Julie Garza

July 9, 2010

Literacy in Progress: Motivating Literacy among Immigrant Children

     I concluded my previous research post by framing a new question: What are the potential barriers to motivating literacy among minorities? Although this posting will briefly describe the overlapping intervals between immigrant and minority literacy, it will pertain mostly to immigrants. After researching literacy rates among minorities and immigrants, I found it easier to narrow the focus of my search toward motivating literacy. Literacy rates are intriguing and informative, but literacy practices seem to be a more effective way to approach the subject. Throughout my research, I found more information on immigrant literacy, as opposed to minority literacy. In addition, an abundance of resources in motivating literacy among immigrant children caught my attention. As a result, I decided to change the focus of my question to: What are the potential barriers to motivating literacy among immigrant children?

     As noted in my previous posting, the differences between immigrant and minority histories (Objective 3) lead to different “social contracts.” Usually immigrants assimilate, while minorities stand in opposition to the dominant culture. Although these two distinct groups take separate paths to assimilation, including resistance, literacy proves to be the key to success. Literacy is crucial to both minority and immigrant groups because it demonstrates proper assimilation to the dominant culture. In addition, there are distinct yet overlapping intervals between immigrant and minority literacy (Objective 3d). Historically speaking, immigrants voluntarily chose to come to America, and they have been expected to conform to the American Dream story of freedom and opportunity (Objective 3b). Minorities did not freely choose the American Dream and may speak of exploitation rather than opportunity (Objective 3b). The overlapping intervals between immigrant and minority identities occur when immigrants experience “minority” status in early generations (Objective 3d). Immigrants may suffer discrimination and marginalization by the dominant culture because of racial and cultural differences, but typically the only immigrants who are treated as minorities are those who have not yet assimilated (Objective 3d). Besides the historical factors listed above, literacy and assimilation prove to be the key to success not only in immigrants, but in minorities too. Further evidence of this belief is suggested in Stergios Botzakis’ and Jacquelynn A. Malloy’s “International Reports on Literacy Research.”

     Botzakis enumerates the positive and negative factors in motivating literacy among minority and immigrant children, and describes the overlapping intervals between minorities and immigrants. In his essay, literacy-related research is conducted among minorities and immigrants between grades five and eight. In Chile and Argentina, research was conducted in middle-school children in the fifth through eighth grades. It seems that literacy was most productive in the classroom, as opposed to outside instruction. Classroom activities, such as “writing autobiographies and keeping student journals” are their form of instruction, as well as goals motivating the students toward literacy (Botzakis 113). In addition, “students’ desire for good grades were also commonly identified as motivating factors for student success” (Botzakis 113). It is important to note that the potential barriers typically caused by language differences were not a factor in this case, because Chile and Argentina are monolingual; the majority of students speak Spanish. Only in the indigenous areas of Argentina, where language differences occur in the frontier areas, is there a need to remodel the literacy practices in South America. In addition to these modes of education, technology and media are excellent sources for motivating literacy. Teachers typically use electronic media for students’ assignments, which is a positive and instructive method for motivating literacy. Although classroom activities and electronic media are the methods for motivating literacy among children of South America, are there hazards regarding demographic issues, such as gender (Objective 6)? According to Botzakis, gender is not a vital factor in the “students’ literacy development, but socioeconomic class” is a problem (Botzakis 113). Students from indigenous areas or less advanced environments do not typically have “access to literacy activities, technology, and materials” needed to motivate literacy among children (Botzakis 113). In South Africa, for example, technological devices such as television, computers, and the Internet are the dominant tools for motivating literacy among middle-school children. Unfortunately, there are minimal requirements for literacy in the South African academic tests for middle-school students. The lack of literacy requirements for the exit examination in middle school has a negative effect in the long run. Language differences are another problematic theme in Afrikaans and Xhosa-speaking children, because these children suffer in English-speaking classes. Gender is another factor (Objective 6): girls typically remain illiterate. Various rural areas will not educate females, and many families usually only pay for the eldest son’s education. Another problem in developing countries such as South Africa is the student's socioeconomic class. Only privileged individuals will be educated in literary practices. Those students who are not of the elite class have “limited access to texts, materials, and technology” (Botzakis 114). Unfortunately, the weight is left on the teachers’ shoulders, forcing them to “improvise and innovate in their planning because of their heavy workloads, lack of parental support, and large class sizes” (Botzakis 114). Altogether, it seems that both South America and South Africa possess the appropriate levels of technology, but require more effort to achieve equality in literacy education. Social class is the unavoidable barrier in motivating literacy, due to the lack of scholastic resources. There is a lack of financial accommodations for students in need, and the teachers are overworked and drained by the large class sizes. Also, the gender problem affects females in those indigenous areas of South Africa more than in South America. This is deemed to be the worst problem in the overlapping intervals between immigrant and minority literacy, because “girls were more likely to be engaged in school approved literacies than boys,” yet girls do not have the opportunity to experience the educational opportunities that boys have (Botzakis115).

         Michael Kehler and Wayne Martino’s “Gender-Based Literacy Reform: A Question of Challenging or Recuperating Gender Binaries” deals with the gender-based literacy standards and pedagogical reform among young boys. Kehler argues against “officially sanctioned literacy practices that fail to engage with research-based literature that raises serious questions about gender reform initiatives” (Kehler 406). In his study Kehler found that girls acquire more literacy comprehension skills and perform better on literacy benchmark tests than boys do. Because of this, he argues, educators need certain strategies to improve boys' literacy skills. Kehler suggests that the technology-driven environment affects boys worse than girls, implying that girls have more interest in literary education or English Language Arts than boys do (Kehler 407). Kehler believes the problem comes from within the schools themselves and calls for “a more boy-friendly curriculum, more male teachers to relate to boys, and single-sex classes in English where boys do not have to worry about girls” (Kehler 407-8). This reform would affect the gender binaries in a relatively productive way. First, the reform of pedagogical practices might improve boys’ literacy standards. Second, separating boys from girls might sidestep some gender-related problems, as well as ameliorate the oversized classroom ratios. Although there are positive sides to this reform, potential negative side effects should also be considered. This new reform would label “boys as a homogenous group,” and ignore the important issue of socio-economic status (Kehler 408). Girls improve their literacy skills much faster than boys, but “middle class boys are still doing better than working class girls” (Kehler 410). Both sides present good methods for reform, but I do not think the reforms they propose will be enough to improve boys’ literacy skills. The pedagogical approaches presented need to promote better thinking and hands-on skills, as well as actively engaging boys to learn, while paying attention to the dominant masculinity barriers set before them. Also, separating boys from girls in the classroom is not the only answer to improving literacy skills among boys. Altogether, “legitimating a reform agenda committed to remasculinization rather than interrogating gender binaries” is the answer to improving literacy skills among boys (Kehler 425). Although this is not the only method for improving boys’ literacy skills, it would be a start in the right direction.  

     To conclude, this posting addressed the question: What are the potential barriers to motivating literacy among immigrant children? This is answered in Botzakis’ and Kehler’s argument over the appropriate measures for motivating literacy among minority and immigrant children. Both Botzakis and Kehler agree on several points that could reform pedagogical practices and motivate literacy among children. Both consider electronic media the most successful approach to improving literacy skills among boys and girls. Students from indigenous areas have far fewer opportunities to develop literacy than those from higher classes, because indigenous areas lack technology and literacy activities. Also, both Botzakis and Kehler call for more teachers in the classrooms, especially male teachers, and for smaller classroom sizes, which they believe would promote learning by allowing teachers to give individual feedback to each student in a more productive fashion. In contrast, Botzakis and Kehler disagree with each other in some areas. First, Botzakis believes that literacy is best taught in a classroom setting, while Kehler believes that young boys prefer other modes of instruction. Second, Botzakis’ essay does not consider gender a primary factor, focusing instead on socioeconomic class. In contrast to Botzakis’ argument, Kehler believes that both gender and socioeconomic class are problems behind motivating literacy among children. Also, Kehler argues that girls acquire more literacy skills than boys do because of gender-related issues (Objective 6). I; however, believe that literacy skills among minority and immigrant children are poor due to the lack of qualified teachers, indigenous bi-factors, underdeveloped regions, and socio-economic issues.       

Works Cited

Botzakis, Stergios and Jacquelynn A. Malloy. “International Reports on Literacy Research” Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan.-Mar., 2005), pp.112-118 <Accessed 2010 July 6 JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4151724 >

Brown, Wesley, and Amy Ling. Imagining America: Stories from the Promised Land. New York: Persea, 2002.

Epstein, D., Elwood, J. Hey, V., & Maw, J. (Eds.). Failing Boys?: Issues in

Gender and Achievement. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 1998.

 Kehler, Michael and Wayne Martino. “Gender-Based Literacy Reform: a question of Challenging or Recuperating Gender Binaries” Canadian Journal of Education, Vol. 30, No. 2 (2007), pp. 406-431 <Accessed 2010 July 6 JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20466644> 

Rowan, L, Knobel, M., Bigum, C, & Lankshear, C. Boys, Literacies and Schooling: The Dangerous Territories of Gender-based Literacy Reform. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2002.