Whose Idea Is This, Anyway?

By Author: Adela
Total Articles: 74
Comment this article

Community and collaboration as integral to authentic literacy growth is central to the discussion through-out joining the Literacy Club (Smith). Historically, Smith's arguments about literacy have been practiced and promoted by all of the prominent leaders in the field of literacy (Rosenblatt; Thomas, Lou LaBranf), and large bodies of research have supported those stances concerning literacy education (Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde).

Yet, classrooms remain highly traditional, and one aspect of that traditional structure is learning and performing in isolation. Students Thomas Sabo Charms are taught that performances of learning (such as testing) are always solitary. If a student demonstrates learning in collaboration, in fact, students are taught that is cheating. Smith argues, "The aim must be a collaboration so close that a child feels personally responsible for every word in a story (or poem or letter), even though the child might not have thought of a single word in the first place"; yet, many outside the field of literacy find this premise a specious demonstration ...
... of proficiency by a student.

In K—12 schooling, we are often more concerned about ownership of ideas and words than about the processes of shaping literacy. While Smith called for vibrant classrooms dedicated to engaged acts of literacy among students and teachers (talking, writing, reading, drawing, singing, gesturing), the traditional classroom that values solitary and silent work has persisted. The traditional approaches to ELA instruction grounded in these deficit assumptions directly contribute to the greatest deterrent to authentic student learning for understanding, for student empowerment— the silent classroom. Adrienne Rich fears that what is "rendered unspeakable, [is] thus unthinkable" . William Ayers's conclusion is even more damning:

In school, a high value is placed on quiet: "Is everything quiet?" the superintendent asks the principal and the principal the teacher, and the teacher the child. If everything is quiet, it is assumed that all is well. This is why many normal children—considering what kind of intelligence is expected and what will be rewarded here—be-come passive, quiet, obedient, dull. The environment practically demands it.

Compliance, as Alfie Kohn would note, is what students learn to equate with being a good student. And that requires passivity and silence.

If our commitment is to critical literacy and to challenging text, traditional commitments to artificial silence must not persist.

On one level, Smith challenged the concept of ownership as related to ideas and words (and expression, more broadly). If we are to move beyond the traditional commitments to the solitary and silent student, we must challenge ownership and clearly define the parameters of collaboration within a Thomas Sabo Bracelets community of learners. This can be achieved in classrooms when we establish that ownership is with the person who makes the decision, not with the person making the suggestion.
Sophisticated readers rarely reach conclusions about the meaning of text alone. We talk to other readers, we seek other text. In the end, however, the conclusions we reach in collaboration are our own.

"There are also walls within schools that inhibit collaboration," Smith argues. "The walls of classrooms segregate children on the basis of age and ability as if the ideal were to sort them into identical assemblies of ignorance and incompetence, so that they could never help one another" (68). And we have not moved far from this assessment in the past 20 years. Smith also was insightful in 1988 to include in his work the potential influence of technology, but we are now faced with the double-edged sword of technology as it promises great potential for increasing collaboration and community while also creating an increased atmosphere of distrust among teachers and students concerning plagiarism and academic dishonesty.