"Inescapable Privilege" from Teach for Us
http://firstyearreflections.teachforus.org/2015/06/07/inescapable-privilege/
This blog post caught my eye because it discusses something a fellow teacher-candidate and I were having a conversation about yesterday. I completely agree with the teacher in this post and the idea that once you're given knowledge about privilege and placed in a school that doesn't have it, you begin to view the world differently. When you're working in a school with students who don't have the simplest necessities like food on the table or a roof over their head, you can't just ignore the problem. It's frustrating that other's don't have this window into the problems in our society. I find it hard to explain it to others, to get the impact across that I have felt.
One of the final paragraphs of the blog really resonated with me. The author states, "I want more than to 'use my privilege for good'. I mean, that just feels like an excuse to dismiss privilege to me. In fact, I crave to give it all up so I can’t further the problem by benefiting any longer. But that is so stupid because my parents would always support me if I needed. I would always be white. Privilege is something you can never escape." I find myself often stuck in this thought process as well. I have a privilege that most of my students won't have, but is it enough to be aware of that? How do I take action in a more productive way? Furthermore, even if I'm an active advocate for change, what happens when society isn't? It's important to consider how to help those without privilege while educating those with it. Based off our course, I feel that taking a social justice perspective in the classroom and within lessons is one of the ways to do this.
"Leaving a Legacy: Connecting to Your Inner Superhero" from PLPNetwork
http://plpnetwork.com/2015/03/03/legacy/
I enjoyed this blog post and many of the ideas resonated with me. As a future educator, you think often about how you want to impact students, the lives you want to change and the learners you want to inspire. I liked that this article focussed on a lot of positive aspects of teaching, opposite of the article above that featured a few struggles.
We learn a lot about the difficulties of teaching in our courses. We discuss the issues involved in dealing with administration and the lack of control often felt. We blame the system and get angry. However, sometimes it is important to take a step back and look at the big pictures. I got into teaching because I wanted to leave a legacy. I wanted to connect with students and change the world, one kid at a time.
We recently discussed in class how we are not superhero: we cannot do everything perfect, everything at once. We have to take things in stride and adjust as we go. However, to go after a profession like teaching is heroic. I like that this blog post brought in the idea of action, with a very positive, uplifting perspective. Things aren't always as bad as they seem. Superheroes don't have to be perfect to be heroic.
Monday, April 17, 2017
Monday, April 10, 2017
Conference Response for Class on 4/11
The writer’s conference we attended this past Saturday was my first conference ever. I wasn’t exactly sure what to expect, but I found myself amazed and inspired by the speakers and presentations, beginning with Linda Christensen. Until our class and reading her textbook, I never really considered teaching social justice in the classroom. I knew I wanted to prompt students to be active participants in society, but didn’t really know the means to do so. Linda Christensen has presented those means. I loved the different activities she presented during her speech and believe they could very easily be implemented in the classroom. Her central question, how do we build a better society? really resonated with me. I also really appreciated the idea that students should be activists and use what they learn in real world situations. I truly believe I will use many of her theories and strategies in my own classroom one day.
The first presentation I attended was “Comics and New Literacies” by Michael Giarfraresco. Michael is a teacher at North Providence High School and uses graphic novels in his classroom religiously. He had so many different texts: social studies, history, science, etc. I was so impressed when he pulled out versions of Beowulf and The Scarlet Letter. I had an english course last semester where we read a graphic novel and discussed its potential use in the classroom, which really inspired me to attend this presentation. When considering students who are visual learners, it’s a no-brainer that graphic novels have value in educational lessons. What’s even cooler is that Michael is part of a team that is making it possible for teachers all across the country. Pop Culture Classroom is a company where, for very little money, you can pay to receive an entire set of graphic novels and curriculum for your classroom. This service, which starts up in September, should be utilized by all teachers.
The second presentation I attended was “Miracle Minis” by Dr. Karen Kurzman. She discussed teaching students to write narratives and focus mainly on “a piece of the pie” verses “the whole pie.” I enjoyed this description, and had to admit that it was something I hadn’t considered. If one moment can be selected and then “exploded out” you’ll get a much more descriptive piece of writing from your student. I also really appreciated the way Dr. Kurzman modeled writing for us, the way we should model it for our future students. We went through a narrative, working through the five senses, as if we were students in a classroom. It was eye-opening to be on the other side of the lesson. I know I learned some strategies I’ll use in my own classroom one day.
Attending this conference made me want to attend more. Working with teachers and students with similar ideals to my own, hearing from professionals making strides in the education world: it was all so incredibly inspiring. There are so many activities and ideas out there that should be brought into the classroom, and conferences are a valuable resource.
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Reading Response for Class on 3/28
Education Northwest - Trait Definitions
The six traits of writing listed by Education Northwest are incredibly valuable attributes of writing. I believe that using these six traits to grade writing is reasonable seeing as they align with what is "suppose to be" taught in schools or the standards. Knowing these traits will enhance a student's writing and support them when it comes time to write on standardized tests. However, I also believe that if students only focus on these six traits of writing, the material they produce might fall a little flat.
The six traits of writing are seemingly straight forward, and present a fair grading system, but students should be supported in exploring ideas in writing that exist outside these six traits. These six traits don't highlight deeper meaning or personal connection, they fit a formulated structure, which can be helpful as a guide, but at some point needs to be broken and explored. Personally, if I was presented these six traits and told I was being graded on them, without the teacher pushing me to go further, I would write to fit the way I was being guided. Teachers have these six traits as tools for correcting and assessing writing, not for teaching it. It is the instructors job to influence students, asking them for more.
One idea that came to me when looking over the definitions was, teachers have the choice to select which trait matters most. I used to hear it all the time in high school: a student who received A's on writing assignments in one class did nothing different, and received B's the next year when their teacher switched. One of the difficult parts of grading writing it that it is so subjective. One teacher might like pieces with more voice, others want more structure. Students learn to write for their professor to get the grade, versus writing for the audience or meaning, which can be very dangerous.
Writing is tricky, teaching it and completing it. It is important to have strategies, like the six traits, to simplify the situation, but we cannot gets stuck in a mold. Elaborating on the basics is key.
The six traits of writing listed by Education Northwest are incredibly valuable attributes of writing. I believe that using these six traits to grade writing is reasonable seeing as they align with what is "suppose to be" taught in schools or the standards. Knowing these traits will enhance a student's writing and support them when it comes time to write on standardized tests. However, I also believe that if students only focus on these six traits of writing, the material they produce might fall a little flat.
The six traits of writing are seemingly straight forward, and present a fair grading system, but students should be supported in exploring ideas in writing that exist outside these six traits. These six traits don't highlight deeper meaning or personal connection, they fit a formulated structure, which can be helpful as a guide, but at some point needs to be broken and explored. Personally, if I was presented these six traits and told I was being graded on them, without the teacher pushing me to go further, I would write to fit the way I was being guided. Teachers have these six traits as tools for correcting and assessing writing, not for teaching it. It is the instructors job to influence students, asking them for more.
One idea that came to me when looking over the definitions was, teachers have the choice to select which trait matters most. I used to hear it all the time in high school: a student who received A's on writing assignments in one class did nothing different, and received B's the next year when their teacher switched. One of the difficult parts of grading writing it that it is so subjective. One teacher might like pieces with more voice, others want more structure. Students learn to write for their professor to get the grade, versus writing for the audience or meaning, which can be very dangerous.
Writing is tricky, teaching it and completing it. It is important to have strategies, like the six traits, to simplify the situation, but we cannot gets stuck in a mold. Elaborating on the basics is key.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Reading Response for Class on 3/21
Paul Roswell, Artifactual Literacy
I enjoyed the central focus of this chapter, the idea that artifacts or objects can hold meaning and, when utilized, can prompt student writing and response. I remember making "memory boxes" or "personal time capsules" in earlier grades, having to shove items into a brown paper bag and later explain their meaning. It was interesting to discover the stories I remembered, stories which often involved such ordinary, everyday objects. I agreed with Roswell's quote that, "Literacy is always shaped by the social context in which it occurs." When writing a piece, outside influences like the writer's experiances and memories often come through. This forms a deeper connection with the piece of work.
This chapter discusses literacies, similarly to what we've dabbled with in class, involving many different scripts and medias. I appreciate that these artifacts, or artifact activities, bring in more than one literacy. The idea of storytelling branching from these objects is neat. I've always been a storyteller myself, so much so that my friends used to recognize me for it in high school. There's a connection that's formed, not only with the writer, but also with the audience, when a significance that isn't quite so obvious is revealed. People have more in common than they think, and these artifacts is a great way to reveal that. In a diverse classroom, this activity would be great. Even if students bring in unfamiliar objects, there is always that opportunity for a peer to speak up and say, "Oh, I remember something like that," or "Oh, my family does the same thing!"
The idea of multimedia literacies is something I experienced a lot in schools. We were allowed to create pictures, videos, songs, stories, poems, etc. for our projects and it was nice to have so much choice. I believe this is valuable in schools because it covers so many of the multiple intelligences and fits so many different types of learners. Roswell's idea, that texts begin to "look different" when multi-literacy is brought in, may also help students struggling with english or reading, ELL students or students who have simply fallen behind. By bringing in ideas and memories and objects from everyday life, all students are able to engage and connect, enhancing their work.
I, personally, love the idea of considering the "everyday" and its complexity. Though it might not seem it, simple objects mean more than we think. Selecting artifacts and writing in response can challenge students to consider possibilities that might not be as straightforward as they're used to.
Danling Fu, Writing Between Languages
Our readings began with chapter 2 of Fu's text, "ELLs' Writing Development." I have not had much experience with ELL students, other than some brief tutoring opportunities during FNED. I found it interesting to read that no matter the level of the student, "all expressed frustration with English writing." It seems reasonable since students have to translate text and thought and vocabulary from one language to the next, all to face a blank sheet where they're required to follow rules and guidelines in hopes of getting something down. That's a long process to complete something we english language speakers seem to take for granted. Granted, academic writing is difficult for everyone, as Fu states. I can't imagine going through my english classes in high school, learning to write and analyze complex texts and papers, all while experiencing a language barrier. Fu's examples of the four stages of ELL writing were incredibly telling. First, the writing in the native language, then the mix. Next a slightly more coherent essay and finally, a well written paragraph. It seems, from Fu's text at least, that working with ELL students is best considered when formulaic and procedural, taking specific note of development and accomplishment outside of traditional standards.
Chapter 3, "Native Language Writing in ELLs' Writing Development," discussed the importance of the native language. I appreciate than Fu mentioned his previous thought processes, that native languages should be bypassed and english should be the focus. I feel like this is the viewpoint considered most often, although I have read articles and texts suggesting different. I agree with Fu that translation in writing can be just as telling and valuable as writing an english text or essay. I found it interesting that "thinking" in english aids in speaking and proficiency of students while helping less in writing. I liked that Fu brought in examples of texts translated from a native language to english and then written in english to show the drastic difference. My concern is how reasonable is this to allow in the classroom. I do however, understand that assessing both forms of writing can help a teacher decide what support the student needs most. This chapter brought in the idea of utilizing different cultural events or features when a writing assignment is given to an ELL student. This could work well with the artifact assignments mentioned above in Roswell's chapters. The chapter also discussed how multi-literacies can aid english language learners, be it pictures or poems or other forms. I liked that this chapter brought in ideas about how teachers can act when they don't understand a student's work, using conferences or author "chair sharing" to have the student explain and read their writing. I agree with the idea of assessing effort and progress over strictly what is produced.
Fu's text discussed transitional stages in the fourth chapter of his book. This is the first time I have been introduced to the term "code-switching," the process of mixing languages. I found it interesting that this can happen with vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, etc. There are so many different parts to writing we forget about. This chapter emphasizes the importance of code-swtiching as a transitional stage, "promoting growth in english writing." I've been in a classroom where unfortunately, this is not allowed. I've heard the phrase, "only english," far too often for the little experience I have with ELL students. I appreciate that this text got into the idea of bilingual students vs. ELL students. I agree that the distinction between the two is important, along with the affect this has on a student's writing. Again, Fu included some great examples of student work and progress in this chapter. I also love that this chapter discussed the "textbook issue." If an ELL student cannot read the textbook that a class is working with, how are they suppose to learn the same as another student. The final topic that caught my eye in this chapter was collaborating between ESL and regular classroom teachers. It was my impression that most schools do not have ESL/ELL teachers. Fu's text explains that there are usually a few to work with the many kids in a school, but I have to wonder, is this still a privileged group rather than the norm? Are our classrooms taking the necessary strides to service ELL students? It makes me slightly concerned, seeing as this ELL conversation is one I have only experienced in a few of my courses. I still feel as if I don't have enough experience to service ELL students properly as a teacher, which I hope will change. However, texts like Fu's will definitely be added to my repertoire, if I'm ever in need of strategies.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Quick Write for Missed Class on 3/14
Question 1: Michelle Kenney’s article “The Politics of the Paragraph” discusses the problems with teaching the five-paragraph essay. She disputes one common thought on formulaic writing, that writing formulas are like training wheels, and you need to “know the rules in order to break them.” In your own experience in high school, did you learn the five paragraph formula or other formulaic writing? Did you find that it helped you become a better writer? If you were taught formulaic writing in school, did you have any issues when you started writing on the college level? Or did you find that formulaic writing helped prepared you for college writing?
Response:
In high school, we had the exact five paragraph essay formula mentioned in the article. I can break it down for you:
In the intro, start with a catchy hook. Provide some background information on the text and then formulate a thesis that includes 3 ideas - these will be your three paragraphs. Each paragraph needs to start with a topic sentence that connects the main idea of the paragraph back to the thesis. You then need to cite quotes or textual evidence, making sure to integrate them properly, and then give a warrant. Repeat, repeat, repeat. In the conclusion, restate your thesis, summarize your points, and ask some big-picture rhetorical question.
I probably wrote fifty of these essays over my high school career, forty of which were during my junior and senior years when I was taking AP english courses. They were suppose to be "college" level courses preparing us for the years following high school. Unfortunately, they didn't.
I did really well on the writing portion of my SAT's because I followed this five paragraph format. It has a time and a place, that is for sure, but when I got to college I was amazed when teachers actually wanted out of the box ideas, critical thinking, and papers that broke the formula of the "five paragraph essay." I got decent grades on my initial papers because I had been taught how to write well but my teachers kept asking - Give us more. Go further. What is your real argument?
The "five paragraph essay formula" doesn't ask you to think in depth about a topic or a text. It asks you to analyze imagery, rhetoric, and symbolism and explain how they all relate back to a central theme. In college, I began to understand texts and ideas on a new level because I was finally challenging myself when it came to writing about them.
I can remember in my first semester when my first year writing professor told us we could use "I" in our essays and the entire class notably gasped. It was incredibly humorous, thinking back. We considered it a crime to state our own opinion in the work we completed.
I completely agree with Kenney that you have to "know the rules in order to break them." My high school writing career certainly helped me in college, in the formation of essays and the timeliness I had to write them. However, I wish that someone had told me, okay, now it's time to break the rules. I wish that happened in high school.
Response:
In high school, we had the exact five paragraph essay formula mentioned in the article. I can break it down for you:
In the intro, start with a catchy hook. Provide some background information on the text and then formulate a thesis that includes 3 ideas - these will be your three paragraphs. Each paragraph needs to start with a topic sentence that connects the main idea of the paragraph back to the thesis. You then need to cite quotes or textual evidence, making sure to integrate them properly, and then give a warrant. Repeat, repeat, repeat. In the conclusion, restate your thesis, summarize your points, and ask some big-picture rhetorical question.
I probably wrote fifty of these essays over my high school career, forty of which were during my junior and senior years when I was taking AP english courses. They were suppose to be "college" level courses preparing us for the years following high school. Unfortunately, they didn't.
I did really well on the writing portion of my SAT's because I followed this five paragraph format. It has a time and a place, that is for sure, but when I got to college I was amazed when teachers actually wanted out of the box ideas, critical thinking, and papers that broke the formula of the "five paragraph essay." I got decent grades on my initial papers because I had been taught how to write well but my teachers kept asking - Give us more. Go further. What is your real argument?
The "five paragraph essay formula" doesn't ask you to think in depth about a topic or a text. It asks you to analyze imagery, rhetoric, and symbolism and explain how they all relate back to a central theme. In college, I began to understand texts and ideas on a new level because I was finally challenging myself when it came to writing about them.
I can remember in my first semester when my first year writing professor told us we could use "I" in our essays and the entire class notably gasped. It was incredibly humorous, thinking back. We considered it a crime to state our own opinion in the work we completed.
I completely agree with Kenney that you have to "know the rules in order to break them." My high school writing career certainly helped me in college, in the formation of essays and the timeliness I had to write them. However, I wish that someone had told me, okay, now it's time to break the rules. I wish that happened in high school.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Reading Response for Class on 3/14
"The Politics of the Paragraph"
The first idea in this blog post, the "formulated three paragraph essay," is something I dealt with through all of high school. Like the student in the piece, Erica, I was under the impression I had to limit myself to three ideas, three paragraphs, four to five sentences a paragraph. It was ridiculous. It not only limited my writing and ideas, but totally shut me down as a student. When you're writing something so simple, so robotic, it makes it really difficult to connect to the piece. I think it is so true when the author says "Systems like these encourage students to produce shallow, fast-food versions of paragraphs that don’t allow much elbow room for creativity or critical thinking," and it is such a shame that this is the major form of writing being taught in our classrooms. Sure, it is great for standardized tests and AP exams, but it is terrible for our students. Shouldn't there be a balance?
I thought it was critical that the author of this blog post brought up the demographics of her school, where students were diverse, high poverty, and with minimal literary skills. This alters how a teacher must teach, but also alters how a teacher must consider testing and achievement of students. However, I personally don't believe a writing template is the answer. Maybe at the beginning, for a very short time, to get the students' feet wet and up their confidence. However, at some points, student engagement and connection will take them farther in a piece of writing than any structure ever will. It's so true when the author says, "the process of educating a good writer is more time-consuming and messier than that." Teachers have to be dedicated to the work and school systems have to stand behind them. Unfortunately, at the moment, the "system" doesn't seem to allow this. It's unfortunate, but I'm glad there are people out there noticing and saying something about this upsetting pattern.
Gallagher, Chapter 2-4
Gallagher's second chapter began and continued by explaining the importance of writing in the classroom, writing at all times possible. She discusses a lack of critical thinking within writing students are producing, similar to what was discussed above in "The Politics of the Paragraph." It upsets Gallagher that this is the case, and she sites many others like Donald Murray and Steven Krashen who have done plenty of research on things like "teach the writer... not the writing." This resonated very strongly with me, especially when Gallagher further made the point that, "If I recognize my duty to teach the writer, I must insist that writing activities be moved to the forefront in the classroom." Writing can be brought into the classroom in so many ways, but it is hardly emphasized as much as it should be. I really liked the writing charts Gallagher included in this chapter and thought the work was engaging and got the students writing and thinking before the "actual writing" took place. I also really like the idea of the weekly writer's notebook. I remember doing morning writing prompts in middle school, questions that had students engage and write about different interests, very simple versions of the quick writes we do in class. The work was un-graded, but great to complete, and I know it personally helped me practice as a writer.
Gallagher's third chapter reminded me a lot of my science methods course for elementary education. We focussed A LOT on modeling writing for students, chart, conclusions, focus questions. Any writing we assigned during a lesson was suppose to be modeled first, and I saw a HUGE change in student work when we did. We put sentence starters on the board, filled in a guide with the students (they were fifth graders) and then left the guide up for them to use. Having those tools to utilize let the students formulate their thoughts in more productive ways.
I like Gallagher's idea about the "lousy first draft" because I never really considered this when I was in school. I thought all writing for class had to be perfect at all times, even if it was a draft. I wanted my draft to come back with a few spelling mistakes, and that would be it. However, this isn't how writing should be! It should be a process! I love how Gallagher references Ralph Fletcher's idea that the first draft is "the sneeze"- "blasting" thoughts out to see what comes of them, writing without fear. There is definitely a "fear" when it comes to writing, that many students experience, that should be altered. I really enjoyed Gallagher's suggested steps to getting students to embrace difficult writing, especially the "Adopt a 4:1 Grading Philosophy." I also really agree on her emphasis of modeling revisions. Revising is difficult, whether it be personal or peer, so knowing guidelines and tools makes this step so much more effective. When teaching writing, there are so many crucial steps to consider, steps that must be worked through.
Finally, Gallagher's fourth chapter, "using real world models" was very interesting. I LOVE that Gallagher mentioned the connection between reading a writing. I had a US History teacher in high school who insisted we read, insisted that reading is the best way to learn. He emphasized that to write you must read. I, personally, agree with this 110%. I enjoyed Gallagher's point about essay lengths, and the fact that if she assigned a 300 word essay, she would receive a "303 word essay." Of course, her students would rather her give them a length. I understand this, even now in college. If a teacher doesn't give a defined length, I'm left wondering: Am I babbling on too long? If my essay isn't very long, am I too concise? Do I not have enough information? I believe this goes back to the "Politics of the Paragraph" and how I'm so engrained to have a structure and a set-up for my writing. I was taught this way for so long that when finally someone says, go forth and write, I freeze up. I'm glad that Gallagher speaks against this, because I feel like this approach in the classroom needs to change.
I enjoyed the ideas of using film (introductions and reviews) and magazines in the classroom as models for writing. There is so much "informal" writing that students address everyday, that isn't considered when teaching writing. I appreciate the use of blog posts in this class; it is a form of writing I read most constantly. Also, these medias connect to student interest. It's also a little unorthodox, which students pick up on, and engage with. Students like doing something different, stepping out of the traditional "box." If you give them the opportunity, they will use things in the world around them and flourish.
The first idea in this blog post, the "formulated three paragraph essay," is something I dealt with through all of high school. Like the student in the piece, Erica, I was under the impression I had to limit myself to three ideas, three paragraphs, four to five sentences a paragraph. It was ridiculous. It not only limited my writing and ideas, but totally shut me down as a student. When you're writing something so simple, so robotic, it makes it really difficult to connect to the piece. I think it is so true when the author says "Systems like these encourage students to produce shallow, fast-food versions of paragraphs that don’t allow much elbow room for creativity or critical thinking," and it is such a shame that this is the major form of writing being taught in our classrooms. Sure, it is great for standardized tests and AP exams, but it is terrible for our students. Shouldn't there be a balance?
I thought it was critical that the author of this blog post brought up the demographics of her school, where students were diverse, high poverty, and with minimal literary skills. This alters how a teacher must teach, but also alters how a teacher must consider testing and achievement of students. However, I personally don't believe a writing template is the answer. Maybe at the beginning, for a very short time, to get the students' feet wet and up their confidence. However, at some points, student engagement and connection will take them farther in a piece of writing than any structure ever will. It's so true when the author says, "the process of educating a good writer is more time-consuming and messier than that." Teachers have to be dedicated to the work and school systems have to stand behind them. Unfortunately, at the moment, the "system" doesn't seem to allow this. It's unfortunate, but I'm glad there are people out there noticing and saying something about this upsetting pattern.
Gallagher, Chapter 2-4
Gallagher's second chapter began and continued by explaining the importance of writing in the classroom, writing at all times possible. She discusses a lack of critical thinking within writing students are producing, similar to what was discussed above in "The Politics of the Paragraph." It upsets Gallagher that this is the case, and she sites many others like Donald Murray and Steven Krashen who have done plenty of research on things like "teach the writer... not the writing." This resonated very strongly with me, especially when Gallagher further made the point that, "If I recognize my duty to teach the writer, I must insist that writing activities be moved to the forefront in the classroom." Writing can be brought into the classroom in so many ways, but it is hardly emphasized as much as it should be. I really liked the writing charts Gallagher included in this chapter and thought the work was engaging and got the students writing and thinking before the "actual writing" took place. I also really like the idea of the weekly writer's notebook. I remember doing morning writing prompts in middle school, questions that had students engage and write about different interests, very simple versions of the quick writes we do in class. The work was un-graded, but great to complete, and I know it personally helped me practice as a writer.
Gallagher's third chapter reminded me a lot of my science methods course for elementary education. We focussed A LOT on modeling writing for students, chart, conclusions, focus questions. Any writing we assigned during a lesson was suppose to be modeled first, and I saw a HUGE change in student work when we did. We put sentence starters on the board, filled in a guide with the students (they were fifth graders) and then left the guide up for them to use. Having those tools to utilize let the students formulate their thoughts in more productive ways.
I like Gallagher's idea about the "lousy first draft" because I never really considered this when I was in school. I thought all writing for class had to be perfect at all times, even if it was a draft. I wanted my draft to come back with a few spelling mistakes, and that would be it. However, this isn't how writing should be! It should be a process! I love how Gallagher references Ralph Fletcher's idea that the first draft is "the sneeze"- "blasting" thoughts out to see what comes of them, writing without fear. There is definitely a "fear" when it comes to writing, that many students experience, that should be altered. I really enjoyed Gallagher's suggested steps to getting students to embrace difficult writing, especially the "Adopt a 4:1 Grading Philosophy." I also really agree on her emphasis of modeling revisions. Revising is difficult, whether it be personal or peer, so knowing guidelines and tools makes this step so much more effective. When teaching writing, there are so many crucial steps to consider, steps that must be worked through.
Finally, Gallagher's fourth chapter, "using real world models" was very interesting. I LOVE that Gallagher mentioned the connection between reading a writing. I had a US History teacher in high school who insisted we read, insisted that reading is the best way to learn. He emphasized that to write you must read. I, personally, agree with this 110%. I enjoyed Gallagher's point about essay lengths, and the fact that if she assigned a 300 word essay, she would receive a "303 word essay." Of course, her students would rather her give them a length. I understand this, even now in college. If a teacher doesn't give a defined length, I'm left wondering: Am I babbling on too long? If my essay isn't very long, am I too concise? Do I not have enough information? I believe this goes back to the "Politics of the Paragraph" and how I'm so engrained to have a structure and a set-up for my writing. I was taught this way for so long that when finally someone says, go forth and write, I freeze up. I'm glad that Gallagher speaks against this, because I feel like this approach in the classroom needs to change.
I enjoyed the ideas of using film (introductions and reviews) and magazines in the classroom as models for writing. There is so much "informal" writing that students address everyday, that isn't considered when teaching writing. I appreciate the use of blog posts in this class; it is a form of writing I read most constantly. Also, these medias connect to student interest. It's also a little unorthodox, which students pick up on, and engage with. Students like doing something different, stepping out of the traditional "box." If you give them the opportunity, they will use things in the world around them and flourish.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Reading Response for Class on 2/28
Roberts and Mahoney
This article begins discussing technology in our society and how its increase has undeniably affected our classrooms. I agree completely with the discussion and how it highlights the importance of considering educational technology critically, defining its use and purpose. Too often I hear in my practicums, "use technology, it's in the OPR," even though the technology we are suppose to be using is not defined. Is using technology as simple as putting work up on an Elmo or showing students a Schoolhouse Rock video on Youtube? Should we be delving further into the world of technology in our classrooms? The article connects learning through technology to corporatization of schools, which personally, I find a little dramatic. However, it makes a valid point as it works to connect technology and schooling to the larger picture: our society, government, economy, and world.
This article takes a very critical stance on many controversial topics: mandated education laws, common core, and the rise of charter schools over public education. I thought it was very interesting that the article discussed different "educational entrepreneurs" and "opportunistic politicians" as a part of this great system affecting schools today. I think this is one of those things that we all know, one of those things that we're all aware of, but we choose not to discuss it because as unsettling as all this outside influence is, who can really change it? This "corporate reform movement" has so much power in our educational system that when they suggest personal learning technology, our government obliges. The article also brings up valid points about data collection and how this information leads to different systems believing they can "control" what is taking place in schools (the pace, the environment, and the content).
It was disheartening to read the idea that education exists to "train workers for a twenty first century market" because I believe learning and critical thinking goes far beyond that. The idea that we are creating students to fit a mold to go out and fit into a business model of our world is terribly upsetting. What happens when we lose all the free thinkers, the creative minds, and the uninhibited explorers? Our society begins to stand still. Our society becomes a machine and progress all but stops.
I found it really interesting, as this article further discussed the role of teachers in the classroom and how this is changing. I hate the idea proposed, that teachers aren't making decisions in the classroom but are simply managing systems that have control, overseeing the education of students but not really teaching. The assumption that "efficiency" and "effectiveness" is more important than the purpose of education and the idea that everything is a "skill" that can be learned and analyzed and quantified is dangerous.
I'm not going to lie, I usually stay away from reading research and findings similar to what is discussed in this article because it makes me feel helpless. It makes me feel like we've reached the point of no return and that the system now and will always control what teachers once did. I agree with the article, the idea that at our current state, technologies that allow control of school systems do more harm then good. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there are enough people considering this, or taking action for change. I hope in the future things are different, but for now, I feel as if we're a little too stuck.
Coiro
I like the purpose of Coiro's tool, to aid in "exploration of controversial issues on the internet" but also have to wonder if, like Robert and Mahoney's article, this feeds into the idea of giving technology too much control.
I found the four theoretical ideas that drove this design interesting: perspectives on online research, critical thinking in relation to students' understanding, guidance of learning practices, and focus on cognitive capacity. However, there is an underlying idea of control, control that would be given to this new technology if it were created. This study references the idea that student have difficulty with online inquiry, but doesn't consider that online inquiry itself might be the problem. Why do students have to use a computer or search engine to locate information? I remember learning to research in a library, using encyclopedias and textbooks to find information - key word, learning. Students should not be expected to pick up a new form of technology and be able to use it right away. Software to help teach students is valuable, but software that simply control what they can discover, eliminates this 'learning' opportunity. The article's figures provided and images of potential design seem very structured, as if they would allow little choice or informed exploration by students. How does that aid learning? I thought the "Palette of Perspectives" was an interesting concept, but again, wondered if it was controlling and influencing student thought too much.
After reading the article, I had these final thoughts: Why do we need to eliminate complexities for students? Why can't we teach students how to conquer complexities rather than making things simpler?
Couros
I definitely preferred this reading and its concepts to the others, regarding their approaches to technology in schools. First off, I was very surprised by the idea that "30% of children will have a digital footprint before they are born." That sounds absolutely absurd to me! However, the more I think about it, the more realistic it also sounds. Our students will no doubt be dealing with technology for their entire lives, interacting and learning through its operations.
I strongly agree with the idea that student need to be taught how to interact properly in a digital space. There are grand scale issue, like cyber bullying, that must be addressed with students. However, there are also smaller scale issues like sending out emails to professors, co-workers, and potential bosses in proper form, with proper punctuation, free of grammatical errors. Personally, it was my parents always taught me how importance your presence online is and how you should treat technological interaction the same way you treat a face to face conversation. I don't ever remember discussing this in class or in school, which is unfortunate, now that I think back. Teachers should be emphasizing this, and I believe that nowadays they are. I know I plan to.
I found the idea of using technology to reveal issues of power and privilege to be extremely interesting. With all the time students are spending online, they are going to be exposed to these topics anyway - why not take the opportunity to educate them, to form a discussion or debate? If technology is used correctly in the classroom, it can be a great resource. However, one specific thing that Couros' text implied that the others didn't, is the importance of a teacher's role in making decisions about technology in the classroom. The more we educate ourselves, the better we will be at doing this.
This article begins discussing technology in our society and how its increase has undeniably affected our classrooms. I agree completely with the discussion and how it highlights the importance of considering educational technology critically, defining its use and purpose. Too often I hear in my practicums, "use technology, it's in the OPR," even though the technology we are suppose to be using is not defined. Is using technology as simple as putting work up on an Elmo or showing students a Schoolhouse Rock video on Youtube? Should we be delving further into the world of technology in our classrooms? The article connects learning through technology to corporatization of schools, which personally, I find a little dramatic. However, it makes a valid point as it works to connect technology and schooling to the larger picture: our society, government, economy, and world.
This article takes a very critical stance on many controversial topics: mandated education laws, common core, and the rise of charter schools over public education. I thought it was very interesting that the article discussed different "educational entrepreneurs" and "opportunistic politicians" as a part of this great system affecting schools today. I think this is one of those things that we all know, one of those things that we're all aware of, but we choose not to discuss it because as unsettling as all this outside influence is, who can really change it? This "corporate reform movement" has so much power in our educational system that when they suggest personal learning technology, our government obliges. The article also brings up valid points about data collection and how this information leads to different systems believing they can "control" what is taking place in schools (the pace, the environment, and the content).
It was disheartening to read the idea that education exists to "train workers for a twenty first century market" because I believe learning and critical thinking goes far beyond that. The idea that we are creating students to fit a mold to go out and fit into a business model of our world is terribly upsetting. What happens when we lose all the free thinkers, the creative minds, and the uninhibited explorers? Our society begins to stand still. Our society becomes a machine and progress all but stops.
I found it really interesting, as this article further discussed the role of teachers in the classroom and how this is changing. I hate the idea proposed, that teachers aren't making decisions in the classroom but are simply managing systems that have control, overseeing the education of students but not really teaching. The assumption that "efficiency" and "effectiveness" is more important than the purpose of education and the idea that everything is a "skill" that can be learned and analyzed and quantified is dangerous.
I'm not going to lie, I usually stay away from reading research and findings similar to what is discussed in this article because it makes me feel helpless. It makes me feel like we've reached the point of no return and that the system now and will always control what teachers once did. I agree with the article, the idea that at our current state, technologies that allow control of school systems do more harm then good. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there are enough people considering this, or taking action for change. I hope in the future things are different, but for now, I feel as if we're a little too stuck.
Coiro
I like the purpose of Coiro's tool, to aid in "exploration of controversial issues on the internet" but also have to wonder if, like Robert and Mahoney's article, this feeds into the idea of giving technology too much control.
I found the four theoretical ideas that drove this design interesting: perspectives on online research, critical thinking in relation to students' understanding, guidance of learning practices, and focus on cognitive capacity. However, there is an underlying idea of control, control that would be given to this new technology if it were created. This study references the idea that student have difficulty with online inquiry, but doesn't consider that online inquiry itself might be the problem. Why do students have to use a computer or search engine to locate information? I remember learning to research in a library, using encyclopedias and textbooks to find information - key word, learning. Students should not be expected to pick up a new form of technology and be able to use it right away. Software to help teach students is valuable, but software that simply control what they can discover, eliminates this 'learning' opportunity. The article's figures provided and images of potential design seem very structured, as if they would allow little choice or informed exploration by students. How does that aid learning? I thought the "Palette of Perspectives" was an interesting concept, but again, wondered if it was controlling and influencing student thought too much.
After reading the article, I had these final thoughts: Why do we need to eliminate complexities for students? Why can't we teach students how to conquer complexities rather than making things simpler?
Couros
I definitely preferred this reading and its concepts to the others, regarding their approaches to technology in schools. First off, I was very surprised by the idea that "30% of children will have a digital footprint before they are born." That sounds absolutely absurd to me! However, the more I think about it, the more realistic it also sounds. Our students will no doubt be dealing with technology for their entire lives, interacting and learning through its operations.
I strongly agree with the idea that student need to be taught how to interact properly in a digital space. There are grand scale issue, like cyber bullying, that must be addressed with students. However, there are also smaller scale issues like sending out emails to professors, co-workers, and potential bosses in proper form, with proper punctuation, free of grammatical errors. Personally, it was my parents always taught me how importance your presence online is and how you should treat technological interaction the same way you treat a face to face conversation. I don't ever remember discussing this in class or in school, which is unfortunate, now that I think back. Teachers should be emphasizing this, and I believe that nowadays they are. I know I plan to.
I found the idea of using technology to reveal issues of power and privilege to be extremely interesting. With all the time students are spending online, they are going to be exposed to these topics anyway - why not take the opportunity to educate them, to form a discussion or debate? If technology is used correctly in the classroom, it can be a great resource. However, one specific thing that Couros' text implied that the others didn't, is the importance of a teacher's role in making decisions about technology in the classroom. The more we educate ourselves, the better we will be at doing this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)