After
reading this series of articles, I was left with the idea that language can be
viewed as a type of science. With so many different aspects to language and all
that needs to be considered during our encounters with it, it’s no wonder why
so many theories, guidelines and formulas have been developed to ensure the
correct use of it. We (educators) are at the point in our acquisition of skills
that, reading, writing, speaking and listening have become so automatic and our
carried out with very little effort.
We’re quite comfortable with the rules of grammar, most adults listen
attentively (when they want to), we read complex materials and find ways to
make sense of them, we use the correct punctuation when we write and we adjust
how we speak according to who we’re speaking to. What is interesting is if you ask most adults
who have these very developed skills how they know what they do, they probably
would not be able to tell you!
I wonder how many of the skills that I have
obtained we actually mastered much later in my life, independent of a formal
education. I sometimes laugh to myself
when I’m preparing certain language lessons for my students and very often I
would find that I did not have a clear understanding of what I had to teach, so
I had to quickly teach myself before taught them - (i.e. irregular plurals –
shame on me!). While knowledge and understanding of the parts of speech are
important as they are the foundation of writing (and reading), I’m still not
sure if I’m giving it enough attention as part of my language program, and if I
do go ahead and place more emphasis on grammar, how much more will my students
actually benefit from it? We have an activity as part of our homework program
called “Share N’ Show” in which the students perform a sort of grammar study.
Before the homework is sent home there is a short lesson, the work is assigned,
and then the students present the work that they have done. It’s an enjoyable
activity for the kids, mainly because they have to come up with clues to
describe the particular type of word for that week, and their friends have to
try and guess the word they came up with. They seem to come away with a good
understanding of the “rules”, so my belief is that the lessons don’t need to be
any more intense than that – or do they?
I
took some time to reflect on a few interesting points that were made in Sealy’s
article, Knowledge and Description of Language.
One point she had made is that most people learn to speak a particular
language before they even begin a formal education in school. A study that was done on 3 families showed
that each family had a different understanding of literacy and ultimately a
different function within their respective households. A child brought up in an environment in which
literacy is highly valued may be more inclined to take an interest in
activities that involve reading and writing.
Some households may not view reading and writing activities as a
priority, especially while at home – and the only real opportunity those
children may have to engage in those types of activities is at school. Teachers need to be aware of those
environmental and social influences when addressing a child’s learning needs.
This connects to the notion that too many children of divergent backgrounds
encounter curriculum expectations that they cannot relate to and this in effect
cancels out what they do know, and what they are actually capable of. This
results in the need to develop sensitivity to the diverse population of
students that we are working with – particularly their diverse speaking
patterns, writing styles, etc. Working within the Peel Region this is an experience
that I will always to be conscious of, as we have a high population of ELL
students from a number of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. It is easy to assume that an individual who
is new to the country and is using English as a second or third language lacks
not just the understanding of English, but of everything else as well. This
leads to generalizations made about students based on their language abilities.
She goes on to suggest that this is an indication that children do not need to
study language itself in order to make it work for them. Was this our experience
growing up? Are we then “force-feeding”
our students with information that, inevitably, exhausts their capacity to
learn?
I think about the prescribed reading
strategies that are heavily used in classrooms in my school – making
connections, making predictions, asking questions, synthesizing, etc. How much
of this is actually beneficial when it comes to making our students better
readers? Do these practices not happen naturally, and if so why is there a need
to formally address them as part of the curriculum? Reading and writing are
embedded well into our everyday lives but many are not conscious of it since it
becomes a natural part of our jobs or just keeping our homes organized. There
is definitely an importance in becoming familiar with text whether it is the
creation of it or being able to read and understand it. It’s an integral part of our lives. My question is how we as educators can teach
language in such a way that it is more meaningful to our students and has a
direct connection to what they experience on a daily basis.
