For starters, he reconceptualizes literacy based on a particular group of learners. The question then becomes not how do we teach reading, but how to we teach reading in ways that are responsive to the needs of a particular group of students. Literacy for who? In what context? (This reminds me of Rosenblatt's notion that there is no "generic" reader, but only a "particular reader at a particular time and place.") I like this idea. It makes sense to me that if learning always takes place within a particular social and political context, that we'd be foolish as teachers to ignore the context we're teaching in. Who are our students? What do they bring? What do they need as learners within the context of this class?
Tatum defines literacy "more broadly, and more meaningfully" than just a decontextualized set of skills (p. 46). This literacy encompasses the whole person (for Tatum's black adolescent males, it includes academics, cultural-social-emotional needs, discussions of identity-masculinity, and ways to overcome obstacles) (p. 41) These learners "want to know that teachers care about their lives as well as their literacy" (p. 49).
As do all different kinds of learners, right? I enjoyed Treavor's musing on how this might extend outside of the English classroom:
But the structure and content of a course isn’t always responsive to the particular populations that enter it. While I think English classes should use literature to address the issues important to this population, educators in other disciplines are somewhat constrained unless they re-conceptualize a course for a particular population.
I agree that we can't be alone as English teachers in thinking that our curriculum should be shaped in ways that are meaningful to the particular learners in front of us. As a teacher, I always tried to link my science and social studies content to local concerns, whether that be recycling at our school, helping out the family whose house burned down, or creating an environment for the birds that roost in our school's chimney. Of course, I'm using an elementary school kind of example (that's the context I've got to work with). Tatum gets in to much deeper sorts of social issues with older students, more appropriate to their developmental needs...
I guess what I'm getting at is that every teacher, of every subject, I would think, must need to know their students, to respond to who they are as human beings, and shape the curriculum accordingly. As teacher educators, this means helping teachers (preservice or in practice) to reconceptualize the meaning of literacy for their own, particular students.
Almost off the soap box... but, wait, we can also apply this to ourselves. Tatum makes an important connection to teacher inquiry - a process of planning, acting, and reflecting - to address our particular needs as teachers in a particular classroom. Very particular. Very smart.
2 comments:
"Almost off the soap box... but, wait, we can also apply this to ourselves. Tatum makes an important connection to teacher inquiry - a process of planning, acting, and reflecting - to address our particular needs as teachers in a particular classroom. Very particular. Very smart."
There is this new catch phrase in AISD. It is "teacher learning communities." I actually love this idea! Teachers come together to discuss their questions, decide on a text to read together, watch each other practice in the classroom and debrief about what they saw. It's all wonderful! The fact that the professional development is tailored to the needs of the particular classrooms is right up our alley. I hope this is pursued in such a way that leaves 'control' in the hands of the teachers.
I share your hope confetti, but I am always afraid when districts find useful "catch phrases" under which to continue the status quo. My fear is usually that the actual work involved in bringing the catch phrase to life is far more taxing and expensive than anyone figured and it is abandoned half-way along. (Wow, sorry to be such a downer...)
Post a Comment