Technology in literacy

Technology is changing how literacy is defined. In the past, literacy was the ability to communicate through reading, writing, and speaking. What this meant was that people had to learn how to write words and read words in order to communicate to others. Therefore, schools focused on the specific skills of reading such as decoding and fluency in addition to writing such as spelling and grammar. While this is still important, this definition needs to be expanded and adapted to our current culture. As mentioned in the article, the vast majority of the workplace now includes some sort of technology as a necessary skill. Also, people at home have incorporated technology into their lives. Because of this trend, schools need to adapt to the ever changing needs of society. Literacy now needs to incorporate the ability to use the internet and computer to communicate with others. Regular mail or snail mail is almost never used. People now email each other from everywhere. Reading information from texts is being replaced by the information on the web. I can remember doing a report when I was in elementary school and checking out tons of books from the library. Now, all I have to do is type a couple of words into my computer and 10 times the information pops up. Being able to locate and understand this information is all part of literacy. Web pages these days are a collage of images, text, and all other sorts of fun stuff. It might be hard to navigate and understand what is shown on the screen for people new to technology. Therefore, part of teaching literacy in schools is to educate students in gathering and understanding information through the use of technology. Teaching students how to search for a certain piece of information and using email is all part of literacy. Because of the vast size of the web, being able to find that piece of information that you are looking for is sometimes tricky. I can remember surfing the web for hours at a time in college finding a specific topic. The students that I had last year were not yet as proficient as needed.

The push for technology though still should not supersede the traditional forms of reading and writing. Being able to read and write words is still more important that using the computer. Sometimes, I think the push for technology in schools is done so for the wrong reasons. Yes students need to learn how to use the computer however, learning how to read and write is more important. If students cannot read, once they find the information on the web, how will they read it? If they cannot write, what is the use of emailing someone? Learning technology and learning the basics of literacy are not mutually exclusive. It is very possible to teach someone to read and write using technology. However, I have seen the focus of some schools to use technology to teach technology without the fundamentals of learning how to read and write. Schools have felt the pressures to make their students computer literate. It is the hot new thing. What they fail to understand is that what is in the best interest for the students is to be able to read and write with AND without a computer. The basics skills of reading and writing are still the top priority in learning. Technology cannot be ignored, it is necessary for life granted that we all know how to read and write. It needs to be added on to literacy, not replace it.

NCLB

To start off, I think the NCLB act while has a good purpose has failed to achieve it what it set out to. There are certain things that I like about NCLB. I think that there needs to be accountability in schools and I think that there needs to be a standard for teachers in order to teach. However, the system of accountability or standardized testing and the consequences for testing needs to be looked at again.

Working in a district that failed to meet AYP for many years, I have seen first hand of what standardized testing has done to the school. Because success of testing determine funds given to the school, the entire school (administration, teachers, students) gear toward this test (NJASK) for the entire year. Administrators determine success of the teacher by the success that of the test. This leads to teachers being moved around constantly from grade to grade or subject to subject. I have heard of excellent teachers who move their children in literacy more than 2 grade levels in a year be seen as failures because not enough students pass the test. Therefore, they either are moved from their position or leave the school due to their frustrations with the school. The turnover rate for teachers in my own school is incredibly high. Who can blame them? The first half of the year is stressful since we have to make sure that all aspects of the test are covered and after the test we are stressed to get back our results. Teachers are basically forced to teach to the test. For example, reading is now taught as reading a passage and completing a comprehension worksheet. The joy of teaching is stripped away due to these pressures. Students are then unmotivated to learn because of the bland nature of the classroom which result in more disruptive behaviors that the teacher has to endure. Taking reading as an example, the joy of reading a book is gone because all we focus on in class is comprehension. Students never develop a love for reading which in turn causes them to read less and less affecting their reading skills and lowering test scores. Teachers then push more comprehension worksheets to make up for their lack of skill and the cycle repeats again. The joy of teaching and learning is gone from school. Results are all that matter.

This past year, we had an average of 10-15 teachers who were constantly absent from school. So what then resulted from these absences, we had substitute teachers who basically did nothing which then in turn resulted in the children not learning anything which affected their test scores even more. On a personal level, since this was my first year of teaching, I disregarded what was suggested to me and I taught my students what I thought they should know instead of teaching them isolated skills for the test. The result, I had 1 student out of 8 pass the lit portion of the NJASK and 0 out of 8 pass the math portion of the test. So what does this mean? My students’ results were mixed in with everyone else which means that my students contributed to the success or failures of AYP. Were my students better off for me teaching what I did, I think yes. However, was my school better off for me doing what I did? Probably not which in turn affects my students. It’s a tough call on what I will do next year, one in which I have not yet decided upon.

On a different note, the one thing that comes to mind when reading the successes of NCLB is this. Well, of course scores are going to go up. The consequences of NCLB makes states do things that only show results. States lower standards and teachers teach the test to improve scores. Does this mean that the students are better prepared for life? Pardon my French but HELL NO. NCLB helps students succeed and graduate high school, but it fails them in life.

Assessment

When reading Chapter 15, I came to a realization that my current practice of assessment, mainly portfolios, were done so not to improve learning but as a mandate put upon me by my administration. I know that the purpose of assessment is used to drive instruction however the pressures and rigor of school work causes this to become no more than extra paperwork. This past year (my first year of teaching) I was completely overwhelmed with the amount of work that I had to complete. I always felt behind and always felt like I was playing catch up. So when my administration came to me about the evidence in student work, I threw something together without ever knowing the real meaning behind it. I had portfolios of my students that I never looked once it was placed inside. It became something extra that I had to do for the school and not something done for my benefit. I think many teachers are in the same boat. With the overwhelming work that is thrown at you, things become no more than a simple chore and the meaning behind doing them gets lost. Another example of this is using rubrics. I personally love the use of rubrics because it shows the students your expectations and gives them something to strive for. The past year though, I was told to use rubrics for EVERYTHING. During one grade level meeting, it was suggested that a rubrics be used for each class, each day. Since I was a special ed teacher who taught all subjects, that meant that I had to create 5 rubrics each day to assess the student learning for the day. This might seem like a great idea if there was infinite time in the world to do so. This again became a chore that was done just to satisfy the school. There were times that the rubrics were created after the assignment which defeats the entire purpose of them.

When it comes to assessment it is crucial for it to be meaningful and have impact on learning. However with the realities of school, this is sometimes lost. One of the major issues with assessment that this chapter talks about is standardized testing. Now, I know that all of us have a huge issue with testing. My first year, I have seen the effects to the administrators, teachers and students of this test. Students think that their entire success for the year depends on how well they do which is only supported by the school. Teachers teach to the test and schools use the test to determine success in the classroom. This assessment is used for accountability which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it has become the only measure of success or failure.

Ok, enough of the school basing, lets focus more on what can be done. While standardized testing is part of school, I think there are many forms of assessment that can be used to drive instruction. For next year, I will be sure to use rubrics and portfolios to drive instruction. If I don’t meet the amount that is mandated by the school, then oh well. A small amount that works is better than a large amount that doesn’t. It is about quality not quantity. The use of portfolios, especially if it is given to and used by the next teacher, is extremely important. Most of the start of school is to see the level and skill that the students are at. If we have a head start on that, we can start effectively teaching. Assessment is used to drive instruction. That is the main reason why it is done. We need to remember this so that it doesn’t get lost when times get tough.

Thoughts on reading

When reading this text and the theories presented in the book, for the most part, I found myself agreeing to the majority of it. With the many theories that deal with home, it is almost certain that the home environment influences the reading ability in the student. Surrounding them with a literacy rich environment, having parents as reading models, interactions with reading situations (bed time reading, taking kids to library, etc.) all play an important role in the development of reading skills. In addition, the longer the child is immersed in this literacy rich environment, the more capable the child will be in his literacy ability. Personally, this connection between home and school is one of the most important aspects that I try to get across in my students and parents. Teaching in a district where parents do not have a strong influence in the child's education, I find it difficult to make significant progress in their academic lives. Getting across the importance of sustaining the learning at home becomes a battle that is often lost due to factors that are outside of my own control. These frustrations are a constant struggle when the true potential of the student is unrealized.
When it comes to the social aspect of learning, I also find myself in total agreement with the theories presented in this book. Teaching in an urban district, I see children who are less prepared for school due to their environments surrounding them. From the teacher's anecdote on sociolinguistic theory, I see a lot of similarities between the child from a low SES family and the childrent that I teach. No help with homework, little interaction with other children outside of school (due to the dangers on the streets), tons of watching T.V. resulting in a greater deficiency in common knowledge. I once incidentally made a 5th grade student cry because she didn't know what the Grand Canyon was. I was surprised by the lack of common knowledge that my students had. (Another time was when none of my 5th and 6th grade students knew what the Holocaust was).
When reading the theory of social constructivism, I found the zone of proximal development quite interesting. I had originally thought that the idea of differentiated instruction was a relatively new idea. It seems funny to me how logical all these ideas seem now and makes me wonder why they weren't practiced earlier.
When reading this book, I think that all of these theories have relevance in some way. Just like all children are different and learn differently, all of these theories can somehow pinpoint one aspect of learning where there are many. Even with the maturation theory which a lot of people seem to have disagreed with, I can see how educators can think that teachings should start at a specific age. I mean, who came up with the idea that children should go to school at age 4 or 5? I'm sure that the answer has something to do with the maturation theory. I think it is some kind of combination of all these theories that can help explain the mysteries of learning.

language acquisition

When reading these articles, I tend to agree more with the notion that children are born with an innate ability to acquire language. This however is obviously contingent on their surroundings. Children at a young age absorb almost everything they hear and see. I agree with the article "Mamma teached me to talk" that rather than repeat the words back , they somehow create their own rules for using the words they heard. Thinking back on some young children that I know, they often put words together that have meaning behind them. They never put together two random words together or more accurately, I can't remember every hearing them put two random words together. Since the combination of words is not specifically taught, it must be an innate development of the child. I also agree that there is a critical period in which children acquire language. From personal experience, I noticed that the older I got, the more difficult it was for me to learn a new language. I first arrived in the us when I was around 4 years old. I did not know a word of English, only Taiwanese (my native language). From that age on, I started to learn English which looking back wasn't that difficult. Once I became proficient with English, my parents thought that I should learn Mandarin Chinese and enrolled me into a Chinese school at around 10 or 11. This was one of the hardest things I had to do and to this day, I can't speak more than a couple of words.
To sum up, the acquisition of language is a combination of both nature and nurture. Children learn languages by their surroundings however, there is an ability to translate their surroundings into a meaningful language. This is refined and developed as time progresses until it becomes almost identical to the population.
Reading can help in the acquisition of language. Written words, symbols, pictures, etc. can help children connect speech with the things they see. However, I do not think it is absolutely necessary. Does it help, certainly it does but can you develop language without reading, I believe so. I personally can speak and understand Taiwanese however, I can not read one word of it. I can't remember how I learned to speak Taiwanese but what I can remember is never learning the written language of Chinese (Chinese has many dialects, but one written language). I think the skill of reading can only come after language has been developed. Children can only read after they learn to speak. While reading can help in the development of articulating their speech, reading begins only after they have mastered the basics of language.