbols and why mathematical arguments / statements are written in the way and sequence that they are.
A student’s proficiency at mathematical discourse cannot be determined by the student’s ability to explain how to solve a problem. That is merely algorithm description. When the student can explain to you why the algorithm is written the way that it is, using the vocabulary and appropriate symbols of mathematics, she has demonstrated competency in mathematics discourse, which is literacy to Dan.
After reading this article, I look again at how I am going to teach literacy in Chemistry. My initial approach through the reading and summarizing of articles for student learning logs, may not be that effective. The students will gain some knowledge and vocabulary, but will they really be able to communicate the way chemists do? Will they approach research literature with the mindset of scientists if they simply read and summarize scientific journal articles?
I have questions of how I will scaffold them to understanding and analyzing written lab reports compiled by the American Chemical Society for example. The vocabulary and the chemistry tends to be beyond the students’ current level, and in some respects, beyond mine as well. Where do I go to increase my literacy in Chemistry while continuously improving in my knowledge of secondary science pedagogy?
Though I agree that content area literacy is used more as a tool than a goal of education, I also believe that one cannot function well without the other. No I do not believe that content area teachers should be reading and writing teachers as well, but I recognize that they have no choice if students are going to achieve. Without it, we would have to assume that all students already arrive in our classrooms with the necessary skills to transfer what they know of literacy to the content and even my limited experience has shown that this is not often the case. In these instances, science and/or math becomes an increasingly difficult exercise in futility bringing higher levels of frustration and possible burnout for both students and teachers.
ReplyDeleteEvery subject area has its own language and/or text. Just as kids need to learn English, Spanish or Arabic in depth (whether it be their first language or not), they must learn the language of each science, math, art or other content area class as well. If we treated content as we do learning a second language, it could assist all students to achieve much more than the common, current curriculum affords. The problem is as the author said, “…I have faced teachers,…who question the efficacy (effectiveness) of literacy instruction for their classrooms; who question their ability to promote literacy; and who question whether doing so will take time away from content instruction.”
I believe that teachers are not properly trained, in most instances, to handle such an undertaking. We ourselves have only received one course in special needs that was combined with one course in assisting the English Language Learner and now only this one course in Literacy. Due to this, many would not understand the value of literacy instruction and most will question their ability to carry out such an undertaking. Worse yet, is the issue of time. For as long as teachers are still held under pressure to achieve test scores more heavily than they are held accountable for truly ensuring student learning, there will never be enough time to properly include literacy within content instruction. Pacing charts and standardized test scores have become “do or die” situations for teachers and the end is not immediately in sight. Unfortunately it is our children, their educations and all of our futures that we are holding hostage by refusing to finally correct our broken educational system.
Redefining Content-Area Literacy
ReplyDeleteTeacher Education: Finding My Voice
Through Collaboration
I have to admit that prior to taking RLL 6121, I had not considered the relevance of including literacy in my mathematics classes. As was shared in the article, “I questioned the efficacy of literacy instruction, questioned my ability to promote literacy and questioned whether doing so will take time away from content instruction”.
In this article, Draper shares her experiences as a content area literacy teacher educator. She collaborates with three teachers who specialize in content areas of mathematics, music and theatre. Draper shares her experiences and how she has reevaluate her thinking as it relates to teachers’ necessity of incorporating content literacy in their instruction. Draper discovered that “content-are literacy is more valuable to content-area teachers when it make space for nonprint/non-language-based texts, and when teachers use print texts in discipline-appropriate ways”. Draper further concluded that content area educators and literacy educators should continue to collaborate with one another. The ultimate goal for both the content area teachers and literacy educators is to produce effective educational and learning opportunities for all adolescents.
I liked the Draper article, particularly when apired with th Delpit articles about Acquisition of Literate Discourse. I believe that I am at heart a pragmatist more than a theorist, and I believe that many committed teachers are similar to me. I want to use what "works" for students more than I want to spend time discussing theories. From that standpoint, I can admire Draper's evolution as a literacy expert. She modified her thinking after she had the opportunity to collaborate with teachers in their content areas.
ReplyDeleteI have been lucky enough to observe excellent mathematics teachers like Dan mentioned in the article. In fact, my menttor teacher this last semester is one such person. She challenges students to use correct vocabulary, approach problems froma number of perspectives, articulate their thinking either in group discission or in written reflection. Like Dan, she does these things because she is expert at teacher her subject and uses a number of strtegies that support content area literacy( expertise) rather than literacy as a separate goal of her instruction.
This is where the Delpit article has significance. Delpit talks about teaching literate discousre as going beyond the teaching of the "mechanics". There is in a sense the necessity to help students become expert in the "cultural" cues of a given discourse. She descibes how committed teachers accomplish this by having high expectations and going the extra mile to help students meet those expectations.
The teachers that Draper collaborated with were committed to having their students acquire "literate discourse" and did those things that helped students become successful - this being done in service to the student and their overall success, than for the the purpose of increasing textual literacy. The teachers pushed back at Draper when they believed that her recommendations were not appropriate or effective within their content discipline.
That being said, the most important thing I got out of the Draper article was the concept of collaboration between content area teachers and literacy specialists. I came to realize that it would do me well to find out what resources are available to me at my new job assignment. How can I collaborate with district reading specialists so that they become familiar with my goals and issues in the classroom and I could possibly benefit from their perspective?
I observed this when I was working on the implementation of the Carnegie Learning math curricula in Yakima (WA) schools. The implementation was district wide, and included support from and collaboration with district reading specialists. The results can be powerful when everyone is "on the same page (please excuse the pun)."