Enforced Educational Schizophrenia” LOL, LOL, LOL!!!`

This week’s readings were informative, but several seemed slightly outdated. Such is the nature of the technology beast I suppose. Just as we begin to discover, think about, write about, reflect upon, and understand some new technology or technological context, something changes. I can’t imagine it’s really even possible for a book (a textbook in particular) to keep up with the constant changes occurring seemingly overnight.

Many of the assertions proffered in the Moran article “linked” me back to a book I read last summer, entitled The Dumbest Generation or Don’t Trust Anyone Under Thirty. www.dumbestgenerationwww.thedumbestgeneration.com This book, written by a Cambridge Scholar, presents a thorough and seemingly well supported discussion about our students and their use of technology. The primary argument presented in the book is that despite our (relatively successful – at least in my experience) intentions and efforts to make access to technology equally available to all students, our students have failed to do their part and use the technology made available to research, and expand and enrich, their knowledge bases. Instead, the author purports, our students have done quite the opposite and are using the technology to “cocoon” themselves into tight little social networks, building virtual walls that shield them from and blind them to the world in which they live. Moran argues that if we are to assume that “technology improves student learning,” then assuring access and teaching students how to use it are our goals as educators. So, here we are years later, and I think it’s pretty safe to say we’ve spent tons and tons of money, but are seeing little return on our investment, at least in terms of academic gains. That leads me to ask myself why my students who are by most standards technologically literate, don’t know what key terms to type into the google search bar if trying to locate a professional organization on their field. Or, why they don’t know what “evaluate the credibility” of a site means, or why they don’t know what Publisher is, or how to safely save their work for efficient retrieval. They think grammar/spell check is the bottom line, end all to be all god of writing correctness, despite the fact that it is highly flawed, has a vocabulary equivalent to that of an 8^th grader ( I read that in an article I cannot locate - ugh!), and is not familiar with the specialized vocabulary of their Career and Technical areas of specialty.  I could go on (of course! LOL!), but.... So, now I’m compelled to think that WE, teachers, have failed somewhere (jump on the bandwagon, right?). On page 207 Moran tells us that whether we like it or not, it’s our job to read the research, learn the technology, and TEACH our students how to use it for (I’m guessing here) academic purposes and not simply social networking. I teach 10^th and 12 graders, and I mourn the fact that I must teach otherwise techno-savvy students how to perform basic word processing functions each year before we can even begin typing papers. These students are on Facebook, have ipods, and all kinds of other techno-tools, but are simply not accustomed to using them for academic pursuits. Maybe it’s not the actual teachers, but the archaic rules and policies in some of our schools, forbidding and making impossible the use of email in/from school, or blocking most of the sites that would be “hits” during a research query. I actually had to ask to have Purdue Owl unblocked this year so my students could use it as an MLA resource. How can I fault them for not knowing and understanding how to read and navigate the site, spending two periods showing them how, if they can’t access it from school? As much as Moran cites wealth (or lack of) as an issue for accessibility, I contend we have a more serious problem with administrators who are uninformed and fearful, and teachers of the same, who refuse to allow technology into their classrooms and to teach students how to use school/academic technology for its intended purpose – to enlighten and enrich the learner and learning process!

I appreciated the Diana George article for the simple fact that I have tried a multi-modal project in Writing and Rhetoric class before, and she definitely offered some insight into how I can work on improving that project and why I would want to. I also thought she made an important statement about the role of the teacher, charging us to help students be critical, as well as enthusiastic, consumers of the newer forms of  “text.”  I found the historical perspectives helpful, but they made ME feel outdated, as I recall writing papers about these evolving issues and trends in the field way back during undergrad (eeeeks!!).

Miller and Shepherd provided a very interesting history of the evolution of the blog as a genre. I was repeatedly surprised during my reading of this (and other previous articles) that the authors didn’t reference Deborah Dean. She authored Genre Theory a few years ago (published by NCTE) www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/2988 .Much of the discussion in the article was mirrored in Dean’s book, but was presented in a teacher –friendly format. That book revolutionized my understanding of the term genre. I also liked the section on Kairos, an idea I never did quite grasp during undergrad. The examples Miller and Shepherd provided served to make its meaning slightly more clear for me. I also loved that they shared the website for Kairos. One of my undergrad professors frequently shared this site with us, and I had completely forgotten about it until this article. I definitely plan to check it out and see what I can glean.  The sections on ancestral genres and etymology were also interesting. I ‘m not quite a history buff (although I do find it useful and fun to know), but I AM a journaler. I was unable to decide if I agreed with Elbow or Mallon in regards to the differences/similarities between diaries and journals.

The common thread I found I all the articles this week was the fact that, as teachers, we must constantly change too. Change is often good, but too much at once, without thorough reading of the research, some writing and reflection, could result in a definite case of "Enforced Educational Schizophrenia" as we endeavor to occupy all our roles well and do the very best we can for each of our uniquely situated students.

I Loooooove My Job, Tom Corbett

Two of the readings this week really resonated with me. First, the Lynn chapter on fluency was just too good for words – right up my alley! Each turn of the page offered a new strategy to try in my classroom, for yet another reason. I found the explanation of how children acquire language informative and appealing, both to my senses as a teacher and a parent. When considering the type of learning environment proffered by Lynn on page 166, I was smitten. What teacher wouldn’t find such a nurturing, family – like learning community enchanting? I am in complete agreement that we need to immerse our students in language, in reading and writing, and speaking and listening, if we hope to assist them in developing as effective readers, writers, speakers, and listeners. Lynn also speaks to embracing the “mistakes” we all make as we learn, and using them as an opportunity to laugh together, and learn together. That being said, I also take my job as role model seriously and realize that for some students, our classroom may constitute one of their few opportunities to engage in academic discourse (although I must admit, it is often pseudo – academic in nature!) on a regular basis. Thus, the expectations are that even though we can have fun with the language, speaking in dialects, etc. at times, the base language used in our classroom is somewhat more formal and generally peppered with vocabulary terms we have studied – hence my relation to Quintilian’s assertion regarding nursemaids. J  

  

            

The number one suggestion Lynn gives for teaching to improve writing fluency is to write often for a variety of audiences. I must admit, I struggle with the variety of audiences aspect. Although my students have a few opportunities to write for people outside the classroom each year, really, deep down, we all know their peers and I are their primary audience for most of their pieces. How can I provide them other authentic audiences more often?

           

Beyond the plethora of lesson ideas gleaned and evoked by the reading of this chapter, I also found some possible implications for curriculum. Several other teachers and I bemoan the assigned grammar concepts included on each semester’s curriculum map, and have often sought ways around teaching them, in a specific order, in a specific quarter. Lynn’s description of error analysis prompted me to consider the possibility of using error analysis and targeted instructional response as a possible replacement. I am considering the design of a process/procedure I can use (first in my own classroom) that would document my findings from completing an error analysis, as well as my instructional response to the findings, at least once per quarter per student. It seems like it could be a bit of work, but I can imagine how my grammatical repertoire would grow (each year the targeted response becoming a bit easier with regular tweaking) and how my students would benefit from learning specific strategies relevant to improving their own writing, as opposed to the blanket approach currently being used. As a team, we could look for the logic underlying the mistakes and plan a course of action - how ideal. Hmmm...

            

Okay, I lied. My post is already more than lengthy, so I’m not going to cover the Brodkey article, except to say that I LOVED it, and it made me cry! (I am a true empath, or “emotion personified,” as one professor so sweetly informed me a few summers back during the ISI.) I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity to discuss in class! J  Oh, wait – did I mention how I LOVE the imitation exercise on page 184 (Lynn again)? I’m TOTALLY using it this week with my seniors, as they create brochures using content from a mini-research project. Oh, and.... J

            I <3 my job! <3 <3 <3 (DESPITE Corbett and his infinitely growing pile of B.S.!)

            

Grammar Wars

Grammar Wars

            Okay, so this is getting just a bit ridiculous – decades ago, we found a more effective way to think about and teach writing; a HUNDRED years ago, we found that teaching grammar (as most of us know it) is wasted time and far more frustrating than need be. YET, we continue to disservice our students and bang our heads off brick walls wondering why they didn’t get it, even though we spent weeks and weeks teaching them the grammatical concepts and writing skills they should have mastered in elementary school. What is the deal? A few weeks ago we compared teaching to medicine. If a doctor continued to prescribe an obsolete drug for a life threatening condition, despite decades, or even a century, of trials and research to the contrary, what would happen to that doctor? Would he/she not be called upon to answer to someone and be expected to get with the program or get out of the practice? So often I gripe and complain about the testing, the standardization, the loss of autonomy currently transforming the field of education. Yet, week after week, reading after reading, I ask myself how we as a profession can be allowed such inaction at such substantial cost to our students and our society.

            I have been fighting the “Grammar War” in my own school since I began teaching. I do not by any means suggest I know the best methods for teaching what our students need to be/come literate, functioning, contributing members of our increasingly global society, but I do know that for many students, in many schools, the disservice being done them boils down to being a matter of teacher choice and teacher preference. Teachers who have done the same thing for umpteen years and who have little or no desire to even try something new or different, are given free rein to continue practicing the same way they did when they entered the profession or ceased professional development. And to boot, their experience often automatically deems them valuable and knowledgeable, so they often end up mentoring and having a profound influence on naïve and inexperienced new members of the profession. It’s a vicious cycle. How do we end it?

            The rant being over, I must say, I enjoyed the readings again this week. The historical background offered by Connors and Hartwell were particularly interesting and informative. Hartwell’s discussion of Francis’ grammars (and more) was an excellent organizer for thinking about and discussing grammar with others. And Hartwell’s piece really left so little to be argued, or at least I think so. I can think of a few members of my department who I am certain could find fault. I was really interested in the notion of metalinguistic awareness and metacognition. I use some strategies (writer’s memo and reflections) to encourage this in my students, but feel as though I need more (in number), and more specific, strategies to use in the classroom. All in all, I would say the readings, and my subsequent thoughts regarding the many issues touched upon (literacy, class, etc.), have added much to my personal arsenal of Grammar Wars weaponry. I now feel much more prepared to engage in this critical dialogue.  (I’ll just have to try to handle my impatience and frustration at the fact that this conversation was, as Hartwell put it, decided over a decade ago!)

I apologize for the late post. I just moved this past week and my internet is not yet up - had to wait until I got to work to access. Thanks!