Session Information
31 SES 06, Literacy - Dimensions and Growth
Paper Session
Contribution
This paper discusses literacy pedagogy in the early years of schooling, with a particular focus on high poverty schools in our current educational contexts. Recent education policy across many international contexts has focused on increased accountability through testing, the standardization of curriculum, and a push back to the basics. And this in a context of rising economic and employment uncertainty for teachers, and also the communities in which they are working (Comber & Woods, in press). Our objective is to investigate the unintended consequences of such policy (Luke & Woods, 2008) in the early years of schooling. The paper draws on data collected over a range of current research projects, all of which have focused on literacy pedagogy and the drive to improve standards (see for example Comber, 2014; Comber & Kerkham, forthcoming, 2015; Woods, 2014; Woods, Dooley, Luke, & Exley, 2013). As such, the paper provides an excellent opportunity to consider implications across contexts.
While many teachers weave relationships and pedagogical choices in highly effective ways, our classroom observations have made visible a worrying trend. We are observing a rise in pedagogical practices that encourage student compliance, and limit challenge, intellectual demand, and ultimately relevant learning. For example, we see long periods of learning time given to copying from the board, colouring-in, and repetition of basic facts. New and old forms of technology are put to work to increase engagement – iPads are used for flashcard, and sit on desks beside printed worksheets and colouring activities. Books are being filled, without sign that the children filling these books are learning anything except how to manage school materials and stay quietly in seats. We have coined the term fickle literacies to define these time filling activities (Comber and Woods, in press). Of course we are not suggesting that there is no place for practice and repetition in literacy lessons – clearly fluency of skills and basic knowledge are vital elements of learning literacy. Our point is that this is not all that is required in a balanced, high quality literacy program (Luke & Freebody, 1999). When the sole focus of literacy pedagogy becomes the achievement of low level skills and independent desk work children are being provided with less than they deserve.
Our observations have recorded many children who seemingly operate happily in these classrooms. The activities require little effort, and often children are left with long periods of time to achieve their own ends while also keeping the teacher happy. The intellectual challenge is low, so attention to other things, is very possible. Attention to the procedural displays of the classroom provide ample opportunity for many students to enjoy the benefits of success. However for those students who resist, or who are made visible as unable to complete these basic tasks, the consequences can be high. For these children, the fact that such pedagogies are being deployed in the first few years of their schooling – perhaps when they are least prepared physically, socially or emotionally for these requirements of compliance - offers them up for identification as failing or having behaviour issues, and in need of special treatment or intervention early in their schooling career. The implications of this can be far-reaching for individual children and their families and communities.
In the paper, we answer the following research question:
What does intellectual demand or lack of intellectual demand look like in early childhood literacy pedagogy?
Our point is to demonstrate the consequences of a fickle approach to literacy pedagogy for a variety of young literacy learners, across a variety of contexts.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Comber, B. (2014). Literacy, poverty and schooling: what matters in young people’s education? Literacy, 48 (3), 115-123. Comber, B. & Kerkham, L. (in press, 2015). Gus: I cannot write anything. In A. H. Dyson (Ed.). Child Cultures, Schooling and Literacy: Global Perspectives on Children Composing Their Lives. New York & London: Routledge. Comber, B., & Woods, A., (in press, 2015). Literacy teacher research in high poverty schools: Why it matters. In J. Lampert & B. Burnett (Eds.), Teacher education for high poverty schools. New York: Springer. Dudley-Marling, C. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 482-490. Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1999). A Map of Possible Practices: further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, 4 (2), 5-8. Luke, A., & Woods, A. (2008). Policy and adolescent literacy. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 197-219). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Woods, A. (2012). What could socially-just literacy instruction look like? In R. Henderson (Ed.), Teaching literacies in the middle years: Pedagogies and diversity (pp.190-207). Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. Woods, A., Dooley, K., Luke, A., & Exley, B. (2014). School leadership, literacy and social justice: The place of local school curriculum planning and reform. In I. Bogotch & C. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and social (in)justice (pp. 509-520). New York, NY: Springer Publishing. Woods, A., & Henderson, R. (2008). The early intervention solution: Enabling or constraining literacy learning. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(3), 268-276.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.