Segregation based on social class?

Response to HER Classic: Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education by Ray C. Rist

I find myself blogging about this reading with mixed emotions. Because this article was originally published in 1970 (I believe) and reprinted in 2000, I thought there would be little useful information worth my time. I was wrong, which brings me to the conflicted part of responding to this article. If I am reading an article written before I was born, shouldn't I feel like I am reading something from another time and place? I think I should feel that way. I didn't. I felt like Ray Rist was talking about teachers today. Maybe not exactly, but it was close enough for me to double check the publishing date and his credentials. Dr. Rist is, in fact, quite reputable. 

If you haven't read the article, I recommend taking the time to do so. If time doesn't permit at the moment, I will give you a quick run down: Rist was part of a study from 1967 to 1970 that followed three groups of African American students in a public school system from kindergarten to second grade. Two other researchers participated, so this article from Rist focused on his results from the school and students with which he worked. Basically, he found that one of two things was true: 

1. The teachers were brilliant and knew without testing them which students had the potential for success based on the limited knowledge gained in the first five days of kindergarten and some paperwork completed by some of the parents (such as employment of the parents, address, educational background, etc.).
2. The teachers were biased (consciously or otherwise) and segregated the students based on socioeconomic status of parents and "tracked" students based on perceived potential leading to inequitable teaching and grouping of students that continued through the study.

Okay, so I am willing to admit that these teachers did not do this maliciously or intentionally. Rist suggests that these teachers were actually good teachers, though perhaps misguided. Here is my issue (and it really isn't even an issue with the article or Rist): Why did I feel like I was reading a recent article? Has the school system changed so little that we haven't recognized that public education is perpetuating injustice based on social class?

Funny, but not really. Ironic, maybe?

Here is my question to you: If separate but equal was deemed inherently unequal in Brown v. Board of Education,  did the United States find a way around that by creating school boundaries? I mean, if all the kids in one area go to the same school, aren't we just segregating students based on their zip code socioeconomic status? As in, the nice houses in nice districts generate high property taxes, which, in turn, generate more revenue for those districts. The federal and state governments are not fully funding education mandates (in my opinion), forces local districts to fund locally. Here is a school in an affluent Atlanta district that managed to have $50,000 in PTA funds "stolen." How the heck did the PTA manage to raise so much that someone thought $50 grand wouldn't be missed? Other schools barely make it, while others are giving money away. How is that equitable? How is that an equal education? Schools giving away iPads versus schools without enough funds for class sets of books. Where is the equity in that?

Maybe Rist caught onto something early, and it takes a while to change the system. Or maybe there has always been inequity in public funding and education and just the marginalized population changes. I don't know. But it seems to me that the education funding formula perpetuates injustice against those who can least afford it. The "gap" between the haves and have-nots gets bigger every generation. Who will we marginalize next?

We can't all be just the same, can we?

Response to Chapter 1 of Un-Standardizing Curriculum: Multicultural Teaching in the Standards-Based Classroom by Christine E. Sleeter

Initially, I thought this blog would be something I updated regularly. Then the summer ended, and I did not read anything of value for an entire month (maybe longer). Now the fall semester has started, and I am compelled to share my opinions again. And this time I am fired up in a good way. Finally, someone out there gets it and offers solutions! Here we go!

First of all, I read just the first chapter of this book, but I REALLY want to find some time to finish it. Secondly, this book has nothing to do with technology in the classroom. Third, no one is required to read this post, so I hope I don't get to crazy with this!

On the second page of the chapter (page 6), Sleeter writes:

"Paradoxically, the use of standards-based reform as a way of eliminating inequity has resulted in homogenizing the curriculum, even while classrooms in the United States have become more diverse." 

I think this is the most profound public statement available to support my opinion that standardized tests measure a moment of student learning rather than long-term comprehension and application of knowledge. How can a test that is meant to treat every student the same actually be appropriate for every student? Thank you, Ms. Sleeter!

How can we gauge student learning if we aren't asking for more than A, B, or C? As I read this chapter, I made notes in the margins. Looking back, I see a theme in my comments and questions.  Here are just a FEW of my comments: 

• Can we have well-rounded education when we don't look at all of the students in a population? 
• There is more to learn than what can be measured on a test! 
• To educate a society each group needs justice and equity in offerings, so how do we do THAT? 
• Aren't all standards based on normalcy, stereotypes, and averages? How is that equitable? 
• Is the inequality in education a race or economic issue? Or is there a correlation with socioeconomics and race? Is that a two strikes against one group? 
• Does standardized testing perpetuation cultural models? 
• How can federal agencies issue mandates that they cannot fully fund? 
• How can teachers be accountable for outcomes when they don't have a voice in the process? 
• Is education reactive or proactive to societal needs? 
• Why aren't educators the driving force behind reform? 
• School choice is another means of bias against low-income students who do not have the means to enact their school-choice rights.

So, Sleeter obviously hit the spot on all my hot-button issues. She does breakdown the chapters to read to answer some of these questions, but overall she is on the money. We can't expect every students to respond to the material in the same way. We don't teach clones. We teach individual students. Until we accept responsibility for ALL of the students in our classrooms, we aren't living up to our promise to provide a free and appropriate education to all students! (I am pretty sure I read that somewhere in IDEA, but it is definitely on this site, too.)

Social justice as defined by Wikipedia:

Social justice is justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being.

Human rights. Equality. Dignity. This should be how we approach education.

Obviously, I have my own opinions about public education. I do want to say that I am a strong proponent of public education for all students, just in case it wasn't obvious. I think it is important for lawmakers, politicians, parents, and teachers to realize how important these issues are to the future of our country. Until we offer every student a quality education, we aren't serving students equitably. Every time we de-value a student and his or her experiences, we are sending them a message. And it isn't one that I am willing to support. Every child matters, and it is time we started treating them that way.

The Grammar Game: Does this make me a filmmaker?

While it isn't the coolest or most appealing video ever made, I learned something. Now, you can, too. Write like you know what you said. My new favorite line. Ever.

Seriously, this is a quick lesson on how to correctly use its, it's, their, they're, your, and you're in your writing that you're doing for people.

Updated at 6:25 p.m. for quality control, and your viewing pleasure.
(Translation: I completed some edits and uploaded this as a YouTube file.)

Marilyn Monroe: Iconic America

 

Abby, Hannah, and I worked on a photo analysis project together on Marilyn Monroe. Similar to our previous project on Frosted Mini Wheats, we analyze the message sent by this image and the aspects that made it an iconic image of Marilyn. We discuss various elements of the photograph, such as color, position, angle, and the subjects (Marilyn and the dress). A separate page offers additional details on Marilyn's iconic status. Enjoy the classroom applications we offer for high school students. Be sure to leave comments to let us know how we can improve the project.

In the end, does it really matter?

FINAL Response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein

Here's the deal. Bauerlein complained a lot in this book. So much so that I was ready to call him up since he teaches here in Atlanta. I get that he has his own agenda and opinions, but one of the basic writing principles is to combat readers from saying, "Yeah, but what about (fill in the blank)?" I got encouraged from a few pages when he wrote about the ArtShow: Youth and Community Development. Then he ruined it when he complained about the work not carrying over into the kids' attitudes about school. Come on already, Bauerlein. Stop complaining and offer some solutions.

I have shared in previous posts how conflicted I feel about technology. I still feel conflicted. After a ton of reflection, I have come up with a few more questions.

1. This is a question I have already posed, but here it is again. Are teachers part of the technology problem? I mean, the printables from the teacher handbooks are all about finding the answer to fill in the blank. Those are easier to grade. Teacher use them. 
2. Is the problem that teachers are only working for summer break? Obviously, I don't think the answer is an unequivocal, "YES!" I do, however, think there are far too many teacher who hate their jobs, and it shows in their teaching.
3. If we are to complain about technology stupefying a generation, shouldn't school systems STOP pushing edutainment software that promises to improve test scores?

Obviously, I had to do some pop culture research about how people feel in regard to technology in schools. I stumbled across this gem:

Please watch the entire video, otherwise my comments won't make sense. 

Maybe Ellen earned auto correct. But today's kids haven't earned anything. I like that Ellen equates writing to thinking. Awesomeness. Ellen gets it. When she brings up cavemen and communication, she does miss the idea of visuals and pictures as language. Cavemen had primitive iPads if you consider their hieroglyphs as app icons. They communicated for a purpose, which is explained well in this site I found called Caveman Communications. This guy gets it. He admits that he is a caveman, primitive. He also gets that getting back to basics is the way to go. (Okay, maybe he doesn't completely say that, but that is my take-away from him.) My point is that this Caveman offers some solutions.

But getting back to Ellen. She has a good point about iPads for kindergartners. If pediatricians recommend limiting screen time each day, why are schools pushing it as a significant part of the curriculum? 

As I am writing this, I can't help but think of the Pixar movie, Wall-E.  Is this where our future is headed?

About 2 minutes in, there is an incredibly brief scene of babies in bouncy seats watching the screen (Ellen's point about iPads?), becoming brainwashed with branding. Face-to-face communication does not exists. You talk to the person next to you via screen messaging. There is no human interaction. I get that Bauerlein is giving me a grown up version of Wall-E, but I need solutions. I know there is a problem. I am walking away from The Dumbest Generation even more dejected than before about the challenge of engaging students to become critical analyzers of the information they consume. 

I wonder if technology in the classroom is just this generation's hot topic. Back in my school days, administrators still used corporal punishment. Then it was class size and test scores. Every few years there is some reason for American kids performing poorly on tests. We don't keep up with the rest of the civilized world. I don't think technology in the classroom is destroying the American work ethic. History is. We teach kids that each generation more advanced than the previous. But are we really just teaching them to mindlessly follow along and accept whatever information they are fed? 

While this push back text offered plenty of stats to support a decision to utilize less technology in the classroom, I don't think it is realistic. Kids are too "plugged in" to their devices. If teachers come in and tell them they are the dumbest kids ever, teachers might as well hang it up. The trick is to find an appropriate curriculum that balances student-centered technology with learning-centered education instead of entertaining students with short sound bytes and watered down handouts. The problem is more far-reaching than Bauerlein would have his readers believe.


In the end, does Bauerlein have a point? We all know what he is telling us. He just dazzles us with enough statistics that make teachers want to nose dive from their mountains of federal mandates right into the falling test scores.

Who's the problem and where's the solution?

Intermediate Response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein


A couple of disclaimers are necessary before I go any further with this blog:

1. It has come to my attention that my posts are "lengthy," so don't feel obligated to read them unless you are grading them. Read to enjoy it, not out of obligation.
2. If it hasn't been clear yet, I have not committed to a side on the debate about technology in the classroom. I think it is overused. I think kids engage less critically in their lives (in broad terms). I think there is more to the problem than technology. Make of that what you will.

Now, back to The Dumbest Generation. I am bothered by the chapter "Online Learning and Non-Learning." I feel like Bauerlein is blaming the kids for not knowing how to appropriately use technology. Kids don't know how to use anything until you teach them. I had encyclopedias in my house as a kid (I know, I'm old), but I didn't know how to correctly "use" them until I learned about plagiarism and copyright in school. So why doesn't Bauerlein place any of the blame on educators for not keeping up with the kids? Aren't we supposed to be one step ahead of those we teach? If kids don't know how to cite resources from the Internet or figure out the validity of a website, I think teachers are the problem. If kids use the Internet to connect to the world, educators should teach them to connect responsibly.

I do agree with Bauerlein and his stats about the massive amounts of money spent on technology in schools. It seems wasteful to funnel funds to technology if it isn't helping kids get "more educated." It is great to have computers and Internet in every classroom; but if you shove 40 kids into a class, does it matter how many computers you have? There is definitely a crisis in education, and I don't think technology and its use are the root of the problem.

I also wonder this: if test scores didn't change when school went "digital," doesn't that mean technology is NOT the problem? I think there are lots of problems that have NOTHING to do with technology! Aarrgghhhh! I feel like Bauerlein is so busy bashing technology in schools instead of offering any practical solutions. Maybe there is more wrong with kids and schools than the Internet.

Bauerlein brings up some valid concerns about language acquisition in the digital age. If kids only text, email, and play video games, where do they learn communication? I get that he thinks kids get the watered-down vocabulary of popular culture. But I think it is even worse. Kids are lacking in communication in general. Like basic communication. Like making an actual phone call. Or learning to interact in an interview for a job. Digital natives are lacking in some basic skills, and I think educators the part of the problem. They expect students to come to school on day one with an advanced skill set, so they neglect to teach the basics from day one. If you miss the basics in elementary school, kids are at a deficit when they hit middle and high school. Since Bauerlein wants to bash technology in schools, spread the love and bash elementary applications, too.

In order for me to commit to a side of the debate, I need more than endless statistics thrown in my face. I want to hear about possible solutions and changes. I want to hear promise and compromise. I want to know that people are doing more than sitting around complaining. I guess I am frustrated with Bauerlein because he is doing a lot of trash talk without taking off the researcher hat and spouting some solutions. If he doesn't start offering me a ray of hope in this book, I might cry.

Success with Non-Traditional Texts

Response to:

• Apps in Education, a blog
• "Telling Stories with Video" by Carl Young and Sara Kajder
• "Empowering Children as Critics and Composers of Multimodal Texts" by Phyllis Whitin and David J. Whitin

I feel like I am complaining a lot about technology in the classroom, and I haven't committed to a side in the debate. Maybe it is bad. Maybe it isn't.

I decided to research a little to see what I could find in support of non-traditional applications of technology in the classroom. First of all I thought about non-traditional texts (like cereal boxes, movies, still photographs), but then I thought about popular technology. This response is a little bit of both. I started with the thought, "There's an App for that!"

I came across this pretty cool blog that breaks down apps by subject. A fairly practical list, it includes a variety of categories and price points. If we all know that kids are using their phones, can't we use it for their benefit (and ours)? If Reading Rainbow has an app, shouldn't we just accept technology as part of the curriculum? I think successful educators embrace the tools available. And apps are available. This blog, Apps in Education (linked above), offers twenty applicable apps for the English classroom. These twenty have been reviewed for usefulness and list the cost associated with each. Half of the apps reviewed are free, and the remaining ones range from $0.99 to $3.99. Additionally, nearly 80 unreviewed apps are listed. WOW! And that is just for English!

While trying to find classroom applications for new technology, I ran across this article which offers a variety of alternatives, ten to be exact, for the traditional book report. There are some limitations to integrating technology as a requirement (I would guess), but as long as the appropriate resources are available during class time successful implementation is possible. I do wonder how long it will be before all students are expected to have access to the Internet and a computer at home. These technologies seem prevalent; but when I observed in a local high school in the spring, a number of students required access to the classroom computers before or after class to complete/correct/print required assignments. Students completed potions of the assignments on their phones, but they lacked the other components necessary to turn in an assignment. The article I talked in a previous post, talked about blogs as a location for "publishing" homework. That seems like a practical solution in this case.

Here is another article which encourages the use of technology in the ELA classroom. Written by two assistant professors, this article is short, sweet, and to the point. Their ideas are in line with the content of ENGL 7741 here at KSU.  

Students writing with multimodal tools, such as digital video editors, should use them selectively, intentionally, and it ways that leverage the unique capacities of the tools and media to accomplish a specific goal. As in print-centric writing tasks, the principles of choice and form matter, as does the larger context in which the writing is situated. To be fully literate, students must know how to use tools, but more important, they must also know which forms of literact will best support their purpose for a given audience and a specific context.  ~From "Telling Stories With Video" by Carl Young and Sara Kajder

There really isn't much to say about it because Young and Kajder sum things up nicely. I like how easy this article was to read and how straightforward they were with content. It is work the two-minute read.

One of the projects I was part of during this semester analyzed product packaging and its intended message. I ran across "Empowering Children as Critics and Composers of Multimodal Texts" after we completed the project bookmarked it as a site for reference. It is a study of cereal in the classroom. Basically, fifth grade students analyzed packaging and advertising of a product and created skits, ads, and PowerPoints to market the product themselves. I mention this article because the study was with FIFTH GRADERS. If they can critically engage with cereal, high schoolers should be able to do even more. I think that introducing students to multimodal texts earlier in the academic lives could encourage them to engage more critically in the future. The take away for me is that students need to be consumer AND producers of their language: multimodal texts.

The main point that I am trying to make with this seemingly unrelated group of articles is that technology isn't going away. The Internet is a great resource for teachers AND students if we teach everyone to use it responsibly. Nearly every educational article I could need to support methods in my future classroom is a few keystrokes away. If I am going to teach the digital natives, I need to be fluent in their language. Maybe we can all just learn from each other. Or maybe not.

At this point, I think it is about advocating responsible use. As Young and Kajder imply, you have to know the system before you can work the system. And it works both ways.

Am I THE Problem?

Response to Lack of Leisure Reading by Ali Swank (in response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein)


Okay, so I don't completely buy into Bauerlein's theory that technology is ruining America. I don't think he is crazy either. My classmate Ali posted a response to Bauerlein that I COULD NOT ignore. Bauerlein goes to great lengths to talk about the amount of time kids spend "plugged-in" to the screens in their lives. I get how easy it is to point the finger at parents, because I was once one of those parents.


You get the true-life confessional from a mother of two, a reader and a non-reader.


My kids are polar opposites. They come from the same genetic makeup. They were raised in seemingly the exact same way. We read to our kids every night. Individually. I have read Are You My Mother? more times than should be legally allowed. I have read every Dr. Seuss book multiple times to multiple children. We have had bedtime read-alongs for their entire lives. We listen to books on CD. We are regular visitors at the public library. We have been the proud members of Zoo Atlanta and High Museum of Art on alternating years for more than a decade. With family memberships. Only one of my children has a cell phone (which I still don't feel good about it, but it came in handy when she missed the bus). My kids do NOT have televisions in their rooms. We have a family computer in the middle of the dining room. And they only have one gaming system. That they share. (It actually collects dust more than it collects points.) 


One of my kids reads everything. I mean, everything. She reads more books than I can read in a semester. She knows more about literature than most of her peers. But she hates the literary canon (which broke my heart when she refused to finish To Kill A Mockingbird because it was boring). She has finished The Hunger Games Trilogy, the entire Harry Potter series, the complete Twilight saga, and won a trophy for reading more than any other kids in her grade level one year. A trophy for reading. That could have been my sport.

Then there is my other kid. As a school system employee and (hopefully) future teacher, I am always a anxious when people ask about his reading habits. He is nine. He completed third grade with a sixth grade reading level. He HATES really doesn't like to read. I still read to him most nights (go ahead and judge me: some will say he is too old for such while others will say I should do it every night). He feels like it is a waste of time. He gets bored with it. He can't sit still to read for extended periods of time (and he doesn't have ADD), and he prefers not to listen intently while others read. When I read to him, he draws illustrations for the books. Or plays with Hot Wheels while he listens. He loves Claude Monet and knows more about hermit crabs than seemingly possible. He climbs trees and builds elaborate fortresses out of Jenga blocks and Scrabble letters. He writes amazingly complex stories (according to his teacher) with HORRIBLE grammar (as in spelling and punctuation and capitalization). But he doesn't care.

So why doesn't he like to read? Hell if I know! I did everything I thought I was supposed to do, and I still managed to mess up according to some people. If he knows a ton of useless information and writes impressive fiction, how do I get him to read? He would rather climb a tree or learn origami or fly paper airplanes from the upstairs windows. He isn't hanging out with the television and the computer all day, he has been exposed to culture, and he still won't read.  We have tried Geronimo Stilton and Goosebumps and Flat Stanley. We had the most success with Goosebumps, but most of the others don't get more than half read. 


According to Ali's post, I must be partly to blame. 

Why aren’t kids reading? Parents are not making them!–If adults started exercising their parental rights and were actually parents, maybe our youth would be well read. Parents are the ones who buy the fancy technology gadgets and allow their kids to spend countless hours in front of the TV. Parents are the ones who buy the upgraded SUVs for family vacations with the built in TVs to the headrests. Heaven forbid you would have to SPEAK to your child while on an eight hour road trip, or listen to a book on tape, or read an actual book in the car.

If children are raised in a household where reading and cultural activities are cherished and encouraged, they are more likely to pick up a book in their spare time. Instead of parents taking their kids to the latest movie, where they spend an astronomical amount on tickets and junk food, they could spend that money on a membership to a local museum for the year. If we want our kids to be cultured and well read, we have to pursue the proper channels to ensure they are.

I know that Ali is not personally attacking me. I get it. But what happens when I don't buy the fancy tech tools, force the kids to listen to books on CD in the car, partake in annual art museum memberships (and heavily utilize said membership) only to STILL have half of my kids refuse to read? I admit we do enjoy a movie now and then. But not at the expense of cultural exposure. My kids do watch television, but not as a solitary activity.

I can pinpoint when my non-reader became a non-reader. It was in kindergarten. The teacher required him to read in front of the class. And he hated it. Every minute of it. He was reluctant to read to his class for whatever reason. His first grade teacher understood that, and his reading scores increased as did his writing (both skill and enjoyment). His second grade teacher required him to read for Accelerated Reader points. He doesn't do competition, and he doesn't choose his books from a list. His third grade teacher gave up when she realized AR points meant as much to him as the federal deficit. She allowed him to choose something of interest to research. He chose Galileo and hermit crabs. And he searched the web and printed enough information to kill an entire forest. Then stood up and told the class a number of trivial facts about Galileo and hermit crabs.

He won't read a book no matter how much I bribe him. But if you ask him what GTO stands for, he knows without hesitation. Do you?

So is it my fault that he doesn't read? Who can we blame next?

Don't Hate Me Because I Read

Intermediate Response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein
Since this book is about four years old, I guess the disclaimer should read "Or Don't Trust Anyone Under 34." 


So I am fairly committed to finishing this book even if I alienate the people I meet. I am trying to follow Stephen King's advice in his memoir on the craft of writing, so I have been taking this book with me whenever I anticipate the time to read. So far I have been condemned at the skating rink, the orthodontist's office, and now Starbucks. My favorite barista at Starbucks was sincerely offended, so I felt compelled to defend my choice of reading material as a line formed behind me. I now know that my barista Justin is 25 years old as of June 21 and has a masters degree in exercise science, and he hopes to work in a high school as an athletic trainer to prevent injuries in young athletes. And he is interested in older women.

Most people who know me know that I equate coffee with love, so I cannot afford to make my barista upset. Especially the barista who knows my drink order. Let's hope I can still get good coffee, but it may have to be a sacrifice in the name of research. 

At this point, I am hopeful that you have read/are reading this book, so I won't bore you with a summary (you can read that on the link above or here). I have THREE pages of notes so far, but I am planning to be as succinct as possible. But I am fired up.

Bauerlein does a great job of dazzling the reader with supported statistics about "screen time" for kids and parental lifestyles that may or may not be the reason for the excessive screen time. I will admit that I am on the fence about whether or not technology is "to blame" for kids lacking critical analysis skills or a fundamental love of reading. I do know that kids are reliant on technology. But is it as bad as Bauerlein makes it out to be? Every generation has some new convenience that the one before wasn't fortunate enough to have. Examples? Electricity, cars, telephones, supermarkets, profit sharing, automation and industrialization, assembly lines. The list is truly endless. This article shows the advances in the classrooms throughout history. It definitely helps to prove my point.

The important question for me (as a parent and hopeful future educator) is this: Is technology actually preventing progress?

Part of me says yes because these millennials or Generation M have lost the face-to-face aspect of socialization. They take everything they see and read as fact and need to be spoon fed critical interaction. They are a generation of aliterates and eliterates. They are an entire generation who don't understand that one generation ago people were embarrassed by illiteracy. This generation hasn't struggled with the aftermath of Vietnam when soldiers came home hated. They think wars are heroic endeavors that create great sound bytes and causes to anonymously rally behind. 

The other part of me says no because these same millennials have centuries of history and culture a mouse click away. They can find the answers to questions in seconds rather than the hours it took when I was young. They have a plethora of opportunities.

But they suck.

They don't care about anything other than the lastest status update or viral video.

Kids have televisions in the bedroom. And a gaming system. And a cell phone. And a computer. And internet access. And text messaging. And i-pods and i-pads. They are plugged-in. 24/7.

Bauerlein talks in chapter three ("Screen Time") about the amount of time kids zero to six and eight to eighteen spend with the screen, which included television, video gaming, computing, video watching, and prerecorded programming. The shocking thing for me is how these kids are enjoying on-demand viewing. They learn about instant gratification with Elmo DVDs at the age of 2. I think this carries over into education. They don't have time to wait for us to teach them anything. I guess that means we have to teach is fast. Teach it concisely. Teach it when they want it. Great, I have a plan. Now how to I make it work? Again, I need to have my entertainer hat so that I can find a job in edutainment.

I think this article  from Bauerlein is an interesting companion for this post since he DOES admit that these kiddos do actually READ, even though it is mostly casual text and email messaging. I come back to a question over and over again. Is it an attention issue or an interest issue? Are kids unable to focus because of their faux muti-tasking? Are they really less smart and unable to comprehend complicated ideas? Are they just disinterested in anything beyond themselves?

Stay tuned because I am certain I haven't finished with Bauerlein yet.


P.S. I won't be posting from Starbucks again. The quality of my work seems to have diminished as I shared air with so many millennials in one location.

Frosted Mini Wheats

Enjoy another project from ENGL 7741. This time we analyzed the product packaging of Kellogg's Frosted Mini Wheats with a cross-promotion for The Amazing Spider-Man movie scheduled for release next week. On our partner blog, we give an overview of visual and media literacy, an analysis of the packaging, classroom applications, and some interesting links for further edutainment. Make sure you check out Frosted Mini Wheats Little Bites: Why Do We Love Them? This is a joint project with Hannah and Abby.

Facebook = Homework

Response to "The Facebook Generation: Homework as Social Networking" by Stacy Kitsis

Okay, so my blog title is a little misleading. But only a little.

This article wasn't really on my list of favorites (based on the title), but I REALLY enjoyed it and found some reasonable classroom applications worth a try. I feel a little jaded about the whole Facebook thing, primarily because kids seem to spend too much time there. I have been trying to figure out how to use it my advantage, and Stacy Kitsis already had it figured out back in 2008.

This is how I felt about Facebook and homework:

This is how I feel NOW:

Obviously, this last meme is a little over the top. Or is it?

According to Kitsis, teachers just need to treat homework like social networking. Oh, right. Make it more fun and interactive.

Some points from Kitsis I whole-heartedly agree with, but there is just one thing are just a couple of things that bother me. I subscribe to the pet-pet-slap theory, which is similar to the compliment sandwich theory, just in a different order.

I will try to stick with the sandwich theory, but I make no promises.

Verdict?

I absolutely LOVE the practical classroom applications from the article. I even looked up some homework blogs and found a good ones to model in the future. In case you haven't read the article (even though I know you wouldn't read this if you hadn't read the article), here is a quick synopsis: Kitsis basically mimics social media with the homework assignments. Students are paired to complete email exchanges over reading material (the teacher gets copied on correspondence) before large group discussions, projects, or writings. The emails have specific topics and guidelines for everyone. Another approach is the use of a blog with discussion topics. (I especially like the idea of multiple topics from which students can choose.) Students must adequately address the topic or answer the questions AND thoughtfully respond to at least one peer. There are tons of suggestions and rules about anonymity and safety that you can read in the article.

It is almost like tricking the students into enjoying the homework! But it really creates a sense of accountability among peers and fosters collaborative learning. If Vygotksy is right (and I am pretty confident he is), the sociocultural theory of education supports homework as social networking. Only in this case, the social networking benefits students academically instead of just socially. 

Kitsis also does a nice job of explaining some potential problems (and solutions) to this technologically savvy homework approach. Problems such as access to computers or Internet, unwilling partners, failing technology, and overly polite critiques are just the beginning. However, most also lead to easy solutions. Allow class time to complete assignments, grade partners individually, allow for technology failures in the schedule, and teach students clear expectations.

Okay, so I messed up the compliment sandwich already and gave away two really great compliments. Now let's talk about what I didn't like. First of all, this article is rather outdated (already). Published in 2008, this article offers a ton of great advice and practical application, but MySpace was part of the article. Sadness. The talk about class wikis also seemed outdated. Emerging technologies like Google Drive offer better collaborative work environments for students. I don't keep up with the latest stuff, so if I know about it, it can't be new. These are small potatoes in the grand scheme of the argument, really.

My biggest beef is this: Why does it always have to be fun and engaging? Kitsis makes it sound like everything in the classroom is always fun. I don't believe that can be true if educators prepare students for life. Life isn't always fun. I don't like to pay my bills. Even online it isn't "fun" to give my money away for water and electricity and Internet service. But I do it. Edutainment has a place in schools, but does it destroy our ability to teach practical skills students need in real life?

Is this where public education is heading?

I better get out my dancing shoes and creative cap if I want to teach. I have to trick them into learning, just like Kitsis did. If you can't beat them, join them. Right?

Does Technology Make Us More Stupider?

Response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein

Okay, so the idea of my Technology In Education class is to find useful ways to integrate technology into the classroom and to teach students digital literacy. So why am I reading a book that (seemingly) recommends the opposite? I had three texts from which to choose: The Dumbest Generation, Proust and the Squid, or The Shallows. I will admit I was more interested in either of the other two, but I was determined to save money this semester. In the name of saving money, I went to my local public library website to search. Of the three, they had this one. Hence, my decision was made. My point in sharing that? I don't know that this is really the book for me, but sometimes sacrifices are made in education. And I used the Internet to make my choice.

As a brief disclaimer, I need to make a few statements. I am older than 30. I have two children in public schools. I think technology is overused by everyone (I include video games and television in this category).

My personal feelings are somewhat in line with the premise of The Dumbest Generation. I do think that most people under the age of 30 are extremely reliant on technology. I know my own children have never used a real encyclopedia or a card catalog. They don't know what it means to research in a library. They think it is as easy as a few key strokes on google. I feel like my own children are great at taking the information they find and reworking information from multiple locations into a coherent single paper, but I don't think they could make connections between unrelated concepts that wikipedia doesn't list for them. I KNOW my kids can't do their homework without the Internet most nights. They rely on teacher websites that list homework and provide links. They don't know anything about telephones before caller id. The idea of leaving the house without a cell phone strikes fear in their hearts. How will we get home without the phone?

Here is a great video clip of a popular kid's show that demonstrates my point pretty well.

Worth a good laugh, if you are old enough to see the humor.

I don't think the idea of kids being "lazy" is a new problem. Students have always struggled to make critical analysis part of their assignments. I grew up in the days of encyclopedias and microfiche. Research was hard. It was time consuming. It required thought. And still many of my classmates just used a single source. One book. Usually the encyclopedia. And usually they plagiarized.

What am I saying? I don't believe that technology is the reason that kids are "lazy" or "dumb." Maybe my generation didn't have the Internet and video games to waste six hours of the day. But we still wasted a lot of time. We rode our bikes and climbed trees. We blew up kitchens and laughed. We "hung out" with friends. Now, kids still waste time. Then, we wasted time. We just wasted it differently.

The real tragedy is these kids have more tools with which to work, but they use it for funny sound bytes and status updates. Maybe they don't know how to critically engage, or maybe they don't want to. Yet. I think there is a lot to be said for maturity, and maybe that is what millennials lack. I don't know.

This is just my initial reaction to the book, but I think there is merit to both sides of the debate. I do agree that kids are much more interested in keeping up with their social issues rather than life issues. Stay tuned for further thoughts on the topic (and the book).

Separation Anxiety?

Response to Missus W's Deliberation, a research blog dedicated to debating the merit of teaching the literary canon

My dear friend Missus W (I call her Caitlin) is tackling a heavy topic in English education. I will admit that I am intrigued by her topic. Basically, she wants to know if there is merit in teaching the canon. 

What are your thoughts? 

Want to hear mine?

You kept reading, so I guess that means you are interested. First of all, if you think we are talking about this kind of cannon (notice the spelling difference):

you will be sorely disappointed (and probably confused). Second of all, if you don't know what the literary canon is, you might want to check out this link before you continue. If you still don't know what the canon is, think of the stuff you hated to read in school, but it was required anyway. (If you ever read Shakespeare, then you read from the canon.)

Okay, so my OPINION is this: We still teach the canon because it is familiar and everyone should learn what their parents learned just like their parents before them. I think it is a silly idea. There is merit to the canon, but not as the only texts in the classroom. If the times change, shouldn't the canon? But it doesn't really. I think those in favor of (solely) teaching the canon are suffering from separation anxiety.   Why do I claim such? It's like the woobie of English teachers--so hard to let go. 

My friend's blog as some cool information that you should check out for a more serious conversation. 

Basically, Missus W feels this way: 

Missus W buried (in my opinion) the greatest question at the end of this post, so I will share it here:

The bigger question for me, I’m finding as I struggle through the canon wars, is whether or not the canon is killing young readers?  Is stressing the importance of canonical works important enough to bore students to the level that they don’t care about reading at all anymore?  I’m envisioning Pavlov’s theory in play and seeing students not pick up a book because they have been taught texts that confuse and frustrate them.  Is there a happy medium?

Certainly, I think there is merit in the canon, but is it so out of touch with today's kids that it is alienating them? Let's face it, they all live in the era of SparkNotes, so we are lucky if they even read the "translated" version of a classic. I assert that most educators would be content to have their students reading regularly. If that means The Hunger Games instead of To Kill A Mockingbird, so be it. Katniss can become the next generation's Scout.

I offer you this blog to support my opinion. Basically, this post is claiming (and supporting with student input) that students can't relate to the canon. Maybe because of the complexity of the text, maybe because of the dependence on technology to guide them. Whatever. The idea presented it that a canonical text should only be taught with a modern companion or pairing. Here is a snippet:

I propose a classroom in which a “classic” novel is introduced not by themes, or historical context, but by a modern translation, so-to-speak. By simply comparing the first pages of two of these suggested texts, that which would result in a more enthusiastic response from a classroom becomes even more obvious. 

So why aren't we doing it? I don't know. Maybe something needs to be really old or outdated before we put it in schools.

Here is another option for the canon. Everybody likes comic books, right? A more scholarly approach to the comic book is a graphic novel (as in pictures, not content).  Check out the opening to their article:

The Western literary canon has long been debated and criticized by academics, and rightly so. Which books belong and which don't? Now The Graphic Canon: The World's Great Literature as Comics and Visuals, a three-volume series edited by Russ Kick (Seven Stories Press), which presents classic lit as comic strips, adds a bit more fuel to the intellectual fires.

Can students learn the canon from a graphic novel?

I don't know. But if the argument is that the text is too complicated, a graphic novel could be the solution. If the argument is that the text is too outdated, a graphic novel just puts lipstick on a pig.

I have observed one lesson in one high school for one class period where a student teacher was using The Odyssey in graphic novel format as a scaffold to the genuine text. (I don't think I am stealing the term "scaffold" here but if I am, sorry!) The students weren't anymore interested in the graphic novel as far as I could tell. They might have understood it better, but they weren't interested.

What's the bottom line here? I don't have an easy answer. The canon will exist whether we teach it or not. But is it worth teaching at the risk of killing off readers, one grade-level at a time?

Photoshop: Fact or Fallacy?

I know it sounds crazy, but we were assigned a pretty cool project. The premise was to take a video clip that you wouldn't expect as an obvious choice in an English education classroom. Once you chose a clip, you created a lesson (an ELA lesson) related to that "random" clip. Caitlin and I worked pretty hard on this, and we are pleased with the finished product. Check it out and leave us some feedback. We would love to improve it for future use. Feel free to borrow what might work for you.

Here is the cool project that Caitlin and I did for ENGL7741 at KSU.

Since we agree, let's agree together

My response to Hannah Stone's "Response to 'Scrutinizing the Cybersell" which was written in response to an article by Darren Crovitz 

Hannah and I have each posted individual responses to Crovitz's article. Now I would like to collaborate with Hannah. Is that possible? Is it still collaboration if Hannah isn't here with me? I am going to say yes since Hannah and I will no doubt discuss this.

I chose to respond to Hannah's post for a couple of reasons:

1. I love to read her stuff because she has a great sense of humor that I rather enjoy.
2. She is about 12 years younger than I am, so I look to her for a fresh perspective on things that more closely align with her generation than my own.
3. She is the only person who has posted something I actually have an opinion about which could actually benefit from linking our thoughts on the Cybersell article.

Now that we have established what is going on in this post, let's get to it.

In Hannah's post she mentions previous experience with interpreting media in the classroom, which I find interesting:

I have only had two classes assign an analysis of an advertisement; my American literature class in high school, and my intro to women’s studies class in college. I really enjoyed the assignment both times; I read a lot of magazines, and there are so many ads. Some catch my eye, and a lot of them are just ridiculous. I definitely consider myself to be a feminist, and I believe there is a lot that can be said about any ad from a feminist point-of-view.

First, I am so glad that there is someone else in the world my cohort who actually reads magazines. I was beginning to think I was the only one left. Second, she knows what a feminist point-of-view is. I know Hannah, so I know how smart she is. I don't doubt that she knows what a feminist point-of-view is, especially since she plans to teach soon. Third, she has actually used analysis on an advertisement. For a grade. Twice.


Since Hannah is accustomed to using technology in education because of her youth, I think Hannah is capable of taking what she knows about print media and applying it to digital media. Which is the opposite of what the Crovitz article is expecting. Does that mean that Hannah is just so awesomely awesome that we need to write an article in tribute to her? Well, of course! But that has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make. If Hannah is 10-ish years younger than I am, what can I expect of students who are 10-ish years younger than Hannah? Ms. Awesome (aka Hannah) would have been right out of high school when the Cybersell article came out. So it would stand to reason that Hannah was taught primarily with the old-school teaching style that used technology as a tool in the classroom rather than the focal point of a lesson.

Ms. Awesome makes a point which I similarly addressed. Here is her thought:

Using advertisements in the classroom as a teaching tool is a great idea because it gets students to practice writing, as well as overall communication; they can be descriptive, persuasive, argumentative, analytical, view the ad from various lenses, etc. Much like writing an analytical paper about a novel, writing about an ad requires the student to make an argument about what they see; ads are also subjective, so one person may believe one point is being made while another student thinks the ad is saying something completely different. As long as everyone can argue his or her point effectively, everyone is right.

Here is what I said in my post: 

Here's the down low: take some time to "analyze" some of the websites that are marketed to your students with your students. Who cares if you are critically analyzing The Scarlett Letter or Slim Jim. When students visit any website, they are critical without always realizing it. If the site doesn't engage them, they move on. As educators, why don't we teach them why they feel that way? Why don't we try to make the critical thinkers instead of mindless followers? If we can use websites that students frequent to teach them about literary tools, why aren't we doing it? If we can teach students to see cross-marketing campaigns in the same way we used to teach students to find multiple meanings in a book, doesn't that count as critical analysis? We have to start somewhere. So why not start with the cybersell? That is two areas at which all teens excel: on the Internet and in their consumerism.

My point? We both agree that getting students to think is more important than what they think about. That is obviously an over-simplification of these thoughts, but you get the point. When we relate all of this back to the Cybersell article, I think Crovitz can take his article a step further. We could use virtually ANY medium to get students to analyze "text."

I think the take away from Hannah, Crovitz and any other person advocating critical thinking in schools is this: as educators we have to be open to what we consider a text and accept that critical analysis has to start somewhere.


Oh, Hannah: I am not the kind of person to sign up for a user account with Doritos, but I do had a user account at Starbucks!!!

What can kids learn from media marketing?

Response to "Scrutinizing the Cybersell: Teen-Targeted Web Sites as Texts" by Darren Crovitz

So in an era where fast-paced media blitzes are inundating us, how can we use it to the advantage of educators? Clearly adults have no place in the cyber age.

Maybe not even in commercials. Okay, so you watched the video, right? McDonald's is the place for teens to hang out with no adult supervision and fall in love. I love how realistic advertising is!

How can we stop our students from falling victim to every marketing ploy that they stumble upon? We all know that advertisers sell us on unrealistic dreams. But maybe if I hang out at McDonald's I could fall in love too. With an overweight guy who will probably die from heart disease or a heart attack before I can get him to the alter. Oh, wait, that isn't the dream they are selling me.

I am getting distracted here. Focus. 

How can we use a classroom to make students more critical about their consumption of media? In the article from Crovitz, he talks about teaching students to read and write in their language, which is a multimodal language. No longer are words, pictures, and sounds separate mediums. Now they are all pieces to a whole. He writes about using websites as texts. Let's face it, students don't want to read the literary canon as much as they want to hang out on the Internet. It only makes sense to use it to our advantage. 

Getting students to look at anything critically is like trying to start a fire with a wet match. If they don't want to read the canon (and I will address this is another post, but here is a sneak peek at a friend's take), we have to venture outside our dusty old books and figure out what they will read. And clearly they spend all kinds of time on computers and cell phones.

In Crovtiz's article, he talks extensively about two brand websites that primarily market to the teen demographic, Doritos and SlimJim. I chose to include a commercial from McDonald's above because they market to an even younger crowd on their website. Crovitz's article is almost 5 years old, so I venture to say that in that time marketing idiots geniuses have figured out a way to get to the next generation even younger. No matter, though, because Crovitz already has a way to address it in the classroom. Use their own technology against them to teach them. 

Here's the down low: take some time to "analyze" some of the websites that are marketed to your students with your students. Who cares if you are critically analyzing The Scarlett Letter or SlimJim. When students visit any website, they are critical without always realizing it. If the site doesn't engage them, they move on. As educators, why don't we teach them why they feel that way? Why don't we try to make the critical thinkers instead of mindless followers? If we can use websites that students frequent to teach them about literary tools, why aren't we doing it? If we can teach students to see cross-marketing campaigns in the same way we used to teach students to find multiple meanings in a book, doesn't that count as critical analysis? We have to start somewhere. So why not start with the cybersell? That is two areas at which all teens excel: on the Internet and in their consumerism.

So I think it is pretty clear that I agree with Crovitz's article, and not just because he is the guy grading this blog. He has some great points. But I do have some questions. Ready?

•  If we are going to try to teach websites as texts, how much time would we realistically spend on the "text"? It seems to reason that if we would spend a few weeks on a novel, we should allocate a similar amount of time to this cyber text. But does a cyber text require as much time as a novel? Considering this cyber text is their the language of these digital natives, won't they be more fluent and thereby require less time to absorb the lessons?
• Are administrators likely to try and revoke my certification if I try to teach a website as a text? Can I use the justification that I am teaching critical analysis in a digital age? Can I expect administrators or even colleagues to push back? 
• Will students respond to this technique or will they think it is a desperate attempt to understand them? Will they recognize parody and tone if I don't explicitly tell them to look for it?
• What happens if I land in a school that doesn't have all of this technology available in the classroom?
• Will students feel duped when we finally apply critical analysis to a more traditional text? How can I avoid making them feel like I pulled a bait-and-switch?

Overall, I see this idea of cyber text as a great scaffold to get students to think about other aspects of literacy. But even if they walk away only knowing that Doritos, SlimJim, and Mickey D's is only telling them part of the truth, I will count it as a success.