Question 1, Pearson: How (and maybe why, but don't get too caught up in cause-effect) is the "middle" stance radical, in reading and in education? Question 2, Brumer: As Brumer describes the struggle between whole language and phonics approaches to reading instruction, she relates the following about Marion Joseph, a main proponent of phonics, who "served as chief of staff to former State Superintendent Wilson Riles. Soon after NAEP scores were released," Brumer continues, "[then] current state schools chief Delaine Eastin appointed Joseph to a statewide reading task force charged with examining reading instruction and developing recommendations. Joseph became a framework critic nearly ten years ago. Her then-first-grade grandson's school had just adopted the 1987 [whole language] framework, and he had difficulty reading. 'You can't read words if you can't decode them, take them apart,' she says, adding that whole language is more a political cult than an educational philosophy." Brumer also describes whole language proponent Sharon Zinke as a veteran reading teacher, and otherwise places the two women in opposition to one another throughout the article. What impact does this juxtaposition of Zinke and Joseph have on you as a reader, education student, current tutor, and possible future educator? And what are the implications of these roles and the influence they have on policy? And, on another note, feel free to comment on who you think gains most from these vacillating pedagogical approaches and debates? Questions 3 & 4 (combined the last two articles) Given the positive findings of both these articles, how can schools, teachers, and even you as a tutor take advantage of student language strengths? Give specific examples of how you would build on linguistic funds of knowledge, in a classroom context and within a tutor-student relationship.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
September 29th Blog Questions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lorna Porter
ReplyDelete1. Pearson’s stance on education is described as radical because he is not accepted by either the whole language advocates or the new phonics advocates. Instead, he has created a new approach towards reading theory and practice that brings the two ‘binary opposites’ into one form of study. The radical aspect begins when he describes how he views reading both as reliant on whole language reading (when reading becomes more difficult in situations of miscues) as well as automatic word identification. He believes that reading is individual, yet sees that reading goes beyond the individual moment of reading, and can transform through social discussion. He sees skills as a feature and benefit of reading instruction, but should ultimately be used to i truly understand and unpack what they have read. He thinks education should be skills based, but to reach a goal of authentic activity. These ideas bring together two opposing views of literacy education, and in doing so, Pearson has created a radical compromise. He has created and explored this view because he realizes that a single, defined viewpoint can limit one’s discoveries, and the research behind both ideas is solid and supported. Therefore, if both are supported, the two together can only lead to a ‘higher order level of analysis’ upon which them complement each other, a level from which newer and better research can be done in a moderate, balanced fashion.
2. Using a student’s language strengths requires a teacher to first discover what they are, and then adapt traditional schooling to use such strengths. By finding children who are bilingual and excel at paraphrasing, the teacher can use them as models to paraphrase things they read in class to one another, demonstrating comprehension and teaching their peers to do such as well. Also, one could use bilingual literacy to compare words across the two languages. For example, finding cognates in between spanish and english words and then discussing why the roots are similar, what other words can be created from such roots, etc. Also, when reading descriptive literature or poetry, translating into another language can change the rhythm or flow which can be analyzed. Another way to incorporate bilingual heritage into school is to translate words and then describe different cultural connotations that can be derived from what seems to be the same word.
Question #1: Pearson clearly stated that he is neither in the whole language nor the new phonics; he is in the “middle” stance radical. The most obvious example of middle stance radical can be seen through the process of reading. Using the Goodman’s research, he agrees that a good reader focus on word identification, but he continues that when the reading gets tough, a good reader also needs to shift to conscious control mode, which is to use context to find words meaning. His agreement of the definition of a good reader shows how he accepts the principle of new phonics and whole language. New phonics stresses the importance of word identification, while whole language stresses the importance of word meaning; Pearson combines two definition of a good reader from each of the theory. Also, in terms of education, it is true that every student needs to be able to understand and identify vocabulary and comprehension (phonics), but they need to also use that skill to improve their knowledge bases (whole language).
ReplyDeleteQuestion #2: As a current tutor, I think both Zinke and Joseph may have forgotten the real subject on education because the whole article only went on about how both parties fight for their own method of learning instead on focusing on students. Although at the end, when Zinke decided to join the politics, she did return to the needs of the students. Each student has different ways of learning how to read, some students may prefer the phonics way of learning, and others may prefer the whole language. It is important to know what kind of students we are dealing with and what method works best. It is not about which method that results in higher NAEP score, but which method that can be used for a better learning experience. I think who gains most from this debate probably the politicians because it takes the attention away from the legacy of Proposition 13 and real needs of education. Now all the attention goes to which method is right or wrong, rather than on how those politician make decisions on important issues. Politicans might use the debate to run away from their real responsibility; all the responsibilities go to either Zinke or Joseph.
Question 1:
ReplyDeleteP.D. Pearson describes his stance on education and reading as being radical “because colleagues in neither the whole language nor the new phonics crowd seem to accept [his] position.” Usually, the reading process and how it should be taught is seen as a dichotomous issue, when, according to Pearson, there is much more than just the two opposing views. He “reconciles” the two, whole language and phonics reading, by saying that “good readers are both more skillful at using context and less reliant on it for basic word identification tasks” meaning that students who learn to read well will not pay too much attention to individual words, but will know how to understand them, all while using context to understand what they are reading. This view of reading is radical because he sees the binary division between the whole language and phonics approach as somewhat hindering. He questions why they can’t complement rather than oppose each other. This perspective is not usually thought of because advocates and critics are caught up in seeing the flaws of the other approaches.
Question 2:
Reading how Brumer put both women at opposites of the spectrum makes me believe that there are only two ways to learn how to read, either through the whole language approach or the phonics approach. However, the reality is that students require multimodal learning techniques because as we have seen before, classrooms are not homogenous. Rather than follow the approach that they find best for themselves, teachers need to pay attentions to the needs of their students and how they learn best. Just because we see that test scores have plummeted does not mean that approaches have to be changed from one day to the next. We know that tests are biased and don’t show much about the learning that has occurred in a classroom. I think that those who gain the most from the alternating between approaches are publishers that have to be constantly updating school materials. The switch from one approach to the other only gives them profit.
1. When Pearson says that he is in the radical middle, he means that he sees the benefit of both phonics and “whole language”. From what I interpreted from Zinke’s explanation of whole language, whole language includes phonics instruction, but simply gives that instruction a context. For this reason, I don’t see why Pearson’s position is radical.
ReplyDelete2.By juxtaposing the philosphies of Zinke and Joseph, Brummer is able to frame both theories as opposing arguments. Brummer discusses the theories in the context of an educational (and political) argument. By discussing both teaching styles, Brummer is able to offer the reader both sides of the argument to the reader, which enables the reader to formulate their own opinion about the issue. Even though Brummer discusses both sides of the issue in detail, when I read this article, I detected a hint of bias in favor “whole language”. Rather than simply presenting the issue as an open discussion , Brummer seems to include Zinke’s philosophy as rebuttal to the whole idea of phonetic teaching.
Personally, I gravitate towards Zinke’s “whole language”. This may be because Brummer describes whole language as a challenge to “time-honored roles: teachers as dispensers of knowledge, children as receivers,” which is very Freirian. Also, I think as a tutor, whole language is a more practical methodology for helping students read because it is easier to help students where they struggle as they read a book out loud than it is to try to take words out of context and then attempt to divide them into sounds and syllables.
While I think this argument is a useful discussion for educators to have in terms of creating lesson plans and finding the most efficient way to utilize resources, in terms of policy, I think this issue is probably a distraction. By politicizing this issue and attracting publicity towards it, I think politicians and policy makers are distracted away from more structural issues, like the fact that most schools are under resourced and understaffed.
1.)
ReplyDeleteI don’t think pinning the two against each other is very helpful. One of the first things to cross my mind was the two women’s positions: one a teacher and one a politician. I found the section comparing two actual teacher’s experiences much more valuable. Framing the paper this way takes the great risk of seeming biased; which whether or not Brumer is, she shouldn’t be. I think that as a potential future educator, I responded much more positively to the experiences of teachers; making education a philosophical debate seems irrelevant. That being said, it’s an important debate for the future of California students, because the debate winner determines how kids will learn to read. After reading Brumer and Pearson, I’m strongly inclined to believe that a middle stance is the safest way to go. Clearly there are students who learn more effectively in both phonics and whole language, and so the best lesson plans would be those that included all types of learners (or in this case the two being debated).
2.)
The middle stance in this case isn’t the same as in the context of many other issues. Pearson is a radical because he has a different stance than the two main sides. He’s not undecided, or unsure; his stance just happens to fall in the middle of the two widely accepted stances. I think in reading, and in teaching reading, the middle stance deserves to be recognized as as much of a stance as both phonics and whole language. What Pearson said towards the end of the piece about what real teachers think and act upon really validates Pearson being a radical middle. It’s a stance that a large group of people generally agree upon, backed up by research; although it borrows ideas from other positions, it has an identity unique to it, and values that are consistent.
#1
ReplyDeletePearson considers himself as a “middle” stance radical because he neither sides with the idea of using phonics or whole language as a strategy of teaching children how to read. Instead, Pearson states that he “cannot imagine why any field of inquiry would want to limit itself to a single set of tools and practices.” He fears that if the department settles for one method of teaching over the other, then the results will be worse off than merely incorporating both methods. Pearson further mentions how he had been interacting with various teachers to get their views on the phonics/whole language debate. He found that teachers believed the whole debate was “unproductive.” Like Pearson, teachers don’t see any contradiction to incorporating both methods of teaching if the students will benefit from it. Not to mention, there is no substantial evidence that shows one method predominantly benefiting over the other. So who is to say that one is more accurate? Moreover, his radical stance serves as a “balance of nature.” People need to realize that this controversy should be focused more on providing an enriching curriculum for the students rather than deciding what is right and what is wrong. Students are different, they don’t all learn the same way—and by incorporating both aspects of phonics and whole language, it can increase the chances of that student succeeding in his or her educational years.
#2.
As the Brumer was comparing the two women, I found myself constantly having to choose which method I thought was more beneficial—as if it was one or the other. I had begun to understand why Pearson considered himself a “middle” stance radical because it is hard to choose between phonics and whole language. I would read a paragraph about Zinke’s main points and agree that this is the best teaching style for students—but then I would read Joseph’s “rebuttal” to Zinke’s theories and then side with Joseph. It was kind of frustrating because it is hard to dictate what method is right when neither Zinke or Joseph know the 8.5 million students on a personal basis to see what method benefits them. This shouldn’t be a topic of debate between politicians or either of these two women, but rather a debate between the teachers in this country. The teachers are the one who will be in class, interacting with their 20+ students, not the politicians, not Zinke nor Joseph. Personally I believe it is up to the teacher to use whichever method THEY feel can benefit his/her students. In this pedagogical debate I think politicians gain the most because it serves as another opportunity for them to be noticed by the voters who they haven’t “made an impression” on yet. They could do this by choosing the educational method that those specific voters agree upon (though the politician might not agree). In all honesty, it doesn’t seem like the politicians really care about the topic like Zinke or Joseph do, but instead they’re doing it to get ahead in the polls.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThomas Cycyota, Questions 3&4
ReplyDeleteAs a person in a position where the outcomes of these two studies have the ability affect my methods of teaching and tutoring, it is interesting to find that bilingual skills can be harnessed to enhance learning. In the article titled “In Other Words,” the researchers suggest that the secondary purpose of any educator is to “navigate multiple literacies” in order to develop a student’s learning capabilities. Teachers must “coconstruct this understanding with students in a way that values their work as interpreters,” appreciating the job that many bilingual students must accept at home and carrying the skills from that to a more academic setting.
For example, students must be able to explain and help other people understand the meaning of text inside and outside of the classroom. A method to develop these comprehension skills is to ask students to interpret a set of directions, such as for a worksheet, and then explain them to another student with the goal of their understanding. The second student would then have to explain it back to the first student to ensure they both understand. I have found that the best way to make sure I truly understand something is by explaining it to somebody else, and this method builds utilizes such a strategy. Another method that could be used in tutoring math would be to have a student take a math problem, anything from basic arithmetic to advanced algebra, and have them explain it in words to the tutor; for example, using money to understand fractions or candy or fruit to explain multiplication and division. This works well for visual learners if real objects are used and verbal learners because they are made to make connections between the left and right brain.
Another point of interest from the “I helped my mom” article is that “standardized test score gains may indeed occur for the children of immigrants who accomplish deep and varied brokering tasks.” A student that must live in a dual realm of language is actively forced to participate and understand both, whether it be two languages or a disparity between home literacy and school literacy. This, as the article points out, results in the capability to juggle not only language tasks such as translating, but also more “measurable” skills, such as reading comprehension. A tutoring method to develop brokering skills, although be it simple, is to have students who know another language translate something they are reading in English to the other language. This could potentially develop connections between the languages and hopefully further the students understanding of a text. Another method is to have students draw out something they are reading and summarize with pictures. Pictures are, after all, another form of literacy and make more sense for visual learners.
Justin Shamtoob, 1 & 2
ReplyDelete1. The “middle” stance that Pearson supports is radical because he is advocating a middle consensus of multiple educational dichotomies. His insistence on a “moderation in all things” that “others see as binary” presents a novel perspective that ideas do not have to be contrary, and can, in fact, come to agree on certain aspects (Pearson 3). Yet, many individuals assume that only one idea is right and both are not valued in the same aspect, which makes Pearson’s standpoint so radical. In addition, generally, a happy medium is controversial because it leaves educators no clear path on how to instruct students on reading and in education. If one were to support both contradictory views, it would be difficult to construct a curriculum that consisted of both approaches and to transition to such a teaching style. As Brumer states, “no one understood how complicated it was to transform reading instructions.” (Bumer 21). Zinke adds that schools were using very different techniques and in disarray once they decided to implement other ideas into their curriculum.
2. The disagreement between Zinke and Joseph causes me to reconsider the validity of the arguments of both individuals. As opposed to fully supporting either debater, I am more inclined to take a neutral stance similar to Pearson who finds a way to support both views. However, I find the incongruity to make it unclear and challenging in forming policy. As politicians are often times filibustered in the House and Senate, I believe legislatures would utilize their time inefficiently by approaching stalemates and disagreements on policy while brainstorming for curriculum styles and standards. I anticipated an agreement to be reached by both conflicting sides of the discourse, yet understand how tough it is to reach such a consensus and create guidelines that appease both parties.
Questions 3+4
ReplyDeleteStudents, especially those that are bilingual, have so many language strengths that we as fellow students and now as tutors might overlook. In schools, “teachers occupy a position of authority in the lives of their students; their job involves facilitating learning and evaluating students performance” (Orellana, pg. 29). But in the homes of bilingual students who’s parents don’t primarily speak English, “children take the lead in reading, interpreting, and translating texts. The authority and expertise are distributed as parents and children mutually negotiate and interpret texts” (30). Paraphrasing forces children to engage more in texts because they are actively interpreting them and explaining them. In the classroom, teachers and myself can work harder to not just explain instructions to students, but actually give them a chance first to read an assignment and then explain back to you what they think should be done. It would foster an active learning environment and then students would get to put their spin/ personal touch on assignments. Giving students more free writing assignments can also be helpful. As a kid, I loved writing short stories. They are the assignments I most remember from my childhood. If we gave students more room to breathe, I think they would get more out of their education and their literature skills would develop more.
In today’s world of standardized testing, reading instructions on your own and interpreting what is being asked is crucial. We should without a doubt be encouraging students to do this on their own and in groups. In her study, Lisa Dorner found that “higher levels of language brokering were significantly linked to better scores on fifth and sixth grade standardized reading tests” (451). Bilingual students have somewhat of an advantage in the classroom because they get so much practice explaining concepts and using language skills at home. We can help English speakers get this practice as well. As teachers and tutors we can encourage students to interpret directions themselves and possibly work in groups to come up with solutions to literature and math questions. I think everyone would benefit from activities like these. Teachers need to take on more of a learner role and let their students actively engage more.
Question #1:
ReplyDeleteAccording to Pearson his “middle” stance in regards to reading and education is radical because most advocates of “phonics” and “whole language”, do not accept Pearson’s centric position. Pearson feels that focusing on word identification but also being able to use the context of a word to understand a words meaning constitutes a “good reader”. Pearson feels that new phonics and whole language are not mutually exclusive, and that it is the combination of word meaning and word identification that ultimately form a successful reader. These two juxtaposing approaches ultimately compliment one another to support Pearson’s opinion.
Question #3/4:
By straying away from the formal literacy process and embracing “language-broker” and “para-phrasing” skills, which come innately to many students whom English is their second language, teachers can significantly improve comprehension and reading skills. Schools can take advantage of this by implementing fewer lesson plans in which the teacher must explain to his or her students what they should do to successfully complete an assignment.
Specifically, I would implement more group work, which would place a student in charge of explaining the lesson plan instead of a given educator or myself. I would provide the students with guidelines for a group project, and the materials necessary to complete the assignment, but I would leave it up to the assigned group to figure out how to translate the directions into a completed assignment amongst each other. If the students are trying to solve an addition math problem for example, I might give them a bag of M&Ms and the problems set and ask them to try to figure out how they can use the candy to help them with the math problem.
Another tactic I would use would be assigning a class leader once a week. The class leader would be given a “theme” in which he or she must come back to school with a lesson plan, which reflects the assigned theme. By doing this they are able to critically think about what the assignment or reading entails, “para-phrasing also engages children actively in the interpretation of texts, for real purposes, rather than positioning them as passive recipients of the readings” (31).
#1 Pearson’s stance in the middle is considered radical because it not accepted entirely by either party. Pearson lists seven premises that put him in the radical middle. Within these premises are various “contradictions,” as one who stands firm at an extreme might say. He defends his views by saying, “I cannot imagine why any field of inquiry would want to limit itself to a single set of tools and practices.” He also mentions his agreement with the research from both sides, and he feels that the debate between phonics and whole language parties is unproductive. Pearson strives for a balanced curriculum, and feels that the middle ground provides the foundation for it. Essentially, his beliefs are radical because they are different.
ReplyDelete#2 Though I feel that the article presented the arguments for both sides, it was quite clearly skewed towards whole language. I felt that this juxtaposition, the opposition the article used, didn’t allow for coordination or balance of the two methods. As a reader, student, and tutor, I found it rather frustrating. Personally, I think learning to read requires a little bit of both techniques. I lean more towards the whole language method because I feel it engages students more than phonics, but there is legitimacy in the claim that you can’t read without being able to decode words. The influence that these parties will have could be disastrous. Since neither side seems interested in a compromise, or middle ground as Pearson might say, the outcome will be an education policy that supports one or the other. This will most likely not benefit the students. It is good to support what you believe, but when education is the subject, it is important to remember that everyone learns differently.
1.
ReplyDeletePearson takes a radical middle stance in regards to the way children should be taught how to read (either through the phonics system or the whole language system) not because he is ambivalent about the two but because he believes that they should be integrated. He argues that there isn’t a right or wrong answer to the debate and that there shouldn’t be one, fearing that there would be a “disastrous outcome” if one side won over the other. He, as well as many other teachers, finds the debate unproductive and when it comes to practice they see no problem in incorporating “authentic writing activity in the same breath as a new approach to teaching conventional grammar” (3). After all, each student learns differently and whatever program is implemented should ultimately “guarantee a full and rich curriculum for all students” (4). He claims that a balance of new phonics and whole language will provide this through the development of valuable skills, strategies, processes, and practices. While he classifies himself as being in the middle of two opposing methods, he strongly establishes his presence in the middle and makes a sound argument reconciling both views and proposing a natural balance of the two.
2. After reading this article about the debate between using whole language methods versus phonics methods when teaching reading in the classroom, I couldn’t help but side more with Zinke—a proponent of the whole language approach. When teachers are trained and if they teach this method correctly, students can really benefit by simultaneously developing problem solving and critical thinking skills. However, like Pearson, I think that phonics should definitely be implemented so it creates more of a balance. While it was interesting to read both arguments I don’t agree that there is one right answer, nor do I think that either will truly solve the education failures in California. There are huge problems with California’s education system that extend beyond the debate. Brumer highlights other underlying problems, such as having overcrowded classrooms and one of the lowest per-pupil spending in the nation. Deciding on a proper school reading curriculum is important, but California’s students will still continue to under-perform until all of the other problems are met as well.
#1: In Pearson’s Life in the Middle, he discusses what it means to be in the radical middle. He purports to be in between the whole language and the new phonics reading education philosophies, in many ways taking pieces from each side. In this discussion I explain how Pearson’s stance in the middle and radical.
ReplyDeletePearson’s stance is in the middle in that does not take as primary either view’s focus. It does not focus on the phonetic “letters give rise to meaning” approach, nor does it focus on the whole language “meaning gives rise to comprehension” approach. It tries to hold both, bringing in both reader dominated and text dominated reading views. It takes often values from both camps and tries to combine them compatibly. But this very attempt is what is so radical. He tries to hold together even contradictory ideals, together in an often awkward mysterious impression, that trouble many.
#2: In Brumer’s Phonics and the Politics of Reading Instructions, she juxtaposes two figures representing two seemingly contrasting philosophical views on reading. While Marion Joseph supports the phonics approach to reading education, which focuses first on a phonetic understanding of letters so to better pronounce words, Zinke supports the whole language framework, which focuses first on understanding the meaning behind words so to learn syntax and linguistic structure. In this discussion I give my response to this juxtaposition.
As a philosophically minded student, this was one of the most interesting articles I have read. The seeming contrast of approaches towards reading parallels countless other philosophical dialogues through history, and many of the insights in the past reflect in this situation here. Considering this dual set up of views, I naturally look for a middle ground between the two. I also question whether or not the two views are in fact contradictory and incompatible as portrayed. Moreover, it seems as though the two views lack discourse towards the other, an often common feature of polar views. Lastly, it seems that students do not benefit so much from this debate more that academics do in their fervor of arguing, an unfortunate feature of an important discussion.
1. Pearson’s “middle” stance is radical because his ideologies differ from the popular whole language and phonics paradigms which are collectively embraced by the majority of his colleagues. The way he describes his stance is first by pitting whole language and phonics ideologies as binary opposites, then claiming his stance includes, with tension, both of the two opposing ideas. Pearson claims that sometimes, we should reach out to the text, and other times, we should sit back and let the text and its meaning come to us. He says that the best readers combine both automatic word identification processes (phonics) and rich stores of knowledge (whole language/context). Pearson also claims that “reading occurs as a fundamentally individual process,” but in the very next sentence, he says that “reading is also a fundamentally social process.” He criticizes phonics implicitly by saying that “a curriculum that postpones real reading for more than an instant does kids a disservice,” but also notes soon after that students benefit from the “modeling, scaffolding, and guidance” afforded to them by teachers. Finally, Pearson ends by saying that reading and writing are synergistic processes. Overall, I get the impression that Pearson is trying to include the best of both worlds, but his effort to include everyone and reject no one leads him to make statements like “Education should be X, but also Y,” where Y is the opposite of X. In addition, he offers no real practical implementation of his beliefs, and as a result, his theories come across to me as passive armchair philosophizing.
ReplyDelete2. The juxtaposition of the opposing viewpoints of Zinke and Joseph further reinforces my understanding that education is a deeply contested and malleable field with political influences. Both Zinke and Joseph have very valid points. The whole language paradigm is very appealing to me for the same reasons as Freire’s problem posing model; whole language emphasizes understanding and comprehension rather than mindless memorization. Whole language constantly asks students: “Does this make sense?” and I find that idea very appealing. At the same time, phonics is essential to learning to identify new words, and the “back to the basics” phonics paradigm has its appeal in that it is a tried and true model. After reading this article, it has become even clearer to me that there are various education models, each with its own pros and cons, and that changing from one model to another is a slow, difficult process. I should be careful not to judge whole language or phonics as “better” than the other; rather, I should understand both models, and use this knowledge to develop deeper insights into the struggles my students are going through so that I may become a better equipped educator.
1. Throughout the article, Pearson states that he is in the “middle” stance, which can be seen as radical in reading and in education, because there is no steady “standard” that he follows or believes. He respects both findings on new phonics/whole language and acts as a “panel” for both. His “eclectic stance” can be radical, because the way he mixes methods in his classroom is unlike others, because for the most part teachers stick to one way of educating in the classroom.
ReplyDelete2. The NAEP shouldn’t be the centers of this debate, because as a tutor, I feel that it is more important to focus on what works for each student and not entire districts. As Zinke says, “We got away from asking, What does this child need?” Although, it is useful to test students, this shouldn’t be the only way to find which reading strategies work best for a student, because they aren’t always going to be consistent. These roles influence policy, because they tend to depict what works in classrooms and what doesn’t work during a certain academic period, which is then used to change the curriculum. This article implies that there is only two correct ways to teach, either through the whole language approach or through the phonics approach. By juxtaposing both positions, through Zinke and Joseph it seems like it isn’t possible to unite both methods and use them both at the same time. Children have a different way of reading and for some the phonics approach works and for others the whole language approach works better. I think that the media gains most from these vacillating pedagogical approaches and debates, because they are the ones reporting the stories and making these issues more public and selling more newspapers and getting higher ratings. It is just another story to add to their news to help catch people’s attention and boost their ratings or newspaper sales. The media doesn’t really do anything to help solve the issue, but just make the issue more known.
Question 1:
ReplyDeletePearson’s middle stance is radical in the sense that he is firmly grounded in a moderate view. As Pearson sites, the common perception is that “those who occupy the middle of intellectual controversies are just too wishy-washy to stand for something of substance.” Although this is a commonly held view, I believe it’s wrong. When someone holds a firmly moderate view point, it’s usually the result of a complete knowledge of both sides of a controversial argument. The fact of the matter is that people avidly support both extremes of an argument because there is ample support on both sides. A human should be able to see this and assume the perspective of the other side of the argument. Upon doing so, a rational view of the entire issue usually will result in a moderate view. If an issue is polarized between two distinct view points, neither is completely right or wrong. The truth lies in the middle. Pearson, the radical centrist, has discovered this ideology and holds to the fact that an honest truth can be found somewhere in the middle of a dichotomized argument. In reading and educations, Pearson believes in phonetics and whole language, as we should. Phonetics are necessary to demystify language on a conscious level, but whole language also has largely redeeming factors. Language is holistic by nature and needs to be understood on that level by a truly literate individual. Language isn’t just A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y. Language is the fact that the reader didn’t stop on each one of those letter to read it because it wasn’t necessary. Our mind is capable of processing ideas larger than one letter and it does so. Our mind processes pictures and ideas. As a result, teaching whole language is simply appealing to the way our mind naturally functions. But to each whole there are parts that need to be understood as well. This is where phonics is necessary. Once again, the truth lies somewhere inbetween these two extremes and a radical middle stance is needed to expose that truth.
Question 2:
The presentation of the two strong yet opposing views pushes the reader to hold the view of a radical moderate. Both sides of the argument on whole language vs. phonics are argued well in the article. As a result, any person, holding any perspective, who’s read this article, will emerge with a moderate view point on the subject. Zinke is painted as a wise and experienced reading teacher. Her one on one tutor session with Damon displays Zinke’s extensive knowledge and success with teaching kids to read as well as stimulating a love of reading in the student. On the other hand, Joseph is painted as very scholarly with solid evidence and first hand accounts about her grandson’s reading ability. It makes sense that students need to learn to decode the English language before pursuing literacy, but is also right to teach students to appreciate and understand language on a holistic level. Brumer does a superb job at presenting both views in a very accurate and unbiased way which leads the reader to find a moderate view point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1)
ReplyDeletePearson’s educational footing exists firmly on neutral ground, or, what he refers to as being in the middle of “whole language” and “new phonics.” He explicitly lists seven critical reasons why neither of these aforementioned positions fit him well; this reifies his on-the-cusp posture. In reading and education, the radical stance is that of opposing, yet intrinsic views. Reading as a form of literacy is best approached variably. That is to say, one must utilize Pearson’s interactive view in order to forgo top-down and inside-out digestion of knowledge because “whatever we do as readers changes day by day, hour by hour, and moment by moment.” Additionally, Pearson explains the disparity between Goodman’s miscue research and Adams’ eye-movement research to underscore his prose: “good readers are both more skillful at using context and less reliant on it for the basic word identification tasks.” His stance on reading instruction employs a pragmatic curriculum that recognizes reading as “the whole point of reading instruction.” With the radical middle, students are enriched by experiencing a juxtaposition of contradicting educational ideals. Pearson is a purveyor of balanced education—his “paradigmatic tolerance.”
2)
As a student, discovering just how prevalent the dichotomy of teaching styles—and the politics thereof—is a little unsettling. Learning styles are subjective and therefore should not be ordained by political fire-breathers, otherwise the big picture becomes nothing more than a swath of edification blanketed in smoke. First-hand, interpersonal correspondence from teachers is going to have a bigger impact than two conferring politico. Zinke and Joseph seem to have a clear understanding of what changes need to be made in the classroom and are deeply vested in improving the state of teaching; on the contrary, politicians are interested solely in the betterment of their campaign under the guise of education in order to sway public opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestions 3 & 4 (combined the last two articles): Given the positive findings of both these articles, how can schools, teachers, and even you as a tutor take advantage of student language strengths? Give specific examples of how you would build on linguistic funds of knowledge, in a classroom context and within a tutor-student relationship.
ReplyDeleteAnswer:
In the two very similar articles “In other words: Translating or ‘para-phrasing’ as a family literacy practice in immigrant households” and “‘I Helped My Mom,’ and it Helped Me: Translating the Skills of Language Brokers into improved Standardized Test Scores”, the authors describe studies done of multilingual spanish speaking students (primary around ages 10-15) in LA and Chicago areas. In the first article, these students actively participated in home research about their role as language brokers or “para-phrasers” (a deliberate play on the spanish word para meaning for). These students were asked to record their experiences translating in their home in journals or if possible tape recorders. The second article touches more on the benefit of being a language broker, but still uses these children’s experiences and statistical data to form this conclusion. Clearly, as the data suggests, bilingual students that are put into a position to translate for their family end up doing better academically.
Schools, teachers, and even myself can take advantage of these findings in many ways. By incorporating some of these translation and communication needs into the classroom environment, the students can learn some of these same skills that bilingual para-phrasers are developing. For instance, a teacher could divide a class into groups and elect different positions to each group member. That member alone will have a job that is catered to his best ability, but will need to work with the other members to complete the task. More specifically, say there is a group of students where one student excels in history, while another excels in math, and another in writing. The project requires the group to research and analyze data about a topic and write an argument for a stance on it. Here the group can play each of their strengths while explaining to their other members how they reached their own conclusions. By making sure each student understands each piece of the puzzle, the students are forced to communicate with others that perhaps know less about their piece and will consequently build their linguistic abilities.
There are simpler approaches as well, such as just asking a student to explain in his or her own words the point of an exercise, how he or she got to a certain conclusion/argument, or simply to work in groups. Now this may sound general, but facilitating discussion and personal reflection are the key components for developing the students linguistic capabilities - at least in this “para-phrasing” aspect. These steps (although clearly not the same as having bilingual students translating from english to spanish or visa versa) imitate the basic components and requirements of being in that position.
Question 1, Pearson:
ReplyDeleteThe stance is radical because people in general feel the need to take one side or another on topics of great debate. Instead Pearson is advocating you incorporate both sides into one system. In essence, instead of saying chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry he is saying Neapolitan, which in simplest terms is a “cop-out”.
In reading and in education having one system that works makes things simpler. To say both systems work, and can be used in conjunction, makes things more complicated. It requires the teacher be skilled enough to decide which system to use and when. Pearson makes the point that “...reading is the whole point of reading instruction...” which is often lost on students. Without a skilled teacher who can use a whole language, phonics, and/or any other methods to quickly and effectively teach the student to read the student becomes stuck in grasping the skills of the method not actually reading. For a teacher to prevent this they must be highly adept and also not be overwhelmed by too many students. Most classrooms are plagued by one or both of these problems leading to educators wanting one method selected as “best overall” and thus avoiding the extra effort needed for implementing a more comprehensive system.
Question 2, Brumer:
Zinke comes forward of the hero of this article while Joseph become the villain.
As a student I could not read till third grade and “Hooked on Phonics” did nothing but confuse me more. I completely agree when Zinke’s said, “There are three critical things everyone need to learn to read: to be read to, to with read with someone, and to read independently.” My mother sitting with me every night and reading with me is what taught me to read, not a phonics programs. As a current tutor and someone who plans to be a first grade teacher, I can not help but look at Zinke and counterpart Cordero and want to implement interactive and fun strategies like they use. At the same time as I am being inspired by these teachers, Brumer keeps bringing back the looming figure of Joseph who seems to be advocating only the worst things (my favorite quote being, “Reading is an unnatural act”). Joseph stands as a figure for the politically charged policies that prevent teachers for doing what works best for them and their students, as Zinke’s tries to advocate for what she has seen work first hand as an educator. It is the good meaning teacher against the state. In the end, no one really gains much from presentations of views in such a “good” and “evil” way. Pearson’s view of a radical middle really is best in pedagogical approaches. No one way should be seen as best. Many different approaches should be brought together to create the best educational system possible. None should be completely eliminated or elevated.
1) The middle stance is radical because those on the ends see the methods available to teaching students to read as a dichotomy, not a continuous spectrum. To each side, any time spent with the other method is time wasted, because to them it serves only to be inefficient at best and confusing and detrimental to the student at worst. Those on the ends see their teaching method as a process whch is more efficient, and as such to maximize efficiency you stick to one process. The stance is radical because it proclaims a combination of techniques when the mainstream demands the benefits of streamlining and simplification inherent to the usage of one technique.
ReplyDelete2) The impact of this juxtaposition of the two proponents of differing teaching frameworks is to cause the reader to lose faith in the ultimate wisdom of the general school teacher and also of the politicians in charge of education as well. Perhaps Brumer paints the picture she wants with generous omissions, but Zinke's clear arguments and clarifications seem to be distinctly logical and clear compared to the dogmatic and oversimplified views of phonics-advocates. Particularly telling is the result in phonics classrooms of a third of the class just flat-out failing and falling completely out of the curriculum. When the protocol changes such, new class materials must be bought so it is advantageous for those who manufacture classroom material to have the paradigm shift every year or so. Also, creating crises for political gain is nothing new, and politicians will latch onto anything they can use to further their goals.