Both of theses documentaries were incredibly interesting even out of the context of literary practices. But, including literary practices, I was somewhat bothered. With Hobart Shakespearean, I was incredibly excited that these younger students were interested in Shakespeare (it’s hard to find a college student ACTUALLY interested in Shakespeare, let alone someone younger who doesn’t HAVE to understand at that age). The only problem I had with that video/literacy practices is, what happens when they leave that classroom and expect their next educational experience to be just as intimate. Chances are that it won’t be, especially in their socio-economic community. So then what happens to the thrive to learn when their teachers for the years to come are only expecting and willing to deal with the bare minimum. What happens when those teachers call them ‘over-achievers’, or when they write a paper that ‘is good but too long.’ People don’t believe that it happens, but I’ve seen and heard about it. A student who is penalized for being to detailed in a paper.Obnoxious. So it worries me that while their literacy practices are so strong in that classroom enviornment and while they have amazing literacy sponsors what will happen when that enviornment and those sponsors ‘disappear’. Where will they use the information that they learned if they are being told that the bare minimum is good enough?

As far as Spellbound…it shook me in two ways. Ted. Wasn’t sponsored enough. He felt out of place and undervalued, and I think that is probably part of what led to his demise. As far as everyone else, as much as they claim they were’t ‘coerced’ into studying and it was something they sincerely wanted to do, part of me doesn’t believe that. It can definitely be implanted that spelling, reading, anything really should hold a high place in ones education. I don’t really know what that means as far as literacy though. Things that are forced, especially on children, are not received well. So I’m not sure where those kids stand as far as knowing how important it is to their parents vs. being important to them personally.

When I first saw the options for the article groups I was immediately drawn to the Hip Hop Literacy group because I’ve always thought of Hip Hop as spoken word with music involved. And as someone who performs spoken word, obviously it is a draw. I’ve always tried talking my teachers into having music projects that try to incorporate what was being learned in class with our own musical style. And I think my sophomore year of high school is the only time my teacher took my suggestion and has permanently incorporated into his curriculum. We took Elie Weisel’s Night and compared it to Holocaust songs by Weird Al Yankovich. It inspired soo many students to actually read the book so they know what song lyrics to look for next. We had contests of who had the most relative song to what we were reading.

When reading the articles, and seeing all the songs that were a direct draw from some of the most famous poems taught in academia, it was so inspiring that I could pull from that source and continue to motivate my students musically, without them thinking that I am lame. It also connects to them on a more personal level. Those students that feel that they could never possibly understand the subject matter, have things broken down to relate to their current life situations. It reminded me of the Tupac scene in the Freedom Writers (which is a horrible example, but it works nonetheless), where something so unattainable like poetry, or the Diary of Anne Frank was put into perspective of the current day students.

I think what I learned most from my own article group was what songs and poems related to each other. Or even what philosophical essays or novels related to songs today. It’s going to be so much easier to get students to be engaged when I’m pulling from where they are culturally comfortable.

I read the article concerning Multiple Personality Pedagogy. The article discussed different ways of ‘making your students talk’. We all have had professors and teachers that talk AT us, instead of to us. Those educators that love hearing themselves explain ideas, and then are completely flabbergasted when majority of the class fails a midterm because they didn’t have the chance to discuss the topics and introduce different view points. Mark Spitzer introduced the idea of coming up with multiple personalities to engage the students in conversation about the texts that they were required to read. His idea is, if we are choosing what they HAVE to read, they should be able to have their own voice to express their opinion, but they won’t unless they have something to defend. So one of his personalities is a very conservative non-flexible older professor. His ideals infuriated the students to the point where they became incredibly defensive over a 150 year old text by Whitman. Something most college students (even if they are passionate about literature) would not do. I didn’t quite understand how the other personalities worked out in the literature courses, but they still sparked conversation and personal understanding for the literature/subject matter.

As far as how it relates to our course. I feel like as future educators, we’ve talked about the ways to make students engaged with what they are learning so they don’t forget as soon as the semester or quarter is over. I know there are multiple classes, that if I was asked about them now, or that subject matter, I couldn’t even begin to have an intellectual conversation about them. (EX: Calculus). So having an idea of how to engage students and make a memorable educational experience is something that we are all looking for, to implement in our own classrooms.

 

http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/Journal/files/Multiple_Personality_Pedagogy.html

 

One…let me say, my title is completely misleading. I am, in fact, going to state the obvious. (And possibly offend every mathematician that has ever lived.)

When reading the Street essay, I was completely taken back by one phrase, and I continuously contemplate what that phrase means and wonder if my teachers applied it to their teaching styles, and if I’m just being a hater for no reason. Whats the phrase? SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TEACHING METHODS (AS IT APPLIES TO LITERACY). After mulling it over for hours and days, I still have the same reaction. “What the hell?” There is no way to justify or even make sense of it. Especially in the article when it is compared to the teaching of mathematics. I’m not quite understanding. You either get multiplication, geometry, calculus, or you don’t. You don’t just get a Sylvia Plath poem. There is an analysis process. Not to say there isn’t an analysis process for math. But there isn’t a formula to try to make meaning of a Plath poem. Because there isn’t one meaning! It varies across time, place, person, and life experiences. Not everyone has had the feeling of wanting to stick their head in an oven, but the ones who have, dagnabit they just may be able to decipher Plath’s last day poems a bit more concisely.

With that being said, if the scientifically proven teaching methods involved the changing of culture through generations, there may be an argument. If they said, “it is scientifically proven that students change and the education system changes with them, so of course the educators themselves are going to change their approaches”, I’d be okay with that. It’s a bit of a “DUH” statement. Educators and the education system are indeed just that, a system. It changes, needs to be modified, updated to make sure it keeps up with the current needs of the student population. With the video by Wesch, I completely agree. That we are the machine. And that’s not a bad thing at all. We created it, and we have to control it. Our constant advances affect our students lives outside of the classroom, and if we want to keep them interested in education, we have to show them that we do accept them culturally, and their actions outside of the classroom. I don’t see the ‘using’ us portion. We are in control of how much we decide to integrate it into our lives.

http://luxuryawaits.com/versesandflow/episode-guide.aspx

About 8:06, this poet describes exactly what I just explained, and something I feel everyone should know about our literacy practices, they are always changing, and we are always in control.

“Her grandmother detested the books that you were ‘supposed’ to read to be a well read individual”

I interviewed my grandmother who comes from a long line of teachers and also has English as a second language. We discussed thed books she had in her home growing up on farms in Louisiana and Texas. She told me all of the books were culturally relevant books. There was not one canon book that she read until she got into high school or college, because her grandmother didn’t believe in them. She often said “what good is reading a book from 1808 if it isn’t going to tell you anything about now”.

I found that incredibly interesting and remember growing up around my grandmother and parents and never being introduced to or handed and books and told “this is an American canon, read it so people think you are well read”. I was always handed a magazine or new best seller, because those are more culturally relevant. But I was also never turned down or told not to read canons.

Reading became a naturally sparked curiousity. Not something I was forced to do because it’d make me look smarter. I told my grandmother I am incredibly grateful for her not making me read what was expected of me, but giving me things I’d enjoy and letting my curiousity go where it may.