https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a5r3kJzNYw

Vlog Entry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AvKDz6fP9E

Some Thoughts on Teaching Video

 

I should have distributed the handouts before beginning my lesson.  However, delaying the handouts until after I had introduced the topic makes for a good approach, too.  For the sake of the video, and for self-learning purposes, the former makes better sense than the latter as a means of giving more time to straight teaching/engagement.  I perceived that I was quite nervous during this session, for I displayed little eye-contact with the audience.  I was very out of character here, for I normally do not teach like this.  I am usually far more confident and assertive with my teaching (though there were so moments in which I showed the 'old' Joseph of yestertide.  I assume that part of the problem here lies in the fact that I knew that I was being recorded and that I was being observed--not as a teacher--but as a student/preservice teacher.

 

I showed some positives, such as my explanation of the difference between a participle and gerund.  By differentiating function, students will make the greatest strides in usage over memorizing definitions.  I noticed, too, that I slipped in a participial phrase in part of my mini-lesson.  No one picked up on this.  "That having been said..."  This is a participial phrase known as an absolute construction, or nominative independent.  Other languages employ this construction as well, though not so many modern languages.  Latin had this construction, but in the ablative case rather than the nominative (which appear in the English construction, hence "nominative independent").  In Greek, the construction appears in the genitive, but sometimes in the accusative case.  Sanskrit uses the locative absolute, Gothic, Old English, and Old Church Slavic use the dative absolute.  In my studies of modern German, French, and a few other modern languages, I noticed no usage of absolutes.  I find that very peculiar.  I am under the impression that the existence of this use of the participle in Modern English is a calque on the Latin, but I could be mistaken.  The basis for this assumption is that most--if not all modern European languages--were losing this construction, even the Romance and Germanic languages.  So, why not English, too?  Since I am no Chaucerian scholar, nor have an extensive knowledge of Middle English (yet, I have studied some works in that stage of the language), I am confident that this problem can be solved easily by examining works from the Middle English period.  If absolute constructions are frequent during this stage, then the construction is still native to English.  If it is rare, or practically non-existent, I suspect that the modern construction is a borrowing from Latin syntax, just like avoiding double negatives and split infinitives stems from imitation of Latin, not native English.

 

I spent too much time erasing the board.  That is not good.  I had no idea that what I had written on the smartboard could be saved and another clean board would pop up.  I guess one learns something new everyday.

 

I am pleased that I did what I usually do unconsciously when I am teaching--even nervousness couldn't stamp it out, and that is my use of praise for students who give correct answers.  I also gave encouraging words (not necessarily words of praise) to those who were trying to understand the difficulties of this somewhat complex structure in English.  That was good, too. 

 

I caught myself doing another unconscious act, but not a good one:  biting my nails.  Although I saw myself doing this but once, that was one too many.  Students don't need to see their teachers exhibiting a nasty habit.

 

Another note:  Clint Eastwood starred in 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,' not Charleton Heston.  My nerves were showing again!

 

I wish I had time to go more in depth with the lesson, but then that would have made this teaching effort a lecture and not a mini-lesson.

LLED 7420: Teaching Writing: Digital Storytelling Question #2

LLED 7420: Teaching Writing: Digital Storytelling Question #2: As a writer, what appeals to you about writing across modes and media (in digital storytelling)?  Or, what do you find particularly challeng...

I find very little appealing about writing across modes and media.  I have no interest in the approach, as I find the greatest oxymoron to date to be the term "personal computer."  What's personal about THAT?  Also, what about kids from improverished households?  How are they supposed to have access to these forms of "technology?"  I, indeed, am not sanguine about sharing my intimate life moments with strangers.  Therefore, I find this medium to be very problematic.  Yes, I get it that kids today use this stuff to communicate and what not.  Fine.  I am not opposed to their doing such.  However, I see my calling in English as one to inspire the students to love the best in literature and emulate the best works in their own writing (while finding their own "voice" at the same time).  When it comes to making my own storytelling video, that will be a problem.  My family didn't have the luxury of owning home video cameras, since we were more concerned with just getting food on the table, shoes on our feet, clothes on our backs, and a roof over our heads.  Also, I have few photographs of family memories,  and even those are difficult to obtain since members of the family are scattered here and there in the country and often hard to reach.  Therefore, shouldn't something like this approach be within the realm of the theater teacher or technology education expert?

LLED 7420: Teaching Writing: Digital Storytelling Question #1

LLED 7420: Teaching Writing: Digital Storytelling Question #1: Now that we've considered some strategies and methods for teaching memoir writing, how do you see digital storytelling fitting into poss...

Well, certainly pictures can enhance a story.  Inexperienced writers often assume the reader understands what the story depicts since they (the writers themselves) are intimate with the experiences of which they are writing.  That being said, I think this medium--for all the good it may accomplish for those who are in love with so-called "technology"--encourages mediocrity in the realm of rigorous examination of the most enlightening and complex texts of our Western civilization.  Wouldn't our time as citizens be better spent in reading more and writing coherently, thoughtfully about what we read?  Hey, we had videos, tv's, etc. when I was a young student, but never had to rely on move-making in order to read and write better.  I am a simple man.  Hence, I must be too unenlightened to see the utility of this method of teaching.

Smagorinsky and Rief

 

Smagorinsky advised to "plan backward in thinking about assessment" (69).  A number of experienced teachers have underscored this approach, so it appears to have some efficacy.  I also agree that planning ought to be based on the unit focus.  What else would the teacher be focusing on other than the unit at hand.  Although Smagorinsky does not seem sanguine about the teacher as primary decision maker, I ask, "Who should be?  The students?"  If I visit a physician, I trust his advice and judgment.  Yes, I can get a "second opinion," but that would still be obtained from another physician.  I would think it not only presumptuous, but downright foolishness, to decide what surgery I need or how I should perform it.  The physician is the expert and professional in the field of medicine; thus is the teacher in that of education.

 

I find the implementing of diverse assessements over the course of the whole year to be a very fair and effective way to determine growth in teaching and learning.  In addition, I like giving many opportunities for low-stakes vs. high-stakes grading.  Now, I realize that grading is not popular today, but I believe in it.  I believe in grading based on growth and outcome performance, but to be fair--all should be graded and assessed by the same rubric.

 

I understand the aversion to teaching as we have been taught (72).  I also understand that there is research to support new pedagogical approaches.  However, what if the way we've been taught was effective?  Why should we reject what may have worked?  I learned how to teach myself--without the need to rely on machines to do my thinking for me.  Self-education I received from those who taught me the importance of learning on your own.  Learning, however, meant book-learning.  Once you learn how to read, you can learn pretty much anything on your own if it is printed in a book.  Not so with a computer.  You must learn HOW the machine operates.  Once you learn to do that, you can forget about nearly everything you were taught after a short period of two years or so.  Why?  Because "technology" is always changing.  What I learned about how to use computers in 1992 has totally changed over the past 20 years.  But what I learned about books and reading 44 years ago has--hold on, now--remained exactly the same!  Yes, and I am still learning from books this very day, and it is far less stressful and more pleasurable than any machine ever could be.  In fact, the biggest oxymoron out there is "personal computer."  What's so personal about a computer.  It's the most IMPERSONAL thing imaginable.

 

Smagorinsky's house analogy (73) does not convince me.  To quote John Keating from "The Dead Poets Society":  "We're not laying pipe.."  I agree.  We're not building houses.  We're opening minds and shaping lives (we hope).  I agree that we don't want a single product; we don't want robots.  We want free-thinkers, but these future "free-thinkers" must first be taught what clear, logical thinking is.  Therefore, we must give all students a shared literature, one from which we can have a conversation concerning the most pressing conditions of our shared humanity.  If we permit all our students to do their "own thing," no conversation takes place, especially if no one is reading the same works of literature. 

 

I perceive that students today claim that schooling doesn't provide dynamic engagement (74).  Although we should want all students to be excited about their learning, the fact remains that real learning is, according to Mortimer J. Adler, painful.  Painful learning can still be enjoyable.  Believe me, the study of Sanskrit, Avestan, and Old Church Slavic was quite burdensome on the limited memory-capacity of this aging fellow, yet I persisted because I loved the subject matter.  Conversely, things that come easy can become dull quickly and leave the learner without much motivation to press further.  I think that students today complain about their engagement factor because they are too comfortable with being entertained in all facets of life.  I would guess that some of that entertainment (called "engagement") is often a major part of the elementary school curriculum.  To be honest, it should be.  But by the time they are about to depart middle school/junior high, students should be weaned off this approach and prepared for the reality that not all their professors in college will be using "technology" in their lectures.  I know the argument already:  "Those old timers will soon all retire."  True.  But a number of even relatively young professors are more comfortable giving lectures "the old fashioned" way.  Should we not be preparing our students for this teaching approach too, or are we going to let them be shocked by this when they enter college?

 

I realize the five-paragraph essay is verboten, and those who teach it can expect swift ostracism and anathema from the elitist education ranks.  From my own experience with writing, I could never have learned to write without it.  This strict approach to writing taught me that writing has structure and purpose, that it must have coherence, that the audience must be considered, that there are rules to making your argument, and so on.  I wrote for an entire semester during my senior year in high school using this format of expository writing.  It was the training wheels I needed in order to go on to the next semester in which I learned how to write the research paper--based upon the principles of the five-paragraph essay.  Once I learned how to ride a bike, I didn't need training wheels anymore.  Likewise, once I learned how to write, I didn't need--or use--the five-paragraph essay.

 

I like Smagorinsky's discussion of the types of assessment because he gives a clear definition of what each assessment is and what it is designed to do. 

     1.  extended definition

     2.  literary analysis

     3.  argumentation (expository composition)

     4.  research report

We must give our students experience in writing that incorporates all these assessments, for they support and show critical thinking skills, skills they will need in life and in further levels of education.

 

Of the unconventional types of writing, I am not sanguine about portforlios.  They seem to be too labor-intensive for both student and teacher.  I do like journals, but mostly as a reading log.  The other types of journal I find to be problematic; I fear that they will but open up a can of worms, so to speak.

 

Of other assessments, the narrative knowing seems to have some possibilities.  However, I see so many problems with it (e.g.,  the believability of the student's account).  I've never liked collaborative learning, at least when I was pretty competent in a subject matter as a student.  I always have preferred to work alone, and if I ever needed help, would seek assistance either from the teacher or from a fellow students outside of class.  When I was incompetent, I hated collaboration too, for most of the time those in the group who knew what they were doing rarely explained anything in a way that I could understand and often would insult my lack of understanding.  Not a great experience for a kid short of stature, younger in appearance than others his own age, and easily intimidated by other, more aggressive and larger males.

 

However, I think the use of the children's book to be a brilliant idea and full of possibilities for students to learn while having some fun (though I hate the idea of learning strictly for fun.  Have fun, yes, but remember that learning is also serious business.).

 

I notice in the reading that Smagorinsky and Rief agree that feedback in vital in the assessement process.  I consent completely therewith.  Much of their advice on writing feedback reminds me of the principles I learned about being a writing coach in the Writing Intensive Program here at the University of Georgia.  In addition to feedback, prewriting is important because I see it AS writing.  Other important principles reminding me of the WIP program are:  peer feedback, writing conferences, emphasis on content and process over mechanics. 

 

I notice that rubrics can be seen as too mechanical.  I agree.  If our goal is to get students to write with more freedom and creativity, the rubric can be a hindrance.  I realize that there must be some way to measure achievement, and the rubric seems to fit the bill.  I am not opposed to them, per se.  I would recommend, however, that they be employed with caution.

 

Rief emphasizes quickwrites as a means to lead students to deeper and more sophicated writing.  I can see that as an effective approach.  I, however, am not very excited about her implementation of interviewing.  I would have experienced pure, unadulterated hell had I been compelled to participate in an interview, either as an interviewer or interviewee.  (Is this a real word?)  Her "positive-negative life graph" reminds me too much of a confession.  Do we really want to put our young, impressionable students through that?  I do like her "Writers-Reader's Poster," but only the memory and favorite books approaches.  The "autobiographical pieces" leave too much open to controversy and parent phone-calls about why I am not teaching grammar and literature.

 

Her principles on conducting conferences (starting on p.132) are very insightful, but I would caution about the idea of writing with students.  I think we should write and read with them, but not AS them.  Students need to see us as the authority, and not just a "pal" or "buddy."  We've got parents doing enough of that already, and we are beginning as a society to reap the whirlwind that has sprouted from the wind that has been sown, though with good intentions. 

 

I find her idea of "Reading twenty pieces of writing" to be decent, but also dangerous.  As a student, I would not want my teacher to let other students read and critique my work.  How about having students critique twenty pieces of short extracts from known literary giants.  Of course, the danger is that students will rate their favorite authors highly.  So what?  Rief herself admits that students rate writings in familiar and favorite genres more favorably anyway. 

 

One extremely important thing that I learned from Rief:  assessment does not equal evaluation.  I will keep that in mind when the time comes for me to assess and evaluate my students in regard to their grades.

 

 

 

 

Notes/Reflections on the Prereading of Giovanni's "A Poem for My Librarian, Mrs. Long"

 

    

 

Few things bring out the strengths and weaknesses of a presentation, speech, lecture, lesson, etc., than to see by video an individual's attempt at performance before an audience.  That having been stated, I offer with some modest candor my observations of the brief 20 minutes of what is hoped to have been a stimulating discussion and educational experience.

 

First, I don't like to critique my own performance, because I think that it is difficult often to give accurate assessments of one's own peformance.  I have perceived that self-criticism often leads to judgments that are too harsh or too lenient.  Therefore, whatever I may explicate about my demeanor, appearance, speech, or mannerisms viewed in the video should be taken for what they are:  highly subjective evaluations.

 

William

 

William exhibits the self-confidence, assertiveness, and approachability that all teachers should have and need to develop.  These traits, however, seem to come natural to him.  (I am convinced that personality has a lot to do with this.)  In addition, he displays a professional demeanor, but does not let this be a wedge to prevent students from feeling comfortable around him.  He is what I would call a "people person."  I really thought that his use of gestures while he spoke with the class to be extremely effective (i.e, it was effective for me were I a student), especially in that he used them to emphasize points about vocabulary cards he had passed out to the class.  Finally, the slides were very useful images to drive home what often cannot be described effectively in words.  In our planning, we had discussed using slides, and--of course--my ineptitude in most things computer-related prevented me from doing this task.  All credit there goes to William, who did a magnificent job of finding nice slides to buttress our explanations.

 

Joseph

 

Ah, me.  Now, where shall I begin with this?  Well, to start, I am much a bystander as William carries out his part of the prereading.  I'm looking at the markerboard, then at William, then at the class, then back at William (you get the picture).  I inject a few comments here and there into the discussion.  Hey, I gotta do something, right?  Then, I look at the video and see myself.  Ugh!  (You really don't know how you can appear to others until you see yourself with other eyes, and the video does just that.)  Man, am I getting old.  I didn't realize just how old I really am until I saw myself standing--pot-bellied, gray, short--well, I've always been that.  In my mind, I perceive myself--not as an aging Richard Dreyfuss--but as the 18-year old naive, crazy, undereducated kid who somehow passed the ASVAB and got into the military.  Now I'm the old, naive, crazy...you get the picture.

 

At least I appear to be Socratic in my methodology.  Those having received no instruction on how to teach often teach as they themselves have been taught.  For my entire life, that is the way learning took place for me (besides lectures, reading, and writing term papers and essays).  Therefore, I have taught in the manner in which I have been taught.  My assumptions--though unfounded--have been that what worked for me would work for everyone.  I have discovered over the years, however, those assumptions are just that--assumptions.  Sometimes the method works, but not always.

 

At any rate, having read Smagorinsky's third chapter on planning and design, I can say that there are a number of great ideas for holding discussions that are more student- than teacher-led.  I really like the informal writing, the talk-show format, and the board game.  I have experienced the concept map and find it very helpful both for discussion and as a study guide.  The memory box and the found poem activities also appear enticing.

 

Now, back to me.  I like to Socratic method because the teacher --instead of lecturing--elicits information and answers from the students.  In other words, the students discover the answers for themselves with some help from the 'master-learner,' so to speak.  Yes, I realize that the teacher is leading the discussion, but this usually happens when the students are not familiar with or confident in discussing a topic.  Topics with which students are familiar often bring about a full and rich exchange of ideas.  I've experienced it.  It works. 

 

With the gray beard and spare tire, I could perhaps pass for the old Greek philosopher Socrates himself.  (Socratic method, get it?)  Just give me a tunic, and I think I could fill the role.  (Gnothi sauton.)  I have learned in my experiences as both a learner and teacher that--while lecure indeed has its place--few things compare to a lively discussion in which questions are asked and responses to those questions are given, which lead to new questions and new responses to those, and--you get the idea.

I notice that I address the specific, particular/local terms, then move on to a global discussion that leads the students to perceive how these terms are related and connected to one another.  In every student there is a latent Einstein or Madame Curie longing to be revealed, a sleeping genius ready to be awakened.  I truly believe that.  I see my mission as teacher is to discover the way to get that genius to show itself in every student.

 

Did I mention that my accent seems rather pronounced? 

 

 

On Writing a Lesson That Supports/Challenges Readers Working through a Text

 



The process can be summarized in the following short statements:

 

1.  Decide what standards to address. 

 

2.  Write out the specific objectives for that lesson.  Try not to have too many or too few.

 

3.  Obtain the materials necessary to teach the lesson.

 

4.  Attempt--whenever possible--to incorporate electronic/computer technology into the lesson.

 

5.  Plan the "hook."

 

6.  Discuss the process:  We used a word bubble in which students were to write unfamiliar vocabulary.  We as teachers cannot teach our students if were don't do the necessary research on the background of author/work.  Luck for me, I understood most of the unfamiliar words because I am from the same region and socio-economic class as the author of the poem.  However, for kids removed from the context of the text by a generational gap (or gender, race, class, or region), the text can be very difficult to understand.  And if the teacher doesn't have the advantage that I have, then it is the teacher's responsibility to do some research.  William did just that and found slides as visual aids.  Very effective.  The term discussion under my direction was intended to elicit more discussion about more abstract and global terms related to the author of the poem rather than the poem itself.  It helps to know something about the author in order to understand a work written by that author.  Hence, I did a little research on the author's life and the kind of literature she wrote, as well as when she wrote it. 

 

7.  Assess what the students have learned. 

 

GNOTHI SAUTON  "Know Thyself"

 

 

 

Comments/Reflections on Kittle's

Book Love

 

 

Kittle states that she believes 'in the rigor of independent reading.'  Because of my own experience with learning and literacy, I concur.  Most of my learning throughout elementary school, junior high, and high school has come from my own independent inquiry and much exploratory reading.  Hence, I appreciate Kittle's desire to instill the love of reading in students, and am eager to implement some of her strategies to accomplish that goal.

 

Furthermore, I am pleased that Kittle welcomes those who hold idiosyncracies provided that they are 'purposeful' (xv).  However, I have a problem with Kittle's ambiguous assertion concerning 'the increased complexity of literacy of this age.'  What precisely is the 'age' to which Kittle refers--the last 500, 100, or 50 years?  Does she mean that it is only the complexity of the 'literacy of this age' that has increased, or does Kittle assert that 'this age' is the most complex literacy-wise?  Also, what does Kittle mean by 'complex'?  Is today's literacy really more complex than that experienced by the Greeks and Romans?  I think not.

 

That being stated, I respect Kittle's fervor and devotion in inspiring students to love books and the reading of them.  In addition, I find it commendable that she aims to discover which subjects disinterested readers like, and then attempts to find books that they can be open to reading.  Her passion is borne out through her allusion to St. Pauls' first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 13, in that she discusses her faith in students' desire to read, hope in their finding something to read passionately about, and love (charity)--namely, that the student will learn to love books.  Since she has appealed to the New Testament, I have looked up the text to see what nuances (if any) the Greek may provide and to see if her allusion is appropriate. 

 

The Greek word for 'love' in 1 Cor. 13 is 'agape.'  This is one of the most difficult words to translate into English because Greek contains four (4) words for 'love,' whereas English has only one (1).  These Greek words are not interchangeable, but convey nuances that require some periphrasis in English to bring out some idea of what they mean.  For example, 'philia' is the Greek for 'love toward a friend, friendship love;' 'eros' means 'romantic/sexual love,' from which the English word 'erotic' derives; 'storge' is the love for family; 'agape' is the unconditional love that is the act of the will, not that of feeling or emotion.  In this context, I think that Kittle wants students to cultivate a friendship with books.  Friendship does not result from an 'act of the will,' but rather the coming together of kindred spirits.  That is the reason why she want students to read books that they might enjoy, because there lies a kindred spirit therein.  Although her purpose and strategy is noble and useful, showing a level of creativity of textual hermeneutic often displayed by English majors/scholars, nevertheless her reference to the text here counts as poor exegesis since the term 'agape' doesn't appear to be relevant to her use of the word 'love' in this case.

 

I find her analogy of learning and advanced reading compared to exercise and 'curling' to be accurate.  I agree that students must begin with what they can do in order to advance slowly and gradually towards skills requiring greater stamina and complexity. (Of course, 'slowly' is a relative term, with some students progressing more 'slowly' than others.) Reading--i.e., reading well--is a demanding enterprise that requires perseverance and discipline, just as exercise and Olympic sports do.  Encouraging students to read material on subjects that they enjoy and giving them the reading strategies to improve their reading are important elements in inciting 'book love.'

 

Finally, I find uselful Kittle's steps to determine reading difficulty.  I like the fact that the onus is on the students to determine the difficulty of their own reading.  After all, it is they who experience the frustration accompanied with the reading of difficult texts.  I am particularly impressed with step five (Reflect on Your Reading in a Short Essay).  Rather than writing a quiz given by the teacher, the students generate their own answers and insights from the text.

 

William J. Broz

 

I am flabbergasted to learn that, although To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the most assigned books to read in high schools, it is also one of the most unread books.  Who would not want to read this book?  Even I, as an illiterate and uneducated Appalachian boy, read the book during my sophmore year in high school and read the book with interest and pleasure.  Also, every book and short story that I was assigned by teachers to read, I read.  This I did, not because I was always interested in the story or the book assigned (because often I wasn't), but rather because I felt a moral obligation to read--period.  Furthermore, this feeling of compulsion to read did not rest as a defining characteristic of my culture (for, it didn't), but stemmed from an epiphany wherein I realized on my own the importance of reading to my essence as a human being and to my sense of individual identity.

 

Even more shocking than the notion that students do not read assigned texts is that future teachers in college programs of education often do not read texts assigned to them.  It makes me wonder:  If the teachers aren't reading, how can we expect students to?  I like Broz's suggestion that students who can read but don't should not be given passing grades.

 

Broz gives a suggestion that aligns itself well with Kittle's philosophy:  'Invite students to read a book that they can read and that they might want to read.'  The challenge is to balance this kind of reading with the reading of the classics.  Another philosophy of Broz's that I like is his principle of grading easier at the beginning of the semester.  I believe that this could alleviate the fear of a number of students and give them the confidence to read more and write more about what they read.

 

Just one last note about Broz's article:  a great outline that teachers can use to increase student reading and decrease student not-reading.

 

Going With the Flow (Smith and Wilhelm)

 

Although I haven't read Csikszentmihalyi's book Flow, I sense its utility in achieving individual growth and perhaps even self-actualization.  The four main principles are far-reaching:

• A sense of control and competence
• A challenge that requires ann appropriate level of skill
• Clear goals and feedback
• A focus on the immediate experience (28, 30)

I was not surprised to learn that those exhibiting confidence and competence in an activity are unlikely to venture into 'uncharted waters,' so to speak.  When you're talented in a field of endeavor, why would you abandon time spent on that activity or improving that skill in order to develop a new interest?  This falls in line with the 'control and competence' principle.

 

Appropriate level of skill:  simply put--a task too easy creates boredom; one too difficult, frustration.  The challenge, then, is to get students to read books that are east at first, then let them begin to explore on their own book of ever-increasing complexity.

 

Clear goals and feedback:  simply put--setting levels of achievement and receiving feedback on the progress make are necessary for reaching flow.  The goals, of course, should be achievable, and the feedback timely and efficacious.

 

A focus on the immediate experience:  simply put--by focusing intently on a particular activity, one loses awareness of any other activity save the one in which he is engaged.

 

One important, notable point that Smith and Wilhelm make is that social interaction is key to gaining boy's interest in taking on and participating in new activities.  There are a large number of books that I would never have read had a friend or acquaintance not recommended them to me.

 

I am trying to remember whether I, too, hated routine when I was a teenager.  Thinking back on it, yes, I certainly did.  I felt the need to experience new--but doable--activities, often with friends and siblings.

 

I love this question for our students:  'What is the quality of experience I want them [the students] to have today?' (50).  I plant to write this question at the top of each of my lesson plans while I am writing and planning for my students' learning experience.

 



Questions And Comments/Reflections Concerning Beers

1. Beers:  What challenges have you faced when encountering students with dyslexia or dysgraphia, and what strategies do you incorporate to help them achieve their goals as readers/writers?

Comment:  I dare say that a number of teachers may not realize that the challenges that they face with some of their most problematic student cases could be due to dyslexia.  I am under the impression that teachers today have become increasingly aware of the problem, but this does not insure that a number of children will not 'fall through the cracks,' so to speak.  Contrary to popular conceptions (which are, indeed, misconceptions), dyslexia is not a problem with one's vision.  Those with the disorder do not see the alphabet backwards or scrambled.  It is not a matter of seeing; it is a matter of processing.  In addition, not all processing difficulties are a result of dyslexia.  I can see the challenge for teachers, especially inexperienced ones.  When faced with a student who has problems decoding, the teacher must determine 1) whether the student is having difficulty seeing the printed/written text, 2) whether that student is exhibiting decoding problems that have nothing to due with sight, and 3) what might be the source of the problem, dyslexia or something else.

2.  Beers often underscores the relationship between the difficulties in decoding and reading problems among students.  Facility in decoding often corresponds with the degree of one's phonological awareness.  In the past decade, or so, there has been a movement back towards phonics as a means to remedy this problem.  What is Beers position on the 'back-to-phonics' movement?

Comment:  I find it more convincing for some one else to tell my story and, therefore, try to shun the telling of personal anecdotes.  In this case (and for what it's worth), however, I would like to give a brief account of my own experience with reading and writing as a defense of the traditional method of reading instruction called 'phonics.'  I cannot possibly conceive of learning to read without knowing the alphabet, what sounds the individual letters make, and sounding out the words.  Phonics gave me the means not only to read English, but also to learn foreign languages.  It would have been a most frustrating ordeal for me to have attempted to comprehend Mario Pei's description of the sounds of Russian, German, French, Italian, Esperanto, and a number of other languages without the solid foundation that learning by phonics supplied.

Now, I realize that sounding out words does not make a good reader, nor is it the panacea to all reading problems.  However, phonics has made me a good linguist and philologist, and philology drew me into reading, and vice versa.

3.  Beers:  How can I motivate the child that can read better than I?

Comments:  Although I am certain to encounter a child who is a more gifted reader than I, that does not mean that I cannot--nor should not--always improve my own reading.  I have discovered a number of effective approaches to make my reading easier and more pleasurable.  Consider the following:

    1) I try to read books that stretch my mental faculties a bit, but not to the point that I become frustrated because the material is too difficult.

    2) I have studied (and continue to study) Latin.  The study of this ancient, beautiful, and often challenging language has improved my vocabulary, understanding of grammar, and facility with writing.

    3) I have read (and am currently rereading) How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles van Doren.  This book my not speak to everyone, but it has had a lasting impression on me.

The study of Latin, the reading of great books, and the perusal of volumes on how to read and improve one's vocabulary have aided in shaping my success (and intermittent failures) as a reader.  I cannot guarantee that this path will work for everyone, for I realize that each person is unique and different approaches are often needed for different people.  This is the challenge that teachers face (among many), namely to find what works best for each student.

Comments on 'Hook Lesson'

 

 

Having examined the video sent by Dr. Kajder to me via e-mail, I noticed that I did not appear as nervous during the session as I actually felt.  Such a feeling is nothing new to me.  No matter how many courses or classes I may have taught in the past or will teach in the future, I will always have some element of anxiety hovering over me.  That having been stated, however, I find my 'groove,' so to speak, after I have taught a new class for about the second or third meeting.  Another issue, which I will have to grapple with this year (and years to come, of course) is the fact that I am out of my comfort zone.  I have never attempted to teach (or even tutor) literature on any level.  I am a philologist and grammarian.  It will take a little time for me to adjust to teaching in a new field.

 

In addition, I realize that my delivery would have been more effective had I instructed the students to read from the poem line-by-line while I presented the props.  Such a set-up would have more actively engaged the students and freed me from having to look down upon the page.  I should have avoided this back-and-forth movement between reading the poem and desperately searching for the props.  It would have been conducive to the entire teaching process if I had simply set up ahead of time all the props in the order in which I was to present them.  Five minutes can go by very quickly, and I was so pressed for time.  I was surprised to have learned that I still had a few seconds left at the end of the presentation.

 

Dr. Kajder mentioned that I might have waited until the end of the presentation for the students to underline or put parentheses around the passages in the poem.  Since the point of the presentation was to make visual what the students hear (or read), then that makes sense.  I clearly did not think that part of the presentation out very well.  To plan is one thing; to execute, another.  And regarding planning, I was surprised to learn how much time teachers (as well as aspiring teachers) spend on planning.  I, too, spent a relatively substantial amount of time planning years ago when I first began teaching Latin as a graduate student.  However, the more I taught, the less planning I noticed I did.  My emphasis turned from 'How do I teach this?' to 'What do need to cover today?'  I suppose that I am now back to 'How do I teach this?'

 

With the windmills of my mind turning, I see how problematic the bottles of prescription medication can be in the presence of young, impressionable people.  I could have represented the drugstore better had I brought in, say, some band-aids, a bottle of aspirin, and maybe a tube of neosporin.  I know what kids are like (I was once one, I think).  Therefore, I should take into consideration every aspect of my teaching, whether by lecture, presentation, demonstration, tutoring one-on-one, etc.  Another important point:  the puppy dog was visible because I had placed few props upon the table.  By the time the cars were racing side-by-side at the end of my little demonstation, however, I noticed in the video that students were unable to see the toy cars, at least not so well.  Maybe I needed I bigger table.

 

My last observation:  Man, do I look old!  Auta i lome.  

 

 

 

 

 



A couple of things surprise me about what 'real' planning is according to these experienced teachers.  For example, Lisa mentions that she plans sometimes with standardized tests in mind.  I understand that often this is unavoidable.  I was surprised, however, to witness a teacher actually admitting to it.  Another somewhat surprising thing that I have learned is that Adam uses an electronic planner.  How do you submit copies of THAT to your principal?  I suppose one could send an e-mail, but don't the administrators need hard copies? 
The teacher videos confirmed much of my own experiences and thinking.  Like Mary, I planned for every day when I taught high school Latin.  I also found myself having to make adjustments to my plans.  Hence, flexibility was a must.  Like Crystal's experience, my plans often did not turn out the way I envisioned at the time I first drafted them.  I had to learn to be patient and willing to adapt to be successful and effective in my teaching and planning. 
I noticed a number of recurring themes:  fluidity, collaboration with colleagues, planning with the needs of the students in mind, backward planning.  I understand the importance of all these.  However, collaboration wasn't a feasible approach in my own teaching experience, primarily becsause I was the only Latin teacher in the school.  Therefore, how could my colleagues who knew no Latin help in my planning?  Well, one could argue that I could have collaborated with the other foreign language teachers.  That sounds viable, but in reality it isn't.  Latin is not necessarily taught the way the modern foreign languages are.  Although perhaps some collaboration would have been possible, it nevertheless would be quite limited in its range and effectiveness.
Auta i lome.