Tying Literacy and Language - cindyvanamerongen



November 18th, 2011

By: Cindy Van Amerongen

ID#: 301924

University of Calgary

Research Question

When considering, for the sake of this essay, what type of question interested our group the most we chose to inquire upon something that was not only general enough that each of our individual group members would be able to collect copious and rich field notes and data but that the question itself would hold some personal meaning for each of us in relation to our inquiry topic. We have spent the semester, thus far, discussing the topic of gender and literacy as it relates to both our required and textbook readings; therefore, we found it suitable to settle on the following as the basis for our inquiry in collecting the data that would ultimately facilitate the composition of a most meaningful and engaging field experience paper: How are classrooms implicitly and explicitly reinforcing and/or dispelling gender stereotypes in relation to literacy? We thought it meaningful to pose this question for predominantly two reasons; firstly and most obviously, it directly relates in some way to each of our individual inquiry group readings. Secondly, being that our group is evenly comprised of mixed gender members that it might prove to be rather interesting how we will individually interpret and analyze the question and what artefacts we collect to support our observations, as well as what differences and similarities will present themselves afterwards as we begin the debriefing process in preparation for our final oral presentation.

Data Collection

Here in, I wish to describe the setting for my research in two separate parts as the collection of data it self took place in two separate locations. I will however, elaborate further on how I have found these two settings to be both similar and different in nature in general as well as in relation to our inquiry topic of gender and how it relates to my observations. My first weeks’ experience, site unseen, inculcated within me a feeling of apprehensive titillation as I anticipated it to be a very unique and special one; needless to say, upon arrival my presumptions were immediately confirmed. As drove towards my destination, expecting to arrive even before the sun rose fully in the sky, I was greeted with a sight that rural Alberta residents are blessed with on a daily basis; the morning sun peeked over the hay fields as brilliant shades of magenta, amber and autumn saffron streaked across the horizon. I knew as I arrived at the Beiseker Community School that the days that were to follow would prove to be most interesting as I navigated the pocket-sized K-12 learning environment. Immediately upon entering the main corridor it became apparent that this school observed a sense of community and intimacy among it’s less than three hundred students and dozen or so faculty that I didn’t expect to be so present in our inner city educational edifices. In a school of such a miniscule size, where there were no restaurants or diners surrounding it’s playground on every street corner and students did not have the option to congregate in the cafeteria for lunch, as there wasn’t one; they seemed to spend their personal time together in their classrooms or outside within their age respective play areas.

Week two presented an entirely opposing set of circumstances; I traveled the much shorter distance across the city to the St. Francis High School located in the city’s north west quadrant. The school itself is located on a rather busy street, in an even busier community, comprised of both residential and commercial properties and in proximity to not one but two large shopping malls as well as several other schools and a multitude of public eateries. Physically speaking, the school is a giant in comparison to that which I had visited the previous week, so much so that it seemed to me that the entire Beiseker Community School could have fit into the student parking lot at St. Francis. More differences became immediately apparent as I observed what can only be described as a collective bustling of bodies as waves of students flowed from all directions onto the premises; some walked others were chauffeured and a large number of students arrived on city busses rather than on the ‘traditional’ type of school bus like those that serviced the Beiseker community. Even before I entered the massive structure it was apparent that the seventeen hundred members of the student body dwarfed that which comprised the Beiseker Community School collective. On the surface the overall environment seemed to operate in a much more mechanical, detached and anonymous way than that which, as previously noted, seemed so connected and cohesive. I deduced precociously that if nothing else the contrasts in what data I had collected would allow for a rather interesting analysis and interpretation given the enormous differences in scale and environment between my two field placement locations.

|Data Source |Description |

|Samples of administrative work |-Beiseker School mandate/school policy & philosophy. |

| |-Wood shop classroom philosophy (derived from school philosophy). |

| |-St. Francis School handbook. |

|Samples of teacher work |-Self directed, student self-assessment worksheet. |

| |-Assignment worksheets for student choice project. |

|Samples of photos |-Photos of schoolyard and physical layout. |

| |-Photos of cultural influences on school |

| |-Photos of student directed worksheet/project. |

|Transcripts of interviews |-Interview with grade 9 teacher (of mixed gender gym class). |

| |-Interview with grade 10-12 teacher (of mixed gender shop class). |

| |-Interview with grade 11 cosmetology student (of mixed gender class). |

| |-Interview with small group of grade 11-12 mechanics students (of girls only class). |

| |-Interview with grade 11-12 teacher (of all girls mechanics class). |

|Field Notes |-Observations of class structures/gender ratios throughout entire field experience. |

| |-Observations of mixed gender and same sex student-to-student interactions in/out of the classroom |

| |throughout entire field experience. |

| |-Observations of student-to-teacher interactions throughout entire field experience. |

| |-Observations of student culture in relation to dress, hair, personal style/identity in and out of the |

| |classroom setting. |

| | |

Data Analysis and Interpretation

My collective experiences, over the course of my two-week field experience at both The Beiseker Community School and St. Francis high School, have been abundantly rich and have exponentially expanded upon my theoretical knowledge overtaking my initial expectations (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002). Outlining this mental expansion in its entirety would take weeks and consume more pages than this assignment would rationally allow. Therefore, if it pleases the reader, I’d like to explore a handful of different educational experiences, I observed and participated in at both locations, in relation to a topic that is of interest to both my inquiry group and myself. That is, as is noted above, I desired to observe how gender stereotypes, as they are historically defined, are reinforced and or disbanded by both students and teachers in school life and literacy. In my previous educational experiences (especially as a child) there were many things that ‘us girls’ simply were not allowed to do. Ultimately, over the course of my field placement it intrigued me to observe whether or not the gender gap has narrowed in relation to how the student’s are treated by educators and by each other respectively. Before I begin I feel it necessary that I might touch on how gender stereotypes have been historically defined. That it is a common feeling that the ideas of masculinity and femininity are central to many of the struggles that each students face as learners; “boys are naturally interested in sports, action and technology” and girls are naturally good at reading, writing and home economic type of activities (Blair, & Sanford, 2004). I wish, for the sake of this essay, to relate these issues of gender to literacy not so much in it’s traditional definition of just being able to read and write but also as what it means to be literate in how it relates to a person’s knowledge of a particular subject or field. That is to say that the observations I wish to analyze span beyond simple examples of word and text by encompassing many forms of behaviours and human interactions as well (Graff, 2010).

It struck me that I was one of the few, of the four hundred plus BEd. students, that were fortunate enough to attend a K-12 school and what an immensely comprehensive spectrum of age groups this would provide for observational purposes. The first of which observations I wish to discuss occurred on my second day of immersion within the Beiseker Community School culture. I found myself in the field behind the school (see cover image of this essay) participating in a grade 9, mixed gender gym class taught by a Mr. Shane Hansen. Immediately, before the class had even formally begun, I noted already the emergent unfolding of cultural stereotypes: Mr. Hansen is obviously, a man. The students were completing a unit of football in which they played in four small mixed teams against one another; as two teams were in the field playing the other two teams would be on the sidelines practicing throws and catches. Every few minutes the teams would switch off allowing for equal game play between the teams. Thus far, in relation to the students’ gender, I observed a great amount of equality; both boys and girls played on the same teams and were given equal amounts of playtime. It wasn’t until I walked out onto the sidelines among the students that the real image of what was transpiring truly presented itself to me. I noted that where the students were practicing catching and throwing, although participating, the girls were struggling to throw with any distance or accuracy and tended to shy away or avoid the ball completely when attempting to catch it (Van Amerongen, 2011). Of course, not all of the girls performed this way; many were equally as involved and confident as the males. However, it seemed ironic that in this particular case the stereotypical feminine behaviour was actually being reinforced by the individual girls themselves rather than by their male instructor as I had initially suspected would be the case. One girl, named Tianna, I noted was particularly guilty of this; she was out rightly refusing to catch the ball by simply stepping out of its way. She giggled and carried on in this fashion despite her classmates’ best efforts to teach her the ‘proper’ way to catch (Van Amerongen, 2011).

After the gym period ended I approached Mr. Hansen and tactfully asked him what his feelings were in regards to the gender ‘issue’ in his classes (VanManen, 1991). His response initially struck me as somewhat sexist but after some elaborative contemplation on the matter I deduced the truth to be quite the opposite; Mr. Hansen wanted to separate the groups in order to facilitate their success. He described to me how he wished he could split the physical education program into single gender classes and that he felt that regardless of how the groups are composed there would be observable positive and negative aspects to each. I questioned him about the idea of inclusion and that how we’ve studied that dividing groups based solely on gender is counterintuitive to the philosophy of inclusion; and doesn’t this ultimately reinforce self-esteem issues? (Ormrod, Saklofske, Schwean, Andrews & Shore, 2010). His response weighed largely on his collective experience, where he has observed there to be a very low level of confidence in students of this age group and how critical it is to be confidence in order to succeed not only in gym class but in other areas of physical activity as well (Van Amerongen, 2011). He described how by segregating the genders the boys would ultimately perform the same if not more aggressively and the girls would have the opportunity to gain confidence, participate more actively and ultimately perform better in same gender classes than they do currently in the mixed gender class. He did note, what could perhaps be a negative effect of this kind of grouping, is that the girls that are currently engaged heavily and confidently may suffer in an all female group because it would lack the challenging and competitive environment they’re currently thriving in (Van Amerongen, 2011).

I thought it be best to contrast my observations above to another area, of the Beiseker School, which at least back in my high school experience, was one that very much reinforced negative gender stereotypes. This brings me to discuss my time observing Mr. Lutness’ grade 10-12 shop class. I noticed immediately upon entering that the demographic was entirely different than the physical education class previously discussed. This may have been largely due to the fact that this class, unlike gym, would be taken as an elective. I noted the group to be a size of about sixteen students of which there was only one girl. This again demonstrated to me an instance of how it was the students themselves that were reinforcing of the idea that girls simply don’t take shop regardless of whether they have no interest in it or just simply don’t feel comfortable there. I noted that all the students demonstrated equality when working together; it appeared that gender was not an issue for them as both worked as uniformly and confidently, with the power tools and on the assigned tasks (Van Amerongen, 2011).

[pic]

21st century competencies (Murdoff & Bell, 2011). What was interesting was how prevalently his shop held to these goals. For example each grade level had a caddy full of paperwork for a

number of different projects that were appropriate for their respective age and skill levels. (Figure 1.) The students were allowed to select any of the projects from their caddies that they wished but could, if pre-approved, choose a project of their own design or select a project from those assigned to higher grades levels (Van Amerongen, 2011). Secondly, I posed the question, that although he observes a very inclusive mentality, does he notice a gap in abilities between boys and girls? I thought this worth asking since again it has been my experience that females are just simply not ‘supposed’ to be as good with tools as males. Mr. Lutness described that although he maintains the same expectation for both males and females he does recognize that girls are often more susceptible to experiencing pressure in regards to skill level and competency with tools. He elaborated as to how it’s important to remain sensitive to students individual needs and that he is very fond of using scaffolding techniques to help boost confidence (Ormrod, Saklofske, Schwean, Andrews & Shore, 2010). He would lend a hand by demonstrating a task and then guide the student to perform the same or take an individual aside for a private talk to re-motivate them.

Upon reflecting on my collective observations of the Beiseker Community School it pleases me to write further in relation to how these notions of reinforcement or disbandment, in relation to gender stereotyping compared themselves to those present inside the walls of St. Francis High School. In contemplating how to take in the largeness of St. Francis in its’ entirety led me to begin with making general observations about its student culture. I began to navigate the cafeteria and the hallways and notice immediately that these students were equally as concerned with fashion and pop culture as those at Beiseker. This may sound redundant at first, as some may think that of course teenagers are interested in fashion. The notable difference here being that there was obviously a more affluent nature to the dress of those at St. Francis. That is that there seemed to be an over abundance of Lulu Lemon, Lacoste and various other big name brands visible in mass quantities, plastered all over the students (Van Amerongen, 2011). Initially I chalked this up to being due largely in part to the urban centre in which the school resides. However, after again considering things in greater depth I again began to understand what exactly it was that I had been observing (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002). To think that students dress in a certain way simply because they have access to purchasing these types of items is in itself somewhat naive. That is to say that yes these kids have easy access to these products but why do they collectively choose to buy and wear them in such abundance? I began to look more diligently at their surroundings, noting immediately that as the masses disembarked from the school busses that they in fact weren’t school busses at all but rather were regular city transit busses being used for school purposes. It would have been difficult for anyone, let alone these fashion conscious students, not to notice the large-scale advertisement of a nearly nude, provocatively posed model for Victoria’s Secret that consumed almost the entire side of the ‘school’ bus. (Figure 2.) This struck me as an ‘in your face’ way of reinforcing what is the

[pic]

however, I see little possibility that the school might have any influence over modifying this type of external influence.

In contrast to what may be observed externally to the school it interested me to seek out how similar ideals are being actively reinforced or disbanded within the school itself. This leads me to touch on how and where I observed the institution to reinforce this type of mentality. I found it fascinating to document two such examples that although seemingly played very similarly in creating a negative sense of self-efficacy/self-image; conclusively, actually presented rather contrasting ideals (Ormrod, Saklofske, Schwean, Andrews & Shore, 2010). Firstly I noted that St. Francis has an entire department devoted to teaching the students cosmetology; where in they learn about everything from fashion to hairstyling. It became immediately obvious that these cosmetology classes were simply meant for girls as there was never a single male student in sight upon the several times I entered the department (Van Amerongen, 2011). Rather than to make presumptions I asked one of the students directly as to why the ratio of males to females was entirely one sided. She responded with: “the class is open to boys, they just don’t wanna’ take it”; she continued to explain how boys don’t dare take any cosmetology courses because they would be called “fags, gays or homos” and bullied beyond reason by their peers (Van Amerongen, 2011). This was a very intriguing conversation as it mirrored a great degree the behaviours of boys discussed by Watson, Kehler and Martino in their commentary on The Problem of Boys Literacy, where in they explored how boys assert their gender identities by positioning themselves in opposition to femininity and homosexuality (2010). In this case I feel it somewhat stereotypical of the school to provide this type of course as it truly reinforces that all young people are and should be rather concerned with fashion and style. However, I was once again surprised that it was more so the students themselves that reinforced the ‘traditional’ notion of gender stereotyping where as the institution merely provided the means. Possibly the most interesting aspect of this observation is that it directly contradicts the school’s policy on harassment and bullying; as it is acutely defined to encompass any form of behaviour that includes: “verbal, non-verbal or sexual, that causes another to feel intimidated, offended, embarrassed and/or humiliated. Harassment denies the dignity and respect of individuals. It hampers efforts to create a caring Christian community and interferes with a student’s right to feel safe and secure within the school environment” (Abott, Daigle, Mac Donald, Smith & Bidulka, 2011). So, how can I ethnographically accuse the students of self-perpetuating their own gender stereotypes when seemingly the institution makes no advancements to contravene?

Feeling somewhat deflated I explored yet another region of the school; it brought me many feelings of surprise mixed with those of both pleasure and displeasure to learn that St. Francis offers gender segregated mechanics courses! I immediately was internally accusing the institution of yet again reinforcing gender stereotypes by silently explaining to the students that their mechanical aptitudes and abilities must obviously have something to do with their genders. Initially I presumed that this type of segregation directly opposed the philosophy of inclusion, in education, as outlined in the St. Francis handbook and as it has been presented to us in our BEd. program (Ormrod, Saklofske, Schwean, Andrews & Shore, 2010; Abott, Daigle, Mac Donald, Smith & Bidulka, 2011). I was fortunate to have the opportunity to discuss this notion of mine, in a most tactful manner of course, with a small group of female students during one of these segregated classes (VanManen, 1991). They actually expressed their enthusiasm for taking this course, as girls are often not welcomed in this type of program; they elaborated for me by discussing how they would most likely not have taken this class if it were only offered as a mixed gender course. I was then increasingly pleased to learn from the instructor that the materials offered to both genders were virtually the same and that he maintained the same expectations from both the male and female students (Van Amerongen, 2011). It is at this point that I wish to proudly admit my initial presumptions were wrong; I recalled speaking to the gym teacher at Beiseker the previous week and how we discussed that based on his experience he felt that students would benefit from segregating the genders. He felt that they would be able to learn more effectively as there would be less distractions and less harassment from the opposite sex, resulting in an environment more conducive to fostering confidence and meaningful learning. After considering what I had noted in the mechanics class and listening to the girls explain their situation with great enthusiasm, I compared what I had observed again with my own high school experiences. I recalled how I had had an interest in taking mechanics but had ultimately opted not to because that type of thing was something that girls simply just did not do. I can say for certain, had my high school offered an all girls mechanics course I absolutely would have participated. Therefore, it occurred to me that what I had observed was not so contradictory to the notion of inclusionary education after all; yes, the students were being separated by gender but in doing so a much more welcoming and confidence boosting type of environment was created (Ormrod, Saklofske, Schwean, Andrews & Shore, 2010; Abott, Daigle, Mac Donald, Smith & Bidulka, 2011). In opposition to what was occurring in the cosmetology department the mechanics department was working successfully with the students in effectively disbanding the ‘traditional’ gender stereotypes (Van Amerongen, 2011).

Implications and Recommendations

In retrospect, when considering how to address where and what to observe, while in the field, I thought it worth exploring the question of gender stereotyping in areas where I personally experienced the most stereotype reinforcing attitudes by my own high school teachers. After intently observing the pedagogical methods of many instructors I realized that what I saw and what I expected to see where exorbitantly different. I anticipated observing an environment that very much paralleled my own high school experience however, what I conceived was very much the opposite. It seems that stereotypes are now disbanded by the educators, who focus entirely on promoting inclusion in the classroom and have shifted to being reinforced by the individual students themselves; for example the girl who avoided catching the football or the boys who chose not to take the cosmetology class (Van Amerongen, 2011). Overall, I found this learning experience to be very meaningful and most engaging as my faith in the educational system was boosted by the realization that both the male and female instructors have moved away from the old or ‘traditional’ mindset and are now focusing on promoting an equal and inclusive learning atmosphere. As mentioned earlier, I was astonished that even though the educators have made an enormous shift in practice and attitude that the students acted very much the same as they did, over a decade ago, when I myself was in high school. I should very much hope that we, as new teachers, will have a positive impact on helping the next generation of students move away from this type of stereotype reinforcing mentality.

Should I ever have the opportunity to openly discuss my reflections with a teacher/school board panel I would applaud them in their collective efforts in striving and succeeding in many areas in disbanding the gender stereotypes in education and literacy as I observed them to do so. I feel that the teachers and the curriculum have made great strides towards the future and would recommend only that they might consider developing more intimate kinds of relationships with students so as to further help them understand the importance of pursuing the similar mindset in their own educations. I would recommend that they introduce more gender segregated classes as they seem, surprisingly, to actually promote inclusion and build confidence; I propose they might pilot some of these courses in order to gather and analyze data to determine the effectiveness in doing so as it relates to the results that mixed gender classes are currently achieving.

Finally, in regards to our inquiry question itself I am overall incredibly enthusiastic in what we posed as the foundation for our observational research and truly believe it to have been very much the right question to ask in relation to our inquiry group’s topic. I found it to be general enough that it was appealing to each group member in some personal way but yet specific enough that I myself was easily able to relate it to our course material and some of my own past educational experiences. I feel that although, overall, I’m very content with what we asked ourselves to explore it may possibly have been more useful to explore the notion of gender stereotypes in a way that didn’t oblige us to focus so much on the concept of literacy. Fortunately, the contemporary definition of literacy applies to any knowledge held by an individual within a particular area or topic; however, it may have been more constructive to pose the question simply as: How are educators, administrators and students implicitly and explicitly reinforcing and/or dispelling gender stereotypes within the school system? This type of question could not only be used to address issues in literacy but would also be broad enough that it could be responded to by discussing almost any observation made in relation to school interactions where the genders of those involved may have had some kind of an influence on their outcomes.

References

Abott, M., Daigle, G., Mac Donald, D., Smith, N. & Bidulka, M. (2011). Saint Francis High School: Building Futures Together, 2011-2012 Student Handbook. Retrieved from

Blair, H. A. & Sanford, K. (2004). Morphing literacy: Boys reshaping their school-based literacy practices. Language Arts, 81(6), 452-460.

DeWalt, K. M. & DeWalt, B. R. (2002) Doing participant observation. In K. M. DeWalt & B.R. DeWalt, Participant Observation: A guide for fieldworkers. New York, NY: AltaMira Press. (pp. 67-82)

Graff, J. (2010). Reading, readin’, and skimming: Preadolecent girls navigate the sociocultural landscapes of books and reading. Language Arts, 87(3), 177-187.

Murdoff, V. & Bell, Tracy. (2011, May). Beiseker Community School 2011-2014 school education plan: Year one. Retrieved from

Ormrod, J.E., Saklofske, D.H., Schwean, V.L., Andrews, J.W. & Shore, B. M. (2010) Principles of educational psychology: 2nd Canadian edition. Pearson: Toronto.

Van Amerongen, C. (2011, October). Personal field journal from Beiseker Community School, and Saint Francis High School, AB.

Van Manen, M. (1991). Pedagogical tact. The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. London, ON: Althouse Press. (pp. 149-186)

Watson, A.,Kehler, M. & Marino, W. (2010). The problem of boys’ literacy underachievement: Raising some questions. Journal of Adolecent & Adult Literacy, 53(5), 356-361.

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

(Fig. 1.)

I commented to Mr. Lutness as to how confidently the single girl was working in the shop and asked how he felt about having a mixed gender group. He confidently replied that he had, without a doubt, the exact same expectations of every student and did not ‘go easy’ on anyone because of their gender.

He explained how he very much abides by the school mandates’ four goals: all learners will have their individual needs met, learners are self directed and innovative, instructional design challenges the learner and learning environments enable the acquisition of the

(Fig. 2.)

epitome of negative female stereotyping: that women must be not only fashionable but also we must be beautiful, provocative and submissive sexual entities (Blair, & Sanford, 2004). This is obviously an example of our societal interference with school culture

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download