I don’t have a very clear memory of when and how I began
making scribbling marks or writing as a whole. What I do know quite clearly is my affinity for the varying
techniques used to write (i.e. calligraphy, learning and practicing about other
fonts/styles, etc.). I believe
that for me growing up, writing wasn’t about expressing or communicating
thoughts and feelings but it was aesthetically motivated – if I had to write,
it had to look ‘pretty’, neat, and very legible. I wasn’t focus too much on the content. I believe this is influenced by
interactions with my family. My
grandfather, who was an art teacher, had a 4-5 foot green chalk board in our
dining room and every morning he would write out the date and the number of orders
(they sold blocks of ice) they had for that day. I loved his penmanship and there were times where I would
closely observe him write with careful precision on the chalk board. It was the same experience with my mom
and how, when she wrote out letters or note cards, she would spend the time to make
sure each letter was done right.
In my elementary school years, I think I flew below the radar when it
came to assessing my writing and reading skills because my writing was legible enough.
I think that because of this, the
content, spelling and grammar wasn’t overly focused on. I remember getting a report card saying
that I needed to work on my storytelling and a few grammar skills but my
spelling and the legibility of my actual writing style was enough to grant me
‘satisfactory’ in my overall language arts skills. From this I think about other possible experiences of the
legibility or illegibility of one’s writing as influencing how that child is
thought of as a whole.
I can recall a ‘forced’ reading/writing or literacy situation experienced
by my childhood friend. During
“language arts” period we were often given notebooks in which half of each page
had a space to draw images/pictures and the other half was lined to write out
the story behind these drawings.
He always drew but the written part was always minimal and ‘messy’ (a
term my grade 3 teacher actually used to describe my friend’s writing). As a result, he would always be set
aside by the teacher, and in turn, always asked him to “elaborate” the written
part of his story and also work on improving his writing so that it could be
easily read. Not only did he feel
embarrassed for being set aside, but he was also being forced to do something
that he did not connect to. Was he
not a good storyteller because he couldn’t articulate with words written on a
page? Did the teacher see him as lacking
(intellectually) because his writing was ‘messy’? When we played outside of the school walls he had elaborate
ideas and stories to attach to games which ranged from playing with toys and
other materials or “driving” to varying places in his dad’s old truck. Looking back on it now, he was more of
a visual, verbal, physical learner and reading or writing just wasn’t his
forte.
In reflecting on my experience and my observations of my
friend’s experience, I relate this quite well with Barrat-Pugh’s (2007)
assertion that “literacy practices are differently valued in different
contexts…in educational contexts, certain forms of literacy become privileged”
(p. 137). In my situation and
clearly in what I’ve seen in my friend’s situation, reading and writing was
significantly valued more than other literacy practices. Therefore, other practices were not as
honoured and in turn held children back and limited their ability to express,
explore and understand themselves in their world.
Logue, Robie, Brown, and Waite (2009) suggests that “[i]f all
children are to become successful readers and writers, teachers must approach
the teaching of literacy skills by using the skills and dispositions that
children bring to the learning experiences” (p. 221). Perhaps, my friend would have enjoyed writing better if our
teacher closely observed what his literacy strengths were and incorporated that
with the process of learning to write with “elaborated content” and legibility. Barrat-Pugh (2007) states that
“learning and teaching writing is complex and multifaceted” but more often than
not, especially when reading and writing is the dominant discourse of literacy
practices, educators and even parents approach literacy learning as though it
were “a linear process in which children progress through a series of stages”
which can be implemented and therefore mastered with drilled repetition and memorization or letters/symbols and words/phrases. It can and does work, as articulated by
Wong (2008) in her study with preschool children learning how to read and write
in Hong Kong. However, I can’t
stop thinking about the children who have significant difficulties with
mastering reading or writing or those who require more time (beyond the
prescribed school year). Will they
be left behind if their stories aren’t interesting or creative enough or
because their spelling or writing styles aren’t just up to par?
I end this entry by highlighting another suggestion of how we
can possibly engage in a balanced approach to teaching children literacy
skills. Wong (2008) suggests to “create
learning environments that are realistic and relevant to learners, and support
learning through multiple roles” (p. 116) and multiple modalities. In my workplace and in my community in
general, I see children coming from varying cultural and social backgrounds and
I believe that Wong’s (2008) - and even Logue et al., (2009) – suggestion[s] is/[are] very crucial to consider and allows our practice to be more ethical as a result.
References:
Barrat-Pugh, C.
(2007). Multiple ways of
making meaning: children as writers.
In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood: Changing views,
challenging practice (2nd ed. pp. 133-152). Marrickville, NSW: Maclennan &
Petty – Elsevier.
Logue, M., Robie, M., Brown, M., & Waite, K. (2009). Read my dance: promoting early writing through dance. Childhood
Education, 216-222.
Wong, M.
(2008). How preschool
children learn in Hong Kong and Canada: a cross-cultural study. Early
Years, 28(2), 115-133).
Like emergent literacy, children learn to write in different contexts. Learning to write Chinese and learning to write English will be totally different. According to Barratt-Pugh (2007), “ [g]iven the diversity of literacy practices that children bring to early years contexts, it is neither possible nor desirable to exchange one set of school practices for another” (p. 137). In my own experience, when learning to write Chinese, we need to understand the meaning of the characters before we learn to write it; on the other hand, when I learn to write English, before you can start memorizing the vocabulary, we need to remember the twenty-six alphabets. When composing alphabets together make vocabulary, however, it dose not visually show what the words mean. Whereas, when you look at a Chinese character, you can guess what it actually meant. Barratt- Pugh (2007) adds, “[a]s comprehending and composing written texts are the means through which formal education, and therefore power, is accessed, early understanding of and participation in ‘school’ literacy practices is crucial, not only to future educational success, but also for engagement in the wider society as literate citizens” (p.151). If it is true that Barratt-Pugh indicating that ‘school’ literacy practice is not for future educational success but for engagement in the wider society as literate citizens, why do we define literacy practice as ‘school’ practice or not ‘school’ literacy practice? What is the difference between ‘school’ literacy or not ‘school’ literacy? What is not ‘school’ look like?
ReplyDelete