Children as Writers

Reading Response #10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmQRS_6TZuU

This is a link to a video clip of a child typing the alphabet in under 3 seconds. The reason why I chose this clip is that reading this week's articles and the chapter from the text made me think of the relevance of the printed word for children in this generation. When I think about the section in Chapter 10 that talks about children from different cultures who are not familiar with print or writing, it struck me that perhaps this phenomenon may be present in this culture with children. Outside of school, how much exposure are children actually getting with text?

It is rare these days for people to write notes, letters, or even simple things like grocery lists. Everything is done on some type of electronic device, whether it is a computer, laptop, smart phone etc. If you compare the average child's comfort on their parent's iphone (if they have access to it) I would imagine it would be in competition a child's comfort in writing with pen and paper.

Although I recognize the importance and the value of mulitliteracies  and the huge benefit of children's learning that comes with access to technology, I wonder what might be lost with this generation of print-shy children? Will there be a lack of cultural capital between generations? Will there come a point when the traditional form of writing will not be present in schools? It may begin to seem unnecessary to promote traditional writing in the school system if children are not using that skill in their lives. In that vein, will the pen and paper eventually become something extinct?  While I understand the desire to broaden our understanding of writing in the traditional sense, I wonder if the idea that writing encapsulates more than the traditional sense could possibly contribute to that loss?

This idea of children of this generation sharing a "culture" that is not accustomed to print makes me this of the following quote from the text:

"Children from diverse backgrounds may find their literacy practices are not only undervalued, but in direct competition with 'school' literacy practices."

In this quote, the author was referring to children who come from cultures of oral traditions and so forth. However, I relate this to children of this generation who may find that their practices (using technology as a means of writing) are not being valued in school. This would be a great provocation for educators who don't believe that computers should be used in the early years. If we abide by this belief, what children are we excluding, and whose writing practices are we undervaluing?

Multiliteracies

Reading Response #9

For this response, I'm going to concentrate on Chapter 5 from the text, which focuses on multiliteracies in regards to technology, specifically the use of computers to encourage literacy with children. This topic is very intriguing for me, especially after the presentation and the discussion that ensued.

A great provocation for me was the question posed in class, "Why is early childhood so scared of computer technology?" It coincides with a study cited in the text which asks, "why literacy instruction remains so tightly tied to traditional forms of print literacy....when new technology and multimodal texts are flourishing" (p58) I think that this is a wide generalization to make, and perhaps a dangerous one as well. When I look to the text, it is very clear where the benefits are in incorporating computers into literacy learning. Children are drawn to technology, perhaps because of their experience with it in their homes, perhaps because of the great possibilities that it enables creatively, perhaps because of the interactive learning that comes from it, or for a host of other reasons. It is easy for a teacher to understand why children would benefit from access to computers in the classroom. I don't believe that anyone reading this information would argue this. Therefore, the difficulty for me comes when this generalization is assumed that teachers don't understand the benefits, or they are scared of "new" technology.

Why is there this focus on teachers being the issue? I find this section of the text to hold teachers in quite a negative light, and I wonder why there isn't any other possibility explored as to why early childhood might not be enthusiastic about the likelihood of having computer access for children in their classrooms. It strikes me that the biggest challenge in having computers available for children in the classroom comes down simply to money. We work in a field that seems to continually be struggling for funding to be kept alive. We also need to be cognisant that because of the lack of a regulated system in ECE, funding varies widely from centre to centre.

I think that a positive alternative might be to look at how early childhood can fit technology into multiliteracy in a way that is feasible under the present circumstances. How can we make this type of multimodal learning possible for all centres?

There are two sections in the text that I believe are plausible for all or at least most centres. The first is when the teacher uses a computer to extend the learning in the classroom, in the case on page 60, when they use technology to look up pictures and further information on caterpillars. This would be possible for most centres, because they generally have a computer that has access to the Internet and would be able to take a group of children to research a topic such as this. The second example is on page 64, when the teacher extends the children's interest in a video game by creating a story about the character in the game. In this case, they are referencing technology and using it to inspire a literacy project with children. However, while the idea of having computers for children to use to do individual work and projects is great in theory, it is generally not possible in practice. In my centre, while we don't have the possibility of investing in computers for the children to access on their own, the above-mentioned options are viable for teachers and are currently being employed as a regular part of curriculum.

In conclusion, I think that it is of great importance not to assume the negative of teachers in ECE, that they don't understand the benefits of technology, or they are "scared" of it. It troubles me when people don't open their minds to other possibilities, because in doing so, they may fail to imagine what IS possible, and the capabilities and competencies of teachers in this field.

Global Literacy

Reading Response #8


(this week was my presentation, so this was taken from our Moodle summery/provocation)


Globalization stems from the movement of neoliberalism which is an ideology that values efficiency and evidence based outcomes. It also values individualism, progress, and growth. Our world has become increasingly smaller with the increase in trading and the movement towards technology. Each country has more knowledge about others than ever before and are including this knowledge in classrooms; Kennedy illustrates this in his article while talking about children in Singapore speaking English during classroom discussion, "this practice is sanctioned by government, community and family beliefs..., that English must be the main language for instruction in order for children to become fluent in English as future workers in a globalised economy" (2006). Paradoxically there is also a large population that doesn't have access to the technologies that are making our world smaller. As Kennedy points out: "many low-income families, including indigenous, refugee and migrant families, do not have a home computer, which reduces their access to global contexts" (2006). So if we are using these technologies in our classrooms are we leaving out a large number of our students? Adversely is not using also leaving out a large portion of the class? I guess the question is, what is the purpose of these technologies and how are they being used in the classroom?

Neoliberalism has created a global market and along with this our eduction programs have become commodities. There "is a desire to ensure that 

institutions, like kindergartens and schools help to produce global citizens or workers through the sanctioning of universalised norms and best practices" (2006). So when looking at multimodal literacy is the use of technology actually preparing our students for the working world? Are we creating good citizens who will join the workforce and do their part? Does technology create critically thinking students? I don't know if we really need to definitively answer these questions, but we should be looking closely at the practice of globalization. As stated in the text: "for globalization to be successful, consumer culture is an imperative" (2007). Should we be encouraging students to be consumers, or can we present globalization in a way that makes children aware. Not just aware of globalization, but aware of other cultures and different ways of life. 

When looking at the idea of globalization we can also look at the idea of multiculturalism. As I said before, the greater use of technology has created a much smaller world and with this much more exposure to other cultures. With this though are we getting a watered down version of a culture, or a very stereotyped version? Within the lens of literature, Seto warns us that it is not possible to write through the lens of another culture, and one cannot know another culture by reading a book. 

Oral Traditions of the First Nations

Reading Response Journal #7

As part of the reflection on these readings, I have to say that I feel that they were a bit novice for this stage of our learning. However, the introduction of this topic did make me think about my own practice in regards to literature, literacy and the First Nations people, and that is primarily what I'll comment on.

There seems to be some crossover between this section on the stories of First Nations people, and the section on oral storytelling. Although I can see the strong belief of Native advocates and literature specialists to explore specifically native stories with children, perhaps it is also a further recommendation on the salient quality of the modality of oral language in storytelling. It helps us to understand that a specific group of people would benefit from this type of literacy learning, and to be mindful of this in our practice.

Like most things in education, this topic has a political edge to it. It seems to me to be an outcry from the native population to try as much as possible to counteract the injustice that they underwent in the recent past. In the article 'Honoring the Word', the author states, "...learning our own story as it is told in our own voices may well be the most fundamental guarantee of our survival as native people". Although I fully support this idea, and am appalled by this terrible history, I wonder how much this applies to the children who we see today in our classrooms. I wonder how much this political agenda weighs on them personally.

This reminds me of a child who I had in my centre who was Native. The teachers went out of their way to be culturally sensitive to this child and his family and (as much as we were able to, not being native ourselves) try to represent his culture - or what we perceived was his culture - in his classroom. It was later that his mother spoke to us, saying that despite her appreciation of our efforts, the child wasn't really "in touch" with his Native culture, and she didn't want us going out of our way to represent it, since it wasn't really applicable to him.

This experience makes me think, what are the dangers in "representing" a culture when we are not even sure of it's presence in a child's life? How is this different from any other form of "Halloween" style multiculturalism?

What I will take away from this week's readings is similar to the week on oral storytelling. Aside from this, I think that the most important thing that we can do is to keep open dialogue with all families so that we can learn a bit about their practices and beliefs, and to try to avoid acting simple on our perception of what they might be.

(get ready to be slightly offended by this cartoon, but I chose it to spark ideas of perception)

Cultural Authenticity

Reading Response Journal #6

What is cultural authenticity? I think that for most people, like me, this is a very confusing and emotional question. In our globalized community, how is this related to ethnicity? Is it related at all? Or is it related completely?
It is easy to connect our wonderings with our personal experiences. I think about my own ethnicity, which I can separate into two parts:

Because of my mother's Japanese ethnicity, and my father's white-European ethnicity, I have grown up immersed in two ethnic cultures, and therefore, feeling without a distinct culture of my own. Neither the idea that I am Japanese, nor the idea that I am European, seem appropriate for me. And along with this, the idea that I am "Canadian" doesn't seem to represent me either, perhaps because of it's ambiguity. 

In regards to literature, I don't believe that I could completely relate to books representing traditionally japanese people, or traditionally european people. So what is "authentic" for me? 

When I look at the classroom where I work, there are many children and families who share my mixed ethnic family dynamic. Where are these children represented in literature? Books seem to represent one culture or another. When, then, do children (or adults, in this case) feel the "rightness" that the authors speak about? I wonder, whether even people who belong solely to one culture ever really feel this "rightness", or if there is so much diversity within cultures that one person can never represent another person's feeling of their own culture. 

What is it that we as Canadians share as our culture? I would argue that we represent what Aronson refers to when he speaks about cultures borrowing and sharing from one another. If I look around my ECE classroom, I would not be able to pin-point any one culture (ethnicity), but could create a commonality in that we are borrowing and sharing cultures. If we try to represent Canadian children through literature that actually depicts their ancestors, are we actually doing them a service? I wonder if children truly feel represented by this type of literature. 

As teachers, how are we really able to choose literature that represents the children's cultures in our classrooms? If we are picking books according simply to our perception of their culture, I wonder how accurate we can ever be. Or, within trying to be culturally authentic, could we actually be carrying on stereotypes and assumptions regarding culture derived from ethnicity? Regarding my own mixed ethnicity, if I, myself, am not able to identify my own culture, how can another person begin to try to represent it "authentically" in literature? 

Literacy as Multimodal Meaning Making

Reading Response Journal #5

From the readings for this week, along with the presentation and discussion, I have come to the conclusion that multimodal literacy is something that we practice everyday, and in multiple situations in early childhood. It seems to me that the practice itself is not something new, however, the new-ness comes in the form of the definition, or even the recognition of literacy making within this practice, and this is the concept that I am beginning to understand. In regards to this, Seigel states that, "despite the claim that multimodal literacy is new on the literacy scene, children have always engaged in what are now called multimodal literacy practices".

I think that to further explore this idea within this blog, I will refer to a photograph that I took some time ago of a small project that took place in the child centre where I work. I will attempt to analyze this photo and the project from which it was taken with the perspective of multimodal literacy. The reason why I want to do this, is to help me to be able to place value and recognition on the aspects of multimodal literacy learning and exploration witin an actuvity which I might not have otherwise thought of in terms of literacy.

(picture removed)

Here is a brief synopsis of the project. It started with a provocation from me. I had noticed that there was a dominance of boys who played with the train set in my classroom. From this observation, combined with inspiration from an earlier EDUC class, I decided to paint the trains pink, to see what would happen, and what the children's reaction would be.

The initial act of painting the trains and seting them out, as I now see it, would be a commnication, or a symbol from me to a child or children, to act or react in some way. This let to the children responding initially through laughter, then comments, and conversation regarding the provocation, a verbal piece that Harste et al considered an "intimate and integral aprt of the writing process".

Later on in this project, we were led to some questions around the body, which in turn led us to a visit to the Biology department in the college. The children took note pads and pens and went to explore. They saw skeletons, body replicas, pictures and graphs and were inspired to make various sketches and "writings" on their pads. I think that if looking at this through a lens of multimodal literacy, I could identify that children were experiencing print in a natural environment, through the drawings and labels in the lab, using and experiencing "symbolic media". The act of using the pen and pad to transcribe their thoughts and experience would also be a process of literacy in that the children were making representative symbols in relation and reaction to something they were immediately experiencing.

These are just a few examples of multimodal literacy within this project, but I think it is a meaningful exercise for me to be re-examining this past event and finding these moments, noticing them, and being able to start to put power into these experiences as literacy learning.  

Oral Storytelling

After this week's readings I have realized that I do a lot of oral storytelling with children. However, similar to the authors findings of literacy researchers in 'My Mother Never Read to Me', I have never given proper credit to the value of this type of literacy learning. If someone asked me how I promote literacy with children, I wouldn't think to include the many daily instances of oral storytelling that happens in our classroom.

This article made me think of the stories that I tell children about my own life. I have always found that talking about personal experiences or adventures helps me to connect with children, and to create understanding between us. I find that children ask for me to re-tell these stories, again and again, and treat them not just as a fleeting anecdote.

Actually, yesterday, the mother of a young toddler who I work with came to me, confused, asking why her daughter kept telling her that "Teacher Sarah eats bugs!" I realized that almost a year ago, I had told a group of children of the time I spent in Thailand, and an instance when I tried the local snack of fried cockroaches. This story had resonated with her, and she was then re-telling it to her family.

Another example of oral storytelling that we engage in is on Mondays, I ask a few parents what they did on the weekend. Then at group time, I re-tell those events as "stories", acted out with props and puppets. My reasoning for doing this, has centered around a response to some children's need to have support with recalling past events. However, I have never given this activity credit in the literacy department.

It occurs to me now that these stories are among those that the children seem most engaged with, and recall with the most enthusiasm. Maybe this has something to do with these stories' relevance to their own lives and the lives of those who are close to them.
And perhaps this is what Nina Sabnani is referring to when she talks about oral stories being "inclusive because it allows several people to become part of the narritive and.....gives them a sense of identity".  It also seems to me that when we tell stories orally, there is more engagement between story teller and listener. We make more eye contact, and naturally become more animated then when reading text.

In regards to this point, Sabnani says that "both telling and listening are considered sacred and one cannot exist without the other". This differs with written text in that the reader can exist without a listener. The social aspect of oral story telling is not present in the conditions of written story telling. This makes me wonder about the idea of social literacy. Is there any connection between literacy as a social act and the benefits of oral storytelling? What is the connection with other forms of oral storytelling, such as theatre or film? Are these forms ever explored in regards to learning literacy?