In case any of you want to see a sleepy, little English town, I discovered you can view my hometown of Keynsham on GoogleMaps (maybe it'll help put the Local Literacies in perspective for you) : )
Here's the link: Keynsham.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Mis-representation
I'm in Historical Analysis hell and nothing else is on my radar right now. In fact, I think I'm going to use this blog to spew forth my opinions about what I've read, which I have to keep firmly locked away as I write my academic paper.
I've been exploring the history of andragogy, and oh boy, isn't this the theory everyone loves to hate. Almost every article acknowledges that it has become one of the best loved theories for adult educators in the field, and then they go on to say that there's a "dearth" of research to test it's effectiveness and many of its assumptions are flawed. Now, I don't mind practitioners and theorists taking a critical stance, but they do all seem to have missed the point a little to my mind.
In one of the earliest descriptions of Andragogy (Knowles, 1970), Malcolm Knowles (viewed as the father of andragogy in the USA) goes to great pains to point out that he is not writing a "how-to" for teaching adults, but is instead attempting to engage in "dialogue" with us adult educators who are interested in andragogy. He further goes on to say that people should not read the book looking for "truth", but should instead treat it as a framework from which they can "compare and test your own ideas" (p. 15). It therefore seems in-congruent to me that people should even attempt to test andragogy quantitatively.
Of course, empirically testing a theory like andragogy is near impossible, not least because andragogical classes shouldn't have the kind of outcomes that can easily be evaluated, like tests. My biggest problem with many of the studies I have read are in their definitions of "adult learners" - until you have 'adult' clearly defined, and you can be sure you're following Knowles' definition of adult, you have a weak study in my opinion, although little mention is made of this in the literature.
Finally I am a little shocked at how many studies, even in recent years, cite Knowles' original assumptions about Andragogy published in 1970, or indeed his update in 1980. Since then Knowles updated his assumptions and models at least once more, but this is rarely acknowledged in the literature.
While the articles I have read on this have been full of criticism for andragogy, and I even took this on board when I described the theory as being a 'little passe' during my presentation in class a few weeks ago, I actually still feel that it is a valuable theory and model to use in adult education. Instead of concentrating on the areas that I may not 100% agree with, I will read the updates Knowles and his followers added to the theory to see if my issues are addressed, and then I will take Knowles' original advice and approach andragogy with a "gentle skepticism" and test his assumptions against my own experiences and "adopt those that make sense" to me (p. 16).
Knowles, M. (1970) The Modern Practice of Adult Education.
I've been exploring the history of andragogy, and oh boy, isn't this the theory everyone loves to hate. Almost every article acknowledges that it has become one of the best loved theories for adult educators in the field, and then they go on to say that there's a "dearth" of research to test it's effectiveness and many of its assumptions are flawed. Now, I don't mind practitioners and theorists taking a critical stance, but they do all seem to have missed the point a little to my mind.
In one of the earliest descriptions of Andragogy (Knowles, 1970), Malcolm Knowles (viewed as the father of andragogy in the USA) goes to great pains to point out that he is not writing a "how-to" for teaching adults, but is instead attempting to engage in "dialogue" with us adult educators who are interested in andragogy. He further goes on to say that people should not read the book looking for "truth", but should instead treat it as a framework from which they can "compare and test your own ideas" (p. 15). It therefore seems in-congruent to me that people should even attempt to test andragogy quantitatively.
Of course, empirically testing a theory like andragogy is near impossible, not least because andragogical classes shouldn't have the kind of outcomes that can easily be evaluated, like tests. My biggest problem with many of the studies I have read are in their definitions of "adult learners" - until you have 'adult' clearly defined, and you can be sure you're following Knowles' definition of adult, you have a weak study in my opinion, although little mention is made of this in the literature.
Finally I am a little shocked at how many studies, even in recent years, cite Knowles' original assumptions about Andragogy published in 1970, or indeed his update in 1980. Since then Knowles updated his assumptions and models at least once more, but this is rarely acknowledged in the literature.
While the articles I have read on this have been full of criticism for andragogy, and I even took this on board when I described the theory as being a 'little passe' during my presentation in class a few weeks ago, I actually still feel that it is a valuable theory and model to use in adult education. Instead of concentrating on the areas that I may not 100% agree with, I will read the updates Knowles and his followers added to the theory to see if my issues are addressed, and then I will take Knowles' original advice and approach andragogy with a "gentle skepticism" and test his assumptions against my own experiences and "adopt those that make sense" to me (p. 16).
Knowles, M. (1970) The Modern Practice of Adult Education.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Organisations & People as Products of Written Communication
Faber, B. (2008). Writing and social change, In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing, New York: New York. Taylor & Francis.
I was reading the above named chapter this week when I came across a line that reminded me of my previous life in England. The author, talking about how writing can bring about social change, stated: "modern organizations and professions are the products of written comunication" (p. 270), and I agree with this wholeheartedly. He discusses universities within the chapter, but I take a slightly different, but connected perspective here.
While in England I worked as a web-editor putting learning materials online in a local university. As part of my role I kept my eye on elearning articles and conferences and became aware of a struggle within the field of education - the struggle of how to define elearning. During a conference I attended, it became clear (to me anyway) that some universities had developed detailed policies and regulations to define their elearning perspective and direction, while others had not, and the ones that hadn't got anything down in writing seemed to be floundering about what direction to go in with their elearning departments. In essence, even though all of the universities had been conducting elearning and online instruction very successfully for many years, until someone defined it and put it in writing as a formal "policy" its place within the university was in doubt.
I think that all organisations, especially universities because they're the organisation I have most experience with, don't feel they are fully "defined" until they are defined in writing, perhaps to such an extent that nowadays universities are a product of their written documents rather than the other way around!! For example, here's a link to the "policies" webpage from my old university - some of the links open onto other pages with further policies (such as the IT policies): UWE website. Even Kent has a list as long as my arm of policies: KSU website.
Ok, so these policies have multiple purposes as they cover the university legally in a variety of ways, but I feel like these policies go some way to make the organisation a product of the writing rather than the other way around.
Organisations as a product of their writing occur in other areas as well. As the chapter states, "organizations exist only in so far as their members create them through discourse" (Mumby & Clair, 1997 as cited in Faber, 2005, p. 270). To my mind this means that every internal memo filed, every new webpage uploaded, every email sent within the organisation works as both "an expression and creation of organizational structure" (Mumby & Clair, 1997 as cited in Faber, 2005, p. 270).
I've already 'talked' too much (what's new!), but I think this notion is also true for people - individuals can also be seen as a product of their written communication. I think this has always been true, but I think it's especially true today because of the variety of online writing that is so connected to a person's identity, such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. We think that as we write we are creating a product (or often as we write online we completely forget that anything is being "produced"), when in fact, eventually, don't we become the product of our written communication?
Did this make sense?! Who knows at this point in the semester!!!
I was reading the above named chapter this week when I came across a line that reminded me of my previous life in England. The author, talking about how writing can bring about social change, stated: "modern organizations and professions are the products of written comunication" (p. 270), and I agree with this wholeheartedly. He discusses universities within the chapter, but I take a slightly different, but connected perspective here.
While in England I worked as a web-editor putting learning materials online in a local university. As part of my role I kept my eye on elearning articles and conferences and became aware of a struggle within the field of education - the struggle of how to define elearning. During a conference I attended, it became clear (to me anyway) that some universities had developed detailed policies and regulations to define their elearning perspective and direction, while others had not, and the ones that hadn't got anything down in writing seemed to be floundering about what direction to go in with their elearning departments. In essence, even though all of the universities had been conducting elearning and online instruction very successfully for many years, until someone defined it and put it in writing as a formal "policy" its place within the university was in doubt.
I think that all organisations, especially universities because they're the organisation I have most experience with, don't feel they are fully "defined" until they are defined in writing, perhaps to such an extent that nowadays universities are a product of their written documents rather than the other way around!! For example, here's a link to the "policies" webpage from my old university - some of the links open onto other pages with further policies (such as the IT policies): UWE website. Even Kent has a list as long as my arm of policies: KSU website.
Ok, so these policies have multiple purposes as they cover the university legally in a variety of ways, but I feel like these policies go some way to make the organisation a product of the writing rather than the other way around.
Organisations as a product of their writing occur in other areas as well. As the chapter states, "organizations exist only in so far as their members create them through discourse" (Mumby & Clair, 1997 as cited in Faber, 2005, p. 270). To my mind this means that every internal memo filed, every new webpage uploaded, every email sent within the organisation works as both "an expression and creation of organizational structure" (Mumby & Clair, 1997 as cited in Faber, 2005, p. 270).
I've already 'talked' too much (what's new!), but I think this notion is also true for people - individuals can also be seen as a product of their written communication. I think this has always been true, but I think it's especially true today because of the variety of online writing that is so connected to a person's identity, such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. We think that as we write we are creating a product (or often as we write online we completely forget that anything is being "produced"), when in fact, eventually, don't we become the product of our written communication?
Did this make sense?! Who knows at this point in the semester!!!
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The Culture of Schools
Part of this response was inspired by: Ball, A.F., & Ellis, P. (2008). Identity and the writing of culturally and linguistically diverse students. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing (pp. 499-513). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
For starters, I have to ask that you all forgive me as I'm a little rusty with blog writing since I had 2 weeks off while I worked on other things. Secondly I have to apologize if this entry is a tad cynical - I hope there's some hope in it somewhere!
As I read the above named chapter, I saw connections to a variety of experiences I've had in the preceding week. I started drafting a response that talked about the connection between the social and contextual nature of developing a cultural identity through writing and New Literacies Studies, but another idea kept niggling at me.
In essence, what I've concluded after reading this chapter (and from interesting conversations I've had throughout the week), is that in order to help culturally & linguistically diverse students develop identities as writers, and pretty much in order for us to effectively teach anything to anyone, we need to first start looking at (and changing!) the culture of schools . If a school culture doesn't value certain theories and practices then all the research in the world on the best ways to develop a writing identity in culturally diverse students will be useless.
In their review of the research, Ball and Ellis (2008) explain that some studies have looked at the teaching environment "and the role it plays in the teaching and learning of writing to students from diverse backgrounds" (p. 506). The author's cite Schneider (2003) who suggests that "teachers should move toward a freer, less constrained classroom setting where students" can study in ways that best suit them (as cited in Ball & Ellis, 2008, p. 506).
This sounds wonderful doesn't it?
I can visualise this wonderful classroom where teachers encourage real social interaction between students so that they can begin to share their writing with each other and develop a cultural identity (as opposed to those contrived activities where students don't truly interact or share writing). In this classroom students are able to bring their out-of-school identities and writing practices into the classroom and use them as a basis as they learn to move flexibly through different discourses and writing styles. But how practical is this in today's classrooms?
I'm not a practicing teacher in the USA, but I hear often from teachers that they are constrained in a multitude of ways everyday by aspects of the school culture. For instance, they might be severely constrained on the time they have to teach writing to students, so with exam pressure they concentrate on how to get their students through the test rather than take up valuable time having students actually talk and interact with each other about their writing in order to develop an identity as a writer. The authors note, in fact, that studies show "students of color are disproportionately relegated to classrooms using drill exercises rather than interactive, meaningful approaches..." (p. 507). Research clearly shows this is ineffective teaching, but it still goes on - because of the culture of the school (?).
I know this blog post is one massive generalization (and I feel like I may have written a similar post in the past, but it's an issue I often ponder), but generally we've put a lot of time and money into teaching teachers. We prepare them as best we can before we send them out into schools, and generally, they are keen to put all the best practices they've learned into action. Don't most of them also have to undertake Master's degrees and/or take part in further training? Yet so many culturally diverse students are being left-behind because they're not being taught using the methods that research tells us works best, and that new teachers know about.
What happens to our new optimistic teachers - could it be the culture of the school that gets to them? Or is it simply too hard to put best practice into practice when faced with the testing culture of our educational system? As an aside I've started to plan my summer class teaching literacy and IT to adult students; my goal is to design a new literacies classroom to teach literacy, but with ALL of the standards I have to cover, I wonder how it will be possible in the time I have - the culture of the adult ed. field makes it extremely difficult for me to use what I consider to be the most effective teaching methods.
The authors explain that "every classroom has an identity of its own", which impacts how effectively a student's identity as a writer is developed, but it's more than that I think, it's the cultural identity of the school, the state, the assessments - how they're designed, who they're designed for, what they test....I could go on and on, but these are all elements that have an impact on whether students from all backgrounds get the opportunity to develop writing identities.
While we obviously need to keep educating teachers about how they can foster writing identity in all of their students, as well as educating them about teaching a variety of cultures and nationalities, will they be able to use any of it effectively until we begin to seriously explore, and hopefully change, the culture of the school and educational system in which students are being taught?
For starters, I have to ask that you all forgive me as I'm a little rusty with blog writing since I had 2 weeks off while I worked on other things. Secondly I have to apologize if this entry is a tad cynical - I hope there's some hope in it somewhere!
As I read the above named chapter, I saw connections to a variety of experiences I've had in the preceding week. I started drafting a response that talked about the connection between the social and contextual nature of developing a cultural identity through writing and New Literacies Studies, but another idea kept niggling at me.
In essence, what I've concluded after reading this chapter (and from interesting conversations I've had throughout the week), is that in order to help culturally & linguistically diverse students develop identities as writers, and pretty much in order for us to effectively teach anything to anyone, we need to first start looking at (and changing!) the culture of schools . If a school culture doesn't value certain theories and practices then all the research in the world on the best ways to develop a writing identity in culturally diverse students will be useless.
In their review of the research, Ball and Ellis (2008) explain that some studies have looked at the teaching environment "and the role it plays in the teaching and learning of writing to students from diverse backgrounds" (p. 506). The author's cite Schneider (2003) who suggests that "teachers should move toward a freer, less constrained classroom setting where students" can study in ways that best suit them (as cited in Ball & Ellis, 2008, p. 506).
This sounds wonderful doesn't it?
I can visualise this wonderful classroom where teachers encourage real social interaction between students so that they can begin to share their writing with each other and develop a cultural identity (as opposed to those contrived activities where students don't truly interact or share writing). In this classroom students are able to bring their out-of-school identities and writing practices into the classroom and use them as a basis as they learn to move flexibly through different discourses and writing styles. But how practical is this in today's classrooms?
I'm not a practicing teacher in the USA, but I hear often from teachers that they are constrained in a multitude of ways everyday by aspects of the school culture. For instance, they might be severely constrained on the time they have to teach writing to students, so with exam pressure they concentrate on how to get their students through the test rather than take up valuable time having students actually talk and interact with each other about their writing in order to develop an identity as a writer. The authors note, in fact, that studies show "students of color are disproportionately relegated to classrooms using drill exercises rather than interactive, meaningful approaches..." (p. 507). Research clearly shows this is ineffective teaching, but it still goes on - because of the culture of the school (?).
I know this blog post is one massive generalization (and I feel like I may have written a similar post in the past, but it's an issue I often ponder), but generally we've put a lot of time and money into teaching teachers. We prepare them as best we can before we send them out into schools, and generally, they are keen to put all the best practices they've learned into action. Don't most of them also have to undertake Master's degrees and/or take part in further training? Yet so many culturally diverse students are being left-behind because they're not being taught using the methods that research tells us works best, and that new teachers know about.
What happens to our new optimistic teachers - could it be the culture of the school that gets to them? Or is it simply too hard to put best practice into practice when faced with the testing culture of our educational system? As an aside I've started to plan my summer class teaching literacy and IT to adult students; my goal is to design a new literacies classroom to teach literacy, but with ALL of the standards I have to cover, I wonder how it will be possible in the time I have - the culture of the adult ed. field makes it extremely difficult for me to use what I consider to be the most effective teaching methods.
The authors explain that "every classroom has an identity of its own", which impacts how effectively a student's identity as a writer is developed, but it's more than that I think, it's the cultural identity of the school, the state, the assessments - how they're designed, who they're designed for, what they test....I could go on and on, but these are all elements that have an impact on whether students from all backgrounds get the opportunity to develop writing identities.
While we obviously need to keep educating teachers about how they can foster writing identity in all of their students, as well as educating them about teaching a variety of cultures and nationalities, will they be able to use any of it effectively until we begin to seriously explore, and hopefully change, the culture of the school and educational system in which students are being taught?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)