Chapter 12 - Kucer - Mediating the Written Language System

Chapter Summary

I will try to be concise here, but as a warning I highlighted most of this chapter because it answered so many questions I have about the home-school literacy connection.

Mediation in literacy is defined as an attempt by an adult (or "more capable other") to support a child's literacy learning. This support occurs in constructing the systems of language (linguistic), the thinking processes (cognitive), and in groups (sociocultural). Table 12.2 on page 315 outlines characteristics of literacy mediation, some of which include the ideas of relevance and meaningfulness, reflection, demonstration, feedback, and motivation. A distinction is made betweeen learning, which is what the learner can do with support from a teacher, and development, which is what the learner can do independently. The key to this is the focus on meaning and communication, which is the theme of this chapter.

Parents naturally tend to focus on the meaning and intention behind their child's oral language, rather than trying to correct their child and make their language follow explicit rules. Adults serve as guides, mediators, and demonstrators throughout their children's development. Table 12.5 on page 319 shows various ways teachers can make language visible in the classroom. It gives a number of sentence starters to get students thinking about thinking. As these starters are used and as language is made more visible in the classroom, children develop a greater sensitivity to oral and written language. Furthermore, what a child knows is shaped largely by the community in which he grows up.

The Zone of Promimal Development (ZPD) by Vygotsky describes the difference between a child's potential or what he can do with help, and what a child can do independently. In the zone of promixal development, children are learning and making meaning. All teaching should be done in an effort to get children to become independent (developed). The student begins with support from a teacher, then practices with the teacher, then performs independently without the teacher. The examples used included teachers reading and writing to students; teachers reading and writing with students; and students reading and writing independently, from greatest support to least or no support. "In fact, the ZPD comes into being because of the desire of the child to engage in an activity that is beyond his or her reach or grasp" (p. 325). So motivation becomes an important part of learning language.

Another section of the chapter is devoted to culture and literacy. The author disspells the myth that parents in lower-income households read less to their children than is commonly assumed. Studies have shown "that in most U.S. homes, literacy activities permeate the lives of family members" (p. 327). There have been discrepancies in the amount of shared book reading that is done in homes in the U.S., however. There is a correlation between the amount of shared book reading at home and the ease with which children are able to learn school-based literacy practices. Shared book reading seems to be the most significant practice in the home that helps literacy learning at school. Storytelling in the home also can help with written expression.  If students do not have shared reading experiences at home, it's suggested that teachers can help fill the gap by reading to those students themselves.

My Comments

First, it really surprised me that most U.S. schoolchildren experience literacy in some form in the home. It doesn't seem like that to me, based on my teaching experiences. I am not surprised that shared reading experiences are the most critical factor in whether children learn literacy practices easily in school, though. It's interesting to note that shared reading, or a lack thereof, crosses all socioeconomic barriers.

Second, it surprised me that if students do not get shared reading experiences at home, a teacher can remedy or offset this by simply reading to the student(s) herself. That seems to obvious and simple! I do this with a couple of my students, however, and they love it. It doesn't seem like teaching in the formal sense, but it is critical.

Last, it intrigues me that reader motivation is key to whether the ZPD is filled and independence is attained. This is what I want to explore more in depth in my dissertation. I feel so strongly that children should choose their own reading material or subject matter because what they're reading can motivate them to overcome literacy hurdles. It seems like this is what is missing in public schools across the United States --- children's choice. Their cultural backgrounds and background knowledge are oftentimes disregarded when school publishing companies sell boxed reading materials with no real releveance to school systems with multicultural or special needs students. Ultimately, without choice, children may be thwarted in their efforts to learn to read and write.

My Question About the Reading

So my main question is: What would school look like if we encouraged students to choose their own reading material, and encouraged their interests and cultures and paths? What if testing wasn't the goal, but making meaning and reading for understanding were the goals instead? What if we didn't test students at all on their reading? I'd still keep track of their progress and encourage them along, but no high-stakes, all-or-nothing testing. What would literacy look like in school then?