While completing the chapters in Writing Between Languages by Danling Fu, there were several things that caught my attention. Fu states that "while studying immigration in the 1920s, students were able to compare the experiences of those immigrants with their own" (Fu 33). This stuck out to me because not only in Christensen's text, but in texts I've read for other classes the authors tell us how important it is to include books and lessons that are relevant to the lives of the students. In this case, the ELL students are able to get more out of a lesson because they are able to relate to the material in which they are studying. This is further proof of how important it is to ensure that what we teach is something that students can connect to.
Fu also talks a lot about how students that are able to express their ideas in their native language and then translate to english typically have better pieces of work. Within the last year I've heard many school teachers say that by not allowing students to speak or write in their native language they are better immersed in english and learn more. After listening to our guest speaker last week and reading the Fu chapters, I wonder where on earth people have gotten the idea that only allowing students to speak english is in anyway beneficial.
In Roswell's article something that stuck out to be was the discussion of artifacts. When Roswell is talking about how artificats or objects can be used as a form of literacies I tried to think about what artifacts I own that tie into my culture or identity. What I came up with was the photos that I have collected during the past 9 years since we lost almost everything to a housefire. A lot of times my friends critique me for always wanting to document memories, but I find that these memories tie into the shaping of my identity and that if I don't document them I might forget important things.
No comments:
Post a Comment