Double Entry Journal #4

1.  One thing I learned about teaching and literacy development is that the students being taught did improve their language skills and knowledge of Standard English when they were taught in their home dialect.  By not telling the students that their dialect was wrong, and allowing them to make connections between the two, they came to understand the language better.  The second thing I learned was that teachers often mirror their teaching of literacy after the way they were taught.  Because the students they taught feared judgement, they did not excel when it came to writing.  Lastly, teaching the kids Standard English based on their home dialects helped them when it came to "code switching".  This form of instruction gave them a better knowledge of both forms of the language and better prepared them to switch back and forth between the two forms.

2.  One example of how the strategies for literacy instruction presented in the article reflect Culturally Responsive Teaching is that they build bridges of meaningfulness between home and school experience.  The students were able to establish a relationship between their dialect at home and the Standard English that they were taught in school, making it mean more to them.  Another example of this is that these methods acknowledged the legitimacy of the cultural heritages as worthy content to be taught in the formal curriculum. The student's home dialect was respected in the classroom and not viewed as "wrong" or "incorrect" which made them feel respected.

3.  I can not recall a time when my literacy instruction reflected Culturally Responsive Teaching.  That does not necessarily mean that I never participated in such, but simply that I do not remember.  I cannot say, however, that my literacy instruction ever went against Culturally Responsive Teaching.  There are many times throughout school that I participated in small groups when doing assignments.  I do not recall ever involving this, though, in my literacy instruction.