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"