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.