The Reading Wars: Phonics or Whole Language Instruction in the 21st Century?

-- A Synthesis Paper (Comparing and Contrasting by Source)

FINAL DRAFT

Since the second half of the 20th century, educators have argued over which methods work more effectively when it comes to teaching children how to read. These “reading wars” remain a point of contention today. Since learning how to read is of primordial importance in school and in life, finding a method that works best is vital. Two schools of thought engage this debate: one that advocates a phonics-based approach and the other that supports whole language instruction. Which one works best? Both promote vastly different approaches, and yet when being compared, they also inadvertently reveal their limitations.

The whole language approach remains popular today and is known as the “look-say” method of reading. That is, students are taught to read and memorize whole words. Proponents of this method believe that learning how to read is a natural process. Students should learn how to derive meaning from words and texts and develop a love of reading through being exposed to authentic literature.

By contrast, phonics-based instruction puts an emphasis on teaching children the rules to decoding letter sounds in words so that they may take any word and produce the sound of the word, even without ever knowing what it means. Proponents of this method believe that children, who learn by this method, are more willing to persevere when encountering an unfamiliar word for the first time because they have the skills to break it down to its familiar parts. There has been a resurgence of phonics instruction in recent years.

In his article “Defending Whole Language: The Limits of Phonics Instruction and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction”, Stephen Krashen (2002) argues against the phonics-based approach on the grounds that the rules of phonics are difficult to master because they contain numerous exceptions (p. 33). The English language has many inconsistencies in its letter-sound system. These inconsistencies make learning how to read more complicated. Krashen points out that one commonly taught rule in phonics, “when two vowels go out walking, the first one does the talking”, only works 63% of the time (p. 34). For example, “fruit” and “build” don’t follow the same pronunciation. In the end, Krashen maintains that if simple rules don’t apply to a significant percentage of words, then the method is more confusing then helpful.

As a result, Krashen insists that whole language approach works best for learning how to read because it focuses on comprehension, which in his view remains the ultimate purpose of reading. A child may possess the ability to read by pronouncing words correctly, but if s/he doesn’t comprehend what s/he is reading, or more importantly, shows no interest in reading, then the school system has failed to turn that student into a reader. For Krashen, part of becoming a reader is developing a love of literature and the ability to understand the structure of narratives. In the article, he references a study conducted by Jeynes and Little (2000) in which students, who were taught the whole language method, displayed more interest in reading, were able to name more authors, brought more books home to read, and engaged in more literacy activities in the classroom than students in a phonics-based classroom (p. 39). In the end, the goal of the whole language instruction is to create an incentive for reading by making it interesting and meaningful, and exposing students to as much literature as possible.

However, Diane McGuinness, an advocate for phonics-based instruction, is a well-known critic of whole language teaching. She argues against this approach because it asks students to use their memories rather than learn to identify and blend letter-sounds. She goes on to argue in her article “A Prototype for Teaching the English Alphabet Code”, that students who learn whole words by sight make more spelling errors than those who understand the phonemic structure of words (2002, p. 3). McGuinness warns against this “neglect” in spelling: “There is also evidence that learning to spell produces higher scores on a reading test than the same amount of time spent learning to read….” (p. 13). Advocates of the phonics method argue for reading instruction that incorporates spelling. Through the teaching of phonics, students learn letter-sounds as codes and by learning to write students learn how these codes work by putting them into practice.

Furthermore, McGuinness also defends phonics-based instruction against those who accuse it of being mundane and unmotivating to students. A study conducted in a classroom where students were learning a phonics program developed by Sue Lloyd, demonstrated that students can be engaged if the following guidelines are respected: “the lessons are fun and stimulating”, they “engage all the children”, and “there are sufficient backdrop materials for individual work to support what is taught in the lessons.” (p. 17-18). Therefore, the challenge according to this view is not what you teach, but how you teach it. McGuinness offers an example of how Lloyd was able to sustain her students’ attention and generate interest:

She invented simple action patterns to represent each phoneme [sound]. Children say each phoneme aloud accompanied by the appropriate action. Apart from being fun for the children, the action patterns fulfill a number of functions. They also help anchor the speech sounds in memory. Because the actions are visible to everyone, including the teacher, they ensure that all children are engaged….” (p. 18).

McGuinness stresses the importance of giving students the tools necessary to guide them in learning how to read. Learning with phonics gives students the opportunity to gain increasing autonomy as they become more competent at decoding words. This confidence is what motivates them to become successful readers.

In the end, phonics and whole language contrast each other quite strikingly, while also inadvertently revealing their own limitations. For example, teaching phonics does help students recognize and pronounce words more effectively, but it fails at helping students develop skills for storytelling and comprehending a variety of texts. Too much time gets spent in the classroom learning how to break words into smaller parts. The whole language approach, on the other hand, provides students with the opportunity to understand texts, develop an awareness of narrative forms and structures, while also helping them cultivate an interest for literature. However, whole language students make more errors when reading, and contribute many errors when spelling.

When it comes to deciding which method of instruction leads to success, it’s perhaps best to look at the question from a both/and angle. In fact, today’s 21st century educators realize that integrating both methodologies actually provides a more balanced approach. Each one provides what the other one lacks. By creating a classroom environment that is rich in authentic literary material, while at the same time providing students with explicit instruction on how to decode words, students can grow to become fluent and accurate readers. However, despite this new harmonized view, educators are still working on how to implement this new approach. Which ideas work; which ones don’t? Can we be sure that this approach is the best one? These are the new questions to be answered in the 21st century.

WORKS CITED

Krashen, Stephen (2002). “Defending Whole Language: The Limits of Phonics Instructions and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction.” Reading Improvement, 39 (1): 32-42. Retrieved October 11th, 2010, from http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/defending_whole_language/index.html

McGuinness, Diane (2002). “A Prototype for teaching the English Alphabet Code.” Reading Reform Foundation RRF Newsletter, 49. Retrieved October 11th, 2010, from http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=95&n_issueNumber=49

** WORKSHOP: I peer-evaluated Cinzia Vacario's rough draft (my evaluation can be found in her comments).
** Extra Credit: I posted three comments on Montréalités forum (two as "Stephanie S. Beam" and one as "Beamette")
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ROUGH DRAFT

Since the second half of the 20th century, educators have been arguing over which methods are more effective when it comes to teaching children how to read. These “reading wars” are still a point of contention today. Since learning how to read is of primordial importance in school and in life, coming to terms with a method that works best is vital. There are two schools of thought involved in this debate: the one who supports a phonics-based approach and the other who advocates for whole language instruction. Which one works best? Despite the contrasts, each one actually complements the other and both should be integrative to form a more balanced approach for early reading instruction.

The whole language approach is still widely used today and is known as the “look-say” method of reading. That is students are taught to read and memorize whole words. Proponents of this method believe that words have meaning and students should learn how to derive meaning from words and texts rather than focusing on decoding meaningless letters and sound combinations. For example, a child looks at the word “table” and pictures a table in his mind. Thus the word becomes meaningful to the child.

By contrast, phonics-based instruction puts an emphasis on teaching children the rules to decoding words so that they may take any word and be able to the letter sounds so that they can produce the sound of the word, without knowing what it means. Proponents of this method believe that children who learn by this approach are more willing to persevere when encountering an unfamiliar word for the first time, because they have the skills to break it down to its familiar parts. There has been resurgence of phonics instruction in recent years.

In his article “Defending Whole Language: The Limits of Phonics Instruction and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction”, Stephen Krashen (2002) argues against the phonics-based approach on the grounds that the rules of phonics are difficult to master because they contain numerous exceptions (33). For example, one commonly taught rule in phonics, “when two vowels go out walking, the first one does the talking”, only works in 63% of the time (34). “Fruit” and “build” don’t follow the same pronunciation. In the end, Krashen maintains that if simple rules don’t apply to a significant percentage of words, then the method is more confusing then helpful.

Krashen insists that whole language approach is better suited for teaching reading because it focuses on reading comprehension, which in his view is the ultimate goal of reading. A child may possess the ability to read by pronouncing words correctly, but if s/he doesn’t comprehend what they are reading, or more importantly, shows no interest in reading, then we have failed to turn that student into a reader. For Krashen, part of becoming a reader is developing a love of literature and the ability to understand the structure of narratives. In the article, Krashen references a study conducted by Jeynes and Little (2000) in which students having been taught the whole language method displayed more interest in reading, were able to name more authors, brought more books home to read and engaged in more literacy activities in the classroom than students in a skills-based classroom (39). What’s more, the study also concluded that when asked to pretend to read a book with pictures but no words, these same students were rated higher for the quality of the written narrative register that they displayed (39). In the end, the goal of the whole language instruction is to create an incentive for reading by making it interesting and meaningful, and exposing students to as much literature as possible.

However, Diane McGuinness, an advocate for phonics-based instruction, is a well-known critic of whole language teaching. Her main argument about this approach is that it asks students to use their memories rather than learn to identify and blend letter-sounds. She goes on to argue in her article “A Prototype for Teaching the English Alphabet Code”, that students who learn whole words by sight make more spelling errors than those who understand the phonemic structure of words, because in whole language teaching, “children are encouraged to write using their own spelling system as they go” (2002, p. 3). In other words, students learn how to write first and acquire spelling eventually as they keep progressing in their writing. McGuinness warns against this “neglect” in spelling: “There is also evidence that learning to spell produces higher scores on a reading test than the same amount of time spent learning to read….” (p. 13). Advocates of the phonics method argue for reading instruction that incorporates spelling. Through the teaching of phonics, students learn letter-sounds as codes and by learning to write students learn how these codes work by putting them into practice.

Furthermore, McGuinness argues against the idea, derived by whole language educators, that phonics instruction is boring and fails to motivate students. A study conducted in a classroom, where students were learning a phonics program developed by Sue Lloyd, demonstrated that students are engaged if the following guidelines are respected: “the lessons are fun and stimulating”, they “engage all the children”, and “there are sufficient backdrop materials for individual work to support what is taught in the lessons.” (p. 17-18). Therefore, the challenge according to this view is not what you teach, but how you teach it. McGuinness offers an example of how Lloyd was able to sustain her students’ attention and generate interest:

She invented simple action patterns to represent each phoneme [sound]. Children say each phoneme aloud accompanied by the appropriate action. Apart from being fun for the children, the action patterns fulfill a number of functions. They also help anchor the speech sounds in memory. Because the actions are visible to everyone, including the teacher, they ensure that all children are engaged….” (p. 18).

McGuinness stresses the importance of giving students the tools necessary to guide them in learning how to read. Learning with phonics gives students the opportunity to gain autonomy as readers as they become more competent at decoding words. This confidence is what motivates them to become successful readers.

In the end, phonics and whole language contrast each other quite strikingly, while also inadvertently revealing their own limitations at the same time. For example, teaching phonics does help students recognize and pronounce words more effectively, but it fails at helping students develop skills for storytelling and comprehending a variety of texts. Too much time gets spent in the classroom learning how to break words into smaller parts. The whole language approach on the other hand provides students with the opportunity to understanding texts, developing an understanding of narrative forms and structures, while also helping students develop in interest for literature. However, that they understand the meaning of the words in the text, but may make more errors when reading, and contributing many errors when spelling.

When it comes to deciding which method of instruction leads to success, it’s perhaps best to look at the question from a both/and angle. In fact, today’s 21st century educators realize that integrating both approaches actually may provide a more balanced approach. Each method provides what the other one lacks. By creating a classroom environment that is rich in authentic literary material, while at the same time providing students with explicit instructions on how to decode words, the hope is that students can develop as both fluent and accurate readers. However, despite the desire to harmonize both views, educators are still working on ways to implement this more balanced approach. Which ideas work, and which don’t? Can we be sure that this new approach will be the best one? These are questions that remain to be answered in the 21st century.

Give Boys a Chance: They Like to Read Too!

"Boys demonstrate literacy in ways the current curriculum doesn't assess" by Heather Blair and Kathy Sanford-- A Critique

Final Draft

Boys today are said to be the face of academic underachievement. Teachers complain that boys don’t like to read, that their scores are weak, and that they demonstrate very little enthusiasm for books. Current research is looking into this issue in the hopes that they can explain why boys don’t seem engaged in literacy practices. In an extract published in On Line Opinion, Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate, Blair and Sanford (2003) conducted a two-year qualitative study that questions this current perspective and argues that boys are in fact not failing to engage in literacy, but that the elementary and high school curriculum is failing boys. In other words, boys do participate in literacy, but more often than not, this form of participation is at odds with the school culture. The current school curriculum reflects an outdated view on literacy. As such, Blair and Sanford argue that as long as schools continue to promote this limited view, boys will continue to be disadvantaged in school. The current curriculum works against boys’ own interests. The article not only asks us to consider the underlying factors behind boys’ underachieving scores, but to also consider other ways, if any, that boys are engaged in literacy.

Initially when analysing their research findings, Blair and Sanford found that their results were in line with the common belief that boys don’t like to read and that they demonstrate an unwillingness to participate in literacy activities in school. However, this initial interpretation of results was problematic for them because it failed to take into consideration the boys who did enjoy reading, and it also failed to explain in which ways, if any, boys were engaged in literacy. What needed to be considered were the ways in which boys’ behaviours affected their performance in school. The authors believe that part of the problem is that boys’ behaviours don’t fit within the general culture of the classroom. Boys tend to be louder, more boisterous, and are more willing to dissent (¶ 5). As such, these behaviours, aside from giving the impression of nonconformity, also give the impression of disengagement. This assumption is what Blair and Sanford question, because according to them, boys are engaging in literacy, however the current curriculum and school culture fail to recognize it. For boys, literacy is a social activity. The authors found that this manifested itself in “loud and boisterous comment across the entire room and other times the clustering around an activity, such as a computer game, that engaged them” (¶ 5). This recognition led to a more nuanced understanding of the issue, which ultimately led to a change in perspective: the boys’ nonconformity was in fact an act of engagement, not an act of defiance:

We came to recognize literacy as a dominant social practice through which the boys in our study shaped their identities and developed and maintained close personal relationships, and often their literacies gave greater emphasis to taking from the text rather than pouring over it, in order to share information with their friends. They used literacies to shape their identities and develop shared interests with friends (¶ 5).

These boys saw literacy as a means to transform information into something meaningful, which could fuel their interests and imagination, and ultimately their desire to share this information. Overall, the authors observed that boys chose literacy texts that reflected their personal goals: a desire to get information and to understand how things work (¶ 8).

The issue of boys and literacy is a hot one in the education field and the goal of this article is to suggest new ways of thinking about literacy and its purpose. The Ministry of Education in Ontario has even funded a whole program on this one issue, in order to try and get boys involved in literacy. However, the underlying assumption with these kinds of programs is that boys don’t fit within the school’s definition of what constitutes literacy. These programs attempt to find solutions to help students succeed in school. What Blair and Sanford actually argue, quite successfully, is that boys do engage in forms of literacy, just not the kinds that are traditionally taught and assessed in schools. Therefore, although they may underperform in school, they are actually quite successful outside of it. The authors rightfully argue that instead of assessing the failure of boys’ engagement in literacy within the current definition, schools should develop a more up to date and inclusive definition and pedagogical approach that can acknowledge boys’ alternative forms of engagement in literacy.

Blair and Sanford are very clear to distinguish between the ways in which boys are expected to be literate in school and the way they engage in literacy outside of school. Since most schools have yet to revise their literacy curriculum, most teachers teach literacy as “a body of knowledge to be absorbed or a tool for learning other bodies of knowledge that will be absorbed” (¶ 12). Against this current definition of literacy, the authors persuasively argue that boys’ desire to engage in literacy as a social practice is being ignored and therefore boys ignore literacy practices in the classroom (¶ 13).

I personally believe that this article is successful at shedding light on an issue of particular concern in the education field. On a broader scale, this “failure” in academic literacy has detrimental affects on boys’ motivation to pursue higher education. More girls now enroll at university. Where are the boys? In one of the more controversial statements made in the article, Blair and Sanford state that boys are actually better prepared for the “real word” since they readily engage in multimodal literacies (i.e internet, video games, etc) and find, synthesize, and use the information for a variety of purposes. These are skills that lead to success in the workplace. In the end, literacy needs to move beyond the theoretical and move towards the development of literary competence in which students are taught practical skills that will help them succeed not only inside the classroom; but more importantly, outside the classroom.

Work Cited

Blair, H. & Sanford, K. (2003). Boys demonstrate literacy in ways the current curriculum doesn’t assess. On Line Opinion: Australia’s E-journal of Social and Political Debate. Retrieved September 29, 2010, from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=962


link to the article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=962&page=0


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ROUGH DRAFT

Boys today are said to be the face of academic underachievement. Teachers complain that boys don’t like to read, that their scores are weak, and that they demonstrate very little enthusiasm for books. Current research is looking into this issue in the hopes that they can explain why boys don’t seem engaged in literacy practices. In an extract published in On Line Opinion, Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate, Blair and Sanford (2003) conducted a two-year qualitative study that questions this current perspective and argues that boys are in fact not failing to engage in literacy, but that the elementary and high school curriculum is failing boys. In other words, boys do participate in literacy, but more often than not, this form of participation is at odds with the school culture. The current school curriculum reflects an outdated view on literacy. As such, Blair and Sanford argue that as long as schools continue to promote this limited view, boys will continue to be disadvantaged in school. The current curriculum works against boys’ own interests. The article not only asks us to consider the underlying factors behind boys’ underachieving scores, but to also consider other ways, if any, that boys are engaged in literacy.

Initially when analysing their research findings, Blair and Sanford found that their results were in line with the common belief that boys don’t like to read and that they demonstrate an unwillingness to participate in literacy activities in school. However, this initial interpretation of results was problematic for them because it failed to take into consideration the boys who did enjoy reading, and it also failed to explain in which ways, if any, boys were engaged in literacy. What needed to be considered were the ways in which boys’ behaviours affected their performance in school. The authors believe that part of the problem is that boys’ behaviours don’t fit within the general culture of the classroom. Boys tend to be louder, more boisterous, and are more willing to dissent (¶ 5). As such, these behaviours, aside from giving the impression of nonconformity, also give the impression of disengagement. This assumption is what Blair and Sanford question, because according to them, boys are engaging in literacy, however the current curriculum and school culture fail to recognize it. For boys, literacy is a social activity. The authors found that this manifested itself in “loud and boisterous comment across the entire room and other times the clustering around an activity, such as a computer game, that engaged them” (¶ 5). This recognition led to a more nuanced understanding of the issue, which ultimately led to a change in perspective: the boys’ nonconformity was in fact an act of engagement, not an act of defiance:

We came to recognize literacy as a dominant social practice through which the boys in our study shaped their identities and developed and maintained close personal relationships, and often their literacies gave greater emphasis to taking from the text rather than pouring over it, in order to share information with their friends. They used literacies to shape their identities and develop shared interests with friends (¶ 5).

These boys saw literacy as a means to transform information into something meaningful, which could fuel their interests and imagination, and ultimately their desire to share this information. Overall, the authors observed that boys chose literacy texts that reflected their personal goals: a desire to get information and to understand how things work (¶ 8).

The issue of boys and literacy is a hot one in the education field and the goal of this article is to suggest new ways of thinking about literacy and its purpose. The Ministry of Education in Ontario has even funded a whole program on this one issue, in order to try and get boys involved in literacy. However, the underlying assumption with these kinds of programs is that boys don’t fit within the school’s definition of what constitutes literacy. These programs attempt to find solutions to help students succeed in school. What Blair and Sanford actually argue, quite successfully, is that boys do engage in forms of literacy, just not the kinds that are traditionally taught and assessed in schools. Therefore, although they may underperform in school, they are actually quite successful outside of it. The authors rightfully argue that instead of assessing the failure of boys’ engagement in literacy within the current definition, schools should develop a more up to date and inclusive definition and pedagogical approach that can acknowledge boys’ alternative forms of engagement in literacy.

Blair and Sanford are very clear to distinguish between the ways in which boys are expected to be literate in school and the way they engage in literacy outside of school. Since most schools have yet to revise their literacy curriculum, most teachers teach literacy as “a body of knowledge to be absorbed or a tool for learning other bodies of knowledge that will be absorbed” (¶ 12). Against this current definition of literacy, the authors persuasively argue that boys’ desire to engage in literacy as a social practice is being ignored and therefore boys ignore literacy practices in the classroom (¶ 13).

I personally believe that this article is successful at shedding light on an issue of particular concern in the education field. On a broader scale, this “failure” in academic literacy has detrimental affects on boys’ motivation to pursue higher education. More girls now enroll at university. Where are the boys? In one of the more controversial statements made in the article, Blair and Sanford state that boys are actually better prepared for the “real word” since they readily engage in multimodal literacies (i.e internet, video games, etc) and find, synthesize, and use the information for a variety of purposes. These are skills that lead to success in the workplace. In the end, literacy needs to move beyond the theoretical and move towards the development of literary competence in which students are taught practical skills that will help them succeed not only inside the classroom; but more importantly, outside the classroom.


Work Cited

Blair, H. & Sanford, K. (2003). Boys demonstrate literacy in ways the current curriculum doesn’t assess. On Line Opinion: Australia’s E-journal of Social and Political Debate. Retrieved September 29, 2010, from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=962

Getting Graphic: Why Graphic Novels Belong in Schools Today

Final draft summary of the article, "Bringing Graphic Novels into a School’s Curriculum”, by Katherine T. Bucher and M. Lee Manning

When it comes to books, today’s generation of middle school and high school students are looking for something different from what is normally read in schools. In their article, “Bringing Graphic Novels into a School’s Curriculum”, Katherine T. Bucher and M. Lee Manning (2004) argue that in today’s visual culture, young adults, who were raised around visual media, are developing an interest for graphic novels because of the genre’s emphasis on images rather than words (p. 67). They also argue that schools should embrace this new enthusiasm for the genre by introducing it into libraries and school curriculum.

To understand why graphic novels have become an important literary genre, it’s important to look at what is meant by the term “graphic novel”. Structurally, graphic novels, according to the authors, share the same format as comic books, but their storylines are longer and more complex, usually told in 64 to 179 pages (p. 67). Since the visual images are just as important as the words in the story, readers are not only asked to decipher the words, as they do with print novels, but to “identify events between the visual sequences” (qtd. in Bucher & Manning p. 67). In the end, this new popular genre of literature is not as simplistic as it may seem, since it asks the reader to cognitively work through two processes. Tabitha Simmons argues that

[g]raphic novel readers have learned to understand print, but can also decode facial and body expressions, the symbolic meanings of certain images and postures, metaphors and similes, and other social and literary nuances teenagers are mastering as they move from childhood to mat.urity [sic] (qtd. in Bucher & Manning p. 68).

Not only is there an underlying complexity when it comes to reading graphic novels, but today this genre has expanded to include more variety. All graphic novels stay the same in structure, but the content can be quite different, with many of them being by-products of other genres like biography, autobiography, fiction, nonfiction (p. 68). Many educators argue that graphic novels provide an excellent opportunity for students to understand how words and images can work together to create a different way of telling a story. Some teachers believe that using graphic novels can facilitate the teaching of literary elements. Others still will argue that graphic novels can help students develop stronger literacy skills that could encourage them to read stories with more writing in them.

Choosing good examples of graphic novels with good visuals and strong dialogue will give students a good representation of the best that this particular genre can offer. When examining potential graphic texts, teachers and librarians are advised to “examine the genre, target audience, quality, and artistic merit as well as the reputation and style of the author and illustrator….” (p. 69). Furthermore, teachers and librarians have many resources at their disposal, such as local bookstores or specialized bookshops, which can help them up stay up to date with the latest published graphic novels. It’s important that when selecting appropriate graphic novels for middle and high school students, teachers and librarians choose texts that are devoid of inappropriate content, language, sexual and cultural stereotypes (p. 71). There are also many ways that a teacher can introduce graphic novels into the school curriculum. Aside from using them in English class, teachers can also integrate them into other academic subjects like social science and science, as a way of helping students develop a visual understanding of the content material.

In the end, graphic novels belong in schools and across the curriculum, because they not only appeal to today’s generation of visual students, but they also offer them the opportunity to understand difficult and abstract concepts in more visual and concretized way.

In response, I would like to state that I agree entirely with the authors of this article. Having taught in schools for three years, I can say without reservation, that many students gravitate towards visual literacy, piling up comic books inside their desks, or hiding Japanese Manga inside their jackets before going out for recess. Although this wasn’t mentioned in the article, I also think that using graphic novels in schools would be especially beneficial in second language classrooms, where beginner students need visual cues to help them understand. On a more personal note, I am a big fan of graphic novels and have been impressed with the visual and literary quality of them. The interplay between words and images is quite interesting, and would be greatly appreciated by students. Educators need to reevaluate what “literacy” means in the 21st century and perhaps be more open to exploring multimodal literacies.


Work Cited

Bucher, Katherine T., & Manning, M. Lee. (2004). Bringing graphic novels into a school’s curriculum. Clearing House, 78 (2), 67- 72.




15348082


Rough draft: Getting Graphic: Why Graphic Novels Belong in Schools Today

Summary of the article, "Bringing Graphic Novels into a School’s Curriculum”, by Katherine T. Bucher and M. Lee Manning

When it comes to books, today’s generation of middle school and high school students are looking for something different from what is normally read in schools. In their article, “Bringing Graphic Novels into a School’s Curriculum”, Katherine T. Bucher and M. Lee Manning (2004) argue that in today’s visual culture, young adults, who were raised around visual media, are developing an interest for graphic novels because of the genre’s emphasis on images rather than words (p. 67). They also argue that schools should embrace this new enthusiasm for the genre by from introducing it into libraries and school curriculum.
To understand why graphic novels have become an important literary genre, it’s important to look at what is meant by the term “graphic novel”.
Structurally, graphic novels, according to the authors, share the same format as comic books, but their storylines are longer and more complex, usually told in 64 to 179 pages (p. 67). Since the visual images are just as important as the words in the story, readers are not only asked to decipher the words, as they do with print novels, but to “identify events between the visual sequences” (qtd. in Bucher & Manning p. 67). In the end, this new popular genre of literature is not as simplistic as it may seem, since it asks the reader to cognitively work through two processes. Tabitha Simmons argues that
[g]raphic novel readers have learned to understand print, but can also decode facial and body expressions, the symbolic meanings of certain images and postures, metaphors and similes, and other social and literary nuances teenagers are mastering as they move from childhood to mat.urity [sic]. (qtd. in Bucher & Manning p. 68).

Not only is there an underlying complexity when it comes to reading graphic novels, but today this genre has expanded to include more variety. All graphic novels stay the same in structure, but the content can be quite different, with many of them being by-products of other genres like biography, autobiography, fiction, nonfiction (p. 68). Many educators argue that graphic novels provide an excellent opportunity for students to understand how words and images can work together to create a different way of telling a story. Some teachers believe that using graphic novels can facilitate the teaching of literary elements. Others still will argue that graphic novels can help students develop stronger literacy skills that could encourage them to read stories with more writing in them.
Choosing good examples of graphic novels with good visuals and strong dialogue will give students a good representation of the best that this particular genre can offer. When examining potential graphic texts, teachers and librarians are advised to “examine the genre, target audience, quality, and artistic merit as well as the reputation and style of the author and illustrator….” (p. 69). Furthermore, teachers and librarians have many resources at their disposal, such as local bookstores or specialized bookshops, which can help them up stay up to date with the latest published graphic novels. It’s important that when selecting appropriate graphic novels for middle and high school students, teachers and librarians choose texts that are devoid of inappropriate content, language, sexual and cultural stereotypes (71). There are also many ways that a teacher can introduce graphic novels into the school curriculum. Aside from using them in English class, teachers can also integrate them into other academic subjects like social science and science, as a way of helping students develop a visual understanding of the content material.
In the end, graphic novels belong in schools and across the curriculum, because they not only appeal to today’s generation of visual students, but they also offer them the opportunity to understand difficult and abstract concepts in more visual and concretized way.

In response, I would like to state that I agree entirely with the authors of this article. Having taught in schools for three years, I can say without reservation, that many students gravitate towards visual literacy, piling up comic books inside their desks, or hiding Japanese Manga inside their jackets before going out for recess. Although this wasn’t mentioned in the article, I also think that using graphic novels in schools would be especially beneficial in second language classrooms, where beginner students need visual cues to help them understand. On a more personal note, I am a big fan of graphic novels and have been impressed with the visual and literary quality of them. The interplay between words and images is quite interesting, and would be greatly appreciated by students. Educators need to reevaluate what “literacy” means in the 21st century and perhaps be more open to exploring multimodal literacies.


Work Cited

Bucher, Katherine T., & Manning, M. Lee. (2004). Bringing graphic novels into a school’s curriculum. Clearing House, 78 (2), 67- 72.

My goals for Engl 213 and this blog

Engl 213

I've been an undergraduate student since 2004. I hold a bachelor's degree in Western Society and Culture with minors in English Literature and Theology. I took some time off in 2007 and 2008 to teach English as a second language at an elementary school here in Quebec. I ended up falling in love with teaching and decided to return to Concordia University to complete another bachelor's degree, this time in Teaching English as a Second Language. I am set to graduate in the spring (2011). Engl 213 comes a bit late for me in my undergraduate studies, but I still think that I have a lot to learn when it comes to writing.
As a student, my goal for this course is to brush up on my academic writing skills and potentially build a stronger foundation for writing academic papers, which can benefit me if I ever decide to pursue graduate studies.
Also, as a future TESL teacher, my goal is to gain some pedagogical insight on how to design and teach a writing course.

This Blog

Since my ultimate goal is to become an English teacher and get my students interested in reading and writing, this blog is dedicated to exploring various issues surrounding literacy education today.