Entry 4

Each of the readings this week discussed familiar topics in the literacy program at Nazareth.  The glaring issue the authors seemed to be touching on was the issue of approach to reading and writing instruction.  Is it better to teach bottom-up (skill approach) or top-down (strategy approach)?  While skills are necessary to promote overall growth in student reading and writing, a strategy approach or top-down model of instruction would best benefit students.  Furthermore, if a strategy approach is more beneficial, should we teach strategies implicitly or explicitly?

As an adolescent teacher I most certainly favor the top-down strategy approach to reading and writing instruction.  First and foremost, students need to understand the larger idea behind the tasks we ask them to complete.  Once students grasp the purpose of a task, then they will be better equipped to have success.  As I read the Kucer and Rhodes article (1986), I started to disagree with the importance of teaching only “discrete language elements” (p. 186).  By focusing only on skills before moving to strategies, students are left with disconnected processes in regard to literacy practices.  How then, can we expect students to magically intuit the connection between those discretely taught skills and strategies?  It may sound as though I do not support teaching skills, I do; however, emphasis on skills should be minimal and clearly secondary to strategies.

I think strategies are vital for students.  Collins (1998) described writing strategies as “deliberate thinking procedures writers use to solve problems that they encounter while writing” (Tompkins, 2009, p. 57).  Throughout my coursework in the literacy program, I have been exposed to many definitions of strategies.  I agree strongly with this quote because a strategy is the metacognitive awareness of how to solve a problem  in a given situation.  So much of what literacy specialists and teachers are trying to accomplish is to teach students how to problem solve.  Especially, in the twenty-first century age of diectic technology (Leu, 2000), the need to adapt to change and problem solve is more pertinent.  People in the twenty-first century are required to solve problems daily, including problems never encountered before.  I was very excited to watch a WXXI program on Digital Media because James Gee spoke on learning and where education is headed.  One particular concept he mentioned was that teachers could easily use game production (i.e. students creating games related to content) as a way to teach problem solving skills.  In tern, state-wide testing could be eliminated because students would have strong evidence of learning by their developed games.  For example, one class was creating a game based on Aesop’s Fables.  Students had to create a plot line and maintain character integrity throughout their game, but they also had to explore and discover different plot elements that may not have been found in the actual story in order to create their game.  I just thought the game concept is a new and refreshing way to use digital tools at the heart of standards-based instruction.

Furr’s (2003) conversation of “Engfish” is unfortunately a truth in our schools.  In the English subject area, I think it’s common practice to find teachers using formulaic essays and essay formats.  Then, students get to higher level education and struggle because they never had enough time to experiment with language play.  In the WXXI program about Digital Media the importance of play was stressed.  Play is essential to discovery in learning.  I completely agree with a constructivist approach to learning.  Furr’s examples of student learning are somewhat in line with a constructivist approach.  Students are immersed in content, then asked to write at their own pace about the subject.  

Thinking about a constructivist approach to learning starts to make me think about implicit or explicit teaching.  Initially, one would think that a complete constructivist approach would only have implicit instruction and learning; however, I believe a balanced approach would best suit the needs of our learners.  Although I am clearly in the constructivist camp, I do believe there is a time and place to explicitly teach students skills.  Deciding what time is appropriate falls on the teacher and how well she/he knows  his/her students abilities.