The first project, in which I'm working with strong, interesting and learning-hungry women who have been battered around by life and society, is in some ways restricted by an outdated view of "literacy". This outdated definition of literacy is focused on "autonomous" (disconnected) skill development. There are lists of things that represent "being literate", lists that are used to determine "progress" in reading and writing. Nice things with tick-boxes beside them if accomplished and demonstrated to an 'educated' person from another socio-economic world. Things that result in another document if properly achieved, one that is said to open new doors for them.
But the documents associated with these lists seem to me to be loaded with subtle messages that keep literacy learners in a subservient and marginalized position. The definition of literacy reflected in them is, in effect, a white, middle-class list of what "should" be known. It does not reflect critical aspects of "situated literacy" that could show how much these women DO know. It is more likely, inadvertently perhaps, to measure what they DON'T know. In addition, even if they could do all the things on the list perfectly, the acquired literacy would not give them access to all that we promise them if they achieve those things .... nor have we even asked them what THEY want to be able to do with their newly-developed literacy skills. It may be understanding parole paperwork or medical info about ADHD for their kids, or writing letters to complain about bed bug infestations, or understanding why their tax rebate isn't as high as they expected. Shouldn't we be asking them what they want?
How is this related to connectivism? When we see things in isolation instead of in their dynamic and ever-changing context, we lose the life of the thing. We need to see these women and their skills in the context of their community ... capable, connected, vibrant, growing. We need to allow that they know things that we don't. We need to support every effort they make to reach out and connect beyond whatever curriculum or skills we expose them to in the classroom. We need to support them in their independent thinking and acting. EVERYTHING about our teaching needs to be about reaching out and beyond, especially when we're talking about people who haven't had equal access to the privileges of middle-class life. This means giving up control, not trying to create lists and ticky-boxes that presume to encapsulate what "should" be. It means listening, being aware of personal biases and presumptions, allowing learning to emerge, describing instead of prescribing. This is situated literacy, literacy as social practice not just technical skill development.
But what to do when a course needs to be certified by someone (like the ESL one) or needs to fit into an expected curriculum (like the Program Planning one)? Then we may not be able to allow for emergent curriculum the same way, but we still need to find ways of engaging students' minds fully and creatively. The difference between a "learning management system", (even a more enlightened or open one) and something like the software "Twine" or "Diigo", which sorts but doesn't pre-chew, is remarkable. One is linear, teacher-led, didactic; the other is open, chaotic, exploratory. This open, chaotic, exploratory approach engages the mind and is propelled forward by "joy" or "rapture". Each time I go online and discover a new software (as an embodiment of a way of thinking about ideas and information and connections), I want to re-write the modules I've completed. I know I need to meet certain standards and expectations, but - like the literacy checklist - these standards are so painfully dry! They too are "autonomous", disconnected from engaged learning. I know that we (I) can do better.
I found a great article on "New Literacy Studies", which talks about literacy as social practice. I'm going to pull out of it the implications for curriculum development. I'm sure they will reflect the values of the Web 2 world and connectivism (learning is located in the community, in the way it is lived out). I'm hopeful that it'll let me more accurately show all the kinds of learning, skill development and social impacts going on in the housing development as a result of the literacy program. I'm also hoping that I can get closer to a list of "best practices" for the courses I'm developing/teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment