Technology...in the Classroom

While the title of my post may conjure up some unpleasant memories about a required education course at the University of Iowa, I want to discuss a seeming hot topic in education today: the application of technology to curriculum. In theory, it sounds great and I am all for supporting and using the multiple literacies of our students.

For example, in my practicum, the juniors are blogging. We spent much of last week setting up their accounts, creating profiles, and explaining the purpose of their assignments. Their blogs would make many educatroin theorists happy as the kids use this familiar medium to engage in meaningful literary activities. Instead of traditional literature circles, the kids blog to each other in the form of literary letters. They are not only using the technology that surrounds them outside of school, but the forum provides them a way to interact with peers through a context that is familiar. Although the crux of any supposed "ideal" English classroom is discussion, the blogs give students who may not normally have a strong voice in class the opportunity and space to express their thoughts. This process of constructing an online identity and voice (albeit through literature instead of for their social lives) comes naturally to students as they engage in such exercises daily outside of school.

So, technology works perfectly to engage the interests of my students, right? Because we view literature in a medium close to the lives of our students outside of school, they thrive, right? Well, not necessarily. While some students did very well in this setting, many were distracted by anything and everything on the computer. I spent a lot of the period shepherding students away from Facebook, PhotoBooth, and e-mail accounts. Furthermore, many students asked if they had to use "good English" and if they must write their responses in paragraph form. Although they were engaging in a familiar literacy, the construct of school and the classroom prevented many from sincerely interacting with their books.

I guess my question is one that plagues English teachers daily: how can we remove the constraints and constructs of school from the classroom? How can we engage students in the curriculum when even when the best techniques do not entice the students who struggle? If kids seem not to respond to meaningful curriculum that incorporates the technology they frequently use, where can we go? Of course, I have no answers here, and I don't think there is just one "right" way to approach this dilemma. In fact, I think this question will last just as long as teaching.

Mackenzie

Windows is Shutting Down

I never noticed the glaringly obvious grammatical error on my PC every time it shut down until a professor of postmodern fiction pointed out the malapropism to our class. The phrase "Windows is Shutting Down" seemed natural and I never picked up on the fact that the subject and verb of that phrase don't match. After enlightening our class, our professor then proceeded to show us "Windows is Shutting Down" by Clive James. Here's the poem (bolded for emphasis):

Windows is shutting down, and grammar are
On their last leg. So what am we to do?
A letter of complaint go just so far,
Proving the only one in step are you.

Better, perhaps, to simply let it goes.
A sentence have to be screwed pretty bad
Before they gets to where you doesnt knows
The meaning what it must of meant to had.

The meteor have hit. Extinction spread,
But evolution do not stop for that.
A mutant languages rise from the dead
And all them rules is suddenly old hat.

Too bad for we, us what has had so long
The best seat from the only game in town.
But there it am, and whom can say its wrong?
Those are the break. Windows is shutting down.

I won’t lie--I first cringed when I read the poem and attributed the grammatical inconsistency of "Windows is shutting down" to this postmodern age dominated by "evil" technology. In this dramatic moment of self-pity, I thought about how much more difficult teaching literature will be as our students not only accept, but are also conversant in, this new literacy. However, after I thought more on this poem, I realized it doesn't bemoan the fact that our language continually morphs and changes. Instead, it seems to suggest that this new literacy is here to stay. Can we then, as future teachers of students immersed in this language, really say that it is wrong?

This week's set of readings seem to ask teachers to carefully examine our current practices. Would such reconsiderations include becoming responsive to this new literacy/grammar? Where do we set the boundaries between what language is or is not acceptable in the English classroom? I don't have any immediate answers, but I think it is something we must consider as "all them rules" seem to become "old hat."

Mackenzie

Sesame Street and Learning Today

Last week, I turned on the news to unexpectedly hear a question and jingle that resounded throughout my childhood: "Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Sesame Street?" The report was a sad one. Dr. Gerald Lesser, both a Harvard psychologist who studied how young children learn and a creator of the much beloved show, passed in late September. Although sad, the report continued to celebrate Lesser's genius. Sesame Street began as an experiment to see if underprivileged children could learn through the relatively new medium of television. Dr. Lesser and his colleagues worked from all angles to incorporate learning into each episode. When they realized advertisements fascinated children, they mimicked the structure of such advertisements in the program (I'm sure we all remember Elmo triumphantly proclaiming that 'Sesame Street is brought to you today by the letter B and the number 5!'). Lesser also realized that children needed role models who were not simply happy all the time, and as a consequence created Oscar the Grouch and the endearingly awkward Big Bird.

Because of Lesser's work, millions of children learned through the technology that surrounded them. Kindergarten teachers had to change their curriculum as children came to school already knowing their letters and numbers from Sesame Street. Furthermore (and perhaps most importantly), learning became interactive and fun as strange looking animals and monsters captivated the imaginations of children. I absolutely loved Sesame Street and my mother recently told me that as a little girl I would burst into tears at the conclusion of every episode.

Today, it seems education and learning faces a dilemma similar to Lesser's. Living in this postmodern world, our students engage in multiple new literacies that many educators neglect, if not outright reject, in the classroom. Instead of becoming responsive to these new technological developments, it seems that education chooses to ignore the changing dynamics of society. While I am no expert on utilizing the latest technology, I think educators should at least attempt to adopt the "Sesame Street" mentality and work to incorporate these new cultural mediums in the classroom. Allowing students to work within the technology that shapes their lives could provide numerous opportunities for meaningful learning.

Of course, I cannot begin to tell teachers how to restructure of their classrooms, and I would never advocate abandoning books for iPads or Kindles or whatever they're called (I'm way too attached to my books to ever support that). However, I think with a little creativity we can use new technology to develop the multiple literacies of our students. Maybe with some of these innovations, our students will grow to love the classroom just as much as I loved Sesame Street.

Mackenzie

Here's a link to the original report I saw on Dr. Lesser and Sesame Street:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/sesame-street-developer-dr-gerald-lesser-dead-age/story?id=11807388

The Dreaded Rubric

Rubrics. As Wilson describes in her text, Rethinking Rubrics, these simple pieces of paper can inspire fear while simultaneously limiting the creative power of students. Although the genesis of rubrics was initially "good" and even though many students take comfort in these guidelines, something about them doesn't seem to fit how students, teachers, and writers think in this postmodern world. As Wilson enumerates in her analysis, a sole-emphasis on rubrics teaches students to value the product and not the process.

As I was reading Wilson's text, one line toward the end particularly struck home. While discussing Linda Christensen's grading system outlined in Reading, Writing, and Rising Up, Wilson notes how "our focus on process gives us room to respond effectively to truly gifted writers. In classes where every paper is graded, those students who consistently get high grades received little specific feedback or encouragement to revise--doesn't an A paper imply perfection?" In such a system, rubrics impose limits on students ready to take new challenges while telling struggling writers that their product is simply not good enough. The pressure of these boundaries can make the writing process more taxing and definitely less enjoyable.

As a student, I always wanted feedback. When I received good grades, I enjoyed the praise, but I wanted more. I rejoiced when I received long comments from teachers encouraging me to try new things with my writing, and was silently disappointed when I instead received a neatly completed rubric. While I tried to push my thinking, the rubric was always there to set my limits for me if I didn't feel like taking a risk.

With practicum this semester, I am beginning to learn how little time teachers truly have during the day. While I will try my utmost to respond personally and individually to my students' writings, it seems irrational to write long and personalized comments on every paper my students write. Furthermore, pressure from students, parents, and administration may force teachers into using such a system. However, as Wilson discusses in her text, this does not mean teachers have to use rigid rubrics that stifle thought. Teachers can work within the rubrics to find ways to assess student progress.

A professor this summer taught our class one such way for teachers to fight the constraints of rubrics. While this teacher's school required her to use rubrics, she found a way to work within the system. Instead of capping her rubric categories at "Excellent" (or whatever inane phrase most rubrics utilize), she would leave an empty box at the bottom of the sheet. She explained to her students that this box was there to remind them that she does not set the limits for their writing; she wanted her students to go beyond the grade to push their thinking to undetermined heights. Amazingly, this simple empty box seemed to work and her students were more inclined to take risks and push themselves. They did not feel so constrained by the system.

One final note: I read Reading, Writing, and Rising Up during Language and Learning last semester and LOVED it. For those of you looking for an inspiring and practical text, Christensen fits the bill.

Mackenzie