2. Essays about teaching and Learning

Marlon Marmolejo
336575 Teaching reading and writing in ESL
Professor: Vern Todd
On Reading and Writing

Skills-Based Instruction Vs Literature-Based Reading Instruction (Whole Language Approach)
I decided to approach this assignment by contrasting the two most important theories on teaching reading and writing and to present their pros and cons, because they would determine teachers’ classroom practices, techniques and approaches toward teaching and learning. I also hope to be able to demonstrate my preference toward the literature-based reading approach and at the same time relate it to my experience as reader and writer of both English and Spanish.
I am and I will always be a second language speaker/learner, which means I come from a different linguistic background where I learned to read and write in dissimilar circumstances. I am a native Spanish speaker; therefore, learning to read and write was quite easy due to the phonetic characteristics of the Spanish language. There are no linguistic tricks. We pronounce the phonemes that we see in print and we write the same phonemes that are represented exactly by letters of the alphabet. It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? However, I think, this leads to a mere functional literacy since we take reading and writing for granted. Yes, we learned to read and write, but we are not taught to read and write in a way that involves higher order thinking skills. We spend thirteen years of schooling learning to read and write, but sadly not to think –we do not read nor write to continue learning.
I did not realize my deficiencies as a learner until I enrolled in the Masters program at New Paltz University and I was faced with the fact that I could not write an essay properly. I was very successful memorizing and regurgitating the information, but I was not generating information; I was not able to “create knowledge” (Finn J. Patrick, 1999. Literacy with an Attitude). It has taken a lot work and frustration to move from one discourse to the other. I have mentioned this because I think it is a relevant point that would define me as a teacher and would also influence my pedagogical decisions in the classroom.
In terms of decisions, especially choosing strategies and techniques to teach reading and writing to ELLs call for a deep analysis of what it means to really know how to read and write. This is the first time that I am asked to explain what it means to be able to read and write. I thought it would be very easy to provide a straightforward answer. Surprisingly, I was wrong. I cannot even end a sentence without starting all over to make sure my explanation includes my experiences as a learner and the different dimensions of the process since there are many reasons why we read and write. These reasons determine the level of involvement with the text and the purpose of the task. Consequently, explaining the process of learning to read and write is as elaborate as its definition. This is even more complex when it involves learning to read and write in a second language after having gone through the process in one’s native language.
Another important factor that comes to my mind it is to consider whether reading leads to writing, writing to reading, or just to think of them as simultaneous processes. I think it is crucial to keep these questions at hand since any teaching approach that we decide to implement will be highly influenced by our beliefs and practices. One thing is for sure, whatever approach we choose to teach reading and writing must be accompanied by its own strategies and techniques to ensure that the reader is engaged in a process of thinking to develop his own strengths and ability to link his background knowledge with the information from the printed page.
The development of such ability of linking the reader/writer’s background knowledge with the text is not the only challenge to conquer. It seems to me that the most difficult for the challenged reader/writer is to realize that “written language is not simply oral language written down. We do not learn to read and write speech. We learn to read and write written text” (Purcell-Gates, 1995, Other People’s Words). Unlike, skills-based instruction where children learn from materials especially written to teach sequence skills, the literature-based instruction fosters the use of materials that fulfill authentic functions of print, such as informational notices, game instructions and books written by the reader. This is also known as the “whole language approach, which favors “why” over “how to.” In other words, the literature-based approach emphasizes the reading and writing to learn about the world first, and not the learning to read and write, as stated by its counterpart.
According to the language researchers’ position, one that I also subscribe to, “reading instruction and writing instruction are seen as complementary because they are complementary language processes, that is, one writes for a reader and reads from a writer. Many of the strategies learned for writing help the writer read and comprehend written text and vice versa” (http://sde.state.ok.us/acrob/pass/PASSGrade/e-Grade2). It is clear according to this explanation that it is futile to try to separate the processes (reading and writing) or to start an argument to favor one process over the other. On the other hand, we have to look at the different purpose that each approach offers to take a stand and choose the principles that will guide our students’ instruction in terms of learning to read and write.
I do favor the literature-based reading instruction for the following reasons. First, I read recently Literacy with an Attitude by Patick J. Finn, a book in which he discusses differences in the type of instruction that is being offered to working class and the upper class (the elite) in America. Through various situations and examples, he illustrates how the upper class is being instructed toward empowerment through a liberating or powerful literacy, while the working class is being instructed with a domesticating literacy. He also classifies teachers into two groups: those who domesticate (the gatekeepers), and those who liberate (the liberators). The danger of the skills-based instruction is that it trains the students to follow rules and be obedient learners who never learn to be independent. Consequently, seeing the teacher as the owner of the knowledge.
The skills-based instruction is teaching a domesticated version of literacy, whereas the literature-based reading instruction is not only teaching the learners to read and write, but also to see the connection of the knowledge from different content areas. These students learn to see the power of the print in meaningful contexts. Needles to say, I want to become a instructor who teaches his students through an empowering literacy regardless of social strata, gender, religion, ethnicity, origin or parents’ political affiliation. Nevertheless, the skills-base instruction cannot be completely disregarded, because it has its advantages too. It can work on specific deficits in students (lack of phoneme awareness) to speed up the process by targeting the problem. However, I think that the teacher must make sure the student moves on and does not get stuck on learning the mechanics of reading and writing solely.
Second reason why I favor literature-based instruction is because it allows the teacher to create a rich cognitive environment through thematic planning and instruction while the student continues exploring the world and acquiring knowledge from many areas. This is “based on the assumption that learning a second language is not an end in and of itself. Language is learned in order to learn about other things, such as social studies, biology, computer science, and math” (Anderson, 1999, Exploring Second Language Reading). This also shows the importance of developing content area language proficiency (CALP), which takes much longer to develop than the basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS).
The third reason why I considered the whole language approach as the one that has the most to offer is based on the point of view of language researchers who claim that “A child's writing development parallels their development as a reader. Print awareness develops in young children as a result of being read to by adults and having other literacy experiences.” (www.readingrockets.org/teaching/reading101/writing). There is no doubt that reading and writing is a social activity. By social, I mean it starts at home and in highly influence by the literacy environment of the parents’ practices. We came in contact with our first words in print at home. We were probably read our favorite books before going to bed. Moreover, invented spelling came as a way to recreate the stories we were read and to show our desire to be able to write our thoughts and experiences.
Sylvia Ashton-Warner must have been quite aware of this when she developed her theory of the key words, which were the basis of her organic reading and organic writing approach toward learning. She also knew that her theory would work well with the whole language approach to reading and writing because it would provide her students with a limitless body of knowledge in a infinite learning environment. Finally, the literature-based reading approach builds on the students’ confidence by acknowledging the learner’s own experiences and background from which knowledge would be generated. Another factor that Mrs. Ashton-Warner took into account. She realized that the students, contrary to common belief, were not blank slates and that they came into the classroon with all the elements they would ever need to learn.
I truly hope to be able to bring all this knowledge into my classroom and transform it into concrete practices that would not only foment learning, but also increase the kind of interest that calls for the use of higher thinking skills necessary for an empowering education. I think that reading must provide the ability to decode the way other people see the world (their vision of knowledge) and writing must provide the ability to code the way we perceive the world (my own vision of knowledge and how I create it).
As a way of summarizing my philosophy of teaching I will finish by quoting Haim Ginnott and his Teacher’s Creed. “I have come to a frightening conclusion. I am the decisive element in the classroom. It is my personal approach that creates the climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather. As a teacher, I possess tremendous power to make a student’s life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humour, hurt or heal. In all situations it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated, and a student humanized or de-humanized.”