Integrating Literacy Lessons and the Visual
and Communicative Arts:
Preservice Teachers’ Concerns and Challenges
Joan P. Gipe and Janet C. Richards,
with Ramona C. Moore
|
Abstract Work within the collaborative school-university Portal School Project has led to the emergence of a focus on integration of literacy instruction with the visual and communicative arts. This article affirms new conceptualizations of literacy as encompassing multiple sign and symbol systems. It describes the Portal School Project and the way in which it involves preservice teachers in early in-classroom teaching experiences. It also briefly presents a qualitative research study that illuminates the challenges associated with preparing preservice teachers to accept responsibility for devising and presenting lessons that link reading and writing with multiple communication systems such as drama, music, film, visual art, and computer technology. |
Related Posting from the Archives
|
Introduction
When I found out we had to do a lot of art for these classes, I experienced anxiety and nervousness because I am not artistically inclined.... I don’t care what the national standards say about integrating the arts with literacy lessons. (excerpt from a preservice teacher’s teaching case write-up)
Gallas refers to the arts as being transformative. I had never thought about this before the reading, but now I agree. Many people use the arts as a medium for change. A picture may change the way we see things. It makes sense that art is an important tool for teaching. A great “language”.... Finally, Gallas says that her children will “stretch for her.” I think the best teachers give their students opportunities for stretching and push them to fly higher. (excerpt from a preservice teacher’s journal)
Todd, the preservice teacher, is sitting on the floor with Kevin and Jason, two first graders involved in the After School Literacy Program. They are talking about how they will share what they have learned about orca whales at the Literacy Celebration. Todd suggests that they write and perform a play. Jason, who had previously struggled with oral language, asks if they could make whale stick puppets. Todd agrees and their conversation moves quickly from the construction of a puppet stage to the story features that will be a part of their play. (excerpt from instructor field notes of an observed lesson)
Until recently, the word literacy was generally used narrowly to refer to the ability to read and write (Galda & Cullinan, 1997; Messaris, 1997). Today, however, there is increasing momentum among scholars and in national and state education standards to consider literacy as composed of multiple sign and symbol systems -- that is, of all forms of communication. In response to national and state standards, recommended curriculum guidelines, and the professional literature (e.g., Eisner, 1992, 1994; Flood, Heath, & Lapp, 1997; Leu, 2000), some classroom teachers have made efforts to expand their reading and language arts instruction. For example, in Canada and Australia, a critical viewing component (often termed “media literacy” or “visual literacy”) has been added to language arts curricula (see, e.g., Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation, 1998; Governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, and Yukon Territory, 1998). Teachers in the United States, Great Britain, Ireland, Finland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are incorporating the visual and performing arts and computer technology with their daily reading and language arts lessons.
Despite the enormous opportunities dance, drama, music, poetry, and the like can provide for learning and demonstration of learning, many teacher-education programs do not incorporate experiences designed to help preservice teachers develop proficiency in teaching literacy through the visual and communicative arts (Barksdale-Ladd, personal communication, October 8, 2000; Flood, Heath, & Lapp, 1997; Greene, 1991). In this article, we describe how we use the portal school concept, one type of school-university partnership, as an approach to providing experiences in preservice teacher-education programs that are consistent with new, expanded versions of literacy. The Portal School Concept: Our Context The portal school concept as described by Del Grande (1973) provides the foundation for our model for teacher education. This concept supports the view that individuals learn to teach by teaching and carefully studying the effects of that teaching. Preservice teachers cannot acquire expertise in the art of teaching and knowledge of specific content simply by attending classes at a university (Shulman, 1986, 1992). To become reflective and skilled practitioners, preservice teachers must work with students in authentic school settings (prior to student teaching), with university professors serving as mentors and guides. The preservice teachers enrolled in our Portal School Project meet regularly in elementary and middle schools for lectures, seminars, and demonstration lessons, and they practice teach a group of students over the course of the project. Our weekly schedules vary according to our individual teaching contexts and university structures. For example, in 2 of our 3 programs, the preservice teachers meet 2 days a week for 3 hours each day over the 4-month semester. Approximately 30 preservice teachers enroll in the Portal School Project every semester, and usually 10 or 11 classroom teachers at each of the school sites ask to be involved. Depending upon class size, 2 to 5 preservice teachers work in each classroom involved in the project. If, for example, a class has 26 students, the classroom teacher will likely receive 4 preservice teachers, each of whom is placed in charge of a group of 6 or 7 children. The preservice teachers work with the same group of students the entire semester, allowing for lesson continuity, the establishment of a cohesive community of learners, and opportunities to witness the ongoing cognitive and academic growth of the children. In the third program, based at an elementary school in Everett, Washington, the portal school scheme follows a cohort model that allows preservice teachers to work full time while completing their undergraduate degree or teacher-certification requirements. Preservice teachers (generally 25 to 30) sign up for a cohort time slot -- either afternoon or evening -- in a school close to the university campus. They teach small groups of 5- to 10-year-old students for 90 minutes once a week for 10 weeks in an after-school literacy program. The Evolving Portal School Curricula The portal school curricula offered at our institutions have evolved considerably over the past 12 years. While the focus has always been on good literacy instruction, the means for assisting our preservice teachers begin to view themselves as teachers and think like professionals have altered significantly. For example, initially we relied on exchanging weekly journal entries with our preservice teachers to promote their reflective thinking. Now, we urge our preservice teachers to construct portfolios and write and share teaching cases to cultivate and document their development as reflective practitioners. We also carefully observe and record our preservice teachers’ lessons through extensive field notes. In addition, as the field of literacy has evolved, our course curricula have developed concurrently. We now agree that the word literacy represents all endeavors associated with the visual and communicative arts, including thoughtful and critical examination of media; interpretation of data from Web sites and CD-ROMs; visual representation of facts and concepts through graphs, charts, and murals; and development of aesthetic appreciation and proficiencies. Today, the visual and communicative arts occupy a central place in forming all aspects of our courses. This view of literacy is well supported by a growing number of education professionals (see, e.g., Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999, chapter available; Cairney, 1977; Eisner, 1997; Flood, Lapp, & Wood, 1998; Goldberg, 1997; Piazza, 1999). Tompkins (1998) states that as we enter the 21st century, language arts instruction must broaden “to reflect the greater oral and communication needs” of students (p. 23). Indeed, in elementary and middle school classrooms where multiple communication systems are integrated, students have opportunities to access information, learn, think, solve problems, and express themselves using a full range of sources, including newspapers, television, films, magazines, commercials, videos, music, dance, drama, and the visual arts (see Flood, Heath, & Lapp, 1997). In addition, the Standards for the English Language Arts (International Reading Association/National Council of Teachers of English, 1996), the National Visual Arts Standards, now adopted by 47 U.S. states (Music Educators National Conference, 1995; see also ArtsEdNet), and ideas from the Technology and Cognition Group at Vanderbilt University, as reported by Reinking (1997, online document), reflect the current transformation and extension of the word literacy beyond reading and writing. Preservice Teachers in the Classroom The preservice teachers in our reading and language arts field programs are encouraged through course assignments to integrate their classroom literacy teaching with multiple ways of learning, thinking, and knowing at every opportunity. Following ideas associated with Vygotsky’s (1962) zone of proximal development, the preservice teachers collaborate with their students in presenting student-authored puppet shows, Readers Theatre presentations, and drama productions. They work side by side with the children, scaffolding, modeling, and creating text-based murals, masks, dances, dioramas, quilts, and songs. As co-constructors of knowledge, the preservice teachers and students compare video and text versions of stories; use e-mail to share interesting concepts they have discovered while visiting Web sites and reading reports on CD-ROMs; and write, illustrate, and publish fiction and informational narratives using word processing, drawing, painting, and imaging software. Our preservice teachers write teaching cases and maintain journals, and we make observational field notes of their lessons. Not only do these written accounts help our students grow professionally, they serve to document the impact of the university-portal school partnerships from several perspectives. When viewed as a collection of authentic teaching narratives, the teaching cases, journal entries, and instructor field notes (links take the reader to examples of each, housed at California State University, Sacramento) offer us considerable insight into the realities of linking students’ literacy instruction with aesthetic and technological encounters. Specifically, these sources provide a window into our preservice teachers’ planning, thinking, and lived experiences as they undergird and nurture their students’ use of multiple literacies. Most important, the narratives are grounded in veracity and credibility -- that is, they portray real preservice teachers who work in real elementary and middle schools, offering genuine literacy lessons through a variety of informational formats. Since there is a paucity of research concerning teaching literacy through the visual and communicative arts, we decided to conduct a systematic qualitative research project documenting the issues, concerns, and challenges noted in our preservice teachers’ narratives (i.e., the teaching cases, journal entries, and field notes). We also hoped to expand our understandings about our nontraditional field programs and how curricula that extend beyond conventional approaches to teaching reading and writing work in the classroom. The Inquiry Project Our theoretical framework for our inquiry resided in case-based pedagogy (Richards & Gipe, 2000; Shulman, 1986, 1992, 1996); education professionals’ growing interest in and convictions regarding the myriad ways in which literacy learners access and construct knowledge, connect ideas, and communicate their emotions and thinking (Barnitz & Speaker, 1999; Eisner, 1997; Flood, Heath, & Lapp, 1997); and Gardner’s (1983, 1993, 1999) theory of multiple intelligences. We also were guided by ideas concerning the importance of critical reflection for teachers (Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Further, we acknowledged the complexities of preparing preservice teachers in the 21st century to appreciate and offer effective reading and language arts lessons through the integration of the visual and communicative arts. In our inquiry we sought to answer the following questions: Data Sources and Mode of Inquiry Working as a research team, we examined and categorized 204 teaching cases, 189 journal entries, and 85 sets of field notes for 8 groups of preservice teachers who matriculated in a single year through our field programs offered at state universities in southern Mississippi, southeastern Louisiana, and western Washington state. In meetings and through e-mail and telephone exchanges, we used analytic induction (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992) as we read and reread the narratives looking for categories and patterns that would “facilitate a coherent synthesis of the data” (Gay, 1996, p. 227). We made notes and underlined what we considered to be salient dimensions of the texts as a way of revealing the predominant theme or central issue. Next, we coded and categorized each narrative according to the issue. We settled any differences of interpretation through collegial discussion until we reached agreement. What Emerged Analysis revealed that across the three teaching contexts, the narratives discussed nine major issues: Challenges and Implications for Universities and Schools Our inquiry illuminates the challenges associated with preparing preservice teachers to accept responsibility for devising and presenting lessons that integrate reading and writing with multiple sign and symbol systems. The preservice teachers’ narratives document similar concerns across our three university contexts and reveal nine difficult issues that teacher-education programs and school systems together must address. For instance, in what ways might schools structure their curricula or teachers alter and adjust their practices so that all students are motivated to engage wholeheartedly in the arts? Similarly, what activities might teachers offer to bolster students’ willingness to take risks with arts and technological pursuits? In addition, although many schools already are aware of their shortcomings in computer technology and are working toward providing better access, they may be overlooking the need for faculty training in conjunction with obtaining more state-of-the-art hardware. The results of this research also point out specific shortcomings in our teaching that are in our control to remedy. For example, we have too readily assumed that our preservice teachers were adept in planning multimodal literacy lessons, competent in managing groups of students, and able to weave and intermingle combinations of the visual and communicative arts into cohesive units of literacy instruction. We neglected to recall a substantial body of research that shows learning to teach takes time and that novice teachers develop through professional stages, moving from concern for self to concern for students (see Fuller & Case, 1969, online abstract). We must remember to provide activities that serve as scaffolds for our preservice teachers as they learn to teach, especially in ways that are generally foreign to what they experienced as elementary or middle school students themselves. In addition, we need to present our innovative course curricula gradually to our preservice teachers, giving them opportunities to explore and embrace new, expanded views of literacy. As Remer (1996) reminds us, when learning to integrate the arts in their teaching, teachers can begin modestly by teaching with the arts (adding daily arts routines or centers), then about and in the arts, and finally through the arts (where the arts are both learning tools and unit centers). Our inquiry emphasizes the need for teacher-education programs to acknowledge the new, expanded 21st-century paradigm of literacy by offering whole programs -- not just one or two field-based courses -- that address multiple forms of literacy. It is essential that such programs build on understandings from cutting-edge brain research (Jensen, 1998) and draw on knowledge of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983, 1999), life stages (Erikson, 1950), developmental stages (Piaget, 1950), the hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1970), and social development (Vygotsky, 1962). But teacher-education programs alone cannot provideall that is needed. The most effective teacher-education programs must be developed in partnership with schools. The Portal School Project offers one viable approach for addressing the challenges of the collaboration process in school-university partnerships. References Alvermann, D.E., Moon, J.S., & Hagood, M.C. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom: Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Sample chapter available: newbookstore.reading.org/cgi-bin/OnlineBookstore.storefront/EN/Product/245-553 Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation. (1998). Atlantic Canada English language arts curriculum: Grades 7-9. Halifax, NS: Department of Education and Culture. Barnitz, J., & Speaker, R. (1999). Electronic and linguistic connections in one diverse 21stcentury classroom. Reading Teacher, 52, 874-877. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Cairney, T. (1977, March). New avenues to literacy. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 76-77. Del Grande, V. (1973). Portal school concept. In J.C. Moody (Ed.), Viewpoints: Innovative field-based teacher education -- Nine variations on a theme (bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University; pp. 29-34). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Eisner, E. (1992). The misunderstood role of the arts in human development. Phi Delta Kappan, 7(8), 591-595. Eisner, E. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Eisner, E. (1997). Cognition and representation: A way to pursue the American dream? Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 349-353. Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Flood, J., Heath, S.B., & Lapp, D. (1997). Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the visual and communicative arts. New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan. Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Wood, D. (1998). Broadening conceptualizations of literacy: The visual and communicative arts. Reading Teacher, 51, 342-344. Fuller, F., & Case, C. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A manual for teacher educators -- Increasing teacher satisfaction with professional preparation by considering teachers’ concerns when planning preservice and inservice education. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Reproduction Service Document No. ED 040 143) Galda, L., & Cullinan, B.E. (1997). Voices from the field: Introduction. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the visual and communicative arts (pp. 789-792). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: Theory into practice. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. NewYork: Basic Books. Gay, L. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (5th ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Goldberg, M. (1997). Arts and learning. White Plains, NY: Longman. Governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, and Yukon Territory. (1998). The common curriculum framework for English language arts, kindergarten to grade 12. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Education and Training. Greene, B. (1991). A survey of computer integration into college courses. EducationalTechnology, 26(4), 22-29. International Reading Association/National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE, and Urbana, IL: Authors. Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Leu, D. (2000, May). New literacies for new times: Using Internet technologies. Paper presented at the 45th annual convention of the International Reading Association, Indianapolis, IN. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Messaris, P. (1997). Visual arts teaching: Introduction. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the visual and communicative arts (pp. 3-5). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan. Music Educators National Conference. (1995). National visual arts standards. Reston, VA: Author. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt Brace. Piazza, C. (1999). Multiple forms of literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Reinking, D. (1997). Me and my hypertext :) A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy (sic). Reading Teacher, 50, 626-643. Online version available: www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/hypertext/index.html Remer, J. (1996). Beyond enrichment. New York: American Council for the Arts. Richards, J., & Gipe, J. (2000). Elementary literacy lessons: Cases and commentaries from the field. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(4), 4-14. Shulman, L. (1992, April). Knowledge integration and application in teacher education: Development of cognitive flexibility in complex domains. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Shulman, L. (1996). Just in case: Reflections on learning from experience. In J. Colbert, K.Trimble, & P. Desberg (Eds.), The case for education: Contemporary approaches for using case methods (pp. 197-217). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Tompkins, G. (1998). Language arts: Content and teaching strategies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 23-48. About the Authors Joan Gipe, who shares lead authorship of this article with Janet Richards, is an emeritus professor at the University of New Orleans and lectures in the Department of Teacher Education at California State University, Sacramento (6000 J St., Sacramento, CA 95819-6079, USA). She teaches preservice and graduate language and literacy courses, and serves as a liaison to a local elementary school. Her research interests center around applying multiple intelligences theory to literacy instruction, developing portfolios to cultivate reflective teaching, and using book clubs for professional development. She can be contacted at jpgcad@mother.com. Janet Richards is a professor of language and literacy at the University of Southern Mississippi, Long Beach (730 East Beach Blvd., Long Beach, MS 39560, USA), where she initiated and supervises field-based literacy courses and teaches graduate courses in research, language arts, and writing. Her research interests focus on examining changes in preservice teachers’ beliefs and understandings in university-school collaborations, and devising reading comprehension and writing strategies. Currently, she is completing a text on multiple literacies. Reach her by e-mail at janetusm@aol.com. Ramona Moore teaches preservice literacy courses in the Department of Elementary Education at Western Washington University’s Everett Education Center (Department of Elementary Education, Bellingham, WA 98225, USA). She has initiated several after-school and evening literacy programs. Her collaborations with classroom teachers have resulted in development of reading performance task assessments, and she facilitates a reading network of teachers from the Washington Alliance for Better Schools. Her research interests focus on integrated literacy, multiple literacies, teacher development, and narrative inquiry. She can be contacted at ramona.moore@wwu.edu. The authors give special thanks to Charles A. Duffy at www.therealdrdata.com for his technical expertise. To print this article, point and click your mouse anywhere on the article's text; then use your browser's print command. Citation: Gipe, J.P., Richards, J.C., & Moore, R.C. (2001, March). Integrating literacy lessons and the visual and communicative arts: Preservice teachers’ concerns and challenges. Reading Online, 4(8). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/gipe/index.html Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)
Back
Back (1st and 2nd citations) | (3rd citation) | (4th citation)
Back
Back
Back
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)
Back
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)
Back
Back
Back (1st citation) | (2nd citation)
Back
Posted March 2001
© 2001 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232