All of our reflections

It's been good reading everyone's final reflections. We have covered so much ground, and as much as Dr. Muth has given us (and it's been a lot, but wonderful to read), it has been enlightening to see how we view our jobs and what we think of what we do. I have so much more ground to cover, and I'm looking forward to everyone's view of literacy. I think we know more than we recognize, and sharing our views, perspectives, and considerations gives all of us a new lens through which to view literacy.


Joyce M.

How I See It Now

 

When I started my 1-2-3 project I simply disliked my artifact, found it to be of little value, and something that needed improvement.  It was just the tip of an iceberg.  As I started my research into my artifact it became bigger, more powerful and something that needed to be abolished; it took my instructional assistant away from me, it gave me no valuable input and I grew to truly despise it.  It was a large iceberg ready to destroy my trip.  By the time I was done my research the hate had become exhausting; I was ready to throw up my hands and say it just doesn’t matter.  I had come to wonder if in truth my artifact had no value?  Had it been simplified so many times over the years that it had become inconsequential?  Was I just going to be plotting a trip around this iceberg and dealing with the waste of time?  This was where I was at the near end.

So I reflected back and wondered again had some of my interviewees been as blasé about the whole thing as they had seemed?  As my study ended I had taken the electronic version of my artifact to my supervisor and she had like it, she’s planning on implementing a similar example next school year.  I walked away feeling something good might evolve from my work.  Yet, I did ponder Dr. Muth’s questions about my interviewees… Did loyalty to the system prevent me from hearing the whole story during my interviews, or did I miss something?  This week I went back to three of my interviewees and showed them the new form.  After a brief explanation of “my project went well”, “thanks for your input” and “look how things might change, maybe electronic” I just sort of casually tossed out there “what do you think?”

These new encounters could not be called interviews, but I needed to see reactions, to see if I had misread cues from earlier.  I got three different reactions:  First - “Oh, glad to help, looks like it might apply to the IEP more,” this from the general education teacher that had expressed that she taught many individualized students and filled out many un-individualized forms.  She seemed receptive; maybe I had read her correctly.  Second – “Electronic? Hmmm, who is inputting this?” this from my instructional assistant.  She was looking at the work load, logically concerned about her duties.  When I said that “was undetermined at this point” she finally looked closer at the form, and thoughtfully nodded her way through the sections.  Without poking into her brain again, I assumed she weighed her duties and the needs of the students and decided she would do her job as she always did as she respects the system.  Third – “Why change it?” this from the general educator that completes the forms in the mailroom.  When I shrugged he looked down at it.  “Electronic might be easy”, he added.  I can’t help but think his initial reaction was true, and his follow up question was to satisfy my need for him to speak.  He scanned the form and handed it back.  I still don’t know where he stands; his apparent lack of concern still grates on me.  If he feels more it's secret.  He’s just going to do what needs to be done by the system.

Now I ask myself if it is possible to discredit full conversations with a 30 second recap?  Probably not, but in this day and age when people are told by the media to feel lucky that they have jobs, do people resist the system in silence?  Probably; I suspect they were silent with me even in our 30 second recap.  The things in the workplace that I don’t agree with I do anyway, and those things that I value I seek to do well.  I use the existing artifact because I was told to by the system, now I am hoping to see a change in the future so what I silently resisted can now have value for me.  Maybe I've found a way to melt some of the iceberg down, live with it and maybe I'll eventually come to stake a claim in the change.

Final Reflections

Susan's presentation

It has taken me some time to digest the feedback and understand the missed opportunities in my presentation.  I have given a lot of thought to the presentation format we used and how it worked to enhance or diminish the meaning of my material.  While I  thoroughly enjoyed assembling a multi-media text to share my work, I think I relied on "readers"  to make too many inferences from pictures and arrows.  In addition to information I omitted (by choice or ignorance), many ideas were implied but not explicitly stated.

 I believe a written paper would have served me better, allowing me to see the gaps in my work; however, I think there was an important purpose in sharing our work with the class.  Through multi-media presentations, classmates were afforded the opportunity to learn from each other in a way that exchanging written papers would not have allowed.  We interacted with the presenter, and each other, by completing an activity and posing questions.  In this way, we learned more than if we had completed our projects in isolation and / or simply read each others' papers.

Now we have the opportunity to use this blog as a tool to reflect and address feedback on our work,.  Maybe we can continue learning from each other.  For example, Susangale's post expanded my knowledge of validity,  Annie's post helped me better understand teacher-student power relationships, and Joyce's post helped me understand how literacy is viewed/valued by our society.   In that spirit, I'm asking for help to better understand and describe stakeholders I overlooked, hinted about, but did not explain or describe explicitly in my presentation.  I'm struggling for words that will describe rather than other or vilify this group.  Please allow me to explain.

In my analysis of an ideology that treats literacy as an independent variable (Street, 1984), I described a linear model that positions learners as objects.  Literacy is added, measured, and studied.  This model is contrasted with the socio-cultural model (Purcell-Gates, Perry, Briseno, 2011) that treats literacy as an embedded  practice.


I further described how I did not challenge the linear ideology; I was blind to my position in it, not realizing my part or the way I benefited from it.  I actually put my little picture at the end of the equation, but I did not explain further.  What I missed was describing the stakeholders in this model--the group that is threatened, or fights the war on illiteracy.  This is the group that benefits from the status quo (like a teacher who needs a job), and therefore does not question this ideology.  This is the group that holds power and is threatened by change.  This is the group that defines a point between literacy and illiteracy and, around it, constructs enough scientific data as to forget the underlying assumption: literacy is treated as neutral thing that is isolated and measured.  Brian Street (1984) describes this group as follows

From the point of view of many States, who badly needed such investments, literacy programs represented an input factor whose success was to be assessed in terms of the economic return.  This meant that ultimate determination of the programme lay with financial and commercial interests, with governments acting simply as mediators and providers of the 'risk capital' in terms of the infrastructure of education and training.  The subjects themselves were a form of 'plant' whose effectiveness could be maximised by the employment of new 'educational technology' in the form of 'literacy skills', thereby enabling greater surplus to be extracted from them (p. 184). 

It was easy to describe these anonymous stakeholders as capitalist villains.  It was too easy to build my case.  True, this was a simple, student  representation of a complex ideology, but I did not provide another perspective in addition to my own.  My project lacks validity without another point of view.  This was my other critical omission.

In the few lines remaining on this post, I can add that the linear ideology serves a purpose.  Without it, we would have chaos. By conducting more interviews and showing data that support this model's successes, I could build a case for the need to measure and quantify literacy in some way.  The linear model exists to provide accountability to stakeholders such as governments and taxpayers.  The linear model provides a much needed service; many people realize success in its programs.

Thank you for reading this long post.  Reflecting via this blog has helped me better understand how to improve what I presented to you in class.  I would love to hear your thoughts on my project.  Susan 

Valuing Literacy

So now I reflect on what I learned and how I used it. In preparing my study, I first looked at the training manuals we use for teaching computer classes. They use non-contextual learning; they teach students how to perform tasks in a program. When I teach, I try to give my students context for using the skills. The books normally follow a company through their office tasks, and I try to apply these to the students’ everyday work environment. But then I started thinking about the culmination of the training. There isn’t a final exam or grade. I thought about the degree I earned last year for four years’ work at VCU. I wondered if the certificates students receive have value. I do have a bias in that I would like to think that the certificate actually had value for the student and was not simply documentation of completion. My case study was to try to find out if my hopes were realized, so I don’t know that I could be fully objective; I needed to make sure I recognized my biases.

In preparing interviews, I knew that the topic would make it difficult to have direct interviews. I don’t have co-workers to whom I could direct questions, other than the director for the program I teach in. Stephanie, the director of Think Again, was very helpful in telling me about the program, how classes are selected, how faculty are selected, and the purpose of the program. I asked her about the students who take the class, and she indicated that many of them were either currently working in a subject for which they were taking a class or wanted to work in a field and needed some classroom training to get experience before trying to get employment. I prepared questions for interview surveys, because I thought that was the best way to direct questions regarding the training and the resulting certificate. It was a difficult set of questions to craft, because I needed to start with the reason for the training and lead into the value of the certificate itself. I think as a student it would be difficult to answer the latter set of questions simply because most of us don’t really think of setting a value for a piece of paper, so responders would need to think about what that paper represented. This is not something we spend much time reflecting on. My survey had fifteen questions, and I tried to keep them open ended, but there was no question that I was leading them to think about putting value on the certificate. Had I phrased my questions differently, I think I might have been a little more – maybe cynical – about putting value on a piece of paper. It would cause responders to question the value of the training as a whole and the paper as a representation of their efforts. No one wants to think that work they put forth is not of value, so of course they would want to respond that the training, hence the certificate, would have value.

It was difficult conducting phone interviews with hiring managers. Going in asking for information about their employees and how they work to improve their skills is something recruiters and managers would like to put a good face to. Again, no one wants to think that training is of little value in a job, so managers would like to think that the representation of the training, the certificate, would have value. As I discussed training and its value in a corporate environment, I found something I thought I might but was hoping I wouldn’t, from a personal/professional satisfaction perspective. Managers felt that training was helpful, but practical experience was more valuable in most cases. Some certificates, or what they represented, had more value than others. According to one manager, having the ‘initials’ on one’s signature block, made a difference in the perception of an employee. For one company, the staff create a professional plan each year that includes training. This is considered important for all employees, clerical to professional. The recruiters and manager I interviewed were trying to be helpful. I think that asking them to discuss the value of a certificate for training kind of geared them to putting value on it, because it would be defeatist for someone professional to answer that formal training was of little value. 

I would like to have interviewed students who had taken training at some of the local ‘universities’. One school has the tag line, “It’s all about the training”. When I think of college, I think of learning, not training. But looking at some of the offerings online, I saw more of a focus on training for employment, so for these certificates, there would have been more value. I had the opportunity to talk to two people in a medical office who had the type of positions advertised by local ‘colleges’. One had begun in the office as a temp and learned the job as she worked, so when the position was advertised, she had the experience rather than the training, but got the job. The second person had taken the training for the position. She indicated that while the training and certificate helped her get the job, it was a lot of money for a position that could be taught on the job.

Taking the raw data to conclusions was difficult. In the background I kept hearing my voice telling me that there should be a value to the certificates. When I heard neutral comments or read responses in the survey that were not always positive, I was a little dismayed. My vested interest didn’t exactly interfere, but I did try to put the best light on what I heard/received. I had wished that there were a way for students to have had face to face interviews with someone who was more neutral. I’m sure a consideration for them was to please me as the interviewer. The same consideration applies to the recruiters and hiring manager I interviewed. I indicated at the outset what I was going to be discussing, so I’m sure they wanted to put a positive spin on the value of training and the certificate it represented. Most respondents to the survey either provided the certificate to their supervisor for their personnel record or hung it in their office space. The physical representation of their achievement was valuable enough for them to have the reminder in their office. The key words I heard were achievement, accomplishment, commitment, and recognition.

It would not be a stretch to say that coming from a different perspective, that is, different stakeholders could legitimately come to different and valid conclusions. The value of the certificate depended on what the certification was. One recruiter said that the certificate could help, but all three indicated that it would not be a deciding factor. As a stakeholder, hub workers could come to different conclusions. They might find that the certificate helped them find employment or achieve a promotion, but others might find that while the certificate was nice, it didn’t necessarily change their position or perception by others in the organization. As a trainer/educator, yes, I did have my bias hoping to find that all stakeholders would find value in the certificate. My values definitely impacted on my findings. I think like all researchers, we have results we would like to find, and we look for those results in what we receive. It would be interesting to have someone outside the environment look at the survey results and interview answers and see what they came up with. Realistically I have to admit that the certificate as a literacy event has some value to everyone who earns it, but does not always have the value I would like to find.

At some point I may have the opportunity to review this and take it further. Recognizing my position both as a student and a teacher has given me perspective on tangible representation of intangible skills. I read chapter 5 of Belfiore and continued reading into chapter 6.  In it, the authors talk about the social practices of the literacies. I tried looking through this lens at my research. While some of the motivations for literacy learning included recognition, respect, and status – something I heard from my surveys – I also was struck by how my view of the certificate as a literacy event was more managerial than objective. I wanted to think the certificates had value in the workplace. In practice, though, I have formed an opinion that the literacy event meant less than I would have hoped. The theory and the practice were somewhat at odds. Employers in theory would like to have certified employees, but if a student or employee had certified, it did not necessarily empower them. As I read, I wondered if a student would take more initiative in their job as a result of what they had learned. Could a former student question a supervisor with the knowledge they had attained as a result of their training? Could the certification give them more of a voice than they might otherwise have? I am sure this varies in differing work environments. Did it make them a better communicator to co-workers and supervisors? These are questions I don’t have answers to. Did I do critical research? I think to an extent I did. Having read Belfiore again, I think I might look at the literacy another way, as weaving into practice rather than the end result.

So the first semester of my literacy journey ends. I learned that I have so much more to learn, which seems to be the case for every class I take. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and patience.

Joyce M.

Themes in my research project-1-power relationship

Due to my poor time management, I was not able to present my discussion about the findings and how I may deal with the blog assignment in the future. Although we have got a lot of great discoveries in our discussion, I would like to share with you my ideas as an insider in the program, and hope that you can give me some feedback. Thanks!

The first and most obvious theme I see in the assignment is Power. Both in the written blog and in the interviews, all the stakeholders show how power relationship, to some degree, decide what they do and how they feel about the blog. As pointed out by many educators, including Freire, and discussed in our class, not literacy is neutral. Power is always embedded in literacy, and affect how people react to it. Usually, the party who has to power tailors the goal and the process of the literacy to match with their beliefs, while those who lack power receive the literacy as it is and try to work with it. Here, the knowledge of the powerful counts. They know what is right what is necessary, and they direct others to  do what they believe will make their life better. 

The power relationship in my study is very apparent, where the instructors are in the high level and the students are the dominated, whether they agree with the system or not. Some students are very direct about their subordination to the instructor when they say they "should" do it or they "have to" post because it is required by the instructor. But some others, such as student O, who says that he does like the rules created by the instructor, but still wants the instrutor to tell him what is the goal of learning and if he has reached it or not. Subconsciously, he still respect and agree with the power of the instructor. In term of the instructors, the apparent symptoms of their dominant power is that they decide the rules. They choose the assignment, design the goal and the guidelines of it, and grade students based on how well they follow the instruction. FI is a learner-centered program, so that the instructors are relatively cautious about they domination of the classroom. Although they have done a lot to empower the students, they still have the power over them because they are rule-setter and evaluators. 

This makes me think to what degree a instructor should intervene in a learner's learning process. Surely we do not want the banking model of education, where students follows the rigid rules and becomes the results of mass production. However, we should not devaluate the guidance from instructors in one's learning experience. Instructors are usually those who have expertise in the area and can help students achieve their goals by sharing knowledge with them. It is crucial to keep the balance between the two parties. I think that one solution is to always incorporate students' voice in the decision-making process and promote commitment to the final decision. Since students may be ignorant in certain areas and may make bad choice, it is instructors job to bridge students with the new knowledge and present them the whole picture of different choices they have. Eventually, it should students' well-informed free choices.