Click here to load reader
Upload
vuhuong
View
216
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Fry_Nathan_17861650_EDP333_Assessment_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
Fry_Nathan_17861650_EDP333_Assessment_1
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
Fry_Nathan_17861650_EDP333_Assessment_1
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
Fry_Nathan_17861650_EDP333_Assessment_1
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
Fry_Nathan_17861650_EDP333_Assessment_1
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
Fry_Nathan_17861650_EDP333_Assessment_1
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
Fry_Nathan_17861650_EDP333_Assessment_1
8