ilrlo

Does current technology truly better engage students? I assume that this is because of the visual aspect. So could other less current technology be used just as beneficially (writing/drawing tools, paper, etc)? In “But Will It Work With Real Students?”: Scenarios for Teaching English Language Arts, Alsup and Bush discuss the benefits of using PowerPoint as well as potential pitfalls. They talk about how “snappy visual and audio cues” engage students (p. 149). Media presentations are nice and can sometimes grab attention if done well; however, wouldn’t a hands-on activity or critical thinking game work just as well at keeping students engaged? I’m afraid that students will zone out, fall asleep, or let the presentation go in one ear and out the other. Many students in urban schools work. If they are up late at night, sitting and listening or even watching can make it hard to stay alert. When students have to do something, surely there is more reason to pay attention. Activities can include visuals and music as well as kinesthetic qualities.

I have also noticed that students tend to get easily distracted when working on the computer. Alsup and Bush (2003) include a section in which a teacher talks about how his students would work on computers. They would “peer over the shoulders of their classmates to see what was on their computer screens” (p. 152). He mentions that other teachers dislike using the computers because (he assumes) of the chaos and noise of students moving around, talking, and looking at each other’s screens. This teacher likes that the students are getting excited and sharing their writing. I would love this point of sharing. However, there are other negative factors of using computers. There are other, less beneficial “distractions,” than sharing with peers. The problem that I’m talking about is that students get on a computer and immediately want to check their emails, surf the web, etc. Though I have observed teachers keeping a close eye on her students and asking questions about the work that they are supposed to be doing, oftentimes, a teacher simply cannot keep all of her students engaged in the lesson when sitting at a computer.

I’ll be blunt: I don’t feel comfortable teaching deconstruction. I’m not sure that I even understand it fully, though Appleman’s chapter helps a bit. If I’m understanding correctly, deconstruction means that the reader takes the text apart to find what is wrong with how it was originally put together by the writer. The reader looks for contradictions in meaning. I believe that my students, especially certain students who take the role of being disillusioned with the world, would love to put this lens on. However, the problem that I foresee is that this lens would stick to their eyes like month-old contacts, and my students would never want to take them out. I can already see a picture in my head of students asking why we should even read or write any more because there is no valuable meaning. There is meaning to be found in reading and writing even in just the acts of doing so as well as in the actual text. While I try to convey this meaning, help students to discover this for themselves, and welcome the question, “What is the point of doing this?” I am afraid that teaching deconstruction would shut down this learning.

However, many students will learn to look at contradictions in a work on their own. In my experience, students enjoy being cynical. They are introduced to so many contradictory images and statements in the media that many students approach statements in class and in literature with a doubtful air. So, would it be better to teach deconstruction than to let students wade through this theory on their own, not even knowing that what they are doing is using a specific theory of analysis? Perhaps… But how can I teach deconstruction in a constructive way?

            I enjoyed Appleman’s chapter about feminist literary theory chiefly because this chapter focuses on teaching students to look at texts and life experiences through different perspectives which leads to a greater understanding of and critical thought about the world around us. Appleman (2000) states that “theory helps us recognize the essential quality of other visions: how they shape and inform the way we read texts, how we respond to others, how we live our lives” (p. 75). Teaching feminist literary theory asks students to take a more critical look at the gendered stereotypes, prejudices, and assumptions/ignorance that may exist in literature and in the media that surrounds them and influences them. Students may need to get out of their comfort zones in order to try on this lens, but, once involved in using this perspective, they may find new connections to the text through their own experiences or observations. Perhaps, they won’t, but being able to analyze a text or situation in multiple ways is a useful tool in any occupation and provokes higher thinking. Appleman seems to easily incorporate studying feminist literary theory with studying other theories such as Reader-Response and Marxist. I like the connections between theories. Using Reader-Response in conjunction with looking through a feminist lens can help students to better understand feminist literary theory.

In the couple of readings that discuss reader-response approach versus close textual reading/interpretation, I agree with a teacher’s response to a narrative in Alsup and Bush. The narrative tells about a teacher’s experience in having students write a personal response that ties into The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. After students read about how being on a raft in the middle of a river is a safe peaceful place for Huck, the teacher asks the students to choose a personal place to write about that students associate with peaceful and happy feelings. The response of another teacher to this lesson is positive, but this teacher takes the lesson a little farther. This teacher suggests that the activity could move into “deeper analysis and criticism of Huck Finn” by reflecting on the time period in which the character is living, the actions that take place on the river, how the actions and setting reflect the culture, etc. This teacher basically suggests that students can benefit from both making personal connections and by literary study.

I like this narrative and the response because I think that approaching a text at times using reader-response theory can be a catalyst for involving students in moving into analysis, interpretation, studying themes, characterization, culture, and criticisms. By first addressing the text in context with personal experience, students may be more easily drawn into the text. Once students have entered the story and engaged their interests, perhaps they would be open to deeper more critical literary study. Focusing only on reader-response or on close textual reading leaves out a huge chunk of learning opportunity. Making only personal connections does not fully help students to understand how issues look through different perspectives. By beginning with personal perspective and moving through various theories/lenses, students will have a broader range of understanding, open-mindedness, and communication skills.

I have not thought about it enough previously, but I have found that I do agree with Appleman’s prompts to share with students the definition of reader-response theory. Students should know that what they are using at times to interpret or connect to texts is a certain lens. Once students understand that, even when they are looking at a text in connection to their own lives, they are using a specific kind of process, students should not be as intimidated when they are called upon to try on some other lens.

This week, I truly enjoyed reading Ramsey’s chapter on How to Say the Right Thing to Students. Ramsey gave specific suggestions and lists of what to do and what not to do. Ramsey discusses how to talk to students, carry out classroom discussions, how to praise, and how to discipline. A couple points that really stuck out to me was in the “how to discipline” section. Ramsey advises teachers to be consistent about consequences and to not feel sorry for reprimanding students. This reminder really helps. I made the mistake of trying to give grace in the first couple of weeks about turning work in on time. After the first two weeks, I told my students that I would be enforcing the late assignment policy for the rest of the semester. Then, when I received late work, I took off 50% for a day late…and felt really bad.

I think that part of my problem with this is that, were I to create my own rules, I would probably not be quite as harsh. I would probably take off 20 points for late work. I also have trouble because I really want each of my students to succeed, so I have a tendency to “give grace” as long as students work hard to complete the work and turn it in.

However much that I hate that students’ grades drop, I know that it does not help my students to accept all work whenever they hand it in. I am enforcing the late assignment policy because I know that, as a teacher, I am supposed to be preparing students for a successful future. They need to learn to be responsible and organized with their work and their time. Also, enforcing the late assignment disciplinary measures shows respect to those students who did abide by the rules.

Rex Gibson (1998), in Teaching Shakespeare, discusses ways to study Shakespeare’s characters in the classroom. In keeping with his view that these plays should be treated as scripts, not text, Gibson suggests various activities that parallel what Shakespearean (and other) actors do to get “into character.” These are interesting. I have seen such activities done in an acting class but not in a language arts class. I think that one could probably do a few of them, but most likely a language arts teacher would not have the time to spend weeks on building actors’ searching characterization. I liked the four questions that Gibson asks students to answer: “Who am I? What am I saying? Why am I saying it? And How do I speak?” (p. 112). By answering these questions, students have to really understand the language that the character uses and the story (which provides background/motivation), and they must think of the character as a person with attitudes and reasoning. From this, students may be able to better connect with the character as they “get to know” him/her better.

In terms of participatory activities that include other aspects of the curriculum, students could integrate this knowledge into writing assignments and critical thinking discussions. After evaluating what they know about characters (evaluation is high on Bloom’s taxonomy too), students could create an extra monologue from the point of view of one of the characters, perhaps even demonstrating some of the literary language tools that Shakespeare employed. An activity that Gibson suggests is to stage job interviews with the students applying for a job while playing a character. He proposes having students apply for jobs and also having students play the interviewer as a character. I appreciate this activity because this works on multiple curricular tasks at the same time. Students will need to understand their characters, so they will need to research aspects of the character from their text/script. They will need to understand how a job interview is conducted and be able to think quickly and give plausible answers to questions. Students will need to work on their persuasive skills in order to convince the interviewer that their character is right for the job.

In his 1994 article, Toward Thoughtful Curriculum: Fostering Discipline-Based Conversation in the English Language Arts Classroom, Arthur Applebee brings up an interesting question through a student’s shared thoughts. Brett, the student, explains that his teacher asks questions in order to try to get students to think for themselves, but she is really looking for a specific answer that is correct for her (p. 1). I was struck by how often I probably do that. In class conversations, I definitely want my students to increase their individual critical thinking skills beyond pat answers. I always listen to a variety of different answers and try to make positive comments and follow-up questions for these answers. However, I often have a point to make during these discussions that I feel is beneficial for the class to think about. How can I get an important point across without limiting the discussion or the students’ deep thinking? My simple answer is that, when this point is reached by a student or explained by myself, I try to address it as just another good way of answering the question (there are probably more ways and more specific strategies that lead to thoughtful class discussion; please let me know your thoughts).

Students need to know that there are multiple perspectives that one can take on a reading and that most are correct. Sometimes, answers seem rather irrelevant to the topic or just not very well thought-through. This is why I think that it is very, very important that students understand that they need to back up these answers/conjectures/perspectives with actual supporting details from the text. If there is no evidence to support answers, then the answer may not be correct despite there being multiple ways to answer.

A way to work on not just looking for a specific answer (which Brett complained about) is to form questions that are open to multiple perspectives and require critical thinking. Obviously, some questions can kill conversation if they point to only one answer. Our students need good prompts in discussion as well as in writing. One way to get the discussion rolling, I believe, is to introduce students to different literary theory stances that they could take on the text. Deborah Appleman (2000), in Critical Encounters in High School English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents, discusses the positive effects of including literary theory in lessons: “…the sources of these different perspectives do not always spring from personal experience…it offers readers a variety of tinted lenses through which they can view things differently” (p. 20). If students learn about literary theories, then they can take this knowledge and address what the text is stating from different views. This would be a good starting point for a class that is not yet comfortable with sharing interpretations of the text colored by personal perspectives.

While I understand that there needs to be some statewide way of assessing schools and students, I agree with the IRA that these tests do not “yield enough information to make an important instructional decision” (International Reading Association). Perhaps these tests are useful in some degree, but they should not determine which track a child is put on or, basically, the level of intelligence and learning capabilities of the child and the level of expertise of the teacher. Many of these tests are multiple choice. A student could know in-depth information about a number of topics and still miss questions due to test-anxiety or other factors. However, high-stakes tests exist for every student, and arguing about whether this is right does not aid in creating a new way of broad assessment.

As a teacher, I believe that we should prepare students for high-stakes testing because at the moment it is required for them to experience it. We do students a disservice, if we ignore the facts regardless of how whether we agree or disagree with the ways things are. However, I believe that a major part of preparation is or should already be covered in the curriculum. Alsup and Bush (2003), in “But Will It Work With Real Students?”: Scenarios for Teaching English Language Arts, suggest that the teacher “merge activities that prepare students for testing with existing assignments” (p. 157). Students should be improving their critical thinking skills, learning content, understanding the mechanics, and more by participating in class. These will come into play when taking the test. I do think that students should have sample questions similar to the ones on the test as, maybe, a warm-up activity every few days. Students need to feel comfortable with the format of questions.

While perusing the first two chapters of Teaching Shakespeare by Rex Gibson, I truly enjoyed and agreed with many of the author’s statements on the benefits of teaching Shakespeare. Gibson addresses why Shakespeare should be taught and methods of teaching Shakespeare that engage students and increase their understanding of the text/script, the world around them, and themselves.

Certain suggestions and activities seemed to work quite well. I agree that a play should be taught as a script; this gives students the power for their own interpretation and enactment. I want my students to increase their independent critical thinking skills and not just look to me for the answers (especially as there may be multiple answers, and I don’t have them all). However, a teacher should be a guiding force when students come across unfamiliar language. I intend to work in Gibson’s writing prompt for The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (in which students ponder what began the feud) as a chance for my students to show their creativity, intellect, and work on personal style. This prompt also connects to “real life” as I believe that it is important for students to question the origins of issues, conflict, and more in literature and in life. I also loved that Gibson suggested that students act out various scenes and monologues. He states that “the physical enactment of the imagery is an effective spur to student discussion” and that “Shakespeare’s stage directions are obvious invitations to imaginative acting out… they invite performance” (Gibson, 1998, p. 14). Last semester, I taught 9^th graders The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet and had them do brief performances and had one group perform a whole scene for a project. I found that students really get excited about acting sections out and think more deeply about characterization and plot in order to create an excellent performance (also, integrated movement tends to ingrain knowledge more deeply, at least for me).

However, I must wonder how a teacher can incorporate a large number of these activities and still finish studying the text within a limited amount of time. In college, a teacher is able to focus on just Shakespeare for a whole semester. In high school, students must cover a broad amount of literature in one semester (block scheduling). Last semester, it took three weeks to go through The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet in order for my students to really understand and enjoy the play. Then, another half of a week was taken up in presenting their group projects on the play. I have been told by my mentor teacher that I need to cut back on the amount of time that it took to study Shakespeare because other works needed more time afterwards than they received. While I love teaching students Shakespeare, I cannot let the unit take up too much of the semester. I have to teach short stories, poetry, the Odyssey, non-fiction stories, and other parts of curriculum. I do not know how I would incorporate all of these interesting and engaging lessons without taking away from time for other equally important portions of class.