Bringing Non-Academic Literacies into the Classroom

In “Dear Tupac,” Heidi Hallman illustrates an interesting alternative to teaching “at-risk” students. She emphasizes the need to incorporate out-of-class literacies into the academic curriculum. Hallman provides a powerful example of students from a school for pregnant and parenting teens who use hip-hop to practice and improve literacy skills. While I find her argument salient, especially when considering the marginalization and degradation (academic as well as societal) of teen parents, she doesn’t address too deeply a fundamental issue: academic literacy.
In my opinion, Bob Schaefer’s approach, or at least what Hallman reports of it, is not as academically inclined as it should be. The students do have an opportunity to improve their writing skills through journal writing, narrative writing and poetry, but Hallman makes it seem like these exercises are designed more for therapeutic purposes than for academic purposes. While I completely agree that students labeled as “at-risk” youth deserve the opportunity to learn and express themselves in ways more easily afforded to other students, basic skills are still necessary. It is important for students of all levels to “investigate their individual agency,” but they must also be equipped with the knowledge necessary to succeed in school and beyond. Certainly, we must be careful to not drill basic skills and rote memorization into these students’ heads. It is unfortunate that arbitrary standards are what teachers are forced to focus on in the classroom, but sadly, it is what ensures academic and future success.

I think hip-hop is valuable in that it allows students to engage with the things they’re interested in and are most familiar with. But bringing out-of-class literacies and technologies into the classroom also has the potential to be distracting. I don’t mean to impugn the value that out-of-school literacies present. They are of extreme importance when it comes to drawing students into their own learning. But in my opinion, academic learning should still be a central part of the curriculum. In no way do I mean to discredit the value of what Hallman is encouraging teachers to practice. I just wish she had clarified more specifically what was being done to prepare these students for more fulfilling and promising futures beyond school.

Two Birds, One Stone

I found Harvey Daniels’s chapter on letter exchanges between teachers and students to be extremely and surprisingly thought-provoking. It’s really such a simple idea, yet as Daniels cautions, it requires a lot of time and dedication. Nevertheless, Daniels provides a number of examples and explanations that demonstrate just how powerful a strategy letter writing and correspondence could really be.
From what I gathered from Daniels’s argument, the benefits of letter exchange for both teachers and students is twofold.
This form of communication between student and teacher is important for several academic-related reasons. First, it has the potential to teach what strong writing should look like. While it’s important that teachers use less formal, and therefore less distant, language to effectively communicate to their students through their notes, their writing style will ultimately convey to the students what forms of writing are appropriate within an academic setting/correspondence. Second, letter exchanges provide a means by which students could discuss what they understand, don’t understand, like or dislike about the content they are learning. While this shouldn’t replace extra face-to-face help from the teacher, this strategy would certainly illuminate the problems that individual students–or perhaps a group of them–may have in the classroom, thus making it possible for teachers to take further measures to ensure that their students are fully grasping what they need to know.
I guess that in high school, some of my teachers presented me with opportunities for written communication with them via weekly journals. But the emphasis was based primarily on the week’s content and not so much on open-ended musings. Furthermore, the teachers would clearly read through my entries–as I could tell from their markings–but would not provide constructive or particularly valuable comments. I didn’t find this particularly noteworthy then, but I can now see how my teachers may have missed an opportunity to develop a more academically and personally fulfilling relationship with my peers and myself.
That being said, what I found to be Daniels’s most compelling argument for the note-exchanging process is the more personal implication of letter correspondence: the connection that is allowed to develop between a teacher and his/her students. This form of communication allows for personal attention that can enhance a student’s–particularly a shy student’s–level of comfort and confidence. This would be especially important for ELL students who find it difficult to find a voice in the classroom!
Of course, this whole process requires a ton of time and dedication on the part of the teacher. And reading and writing letters will be especially hard when you’re teaching up to five classes a day. Unless an efficient system could be worked out, letter-writing could become extremely taxing. But it is of the utmost importance for teachers to know who they are teaching, what strengths and weaknesses could be focused upon, and what personal issues may require further attention. Daniels concludes with a powerful thought: “Could any teaching act ever be more important” than connecting with a kid who’s in trouble?

A Little Bit about Henry

This is my super awesome post about me.

This is a picture of Henry.

 

My name is Henry and I’m a sophomore at Vassar College. I’m majoring in Urban Studies and Sociology, but am interested in Education and Environmental Studies as well. I’m originally from Anaheim, California and as much as I love Poughkeepsie, it’s always nice to go home to sunny California.

Here’s my first digital story: