Looks like we’re not so different after all…

What struck me most about Alsup and Bush’s (2003) chapter about ESOL and English language learners is that ELL’s best learn English the same way English best learn English, which is to combine reading, writing, and speaking and engage in collaborative and multimodal pedagogical strategies.  Who would have thought?  Well, me for starters.  I have not taught ESOL nor do I remember a time when I was student with English language learners, so I am unfamiliar with the process of teaching English as a second language but suppose I previously thought that some radically different teaching methods were needed.  According to Alsup and Bush, though, there isn’t much need for teachers to radically alter the pedagogical strategies they would use with English speaking students.  It all makes sense.  Don’t English speaking students benefit from lessons that engage them both visually and verbally and learn more from completing projects that cause them to think and apply knowledge rather than memorize?  Yes. This article makes me think about the English speaking middle school students I teach and the Wordly Wise vocabulary book they use.  To teach these words teachers at my school use pictures and ask students to use the words in sentences.  They go beyond the rote memorization and make sure the students understand and can use the words they are learning, which in turn expands the students’ vocabulary.  Why would English language learners be any different?  I think it is because people assume that they think and process differently than English speaking students.  This, however, I believe is not the case, especially after reading Alsup and Bush.  What do you think?  

Classroom management for the English classroom

Like the students Alsup & Bush (2003) mentions in this chapter, I too wish more discussion was given to classroom management.  So, I was happy to see even just a couple more pages regarding the topic.  Specifically, I want to address Alsup & Bush’s comment that “classroom management in the English language arts can be a complex endeavor” (p. 143).  My response is, “Isn’t that the truth”.  I want to create and think I do create an active learning environment but Alsup & Bush are right, “these methods can create a strong curricula but, paradoxically, often add to the burden of classroom management” (p. 143).  I like it when my students share and I want them to be themselves.  However, I also want to instill and stress the importance of respect and hard work.  Plus, add in the erratic behavior and ever changing attitudes of middle school students…There are just moments when it all becomes one big mess.  Luckily, this doesn’t happen often and is easy to control, but I wish I could avoid those occasional moments.  I like the ideas Alsup & Bush suggest to use when creating management and discipline plans, but what else do some of you suggest?  Also, especially with my 8th graders I am trying to stress the importance of keeping yourself in check and monitoring your own behavior.  How can I still encourage my students to be open and share, which normally includes talking, but keep themselves under control and quiet when it’s time to work.  What do you suggest I do and maybe what guidelines could I give my students?

deconstruction

I acknowledge that there is more than one meaning to a text and that today the term text applies to more than words on a page.  I also acknowledge that importance of critically reading and analyzing texts.  However, I do think that over analyzing a text presents some problems.  So, I am not completely sold on deconstruction. 

Sometimes I think deconstruction can ruin a text or an experience. Certainly there is more to a text that its surface and I think that students should learn to go beyond the surface of a text to construct their reaction and interpretation of the text.  But, going overboard with deconstruction makes me feel like Rachel in chapter.  Deconstruction does ask a reading to pick apart a text under the assumption that the writer’s intentions and ideas are false.  As a student, I would not like this.  As a reader, I do not like this critical lens. 

Well, I can’t, but I can, say I don’t like deconstruction.  Really, I like a watered down version of it.  I am not a superficial reader, but I do think there is a limit.  I like when Appleman describes deconstruction as “unpacking” a text (107).  I don’t mind unpacking.  I do mind destroying.

Marxist and feminist literary theories

In previous posts, multiple people shared the trouble they have with incorporating literary theory in their lessons.  I am sure it is difficult to use theories and that many teachers have a hard time with student participation even when using reader response.  However, after reading Appleman’s chapters on the literary theories Marxism and feminism, I think using them is worth at least one try. Appleman (2000) endorses the literary theories of Marxism and feminism because they provide “a lens through which students can interpret literature and life” (76).

More than reader response, both Marxist and feminist literary theories challenge students to look outside of their lives and community and consider the world.  For this very reason I think it is important to introduce students to these literary theories.  Regardless of a student’s background and economic status, I think students will benefit from reading literature with lens that asks them to reflect on ideas that may not naturally consider.   Furthermore for a person to really understand themselves, they need to understand where and how they fit into the world.  This understanding can come from using the literary theories of Marxism and feminism.  Also, maybe using these literary theories will enrich the use of reader response in the classroom because students will hopefully gain a better since of who and what they are through Marxism and feminism.   

Reader Response

At first, I was a little confused while reading Appleman’s chapter about the reader response theory.  I kept wondering if and when Appleman would endorse the lens of reader response.  Then, I moved past the first few pages of the chapter and realized Appleman was doing a good thing by opening his chapter the way he did – pointing out the potential pitfalls of the reader response theory. 

Appleman’s take on reader response and his lessons and classroom ideas he shares are good.  After reading this chapter, it is easy to see that using the reader response theory isn’t as easy as it seems and that several teachers, including Appleman himself, have had problems using both the text and reader together when using the critical lens of reader response.  I, never using this critical lens as a teacher, am curious how large of a problem this may be and if the reader response lens is successful and achieved in the classroom.

After reading the introduction of this chapter, it doesn’t surprise me that this lens can become an “autobiographical wreck” (Appelman, 2000, p.26), or a situation where students pretend and fake connection to please their teacher (Appleman, 2000).  Although Appleman gives a clear description of how to use this lens in this chapter – I think his worksheet idea and approach to introduction reader response is something I would use in the classroom – is it hard to teach students to use both themselves and the text? Is the “transaction” between the student and text hard to accomplish or accomplished at all? 

Straight Talk

Ramsey’s “How to Say the Right Thing to Students” I found to be a great text.  It’s hard to talk to students. Unfortunately this truth is often masked with shrugs of “They are just kids” or “They won’t/don’t understand” because adults think that kids aren’t mature or smart enough to talk to sometimes. Or what is even worse, and I am embarrassed to admit I have resorted to, is that teachers try to make their lives easier by yelling, using sarcasm, putting off necessary conversations, or just not dealing with the problem at all.  Ramsey very clearly and effectively warns teachers not to do this, following his own advice of “straight talk” through out the chapter.What Ramsey so easily writes seems to be easy to do, which might make some people who are unfamiliar with young people and teenagers wonder why teachers can’t get control of their students.  Unfortunately carrying out the tasks Ramsey asks of teachers is not as easy as reading a chapter in a book.  Luckily Ramsey does acknowledge that the situations/scenarios he mentions do happen and are hard for school leaders to respond to.  However, what Ramsey does so well is give good, to the point descriptions, ideas, and pointers for how to handle classroom management problems that require a teacher to talk to students.   So, what seems so easy to do in a way can be easy to do by following Ramsey’s advice.One idea Ramsey includes but kind of rushes through in this chapter is the self encouragement teachers need to be able to accomplish the tasks and recommendations he makes.  It is very frustrating to have the same poor behavior continue despite using all the strategies teachers know and Ramsey includes.  This frustration usually never leads to anything positive and instead of using failed attemps as a means to keep pursuing in a positive, straight talk fashion, teachers lose their cool at times and yell or even act irrationally, a reaction that is more natural to human behavior and emotions that many people care to acknowldge.  So, what I really want to learn is when everything fails and levels of frustration are through the roof, what can a teacher do?  Sometimes being persistent and positive isn’t enough of a self-driven pep talk for me to not become completely worn out.

Lessons in Shakespeare

I would never consider myself a Shakespearian and the thought of teaching Shakespeare is a little scary to me, so I was pleased to read all the activities and lesson ideas in Teaching Shakespeare.  I found this text to be rich with ideas and found those ideas to be easily adaptable to the classroom, although I admit that some of Gibbon’s activities and ideas may be a little idealistic. (Or weird…Gibbon suggests that “students listen to each other’s heartbeat to hear the basic rhythm of weak and strong stresses (p. 67)” to understand iambic pentameter. I am not sure a student placing their ears on another student’s chest is the most appropriate activity for students.) What I liked best about the suggested lessons is that they were active. Students move, speak, and search the language in each activity presented in the book. Perhaps the reason I never connected to Shakespeare was because my experience with the writer and his text never included lessons that were active or taught about the language used and why it was used by Shakespeare.  More than anything I was reminded by this reading all the different forms of language Shakespeare used in his plays.  With the obvious benefits of teaching literature, language, grammar, writing, and speaking together, it is quite clear to me that Shakespeare is a great writer to teach.

literary theory in the classroom

I suppose I am like all these high school students mentioned in Appleman’s text because I never knew of literary theory until I reached college.  Reader response was minimally included in my high school classes but was, like the book mentions, an unnamed theory.  I don’t remember many literary discussions that took place during my high school English classes that directed by any type of theoretical lens.  So, I began to think as I was reading, “Was I every really taught to read critically?”

Now, I can’t sit here and blame my teachers, saying that there inability to instruct me to use various theoretical lenses has made me a bad reader. I can read and I can invest myself in texts, but how much richer would my high school, collegiate and current reading experiences be with a knowledge of literary theories that began in high school?

 Critical Encounters includes the statistic “that 72% of the high school literature teachers he surveyed in schools that had a reputation for excellence ‘reported little or no familiarity with contemporary literary theory’” (p. 7).  After reading the argument for critical literary instruction in the secondary classroom, this statistic isn’t very good.  So, what can we do to change it?  How can we eliminate this problem in the classroom? My answer is to not just incorporate literary theory into our classes but to incorporate literary theory in other English classes around us.

high stakes testing

Is high stakes testing really necessary?  I kept asking myself that question as I read for class this week.  After some thought, I have decided my answer is yes and no.  I think standardized tests have some positive effects.  For one, standardized tests offer the ability to compare the academic progress of students and pin point areas of challenge.  They provide a standard for students across that nation that could not be compared any other way.  These results are a good thing if they are used constructively.  Unfortunately, I don’t know that test results are used constructively. Administering one test and then determining from that one test the academic direction of a student or success of a teacher is unfair and frankly an example of a poor assessment strategy.  However, using standardized tests as part of an assessment package that utilizes in class assessment strategies I think is a good idea.  So, why isn’t anyone doing this?  And, if standardized tests are recognized as a poor assessment strategy, why are they still being used?

blog response #1

     What I found so interesting about Teaching Shakespeare was its approach to approaching Shakespeare. My experience with Shakespeare is at both the high school and college level. However, never has Shakespeare been taught as a script. It’s always a text, especially in college. To teach Shakespeare as a script, as what it was originally intended for, I like. I don’t like when people go overboard stretching and analyzing. Keeping Shakespeare’s plays as a script and by using “negative capability” will help students and keep students involved with what can be a difficult text.

     The Johnson and Fox article did bring up a good point: that female readers want more complex characters that they can relate to while reading. This is good and I’m glad young female readers recognize that good female role models are in the pages of books. However, I’m glad that it pointed out that it is important for girls to “interrogate” and examine characters from all angles and even to examine male characters. Also, interesting that Gillian’s favorite character has both male and female traits. Is this the ideal woman to young girls? If so, what does this say about these girls preexisting ideas about women?
     The Cochran-Smith and Lytle article got me thinking about something I become frequently annoyed with but know it’s better for me to do it than not do it: reflect. I just feel like if I am reflecting, I would rather not reflect about my job that is becoming my life… However, the article brings up great examples of how beneficial research is to teaching. Although reflecting isn’t research, it is a start.  Also, it is nice to see such positive results come from teacher research.  So, I guess the question is now, how do I start to turn my reflections into something more and possibly research?