Initial reactions to Bartholomae and Petrosky's Course

In Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts: Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course, David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky explain pedagogy and purpose while outlining the format of their integrated reading and writing course. My immediate reaction to most of their reasonings and practices is favorable. I buy into their interpretation of critical pedagogy and composition theory: writing creates meaning, using language enables language use, and incorporating student interest increases student enjoyment.

Beginning with facts from student experience, Bartholomae and Petrosky create a discourse community that is inclusive of diverse student identities. Centering the topic around adolescence seems both topical and approachable to college freshmen. They foster the creation of academic identities through the increasingly challenging work within their seminar course. The movement from facts (students experiences) to creating artifacts (the students' written work) to the critical counterfacts (the teachers comments, class discussions of student papers) allows students to begin to understand the work of an expert in academia: composing from personal experiences, generating ideas through classroom discussions, and situating themselves within established academic discourses.

However, I imagine that co-teaching this course could go either way: well or to hell. Depending on the pedagogical practices and personality of your co-teacher, I think co-teaching could become problematic. At the same time, I do see how having two sets of readers will benefit students. I wonder if this course would be better suited to a full-time faculty professor plus a graduate student to T.A. the course. I could see how including a graduate student would lend another perspective to the course work. Along with creating a more approachable intermediary for students, graduate students are in the unique position of bridging the work of a student directly to the work of an academic, which may be helpful to freshmen who are unfamiliar with university.

My favorite technique they include in their course is the creation of terminology, negotiating and defining what terms are important to their study of adolescence. I also enjoy that they then use students own work as a text, further giving students confidence through the process of publishing and having classmates read their work. Also, the increasing responsibility of students to facilitate discussions is something I enjoy and see as vital to the development of student discourse practices. I will steal all of these, or, as a friend labels it, add them to my "sponge list."

Competence-based 3 Week Unit Plan

Day 1: Course and Unit Introduction

• introduce syllabus focused on learning objectives (15 minutes)
• sketch out student and teacher expectations (15 minutes)
• discuss course trajectory, what will be covered and why (5 Minutes)
• Beginning brainstorming through quick writes or drawing on how students approach writing an essay, group and class discussion if time
• Homework: Read an article about writing, Murray's "All Writing is Autobiography"

Day 2: Reading about Writing

• Have students free/quick write for five minutes before breaking into small groups (5 minutes)
• Ask students to discuss if they agree or disagree with Murray's ideas (20 minutes)
• After 20 minutes, bring class back together and discuss further (25 minutes)
• Homework: Students find an article about different writing processes (perhaps from an author they enjoy, or from an academic database)

Day 3: Writing about Writing to Other Writers

• Ask students to write a letter to a peer about the article they found, explaining why they chose it, what it says, and if they use similar writing processes (10 minutes)
• Students exchange letters and discuss as pairs, multiple times. (20 minutes)
• Come back together as a class and discuss the letters and the different writing processes, perhaps introducing any processes not covered by the students (20)
• Homework: Students take the letter they wrote and the ideas discussed, and write a letter to the composition teacher about their typical approach to writing a paper

Day 4: Thinking about Writing

• Students turn in letters to the teacher
• In-class discussion of: writing as thinking, thinking as learning, and, therefore, writing as learning. (20 minutes as a class)
• Asking for personal experiences of writing classes, papers, difficulties (small groups-10 min)
• Exploring the purposes for writing: why we write and the forms we use (small groups-10 min)
• Exploring what small groups discussed and contextualizing the importance of academic writing  (20 minutes)

Day 5: The Writing Prompt 

• Discussing the writing assignments objectives: to discuss the student's personal writing process in the context of academic and social writing, using personal examples and academic sources. (10 minutes)
• Coming up with class objectives together while discussing tactics for writing and researching (20 minutes as a group, 20 minutes as a class and creating a rubric)

Day 6: Brainstorming and Resource Gathering

• Start with a quick write about a random topic, then ask students to write on a topic of their own choosing. (5 minutes for each)
• In small groups, students discuss how they brainstormed (writing, outlining, listing, clustering, thinking, etc) and which topic was easier to write on (25 minutes)
• As a class, discuss importance of connecting with your idea, finding personal interests and connections to topics as a way to develop your thoughts (20 min)

Day 7: Drafting and Revising

• Return student letters with comments and questions and suggestions for their writing process, asking them to consider if they will change or use the same approach to writing this assignment (10 minutes, reading and then a small reflection for their own thinking)
• Discuss drafting, organizing, how revising can be a continuous process and should focus on structure and content--not proofreading (40 min)

Day 8: Editing

• Last step of editing (10 min)
• Peer-editing practice (30 min)
• Self-editing strategies (10 min)

Day 9: Reflection on the Prompt

• Papers are due
• Ask students to spend 20 minutes reflecting on their writing process of this paper, considering the letter and class discussions
• Attach letter to the paper
• Begin discussing next unit for the remainder of class

Assessing Competence, Chapter 8

In The Discovery of Competence, Kutz, Groden, and Zamel redefine literacy, learning, language, and how we teach composition. Accordingly, how we assess student's writing must necessarily change as well. Based on their sociocultural approach to student competence and the emphasis on discussion, Kutz, Groden, and Zamel view teachers and students as part of a inquiry-based learning environment that necessitates assessment as a continual conversation between teacher and student. 

Assessing students through authentic communication:

1. Students write "to" their teacher, not simply "for" the teacher.
2. Teachers respond to student writers as listeners respond to speakers in normal conversation: synthesizing, restating, inquiring, suggesting, and understanding ideas.
3. Introducing and including students in academic discourse by encouraging conversations about composition between teacher and student.
4. Using letters! Students writing to teachers and teachers writing to students. 
5. Also, students writing and responding to other students. Exchanging letters that analyze writing and increase students' metacognition of their composition strategies.
6. When teachers respond as readers, they create a shared understanding with students.
7. Discussing learning objectives of specific assignments with students, acknowledging and incorporating students prior knowledge by talking about each composition's goals and how we might approach the writing task. 
8. Negotiating the course's learning goals. Students may expect teachers to assess and focus on correct grammatical and structural forms. Instead, sharing the view of learning language as learning how to communicate.  
9. Negating traditional roles of teacher and student: viewing teachers and students as collaborators in the knowledge construction. 
10. Using portfolios: a collaborative, conversational form of assessment that increases engagement with learning. Allows students to view composition as a continual, conversational, and creative process. 

Competence-Based 15 Week Course

Unit 1: Weeks 1-3

In a class based in Kutz, Groden, and Zamel's ideology from The Discovery of Competence, equipping students with a problem-solving approach to personal learning functions as the foremost priority. To increase student engagement with class topics, texts and papers would focus on the connections between sociocultural communities and academic discourse communities. During the initial weeks of class, class objectives and learning goals (for students as individuals and the class as a discourse community) would be established through personal paragraphs and class discussion. Reading articles about reading and writing strategies and processes would attempt to increase students’ metacognition of their own writing processes. The first unit would conclude with a four-page paper of students’ personal analysis of their approach to academic reading and writing. The prompt would asking students to discuss their writing process, identify an area they would like to improve, and decide on strategies to test out as they work toward their learning goal.

Unit 2: Weeks 4-6

Establishing the importance of critical thinking and rhetorical reading strategies, students would be presented with a societal “problem” and asked to think and discuss on it in class and in writing. For example, if the topic was personal freedoms, students would find, establish, and discuss a connection to their personal lives. Course readings from varying voices and historical contexts within the academic and societal discussions of personal freedoms would broaden student's perspectives on the topic, encouraging further individual research coming in the next unit. A narrative would develop out of student's initial paragraphs, ending with a four-page paper on student’s personal connections to the course topic.

Unit 3: Weeks 7-9

Continuing students’ introduction into the academic community, this unit would focus on individual research on the course topic. Students would be given the tools to access academic journals, articles, and research. Rhetorical reading strategies would encourage critical analysis of information. The focus would be on transforming the previous unit’s personal narrative/discussion on the topic into a research-based paper: identifying the importance of personal opinions in encouraging interest and engagement with academic topics. Introducing formal research paper structure and style, students would have their first opportunity at writing in a conventional academic context—unlike previous informal and less-structured prompts.

Unit 4: 10-12

In this unit, students would have the freedom to decide on their own topic for research, based on personal interest. Organizing the class into small groups would allow students to support one another during the research process: sharing strategies, discussing various road blocks and solutions, asking questions about each other’s topics and theories, providing feedback on drafts, et cetera. A final research paper would be required (using original sources found by students), along with a response to each group members’ essay. This response is focused on furthering the conversation, not assessing peers essays. The learning objective is to increase student ability in instigating discussion and also continuing discourse through engagement with others’ ideas.

Unit 5: 13-15

The final unit would be focused on compiling a portfolio to show student progress. The teacher would have provided consistent, in-depth feedback on student writing throughout the semester. Students would be asked to review the teacher’s questions and suggestions along with any peer reviews, and then revise each research paper. The objective would be on incorporating feedback into improving writing, while also encouraging self-editing and revision. Student work becomes the course “text” where students must critically read and respond to their own writings.

The first paper on personal reading and writing strategies would be revisited. The final prompt would ask students to reflect on their first essay and chart their progress over the semester in their (hopefully increasing) comfort and confidence when using language—speaking, listening, responding, reading, and writing. The final result would be a portfolio including: the original learning goal essay, one personal narrative connecting to the course theme, two revised research papers, and a final reflective essay—allowing students to be critically and analytically aware of their own learning styles and strategies.

Chapter 5 "Curriculum as a Framework for Discovery"

Kutz, Groden, and Zamel conceptualize curriculum as an environment for learning. By not looking at curriculum as a set text or agenda, we are able, as teachers, to create learning environments focused on discovery, both for students and ourselves! Set curriculum can limit teachers own engagement with learning, removing the focus from thinking about and incorporating critical pedagogy to the trap of traditional classroom composition lessons. But, just as students benefit from a Socratic and inquisitive approach to learning, teachers profit from constant questioning, assessment, and reconfiguration of their own pedagogical practices.

As such, Kutz, Groden, and Zamel have redefined composition curriculum into a framework for discovery. Language does not develop thinking; rather, meta-cognition and critical thinking about language--that creates meaning through language--develops students' ability and accuracy in language use. Composition becomes the means for communication. Our curriculum goals are no longer a necessarily flaw-free compositions, but compositions that communicate meaning. 

This concept of curriculum allows for interaction between teachers and students in the pursuit and creation of new knowledge through communication. Both teachers and students are transformed by collaborative learning. Our language becomes the means for learning, not just a set curriculum of what one "should" know. Destroying the concept of curriculum as guidelines allows teachers and students to create social, dialectical communities, posing problems and discovering solutions to the questions that are meaningful to their lives and interests. 

These environments include:

• exposure to a variety of language forms in a structured (but not static) environment
• topics that allow students to construct meaningful knowledge
• interdisciplinary practices and concerns
• multicultural content as validation for students' diverse backgrounds
• strong connections to the real world, when the work done in class holds purchase in students' lives, and the students' experiences bring new ideas into the classroom

The Discovery of Competence and Goen's IRW Principles

I see much similarity between the ideals set forth in The Discovery of Competence and Goen's principles in founding SFSU's Integrated Reading and Writing course. Both focus on the sociocultural aspects of learning. Students' prior knowledge is recognized and incorporated into the classroom, where they build connections between the sociocultural communities they live in and the academic communities they now access through class and compositions. Both centralize the importance of meaning-building activities, where language--writing, speaking, and listening--is used to construct knowledge and communicate in purposeful, pertinent contexts.

Remedying Remedial by Cognition of Competence

Kutz, Groden, and Zamel's dynamic approach to teaching language turns the standard, repetition-focused approach to remediation on its head. Viewing language and writing as the means for thinking, researching, discussing, and creating new knowledge differs greatly from the traditional approach of imitation and information, where producing correctly composed writing is the only goal. Instead, Kutz, Groden, and Zamel construct a curriculum framework that promotes cognitive skills and understanding through the practical, purposeful, problematic, and pervasive use of language in all its forms: speaking, listening, and writing. They propose creating classrooms that become environments conducive to learning, where active learning leads to literacy, fluency is the ability to communicate ideas and problem-solve solutions to questions students pose themselves, and teachers no longer view students as deficient. Kutz, Groden, and Zamel attempt to alter this view of remedial classes through the lens of language acquisition: students do not lack knowledge or capability in using language. Thus, teachers must help students construct more complex understandings of language upon their innate prior knowledge, using writing as a learning process.

Authorial Perspective

In their book, The Discovery of Competence: Teaching and Learning with Diverse Student Writing, Eleanor Kutz, Suzy Q. Groden, and Vivian Zamel begin their reworking of how we frame, define, and teach language with an anecdote. I was immediately drawn into the parallelism between Groden's story of the starlings and the students we teach. I agree with their working thesis that we must learn alongside our students, removing the barriers created by walls and simplistic writing, as to move towards the freedom of sky and the construction of meaning through learning and language: critiquing readings, conversing on important topics, and fostering forms of composition that increase students' academic buy-in.

Moreover, part of Kutz, Groden, and Zamel's writing and researching purpose is in the discussion of personal stories and narratives and how they are integral to our understanding of language by creating meaning in the context of personal communities and conversations. Similarly, I see the problem of assigning personal narratives. Kutz, Groden, and Zamel's analysis of Alison and Jean's narrative essays demonstrates that not all students will be able to connect the assignment to a deeper meaning and personal thought process behind their narration. Alison is somewhat conscious of her thinking in her essay, writes in a more conversational form, and is more successful in her composition course due to her budding cognition. On the other hand, Jean is used to a more formal type of writing, so that her conversation is geared solely towards her teacher as the sole audience. Here, we can see how Kutz, Groden, and Zamel came to the conclusion that learning relies on student construction of meaning within and outside the classroom.

That said, I would want to include personal narrative in my course. But, I would take Kutz, Groden, and Zamel's advice and specifically frame the assignment in an open ended fashion, hopefully fostering creativity and personal purpose. I agree with their idea that students need to bring their personal knowledge into the classroom, building bridges between their real world experiences and the academic research and writing they perform in school. Using narrative forms can function as a helpful, acculturating process for cognitive and composition constructions between diverse discourse communities.

Comments on blogs

When commenting on blogs, I think the rule of thumb should be to balance praise, questioning, and critique. 

I think the most helpful comments are those that first point out one thing the writer did well (giving them a "strength" to focus on continue to use and rely on) as the commenter then questions or critiques the blogger's argument or interpretation. 

However, I do not think praise is always necessary. If you are responding with an idea to a question or furthering the blogger's discussion, praise may not be needed. Only when you are going to critique their reading/interpretation should you first pull out something that you did agree with or like in their post. 

I believe this will encourage every one to maintain a positive perception of blogging. Also, it gives us practical experience in providing positive feedback to "students" while we are also commenting on their compositions (blogs). 

Blog Grading

A "C" blog:

1. Summarizes the article
2. Answers a straight-forward question the reading discusses
3. Readable
4. Standard English/ appropriate blog language
5. Shows awareness of audience (addresses the class)
6. Lengthy enough to address and answer the question or prompt

A "B" blog:

1. Shows understanding of and engagement with the reading
2. Poses own question from the reading
3. Provides thoughtful reflection on readings
4. Clear and coherent
5. Appropriate register/tone / appropriate blog language
6. Includes links or resources to other readings when appropriate
7. Shows awareness of audience (addresses the class).  Encourages conversation with and among the class.

An "A" blog:

1. Shows understanding of and engagement with reading by connecting it to own knowledge, constructing new meaning/interpretations/questions
2. Poses own question about the reading and tries to answer it, hopefully encouraging further discussion 
3. Synthesizes multiple readings when appropriate/necessary
4. Posts may make connections to previous blog posts and current posts from other students/interacts with other posts
5. Incorporates images or other forms of media when necessary
6. Appropriate register/tone / appropriate blog language / individual voice (not formal or academic, yet thoughtful and coherent)
7. Includes useful links or resources to other readings when appropriate

Notes on a typical syllabus

I think the formatting of the syllabus is a little dense. I feel like replacing the long and descriptive paragraphs with bullet points (and perhaps italicize or bold the most important points) could make this syllabus easier for students to glance at and pull out the important information.

I truly appreciate the section on "Student Responsibilities" because it sets the students up as accountable members of the classroom community.

The "Course Objectives" section is my absolutely favorite part. I wish all course syllabus so clearly stated their pedagogical philosophy and what goals the teacher has set for students to achieve by the end of the semester.

I approve of the attempt at balance between daily topics of grammar, writing strategies, and reading. However, an emphasis on critical reading is not obvious, so I would make rhetorical reading strategies a stated focus in some of the daily topics.

I also find it problematic to assign mid-term and final exams. I attended a college where testing in literature and composition courses was not as common as mid-term papers and final papers, even "take-home tests" were more common than an in-class test. I do see some value in teaching students to write in-class, answering exam questions that they will see in other college course work. However, I would not count the tests as a mid-term or final. Rather, I would re-title them and assign them less weight on the total course grading scale.

Rhetorical Context of Remedial Courses and the Implemetation of Integrated Reading and Writing

Sugie Goen and Helen Gillotte-Tropp discuss the context of changing conceptions and perceptions of remedial classes at CSU Campuses in their article, "Integrating Reading and Writing: A Response to the basic Writing 'Crisis,' " as to discuss the cultural and educational factors that built towards SFSU's creation and implementation of a year-long integrated reading and writing course. The goals of the integrated reading and writing program were to: integrate instruction of reading and writing to show and strengthen their correlation, allow time to create a discourse community to aid learning, develop literacy strategies that are learned in meaningful and increasingly complex academic situations, increase academic membership within the college campus by removing the stigma and the course-planning strain on "remedial" students, introduce a sophisticated curriculum and support students within it, and work towards purposeful communication where students use rhetorical reading strategies to engage in meaningful reading and writing that constructs new understanding or knowledge, while remaining authentic to their lives.

In her article, "Critiquing the Need to Eliminate Remediation: Lessons from San Francisco State," Goen-Salter discusses the results of SFSU's implementation of this integrated reading and writing program. The IRW program students, "had higher retention rates, completed the remediation requirement sooner and in greater numbers, scored similarly to or higher on measures of reading comprehension and critical reasoning, received higher ratings on their writing portfolios, and exited the program better able to pass the next composition course in the requires sequence" (88). Furthermore, she uses the success of the SFSU program to critique other CSU institutionalization of basic skills courses, and point towards a possible solution in preparing teachers to use an integrated reading and writing approach to basic skill instruction and remediation.

These two articles definitely expanded my previous view of remedial courses at the college level. I think I had similar goals of providing a space for students to increase their confidence and capability in integrated reading and writing strategies, but the articles provided more specific vocabulary (such as integrated) and practical research, results, and goals to incorporate into my thoughts on remedial courses. 

I have lingering questions on what types of readings would benefit students most in these courses; and, on the practical side, what daily strategies are used to meet the six goals Goen and Gillotte-Tropp outline for the year long course. 

A Return to Basics to Build Comfort and Capability within College Courses

When contemplating the creation of a remedial course syllabus, my instinct is to return to basics. Solid foundations of understanding allow students to move onto more complex work, but only after they have fully developed basic skills, such as active reading, critical thinking, researching, thesis building, outlining, paragraphing, citing, editing, and proofreading. The course's goal would be for students to develop solid understanding of these basic skills, allowing them to comfortable and capably engage with various areas of academia and research.

The Look and Books

I would structure the course around the student's needs. For the first day, I would have the students tell me what they know about each of the aforementioned concepts, either as a class or in small groups. This gives them a chance to share their collective knowledge. Based on their response, I would spend more time on more challenging skills as the course progressed. 

I would structure the class around a very general theme, such as growing up. Providing them with some examples of coming of age journeys: a bildungsroman novel (perhaps My Antonia or Great Expectations, depending on course length), at least one poem (perhaps "The Shoe Box" by W.S. Di Piero), and a few articles and essays (such as a psychology research article on adolescence, maybe an education or composition article on how young people learn, or a current news article/think-piece about youth culture). I would have their compositions engage at least one literary text and article we read with a source they find themselves.

The Skills

I would cover all the basic concepts I listed in the introduction. I would start with critical thinking and active reading, work in researching outside sources when composing essays, brainstorm strong and specific thesis statements, discuss the importance of organizing by using outlines, and then detail and model the writing process (paragraph structure, correct citations, when/how to edit and then proofread, including explanation and exercises on strong grammar practices).

The Atmosphere

I would try to encourage a collaborative and open atmosphere. Students will be challenged to think critically as they encounter new materials and decide how they can relate it to their life experience and relay the information to others. A class where questions are required, discussions a daily practice, writing a habit (either in notes or short responses, online and in-class), and students are encouraged to develop an academically oriented mindset. 

Ready or not, here comes College!

Starting college can feel like a game of hide and seek: the terror of being found out as not good enough at hiding... One's deficiencies, that is.

Transitioning into a college level class presents various challenges to all students. High schools traditionally structure forced accountability into their classes: attendance, detention, remedial classes, parent-teacher conferences, report cards... However, college students operate at a more autonomous level. You choose your class schedule, you make yourself go to class and you have to find help when you are failing.

Many freshman are not academically prepared for the challenge of college work. College students of all majors must be proficient at understanding and communicating through reading and writing. So what do we do with students who are weak writers? Who have never read an academic paper before? Who have never been asked to critically understand an article or formally communicate an interpretation?

We must provide classes that teach these essential skills.

Whether their high school education failed to prepare them or they are English-language learners or they struggle with learning disabilities, all students deserve the opportunity to pursue a college-level education. Universities must fund, staff, advertise, and sometimes even require students to seek counseling and help from remedial resources such as basic skill classes, tutoring centers, and community college programs that will aid their transition to higher education.

That said, this is college. Students are autonomous adults who must make the choice to attend class and seek help when necessary. If remedial courses at a four-year university do not help, that student perhaps should attend a community college. But start by advertising student resources, and the motivated will seek them out.

We cannot assume that all students will begin college with equal competence levels in reading, writing and communicating. But we cannot exclude the students who have struggled. Instead, let universities provide tools that will encourage and ensure that their struggles become their successes.

The Much-More-than-Marginal Importance of Notes in the Margins

While reading "A Historical Perspective on Reading Research and Practice," I found myself constantly underlining, circling and writing in the margins. I focused on the big ideas of the piece, such as the theorists who influenced the eras of literacy education, the emerging theories and practices, even assessing my opinions and experiences of applicable approaches. When I went back to write my annotation, much of my summary came from the notes I had made.

Consequently, if I explained the importance of taking notes and writing annotations to students, I would explain how both practices encourage active reading. Notes and underlining require you to pause and pull out important ideas, taking a moment to reflect on the information and theories you encounter and placing them in context of your prior knowledge. Afterwards, annotating articles forces you to go back and synthesize the information you read. To get students to annotate, I would either assign a sample annotation as homework, or point out the use of annotations as study tools. To get them to bring the article to class, I would ask them to share their notes and note-taking strategies using the hard copy versus just reading online. The findings would definitely show that having a hard copy to write on encourages constant and creative note-taking, where reading on a computer has too much potential for distraction. Although, there may be programs that would allow for similarly meaningful note-taking on a computer. Hopefully, this would increase their active engagement with academic readings by giving them tools to unpack the articles.

How We Talk About Literacy: A Short History

In their article, "A Historical Perspective on Reading Research and Practice," Patricia A. Alexander and Emily Fox trace the progression of reading research and theories, identifying how different schools of thought affected the portrayal, practice and pedagogical approach to literacy. Recognizing that the development of literacy studies is an increasingly integrated field, Alexander and Fox still organized the research on reading into five eras: Conditioned Learning (1950-1965), Natural Learning (1966-1975), Information Processing (1976-1985), Sociocultural (1986-1995), and Engaged Learning (1996-Present). Within each era, pertinent personages, philosophies, and psychological theories are identified and discussed in the context of reading research and findings. Alexander and Fox then present the "resulting principles" of the era's research on teaching literacy, including the conflicting and subversive schools of thought within the dominant domains.

The Conditioned Learning Era was influenced by socioeconomic factors when the 1950's baby boom inundated schools with more students, who were competing on a global scale. The traditional theory of reading changed: phonetics challenged the effectiveness of the "look-say method" of reading. Furthermore, Skinner's research permeated from psychology into reading theory. Behaviorism's impact on education created a skill-based curriculum, where students were "conditioned," or trained, to learn. This guiding principle defined knowledge as a commodity to be consumed by students, where the role of a teacher was to train students in acquiring ideal reading behaviors. Concurrently, alternative views on reading developed, such as William James' theory of human learning relying on individual introspective abilities and the Gestalt theory that understanding comes through comprehension of wholes.

The Era of Natural Learning shifted the focus from human behavior to human intelligence. Noted linguist Chomsky particularly influenced this era, which incorporated his theory of language as a natural process. Psycholinguistic researchers moved away from behaviorism, viewing it as a road block to our ability to communicate and devalued the aesthetic aspects of language. Chomsky's theory assumes that humans are pre-programmed to learning language, leading theorists of this era to conceptualize learning as a natural process reinforced through meaningful use of language (rather than behaviorism's read and repeat, skill-focused theories and practice). Psycholinguists further developed Chomsky's oral language theories into literacy theories, where people are predisposed to reading. This era was formative in grouping together the language arts of reading, writing, listening and speaking into what we call "literacy." The resulting shifts within this era led to understanding learners as active participants in their literacy, where constructing meaning increases comprehension.

However, these theories also instigated a rival view of literacy through cognitive science and artificial intelligence research, where a parallel was drawn between the ways computers were programmed with how students understood language based on visual marks and predicting outcomes. This became the Era of Information Processing, where cognitive psychology mixed with reading research to create new theories on how students process information. Immanuel Kant's philosophy framed the research by distinguishing sense (perception of the world) from intelligence (understanding of the world through reasoning). The information process defined reading as the mind's processing of symbols into information, and emphasized the importance of prior knowledge or "schema" that provide building blocks that are integral in the creation of new knowledge. During this era, the naturalistic perspective was a rival force in literacy research, focusing on the aesthetic value of text versus the information processing emphasis of rationale value.

The Sociocultural Learning Era introduced a constructivist theory of literacy due to the less than ideal outcomes of cognitive and computer based practices. The former theories did not account for the different skills acquired in differing environments; accordingly, the sociocultural learning era aimed to include ethnographic and quantitative modes of inquiry. The constructivist form of learning relies on social interaction between students and teachers, creating mutual understanding with respect to the environments we inhabit: homes, schools, jobs and other social settings. In practice, literary teaching methods moved towards collaborative experiences and exercises, where the learners were active participants in learning communities, bringing informal knowledge into their formal schooling and recognizing its ability to aid along with the occasional tendency to hinder student learning. This era placed teachers as part of scaffolds, guiding students from social interchanges and explanations towards autonomous learning.

Currently in literacy studies, the "Era of Engaged Learning" is influenced by the changes in textual formats and structures. With the creation of nonlinear texts, the focus shifts to the learners: their interests, goals, beliefs, self-motivation, and participation. The motivation theory holds that students are engaged and motivated life-long readers and knowledge seekers, using both traditional and emerging types of media. In this, there is a strategic processing of readers in their reflection, choice and use of texts. There is an increasing shift towards interdisciplinary practices of literacy and using technology to teach reading and writing, forcing us to rethink and conceptualize our definition of literacy.

With all these theories contradicting and borrowing and building off each other, Alexander and Fox point out that there is no easily defined general practice or theory of literacy. Instead, the focus moves away from what theory works best for all, to what theory works best for an individual.

Teaching Active Readership

Teaching the role of an active reader as presented in Cees Van Woerkum article, "The Active Reader: What is Active?" would benefit students' understanding and (hopefully) motivation when tackling various texts. However, the article itself may be too dense or theory-oriented for students to easily digest individually. 

If I were to teach this article to a class, I would first have the students quickwrite a brainstorm of how they choose, read and use a given text. Afterwards, I would have them share their brainstorms in small groups, focusing the discussion on their diverse chosen texts and then an academic article. When we came back together as a group, I would ask them to discuss their findings and place them within the set up of Woerkum's "active reader" stages. On the boards, I would place three sections: Before, During and After. I would list the main sections and definitions of each.

For example, under "During" I would write: 

1. contextual frame/anticipation--readers gather cues from the title and introduction that they use to frame the following information based on prior knowledge and contexts in their mind

2. ongoing inferences--readers use existing knowledge (schemas) to connect with and add meaning to information

3. internal pacing--the speed at which a reader chooses to consume given parts of text, allowing for reflection or critique."

Going through each stage as a class, we would discuss their own findings and place them within the framework of Woerkum's article. 

Ideally, I would hope the students would have come up with many of the same reading practices. But, realistically, this would also be an opportunity for students to identify areas for improvement in their reading practices and provide strategies to increase literacy. 

If time, I would have a short text we would read through together, discussing and practicing each stage of being an active reader. For reinforcement, I would assign an article that they would individually read as conscious "active readers," afterwards writing a short response on how implementing the techniques of Woerkum influenced their experience reading and their resulting comprehension. 

Literacy Narrative

I have always loved stories, but I was not a natural at reading them.

For the first half of my elementary school career, I struggled with motivation for reading, mostly because I failed to comprehend the stories I read. Looking back, I am sure there are a variety of reasons I just did not see as to why I began to be a better reader in the third grade. The factors I can identify were: an amazing teacher who I spent one-on-one time with all her students, emotional challenges in my home life that encouraged me to escape elsewhere, and the discovery of a book that simply held personal enjoyment for me. I read my first "novel" simply for the sake of reading it: not for school, not for a grade, but because I was enthralled in the story. 

I formed a personal connection with the text, something that I believe is integral to encouraging student literacy.

Thus began my love of literacy. 

With an increasing voracity for reading, my vocabulary knowledge strengthened, my critical thinking skills were utilized... but I cannot say that my spelling improved all that much. But I found that I did not have to be the best at reading to have a passion for it. I was able to tear down the whole construct of being a "perfect student" and instead began learning because I enjoyed the subject. This continued into high school and college, where my math and science "literacy" took a back seat to the literature I would read, both inside and outside of class. 

Many important moments that nurtured my growth as a reader happened during my sophomore English class. I read books I hated, books I adored and a few books that I was indifferent about finishing. The common factor: while reading each book, I participated in lively, challenging, engaging, frustrating, critical and complex discussions about the themes and morals from each story. 

I think what really makes me love literature is the inherent quality of communication. People write to form connections with their readers through the transfer of text, and we, as readers, read the text to comprehend and feel that connection. I love literature and want to help increase the literacy of others because I enjoy communicating with others, and believe all should have the same capability of constructing these ever-present, invaluable connections.  

Introduction

When offered a reward, most kids would ask for ice cream. 

I asked for a pencil. 

I loved stationary ever since I could hold a crayon or fold paper by myself. I would carry around a little book even though I did not know how to read yet...

But I was not born a natural reader or writer: my letters were consistently backwards until first grade, I was in the 37^th percentile of spelling on standardized tests, and my reading comprehension was all but nonexistent. 

Then I reached third grade. 

I found a book I loved to read. 

I had a teacher who pushed me to read for comprehension, not just content. 

I began to write with all those pencils and papers and notebooks I had collected. 

As reading and writing increasingly became a passion, so did teaching. I enjoyed helping others, and slowly realized that I comprehended concepts in a more meaningful manner after I had explained them to another student. In high school, I began to participate in transformative class discussions about literature. These dialogues challenged my own values, honed my critical thinking skills, and increased my ability to communicate. I knew then that I wanted to study literature in college.

As I completed my undergraduate degree in English Literature at UC Santa Cruz, I added a minor in education. Never have I ever been more depressed or determined to become a teacher than when I sat discussing the deplorable state of public education after defunding and education reforms and the list goes on and on and on. Depressed about the past that I could not change, but determined to teach so that I could affect the future of public education.

Both my parents were teachers, so my eyes were open as I entered the teaching field. Still, I wanted some practical teaching experience before I took further steps toward completing a teacher-training education. For two years, I was an afterschool and substitute teacher, and, oh, did I learn. I knew I had chosen a career that is both a challenge and a joy. So here I am, continuing the journey.