In Critical Literacy, Critical Teaching, Dozier, Johnston and Rogers offer a detailed analysis of the foundations behind the University at Albany Literacy Lab collaborative, as well as a detailed account of the benefits and challenges inherent in such a program. The authors wrote the book for the audience of those who teach teachers, seeking to challenge the traditional (or as Frank Smith would say, "official theory") approach to literacy instruction. Instead, the program's research and instruction opt for "an attitude of inquiry and exploration more than truth-testing." (p.6)
The pillars of the Albany program are teacher reflection, action research, and critical literacy. The program's emphasis on teacher reflection, the authors say, exists in contrast to a "schooled literacy" context in which the university tells teachers what to do and how to do it in the classroom. A large part of the authors' argument for a focus on critical reflection lies in the crucial realm of teacher agency. In relationship to literacy and agency, they state, "Agency in knowledge production, for example, requires viewing texts 'not as fixed and complete objects but as places for discussion, argument, and challenge as well as for enjoyment, information, and pleasure.'" Also, Dozier et al make the argument that a sense of agency in students can be more easily fostered if the teacher him/herself teaches as if s/he has the power to effect change.
Another element of the Albany program that the authors stress from the beginning of the book is a focus on critical literacy. In defining the term as "a tool for social action," they describe critical literacy not only as a focus on socio-cultural themes in literature but also a teacher's understanding of the power of language in drawing cultural lines in the way that it is organized, spoken and written. If the teacher understands these realities, the authors argue, then literacy instruction can be richer and multidimensional.
The third pillar driving the Albany program is a focus in action research; namely, case study analysis. Though the authors do not explicitly reject empirical quantitative research, they express that qualitative approaches function more effectively within the framework of the program. Specifically, "...our goal is to help teachers and students build productive, collaborative case knowledge of their own teaching and learning practices and hence productive identities as teachers and learners." (p. 25)
I see the impact that this program and text might have had on GSU's Literacy Lab. One difference I noticed is in the university student populations between the University at Albany and Georgia State-- the Albany students were/are mostly white women whose experience was teaching in suburban schools. For that reason, the authors speak at length about the cultural misunderstandings and misgivings that their students struggled with when it came to their own students and parents in the urban school environment. One aspect of the literacy initiative that really resonated was the importance of teacher agency; if teachers feel that they have no power or ability to effect change (or influence) in their literacy curriculum and daily interactions with students, then I do strongly believe that the students are less likely to be infused with a sense of agency. The whole idea of teachers bearing the weight and responsibility of teaching students how to think critically and independently and to create original products when the teachers themselves have no influence over the content and methodology is ludicrous to me.
I will also say that I have mixed feelings about teacher education programs that are so firmly rooted in critical reflection. The danger, to me, in such a focus is that students may feel forced to reflect to a degree that they begin to add an element of fabrication to their accounts. Not to say that teachers aren't trustworthy, but I've found that there are just times when I didn't necessarily have a breakthrough or even much to reflect on after a class or lesson, but if I am required to reflect verbally or on paper I end up describing thought processes that might not be authentic. Can you relate, group members?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Kathleen,
I agree rooting a program so deeply in critical reflecting could potentially be dangerous. I think that the reflective process would have to be carefully monitored by advisors so teachers would accurately reflect to their experiences.
In reading your blog I had many emotions. I am very traditional, not only personally but also professionally. I often think should we really be changing the way we educate teachers and the manner in which students learn? I mean it has seemingly worked effectively for years. I do feel that the Albany program's teacher reflections, action research and critical literacy are all important components but I still feel that a teaching University should heavily influence what is happening within a teaching classroom.
Within my own classroom I think I have found a happy medium for all of 3 pillars of the Albany program to occur in addition to my regular "traditional" instruction. Which has to be done since it is monitored by the county. However I know that the majority of my teaching is based on state, county and national legislation.
When I read this book I thought that the Albany program would successfully occur if you have everyone involved: stakeholders, parents, students, teachers and administrators. Also you would need to have the flexibility to develop curriculum units around pre-existing standards or goals versus being forced to use certain curriculum packages.
Hannah
PS. My posting from the text will come later. I am having technical difficulties at home with my computer. Yikes!
Kathleen,
I think you did a great job describing what the Albany Literacy Lab is and also its purpose. While reading both the book and your response, I agree whole heartedly that often reflection can be overdone. I do believe in the importance of self reflection and critical reflection, however, I believe that it is often overused and therefore, lacks validity. I agree with you, Kathleen that when asked to reflect, we often write our thought process either because we cannot relate, or we cannot connect. That is when reflection almost does become a fabrication.
I also think that it is important to have the components of the Albany Literacy Lab; teacher reflections, action research, and critical literacy. However, like anything else, there must be a balance. Teachers also need to be taught "best practices", classroom management, and other important aspects of what goes on in the classroom. Without those things, often learning cannot take place.
I too noticed the difference in the Albany Literacy Lab, and ours at GSU. When implementing the Albany Literacy Lab, they had never experienced or were exposed to different cultures. Therefore, I found this book to be almost a realistic view of the educational system and world. Of course these ideas work, and there is a plethora of research to support that. However, when implemented in a highly diverse county or classroom, I do not believe it will be as easy as they make it out to be.
Kathleen,
As a student who has not yet managed her own classroom I must agree on your perspective on often over doing critical reflection. Because none of my experience with critical reflection has taken place in my own classroom I have been exposed to it, and a participant in it, through both my undergraduate courses as well as my Masters courses. From the perspective of a student, and a student only, I must contribute my stating my frustration with the process. As both Hannah and Lauren commented, in order for it to be truly effective it must be both carefully monitored as well as be only part of the balance. Once reflection becomes a large part of practice or assessment it is easy to, as you pointed out Kathleen, add an element of fabrication, which in turn results in a reflection that does not accurately mirror the actual experience. Because reflection has become such a large part of the process in educating teachers it has become almost second nature to expand upon experiences in a way that it, as stated previously not untrustworthy, yet slightly inaccurate.
As Lauren stated, it is extremely important to develop a balance between the components demonstrated in the Albany Literacy Lab as well as the important aspects that take place within any given classroom. Learning, I believe, can only thrive in the type of classroom environment that takes into account all of these characteristics. We cannot focus on only a few, while ignoring the others. As teachers, it is important if not vital, to take a look at our own classrooms from the outside perspective. It is often too easy to view the way you teach from only one point of view, your own. This becomes extremely detrimental for our students who come from all types of experiences, back grounds, and demonstrate a variety of learning styles. In order to foster well rounded, life-long learners, we must create the type of well rounded environment that will be not be beneficial to most, but to all.
Post a Comment