Notes on Religious Literacies in a Secular Literacy Classroom: Research Questions pt1 (2014)

Skerrett, A. (2014). Religious literacies in a secular literacy classroom. Reading
Research Quarterly, 49, 233-250. doi:10.1002/rrq.65

III. The research questions and their [broad] answers (p. 241):

1. How did a literacy teacher engage her students’ Christian religious literacies in school?
1. (1) The teacher’s pedagogy of multiliteracies, in recruiting students’ entire cultural, linguistic, and multiliterate repertoires for academic learning, also drew on students’ religious literacies for teaching and learning in school.

(1)

Mrs. Campbell implemented pedagogy of multiliteracies, employing NLG, which encourages connections among student’s lifeworlds, identities, and language and literacy practices to support their development of academic identities and literacies.

2. How did students, in response to the teacher’s invitations and through their own agency, engage their religious literacies in the classroom?
1. Students, with their teacher’ s support, recruited their religious literacies (2) for analyzing and understanding secular literature and (3) for producing academic writing.

(2)

A story of Monkeyman where several of the focus students draw upon religious literacies to meaning making, associating Monkeyman to Jesus on the cross. As a foreground, they are preparing for the state standardized test in reading and at present discussing symbolisms.

Monkeyman’s story is making a stance against violence of gang members in the neighborhood and challenged them, asking his godmother and grandfather to be with him but not defend him. Monkeyman, during the encounter refused to fight back and stretched out his arms, as if offering himself up to be battered.

Other students draw pictures of the event with the godmother, which students associated with Mary. A pictures which brought identified students to ahhh-moment. We can witness communal meaning making in-action right here.

Religious literacies are developed outside the class. As such, students create opportunity in school to building his religious literacies in conjunction with his academic literacies.

One question I have as I read along this part, which I thought would have been discussed already is: What components of literacy?

The author hasn’t given the distinctive components as to which component of literacy it is but brushed it collectively as academic and religious literacies, with, perhaps with assumed thoughts of the readers prior understanding on its composition. At least in the present discussion, it would satisfy us to assume that the component is meaning making. But I would say that this is still quite narrow than the promise of exploring religious literacies.

Going back to the class, Mrs. Campbell, however, hasn’t assisted this connection more deeply through additional overt instruction. This raises a concern of the teacher’s knowledge of her own student’s religions and religious pedagogical knowledge because the teacher could’ve have shaped these opportunities for academic learning with religious literacies.

But consideration of multiliteracies as employed in this secular learning space allowed student to transact their religious literacies for academic learning.

It is important to note that Mrs. Campbell hasn’t disclosed her religious affiliation which the researcher respected. Therefore, we can see that the control for religious interpretations lean on the students than the teacher. This freed her of policing permissible boundaries of acceptable meanings. In the Protestant tradition, communal and individual meaning making is encouraged and it is seen to be at work in this secular space.

The teacher, however, was credited by the researcher to have given guided instruction of drawing different literate tools, identities and forms knowledge in meaning making. This instructional practices themselves involved a critical reframing of literary curriculum as teacher and student.