Explicit Strategy in Teaching and Learning Literacy - Term Paper Example

School of Education and Professional Studies Using a Systematic and Explicit Strategy in Teaching and Learning Literacy By Name University Module Instructor Submission Date © 2012 1.0. INTRODUCTION This essay will discuss an instructional strategy that is systematic and explicit in the teaching and learning of literacy. It starts by analysing the kinds of knowledge that an effective instructional strategy would develop on the learners of literacy. It goes on to look at the different kinds of knowledge that are related to the development of skills before further analysing the strategy by considering how it would develop expertise and capacity on the learners who would be near or far. The strategy would then be contrasted with two other instructional strategies. Finally, the essay will also assess the effectiveness of the chosen strategy. 2.0. REVIEW OF LITERATURE A cognitive theory will focus on the process of memorisation and how it affects learning. Such a theory explains how to extract sense out of information and/or experience and manipulate fresh and recognisable information. Thus, the following questions need to be considered: What roles do memorisation and thinking play in a learning process? How do memorising and thinking impact in a particular area of instruction? Dawson (2008) argues that cognition is the process of acquiring knowledge; perceiving and conceiving something rather than sentiment or volition. In this connection, a human mind is seen as “a system of receiving, retrieving, storing, transforming and transmitting information so that it becomes a science composed of interplay of linguistics, psychology, information and communication technology, neuroscience and philosophy” (Dawson, 2008). In processing information, instead of cognitive theory being concerned with behaviour, it uses memory to understand behaviour so that in psychology and philosophy, cognition of a concept is related to mind or intelligence. Further, cognition mainly refers to the mental process of thinking and intelligent quotient as in human beings, while metacognition refers to knowledge acquired from experience (Dawson, 2008). In view of the foregoing, it becomes imperative to explore how cognitive theory is used in acquiring expertise in an area of learning. In this case, rather than a person acting in reflex or conditioned manner, he will process the stimuli in order to determine the outcome (Dawson, 2008). Designing an Instructional Strategy According to Galbraith (2004), the following steps must be adopted in designing an instructional strategy (IS): 1. Assess the learners’ needs so as to identify the learning/teaching objectives or goals. 2. Know your learners by analysing who they are and the context or environment in which they learn new skills and how they could use the acquired skills. 3. Make a list of the performance objectives indicating what the learners would be able to do after the learning process. 4. Make a list of the items or instruments that can be used in assessing the learners on completing the instruction. 5. Plan the lessons i.e. develop an instructional strategy. 6. Develop and choose the materials for the instruction, and 7. Design a procedure for evaluating as well as for assessing the instruction Arguably, the fifth step can be termed the most important because it is here that a decision is reached on the actual method of teaching that will be adopted. Furthermore, an effective IS can be used in listing the right materials for the instruction; setting a criteria for evaluating any available materials; and planning teaching notes, group activities or assignments (Kizlik, 2012). In this essay, the intention is to help learners in literacy to build their learning skills in a progressive manner. This is not only a natural requirement for the learners, but also of great national importance for any country. This is so because everyone’s daily life involves the use of literacy in one way or the other. The use of literacy for example is required for every bit of small natural occupations to the more complicated jobs in our daily living. For this reason, two fundamental questions logically follow, i.e. what do learners of literacy need to be acquainted with, and what is the most effective strategy in teaching the required literacy skills? This essay will not concentrate on the first question, but the second where it will investigate the systematic and explicit method as an instructional strategy in teaching literacy. Obviously, a good and effective instructional method for teaching literacy should look at the learner’s requirements and what ought to be taught. It is therefore important to set up a team of experts with the mandate to establish and advise the national government on the best way to teach literacy. Stevenson and colleague (2011) put forth an example of how such a panel of experts was formed in Australia and came up with five interwoven aspects of teaching literacy. They said that each aspect of learning is a continuous process; whenever innovative ideas, terms and expertise are developed, then greater levels in knowledge should be reached too (Adams and Carnine, 2003); retaining earlier the older proficiencies in the mind. Another such panel advocates the need for curriculum of literacy to emphasise on the success in writing and reading. They added that teachers of literacy should continuously research on the best methods of instruction in this area. Stevenson and colleague (2011) further stressed that there are lots of benefits for making sure that all the literacy concepts taught are fully understood; that the methods of tackling literacy issues should be systematic; and that teachers should inculcate recall of literacy facts in their students. However, majority of literacy teachers are aware of this statement of fact and the dangers posed when students do not gain a good degree of mastery of the basic concepts taught. This is further compounded by disability on the part of a learner, especially if that disability affects the memorising of facts or the acquisition of skills (Ashcraft et al, 2010). 3.0. SYSTEMATIC AND EXPLICIT METHOD OF INSTRUCTING LITERACY This method of instruction, also called direct instruction is an instructional method where the interaction between the teacher and the learners is carefully planned. The teachers will have a clear objective and follow a definite series of instruction in the teaching process. Firstly, the teacher assesses the learners to gauge how much they know on the subject matter before laying out a teaching plan of action based on the learners’ skills. In this method of teaching, the learners will go through the syllabus, either independently or in learning groups, practising the required skills time and again until the teacher determines the progress of the students (Montague, 2007). Before expanding further on this instructional method, I briefly discuss in Section 4.0 below the kinds of knowledge that can be presented by an effective IS. 4.0. KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPED BY AN EFFECTIVE SEM In general, there are two fundamental kinds of knowledge that can be presented to a learner, including ‘know that’ and ‘know how’ (Burns, 2002). The first type is a declarative or propositional kind where the learner gains knowledge of, or about something without having the ability to apply it in action. Here the learner gains knowledge of facts or information, for instance, “a computer keyboard keys are prearranged in the QWERTY order in three rows” (Foley, 2004); and “the sky is normally blue”. This means that understanding a concept or possessing a theoretical knowledge of something, is a ‘know that’ kind of knowledge (Galotti, 2011). If we are able to apply ‘know that’ knowledge to perform an activity, then we possess ‘know how’ knowledge (Burns, 2002). Examples will suffice here! If we know how to type on a computer keyboard, or repair a car engine, or write an article or solve a quadratic equation in mathematics, then we possess ‘know how’ knowledge. Thus, ‘know how’ knowledge allows a learner to perform a skill. An important question is: how does one differentiate ‘know that’ from ‘know how’ kind of knowledge? By understanding that the first kind of knowledge is declarative in nature i.e. a learner can say or declare what he knows; while the second kind of knowledge is procedural in nature, although it is almost always drawn from ‘know that’ knowledge (Montague, 2007). For example, Reed (2010) argues that we use the facts we know about something to identify the nature of a situation (‘know that’), then start a procedure (‘know how’) to solve the situation. In Systematic and Explicit Method (SEM), Merriam (2008) says that there are five different entities that interrelate and combine skills, abilities, knowledge, and beliefs to enable a student to manipulate literacy across its domains, including understanding a concept, adaptive reasoning, and aptitude in planning, procedural fluency, and productive disposition. This is referred to as proficiency in literacy as illustrated by Kizlik (2012). This instructional method of teaching offers a variety of knowledge to the learners of literacy, and is very successful in enhancing critical skills such as organisation, concentration and/or attention. The foregoing method is said to include the following among others: Techniques of remembering, for instance, a word mnemonic can be formed by picking the first letter of a word in a series of words that explain a concept; Strategic steps of doing things expressed in understandable and daily speech, for instance, read the questions carefully; The order in which the steps stated above should be executed, for instance, the learner is prompted to read the query carefully before attempting to solve it; Approach that includes steps that induce a learner to use his cognitive abilities, for instance, the essential interactive steps required to solve a problem (Reed, 2010). In addition, this instructional method has been found to be highly effective in imparting computational skills such as basic mathematical operations of arithmetic or algebra, although it may not be effective for advanced mathematical calculations for example. Kizlik (2012) claim that if the instructional process is broken down into clear and distinct steps while the learners are placed into learning groups and are questioned directly, the learning process seem to be more successful when combined with SEM of teaching. In summary, this method is very effective for teaching definite facts and/or basic skills. What is more, it can be highly effective in imparting research skills that are in high demand for higher levels of education (Montague, 2007). This method of instruction is particularly useful and has also been found very successful for learners with problems on some kind of skill (Merriam, 2008). A continuous communication between the teacher and learner forms the basis for this kind of instructional method. This method requires the teacher to pace the lessons appropriately; allow for adequate feedback from learners; encourage frequent answers from the learners; and to pay close attention and carefully monitor the progress of any particular lesson. It should also be stated that this instructional method teaches learners ‘how to learn’ by giving them the necessary procedures and tools that resourceful students need to use to comprehend and become skilled at new skills (Tennant, 2006). To sum it up, SEM demonstrates various tactics of solving problems with the guidance of the teacher, while the learner makes use of this guidance to solve problems. Additionally, this instructional method has advantages and disadvantages of its own just like any other teaching method. Firstly, the method is geared towards very specific learning goals while the learners have been given prior reasons why the content of the subject matter is important. Again, the process of measuring the success of the method is very easy because all what one needs is to assess how much the learner has accomplished or gained (Montague, 2007). Other advantages are that the method is widely accepted the world over and for almost all fields of study, and it is good for teaching particular facts and skills (Galotti, 2011). Secondly, it is a fact that this method can dampen the creativity of a teacher because of repeating same procedures again and again. A further disadvantage is that the method requires careful preparation of teaching content and very good communication skills, both oral and written. What is more, the steps of performing an activity must be executed in the order prescribed previously. Additionally and as stated elsewhere above, this method of instruction is not effective for higher levels of education that require high thinking abilities (Reed, 2010). 5.0. IMPACT OF SEM FOR DISTANCE LEARNERS The impact of this instructional method and its applicability has been discussed mainly in relation to learners in a classroom that is near or in close proximity to the teacher. However, the learners may be at a far off distance in relation to the teacher as is the case in most work places. Talk about tele-teaching or distance learning. This is possible and has been happening but making use of the present day technology of multimedia and information superhighway (Rothwell, 2008). For this reason, I will combine this method of instruction with another method that utilises multimedia and see how it can be used for far distance learners. The use of multimedia (i.e. computer, Internet, teleconferencing, etc) in the teaching practice is not only an entertaining way to introduce and raise subject issues, but it is also a cost effective way of disseminating teaching content for distance learners. It becomes more interesting if the teacher can make of use video conferencing techniques where the teacher uses a video or web camera to instruct his students who are connected via a video camera or computer and who may be at diverse locations (Montague, 2007). Each student will listen to and see the teacher using his/her computer at, perhaps, the comfort of his/her home. Remember that such use of information and communication technology (ICT) in the teaching practice is not only available for long distance learners, but can also be used in the classroom. In the classroom, the teacher can utilise intranets, films and/or computer presentation techniques in delivering the teaching content. Furthermore, we have interactive and very user-friendly computer software that can be used in teaching literacy today. The main advantages of these techniques include highly motivating and entertaining to both teachers and students (Galbraith, 2004), draws and captures a student’s attention easily, not to mention the fact that this is the present-day way of doing things which is unavoidable for the foreseeable future (Reed, 2010). Notwithstanding the aforementioned statements of present day reality, the SEM becomes diluted since it loses its directness and teacher – student interaction capabilities. The method of instruction will no longer be termed SEM by quasi-systematic and explicit method or systematic and explicit with computer interaction (CI). The combined instructional method will have the following further disadvantages for distance learners of all aspects of literacy: A class of video conferencing may raise many issues rendering a discussion unfocused. Distractions may happen very easily for one student or whole class. It is easy for a student to lose focus of a topic since most students will be working independently. This method will only be most effective if it is following by a discussion. Most discussions may not have complete participation of the students. 6.0. CONTRASTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SEM TO TWO OTHER POSSIBLE STRATEGIES At this point, I will compare the effectiveness of SEM of instruction to two others, i.e. lecture method and cooperative learning method. In systematic and explicit and lecture methods and unlike cooperative learning method, the teaching involves direct and logical manner of presenting the learning content (Merriam, 2008). Conversely, cooperative learning method creates mutual respect and responsibility among the students, and may mould the students to be less critical, tolerant, and more considerate (Galotti, 2011). Similar to cooperative learning method, and unlike lecture method, SEM can support research teaching, while teachers convey their spoken information more effectively in these two methods rather than cooperative method. There are two major disadvantages of both SEM and lecture method of teaching i.e. most often the communication is from the teacher to the students or one way; and the students are almost always passive (Galbraith, 2004). This is not the case with cooperative learning. However, cooperative method of teaching has several drawbacks that are not shared by systemic and explicit and lecture methods. These are: the brilliant learners may act superior to others, or the forceful students may take over the learning process, or sometimes, lonely students may find it difficult to share responses with others (Montague, 2007). An ample time is required to prepare the students to learn how to work or operate in study groups. This may not be required of the other two methods. As advocated elsewhere above, SEM can stifle the creativity of the teacher. This is not the case in either cooperative or lecture methods. 7.0. APPRAISAL OF SEM OF TEACHING The details of systematic and explicit method of teaching literacy as it has been laid out above will assist the administrators, teachers, and families put those principles into practice in the classroom for literacy. The method is very appropriate for teaching literacy since it caters for the educational needs of the students on the basis of abilities and/or age (Adams and Carnine, 2003). It has been established that for any particular instructional method, teacher – student intervention is more effective when used for similar teaching – content, similar environment settings, and/or same age groups (Daines et al, 2006). This is surely the case for systematic and explicit method of teaching. Some research studies have appraised this method of instruction on a six-point scale of “no apparent evidence, strong negative, weak negative, mixed, weak positive, strong positive” (Montague, 2007) with the method awarded ‘strong positive’. Further, the method was assessed on its effectiveness and relevance at different level of elementary, middle and high schools, and universities. It was established that the method is very effective for the first three levels but not the latter (Galotti, 2011). While most of the instructional methods that are used in teaching literacy take place in a classroom of learners where the learners live together, strengthen, support, and work together, the systematic and explicit method of teaching can be appraised positively on this point (Reed, 2010). Here, the students will gain through the individualised supervision of an instructor who is bent on shaping analytical methods. This is in addition to controlling tasks that are difficult to handle through students’ feedback and cues (Adams and Carnine, 2003). In addition, this consistent feedback by the students has proved to be very good in improving the overall student performance. Systematic and explicit method of teaching underscores this activity and therefore scores well on this point (Merriam, 2008). Although Systematic and explicit method of teaching is most appropriate in a classroom (i.e. where students/learners are near) where the instant and ordinary feedback from the students is of great value in helping students to steer and develop their learning, the method is ill-fitted for distance learners on the basis of feedback. What is more, this regular feedback helps teachers to steer and tailor their teaching instructions. This process of feedback, therefore, is a tool in the classroom that helps in improving the students’ proficiency and skills in literacy. REFERENCES Adams, G., & Carnine, D. (2003). Direct instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Ashcraft, M. H. & Radvansky, G. A. (2010). Cognition. Boston : Prentice Hall Burns, R. (2002). The adult learner at work: the challenges of lifelong education in the new millennium. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin Cross, S, (2009). Adult teaching and learning: developing your practice. Maidenhead, England, Open University Press. Daines, J., Daines, C., & Graham, B. (2006). Adult Learning, Adult Teaching. Cardiff: Welsh Academic Press. Dawson, T. L. (2008). Metacognition and learning in adulthood. Developmental Testing Service, LLC. Foley, G. (2004). Dimensions of adult learning: adult education and training in a global era. Crows Nest, N.S.W., Allen & Unwin. Galbraith, M. (2004). Adult learning methods: a guide for effective instruction. Malabar, Fla, Krieger Pub. Co Galotti, K. M. (2011). Cognitive Development: Infancy through adolescence. Thousand Oaks, California, SAGE Kizlik, B. (2012).Toward the best Education information for New and Future Teachers. Instructional Methods lnformation, ADPRIMA Merriam, S. (2008). Third update on adult learning theory. San Francisco, Calf.., Jossey-Bass Montague, M. (2007). Self-regulation and mathematics instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 75-83. Reed, S. (2010). Cognition: Theories and applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning Rothwell, W. J. (2008). Adult Learning Basics. Alexandria, Va, ASTD Press. Stevenson, J & Beven, F. (2011). Expertise and Development – A Study Guide. Digitisation and Distribution, INS, Griffith University Tennant, M. (2006). Psychology of adult learning. 3rd Edition. Abingdon, Oxon., Routledge. Read More