11/15/17

I have found that the more I read about teaching writing and the more reps I actually get in the classroom, the more I see it as an artistic craft and less as a learned skill. When I view writing from this perspective, it makes the process of teaching it more exciting and less daunting. I feel as though being a writer makes me an artist by consequence and I also feel as though I have a strong grasp on the craft (or art) of writing. The more I see writing as an art and myself as an artist, the more I begin to see my students as budding artists. Now, when I begin to think about how to teach an artist, it is about equipping them with the tools of the craft and showing them how to approach creating the art in a way that will allow them to be most successful. Of course, it is tricky, because if my instruction is too static and formulaic, I'm inhibiting their creativity, but if my instruction is too vague and lacks a certain structure, they will never grasp the craft enough to create in the first place.
The artistic, creative, and emotional aspect of English is what drew me to the concentration. I hate math and science because I hate formulas and their inflexibility. So, I say all that to say this: that the 6+1 Traits didn't seem overly formulaic and reading them felt like something one might read if looking at "Components of a Quality Painting." Each "trait" was something that should be included, but left room for personal choice and interpretation, aside from the "Conventions" trait, which isn't fun to think about teaching, but is important and unavoidable. But the other traits were artistic traits, so much so that I think they could be applied to something "traditionally" viewed as artistic, such as painting, and that made them appealing to me.
Ideas, Organization, Voice, Word (Stylistic) Choice, Fluency (Flow), Conventions, and Presentation are all things that you can teach individually. Once learned, these qualities become checkpoints for students during the writing/revising process, that is to say that students are encouraged to be cognizant as to how these elements operate within their writing. "How is your word choice? Do you feel like your voice is present? Is your flow, clunky or smooth?" When I consider structures vs formulas, these traits seem to epitomize what an effective structure should look like.
One thing I would add to this list of traits would be something about the "type of writing" and how these elements are adjusted depending on the task. Are you writing a narrative? Poem? Essay? Letter? Periodical? What are the components? " The "conventions" trait sounds like it would address this, but I don't see the language. I think a trait like this would help students think about intentionality, purpose, and audience, which I believe are huge factors that influence how we write. Otherwise, I think these traits are useful.

11/8/17

Assessment seems like it is the elephant in the room that rarely gets addressed in classes, and yet I know that it is going to be a huge piece of the job. One of the reasons I am so excited to start student teaching is the opportunity to gets reps assessing student work. Out of all of the areas of the profession, this is the one that I feel I have the least amount of exposure to, and it is pretty intimidating, if I'm being honest. Having said that, the readings this week provided some peace of mind.
Gallagher took what I believe my instinctual approach to assessment is and put it down in words. The major takeaways for me were that I need to make the time to meet with students one-on-one, focusing less on full class writing instruction, where students who are struggling can fall through the class, as well as providing essential feedback more during conferences and less in the comments I make on papers. This approach makes a lot of sense to me, and it appeals a great deal to me as I want to make as much time for one-one-one instruction as possible. However, it is in the balancing of time and the management of the classroom during these conferences that I know will be the challenge. The level of trust that I develop with students to work on their own and maintain focus while I am working with someone else is going to me a huge determinant in whether or not I can pull this individual approach off.
Christensen also pulled a ton of weight off my shoulders, specifically in the "Letting Go of the Grades" chapter. It seems so taboo to say that "I don't grade student papers," but in reality it doesn't actually mean that we aren't evaluating and commenting on them. In double reality, Christensen's approach actually takes more time and effort than just chopping up a paper and handing it back, and yet for some reason it reduces my stress levels when I consider adopting her more laborious approach. Assigning number grades never appealed to me, especially when I consider how much it could ruin student motivation and self-efficacy. I want every student to KNOW that an A is possible for anyone who is willing to do the work, even if they aren't great writers walking into my classroom. I want their goal in my classroom not to be "getting an A," but rather "to become a better writer." My only concern in adopting this approach is how administrators and parents will respond to this type of grading system, and what kind of potential obstacles I could face in trying to implement it in my own classroom. I obviously won't be telling everyone "I don't grade papers," but word is bound to get around when students compare my grading to other teachers' and recognize the imbalance. Either way, I have basically accepted that I am going to be receiving pushback from multiple directions in how I will teach, so I can just add this to the list. :-P

11/1/17

Gallagher provided great foundational and practical strategies for helping students take their writing to the next level. In many ways, I feel like I was already familiar with these strategies on the surface, but seeing them written beside actual models and examples really drove the ideas home, and I'm not even a visual learner.
I have always been a firm believer that the only way to become a better writer is to actually put words on the page, but after reading in Ch. 2 about just how often other contents completely neglect writing, I feel an even larger responsibility to have my students piling up pages in their writing portfolios. I'm sure it depends on the school and the teachers, but I am curious about how open teachers from other content areas would be to collaborating and allowing students to convey their level of knowledge through writing, especially since writing is one of the core skills which they will unequivocally use after their schooling careers are long over.
I also really liked that Gallagher emphasized writing alongside students and "demystifying the writing process." The instinct to simply provide a model definitely exists, especially when unpacking the process step by step is so tedious and time consuming. Regardless, Gallagher's argument to directly model and specify each step of the writing process, as well as identifying and modeling each component for whichever medium we are covering, actually prevents a lot of the mistakes before students even have a chance to make them, which saves a ton of time in the long run, not to mention the confidence and self-efficacy that it provides students.
My questions about how just how structured or "formulaic" our writing instruction should be was directly addressed in the Kenney article. I really enjoyed how English teachers at her school developed their own acronym, which the school adopted, as a way to teach students how to write effectively for standardized tests. Still, the fact that teachers are even having to teach this kind of writing is frustrating and discouraging, and the time required to teach students this formulaic writing method which they will never use in any other facet of their lives, steals time that could be used to empower them as writers and encourage them to write about things that are actually relevant and engaging. As long as these tests exists, even the pliability of standards won't be enough to allow teachers to fully empower their students as creative and critical writers.

10/24/17

The Fu chapters were very illuminating in terms of how she addresses specific ways in which to engage emergent bilingual students as a teacher that essentially speaks exclusively in English. Even beginning to try and consider ways to cross the language barriers and reach these students, as well as considering and trying to find or develop strategies to empower them to use their home language AND become proficient writers of English feels like an extremely daunting task. Fu speaks at length about the emphasis that should be placed on allowing students to engage material and think, brainstorm, develop ideas, and even write in their native languages first, allowing them to synthesize material in whatever way is going to be most beneficial for them, and then encouraging them to translate those ideas later into English. She also speaks about how teachers who do not speak the native language of their students can go about assessing work that they may not be able to understand, which was essentially giving them credit for the effort they put into the work.

I understand the validity of this approach, as it feels like the only option a teacher in that situation would have, but to me it seems like it still shortchanges these emergent bilingual students in their proficiency as writers of both their native language and English. I say this because she says that students who aren't proficient writers in their native language will struggle to develop as writers of English, and she suggests that if students have these literacy issues that they should be first taught to develop these skills in their native language before asking them to move into English. But if they aren't proficient writers of their native language I will never be able to pinpoint that issue if I can't understand their writing. And if I can't understand their writing then I cannot help them develop writing skills in their native language. And if they aren't proficient writers in their native language then asking them to be proficient in English seems cruel. I don't have answers for how to solve these problems, but they seemed like areas that could have been unpacked more, at least to clarify for teachers like me who feel ill-equipped to teach emergent bilinguals.

In the Pahl / Roswell chapter, the section about identity stood out to me the most. It addresses how students make meaning by taking their own ideas and perspectives and infusing them into whatever they are writing about; and this seems to make perfect sense. However, we recently discussed the Common Core's approach to "close reading" as defined and illustrated by David Coleman, a chief author of the standards. The CC's interpretation of "close reading" means for students to engage the text and the text only, leaving out the contextual factors and especially leaving out any response or interpretation that student's may have to the text. Not only is this disturbing because it speaks directly against what Pahl / Roswell have to say about how students read and write according to their identities, but it is disturbing because this is the framework that the education system in America is built around. I thoroughly enjoyed the Pahl/ Roswell chapter, but I couldn't help but think about how those in control of standards and curriculum would likely disregard their theory.

10/17/17

As a writer of poetry myself, as well as someone who aspires to be a teacher that emphasizes the importance of poetry in my own classroom, both the Turner article and the Christensen chapter resonated with me.

Christensen talks at length about the ways in which having students write poetry allows them to find, utilize, and strengthen their own voice. She says "the classroom can not only be a safe place for students to talk back, but to affirm their right to a place in the world" (28). Poetry is a rare medium that allows students to manipulate the rules and styles in a way that gives them immense freedom. In addition, poetry exists in a ton of different forms and for a lot of different purposes. Students can express and reflect upon their own perspectives and experiences, while at the same time commentating on the world around them and how they fit into it. Sarah and I taught a hybrid History/English lesson about the Revolutionary War in which we first exposed some of the whitewashing of history and revealed some women, slave, and Native American who had been marginalized. We then allowed students to deconstruct documents from that time period and use the words within to create "Found Poems" that showcased the tone/emotion that they believed these marginalized groups would be feeling. The results were pretty incredible, especially considering these were the "30 lowest performing sophomores" in the school, which is the reason they were all in this class. They were engaged, interested, and felt like they had something to contribute--and they did.

Turner discusses the power of expression that poetry possesses. There are two points that are made which really stuck out to me in the way that they frame poetry. One is that "Poems Defy Explanation" and the other is that "Poems Can Alter the Way We See the World." I believe these are critical arguments for why poetry writing should be a mandatory part of ELA curriculum, especially because, as it stands, there are no standards which require the teaching or utilization of poetry in the classroom. If we have students who are struggling with literacy issues, writing poetry can give them an opportunity to write freely and comfortably and increase their self-efficacy as writers. If students are struggling with personal issues, writing poetry can give them a platform to express their perspectives and emotions in a way that is purposeful. Understanding that poetry can be used in situations other than just creative writing, and using it tactfully and purposefully to get students working through ideas in their own way, we can build an environment of trust in our classroom and empower students to view themselves as real writers.

10/10/17

I thought the text about Co-Teaching was intriguing. It definitely isn’t what I thought I was going to get when I saw the name of the chapter. Thinking about putting the curriculum into the hands of your students and seeing what they do with it to reach their peers is both exciting and terrifying to think about, for me at least. I feel a certain apprehension towards unveiling the work that goes into making things run (hopefully) seamlessly and smoothly, but if it resulted in me finding deeper ways to connect with students then I think it’d be beneficial. My only criticism of this text is that it does seem divisive in the fact that it speaks nearly exclusively about using this technique with black or neoindigenous (which is a term I found attractive) students. Surely there are ways to use this technique universally, or in mixed classrooms. And in these scenarios, I feel students would need even more background and preparation to be successful. In the end, all the extra work that goes into being able to pull something like this off successfully is a sacrifice that’d need to be weighed in the moment, but it certainly seems like it’d be worth the trouble if I were having zero luck connecting, or even alienating my students.

I really enjoyed the section from the Christensen chapter that talked about “Trolling for Stories.” One of the struggles I often face when planning is finding ways to connect the material to students lives in a way that makes it appealing for them to engage. I think Christensen did a good job pointing out some of the struggles in this approach, but she also made it clear how using student lives to bolster curriculum allows students to approach texts with an enhanced perspective. I think the fact that students often went off on tangents is indicative of this “trolling” approach. The conversations her students were having seemed to be valuable and productive, even though they weren’t directly connected to the material. I wonder how far we should be willing to let these tangents go and how often we should be willing to let them happen. I’m all about shifting gears and throwing out lesson plans in light of better discussion opportunities, but with everything that’s going on recently in the world, I think those opportunities exist every day.

In the Gallagher chapter, it resonated with me when he talked about starting students out with writing they can engage with and enjoy, getting them thinking about themselves as writers before handing out the 5 paragraph essays or “fake writing.” I wonder just how far we, as teachers, can push this idea. Looking at the standards, there are no direct references to the standard academic essays or papers that teachers often assign for assessments. Are there ways we can toy with the standards and find ways for our students to meet all the standards requiring with minimal “fake writing?” And thinking about that, if we do stay away from “fake writing” when possible, are we potentially handicapping the students who are going to go to college and be required to write persuasive and analytical essays throughout their entire college careers?

10/3/17

Ta-Nehisi Coates packs a lot into one hundred and fifty pages. But there is one idea that he mentions early on in the novel and continually refers back to throughout that resonated with me. On page ten he states, "There is nothing uniquely evil in these destroyers or even in this moment. The destroyers are merely men enforcing the whims of our country, correctly interpreting its heritage and legacy." In this quote, he's referring to "destroyers" as the police officers that have wrongly taken, and continue to take, the lives of unarmed and innocent black citizens without consequence. 

This idea of the mistreatment of black people as essentially a national pastime, engrained into our identity as a nation, an identity that prevails and persistently devalues blacks lives regardless of narratives of civil justice and progressivism, is an idea that I believe existed for me abstractly, but was articulated in a concrete way by Coates. It is easy to think of slavery as an abomination that existed a long time ago, which now serves as a scar and reminder of America’s dark history. But Coates draws direct connections between the treatment of black people 250 years ago and the treatment of black people today. It is more than scar; it is a wound that never fully healed. This perspective flies in the face of the traditional American perception of slavery, but it makes a lot of sense, and it stuck with me.

Shifting gears.

The text from Dr. Johnson and Dr. Richer went into great detail illustrating the ways in which standardized testing marginalizes students and puts students who fall into specific categories into positions in which they cannot pass these tests. But as insightful and rich as the surveys and responses from teachers and students are, I am more curious if they were taken into consideration by those who have the power to reform and restructure the broken system and how it functions, because I don’t believe the problem is a lack of research proving the fallibility of standardized testing, nor do I think the problem is a lack of potential solutions. There are significant amounts of each. The problem is a severe lack of receptibility to changing the system.

My practicum partner and I were discussing potential lessons with our cooperating teacher, who teaches a collaborative English/History class with another teacher. They’re teaching the American Revolution, and we couldn’t help but notice how the curriculum was completely whitewashed and failed to acknowledge any marginalized voices whatsoever. My partner and I suggested that we do a couple lessons on some of these marginalized perspectives and the cooperating teachers were ecstatic because “they rarely get to teach that stuff.” When we asked why, they talked about the ways in which their school prides itself on being “progressive” and accepting/valuing of all perspectives…on paper. But in reality, what the students will be responsible for knowing (what the teachers are responsible for teaching) on these types of standardized tests will be exclusively about the portions of American history that are white, because it isn’t considered white history, it’s just history. If these tests are structured this way, then not focusing almost exclusively on white history is essentially doing your students a disservice. Because of this we have torn teachers who are pulled one way by a desire for their students to succeed and pulled the other way by a desire to give them the most valuable education possible. It seems like these philosophies should be one in the same, but in the American education system it is rarely the case.  

9/13/17 Response (Better Late Than Never)

Cadeiro-Kaplan forced me to examine my own education and really reflect on my high school experience. It was extremely easy to identify the type of literacy that was valued in my conservative, rural, Ohio high school. In our English classes, there was a huge emphasis on canonical works. AP English classes read Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Scarlett Letter, The Great Gatsby, Pride and Prejudice, and The Catcher in the Rye simply because they were the books deemed most valuable by the school board. Curriculum was chosen based solely around Cultural Literacy. Our engagement with these novels was purely superficial. We read a few chapters, took a quiz about what happened, talked about what happened, and then essentially wrote a big summary paper when we finished it, maybe identifying a theme or main idea. It was all about Functional Literacy, which makes sense looking back now, because all they cared about was that we passed the state-wide standardized exams, and those exams revolve around Functional Literacy. But we never even dipped our toes into Progressive Literacy. There was no questioning, no deconstructing, no connections to our modern society, and definitely no mention of the treatment of people of color or women (aside from having to get a permission slip to read Huck Finn because it says the "N word"). Looking back, I consider whether what we did with these novels can really be considered reading.

I wonder how the standards must have evolved over the past 15 years, since I've been in and out of high school, because to see an emphasis on things like "public participation in a democratic society," "social situations in which students speak, write, read, and relate to other people," and "create writing lives for the world beyond school" on the NCTE page makes me feel like the approach to teaching ELA might slowly be moving in a direction that at least values some social reconstructionist ideas. Then again, maybe there has always been an emphasis on these things, and perhaps teachers aren't using standards to guide and influence their practices as frequently as they should be, which is all the time. I think standards and approaches developed by "those in power" are sometimes given a bad rap. Even if we don't completely agree with everything that is driving the educational machine that we are a part of, there may still be value in understanding and drawing from the ideas.

The reading about deficit ideology struck a nerve with me, because even in my limited classroom exposure and experience, I have seen the ways in which this approach plays out. To say "we need to focus on areas where you need to improve, and if you work heard enough you can overcome your problem areas" places all the emphasis on the student's problem areas. Yes, when you understand the ways in which certain students have been marginalized and received a schooling experience which lacked resources and/or made them feel alienated to such a degree that they could not engage the material, you can see why saying "we're going to focus on what you're bad at" may cause them to completely disengage. Having said that, students do need to have a grasp on the language of power if they have any hope to succeed in society as it functions or if they have any hope to dismantle society and build a better one. Having been at The Met, specifically in a classroom where students with reading and writing proficiencies well below average were lumped together, but also where they weren't receiving any additional help or support to raise those proficiencies, I can say that not addressing problem areas is not an option in some cases. The Met says "we're going to let you find what you're good at and focus on that." That is absolutely ludicrous. You cannot encourage students to dream big, but then fail to give them the tools to make those dreams come true. As we all know, college is all about reading and writing, and there is no learner-centered approach is most programs; there is just the one: read this, unpack it and engage it, write about it. There has to be a way to encourage growth and overcome deficits without alienating our students.

9/26 Response

I really enjoyed being able to listen to a podcast and take in some critical ideas about technology from a medium other than words on pages. I think having someone in a studio responding to questions and having to react in the moment can be a lot more telling than a prepared book or essay. So I love the human element of it.
One thing that really resonated with me is when Danah Boyd talks about when the internet really started becoming mainstream and the impact that all of these developers and "tech nerds" thought it would have on society and humanity: essentially that having immediate access to all of this information and having the ability to connect and socialize on a worldwide scale would result in a far more egalitarian society. Obviously, their hopes and dreams for how the internet might influence society and the world didn't work out exactly as they had hoped. This got me thinking about this scenario in a broader sense; that we can plan and try to control how our creations will be received and how they will affect the world, but in reality we have very little control at all.
In a more controlled environment, let's say our classrooms, we do have more control over how the things we implement will impact our lessons and our students, and this podcast reminded me that I need to be aware of how I am using technology and committed to maintaining control over how my students are using it in relation to the curriculum. There may be an assumption that technology is going to make it possible to accomplish more in less time and provide a more efficient educational experience for our students. But to me, this sounds very much like the assumptions of those who helped create this technology and how they thought it'd impact the world.

This segues into the Hicks reading about digital literacy. In the early pages, Hicks points out

"In the districts where technology is plentiful,
and access to the Internet is reliable, teachers
and students report that they are not using
the technologies available to them to create
and consume texts in critical, creative ways.
Technology is an add-on, rather than an
opportunity to develop digital literacies."

I agree with this, but I want to add that I think the lack of training and experience that teachers have with a lot of the technology that is being implemented is resulting in hesitation to use the technology, limited use of the technology, and/or incorrect use of the technology. A class I took at RIC last semester was in a classroom that had a Smartboard, and the teacher had no idea how to use it. Not only did this put the professor in an awkward situation, but it showcased to students that the college was investing money to modernize the campus but not investing the time in the teachers to make it useful. Essentially, it showcased that money was being wasted.
I think there needs to be in-depth training with new technology for teachers and professors before they are available for use in the classroom. But in reality, I think a critical lens needs to be placed on all technology that is being considered for classroom use. Part of digital literacy, in my opinion, is knowing when it is a useful tool and when it's just a useless spectacle. There is a lot of research about methods that work without being in a rush to use technology that hasn't had time to be fully researched and proven effective.

9/19 Response

I'd like to chew on both the Johnson text and the YouTube video a little bit.

First, I just want to say that I agree with everything Johnson lays out. I specifically like when he gives concrete examples of white privilege, male privilege, and straight privilege. For someone who might be unaware of the ways in which they are privileged and fall into one or more of these privileged categories, I think there are enough examples that at least a couple of them will resonate with someone who is unaware of or disputes their privilege. In addition, I also agree that acknowledging that there are issues of power and privilege is essential if there is any hope to create solutions. My issue with Johnson is that he stops there, at being able to acknowledge and openly discuss these issues and how they impact the lives of the privileged and the oppressed. I see no practical solutions beyond the discussions. Even as someone who has been entrenched in social justice rhetoric and readings these past few years that I’ve been in school, I often find myself asking the question “What can I do?” And I think in a lot of situations when someone is being exposed to these realities for the first time, after they get over the initial shock, they want to be involved in creating and contributing to solutions. Maybe Johnson digs into the issues more and offers more practical ways to contribute to the conversation beyond simply having conversations, but I don’t see them in this text. I think to say “if we’re ever going to solve this problem, we need to acknowledge that there is a problem,” and then leave it at that is a missed opportunity. What about readers who say “Wow. Yes. You have my attention. I acknowledge. What now?” Maybe the solution is meant to lie within creating awareness, but I’m not sure awareness is enough.

The YouTube video about microaggressions is interesting, and certainly entertaining, but I wonder if it’s over the top in such a way that might cause a lack of receptibility. Ironic, I know, to say that this video might be offensive to white people. But maybe that isn’t the right word. Maybe it’d be more accurate to say that it could easily put people on the defensive. I mention this because it connects directly to Johnson who speaks directly about “becoming so uncomfortable and defensive that conversation is impossible” (12). This is a matter of intended audience to me, because as someone who already has an awareness and acknowledges that microaggressions happen all the time, I can see the ways in which this video is valid. But to the people who aren’t aware, who I imagine are the intended audience, I think that the presentation might immediately make them recoil away from the underlying message.

9/6/17 Response

Typically, when I read introductory pieces, particularly as they pertain to teaching, they function as inspirational pieces more than functional ideas that could actually be applied in the classroom. However, all three of the assigned texts, in addition to being inspirational and calling teachers to action, offered strategies that could actually be put into practice almost immediately. 

One line that stood out to me from the Christensen introduction and that I will likely post up as a reminder to go back to when I find myself in the classroom was "just because students lack skills doesn't mean they lack intelligence." I think that situations in which a student's lack of skill is misinterpreted as a lack of intelligence or, even worse, a lack of effort occur too frequently in the classroom. While doing my service learning at The Met, I was placed in a classroom where all of the students were struggling with English literacy. Not only did these students have a bad reputation around the school as "slackers," but they also thought very little of themselves and their ability. Before I had finished my time there, I came to learn just how sharp and intuitive many of these students were, and was even able to help them with some of the building blocks of writing and grammar once their confidence had grown a little bit.

The entire metaphor that Gallagher used in her chapter about "The Literacy Stampede" resonated with me. One of my main priorities when tackling curriculum and crafting lesson plans is to find a way to make the material contextually relevant. In one fell swoop (sorry for the cliché), Gallagher provides context and reasoning as to why being literate in reading and writing is of the utmost importance, especially if students want to succeed in today's demanding society. I will definitely be using a similar strategy at the beginning of the year when I have a classroom of my own.

In the post from plthomasedd, "To High School English Teachers (and All Teachers)," one of the authors pieces of advice is "Teach students-- not programs, standards, test-prep, or your discipline." This aligns directly with a point that has been driven home by every professor I've had in the School of Ed: not to lose sight of the importance of building trust and relationships with our students and finding ways to assist and allow each and every one of them to succeed, and not to get caught up in the pressure of teaching to high-takes tests and disciplines. This is advice that I want to keep in the back of my mind at all times, especially during my first years, as the pressure to prepare students to meet all standards threatens to take priority over everything else. I want to always be a teacher that molds the curriculum to reach my students, not forces all of my students through the same cookie cutter.