0:10

Education

0:10

research has a problem. The work

0:14

of brilliant education

0:14

researchers often doesn't reach

0:17

the practice of brilliant

0:17

teachers. Classroom caffeine is

0:22

here to help. In each episode I

0:22

talk with a top education

0:26

researcher or an expert educator

0:26

about what they have learned

0:31

from years of research and

0:31

experiences.

0:36

In this episode, Dr. Jerome

0:36

Harste talks to us about writing

0:40

in early childhood, the inherent

0:40

social risks in writing sketch

0:45

to stretch writing, arts based

0:45

ways of communicating kids as

0:49

curricular informants, teachers

0:49

as intellectuals and

0:53

philosophers and schools as

0:53

spaces of possibility. Dr.

0:57

Harste is best known for his

0:57

work exploring young children's

1:00

written language literacy,

1:00

learning, connecting arts and

1:03

literacies and critical

1:03

literacies. As a literacy

1:07

educator, his expanded view of

1:07

what it meant to be literate

1:10

went far beyond traditional

1:10

notions of reading and writing

1:13

to include visual literacy, and

1:13

more generally, semiotics. Jerry

1:18

is also a celebrated artist

1:18

working mainly in watercolors.

1:22

He's published over 200 articles

1:22

in refereed journals, and won

1:26

many awards for his research and

1:26

teaching. Notably, he was

1:29

inducted into the reading Hall

1:29

of Fame, given the James Squire

1:33

paradigm shifters award from the

1:33

National Council of Teachers of

1:36

English, the Oscar Causey

1:36

reading research award from the

1:40

literacy Research Association

1:40

and the David Russell Research

1:43

Award for his work in the

1:43

language arts from the National

1:46

Council teachers of English. He

1:46

also earned the coveted Gorman

1:50

Teaching Award from the School

1:50

of Education and the Frederick

1:53

Bachman Teaching Award from

1:53

Indiana University. Before

1:57

retirement, he was an elementary

1:57

teacher in Monticello, Minnesota

2:01

and the Peace Corps, a college

2:01

professor for nearly 50 years at

2:05

Indiana University and an educational researcher, Dr. Jerome C. Harste retired from

2:06

Indiana University as a distinguished professor, where

2:07

he held the Armstrong chair and teacher education. He currently

2:09

teaches graduate courses at Mount Saint Vincent University

2:10

in Canada, you can connect with

2:13

Jerry on Facebook at RST as

2:13

artists or online at Jerome

2:28

hartse.com. That's J EROMEHA r s

2:28

t e.com. For more information

2:37

about our guests, stay tuned to

2:37

the end of this episode.

2:41

So pour a cup of your favorite

2:41

drink. And join me your host

2:47

Lindsay Persohn. For classroom

2:47

caffeine research to energize

2:51

your teaching practice. Jerry,

2:51

thank you for joining me.

2:55

Welcome to the show.

2:56

Well, thank you. It's great to be here.

2:58

So from your

2:58

own experiences in education,

3:01

will you share with us one or

3:01

two moments that inform your

3:05

thinking now?

3:07

Oh, It'd be my

3:07

pleasure. One of the most

3:09

formidable experiences that I

3:09

had was a research project,

3:15

looking at what young children

3:15

ages 345. And six knew about

3:20

reading and writing prior to

3:20

going to school. And I must say

3:25

that study went over a 10 year

3:25

period. But it was really mind

3:31

blowing. For me, I learned so

3:31

much. What causes it was I had

3:36

kids of my own. And I was very

3:36

surprised with my son's language

3:42

development. I mean, I had

3:42

studied language development in

3:47

college, but that my son was

3:47

doing things that look way ahead

3:53

of when the kids were normally

3:53

supposed to do things. Plus he

3:58

was doing really interesting

3:58

things that I had never even

4:03

read about. So when I had my

4:03

second child, my wife and I

4:09

decided that we would use her as

4:09

a case study. So we began to

4:14

collect data from the very

4:14

moment that she was born

4:18

essentially, until she went to

4:18

first grade. And meanwhile, we

4:25

had gotten funded from the

4:25

federal government to look at

4:29

little kids are language

4:29

development. And I always

4:32

remember we were looking at four

4:32

year olds. In one study, and we

4:39

had a preschool that was

4:39

international that is there was

4:43

a lot of students that had come

4:43

to IU from different countries.

4:48

And we had collected the writing

4:48

data from the kids. We've given

4:53

them a sheet of paper, and then

4:53

we took a sheet of paper and we

4:57

said we want you to write so

4:57

story and you write on your

5:02

sheet of paper, and we'll write

5:02

on our sheet of paper, and then

5:05

we'll share our stories. And the

5:05

little four year olds, of

5:09

course, didn't really produce a

5:09

story, but they produced

5:12

markings of what their stories

5:12

look like. And the Dawn was a

5:17

little four year old from the

5:17

United States. And her

5:20

scribbles, you know, look like

5:20

scribbles. But they really look

5:25

like American scribbles when you

5:25

compare to to najiba, who was

5:30

from Saudi Arabia, and had

5:30

written her scribbles sort of in

5:34

Arabic, and her scribbles look

5:34

sort of Arabic, she gave me the

5:38

sheet of paper, and she said,

5:38

Here's my writing, but you can't

5:42

read it, because I wrote it in

5:42

Arabic. And in Arabic, we use a

5:46

lot more dots than we do in

5:46

English. And then we had a

5:50

little guy from Israel. And his

5:50

grandmother was there when we

5:54

were collecting the writing

5:54

sample. And his grandmother

5:58

watched him create this text.

5:58

And it looked sort of Hebrew

6:04

ish. And he wrote it backwards.

6:04

And she said, I see it looks, he

6:09

wrote, but it's written in the

6:09

wrong direction. And uncertainty

6:13

was very interesting, because

6:13

when you compare those three

6:17

writing samples, they really

6:17

look like the cultures from

6:22

which the kids came from. And

6:22

that was very mind blowing,

6:26

because we had always before

6:26

thought that children learned

6:31

oral language, but they had to

6:31

be taught written language. And

6:35

this data really suggested that

6:35

long before schooling, kids were

6:40

very actively attune to

6:40

language. And by the time they

6:44

got to be six years old, they

6:44

knew quite a bit about written

6:49

language, without having any

6:49

direct formal instruction. So

6:54

that really, that study led us

6:54

to looking at what three year

6:58

olds knew, four year olds knew,

6:58

five year olds knew, and six

7:02

year olds knew. And it was sort

7:02

of incredible. I'm going to

7:08

include as sort of notes along

7:08

with this podcast, some pictures

7:14

that show you the three writing

7:14

samples that we got from those

7:18

children. Another kid that

7:18

really sort of amazed me was

7:22

another four year old, and her

7:22

name was Michelle. And we asked

7:26

her to write her name and

7:26

anything else that she could

7:30

write. And she wrote down, sort

7:30

of my shell sort of making in am

7:35

that look like an M Y, I don't

7:35

know, then an A and then E. Then

7:42

below that, she sort of kept

7:42

going, she wrote a sort of an

7:45

upside down J, another y a. And

7:45

then she kept after that, in her

7:51

third line, she wrote n a n n.

7:51

And so when she was done with

7:59

that, we said, Oh, can you read

7:59

what you written, and she wrote,

8:03

michelle that's my name. She

8:03

said, Jay, that's my father's

8:09

name. And Nancy, that's my

8:09

mother's name. And then she

8:13

picked up the pen. And she drew

8:13

a sort of a rough circle around

8:17

it, and said, and together, they

8:17

say, Meijer, which was her

8:21

family name. And again, we were

8:21

just sort of blown away with the

8:26

fact that not only did she have

8:26

some letter sound

8:30

correspondence, but you already

8:30

sort of understood set theory

8:35

that together, those formed sort

8:35

of their surnames, and I'll also

8:39

include a little writing example

8:39

of Michelle in the notes, so

8:45

that you can see, as kids, a

8:45

five year old, and a six year

8:51

old, of course, were much more

8:51

sophisticated. And one of the

8:54

things that amazed us and got us

8:54

interested, was as kids got

8:59

older, they use more and more

8:59

inventive spelling. And we in

9:04

actual fact, could read their

9:04

writing, even though it wasn't

9:08

necessarily parsed in a

9:08

conventional sort of way. But I

9:12

remember this little girl wrote

9:12

once upon a time, and she wrote

9:16

it sort of as one conceptual

9:16

unit. And it was very

9:21

interesting, because once upon a

9:21

time sort of signals to you that

9:26

this is not a statement about

9:26

reality, but it's a imaginary

9:31

world. And in some ways, the

9:31

once upon a time, while the

9:37

words function as words, they

9:37

really together is how they

9:42

function in stories to really

9:42

indicate to the listener that

9:47

this is make believe story. And

9:47

it's interesting that there are

9:53

languages like German that do

9:53

include long sorts of phrases

9:57

that put together and function

9:57

In a very different way than

10:01

English. So kids seem to almost

10:01

be redeveloping rediscovering

10:07

how language works for

10:07

themselves. And then as they

10:12

interact with their own culture,

10:12

they begin to sort of limit the

10:17

hypothesis that are operating

10:17

and are much more active than

10:24

you would think. So at any rate,

10:24

those experiences were extremely

10:30

influential in terms of my

10:30

thinking, as they were writing,

10:33

they would oftentimes work hard

10:33

into their writing, they would

10:37

sort of move freely from written

10:37

language to art without sort of

10:42

a break in terms of what they

10:42

were trying to communicate.

10:47

Another example that really

10:47

influenced me that I collected

10:50

from my daughter, she had had a

10:50

telephone conversation with a

10:54

friend, and they were going to

10:54

get together after church to

10:58

play ballerina. And when she

10:58

hung up the phone, she went to

11:03

her room, and she grabbed a

11:03

sheet of paper, and she drew a

11:06

little bow ribbon for hair a

11:06

little tutu, and little ballet

11:13

slippers, and then her dresser,

11:13

and then she put a plus sign,

11:17

and then she drew sort of gear

11:17

ribbons, and the tutu and

11:22

slippers, plus a bag, indicating

11:22

that her friend Jennifer was

11:28

going to be bringing her ballet

11:28

material in a bag and she had

11:33

her stuff in a dresser. And

11:33

after church, they're gonna play

11:38

ballerina then she put her

11:38

initials up A H for Alison

11:43

Harste and J. T for Jennifer

11:43

Tucker. And I always looked at

11:48

that sheet of paper that she had

11:48

drawn and when gal we would do

11:53

well, to be able to summarize

11:53

our experiences as succinctly as

11:59

she did, even though she was

11:59

only five years old. And her

12:04

freedom to move between art and

12:04

language was something we had

12:08

seen with other children. But I

12:08

think it really sort of called

12:13

attention to how arbitrary we

12:13

are, in terms of talking about

12:20

language as if it's the only

12:20

communication system that is

12:24

used when liddle kids very

12:24

freely, we're moving between art

12:29

and language and mathematics to

12:29

represent the world and doing so

12:35

very effectively. So it was

12:35

those experiences with young

12:40

children that really, I mean,

12:40

forced me to rethink what I

12:45

thought I knew about children's

12:45

language development. I always

12:50

remember one of the teachers

12:50

once one after I had been

12:54

talking about what little kids

12:54

could do, sent me this picture

13:00

that a little kindergartener had

13:00

drawn, and she had drawn a book.

13:06

And then she had drawn a little

13:06

finger inside the book, and she

13:10

wrote on there, I'm into books,

13:10

once I get into them, I can't

13:15

get out. And it was just such a

13:15

wonderful little illustration,

13:20

because it's sort of I think the

13:20

message was extremely powerful.

13:25

And that with the little drawing

13:25

of herself inside a book, it

13:30

really had a visual impact. And

13:30

I thought, well, how clever

13:34

these kids are, in terms of

13:34

their ability to communicate

13:38

what they're thinking about by

13:38

being able to freely move across

13:44

different science systems, from

13:44

language, to art, to almost

13:49

drama. With little three year

13:49

olds, we were giving them

13:53

different pieces of objects,

13:53

like spools of thread, sometimes

14:00

we give them little blocks, and

14:00

we ask them to pick out things

14:04

that they want to do. They were

14:04

all sort of nondescript things,

14:08

and tell us a story. And then we

14:08

asked them to write their story

14:12

down. And it was fascinating to

14:12

me, because the the three year

14:17

old, they use the thing, the the

14:17

block is a rabbit, for example.

14:23

And then they would say, and the

14:23

rabbit went hopping across the

14:28

meadow, and on the piece of

14:28

paper, they just sort of made

14:32

little tiny marks that you

14:32

wouldn't know what the story was

14:37

from the marks that they made.

14:37

But underneath they actually,

14:41

when you listen to the story,

14:41

they actually had a character

14:44

they actually the character had

14:44

some sort of problem. There was

14:48

a resolution they really sort of

14:48

had an understanding of the

14:52

basic structure of a story even

14:52

though the surface structure

14:57

that was produced didn't look

14:57

like it Anything traditional, So

15:02

at any rate, it was those kinds

15:02

of experiences that really

15:07

influenced I think my thinking.

15:10

So Jerry, as

15:10

you're telling those stories,

15:13

I'm really struck by how

15:13

limiting writing is in so many

15:18

schools. You know, your examples

15:18

showcase the fact that young

15:23

children before they are brought

15:23

into formalized school settings,

15:27

are able to move between

15:27

different types of symbols and

15:31

different ways of conveying the

15:31

meaning that is in their minds.

15:36

And I'm just really struck by

15:36

the way that I think in schools,

15:39

we teach writing in a way that

15:39

limits their ability to

15:42

communicate and limits their

15:42

ability to convey a story. It's

15:46

almost as if we take away some

15:46

of those inherent or seemingly

15:53

inherent tools that young

15:53

children bring to the writing

15:55

experience. Do you think that's

15:55

fair to say?

15:58

Yeah, I really

15:58

do. I think, in fact, you put

16:01

your finger on lots of things.

16:01

One of my favorite little

16:06

stories really happened in

16:06

Vivian Vasquez's classroom, this

16:11

little kid came up, and she,

16:11

they were supposed to have a

16:15

writing period. And, you know,

16:15

sometimes I think as teachers,

16:20

we look at the kid's drawing as

16:20

sort of deviation or strategy

16:25

that the kid is using to sort of

16:25

avoid the curriculum that we

16:30

want them to engage in. And this

16:30

little kids said to Vivian, but

16:35

Miss Vasquez, if I can draw, I

16:35

can't write. And I think there's

16:40

something really powerful about

16:40

that. There's lots of ways to

16:45

get into writing. And I think by

16:45

providing a variety of resources

16:50

for the kid, the key can choose

16:50

his or her own path into

16:55

writing. And for lots of kids, I

16:55

think they have to draw in order

17:00

to be able to write, and I think

17:00

we're so keen on sort of cutting

17:05

off that dimension of their

17:05

knowing that we do them a

17:09

disservice. You know, one of the

17:09

things that I kept dealing with

17:15

is, what does all of this mean,

17:15

in terms of our teaching, and

17:19

working with kids? And how will

17:19

we create curriculum? And I

17:24

think one of the things I would

17:24

say is that you need to really

17:29

use the child as your curricular

17:29

informant, I think, so often, we

17:34

get sort of curriculum push down

17:34

on us from some administrator or

17:40

some government agency. And the

17:40

assumption seems to be that

17:44

we're supposed to somehow

17:44

blindly carry that curriculum

17:49

out in the classroom. Well, for

17:49

example, when I when we finished

17:54

our work with these studies of

17:54

what young kids knew, it seemed

17:59

to me that the whole primary

17:59

curriculum was rather

18:03

ridiculous. We were teaching

18:03

kids letter A and letter B day

18:08

and letter C day. And our data

18:08

really suggested that kids knew

18:13

all of that stuff already. I

18:13

mean, we were teaching them

18:17

things that kids already knew. I

18:17

mean, kids knew the names of

18:22

colors, they could write the

18:22

names of colors and invented

18:27

spelling. They knew squares and

18:27

rectangles and triangles, they

18:32

knew circles. It seemed like

18:32

everything about the whole

18:36

kindergarten curriculum was

18:36

really built on the assumption

18:41

that kids came into school, not

18:41

knowing a bloody thing, and that

18:46

we had to teach them everything.

18:46

And I think, what we learned or

18:51

one of the things we learned

18:51

there, as we have to build our

18:56

curriculum with kids from what

18:56

kids already know, rather than

19:01

just teach things, because it's

19:01

something that we logically

19:06

thought we should need to teach.

19:06

I think before we teach, we

19:10

really need to have some

19:10

evidence that the kid needs this

19:15

kind of information. I'm a

19:17

former kindergarten teacher. And now this was close to 20 years ago

19:19

that I started on that

19:22

adventure, but I can definitely

19:22

see what you're saying, playing

19:26

out in a classroom, the tools

19:26

that we attempt to or purport to

19:31

give to young children to help

19:31

them communicate. It seems to me

19:35

that in so many ways, we're

19:35

actually limiting what they

19:38

already know or telling them

19:38

that their their inherent ways

19:43

of communicating aren't right or

19:43

aren't standard enough. As you

19:49

were talking, I kept thinking

19:49

about the child as a curricular

19:51

informant and also thinking

19:51

about, you know how some

19:55

curricular programs might feel

19:55

very ridiculous to young

19:59

children. If their way of

19:59

communicating is actually much

20:03

more effective than what we are

20:03

trying to teach them.

20:08

Yeah, one of the

20:08

things we did is we started

20:10

this, this notion of moving to

20:10

art was very fascinating. And so

20:15

one of the things we develop

20:15

with a strategy called sketched

20:18

a stretch, where we read a book

20:18

to the kids, and then we asked

20:23

them to sketch what they thought

20:23

the book meant to draw a little

20:28

picture. And just having them

20:28

move to art was very

20:33

informative, because they often

20:33

were able to capture elements of

20:40

what the story meant better than

20:40

if you just asked them to retell

20:46

it in their own words. And part

20:46

of that made me do because they

20:51

you heard the story because you

20:51

read it, but they know you've

20:56

heard it too. So I think some of

20:56

what they know, they don't tell

21:00

you because of the context in

21:00

which we retold it. Well, I one

21:04

of my favorite little examples

21:04

we were reading, I read sleeps

21:08

over, it's the story about two

21:08

little boys. And they they

21:13

decide to have a sleepover and

21:13

the bigger sister just harasses

21:17

the little one was saying what's

21:17

he going to say when you get to

21:20

sleep with a teddy bear and, and

21:20

then when he goes over for the

21:24

sleepover, they're telling ghost

21:24

stories. And the friend says

21:29

stop, and he goes to his dresser

21:29

and he pulls out his teddy bear

21:34

to take with him to bed. And

21:34

it's a great little story. And

21:39

we have a fourth grader, we had

21:39

read that book in a fourth grade

21:43

class. And we asked him to do a

21:43

sketch to strech and draw a

21:47

sketch of what the story meant

21:47

to him. And he drew sort of the

21:52

two kids in the bedroom, telling

21:52

stories, but then up in the

21:56

corner, he drew a little boy

21:56

plus a teddy bear plus, and then

22:01

he had another little boy plus a

22:01

teddy bear. And then he had

22:05

equals and two little boys. And

22:05

we asked him what did that say.

22:09

And he said, It says a little

22:09

boy plus his teddy bear plus

22:13

another boy plus his teddy bear

22:13

equals two good friends. And in

22:17

somehow, that little sketch, he

22:17

captured more about what that

22:22

story was about. And its

22:22

significance. That was sort of

22:27

just beyond anything that he

22:27

could have said about that

22:30

story. In terms of language, it

22:30

was very interesting. But I'll

22:34

send different little drawings

22:34

to people's see some of these

22:39

illustrations themselves and

22:39

take a closer look at that.

22:43

Great, thank

22:43

you for that, Jerry, that little

22:45

portrait you paint for us around

22:45

Iris leaps over, you know, I

22:49

think if we asked fourth graders

22:49

to write a story about

22:53

friendship for us, it would

22:53

actually be much more difficult

22:57

to write in that that effective

22:57

kind of way, if we did just

23:02

limit to words. And so you've

23:02

got me reconsidering kind of

23:06

everything we do around how we

23:06

ask kids to convey meaning. And

23:11

particularly, I think whenever

23:11

we ask them to convey these

23:14

complex ideas, you know, writing

23:14

I think is challenging writing

23:18

is challenging for me as an

23:18

adult. And I think part of it is

23:21

because you have to be mindful

23:21

of things like word choice and

23:25

sentence construction, and that

23:25

linear format of writing, where

23:29

I must lay out these ideas in a

23:29

way that I believe convey what

23:34

what I want to say, but also

23:34

something that's going to make

23:36

sense to someone else. And so

23:36

this idea of thinking flexibly

23:41

in how we tell or how we share

23:41

our ideas,

23:45

or you know, I

23:45

think one of the other problems

23:47

with writing and oral reading is

23:47

that in both instances, the

23:52

language user is very

23:52

vulnerable, because you can see

23:57

every mistake that they made or

23:57

hear every mistake. And I think

24:02

one of the things that you got

24:02

to really be very careful about

24:06

is glomming on to all those

24:06

mistakes, because you've been,

24:10

it's much easier to intimidate a

24:10

language learner than it is to

24:14

support one. And I think you

24:14

need to be very careful about

24:18

how you go about responding to

24:18

children. Because I think you

24:24

can, you can set yourself back

24:24

very rapidly, by just the wrong

24:29

saying the wrong thing too. In

24:29

order to learn language, you

24:32

really have to take a lot of

24:32

risk. And it's kids a bit

24:36

willingness to take those risks.

24:36

That is why we get surprised

24:42

with what they're able to do

24:42

when we actually take the time

24:45

to look carefully at what it is

24:45

they are doing. They are

24:49

constantly taking risk. If you

24:49

do start playing it too safely.

24:55

You can't. You can't continue to

24:55

grow. You need be in an

25:00

environment where you feel free

25:00

to take those kinds of risks. I

25:05

guess in some ways, I should say

25:05

a little bit more about

25:08

curriculum, I think most of us

25:08

think about curriculum, that

25:14

document that gets handed down

25:14

to us from some authority,

25:18

either it's an administrator, or

25:18

it could be from a State

25:23

Department, or it could be from

25:23

a book company in terms of how

25:28

to use materials. But it's this

25:28

written statement of what kids

25:33

are supposed to accomplish. And

25:33

unfortunately, most of those

25:41

documents are written by people

25:41

who rarely come in contact with

25:46

children. And I think that's a

25:46

problem right there. But then I

25:50

think the second part of

25:50

curriculum to understand is this

25:54

curriculum that gets enacted,

25:54

that is, after you've read those

25:58

documents, and you've set up

25:58

your context, you as a teacher,

26:04

try to implement that in your

26:04

classroom. And that curriculum

26:08

could be very different from the

26:08

first curriculum or from that

26:12

paper curriculum that you got,

26:12

because it's going to get

26:16

implemented very differently in

26:16

the hands of different teachers.

26:20

That third curriculum is the

26:20

curriculum that happens in the

26:24

head of the language learner as

26:24

these engage. And I think of all

26:30

of those curriculums, it is

26:30

what's happening in the head of

26:34

the language learner. That

26:34

really is what you need to keep

26:39

your eye on as a teacher, that

26:39

mental trip that kids are

26:43

taking, is the real curriculum.

26:43

And it's what you need to keep

26:49

your eye on to in terms of

26:49

deciding what next to do well,

26:54

how next to support somebody in

26:54

their language learning. One of

26:58

the things about this sketch to

26:58

stretch also, that was very

27:02

informative. I had a student

27:02

about mural, I suppose five

27:07

years ago, who worked with

27:07

special ed children, and she got

27:11

interested in sketch to stretch.

27:11

And so in terms of her reading

27:17

program, rather than having them

27:17

do retailing, she had them do

27:22

sketch to stretches. And it was

27:22

interesting because the written

27:27

retellings or the oral

27:27

retellings, were very weak for

27:31

these students. In fact, you

27:31

would say they flunked. But when

27:35

they did sketch the stretches,

27:35

almost every one of them was

27:39

able to capture the essence of

27:39

what the story was really about.

27:43

So I think we've got to start

27:43

exploring different kinds of

27:49

alternatives. I mean, that's

27:49

very good evidence that what's

27:53

going on in the mind is a lot

27:53

more than what we thought they

27:57

were if we only look at one sort

27:57

of measurement of what's going

28:03

on. It's why I think you need to

28:03

use the child is your curricular

28:07

informant. But it's also why I

28:07

think you really have to build

28:12

your curriculum. Based on that

28:12

information from the child.

28:18

Jerry, there

28:18

just a couple of I what I think

28:20

are really critical points that

28:20

I want to just draw attention to

28:24

here, you mentioned that risk

28:24

and language learning. And I

28:27

think it's so important to

28:27

acknowledge that, but as you

28:30

were describing it, I was also

28:30

thinking back to what you said

28:34

earlier with supports, and you

28:34

know, how we help to maybe

28:39

minimize that risk while

28:39

children are learning language.

28:42

And it seems to me that in so

28:42

many instances, we immediately

28:46

take away really crucial

28:46

supports. And by way of doing

28:51

that we're actually increasing

28:51

that risk for learners. So

28:55

rather than giving them ways to

28:55

convey meaning, that are not

28:59

only maybe more comfortable for

28:59

them, and potentially contain

29:03

more meaning than written word,

29:03

we immediately say, no, no, we

29:07

don't, we don't want you to use

29:07

that you can only use words on a

29:10

page, which as I said, I think

29:10

just inherently increases the

29:14

risk and learning language. The

29:14

other the other connection, I

29:18

made it, this idea of curriculum

29:18

in the head. And I think that so

29:21

often, that is a concept that's

29:21

really underutilized in

29:26

classrooms, we are always so

29:26

concerned with the products of

29:30

what children produce, we often

29:30

overlook the actual process of

29:34

getting there. And again, I

29:34

think those supports we talked

29:37

about drawing, you knows sketch

29:37

to stretch, even, you know,

29:41

sometimes talking about ideas

29:41

before we write them. When we

29:44

take those away. We are actually

29:44

taking away some of our windows

29:49

into that curriculum in the

29:49

head, at least in my mind, and

29:52

in my experience, that sort of

29:52

what that amounts to.

29:55

I think you're

29:55

absolutely right. One of the

29:57

things that I find quite

29:57

frustrating These days is

30:01

background experience, you know,

30:01

you can talk about background

30:05

experience, but teachers will

30:05

say, Well, I take into account

30:08

background, you know, every

30:08

teacher says they take into

30:11

account background experience,

30:11

that concept has become what

30:17

what in semiotics would be

30:17

called over coded, it's just

30:21

sort of a term now, that doesn't

30:21

have any real teeth to it

30:26

anymore. And I think background

30:26

and knowledge is really, in some

30:31

ways, as a result of kid

30:31

watching, and I, you know, and I

30:35

think we miss the bigger

30:35

picture. So I agree with you,

30:38

100%, I think we'd start

30:38

limiting what resources the kid

30:43

has available. I mean, gets the

30:43

sketch to stretch also with that

30:48

whole process is of taking one

30:48

from what you know, in one area

30:53

and, and producing it in another

30:53

area is called Trans mediation.

30:58

And trans mediation really

30:58

works, you know, you could have

31:02

kids read a story and then

31:02

represent what it means in

31:06

playdough, you could have them

31:06

make a drama, you could add them

31:11

relate to music, but I think

31:11

your what you what you're

31:15

getting at is some deeper kind

31:15

of understanding of what it

31:19

means. And I think that, you

31:19

know, I often try to work with

31:25

kids and get them to understand

31:25

that they haven't really read

31:31

something until they've had a

31:31

conversation with someone about

31:34

it. I think too often, in our

31:34

schools, and in reading, in

31:39

particular, we're dealing and

31:39

writing, we're dealing with the

31:43

surface structure, rather than

31:43

the deep structure. I mean, I

31:48

think, you know, kids have got

31:48

to have a lots of opportunities

31:54

to write that, you know, if

31:54

you're going to be a writer, you

31:56

have to have said something

31:56

different than what other

31:59

writers have said. I mean, what

31:59

makes you a writer is saying

32:04

something in your own voice in a

32:04

way that hasn't been said

32:08

before. And I think we've, we

32:08

get so hung up with the spelling

32:13

and the grammar, that we fail to

32:13

really use writing as a vehicle

32:20

for organizing our thinking, and

32:20

for expressing our deepest sorts

32:26

of thoughts. I just think we

32:26

work too much on the surface

32:30

structure, rather than the deep

32:30

structure of, of both reading

32:35

and writing.

32:36

Well, I think

32:36

in my experience, I, I believe

32:39

that part of the reason why

32:39

we've turned to the more

32:43

superficial structures, is

32:43

because it's really difficult to

32:47

measure and assess and grade

32:47

those deeper structures,

32:50

particularly without a lot of

32:50

deep training, and, you know,

32:55

knowledge of the subject as well

32:55

as some experience.

32:59

It's also I

32:59

think, the case that a lot of

33:01

the people developing those

33:01

administrative curriculums, they

33:08

they reduce everything into

33:08

those simple little terms. Do

33:12

you know what I mean? They break

33:13

check boxes

33:13

and, and grading scales. Yes,

33:16

yes. Agreed. I totally agree

33:16

with you, Jerry.

33:20

So in some ways

33:20

teachers, You know, this is the

33:23

probably the hardest concept to

33:23

get across. But you got to be a

33:27

philosopher, before you can be a

33:27

teacher, you really have to

33:31

think about what kind of world

33:31

do I want to create? And what

33:36

kind of people do I want to have

33:36

populated? Now, once you decided

33:42

what kind of people you want to

33:42

create, and what kind of people

33:46

the world would do well to have,

33:46

then I think it's a matter of

33:50

setting up your classroom to

33:50

support those kids living that

33:55

particular experience. But you

33:55

do have to be a father, a bit of

34:00

a philosopher, you do have to

34:00

take responsibility for looking

34:05

at the bigger picture. And

34:05

that's what really bothers me

34:09

about the way senators and

34:09

people talk about the teaching

34:14

profession. I mean, teachers

34:14

need to really be intellectual

34:19

professionals, in a sense, they

34:19

really do have a huge

34:23

responsibility to think about

34:23

what kind of people do we want

34:28

to create? And how can we get

34:28

about creating those in our

34:32

classroom? I think, you know,

34:32

it's living that model with the

34:37

kids on a daily basis that keeps

34:37

you growing. I mean, you will

34:41

find yourself all of a sudden

34:41

saying things like, Oh, God, I

34:45

don't really want to be that

34:45

kind of person. Why did I say

34:48

that? Well, that's wonderful,

34:48

because that forces you to

34:52

rethink how you're going to do

34:52

something and how you're going

34:55

to interact. And it's having a

34:55

sense of this bigger picture.

35:00

Sure, I think that's extremely

35:00

important did not sort of lose

35:05

sight of by focusing on all the

35:05

minutia and the details that are

35:12

often what specified by people.

35:16

Yeah, I think

35:16

you're so right. I think you're

35:19

right on with that, Jerry. And

35:19

we're, we're a little off script

35:23

here. But I want to be sure to

35:23

give you an opportunity to

35:26

answer directly to the second

35:26

question. What do you want

35:29

listeners to know about your

35:29

work? Or maybe more

35:32

appropriately? At this point?

35:32

What else do you want listeners

35:36

to know about your work?

35:38

Well I'd say, use

35:38

the child as your curricular

35:42

informant, I think somehow that

35:42

relationship that you have with

35:48

children, and that

35:48

understanding, I also think you

35:54

have to constantly realize that

35:54

those kids that aren't

35:59

performing and you got to keep

35:59

asking yourself, why the kids

36:04

who aren't performing aren't

36:04

meeting the standards that have

36:10

been set up. And sometimes I

36:10

think it's helpful to say to

36:16

yourself, what would school have

36:16

to be like in order for this kid

36:21

to be success? And then I think

36:21

what that leads to is you begin

36:27

to see, what does that child

36:27

currently know and what

36:32

currently interests them? And

36:32

how could you build from that

36:37

particular point, I've worked

36:37

with a group of teachers up in

36:40

Indianapolis, and we started a

36:40

Center for Inquiry as a school,

36:46

we got permission from the

36:46

board, I was based around

36:49

inquiry based learning. And we

36:49

took our best ideas, and that

36:54

was going to be the curriculum

36:54

for the school. Yet we got kids

36:58

in there who weren't doing well.

36:58

And we would use those kids as

37:03

our professional development, we

37:03

each would try to make an

37:07

observation of what the kid was

37:07

doing in particular locations.

37:11

And then we talked about that.

37:11

And then we hypothesized, well,

37:16

what could we do to make him

37:16

successful, that was some of the

37:20

best professional development

37:20

that I've ever been involved in.

37:24

Since we were testing our best

37:24

hypotheses. And they weren't

37:28

working, it was really an

37:28

opportunity to sort of outgrow

37:31

ourselves. And not only were we

37:31

able to create a curriculum

37:36

where those kids started to

37:36

achieve, but we really became

37:41

much smarter about the whole

37:41

process of education. But I

37:44

think it again, leads to paying

37:44

really close attention to your

37:50

learner. And then understanding

37:50

that somebody has set up the

37:55

standards that we're supposed to

37:55

be reaching. And those standards

37:59

aren't given by God, they're

37:59

given by humans, and they're

38:03

going to reward certain people,

38:03

and they're going to jeopardize

38:07

other people. And if you change

38:07

those, somebody else might look

38:12

better. But you're also going to

38:12

jeopardize another set. There's

38:16

no, there's no right answer to

38:16

that. But I think we do have to

38:20

question what it is that we

38:20

value and and what are we

38:25

teaching for? And who does that

38:25

eliminate in that process? I

38:29

mean, I think we need to be much

38:29

more cognizant about and not

38:34

just accept that, what this what

38:34

the government wants us to

38:40

teach. If there is a non

38:40

debatable entity, I think we

38:45

really have to question what it

38:45

is we're about up and down the

38:49

line. And I think that's part of

38:49

being a professional to it isn't

38:53

just toeing the line all the

38:53

time.

38:56

What incredible

38:56

words of wisdom and I think

39:00

advice for for anyone who might

39:00

be feeling a little bit stuck.

39:03

You know, I think that teachers

39:03

also often feel very boxed in by

39:08

curriculum by the standards. But

39:08

I think taking this critical

39:13

mindset and also this question

39:13

you give us is, what would

39:17

school have to be like for the

39:17

student to be successful? To me,

39:21

that just fills me with a lot of

39:21

hope for what things could be

39:25

those kind of imagined futures

39:25

or imagining a circumstances

39:30

that we could design in order to

39:30

help students be successful,

39:33

rather than them hearing that

39:33

these standards set by someone

39:38

you don't know who's never met

39:38

you before who's decided that

39:40

this is the thing we're going to

39:40

value there. I think there's

39:44

just a lot of empowerment in

39:44

thinking differently about how

39:47

we can support students to

39:47

really discover their strengths,

39:52

to find their voice in the world

39:52

and to exercise that kind of

39:55

power to help them become who

39:55

they want to be and to really

39:58

live up to their potential. So I

39:58

so appreciate that question. And

40:02

that kind of frame for thinking

40:02

about possibilities in schools,

40:06

particularly I think, would we

40:06

live in a day and age when

40:09

schools are unfortunately filled

40:09

with a lot of impossibility?

40:13

Yeah, I agree. I,

40:13

you know, your third question

40:16

that you given the challenges of

40:16

today's educational climate,

40:20

what message? Do you want

40:20

teachers to hear? God, I thought

40:26

about that a long time I tell

40:26

you here is what I think I often

40:31

think, God, if I were teaching

40:31

these days, how long would it be

40:36

before I got fired? It's a very

40:36

difficult environment as for

40:41

teachers at the current time,

40:41

but here's what I advise the

40:45

teachers I work with up in, I'm

40:45

working with a group of teachers

40:49

right now in Canada. And while

40:49

Canada, it doesn't have all of

40:55

the constraints that the US

40:55

system has, for the most part,

40:59

they have the benchmarks, but

40:59

teachers are still sort of

41:02

permitted to reach those bench

41:02

marks in any way that they

41:07

professionally think, is the

41:07

best way. Now that's changing a

41:12

little is getting more

41:12

restrictive. But here's what I

41:15

tell teachers, I think it's

41:15

important for you to understand

41:22

very thoroughly what it is the

41:22

state is expecting of you. And

41:29

be very articulate about that.

41:29

So that if somebody questions

41:33

you, you know, bloody well what

41:33

it is that's being asked of you

41:39

to teach. And then I think the

41:39

second part of that is you need

41:44

to know, and be very articulate

41:44

about how you want to go about

41:49

teaching that, and how that's

41:49

going to more than meet the

41:54

particular standards that the

41:54

curriculum has laid out how

42:00

you're going to go not only

42:00

reach those standards, but why

42:04

that's so much more important in

42:04

terms of the students you're

42:08

teaching, and how that's going

42:08

to get them to go far beyond

42:14

what even was expected of them.

42:14

I think if you're articulate,

42:18

about both of those fronts, then

42:18

you've got a chance at being

42:23

able to make the kind of

42:23

curricular decisions I think you

42:28

have to make in order to be

42:28

effective. I would also add one

42:32

other thing. I think teachers

42:32

should practice that with each

42:36

other practice as if somebody is

42:36

an administrator asking them,

42:41

why are you doing this and, and

42:41

then practice responding. I

42:47

think if they're prepared, it's

42:47

much more likely that you're

42:51

going to get to do what you want

42:51

to do.

42:54

That's great

42:54

advice. And I think that idea of

42:57

rehearsing responses to critical

42:57

questions, it does have the

43:01

potential to put teachers in a

43:01

different position when it comes

43:05

to being questioned about their

43:05

decisions in their classroom.

43:09

And, you know, I truly believe I

43:09

want to believe that everyone

43:14

who has a stake in education

43:14

really has children's best

43:18

interests at heart. And I think

43:18

that quite often the way to

43:22

achieve those goals is

43:22

misunderstood, or perhaps the

43:25

picture is incomplete. But I

43:25

would like to believe that

43:28

everyone wants what's best for

43:28

children. But I think this

43:32

concept of you know, and this

43:32

sort of tangible idea of talking

43:36

with our colleagues about how we

43:36

explain or in some instances,

43:40

even defend our professional

43:40

decision making, there's so much

43:44

power in that, right. I think

43:44

that that that's a really

43:47

critical conversation. It also I

43:47

think, has the potential to help

43:51

us to grow in not just those

43:51

skills of our own personal or

43:55

professional advocacy, but also

43:55

to hear what are others doing

43:59

that's really working well for

43:59

them? Or how are they thinking

44:01

about giving those gifts back to

44:01

students, those gifts of things

44:06

like conveying your ideas

44:06

through drawing or through

44:09

claymation, or through

44:09

dramatization or perhaps even

44:13

music? Any kind of flexible

44:13

thinking, I think once once we

44:16

have conversations about those

44:16

things with colleagues, it

44:19

continues to open up

44:19

possibilities for us, and

44:23

hopefully, can sort of stop

44:23

that, that sort of stealing of

44:27

possibilities that I think is

44:27

happening in all too many

44:30

spaces. And maybe that's a

44:30

simplistic way to think about

44:33

it. But I think that in kind of

44:33

an immediate sense. That's one

44:38

way that we can exercise that

44:38

personal and professional power.

44:41

Yeah, and I think

44:41

here its also what keeps

44:45

teaching alive and why we're

44:45

teachers. I mean, we keep

44:50

growing as as we try new things.

44:50

I think we find that, you know,

44:55

it keeps an edge on learning. I

44:55

think one of the things when you

44:58

ask kids to use art to respond.

44:58

I think it's different than what

45:04

normally has been going on. And

45:04

there's something about the

45:09

provocative-ness of an

45:09

invitation that allows kids to

45:14

sort of reach for the stars in a

45:14

way. I think, oftentimes when

45:20

you ask kids to draw something

45:20

in older grades, okay, like, oh,

45:26

I can't draw, do the very best

45:26

you can. But I think there's

45:30

something about provocative in

45:30

that invitation that really,

45:35

oftentimes you get much more

45:35

than you expected. And I think

45:39

it puts an edge to learning, but

45:39

it puts a heads on the kids

45:42

learning, like your own

45:42

learning, too. And I think

45:45

that's equally important as a

45:45

professional to keep reflecting

45:50

on what's happening and to

45:50

continue to grow.

45:54

Yeah, I

45:54

couldn't agree more. And I think

45:57

that so often in schools, we

45:57

talk about meeting expectations,

46:00

whereas what I think you and I

46:00

are talking about here is really

46:03

exceeding expectations, right,

46:03

and I to be there, there's a lot

46:07

of hope, for possibility and for

46:07

a brighter future of education,

46:11

if we can keep those ideas in

46:11

mind if we can avoid the

46:17

limiting thoughts, the limiting

46:17

behaviors, and instead identify

46:21

opportunities and our

46:21

challenges. And so I just, I

46:25

really appreciate that message.

46:25

And I appreciate you also giving

46:29

us some really tangible ways to

46:29

get started on imagining

46:32

possibilities.

46:34

Yeah, and I would

46:34

say, make it fun. I mean,

46:37

learning is fun.

46:38

It should be right. I mean, I think that's how we maximize again, that's

46:40

how we exceed expectations is

46:43

whenever learning is an

46:43

enjoyable experience.

46:46

You know, bring

46:46

in books that you really love

46:50

and share with them. Make sure

46:50

that kids are having fun, and

46:55

you don't need to apologize for

46:55

kids having fun. I think we just

47:00

need to make schooling a joyous

47:00

activity for everybody.

47:06

What a different world we might live in huh Jerry.

47:09

Yeah, that's right. Yeah.

47:11

Is there anything else you'd like to share with listeners today?

47:15

No, I'm just

47:15

wishing I hope. I hope what I

47:18

said makes some sense. And

47:20

what you've said, We'll stick with me forever, I think that this is

47:22

such an important conversation.

47:25

And I think it's such an

47:25

important moment in education

47:28

for teachers to hear a message

47:28

of hope and possibility because

47:32

I think that in so many places,

47:32

you know, education really is a

47:36

kind of a dreary space, but it

47:36

doesn't have to be like that.

47:40

No, I know, I'm

47:40

gonna send you this little

47:43

PowerPoint of these

47:43

illustrations that I talked

47:47

about in the beginning. I'm

47:47

hoping that will help sorted by

47:51

that if that sort of got too

47:51

muddled.

47:54

Absolutely. And

47:54

we will post that to your guests

47:57

page, so listeners can find it

47:57

there. Jerry, I just want to

48:00

thank you so much for your time

48:00

today. Thank you for sharing

48:03

your ideas. So thank you, and

48:03

thank you for your tremendous

48:06

contributions to the world of education.

48:09

It has been my

48:09

pleasure. So nice meeting you.

48:13

And good luck with your

48:13

podcasting.

48:15

Thank you so

48:15

much. Dr. Jerome C. Harste, he

48:19

is best known for his work

48:19

exploring young children's

48:22

written language literacy,

48:22

learning, connecting arts and

48:25

literacies and critical

48:25

literacies. As the educational

48:29

researcher he studied what young

48:29

children knew about reading and

48:32

writing prior to going to

48:32

school, the status of reading

48:36

comprehension instruction in the

48:36

United States, and how reading,

48:39

writing and art support the

48:39

learning process. together with

48:43

a group of teachers from

48:43

Indianapolis, he started a

48:45

public school called the Center

48:45

for Inquiry. The curriculum of

48:49

that school features process

48:49

reading and writing children's

48:53

literature, multiple ways of

48:53

knowing, inquiry based education

48:57

and critical literacy. The

48:57

Center for Inquiry is now in its

49:00

30th year of operation in

49:00

Indianapolis now hosts for such

49:04

schools covering kindergarten to

49:04

eighth grade with plans to open

49:07

a high school in the future. For

49:07

an overview of his professional

49:10

writings See, researching

49:10

literate lives the Select

49:13

writings of Jerome Harste which

49:13

was published by Rutledge in

49:17

2021. The third edition of

49:17

teaching children's literature,

49:21

it's critical, co authored with

49:21

doctors Christine Leland and

49:25

Mitzi Lewisohn was just released

49:25

by Rutledge publishers in 2023.

49:29

As a literacy educator, his

49:29

expanded view of what it meant

49:33

to be literate went far beyond

49:33

traditional notions of reading

49:36

and writing to include visual

49:36

literacy and more generally

49:39

semiotics or the study of how

49:39

cultural groups learn to mean

49:44

for his research and work in

49:44

schools. He was inducted into

49:47

the reading Hall of Fame, given

49:47

the James Squire paradigm

49:50

shifters award from the National

49:50

Council of Teachers of English

49:54

the Oscar Causey reading

49:54

research award from the literacy

49:57

Research Association and the

49:57

David Russell research Award for

50:00

his work in the language arts

50:00

from the National Council for

50:03

Teachers of English. He served

50:03

in leadership roles for the

50:06

National Council of Teachers of

50:06

English international Reading

50:09

Association, American

50:09

Educational Research

50:12

Association, literacy Research

50:12

Association, United Kingdom

50:16

Reading Association, whole

50:16

language umbrella center for the

50:20

expansion of language and

50:20

thinking and the National

50:22

Conference on reading in

50:22

language and literacy. He's

50:26

earned the coveted Gorman

50:26

Teaching Award from the School

50:28

of Education and the Frederick

50:28

Bachman Teaching Award from

50:31

Indiana University. Dr. Harste

50:31

retired from Indiana University

50:36

as a distinguished professor,

50:36

where he held the Armstrong

50:39

chair in teacher education. He

50:39

is currently a member of the

50:43

alliance of distinguished

50:43

professors at IU. Since his

50:46

retirement in 2006. He has

50:46

pursued art a lifelong passion

50:51

by taking workshops and courses

50:51

from some of the best watercolor

50:55

artists in the nation. From

50:55

these artists, he learned how to

50:58

take risks, push boundaries and

50:58

understand the importance of

51:01

composition, color, pattern and

51:01

design. More and more. He's

51:05

become a firm advocate of Jacob

51:05

John's advice to artists do

51:09

something then do something to

51:09

that something and soon you'll

51:12

have something. Dr. Harste is

51:12

currently a signature member of

51:16

the Bloomington watercolor

51:16

society, the watercolor Society

51:20

of Indiana, the Hoosier salon

51:20

and the Missouri watercolor

51:24

society. He regularly shows his

51:24

work at the emeritus house on

51:29

Iuse campus, the William H

51:29

Miller Fine Art Studio in Myrtle

51:34

Beach, South Carolina, and has

51:34

had solo shows at Meadow wood

51:38

retirement home and the Walter

51:38

and Art Center in Bloomington,

51:41

Indiana. Because his paintings

51:41

deal with the issue of literacy.

51:46

His work has been featured on

51:46

the covers of seven professional

51:48

books, as well as several

51:48

professional journals, including

51:52

language arts, Journal of

51:52

language and literacy,

51:54

education, literacy practice and

51:54

research and California English.

52:00

He was a featured watercolor

52:00

artist in January 2019 and

52:03

December 2020, and blue

52:03

magazine. He currently teaches

52:07

graduate courses at Mount Saint

52:07

Vincent University in Canada.

52:11

You can connect with Jerry on

52:11

Facebook at Harste as artist or

52:16

online at Jerome harste.com.

52:16

That's JEROMEH A R S T E dot c o

52:26

FM. For the good of all students

52:26

classroom caffeine aims to

52:31

energize education research and

52:31

practice. If this show provides

52:36

you with things to think about,

52:36

don't keep it a secret.

52:39

Subscribe, like and review this

52:39

podcast through your preferred

52:43

podcast provider. I also invite

52:43

you to connect with the show

52:48

through our website at WWW dot

52:48

classroom caffeine.com where you

52:54

can learn more about each guest.

52:54

Find transcripts for many

52:58

episodes, explore episode topics

52:58

using our tagging feature,

53:03

support podcast research through

53:03

our survey, request an episode

53:07

topic or a potential guest or

53:07

share your own questions that we

53:11

might respond to through the

53:11

show. You could also leave us a

53:15

voice message or a text message

53:15

at 1-941-212-0949. We would love

53:23

to hear from you. As always, I

53:23

raised my mug to you teachers.

53:28

Thanks for joining me