Web viewWithin literacy teaching and learning, ... didactic, authentic, functional and critical ... Importantly the traditional definition of literacy, reading and

Fry_Nathan_17861650_EDP333_Assessment_1

Assessment 1 – Essay: The four main traditions of teaching literacy. Describe and discuss how each has historical links and how they may be applied in the current day

classroom.

Learning is influenced by the pedagogical choices a teacher makes in their classroom,

choices that are underpinned and influenced by theoretically and historically practiced

examples of effective teaching and learning. Within literacy teaching and learning, four main

pedagogical approaches are evident in the modern day classroom: didactic, authentic,

functional and critical (Kalantzis, Cope, Chan, Dalley-Trim, 2016). Importantly the traditional

definition of literacy, reading and writing, requires a shift in focus to include the emergence of

21st century literacies. Therefore in order to deliver best practice, the four paradigms must be

examined to assess their limitations and the best attributes that can influence a balanced

and effective approach to the teaching and learning of literacies.

Didactic pedagogy was first observed in the 16th century whilst being popularised in the 19th

century through its application in mass institutionalised education. Didactic pedagogy has a

long tradition of teacher centred learning which is content orientated, where the student is a

passive participant in their learning. Typically, the teacher would communicate knowledge

from the front of the classroom where students would sit in rows with their eyes to the front

either learning from the teacher or textbooks with minimal collaborative learning.

When applied to literacy pedagogy, the effective attributes of the didactic learning process

comprise of activities that conceptualise by naming, conceptualise with theory, and

experience the new (Kalantzis et al., 2016), often through direct or explicit instruction.

Through direct instruction, the conceptualisation of naming and learning grammatical terms

and literacy concepts, such as nouns, verbs and adjectives, is an effective learning strategy

for younger or less able students (Marsh, 2010). In addition, direct instruction is beneficial

when conceptualising with theory; learning the basics of reading and writing, including

phonics, grammar and spelling, as these are at the emergent and beginning stages of young

children’s development of their reading and writing skills (Tompkins, Campbell, Green &

Smith, 2015). Finally, experiencing the new encompasses students developing their

vocabulary and appreciating literacy canon through reading and comprehension of new and

familiar texts.

Parris, Fisher and Headley (2009) highlight the critical aspects of direct vocabulary

instruction and its role in student’s comprehension of what they read. As didactic pedagogy

is underlined by themes of copying, repetition, memorization and the application of rules

(Kalantzis et al., 2016), it has fallen out of favour due to the rise in constructivist teaching

methods, where the student is the active learner. In addition, it is argued that direct

1


instruction stifles student creativity, inhibits problem solving skills and places too much

emphasis on teacher talk (Arends, 2009). Despite this, the traits of the didactic learning

process still have merit as it is an effective method when instructions are structured and

outcomes are clear (Foreman, 2011) or in short mini lessons. Additionally, when the goal is

to perform well on tests that measure basic skills, direct instruction is superior to other

methods (Marsh, 2010). It is evident that one should not simply ‘throw the baby out with the

bathwater’ with didactic pedagogy, as the beneficial aspects should be incorporated into a

multi-faceted pedagogical approach in order to deliver the best teaching and learning

experiences possible.

Authentic pedagogies emerged as a counter to didactic pedagogies in the early 20th century,

notably through American philosopher and academic John Dewey, and Italian doctor Maria

Montessori. Dewey’s approach to authentic pedagogy focused on human knowledge being

linked to practical social experiences while Montessori believed students possessed the

ability to teach themselves in a structured environment with the assistance of an educator

(Kalantzis et al., 2016). These ideas influenced the underlying knowledge process of

authentic literacy pedagogy, experiencing the known, where students engage in learning

activities that are contextual to the social and physical environment whilst being relevant to

their interests and perspectives (Tompkins et al., 2015). Duke, Purcell-Gates, Hall and

Tower (2006) believe it is difficult to transfer learning to new contexts, and therefore the best

learning is achieved within particular contexts, where authentic literacy activities lead to a

greater growth in the ability to read and write. Additionally, the teacher’s role is one of a

guiding and supporting nature, where the planned activities are authentic and structured to

maximise an understanding of the reading and writing processes rather than the nuances

that underline the associated rules and conventions. Authentic literacy activities can be

developed by identifying ideas and themes in student conversations and exploring

opportunities to use their interests in developing curriculum based activities (Dempsey &

Arthur-Kelly, 2007), rather than the curriculum dictating student learning.

Examples of pedagogy that encompass experiencing the known include the whole language

approach to reading, process writing and self-directed reading. As proposed by Graves

(1983), process writing involves requires a highly structured classroom where the teacher

highlights how students learn by engaging in writing activities that are meaning-centred,

where students choose the topic they write about. Students should be given the time to write

every day, following a draft, revise, publish process, allowing for discussion with peers and

the teacher which fosters further ownership of their learning and engagement with the task

(Kalantzis et al., 2016). An additional authentic method of teaching literacy is the whole

language approach to reading, which focuses on reading for meaning and an analytic

2


approach to phonics, looking at the word first rather than the sounds letters make

individually. This approach is argued by Goodman (1986) as a superior method in learning

phonics, and developing fluent readers as they see language as mode of expression rather

than an abstract concept relying on rules and guidelines. Finally, self-directed reading,

where students choose the texts they read, again places the ownership of learning upon the

student. When students choose the material they read they are more focused, are more

fluent readers and learn more from what they are reading (Yang & Kim, 2014), which can be

further enhanced by reflecting on the text through peer or class discussion.

Despite the positive aspects of authentic pedagogy, there are opposing viewpoints to the

effectiveness and fairness of its approach to learning. Purcell-Gates (1997) argues that

children from well-educated, highly literate families have an unethical advantage over

equally bright students from homes with no books, low levels of literacy and parents who are

unaware of how to support their child’s schooling under the authentic, context based

approach to learning. In addition, Chall, Jacobs and Baldwin (2009) contend that the

educational outcomes for synthetic phonics instruction are better than the analytical

approach, and a balanced approach of the two is required in an effective instructional

program.

Functional literacy pedagogy emerged around the 1980’s as a result of didactic and

authentic pedagogy failing to improve learner outcomes. Research highlighted the features

of texts that students required to succeed at school and participate in society, thus a

functional approach to literacy, based off Michael Halliday’s systematic functional linguistics

to literacy learning was developed (Kalantzis et al., 2016). At its core, functional literacy

pedagogy asks the learner to analyse what is the purpose of a text and how a text is

organised to meet this purpose. It examines the explicit way language is used across

different forms of texts to create meaning and serve different social purposes. Then, learners

apply their knowledge of language functions to create meaning and achieve social goals.

Within functional literacy pedagogy, a text is examined from a big to small perspective, first

examining the text and its purpose, secondly the context, then its macro-structure; general

form and meanings, and finally its micro-structure; sentences and words.

As highlighted by Kalantzis et al., (2016) the genre pedagogical approach is an effective

method of functional literacy as it exemplifies the distinction of text types and their purposes.

As a variety of text genres are used across multiple subjects, this approach is a powerful tool

for whole school learning. In the classroom, students are shown examples of different text

types; reports, narratives and arguments, deconstructing their structure, conventions and

purpose. Next, students create a text through joint construction with the teacher who

3


scaffolds the language structure and language functions. Finally, students are able to

independently construct a text that serves a purpose, either school success or social power.

Critics of functional literacy pedagogy argue that it feels like didactic pedagogy, in that rules

and conventions are being taught with no negotiation (Kalantzis & Cope, n.d.a). In addition,

labelling the conventional texts of school as powerful is a detriment to other forms of text that

may appeal to the interests of an individual, different cultures or people from specific socio-

economic backgrounds (Kress, 1990). Finally, as the rise of multiliteracies continues to

create hybrid texts not all texts can fit into specific genres, creating confusion for the learner

(Martin, 1992).

Critical literacy pedagogy was popularized by Brazilian educator who argued education

should be based on a reciprocal exchange of knowledge, reading and writing should be

viewed as social and cultural activities where the learner’s life becomes part of the learning

process, where the learner makes meaning through reading the world by reading the word

(Freire & Macedo, 1987). The learner has a voice by being active participants and

communicators in the making of meaning who have control over how literacies effect their

lives, despite the diversity of Englishes (Kalantzis et al., 2016). Critical literacy pedagogy

asks learners to think critically and constructively of texts, in addition to understanding the

relationship between the representation of a text and reality; how language, visual imagery

and media work, whilst examining the text’s purpose, audience and context (Rajalingham,

2016).

In the classroom, critical literacy pedagogy is applicable in three areas of Kalantzis’ et al.,

(2016) knowledge processes: experiencing the known, analysing critically and applying

creatively. Within experiencing the known, students bring their identity and experiences into

their learning; students’ way of speaking is beautiful and they have a right to speak like that,

however they need to learn the dominant syntax in order to have a voice in the struggle

against injustice (LiteracyDotOrg, 2009). Through critical analysis, students should identify

the purpose of a text, the interests it may serve and its underlying agenda (Luke, 2012), in

addition to metacognitively reflecting on their own perspective and thinking process. Finally,

through creative application, students can create new media texts that communicate the

learner’s voice, that change the world through action or highlighting an alternate perspective

(Kalantzis et al., 2016).

Critics of critical literacy pedagogy argue the notion of success in a cultural and socially

inclusive education does not equate to the same opportunities a successful traditional,

examination orientated education may provide, particularly for students with university

aspirations (Kalantzis & Cope, n.d.b). Furthermore, critical pedagogies tolerate differences,

4


unless those differences appose liberal ideologies or are intolerant on nature (Giroux, 1992).

Finally, although students may achieve goals that are relevant to their interests, they will

continue to leave school as unequals when academic outcomes remain the status quo of

school success.

After examining the four main pedagogical approaches to literacy education, didactic,

authentic, functional, and critical, it is evident that each contains elements of effective

literacy instruction. Despite the theoretical differences behind each of these elements, they

all aim to better the learner either academically or socially. In addition, each pedagogical

approach contains examples of best practice in literacy education. Therefore, in order to

deliver a balanced and effective approach to the teaching and learning of literacies,

elements of each paradigm must be incorporated into a multifaceted literacy pedagogy that

develops student understanding and ability to navigate the world.

5


References

Arends, R. I. (2009). Learning to teach. (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill

Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (2009). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall

behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dempsey, I., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2007). Maximising Learning Outcomes in Diverse

Classrooms. South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning Australia.

Duke, N., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L., & Tower, C. (2006). Authentic Literacy Activities for

Developing Comprehension and Writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344-355.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204474

Foreman, P. (2011). Inclusion in Action. (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning

Australia.

Freire, P. and Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South

Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Giroux, H. (1992). Literacy, Pedagogy, and the Politics of Difference. College

Literature, 19(1), 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25111937

Goodman, K. S. (1986). What's Whole in Whole Language? A Parent/Teacher Guide to

Children's Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann

Educational Books.

Jonathan Rajalingham. (2016, March 31). Allen Luke – Critical Literacy [Video file].

Retrieved from https://youtu.be/UnWdARykdcw

Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (n.d.a). Kalantzis and Cope, Debating Functional Literacy.

Retrieved from http://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-6/kalantzis-and-cope-

debating-functional-literacy#ftn1

6


Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (n.d.b). Kalantzis and Cope, Debating Critical Literacy. Retrieved

from http://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-7/kalantzis-and-cope-debating-

critical-literacy

Kress, G. (1990). Linguistic Process and Sociocultural Change. Oxford UK: Oxford

University Press

LiteracyDotOrg. (2009, December 30). Paulo Freire – An Incredible Conversation [Video

file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/aFWjnkFypFA

Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into practice, 51(1), 4-11.

Retrieved from

http://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/00405841.2012.6

36324

Marsh, C. (2010). Becoming a Teacher: Knowledge, skills and issues. (5th Ed.). Frenchs

Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia

Martin, J.R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Parris, S. R., Fisher, D., & Headley, K. (2009). Adolescent Literacy: Field Tested, Effective

Solutions for Every Classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1997). Other people's words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Tompkins, G., Campbell, R., Green, D. & Smith, C. (2015). Literacy for the 21st century. A

balanced Approach. (2nd ed.). Melbourne, VIC: Pearson Australia.

Yang, M., & Kim, J. (2014). An influence on self-directed learning of reading trend, reading

attitude, reading motivation. International Information Institute

(Tokyo).Information, 17(7), 3097-3103. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1565547521?

accountid=10382

7


8

Documents

Web viewWithin literacy teaching and learning, ... didactic, authentic, functional and critical ... Importantly the traditional definition of literacy, reading and