Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id hBBIxRm15614; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:59:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:59:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <005301c3c016$77b267a0$130101c8@workstation1> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:892] Re: Teaching to the test & more X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 6703 Lines: 126 Thanks Jane, Your points are well taken. My personal proclivities are similar to yours. I'm also concerned about your broader apprehension that a too-focused emphasis on skills will reinforce the wrong message on what learning (and reading) is about. In practice, many of our tutors do take this contextual approach, even while also spending time on isolated skill development. Still, given the inevitability of the plurality of methodologies, philosophies, and learning histories, and the various ways that learning does take place, in my older age, I've become more tolerant of a greater range of pedagogies, even those that are more focused on skills than theme-based content. In some obscure TESOL article, the Indian educator, N.S. Prabhu talks about the importance of offering staff development and presenting educational reform initiatives in a manner that resonates with a teachers sense of plausibility. I may be reading more into this than Prabhu intends, but as I understand him, he is arguing, generally, if push comes to shove, more effective instruction is going to take place if a teacher is operating out of his/her center of plausibility wherein that person's creativity and motivation resides. Of course, one can learn, and that, too is critical, but whether the reform initiative represents the higher truth when it comes to educational philosophy and practice, may not be so evident. This past spring we worked with a retired school teacher, who was very informed and convinced of the soundness of a very pronounced back to basics approach, which, the students very much appreciated. That was a high beginner class. In one of our more advanced classes, we worked with another retired teacher who dismissed my contextual-based training by handing the manual back to me. He floundered for a brief period and dismissed the Voyager series text we suggested (among others) in quest for a grammar-based systematic approach, which he eventually found in a book called Vocabulary Basics. Each lesson had 8 words and the text had all kinds of activities through which to teach those words in context. In that sense, Vocabulary Basics is contextual, though not in another sense of linking literacy to topics of interest such as the EFF role maps, the key CASAS categories, or what one might ensue from a participatory, emergent literacy model. For this tutor, the logic was in the structure provided by the text, which, on his most basic sense of plausibly was what the students needed to master in order to make sequential progress on their learning. I eventually encouraged him to include News for You articles, which he drew upon as supplemental material. That took a lot of persistence on my part. No doubt, his perspective was limited (as is mine), but in working out of the strength of his sense of plausibility, he was an absolute master in what he did with that text, and his teaching was highly interactive, supportive, reinforcing, and challenging. He had a very good sense of the scaffolding dynamic and knew when to push and when to provide some (just a bit) up front support. The students respected him and I also came to appreciate what he was accomplishing even as I persistently recommended that he include more "context" based instruction. His persistent comeback to me was that he was looking forward to do that, but he wanted first to build up the studentrs' foundational knowledge, which he felt his systematic work with Vocabulary Basics was providing. What's interesting, is that with that same group I had used Langston Hughes's short story "Thank You Ma'am," and that same tutor was observing as part of his initial orientation. Now, I'm a fairly decent teacher and am able to work reasonably well with adult learners with material like that based on a discursive style that allows for a lot of back and forth commentary. For a group of students at that reading level, a text like Thank Yo Ma'am takes a fair amount of teacherly effort in order to create the kind of platform for effective learning to take place. Once established, students are able to engage texts that they would otherwise not be able to handle, and therefore even hear of. With that group, I also use regular newspaper stories, student narratives, and a broad range of theme-based materials. While I tend to thrive in that kind of discursive environment that texts like these stimulate, this tutor viewed my approach as simply too chaotic. Instead, he viewed structure (as he defined it) as the key pathway to effective learning--the systematic structure that a text like Vocabulary Basics provides. If this tutor tried to work in a zone similar to mine, he would not likely have been very effectively. By working out of the center of his plausibility zone, he was highly effective, though limited in his focus on a singular text. As I had argued in the previous post, I think the underlying issue has to do with signification. That is, meaning making is central, but as defined by the various symbol systems generated by the students, the instructors, and the broader cultures in which programs are embedded. George Demetrion ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Meyer" <meyer_j@ccsdistrict.org> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:59 AM Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:884] Re: Teaching to the test & more > > > George E. Demetrion wrote: > > >We have a basic literacy group in which the tutor spends perhaps 45 > >minutes going over various "decontextual" grammar exercises and word > >lists, and the rest of the time (over an hour) on reading interesting > >articles from The New for You, or biographies, or other stimulating > >texts. Students enjoy both approaches. > > > I find it is helpful and motivating to blend these 2 approaches by > contextualizing the "grammar exercises and word lists" in the > interesting text. Use the interesting text and then pull a word or > concept out of the text and build your lesson. Finally, return the word > to the text. This way students understand that reading connected > purposeful text is the objective and that there are skills readers need > in order to read the text. > > When you separate the skillas lesson from the interesting text students > (and teachers/tutors) tend to think of the decontextualized lessons as > the learning and the interesting text as extra fun stuff that they like, > but don't really have time for (which of course is not true). > Contextualizing the skills lessons in the text also helps the students > learn to transfer the skills they are learning to real reading > situations. > > Jane Meyer > Canton, Ohio >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:00 EST