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.

Paper filled books versus electronically filled readers

We all know they exist, or at least they used to. The encyclopedia. Now we have the electronic version: Wikipedia.

Side by side comparison? There are pros and cons to both, aren't there?
Biggest selling point of Wikipedia? It is free and accessible to anyone with an internet connection, a computer-type device and electricity. If you don't have any of those things, trek your way to a garage sale to pick up a set of encyclopedias. I would say trek to the library, but they have internet, computers and electricity,

In a more sincere comparison, Wikipedia is still the clear winner. With the ability to instantly update and link to new information, Wikipedia is rarely outdated. The 1999 version of the encyclopedia we were provided, only gave a summary of about 300 words (give or take). Wikipedia offered easily three times the text and additional links to a variety of other sites to confirm and elaborate on the provided information. The hard copy of the encyclopedia gave us no pictures, no visual representation of this ancient ruler. Wikipedia, however, offered two visuals.

Even when compared to the electronic version of our hard copy encyclopedia, Wikipedia wins. The online Britannica wants my credit card information to view the entire 300 word article.

Wikipedia has fewer economic constraints. The hard copy has a finite amount of space and resources. The shipping costs are prohibitive. With Wikipedia, there is infinite space and contributions.

While Wikipedia is updated by a variety of users, it is still only a single resource. Take it as it is: a starting point.

Is Wikipedia a Gossip Girl or a Reliable Source?

Response to: "Wikipedia: Friend, Not Foe" by Darren Crovitz and W. Scott Smoot

I've done it. I bet you have to. Cheated. Taken the short cut. Forget hardcore research. Google returned too many possibilities. Wikipedia had it all in one location. I admit it isn't always the responsible choice, even if it is convenient. But maybe it should be. Is Wikipedia spreading rumors or trying to become a reliable source?

I was a little anxious about reading the article since it is co-authored by my professor, but I figured I didn't have to post anything unless it was worthy of such a risk. It is worth the risk.

I still don't trust Wikipedia as the end all resource, but should I ever trust only one source? In high school, we were required to have three sources before we could make a claim. Shouldn't we still be doing responsible research, even if it is on the internet? Crovitz and Smoot say so.

Wikipedia is really a Web 2.0 platform, right? I mean, it thrives on user interaction and collaboration. The user is the contributor. Most teachers hate Wikipedia because the information is constantly evolving which makes yesterday's information obsolete. What a pain in the rear if you are actually checking student sources. But wikis are meant to be a collaboration, right? Constantly evolving?

In the land of Millennials who expect up-to-the-minute information on their research, where else can they go? 

We all have friends who tell us things as fact only to find out they were misinformed or confused. So it is a safe bet that Wikipedia has some of those friends too. Just like we learn which friends to trust and which stories to believe, we have to be as diligent in our research.

Wikipedia isn't of the devil. If we take the time to validate the information we steal garner from Wikipedia, we could actually learn something. Like critical thinking. Sound research. Responsible consumerism. 

The example from the article uses the entry on Abraham Lincoln. We all know something about Honest Abe. So the authors show how to use Wikipedia as a scaffold to greater things. Look for something that makes you go, "Huh?" And that is where your research starts. And then you become a contributor to Wikipedia. And you become a responsible producer, not just a digital native, but a responsible producer of information. 

Here's the bottom line: Wikipedia is what we make it. It can be our friend if we know how to use it, and it can be our foe if we are lazy. Really, Wikipedia isn't the problem. They don't hide the fact that everyone on the planet can contribute. We are irresponsible consumers of information if we don't follow up with our own research. 

Enough about Wikipedia in general. It is time to address some other points from the AWESOME article from Crovitz and Smoot. (Yes, I am aware there is no neutrality in that sentence.) Using Wikipedia as a scaffold to independent research is an awesome idea because it forces students to read what is already available and then actually think about what else might be missing. That counts as critical thinking. Editing an article on Wikipedia requires a significant effort and ability. The use of neutrality in tone is essential, and not all students would make suitable contributions with an immediate response. Because it requires significant effort to edit coherently and responsibly edit an article, it forces students to write, rewrite, edit, research and collaborate. All awesome things. And they can do all of that with an article that actually interests them. Entertain them and educate them all at once.

I really liked that the article gave step-by-step instructions for classroom application for Wikipedia editing. I think it would be cool to have students research their high school to edit or create a Wikipedia article. In a previous post in response to iWrite, I talked about speaking to digital natives in their language. I am pretty sure that Wikipedia is the language of these natives. Might as well use it to our advantage. The verdict is in: Wikipedia is a friend.

Reading and Writing and All that Other Stuff

Response to: iWrite by Dana J. Wilber

Here I am again, hanging out with Wilber and iWrite. I must admit I am growing tired of this book since I feel like some of the chapters are already outdated beyond belief. Alas, I do have some thoughts on "Chapter 5: Using Technology to Address Ten Key Issues in Reading and Writing Instruction." I don't plan to hit all ten issues, but this chapter is available here if you don't have access to the book.

Safety

Well, I have mixed feelings on this topic. I felt like "privacy" might have been a better heading, but  I think some of the ideas are about self-esteem and emotional safety. Wilber writes about making students feel safe when sharing their writing but then talks about sharing on blogs and wikis. I don't think it is realistic to have students all create individual, private blogs or wikis for one teacher to monitor. Realistically, the number of students per teach would prohibit this from being monitored regularly. If the average class size is 35 students and every teacher has six classes, that is more than 200 students which would mean monitoring up to 200 blogs or wikis regularly. I think a more realistic way to promote emotional safety for students would be to share documents on Google Documents. This would allow the teacher to have access to all the writing in one location and still allow for student privacy as the student (document owner) controls who can view the document. I think there has to come a time when students share their work, but I feel like they should make that decision on their own.

Authenticity

In this topic, Wilber writes about students and teachers having a disconnect on the way writing should be. Teachers feel like it should be scholarly while students don't see how that is applicable to their lives. Allowing students to write in the same way they communicate only makes sense. Students apparently don't read books anymore, so why should they be expected to turn in papers that mimic something obsolete to them? If this is the digital generation, school assignments should reflect that. If students have access to the internet there is no need for a printer. If students can find a YouTube video to relate to something in class, why not have them share it? I think it is important to speak the language of these digital natives. I may be a foreigner in this digital age, but I should learn the language if I am going to survive here.

Practice

Here Wilber talks about practice in terms of making writing a habit. The recommendation is to use weekly blog posts similar to journal entries that would allow for peer comments. I like this idea a lot. However, we have already addressed privacy/safety which I would see as a major concern. In addition, I have no idea how one teach could monitor 200 different blogs each week to make sure that students posted and responded regularly. This is where I want to stand on my soap box and complain about class size, but let's face it: class size isn't going to go down in the state of Georgia before my children graduate. I wonder if this is also something that could be shared in Google Documents that would allow a teacher to track changes but also allow students to choose the peers who could read and respond to their writing. Personally I still write in my journal with a pen on real paper, but I also still write letters that I actually mail with real stamps. 

As far as students using familiar and authentic communication, I can see digital writing as appropriate and necessary. At the same time, I am starting to better understand why educators are always playing catch up with technology since we are monitoring literally hundreds of students. The bottom line here for me is that I agree wholeheartedly that students need to practice their writing in safe and nonjudgmental arenas to improve their skills.

Relevance

I little part of my heart breaks to accept Wilber's assertion that students care little for the curriculum that involves traditional reading and writing, but again I have to agree. In the iPad generation, I shouldn't expect anything less. If the goal of educating students is to make them critical thinkers and advocates for change, we should be teaching them in their language. What I mean by that is we, as teachers, should teach them to use their blogs and wikis and social networks for constructive purposes as well as social. I want students to share their voice, so I have accepted that I have a lot to learn about how they convey their message. I am the immigrant here. After all, I was born in the 70s. I want students to know that they don't have to follow a formula to get their message across. They just have to have a meaningful thought which they are willing to share. I think a big problem with this plugged in generation is that they share every thought they have. Who cares that you are bored? Does that justify a status update on Facebook? I don't think so, but it seems that an entire generation thinks it is important to share it with everyone they know. I guess I want to see students using this technology for good positive change instead of evil lazy socializing.

Process

This is an area where I struggle. How can I teach process and not promote formula writing. I know that I quickly grow tired of this write, share, and respond process, so I can only imagine how monotonous it can become for teenagers. I also worry that sharing too much with peers sets an expectation for conformity, which is the complete opposite of my intention in a classroom. 

Web 2.0 and Beyond

Response to: iWrite by Dana J. Wilber

Here I am again, hanging out with Wilber again. Initially, I thought I would break up my responses every couple of chapters. I liked Chapter 2, but felt like I should spread the love a little. Then I read Chapters 3 and 4. I am back to the chapter that actually had some interesting info. I get that technology is an ever-evolving monster, but I feel like so much of what is included in this book is already outdated. This is more of a review statement, but let's go with it for a moment. I think iWrite is a fast and easy read, but I feel like I should have read it two years before it was written. Will educators always be playing catch up with technology? When will we ever be on the cutting edge of technology? Now, let me step off my soapbox and get back to business.

After my previous rant, it might sound like I am saying there is nothing of use in this book. I am not saying that AT ALL! I just found chapter 2 much more response worthy. There are TWO things I want to address in this post. Web 2.0 and "Essential Literacies."

Web 2.0

Okay, so we've all heard it, but are we 100 percent sure we understand that it means? I thought I had an understanding, but I missed a key component. Here are a couple of clips that make it crystal clear rather than muddy water.

Short version? Web 2.0 relies on user interaction, contribution, and opinion to thrive. Users create content. Another important component to this Web 2.0 idea is that there is no user cost. Wilber states on page 32, "Web 2.0 is marked by technologies and tools that are free and allow the user to create content, share it with others, and make it publicly available." This makes me wonder......does that mean everyone has access since it is free? Ideally, yes. Students have cell phones that surely connect to the web. But is access to social media the same as access to information? Schools all have access to the internet, but do all students have that same access at home? Is the access skewed by internet safety filters in schools? When will internet access be free to everyone? This goes back to my previous comment about educators playing catch up. Depending on where we land in our teaching careers surely will impact the way we utilize technology in our classrooms.

A big part of the section on Web 2.0, Wilber spends time explaining multimodal texts. This blog post would be classified as multimodal because of the text, links, pictures and videos. In chapter one, Wilber said students need to read traditional texts (page 11). I completely agree. However, if our students are living in the age of multimodal texts, how can we expect them to read traditionally presented texts? In the age of e-readers and SparkNotes, is it necessary to read canonical texts? Should we settle for our students reading anything as long as they are reading and making meaning? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I have to ask. Maybe you know. Do you?

Let's move to the next point.

"Essential Literacies"

Let's define literacies before I move forward. Dictionary.com defines literacy as the ability to read and write. That hardly seems adequate in this day and age. So let's see what else the world wide web can provide. Our good friends at wikipedia have a much more detailed response. To sum up their definition, literacy includes the dictionary.com definition but also broadens it to include all forms of communication whether written, visual, auditory or multi-sensory. Now that I know what literacy means, I can respond like an informed intellectual. 

Wilber starts the section with visual literacy. Anytime we talk about hieroglyphics I think about my kids as toddlers. They saw pictures and told their gibberish stories. It seems rational to think that visual literacy is innate. But then kids go to school. They are taught that they can't depend on the pictures to tell the story. But isn't that what pictures are supposed to do? Help us understand what words cannot communicate to us? Wilber goes on to explain how visual information on websites can help struggling readers form mental images when the text is too complicated (page 37).  I think the appeal of these websites is more because of the interaction than just visuals. If a student can click around to find what interests them aren't they more inclined to stick to it? I don't know. Maybe I am too old. Wilber talks about  emails and text messages like they are new and exciting technology. If we want students to learn in the classroom, I think it is essential that we learn to teach in their language. That seems to mean short, attention grabbing gimmicks or profound status updates. Check out the video below. It is meant to sell you a book, but just absorb the message.

First, let's be honest. I loved this clip because they used the work Millennial which I used far too many times in my last post. More importantly, they focused on social media. iWrite doesn't specifically have a section on social media, rather a variety of blurbs on social networking. Here is my question for you: How can we make learning in the classroom as interactive are social media? How can we use tools like Facebook or Twitter, with their short, snarky comments and updates that rarely venture beyond 100 characters, to our advantage? Again, I don't have the answers. But if the next generation can multi-task as long as the multitask are simple, repetitious routines, how can we use that to our advantage??

Millennials. What are they anyway?

Response to: iWrite by Dana J. Wilber

Specifically, I am responding to a small section from "Chapter 1: What It Means to Teach Reading and Writing Today."  I wrote so many notes in the margins of the section "The Millennials" that I couldn't resist my first response being all about these crazy kids.

What are The Millennials anyway? According to Wilber, who borrowed the term from Howe and Strauss, people born after 1982 are considered Millennials. I always thought of this group as Generation Y. The basic concept is the same. These people don't know what it was like to live in an age that didn't allow for immediate access to their every desire. I am giving away a little too much about myself when I say this, but I actually know what a card catalog is and I remember what it was like before every living creature had a means of instant communication. I remember the days of using an encyclopedia instead of Google. I remember waiting for my mom in the nurse's office for hours because she wasn't home when I got sick. Millennials will think I was born in 1877. But alas, I was not. But these are the people I am expected to teach one day.

Here is some food for thought.

Okay, here are some questions I have......

1. Why do Millennials feel like they have to be "plugged in" to everything and everyone all the time? And I mean All. The. Time. Wilber writes about their constant interactions, but I didn't read anything about face-to-face interactions. This leads to my next question.
2. Is it easier for Millennials to communicate in a more "anonymous" forum that allows for responses to be vague and lacking in human emotion, save the randomly inserted smiley icon? 
3. If the Millennials are able to multi-task (which Wilber does acknowledge as impossible on page 10) are they really understanding what they are doing? I think it is more of a "search until I find the answer" sort of mentality because they all seem to think that cut and paste is the solution to all of their work. Enjoy this nugget of truth:

There is no way around the fact that eventually I will be teaching. And I will be teaching kids who are infinitely more savvy than I am with technology. I am trying to have an open mind about it, but how can I teach a generation of kids that writing is hard work when everything has been a few mouse clicks away and no more difficult than typing into an autocorrecting box? How do I get them to understand that they can have their own opinions about literature and text that may be different from the SparkNotes version?

With a mobile app, SparkNotes is more easily accessible than individual thought, I guess. 

Let's relax and enjoy that the world isn't over.......yet

This is where I would like to wake up after all that reading on oppressive governments. Was there a beach like this in The Hunger Games? What about Fahrenheit 451? V for Vendetta? No, nothing quite so peaceful and beautiful. Feeling like there could be a vacation in my future.....

Let's talk about texts, text sets that is......

Okay, so back in the spring we had to do this really cool project. It was called a text set project. It sounds kind of awkward even when you explain what it is, but here goes. Choose a theme. Choose a canonical text, young adult text, and a graphic text that relate to the theme. Create lesson plans that include the three required choices as well as a self-selected choice. All of the lessons need to be general enough that students can be reading any one of the texts when the lesson is presented. The lessons should allow for different responses based on the text being read at the time. Allow students freedom in selecting their free choice text. This can be another novel, a film, album, video game or other media as long as the theme is consistent.

Here is a great example with step by step directions to help create a text set.

In the beginning....

In the beginning of grad school I needed a blog. So along came ENGL7741 and the blog was born. Welcome to It Started As a Blank Page. Look forward to some insightful, and sometimes less insightful, responses to required and pleasure (hopefully) reading for at least the next six weeks. Feel free to add your opinions and insights. Suggestions are welcome.