So, I have to admit that I was a little skeptical when I was asked to watch the movie Julie and Julia as a way of exploring the changing nature of writing. However, the juxtaposed storylines following intrepid blogger Julie, and Julia Child, a woman who painstakingly types out drafts using carbon paper, work to illuminate the ways writing has changed as a result of the widespread introduction of personal computers, word processing programs, and the Internet.
Julie sends emails; Julia handwrites letters, an act that somehow seems more intimate and personal. Julie and Julia both write memoirs, but there is something more formal about Julia's and something much more colloquial about Julie's. In fact, near the end of the film, there is something about Julie's vernacular informality that seems offensive or problematic for Julia; Julia seems to sense a disrespect on Julie's behalf that is probably more a product of the medium she is working in than it is a product of true disdain. Both women type, but Julia's typing was necessarily more purposeful. For her, there was no cut and paste, no easy press of the delete button; if you made a mistake, you had to start over.
In thinking about how writing has changed, particularly from Julia's era to Julie's, perhaps the computer has made us lazier writers; we don't have to think as much anymore. If we make a mistake, we can just backspace and re-type. If we decide that one section of our text would work better somewhere else, cut and paste. There's less forethought, less planning, because there are so many ways to mold our writing once it appears before us on the screen.
On the other hand, the digital age has made it easier, at least in the case of Julie vs. Julia, to get published. The movie chronicles Julia Child's journey to get Mastering the Art of French Cooking published, a journey that took years. In contrast, Julie begins blogging, and before a full year is up, she already has publishers and agents calling and offering book deals. There's something much more instantaneous about writing in the digital age.
When writing is instantaneous, though, it tends to be much more careless. Not only is it less planned out, but it is more likely to be riddled with typos and grammatical issues. When people's fingers are flying across a computer keyboard, it's hard to take the time to consider a well-placed comma or whether to use then or than. But maybe that doesn't matter quite so much because readers' eyes are flying across the screen at an equally high speed, skimming over the words instead of soaking them in, so maybe no one (no one but me) notices.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Sunday, September 29, 2013
"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" - Umm, probably...
I just finished reading Nicholas Carr's essay in The Atlantic, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", and the answer seems to be a resounding: YES! He argues that what "the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation," and that "the more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing." This is frightening to me, as someone who tries to teach long and complicated novels to high school students. We read Toni Morrison (The Bluest Eye) and William Faulkner (The Sound and the Fury). Well, I say read, because that's what I intend, but is that actually what my students are doing? Are my expectations that they remain focused on a 300-page novel unrealistic in this day-and-age? Perhaps.
Carr notes that modern media, like the New York Times, has had to adapt to today's readers who expect to skim and flit across snippets of information instead of diving deeply and immersing themselves in it. I can attest that that's what my students would like to do, too, which is why I often make them keep dialectical journals as they read or evidence-interpretation charts that require them to track quotations and specific evidence from the text in their journal. I don't know if that really helps them soak in and absorb the prose of the novel at hand, but I like to think it does a better job than SparkNotes.
I guess the bigger question, though, is the extent to which assigning long novels and requiring my students to read them is actually doing them a disservice with regard to preparing them for the future they'll likely face upon graduation. Should we be reading more flash fiction?
Regardless, I tend to agree with Carr when he writes: "The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking. If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with 'content,' we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture." And like Carr, that makes me worry.
Carr notes that modern media, like the New York Times, has had to adapt to today's readers who expect to skim and flit across snippets of information instead of diving deeply and immersing themselves in it. I can attest that that's what my students would like to do, too, which is why I often make them keep dialectical journals as they read or evidence-interpretation charts that require them to track quotations and specific evidence from the text in their journal. I don't know if that really helps them soak in and absorb the prose of the novel at hand, but I like to think it does a better job than SparkNotes.
I guess the bigger question, though, is the extent to which assigning long novels and requiring my students to read them is actually doing them a disservice with regard to preparing them for the future they'll likely face upon graduation. Should we be reading more flash fiction?
Regardless, I tend to agree with Carr when he writes: "The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking. If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with 'content,' we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture." And like Carr, that makes me worry.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Online Discussions
I'm happy to report that I am impressed with my sophomores. We have read Vonnegut's Player Piano and "Harrison Bergeron," and followed that with a short piece from The Economist. Then, I asked them to blog about the connections they had made with regard to the dystopias presented in Vonnegut's work and the rather cynical view of the American Dream described in the article. Not only did I ask my students to share their own thoughts, but I also asked them to deepen the discussion by commenting on their peers' remarks.
Here's their exact prompt:
To what extent is Vonnegut's America (as described in Player Piano and "Harrison Bergeron") our America? Is the society described in the story/novel a fulfillment of the American principle or ideal of equality or a perversion of that principle or ideal? What about our own society? If the two ideals—human excellence and equality—are in conflict, which one should we hold more dear? Must one be pursued at the expense of the other? Are there some areas in life in which we wish for equality more than human excellence and others we don’t?
Be sure to support your remarks with apt and specific evidence to bulwark your claims. Type for 20 minutes in response to the above questions, then read some of your classmates' remarks and add two comments of your own. Remember that your comments to their posts should be respectful and should work to further the conversation (a simple "I agree" will not suffice).
All I can say is, "Wow!" Many of my students had some really good things to say in response to this question. I was blown away by some of the connections they made and awed by the way they interacted with each other and deepened the conversation. For example:
When I was reading Player Piano and “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut, I found the America Vonnegut described in both the novel and the short story to be quite different in some ways from our America today. I found the greatest difference was in “Harrison Bergeron”. In our society today, I feel that to an extent, people do want to be equal, and may make changes and sacrifices to be equal to others. The situation is different from “Harrison Bergeron”, however. First of all, in “Harrison Bergeron”, it is the government forcing people to be equal. People do not have a choice, and are severely punished for breaking the rules. There is even a Handicapper General, who makes sure that everyone is equal. People are given handicaps to ensure that no one has any advantages over anyone else. In our America, our situation is different, because the government is not forcing people to be equal. Instead of People being held to a standard of mediocrity, people in our society today generally strive to improve, instead of holding themselves back.
The America Vonnegut describes in Player Piano is more relatable to our America today. In America today, there is talk that the middle class is shrinking. We are becoming increasingly dependent of technology, and our world is becoming ever more mechanized. In Player Piano, there is no true middle class at all. If you are lucky enough to have a high IQ, you belong to the upper class. If your IQ is not high enough, you basically have a choice between joining the Army or the Reeks and Wrecks. In our America, your success is somewhat dependent on your IQ, but also your motivation. In Player Piano, motivation does not really seem to a major factor in your position in life. In our America today, personal decisions and choices do have an impact on a person’s life, and a motivated person does have some control. Whether or not this is true in the future remains to be seen, but for right now, Kurt Vonnegut’s America is only our America to a small extent.
The society described in Player Piano is a perversion of the American principle because in the novel there is no middle class, and no real opportunity for upward mobility. “Harrison Bergeron” is a perversion and a fulfillment of the American ideal of equality because everyone is equal. No one can be “better” than anyone else. In the story, however, there are no opportunities for self -improvement. People are equal, but on a mediocre level, instead of on a level of success and achievement, which is the American ideal of equality. Everyone should have the same opportunity to work hard to improve themselves, better their lives, and be successful. That is why the ideas of human excellence and equality are not completely at odds.
or:
Vonnegut's Player Piano and Harrison Bergeron contain two different ideas. Player Piano argues for societal welfare over efficiency and elite social classes. Harrison Bergeron argues for individuality over absolute equality. Today's America contains elements of both stories.
In order to discuss Harrison Bergeron in the context of today's America, a distinction between fairness and equality must be made, especially the type of equality shown in Harrison Bergeron. For example, if runners were completely equal in a race, the better runners would be handicapped or have to run further in order for it to be equal. Fairness, on the other hand, would have all runners competing in the same conditions; an equal starting chance. The 'equality' that shows up in Harrison Bergeron has yet to make an appearance in American law. Fairness, however, has secured itself a place in law, in the form of civil rights.
Player Piano's support of societal welfare over efficiency and a ruling class has relevance in today's society. With jobs being sent overseas and a shrinking middle class, the issue of corporate interests versus national employment makes itself apparent. The question to be asked is whether supporting corporate expansion (through letting them secure cheap employment overseas) or national employment (by providing incentives for companies to hire within America) should be valued. There's a limited number of management/executive jobs and if the 'grunt work' is being completed on foreign soil, then many Americans will find themselves without jobs.
Human excellence and equality, in their most basic forms, are not mutually exclusive. Equality should be secured for everyone at the start of their lives. Choice is what sets people apart, and that is the point of fairness. From that starting point of equality, individual talent can flourish.
Several peers across three sections of this course responded to the above post, and the discussion truly flourished. I'm so proud of them. Who said sophomores had to be sophomoric?
Here's their exact prompt:
To what extent is Vonnegut's America (as described in Player Piano and "Harrison Bergeron") our America? Is the society described in the story/novel a fulfillment of the American principle or ideal of equality or a perversion of that principle or ideal? What about our own society? If the two ideals—human excellence and equality—are in conflict, which one should we hold more dear? Must one be pursued at the expense of the other? Are there some areas in life in which we wish for equality more than human excellence and others we don’t?
Be sure to support your remarks with apt and specific evidence to bulwark your claims. Type for 20 minutes in response to the above questions, then read some of your classmates' remarks and add two comments of your own. Remember that your comments to their posts should be respectful and should work to further the conversation (a simple "I agree" will not suffice).
All I can say is, "Wow!" Many of my students had some really good things to say in response to this question. I was blown away by some of the connections they made and awed by the way they interacted with each other and deepened the conversation. For example:
When I was reading Player Piano and “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut, I found the America Vonnegut described in both the novel and the short story to be quite different in some ways from our America today. I found the greatest difference was in “Harrison Bergeron”. In our society today, I feel that to an extent, people do want to be equal, and may make changes and sacrifices to be equal to others. The situation is different from “Harrison Bergeron”, however. First of all, in “Harrison Bergeron”, it is the government forcing people to be equal. People do not have a choice, and are severely punished for breaking the rules. There is even a Handicapper General, who makes sure that everyone is equal. People are given handicaps to ensure that no one has any advantages over anyone else. In our America, our situation is different, because the government is not forcing people to be equal. Instead of People being held to a standard of mediocrity, people in our society today generally strive to improve, instead of holding themselves back.
The America Vonnegut describes in Player Piano is more relatable to our America today. In America today, there is talk that the middle class is shrinking. We are becoming increasingly dependent of technology, and our world is becoming ever more mechanized. In Player Piano, there is no true middle class at all. If you are lucky enough to have a high IQ, you belong to the upper class. If your IQ is not high enough, you basically have a choice between joining the Army or the Reeks and Wrecks. In our America, your success is somewhat dependent on your IQ, but also your motivation. In Player Piano, motivation does not really seem to a major factor in your position in life. In our America today, personal decisions and choices do have an impact on a person’s life, and a motivated person does have some control. Whether or not this is true in the future remains to be seen, but for right now, Kurt Vonnegut’s America is only our America to a small extent.
The society described in Player Piano is a perversion of the American principle because in the novel there is no middle class, and no real opportunity for upward mobility. “Harrison Bergeron” is a perversion and a fulfillment of the American ideal of equality because everyone is equal. No one can be “better” than anyone else. In the story, however, there are no opportunities for self -improvement. People are equal, but on a mediocre level, instead of on a level of success and achievement, which is the American ideal of equality. Everyone should have the same opportunity to work hard to improve themselves, better their lives, and be successful. That is why the ideas of human excellence and equality are not completely at odds.
or:
Vonnegut's Player Piano and Harrison Bergeron contain two different ideas. Player Piano argues for societal welfare over efficiency and elite social classes. Harrison Bergeron argues for individuality over absolute equality. Today's America contains elements of both stories.
In order to discuss Harrison Bergeron in the context of today's America, a distinction between fairness and equality must be made, especially the type of equality shown in Harrison Bergeron. For example, if runners were completely equal in a race, the better runners would be handicapped or have to run further in order for it to be equal. Fairness, on the other hand, would have all runners competing in the same conditions; an equal starting chance. The 'equality' that shows up in Harrison Bergeron has yet to make an appearance in American law. Fairness, however, has secured itself a place in law, in the form of civil rights.
Player Piano's support of societal welfare over efficiency and a ruling class has relevance in today's society. With jobs being sent overseas and a shrinking middle class, the issue of corporate interests versus national employment makes itself apparent. The question to be asked is whether supporting corporate expansion (through letting them secure cheap employment overseas) or national employment (by providing incentives for companies to hire within America) should be valued. There's a limited number of management/executive jobs and if the 'grunt work' is being completed on foreign soil, then many Americans will find themselves without jobs.
Human excellence and equality, in their most basic forms, are not mutually exclusive. Equality should be secured for everyone at the start of their lives. Choice is what sets people apart, and that is the point of fairness. From that starting point of equality, individual talent can flourish.
Several peers across three sections of this course responded to the above post, and the discussion truly flourished. I'm so proud of them. Who said sophomores had to be sophomoric?
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
More Blog Recommendations
If you're interested in education blogs, check out my colleague in the History Department. You can find Geoff Wingard's blog here.
I also enjoy reading my friend Jane's blog here. She's a fellow English teacher at my school, and she's raising a young daughter. I know how hard that balance can be.
As the Civil Rights Team advisor at my school, I also stay current with Teaching Tolerance's blog here.
Happy reading!
I also enjoy reading my friend Jane's blog here. She's a fellow English teacher at my school, and she's raising a young daughter. I know how hard that balance can be.
As the Civil Rights Team advisor at my school, I also stay current with Teaching Tolerance's blog here.
Happy reading!
7 Deadly Writing Sins
In my secondary English classroom, I have high expectations for my students. After all, they have been using this language since they were approximately two. Thus, I have a list of 7 deadly sins that result in automatic point deductions and require rewrites and extra practice/remediation when mistakes are made. These are mistakes that no one should make; they make writers look ridiculous and careless.
1. Know the difference between there, their, and they're. They're going to their house over there.
2. Know the difference between you're and your. You're going to bring your book, right?
3. Know the difference between then and than. Than is compArAtive; then relates to timE. There is no A in time; then always relates to time.
4. Know the difference between its and it's. It's is a contraction; you can always separate it into its parts to determine if it's correct.
5. Know the difference between too, two, and to. I am going to take two to the zoo, and a third one, too.
6. Know the difference between effect and affect. It's not hard to tell how the effects will affect you.
7. Know the difference between loose and lose. You might lose your pants if your belt is loose.
Maybe this list makes me too detail oriented, but I believe that good writers are also clear and effective communicators. You cannot communicate with others effectively if you are routinely mistaking one word for another.
1. Know the difference between there, their, and they're. They're going to their house over there.
2. Know the difference between you're and your. You're going to bring your book, right?
3. Know the difference between then and than. Than is compArAtive; then relates to timE. There is no A in time; then always relates to time.
4. Know the difference between its and it's. It's is a contraction; you can always separate it into its parts to determine if it's correct.
5. Know the difference between too, two, and to. I am going to take two to the zoo, and a third one, too.
6. Know the difference between effect and affect. It's not hard to tell how the effects will affect you.
7. Know the difference between loose and lose. You might lose your pants if your belt is loose.
Maybe this list makes me too detail oriented, but I believe that good writers are also clear and effective communicators. You cannot communicate with others effectively if you are routinely mistaking one word for another.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Three dimensional text
In Redefining Literacy for the 21st Century, Warlick (2004) talks about how the Internet and the structure of webpages necessitates a different way of reading because the structure of the texts themselves is different. Warlick explains that "you and I were taught to read in two dimensions - across and down. Our students are accustomed to reading in a third dimension: across, down, and deeper into the information" (p. 22).
To some extent I agree with Warlick. Hyperlinks can often help students dig deeper into material they're reading about, but they can just as often be distracting, and before you know it, students are reading about meerkats instead of To Kill a Mockingbird (they both begin with "M" you know). The Internet is awesome, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word: inspiring awe, not in the Bill and Ted sense of the word. However, it's sometimes like a vortex that sucks us in. We go online to find an answer to one question, and an hour and a few hundred clicks later, we have found that answer and a host of others to questions we didn't even know we had when we first sat down. That's power.
That's also problematic. Especially for students. Even more so for students struggling with ADD, ADHD, or just plain adolescence. Warlick seems to understand this as he reminds us that our students "need to learn to control their information in positive, productive, and personally meaningful ways - and this is what we need to be teaching them" (p. 22).
Ultimately, students need to be taught to be evaluative thinkers. They need to be able to sift through the array of information at their fingertips in order to find that piece that is the most salient, the most pertinent, the most intriguing. They need to learn how to make the connections between articles work for them instead of against them, which I often think it does. The Internet's a very distracting place, even with the plethora or resources it provides. So, yes, students need to learn how to read, not only in the traditional sense, but also deeper, through and across different but related and linked texts. But they also need the skill of discernment and the ability to determine which links are helpful and which might be best saved for other times and purposes. It's this sense of deliberateness that I think is lacking, and that's probably one of the hardest things to teach, because it's not really about the technology, but it's about making careful choices no matter which dimension you're in.
To some extent I agree with Warlick. Hyperlinks can often help students dig deeper into material they're reading about, but they can just as often be distracting, and before you know it, students are reading about meerkats instead of To Kill a Mockingbird (they both begin with "M" you know). The Internet is awesome, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word: inspiring awe, not in the Bill and Ted sense of the word. However, it's sometimes like a vortex that sucks us in. We go online to find an answer to one question, and an hour and a few hundred clicks later, we have found that answer and a host of others to questions we didn't even know we had when we first sat down. That's power.
That's also problematic. Especially for students. Even more so for students struggling with ADD, ADHD, or just plain adolescence. Warlick seems to understand this as he reminds us that our students "need to learn to control their information in positive, productive, and personally meaningful ways - and this is what we need to be teaching them" (p. 22).
Ultimately, students need to be taught to be evaluative thinkers. They need to be able to sift through the array of information at their fingertips in order to find that piece that is the most salient, the most pertinent, the most intriguing. They need to learn how to make the connections between articles work for them instead of against them, which I often think it does. The Internet's a very distracting place, even with the plethora or resources it provides. So, yes, students need to learn how to read, not only in the traditional sense, but also deeper, through and across different but related and linked texts. But they also need the skill of discernment and the ability to determine which links are helpful and which might be best saved for other times and purposes. It's this sense of deliberateness that I think is lacking, and that's probably one of the hardest things to teach, because it's not really about the technology, but it's about making careful choices no matter which dimension you're in.
Improving reading in the content areas
So today was our first official in-service of the new school year, and as part of our "training" for the day, the English department, myself included, was asked to lead hour-long workshops for our colleagues in other departments. Our task: to help improve reading in the content areas by sharing our strategies for teaching critical reading. It sounds like a great idea, right?
The first time my English department friends and I heard about this little assignment, let's just say we were anxious. We had been asked to do this sort of thing before and been burned. Some of the workshops I led in the past were met with downright hostility from members of other departments. Once bitten, twice shy, right?
Well, I'm happy to report that today went swimmingly. I was working with another English teacher and presenting to members of the history department. I'm dual certified in English and Social Studies, so I student taught in that department with the current department chair. We gave our little spiel, handed out a bunch of materials (critical reading skills, lists of tone words, graphic organizers, and a list of activities for discreetly teaching each of the critical reading strategies we had identified), answered questions and gave suggestions and feedback. It was fabulous. No hostility, no avoidance, no grading papers instead of listening, no surreptitious checking of football scores because people just weren't interested in paying attention - none of that stuff that had happened before. Instead, everyone was attentive and eager. People asked great questions, made some terrific connections, and offered some insightful suggestions about how the things we had brought from English could actually help and work in social studies classrooms. Looking back, I don't know why I was ever worried or why I ever doubted the other professionals in my building - I guess history doesn't have to repeat itself.
After how well the day went, I felt some sense of regret that I had had any concerns about today at all. Our Superintendent is fond of saying that she works with the best people in education (no offense), and today I felt sure she was right. I only wish we had more opportunities to be truly inter-disciplinary and work with other departments. History is just upstairs from the English wing, but we're very compartmentalized. Hopefully today's work will spur even more successful initiatives between and among departments. My fingers are crossed.
The first time my English department friends and I heard about this little assignment, let's just say we were anxious. We had been asked to do this sort of thing before and been burned. Some of the workshops I led in the past were met with downright hostility from members of other departments. Once bitten, twice shy, right?
Well, I'm happy to report that today went swimmingly. I was working with another English teacher and presenting to members of the history department. I'm dual certified in English and Social Studies, so I student taught in that department with the current department chair. We gave our little spiel, handed out a bunch of materials (critical reading skills, lists of tone words, graphic organizers, and a list of activities for discreetly teaching each of the critical reading strategies we had identified), answered questions and gave suggestions and feedback. It was fabulous. No hostility, no avoidance, no grading papers instead of listening, no surreptitious checking of football scores because people just weren't interested in paying attention - none of that stuff that had happened before. Instead, everyone was attentive and eager. People asked great questions, made some terrific connections, and offered some insightful suggestions about how the things we had brought from English could actually help and work in social studies classrooms. Looking back, I don't know why I was ever worried or why I ever doubted the other professionals in my building - I guess history doesn't have to repeat itself.
After how well the day went, I felt some sense of regret that I had had any concerns about today at all. Our Superintendent is fond of saying that she works with the best people in education (no offense), and today I felt sure she was right. I only wish we had more opportunities to be truly inter-disciplinary and work with other departments. History is just upstairs from the English wing, but we're very compartmentalized. Hopefully today's work will spur even more successful initiatives between and among departments. My fingers are crossed.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Hobbs and our love-hate relationship with media technology
Most of the time I love technology. I love the information it puts at my fingertips - I can't even tell you the number of things I Googled today. I love the way it connects us - I Skyped with my best friend who now lives in North Carolina today so that I could give her a tour of my new house. I love shopping at stores that aren't available in my area - I just ordered my daughter's Halloween costume from the Disney Store today; she's going to be Ariel. But, as Hobbs points out in chapter 1 of Digital and Media Literacy: Connecting Culture and Classroom, we have a love-hate relationship with technology.
Since I've talked about the love, I'm going to focus on the hate. I had booked one of my department's 3 COWs (computers on wheels) for my freshmen to use today so they could begin work on their literacy narratives. The plan was to do a prewriting exercise using GoogleDocs, share them with each other, comment on each others' work, and use an online graphic organizer to begin planning and structuring the formal piece. Let's just say that didn't happen. As Robert Burns tells us, "the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglay." Well, my plans certainly went "aglay" today. And do you want to know why? Someone forgot to plug the COW in on Friday, so all of the laptop batteries were dead. Kaput. Of course, I didn't realize it until I had distributed laptops to all of my students and they tried logging on. Then my hatred for technology became clear: I hate it when it doesn't work.
Truly, the only time I feel hatred for technology is when it doesn't work and my plans are foiled. If it works like it's supposed to (and like I want it to), then I'm blissfully in love. Too bad the object of my affections can only return my ardor if its battery is charged.
Since I've talked about the love, I'm going to focus on the hate. I had booked one of my department's 3 COWs (computers on wheels) for my freshmen to use today so they could begin work on their literacy narratives. The plan was to do a prewriting exercise using GoogleDocs, share them with each other, comment on each others' work, and use an online graphic organizer to begin planning and structuring the formal piece. Let's just say that didn't happen. As Robert Burns tells us, "the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglay." Well, my plans certainly went "aglay" today. And do you want to know why? Someone forgot to plug the COW in on Friday, so all of the laptop batteries were dead. Kaput. Of course, I didn't realize it until I had distributed laptops to all of my students and they tried logging on. Then my hatred for technology became clear: I hate it when it doesn't work.
Truly, the only time I feel hatred for technology is when it doesn't work and my plans are foiled. If it works like it's supposed to (and like I want it to), then I'm blissfully in love. Too bad the object of my affections can only return my ardor if its battery is charged.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
A few blog recommendations....
I was recently asked to recommend a few blogs that I enjoy to all of you out there in the blogosphere. I seriously had to think about this. Really, the only blogs I read religiously are about Disney. If anyone's planning a trip, have I got some suggestions for you.
Aside from Disney, though, I mainly follow the blogs of my teacher friends.
Emilie's blog, One Mom in Maine, is fantastic. She blogs so well that she's teaching a course at UMaine to help others learn how to do it.
Heather's blog, From Midnight Oil, is freaking hilarious! And yes, all her stories of the madcap antics she describes really are true!
Becky's blog, Have Pencil Will Travel, is all about her adventures teaching abroad in Kuwait.
All of these fabulous and amazingly talented women hail from the English department I'm proud to be a part of. I only hope their blog-acious awesomeness is contagious.
Aside from Disney, though, I mainly follow the blogs of my teacher friends.
Emilie's blog, One Mom in Maine, is fantastic. She blogs so well that she's teaching a course at UMaine to help others learn how to do it.
Heather's blog, From Midnight Oil, is freaking hilarious! And yes, all her stories of the madcap antics she describes really are true!
Becky's blog, Have Pencil Will Travel, is all about her adventures teaching abroad in Kuwait.
All of these fabulous and amazingly talented women hail from the English department I'm proud to be a part of. I only hope their blog-acious awesomeness is contagious.
Frontline's digital_nation
The other night I found myself watching Frontline's digital_nation: life on the virtual frontier. All I can say is, "Wow!" The program gave me a lot to think about, from the effects of technology on my two-year-old, who can incidentally use my iPad almost better than I can, to the effects of technology on my students, both inside and outside of the classroom. I even tried to talk to my husband about some of the insights I had gained from viewing this piece, but he was too busy playing Candy Crush and updating Facebook on his iPhone. No, really.
Some of the issues raised in the program were really outrageous: people dying in South Korean Internet cafes because they had forgotten to eat or drink while playing video games, brilliant students at MIT and Stanford who seemed to had a seriously inflated sense of how well they could multi-task (their notions stood in stark contrast to the brain research or even to their professor's impressions), children who were sent away to fresh air camps so that they could learn how to live outside of the box (so to speak), individuals who claimed that their closest relationships were forged via the interweb (yes, I found that a little troubling even despite the fact that I met my husband on eHarmony), and schools that were struggling to get technology into the hands of students and then struggling to make sure that same technology was used effectively.
I think we all like to think about the promise of technology, how it has the capacity to connect us in ways that were previously impossible, how it allows us to connect and share our thoughts and ideas with people in half a second, how it has put vast amounts of knowledge and information at our fingertips. But, as Peter Parker's uncle told him, "With great power comes great responsibility."
I think my favorite part of the program was a short clip of South Korean elementary students singing in unison to a catchy tune about netiquette. Their school was plastered with signs and banners about being respectful in the digital world. It's hard, sometimes, to be nice to someone you can't see and may never meet.
However, the part I connected with the most was the MIT professor who said her students have "done themselves a disservice by drinking the Kool-Aid and believing that a multitasking learning environment will serve their best purposes. There are just some things that are not amenable to being thought about in conjunction with 15 other things."
I guess the question that echoed over the course of this program related to people's inability to think or focus for sustained periods of time. One educator on the program even spoke about his inability to assign a novel longer than 200 pages because students could not sustain their attention as readers. That clip was followed by the student who admitted to not ever even reading thanks to the plethora of online summaries available at SparkNotes, Classic Notes, Pink Monkey, Shmoop, etc.
So how, as educators, can we make the technology work for us? Do we read the online summaries and quiz students on the information they get wrong or leave out as a way of punishing the denizens of the Internet who couldn't even be bothered to crack the book? Or do we just start assigning the summaries, since that's all many of them are going to read anyway? Do we allow students to text and Facebook in class, or do we diligently take their phones away and send them to the assistant principal? Or do we let them have their phones and laptops in class, even if that means they're only paying attention to a quarter of what's going on? And what about the digital divide? In a school where 50% of the students qualify for free and reduced lunch, can we expect students to use technology to complete assignments, or is that completely unfair to some? Can we expect students to focus on only one thing, or is that a holdover from a time that has passed? I'm not sure there are easy answers to these questions, and probably by the time we figure out the answers to some of them, the technology will have changed to such an extent that a whole new set of questions will have emerged.
Maybe if I Google it, though, I'll come up with something....
Some of the issues raised in the program were really outrageous: people dying in South Korean Internet cafes because they had forgotten to eat or drink while playing video games, brilliant students at MIT and Stanford who seemed to had a seriously inflated sense of how well they could multi-task (their notions stood in stark contrast to the brain research or even to their professor's impressions), children who were sent away to fresh air camps so that they could learn how to live outside of the box (so to speak), individuals who claimed that their closest relationships were forged via the interweb (yes, I found that a little troubling even despite the fact that I met my husband on eHarmony), and schools that were struggling to get technology into the hands of students and then struggling to make sure that same technology was used effectively.
I think we all like to think about the promise of technology, how it has the capacity to connect us in ways that were previously impossible, how it allows us to connect and share our thoughts and ideas with people in half a second, how it has put vast amounts of knowledge and information at our fingertips. But, as Peter Parker's uncle told him, "With great power comes great responsibility."
I think my favorite part of the program was a short clip of South Korean elementary students singing in unison to a catchy tune about netiquette. Their school was plastered with signs and banners about being respectful in the digital world. It's hard, sometimes, to be nice to someone you can't see and may never meet.
However, the part I connected with the most was the MIT professor who said her students have "done themselves a disservice by drinking the Kool-Aid and believing that a multitasking learning environment will serve their best purposes. There are just some things that are not amenable to being thought about in conjunction with 15 other things."
I guess the question that echoed over the course of this program related to people's inability to think or focus for sustained periods of time. One educator on the program even spoke about his inability to assign a novel longer than 200 pages because students could not sustain their attention as readers. That clip was followed by the student who admitted to not ever even reading thanks to the plethora of online summaries available at SparkNotes, Classic Notes, Pink Monkey, Shmoop, etc.
So how, as educators, can we make the technology work for us? Do we read the online summaries and quiz students on the information they get wrong or leave out as a way of punishing the denizens of the Internet who couldn't even be bothered to crack the book? Or do we just start assigning the summaries, since that's all many of them are going to read anyway? Do we allow students to text and Facebook in class, or do we diligently take their phones away and send them to the assistant principal? Or do we let them have their phones and laptops in class, even if that means they're only paying attention to a quarter of what's going on? And what about the digital divide? In a school where 50% of the students qualify for free and reduced lunch, can we expect students to use technology to complete assignments, or is that completely unfair to some? Can we expect students to focus on only one thing, or is that a holdover from a time that has passed? I'm not sure there are easy answers to these questions, and probably by the time we figure out the answers to some of them, the technology will have changed to such an extent that a whole new set of questions will have emerged.
Maybe if I Google it, though, I'll come up with something....
Friday, September 13, 2013
Open House
There's just something about open house that leaves me both excited and trepidatious. I'm always excited to make a positive home-school connection with my students' parents, but it's also far more nerve-wracking to speak to an entire room full of adults than it is to speak to rooms full of teenagers day in and day out.
It's not that I get tongue-tied, it's more a case of almost perpetual paranoia. The thing with teaching is that there's always more to learn, there are always things that could be better, more effective, more engaging. There's always more to learn, and teaching's necessarily an unfinished business as a result.
For example, I've been using a course website to collect digital resources, post my weekly syllabus, and blog with my students for four or five years. And it's interesting, but every year I feel proud and excited about the new pages I've added or new content I've posted. This year was no different. But my pride is always coupled with worry: is it enough? Will it work? Will the students really use it? What could I have done better?
These questions only redouble when I'm facing parents instead of students. You see, I'm definitely confident about my ability to teach literature. I've got four degrees. I know my content, and I have a knack for helping students connect to that content. What I'm not entirely confident about, though, is my ability to use technology effectively in the classroom. I like to think that I do the best I can with what I have, but I'm not sure that's really true. There's always more to learn.
I've really been working on the learning more thing, though, especially with regard to technology. And I faced this year's open house with a smile on my face (that I hope hid the nausea in my belly) and with my website up on the LCD. I showed parents the resources open to their students, the blogging they had already done, and I navigated through a number of the pages I had set up.
We only have 10 minutes with each group of parents, and I've found it best to keep talking for the whole 10 minutes. I talked about the book we'll be reading this year, the scope and sequence, and I described the ways in which I hoped their students would embrace the class blogs and engage thoroughly and thoughtfully with each other.
The good news is that I survived open house. In retrospect, it's never as bad as I fear it'll be. The better news, however, is that one parent stuck around after. She told me that she knew I had a course website (she's a teacher, too), but that she didn't know the extent to which I had developed it. She was impressed. She also said she was excited that her son would have the opportunity to engage with it. Phew! I mean, despite the fact that there's always more to learn, it's nice to get some reassurance every now and again that you're at least on the right track along the road to learn.
It's not that I get tongue-tied, it's more a case of almost perpetual paranoia. The thing with teaching is that there's always more to learn, there are always things that could be better, more effective, more engaging. There's always more to learn, and teaching's necessarily an unfinished business as a result.
For example, I've been using a course website to collect digital resources, post my weekly syllabus, and blog with my students for four or five years. And it's interesting, but every year I feel proud and excited about the new pages I've added or new content I've posted. This year was no different. But my pride is always coupled with worry: is it enough? Will it work? Will the students really use it? What could I have done better?
These questions only redouble when I'm facing parents instead of students. You see, I'm definitely confident about my ability to teach literature. I've got four degrees. I know my content, and I have a knack for helping students connect to that content. What I'm not entirely confident about, though, is my ability to use technology effectively in the classroom. I like to think that I do the best I can with what I have, but I'm not sure that's really true. There's always more to learn.
I've really been working on the learning more thing, though, especially with regard to technology. And I faced this year's open house with a smile on my face (that I hope hid the nausea in my belly) and with my website up on the LCD. I showed parents the resources open to their students, the blogging they had already done, and I navigated through a number of the pages I had set up.
We only have 10 minutes with each group of parents, and I've found it best to keep talking for the whole 10 minutes. I talked about the book we'll be reading this year, the scope and sequence, and I described the ways in which I hoped their students would embrace the class blogs and engage thoroughly and thoughtfully with each other.
The good news is that I survived open house. In retrospect, it's never as bad as I fear it'll be. The better news, however, is that one parent stuck around after. She told me that she knew I had a course website (she's a teacher, too), but that she didn't know the extent to which I had developed it. She was impressed. She also said she was excited that her son would have the opportunity to engage with it. Phew! I mean, despite the fact that there's always more to learn, it's nice to get some reassurance every now and again that you're at least on the right track along the road to learn.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Do You Know This Poem?
As a secondary English teacher, one of the hardest and most rewarding parts of my job is the mountain of grading I often face at the end of any given day. It's usually daunting, and on a final draft essay day the pile can reach a height of over a foot (that's a lot of paper). It's days like that when I begin to wish I were a math teacher with a Scantron or a music teacher. Then, I begin to read, and that all changes, because I am blessed. I am blessed that students let me into their world through their words. I get to watch them wrestle with draft after draft, struggling to find that perfect turn of phrase, and then I get to read that polished (hopefully) final draft - the one that belies the process that came before it.
I began thinking about all this as I was reading and scoring papers last night. Because of honors summer work, I begin my year with a mountain rather than just easing my way in with a few small hills at first. It's ok, though, because my students are awesome. Yep. I'm impressed already.
One of the first assignments I gave them this year was to write a mimic poem, something I often do when we study poetry, but this assignment's purpose was to help me get to know my students as unique individuals aside from the humdrum information sheet I make them fill out about contact information and goals for the year. I was so excited when I came across this poem this summer. I asked my students to read it closely and carefully, paying attention to all the vivid details and concrete imagery, and then tasked them with writing their own version.
They did some amazing work, full of anaphora and allusion, rhythm and rhyme, simile and metaphor, ingenious juxtaposition and vibrant images, and rich voice. I could hear all of them imparting bits and pieces of themselves, entrusting me with their hopes, fears, and histories.
Last night grading, for me, was like one of those old Visa commercials: stack of papers: 2 inches; time spent grading and commenting on 60 papers: 3 1/2 hours; time spent calculating rubrics and entering grades: another half hour or so; reading some really phenomenal poems and gaining some valuable insights into my students and their worlds: PRICELESS.
I began thinking about all this as I was reading and scoring papers last night. Because of honors summer work, I begin my year with a mountain rather than just easing my way in with a few small hills at first. It's ok, though, because my students are awesome. Yep. I'm impressed already.
One of the first assignments I gave them this year was to write a mimic poem, something I often do when we study poetry, but this assignment's purpose was to help me get to know my students as unique individuals aside from the humdrum information sheet I make them fill out about contact information and goals for the year. I was so excited when I came across this poem this summer. I asked my students to read it closely and carefully, paying attention to all the vivid details and concrete imagery, and then tasked them with writing their own version.
They did some amazing work, full of anaphora and allusion, rhythm and rhyme, simile and metaphor, ingenious juxtaposition and vibrant images, and rich voice. I could hear all of them imparting bits and pieces of themselves, entrusting me with their hopes, fears, and histories.
Last night grading, for me, was like one of those old Visa commercials: stack of papers: 2 inches; time spent grading and commenting on 60 papers: 3 1/2 hours; time spent calculating rubrics and entering grades: another half hour or so; reading some really phenomenal poems and gaining some valuable insights into my students and their worlds: PRICELESS.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Discussing New Literacies
In "Discussing New Literacies" (2006), Knobel and Lankshear describe a phenomena we're all familiar with, especially if you're online right now reading this post: "anybody with access to a machine and an Internet connection, and who has a fairly basic knowledge of standard software applications, can, say, create a multimodal text...and send it to a person, group, or an entire Internet community in next to no time and at next to no cost" (p. 80). There's so much potential here, especially when it comes to classroom applications. Because of the nature of the Internet and digital writing technologies, students can write for authentic audiences and publish their work. It's not just about creating a text in isolation that only the teacher will read and respond to anymore. Now students can easily write for and with each other in collaborative online spaces, or they can create work meant for wider audiences. For example, students at my school participate in the New York Times Summer Reading Contest. (In fact, one of our students was actually the winner for one of the weeks! I was her teacher last year, and I can tell you that winning the contest was such a boost of confidence for that student writer!) I also ask students to use digital resources and their GoogleDocs accounts to publish and submit an entry to the Letters About Literature contest, among others. When students have an authentic audience to write for, their sense of purpose is much more highly developed, and they find more relevance in the task at hand. However, there are some risks. We all know there are predators out there, and the Internet is no exception. That's why my school requires me to password protect my student blog pages; after all, my students are still minors, for the most part. However, as Knobel and Lankshear (2006) point out, "continuing to educate ourselves and evolve as human beings is definitely worth some risk" (p. 84). When students are involved, that risk must be a calculated one, but the benefits students reap when using technology productively and purposefully are truly remarkable - just ask the winning student I mentioned earlier!
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Bolter's Writing Space
In Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print, Bolter discusses the "late age of print"(2), a time in which print materials, like books, seem to have been supplanted by digital texts. I'm not sure supplanted is the correct word, though, because it seems as though print materials have been supplemented in many ways by digital technology. I feel as though I can safely say supplemented, even as the owner of almost 5000 books, as well as a Kindle, a Nook, an iPad, a laptop and desktop computer, and an iPhone.
Anyone who has read a digital text or experienced the Internet has felt the power and surge of the vast information available at their fingertips. What used to take hours of library research is, in many cases, a few keyboard strokes and mouse clicks away. I can share resources with students via online text collections that in earlier years might have required a field trip to a special collection at some far away library. In the classroom, we'll often engage with a print text together, then supplement our reading of that text with digital resources that help students visualize content or understand context more thoroughly. Likewise, our writing has become influenced by spell-check and cut and paste functionality. If we make a mistake as we're typing a document, no need to scratch it our or crumple the page to begin anew - just hit backspace. Yet, I'll often ask students to print out a draft, write comments and make corrections by hand, then go back to the computer screen to make edits. Thus, the technology supplements what we're already doing with print materials.
For me, it's a case of addition rather than replacement. I was teaching and working at Borders (to support my obviously out of control book habit) when e-readers were widely introduced. Customers would often come into the store and comment on the irony of our selling a product that would eventually render bookstores obsolete. (Note: the fact that Borders did, in fact, become obsolete, does not mean that all bookstores will ultimately follow that same path.) Often, though, people purchased e-readers for specific purposes, and even as we rang up their e-reader, they also purchased print materials alongside.
So, what is the future of print? I'm not sure that's a productive question to ask or even try to answer. I was at the bookstore today, and there were droves of people, myself included, purchasing print materials. Is that an indication that print is dead or dying? I don't think so, but change is definitely in the air (or ether). Bolter, quoting Swen Birkerts's Gutenberg Elegies, points out that, "a change is upon us -- nothing could be clearer. The printed word is part of a vestigial order that we are moving away from -- by choice and societal compulsion...This shift is happening throughout our culture, away from patterns and habits of the printed page and toward a new world distinguished by its reliance on electronic communications"(8).
In my opinion, the thing that seems to have changed is how we use printed vs. digital text. It's about purpose and accessibility. For example, my iPad or Nook comes with me on an airplane rather than the stack of books I used to stuff in my carry-on. I can now carry hundreds of texts with me without breaking my back. However, I always order print copies of texts I teach so that I can annotate by hand, dog-ear pages, attach sticky notes, etc. Similarly, I often use print texts in the classroom when I want students to experience "textual unity" (Bolter 10) to facilitate our work as a group. Sometimes, though, I give my students agency as readers because "an electronic text can tailor itself to each reader's needs, and the reader can make choices in the very act of reading" (Bolter 11). Similarly, I will sometimes ask my students to write in a traditional pen-and-paper manner, but I also ask them to word process and collaborate to edit and perfect digital documents (which sometimes do get printed out, too). Ultimately, "each [reading and] writing space is a material and visual field, whose properties are determined by a [reading and] writing technology and the uses to which that technology is put by a culture of readers and writers" (Bolter 12).
Anyone who has read a digital text or experienced the Internet has felt the power and surge of the vast information available at their fingertips. What used to take hours of library research is, in many cases, a few keyboard strokes and mouse clicks away. I can share resources with students via online text collections that in earlier years might have required a field trip to a special collection at some far away library. In the classroom, we'll often engage with a print text together, then supplement our reading of that text with digital resources that help students visualize content or understand context more thoroughly. Likewise, our writing has become influenced by spell-check and cut and paste functionality. If we make a mistake as we're typing a document, no need to scratch it our or crumple the page to begin anew - just hit backspace. Yet, I'll often ask students to print out a draft, write comments and make corrections by hand, then go back to the computer screen to make edits. Thus, the technology supplements what we're already doing with print materials.
For me, it's a case of addition rather than replacement. I was teaching and working at Borders (to support my obviously out of control book habit) when e-readers were widely introduced. Customers would often come into the store and comment on the irony of our selling a product that would eventually render bookstores obsolete. (Note: the fact that Borders did, in fact, become obsolete, does not mean that all bookstores will ultimately follow that same path.) Often, though, people purchased e-readers for specific purposes, and even as we rang up their e-reader, they also purchased print materials alongside.
So, what is the future of print? I'm not sure that's a productive question to ask or even try to answer. I was at the bookstore today, and there were droves of people, myself included, purchasing print materials. Is that an indication that print is dead or dying? I don't think so, but change is definitely in the air (or ether). Bolter, quoting Swen Birkerts's Gutenberg Elegies, points out that, "a change is upon us -- nothing could be clearer. The printed word is part of a vestigial order that we are moving away from -- by choice and societal compulsion...This shift is happening throughout our culture, away from patterns and habits of the printed page and toward a new world distinguished by its reliance on electronic communications"(8).
In my opinion, the thing that seems to have changed is how we use printed vs. digital text. It's about purpose and accessibility. For example, my iPad or Nook comes with me on an airplane rather than the stack of books I used to stuff in my carry-on. I can now carry hundreds of texts with me without breaking my back. However, I always order print copies of texts I teach so that I can annotate by hand, dog-ear pages, attach sticky notes, etc. Similarly, I often use print texts in the classroom when I want students to experience "textual unity" (Bolter 10) to facilitate our work as a group. Sometimes, though, I give my students agency as readers because "an electronic text can tailor itself to each reader's needs, and the reader can make choices in the very act of reading" (Bolter 11). Similarly, I will sometimes ask my students to write in a traditional pen-and-paper manner, but I also ask them to word process and collaborate to edit and perfect digital documents (which sometimes do get printed out, too). Ultimately, "each [reading and] writing space is a material and visual field, whose properties are determined by a [reading and] writing technology and the uses to which that technology is put by a culture of readers and writers" (Bolter 12).
Blogging With Students: A Beginning
I'm so proud of and impressed with my students! All five of my classes have just completed their first blog assignment of the year: to propose a commandment governing our blog space. I asked students to collaborate with their classmates to create a list to guide our
behavior as members of an online community. Despite the fact that our
blog is online, so students won't be looking each other in the face when they
propose ideas and/or share their thoughts, it's important for them to remember that
we are members of a classroom community, and that carries some
responsibilities with it.
I asked them all to create a post suggesting a commandment that they think people in our class/section should follow when they are engaging with each other (or each other's ideas) in our online space, for example, a suggestion that everyone needs to be respectful of each other and each other's ideas.
Once everyone had an opportunity to make suggestions, we revised and edited the list to narrow it down to "10 Commandments of Blogging" for my classes.
Here's what they came up with:
I asked them all to create a post suggesting a commandment that they think people in our class/section should follow when they are engaging with each other (or each other's ideas) in our online space, for example, a suggestion that everyone needs to be respectful of each other and each other's ideas.
Once everyone had an opportunity to make suggestions, we revised and edited the list to narrow it down to "10 Commandments of Blogging" for my classes.
Here's what they came up with:
- Be respectful of each other and each others' ideas.
- Be responsible about posting and commenting in a timely and academic manner.
- Be original and authentic. Your ideas should be your own, and they should be posted with integrity. Do not plagiarize or merely repeat others' ideas.
- Be focused and purposeful. Stay on topic and be sure your comments and posts are germane with regard to the topic or task at hand.
- Be open-minded when considering others' ideas and/or suggestions.
- Be constructive in your commentary. Offer a balanced mix of both praise and suggestions for improvement.
- Be specific. Offer evidence and support for your ideas.
- Be thoughtful and expansive. Your posts and comments should deepen and continue the conversation.
- Be perseverant and willing to work hard, but also try to have fun.
- Be cautious of your tone. Do not be patronizing or condescending to others; instead, be helpful, collaborative, and supportive even when offering critique.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
My teaching life...
I've just started my 11th year of teaching, and it's still an adventure! Over the course of these blog posts, I hope to share my thoughts, ideas, inspirations, frustrations, etc.
I've been blogging personally (or at least trying to) and professionally (with my students), but I haven't really had a forum in which to share my thoughts about the profession and the ins and outs of my classroom life. This is it, I suppose. Happy reading!
I've been blogging personally (or at least trying to) and professionally (with my students), but I haven't really had a forum in which to share my thoughts about the profession and the ins and outs of my classroom life. This is it, I suppose. Happy reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)