Introversion and Authentic Writing

The first blog post that I read, "The Energy Cost and the Power of Empathy," came from the becoming radical.  The article addressed how introverted students have an "energy cost" associated with the collaborative, project-based learning environments that most schools have implemented.  The post also urges teachers to be empathetic towards introverts and understand their need to "recharge."  I really liked the author's iPhone analogy.  He described how, just like an iPhone whose background apps drain battery life, an introvert's energy level is drained by things that cannot be seen on the surface.  He also related that to sufferers of anxiety, who have a constant sense of impending doom that drains them from the inside.  I really appreciated this post because I consider myself an introvert. In high school, I can remember being so exhausted at the end of every day from all of the social interaction and cooperative learning.  Now that I am older and in college, I have grown to like working with others, but when I was an introverted high school student having to work in groups in almost every class, I dreaded it.  I especially understood the point about asking students about their introversion.  Constant comments like "you're so quiet!" or "why are you sitting alone?" can seem harmless, but for a young introvert, it just further depletes their energy to have to explain their preferences to someone over and over.  When I was in school, many people said I was "quiet," which to me seemed like something negative.  Even though I went to a small school, I still felt that I was sometimes lost or hidden behind more extroverted students.  At conferences my parents would get many comments about how "quiet" and "well-behaved" I was, which is nice, but doesn't mean that I didn't need support sometimes.  I think it's important for teachers not to brush introverts off as students they "don't have to worry about," because they often have unique, but important needs.

The second blog post I read was called "School Writing vs. Authentic Writing," from writers who care.  It echoed a lot of what we have been talking about all semester.  The part that I really was drawn to was the mention of social media writing.  I think that some teachers and parents hold the assumption that students "can't" or "don't" write anymore.  What they do not understand is that students have grown up in a social-media centered time, and the blogs, tweets, emails, Facebook posts, etc. that they make every day ARE a form of writing.  The author of this blog argues that social media writing is real writing because it is written for an authentic audience.  He goes on to describe how school writing is focused on the teacher as the only audience, and that any clarifying questions about the writing are answered with 'yes' or 'no' as determined by the teacher only.  In authentic writing, the teacher is a guide.  He/she is there to give advice because he/she is not the only audience and therefore cannot have the final say.  I loved how the author talked about authority, meaning that the writer (author) has the ultimate authority over their piece.

I chose these blogs because they both discussed interesting topics and put a new spin on them.  The first post spoke to me personally, and reflected a population of students that is often forgotten about.  The second really made some great points about a topic we have discussed a lot in this class, and I really liked how the author incorporated social media, which is something unavoidable in the modern age.


Here are the links:

https://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/category/introversion/

https://writerswhocare.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/school-writing-vs-authentic-writing/

6+1 Trait Writing

I really appreciated the 6+1 Trait Writing model that was featured in the reading.   I felt that it was a very holistic approach to assessing student writing.  The traits themselves embody all of the most important aspects of good writing.  I liked how they were more on the general side so that as a teacher, you are able to pick out some important qualifiers for each trait that can be tailored to your students.  For example, if your students are struggling with using weak verbs like "said" too often, under word choice you could say "Paper uses strong verbs" or something similar.  I also liked the addition of Presentation as a trait, because when I have made assignment sheets/rubrics in the past, I've typically lumped the presentation aspect into conventions, but I like how it is separate here.  This way students will take the time to present their work in a professional way, and it is less likely to be an afterthought for them.  

Overall, I felt that the language that they used to describe each trait was very asset-based.  It rewards students for what is present, rather than deducting points because things are missing.  I think it is encouraging to student writers and considers aspects of the writing that are sometimes forgotten, but are still very important, such as voice and presentation.  

Gallagher and Christensen: Assessing Student Work

First, I have to say that I loved these three chapters.  Both authors are extremely inspirational and really demonstrate how their classrooms function.  In other classes, I have been told about the importance of meaningful writing and assignments, but have rarely seen what those look like in a real classroom.  I can definitely see myself referencing these texts over and over again when I become a teacher.

What I liked about the Gallagher chapter most was his "tenet" that teachers are not superman.  While reading his work, I loved all of the strategies he mentioned and truly admired him as a teacher, as well as his classroom.  However, I could not help but be overwhelmed by it all, especially when thinking about all of those strategies happening in the same classroom at the same time.  I liked that he said it was okay to fail at some things, and one of the golden lines I took from this chapter was "learning how to teach writing is a process itself"(p. 153).

I also really enjoyed his emphasis on mid-process grading.  It seems like a very obvious thing to do, but in my own experience in school, I almost never saw it in practice.  I also appreciated the "Golden Line" and "I Like..." activities, because they really ask the students to think positively about others' work as well as their own.  I think that Gallagher and Christensen both agree that "asset-based" language when looking at student writing is what keeps students engaged and excited about improving.  

Gallagher does a great job of using analogies that students would understand to help them recognize their own errors.  The football commentator analogy and color-coding were really interesting, and I think they would both be extremely effective, relatable, and manageable for students.  My biggest takeaways from this chapter were the grammar guides and independent correction sheets.  I can absolutely see myself using both of those in my classroom someday.  I think the grammar guides give students a way to take responsibility of their own learning, and they tailor the learning to meet individual needs.  I think as teachers we strive to tailor learning to individuals, but it can be overwhelming when their are hundreds of students to attend to.  The grammar guides and independent corrections sheets ask students to do the bulk of the work instead of forcing the teacher to come up with long grammar lessons that take time away from the writing process.

The Christensen chapters had some of the same principles as Gallagher's.  I especially was interested in the "patterns of error" that she talked about and I liked how she has the students discover and generate grammar rules for themselves.  Any opportunity to avoid handing out a worksheet or asking students to memorize a list of rules is going to be more genuine and meaningful for them as learners.  

As someone who finds Emergent Bilingual Education to be fascinating, I loved the section where she talked about conventions of the home language.  I had honestly never heard of the AAVE, but it was so eye-opening to realize that teachers (including myself) can be so quick to label student language/writing as wrong.  After reading this chapter, I agree that it is vital for teachers to understand their students' home language conventions, even on a basic level, to recognize how their writing is developing, and WHY they write in a certain way (when it deviates from Standard English).  I loved how she called these "logical errors,"  because even though they are errors, as they are incorrect in the context of Standard English, they are also logical, because they reflect translation from/understanding of a student's native language.  I noticed even in my personal life, that my boyfriend's father, who can only speak some English, will make grammatical errors in his speech often.  However these "errors" are very logical, because with my basic knowledge of Spanish, I can clearly see why he is making the error.  He follows the conventions of his language and translates them to English. 

Finally, I liked Christensen's description of grading as "wages" in the classroom, because that is exactly what they are.  I thought about how at work, most people do the requirements set by their specific boss to earn a wage and then forget about it once they go home.  When we do this in schools, students will simply find out what their specific teacher wants, do that for their "wage," and not think about their writing again.  We as teachers need to make the classroom a place for growth and improvement, and putting all of the emphasis on grading limits that growth.  

English Language Learning

Personally, I am extremely interested in teaching ELL's and look forward to all of the challenges and rewards that come along with it.  I admire people who are bilingual and as an English major, I understand how difficult the language can be.  I have been taking Spanish classes since I was in the 6th grade.  Interestingly, we always did a lot more writing than speaking in Spanish.  From the reading, it seemed like it is actually common for ELL's to do little to no writing, and mostly focus on simple reading and speaking exercises.  Because of the emphasis I had on writing, I feel much more confident writing in Spanish than I do speaking it.

With all of that being said, I love Fu's approach to teaching writing to ELL's.  It is unconventional, when you consider that most of the research and assumptions say ELL's should strive to think in English rather than their native language, and that their writing should reflect that.  I much prefer the concept of allowing students to write in a more scaffolded way, where they are able to write entirely in their native language, then with code-switching, then with inter-language, and finally in standard English.  I think that this approach is the epitome of the growth mindset.  Instead of focusing on students' deficits in the English language, you are able to embrace all of the advanced speaking, listening and writing skills they already possess in their native language (what he calls "funds of knowledge").  Instead of being labeled as "behind" or "bad" students, they are celebrated for being learners with the privilege of knowing and learning two languages.

I really liked the idea that it is okay for people to think in their native language.  The example he gave of the two teachers' writing was a clear indicator that allowing students to think in their native language produces stronger, more genuine writing, because you aren't limited to only the language you are proficient in.  It also saves student from the humiliation of being pulled aside to work on extremely low level activities and allows them to learn the same higher level content as their peers.


I think that the artifactual literacy would work really well with ELLs.  I am sure that many ELL students have artifacts from their native countries, or even from the US, that could help teachers gain insight into their culture.  It also relates to the idea of multiple literacies, which is important when you have a classroom of students who are not all at the same level of traditional English literacy.

The Politics of the Paragraph

I want to focus my response on the "The Politics of the Paragraph" article, because I thought that it was an extremely well written piece.  I was troubled by the opening example where Kenney describes how a student felt that she was a "crappy writer" just because her thoughts didn't fit into three clean paragraphs.  There is clearly a real problem with how we teach writing in our schools today.  Due to the added pressure of standardized testing, students' creativity and talent is stifled because teachers are forced to get all students to produce essentially the same work as everyone else to prove their "proficiency."  When I read the article I thought about how the PEAS formula seemed to get everyone to write coherently, but with little to no real substance.  In my own experience as a writer, I have never been asked to use any type of specific acronym or formula, but rather encouraged to get all my ideas out and then channel them into a structured and organized essay.  This approach is not perfect of course, but it reflects a different atmosphere, without the daunting presence of CCSS/standardized testing.
  Much like Kenney, I do believe that there are both pros and cons to using essay formulas.  It is nice to want to teach your students to be really engaged in their writing and inspire them to write authentically, but in our schools today, this isn't always possible.  Like Kenney brought up in the article, many of her colleagues want a clean, easy-to-implement solution to teaching writing, which she acknowledges as completely reasonable.  We all want students to love writing and love learning, but when faced with a standardized test, we also don't want them to fail.  It is a difficult balance, especially when it would really come down to changing the whole education system to not be so hyper-focued on test scores.  I wholeheartedly agree with Kenney that any type of formula used in writing is going to limit students' creativity.  There is a reason that writing is considered an art form, because good writing can't be boiled down to a formula or acronym.

Poetry

I really enjoyed both the Christensen chapter and the short article about poetry in the classroom.  I realized when reading these that I was never asked throughout my entire K-12 career to write a poem other than a haiku.  I can remember feeling that teachers were scared to assign poetry writing because "not everyone likes poetry."  I really wish I would have been pushed more to explore poetry writing in my own school experience.  In the Christensen chapter, poetry became therapeutic and connected the students in ways that other types of activities could not. I especially enjoyed the part of the chapter where Christensen talks about how poetry writing improved her students' grammar tremendously.  If my students were struggling with grammar, my first instinct would be to look for some handouts or worksheets to help them practice.  Using poetry is an unconventional solution to getting students to understand grammar in context, which is one of the most important and valuable tools they can have as writers and lifelong learners.

I also loved how the article described poetry as "the space between language and experience," and the example she gave of how simply telling her husband the story of the elderly couple could not accurately convey her experience.  I had never thought of thinking about poetry this way, but it really captures why poetry is so important.  Simple language does not always do a sensory experience justice, and that is where poetry comes in.  It can make a person feel something as if it happened to them using metaphors, imagery, etc.

Cyberactivism and Critical Media Literacy

These readings were pretty difficult to get through, and I responded more to the Critical Media Literacy chapter than the Cyberactivism chapter.  In the Critical Media chapter, the author talked about students who studied the 2000 Democratic National Convention and the media coverage that surrounded it.  The students' findings, that the media portrayed actively engaged youth as dangerous and violent, reminded me of the deficit ideology we studied in class.  The media's narrative on youth is structurally flawed, because if they choose to be active citizens involved in something like a presidential election (even peacefully), their media coverage focuses on weapons and violence rather than the issues they are passionate about.  On the other hand, if they are not actively engaged in the voting process, their is a media narrative that presents them as lazy, uninvolved, uneducated, and uninterested in politics.  In either case, it is impossible for them to be presented positively.  I think that is where critical media literacy comes into play.  It is important for students to learn that, when they need to gather information on a topic in the news, they should avoid mainstream media and instead look for less biased websites like those suggested in the chapter.   It becomes dangerous when students only rely on mainstream media for information, because they develop ideas about the world that are skewed, as well as ideas about themselves from certain media narratives.  As teachers, critical media literacy should be something we give as much attention to as the traditional critical literacies that we use in our classrooms every day.

Co-Teaching, Gallagher 5, Christensen 2

The first reading I looked at was the chapter on co-teaching.  My first impression when reading was similar to the teacher from New York City, who raised a concern that co-teaching shows students that education degrees are essentially useless, and that "anyone can teach."  I also thought about that, and worried that allowing students to really teach, not just present a project, would make them think that I am not really capable/don't want to teach them, and reinforce the stereotype that teaching is easy.  Throughout my high school experience, many of my classmates, when discussing teachers, would say "She's nice, but she doesn't teach."  I heard that so many times from classmates who felt that they were not being taught anything in classes.  When I first read about co-teaching, that was one of the first things I thought about,  and how it could be perceived as "not teaching."  However, once I completed the chapter, my perspective changed completely.  I absolutely loved the example of how the student stood up in the middle of a lesson to take the marker away from the teacher., although the idea of it scared me at first.  In general, I worry that if/when I am a teacher in an urban school, I will not be able to connect well with my students and they will start to resent me as their teacher.  However, I think that making co-teaching an integral part of the classroom would allow students the space to take risks and get the most out of their learning.

The chapter by Kelly Gallagher was also very interesting.  I loved the writing strategies she presented and my favorites were the "Pass the portrait" activity and the activity where students generate questions for their classmates.  I think that these are really great ways to get students excited about writing.  She challenges the concept of the "boring topic" with the example of the dollar bill, which got all of her students to think critically.  Similarly, Christensen's chapter was also full of great strategies and examples that are accessible and useful.  I liked the read around procedure, even though in my own experience as a student, I didn't particularly enjoy doing this.  However, as a teacher, I see how this type of exercise opens students up to one another and provides a space for positive and respectful commentary, as well as what Christensen calls a "positive classroom climate."

PARCC Testing and Standards

The teacher reactions to the PARCC testing did not surprise me at all.  For a few semesters now, I have been working with an eighth grade teacher at Times2 Academy in Providence.  While reading this paper, all I could think was that this particular teacher could have been any one of the teachers who responded to the survey.  Almost every time I see her, the conversation goes back to the negative effects of the PARCC test in her classroom.  When we debrief my experience in the class that day, she always express how her students really need to spend more time working with specific elements of the curriculum, but the PARCC preparation and testing itself just does not allow for that.  I found it really interesting to read what other teachers had to say about the tests, especially since I have heard these same types of statements firsthand.  What really struck me about this piece was the recurring sentiments from teachers who were concerned that they would not be able to reverse the damage done to student's confidence levels after taking the PARCC tests.  I particularly liked the line "this negative academic experience cannot be separated from the students' self-perceptions."  I have not read a lot of literature on the PARCC tests, I have mostly just heard things from professors and teachers, so going into this article, I had some of my own ideas about how I might handle standardized testing in my own classroom.  I thought that it might be effective for me to tell my students how little the tests mean and how they shouldn't let them deplete their self-esteem in the classroom or have another similar reassuring talk with my class.  However, the paper makes it clear that some students, particularly those with special needs or ELL's, already have little to no confidence in their academic abilities, and being presented with a high stakes test where they cannot even understand the questions, only further damages their self-images.  They will not be able to forget or ignore this negative experience.
In regards to the standards, I looked at the NCTE standards in particular, and saw that their purposes do not align with the teachers' feelings towards the PARCC tests and their outcomes at all.  The purpose of most of the standards seem to be to create lifelong learners out of our students, but what the tests are doing are making the classroom a place filled with anxiety, fear, and sadness.  In that type of environment, how can we as teachers possibly make our students lifelong learners?  In my opinion, that would only make students want to get out of the classroom as soon as possible.  In particular, I thought the standard about participating in literacy communities was especially contrasted by the outcomes of the PARCC tests.  The tests have made the creators of PARCC and the 'higher-ups' in education, into an exclusive community where students and teachers are not allowed to participate.  They have no say in the tests' content, preparation, or anything relating to it, and are forced to deal with its negative effects.

Response to Gorski, Thomas, NCTE

I really enjoyed reading the article, “Poverty and the ideological imperative: a call to unhook from deficit and grit ideology and to strive for structural ideology in teacher education” by Paul Gorski. Before this semester, I had never heard of the term “deficit” views/ideology in the field of education.  I am ashamed to admit that I was one of the people Gorski criticizes for their ideological view of those living in poverty.  Obviously, this was never my conscious intention, but I realized after reading this article, that I need to change my perceptions as I prepare to be an educator.  I feel that many future teachers, including myself, operate under the false assumption that their job is to make poor students and their parents care about school and education.  In this view, the teacher is essentially saying that socioeconomically disadvantaged parents don’t value education and don’t see the importance in being present for their child at school events.  However, Gorski really put it into perspective for me when he said that there are structural barriers that exist in our society, and as teachers we need to learn how to change our ideology to respond to them.  I really enjoyed how Gorski broke down both the deficit and grit views, which I think are unfortunately still dominant amongst educators.

I also found the Thomas article, “Failing Still to Address Poverty Directly: Growth Mindset as Deficit Ideology” which seemed to be in conversation with the Gorski article, very interesting.  I particularly like his example about how our assignments typically start at 100 and we lose points for what we’re lacking rather than everyone starting at 0 and earning points for what we did well.  It was a great example that illustrated his point about deficit mindsets.  This article again made me realize that I had some false ideological beliefs about people in poverty.  I never directly said anything such as “if poor people worked harder they wouldn’t be poor,” but when reading, I still felt guilty because I believe that has been a part of my mindset.  In my own experience, I feel that I’ve worked hard to get where I am, but at the same time, I have middle class parents who I can fall back on at a moment’s notice if I need to, and I have in the past.  For those in poverty, there isn’t the same ability to “work hard” because they do not always have the basic privileges of food security, housing security, etc. 

The last reading from the NCTE website was very helpful to me.  I liked the “What does this mean for teaching” sections, because they gave great ideas for teaching writing.  I think it is important to recognize that 5 paragraph academic essays are not the only relationship students should have to writing, and that varying your teaching to include writing for other purposes will be a very practical and beneficial skillset to give to your students.  All three of these readings really challenged my professional identity and have caused me to rethink my educational beliefs.