The second task is to comment on the Alvermann and Finn readings for this week. You are to comment to this post one time (thought feel free to do more than that if you like). Your post should do the following:
* Explain what the central idea of both pieces is.
* Exemplify what these ideas mean in your own experience as a student, teacher.
* Elaborate how you feel these two articles can relate. (In other words, read them against each other. What would one author say to the other?)
* Extend by sharing your reaction and posing a question the readings raised for you.
Again, your comment needn't be terribly long but it should be thoughtful. You are to comment here. As much as possible, I hope your comment will contain some reference not only to the articles but also to the comments of the others before you ... which means that you might want to be the first to commentsince I don't have that expectation for the first commentator!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Central Ideas
The central idea of Finn’s argument is that involuntary immigrants (ie. African Americans, Native Americans, etc.), “people who became Americans through slavery, conquest, or colonization, and who are relegated to an inferior position and denied assimilation”, as a result of incongruence between their culture and mainstream culture, are destined to fail. If involuntary immigrants attempt to mimic the desired mainstream culture of the majority they are not going to be accepted. And at the same time, they will be viewed by their own people as traitors or turncoats. The beliefs, skills, tastes, values, attitudes, and behaviors of the mainstream culture are not deemed “acceptable” to the involuntary immigrants because they are associated with the mainstream culture. Achieving in school becomes difficult for involuntary immigrants who do not wish to relinquish their identity and what they value.
The central idea of Alvermann’s article is that students are becoming increasing literate, digitally speaking. Alvermann states that reading and writing are taking so many different forms, and that the system values and has set measurements of only traditional forms of reading and writing. This “narrowing of what counts as reading” is the opposite direction of where adolescent literacy needs to go, in Alvermann’s opinion. Alvermann focuses on the growing body of research about these issues and how what is happening in classrooms and in education policy in schools contradicts our student’s strengths, experiences, and needs for the future.
My experience as a student
As a student, I could relate with the sentiments in Alvermann’s article. In elementary and middle school, many of my strengths in regards to technology, video games, and computers were not valued. Schools were mainly concerned with my ability to synthesize and analyze articles, books, and textbook material. While I struggled with reading and writing at an early age and was relegated to a remedial reading class, I remained literate in a digital sense.
While I understand, Finn’s viewpoint about involuntary immigrants and the inconsistencies between their culture and the mainstream culture, I personally have not felt that experience in school. In my opinion, Finn’s viewpoint, while maybe having some credibility does not reflect the actual experience of school for “immigrants”. His argument seems somewhat contrived and politically driven.
If Alvermann and Finn were to encounter each other, they would both agree that the current educational policies towards literacy are not in accordance with the strengths and interests of our schools’ student population. While their reasons for the incongruence would differ, they would be in total agreement that the current educational environment is faulty and needs to be alter to better suit our students and their strengths.
One question that came out of reading these two articles is the following.
Since our schools are so diverse; culturally, intellectually, etc., how are we as educators supposed to instruct literacy in our classroom if situations like the “Athabaskan” exist? (Look to the Finn article)
Well, Marc's response is really good and thorough. Both authors talk about disconnects. Alverman talks about a widening gap between very digitally literate adolescents and adult teachers with a very narrow view—and blindered teaching—of what constitutes reading instruction; she talks about the "Institution of Old Learning." Finn talks about the disconnect of adults from mainstream American culture trying to teach children of minorities who feel like outcasts in their own country, who have oppositional identity.
I have seen evidence of both disconnects in my experiences in schools. I worry less about Alvermann's concerns than about Finn's. There are educational technology teachers in high schools and school districts who are making headway in understanding and incorporating multimodal learning into public schools. However, whether teachers who get it will be able to halt the ascendancy of traditional standardized tests on the fate of students and school systems is an unresolved question. And a much bigger unresolved question is what will happen to our involuntary immigrants in schools. "Local control" of public education for them has meant that many children who are poor, black, and hispanic are kept in economic and educational "homelands," (like the Roosevelt school district) with inadequate funding for their education. This is an enormous political problem. Can multimodal literacy help solve it - can it be a path to success for some of the children Finn describes?
To piggy back off of what Marc said, indeed Finn is concerned about the creation of an oppositional identity by involuntary minorities. He also discusses immigrant minorities, citing the importance of the act of entering mainstream American culture. Willing participants likely will cooperate and see no moral dilemma, whereas involuntary minorities see it as a challenge to their identity.
Alvermann seems concerned with the conservative backlash to the van guard technological movement. Instead of expanding the notion of literacy, educators seem reluctant to embrace new forms of an established concept, creating the "disconnect" that Anita mentioned.
I think that Alvermann might actually see Finn's argument as a disconcerting possibility to an entire tech-based generation. If schools continue to devalue new forms of literacy, educators run the risk of losing an entire generation of students. I think they would both likely agree that some bridge must be built -- Finn would like to see mainstream culture made more friendly to involuntary minorities, while Alvermann would like educators to include new forms of technology as valid forms of literacy.
An optimistic question came to me as I read the Alvermann piece. Many teachers in training are a part of the technological generation. We are "digital natives," and as such value technology more than the "digital immigrants" do. I wonder if her concerns can be alleviated with time?
Alvermann is looking at the adolescent subculture and sees youth engaged in and by “multiple sign systems” but does not see the educational system making use of students’ technological literacies. Mike notes that there may be some authoritarian “backlash” by the Instructors of Old Learning, which Anita called “blindered teaching” (that’s an interesting locution).
Finn describes why some groups have “made it” in American and some haven’t: minorities who are willing to assimilate into the dominant culture achieve school success, but those who view the dominant culture as the enemy and therefore adopt oppositional identities are not “making it”.
Alvermann and Finn are both concerned with what Alvermann calls the “least motivated and underachieving” students (26). Both authors want to find ways to reach students who are not engaged in the dominant form of discourse in their environments – in Alvermann’s study, that’s reading; in Finn’s study, that’ s school culture generally. They’d say that educators need to know their students, learn about them, find what motivates them, and engage that in ways that will enable students to begin to be successful, so that can generate some interest and excitement about school, leading to more success.
I think Marc was taking it to an unnecessary extreme in saying that Finn suggested that involuntary minorities are destined to fail... I can see where that comes from, having read about the formation of oppositional identities in reaction to oppression, and the serious resistance of students whose discourse is so different from the dominant discourse. But Finn did leave room for a better outcome – and it’s up to us to figure out how to get there. Finn said, “Simply expecting involuntary minorities to [have a rough time but then prosper] is not only unfair; it doesn’t help us get any closer to a solution” (80).
For a teacher to know who a student is and what s/he values – personally, beyond academically -- immediately confers some value on that student as a person, and gives clues, points ways to inform instruction for that student.
I do have a question about what Alvermann was saying… I’m having trouble with a central concept here. Alvermann says, “Among today’s youth, assumptions about the centrality of words and print to meaning-making are undergoing considerable questioning” (22). I feel a little dense, but I really don’t understand how anybody, even “youth”, might question the centrality of words to meaning-making. Agreed that “text appears inextricably tied to pictures” on the Web (25). And I get that print may not be so central, given cyberspace…. But words? Is the centrality of words being displaced? Don't most of us translate our thoughts into and from words?
Finn states that immigrant minorities who came willingly to the United States for improved economic, social or political opportunities have assimilated to the American mainstream culture without compromising who they are. They see the characteristics of mainstream culture necessary for social and academic success in school for their children.
Involuntary minorities, who have found themselves unwillingly in the United States, have not assimilated because they did not want to adopt attitudes, beliefs and values of the mainstream culture. They view cultural differences between them and the mainstream as oppositional. In other words, they view the dominant culture as the culture of the enemy and as a result they adopt oppositional identities. They also believe even if they adopt the mainstream culture, they will not be accepted by the majority or by their own minority group.
Alvermann sees young people increasingly engaged in digital literacies through Internet, instant messaging, chatting, blogging, emailing, text messaging, etc... Alvermann talks about a pedagogy of multiliteracies much broader than language alone, a pedagogy of multiliteracies which broadens the meaning of text and relates textual reading to oral, visual, tactile and digital modes of learning.
I agree with Jill about Alvermann and Finn concerns with what Alvermann calls the “least motivated and underachieving” students. In Alvermann view, teachers should engage the least motivated and underachieving students in active inquiry using multiple forms of literacy. For example, CD-ROMs, videos, the Internet, print materials, hypertexts, and hypermedia.
In Finn view, teachers need to know their students in order to help them and motivate them. In other words, teachers should engage students (whose primary discourse is in serious conflict with the discourse of the school) to learn the school discourse in order to fit the school culture and to succeed in school.
I found that the main idea of the Alvermann piece was that real-life literacy is expanding with computer technology and sign systems while academic literacy is narrowing what is considered reading and how educators are expected to present the information. There is a disconnect between what is happening in mass media and in popular culture and what is happening with academic standards and methods of teaching. Students know what they are expected to do in school as readers, but if the material has no relevance to their lives outside of school, students learn how to memorize the information, not how to understand it. They apply the instruction to an assessment but they do not assimilate the information into their system of knowledge. Soon after the assessment, the information is lost. I have numerous experiences with this. Many of my teachers used books as the only resource for class information. I remember doing research for a high school English class and the teacher insisted that we only use books. She claimed that we needed to know how to find books and access information. Although I could see her point, I remember being frustrated because I liked exploring the Internet and other digital resources and felt that relying solely on books was “old school.”
The Finn article addresses issues surrounding cultural backgrounds and their impact on a student’s schooling experiences. Involuntary minorities often have a difficult time conforming to the dominant culture because they are forced into a system that they did not choose for themselves and that they aren’t readily accepted into. Immigrant minorities choose to become a part of the dominant culture, and are therefore prepared to make the necessary changes or “play the game” in such a way that they are successful. I saw a good example in a classroom that I observed in the fall of 2007. The entire classroom was white and every one of the students had a writing utensil and something to write on. It wasn’t until about 5 minutes into the class when I looked around the room and noticed a non-white student sitting away from the main group. He had a pencil tucked behind his ear but no paper to write on. The teacher didn’t ask him any questions or try to involve him in the class. It was almost like he was expected to not participate and like he wasn’t a valued member of the classroom. He helped to form that separation by choosing not to integrate himself into the class by at least sitting with the rest of the students. Why would he want to? He most likely felt alienated as it was. He was a minority who did not choose this school culture of predominately white Americans for himself. He didn’t want to “play the game” and he wasn’t invited to “play”, at least not on this day.
I would like to expand on Anita’s comment on the “local control” of public education. The playing fields are not equal, and although they never will be, there are some things that can be controlled. The schools that are probably in need of the most funding are not getting it. Students who are poor or in poor schools do not have adequate funds to be able to receive the same kind of education as those students in affluent areas. It is almost like the rich are expected to stay rich, the middle class is expected to stay middle class, and the poor are expected to stay poor. Books are now readily accessible to all races of all socioeconomic backgrounds, thanks to public libraries, but technology and digital resources are much more difficult to come by. As we rely more heavily on technology, the divide between students will become larger, as was the case when certain children were allowed to attend school while others were not, as was the case when some were taught how to read and others were not. Can we ultimately advance as a society and as a human race when we do not offer all of our youth the same kind of opportunities? Are we purposely creating a divide in the education of those living in America to protect something? Our jobs? Our culture? Our socioeconomic structure? Our prejudices?
The Alvermann and Finn articles both deal with issues of literacy and discourse and how they impact students’ learning. Finn discusses the difficulties that involuntary minorities, such as African Americans and Native Americans, have experienced with teachers and schools that fail to recognize the inherent worth of their cultures. Alvermann focuses on the struggles between digitally savvy students, called digital natives, and a digitally averse school culture. Conflicts arise for both involuntary minorities and digital natives because their discourses differ from the discourse of school.
As a student, I straddle the line between being a digital native and a digital immigrant. I have grown up with MTV and personal computers, yet there are times when I still prefer listening to the radio and using paper to express my ideas. As a prospective secondary math teacher, my goal is to incorporate the latest technologies – e.g. SMART Boards, computers, graphing calculators – in my teaching. More importantly, I intend to engage all my students in the learning process by bridging their home discourses with the discourse of school. The prudent use of technology is one way to make learning accessible to all students.
In line with Anita’s viewpoint, I feel that both authors focus on disconnects between students and schools. These disconnects are due to a clash of discourses. For Alvermann, schools are not adequately addressing the literacy strengths of students. For Finn, schools are failing to properly acknowledge the importance of students’ home cultures in the learning process.
The goals of education should be liberation and enlightenment. Students should see education as way to improve their position in life. In order for schools to achieve these goals, shouldn’t multiple literacies and multiple cultures figure prominently in the curriculum?
The central idea of Finn's piece, like the others have so eloquently stated, is that many minorities in many countries feel alienated, which gives no motivation to succeed. Alvermann makes the argument that students are becoming literate in ways that teachers either cannot or refuse to understand; they are becoming more literate in terms of technology and less literate when it comes to the "old fashioned" way of learning in school.
As a student, I witness this gap between students and teachers daily. Teachers become frustrated when students use only internet sources for their research papers, and as a result force mandates that allow only a certain number of internet sources (and always more print sources are required). Technology was not incorporated into most of my classes in high school, unless you count the fact that all papers had to be typed.
I really enjoyed reading the Alvermann piece. I felt like I could connect to it and understand where she was coming from. On the other hand, I did not enjoy reading Finn's piece.I don't know if it was because it went ove rmy head, or because I couldn't quite understand where he was coming from. I somehow missed the connections he was trying to make. For example, when he was describing the expressions and stepping that black students use, I did not understand how that connected to teaching or learning. I did understand how attitudes of those in charge can influence the behaviors of their students, but other than that, I was lost.
The central ideas of the two articles are, I feel, mostly unrelated. Alvermann's seems to deal with "Old" vs. "New" in a way - the old dogs and their somewhat narrow-minded views on education. Finn's deals more with a supposed conflict dividing races as opposed to generations.
I found Alvermann's article interesting, if a bit redundant. Yes, there is a kind of contradiction - talking out of both sides of the mouth - by the educational system these days. Everything is advertised as being more concerned with authentic learning - genuine understanding and appreciation of ideas, concepts, and precision of skills. You are, however, ultimately judged by your performance on a black and white, typed paper with 100 multiple-choice questions and possibly a writing section. If the message is to gear education towards a more hands-on, real-world applicable approach, why does that disappear when it's time to assess students? Perhaps the powers that be feel it is too complex and difficult to assess students on anything but a straightforward, quantifiable assessment. There has to be a better way, in my opinion.
Finn's chapter I had actually read for another ED class last year. I feel the same way now as I did then. His main idea was that the acheivement gap separating races still exists - not just in schools, but in society - because those who seem to prosper are the immigrants who "voluntary" came to this country. In contrast, he argues, those that have struggled are the cultures that he calls "involuntary immigrants".
I don't feel that any person is an "involuntary immigrant" - at least not in the past...60 years? (estimated). I pretty firmly believe in the "love it or leave it" view. Slavery hasn't existed in close to 100 years. Even the Civil Rights movement had its day about 50 years ago I believe. To quote someone: "There ain't no anchor tied to your ass". In other words, wake up and smell the roses. No one, maybe VERY few people, have it easy. Many people deal with issues of "Acceptance" at one point or another in their lives.
More importantly, though - and perhaps even more legitimate of an argument - is that the manner in which people's ancestors came to this country decades or even a century or two ago, should have nothing to do with your attitude towards "Assimilation" into the American culture. First off, what is "American Culture"? It is far from being as easy to define and describe as more homogenous nations' culture. So why the "opposition"? And as Finn points out, one of the general bases of this opposition is a disdain for the idea of "giving in" and "selling out" to society. Once again, wake up. Nobody is looking at it like an issue of "selling out" except those "involuntary immigrants" themselves. If there is some sort of attempt to keep certain ethnicities down in society, it would appear to me to be minimal, and based clearly on ignorance. If it is not already the case, then certainly soon the large majority of American society will relinquish whatever hold they are attempting to have on those ethnicities.
Lastly, the idea that this whole phenomenon has something to do with the "successful" immigrant minorities' ability to return to a homeland, and the supposed lack of this ability for the involuntary immigrants, is absurd. To take one of the examples in the article, African Americans DO indeed have the ability to return to their ancestors' "homeland". Just because they came here mostly through slavery, does not mean that they have lost their connection to their heritage. If anything, I think African Americans are some of the most prideful and respectful of their heritage of any ethnicity in the world. Another example was Hispanic Americans. To put that argument to rest, just think of how many Hispanics cross the border both legally and illegally, often risking their lives to have a chance at what they feel is a better life? Does that sound "involuntary" to you? If I am misinterpreting this, for the second time, then I must be COMPLETELY missing the argument because I just don't see how it is valid.
Joseph,
I am glad I'm not alone in my feelings about the Finn article. While I think he made some good points, I felt that very little of it had to do with education, literacy, or learning.
Your response was very eloquent and well-written, and I agree one hundred percent.
I would like to respond to Joe's and Amanda's posts regarding Finn's chapter on voluntary and involuntary minorities.
Joe, you are correct that, since slavery was abolished in 1865, great progress has been made toward African-Americans achieving equality. We may even have an African-American Democratic nominee for the presidential race.
However, I think it is also important to recognize that there is still a huge economic disparity, as well as a large achievement gap educationally, between African-Americans and European-Americans in this country. Here are some statistics, from government sites and the Teacher's College web site, which I compiled with Jack and Al when we did a presentation on the Achievement Gap together last term for Foundations:
- 13 million children, many of them minorites, are growing up in poverty
- Of these, about half will graduate from high school
- Those who do graduate will perform, on average, at the 8th-grade level
- By the end of 12th grade, African-American, Latino, and poor students of all races are four years behind their wealthier, predominantly white peers in reading and math
- More than 50 years after Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) officially desegregated schools, 6 out of 7 minority students attend schools consisting predominantly of minorities
- Inner-city schools typically spend about half the amount per student as wealthier suburban districts
I think these are alarming statistics, and indicate the economic and educational challenges faced by racial minorities in this country.
Thank your post and for the statistics, Laura! I was working on constructing a response to Joe and Amanda, but you pretty much covered all of my points.
I am very strongly in the Finn, Laura, and Katie camp - thank you, Laura, for your response.I might add that Finn wasn't just talking about African Americans in America; he's also talking about other minorities in other countries.
•In Literacy with an Attitude (Chapter 4) Finn defines Immigrant Minorities and Involuntary Minorities. Immigrant Minorities come to the USA willing, and can return home if need be. They do not need to give up their own discourses, though they often choose to (partially) adopt some of the attributes of the majority discourse and thereby assimilate up to a comfortable level. Involuntary Minorities, however, were either brought here against their will or were forcibly annexed to the USA. They, after many generations, are without a homeland—they would not be accepted if they were to return to their ancestral homes as their current discourse would be seen as foreign. They feel oppressed because they hare not accepted within the majority culture. To that end, they foster an Oppositional Identity, purposefully going against the dominant culture as a means of separating themselves and regaining their own identity.
Alvermann, in Multiliterate Youth in the Time of Scientific Reading Instruction, discusses a different dichotomy: Digital Natives versus Digital Immigrants. Digital Natives use multiple modes of literacy (print, web sites, music, PowerPoint, etc.), often simultaneously. Digital Immigrants do not "get" that. Alvermann discusses how literacy can have many meanings and modes, and can change due to context.
•Finn and Alvermann are looking at different directional points on the same compass. Finn looks at different groups of powerful and oppressed and sees majority and minority differences. Alvermann looks at different groups of power as well, but sees age and technological adaptation as a key difference in how the world is perceived. Alvermann's issues are at least more easily addressed. While traditional literacy is mandated via State and National standards, multimodal literacies can be taught and accepted in classrooms and schools, as long as teachers and administrators were willing to see the advantages of it, and students were willing to participate in all forms. Finn, on the other hand, addresses a more intractable problem, to which no answers flow directly from the reading. Perhaps further into Finn's book we would see what he proposes.
•Finn's ideas were eye-opening, and the first logical explanation of the gaps between many minorities (e.g., Native Americans, African Americans, and Latino Americans) and the ever-shrinking majority. Finally, this makes sense to me. I have even witnessed during previous fieldwork observations the "stylized sulking" and was shocked at how precise the description was. It is clear that these acts, as well as other styles (such as baggy pants, stocking caps, and "bling") are manifestation of Oppositional Identity. It helps me to understand its place and the lack of threat it poses. Perhaps the understanding can help me to create a more caring classroom. I wonder if there is a solution to what Finn describes. What can we, as educators, do to help Involuntary Minorities be empowered, to allow them to have feet in both their own communities' discourses and in the discourse of the more powerful majority?
Alvermann's article was not so stunning to me. It seemed clear that the current children are more versed in technology, grow up with it integrated into their lives, and do not see why traditional (print/reading/writing) literacy is so vital. In fact, from my own experience at my work, traditional literacy is at the bottom of the list of importance. I spend most of my time interacting digitally (instant messages, Skype, wikis and other postings), reading web sites, and building them. While I enjoy Shakespeare, it is not useful in my workplace, while the literacies of the Digital Natives are what is important. Perhaps that is the point? That additional, traditional literacies are still relevant because they enhance our appreciate of language and the human experience like no other media can.
I do not deny that there is an achievement gap, especially in America. I also do not deny the economic disparities either. I just didn't quite understand what that had to do with literacy, considering Finn did not mention that. He spent an awful lot of time describing attitudes and "stomping," and it didn't seem like he had a point to it.
I believe we're supposed to post only once, but I did want to briefly respond to Amanda's commment. I think the connection to literacy, which Finn draws more explicitly in the reading for next week, is that an individual's position in a culture's class hierarchy largely determines that individual's access to the language of power and authority--"powerful literacy"--in that society.
The main idea in Alvermann's article is that students these days are becoming literate by different means and in different ways then students used to. There is an abundance of digital learning via the computer and the internet which helps expand the literacy of children. They also are becoming literate in ways that were once left up to teachers, books, classrooms, etc. Alvermann also brings up the point that programs in schools are not always geared to best help students become literate. She feels that they need to focus more on their strengths.
Finn's article talks about minorities achieving literacy. He talks about involuntary minorities and immigrant minorities. Finn feels that immigrant minorities often do better in schools because they are willing to give up part of their culture and grasp some American culture, whereas involuntary immigrants are here against their will and therefore are not able to give up their culture always. As a result, they often have trouble achieving well in schools.
As a student, I could relate somewhat to both of these articles, in particular Alvermann's. The times are definitely changing and in order to keep up with the times, schools need to move forward as well. Part of that involves gearing students for a new and innovative age of reading and writing. An age that goes beyond just books, essays, and tests. I think it is important for schools to put their students in the best spot to succeed which means becoming more "digital" to help their "digital" learners. As far as the Finn article goes, I have found that as a student there are many minorities who struggle in classes, but there are also many who succeed. I have never really thought about it in the sense of immigrant minorities and involuntary minorities and the differences that this may lead to in the classroom. This is something I will look more into as a teacher.
I agree with Marc in the sense that if Alvermann and Finn ran into each other they would be in agreement that the current educational programs aren't necessarily geared towards getting at the strengths of student in regards to literacy. However, I think schools may have a harder time addressing the minority literacy issue than the scientific reading issue.
One question that I am left with is from Finn's article. He states "For involuntary minorities, the dominant group is not only different, it is the enemy" (Finn 46). I guess I am wondering....Do certain minorities/immigrants really feel this way? And do they stray away from the norm because of this belief? I have never really thought of it like this. However, now I have something to look deeper into.
The first thing i took away from the Alverman piece is the idea he makes in the beginning about in school and out of school literacies. So a child may be literate in school but not out of school? When I read it I thought about how we constantly lecture the kids on the language they use out of school is not the appropriate language to use in school. I don't know if I completely agree with the idea of in and out of school literacies. I do however strongly believe in the connections we must make as teachers to link in school learning to out of school learning. The strong disconnect that is sometimes made, is a deterance for kids and can often result in them shutting down and giving up.
I see the Finn piece as much less a literacy topic and more an identity . Some "involuntary immigrants" struggle with finding an identity in school. In terms of our spanish speaking students is making them study english taking away from their identity? Maybe thats the link between identity and literacy. I don't really agree with much of Finn's book but I can see an arguement made defending their identity and value and the push for literacy in school.
The central theme of the Finn article is to provide an explanation for the achievement gap that we see when we compare the success of certain minority students to others. Finn draws the distinction between involuntary and immigrate minorities. The later want to be in this country and are happy to work towards conforming with the dominant society while the later view the dominant culture as opposition – having been culturally depressed and not willing to loose their overall identity as they do not see the likelihood of success even if they attempt to conform. This point is clearly consistent with my experiences in the secondary school setting. In many cases, you find that minority students and being taught by members of the the dominant class and that there are very little accommodations made to incorporate the student’s culture and preferences into lesson plans. As a result, we continue to see an achievement gap among involuntary minority students.
The central theme of the Alvermann article relates to how we now narrowly define literacy as per the NCLB testing requirements in relation to the expanded definition of literacy that should be used when we include all the fairly recent changes in technology that many students are gaining valuable literacy skills by accessing. The article suggests a disconnect and that teachers should be more willing to incorporate some of these student preferred methods of measuring literacy into the formal education process. This is clearly true when we look at classrooms today. However, there are more and more attempts by teachers to integrate other forms of learning into group related projects and special assignments. For example, several math classes are geared towards real life practical applications which require students to use the internet and other forms of communications tools. This is a great way to get kids interested in the subject matter as it brings in some relevant topics and allows for use of preferred mediums.
These two articles can relate to each other in that we, as teachers, need to strive to make connections with our students. We can connect to students by bringing in some cultural preferences and/or by recognizing the value in certain literacy tools that place a larger role in the day to day life of our adolescents. In the end, formal literacy and learning will benefit.
A clear question raised by these articles relates to our ability at teachers to come up with relevant and interesting lesson plans which stimulate interest and learning in our students while managing to the state mandated NCLB requirements.
I had to check a couple of times to see how recently the Alvermann article was published - some of its sentiments were things I heard from my parents as an adolescent growing up in the 1970's: "Paul, how can you study properly with your Walkman blaring that loud Rock music in your ears?" Ok so, today it would be an IPod, and in my parent's adolsecence I know that my grandparents wondered how my Father could study while listening to "The Lone Ranger" and "The Green Hornet" and other radio-plays over the old wireless. The more things change the more they stay the same. I guess that, like Al, I straddle the line between being a digital native and a digital immigrant.
I can buy what Finn has to say about immigrant minorities and involuntary minorities but I really squirmed with discomfort at some of the generalizations passed off as fact about how well different races perform overall.
A recent experience of mine as a student:
Last Summer I took a conversational Spanish to satisfy the MST requirement for a language. I had taken French and German in high school but those classes were 25+ years ago and I reasoned that learning some Spanish might be useful in the future. I may have learned as much about students and teaching from interacting with the other students as I did about the Spanish language.
One particular student comes to mind. His name was Marcus. Marcus was a very athletic looking, tall, well-muscled black man probably in his mid-twenties. The days he came to class he arrived always a little bit late. He rarely spoke to anyone in the class and never initiated a conversation with another student. He often wore a skullcap and perhaps it was my imagination but I sensed that he was wearing the colors of a street gang. I believe that he said he grew up in Yonkers (I’m fairly new to Westchester – that’s a tough neighborhood, right?) Marcus participated in class only when called on by the professor and his answers were supplied in a low nearly inaudible mumble. The professor had to move around the room to hear most students speak but with Marcus she literally had to be right next to his desk in order to hear him. Keep in mind this is a Conversational Spanish class. Speaking here is part of the APPD! On two occasions I happened to look in his direction and had to do a double-take because he was sucking his thumb! He generally slouched in his chair and sometimes gave the impression that he wasn’t paying attention.
When the first two tests were handed back I happened to be sitting near Marcus. On the first test I managed to squeak out a low A. I glanced at Marcus’ paper and noticed that he earned a very high A. On the second test I studied harder but managed to only get a mid-B. And Marcus? Well, he got another strong A. On the oral part of our final exam Marcus performed really well and exhibited great familiarity and a sense of ease with the language.
Now perhaps Marcus had taken some Spanish in High School or maybe Marcus (not his real name) is just really bright. Perhaps both are true. Or maybe he was working at the language a lot outside of class. Whatever the case, I learned from Marcus that how a student presents him/herself is truly not an indication of how intelligent they may be or how well he/she may perform. This may be the first time that I’ve been exposed to (or noticed) a character like Marcus. I wonder is he an exception or will I come across students like Marcus in my classroom?
Endnote to this story: I found it interesting that from a teaching standpoint the Professor gave no outward appearance of being perturbed by Marcus’ classroom behavior, nor anyone else’s for that matter. No matter what else was happening she kept us on task. She was careful to call upon him as often as she called on anyone else in the class and he always provided an answer.
Laura - New york State has existed with laws permitting the ownership of slaves for a longer period of time than it has existed with laws prohibiting such practice. It will take until 2027 for the reverse to be true.
Finn begins and ends this chapter by referring to the "My grandparents made it; so why can't they?" argument. I like to think that the next time I hear someone express this opinion that I'll be able to recall Finn and John Ogbu's ideas about immigrant minorities and involuntary minorities and help to expand someone's mind.
Alvermann's article described the contemporary issue we, as educators, face in transforming the classroom into a beneficial and engaging learning center for the generation of digital natives, or tech savvy students. Finn's chapter discusses how alienation of the involuntary minorities from the dominant culture is leading to a growing achievement gap in the American school system.
Since I grew up in a primarily upper middle class Westchester suburb and attended schools that were predominantly white, I did not connect as much with the Finn reading as the Alvermann article. I do think, however, that as a teacher I will have to give extra consideration to these unfortunate circumstances involuntary minorities are forced into.
On a different note, as a student in my entire undergrate academic career, I hardly ever used a hard copy of a book -- even a textbook. My science professors posted powerpoint slides which nicely summarized any assigned textbook reading and I was able to research on the internet for any other miscellaneous papers or assignments I might have had. As a teacher, I hope to be afforded the luxury of the newest technology in my classroom (such as Smart Boards) so I can incorporate it into my lessons. I have observed many different modes of student-technology learning interactions and the students are much more engaged than lectures and assigned textbook reading for homework. Since science isn't every secondary schoolers favorite subject I am wary of being able to motivate my students. But I think that if I make the class more interactive and use technology they like to use (even in their spare time) then they will become more engaged in the course.
An end thought:
I think that Finn might say to Alvermann "If multimodal and technological literacy is being implimented into mainstream education, will there be a greater and ever-increasing achievement gap between involuntary minorities and the dominant culture because of socioeconomic inequalities?"
From the readings of Alvermann and Finn we can see how they are trying to solve the problems for a better school and for the students. From the point of view of Alvermann we can see that how she is trying to analyze if really digital technology is helping students these days, and if the video games came before books what would it happened. I believe that these days the technology is so important because like we all know everything is run by the technology in the present, for example, we must use at work, schools, home, etc.
On the other hand, Finn Talks about how immigrants like from Asia, Africa, and Mexicans have their problems in learning and adapting a new country. After the reading I realized how difficult was even for me to adapt this country as a second language learner and how I also wanted to go back to my home country. But like how the reading said “if my ancestor made it with sacrifice and hard work, anyone who is willing to do it will also make there”.
If I try to relate both readings I can say that if technology really works for a better education, what about these immigrants who don’t really have money? How they will be able to buy them?? Only use them in school? How they will be able to do homework from home? I think that these can be even bigger problem. Also what about those students who never used technology before? Are they going to be able to understand how to use them? I think these problems can become big issues for schools. In addition, from the reading of Finn they also talk about how other immigrants learn in their country or in other countries, and my question is are they going to be able to not use books like how they used to learn in their countries and participate like American students in every classroom without missing their home country?
Alvermann's "Multilerate Youth" has to do with the idea of "multi-literacies" as well as the difference between "digital natives" and "digital immigrants". Both of these issues have to with technology and the generational gap that exists between those who grew up in the digital age and those who did not. Alvermann makes the case that more students today learn via computers as well as other media outlets that formerly did not exist, and that teachers who went to school long before, must find ways to adapt and utilize these knew resources. As math teacher, I am skeptical of all this. Whenever I am faced with a student that says "why can't I just use a calculator", I ask the student a question: Which came first, the MATH or the CALCULATOR? Obviously, people were doing math for hundreds of years without the assistance of a calculator. Unfortunately, in today's world, speed is what matters. How easily one is able to obtain information is what is becoming important, not whether or not the student can do things on there own. As a teacher, I feel it is my responsibilty to be "old school" and to actually educate the students, not just say well fine you can just let the machine do the work for you.
Finn, chapter 4, titled Oppositional Identity, has to do with the differences amongst minorities in America. He distinguishes groups of mnorities into "immigrant" and "Involuntary". Immigrant minorities came by choice, usually leaving countries that did not afford them enough opportunity to grow personally or professionally or to obtain wealth. They strive to fit in with mainstream America, usually facing certain adversities, however their resolve is very strong to succeed. Involuntary minorities include blacks, whose families are in America, perhaps not by choice, but through slavery. This group faces worse adversity on issues of racism and intolerance. Because of history, they do not feel as optimistic about their personal growth and opportunities, and this can lead to the oppositional identity. This is illustrated by rebellion and a purposeful resistence to mainstream culture and language. Ebonics, is not just spoken because proper English is unfamiliar, it is spoken purposefully, like a badge of honor.
Alverman talked about mutiliteracies. Students “today” are far more literate in technology based learning opportunites than their predecessors. The discontinuity is that testing and education reform are based solely on "old" literacies. Finn talked about multiracial students and their literacies. Students who are immigrant minorities perform better than students who are involuntary minorities. They feel that if they are to assimilate, they will never be accepted, and they will be shunned by their ancestors. Immigrant minorities have moved to this new place in search of a better life and always have the chance to go back to where they came from, so they are more willing to become a part of the new culture and way of life.
Since I don’t have any experience as a teacher, my experience as a student is somewhat transitional. I feel as though I went through school in a transitional period. In elementary and middle school, we didn’t really use computers. If there was a report to do, we used encyclopedias, power points were new and exciting, and web based learning was almost non-existant. This changed, of course as I went into high school and especially college. However, I can really see this multiliteracy through my younger brother than I did in my own experience. The things he knows how to do online amaze me. He pretty much exemplifies the students Alverman was referencing to. He reads and does homework while listening to his iPod, he posts videos of school projects on YouTube, and mixes music with a computer program. The type of literacy that is important to his teachers, important to state exams, and important to our parents, is irrelevant to him. As far as Finn's article relates to my life, I am a white female who was born and raised in America. I have never lived anywhere else, and have never been considered a minority. I think this article will be much more meaningful to be as a teacher. There will undoubtedly be involuntary minorities in my classroom, and this can possibly give an answer to why someone with that background might not perform as well as other students.
These articles are completely different, but, in a way are definitely related. Alverman describes students who are in a school environment totally different from what they care about and teaches in a way that is uninteresting and irrelevant to them. Finn describes different students, but with the same charactarisitcs. The students feel alienated for different reasons, but there is a constant in the fact that they don’t perform well because they are not being taught in a relevant way, and they don’t care to learn in this manner. They are literate in different things and in different ways than what is being taught and tested of them in school.
At the same time, I think this is an unfair comparison. A lot of involuntary minorities come from poor families. I say this as someone who has just read Finn’s piece, where he talks about how families of involuntary minorities never really “make it”. How can these students really be the same as Alverman’s students? Alverman’s students feel alienated because they are too technologically advanced for the current education system. A majority of Finn’s students might not ever get the chance to become that technologically advanced. While both groups find themselves literate in things that are “unimportant” to current literacy and testing beliefs of school systems, the things they are literate in are so unbelievably different, that it brings up an entirely different issue. If different groups of students are literate in such a wide variety of things, how can a school possibly devise a system that will test them all, fairly?
I also want to respond to Ari's post. I don't know too much about your math students, and I will not argue the fact that you should know how to do math before you can use a calculator. But I also think it is extremely important to be able to use a calculator. I know that when I was in high school, there was a lot of time devoted to learning how to use a graphing calculator. You can't deny (and I'm not saying that you are), that these forms of technology are almost as important as knowing how to do the math, because nowadays, if you can't use that sort of tool, you will get left behind. Of course, understanding mathematic principles comes first, but I also think that you have got to become literate with a calculator.
I also wanted to add that my favorite part was from the Alverman article where he quoted Johnson's idea regarding if video games had come before books. Adding to that, I think it is interesting that there are so many learning games for children these days that are in the form of video games. Personally, I've always been a book person, and am horrible at video games and find them boring. I was good at and enjoyed reading, so I was one of the "smart kids" in school. What would my life have been like if I was supposed to be good at video games...yikes.
Allow me to be brief. First off,I disagree 1000% with Joe and there being no anchor tied to anyones asses. I won't waste precious blogging space to pursue this any further. After reading both of these articles I once again realized what I am up against: the very stystem that makes life very easy for white males(me). I grew up with blacks, asians, hipanics, and then whites. Of 90 kids graduating from my elementary school, four were white(myself included). I was able to go home to the "nice" section of Yonkers. My innocent friends were not. I think much of what I have read so far in my Education classes does not service what takes place after children leave school. WE ARE UP AGAINST MORE THAN WHAT YOU THINK.
Alverman: perhaps film, graphic novels,and Powerpoint would be great in class
Finn: yes and perhaps future educators should go to the bookstore and read novels written by authors from various backgrounds instead of case-studies by a bunch of white people trying to figure out why there is a lack of cohesion in this country.
Responding mostly to Laura and Eric:
Honestly - Eric, what is your point? You say how "easy" we "whites" have it because the "system". And then you end by saying something about "what WE are up against"? If I am interpreting this correctly - and I don't know if I am - it sounds like you are using "we" first to refer to "we whites" - which by the way, I have a HUGE issue with "whites" being lumped together as one - a bit hypocritcal I think - and then towards the end it sounds like you use the term "we" to refer to....society? Its hard to tell from the way you wrote it.
First off, there really ain't no anchor tied to anyone's ass. There really just isn't. I dont see one, do you? human beings have every right to pick up and move somewhere else if they don't like it. No one will stop them. Oh - there are so many things I'd want to respond to and I'm afraid of forgetting them. I'm going to try to list them:
1) To not just imply, but to literally word-for-word say that whites have it easy is quite possibly the most hypocritical, presumptuous, and unnecessarily broadstroking statement I have read in my life. I grew up in a pretty strict Italian-American household. My father passed away from cancer when I was in 3rd grade. My mother practically locked us in the house for our childhood not allowing us to make friends or socialize. Partially as a result of those things, I ended up in many years of therapy which has done wonders for me. As a result of my father passing away, and my mother taking care of 6 young children BY HERSELF, she had no way to work and therefore very little or no income. We were certainly not poor, but things were tight. Besides the monetary restrictions, we had no father figure. To this day, I feel the effects of all of these things....Now tell me that "whites have it easy". Absurd. PEOPLE have it hard. Some PEOPLE have it harder than others. RACES and ETHNICITIES do not have it harder than others because people are individuals. There may be a greater percentage of African Americans that have it "hard" but that is simply a statistic. And seriously, this "oppositional attitude" that Finn refers to - if it does exist, and I'm not denying that it does, who's fault is it but their own? You control your attitude. I had to pick my ass up from being close to suicidal and work on my "attitude" towards life. No one made it easy for me. Monetarily, I paid my own college tuition as well as every last dollar for everything that goes along with college. I currently work 3 jobs to make an accumulation of what many consider ONE half-way decent salary. I live on my own because there is no room at my family's house and I struggle to afford it. Life isn't easy. That is and was my ewntire point. People need to grow up and stop thinking on such a large GENERIC scale. Life doesn't exist on a such a scale. Any kid, black or white, who grows up in an inner-city with a broken home, poverty, whatever....will have it hard. Why look at it on a racial level. It has nothing to do with that. Poor African-American families are not "poor African American families" as a RESULT of being African American. It is a result of harsh realities and possibly an inherited bad situation.
So much for the list, but one last thing. There is indeed racial discrimination in people. But it exists in EVERYONE. There are biases that people have because we simply are human. So for every African American or Hispanic person who does not get a job as a result of discrimination, there is a "white" cop who gets shot just for being a "white cop" in a "black neighborhood". That white cop didn't do a darn thing to the white cop, so why would he have gotten shot? Racism is everywhere. Luckily we have equality of law these days. But you have to give society and personal feelings a chance to catch up because it takes time. But ya know what? It goes both ways. Perhaps there wouldn't be such high percentages of blacks and hispanics in poverty if they simply stopped having "oppositional attitudes" because - as was my main point in my first posting - NO ONE CARES ANYMORE. This is not 1865.
So the article got you thinking, I take it? There's a lot of truth in what everyone brings up here and I want to appreciate those who took it personally and sought to clarify issues and their perspectives. I've been watching this unfold for a few days when I've gotten a chance to check in while away and I'm simply amazed at where this discussion has taken you all. Just wait until more of the Finn and Delpit this week - if anything, we should have an interesting discussion. These are important discussions and they are worth wrestling a bit more - we're going to have to listen hard (possibly harder than we have before) to understand the perspective of someone (including our authors) that may differ from our own. I implore you to take a chance on listening. And to keep it civil - both here and when we meet again soon. I look forward to it.
It sounds to me that Eric is echoing some of the ideas that we read about and discussed in Foundations of Ed. I think it certainly is true that institutionalized discrimination still exists within our society and is in fact still being encouraged by those with the power to do so. As an example, see Bush's war against granting same-sex couples the right to marry.
I believe that some of the discrimination and disenfranchisement occurring today is hidden behind laws that rip out the flimsy social network that help the poorest of the poor in our country. It seems time, once again, for the proletariat to rise up again against the bourgeoisie who control the financial levers of our so-called democracy. For some, that hope is embodied in a Black man, a politician from Illinois, running for President.
Paul, I certainly am echoing some of the main ideas from our Foundations class. Thank you for futhering my point a bit more eloquently. I also however am using a bit of common sense and trying my best to see things from all angles. Joeseph, exposing your life story was bold and I commend you for being frank and willing to share, however I simply found your comment to be distasteful and although it isn't 1865, guess what I do care.
I don't think that Finn's point is that one race has it harder than another, and I don't think he means "back home" as a physical place, but rather a place where people feel free to be themselves. I'm sure that Finn himself has faced many struggles, set backs and hard times. However, there are things we face because of gender, race, socioeconomic status and the like. I can't pretend I know what it is like to be anyone else but myself. That's why reading articles such as the one by Finn helps to open my mind to things outside of what I know. Finn doesn't have to explicitly say that things are tough for people of a similar background as me. I know that already. I don't know what it is like to live in a poor neighborhood with a background that is not fully accepted by mainstream America. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy to pick up and move. No one might be stopping them, but if you can hardly make ends meet, how can you leave? And why should anyone have to move? Having people leave isn’t going to solve problems. That only sweeps problems under the rug. If you have faced adversity, which I think we all have, I would think that you would want to help others who face adversity to overcome it without compromising themselves or their beliefs.
No one chooses the cards they are handed, but we have to play them the best we can. Knowing what kinds of cards other people hold helps us to understand what's in the deck. When we know what's in the deck, we can be more effective teachers and leaders. We can use our experiences to make a change, an impact, a difference, and not use them as an excuse to ignore issues or to say that anyone has it easier or harder than ourselves. No one can judge that. It's not 1865, but if we don't care about every single student that passes through our classroom, if we don’t try to understand who they are, if we don’t realize their goals, potential, challenges and successes, if we don’t start addressing the gaps that divide us, if we don’t unite and start really accepting differences, then it doesn’t matter what year it is. Progress isn’t measured by what year it is.
Eric,
Part of the problem with an online discussion is that it is easy to misinterpret either slightly, or drastically, what someone is saying. Particularly, I might have rambled on a bit too long about one thing and strayed from the main points I was trying to make.
Distaste - I just don't see it in my post. Of course, I read it the way I intended it to sound, whereas, maybe you read it differently. That's fine. Its just an unfortunate side effect of typing arguments instead of speaking.
My main point was that people always talk about these issues on such a grand national scale. Are we teachers or politicians? We don't and will not be making national policies. If our discussion is about the classroom, then let's talk about the classroom.
I have worked with students of every nationality you'd come across walking down a NYC street, in the three years I've spent in the field so far. I have done nothing but encourage every last student I've come across to do their best and absolutely shoot for the stars. Many respond well to it. Others are neutral and just think I'm being cliche. Unfortunately, some do have a poor attitude....or as Finn puts it, an "oppositional attitude".
But i just have an issue with anyone of any color thinking they can blame society for their piss-poor attitude. I never denied that minorities often have the "oppositional attitude" that Finn describes, and you echo. I just think its ridiculous to use the idea that you THINK you'll be discriminated against as a "legitimate" excuse to have a negative attitude towards another race. Its called "reverse racism" at times - an unfortunate misnomer.
Martin Luther King didnt blame society and have a piss-poor attitude. Millions of African-American students have positive attitudes and often they make great successes of their lives because they don't blame society. You control your own attitude. So why the oppositional attitude. That gets no one anywhere, and blaming other people ot society is not going to get you anywhere.
And when I said "No one cares" I was referring to the fact that this "HUGE racist movement" that supposedly causes the oppositional attitudes doesn't exist - at least not in this part of the country. There racism on a personal, small scale level, but anyone of any race can make it in NY. So my point was that oppositional attitudes are "sooo 1865".
When Eric said WE ARE UP AGAINST MORE THAN YOU THINK, it made me recall Geoffrey Canada's book FIST STICK KNIFE GUN... Canada started out as a poor kid in a violent Bronx neighborhood, and became a social activist who transformed his neighborhood, providing education and safety and caring for each student. It's well worth reading for anyone who believes (or doesn't yet) that knowing and valuing and taking care of each student as much as possible is key to helping students want to learn... and he makes concrete suggestions as well. "We are up against more than you think" I think refers to this kind of violent urban experience, as well as other kinds of prejudice and ignorance that do their own kind of harm.
Post a Comment