Tracy Tarasiuk's article made a strong argument that embraces social networking and multimodal literacies. She determined to learn to know her students and what literacies they engaged with, and in so doing allowed them to interact with social media and websites they use outside the classroom, even while they were doing coursework and looked up material for the class. I was not surprised when she writes that she struggled with "interfering as little as posible" but was when she writes "This was a struggle, until I observed that the work the students completed seemed unaffected by their multitasking" (545). I think this jumped out to me because overall teachers believe that social media during classtime is a distraction and that it limits attention to the material at hand. Tarasiuk's willingness to allow students to use it gave her a place to find what her students interests were and how they use the internet and multimodal literacies. I realize that depending on the classroom structure, and what the teacher is asking students to focus on does not always allow for social media, but does this suggest that the problem of social media in the classroom is not that big of a problem? By taking an interest in what social media her students use and what they are interested in also creates opportunity for teaching the issues of image the Kramer writes about and we considered in class. By not pitting herself against student use of this technology, Tarasiuk should have many opportunities to dialogue with her students about how they present themselves on social media and bring attention to the power it has in everyone's life.
In light of reading about Bauerlein's dire assessments of the current generation, I found Tarasiuk's findings that much more interesting. Her survey found that the same students who use technology also had "enjoyed a book for fun in the past week" (546). While one could argue that her findings may not be comprehensive, they suggest to me that students who use technology do still read traditional books more than they are given credit for. This also brings to mind a review of Bauerlein's book, by Charles McGrath, in which he notes discrepancies on what test score results one focuses on when discussing students today. What impresses me the most about Tarasiuk's efforts is that she didn't just observe students use of social media and multidmodal literacies, but found a way to incorporate it in a meaningful way into her English classrooms. Would Tarasiuk's model also be a good way to incorporate meaningful learning across the curriculum? Writers such as Bauerlein suggest students know little about history and politics, it seems to me that we teachers could use technology to combine learning from those subject areas with the English classroom. Literature is so interconnected to history and politics that I think students could really benefit from teachers that work together to combine multimodal learning with the different subject areas. These ideas are directly connected to having just finished reading James Dashner's The Maze Runner. If I were teaching a course on the genre of dystopian fiction, I would like to connect ways in which this genre has followed history and politics and also make a statement about our culture. How might I do this in a classroom and in what ways can I incorporate multimodal literacy while teaching it are several questions I have.
To close, I have to say that I really enjoyed The Maze Runner and once I finished it I happened to be on Youtube and was really struck by all videos and book trailers on the book. It really does convince me that young people still read and when they like what they read they use social media to express it! Social media and technology has changed the way we read, but a site such as Youtube that allows people a way to visually respond to a book like The Maze Runner has many, many more benefits than it does negative points.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Blog #7
This week's readings on censorship is a familiar issue to anyone involved in education, and one I have thought about, but Elizabeth Noll's article challenged me and drew my attention to aspects of it I have never considered. Since I fall into the category of people who could be called a "people-pleaser" I know already that I am someone who would self-censor material I choose in a classroom. I believe that as teachers we are called on to exercise our best judgement, but also stick to what we believe in, so the first question I have would be "Is self-censorship a bad thing?" I am certainly not going to purposefully choose something that pushes the boundaries or is known to be controversial, but at the same time, I need to choose material that best fit my purposes for a particular unit or area of study and I want to do what we have been discussing in ad-lit, which is be able to choose books that might offer opposing viewpoints or expose a variety of points of view. In doing this, I very well could choose something that a parent (or anyone) might find objectional. The statement by the NCTE notes the increase in cases of censorship and the wide spectrum of these objections, which certainly points to the fact that as new teachers entering the field, the chances of any one of us facing this are very high! In considering the issue of self-censorship, I think that if a teacher makes a well informed decision using the best judgement based on knowing their students in the classroom, they will probably not have a problem. That being said, I also recognize that it is nearly impossible to know what parent/guardians or students may think about a particular book or what kind of judgements they may make about literature in the classroom. The other aspect of this is to consider the racial dynamics of the classroom. I would teach To Kill A Mockingbird differently to an all white class as opposed to a class that is racially diverse. Webb noted the importance of considering diversity and the comfort/discomfort of a minority student. I hope to always be sensitive toward a student and consider their comfort level before asking them to speak for all of their race.
I particularly like the method of Kara, the teacher in Noll's examples whose approach was to face the issue "head on together" (63). It seems to me that to approach the issue by including the students with teaching about the issue and allowing them to look up different cases and examples of censorship is the best way to create awareness of the issue and also allow them to voice their feelings about books that have been censored. It would also give me a greater handle on how students respond to literature and what kinds of literature they might like.
In connection to this issue, a long quote from the NCTE statement stood out to me. "English teachers must be free to employ books, classic or contemporary, which do not lie to the young about the perilous but wondrous times we live in, books which talk of the fears, hopes, joys and frustrations people experience, books about people not only as they are but as they can be" (3). This quote is important in the context of how censorship limits learning possibilities. Essentially, by eliminating books or, to not present literature of all spectrums is to "lie" or present only a certain point of view. Student choice should be directed from inside the classroom with a teacher who knows them and is familiar with what they are learning, not by outside sources that declare certain literature "off limits." Some students might not want to read a certain book, and in that scenario, I would allow them a choice, but I would never try to tell a student that certain books are off limits. When I was young and my mother took us to the library, my sister brought home a Harlequin romance, when my mother saw it, she declared it off limits. Needless to say, my sister was more determined than ever to find out what was in that book and she did! I hate to admit, so did I, but I think it speaks for itself that human nature, once told something is off limits, has the impulse to find out what it is that is being withheld. At any rate, it is hard for me to imagine how people find censorship beneficial.
Finally, I really enjoyed reading Feed and making its larger connections with information and how we as humans use information, but I'll admit to really struggling with how Titus treated Violet toward the end of the novel. Why?! What was his problem?! I had to get that off my chest before class on Wednesday. Maybe he had simply become numb to normal human emotion, and figured Violet could simply be discarded. I think I was secretly hoping that Violet would successfully resist the Feed. I'm glad we had to read Feed because it definitely is outside my normal genre, and a book I probably wouldn't have chosen on my own.
I particularly like the method of Kara, the teacher in Noll's examples whose approach was to face the issue "head on together" (63). It seems to me that to approach the issue by including the students with teaching about the issue and allowing them to look up different cases and examples of censorship is the best way to create awareness of the issue and also allow them to voice their feelings about books that have been censored. It would also give me a greater handle on how students respond to literature and what kinds of literature they might like.
In connection to this issue, a long quote from the NCTE statement stood out to me. "English teachers must be free to employ books, classic or contemporary, which do not lie to the young about the perilous but wondrous times we live in, books which talk of the fears, hopes, joys and frustrations people experience, books about people not only as they are but as they can be" (3). This quote is important in the context of how censorship limits learning possibilities. Essentially, by eliminating books or, to not present literature of all spectrums is to "lie" or present only a certain point of view. Student choice should be directed from inside the classroom with a teacher who knows them and is familiar with what they are learning, not by outside sources that declare certain literature "off limits." Some students might not want to read a certain book, and in that scenario, I would allow them a choice, but I would never try to tell a student that certain books are off limits. When I was young and my mother took us to the library, my sister brought home a Harlequin romance, when my mother saw it, she declared it off limits. Needless to say, my sister was more determined than ever to find out what was in that book and she did! I hate to admit, so did I, but I think it speaks for itself that human nature, once told something is off limits, has the impulse to find out what it is that is being withheld. At any rate, it is hard for me to imagine how people find censorship beneficial.
Finally, I really enjoyed reading Feed and making its larger connections with information and how we as humans use information, but I'll admit to really struggling with how Titus treated Violet toward the end of the novel. Why?! What was his problem?! I had to get that off my chest before class on Wednesday. Maybe he had simply become numb to normal human emotion, and figured Violet could simply be discarded. I think I was secretly hoping that Violet would successfully resist the Feed. I'm glad we had to read Feed because it definitely is outside my normal genre, and a book I probably wouldn't have chosen on my own.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Blog #6 Who Cares about Apathy?
The dilemma that all teachers will face in a typical classroom is well said by Karen Wink. "We are all familiar with students who prefer to remain uninvolved in class, passively following our instructions but never evidencing passion or curiosity" (84). Wink surprised me with her premises because rather than simply share strategies for teaching around apathy, she shared personal experiences and ways to teach "through" apathy or to instruct moments when students question why they have to read or learn about something they are apathetic about. The statement that is especially meaningful is a question that Galloway asked of the students. "What am I doing and what am I not doing to influence this situation?" (85). That question strikes me as essential to the issue of student involvement and participation. I fully agree with Wink that "the teacher's experience of place can be the catalyst for transformation of learning" (86). But, to encourage participation every teacher must find a way to get students to ask themselves the question of what they personally bring to the classroom and their personal voice. The teacher's willingness to be vulnerable and share personal experience is the way to start and to generate honest and critical questions. Wink shared her discomfort when challenged by a student, "I wanted to challenge his assumptions and everyone's unexamined views. I could not accept their passivity" (87). This is where a teacher even in the discomfort of student doubt or questioning must model a safe place and by being personally invested creates a space for real, personal learning. Students must be prompted and given room to ask the questions about a text and figure how it relates to them personally. In the example of Derek who got jumped on by classmates, I like that she looked at him and brought him back into the classroom with her answer. She obviously had created a space in her classroom where the students felt safe, because Derek later explained why he felt like he did and that he has a "problem with Emerson's philosophies" (88). I note this whole example because it seems really important. I am currently in a class where the professor presented material in a way that demonstrated his clear disagreement with the point of view of the author. As a student, I felt the exact opposite, but given the dynamic of the classroom, who about half chuckled at some of his comments, there was no way I felt safe to speak up and say what I really thought. To me this gets at the point of these articles. Do we in the typical American classroom, really teach inclusion? In my personal example, I felt the teacher was teaching his point of view. My problem with it is the way he presented the material. It was through lecturing, and he has set up his classroom in such a way that is not conducive to student participation and questioning of the material. He definitely is modeling critical thinking and critical examination of a text. But critical thinking should allow for all points of view sharing those points of view, but if students feel silenced or the structure of the classroom is such that questioning cannot take place it is not an effective English classroom. On the other hand, I am learning in the classroom. First, I'm learning the material, and am fully aware I don't have to agree with my teacher. But secondly, and more importantly I'm learning to watch for teaching styles I do not want to emulate.
Raquel Cook's article ties in really well with Wink's observations. In the aftermath of 9/11, Cook modeled honesty and personal reflection of issues that promote real learning. When she shared her personal struggle with prejudice such as not riding in a taxi with a Middle-Eastern driver, she is displaying characteristics of what Wink call the "discomfort necessary for learning" (89). Cook successfully found a way to present material that prompted student reflection and that got them involve themselves in an emotional level, which is where true learning can take place. Initially, I was wondering how her world literature classroom was different from the "tourist" approach, but do think that a key difference is personal involvement and questioning. Simply learning about other cultures on an academic level is different from looking at how culture shapes and informs literature. In that interaction-of culture and literature- students can find a place to question and find their voice in the classroom. Cook's theory of "embracing others" jumped out to me as the key difference for her. If we fully engage, and learn about other people as people we engage in learning that promotes personal growth and finding of voice and are less likely to allow prejudice to be the basis of our decision making. For me, this difficult part of this is how to create the space and promote learning that serves my students, and to promote deep learning without forcing my point of view on students.
Raquel Cook's article ties in really well with Wink's observations. In the aftermath of 9/11, Cook modeled honesty and personal reflection of issues that promote real learning. When she shared her personal struggle with prejudice such as not riding in a taxi with a Middle-Eastern driver, she is displaying characteristics of what Wink call the "discomfort necessary for learning" (89). Cook successfully found a way to present material that prompted student reflection and that got them involve themselves in an emotional level, which is where true learning can take place. Initially, I was wondering how her world literature classroom was different from the "tourist" approach, but do think that a key difference is personal involvement and questioning. Simply learning about other cultures on an academic level is different from looking at how culture shapes and informs literature. In that interaction-of culture and literature- students can find a place to question and find their voice in the classroom. Cook's theory of "embracing others" jumped out to me as the key difference for her. If we fully engage, and learn about other people as people we engage in learning that promotes personal growth and finding of voice and are less likely to allow prejudice to be the basis of our decision making. For me, this difficult part of this is how to create the space and promote learning that serves my students, and to promote deep learning without forcing my point of view on students.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Blog #5 Classroom Equality and Literature Circles
The article "Untracking English" really caught my attention because it brings up justice in education. "Tracking helps create and legitimate a social hierarchy within a school based on perceived differences in student ability" (170). This quote describes my highschool very well. It had the "smart kids," known as the college preps and then five other groups; the business preps, vo-aggers, vo-techers, and building traders. It was commonly known that if you didn't want to do anything in school all you had to do was be a "trader" as they were called. We definitely had a heirarchy in school that tracking helped create.
The disturbing thing is that teachers buy into this hierarchy and have lower expectations for students that are not in "advanced" classes and Christenson writes that detracking can fail if teachers don't "reconstruct their ideas about students and curriculum" (171). This is significant in relation to the article that discusses how students learn "inferiority" or have inadvertantly internalized that they aren't good enough.
I found it really interesting that the author notes that lower-tracked students are often more creative than those who perform well. This creativity is what makes for a more interesting, but more disruptive class. It seems to me that it is important to keep this in mind; that I don't label a student as a "problem" and thereby limit what they bring to the class.
In college, I sometimes feel like professors are rushing through material and trying to cover as much literature as possible, and seem to emphasis literary analysis. I find myself questioning how much we really learn that will stick with us. Therefore, I took notice when Christensen wrote "successfully untracking means re-examining and changing the curriculum. Instead of constructing my curriculum around a parade of novels, I teach thematic units that emphasize the social/political underpinings of my students lives" (175). To do this, she writes that she covers fewer novels. This makes good sense to me because there is so much more opportunity to learn when one has time to reflect and apply it one's personal life. What are we really learning when we simply memorize events and briefly do literary analysis to a quickly forgotten text?
Literary circles seems like a much more progressive way to promote learning and doing that would work in a de-tracked classroom. The literary circle creates an opportunity for student involvement and to become involved enough to think for themself and discuss what is important to them. I really like how it accounts for the importance of reader response. I think that this is the most overlooked element in more traditional education. On the flip side of the argument, I know that it promotes education that some would say is too centered on the student. A skeptic might ask if the student is learning anything. I believe that when a student can discuss a text and apply it to themself it shows learning. A concern would be grading and what to do if I have a principal who thinks my classroom too loud and unmanaged. The author notes that noise is a definite part of a literature circle whose students are really engaged. On the other hand, what would I do if I can't get the students to really take part it in and are too silent? I really like the idea of using post it notes for the students to record their reactions and hopefully these would help to draw out student reactions in the classroom.
The experience of doing the teaching and these readings are really challenging to me. It has caused me to really consider "what" makes a good student. As a student, I thought being quiet, taking notes, and listening attentively were the important things. However, as an English teacher, I'm learning that collaboration and groups work promote the best learning and my few short experiences at the front of the room also causes me to perceive students who are "too quiet" differently. It is much more fun when students show they are engaged. Before this I never considered the signals that students send the teacher and how important those signals are, because that is how we evaluate and determine what is going on with the students and how deeply they are engaged in the material at hand. I hope I can effectively engage students and learn to know them as individuals with something unique to contribute to classroom discussions.
The disturbing thing is that teachers buy into this hierarchy and have lower expectations for students that are not in "advanced" classes and Christenson writes that detracking can fail if teachers don't "reconstruct their ideas about students and curriculum" (171). This is significant in relation to the article that discusses how students learn "inferiority" or have inadvertantly internalized that they aren't good enough.
I found it really interesting that the author notes that lower-tracked students are often more creative than those who perform well. This creativity is what makes for a more interesting, but more disruptive class. It seems to me that it is important to keep this in mind; that I don't label a student as a "problem" and thereby limit what they bring to the class.
In college, I sometimes feel like professors are rushing through material and trying to cover as much literature as possible, and seem to emphasis literary analysis. I find myself questioning how much we really learn that will stick with us. Therefore, I took notice when Christensen wrote "successfully untracking means re-examining and changing the curriculum. Instead of constructing my curriculum around a parade of novels, I teach thematic units that emphasize the social/political underpinings of my students lives" (175). To do this, she writes that she covers fewer novels. This makes good sense to me because there is so much more opportunity to learn when one has time to reflect and apply it one's personal life. What are we really learning when we simply memorize events and briefly do literary analysis to a quickly forgotten text?
Literary circles seems like a much more progressive way to promote learning and doing that would work in a de-tracked classroom. The literary circle creates an opportunity for student involvement and to become involved enough to think for themself and discuss what is important to them. I really like how it accounts for the importance of reader response. I think that this is the most overlooked element in more traditional education. On the flip side of the argument, I know that it promotes education that some would say is too centered on the student. A skeptic might ask if the student is learning anything. I believe that when a student can discuss a text and apply it to themself it shows learning. A concern would be grading and what to do if I have a principal who thinks my classroom too loud and unmanaged. The author notes that noise is a definite part of a literature circle whose students are really engaged. On the other hand, what would I do if I can't get the students to really take part it in and are too silent? I really like the idea of using post it notes for the students to record their reactions and hopefully these would help to draw out student reactions in the classroom.
The experience of doing the teaching and these readings are really challenging to me. It has caused me to really consider "what" makes a good student. As a student, I thought being quiet, taking notes, and listening attentively were the important things. However, as an English teacher, I'm learning that collaboration and groups work promote the best learning and my few short experiences at the front of the room also causes me to perceive students who are "too quiet" differently. It is much more fun when students show they are engaged. Before this I never considered the signals that students send the teacher and how important those signals are, because that is how we evaluate and determine what is going on with the students and how deeply they are engaged in the material at hand. I hope I can effectively engage students and learn to know them as individuals with something unique to contribute to classroom discussions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)