Reading Response for Class on 3/21

Paul Roswell, Artifactual Literacy 

I enjoyed the central focus of this chapter, the idea that artifacts or objects can hold meaning and, when utilized, can prompt student writing and response. I remember making "memory boxes" or "personal time capsules" in earlier grades, having to shove items into a brown paper bag and later explain their meaning. It was interesting to discover the stories I remembered, stories which often involved such ordinary, everyday objects. I agreed with Roswell's quote that, "Literacy is always shaped by the social context in which it occurs." When writing a piece, outside influences like the writer's experiances and memories often come through. This forms a deeper connection with the piece of work.

This chapter discusses literacies, similarly to what we've dabbled with in class, involving many different scripts and medias. I appreciate that these artifacts, or artifact activities, bring in more than one literacy. The idea of storytelling branching from these objects is neat. I've always been a storyteller myself, so much so that my friends used to recognize me for it in high school. There's a connection that's formed, not only with the writer, but also with the audience, when a significance that isn't quite so obvious is revealed. People have more in common than they think, and these artifacts is a great way to reveal that. In a diverse classroom, this activity would be great. Even if students bring in unfamiliar objects, there is always that opportunity for a peer to speak up and say, "Oh, I remember something like that," or "Oh, my family does the same thing!" 

The idea of multimedia literacies is something I experienced a lot in schools. We were allowed to create pictures, videos, songs, stories, poems, etc. for our projects and it was nice to have so much choice. I believe this is valuable in schools because it covers so many of the multiple intelligences and fits so many different types of learners. Roswell's idea, that texts begin to "look different" when multi-literacy is brought in, may also help students struggling with english or reading, ELL students or students who have simply fallen behind. By bringing in ideas and memories and objects from everyday life, all students are able to engage and connect, enhancing their work. 

I, personally, love the idea of considering the "everyday" and its complexity. Though it might not seem it, simple objects mean more than we think. Selecting artifacts and writing in response can challenge students to consider possibilities that might not be as straightforward as they're used to. 

Danling Fu, Writing Between Languages

Our readings began with chapter 2 of Fu's text, "ELLs' Writing Development." I have not had much experience with ELL students, other than some brief tutoring opportunities during FNED. I found it interesting to read that no matter the level of the student, "all expressed frustration with English writing." It seems reasonable since students have to translate text and thought and vocabulary from one language to the next, all to face a blank sheet where they're required to follow rules and guidelines in hopes of getting something down. That's a long process to complete something we english language speakers seem to take for granted. Granted, academic writing is difficult for everyone, as Fu states. I can't imagine going through my english classes in high school, learning to write and analyze complex texts and papers, all while experiencing a language barrier. Fu's examples of the four stages of ELL writing were incredibly telling. First, the writing in the native language, then the mix. Next a slightly more coherent essay and finally, a well written paragraph. It seems, from Fu's text at least, that working with ELL students is best considered when formulaic and procedural, taking specific note of development and accomplishment outside of traditional standards. 

Chapter 3, "Native Language Writing in ELLs' Writing Development," discussed the importance of the native language. I appreciate than Fu mentioned his previous thought processes, that native languages should be bypassed and english should be the focus. I feel like this is the viewpoint considered most often, although I have read articles and texts suggesting different. I agree with Fu that translation in writing can be just as telling and valuable as writing an english text or essay. I found it interesting that "thinking" in english aids in speaking and proficiency of students while helping less in writing. I liked that Fu brought in examples of texts translated from a native language to english and then written in english to show the drastic difference. My concern is how reasonable is this to allow in the classroom. I do however, understand that assessing both forms of writing can help a teacher decide what support the student needs most. This chapter brought in the idea of utilizing different cultural events or features when a writing assignment is given to an ELL student. This could work well with the artifact assignments mentioned above in Roswell's chapters. The chapter also discussed how multi-literacies can aid english language learners, be it pictures or poems or other forms. I liked that this chapter brought in ideas about how teachers can act when they don't understand a student's work, using conferences or author "chair sharing" to have the student explain and read their writing. I agree with the idea of assessing effort and progress over strictly what is produced. 

Fu's text discussed transitional stages in the fourth chapter of his book. This is the first time I have been introduced to the term "code-switching," the process of mixing languages. I found it interesting that this can happen with vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, etc. There are so many different parts to writing we forget about. This chapter emphasizes the importance of code-swtiching as a transitional stage, "promoting growth in english writing." I've been in a classroom where unfortunately, this is not allowed. I've heard the phrase, "only english," far too often for the little experience I have with ELL students. I appreciate that this text got into the idea of bilingual students vs. ELL students. I agree that the distinction between the two is important, along with the affect this has on a student's writing. Again, Fu included some great examples of student work and progress in this chapter. I also love that this chapter discussed the "textbook issue." If an ELL student cannot read the textbook that a class is working with, how are they suppose to learn the same as another student. The final topic that caught my eye in this chapter was collaborating between ESL and regular classroom teachers. It was my impression that most schools do not have ESL/ELL teachers. Fu's text explains that there are usually a few to work with the many kids in a school, but I have to wonder, is this still a privileged group rather than the norm? Are our classrooms taking the necessary strides to service ELL students? It makes me slightly concerned, seeing as this ELL conversation is one I have only experienced in a few of my courses. I still feel as if I don't have enough experience to service ELL students properly as a teacher, which I hope will change. However, texts like Fu's will definitely be added to my repertoire, if I'm ever in need of strategies.