Please answer both questions by this Sunday, 11:59pm
FYI- Read Bruner before Pearson
1.What, in your opinion, is the biggest takeaway for teachers from the Dorner, Lisa, et. al piece (The 2007 piece)?
2. Why do you think Pearson wrote his narrative as an "apology"?
Pearson starts off by stating that he is usually okay with his “role as a member of the radical middle,” but that sometimes he doubts his stance. This is his implicitly stated reasoning for writing a “personal apology.” He says that, usually, not being able to identify with either side means you lack conviction and even describes a person in the middle as too “wishy-washy.” In my opinion, Pearson does not have a problem with his own standing in the middle, and that he writes this “apology” more so as a means to get his point across. As the paper develops, he shows that he does have a strong opinion and conviction in his stance, even though it is in the middle and not one of the extremes. The apology provides Pearson the opportunity to give evidence to why aspects of either position work, but also why neither can work exclusively.
ReplyDeleteI was really excited to see how the Dorner et. al piece would play out. I hadn’t heard the term language brokerage but I have definitely heard of the concept and seen it in real life. I expected that at the end of their study they were going to find language brokering positively correlated with enhanced academic achievement. I was surprised that there was only some notable differences and only in the Math scores; however, I suspect that the results are somewhat affected by the fact that they were based on standardized tests. It would be interesting they used different and/or better methods of measuring academic achievement.
After reading the Dorner, et. al piece, the main message I believe teachers should take from the piece is to encourage their bilingual students to speak both English and whatever their native language is, both in school as well as in their home life. The studies that they site point pretty clearly to a positive correlation between students being ‘language brokers’ extensively at home and their standardized test scores in school, especially when it comes to language comprehension. However, it is important to note that the ‘extensive’ part of that statement is extremely important, since those who act less extensively as translators and interpreters have exhibited negative effects such as stress. So, in taking these things into account, teachers who know their bilingual students play a role in translating and interpreting at home should encourage their students to continue doing so. Also, students who are able to practice and use whatever their native language is at school would then be able to more effectively act as language brokers at home, increasing the positive effects of the practice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Raina’s view of Pearson’s article in that he his ‘apology’ as a way to present his position. When he points out that he often takes the middle road in arguments which is frowned upon by many as lacking conviction, he seems to draw on the implicature of needing to apologize for taking this frowned upon middle stance. But instead he uses his apology to prove that he in fact has a very compelling and convincing stance that truly does lie in the middle of those who argue for phonics and those who support whole language. He weaves pieces of what each side advocates in “fundamental beliefs about reading” to prove that a middle ground can sometimes be the solution, and that they can complement each other rather than be alternatives.
1. Educators should be mindful about the possible influence of certain social practices on a child's cognitive development, and therefore, level of school performance. Although Dorner and colleagues emphasize language brokering as a potential learning tool for higher academic achievement, I think the key point is that "if family members work together on purposeful and challenging translating tasks on a regular basis, children's academic outcomes and development may be enhances." Thus, teachers should think about ways to be more engaged in the students' learning process as partners in the educational system. Instead of "giving" the knowledge to students, it may be more successful to work with them to create and distribute a more comprehensive type of knowledge that is more interactive. It can be beneficial to challenge students in a way that stimulates their critical and creative thinking abilities, which may induce better overall problem solving skills.
ReplyDelete2. The fundamental tenets of Pearson's position in the radical middle demonstrate key contradictions that even he can admit to. Pearson recognizes that the ridicule he receives for not aligning himself with the whole language advocates nor the new phonics group has some merit. He "apologizes" not necessarily for taking his own stance in the middle, but for the lack of distinct clarity in his fundamental beliefs about reading. This narrative is his way of trying to make more concrete his personal reasoning for not wholly agreeing with either group. The personal statements about what it means to be in the radical middle contain numerous inconsistencies about theory and practice. Pearson admits that he chooses to hold his position, because these very contradictions have allowed him to embrace both sides and encourage educational research. He notes that it would be "disastrous" for either side to win, because would limit the field of education to "a single set of tools and practices." So in a sense, Pearson is apologizing for not really having any true convictions that support either side, but he firmly maintains that neither side is superior.
(Joyce Park)
In my opinion the biggest take away for teachers from the Dorner, Lisa et al piece is that literacy practices in languages other than English can have measurable positive results for children. In essence, teachers should not be afraid of multiple languages and demand that English be dominant over all other languages, like in the piece by Richard Rodriguez. Essentially educators should acknowledge these out of school learning experiences and incorporate them in to in school learning and consider how to work with students with bilingual skills to increase their academic outcomes. Ultimately I think this piece shows that teachers should not fear and discredit student’s culture and native language but rather it acknowledge, incorporate, and harness it to improve their students skills. In addition it show that bilingual education and non-English speaking in households can aid children in their journey for education and literacy.
ReplyDeleteI think that Pearson wrote his letter as an apology because of his stance in the “radical middle” and because his position as well-known scholar in the field of literacy and education. His middle role places him on neither side of the new phonics/whole reading debate. He views reading as a interactive process but fears that this debate will end up choosing one practice over another when both have valid practical uses. He also cites that many believe being in the middle ground shows as lacking conviction as both Holly and Raina stated. But I believe it is his position of being in the “radical middle” along with his position as being an influential scholar that makes him apologetic toward his stance. Most have chosen a side, where he has not. Many may look to him for a position; he offers one of the middle ground, joining neither side.
(Joyce Halabi)
1.My main take away from the Dorner piece was that one does not have to (and likely should not) choose between ones mother tongue and the language of ones education. Dorner et all set out to investigate if language brokering had a positive effect on education and may have been somewhat uncertain if there was clear causation. However, what the did seem to demonstrate is that there is no academic downside to language brokering, but there are benefits that remain uncounted in the study that language brokers enjoy. They are bilingual and they are helping their family navigate the dominant language of their current home country.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with much of what has been said about Pearson's article by Renia and Holly. In some ways this text reminds me of Plato’s "Apology" where Socrates “apologizes” for his stance, but actually mostly affirms and defends his stance in the context of an “apology”. To me Pearson is gesturing to those who say that he lacks conviction, whether real or imagined, and saying that he does have convictions that his convictions, as nuanced and in parts inconsistent as they are, are just as strongly held and well developed as those on the ends. At the end of his article one feels he has nothing to apologize for, that while one might see the archetypal “middle” as appeasing or weak willed, Pearson has strong convictions and it is a refusal to compromise that leaves him at a comprise between phonics and whole language instruction. Ultimately Pearson’s apology is an act of defiance to those, including himself, who would call him to apologize for his imagined neutrality or lack of integrity.
-Luke Edwards
1. The biggest takeaway of the Dorner and Lisa piece is the significance and understanding of the interactions that immigrant children have outside the classroom in environments that seem normally unacademic and unhelpful to english language education. A child growing up with parents who do not understand the English Language may be viewed as some instructors as a very poor way to learn english because they are unable to practice the language in a family context. However, because of the language brokering that Dorner and Lisa described, the children are placed in situations where they must deal with more formal forms of English including helping to read documents, mail, and translate for their parents. The result in this may be a compensation of the previous notion of deficiency that teachers may stereotype children who have non-english speaking parents. In fact, those children may develop stronger social cognition skills from broker settings due to having to assist their parents in environments children would not be put in if the parents knew english. Therefore, the takeaway is perhaps a more critical view of the effects of a student having non-english speaking parents and perhaps the potential benefits in unique forms of education and thinking development.
ReplyDelete2. Pearson wrote his narrative as an apology in order to almost use satire to address the polarization and political debate that the battle between whole language and new phonics has become. He enters with an open mindset where multiple things can be good at the same time and not all logic has to be exclusive. He states that he does not understand why one "would want to limit itself to a single set of tools and practices" and that he has "always aspired to the Greek ideal of moderation" (3 Pearson). This sort of undercut presents seems like a critique on the debate itself in why there is a battle between two non-mutually exclusive methodologies. There is happy middle where the two can co-exist much like what he describes as a "balance of nature" where "balance is not a matter of evening the score; instead it is a matter of assembling an array of skills, strategies, processes, and practices that are sufficiently rich and synergistic to guarantee a full and rich curriculum" (4 Pearson). Therefore, the most effective way to represent this logical undercutting is to present it in almost a comedic satirical apology.
Gerald Fong
1. The largest takeaway teachers would receive from the Dorner Article is the idea of how they can use the student’s bilingual ability to create an empowering educational experience for the students. Many people view students that are bilingual to have a disadvantage with their ability to speak and write in English. This is very true especially for families who don’t practice the English language in their everyday lives. However, there are benefits and advantages these students can create through their experience of language brokering. By helping their parents with translation and communication at home, students are subconsciously studying the English language and incorporating a complete different culture into another. With this ability, students will increase their communication skills and have social abilities that wouldn’t have been present if they lived in an English-speaking household. Therefore, teachers must not blockade but rather encourage students to incorporate both languages into their education. Instead of telling their students to focus only on English, teachers can create an empowering experience rather than causing negative consequences such as an identity crisis.
ReplyDelete2. After reading Pearson’s narrative, I found it to be an admission rather than an apology letter. He understands that being in the radical middle can cause problems for both ends, but refuses to choose a side. Regardless of being in lukewarm water, Pearson makes it sound as if he enjoys being in the radical middle. I found this letter unapologetic because he understands the problems of being in the middle yet Pearson doesn’t expect to change. He rather encourages himself to stay in the middle because he can embrace everything from both sides and ultimately enlighten him.
In my opinion, the biggest takeway for teachers from the Dorner, Lisa, et. Al piece is that language brokering should be supported and encouraged, since it brings beneficial and positive outcomes in school achievement and cognitive development. It allows the student to practice and expand their literacy skills at home, which then can be portrayed in school performance tests. Teachers should encourage their students using language brokering to better enhance their academic achievement, because they need to understand that students that use multiple languages allow them to understand things better in English and also in their language. Therefore, not only are they improving in school, but are also helping their families understand the outside world.
ReplyDeleteBecause Pearson is a well-known literary scholar, he apologizes for choosing to be a member of the radical middle. Although many may think he lacks conviction in his decision, he proves that his decision does contain conviction by presenting strong points as to why he chooses to be in the middle. He likes to stand in the middle because it allows him to look at all contradictions, and immerse himself in them by finding ways as to why they work out or not. I agree with Holly, because maybe his stance may be the solution to the debate since it addresses a neutral base to the debates. In my opinion, I don’t think he should apologize for standing in the radical middle because that’s his personal opinion that he feels comfortable with.
1. The 2007 article asserts that bilingual children who participate in “language brokering” observe a positive correlation in academics and test scores. The case studies that the researchers cited in their article were highly interesting, for it indicates that “language brokering,” the act of mediating and translating for family members or friends, should be encouraged in children. Therefore, schools should encourage their students to continue the act of language brokering in their families. I also found it compelling that the researchers found this phenomenon a new kind of “literacy” that “shapes” new ways of thinking (471). These kinds of “active language brokering” students are developing literacy skills by gaining new vocabularies and connotations by understanding the words and implications between two languages; however, at the same time, their cognitive processes are sharpened. Indeed, this idea of language brokering seems very beneficial and should be further researched.
ReplyDelete2. Like most of my classmates before me, I believe that Pearson presents his article as an apology to assert his stance on the issue between whole language and phonetics-based learning. The structure of apology allows him to state his convictions and arguments in a way that contrasts with the seemingly stubborn and unyielding positions of the whole language or phonetics-based proponents. In this way, he comes across rational and calm, and thus, his argument that reading should be learned through both whole language and phonetics comes across very lucid and reasonable. I don’t think Pearson is trying to apologize for being in the “middle ground.” Instead, I think he really feels apologetic that he even has to apologize for saying that whole language and phonetics proponents should balance their approaches in order to help kids learn to read. Nevertheless, perhaps I am projecting my own views onto such a debate, for I wholly agree with Pearson; I think his article is highly rational and sensible.
In Dorner, Lisa, et. al piece presents educators with a common situation in most immigrant households in which children become the translators for their parents. Language brokerage, as the authors call it, is an interesting study that will benefit teachers as they keep in mind of the important cultural roles these kids have in their family. This piece highly encourages students to speak their native language and English at school and at home. These students have shown that it improves their standardized test scores, yet those who do not have such an important roles seem to suffer the effects of stress. The best way to engage these students, the piece claims, is to allow students to think for the answers themselves without it being too hard that they cannot find the solution. Teachers in America should note this method especially if they have bilingual students.
ReplyDeletePearson apologizes in his narrative for taking a middle stance, especially since the “middle” is often seen as too indecisive. Instead, Pearson, almost sarcastically calls it the “radical middle.” His stance, as he argues and presents the pros and cons about the way people approach reading. By taking the middle stance with such confidence, Pearson’s apology therefore functions to make his point. That his radical middle position is what he believes in because if one side won, phonics or whole reading, education would be too linear and limited.
In the Dorner, Lisa, et al piece, the authors conclude that there is a positive correlation between students who act as language brokers and do well academically. For instance in the piece “In Other words: Translating or ‘Para-Phrasing’ as a Family Literacy Practice in Immigrant Households,” the authors give an example of a child, Miguel, acting as the language broker between the school and his mother. In the example, Miguel demonstrates reading comprehension by understanding and paraphrasing a letter from his school into a condensed version so his parent can understand. As explained in the Dorner, Lisa et al piece, students, through active manipulation of language as a means to communicate at both home and school, develop better cognitive skills that allow them to succeed academically. Thus, teachers need to understand this connection and utilize language brokering as a tool to further develop and promote academic success in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteIn the black and white world of reading theory and practices, Pearson stands in the “radical middle.” As a result, he addresses his narrative as an “apology” not for the position he takes but, as both Raina and Holly pointed out, for the seemingly “lack of conviction” he has due to his view. While whole reading emphasizes a top-down approach to reading comprehension by teaching students to first understand the content and ideas of the author before identify individual words, phonics pushes for a bottom-up method by teaching students to decipher and interpret words before addressing the author’s work as a whole. These opposing ideas contradict one another, making Pearson’s ideology in the middle unconventional. Pearson suggests that utilizing both learning styles will enable the reader to have a more well-rounded approach to reading comprehension as the two ideologies will enable the individual to counteract the flaws present in both arguments.
I think the biggest takeaway for teachers from the article is that students who are bilingual and act as “language brokers” should be encouraged to continue and embrace both languages, as this ability has been shown to have a positive impact on test scores and educational development. While every student doesn’t necessarily benefit positively from “language brokering,” teachers should still be cognizant of all students who have immigrant parents/family and engage and stimulate these students (as teachers should do with all students). Dorner and company even say, “…educational researchers and practitioners would do well to recognize and build on these out-of-school learning experiences and consider how to translate the skills of bilingual children to improved academic outcomes” (Dorner 473). The authors do realize that some bilingual students are hindered by this due to pressure of being “in between” cultures and from increased family responsibilities, but they mainly stress that most studies have shown bilingualism is very beneficial to growth, higher level thinking, and self-efficacy. Although research has shown that the amount of language brokering that occurs affects each student differently and that benefits from this are often dependent on social context, relationships, and events, the main point is to demonstrate there is a high probability language brokering aids students in academics and should therefore be encouraged.
ReplyDeletePearson says that he is “a member of the radical middle” (Pearson 1), meaning he doesn’t take sides with the “new phonics” approach, nor the “whole language” one. His main stance on literacy is that students should read interactively and be able to both identify words automatically and understand their contexts through careful attention a text. He apologizes because his ideals, which do not lie more closely with one stance over the other, have garnered some criticism for being indecisive. Pearson realizes that some of his views may be contradictory because he is trying to find a balance between viewpoints.. At the same time, even though this is an “apology,” it is apparent that the author is firm in his beliefs regarding the radical middle and does not regret his ideas in the least.
In my opinion the biggest takeaway for teachers in the Dorner piece, is the importance of language brokering as a contributor to higher test scores. Acknowledging what children do at home and finding a way of incorporating it in the classroom would be beneficial in creating a setting that simulates home while it enables students to thrive academically. In class the issue of asking students to check their culture out at the door has been mentioned, what language brokering brings to light is the potential of using what different cultures experience as a means to different forms of literacy. The example of children helping their parents with their English classes shows that children should not be limited to the role of receptacles as they are able to teach and be taught. At home they are the source of knowledge for translating mail, statements, words, and conversations; the same brokering that is used here could be used to broker between home and the classroom.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons I think Pearson wrote his piece as an apology is that it serves to highlight that what is given too much importance is whether he is on the phonics or whole language argument. In his ability to show the pros and cons of both arguments Pearson not only shows that they are not mutually exclusive but that they compliment each other. His apology seems to be geared at people who would rather he choose sides than to look at what both stances have to offer. Pearson shows that the two stances have the same goal and in this he makes his “wishy washy” stance an acknowledgement of what they both have to offer.
In the Dorner article, I found the concept of language brokers and para-phrasers to be quite insightful. It is important first for teachers to know that language brokers are people, usually children, who regularly help their immigrant families understand the English vernacular and United States cultural practices. Teachers need to understand that active language brokers will tend to have stronger academic outcomes and an increase in development. At the same time, teachers need to take into account that children who are not as active in being language brokers do not see any enhancement in academic outcomes an development. Overall, the biggest takeaway for teachers in my opinion is to become familiar with their students and the role these students play in their families. If teachers are aware of how active language broker students are, they will be able to take advantage of these out-of-school learning experiences to benefit all bilingual students.
ReplyDeleteThe way Pearson wrote his piece is very interesting and creative. I believe he writes this apology as both a way to share his stance along with acknowledging the flaws and the strengths of his outlook. I agree with Jay when he points out that this is not an apology, but more of an explanation of where he stands. Even after addressing all the fundamental beliefs in being in the radical middle he does not express how he wants to change. He seems to enjoy his unique stance, and shares with the reader why his position is hard to accept. I agree with the majority of the class that Pearson basically writes his apology to argue his stance as being the correct one. He creatively lures the reader in to believing that he is apologetic for being in the radical middle, but in reality he is not remorseful at all. In fact, he holds fast to the notion that he lies in the middle of new phonics and being a whole language advocate.
Pearson:
ReplyDeletePearson wrote this as an apology because he was being sassy. He says that being the “radical middle” is seen as wishy washy and indecisive, but goes on to show that really in fact the middle makes sense. He’s not really wanting to debate which theory is best or which is most successful, but rather accepts education and literacy as an ever evolving idea. Debating in favor of only one theory would do no justice to the education system, children, or learning methods. He says “victory for one would be a disastrous outcome”. Therefore he thinks several theories can be applied and have relevancy in the educational context. He believes in the balance of nature, balance is not a matter of evening a score; instead it is a matter of assembling an array of skills, strategies, processes, and practices that are sufficient to guarantee a full and rich curriculum for students. If you’re not in the radical middle, then it’s quite possible you’re an ideological bulldozer. Therefore he holds is ground, in the middle, and is proud of this.
Dorner et al
Dorner looks at how being a language broker for your immigrant and/or non-English speaking family is related to a student’s success in school. The authors point out that translating and navigating the English language system, across cultures, takes a great deal of skill and intelligence. Not only are the translating different languages, they are translating culturally. If you’ve ever had someone translate over a joke from another language, it probably wasn’t funny because it didn’t make sense. These children are piecing culture and language together in a crucial way. The authors find that those who are language brokers do tend to have more success in school than thought. The amount/level of brokering is related to academic success, even in mathematics. Parents’ dependence on their young children for translation skills can actually have a positive effect on them (performance teams).
~Trinity Taylor
This biggest thing to take away from this article is how literacy affects every aspect of life. The author mentions how language is “a tool for navigating in the social world, constructing meaning, displaying identifies, and otherwise accomplishing social goals” (367). Language is something that needs in order to survive. It’s needed to pay bills, to find food, or like Miguel’s case to understand the school dress code. We can easily take for granted how much simpler it is to understand our society because we speak English. These families had to go through so much more to get by. Their kids ended up carrying most of the load since they were the ones who knew English. Often it is difficult to understand what the meaning for one thing in English is for something in Spanish. There are different cultural norms but then they much learn to adapt to a new culture and adapt to the language that fits their new culture as well.
ReplyDeleteAs for Pearson, there are two ideas I have to why he wrote his article as an apology. The first is that he has these beliefs how education should look like. He writes about what education is like now and how it does not match up. He could be apologizing for not implicating his theories more or that it hasn’t spread wide enough to make a dent in the education program. Another idea was that he is apologizing for changing things up so much. He might be apologizing for being too radical and his ideas too far off to change. Maybe he thinks this is too much for people and too much for educators to change
- Cassi Hoyt
From the Dorner, Lisa, et al piece, the biggest takeaway I think is that teachers should not force bilingual students to just exclusively speak English. Teachers should encourage those students take advantages from different languages to enhance their comprehension ability. In their opinion, those so-called “language brokers” bilingual students actually can be benefited by using multiple languages because that will allow students to be more flexibly practice their skills they learn in school. As an international student, I once had an experience when I was studying English in a language school. Teachers tended to force students not to talk in a language other than English in the learning center. This action, however, blocked most students’ communication with others. The students who spoke multiple languages actually tend to have more communication with others because those students showed the advantages of being a bilingualist.
ReplyDeletePearson’s position as a radical middle reader, lacking conviction, leads him to make this apology. In Pearson’s opinion, it is always hard to distinguish which part is right and the other is wrong, like choosing to embrace the whole language or the new phonics. “But I have told you only what I think it means to occupy the position I do, not why I embrace these beliefs”(David Pearson) By this he means to be central to himself, his own understanding of reading different perspectives. Therefore, he would have his own opinions instead of trying to stand out for one side’s opinion. For me, I tend to not accept this ‘apology’. I don’t think Pearson is wrong on this and I think readers should be able to critically analyze different point of views and more importantly to have his/her own view.
1.The Dorner, Lisa, et. al piece uses data from a study conducted in a school in Chicago to illustrate that bilingual students who practice language brokering have certain skill sets that improve their academic performance on standardized tests. This piece suggests that if teachers support their bilingual students' use of their second language both at home and in the classroom they will become more successful students, particularly if they learn to acquire skills of language brokering. The authors of the piece use the data collected during the study and the "zone of proximal development" to illustrate why students who translate at home for family members achieve higher test scores. They explain that the process of translation supports the process of scaffolding, allowing students and their parents to achieve levels of learning that would not be possible on their own, specifically because certain institutions of education do not allow their bilingual students to speak in their native language in the classroom. Although I agree that practice of multiple languages should be encouraged in the classroom and at home, I find this study to be somewhat inconclusive because it is based on the process of standardized testing. I do not believe that standardized testing is an effective way of measuring a student's intellectual abilities, and I think that another method of evaluation would be more insightful.
ReplyDelete2. I believe Pearson wrote his narrative as an "apology" in order to make a statement to those who critique his "role as a member of the radical middle." By writing the narrative in the form of an apology, Pearson is stating in a coherent and organized way, "Sorry that I'm not at all sorry for possessing opinions that seem to some to be contradictory." Pearson is able to present his stance on whole language and phonetics-based learning in such a way that proves to critics that it is not only possible, but also rational, to believe that the two spheres of learning can coexist. The article's format also allows Pearson to provide levity to a serious intellectual debate, that in many ways discredits his work.
1.)
ReplyDeleteSome emphasized arguments in the Brumer piece is for teachers to realize and hopefully stop and think about the facts that drilling and worksheets aren't providing the student with the proper tools to truly understand language structures. She says "reading is not sounding out. But that's what many young students learn from isolated phonics"(15). After the example of Zinke going over a poem in class, the texts states that she "encourages children to recognize syntax they've used unconsciously". This is a valuable tool, Zinke belives,because it will help develop a "reading radar" in each child. They are no longer just reading sounds that have been drilled in their head to remember, but actually asking an important question: does this make sense? We see this as an important factor of methodology with Cordero also. The text states that he "offers phonetic clues, showing [the children]how to weave everything they know about a poem's meaning with their letter sounds to identify a word they might not recognize"(19).
Another simple and yet valuable statistic to remember for teachers is less and less children are reading at home. Don't let this go unaccounted for.
The article leaves readers with an important question: "Is it about curriculum or is it about kids?"(25).
2.)
I think Pearson wrote his narrative as an apology because he associates himself with being in the middle, and also sees people who associate themselves as being in the middle are "too wishy-washy to stand for something of a substance"(347). He admits he is the one associating being wishy-washy or substance-less with being in the "middle". He could be apologizing partly for his "attraction to contradiction" or his "nagging doubts about the strength and quality of our current evidence"(349-350). Overall it seems he has an understanding about the nature and effectiveness of the people "in the middle" but nevertheless associates himself with being there as well, because he cannot pick "sides" because he doesn't want to make learning about being restricted to one or two ways of doing things, so he remains "radically" in the middle.
In my opinion, the biggest takeaway for teachers from the Dorner, Lisa, et. al piece (The 2007 piece) is immigrant families that parents have a lack of English skill of reading, writing, understanding and more. These families from children are helping to translate for adult life to assist family members. In result, they are improving some type of English then academic language education from school. This article from Dorner and Lisa have the language brokering (English) that their children are must deal with a quantity of formal forms of English such as helping to read and translate of documents, mail, activate of their parents and more. In actual fact, they may build up better social cognition skills than children are not in those environments. However, it cannot have only good side of these problems because these children can have stress. My point is an education system should be supported and encouraged children who have non-English speaking parents.
ReplyDeleteI think that Pearson wrote his narrative as an apology since emphasis learning base on between whole language and phonics. In result, he approaches to apologize for that children should learn balance English between whole language and phonetics proponents. I agree with him, that since I learned only whole language system that I cannot read new words, still now. I wish that chance to learn the phonics that I do not have to guess the word pronunciation, any more. However, I do not saying that phonics are only good way to learn. After finish lean phonics then learn the whole language, too because children can learn many and fast to develop new words.
The biggest takeaway, I believe, from the Dorner, et. al piece is to truly understand the strength of being multi-lingual. Introducing the words “language broker” by being pretty much translators at home, the power of being able to speak different languages can be greatly beneficial towards standardized tests, especially if the value of being able to do such a thing is emphasized at home as well as in school. Teachers are encouraged to take advantage of having the presence of multiple languages in the classroom, instead of automatically categorizing them as disadvantaged because they cannot improve one language (that language being the “main” language, according to the school’s standard, which in our case would be English). By helping to translate every day activities for their families, students who are bilingual are subconsciously honing their attainment of the English language. It also better prepares them for facing what the “real world” holds, as stated in the article “being literate in our modern social world requires the ability to navigate multiple literacies”.
ReplyDeletePearson’s article as an “apology” sends out a very interesting message: that it is indeed very “radical” not to take one side or another on an issue, especially this one, which is what is the “correct” approach to reading theory and practice. Pearson’s stance highlights that maybe reading cannot simply be black or white, that you cannot just stand on one the opposite ends of the debate. His “apology” is not necessarily for being in the middle; it is more about why he is in the middle, as it not as a very expected stance. Pearson acknowledges that by being in the middle, there is a clash from points coming from both sides (eg: reading as and individual and social process) but he still stands for the position that reading could be, in fact, a mix of each of the sides.