A new and important word for me has become that of anomalies: the relating/connecting of new experiences to old, thereby helping one better make sense of the new, becoming that much clearer when allowed engaged and meaningful discourse with others; hence, my theme for this particular paper. In my attempt to synthesize the discourse theme found in the course readings to date, I will do my best to interact with a multitude of authors’ views while also inserting personal observations, to be further substantiated by learning experiences.
Oral language is one’s primary discourse, despite the cultural language of the home. The first five years of a child’s life have been toted as being important and key years. Why, then, is it that the education system seems to rely heavily upon written forms of literacy? These days, this seems to be the pervasive question that keeps reverberating in my head.
It is very true when O’Neil states that oral language emerges naturally and is the key to preschool learning. One’s native literacy must be validated and encouraged. In 1985, I accepted a teaching position within this province, making the move from Nova Scotia. Although I had a most difficult time with the native literacy akin to the areas of Bay St. George and Port au Port, I did my very best to encourage discourse, often asking for additional colleague confirmation after the fact. When insisting upon standard English, it must have been as frustrating for my students as it was for me to attempt to acclimatize myself to their native literacy.
I found myself relating well to Finn when he took the time to differentiate between
implicit and explicit language. There are individuals within my family that tend to rely on implicit language. Having lived away for close to 20 years, I find this most confusing when attempting to communicate, as they make the assumption that I already possess the complete background knowledge to follow the conversation. In comparison, I have always made use of explicit language. Could this be why I always seemed to stick out like a sore thumb at family gatherings?
In keeping with implicit language and the additional relationships that Finn draws,
namely, authoritarian homes, society of intimates (isolation), powerlessness, context dependent scaffolding (pay attention, listen, behave), I can relate personally to these components.
I was a most avid reader as a child. Reading was my personal means of escape from
“reality”. I believe that this is what propelled me to make use of explicit language on a gradual basis, eventually leading to increased and gradual personal empowerment, despite the powerlessness that traveled about with me.
My love of the written word led me to the realization that I would not be content to work in like jobs held by my parents, while also being assisted by Social Services, so off to University I did go. This is where Stuckey began, after a long while, to make sense for me: knowledge leads to better jobs; hence, both class and economy are reflective of one’s work situation. Knowledge occurs as a result of literacy learning, therefore literacy and class are interrelated. This personal upward social movement allowed me to change my perceived reality as I was simply not content to remain confined to the situation as it existed at that time. In having been able to make this change, I was also able to make the transition from an authoritarian home to one that was more collaborative and empowering in nature. To my way of thinking, explicit language is effective use of language. As a result, explicit discourse (which is prominent within our home) clearly leads to both access and success.
It is a marvelous feeling to know that explicit discourse has played a major role in my having succeeded in making a better life for my family. How are we then, as educators, to do the same for the very students that we teach?
Individual experiences need to be validated for individual experiences are what lead to empowerment. Respect and a firm belief in the absolutely essential, as is classroom discourse (as per Christie). Social injustices (language dialect(s), understanding of language, use of language, social class, cognitive ability, gender) impact negatively on all of us. We need to ask ourselves what is it that we are going to do about these injustices?
I have appreciated what I have read about Robert Peterson, a follower of the Frierean tradition. I believe that we need more educators who think along these lines, for they are the ones who serve to help us challenge ourselves so that we can “involve students in probing the social factors that make and limit who they are and ... help them reflect on what they could be” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self Interest, page 180).
Although I know naught how to go about making this type of teaching my own current
reality, it is my wish to become more like Robert Peterson, William Bigelow and Linda Christenson, all of whom emphasize Freirean dialogue and “conscientization”. In this light, I feel that the readings to date have merely served to whet my appetite.
I am not overly bothered by these feelings of uncertainty and doubt, especially as
MacGinitie has linked them with “good” teachers, for it is a “good” teacher that will readily admit, accept and acknowledge that they will always have much to learn. I would far rather be remembered in this fashion. Manning says that classrooms need to be “places where kids get to answer their own questions”. How does this manifest if classroom discourse is not encouraged?
One way in which genuine and dynamic dialogue can take place is within the interactive teaching model (also referred to as the experiential model). This model is culturally fair in that all students are actively involved in expressing and sharing personal experiences. There is much student-student talk, guided and facilitated by the teacher, whereby all persons are validated and empowered. This takes me back to the classroom of Robert Peterson, a follower of the Freirean tradition, who created a positive atmosphere “through activities that stressed self-affirmation, mutual respect, communication, group decision making, and cooperation” which, to my mind, serves to develop higher level cognitive thinking (explorer of meaning, more critical thinker, more creative thinker, increased ability to interpret and analyze facts) and intrinsic motivation. Unfortunately, within this province, we see few of this type of classroom.
How do we go about embracing this new frontier? We know that language (discourse)
can be used as a means of changing one’s reality. If teachers learn best on the edge, as Manning suggests, then surely our students would learn best in this same manner? There exists much irony between the envisaged curriculum (as established and mandated by the Department of Education) and the real curriculum.
The envisaged curricula is one that has been devised by individuals who have little or no contact with the students themselves, and yet the teacher is mandated to teach to specific programs. Learning is not a matter of accumulating information and adding to one’s knowledge base, as the envisaged curriculum appears to have been created for. One must make sense of the experiences in one’s life for real learning to occur. In this instance, I quite agree with Manning when he states that now is the time to “reclaim the classroom”.
It was an incredible experience for me to read about The Corresponding Societies that were established in England in 1792. People were encouraged to “come together in a society of strangers, to question authority and exercise power. Their whole point was for members ro reflect on society and their place in it, to learn what others were thinking, to discuss it, evaluate it, come to conclusions, formulate new ideas and opinions and exchange these conclusions, opinions, and ideas with others in the form of correspondence” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self Interest, page 133).
To my way of thinking, this is the purpose behind education! This is exactly what needs to be happening within our very schools! If I may further add “... nothing short of dialogue, conscientization, and explicitly teaching school discourse and powerful literacy will give all students a chance at an empowering, liberating education” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self Interest, page 190).
Clearly, we have our answer to what needs to be done in order to validate every student with regards to both written and oral discourse. It is up to us to begin applying what we know and feel to be true, whilst abandoning our quest for perfection and certainty.
