I really enjoy planning, so I am having a lot of fun brainstorming the Group Teach.
I remember the first time my group met: we were all pulling our hair out, wondering how we could teach for nearly three hours and how we should structure the lesson. So, it has been incredible to see how everything is coming together.
We have delegated different parts of the lesson for each teacher to lead, which has really helped me understand what the evening is going to look like. Knowing exactly what I am going to be doing was helpful because I do not always work well with abstract planning.
Right now I feel as though my part of the night's lesson is continously morphing into something new. I am really excited to put it in action and see how my classmates react to it. However, first I recognize that I need to narrow down exactly what I want my part to look like. I am currently juggling two or three ideas that will just not fit with everything else that we have planned.
Overall, I see that our rough plans are beginning to have some shine to them. I feel as though all we really have left to do is to put everything together and smooth out the rough edges.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
Stumbling from Point A to Point B
"How?"
That is the biggest question on my mind as I begin to think about implementing technology and ensuring student engagement in my future classroom.
Tracy J. Tarasiuk describes the dichotomy between the mindset of traditional literacy and contemporary literacy: "In [the traditional literacy mindset], scarcity and production of goods is valued. This is the mind-set that exists in most large institutions, such as schools. The second mind-set (contemporary literacy) conceives of literacy . . . involving ICT. Participation and dispersal of goods and information is valued. This is the mind-set of our students."
So, students today are "plugged in." They are more often to be found browsing the web than flipping pages in a book. Yet, schools continue to teach a stagnant literacy that undervalues the technological literacy that students master. Of course, this is ridiculous! Literacy is evolving and expanding; schools are not.
This all makes sense, and I embrace the necessary changes whole-heartedly. (The "changes" being the ends of the contemporary literacy mentioned above.)
However, as Tarasiuk so eloquently stated, "What we are less certain about, and certainly less knowledgeable about, is the particular focus that facilitative support should take."
In this lies my unrest. I can define this contemporary literacy. I can explain its benefits - referencing studies, models, and research in different scholarly articles. I can argue a case for how it is better able to engage students than previous methods. I have the theory down, but what does it look like in practice?
This ties back into a discussion we had much earlier in the semester. We recognized that our classrooms need to be different than the English classrooms we experienced. However, we expressed worries about returning to the old methods that we were taught with because that is what we knew. I do not know what an English classroom based around a contemporary literacy looks like because I have never experienced it.
I like the Wiki pages and book trailers that Tarasiuk implemented. I think the power of websites and other online resources is that they allow the students to create something, and through this creation to express their ideas. It gives student voices a lot of power, particularly on a resource that connects to the entire world.
I gather that a lot of my unrest about working with a contemporary literacy will fade when I actually interact with it and experience it within my classroom. This is humbling again because it reminds me that teaching will not be easy. In order to be an effective teacher, I will not be able to slip into a groove. Each year, I will need to be stretching myself to engage a new and unique group of minds that are a part of an ever-evolving literacy. It is a beautiful and exciting future, and I look forward to it (despite the inevitable challenges).
Another challenge will be reconnecting students to literature. Mark Bauerlein details the literacy gender gap; his research suggests that male students are less likely to read than female students. One reason that he expounds is that schools push texts that disengage male students. We have discussed this in class before, too, determining that it is most important to teach texts that will engage students. Again, this is a challenge that will require me to move away from the traditional canons; I will teach students, not books.
I feel as though I reach the same conclusion with the completion of each post. Teaching English is no cake walk because it is a profession that is always evolving to meet the ever changing needs of each new generation.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
"Freadom"
Censorship in school is not something that I have given much thought. Many of the novels on banned book lists were actually taught in my secondary English classes (including The Giver, A Clockwork Orange, and Native Son) so I do not think that I was fully aware of banned books until they came up in discussion in my college classrooms.
To reiterate an idea that I previously expressed in this blog, if a book creates such a controversy that it is on the chopping block, then it is imperative to discuss. The book is saying something that make people uncomfortable. Didn't we decide that it is good for students to be a little uncomfortable in the classroom in order to grow? Is it too much to ask that the community also be a little uncomfortable?It is a new insight to read about how much power a community has in determining which books will be read in the classroom. I do sympathize with fundamental groups who feel as though their beliefs are being challenged. I do sympathize with the black communities whose wounds are rendered fresh with each encounter of racism. If school is going to be mandatory, should the parents have a say in what their children are being taught? It is imperative to listen and respect these concerns.
But I still wrestle with so many questions. How much choice should the community have in the material that students read? Should the parents or the professionals (teachers) create the curriculum? How much choice should the students have in selecting the materials that they read? How much ownership should the student have over their own education? Similarly, how much ownership should the teacher have over her students' educations?
Especially on the secondary level, the texts should be chosen by the teacher and students. If students are uncomfortable with a text, I agree that they should be provided with alternative texts but not without a discussion about why they are uncomfortable. This uneasiness is real; the feelings that discomfort embodies kill apathy. Is that not the end goal of an English classroom? Engaged and meaningful discussion? How are students going to learn to approach the world critically if their classrooms are afraid to talk about what is happening outside of their four walls?
When it comes to dealing with censorship, teachers must have a very solid and concrete answer as to why they are teaching a text. This will not only help to guide the class through the often rocky path of student discomfort as they struggle through the depths of the themes of a text but also to provide a logical defense of the value of teaching controversial but valuable texts.
I know I have posed a lot of questions in this post, but I am beginning to realize just how muddy the waters of censorship are. It is very disconcerting and I suppose that there are no easy answers. However, I think it is safe to say that at the very least I support the abolishment of banned books lists, recognizing them as a threat to students' intellectual freedom.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Beyond the Text
A couple of imperative questions:
1) What is the purpose of literature?
2) What is the purpose of an English classroom?
These questions are explored in the articles by Raquel Cook and Karen A. Wink. Literature (particularly in the English classroom) is a window to the world. Literature is a catalyst; it exposes the writer to understanding and the reader to perspective.
"Education is about learning to live in a world community, about communicating and questioning and listening." The English classroom has the unique opportunity to present its students with the diverse voices of this world community. Our readings of The Book Thief (German voice) and Night (Jewish voice) model an essential blend of perspective. To read either singularly in a study of the Holocaust would rob the student of a key part of that history (and, thus, of the world community). Cook was able to transform her World Literature class into a journey around the world, which is an awesome concept. Wink mirrors this concept of moving beyond tourism by "bring[ing] place to students."
If our classrooms are going to develop "globally competent and competitive" thinkers, then we need to get comfortable with discomfort. Cook mentions moving her students toward a "global perspective." Why is this important? Because we are each a part of this world that is ever transforming into a more connected community. Therefore, students must be challenged with new perspectives. Students must be encouraged to "question silent assumptions and to allow a transformation of learning where they oscillate between comfort and discomfort... a certain amount of discomfort is necessary for learning and to move through, rather than around, the feeling." Such a classroom will awaken student voice and curiosity in a way that fosters real critical thinking – not just about the text at hand but about the people, the culture, the world that the text explores.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Ins and Outs of Literature Circles
Daniels determines the effectiveness of literature circle strategies by asking: "Is this something real readers do?"
It is an important question to ask. A friend and I were talking a bit ago about reading, and she told me that she does not like to read in school because teachers ruin the text with all of the assignments that they require. This is something that I have heard often from friends and classmates. I believe we are all in agreement that busy work that requires students to tear a text apart is not the way to structure an English classroom. Instead, we have agreed that students need to engage in more real-life discussions and thought-encouraging activities.
Literature circles are very attractive, particularly the record of successful examples that Daniels includes in Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in Book Clubs & Reading Groups. However, despite the detailed examples and ideas that Daniels puts forth, I still feel very unsure of how I could implement literature circles in my classroom.
I love the idea of student-led discussions. I believe that in order to engage students in reading, the students must make independent choices on what to read and what to discuss. But, what is the right balance of student-directed and teacher-directed reading?
I really do not like role sheets. They are very confining, even when they are made to be open-ended. Students may feel stuck in their role. For example, someone who is the "Passage Finder" may feel like they are unable to share a connection or an interesting discussion question that they find in the text. Students should be free to discuss whatever they come across in the text - whatever reactions or feelings or thoughts. For high school students especially, role sheets seem limiting and even a bit demeaning.
However, there needs to be some scaffolding, especially in the introduction of literature circles in the classroom. Modeling seemed like a good alternative to role sheets. I like the idea of having teachers demonstrating what "real" readers do as they interact with a text. I also was impressed with Forst's idea of including other teachers and faculty in literature circles. They could also help to guide (not lead) the students to an understanding of how to meaningfully discuss the text before them. Reading logs and response journals are more strategies that I prefer. Students can free-write in reading logs about how they react to the text, and then use those tangible responses to lay a foundation for literature circle discussions. Response journals (where the student writes a response to the text and the teacher responds in a way that further challenges the student's reponse) is another way for teachers to further the discussion in literature circles without limiting students to a role.
I understand that the roles (connector, questioner, passage master, and illustrator) are important, but instead of breaking them down into four or five separate roles maybe instead they could be introduced and reviewed in a mini-lesson as ways to approach a text. Then, as students are reading, they could refer back to these four roles (or, "reading strategies") as they read in order to create discussion (if they feel the need).
While reading The Book Thief, I began to think about ways to incorporate it into literature circles. I combined those thoughts with ideas of teaching a thematic English class. In eighth grade, we read Diary of Anne Frank coupled with a unit on the Holocaust. So, if I were to teach a unit on the Holocaust, it would be awesome to structure the unit around literature circles. Students could select a novel to read, ranging from The Book Thief, Night, Maus, Diary of Anne Frank, and A Woman in Berlin, and could then participate in literature circles based on their chosen novels. The unit could conclude with students presenting on the novel that they read followed by class discussions on the various interactions of different people and characters with the events of the Holocaust. Instead of just reading one novel on the Holocaust, students would be exposed to a variety of texts, and may be encouraged to read books that other groups had read. This activity could be expanded to a theme that we will explore in class later: adolescents in conflict. The Book Thief could be included in a literature circles exploration of a canon of literature written by or about adolescents exposed to different wars, ranging from civil wars to the World Wars to even something like the Hatfield-McCoy families feud.
It is an important question to ask. A friend and I were talking a bit ago about reading, and she told me that she does not like to read in school because teachers ruin the text with all of the assignments that they require. This is something that I have heard often from friends and classmates. I believe we are all in agreement that busy work that requires students to tear a text apart is not the way to structure an English classroom. Instead, we have agreed that students need to engage in more real-life discussions and thought-encouraging activities.
Literature circles are very attractive, particularly the record of successful examples that Daniels includes in Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in Book Clubs & Reading Groups. However, despite the detailed examples and ideas that Daniels puts forth, I still feel very unsure of how I could implement literature circles in my classroom.
I love the idea of student-led discussions. I believe that in order to engage students in reading, the students must make independent choices on what to read and what to discuss. But, what is the right balance of student-directed and teacher-directed reading?
I really do not like role sheets. They are very confining, even when they are made to be open-ended. Students may feel stuck in their role. For example, someone who is the "Passage Finder" may feel like they are unable to share a connection or an interesting discussion question that they find in the text. Students should be free to discuss whatever they come across in the text - whatever reactions or feelings or thoughts. For high school students especially, role sheets seem limiting and even a bit demeaning.
However, there needs to be some scaffolding, especially in the introduction of literature circles in the classroom. Modeling seemed like a good alternative to role sheets. I like the idea of having teachers demonstrating what "real" readers do as they interact with a text. I also was impressed with Forst's idea of including other teachers and faculty in literature circles. They could also help to guide (not lead) the students to an understanding of how to meaningfully discuss the text before them. Reading logs and response journals are more strategies that I prefer. Students can free-write in reading logs about how they react to the text, and then use those tangible responses to lay a foundation for literature circle discussions. Response journals (where the student writes a response to the text and the teacher responds in a way that further challenges the student's reponse) is another way for teachers to further the discussion in literature circles without limiting students to a role.
I understand that the roles (connector, questioner, passage master, and illustrator) are important, but instead of breaking them down into four or five separate roles maybe instead they could be introduced and reviewed in a mini-lesson as ways to approach a text. Then, as students are reading, they could refer back to these four roles (or, "reading strategies") as they read in order to create discussion (if they feel the need).
While reading The Book Thief, I began to think about ways to incorporate it into literature circles. I combined those thoughts with ideas of teaching a thematic English class. In eighth grade, we read Diary of Anne Frank coupled with a unit on the Holocaust. So, if I were to teach a unit on the Holocaust, it would be awesome to structure the unit around literature circles. Students could select a novel to read, ranging from The Book Thief, Night, Maus, Diary of Anne Frank, and A Woman in Berlin, and could then participate in literature circles based on their chosen novels. The unit could conclude with students presenting on the novel that they read followed by class discussions on the various interactions of different people and characters with the events of the Holocaust. Instead of just reading one novel on the Holocaust, students would be exposed to a variety of texts, and may be encouraged to read books that other groups had read. This activity could be expanded to a theme that we will explore in class later: adolescents in conflict. The Book Thief could be included in a literature circles exploration of a canon of literature written by or about adolescents exposed to different wars, ranging from civil wars to the World Wars to even something like the Hatfield-McCoy families feud.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Why Are We Teaching, Anyway?
I was in "bobo" (formally recognized as "Standard") math and science classes for the bulk of my secondary experience. And, I hated it. I recall a literal haze when I entered those classes; they were dim and loud. They were shrines of busy work in which the teacher spent 41 minutes yelling at "unruly" students (and ignoring me) or joking with "unruly" students (and ignoring me).
"Tracking helps create and legitimate a social hierarchy within a school based on perceived differences in student ability" (170). The racial demographics of any classroom in my high school are usually all that you need to know to determine whether it is a remedial or Standard class or an Honors or AP class. Majority black and Hispanic? Remedial or Standard. Majority white with Indian and Asian? Honors or AP. Majority Indian and Asian? Chances are that it is a high level math or science. As a high school student, I (as well as my peers) understood the hierarchy that feeds assumptions that some students are intellectually superior. While no one would ever explicitly say that Asian students are smarter than black students, an Asian student in a Standard class stuck out as an unexpected minority and would often be a cause for jocular discussion. ("I thought Asians were supposed to be good at math!")
My least favorite secondary class ever was 11th grade Standard Chemistry. The majority of the class was black, and the class average was either a C or a D. I carried an A throughout the year (which, despite the fact I could not tell you a single thing that I had learned from that class at the end of it, got me into Honors Physics the next year). However, I remember coming to an unsettling realization that year. One day, while my teacher was trying to teach us something about the Energy Mountain and the girl next to me was steadily texting and the guy in front of me was fast asleep using his backpack as a pillow, I realized that most of the students in that class were smarter than me. They understood the material better than me. They knew chemistry! Yet, I was the one getting A's. I was the one that they chose when they wanted to use a lab period to get a good grade instead of as a social period. In retrospect, I realize that it was so unsettling because I had bought into the hierarchy of intelligence that tracking had established in my mind. ("They can't be smarter than me!") I knew how to get the grades, but they knew how to understand and apply the concepts that we were taught. Christensen noticed that "low-track students, in general, have less patience for busy work and value grades less than honors students [and] are more likely to complain loudly, criticize their demeaning work and their teachers" (173). Keeping all of this in mind, I would say that tracking only teaches children to be students as opposed to scholars and thinkers.
Until reading Christensen's articles, I supported tracking. While I believed that every student had both the potential and the right to be in upper level classes, I could not get past my own experiences. I had horrible experiences in Standard classes because of a general lack of motivation from both the students and teachers. On the other hand, my Honors and AP classes (usually based in analysis and discussion) were wonderful. Christensen's article showed me that the unintentional untracking that I experienced in high school was unsuccessful because teachers did not "unmask the myths about student ability, redesign the curriculum, [or] change teaching strategies" (171). They actually did not seem to put much effort into the classes at all; it was often a toss-up whether the teacher or the students gave up on the class first. I had experienced a failed system of untracking, but I believe that Christensen's plan for untracking is infinitely more valuable than segregating (oops... I meant "tracking") students into courses due to demonstrated or expected ability.
Another thought that Christensen's articles developed (which was also spurred by Ms. Bennington's classroom, described in "Constructing a Teaching Life") is a restructuring of the focus in English classrooms. Christensen's "explicit focus on the politics of language in [her] senior class, and on the study of education in [her] junior class, play[ed] an additional role in untracking [her] classes" (177). What if instead of teaching Modern Literature to freshmen, American Literature to sophomores, World Literature to juniors, and British Literature to seniors, we taught themes that incorporated texts from all writers, all time periods, and all geographic regions (including the writings of the students)? Christensen admits that they read fewer texts in their classroom, but this only reflects the idea that a "less is more." Not only do her students "learn to think more deeply . . . discover how to dig beneath the surface, how to make connections between texts, their own lives and society," but they responded to the class by saying that "they enjoyed and learned the most from the units [they] spent the most time on" (181).
I am a huge supporter of openness in the classroom. I have always viewed the means to reach this end to be opening up the classroom for honest questioning. Christensen has pulled me further to believe that freeing students from sanitized self-expression and interpretation is not enough; it is important to also free them from the restrictions of the English language. "When more attention is paid to the way something is written or said than to what is said, students' words and thoughts become devalued" (101). Christensen discusses a question that I struggle with: How can an English teacher balance conventions of the English language with student freedom of expression? She describes classrooms where students are taught writing with a "right" and "wrong" ideology, where students are taught to discard risks for the security of correct grammar and good grades, and instead advocates a classroom where student voices are "sacred" (103). I absolutely love the way Christensen twists the restriction of the rules of the English language into a sociopolitical analysis of a "gate-keeping system in our country" (103). Instead of just forcing the rules of the English language onto her students, she helps them to understand why a mastery of these rules are necessary in American society.
Christensen referenced the "collective text" that her class created, through which her students' "lives become a window to examine society" (103). I have always viewed literature as that window through which to examine society, and student writing as a response. However, it is an awesome idea to give my students' writings and discussions the power and validation that I have previously reserved for published literary works. It will be fun to collaborate texts with student writing to foster discussion and thought!
I absolutely LOVE Christensen's teaching philosophy; it mirrors mine so much. "Any text is an investigation into both literature and society, chosen not because it's on some university's reading-for-college-preparation list, but rather because it allows us to examine our society and ourselves more fully" (177). That is how I want to teach literature, and Christensen is a strong model of the teacher that I pray that I will be!
Again, I am reminded: I will not be teaching books or writing, but thinking individuals.
A brief history on tracking:
Until reading Christensen's articles, I supported tracking. While I believed that every student had both the potential and the right to be in upper level classes, I could not get past my own experiences. I had horrible experiences in Standard classes because of a general lack of motivation from both the students and teachers. On the other hand, my Honors and AP classes (usually based in analysis and discussion) were wonderful. Christensen's article showed me that the unintentional untracking that I experienced in high school was unsuccessful because teachers did not "unmask the myths about student ability, redesign the curriculum, [or] change teaching strategies" (171). They actually did not seem to put much effort into the classes at all; it was often a toss-up whether the teacher or the students gave up on the class first. I had experienced a failed system of untracking, but I believe that Christensen's plan for untracking is infinitely more valuable than segregating (oops... I meant "tracking") students into courses due to demonstrated or expected ability.
Another thought that Christensen's articles developed (which was also spurred by Ms. Bennington's classroom, described in "Constructing a Teaching Life") is a restructuring of the focus in English classrooms. Christensen's "explicit focus on the politics of language in [her] senior class, and on the study of education in [her] junior class, play[ed] an additional role in untracking [her] classes" (177). What if instead of teaching Modern Literature to freshmen, American Literature to sophomores, World Literature to juniors, and British Literature to seniors, we taught themes that incorporated texts from all writers, all time periods, and all geographic regions (including the writings of the students)? Christensen admits that they read fewer texts in their classroom, but this only reflects the idea that a "less is more." Not only do her students "learn to think more deeply . . . discover how to dig beneath the surface, how to make connections between texts, their own lives and society," but they responded to the class by saying that "they enjoyed and learned the most from the units [they] spent the most time on" (181).
I am a huge supporter of openness in the classroom. I have always viewed the means to reach this end to be opening up the classroom for honest questioning. Christensen has pulled me further to believe that freeing students from sanitized self-expression and interpretation is not enough; it is important to also free them from the restrictions of the English language. "When more attention is paid to the way something is written or said than to what is said, students' words and thoughts become devalued" (101). Christensen discusses a question that I struggle with: How can an English teacher balance conventions of the English language with student freedom of expression? She describes classrooms where students are taught writing with a "right" and "wrong" ideology, where students are taught to discard risks for the security of correct grammar and good grades, and instead advocates a classroom where student voices are "sacred" (103). I absolutely love the way Christensen twists the restriction of the rules of the English language into a sociopolitical analysis of a "gate-keeping system in our country" (103). Instead of just forcing the rules of the English language onto her students, she helps them to understand why a mastery of these rules are necessary in American society.
Christensen referenced the "collective text" that her class created, through which her students' "lives become a window to examine society" (103). I have always viewed literature as that window through which to examine society, and student writing as a response. However, it is an awesome idea to give my students' writings and discussions the power and validation that I have previously reserved for published literary works. It will be fun to collaborate texts with student writing to foster discussion and thought!
DON'T try this at school...
I absolutely LOVE Christensen's teaching philosophy; it mirrors mine so much. "Any text is an investigation into both literature and society, chosen not because it's on some university's reading-for-college-preparation list, but rather because it allows us to examine our society and ourselves more fully" (177). That is how I want to teach literature, and Christensen is a strong model of the teacher that I pray that I will be!
Again, I am reminded: I will not be teaching books or writing, but thinking individuals.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Humanity is a Muddy Prism
Effective multicultural studies are so imperative in today's classrooms, and something that is very close to my heart.
My ideal classroom is an environment in which students can be real. I want my students to feel comfortable expressing raw thoughts because it is through this honesty that real reflection, discussion, and questioning will flourish. The English classroom should not be safe or complacent; it should challenge and stretch students.
Overall, I agree with Daniel D. Hade's ideas about teaching multiculturalism. He defines multiculturalism as a movement instead of a standard of stocking the bookshelves with diverse authors. "Multiculturalism disappears without the challenge of critique... Challenging assumptions . . . must be at the core of multicultural education" (252).
Why is multiculturalism important in the classroom? Because it is a study of humanity and since we all live together, we must strive to understand each other.
There are a multitude of texts that have the potential to spark real discussions about race, class and gender (which are the three areas that Hade focuses on). I would further add sexual orientation and disability as focus areas in his discussion of multicultural studies. In this class alone, we have read American Born Chinese and To Kill a Mockingbird. Both novels explore themes of race and identity, as do many others. I am also currently reading Native Son (by Richard Wright), which was a novel that I read paired with Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man in high school. Other novels that come to mind include The House on Mango Street (Sandra Cisneros), the curious incident of the dog in the night (Mark Haddon), and Exile and Pride (Eli Clare). Although at first glance it appears to be a children's book, Susan Jeffers's Brother Eagle, Sister Sky contains a mature message that explores friction between the values of two cultures. All of these texts have revealed preconceptions that I have harbored and, primarily through class discussions, have encouraged me to challenge thoughts that I now recognize as "western" assumptions.
Again, I want to reiterate Hade's thought that multiculturalism is not enough if its goal is merely to raise awareness and appreciation for diversity. Multiculturalism needs to "challenge the domination of assumptions . . . [and is] the challenge of living with each other in a world of difference . . . based on equity and justice" (240).
I dispute arguments that the culture of prejudices that killed Tom Robinson is not present in the public anymore. Three years ago, while one of my friends (who is an Indian American) was taking the scaffold apart after marching band practice, another student walked by and yelled: "Watch out. A----- is taking down the tower!" Two years ago, there was a race riot at my high school that resulted in a few police officers being placed under investigation because of questionable violence. Last year, after kicking a student out of class, the teacher proceeded to tell the class that the student (who was a student affected by poverty who permeated the area around him with the scent of smoke) was a "dirty good-for-nothing that just sits around and smokes all day."
The value of multiculturalism and incorporating texts that further multicultural studies is that they open these kinds of situations up to an honest discussion. A bit ago, there was a controversy regarding the censorship of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. The most impactful statement that I gathered from that argument is from one of the scholars in the video that Shannon provides on D2L. He said that the censorship offers an opportunity to talk about why people react the way they do to the term "nigger." He argues that if the term and censorship of the term can provoke such strong reactions, then it is something that needs to be talked about!
A slightly humorous but very serious questioning of censorship:
That is what multiculturalism needs to express to students. We need to discuss things that cause conflict or make us uncomfortable or that we don't understand in order to understand them. We need to be able to challenge our assumptions and thoughts and be willing to accept that maybe we do not know as much as we assume. No one ever knows the full story of anyone else, and we must listen to others to begin to fill in that gap (which is something that the Brown Eye/Blue Eye experiment did successfully).
Once we join this movement, we will be able to "become readers not just of the word but also of the world" (241).
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Comic Relief
I suppose I have always assumed a stuffy superiority to graphic novels. Thirteen years in my English classrooms had conditioned me to segregate them into the minuscule group of literature. In fact, American Born Chinese is the first graphic novel that I have ever read. I was pleasantly surprised. Actually, I was shocked to see how engaging it is. I read it in two sittings; I could not put it down!
The greatest asset of graphic novels is that they meet students where they are. Frey and Fisher discuss multiple literacies, which translates to the fact that we live in a very visual world. (I absolutely love the concept of a "visual vocabulary" that they introduced.) I was talking about blogging with a friend the other day, and she told me that she preferred Tumblr because it allowed her to express herself with videos and pictures as opposed to words. She told me: "I'm better at expressing myself with pictures and music than words." This idea still astounds me. My thoughts are always the most free and complete when I put them into words, and until very recently I believed that was the same case for everyone (except for super talented artists and musicians). I was telling another friend of mine about how we are going to learn to teach graphic novels in our future classrooms, and I showed him American Born Chinese. He opened the novel and read it right then in one sitting! These two examples show how this generation is already engaged in multiple literacies outside of the classroom. (So then, why don't we bring what they enjoy outside of the classroom into the classroom? Just a thought that I have picked up through the readings.)
The readings this week were very informative for thinking about how to graphic novels in the classroom. Frey and Fisher discussed how they studied "techniques the artist had used to convey meaning" and "brainstormed descriptive vocabulary." The Shades of Meaning activity was awesome, and definitely something that I want to try with my students. I also really respect the way they engaged student imagination, by allowing them to determine the endings of stories and creating the illustrated stories. These activities model that graphic novels can inspire critical thought. I see myself using most (if not all) of these techniques in my own classroom.
I never thought about the depth contained in the style of graphic novels. The "gutter" is probably the style with the most potential for student engagement out of all of the mediums that I am aware of in terms of independent responses to a story. To illustrate this: I believe that television is at the bottom of the chart because the imagination does not have to work very hard; the picture is clearly set before the viewer. Written vocabulary novels stimulate the imagination, but the picture is still provided. The reader simply needs to translate words into images. However, the concept of the "gutter" in graphic novels demands the most imaginative exercise because it requires the reader to be a "silent accomplice" in the creation of the story. This is active reading at its best!
One concern that I have about teaching mediums such as graphic novels is fielding resistance from parents and administration. Frey and Fisher stated: "[h]aving begun with the idea that graphic novels were comic books at best and a waste of time at worst, we now realize the power they have for engaging students in authentic writing." Indeed, the examples of student writing found in their article is more creative than a lot of the responsive writing that I remember doing in my English classes. The results Frey and Fisher found should require English education communities to seriously consider literacy beyond "words and language" in the classroom. The two friends I referenced earlier demonstrate that culture has already embraced this shift to multiple literacies. It is time for our classrooms to follow suit, but will the parents and leaders outside of the classroom agree?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Radical Revolution
"Why do we have to read this?"
Perhaps the most dreaded question in the English classroom. I have heard it countless times during my experience as a student in the American public school system. And I admit that I have begun to brainstorm defenses of the literary value of certain texts that I expect to teach.
But Jeffrey D. Wilhelm has opened my eyes to a new classroom order. English classrooms do not need to be battlefields in which the teacher fires literary expertise at an army of dozing soldiers.
Granted, I knew this. Upon my first step onto this university, I was inspired by both the successes and failures of my former English teachers as well as the possibilities of my own lofty idealistic plans for my future classroom.
However, in Wilhelm's You Gotta BE the Book, I was introduced to some very radical ideas about how to effectively teach reading in a 21st English classroom that showed me that the very ideas that I esteemed two years ago are merely extensions of the same dull methods that some of my former teachers espoused.
"Reading is . . . an intensely human pursuit with intensely human purposes that must be foregrounded. Reading, instead of a complex set of skills, becomes a social practice and a search for meaning" (24). Wilhelm discussed the current structure of the majority of English classrooms, which is the New Criticism school of thought of the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text! While memorizing vocabulary lists and listing literary techniques, students outline the author's intent on worksheets rife with leading questions. This classroom is the direct opposite of the process of reading that Wilhelm described. The current system is lifeless. Wilhelm's vision is invigorating!
Wilhelm's students attested that their English classes sucked the fun out of reading. Consider the paradox! Wilhelm finally determined that this is because most English classes do not try to engage the reader with the text. Often, students are given a text and the text controls the experience. The students passively drag meaning out of it under the direction of the teacher. I remember an English class that I took where I would come into class having done the assigned reading and prepared with questions and discussion points, only to sit for an hour each day to listen to the teacher lecture about what the author meant and how she chose to express it. There was no room for my own experience with the novel, and I quickly lost interest in the class.
Wilhelm argues that reading should be a relationship between the reader and the text. My role as a teacher is not to "define a narrow and exclusive view of 'literature,'" but to encourage students to engage personal experiences, prior knowledge, and interpretations of the text in order for it to come alive for them. I need to be able to motivate them to see meaning in the text.
Wilhelm offered a number of strategies in order to foster student engagement in the text. He highly recommended providing the students with an essential question - some way for them to begin to organize and structure their response to the text. Another thought was the idea of developing a literary text as opposed to a literary canon for the English classroom. Wilhelm defines a literary text as "any text that provides a particular reader with a deeply engaging aesthetic experience" (47). This includes graphic novels, which is a form of literature that I actually vowed never to teach in my classroom without ever reading a single graphic novel. (I am thankful to say that my thoughts were reversed; I am excited to see how I can include graphic novels in the classroom.) Wilhelm also suggested that by starting students with a text that they are comfortable with and that they can connect with, a flame will ignite the students' interests to expand their literary repertoire to include a variety of texts. A few of the students that Wilhelm studied in his classroom confirmed that they did not want to read the same things; they wanted to be introduced to new texts.
This is the ultimate success of an English teacher: to develop individuals who are able to think and read, and create meaning in both of these processes. Wilhelm further acknowledges that this requires the teacher to assume a "new role" (47). To engage a classroom of readers, of thinkers, of meaning-seekers, the teacher must dispose of prescribed textbook readings and guided questions and design a classroom that explores literature in a way that allows students to immerse themselves into new worlds because it is interesting and, as Wilhelm cites, "life-changing" (51). This new role means that the teacher will need to commit to engaging herself in the classroom in new ways. "To effect meaningful change, we must know our own goals and ask what methods and materials are most effective in meeting them" (34). It will not be easy to change the status quo, but the reward of a classroom of readers is invaluable.
Wilhelm both confirmed and challenged my standing teaching philosophy. My most engaging English classrooms have been centered around discussions, debates, and freewriting. I want my classroom to emulate these same methods. However, I have always imagined myself teaching the same texts that I was taught. These are the works defined as "Literature," including authors such as Dickens, Melville, and Shakespeare. I remember being astounded even in high school to hear my classmates expressing (often quite vividly) their hate for the readings that we had to do. I had resolved to become an English teacher that could encourage students to appreciate, if not love, the works with the same passion that I have.
However, Wilhelm has challenged me to change my perspective. Instead of trying to change how students are taught, what if I also try to change what students are taught? Could a student pass through four years of high school without opening a single Shakespearean play and still graduate as an independent thinker? Or, I am tempted to teach Romeo and Juliet using solely the graphic novel. How will I incorporate art and technology into the classroom beyond the standard collages and PowerPoint presentations? Wilhelm is daring me to move into uncharted territory. I am thinking about teaching in ways that I have never seen in any of the classrooms that I have been in. It is a little uncomfortable. I hesitate to fully embrace the idea of using art as a viable response to literature in the classroom; it is much easier to revert to the writing exercises that I experienced.
However, as Shannon reminded us last week in class, I am not going to be teaching a classroom of students like me. Therefore, I must be willing to adapt so that I am a successful English teacher in the 21st century with a diverse group of students and learning styles. I must join this radical revolution.
Perhaps the most dreaded question in the English classroom. I have heard it countless times during my experience as a student in the American public school system. And I admit that I have begun to brainstorm defenses of the literary value of certain texts that I expect to teach.
But Jeffrey D. Wilhelm has opened my eyes to a new classroom order. English classrooms do not need to be battlefields in which the teacher fires literary expertise at an army of dozing soldiers.
Granted, I knew this. Upon my first step onto this university, I was inspired by both the successes and failures of my former English teachers as well as the possibilities of my own lofty idealistic plans for my future classroom.
However, in Wilhelm's You Gotta BE the Book, I was introduced to some very radical ideas about how to effectively teach reading in a 21st English classroom that showed me that the very ideas that I esteemed two years ago are merely extensions of the same dull methods that some of my former teachers espoused.
"Reading is . . . an intensely human pursuit with intensely human purposes that must be foregrounded. Reading, instead of a complex set of skills, becomes a social practice and a search for meaning" (24). Wilhelm discussed the current structure of the majority of English classrooms, which is the New Criticism school of thought of the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text! While memorizing vocabulary lists and listing literary techniques, students outline the author's intent on worksheets rife with leading questions. This classroom is the direct opposite of the process of reading that Wilhelm described. The current system is lifeless. Wilhelm's vision is invigorating!
Wilhelm's students attested that their English classes sucked the fun out of reading. Consider the paradox! Wilhelm finally determined that this is because most English classes do not try to engage the reader with the text. Often, students are given a text and the text controls the experience. The students passively drag meaning out of it under the direction of the teacher. I remember an English class that I took where I would come into class having done the assigned reading and prepared with questions and discussion points, only to sit for an hour each day to listen to the teacher lecture about what the author meant and how she chose to express it. There was no room for my own experience with the novel, and I quickly lost interest in the class.
Wilhelm argues that reading should be a relationship between the reader and the text. My role as a teacher is not to "define a narrow and exclusive view of 'literature,'" but to encourage students to engage personal experiences, prior knowledge, and interpretations of the text in order for it to come alive for them. I need to be able to motivate them to see meaning in the text.
Wilhelm offered a number of strategies in order to foster student engagement in the text. He highly recommended providing the students with an essential question - some way for them to begin to organize and structure their response to the text. Another thought was the idea of developing a literary text as opposed to a literary canon for the English classroom. Wilhelm defines a literary text as "any text that provides a particular reader with a deeply engaging aesthetic experience" (47). This includes graphic novels, which is a form of literature that I actually vowed never to teach in my classroom without ever reading a single graphic novel. (I am thankful to say that my thoughts were reversed; I am excited to see how I can include graphic novels in the classroom.) Wilhelm also suggested that by starting students with a text that they are comfortable with and that they can connect with, a flame will ignite the students' interests to expand their literary repertoire to include a variety of texts. A few of the students that Wilhelm studied in his classroom confirmed that they did not want to read the same things; they wanted to be introduced to new texts.
This is the ultimate success of an English teacher: to develop individuals who are able to think and read, and create meaning in both of these processes. Wilhelm further acknowledges that this requires the teacher to assume a "new role" (47). To engage a classroom of readers, of thinkers, of meaning-seekers, the teacher must dispose of prescribed textbook readings and guided questions and design a classroom that explores literature in a way that allows students to immerse themselves into new worlds because it is interesting and, as Wilhelm cites, "life-changing" (51). This new role means that the teacher will need to commit to engaging herself in the classroom in new ways. "To effect meaningful change, we must know our own goals and ask what methods and materials are most effective in meeting them" (34). It will not be easy to change the status quo, but the reward of a classroom of readers is invaluable.
Wilhelm both confirmed and challenged my standing teaching philosophy. My most engaging English classrooms have been centered around discussions, debates, and freewriting. I want my classroom to emulate these same methods. However, I have always imagined myself teaching the same texts that I was taught. These are the works defined as "Literature," including authors such as Dickens, Melville, and Shakespeare. I remember being astounded even in high school to hear my classmates expressing (often quite vividly) their hate for the readings that we had to do. I had resolved to become an English teacher that could encourage students to appreciate, if not love, the works with the same passion that I have.
However, Wilhelm has challenged me to change my perspective. Instead of trying to change how students are taught, what if I also try to change what students are taught? Could a student pass through four years of high school without opening a single Shakespearean play and still graduate as an independent thinker? Or, I am tempted to teach Romeo and Juliet using solely the graphic novel. How will I incorporate art and technology into the classroom beyond the standard collages and PowerPoint presentations? Wilhelm is daring me to move into uncharted territory. I am thinking about teaching in ways that I have never seen in any of the classrooms that I have been in. It is a little uncomfortable. I hesitate to fully embrace the idea of using art as a viable response to literature in the classroom; it is much easier to revert to the writing exercises that I experienced.
However, as Shannon reminded us last week in class, I am not going to be teaching a classroom of students like me. Therefore, I must be willing to adapt so that I am a successful English teacher in the 21st century with a diverse group of students and learning styles. I must join this radical revolution.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Literacy Profile
I became an avid reader in fourth grade as a participant of the Book It program, through which I would earn a Pizza Hut personal pan pizza for every so many books read. That year, I also won a bag stuffed with books for being the student who read the most. In the midst of the profusion of extrinsic rewards, I developed a sincere love for reading.
I recall reading The Babysitters Club series, the Dear America series, and the Thoroughbred series during middle school. I also really enjoyed historical fiction. In high school I preferred the classics that we read in class. We primarily studied British and American authors, including William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Arthur Miller, Harper Lee, Herman Melville, John Steinbeck and Toni Morrison. I had the opportunity to take AP English courses and a plethora of English electives that exposed me to new authors and genres.
Outside of the classroom, I was willing to read anything. I fell in love with Agatha Christie's mysteries. I could not put down Stephenie Meyer's mythical saga. I lost myself in Robert Louis Stevenson's adventures. I laughed through Nancy Farmer's enchanting stories. My current favorite genre is late 19th century/early 20th century American literature.
The characters are the most engaging element of a work of literature; the depth of a work increases concurrently with the strength of the characters. If an author can create believable and interesting characters, then the plot line or genre does not matter. It is the journey of a realistic character and the extent to which I can empathize with the character's experiences and struggles that engages me in a work of literature.
I hope that the experiences that I provide for my students are as positive as my own experiences. My primary objective as an English teacher is to open my students' minds to the immense world that exists around and within us. I want my students to think and question and grow. I want them to appreciate reading because literature, whether it is a novel or comic or essay or poem, is a valuable expression and reflection of our understandings of life. When students are engaged in reading, then they can be further engaged in their own independent reflections and understandings about both themselves and the rest of the world.
I recall reading The Babysitters Club series, the Dear America series, and the Thoroughbred series during middle school. I also really enjoyed historical fiction. In high school I preferred the classics that we read in class. We primarily studied British and American authors, including William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Arthur Miller, Harper Lee, Herman Melville, John Steinbeck and Toni Morrison. I had the opportunity to take AP English courses and a plethora of English electives that exposed me to new authors and genres.
Outside of the classroom, I was willing to read anything. I fell in love with Agatha Christie's mysteries. I could not put down Stephenie Meyer's mythical saga. I lost myself in Robert Louis Stevenson's adventures. I laughed through Nancy Farmer's enchanting stories. My current favorite genre is late 19th century/early 20th century American literature.
The characters are the most engaging element of a work of literature; the depth of a work increases concurrently with the strength of the characters. If an author can create believable and interesting characters, then the plot line or genre does not matter. It is the journey of a realistic character and the extent to which I can empathize with the character's experiences and struggles that engages me in a work of literature.
I hope that the experiences that I provide for my students are as positive as my own experiences. My primary objective as an English teacher is to open my students' minds to the immense world that exists around and within us. I want my students to think and question and grow. I want them to appreciate reading because literature, whether it is a novel or comic or essay or poem, is a valuable expression and reflection of our understandings of life. When students are engaged in reading, then they can be further engaged in their own independent reflections and understandings about both themselves and the rest of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)