The Three Lenses: The Influence of Literacy Coaches and Observations 

man writing on a blackboard
Photo by fauxels on Pexels.com

The Three Lenses: The Influence of Literacy Coaches and Observations 

When Literacy Coaches observe teachers, most of the time they use set rubrics to determine what the teacher needs to work on and what they are doing well. “Our analysis of the coaches’ discussion about their ratings on the rubrics led us to identify three lenses- or ways of looking- that influences their observations: the pedagogy lens, the responsiveness lens, and the relevancy lens,” Rodgers & Rodgers, (2007). What do these lenses mean and how do they affect our teaching and our ability to coach?  

Each time the Literacy Coach watches a lesson and observes how a teacher teaches; they think about how they would have taught that lesson. “Adrian conceptualized a mechanism called a pedagogical lens to help understand how the same teaching might be viewed and interpreted differently by different people (A. Rogers, 2002),” Rodgers & Rodgers, (2007). In other words, an English teacher may observe a teacher teaching a lesson on Shakespeare. The observer might have already taught a lesson like this and comes to the observation with their own ideas on how this subject should be taught.  

The observer is analyzing the lesson by seeing how they would have taught it.  

Another lens observers use is called the Responsiveness Lens. “When the coaches in our study discussed rationales for their ratings, they often referred to what we call the responsiveness of teaching as a factor in their analysis,” Rodgers & Rodgers, (2007). This means how well the teacher is responding to students. If the subject is too difficult, can the teacher adjust her lesson while teaching to help those students?  

One coach summed up the responsiveness lens nicely, ‘What you’re really looking for is, is she meeting the needs of those kids?” Sometimes the teacher must adjust the lesson to help students. What are the students getting from this lesson? Is the teacher matching what she is reaching to how her students are responding?  

When I started teaching Social Studies, I didn’t realize that some of the terms in the book that were known to most students, were not known to my particular group of students. I had to stop the lesson and go over some vocabulary that I thought was common knowledge.  

Finally, the last lens is called the relevancy lens. Are the students learning from what is being taught? “Their reflections on their retains also dealt with whether they thought students could profit form the teaching; this could only happen if what the teacher was teaching matched what students could use to learn,” Rodgers & Rodgers, (2007). The observer questions when teachers are teaching something that is “not meaningful or useful for students, and notes missed opportunities for learning,” Rodgers & Rodgers, (2007).  

 Literacy specialist must collaborate with others in their schools. “To be successful, literacy specialist must be able to work collaboratively and cooperatively with teachers, administrators, families and community agencies,” Bean and Goatley (2021). For example, just as I assumed when I started teaching Social Studies that my students should have already known certain vocabulary, Literacy Specialists come equipped with experiences from previous jobs and life experiences. They must also understand the different lens that they observe with and understand how to use those lenses to help teachers and others to becomes the best they can be.  

References 

Bean, R. M., Goatley, V.J. (2021).  The Literacy Specialist. Leadership and coaching for the classroom, school, and community.  4th ed (374 pgs) Guildford Press.  

Rodgers, A., & Rodgers, E. M. (2007). The Effective Literacy Coach: Using Inquiry to Support Teaching and Learning. Teachers College, Columbia University. 

https://books2read.com/u/m25Ygd

3 Approaches to the Study of Language 

 

 3 Approaches to the Study of Language 

Freeman & Freeman (2014) present three approaches to the study of language. The first one discussed is language as structure. Those who follow this approach   want to learn the grammar and mechanics of the language. The second one discussed is language as a mental faculty. Those who follow this approach believe that the human brain is preconditioned to learn language. They believe there is a connection between one’s cognitive abilities and language acquisition. The final approach is language as a functional resource. Those who follow this approach view language as a way to function. They are more concerned with the social interactions to develop language. What are the key ideas of each of these approaches and what are the implications for teaching each approach?  

Language as a Structure 

Language as structure refers to grammar. Those who follow this method are concerned with various parts of language, for example they would teach sentence diagrams and have students identify words according to their part of speech such as a noun or a verb and so on. They study the Syntax of the language. The problem is we assume that all languages have the same parts of speech. This however has been the way many Americans have been taught language in the past and still currently in many cases. This method does not allow students to learn how to communicate in the language they have chosen to learn.  

Language as Mental Faculty  

Language as a mental faculty deals with the connection between language and cognition. Language is something that is innate to all humans and part of our cognition. It is something that is preconditioned it us. Humans have an innate ability to learn langue. Does this mean that humans only have this ability at an early age, or does this mean that we can learn language at any age? Does this mean that other species do not have the same ability? People who follow this method try to use this innate ability to teach language.  

Language as Functional Resource 

Language as a functional resource means language is about communication. Many have talked about how language should be inclusive. Which means when you study language you should be fully immersed in the language and the culture. This approach focuses on, “engaging in social interactions, humans develop the language they need” (Freeman and Freeman, 2014 p. 12). There are three aspects of this approach the field, the tenor, and the mode. All three of these aspects work together to in social interactions. However, things might be perceived differently in different cultures. What is accepted in one culture may not be accepted in another.  

Conclusion 

All three of these approaches have merit and all add something to the study of language, however on their own they are missing key components. While grammar is important when learning language, it cannot be taught as the only way to learn language. The same goes for language as a mental faculty. Even if language is an innate human ability, that does not mean that we can’t learn using the other approaches. Finally, language as functional approach is wonderful, but it does nothing to help someone read or write in that language. In conclusion all approaches have merit, but it would be better for teachers to combine them.  

Page BreakReferences 

Freeman, D. E,. & Freeman, Y. S., (2014). Essential Linguistics: What Teachers Need to Know to Teach (7th ed.). Heinemann.