Entry #9: My Nerdiness Has An Application!

Not surprisingly since I helped pick it, this week's article was one that really interested me. I have a fascination with ambiguous language. It's a bit funny, actually, because I haven't always been the best at recognizing or understanding it (still not great at it...). I'm not exaggerating (though I wish I were) when I say it took me until high school before I understood the "seven ate nine" joke because I couldn't see the other meaning of "eight." I could have told you "eight" and "ate" were homophones but could not make the connection in that context at all.

I think, though, my fascination with ambiguous language started in my undergraduate when I learned about garden path sentences in the context of understanding syntax. Garden path sentences are those that start in a way that lets you to believe it will be one thing, but if you read it that way, it is ungrammatical. One of the ones I remember learning was, "The old man the boat." When you initially read it, you think the noun phrase is "the old man," but if it was read like that, it wouldn't be a grammatical sentences. Instead, the subject is "the old" and the predicate is "man the boat." I took an entire course on syntax (and loved it), and my favorite sentences to diagram were garden path sentences and sentences that had more than one meaning. (Though I did like doing grammatically complex sentences too... Tree diagrams are just fun.) 

Grammatically incorrect first guess

Grammatically correct garden path sentence

However, even as I loved these sentences in syntax class, I couldn't see how they were relevant to the real world. When would you intentionally use these types of sentences? When are the old going to man the boat? Which brings me to now. In the article, Zipke (2008) helped me see how humor uses ambiguous language all the time, and in the textbook, Tompkins (2017) showed how common ambiguous words actually were. (My jaw almost dropped when I saw the list of common words that had five or more meanings. No wonder it is so hard to learn languages!)

For people who don't think humor is worthwhile, I think about an interview I did with an ENL teacher during my undergraduate when she said that the best moment in teaching was when an EL made their first joke in English. Being about to manipulate language and form an identity in English are powerful things. When you can make a joke in a new language, you are able to show who you are, to be yourself. By teaching ambiguous language, I'd be helping my students build their identity. That is something we are constantly talking about in our group discussions; students should be able to know and be who they are in my classroom. 

Plus, it's just fun. Sometimes, language skills are quite boring. It's hard to make grammar rules or parts of speech exciting. Homonyms and ambiguity, however, are fun. I spent this past weekend with my aunt and uncle, and my uncle kept regaling us with dad jokes. Every single one of them manipulated language using lexical and structural ambiguity. 

I ended up using Zipke's (2008) article to create a unit plan in another class. I thought it would be difficult to come up with four lessons using riddles as the focus, but I had no difficulties coming up with content. From looking at homophones and homonyms to dissecting riddles using the 3W chart to looking at books that use ambiguous language to writing and performing riddles, the unit plan probably could have been longer. It just really made me see how prevalent - and powerful - ambiguity is. 

References

Tompkins, G.E. (2017).  Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Zipke, M. (2008). Teaching metalinguistic awareness and reading comprehension with riddles. The Reading Teacher, 62(2), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.62.2.4

Entry #8: /fɑː.nɪks wɪð frendz/ feat. Chloe Patterson

This post will be in response to Chloe Patterson's excellent post on phonics! I will be looking at the incorporation of what she discussed in the classroom in regard to worksheets, connected texts, and supporting below grade level learners.

Bless

Cheering Chloe on for her post!

Chloe did a great job of connecting what we learned last week to her future classroom. I especially loved how she included diverse, connected texts that she would stock in her class library - I always love seeing book recommendations for students! It was clear from her post that she knew what she was talking about.

Address

One of the questions I had for Chloe - and Tompkins and the authors of the article - was about the use of worksheets. I completely agree that worksheets by themselves are an ineffective way to teach phonics; Stahl et al. (1998) said that "the amount of time students spent on worksheets did not relate to gains in reading achievement" (p. 33), and I am not disputing that in any way. 

Isn't offering as many means to understand information what it's all about?

However, if they were to be coupled with direct instruction - if students were to fill them out as a class while doing the activities mentioned - would they be a meaningful reinforcement? What I like about worksheets is the chance to see the written representation of what has been discussed; if students are simultaneously seeing a word or spelling pattern and hearing the teacher say it, wouldn't that be useful, especially at the third grade level? Plus, they would then have a physical reminder of what they learned that they could refer to. 

Press

I have two areas I want to press on to see if Chloe could expand. The first has to do with the books she selected. I was not familiar with any of the books (though upon looking them up, they look very cute). I would love to know: how did she discover these books? How did she decide they were good books to use in her classroom? How would she classify them using Bishop's models that we learned in Möller (2016)? What topics would she link with them? What phonics related instruction would she pair with each of them? 

Chloe, because I'm sure she already has thought about all this!

The next has to do with something Chloe mentioned in the last paragraph. She discussed that she would use the activities to help students with below grade level phonics skills - I would love to know how she would use the activities. Would she pull the students for one-on-one intervention? Would she embed support into whole group lessons, thereby reviewing it for other students? How would she ensure they are getting as much reading time as other students despite their difficulties with phonics? Which activities would she prioritize? Since many third graders would still be working on learning some digraphs and diphthongs (Tompkins, 2017), how would she ensure students are catching up to grade level and learning the new phonics material with their classmates?

References

Möller, K.J., (2016). Using diverse classroom literature collections using Rudine Sims Bishop’s conceptual metaphors and analytical frameworks as guides. Journal of Children’s Literature, 42(2), 64-74.

Stahl, S.A., Duffy-Hester, A.M., & Stahl, K.A.D. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 338-355. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.3.5

Tompkins, G.E. (2017). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Entry #7: Confession - I Can't Spell

Before these readings, I had never heard the term "invented spelling" (Tompkins, 2017, p. 170). The concept didn't seem all that radical, so I was a bit surprised - and then not surprised - at the controversy surrounding it. 

(Why was I then not surprised? Because we love to make everything controversial.)

Invented spelling, as described by Stahl et al. (1998), is when "children invent their own spellings in their writings, using what they know about letters and sounds" (p. 343). Basically, children spell as best they can with what they already know, rather than using dictation or memorization to spell words. The teacher doesn't correct the spellings, as it is more about developing phonics (in relation to spelling) than perfection.

By using invented spelling, children develop better phonemic and graphophonemic awareness, as long as they are also receiving spelling instruction. As they receive instruction and their awareness increase, their invented spellings become more conventional. Spelling also improves through increased time spent reading and writing - exposure and practice are always important factors in learning, in my opinion.

So what's the big deal about this? Well, many think that students are developing bad spelling habits (Tompkins, 2017) or do not learn how to spell conventionally (Stahl et al., 1998). 

And I get it. It looks like that. The spelling is going to be riddled with errors as they are learning. But isn't that just learning? We do it wrong until we learn the skills necessary to do it right. Isn't it better that they are practicing how to do it themselves and understand why things are the way they are rather than just being told what to do? I'd much rather have students practice invented spelling and spell something phonetically - where I can see they understand the connection between sounds and letters - than have them used memorized words or have it dictated to them. You know what you learn when someone does things for you? Practically nothing. 

Furthermore, if we can make sense out of what they are writing, does it really matter all that much? I think the content of what they are writing is more important than the conventions. And with the rise of technology, I feel like the need for perfect spelling is diminishing. I think I've misspelled about an eighth of the words I wrote for this post (including the word misspelled!), and you can't tell at all. It's gotten to the point that the only times I am physically writing is when I am taking notes for myself (in which case, only I have to understand what is written) and when I am writing letters to my friend in Germany (and half the time I type out my letters before I write them because I want to get my thoughts organized beforehand). 

I'm not saying spelling is unimportant. I think it is more important, though, for students to figure it out for themselves. We teach the skills they need - word patterns, affixes, roots, things like that - and how to proofread well, but we shouldn't worry all that much. It is something that will develop through exposure and practice.

And if it doesn't? That's what spellcheck is for.

References

Stahl, S.A., Duffy-Hester, A.M., & Stahl, K.A.D. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 338-355. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.3.5

Tompkins, G.E. (2017).  Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Entry #6: No Blank Slates In This Classroom

This week, there was something that Tompkins (2017) said that I thought applied to the education field as a whole:

"Literacy development has been broadened to incorporate the cultural and social aspects of language learning, and children's experiences with and understandings about written language - both reading and writing - are included as part of emergent literacy" (p. 111). 

Let me explain because I'm not talking about emergent literacy being applied to all of education. I am talking about the idea of widening the lens through which educators view students' skills and experiences. It seems like a common theme in education; the best practices now involve looking at the child more holistically, at everything they bring to the table, rather than just very specific features that have traditionally been valued. 

What came to mind first had to do, of course, with English language learners. In my other literacy class, in our section on getting to know our students, I read this great article by Moll et al. (1992). Moll et al. (1992) switched their mindset from what their students couldn't do to what their students could do. They learned about their students and saw that they had rich cultural knowledge, diverse experiences, and practical skillsets that just weren't appreciated by the traditional American school setting. They called what these students had "funds of knowledge," defined formally as "historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being" (Moll et al., 1992, p. 133). These funds of knowledge were then consulted to design lessons that were engaging and related to students' lives. Clearly, this is an example of broadening to incorporate cultural and social backgrounds of students in education.

Similar to Moll et al. (1992), DeCaupa and Marshal (2011) focused on students' (particularly SIFEs' (students with interrupted formal education)) experiences and strengths. They developed the mutually adaptive learning paradigm (MALP), based on the collectivist culture of education found in many of the societies SIFEs come from. DeCaupa and Marshal (2011) describe it as such:

"in MALP-driven instruction, the teacher acknowledges and uses what the [SIFE] bring with them but also provide pathways to new and different aspects of learning that their students will need in order to achieve academic success" (2011, p. 40).  

This approach values what students can already do and uses what they can do to develop their skills further. 

I can also see this idea in Muhammad's (2020) Historically Responsive Literacy (HRL) Framework. I mean, Muhammad (2020) literally has "identity" as a dimension of HRL. It is clear that she values incorporating individual and cultural experiences into the literacy development process. 

Even the Innovation Configuration (IC) allows students to connect their personal lives into the literacy experience. One of the goals for comprehension development with the IC is for students to make "text-to-self connections to characters, setting, or story events" (Beauchat et al., 2009, p. 30). Text-to-self questions allow for students to make meaning of a story by using what they already know. 

I can see this holistic, broad-lens approach in our class as well. We are constantly using and sharing our diverse literacy experiences through both discussions and our literacy autobiography. We didn't all come to this class with the same experiences - far from it. But all of our experiences bring something important to the table that allow us to see different perspectives that make us grow as both an educator and a person. 

No student comes to us a blank slate. Rather than seeing the deficits, I want to rejoice in the valuable and diverse experiences that can enrich the classroom and support learning. 

And of course, this sounds all fine and good, but it will take some real work to shift our thinking (at least, I know it will be for me). It is so easy to see what students can't do, especially in the ENL world, where students might come with no English and no written literacy in their home language. How can I work to change the narrative in my classroom so that everyone can see all that they can do?

References

Beauchat, K. A., Blamey, K. L., & Walpole, S. (2009). Building preschool children's language and literacy one storybook at a time. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 26–39.

DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H. W. (2011). Reaching ELLs at risk: Instruction for students with limited or interrupted formal education. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903291680 

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., and Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Home and School. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141

Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Tompkins, G.E. (2017).  Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Entry #5: ~Woah, We're Halfway There~

Dear Dr. Jones,

I'll admit, I did not have high hopes for this semester. I'm in two literacy courses right now - this one and one for TESOL - and I was afraid it would be much of the same content, as the descriptions for the classes were strikingly similar. 

Luckily, my worries were for naught. While certain themes and ideas have been covered in both classes, the instruction and lens of focus have been very different. Furthermore, my concerns that this would be a class on how to teach phonics and word recognition and such were squashed the first night. The holistic approach to reading used in this class is one that seems approachable to me and much more enjoyable and inclusive. Everything we've covered has been useful for building a literacy toolkit for educators.

I didn't imagine we'd be doing as much reflection on our own experiences as we have. It's been a bit difficult, since my memory is fairly poor and I don't actually remember much of my childhood or adolescence - just snippets of random events. It's given me an excuse to call my mother a lot, though, and ask to hear all about my literary upbringing. 

In addition to past experiences, I've also had to reflect on my current habits. 

Ah, my current habits.

As I've mentioned, I'm a power reader, pushing through textbooks and articles to get what I need and be done with it. I rarely try to connect with academic texts any more than I must to do my work. I know that this isn't the best way, but since I've had hundreds of pages to read every week for classes basically since I started undergrad, I've prioritized speed over all else. Upon starting college, I quickly dropped my habits of note taking and vocabulary cards and relied on my (admittedly poor) memory. And since it worked well enough, I kept to that since it saved me time. The same goes for writing. I plan in my head, write my draft - revising as I go - and then let someone else read it over for clarity before calling it good and turning it in. I rarely read my own work once my draft is finished since I've been editing and revising throughout, and I'm usually sick of my own words and thoughts at that point. 

Are these good habits? Of course not. I know that. I would be horrified if my students did the things I did. Each week as we read these articles (which I have slowed down to read and sticky note to death (I have literally run out of sticky notes in my apartment because of this class)), I note all these good strategies and how few of them I normally do. It makes me wonder how much I have missed by not connecting more with the text.

Okay, so now to Liz Kleinrock. Can I just say, I loved that presentation? She seems amazing. She made ABAR education seem doable without guilting us for not already doing it. In fact, she was so kind and conscious of the current struggles in education that it made it feel okay, no matter what amount of ABAR education we were incorporating into our work. We need to take care of ourselves, our students, and then worry about the rest. 

Combined with what we learned in class, the presentation made it clear that it's important for us to use books that promote ABAR, use practices that support the tenants of HRL for the good of all students, and be open with caregivers and colleagues what we are doing and how they can support our work. The focus of ABAR is pretty aligned with HRL, something we've been focusing on in class. 

Finally (I didn't really have a good transition to this one), the struggles I'm having with the class right now are honestly more related to my personal life and health issues affecting my motivation and ability to get work done. For this, I just need to continue to focus on taking care of myself, being patient, doing what I can when I'm feeling up to it, and trying to give myself grace. There is unfortunately not much else that can be done. 

Sincerely,

Sarah

Entry #4: Three, Two, One - Let's Get Lit-erate

3 Ideas I Am Now Pondering

I think I already mentioned that I am low-key obsessed with Muhammad's (2020) Historically Responsive Literary (HRL) Framework, so it's no surprise that I started comparing Tompkins' (2017) nine principles of effective teachers to it right away. It is quickly clear that they are approaching literacy from different perspectives. There is very little focus on identity meaning-making or criticality, two of HRL's four components. Many of the Tompkins' (2017) principles focused on best teaching skills and information to the students, aligning with HRL's skills and intellect components. The closest references to criticality and identity were found in the section on sociolinguistics within the principle focused on understanding learning theories and on the section discussing English learners in the principle talking about instruction. 

Speaking of the section discussion English learners in Tompkins (2017), I was very curious about the placement. It was placed fully within the section on instruction. However, I believe that it cannot and should not be confined to one principle. Being an effective teacher to English learners is not just a matter of instruction. It involves all of the principles. For example, an effective literacy teacher for English learners needs to know relevant second language acquisition theories and second language teaching theories, just as they would need to know learning theories, something that is discussed in principle one. Cueing systems, which was discussed in principle two, were something I just read about for another class that focuses on literacy development for English learners. What I mean to say is this: while I appreciate that English learners were included at all, I can't help but think that little thought was put into their inclusion. It makes me wonder how I could adapt the nine principles for English learners. 

I feel like the things I have been pondering have just really been me ragging on Tompkins (2017), but I actually really liked the principles she put forth. Principle five, for example, was one that I didn't expect to see included but that I thought was very important for teachers. I feel like standards are only briefly discussed in most textbooks, but teachers are expected to structure their teaching around them. If these are things teachers have to do, teacher candidates should become familiar with them and how to use them. It makes me wonder why so many other textbooks seem to avoid them. Even Muhammad (2020) discusses them very little (other than to mention she is working on rewriting them to infuse HRL into them). How can teacher preparation programs embed work with standards into their curriculum?

2 Comments That Really Inspired Me

"Perhaps the most striking quality is the partnership between the teacher and students: They become a "family" in which all members respect one another and support each other's learning. Students value culturally and linguistically diverse classmates and recognize that everyone makes important contributions" (Tompkins, 2017, pp. 14-15). 

Classroom environment is something I value greatly. When it comes down to it, I think forming relationships and caring for students' needs (whether they be physiological, social, or emotional) are more important that any curriculum. I don't know if this is the right mindset of someone who wants to be a teacher, but I truly believe that a missed year of curriculum is not nearly as devastating as a year of unmet needs. Creating a family like this goes a long way to helping students have their needs met. The learning will come. To me, this, creating a community for the students, is what is most important.

"When I think of the greatest leaders of our time, they hold identity (or a strong sense of self and others), plus skills, intellect, and criticality. On the other hand, the greatest oppressors of the world lack criticality and knowledge of self and of others" (Muhammad, 2020, p. 61).

This quote says it all, doesn't it? The components of the HRL Framework are the same characteristics we want in our leaders. They make for a well-rounded and competent person. Without them, a person lacks empathy and consideration for others. As teachers, we play a role in shaping the future generation. If we want a generation of great leaders, we need to teach like it.

1 Commitment I Want To Make For My Future Students

One commitment I want to make for my future students is this: I will always consider and value who they are as a person - all of their identities - and work to support all facets of their selves.

References

Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Tompkins, G.E. (2017). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Entry #3: Where I Begin To Suspect My Personality Might Be From My Sisters

 

Starting top left, moving clockwise:

Legally Blonde - Growing up with two older sisters, I was often roped into their interests, and my older sister Emily loooooooved this movie and musical. I could sing along with all the songs as a kid and had perfected my "Bend and Snap" routine by age 3.

Blue's Clues - I didn't watch a whole lot of TV has a kid, but this was one of the shows I did watch, just as my sisters had. All three of us can still sing the songs that go with it (and do, more frequently than we should).

Disney Princesses - I was obsessed with Disney Princesses. Books, movies, costumes, the whole shebang. When I asked my mom what books I read when I was little, she mentioned Disney Princesses several times. (Aurora was my favorite, and I used to say I was going to name all my kids Aurora and just change the middle names.)

Dr. Seuss - Like many American kids, I grew up with Dr. Seuss books. My favorite was "Are You My Mother?" read to me by my mother. 

My mom and sisters - These were the people that read to me when I was little. My mom read to me every night (and often throughout the day), and my two older sisters, Megan and Emily, read to me fairly frequently, especially when I was a baby/toddler. 

"Love You Forever" - I can't even tell you how many times I made my mom read this book to me. I could recite the little rhyme in it ("I love you forever; I love you for always. As long as I'm living, my baby you'll be.") with her as she read. I think part of why I loved it was because it made my mom cry when she read it... Little kids are cruel, okay?