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.

"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.

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.

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.

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!")

A brief history on tracking:

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!

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.