Rachel+Melville

__ What is English Education? __

The NCTE position statement uses three categories to define what English Education should include. They support a “broad and inclusively defined” learning of English, the preparation and continuing professional support of teachers of English (at all levels). Last, NCTE supports systematic inquiry into the teaching and learning of English (What is English Education?) There is an emphasis on English educators to conduct “interdisciplinary inquiry” and how doing so creates critically aware citizens. NCTE’s statement does not claim that there is a singular most effective approach to English Education. Rather, the combination of three categories effectively creates their belief system.

Jennifer Buehler uses this inquiry model when confronted with questions in her classroom. Buehler’s question is similar to “what is English Education” but adds another layer by asking her supervisor “what exactly are we supposed to be teaching when we teach a novel?” (Buehler 280). Buehler sought professional support in her efforts to gain an honest, practical understanding of why we do what we do in our classrooms.

NCTE’s belief statement asserts that teachers become involved in transforming theory and research. After reading __The Power of Questions and the Possibilities or Inquiry in English Education__ it is apparent that not only does Buehler agree with NCTE’s inquiry model she successfully initiates solving questions related to her own practice. Essentially, teachers become researchers. The students in our classroom become subjects. The English education that Buehler focuses on includes student choice, intuitional support, being aware of students’ unique needs and fostering a shared dialog with her stakeholders.

Since Buehler’s article was published in 2005 I found it surprising that __English in Secondary Schools: A Review__ written in 1901, enters into the current discussion about what branches of English work are desirable to students’ (English in Secondary Schools: A Review). Like Buehler, Allan Abbott’s article emphasizes that teacher choice in text creates a liking for literature (394). Although Abbott discusses college preparation it does not devalue “pupils taste” in its efforts toward a conclusive English Education (396). Abbott’s approach to teaching English disregards a rigid system but proposes that through teacher inquiry the knowledge about her students helps propose reading of texts that appeal to their taste (397).

Additionally, Abbott emphasizes the value of recitation. When students master a part of literature through the ability to recite it they become owners. Programs such a __Poetry Out Loud__ support such exercises in creating student ownership of a piece. Buehler likely would agree that through choice, students would be more apt to recite a part of literature they feel passionate about.

Mayher’s piece, __English Teacher Education as Literacy Teacher Education__ addresses the confusion and dissatisfaction over the politically mandated systems that often diminish student choice. Mayher is frustrated by reform efforts that cause our students to be led as outsiders who are not respected (Mayher 2). Mayher says that by failing to give students adequate attention we fail to provide them with knowledge and skills they need to deal with (4). Mayher additionally addresses the divide between the traditional barrier between teacher educators and K-12 teachers (7). He isn’t neglecting his involvement in the problems of English education rather he embraces the significant influence that he has a professor at Lehman College. Mayher says that “if English educators are going to have continuing relevance and a continuing central place in the preparation of teachers of English Studies, Literacy, and Language Arts, we must reexamine our self-concept and be prepared to redefine who we serve and how we do it (3).

Buehler and Abbott’s position on student choice coupled with teacher selected text as a vehicle toward reformation imitate his call to action. All articles stress the importance of educators, at all levels, being involved in not only the ‘big’ questions but also the solutions.

__ Works Cited __ Abbott, Allan. "English in Secondary Schools; A Review." //The School Review// 9.6 (1901): 388. Print. Buehler, Jennifer. "The Power of Questions and the Possibilites of Inquiry in English Education." //English Education// (2005): 280-87. Print.

Mayher, John S. "English Teacher Education as Literacy Teacher Education." CEE Conference. Fordham. Winter 2012. Address.

// What Is English Education //. NCTE, n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. . ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__ Who are adolescent readers and writers? __

The question for September 25th readings “Who are adolescent readers and writers?” is explored in the investigatory article “Deficits, Therapists, and a Desire to Distance: Secondary English Preservice Teachers’ Reasoning about their Future Students”. The article seems to imply a position or topic without specifically giving that topic or position to the reader. This stylistic technique, although not unlike other investigatory articles, make it difficult to follow the authors purpose. Essentially, Petrone and Lewis are saying that the lens we have effects our teaching. Specifically, the definition we have about adolescents influences how we approach them in our classrooms. Further, by citing Lesko’s genealogical studies of adolescence they bring credibility to their research question of what adolescent readers are.

Petrone and Lewis discuss Critical Youth Studies, an “interdisciplinary line of scholarship” stating that in essence adolescence and ideas related to it are socially achieved and produced. (Petron, Lewis 256). However, if one argued that the definition of adolescents is socially achieved then one is left to wonder who’s socially achieved definition is correct? Further, what makes one definition of adolescents more correct than another? Last, by surveying teachers who are preservice do their definitions of adolescence hold less merit than say, a practicing secondary teacher because of the mere fact that they have less experience? Basically, these questions as well as the lengthy discussion and analysis make this article the most difficult of the three to align with. I can not say for certain that I understand the validity of this argument. For example, if definitions of adolescents are formed by experience why use preservice teachers, whose classroom experience is less, to help shape an argument?

Catherine Snow and Elizabeth Moje’s “Why is Everyone Talking About Adolescent Literacy?” offers not only a straightforward definition of adolescents but also connects adequately with the Common Core. First, “adolescent” literacy programs are defined as those aimed at students 4th grade through the first year of postsecondary education (Snow, Moje 66). Among many of the teaching strategies mentioned for success Snow and Moje cite, “using key academic terms in classroom discussions” (67). In referencing The Common Core State Standards for grade 11-12 an anchor standard says, “Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze how an author uses and refines the meaning of a key term or terms over the course of a text”. Snow and Moje’s value teaching preservice teachers about literacy of struggling students they don’t use preservice teachers to illustrate their thesis (67). Rather, the problems or adolescent literacy are uniformly addressed with proposed solutions. Although they value the domains of “adolescent life” they focus their argument less on defining adolescents through the perspective of preservice teachers but more on how to effectively design literacy instruction (66).

Jim Burke’s “Connecting the Classroom, Community, and Curriculum”, an exploratory piece was the most straightforward and thought provoking article. As a teacher he petitioned community support to help his students gain real life applicability on their interviewing technique. In short, he gave his students writing a real audience. By giving his students writing a real audience his teaching practice helped support his belief about adolescent’s success. For example, he says, “you need to help them understand that if all your hard work is to pay off, though, you need to begin to get some experience with the larger world” (Burke 21). Burke’s real like applicability is something that preservice teachers hear about in teacher education programs. Burke’s narrative did not inundate the reader with analysis but rather used an example of real life practice that values and supports the connection that adolescents innately experience within their community.

__ Works Cited __

Burke, Jim. "Connecting the Classroom, Community, and Curriculum." //English Journal// 101.4 (2012): 17-28. Print.

"Key Points in English Language Arts." //Common// //Core State// //Standards Initiative//. Common Core State Standards Initiative, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2012. .

Petrone, Robert, and Mark A. Lewis. "Deficits, Therapists, and a Desire to Distance: Secondary English Preservice Teachers’ Reasoning about Their Future Students." //English Education// (2012): 254-87. Print.

Snow, Catherine, and Elizabeth Moje. "Why Is Everyone Talking about Adolescent Literacy?" //Phi Delta Kappan// 91.6 (2010): 66-69. Print.