Matthew+Arnold

Response Blog #1 September 18, 2012

The "Power of Questions," the importance of "starting with yourself," and striving for those high expectations.

This response became a sort of self-help piece, connecting themes from several of the readings. Please bear in mind that my pedagogical training and classroom experience is limited. I look forward to some responses!

Jennifer Buehler examines the notion of asking questions in her article "The Power of Questions and the Possibilities of Inquiry." It seems that the current state of academics, not only in teaching, but in learning as well, is anxious about asking questions. Educators expect students to ask questions, either for simple clarification of subject matter, or to inquire deeper to stimulate conversation and understanding on a concept. They are held to a particular standard. If they do not appear to be asking enough questions, they are put on the spot to produce something that was not organically there. Judging pedagogical styles aside, this model requires all teachers, instructors, and professors to look inside their own methodology and expectations. Like they require of their students, are they asking questions? It is particularly important that educators hold themselves to the same expectations. Success in all workplaces, as Steven Zemelman and Harry Ross discuss in 13 Steps to Teaching Empowerment, is heavily reliant on collaboration, but not simply collaboration as in "teamwork," but as a collaboration of individual leaders with strengths in particular skill sets. This comes from constant improvement of the self. This brings up many red flags, particularly how realistic it is to completely transform from a dull, bored teacher into a healthy, enthusiastic wealth of knowledge and inspiration. As a professional, the different expectations of professionalism in the workplace is relatively straightforward. Show up to work on time. Go to the classroom. Maintain dignity and respect. Once the student body is included, the expectations become muddy and reclusive. Not only do the superiors have expectations, as is common with all workplaces, the students, the state, the parents, the peers of teachers - practically everyone - has an expectation. Here is the shortlist as Zemelman and Ross outline; some of these high expectations by listing the "core propositions" of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards: 1. Teachers are committed to students an their learning. 2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. 3. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning. 4. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience. 5. Teachers are members of learning communities (Ross 17). And of course, the long list: What is English Ed? It is not necessarily about the final result, as every teacher strives, or at least wishes, they could be the best teacher, win a teacher of the year award, or become a favorite teacher for a student. This doesn't come by chance, rather it comes from the journey of dedicated teaching and devotion to the craft. Setting internal expectations, and always meeting those will build confidence. Even the long list, "What is English Ed," is prompted by a question. Questions, then, become important when posed with such great responsibility. So educators must begin with a question. The question will likely be, "How can I possibly succeed and meet all of these expectations?" It is not an easy question, but it is one that must be asked.

On the career status of teaching, Zemelman and Ross write "Teaching has always been a profession and not a job. Whatever the rest of the world may think, the task of guiding students to conceive new ideas, understandings, and abilities is a complex one that, at its best, requires skill, experience, thought, artfulness, judgement, and many kinds of knowledge, (Ross 10). What is the motivation to continue pursuing (or just continuing) a profession with so many challenges which, at the outset, pose a disheartening threat? Could it possibly be the love of people (which makes collaboration much more approachable)? The love of learning? Money? It does not matter what the question is, really. Just asking them puts you at a competitive advantage in your profession.

Works Cited

Buehler, Jennifer. "The Power of Questions and the Possibilities of Inquiry." English Education 37.4 (July 2005): 280-287. Print.

Ross, Harry and Steven Zemelman. 13 Steps to Teaching Empowerment. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2009. Print.

Response: There are days when I have to ask my own motivation, however, it doesn't take long to find the answer. :-) Students need expectations. They want expectations. Without them, they are floundering for purpose within the classroom. It is this kind of floundering that shortchanges them. Although I'm not sure there is a specific "calling" for those of us that teach, I do agree that artfulness and a vast knowledge is of paramount importance. Teachers must be inventive and passionate about their work, and inquiry cannot be overlooked. Asking questions sometimes leads to more questions, as Beuhler suggested. However, if we expect our students to live by example, we must always maintain a curiosity and a respect for inquiry ourselves.Well written, Matt. - Jennifer

Response Blog #2 September 25, 2012

The empirical research (is that redundant?) of Robert Petrone and Mark A. Lewis in “Deficits, Therapists, and a Desire to Distance: Secondary English Preservice Teachers’ Reasoning about their Future Students,” is concise and easy to follow, but, however, a bit overwhelming. First, what constitutes a “preservice teacher?” It is assumed here, for the purpose of this response, that these are teachers who are on their way to teaching Secondary English courses (this does not necessarily mean the teachers do not have prior Secondary teaching experience). The meat of their findings is as follows:

“Based on analysis of the data, we determined the following points. First, the majority of the participants of the study predominately conceived of their prospective students from a deficit model that positioned adolescents as vulnerable, susceptible, and in need of particular forms of adult surveillance and intervention. Second, based on their conceptions of their prospective students, the majority of the participants of this study understood a central purpose of the secondary school subject English and their role as teachers to help mediate secondary students’ navigation through adolescence. Third, the reasoning that undergirded both the participants’ conceptions of adolescence and the linkages they made between these conceptions and pedagogy functioned as a means to distance themselves from their prospective students,” (Petrone 265).

Topically speaking, this deficit vision hints at a period of transformation:

(a) adolescents are incomplete people; (b) adolescence is an unstable period of time; and (c) adolescence is a staging ground for the future, (Patrone 267).

For so any aspiring teachers to believe that their role as instructors is formative and formative, especially in literacy formation, is comforting. Teachers seem to feel a duty to be a stable part of their perception of the instability of teenage life.

Two participants provide rationales for their pedagogical approaches to teaching literacy through literature.

I think it is important to teach novels that depict real violence and unfairness because that is the nature of our students’ lives. —Participant response I think it is extremely important for a teacher of literature to provide students with stories about self-discovery and identity that will help our students on their own paths of discovery. —Participant response, (Patrone 269).

Instead of simply instructing the “hows” of reading – the strategies in particular that Snow and Moje will later warn of – these teachers place importance on assisting students in their transformation while teaching literacy. It is less a strategy, and more an experience.

Catherine Snow and Eizabeth Moje’s article “Why is Everybody Talking About Literacy” provokes several responses, especially for a Literature graduate student. It is, essentially, the manifestation of that elusive reasoning of adolescents and literacy that Petrone and Lewis’ paper was all about. Despite prior literacy skill sets, adolescents still display difficulty in several areas of literacy comprehension. Snow and Moje dial in on these areas where, in addition to all of the other issues adolescents deal with, students (and non-students) need support and guidance. To continue learning how to read texts is a lifelong process. Reading preparedness – as Snow and Moje suggest - is often thought to be complete and comprehensive after the third grade, or, as is the case for most subjects (science, math, etc.), fully matured by the end of secondary education. Those who deal with literacy both in and outside of academia simply know better. Three components of literacy instruction are presented: “continued development of general language and literacy skills; incorporating literacy into content-area instruction, and supporting struggling readers,” (Snow 66). What is interesting, and quite surprising, is that instructors and teachers can, in effect, “overdo” the instruction. This seems to occur when the objectives are not specific or clear in the first place. Proficient readers will automatically complete what becomes the overdone instruction, but for the struggling reader, it does not come so easily. It seems that Snow and Moje are suggesting that instruction related to comprehension rather reading strategies, or shortcuts, as they often appear to be, is more beneficial, and tend to empower struggling students. The article shifts focus to the importance of dealing with the struggling readers. Like Steven Zemelman and Harry Ross discuss in the first chapter of 13 Steps to Teacher Empowerment, it begins with self-knowledge and responsibility. It should be a progressive learning process in the early years of teacher education. Struggling students’ success likely correlates with the teacher’s preparedness to teach literacy in content areas; all the while engaging all students in interesting and thought provoking instruction.

These two pieces bring about a particular question. Why do some adolescents struggle with reading in the first place? Could it be something as blatant as disinterest in content-area? Think back to a student’s first reading of Shakespeare. There is almost too much relevant content within the text, but the challenge is to empower the adolescent with the tools to parse out the relevance. Chaucer’s The Miller’s Tale is quite funny and sexy, so shouldn’t it, by default, be of interest to a high school student going through puberty (reasonings and stereotypes not intentional)? Or is it an apparent explosion of the teenage world, out of control and unstable? Once again, educators are met with the need to ask these questions, which are hard questions to ask, and even harder to answer.

Works Cited

Petrone, Robert and Mark A Lewis. “Deficits, Therapists, and a Desire to Distance: Secondary English Preservice Teachers’ Reasoning about their Future Students.” English Education 44.3 (April 2012): 254-287. Print.

Ross, Harry and Steven Zemelman. 13 Steps to Teaching Empowerment. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2009. Print.

Snow, Catherine, and Elizabeth Moje. “Why Is Everyone Talking About Adolescent Literacy?” Phi Delta Kappan 91.6 (March 2010): 66-69. Print.

Response Blog #3 October 2, 2012

Many students remember, especially later in their adult life, when they were first told, likely by a teacher, that "ain't ain't a word, because ain't ain't in the dictionary." For the larger portion of English Education, this has been a common anecdote. Despite cultural difference, despite regionalism, and despite usage, many English teachers have attempted to equate English composition with dialects of spoken English (a standpoint shared by the NCTE), and enforce it with prejudice, resulting in an inaccurate representation of cultural linguistics in the classroom..

In her article "'Students' Right to Their Own Language': A Retrospective," Geneva Smitherman distinguishes between student's use of spoken language (dialect) and their ability to properly display proficiency in EAE (Edited American English), the apparent compositional counterpart of SAE (cultural linguistics' Standard American English - the dialect of English spoken on nightly news channels and by phone operators everywhere). For Smitherman, the focus is not on the given proficiencies of composition, but of the spoken dialect of students, and their right to do so. In instructive classroom settings, as Noam Chomsky suggests, students are able to display adherence to rigid EAE despite speaking a varied dialect.

In the United States, there has been at least one culture that has struggled far more than others to have their voice, literally, be heard. The African-American usage of Southern Creole and Ebonics, amongst others, has been stifled by policies favoring the teaching of standardized dialects. Racial undertones aside, teachers have traditionally shied away from allowing these particular voices come out, even within EAE. Smitherman writes,

Should the schools try to uphold language variety, or to modify it, or to eradicate it?" Yet, a good deal of the background document (i.e., examples, illustrations, bibliographic references, etc.) focus on Black speech. This is logical given not only the large numbers of African Americans among the oppressed, but also given that Blacks were the first to force the moral and Constitutional questions of equality in this country. Further, of all underclass groups in the U.S., Blacks are pioneers in social protest and have waged the longest, politically principled struggle against exploitation, (Smitherman 25).

Her next statement gives way for a way to explain what is happening to the literary canon as well. This is especially important to not only Literature instructors, but anyone teaching literature in institutions. She continues, "Finally-and this is an ironic footnote in American life-whenever Blacks have struggled and won social gains for themselves, they have made possible gains for other groups-e.g., Hispanics, Asians, gays, etc., even some white folks!" (Smitherman 25). To accept Ebonics and Southern Creole as acceptable dialects that students may own and share allows other marginalized dialectics to emerge from the shadows in the classroom. Canonized literature, traditionally, has marginalized works of minorities - and women - creating an incomplete history of language. What is more frightening is that it often determines what is taught in K-12 schools and beyond (but definitely less intentional than many graduate level reading lists). By accepting different dialects, in turn, different voices are accepted, finally allowing for an expanded canon that is all-inclusive (we can dream, right?). This perpetuates cultural acceptance, and reflects what the United States really is: a melting pot with many nationalisms.

Though it seems Smitherman does not concern herself - likely as a result of the narrow scope of policy creation that is common with many committees - with dialect voices in writing, it is important to acknowledge that empowering students, especially impressionable early-writers, allows for a more complete voice to emerge in their writing. In literature, there is always a search for authenticity of voice. For the marginalized minority student (could very well be white students in our school systems today), this institutional relinquence of language power helps students claim and maintain a cultural, academic, and authorial identity that they are proud of. By practicing the reading of dialects in the Other's voice, a better understanding of their own dialect will likely occur. This will hopefully be evident in their classroom work.

Zimmerman and Ross place a particular importance on methodology, or the practice and craft of teaching. Staying current and open to emergent theories gives the aspiring teacher an edge in both classroom instruction and professional competitiveness. Though these methods are not always perfect, they provide a spring board for strategies that will enable - the word empower comes to mind again - the teacher to adapt to the ever changing classroom landscape. In a personal anecdote, my teaching experience is limited (actually, nearly non-existent in the competitive and professional sense). What empowers me as an aspiring teacher is the willingness to stay current on teaching practices. I have observed very organic and loosely structured teaching styles that I do not necessarily agree with. I have also been involved in the rigid structure. With limited knowledge of current district, state, and national classroom policies, I have placed a focus on pedagogical approaches. Hybridity (interesting how useful a word like this is; its theoretical usage as an accepted "mixing" of cultural identities translates well into the creation of educational identities - and in Smitherman's argument - dialect identities) of pedagogical approaches seems to be the accepted and encourage approach, honing in on involving the students to aid in the creation of their instructive experience. This leads me to an area that I have recently researched and become intrigued with - Found Pedagogy. For the purpose of this response, it is not pertinent to discuss the theory itself, but to discuss the importance of reading up on pedagogical theoretical approaches themselves. This is student-involvement intensive, an approach I agree with. in my future teaching endeavors, I hope to use aspects of this to engage my students in a learning environment that they help create, in hopes to take away the initial sting of institutionalized academia.

Works Cited

Ross, Harry and Steven Zemelman. 13 Steps to Teaching Empowerment. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2009. Print.

Smitherman, Geneva. "'Students' Right to Their Own Language': A Retrospective." The English Journal 84.1 (Jan. 1995): 21-7. Print.

Response Blog #4 October 9, 2012

In their article “'If Anything Is Odd, Inappropriate, Confusing, or Boring, It’s Probably Important': The Emergence of Inclusive Academic Literacy through English Classroom Discussion Practices," Lesley Rex and David McEachen provide a study about inclusive classroom learning that uses discussion as a basis for rigorous knowledge building. Using an emergent process of untracking, that is, removing the “privilege” of being academically tracked into advanced, honors, and, for this analysis, gifted and talented courses. Certain risks become immediately evident in the inclusion model. First, some nonGATE students will not perform well as a result of their academic history. Second, the model requires a substantial need for instruction based mediation. Third, in the early days of the course, the instructors must find the literacy ability of the classroom to gauge where the starting points are, as to not alienate nonGATE and GATE students from each other. Creating a fault line would be catastrophic for the classroom's success as a whole. With inclusion classrooms, students can sign up for – or essentially choose – a substantially more challenging class. I was not only surprised that students would take on such a challenge (given my current prescriptive reasonings of adolescent students), but impressed as well, for these students were displaying such a desire to learn. In practice, however, I'm not sure that was the case. I think in my following anecdote I can shed some light on how it can go awry; that is, how our students may have had the desire to read above their level of prep-work (possibly for self-fulfillment of the story proper), but not a desire to learn at an accelerated or challenging rate.

During my pre-teaching experience at Delta College/Saginaw Valley State University, I observed a long-time family friend and middle-school teacher. She took the experience one step further for me and - with approval from her administrators (both of my parents are employed in the ISD and our family is well-known) - allowed me to take over the classroom quite often. It was a 7th grade Gifted and Talented Literature class at an inner city intermediate school. Like Rex and McEachen's examples, this class was an inclusive course. We were preparing the students for some upcoming standardized testing, so the literary texts we were using were institutionally produced in “ditto,” or worksheet, form. Despite my frustration with this restriction, we pushed forward. Because of the varied social situation of the class, some students were more advanced and ready to share their interpretations of the excerpts, while others remained silent because they were not interested or did not prepare to share. The largest challenge was keeping the attentions of the advanced GATE learners/readers, while essentially “catching up” the untracked nonGATE students. The idea of inclusion seemed to force nonGATE students to “catch up” at an unrealistic rate. The engagement, then, was geared toward the nonGATE students before the GATE students, inadvertently.

The host teacher and I decided the best remedy was to allow the traditionally tracked students, who show particular amounts of agency, a chance to join an after school club that merged writing with reading other students work. We encouraged engaged learning and peer-review (discussion) as well as interpretation from other perspectives. The offer was extended to nonGATE students, who either outright declined or signed-up and stopped going very quickly.

When posing GATE students with nonGATE students, different kinds of learning situations are going on. Yes, the more experienced and advanced students will aid the nonGATE students during the discussion, but during the organic production phase and reading comprehension, I can only imagine the apprehensions and anxieties the nonGATE student will experience, especially in public discussion. After all, adolescents are very in-tune with attempting to create a socially-acceptable identities within a framework of their peers' opinions of them. In the end of the study, there did not seem to be this profound finding that all students were capable of reading, writing, and interpreting texts at a doctorate level; rather, it seems as though this was an exercise to bring less-developed readers up to speed with their advanced counterparts. A frightening conclusion to this well-intended stu dy is that, over time, the possibility of the GATE students not having a classroom setting to further advance their “knowledge currency,” becomes greater, resulting in the lowering of the median of GATE student's knowledge base. This, in turn, lowers the level of knowledge that nonGATE students aspire and strive for.

During the "implications" section of the study, the authors begin to form a theoretical (cultural and pedagogical) framework:

These individual estimations are flash points fundamental to the building of a culture—that is, they are the domain in which value-laden insight ignites. Ignited estimations during myriad individual interactions co-constitute the common expectations, or cultural standards, of the group by which members are measured. Over time, collectives of flash points within evolving interactional contexts shape the cultural profile of inclusion and exclusion by determining who is discursively included or excluded. (Rex and McEachen 118)

Once again, I am not sure if this is wholly beneficial. I still fear that with this model, it is highly possible that the subversive effect could be pulling GATE students back to nonGATE students level, due to instructive focus on the underdeveloped students.

Works Cited

Rex, Lesley and David McEachen. “'If Anything Is Odd, Inappropriate, Confusing, or Boring, It’s Probably Important': The Emergence of Inclusive Academic Literacy through English Classroom Discussion Practices." Research in the Teaching of English 34 (Aug. 1999): 65-129. Print.

Response Blog #5 October 16, 2012

Amanda Haertling Thein, Richard Beach, and Daryl Parks discuss perspective literacy in their article “Perspective-Taking as Transformative Practice in Multicultural Literature to White Students.” Early on, the authors warn of assuming that teaching multi-cultural literature, by some mysterious force, mitigates cultural differences and relate otherwise unrelated experiences for students - oversimplifying the practice itself. Instead, the purpose of teaching different-perspective literature allows for students to understand that there are different world views, all equally valid, that require attention. The problem that traditionally occurred in the education of perspective-based instruction is teachers inadvertently were leading towards prescriptive valuations of multicultural literacies.

As for Howe's "Literacy an Literature," I chose this article to prompt a particular kind of question. In her official MLA presidential address, she points at the teaching of marginalized works of literature, beginning with women's works and opening the way for other minorities. The question, then, that I had in mind, is "Has anything really changed?" Are educators today more able to teach multicultural works? This address gives an insight into the history of teaching literature in 1974. The hope is that there has been progress, and that literacy rates have improved in part because of the multicultural challenging of student's interpretive skills as readers. In the first few paragraphs of Sheridan Blau's article "Performative Literacy: The Habits of Mind of Highly Literate Readers,” she notes that the gage, or standard, for cultural literacies has changed, partially because of cultural needs, and partially because of teacher's focus on progress. The five measures of literacy (signature, recording, recitational, analytic, and now critical) have followed a historical path towards specificity. Literacy is now measured by disciplined practice, or what Blau terms "disciplined literacy," (Blau 18). Educators have a different duty than before, especially in the later years of K-12 instruction. It is the teacher's responsibility to equip students with literacy tools and encouraging open-minded approaches to literary studies. "Capacity, willingness, tolerance" and "generosity" are some key words Blau gives educators to build literacy confidence in students multicultural reading skills. Students need to be able to recognize "when a text speaks against them as well as for them," (Blau 20). Students displaying a high discipline of critical literacy will have the capacity to understand a multicultural text, be willing to submit to exposure and observation, be tolerant of its world views despite own beliefs, and show generosity in the response.

Like Thein, Bach, and Parks' "perspectives" in teaching toward cultural and literacy-directed transformation, Florence Howe also taught works from the perspective of the "Other" - remember Edward Said - from a perspective standpoint:

When I teach both literacy and literature in a single course these days, I am part of a women's studies program. I spend less time on form and more on the values embodied in the work. I ask my students to compare their lives to those in the novels, poems, autobiographies, or histories we read. I ask them to listen to the voices in essays and describe the persons they hear. I ask them to listen to their own voices and describe those per- sons they are. Deliberately, I choose works in which students will and will not find themselves: deliberately, I place male beside female, black beside white, U. S. beside British or European. (Howe 436)

By asking the students to engage with multicultural literacy, Howe is essentially exposing them to other opportunities of language use, but it is not intended to be prescriptive. She writes, "They write 'identity' papers sometimes, but these are social histories," (Howe 437). She makes the distinction that cultural identities are social constructs represented through some historizations in literature - such as the student's papers - and the tactic use of exposure allows for a widened opportunity for literacy progression, but is not intended to change cultural identities.

Envisioning these in action, it would seem that teaching multicultural literacy would be most productive in "mixed" classrooms, that is, where the classroom student body make-up is somewhat of a cultural melting pot. One of the underlying themes to other articles we have been reading seems to be collaboration. That is, prompting discussion that students can engage with, and even possibly take over this discussion. Students can, and will, help each other understand their culture in a collaborative setting that is not directed by the prescriptions of the instructor (unfortunately, institutional prescriptions will remain).

Works Cited

Blau, Sheridan. “Performative Literacy: The Habits of Mind of Highly Literate Readers.” Voices in the Middle 10.3 (March 2003): 18-22.

Howe, Florence. "Literacy and Literature." PMLA 89.3 (May 1974): 433-41.

Thein, Amanda Haertling, Richard Beach, and Daryl Parks. “Perspective-Taking as Transformative Practice in Multicultural Literature to White Students.” English Journal 97.2 (November 2007): 54-60.

Response Blog #6 October 23, 2012

In her 2008 NCTE presidential address, Kathleen Blake Yancy attempts to parse out the stigmas of writing and composition, while acknowledging the special treatment reading has received. It is only fitting that I am discussing this address, since I recently attended my first MCTE conference, which was also my first English professional conference. I noticed that at the MCTE conference, which I can speculate is similar for its national counterpart, there was a particular focus on how to teach English studies, with emergent strategies designed by other teachers and English professionals. Yancy, like many past NCTE and MLA presidents, addresses this community of professionals by stating how the teaching of English has historically treated reading and writing, then follows up with how it should currently be tended to.

As a literature graduate student who takes institutionalized reading lists very seriously, I was immediately drawn to interpret her first theme of the history of composition in twentieth century America. She begins with the notion that writing has not been given the same level of cultural attention (and respect) that reading has been given:

Writing has never been accorded the cultural respect or the support that reading has enjoyed, in part because through reading, society could control its citizens, whereas through writing, citizens might exercise their own control. As E. Jennifer Monaghan and E. Wendy Saul explain, 'Society has focused on children as readers because, historically, it has been much more interested in children as receptors than as producers of the written word. Only an educated citizenry could be relied upon to preserve the Republic. In pursuing that goal, however, the emphasis was not on creative individuality, but on obedience to the law. Reading and listening were the desired modes. It is by requiring children to read the writings of adults that society has consistently attempted to transmit its values. (Yancy 318).

In this concise description of the "reading culture," Yancy presents a striking cultural problem with the repression of creative individualism. It seems here that she is criticizing the tendency to focus solely on reading. From the standpoint of cultural literary studies, it becomes evident that there is a reference to what is now termed the Western literary canon (there are different canons for different cultures; Western culture is by far the most dominant). This is designed by the dominant cultural ideology of Western thinking, which prescribes a certain kind of text. Yes, like Yancy mentions, it is a form of control. It perpetuates the dominant ideology. This is largely why there seems to be a set of books that we read for school ("have to read") and a set that we read for enjoyment ("want to read"). Prescriptive reading not only creates a skewed culture (for the larger part of human history, women's and minority works have been excluded - a man's history), it also makes reading a chore.

She continues the train of thought, noting that writing composition is also associated with testing. The current institutionalization of educational policy has backed many school districts in a corner, requiring them to teach towards standardized test-preperation. These test standards require minimum proficiencies, with average proficiency for the entire class room.

And now for the game changer:

At the same time that writing process was, on the one hand, being theorized, researched, and used to help students write and, on the other hand, being undermined, an invention that would transform writing, education, and life more generally was created: the personal computer.

New modes of writing have emerged through social networking, blogging, e-mail, and texting. How is this transforming the writing student? The stigma of the chore of writing is greatly softened. What is evident now is that students feel empowered in these forums. They can use their cultural clues to help articulate, in composition, what they are trying to say.

At first I was reading this address as though it were a conference talk or session. That is, there is some kind of practicality to be taken from this. However, reading from a cultural theoretical standpoint, it seems as though Yancy is warning against "controlling" our students. Individualism, creativity, and knowledge make students better students, and students better citizens. It does not have to be a top-down control of culture-production that is institutionalized in reading lists and tests; rather, it seems that it will be best suited to allow a student's strengths as a narrative and culture producer that will give an edge in the global literacy race, and beyond.

Response Blog #7 October 30, 2012

As an undergraduate English major at Central Michigan University, I was required to choose from a small selection of "capstone" classes, which were essentially 400 level courses in special topics in English. I did not understand the scope of these types of courses largely due to the fact that I thought, at the time, that the Literature courses (all genre-based, non-period survey courses) were all-encompassing for a bachelor's in English studies. Troy Hicks, one of the co-authors of the article I am addressing, was offering a course entitle "Literacy in the 21st Century," which I believe I misread as another literature course. Presently listening to other English professionals, the act of trying to pinpoint a succinct definition of "literacy" is a major focus of English research and scholarship. This is an understandable response to this abstract idea, considering in this particular course we spent such a great deal of time trying to define literacy and - for many of my classmates, including myself - making the distinction between literacy and literature. As we parsed out what literacy in the 21st century really was, we utilized many new modes of literacy, many of which were introduced to teachers by students who not only actively and efficiently used them, but were proficient enough that they could produce scholarly material by means of a less-than-traditional journey.

Some of these new(er) literacy modes: Internet blogs, online journals Social media (Facebook, tumbler, reddit, amongst many) Google Docs Youtube Personal websites

Research aides: Zotero (Browser plugin) RefWorks Wikipedia (MCTE endorsed) Google Scholar Online databases (Now readily available through Google, educational institutions, and public libraries)

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. New media seems to replacing old media. For example, traditional "PowerPoint presentations" have been substituted with elaborate productions using a variety media - Youtube, websites, and content driven media (Adobe Illustrator is a playground for the creative student). The question becomes "how do educators adapt?"

In the article "Same as It Ever Was: Enacting the Promise of Teaching, Writing, and New Media," Troy Hicks, Carl Young, Sara Kajder, and Bud Hunt note how new media serves to extend the teaching of writing and reading, and also complicate it. They write, "Text, namely hypertext, affords students new possibilities as readers and writers," (Hicks 71). Traditional views of teaching English has held on - very closely - to the prescriptive reading and writing instruction that now seems archaic. There have been arguments made that claim technology is great, if not essential, for students engagement in English studies and literacy. This is not necessarily supported by the data. Technology does not replace teachers.

This brings me to recall yet another course I took as an undergraduate entitled "Technology in Education," where we utilized this new media (in a similar but more technologically focused general education course) to seek out new opportunities to teach content. If a student is expected, either institutionally or socially, to use emergent media to compose and comprehend within English studies, the teacher must adapt as well. However, that does not mean that the core of learning how to become proficient in reading and writing must be affected by these technologies. If anything, English teachers must not allow these new technologies to overtake the content. As the authors claim in the article, "teachers exploring the idea of purchasing devices for all students, thus going to a 1:1 model of technology integration, were concerned that all the students be given devices, but there was no clear vision of what those devices would be used for, or more importantly, what those students would create with them. Without a compelling vision of what would change in the school as a result of the purchase of costly technology, why spend the money? Don’t get sucked into the allure of the device. Instead, focus on the important human work of making meaning and creating texts worth spending time on," (Hicks 73). This returns us to the recurring theme of writing composition, and how it should stand-alone as an individual accomplishment.

At the 2012 MCTE conference, I attended a presentation where Wikipedia was endorsed - and encouraged - as an acceptable research tool, and Apple products such as iPhones and iPads can be utilized, via wi-fi internet connections, to provide an active forum to collaborate in reading comprehension and writing competence. In the spirit of the "Same as It Ever Was," the new technology does not, as I suggested earlier, replace the older modes of learning to read and write; rather, it enhances it, making it more accessible to a wider range of literacy-hungry students. As for Wikipedia, source quality, just as it always has, requires verification. Wikipedia, to some respect, makes the content knowledge readily available in a synthesized version that is succinct and direct. Likewise, using mobile devices does not replace in-class instruction. It encourages real-time involvement, but the creative production should remain at the core. Technology has a place to aide in the learning process, but it should not take over the production aspect of learning.

Near the end of the article, the authors point out that, "If we had but one sentiment to share with readers of this article, this would most likely be it: Stop waiting for the technology of tomorrow to compel you to do the work of today," (Hicks 73). Without technology, students should still be able to produce high quality and comprehensive creative work. That is, they should be doing English, not technology.

Response Blog #8 November 6, 2012

In their article “The Experience of Education: The Impacts of High-Stakes Testing and School Students and their Families,” John Polesel, Nicky Dulfer and Malcolm Turnbull present the difference between assessment programs in Australia and the UK/US. These programs use high-stakes testing to gauge performance of students. The reason the testing Is called “high-stakes’ is because the results dictate financial awards to schools, or, as is the case in the US, can result in school closures. The authors write,

there are several key differences between the Australian NAPLAN/MySchool model and the UK and USA models. Firstly there is currently no suggestion that schools will be found to be ‘failing’ on the basis of their results and face closures. Schools that are found to be underperforming in the Australian context will be offered support and financial assistance under the current Federal Government policy. (Polesel 6)

Australia’s model seems to allow for the best possible outcome. The United States, which traditionally enjoyed being near the top in educational performance, is quickly getting “left behind,” due to its obsession with the “No Child Left Behind” policy that not only dictates school closures due to low performance, but individual performance can be “punished” with getting held back (some students are springboarded to the next level, which can be equally detrimental). This affects the well-being of students and their families directly. I her response to “Writing as Praxis,” Erin Umpstead provided a unique interpretation of the “Praxis Poem:”

Standardized tests continues to narrow the focus of writing instruction.

Because most educators don't understand writing.

Most secondary English teachers don't see themselves as writers

most secondary English teachers don't see...

Written language --

intensifies the writer's awareness at that moment

the complex relationship between language and our sense of being.

One can grow and learn from a writing practice that celebrates the act of writing as what matters. The moment of composition becomes a celebration of what it means to be alive at the very moment of writing. (Umpstead 1)

It seems that the connotations associated with writing towards testing is largely negative, resulting in a catharsis of sorts amongst the student population. High-quality writing (experience-driven) tends to have a positive effect on the sense of being. There is an underlying fear of failure that students feel as a result of understanding that their school could be shut down based on their performance. This hinders their ability to perform at their best, creating anxieties about performance. In the day to day life of students, they end up missing out on creative writing and organic writing production. If they struggle, they are threatened with the school being shutdown.

Australia is a model to follow. NAPLAN results promote a positive response to problems in the classroom. Like a teacher in their own classroom, when a student is struggling, support to improve marks seems to work better than punishing after receiving poor grades. The UK and US should mimic such behavior. However, for NAPLAN, an unfortunate negative effect may be schools not putting a lot of focus on writing due to the fact that they will receive financial assistance and other support. As long as there is an accountability in place for both teachers and administration, and the teachers hired are truly passionate “English Teachers,” this type of outcome is highly unlikely.

Response Blog #9 November 13, 2012

Teacher Research “[an] eduacational movement, research genre, political and policy critique, challenge to university culture, and lifelong stance on teaching, learning, schooling and educational leadership.” (Cochan-Smith and Lytle, Inquiry as Stance) – From Cathy Fleischer’s presentation.

Becoming a “teacher-researcher” uses many of the same practices writers and readers – yes, those actually engaged in literacy – use to interpret and compose texts. It goes further than a simple research project; being a teacher-researcher means more than the research itself. In “Understanding the Relationship between Research and Teaching,” the authors pose a very large question:

What Are the Purposes of English Language Arts Research? Research can inform practice and policy in the teaching and learning of English language arts. (DiPardo 297)

The agency of any given teacher is where the research thrives. First, the teacher must find a classroom dynamic that is perplexing (think of the critical inquiry to an exploratory essay), and for an inquiry around it. The teacher does more than observe. The teacher must collect data, and support claims.

Once again, collaboration becomes essential to the success in classroom policy change. In addition to lightening the research work load, colleagues will support the argument when presenting adjustments to administration, which can be crucial to its acceptance. Additionally, new knowledge can be found in collaborating with others with similar interests but different perspectives. When collecting data, they can provide a different context for your research inquiry to occur within.

What is most striking is that this practice of becoming a teacher-researcher is not necessarily a requirement of the profession, nor is it always a requirement by administration. The real benefit comes from improving teaching as a whole, for both the teacher and colleagues alike. The student will reap most of the benefits, where the learning environment is supported by a positive vibe and confidence in its pedagogical practices.

The authors “maintain that teachers need to be engaged in research in every conceivable way, approaching their daily work as public intellectuals in active pursuit of better understandings and more promising lines of inquiry,” (DiPardo 307). This suggests that teachers have the responsibility to constantly strive for the improvement of the classroom environment and teaching methods. The next topical consideration is the “teacher-leader.” This is an extension of the teacher-researcher. Sound research that creates a better work environment, and more importantly, a better learning environment leads to the respect of colleagues and administration, which is required to force any change in nearly any workplace.

Response Blog #10 November 20, 2012

Becoming a teacher-leader requires quite a bit of agency on the teacher’s part. Even the titles of three consecutive chapters in 13 Steps to Teacher Empowerment, entitled “Speak Up”, “Deal with Committees,” and “Mount a Campaign,” promote agency and collaboration. Teachers are hardly alone in their resolve to promote literacy and reading and writing proficiency. These three aspects of teacher-leadership are rooted in the research question that is formed when engaged in teacher-research.

‘Speaking Up’ opens the lines of communications with principles, other teachers, and eventually the students. Whatever the strategy is, it is best that ideas are presented in groups. Knowing exactly what is at stake will strengthen the overall argument In practice, a proposal to change a reading list will likely be heard loud and clear if there are several teachers on board. As the teacher-leader, the primary duty at this stage is to promote collaboration.

‘Dealing with Committees’ brings several teacher-researchers and leaders, as well as others, in close conversation. Once again, clear goals are of great importance here.

‘Mounting a Campaign’ puts that teacher-research to work. Zemelman and Ross write, “It’s important to be well armed with information to back up your proposal,” (Zemelman 95). If the teacher is working towards the role of the researcher, this step, as well as the following steps, is readily taken care of:

Do your research.

Focus your objective.

Acquire outside help.

Talk it through.

[Develop a] plan for implementation.

Consider how people work together.

Maintain momentum.

Assess your progress. (Zemelman 95-99)

This, coupled with strong collaboration, is the best way to prepare to approach administration with changes to in-class policies and practices. Other teachers will follow teacher-leaders when they appear to be organized and prepared, and maintain a level of professionalism that is accessible yet confident.

Ann Lieberman and Linda Friedrich's article "How Teachers Become Leaders" describes how teachers effectively build professional communities. On major aspect is through conflict, that is, resistance. A mutually accepted plan, which occurs during the “Community” phase, is where the conflict is resolved. The research question, then, is the response to the conflict. The conflict continues in the early stages of the process, when other teachers are in conversation to parse out what changes are actually necessary. Instead of making the conflict, or problem that causes the conflict, such as a bad reading list, the problem must be mutual. Like minded teachers will follow suit, and the case is built out of the initial discussions. Though it may be unrealistic, encouraging opposing views is necessary, as well as looking at the issues from different angles. Once the conflict is resolved, it can be presented to the administration, which, so some degree, creates a new conflict.