LitLearner

So, what have I learned this semester?

Let’s start with early literacy concepts…

The good news is that many of my ideas were confirmed.  Read with children every day.  Talk with children, not at them.  Create a space in the classroom for reading and for writing.  But this class has added specifics to my ideas.  Read with children every day… in small groups or with individual children… from a variety of books… read multiple times… with discussion before, during, and after each reading.  Talk with children… every child… every day… for extended periods of time… about a variety of topics… using open-ended questions.  Create a space for reading and another one for writing… add a variety of materials and tools in each… utilize shared reading… and shared writing… and remember that reading and writing develop together.

Now about the blogging…

I was one of those new to blogging at the start of the semester.  After the initial struggles to register, post, and add pictures, I think I settled down to regular entries and replies.  However, in reading over my postings, I realize that I wrote way too much!  I usually summarized the weekly readings before discussing applications.  Why?  Hadn’t everyone reading my post read the same things?  I believe I approached the weekly postings more as assignments than as opportunities for discussion.  I also struggled with commenting primarily because I was posting before most others in the class.  I spent more time looking for someone who had posted on the readings than I did in writing my comments to them.  As a result, I don’t think I learned all that I could have from my fellow bloggers. 

And about the communities…

I believe I learned a great deal from my classmates, primarily due to the interactive nature of the class.  Listening to teachers talk about the application of these literacy concepts to their classrooms made the information from readings more meaningful.  The discussions within our small group were rich with experiences; something I believe we all benefitted from.

Now remember, I’m new to the blogging thing, so I’d have to say I have not yet arrived!  I struggled with not knowing which blogs belonged to whom.  I enjoy talking with people and I learned that it’s easier for me to do that face-to-face.  I struggled to relate the readings to my experience since I’ve been out of the classroom for 20 years.  My experience as a supervisor is history as well, and my position at the state department is far-removed from the classroom.  However, others in the same situation seemed to find a way to tell a good story. And I’m not very creative, so I never got the catchy titles.  I appreciated others, but couldn’t think of good ones myself.  However, I posted my entries.  I commented on others.  Sometimes it takes a lot of practice to become functionally literate.  I’m working on it!

For me, this week’s readings reminded me that how one view’s a particular situation depends on where she’s viewing it from.  The Gaskins & Labbo article reviewed the Handbook ofEarly Literacy Research.  Along with a brief summary of each chapter, Gaskins & Labbo point out numerous shortcomings in the book; topics left unexplored and questions left unanswered.  All I could think of is that this book is the Handbook on Early Literacy Research for heaven sake!  The authors are some of the most well-known researchers in the field.  And yet others are able to identify the shortcomings of their work.  No wonder teachers and administrators are confused!  Even the experts in the field don’t agree with each other.  They each have their own perspective.

I had similar reactions when reading the textbook.  Four approaches to understanding “at-risk” readers were described.  Having previously worked in special education, and now in my position with the state PreK program, all of my experience has been in programs using a predictive approach.  I recognize the concerns related to support contingent on defining what children “don’t have.”  However, I also have worked with many parents were just happy to get their child the help they needed and weren’t able to get in the general education setting.  They each had their own perspective.

And then there’s NCLB.  Some members of the NRP voiced concern with the way the majority of the panel defined reading narrowly; alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension.  Can you imagine what those panel meetings must have been like?  Talk about heated exchanges!  They each had their own perspective.

So where does that leave us?  Where do we go for guidance when we want to provide the best possible experiences for our children?  Perhaps we have to take a lesson from the work we do with our children… learn to listen to each other’s ideas and find a way to work it out.

This week’s topic is near and dear to my heart.  Family-school partnerships are so critical to the success of children, and yet schools struggle to involve families in meaningful ways.  The instructor’s experience with parent-teacher conferences is similar to mine, and likely many other families.  Teachers tell families how their child is doing in school and seldom asks families about their perspective, unless they are focused on “school tasks” that families have been asked to implement at home. 

I’ve read the book mentioned by the video’s instructor, Shirly Brice-Heath’s Ways with Words.  It presents a picture of the various ways families promote literacy at home.  Unfortunately schools typically do not place a value on those that are not traditional.  I thought I’d include a summary of the different ways two communities approach life experiences.  Note the different approaches to literacy activities.  Think about the different experiences children in these communities had before they started school.  Consider what sort of experiences are valued by schools.  Doesn’t it make you think twice about school expectations?

Gillander’s Sarah sounds like so many of the North Carolina preschool teachers I’ve visited over the past few years.  They’re living the dramatic growth of the Latino population in our state.  They see the number of Latino children enrolled in their classrooms grow significantly each year.  In some instances, 100% of the classroom is Spanish-speaking.  When a preschool teacher cannot communicate with her students or their family, most find it disconcerting.  Like Sarah, the vast majority have not had training specific to stragies found effective for English language learners.  Instead, they muddle through and do the best they can.  They do what they do so well: nurture their students and create a classroom environment in which all children feel safe and secure.  Like Sarah, most attempt to learn enough Spanish to communicate basic information.  They work at creating an environment where every child sees themselves reflected in classroom displays, materials, and resources.  And like Sarah, their efforts usually result in progress for English language learners. 

But what would happen if preschool teachers received the support they needed to strengthen their knowledge and expertise related to working effectively with this population?  I can’t help but wonder what we’re waiting for.

A little over a year ago I received a late night phone call from my daughter.  You know when the phone rings at 2:00 am that it is not good news.  She was traveling in France with a group of college students studying the historical context of social and political structures in the country.  I knew by her voice that something was wrong.  Although she had arrived at the dorm she was staying in, apparently her bags (which she had thought was the proper place to keep her traveler’s checks) were on their way to Germany.  While she spoke a little French, she was having extreme difficulty getting people at the school to help her track down her bags.  The best she could get was that they would be returned to the airport within 2 days, which would be right after her group left.  As she understood it, the bags were going to follow her across Europe.  And she couldn’t make herself understood….

Well, as a parent, I went into gear, contacted the airlines, brainstormed solutions, and made sure those bags got where they needed to be.   I did everything in my power to make sure things worked out for her.  Isn’t that what parents do?  Don’t we do everything in our power to make sure our children succeed?

Knowing that, I wonder how families of young English Language Learners feel when they drop their child off at a school where he or she will have very few people they can communicate with.  Who will be sure the child has what she or he needs to be safe and secure?  How will the school support the child’s efforts to succeed in a strange land? 

Few North Carolina schools have found a way to address the needs of English Language Learners.  Efforts are often hit-or-miss.  Some districts have made efforts to provide access to a bi-lingual staff person for all schools.  This person may be the one who can translate materials and interpret at conferences.  However, the demands typically exceed that person’s capacity.  Translation takes time.  Conferences must be scheduled weeks in advance.  Teachers frequently give up.  Critical situations often go unresolved.  Even when visiting programs that have made efforts to employ bi-lingual staff, I find inconsistency across the district.  Some schools have them and others don’t.  In addition, most of these efforts have focused on Spanish, even though there are numerous other languages spoken by children in NC schools.

But the Annenberg Media training and textbook chapter provide a glimpse of hope for families of English Language Learners in North Carolina schools.  Both offer specific suggestions for addressing the classroom needs of young children for whom English is a second language.  Teachers desperately need these type of information.  So often I hear preschool teachers say, “I think I’m providing what they need because they do learn to speak English.”  That uncertainty is consistent among all of the preschool classrooms I’ve visited.  Even though the demographics of preschool classrooms have changed significantly in the past few years, few preschool teachers have had specific training in this area. 

The message from the Annenberg training should be reassuring to teachers who are attempting to serve this population.  The strategies found to be effective with English-speaking children can be effective with English Language Learners with a little additional thought.  However, ongoing professional development is needed to support teachers’ efforts to address these needs.   While readings or videos may provide information, teachers also need ongoing opportunities to discuss specific, content-related strategies with other teachers.  They need to be able to discuss specific situations with their colleagues.  Their collective wisdom will benefit them all, and improve the outlook for English Language Learners and their families.

What a lively conversation about families this week in class.  It’s interesting to see that family involvemen can generate such passion.  It was a coincidence that the article I selected for my reading focused on this topic.  It discussed strategies to support students needing additional assistance with literacy development, but not eligible for special services.  The author, Janice Wearmouth, notes that family members are natural partners because they have a vested interest in seeing their child be successful.  However, Wearmouth notes that schools often question the ability of families to provide assistance with literacy support, especially those from lower socioeconomic groups or ethnic minorities.  Schools that hold a deficit view of the families and caregivers of these students lose out on a strong resource in the home. 

Wearmouth describes four types of family-school partnerships and the underlying assumptions of each:

1. Expert Model: teacher has the expertise, knows what to do, and doesn’t view family involvement as important.
2. Transplant Model: teacher “transplants” knowledge and expertise to family members to help them become teachers.
3. Consumer Model: power shifts from teacher to parent-as-consumer, who uses personal knowledge of child to determine what services are needed for the child.
4. Empowerment Model: parent-as-consumer is combined with teacher as professional who recognizes family supports and empowers families to meet their own needs with professional support.

According to Wearmouth, effective family involvement programs have a two-way flow of information, and respect both the role of teachers as professionals and families as experts on their child.  

Wearmouth concludes that schools must give careful consideration to effective family-school partnerships in order to maximize supports for children needing such support in literacy development.

Wearmouth makes excellent points in this article.  Schools frequently miss opportunities to support students by failing to take full advantage of all that family members have to offer.  Often efforts to involve families consist of invitations to participate in school events or, if educationally oriented, focus on “doing school” at home.  Instead, as Wearmouth notes, schools that wish to establish effective family-school partnerships must take into account the contributions of families from diverse social and cultural backgrounds and promote strategies that seek to equalize power between home and school.

Wearmouth, J. (2004). Issues in addressing children’s difficulties in literacy development through family-school partnerships. The Curriculum Journal, 15, 1, 5-17.

The Learn NC reading provides a nice overview of running records.  While many school districs in North Carolina now require running records as an assessment measure for children in the early grades, I find that many do not provide the type of training and technical assistance needed for teachers to make effective use of this information.  While they may receive training in the process of conducting running records, the support to conduct the miscue analysis and then translate that information into practice is often left out.  I went on to read the Miscue Analysis section on the Learn NC site to see how that issue was addressed.  While details are provided on the analysis of miscues, the process of determining how to use that information to inform teaching practice is missing.  I believe that takes a sophistication that comes only from experience, professional development, and ongoing support.  Unfortunately I seldom see districts investing that kind of time and energy in supporting teachers.  Canned literacy programs are more often promoted as the solution to challenges teachers face with supporting literacy development.  That seems short-sighted to me. 

The readings for this week provide examples of the many strategies we can use to promote literacy development.  The article by McGee and Schickedanz focuses on is a very traditional experience in preschool, read-alouds.  I thought I recognized this strategy.  In preschool, we read books aloud to children regularly.  Sometimes we do this with a large group and sometimes we’re with a small group or one-on-one.  We make sure to talk about the parts of the book.  We provide an introduction to the book and review any vocabulary we expect to be new for the children.  We even ask questions throughout the reading.  However, this article expands on what is traditional for preschool and provides a much more intentional structure for using read-alouds to promote literacy development.  Rather than viewing “interactive” as a read-aloud with children joining in on the predictable chorus or answering questions the teacher asks, McGee and Schickedanz promote a true dialogue and  ”analytic talk” as essential elements of literacy development.  This goes beyond what we traditionally do.  The article details specific elements incorporated into each reading and provides a much more intentional framework, and one that I believe would strengthen preschool programs.

Doyle and Bramwell take the strategy of dialogic reading and use it to address social-emotional development.  The social-emotional domain is a critical but often neglected area of development.  According the the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), kindergarten teachers report that approximately 20% of children enter kindergarten without the necessary social-emotional skills to be successful.   NIEER also notes that

“Social and emotional development is important both in its own right and because aspects of it facilitate cognitive development.  Preschool programs must enhance social and emotional development without de-emphazing cognitive development.  Both domains are important, and neither should be sacrificed for the other.”

Doyle and Bramwell provide a strategy that supports teachers’ efforts to address both domains of development.

The Case for Informational Text by Duke was very interesting reading as well.  I was surprised to read one post that described informational texts as boring and something that young children don’t sit still for.  I find that as teachers have expanded their ideas of literacy development beyond read-alouds and the reading center, informational texts have become more prevalent in classroom.  The books incorporated into each of the classroom centers are often informational.  This is particularly familiar for teachers using the project approach or thematic units.  For example, in one classroom I visited recently, the children began a study of shadows after Ground Hogs Day.  The science center featured a lamp and a variety of objects beside a book about how shadows are made, and how they can change according to the direction and position of light.  Early childhood teachers and their children will benefit from a broader notion of literature.  After all, what is an ABC book or a counting book or a book about colors? 

I am reading a report for work called Preschool Curriculum: What’s in It for Children and Teachers, published by the Albert Shanker Institute.  It’s an interesting report that offers a synthesis of research in the academic disciplines of language, literacy, mathematics, and science.  For each of these four disciplines, the report provides background information on the content area, appropriate accomplishments for preschool children, key components of a strong curriculum, suggestions for working with English language learners, and a compilation of additional resources.  The chapter on literacy includes a section on developmental writing, and many of the comments align with this week’s readings.  Without using Rowe’s specific terminology, this report describes preschool writing accomplishments that reflect message, distinctive-forms, and text-as-object contracts.  Again, without the details contained in the two articles about the language experience approach, the report encourages preschool teachers to write children’s dictation and then read it back.  

I wondered if preschool teachers routinely implement these practices in their classrooms.  It’s not unusual to see preschool classrooms with writing centers.  Evidence of shared writing experiences are occasional present as well.  And I hear teachers talk about reading and writing developing together.  However, I wonder if preschool teachers have a clear understanding of why these materials are important, and how best to support their students when using them.

I’m interested in hearing what my classmates think.  In general, do we know what we’re doing in preschool when it comes to literacy development?

The possibilities Barone, Mallette, and Xu presented for using technology as a critical element of literacy development were quite unique.  Unfortunately they are not typical of the ways in which teachers of young children are using computers in their classrooms.  In my observations of preschool and kindergarten classrooms across North Carolina, it is much more common to see children “passively engaged in computer activities” to “support the isolated learning of discrete skills seemingly required for traditional literacy” rather than to promote multiple literacies. 

I think one barrier to utilizing computers in ways envisioned by the textbook is teacher preparation.  I believe teachers seldom receive the type of support needed to change the way technology is used in early childhood classrooms.  I don’t agree with the preschool director’s solution; turning the computers off.  Instead, professional development provided by people with knowledge and expertise in both early childhood education and technology is critical to supporting teachers’ efforts to expand their use of technology to enhance children’s learning. 

An additional challenge often arises when companies and organizations donate computers to classrooms.  In one NC school district I work with, a business donated Lil Tikes computer stations to every preschool and kindergarten classroom in the district.  However, there was no discussion with teachers about this technology.  In some instances, classrooms already had the very same computer station.  Duplicate stations were added to these classrooms in spite of concerns about space and need.  No professional development was offered, so teachers were on their own to determine how best to use the technology. 

It seems that a more systematic approach to the addition of this type of technology in early childhood classrooms is necessary to take full advantage of the opportunities it offers to both teachers and the children.