1. What is your topic and why does it matter to you?
The main question I want to pursue through my project is, "Who is the 'real' you and how does language affect that 'you'?"
I really want to pursue this question in my future classroom. Students at the secondary level are asking the first part of this question already. However, as many of us expressed throughout this class, many of us never been confronted with many of these questions about how language affects us or even what it means to us. I think this would be an excellent question for juniors in high school to consider.
This topic is important to me because as a student I have experienced the feeling of pointlessness; I have wondered why we learn certain things. I have found that when any topic is made personally relevant, it becomes easier to be engaged. For this reason, I want to encourage students to consider what the way they use language says about them: I want students to consider whether they speak a certain way because of what social group they are part of or they are part of that social group because of how they speak. I want them to consider how their past influences their language use. Finally, I want them to consider where they want language to take them. By considering especially this last question, I hope to use student feedback to influence my teaching. It will, hopefully, relate my teaching to student ideas about CCR.
2. What format am I doing, and why did I pick it?
I want to plan a short unit plan in which to have students explore these questions. I want to do it in a timeline format: This is where I came from; this is where I am now; this is where it will take me.
I think this format will be the most useful for my career. I want to use this to encourage students to think about how language affects them. I also want to use it to influence my teaching.
3. What questions do I have about my project?
At this point, I don't have many questions. I am sure some will arise while I work on it. At that point, I will not hesitate to ask for help. I am, however, not opposed to any suggestions.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Final Project Idea
So when we first started discussing Discourse Analysis a few days ago, in my notes I wrote a question that I think was presented in class. The question is, "Who is the 'real' you."
I think that for my final project, I would like to push this question a little further. I do not want to answer this question myself, but rather, I think this question could be used in a classroom to help students think about language and how it directly applies to them.
What I think I would like to do is create a lesson plan of sorts. The premise of the lesson will be for me to pose this question to students: "Who is the 'real' you and how does language affect that?"
What I want my students to explore is how the way they speak says something about who they are. I want them to examine stereotypes--do they speak a certain way because of "who they are" or are they "who they are" because of how they speak (getting into Gee's ideas of practices)? I want them to consider how they want language to define them and how they want to define language. I want them to examine the relevance of taking four years of "English" as a requirement to graduate high school: why should they be required to do that? How will it impact their futures?
I know that this would be a really big undertaking. However, I hope that this is a way that students can make an emotional connection to what they are learning in the classroom; I want them to answer the question, "Why are we learning this." I hope that, ideally, I can utilize what they come up with to impact my teaching. I imagine that this project would be done early in the school year and would probably be used in an 11th grade classroom. I am not sure about all of that yet, but this is just a starting point.
Any feedback would be more than appreciated!
I think that for my final project, I would like to push this question a little further. I do not want to answer this question myself, but rather, I think this question could be used in a classroom to help students think about language and how it directly applies to them.
What I think I would like to do is create a lesson plan of sorts. The premise of the lesson will be for me to pose this question to students: "Who is the 'real' you and how does language affect that?"
What I want my students to explore is how the way they speak says something about who they are. I want them to examine stereotypes--do they speak a certain way because of "who they are" or are they "who they are" because of how they speak (getting into Gee's ideas of practices)? I want them to consider how they want language to define them and how they want to define language. I want them to examine the relevance of taking four years of "English" as a requirement to graduate high school: why should they be required to do that? How will it impact their futures?
I know that this would be a really big undertaking. However, I hope that this is a way that students can make an emotional connection to what they are learning in the classroom; I want them to answer the question, "Why are we learning this." I hope that, ideally, I can utilize what they come up with to impact my teaching. I imagine that this project would be done early in the school year and would probably be used in an 11th grade classroom. I am not sure about all of that yet, but this is just a starting point.
Any feedback would be more than appreciated!
Friday, November 9, 2012
Close reading of Common Core
I am doing my close reading on the Craft and Structure portion for 11-12 grades of the Reading Standards for Literature 6-12. The section I am doing is found on page 38.
Significance:
The one thing that jumped out as being made significant is the work of William Shakespeare. The Common Core says in parentheses to include "Shakespeare as well as other authors." Clearly, Shakespeare is significant because he is named and singled out as a significant author to examine when looking at "language that is particularly fresh, engaging, or beautiful." Also, that very quote places significance on how language should be noticed. Language should be "fresh, engaging, or beautiful," and it is up to CCR 11-12 graders to determine such language.
Practices:
This part of Gee's discourse is hard for me to understand, but the way I do understand it is easily described by Gee as the "chicken and egg question." The way the Common Core addresses this, in my interpretation, is "Do we talk about word choice, authorial intent, point of view, etc. because they are part of Reading Standards?" OR "Do we call them Reading Standards because they include discussions about such topics?" I think thinking about these questions, and similar ones, can make us question why we teach the things we teach. Is it because they are part of reading standards or is it because they are important skills that they become part of reading standards?
Identities:
This portion of the Common Core is identifying students to whom this applies as students in "Grades 11-12." So, we could ask, "What does that mean: are these students physically 11th and 12th graders? Are these students intellectually at an 11th-12th grade level? Do these students have the prerequisites and background information to be successful in an 11th-12th grade classroom?
Because these students are on the brink of entering their careers or college, they are also identified as nearly College and Career Ready. By meeting the Reading Standards listed, they will be CCR.
Relationships:
The Common Core is definitely trying to establish a relationship based on academia. This relationship is being formed primarily with teachers and administration. It is the authority on Reading Standards for 11-12 grade students to which teachers and administrators must answer. I think it can be a good thing or a bad thing that this does NOT emphasize a relationship between teachers/administrators and students.
Politics:
This passage places social good on a CCR student. This student, in 11-12 grades, should be able to proficiently do everything listed. This includes determining word meaning, etc., analysis of word choice, impact, etc., and more. Also, a cultural capital is assumed by mentioning Shakespeare as a particular author whose work is an example of "language that is particularly fresh, engaging, or beautiful."
Connections:
The Common Core seeks to make connections between multiple facets of a written work. It desires CCR students to be able to start with basic understanding of literature then make connections from what they read to what is implied or meant as well as what the author intend the text to mean. I think this part of the Common Core is one of the best and potentially most effective. Connections are so important. What would make this part of the Standards more effective is to emphasize a need for students to connect the things in literature to life--to make emotional connections. Hopefully, though, this is something a good teacher will do without it being required in the Common Core.
Sign Systems and Knowledge:
The language used in the Standards definitely privileges English speakers, as it is written in English. Also, it privileges those with cultural capital, as I mentioned before, with an assumed knowledge of Shakespeare. The language is also directly connected to the language of academia, which not everyone would understand. It is written with a fairly specific audience in mind and would be inaccessible to some populations.
Significance:
The one thing that jumped out as being made significant is the work of William Shakespeare. The Common Core says in parentheses to include "Shakespeare as well as other authors." Clearly, Shakespeare is significant because he is named and singled out as a significant author to examine when looking at "language that is particularly fresh, engaging, or beautiful." Also, that very quote places significance on how language should be noticed. Language should be "fresh, engaging, or beautiful," and it is up to CCR 11-12 graders to determine such language.
Practices:
This part of Gee's discourse is hard for me to understand, but the way I do understand it is easily described by Gee as the "chicken and egg question." The way the Common Core addresses this, in my interpretation, is "Do we talk about word choice, authorial intent, point of view, etc. because they are part of Reading Standards?" OR "Do we call them Reading Standards because they include discussions about such topics?" I think thinking about these questions, and similar ones, can make us question why we teach the things we teach. Is it because they are part of reading standards or is it because they are important skills that they become part of reading standards?
Identities:
This portion of the Common Core is identifying students to whom this applies as students in "Grades 11-12." So, we could ask, "What does that mean: are these students physically 11th and 12th graders? Are these students intellectually at an 11th-12th grade level? Do these students have the prerequisites and background information to be successful in an 11th-12th grade classroom?
Because these students are on the brink of entering their careers or college, they are also identified as nearly College and Career Ready. By meeting the Reading Standards listed, they will be CCR.
Relationships:
The Common Core is definitely trying to establish a relationship based on academia. This relationship is being formed primarily with teachers and administration. It is the authority on Reading Standards for 11-12 grade students to which teachers and administrators must answer. I think it can be a good thing or a bad thing that this does NOT emphasize a relationship between teachers/administrators and students.
Politics:
This passage places social good on a CCR student. This student, in 11-12 grades, should be able to proficiently do everything listed. This includes determining word meaning, etc., analysis of word choice, impact, etc., and more. Also, a cultural capital is assumed by mentioning Shakespeare as a particular author whose work is an example of "language that is particularly fresh, engaging, or beautiful."
Connections:
The Common Core seeks to make connections between multiple facets of a written work. It desires CCR students to be able to start with basic understanding of literature then make connections from what they read to what is implied or meant as well as what the author intend the text to mean. I think this part of the Common Core is one of the best and potentially most effective. Connections are so important. What would make this part of the Standards more effective is to emphasize a need for students to connect the things in literature to life--to make emotional connections. Hopefully, though, this is something a good teacher will do without it being required in the Common Core.
Sign Systems and Knowledge:
The language used in the Standards definitely privileges English speakers, as it is written in English. Also, it privileges those with cultural capital, as I mentioned before, with an assumed knowledge of Shakespeare. The language is also directly connected to the language of academia, which not everyone would understand. It is written with a fairly specific audience in mind and would be inaccessible to some populations.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
People (microwave you)
From our discussion/readings in class the patterns I noticed were ones we talked about: There seemed to be a way in which the instructor guided or rushed class conversations in a particular way. This either seemed to be to reach a particular topic, to get to a point that students were not reaching on their own, or to accomplish a certain goal in a given time restraint. Also, we discussed the difference between a college discussion class where conversation seemed to flow much easier. In the high school classrooms, instructors seemed to need to encourage discussion much more; getting students to talk seems (in the two examples so far) almost like "pulling teeth." The other very obvious pattern we noticed was the need to deal with one or two speakers who dominated conversation and how to encourage shy/quiet students' input to be heard.
There are a few little things I have noticed that we have not yet talked about: One thing that I noticed in two transcripts was how teachers dealt with students using swear words; they did not address it. In one example, it seems that the teacher simply did not hear it, but the other instance, was interesting. Another pattern I have noted in a few of the transcripts is the presence of conversations that have nothing to do with the class discussion or what the teacher is saying. In Cassidy's and my recording, this was particularly annoying because it made transcribing other students' comments difficult. These are the patterns that have immediately jumped out at me from just reading. I look forward to noticing more patterns as we hear them aloud.
These patterns and just general ways that teacher/student conversation is happening in the transcripts so far are definitely causing me to think about ways I want discussion to happen in my own classroom. I do want to find successful strategies for including ALL students in conversation in a relatively equal way. Realistically, this is every teacher's battle, and it is idealistic, but I do want to encourage a classroom environment that is open, honest, light, and fun but where learning still happens. In an ideal worlds, I would be able to successfully create my classroom to be this way all the time, and students would learn without even realizing they were actually learning. One way I think students can be encouraged to discuss in class is to use topics in a way that students can form an emotional attachment to them. This is not easy and can be dangerous, but I think it is worth trying because students will retain and care more about topics that they can personally connect to. One of the issues that I have had a really hard time trying to figure out how I feel about is the use of profanity in my classroom. I personally do not use profanity (at least not 99% of the time). However, I am not sure how to come to a balance between encouraging school policy, a more extensive vocabulary than just the adjective, adverb, and noun forms of four four-letter words, and still having a good relationship with my students and relaxed classroom. UGH! This is the one issue that, as minor as it is, gives me the most stress when I think about what I am going to do in my classroom. In regards to side conversations, I understand as a student myself that these are nearly unavoidable. However, I think (without casting any judgement or drawing unfair conclusions about any teachers) that this may be a meter for me to judge how engaged my class is. If my students are talking among one another about topics unrelated to class discussion, I think it is fair to say that they are bored or lack interest in the topic. Again, this is hard to avoid, and in my idealistic classroom, I would be able to keep my students engaged in class discussion 100% of the time, but realistically, I will deal with it; so I must figure out how I plan to address it and what to do to discourage it in a positive way. Again, I am excited to see my ideas about how to run classroom discussion be challenged or grow in response to the transcripts as we continue to read them.
There are a few little things I have noticed that we have not yet talked about: One thing that I noticed in two transcripts was how teachers dealt with students using swear words; they did not address it. In one example, it seems that the teacher simply did not hear it, but the other instance, was interesting. Another pattern I have noted in a few of the transcripts is the presence of conversations that have nothing to do with the class discussion or what the teacher is saying. In Cassidy's and my recording, this was particularly annoying because it made transcribing other students' comments difficult. These are the patterns that have immediately jumped out at me from just reading. I look forward to noticing more patterns as we hear them aloud.
These patterns and just general ways that teacher/student conversation is happening in the transcripts so far are definitely causing me to think about ways I want discussion to happen in my own classroom. I do want to find successful strategies for including ALL students in conversation in a relatively equal way. Realistically, this is every teacher's battle, and it is idealistic, but I do want to encourage a classroom environment that is open, honest, light, and fun but where learning still happens. In an ideal worlds, I would be able to successfully create my classroom to be this way all the time, and students would learn without even realizing they were actually learning. One way I think students can be encouraged to discuss in class is to use topics in a way that students can form an emotional attachment to them. This is not easy and can be dangerous, but I think it is worth trying because students will retain and care more about topics that they can personally connect to. One of the issues that I have had a really hard time trying to figure out how I feel about is the use of profanity in my classroom. I personally do not use profanity (at least not 99% of the time). However, I am not sure how to come to a balance between encouraging school policy, a more extensive vocabulary than just the adjective, adverb, and noun forms of four four-letter words, and still having a good relationship with my students and relaxed classroom. UGH! This is the one issue that, as minor as it is, gives me the most stress when I think about what I am going to do in my classroom. In regards to side conversations, I understand as a student myself that these are nearly unavoidable. However, I think (without casting any judgement or drawing unfair conclusions about any teachers) that this may be a meter for me to judge how engaged my class is. If my students are talking among one another about topics unrelated to class discussion, I think it is fair to say that they are bored or lack interest in the topic. Again, this is hard to avoid, and in my idealistic classroom, I would be able to keep my students engaged in class discussion 100% of the time, but realistically, I will deal with it; so I must figure out how I plan to address it and what to do to discourage it in a positive way. Again, I am excited to see my ideas about how to run classroom discussion be challenged or grow in response to the transcripts as we continue to read them.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Down on the Corner
I just have to start by expressing my thankfulness and appreciation of the blog title for Dis Class: "Bad Moon Rising." Got to love CCR! :)
Now to answer question 1: What does College and Career Readiness mean and how can it be used as an educational goal?
This is a really hard thing to define. As was mentioned in class, a student's readiness for college and/or career depends heavily upon which college or career they choose to pursue. But is there a way in which we can prepare each student no matter where their future leads? I think there may be, but it is hard to pin down.
As much as I do not believe standardized testing to be a very effective means of measuring student achievement, improvement, knowledge, or intelligence, I think there could be a way to use standardized tests as a starting point in determining CCR. I think the tests need to be revised for sure, and rather than looking at the teacher and his/her "lack of effective teaching," we should focus on each individual student's score and what that means for that student. I do not know how to do this, but if there was a way to, instead of measuring knowledge of content, we could use standardized tests to determine if a student knows HOW to read and decode the information, HOW to think critically about what is being asked, HOW to arrive at an acceptable answer to the questions. If a student has the foundation and ability to process information, I think they should be ready to enter any college or career and learn effectively. As Jake mentioned in class, very few of us enter our first college literature class completely ready for what we are expected to do and know. But we adapt and figure it out thanks to a basic foundation of how to perform well in a classroom. If we can send students into whatever college or career they choose, over prepared if need be, then we have done our job.
So on to question 2: In what other ways do I want my students to be literate?
Again, I do think that the need for literacy in multiple areas is somewhat dependent on where a student is headed. Different careers have different expectations. Again, I think a basic foundation will prepare students to springboard from in order to achieve what is necessary for their future. I think one area that students today should have at least a basic literacy in is computers. It is hard to imagine students today leaving school without using computers extensively in school, but I wouldn't be surprised, after realizing how many people graduate high school without knowing how to read, if there were those who don't have enough functional knowledge. I think one of the important ways to include technology literacy is not just to teach students how to use it, but to teach them how to use it correctly. Most kids today have abundant access to technology: cell phones, ipods, ipads, computers, social networks, gaming, etc. However, the habits that many young people pick up through many of these venues (i.e. lack of grammar, IM-ing abbreviations, spelling, etc.) may hinder their abilities in college/career situations. Therefore, I think that teaching students the "etiquette of technology" in more professional settings would be very beneficial.
Honestly, I wish I could make my students literate in any and every way possible and necessary for anything they may ever face. (Here comes the idealism that teachers have). I do know, however, that I alone will not be able to prepare my students for everything and anything; this is why I think the foundation is important. If students have a foundation, they can decide which direction and how high to jump off of it to be successful individuals.
I know that this was a bit cyclical, and there was a lot of not knowing. Unfortunately that's where my mind is on this right now. I have ideas but I have not had to sit down and think these through to this extent yet. I look forward to discussing these ideas in class!
Now to answer question 1: What does College and Career Readiness mean and how can it be used as an educational goal?
This is a really hard thing to define. As was mentioned in class, a student's readiness for college and/or career depends heavily upon which college or career they choose to pursue. But is there a way in which we can prepare each student no matter where their future leads? I think there may be, but it is hard to pin down.
As much as I do not believe standardized testing to be a very effective means of measuring student achievement, improvement, knowledge, or intelligence, I think there could be a way to use standardized tests as a starting point in determining CCR. I think the tests need to be revised for sure, and rather than looking at the teacher and his/her "lack of effective teaching," we should focus on each individual student's score and what that means for that student. I do not know how to do this, but if there was a way to, instead of measuring knowledge of content, we could use standardized tests to determine if a student knows HOW to read and decode the information, HOW to think critically about what is being asked, HOW to arrive at an acceptable answer to the questions. If a student has the foundation and ability to process information, I think they should be ready to enter any college or career and learn effectively. As Jake mentioned in class, very few of us enter our first college literature class completely ready for what we are expected to do and know. But we adapt and figure it out thanks to a basic foundation of how to perform well in a classroom. If we can send students into whatever college or career they choose, over prepared if need be, then we have done our job.
So on to question 2: In what other ways do I want my students to be literate?
Again, I do think that the need for literacy in multiple areas is somewhat dependent on where a student is headed. Different careers have different expectations. Again, I think a basic foundation will prepare students to springboard from in order to achieve what is necessary for their future. I think one area that students today should have at least a basic literacy in is computers. It is hard to imagine students today leaving school without using computers extensively in school, but I wouldn't be surprised, after realizing how many people graduate high school without knowing how to read, if there were those who don't have enough functional knowledge. I think one of the important ways to include technology literacy is not just to teach students how to use it, but to teach them how to use it correctly. Most kids today have abundant access to technology: cell phones, ipods, ipads, computers, social networks, gaming, etc. However, the habits that many young people pick up through many of these venues (i.e. lack of grammar, IM-ing abbreviations, spelling, etc.) may hinder their abilities in college/career situations. Therefore, I think that teaching students the "etiquette of technology" in more professional settings would be very beneficial.
Honestly, I wish I could make my students literate in any and every way possible and necessary for anything they may ever face. (Here comes the idealism that teachers have). I do know, however, that I alone will not be able to prepare my students for everything and anything; this is why I think the foundation is important. If students have a foundation, they can decide which direction and how high to jump off of it to be successful individuals.
I know that this was a bit cyclical, and there was a lot of not knowing. Unfortunately that's where my mind is on this right now. I have ideas but I have not had to sit down and think these through to this extent yet. I look forward to discussing these ideas in class!
Friday, October 5, 2012
What is "literacy?"
When I think of literacy, illiteracy, etc., I have always thought of an ability to read and write. To say someone is illiterate has always meant that they had not learned how to read or write. So in the noun form, literacy means the ability to understand written words and to produce written words.
This definition seems to make sense in regards to the "Theory of Language and Literacy" we are to ponder. Language is simply a way to communicate, generally orally (sometimes language incorporates gestures and facial expressions, especially in the case of someone who is unable to speak or hear, i.e. American Sign Language), so then literacy would apply to reading and writing. I believe someone who is illiterate (unable to read) generally will still be more than capable of communication.
This definition seems to make sense in regards to the "Theory of Language and Literacy" we are to ponder. Language is simply a way to communicate, generally orally (sometimes language incorporates gestures and facial expressions, especially in the case of someone who is unable to speak or hear, i.e. American Sign Language), so then literacy would apply to reading and writing. I believe someone who is illiterate (unable to read) generally will still be more than capable of communication.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
A Place for Grammar
I think defining the different things we mean when we talk about "grammar" is very useful. Thinking through this article has caused me to re-think a little bit about my ideas about the usefulness of grammar instruction, of any kind, in the classroom. However, I still believe that grammar instruction is a necessary component of an English teacher's curriculum.
I think that an understanding of the English language, it's rules, usage, etc. are all important. However, I do think that some parts should be focused on more than others. For example, Hartwell's definition of Grammar 1 would not need to be taught to native speakers of English (it may be useful in a class for ESL students, however) because they will already instinctively know the rules. A brief instruction on what those instinctive rules are may be enlightening to an upper-level English class in a similar way to our study of the rules of different English dialects.
I think that a study of Grammar 2, the rules of language patterns, would also be beneficial more as a way for students to know how to communicate what they do linguistically and in writing.
In regards to our discussion about how to approach "proper" English in light of professional expectations, even though we know that one dialect is not better than another, teaching linguistic etiquette, Grammar 3, would be a way to teach students that there is a difference between "correct" and "appropriate" usage.
In addition, learning both Grammar 4 and Grammar 5 (school grammar and stylistic writing grammar, respectively) will only better prepare students for successful careers in any field. Someone once told me, in regards to writing, "You need to know the rules before you are allowed to break them." I think this is a good philosophy. Students should know how or why they can make stylistic choices in their written work. However, a knowledge of when it is appropriate to make those choices would also be very beneficial.
As I mentioned in class, my opinion on the role of grammar in English class comes largely from my own personal experience. I sincerely believe that the extent to which my high school English teacher hammered rules of grammar and usage into our heads set not only me, but many others up for tremendous success. The basic knowledge I carry with me allows me to excel in numerous ways. Classmates who, at the time, hated English class have also expressed appreciation for the knowledge they have. I think grammar does belong in the classroom. I think that different definitions of grammar have varying roles and levels of importance. Nevertheless, I fully intend to make grammar instruction an important part of my classroom.
I think that an understanding of the English language, it's rules, usage, etc. are all important. However, I do think that some parts should be focused on more than others. For example, Hartwell's definition of Grammar 1 would not need to be taught to native speakers of English (it may be useful in a class for ESL students, however) because they will already instinctively know the rules. A brief instruction on what those instinctive rules are may be enlightening to an upper-level English class in a similar way to our study of the rules of different English dialects.
I think that a study of Grammar 2, the rules of language patterns, would also be beneficial more as a way for students to know how to communicate what they do linguistically and in writing.
In regards to our discussion about how to approach "proper" English in light of professional expectations, even though we know that one dialect is not better than another, teaching linguistic etiquette, Grammar 3, would be a way to teach students that there is a difference between "correct" and "appropriate" usage.
In addition, learning both Grammar 4 and Grammar 5 (school grammar and stylistic writing grammar, respectively) will only better prepare students for successful careers in any field. Someone once told me, in regards to writing, "You need to know the rules before you are allowed to break them." I think this is a good philosophy. Students should know how or why they can make stylistic choices in their written work. However, a knowledge of when it is appropriate to make those choices would also be very beneficial.
As I mentioned in class, my opinion on the role of grammar in English class comes largely from my own personal experience. I sincerely believe that the extent to which my high school English teacher hammered rules of grammar and usage into our heads set not only me, but many others up for tremendous success. The basic knowledge I carry with me allows me to excel in numerous ways. Classmates who, at the time, hated English class have also expressed appreciation for the knowledge they have. I think grammar does belong in the classroom. I think that different definitions of grammar have varying roles and levels of importance. Nevertheless, I fully intend to make grammar instruction an important part of my classroom.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)