Sarah+Kuehn

In John Mayher's article "English Teacher Education as Literacy Teacher Education", he discusses how the academic world is changing and because this is so, it is necessary to change the way teachers are prepared. When Mayher says "the ways teachers get prepared must change", I believe what he means is that we need to update how we prepare teachers to be in front of a classroom and teach. Mayher raises the issue that although teachers seem to need more instruction in writing along with their students, the study of literature is still "the central organizing discipline of college and secondary school English teaching." I agree with Mayher. I feel that composition should have more respect within English departments. As a pragmatist, I view writing as a process. One must recognize there are a series of steps involved in producing a well polished draft and while classical literature is grand, by its self it is not enough of an influence on a persons ability to create an effective piece of writing.


 * Blog # 2**


 * Why is Everyone Talking About Adolescent Literacy?**

In this article, authors Catherine Snow and Elizabeth Moje provide evidence that after fourth grade literacy skills of American children drop dramatically. I find this very disturbing. My initial question after reading this article was why? Could it be because adolescents, today, are more interested in interacting with social media and less interested in school writing activities? It probably doesn't help that most school activities don't relate much to the student's personal experiences. Snow and Moje point out that to correct this literacy problem, schools want to emphasize reading and writing in all subjects to help children learn more important concepts and to increase their literacy skills. I believe this is a start, but like Snow and Moje, I think schools need to reshape the student's academic routine to help them become more interested in the subject matter. Snow and Moje say this can be done by concentrating on "...how students' cultural, social, psychological, and linguistic development might shape how, why, and when they read and write (Snow and Moje, 2010)". In other words, schools should update their curriculum for writing and reading. Students are not doing well because the materials schools offer have nothing to do with their personal experiences and interests.

To correct this problem, Snow and Moje indicate that providing a variety of examples to students will increase their reading comprehension. These examples or "activities" are more useful than just teaching students strategies for finding the main idea of a text. The authors also point out several other problems adolescents face in the classroom: (1) "fiction relevant to adolescents' lives is often beyond their reading level (Snow and Moje, 2010)". (2) "Reading literature has limited effects on achievement in the Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and Social Studies (Moje et al. 2008)". (3) A "frequency of young people's preferred reading— websites— also appears to be unrelated to academic achievement ( Snow and Moje, 2010)". I believe these are important matters for teachers to address when considering what materials to bring into the classroom. Perhaps educators need to be more aware of how technology is advancing because young people are heavily influenced by it. Snow and Moje raise the question: how do adolescents typically read when they are by themselves? I know the answer to this has a lot to do with the social media available to us on the internet. A bigger question might be: how can teachers take advantage of students' interest in this form of literature in the classroom?

References

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


 * Blog # 3**


 * Response to Guy Deutscher's "Does Your Language Shape How You Think?"**

Does our language restrict what we are able to think? I have never considered this before, but it's a fascinating concept. In this article, Deutscher explains Whorf's theory: "The mother tongue constrains our minds and prevents us from being able to think certain thoughts (Deutscher, 2010)". I can understand why so many people were dazzled by this theory. It lead me to the idea that when you learn another language, not only can you communicate with more people, but you also open your self to a new perspective. Deutscher states that "the general structure of Whorf's arguments was to claim that if language has no word for a certain concept, then its speakers would not be able to understand this concept (Deutscher, 2010)". For example, "If a language were to lack a future tense... then its speakers would simply not be able to grasp the concept of future time (Deutscher, 2010)". While this seems logical, Deutscher also provides evidence that Whorf might not be completely correct. Deutcher gives an example about how language doesn't necessarily "restrict" us us from fathoming things when he says, "If the inventory of ready made words in your language determined which concepts you were able to understand, how would you learn anything new? (Deutscher, 2010)."

Although it is clear that there are valid challenges to Whorf's theory on language, it's clear that "our mother tongue" shape our perspective of the world somehow. Deutscher states that "If different languages influence our minds in different ways, this is not because of what our language allows us to think but rather because of what it habitually obliges us to think about (Deutcher, 2010)". For example, some languages require you to provide information about a person's gender while you're referring to them, such as Spanish with its famine and masculine pronouns. However, the English language does not require you to reveal information about an individual's sex when you're talking about them. In other words, it is arguable that you are attentive to certain details based upon the language you speak.

References

Deutcher, Guy. “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?”, //New York Times//, August 26, 2010.

**Blog # 4** **Response to "Fostering Adolescents' Engaged Academic Literacy"** **by Ruth Schoenbach and Cynthia Greenleaf**

At first, I was saddened by the strict, formal style of this chapter, but I suppose I should get used to the academic voice. Schoenbach and Greenleaf do have meaningful things to say about how teachers influence students. Let's start with their thesis: "Educators can have a significant impact on students' academic engagement and achievement by fostering adolescent students' development in four interrelated areas: (1) dispositions for engagement in academic tasks; (2) disciplinary knowledge; (3) capacities for problem solving with texts; and (4) shifts in learner identity (Schoenbach & Greenleaf, 2009)".

(1)//Dispositions For Engagement in Academic Tasks//: The first few sentences of the explanation for this did not make a whole lot of sense to me. I believe these authors are trying to give us a description of how to help a student gain a positive attitude toward participating in academic activities. From what I understand, they are saying that to develop a students' positive disposition toward learning and doing classroom activities, teachers must create specific "learning opportunities" that will engage students in "text-based problem-solving, discipline-based literacy practices, and resilient learner identities (Schoenbach & Greenleaf, 2009)".

(2) //Disciplinary Knowledge//: For this section Schoenbach and Greenleaf tell us how to prepare students for more advanced school work. When students begin to encounter tougher material, a good teacher provides them with more support. Now does that mean little Billy just needs an extra pat on the back and a few more words of encouragement? Not exactly. Schoenbach and Greenleaf say that, as teachers, we should empower students to face more challenging work by providing them with ..."a community of learners where student thinking is made visible and available for discussion (104)." In other words, teachers are in charge of creating an effective learning atmosphere for students.

(3)//Capacities for Problem Solving wi////th Texts:// Now that the books are out and the mood is right, how do we get the little rascals to actually learn something? Well, to increase a students' ability to solve problems while reading, "teachers need to engage a much broader range of students in complex academic literacy tasks" and while doing that teachers must also provide the students with the support they need to achieve (Schoenbach & Greenleaf, 2009).

(4) //Shifts in Learner Identity:// Teachers should encourage students to think of reading in a positive light and to be confident about reading. It is interesting that Schoenbach and Greenleaf say "when we ask students to learn something new, we are asking them to become someone new (105)". It is important to be a positive teacher because students are trying on different identities and a negative academic experience can have a bad affect on a students' perception of who they are.

References

Schoenbach, R & Greenleaf, C. Fostering Adolescents Engaged Academic Literacy. In L. Christenbury, R.Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky. //Handbook of Adolescent Literacy Research.//(pp. 98-102).New York: Guilford Press, 2009

**Blog # 5** **Response to "Performative Literacy: The Habits of Mind of Highly Literate Readers" by Sheridan Blau**

In this article, Sheridan Blau examines how literacy has changed throughout history and in education. The first question I asked myself when reading this was: what does Blau mean by literacy? Does this author mean that people's ability to read has changed, or is he referring to the reading material available? Blau discusses, in detail, Miles Myters' five conceptions of literacy "that have dominated American educational thought in different periods from colonial times to the present."

The first one is "Signature literacy". All you have to know in order to be signature literate is how to sign your own name. That sounds pretty easy. It was all that was really required of average people during colonial times. Blau then discusses how "recording literacy" became the standard for education from the revolutionary war to the civil war. This was usually defined by "Legible penmanship in copying short documents and the ability to read and spell simple words" (Blau, 2003). After that, there was recitational literacy, which was prevalent from the Civil war until the First World War. This type of literacy was "demonstrated by memorizing and reciting patriotic speeches and pieces of canonical literature" (Blau, 2003). From what I understand "Analytic literacy", what came next, is the type of literacy we are familiar with today. From 1916-1985, there was a paradigm shift from reading out loud to silent reading and more of a focus on comprehension and analysis rather than memorization (Blau, 2003). This is when the idea of searching texts for different qualities like theme, character, and plot became popular in junior and senior high. Finally, there is the latest version of literacy, "Critical literacy", which "requires students to become more active, responsible, and responsive readers... who may be trusted to select many of the texts they will read in school, who are invited to produce their own interpretations of texts ( rather than merely accept the interpretations of their teachers), and who are frequently expected to recognize, criticize, and even resist the values and vision of the world advanced by or inscribed in literacy and nonliterary texts" (Blau, 2003).

I feel the most important thing I learned from Blau's "Performative Literacy" article was that Literacy has has several definitions throughout history. I used to think that Literacy meant only one thing: being able to read, but as time changes eduction changes and so does our concept of analyzing text.

References

Blau, Sheridan. (2003). //Performative literacy:The habits of mind of highly literate readers.// Voices in the Middle 10.3: 18-22


 * Blog # 6**
 * Response to Kristen Turner's "Flipping the Switch: Code-Switching From Text Speak to Standard English"**

I believe this article addresses a subject every teacher should consider: Is text speak turning today's youth into bad writers? So many adolescents text more often than they write anything else, unless of course you count writing on Facebook and Twitter, but text speak is prevalent on those sites as well. I can see why parents and teachers are worried about students using the "informal and seemingly abbreviated style" of text speak in their schoolwork (Turner, 2009, p. 60).

I have helped other students with editing their reports for various classes and, on many occasions, I have found text speak. Some people believe that we shouldn't worry about the influence of text speak on student's writing and that the way we write is evolving, but i disagree. I feel as though professional and academic writing would be less coherent if Richard Sterling's prediction that "capitalization will disappear" came true because that would open the door for other aspects of writing to disappear and that's scary. Even though I disagree with text speak or e-language, I feel the questions Turner raises about how it could be a possible opportunity are valid. When Turner (2009) asks "Is text speak truly a problem, or is its occurrence, as Sterling suggests, an opportunity to teach students about the nature of language? (p. 61)". I believe the answer to this is: it depends. If educators acknowledge the influence of electronic communication on today's youth and address how it is influencing writing in the classroom, then perhaps students will learn about the nature of writing. On the other hand, if we try to continue to teach writing in the traditional way and ignore any form of it considered nonacademic, then students will be unable to relate to the subject matter and embrace what they are most comfortable with.

References Turner, Kristen Hawley. (2009). //Flipping the switch: Code-switching from text speak to standard english.// English // Journal // 98.5, 60–65.

**Blog # 7** **Response to Lawnmowers, Parties, and Writing Groups: What Teacher-Authors Have to Teach Us about Writing for Publication**

It was interesting to hear bout Anne Whitney's experience with publishing articles for magazines. The journalists perceptive on writing is often different from the academic writer's when it comes to the publishing and writing process. Whitney speaks of how writing for a magazine is different than writing for a class because she can ignore what she writes for the class whereas for the public she had to focus on how everyone might criticize her work. It didn't occur to me that, in the professional world of writing, we might be put under so much pressure by the public to produce excellent work. It is difficult to be faced with what you are writing and to also have the notion that many of your peers who will be critiquing you will have more experience and expertise.

I liked how Whitney related her experience with publishing professional articles to her experience with teaching English and how English teachers are often challenged with publishing professional articles. Whitney discussed how teachers are faced with questions like: "Who am I to tell another teacher what to do?" as they publish articles about their trade. Questions such as this one, where people are concerned with whether they have the authority to speak their mind or not, are valid because, overall, who really know who to trust about these matters? I believe that, ultimately, if everyone works hard to introduce an important discovery about writing, then any teacher can be counted as an authority on what they are writing about. Whitney describes this "dandelion feeling" or teachers don't want to raise themselves above others out of fear that they will be the first to get cut down by their peers (p.52). As teachers, we must work to overcome this fear so that we all can benefit from ideas we could share with each other.

**References** **Whitney, A.E. (2012). //Lawnmowers, parties, and writing groups: what teacher-authors have to teach us about writing for publication.// English Journal 101.5: 51-56.**


 * Blog #8**
 * Response to** //**Prominent Feature Analysis: What it means for the Classroom**//

Swain, Graves, Morse offer us insight on how to discover the strengths and weaknesses of students as they explore the characteristics of student writing in their article //Prominent Feature Analysis: What it means for the Classroom.// Swain Graves and Morse examined state-scored assessment papers of a number of students to understand the characteristics of different scores the students received. They focused on the characteristics that stood out the most, or what hey refer to as "prominent features" and they used their own judgment to pinpoint these features. Eventually they came up with a list of positive and negative features in student writing. I was happy to see that they found more positive (22) than negative (10). A few of these positive features were: "metaphor, elaborated details, alliteration, and sensory language." A few of the negative features were: usage problems, redundancy, week organization, and faulty spelling. They found that these features were specific to the set of papers they were analyzing, meaning that if there were a different set of students with a different prompt in a different setting, the features of those papers wouldn't be the same. This made me wonder what this specific study is going to teach us about student writing as a whole. What can this article help us understand about all student writing, rather than just the specific student writing Swain, Graves, and Morse looked at for this study? Surely other student writing samples can relate to at least some of their findings.

It seems as though this study is more geared toward helping educators understand how to recognize prominent features in student writing so that they can more effectively attune their teaching style to the strengths and weaknesses of students. They encourage scoring student papers by their prominent features such as, voice, repetition, and redundancy. I appreciate this approach because I believe instructors should be constantly reevaluating how they evaluate students and keep these methods of evaluation updated to reflect new discoveries about what methods are most effective in scoring students.


 * Blog #9**
 * Response to //Understanding the Relationship Between Research and Teaching//**

Perhaps this article offers insight on how research is applied in the classroom. It wasn't an easy read. I interpreted that the purpose of this article is to encourage researchers to not let themselves forget that their research is being used in a classroom of real people and to make their research more applicable to a classroom. I came to this conclusion when Anne DiPardo et al made the statement "Debates concerning empirical rigor and experimental methods raged with particular intensity in the 1960's and 1970's, quelled for a time by the growing realization that given the impossibility of controlling for all variables, researchers would do well to adopt methods that acknowledge the multiple influences at play in real classrooms and schools" (p.32). So, what does this mean really? When Anne DiPardo et al says "researchers", I understand that what they mean is that these researchers are doing "scientific" educational research. So science is involved and that means a specific scientific methodology is applied by these researchers as they research education. I guess that makes it special somehow;however, Anne Dipardo et al seems to think that the special nature of this "scientific" educational research lacks a connection to methods used in a real classroom. Perhaps, this article is a research paper on researching. If Anne DiPardo et al is saying that the methods of researchers doing "scientific" educational research is out of touch with what happens in a real classroom, then I wonder what would happen if I did research on research papers about researching and then created my own study and teachers tried to apply it to their lessons. Everyone's head would explode and bursts of shredded up academic articles would shoot out of the tops of their skulls.

Anne DiPardo et al speaks about issues of finding relevance to the classroom in educational research, but I don't see the issue. I hate that that people waste time debating about effective instructional strategies instead of testing them. As teachers where should we draw the line between using academic literature and what we have learned from experience as far as applying methods in the classroom? DiPardo, Anne et al. “Understanding the Relationship between Research and Teaching.” //English Educati// on. 38.4 (July 2006): 295-311
 * References**

**Blog # 10** **Response to "Negotiating the Rub Between Cultures: Teacher Talk and Sustained Shifts in Practice"** Jessica Meth and Amy Azano raise an important issue about the importance of teachers discussing student writing. Their research shows that it is vital for teachers to get together and have conversations about how to help students improve their writing. This article encourages teachers to focus conversations about student writing on content and what is being taught in the classroom instead of jumping around from topic to topic. This article is focused on finding ways to promote teacher growth so that practice in the classroom can transform into a higher quality. The idea is for effective teachers to teach other teachers about writing and the practice of writing so that educators are more equipped to guide students. Social interaction is key in the framework of this study. If we all interact with one another and engage in discussions about writing and teaching writing, we will become better instructors.

I see that Meth and Azano are addressing the age old obstacle teachers face where they become stuck practicing tired methods of teaching because of a lack of communication. It is refreshing to come across new ways to practice group sharing of knowledge about teaching writing. It was interesting how Meth and Azano used their study to create a safe space for teachers to talk amongst themselves and learn from one another. I wonder how it is different from academic conferences. Many teachers go to conferences so that they can talk with one another and find new ideas for methods of teaching and also to get advise from others about teaching. It seems like this study is focused on inter-personal communication about teaching writing. Meth and Azano had participants in their study free write and then reflect on it with each other for ten minutes like what student do in a classroom. the teachers worked on becoming better instructors by learning from one another in groups.