“There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all.” - Michel Foucault
This quote is representative of my feelings about what I have learned from this course. It is often necessary to question, reflect, and change our attitudes and perspectives if we are to become better educators. The readings for this course have caused me to do just this. I have questioned my instructional practices, reflected on my views of literacy, and hopefully have made changes in my thinking that will make me a better educator and advocate for children.
The readings have helped me to perceive literacy in a way that is different from my previous views. While I knew that it was important for children to be exposed to literature and to be read to before they came to school, I still viewed literacy as the ability to read and write and something that occurred mainly at school for most children. As I read Deborah Hicks’ book Reading Lives, I came to realize that this was not the case. As Hicks points out, literacy is not a school-based, individualized activity. Rather, literacy is a social and cultural activity, much more than just reading and writing. Children do not, as Hicks observes, “approach literacy practices as autonomous reasoners who then individually construct knowledge about literacy practices” (p. 15). This view of literacy learning is important for me as an educator, as I am faced with meeting the needs of all my students. I must remember that there are many factors at work when students are struggling to make meaning of my literacy instruction.
One of the most important factors that influence a child’s literacy learning is his or her home discourse or language practices. Several of our readings have stressed the importance of a child’s home discourse. In Dowdy’s article, she relates the hardship of wearing what she terms “the mask of language” when she was forced to speak the “Queen’s English” instead of her native Trinidadian. She felt she was in two places, “ovuh dyuh” and “over there,” being forced to experience life in two languages. The underlying concern for Dowdy was the issue of being able to “go back and forth between her home language and the public language without feeling a sense of inferiority” (p. 13). Lisa Delpit also refers to the ability to go back and forth between discourses or ‘code switching.” Most students we encounter in our classrooms participate in code switching on a daily basis. This is necessary for them to participate in our Standard English, middle-class school discourses. Delpit also asserts that students who sound different, that is students who do not speak Standard English, are often viewed as having cognitive deficiencies. This is an attitude that educators need to constantly question, reflect on, and change.
Another important factor that influences a child’s literacy learning is the cultural practices he or she engages in outside of school. Oftentimes educators fail to consider a child’s cultural practices as relevant to his or her literacy learning. In fact as Noll states, “Historically, schools have served to promote mainstream cultural values and expectations and have disregarded the experiences, languages, and cultural understandings of American Indians and other underrepresented groups” (p. 206). This is also a practice that educators need to question, reflect on, and change. Children like Daniel and Zonnie who have rich, culturally saturated home lives, sometimes experience difficulty in the school setting because of their inability to connect with the school discourses and culture. Educators must find a way to bridge these home and school discourses and cultures in order to ensure that these students feel a sense of belonging in school and to create opportunities for academic success. To do this, we must get to know our students and their cultures. We must “come to know children with the kind of depth that engenders successful change” (Hicks, p. 96).
A child’s identity also influences his literacy learning. According to Hicks, children “come to be and know with others as they engage in discourses fully saturated with cultural meanings” (p. 23). When they enter the school setting, the must learn to navigate a new discourse, thus causing a shift in their identity. Children must practice this new school discourse and act in new ways. Hicks refers to this as “hybrid” ways of acting, talking, and knowing. As I stated in an earlier post, for me, this idea of “hybridity” is the sum of all of our readings. Whether we call it code switching (Delpit), finding their “voice” (Henry), reauthorization (Staples), or building a bridge between home and school (Noll), we must create “classroom spaces where students [can] begin to move between cultural discourses without giving up the richness of their community experiences and language practices” (Hicks, p. 25).
While this is no easy task, it is necessary if educators are to meet the literacy needs of all students. We must continually question, reflect on, and change our instructional practices. In the words of Deborah Hicks, teachers need to “confront their own racisms and classisms before they [can] see the richness of children’s culturally saturated lives” (p. 26). We must think differently than we think and perceive differently than we see if we want to truly understand our students. By doing this, we can begin to value, appreciate, celebrate, and integrate the many different cultures and discourses present in our classrooms.
Leslie Rothenberger