The IRP, Communication, and the Tech-Dilemma

As with many beginning teachers, I find the ELA IRP (English Language Arts Integrated resource package) to be overwhelming. This is due, in part, to the fact that I am only in the third week of teacher education and have not had enough exposure to fully grasp it, but also because of the way it is written. For the most part, I find the IRP to be quite 'wordy', sometimes unnecessarily so, and it seems to spend most of it's time discussing the philosophy and a small amount (5 pages per grade) actually detailing the requirements and learning outcomes, which are the more valuable aspect of the IRP. This philosophy is described, in part, by the use of 'empty' quotes; that is, quotes from professionals that are not provided with any context or support. These aspects, I feel, do not aid in helping a beginning teacher such as myself.

Aside from all this, the IRP does provide invaluable (and legally required) information for teachers, and lays out this information clearly, making it easy to find the required information within a given section (PLO's for example). Other than the PLO's, however, I find that there is not much information in the IRP that is not more clearly stated and described in the class text (Constructing Meaning), readings, and discussions.

In the IRP's rationale it states that "Language is fundamental to thinking, learning, and communicating in all cultures." (ELA IRP, p. 3), and these three aspects of language are intrinsic. ELA students need to be able to think critically, communicate those thoughts, and learn from the process. Communication is central to this process and, as Robert E. Probst argues, discussion is the best way for students to communicate and to learn; "...recitation is not discussion; interrogation is not conversation; the back-and-forth of question-and-answer is not the same as the give-and-take of egalitarian discourse." (Probst, Tom Sawyer, Teaching and Talking, p. 46). Unlike debate and bull-pen sessions, he says, true conversation and discussion is a valuable learning skill for children to master.

Learning to communicate effectively through the 'art of conversation' can help bring the ideas and abilities of a diverse classroom together; as is discussed in Constructing Meaning, literacy learning has to take on a 'social constructivist' model and use a diverse array of communication modes (Constructing Meaning, p. 15). These modes include the use of technology, which is continually becoming more and more prevalent in our lives, and in our classrooms; the IPR states that “The rapid expansion in the use of technology and media has expanded the concept of what it is to be literate.” (ELA IRP, p. 3).

While new media and technology may be valuable to literacy learning, I wonder where to draw the line. For instance, in the video “A vision of K-12 students today” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A-ZVCjfWf8) we are presented with a rather bleak view of the state of student engagement in the classroom. Some believe that because students are becoming increasingly 'tech-savvy', so too must our approach to teaching. However, because the knowledge and applications of computers has become more of a life skill (similar to learning to drive, or operating a washing machine) should we need to teach their usage in schools? I would agree with Probst that discussion, real person-to-person verbal communication, is the most effective way for students to learn; and I feel that technology and mass-media can take us away from the basic human skills of communication, unless they are used wisely.

 

Students today want to learn using technology and can relate to mass-media, so as teachers we need to be sensitive to that fact, and show them how to use technology and new media to enhance their knowledge in productive ways. This is something that the IRP does thankfully touch on briefly (p. 13); rather then merely the ability to use technology (as this is a skill that most students gain in their everyday lives), it is more important that students are shown the positive applications of it, to better their learning, literacy, and lives, and to enhance, not detract from communication skills. 

The IRP is helpful as a reference tool for teachers; to look up answers to questions, and to consult the PLO's, even if it means wading through some 'wordy' philosophical paragraphs.  It does not, however, provide solutions to problems (perhaps rightly so), and leaves a lot of questions in the mind of a beginning teacher. These questions, such as my own 'tech-dilemma, can only be answered by practical experience and not by the hundreds of pages of 'theoretics' visited in the IRP.