Train - When I Look to the Sky
[Verse 1]
When it rains it pours and opens doors
And floods the floors we thought would always keep us safe and dry
And in the midst of sailing ships we sink our lips into the ones we love
That have to say goodbye
[Chorus:]
And as I float along this ocean
I can feel you like a notion that won't seem to let me go
Cause when I look to the sky something tells me you're here with me
And you make everything alright
And when I feel like I'm lost something tells me you're here with me
And I can always find my way when you are here
[Verse 2]
And every word I didn't say that caught up in some busy day
And every dance on the kitchen floor we didn't have before
And every sunset that we'll miss I'll wrap them all up in a kiss
And pick you up in all of this when I sail away
[Chorus:]
And as I float along this ocean
I can feel you like a notion that I hope will never leave
[Verse 3]
Whether I am up or down or in or out or just plane overhead
Instead it just feels like it is impossible to fly
But with you I can spread my wings
to see me over everything that life may send me
When I am hoping it won't pass me by
And when I feel like there is no one that will ever know me
there you are to show me
Cause when I look to the sky something tells me you're here with me
And you make everything alright
And when I feel like I'm lost something tells me you're here with me
And I can always find my way when you are here
Baz Luhrmann - Everybody's Free (to Wear Sunscreen)
Ladies and Gentlemen of the class of ?9...
Wear Sunscreen
If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it.
The long term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists whereas
the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience
I will dispense this advice now.
Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth; oh nevermind; you will not understand
the power and beauty of your youth until they have faded. But trust me, in 20 years
youll look back at photos of yourself and recall in a way you cant grasp now how
much possibility lay before you and how fabulous you really looked.
Youre not as fat as you imagine.
Dont worry about the future; or worry, but know that worrying
is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubblegum.
The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your
worried mind; the kind that blindside you at 4pm on some idle Tuesday.
Do one thing everyday that scares you.
Sing.
Dont be reckless with other peoples hearts, dont put up with people who
are reckless with yours.
Floss
Dont waste your time on jealousy; sometimes youre ahead, sometimes youre behind
the race is long, and in the end, its only with yourself.
Remember the compliments you receive, forget the insults; if you succeed in doing
this, tell me how.
Keep your old love letters, throw away your old bank statements.
Stretch
Dont feel guilty if you dont know what you want to do with your life
the most interesting people I know didnt know at 22 what they wanted to do with
their lives, some of the most interesting 40 year olds know still dont.
Get plenty of calcium.
Be kind to your knees, youll miss them when theyre gone.
Maybe youll marry, maybe you wont, maybe youll have children,
maybe you wont, maybe youll divorce at 40, maybe youll dance the funky chicken
on your 75th wedding anniversary.
What ever you do, dont congratulate yourself too much or berate yourself either
your choices are half chance, so are everybody elses. Enjoy your body,
use it every way you can dont be afraid of it, or what other people think of it,
its the greatest instrument youll ever own..
Danceeven if you have nowhere to do it but in your own living room.
Read the directions, even if you dont follow them.
Do NOT read beauty magazines, they will only make you feel ugly.
Get to know your parents, you never know when theyll be gone for good.
Be nice to your siblings; they are the best link to your past and
the people most likely to stick with you in the future.
Understand that friends come and go,but for the precious few you should hold on.
Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography in lifestyle because the older you get,
the more you need the people you knew when you were young.
Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard;
live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft.
Travel.
Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will philander,
you too will get old, and when you do youll fantasize that when you were
young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their
elders.
Respect your elders.
Dont expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund,
maybe you have a wealthy spouse; but you never know when either one might run out.
Dont mess too much with your hair, or by the time its 40, it will look 85.
Be careful whose advice you buy, but, be patient with those who supply it.
Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past
from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling
it for more than its worth.
But trust me on the sunscreen...
Rascal Flatts - My Wish
I hope that the days come easy and the moments pass slow,
And each road leads you where you want to go,
And if you're faced with a choice, and you have to choose,
I hope you choose the one that means the most to you.
And if one door opens to another door closed,
I hope you keep on walkin' till you find the window,
If it's cold outside, show the world the warmth of your smile,
But more than anything, more than anything,
My wish, for you, is that this life becomes all that you want it to,
Your dreams stay big, and your worries stay small,
You never need to carry more than you can hold,
And while you're out there getting where you're getting to,
I hope you know somebody loves you, and wants the same things too,
Yeah, this, is my wish.
I hope you never look back, but ya never forget,
All the ones who love you, in the place you left,
I hope you always forgive, and you never regret,
And you help somebody every chance you get,
Oh, you find God's grace, in every mistake,
And you always give more than you take.
But more than anything, yeah, and more than anything,
My wish, for you, is that this life becomes all that you want it to,
Your dreams stay big, and your worries stay small,
You never need to carry more than you can hold,
And while you're out there getting where you're getting to,
I hope you know somebody loves you, and wants the same things too,
Yeah, this, is my wish.
My wish, for you, is that this life becomes all that you want it to,
Your dreams stay big, and your worries stay small,
You never need to carry more than you can hold,
And while you're out there getting where you're getting to,
I hope you know somebody loves you, and wants the same things too,
Yeah, this, is my wish.
This is my wish
I hope you know somebody loves you
May all your dreams stay big
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
Strategies I've learned:
Literature circles, gallery, stations, different systems for groups, Socratic seminar, using different mediums and versions of text
One of the most important things about giving assignments and delivering information is that it be interesting. If the teacher has no interest in the information, how can the students be expected to pay attention? Even the driest material can be made interesting to some of the class, so it's our job to make it that way. I'm completely fine with sitting in a class and being lectured on topics I'm interested in (which really includes almost anything) so long as I'm learning new information. Other people aren't quite so interested in the information, so it matters how it's presented. Before this class, I would've taught how I liked to be taught--in pretty much the traditional manner, with a few new things thrown in. Given some of the experiences we've had in the class, I've been able to get a little more creative with my plans (since 12th grade I've had a list of things I want to do when I'm teaching) and add to them significantly. Some of those new plans will take a lot of preparation; maybe I won't have the opportunity to use all of them the first year. That's okay. All that means is I'll get to focus more on the ideas in the first year, see how they worked out, and adapt them a little better, too.
Time is probably the most challenging aspect of teaching: time for preparation, time to grade, planning what can be covered in a certain amount of time, using time in class, and taking into account the time that students have outside of class. The worst teachers (both in terms of personality and ability) are those who think that their class is the only one students have, or that theirs is the most important. Planning lessons and homework by keeping other classes in mind gives not only a better experience for you and the students (students will complain less) but also makes teaching more efficient. At the same time, students need to be prepared to move on to the following grade. Striking that balance is important.
I still think the words are equally or more important than the feelings when it comes to teaching literature. As a reader I might want to feel the apprehension or fear in the main character, but that's a skill that a teacher can spend only so much time on if they're going to make students better in English. After all, these novels couldn't be written effectively if the author didn't have a solid grasp on English, even if they're written in dialect. In fact, dialect often shows an even better handle on language skills. My goal for students is that they enjoy the things they read and understand the "literary aspects" (e.g., motif, theme, foreshadowing, etc.), but also that they can actually write grammatical sentences and spell words correctly. I said it before and I'll say it again: the choices one makes with language are everything. The veracity of this example aside, I think it's perfect for what I'm trying to say (link contains potentially offensive language, but almost-guaranteed entertainment: #s 3 and 5 are the important ones). All of that said, a New Critical approach isn't going to appeal to many people and isn't what I'm recommending. I'm simply saying that, in class, books shouldn't be as much about feelings as they are outside of class. Feelings certainly have a place and can also give insight into the (perception of the) author's choices, but they're not paramount. As an English major (read: nerd), one of the best things about good books is how the author uses the language to make the story more interesting. I read The Shipping News twice just because I felt like I was missing things in the language that would've helped me. I'm pretty sure I'm still missing the key to understanding. Then again, maybe there isn't one. Round 3 to come later.
Regardless of all that, I'm confident I have the tools to be an effective teacher. I might find in methods or student teaching that the... well, methods need refining, but that's what teaching is all about: refining lessons, objectives, and methods in order to help students learn in a more engaging and effective manner. If I could get the same outcome standing in front of the class for 42 minutes each day and talking at them, maybe I'd do it. However, I'm pretty positive that's not going to happen. My goal instead is to model proper English on handouts (just as it's usually modeled in novels) and make the class as enjoyable as possible through a bunch of different methods. One strategy I'll probably borrow from a professor here is to give students bonus points for noticing errors in spelling/grammar/punctuation on handouts. Not only will that help them get a better grade, but some students will be more interested than before in actually looking at how words and punctuation work together to give meaning. Maybe they're only interested in it in my class, but that's better than nothing.
Literature circles, gallery, stations, different systems for groups, Socratic seminar, using different mediums and versions of text
One of the most important things about giving assignments and delivering information is that it be interesting. If the teacher has no interest in the information, how can the students be expected to pay attention? Even the driest material can be made interesting to some of the class, so it's our job to make it that way. I'm completely fine with sitting in a class and being lectured on topics I'm interested in (which really includes almost anything) so long as I'm learning new information. Other people aren't quite so interested in the information, so it matters how it's presented. Before this class, I would've taught how I liked to be taught--in pretty much the traditional manner, with a few new things thrown in. Given some of the experiences we've had in the class, I've been able to get a little more creative with my plans (since 12th grade I've had a list of things I want to do when I'm teaching) and add to them significantly. Some of those new plans will take a lot of preparation; maybe I won't have the opportunity to use all of them the first year. That's okay. All that means is I'll get to focus more on the ideas in the first year, see how they worked out, and adapt them a little better, too.
Time is probably the most challenging aspect of teaching: time for preparation, time to grade, planning what can be covered in a certain amount of time, using time in class, and taking into account the time that students have outside of class. The worst teachers (both in terms of personality and ability) are those who think that their class is the only one students have, or that theirs is the most important. Planning lessons and homework by keeping other classes in mind gives not only a better experience for you and the students (students will complain less) but also makes teaching more efficient. At the same time, students need to be prepared to move on to the following grade. Striking that balance is important.
I still think the words are equally or more important than the feelings when it comes to teaching literature. As a reader I might want to feel the apprehension or fear in the main character, but that's a skill that a teacher can spend only so much time on if they're going to make students better in English. After all, these novels couldn't be written effectively if the author didn't have a solid grasp on English, even if they're written in dialect. In fact, dialect often shows an even better handle on language skills. My goal for students is that they enjoy the things they read and understand the "literary aspects" (e.g., motif, theme, foreshadowing, etc.), but also that they can actually write grammatical sentences and spell words correctly. I said it before and I'll say it again: the choices one makes with language are everything. The veracity of this example aside, I think it's perfect for what I'm trying to say (link contains potentially offensive language, but almost-guaranteed entertainment: #s 3 and 5 are the important ones). All of that said, a New Critical approach isn't going to appeal to many people and isn't what I'm recommending. I'm simply saying that, in class, books shouldn't be as much about feelings as they are outside of class. Feelings certainly have a place and can also give insight into the (perception of the) author's choices, but they're not paramount. As an English major (read: nerd), one of the best things about good books is how the author uses the language to make the story more interesting. I read The Shipping News twice just because I felt like I was missing things in the language that would've helped me. I'm pretty sure I'm still missing the key to understanding. Then again, maybe there isn't one. Round 3 to come later.
Regardless of all that, I'm confident I have the tools to be an effective teacher. I might find in methods or student teaching that the... well, methods need refining, but that's what teaching is all about: refining lessons, objectives, and methods in order to help students learn in a more engaging and effective manner. If I could get the same outcome standing in front of the class for 42 minutes each day and talking at them, maybe I'd do it. However, I'm pretty positive that's not going to happen. My goal instead is to model proper English on handouts (just as it's usually modeled in novels) and make the class as enjoyable as possible through a bunch of different methods. One strategy I'll probably borrow from a professor here is to give students bonus points for noticing errors in spelling/grammar/punctuation on handouts. Not only will that help them get a better grade, but some students will be more interested than before in actually looking at how words and punctuation work together to give meaning. Maybe they're only interested in it in my class, but that's better than nothing.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Huh?
That's what I thought the entire time I was reading Manga Shakespeare. I love the concept, but I just couldn't handle it. The first few pages give a guide to show us who the characters are, but the guide is in color. The rest of the book? Black and white. Thanks for being so helpful. It essentially took me more than half of the novel to keep a few of the characters straight (of course, with some of the illustrations, not even I could keep them straight--kudos to those drawing it for keeping that aspect of Shakespeare's works). I think reading this is analogous to watching the awful 1996 movie in that it's just so difficult to follow. And a bit ridiculous at times (then again, when isn't Billy completely over the top?).
Like I said, I love the concept. I think being able to visualize Shakespeare's works is much easier than having to try to set everyone up yourself. I just didn't like the execution. This doesn't make it less confusing, it makes it more confusing. Maybe you disagree, but I think it's much easier to follow when there are names and text side-by-side, and there's never a doubt who's who because of it. The lack of color is also disappointing for two reasons: we're teased in the front by being shown amazing pictures, then 4 pages in it's all black and white. On top of that, black blood just doesn't have any feeling to it. Who cares if there's a pool of black blood on the ground? It doesn't even look like blood. Why should I feel bad?
I really don't think I'd ever use this in class, at least not without going through it a couple more times. I'd certainly have to work hard to convince myself to use it. I'm in Shakespeare right now and have no problems reading the majority of the stuff, so if I'm confused by this, I don't think that will benefit my future students.
Like I said, I love the concept. I think being able to visualize Shakespeare's works is much easier than having to try to set everyone up yourself. I just didn't like the execution. This doesn't make it less confusing, it makes it more confusing. Maybe you disagree, but I think it's much easier to follow when there are names and text side-by-side, and there's never a doubt who's who because of it. The lack of color is also disappointing for two reasons: we're teased in the front by being shown amazing pictures, then 4 pages in it's all black and white. On top of that, black blood just doesn't have any feeling to it. Who cares if there's a pool of black blood on the ground? It doesn't even look like blood. Why should I feel bad?
I really don't think I'd ever use this in class, at least not without going through it a couple more times. I'd certainly have to work hard to convince myself to use it. I'm in Shakespeare right now and have no problems reading the majority of the stuff, so if I'm confused by this, I don't think that will benefit my future students.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Hunger Games
Another gushing post? Maybe. What can I say? I loved the book. A quick rundown:
- The Hunger Games shows a society that, like Feed, isn't all that far-fetched. Granted, I don't think we'll get to that point, it's still conceivable that it could happen. (Something to think about: how are the Hunger Games similar to the Olympics?)
- You had to know Peeta was really in love with Catnip, despite his protestations near the middle of the novel.
- There's alot of fodder for discussion from this novel, including discussion about many different aspects of life--among them:
- (nested bullets? YUP!) Autocracies, dictatorships, etc.
- Upper/middle/lower classes and their roles and histories
- Hunting/gathering societies
- Mining towns
- Whether it's a good idea to have different sectors responsible for certain things, and how that relates to the history of the U.S. (steel belt, sun belt, wheat belt, etc.) and the U.S. today
- The pros and cons of an autocratic nation
- Rebellion and/or standing up for your rights and the rights of all people
- Friendship and love
- Connections to "The Lottery"
- Other connections to literature and pop culture (Twisted Metal games, the movie Gamer, etc.)
- ...and I'm out of ideas for the moment, but that's a pretty solid list to start out with. Like I said: there's alot
- Catnip, maybe less than halfway through the book, reminds us about rebelling against the Capitol, making it clear that, at the end, she'll be left making an agreement with someone that they won't kill each other. I expected that. But I also expected the Capitol to let the muttations eat them.
- We've only finished one book out of three; in the next one it'll be interesting to see how things work out with Gale, and I have no idea what to expect form the final book. The fact that it's a trilogy gives even more opportunities for discussion whether or not the other books are ever read in class.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
PC World
"When people of any age are too afraid of saying, doing, or reading someting wrong, the tendency is to...withdraw int o a frozen state of immobility; then learning dies. Fearful silence...would seem to do more harm than any speech of text I can imagine!"
Let me start by saying that I can't deny the fact that Black students might feel uncomfortable in the classroom when Huckleberry Finn is read aloud with no omissions. And perhaps they might be upset by it if a White person (or a non-Black person) is the one who utters the word. However, if the word "nigger" is only to be used by Black people, and is never meant to be said by anyone else, why does the same group that promotes the non-use of the word proliferate it? Movies, music, slam poetry, stand-up comedy, and a whole host of other mediums highlight it. Some 4:00 songs probably use it as much as Huck Finn. Some might say, Well it's their word now, so why shouldn't they use it? My answer is that if a word is taboo, it better be taboo to everyone. You can't make music that you know will be purchased and played primarily by Whites, say nigger 300 times on an album, and expect them never to use the phrase even if they are only singing the words written by a Black person.
I am absolutely opposed to anything about the political correctness movement, regardless of whether it has anything to do with race. I don't think people should be out shouting words that will likely be offensive to people, but it's in the book. It's meant to be read. It can't be changed, even when it is. Mental retardation is a legitimate disease diagnosis, just as people are handicapped. When we become "older Pennsylvanians" maybe we'll know more "differently abled" people because something has left them "with an intellectual disability." Senior citizens will tell you that most kids these days have plenty of intellectual disabilities, and many of them are differently abled, but that doesn't necessarily make them mentally retarded or handicapped. (This reads like a rant, but trust me that it's typed in complete calm.)
Though some of you may disagree, it is our job as English teachers to fix misconceptions about euphemism and encourage precise language. "African-American" does not mean Black. Plenty of Whites are African-American. "People of color" does not mean non-White, nor does it mean Black. I like to think I have plenty of color, thanks. I've met lots of art majors, too, and they're very differently abled; I can't even draw a tree and they're drawing waterfalls surrounding by forests. I think my point has been made. For issues regarding legitimately offensive language, it is preferable to use something in its place if the use of an offensive word will incite problems; similarly, it's important to teach why those words are deemed offensive. I don't think I've yet had a teacher who would say "nigger," regardless of what we're reading (Huck Finn, Light in August, etc.), and I don't know if I'd be doing any kind of service by reading it 213 times. However, it would certainly be said and discussed in the classroom. And I'd love someone (besides an older Pennsylvanian like Bill Cosby) to truly speak out against the use of the word by Blacks if they expect everyone else not to use it. If it's an oppressive, hateful word, why use it amongst yourselves? I know there's the who co-opting argument, but I don't feel like it holds any water whatsoever.
"Those who rock the boat or question the status quo are viewed as trouble-makers. Being 'good' teachers--like being good students--often means accepting the authority of others, not resisting or challenging it."
Let me start by saying that I can't deny the fact that Black students might feel uncomfortable in the classroom when Huckleberry Finn is read aloud with no omissions. And perhaps they might be upset by it if a White person (or a non-Black person) is the one who utters the word. However, if the word "nigger" is only to be used by Black people, and is never meant to be said by anyone else, why does the same group that promotes the non-use of the word proliferate it? Movies, music, slam poetry, stand-up comedy, and a whole host of other mediums highlight it. Some 4:00 songs probably use it as much as Huck Finn. Some might say, Well it's their word now, so why shouldn't they use it? My answer is that if a word is taboo, it better be taboo to everyone. You can't make music that you know will be purchased and played primarily by Whites, say nigger 300 times on an album, and expect them never to use the phrase even if they are only singing the words written by a Black person.
I am absolutely opposed to anything about the political correctness movement, regardless of whether it has anything to do with race. I don't think people should be out shouting words that will likely be offensive to people, but it's in the book. It's meant to be read. It can't be changed, even when it is. Mental retardation is a legitimate disease diagnosis, just as people are handicapped. When we become "older Pennsylvanians" maybe we'll know more "differently abled" people because something has left them "with an intellectual disability." Senior citizens will tell you that most kids these days have plenty of intellectual disabilities, and many of them are differently abled, but that doesn't necessarily make them mentally retarded or handicapped. (This reads like a rant, but trust me that it's typed in complete calm.)
Though some of you may disagree, it is our job as English teachers to fix misconceptions about euphemism and encourage precise language. "African-American" does not mean Black. Plenty of Whites are African-American. "People of color" does not mean non-White, nor does it mean Black. I like to think I have plenty of color, thanks. I've met lots of art majors, too, and they're very differently abled; I can't even draw a tree and they're drawing waterfalls surrounding by forests. I think my point has been made. For issues regarding legitimately offensive language, it is preferable to use something in its place if the use of an offensive word will incite problems; similarly, it's important to teach why those words are deemed offensive. I don't think I've yet had a teacher who would say "nigger," regardless of what we're reading (Huck Finn, Light in August, etc.), and I don't know if I'd be doing any kind of service by reading it 213 times. However, it would certainly be said and discussed in the classroom. And I'd love someone (besides an older Pennsylvanian like Bill Cosby) to truly speak out against the use of the word by Blacks if they expect everyone else not to use it. If it's an oppressive, hateful word, why use it amongst yourselves? I know there's the who co-opting argument, but I don't feel like it holds any water whatsoever.
"Those who rock the boat or question the status quo are viewed as trouble-makers. Being 'good' teachers--like being good students--often means accepting the authority of others, not resisting or challenging it."
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
I think Wink's article is mostly important not for transforming students, but for transforming teachers (as she sort of implied). As teachers, it's our job to not only teach students, but to let them know why we're teaching what we are if they can't see the connection. Now, there's some leeway in that: "Why are reading this?" is a question that's important, but I think we need to use discretion in answering it. We've seen that sentiment in this class, specifically during the first couple of weeks when discussing why we teach certain works and don't teach others. It's important for us to have reasons for what we're teaching, even if they're as simple as "I like the themes," "It's a different genre than anything we've read," or "It's required by the district." Sometimes, though, it might be more beneficial to flip the question and see what the students' responses are--if not immediately, then when you're finished teaching whatever it is. Ask the students why we read what we did, or why we just did a grammar unit, etc. Those are good questions, and they show that students are (or aren't) making connections. I know I ask/ed myself "Why are we reading this?" after just about anything in Brit Lit 1 and 2 and American 1. A lot of that stuff is (in my humble opinion) beyond terrible, and even more beyond irrelevant. Teaching why we're teaching is a beneficial aspect to combating apathy, considering there are plenty of works you can assign that promote apathy at its greatest.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Book Thief
Despite the 550 pages, there's no way I could complain about having to sit down and read this in a 24-hour period on a Friday and Saturday. I was hooked from the first page as Death sets up the narrative. Page 3 (really page 1) is one of my favorites of anything I've ever read. Add 4 and 5, and we get a kind of Gregory House as Death, which I'm thrilled about. And since the opening chapter was set up perfectly to both outline the novel and make the reader (or, at least, me) want to continue to read? All the better. I couldn't be much happier with the way the novel began or ended.
Maybe more importantly, I think this is a book that could replace one of the "classics." I would have no problems seeing this replace the Diary of Anne Frank. Or, if not replace, either use in addition to or simply excerpt the Diary. Here's why:
Aside from my gushing review, I think that there is plenty to work with and to study here, with the potential to be nearly as emotionally engaging as the Diary. Zusak even wrote a book that appeals to the traditional gender classifications of both boys and girls: action, adventure, intrigue, and sports! for the boy stereotype, and family, companionship, and love for the girl stereotype. There are so many things you can do with this novel, from exploring gender to society to the economy to class to religion to Nazism as religion, etc. I guess I didn't end the gushing review last paragraph. This book is great. Great for the students and for the teacher. More thoughts later.
Maybe more importantly, I think this is a book that could replace one of the "classics." I would have no problems seeing this replace the Diary of Anne Frank. Or, if not replace, either use in addition to or simply excerpt the Diary. Here's why:
- The Book Thief is more engaging as literature (perhaps not more emotionally engaging)
- It has more literary elements to explore and discuss
- Though not factual, it's based on factual happenings
- It has the same general subject matter as the Diary
- We get to see more than one side of the horrors of WWII
Aside from my gushing review, I think that there is plenty to work with and to study here, with the potential to be nearly as emotionally engaging as the Diary. Zusak even wrote a book that appeals to the traditional gender classifications of both boys and girls: action, adventure, intrigue, and sports! for the boy stereotype, and family, companionship, and love for the girl stereotype. There are so many things you can do with this novel, from exploring gender to society to the economy to class to religion to Nazism as religion, etc. I guess I didn't end the gushing review last paragraph. This book is great. Great for the students and for the teacher. More thoughts later.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
That don't make no sense.
After reading "Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?," I'm left wondering one thing: do education systems in other countries teach a standard version of their languages? Do Mexican schools teach students not to use shortcuts in their formal writings? Do they teach that they don't "need" to know the vosotros forms of words? Or do they teach the vosotros forms and say, "Se necesitan solamente en su escritura formal." I know when I learned Spanish in high school, I was told that the Mexican version of Spanish doesn't really use vosotros forms ("you," informal and plural), while Spanish from Spain does. I'm considering this question because I think we take a lot of flak for teaching American Standard English, but surely other countries must teach standard versions of their language. I hesitate to ask something like, "How would they grade papers?" and instead ask, "But how can they know if students are learning the language?" The devil's advocate would respond that they're learning the language at their house, because they certainly couldn't function without learning the language--how would they communicate?
What this post will eventually get to is that very question: How would they communicate? Christensen insists that SE is the language of power, but really, SE is the language of communication. Here's an extreme case as an example of what I mean: When I'm not at school, I work in a warehouse. Two women from South Korea work there, and have worked there for nearly 10 years. When I first started, I couldn't understand what they were trying to say to me. I'd ask what we were supposed to do next, and Sun would say, "Asking Barbara." Naturally, I assumed that meant she would be asking Barb, or had already asked and was waiting for a minute. After a few seconds, she'd make a motion or point and say "Go asking Barbara." Obviously I figured out that I was supposed to go ask. Though my example is not necessarily dialectical, it is representative. SE is used so that, when used correctly and by the rules, there can never be miscommunication. If you have the correct agreement, syntax, and word choice, everyone should always understand what you're trying to say. Without that, it's a language of inherent miscommunication. Any time I edit a paper for someone, I end up calling and asking, "Did you mean to say this, or this?," and that's the problem with non-standard English. In matters of national or personal security, I want the person who can speak SE every time, so there is no miscommunication about what's happening.
I titled this post as I did because it's a phrase I often use. I grew up in a home with a mother who taught journalism for one year and a father whose motto when it comes to English is, "If it was good enough for my grandfather, it's good enough for me." I know all about being unable to understand directions, and I know that there's something to be said for having a dialect or a personality in one's words. I love reading stories written that way--Roll of Thunder, things by Mark Twain, etc. Those writings have a different type of flavor than others. But that doesn't mean essays or government missives or menus should be written the same way. There are many more people who can understand basic SE (i.e., 7th-grade reading-level words, not words that you had to look up twice just to spell correctly). Far fewer can understand non-standard English. English majors can barely pronounce words in Roll of Thunder (much to my amusement), so it doesn't exactly make sense to argue for its acceptance in formal writings, only for its status as a legitimate dialect. Would you expect to take 100,000 English-speakers into Mexico and force them to change their syntax so you can be accommodated? Absolutely not.
Edit: "Yes, untracked classes will probably be louder than honors classes. Yes, more students will arrive academically unprepared than in an honors class. Yes, if the balance of the class is shifted too heavily in favor of low-track students, 'discipline' may remain an issue. But well-balanced untracked classes will also be more inventive, more creative, and more honest" ("Untracking" 173). -- Ok, that's all well and good. What about learning? I sat through untracked classes for 4 years in elementary school (K-3), and then only math and English were tracked (4-5). The first 4 years were the most boring years of my life as far as school is concerned. I got in more trouble than you could imagine. I was in the principal's office constantly, did about half of my homework, and often either talked during or didn't participate in class. Why? I was bored by the kids who needed to learn addition 17 different times, so I was a distraction to others. It's just like in college classes when there's an audible sigh because that kid raised his hand again. Obviously there are going to be kids who need extra help and it's our job to help them (and everyone else), but why hold others back? There's an easier way: honors vs. non-honors. Honors/AP for the kids who are hardcore, non-honors for everyone else. Easy enough.
Finally, Hade is trying to create controversy in a place where it doesn't exist. The lions are behaving in a manner fit for KINGS. Patriarchal societies have males on the throne. Period. And the women did not "[suffer] injustice quietly and patiently waiting for the rightful male heir to claim what is his" (234). Sarabi verbally challenged Scar, and Nala went to find Simba. And, he wanted so badly for this to be a gender issue that he conveniently glossed over the fact that literally hundreds of hyenas were there to protect Scar (vs. the 15-25 lionesses). Honestly, why should we give any credibility to a man who can't bother to spell the names of two main characters (Scar and Mufasa--Mustafa? Someone has issues with latent racism) correctly? Try giving any credence to someone writing an essay about "Hamlit" once, let alone about "Hamlit" and "Opheelya". Hade is the kid who, because the two male characters hugged, raises his hand the moment class begins and says, "I think the two guys are gay" and the teacher has to spend the next half hour explaining that they're not gay, but that we'll find later that they're far from it. Hade is that kid.
What this post will eventually get to is that very question: How would they communicate? Christensen insists that SE is the language of power, but really, SE is the language of communication. Here's an extreme case as an example of what I mean: When I'm not at school, I work in a warehouse. Two women from South Korea work there, and have worked there for nearly 10 years. When I first started, I couldn't understand what they were trying to say to me. I'd ask what we were supposed to do next, and Sun would say, "Asking Barbara." Naturally, I assumed that meant she would be asking Barb, or had already asked and was waiting for a minute. After a few seconds, she'd make a motion or point and say "Go asking Barbara." Obviously I figured out that I was supposed to go ask. Though my example is not necessarily dialectical, it is representative. SE is used so that, when used correctly and by the rules, there can never be miscommunication. If you have the correct agreement, syntax, and word choice, everyone should always understand what you're trying to say. Without that, it's a language of inherent miscommunication. Any time I edit a paper for someone, I end up calling and asking, "Did you mean to say this, or this?," and that's the problem with non-standard English. In matters of national or personal security, I want the person who can speak SE every time, so there is no miscommunication about what's happening.
I titled this post as I did because it's a phrase I often use. I grew up in a home with a mother who taught journalism for one year and a father whose motto when it comes to English is, "If it was good enough for my grandfather, it's good enough for me." I know all about being unable to understand directions, and I know that there's something to be said for having a dialect or a personality in one's words. I love reading stories written that way--Roll of Thunder, things by Mark Twain, etc. Those writings have a different type of flavor than others. But that doesn't mean essays or government missives or menus should be written the same way. There are many more people who can understand basic SE (i.e., 7th-grade reading-level words, not words that you had to look up twice just to spell correctly). Far fewer can understand non-standard English. English majors can barely pronounce words in Roll of Thunder (much to my amusement), so it doesn't exactly make sense to argue for its acceptance in formal writings, only for its status as a legitimate dialect. Would you expect to take 100,000 English-speakers into Mexico and force them to change their syntax so you can be accommodated? Absolutely not.
Edit: "Yes, untracked classes will probably be louder than honors classes. Yes, more students will arrive academically unprepared than in an honors class. Yes, if the balance of the class is shifted too heavily in favor of low-track students, 'discipline' may remain an issue. But well-balanced untracked classes will also be more inventive, more creative, and more honest" ("Untracking" 173). -- Ok, that's all well and good. What about learning? I sat through untracked classes for 4 years in elementary school (K-3), and then only math and English were tracked (4-5). The first 4 years were the most boring years of my life as far as school is concerned. I got in more trouble than you could imagine. I was in the principal's office constantly, did about half of my homework, and often either talked during or didn't participate in class. Why? I was bored by the kids who needed to learn addition 17 different times, so I was a distraction to others. It's just like in college classes when there's an audible sigh because that kid raised his hand again. Obviously there are going to be kids who need extra help and it's our job to help them (and everyone else), but why hold others back? There's an easier way: honors vs. non-honors. Honors/AP for the kids who are hardcore, non-honors for everyone else. Easy enough.
Finally, Hade is trying to create controversy in a place where it doesn't exist. The lions are behaving in a manner fit for KINGS. Patriarchal societies have males on the throne. Period. And the women did not "[suffer] injustice quietly and patiently waiting for the rightful male heir to claim what is his" (234). Sarabi verbally challenged Scar, and Nala went to find Simba. And, he wanted so badly for this to be a gender issue that he conveniently glossed over the fact that literally hundreds of hyenas were there to protect Scar (vs. the 15-25 lionesses). Honestly, why should we give any credibility to a man who can't bother to spell the names of two main characters (Scar and Mufasa--Mustafa? Someone has issues with latent racism) correctly? Try giving any credence to someone writing an essay about "Hamlit" once, let alone about "Hamlit" and "Opheelya". Hade is the kid who, because the two male characters hugged, raises his hand the moment class begins and says, "I think the two guys are gay" and the teacher has to spend the next half hour explaining that they're not gay, but that we'll find later that they're far from it. Hade is that kid.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Comics
As far as the article is concerned, I'm impressed with the work done by the authors. To improve measurable statistics as much as they did is quite a feat. I have an issue or two with some of the insinuations they make, but I'll address those a little bit on Wednesday.
With American Born Chinese, I'm a little hesitant to use it extensively as a text for anything but middle school classes or lower-level classes in 8th-10th grades. I read it in maybe an hour and a half, so there's some benefit to using it for a couple days in a high school classroom, but not much longer. Again, that's simply for the literary aspect of it. To use it and then do other activities with it (such as those described in the article) or starting with ABC as a way to introduce conventions before moving on to a more difficult graphic novel would be beneficial.
I think it's more suited to middle school partly because of its message. With students going through difficulties as far as meeting new friends, growing up, etc., the theme of establishing and accepting one's identity is important for the students. Sixth grade or eighth grade seem like the best times to use it, as often those are the transition years--transitioning into a new school or about to move up to high school, respectively. The best part about using it in eighth grade would be that you could do it at the end of the year in order to give a bit of a break. I always hated when teachers assigned everything for the last 2-3 weeks of the year (just like professors inexplicably still do in college), so having that extra benefit is nice.
Edit: Wilhelm writes, "I have found that my student are all familiar with a variety of graphic organizers but that they don't really understand how to use them to do what they were invented to do: organize and analyze data. Instead, they seem to use them as a glorified worksheet for repeating what they have read or learned, not for seeing new patterns in the data and constructing new kinds of knowledge and representing this knowledge" (185). -- I've always had that problem. The only type of graphic organizer (besides maybe a chart every now and then) that has ever been useful to me is the Venn diagram. Everything else (especially KWL charts) has been mostly useless to me. Occasionally T charts are useful, too, but very rarely do they give me anything I haven't noticed myself (or else I wouldn't have been able to fill in the T chart in the first place).
With American Born Chinese, I'm a little hesitant to use it extensively as a text for anything but middle school classes or lower-level classes in 8th-10th grades. I read it in maybe an hour and a half, so there's some benefit to using it for a couple days in a high school classroom, but not much longer. Again, that's simply for the literary aspect of it. To use it and then do other activities with it (such as those described in the article) or starting with ABC as a way to introduce conventions before moving on to a more difficult graphic novel would be beneficial.
I think it's more suited to middle school partly because of its message. With students going through difficulties as far as meeting new friends, growing up, etc., the theme of establishing and accepting one's identity is important for the students. Sixth grade or eighth grade seem like the best times to use it, as often those are the transition years--transitioning into a new school or about to move up to high school, respectively. The best part about using it in eighth grade would be that you could do it at the end of the year in order to give a bit of a break. I always hated when teachers assigned everything for the last 2-3 weeks of the year (just like professors inexplicably still do in college), so having that extra benefit is nice.
Edit: Wilhelm writes, "I have found that my student are all familiar with a variety of graphic organizers but that they don't really understand how to use them to do what they were invented to do: organize and analyze data. Instead, they seem to use them as a glorified worksheet for repeating what they have read or learned, not for seeing new patterns in the data and constructing new kinds of knowledge and representing this knowledge" (185). -- I've always had that problem. The only type of graphic organizer (besides maybe a chart every now and then) that has ever been useful to me is the Venn diagram. Everything else (especially KWL charts) has been mostly useless to me. Occasionally T charts are useful, too, but very rarely do they give me anything I haven't noticed myself (or else I wouldn't have been able to fill in the T chart in the first place).
Sunday, January 30, 2011
You Gotta READ the Book
My initial and immediate reading of Wilhelm's method is that New Criticism is somehow a bad thing, but taking that stance would make readers miss so many things that texts themselves have to offer (a reader following NC might have noticed the alliteration in that sentence, which wasn't originally intentional but became so). If the reader isn't looking for characteristics like that (or isn't at least later made aware of them), he'll miss the genius of the writer or the work. I'll be the first to acknowledge that, oftentimes, there is no genius coming from either one (here's looking at you, Chopin), but it's hard to imagine missing out on the kinds of things that a close reading--but not necessarily NC--can show. I stopped on page 22 to type this, so maybe Wilhelm can reel me in with an argument soon.
It's important not to worry about correct interpretation unless there really is one, though. If an author has gone on record stating his or her intentions, there's nothing wrong with offering that view of the book. If the teacher hijacks the discussion with his favorite theoretical reading, regardless of how outlandish it is, that's a problem.
I also think it's important to visualize the scenes and connect to the text, but I have a hard time saying that that's more important to the reader than paying attention to the meanings of the words. I remember in 6th grade reading class, Mrs. Chilton gave us worksheets on which we had to make this many connections and visualize (draw) that many scenes and predict what would happen in the next chapter of whatever we were reading. Well, that's perfectly fine and perfectly correct. That's what Wilhelm is saying students need to learn. But, in my case, that was something we learned in 6th grade! We learned it in 6th grade and could then carry it over to 7th grade, through high school, through college, and into the rest of our lives. We didn't have to learn it in 8th or 9th or 10th grades. We had already learned that we were supposed to do those things. And that's why I have such trouble with the notion that students should be more focused on their own connections. They should've been taught those things years ago, and by 8th or 9th or 10th grade should be learning how to dive deeper into texts to gain meaning that way--in addition to what they've already learned about their own connections. That said, even in 10th or 11th grade, teachers would ask questions like, "How do you feel about Curly's wife? Do you think she's a good person?"
On page 88, Wilhelm says that many of his students have trouble spontaneously imagining the scenery of the story, and I literally cannot imagine not doing that while reading. My inability to understand that is most likely something that I'll have to learn to deal with while I'm teaching. It's a little bit like playing a sport: a great athlete will have difficulty understanding why you can't do something that he or she does every day, and will often have trouble teaching that skill until they understand what the average or less-practiced person needs to do in order to accomplish the task.
I read a story earlier today about teachers who are removing the desks from their classrooms. I feel the same way about this as I do about reading: aren't the desks important? I'd love to sit in a beanbag chair in class, but surely there are times when desks are better. Or maybe not. Maybe the desks are only important because teachers make them seem important; after all, they're often in the wrong place and need to be moved to facilitate activities anyway. So... maybe it's okay to get rid of the desks, but I think we need to keep some of the close reading.
I'm looking forward to reading more of this book because I think the subjects Wilhelm is writing about are things that inexperienced teachers either often worry about or never even think about. I'm interested to see what solutions he used in order to help his less-engaged readers become more so.
It's important not to worry about correct interpretation unless there really is one, though. If an author has gone on record stating his or her intentions, there's nothing wrong with offering that view of the book. If the teacher hijacks the discussion with his favorite theoretical reading, regardless of how outlandish it is, that's a problem.
I also think it's important to visualize the scenes and connect to the text, but I have a hard time saying that that's more important to the reader than paying attention to the meanings of the words. I remember in 6th grade reading class, Mrs. Chilton gave us worksheets on which we had to make this many connections and visualize (draw) that many scenes and predict what would happen in the next chapter of whatever we were reading. Well, that's perfectly fine and perfectly correct. That's what Wilhelm is saying students need to learn. But, in my case, that was something we learned in 6th grade! We learned it in 6th grade and could then carry it over to 7th grade, through high school, through college, and into the rest of our lives. We didn't have to learn it in 8th or 9th or 10th grades. We had already learned that we were supposed to do those things. And that's why I have such trouble with the notion that students should be more focused on their own connections. They should've been taught those things years ago, and by 8th or 9th or 10th grade should be learning how to dive deeper into texts to gain meaning that way--in addition to what they've already learned about their own connections. That said, even in 10th or 11th grade, teachers would ask questions like, "How do you feel about Curly's wife? Do you think she's a good person?"
On page 88, Wilhelm says that many of his students have trouble spontaneously imagining the scenery of the story, and I literally cannot imagine not doing that while reading. My inability to understand that is most likely something that I'll have to learn to deal with while I'm teaching. It's a little bit like playing a sport: a great athlete will have difficulty understanding why you can't do something that he or she does every day, and will often have trouble teaching that skill until they understand what the average or less-practiced person needs to do in order to accomplish the task.
I read a story earlier today about teachers who are removing the desks from their classrooms. I feel the same way about this as I do about reading: aren't the desks important? I'd love to sit in a beanbag chair in class, but surely there are times when desks are better. Or maybe not. Maybe the desks are only important because teachers make them seem important; after all, they're often in the wrong place and need to be moved to facilitate activities anyway. So... maybe it's okay to get rid of the desks, but I think we need to keep some of the close reading.
I'm looking forward to reading more of this book because I think the subjects Wilhelm is writing about are things that inexperienced teachers either often worry about or never even think about. I'm interested to see what solutions he used in order to help his less-engaged readers become more so.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Reading has always come relatively easy to me, but that doesn't mean I've always enjoyed it. That reluctance began in elementary school in a gifted program called Special Interest, for which we were required to read novels. Many of my classmates read frequently without prodding, but Mrs. O'Conner actually gave me the titles of books I had to read, since I didn't often choose my own. She succeeded in getting me to read by choosing the My Side of the Mountain series, which I really enjoyed (oddly enough, though Hatchet is the same type of book, I didn't like it). I think she was the one who encouraged me to read Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, as well. I read its sequel a little later, and followed that up with To Kill A Mockingbird in sixth grade. I also enjoyed the Island, Everest, and Dive trilogies, as they were both easy and interesting. I find myself reading similar novels (i.e., fiction dealing with the outdoors/adventures) now, like In High Places, although I've been working for the last few years on reading things that I should read in order to be able to better make connections for/with students (and, in some cases, pop culture) e.g., Harry Potter, The Road, Artemis Fowl, Paradise Lost, and plenty of others.
Most of the books from middle school didn't leave an impression on me, though I remember reading Light in the Forest, The Diary of Anne Frank, and The Miracle Worker, as well as having to memorize "The Road Not Taken." One of the things I enjoyed in middle school was our Greek mythology unit in 7th grade, which was a key reason I took Intro. to Mythology last semester. Animal Farm and Fahrenheit 451 were my favorite stories, and 451 has kept that status. I re-read it over the summer and can't believe how much closer we've gotten to the world Bradbury describes in the 6 or 7 years since I had last read it.
The books in high school were much more interesting overall. Though we got stuck with some real bombs through the years (Romeo and Juliet, The Awakening, Travels with Charley, Hamlet, and The Crucible among them), many others were very good: The Great Gatsby, To Kill a Mockingbird, Their Eyes Were Watching God, The Shipping News, Of Mice and Men, A Separate Peace, A Tale of Two Cities, and Benito Cereno, to name a few. Most of these novels are ones I enjoy because of how well they were taught. Had it not been for Ms. Gibson's teaching, Benito Cereno might have been one of my least favorite stories; instead, it's something I can't wait to read again. Mr. Emerick did a similarly outstanding job teaching A Separate Peace, and it's also become one of my favorite novels. The knowledge and passion that my teachers showed in doing their jobs has directly contributed to my enjoyment of the novels I've had to read over the years, and I hope to be able to affect my own students that way.
Surprisingly, despite the amount of reading necessary for my college classes, I've spent much more time reading during the past two summers. In K-12, I would be amazed if I read more than 600-800 pages in any single summer solely for pleasure. In each of the past two summers, I've read 9 books and 15 books respectively, easily totaling more than 6,000 pages between the two. Those totals are partly due to greater motivation, but also to my awareness that to be a good teacher (and student) in this discipline, one needs to read more (in terms of genre/category, as well as volume) than what is required in class. My reading list for this summer already includes more than 50 books of all different kinds. Feel free to contribute to that list.
Most of the books from middle school didn't leave an impression on me, though I remember reading Light in the Forest, The Diary of Anne Frank, and The Miracle Worker, as well as having to memorize "The Road Not Taken." One of the things I enjoyed in middle school was our Greek mythology unit in 7th grade, which was a key reason I took Intro. to Mythology last semester. Animal Farm and Fahrenheit 451 were my favorite stories, and 451 has kept that status. I re-read it over the summer and can't believe how much closer we've gotten to the world Bradbury describes in the 6 or 7 years since I had last read it.
The books in high school were much more interesting overall. Though we got stuck with some real bombs through the years (Romeo and Juliet, The Awakening, Travels with Charley, Hamlet, and The Crucible among them), many others were very good: The Great Gatsby, To Kill a Mockingbird, Their Eyes Were Watching God, The Shipping News, Of Mice and Men, A Separate Peace, A Tale of Two Cities, and Benito Cereno, to name a few. Most of these novels are ones I enjoy because of how well they were taught. Had it not been for Ms. Gibson's teaching, Benito Cereno might have been one of my least favorite stories; instead, it's something I can't wait to read again. Mr. Emerick did a similarly outstanding job teaching A Separate Peace, and it's also become one of my favorite novels. The knowledge and passion that my teachers showed in doing their jobs has directly contributed to my enjoyment of the novels I've had to read over the years, and I hope to be able to affect my own students that way.
Surprisingly, despite the amount of reading necessary for my college classes, I've spent much more time reading during the past two summers. In K-12, I would be amazed if I read more than 600-800 pages in any single summer solely for pleasure. In each of the past two summers, I've read 9 books and 15 books respectively, easily totaling more than 6,000 pages between the two. Those totals are partly due to greater motivation, but also to my awareness that to be a good teacher (and student) in this discipline, one needs to read more (in terms of genre/category, as well as volume) than what is required in class. My reading list for this summer already includes more than 50 books of all different kinds. Feel free to contribute to that list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)