Locomotion

I’ll start with Locomotion. I was in love with Locomotion; I wanted to take him home, raise him as my own, ensure that every day he knew he was loved and cherished and never alone. This book made me want to be a foster mother, to adopt. It gave me such a heart for foster kids. My best friend has three adopted siblings, all of whom were foster kids before being adopted. Another of my dear friends has a little brother that was a foster kid before being given to her family as permanent guardians. Seeing these kids, and hearing Lonnie’s story, just shredding my heartstrings all to pieces. Kids always, always, always deserve to be protected and loved and cared for, no matter where they come from or who they are or what’s happened to them. Lonnie’s story was honest, heartfelt, and believable.

I thought that Woodson’s article “Who can tell my story?” was beautiful. It was, as I’ve come to expect from her, artfully written and touching. My only problem with it is one that’s questionable; it’s just that, as a heterosexual middle class white person, I felt excluded. Perhaps, because of the sins of my fathers, I should be excluded. Or perhaps not. I’m not really sure, since I’ve never, as Woodson says, “been in her house.” I was confused by it. I understand what she’s saying, but I’m left questioning. Does she mean that no white person can write from the point of view of a non-white person? That we should all just tell the stories that we’ve lived, or do we have the flexibility to try to enter each others’ houses? If we do, does that extend to white people too? Could I ever have walked in the shoes of a black person well enough to write it? Or am I permanently excluded because of my majority status?

Katherine Paterson says I could. She traveled many times into the shoes of others, but she always seems to be protected by the distance of time; writing back in history seems less threatening. Every character that’s written seems to be an author’s statement on their group; every black character is representative of all African Americans, every Southerner representative of all white Southerners, every Korean representative of all Koreans. As such, it makes it seem safer to place your characters far in the past, where the generalizations aren’t so personal to your readers.

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian

I’ll start by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian. It was funny, it was well written, it was unique, it was unexpected. The main character was extraordinary, relatable, funny, and talented. I loved the view of the world through the incredibly clear-sighted eyes of 14 year old Junior, and the unique story he tells. He’s multi cultural in a way that’s not often seen; many multicultural stories take the average or “normal” and alter one aspect. For example, middle class white kid that’s gay, African American kid who’s middle class, Chinese American that’s middle class, white American kid who’s low income, etc. Junior isn’t limited to one “multicultural” aspect, and so presents a more believable and holistic view. He’s Native American, low income, and has physical and learning disabilities. He’s the outsider in more than one way. He’s a 3D character. This duality makes him easier to relate to, I think. In our multicultural society, many students feel that they’re straddling two worlds, trying to make them coexist.

In regards to the Reese article, I appreciate that Alexie is in fact not only a Native American but also a Spokane specifically. He’s speaking from an insider’s perspective. As I said with the multiplicity of the multiculturalism- contrasting and juxtaposing the Native American and the white cultures on and off the “rez”- Alexie manages to escape the “oversimplification” of stereotyping. No one group of people is either vilified or “heroified,” but each displays both positives and negatives of the aspect of culture that they represent. Also, no one character is forced to represent the culture as a whole. As Junior says, “it was a lot of pressure to put on a kid. I was carrying the burden of my race, you know? I was going to get a bad back from it.” By trying to make any one character in any one situation the representative of their entire people group, you oversimplify and stereotype them. For example, though both Rowdy and Junior are poor Native American boys, they respond very differently to their circumstances and make very different choices. They show the variability and difference among the Spokane people, avoiding the stereotyping pitfall. I think Native Americans, being such a small and historically victimized minority, struggle especially with identity and therefore with combating stereotyping.

The issue of racial names, addressed in the Price article, was confusing to me. Personally, I try not to attach too much meaning into the words that people use. Both of my grandmothers are Southern ladies born of Southern ladies tracing all the way back to before the American Revolution. My Mimi, who was of upper middle class Atlanta stock, often had African American “help” to keep her house clean while she was raising my father. My Nana spent much of her youth playing baseball in the dirt with African American sharecroppers’ children in south Georgia. Mimi often refers to “black” people in whispers. Nana will robustly tell you about the long conversation she had with “the nicest Negro man!” Though Nana uses terminology that wouldn’t be acceptable in today’s touchy society, I know that she’s far less racist than many people of my generation, certainly less racist than the majority of hers. Though I understand the vicious nature that some terminology takes on, and the effects of “name calling” like this, I also try to keep in mind the intention behind the terminology. I’m a big Braves fan, and this season I’ll keep doing the chop.

Geography and Order of the Poison Oak

As many people have already said, this week’s readings were definitely eye opening. I’ve always felt strongly that the best way to experience someone else’s struggles is to read good literature about their situation, and homosexuality is no exception. Since I’m a very heterosexual female, the plight of a homosexual high school boy was pretty far removed from me. I couldn’t possibly understand or empathize with the struggles of students struggling with their sexuality, but I feel pretty confident that I’ll face some amount of those struggles with the students in my classes and would like to be able to identify with them on some level. So I’m extremely glad that I was exposed to the Geography Club and Order of the Poison Oak, two books that I would never have picked up off of the shelf on my own. They gave two extremely sympathetic and personal accounts of homosexual adolescents that were relatable and interesting even to a heterosexual adult.

From the perspective of a teacher, these books were great. I went into them understanding that these are NOT class reads. They would be difficult (if not impossible) to stretch to include content, and I would definitely be extremely hesitant before making them lit circle books, but they’re great books to have on hand. These books felt like a lifeline flung out from an adult author who had experienced the hardships of sexual discrimination to a generation of struggling kids, and I would love to have them available and waiting for the kid that needs that lifeline to catch a hold of. They were easy to read, interesting, unintimidating, and relatable and would be a great fun read for students who are just perusing the classroom library for something to pick up.

From the controversy/censorship perspective, these books are well within a teacher’s rights to make available, I think. Though I believe that some students as young as ours (especially in the lower 4^th through 6^th grades) should be protected from information that they aren’t necessarily ready for, neither of these books broaches any topic, language, or action that these students haven’t been exposed to in the normal everyday life of a public-school kid. They’re also very up-front about their homosexual themes (it’s on the book jacket) so if students (or their parents) aren’t comfortable with these themes they’ll know to avoid them. There aren’t any really big surprises in these books, theme-wise. However, though these books get a definite “yes” from me, I am pretty conservative in my belief of what should be expressly taught in a public school classroom. I don’t believe that it’s a teacher’s place to tell students whether homosexuality is “right” or “wrong” or to help students figure out or come to terms with their own sexuality… that’s a parent’s place. However, it’s absolutely a teacher’s right and responsibility to protect all students from harassment, which may and probably does include awareness and understanding. Kids- and a frightening number of adults as well- hate and harass those things that are different than themselves, things they don’t understand. Making students understand others so that they aren’t so foreign and scary (be that people of other nationalities, languages, cultures, or sexualities) can prevent some of the hate that was displayed in the books from this week.

Octavian Nothing

I know this is one of your favorite books, Rhett, so I’m sorry to say this. I genuinely disliked this book. I found myself reading and rereading sentences over and over again trying to re-engage myself in the plot or understand better. I didn’t connect to any of the characters, I struggled with the language, and I was miserable throughout most of the reading. Now, that’s not to say that I didn’t gain something worthwhile out of the text. It raised some incredibly complex (and often very dark) issues and great discussion points and alternative views towards an often one-sided period in American history.

This being said, the issue of slavery during the revolution is explored in other young adult novels (for example, Laurie Halse Anderson’s Chains) in a way that’s more appropriate, applicable, and useful for middle grades. Octavian Nothing was difficult to get through for me, and as such I know it would be a trial by fire for many if not all middle grades readers. From a purely reading-level standpoint, I would place this book with the Book Thief… It’s just too difficult for virtually all middle grades readers. I can’t imagine a setting where I’d be able to use the novel in a classroom.

The exploration of the experimentation on Octavian and his mother could be a comparison piece with Nazi experimentation on Jews during the 1940s, but I still can’t see using the book as more than in part, with heavy scaffolding from a teacher. Much of the novel is in epistolary format, which was interesting but also seemed to prevent me from connecting with Octavian. I never felt like I understood or identified with him, as a character.

Though there would be ways I could integrate Octavian Nothing into my classroom if necessary, I would not choose it. I believe I could find more age-appropriate and manageable texts to meet all of the standards that Octavian would meet.

Al Capone Does My Shirts

Al Capone Does My Shirts is a mixed bag for me; I struggle with books that don’t have a strong plot line, and I felt that Al Capone Does My Shirts was definitely one of those. I’m not quite done yet, but I’m well into it and still not sure where the plot is actually going. I’m not very attached to any of the characters so far (and violently dislike a few of them… like Piper.) The main character Moose is likeable, but definitely easier for most boys to identify with than girls. He also seems to be sort of one-dimensional through most of the book. He’s almost too… well behaved. He’s a straight-laced, responsible adolescent boy. I’m not sure I believe it.

I’m not sure what I would use Al Capone Does My Shirts for in a classroom. Perhaps for a language arts class doing a study on diversity, to incorporate autism-spectrum disorders into the unit. The topic of Alcatraz, though interesting, doesn’t really show up in most social studies curriculums and the novel doesn’t focus on the historical aspects of Al Capone’s reign enough to tie it in to a study on mobsters or Chicago.

If I used Al Capone Does My Shirts I think I would include it as a literary circle option. Its historical setting and references paired with its fictional characters and plot make it an easy book to read (and it’s not too long!) while still getting students into a historical mindset. The book could also be used as an entry to a discussion on learning disabilities or autism, focusing on Natalie.

I'm Prensky-d Out...

Once again, Marc Prensky’s defensive, rebellious attitude towards educators and the education system alike stand in the way of conveying his point. The boiled down point- students learn how to think from video games- is hidden behind layers of defensive, angry ranting that instantly turns off a reader, most especially a reader associated in any way with the educational community that Prensky so disparages of.

Once you’ve dug through the layers of angsty adolescent defensiveness, however, you arrive on some interesting content. The levels in which Prensky dissects game-based learning are unique; separating learning into the “question” words is an approach to education that I haven’t seen before, and was surprised to realize that I hadn’t. It seems so simple. When approaching content, the questions that students will (hopefully) ask are “how?” “what?” “why?” “where?” and when/whether?” If, as educators, we could find a way to both lead students to ask and then also answer these questions, it would provide a thorough horizontal understanding of content.

Though Prensky’s article was enlightening and interesting (if a bit offensive, with all the sweeping slights to the educational community at large), The article by James Paul Gee really caught my attention. Gee went beyond just trying to sell the world on game-based learning and delved into the possible pros of game-based learning. The concept of task-based learning or allowing students to pursue answers or attempt to complete tasks at their own pace using predetermined tools given to them is a fascinating one, and one that is central to the idea of game-based learning. This task-based learning gives students what James Paul Gee calls “agency” in their learning, or what I would refer to as “ownership.” Gee’s concept of “distributed knowledge” participates well in this framework of task-based learning in group work- teaching students valuable lessons about delegation, learning from peers, and cooperation.

The final question that Gee leaves us with best characterized the game-based learning debate: “How can we make learning in and out of school, with or without using games, more game-line in the sense of using the sorts of learning principles that young people see in good games every day?” This is an intriguing question. Despite Prensky’s ravings to the contrary, I believe most educators (especially those of my generation) understand and appreciate the capabilities of games as learning tools. But the idea of relying entirely on game-based learning in the classroom (or revolutionizing the education system with Marc Prensky’s expensive learning games) is not practical. Gee leaves us with an intriguing and practical question- how can we learn from these games and adapt our teaching and learning styles to best fit the students we’re trying to serve?

Losing ourselves online

The videos from class today were sobering and frightening, especially Growing up Online. Many of the issues that students had that were explored in the video seemed to be evidence of deeper issues at home. The students all used the internet as a means to explore actions or ideas that they wouldn't be allowed to explore otherwise; unfortunately, in these cases there was a very good reason that they weren't allowed to explore them. Teens always reach the age where they want to shut out their parents- that is natural and has been going on forever, I'd imagine. The problem with this generation of teens is that they're growing up with an entire online world where their parents are intrinsically prohibited- through their "digital immigrant" status- from understanding or controlling. As a future parent, this video was pretty scary to me. Adolescents make bad choices. That's why they have parents to keep them from making the sort of bad choices that could mess up their lives permanently, and keep them afloat until the haze of adolescence wears off. Having a whole realm of their lives that parents don't know about and can't regulate can result in some very bad decisions and possibly bad consequences.

The second video was interesting, but I wish that there was more research into the effects of the "internet culture" on the brain. That section of the video was particularly fascinating and under-emphasized. This video- with the focus on the positive effects of things like Second Life and World of Warcraft- seemed to be more open to both positive and negative effects of online life. It was interesting, but I would be more interested if there was more scientific background for some of the claims (like the multitasking part or the Korean addiction to gaming.)

"edutainment" and other absurdities

As I read through Marc Prensky’s articles on digital literacies, I couldn’t help but try to categorize myself. Prensky terms “digital immigrants” and “digital natives” so diametrically, and I found myself fitting into the “digital natives” category throughout much of his writing. As a digital native that intends to teach, I felt that much of his wrathful tirade seemed directed at a category of teachers that I don’t fit into. I fit his laundry list of qualifications for a digital native, to the point that I frequently watch hit television shows via the internet, and often have arcade games going at the same time. This constant activity that my brain likes to remain constantly spinning in reflects in my teaching style, which is often very fast-paced, energetic, and multi-faceted. I love keeping my students constantly and ceaselessly busy either physically or mentally from the moment that they walk in the door until the moment they leave.

Prensky’s ideas of learning through gaming are intriguing and off-putting. I like the idea of exploratory (or “random access” as Prensky says), instead of linear learning- of allowing students to access learning in a way that seems most logical to them instead of what the Georgia Frameworks or the textbook dictate is “logical.” I recall the first few weeks after receiving Adobe PhotoShop CS5 for my laptop; I had no manual or guidelines, and began teaching myself how to use the software through a series of projects, in which I would choose a picture, decide how I wanted to alter it, and then through a trial-and-error (and many Google searches for assistance) I would figure out how to make that work. This “random access,” task-based learning system reminds me of the game-based learning that Prensky discusses.

Several aspects of Prensky’s game-based learning theory made me very uncomfortable, however; though some students may thrive off of the frenzied urgency of learning in a video game, many may be overwhelmed and under-informed by this pacing. Dictating a quick pace may be as detrimental to some students as the slow pace was to others. Also uncomfortable was Prensky’s term “edutainment.” Though I agree we should meet students on their own learning terms, this is a pretty radical view. By striving for “edutainment,” we entirely skip over one of the most vital lessons our students need to learn- how to work hard. Not to say that learning shouldn’t be engaging and interesting, but there will come a point in students’ lives when they’ll have to struggle through something difficult in order to reach an end. One day virtually all of these students will need to hold down a job, and an incredibly small percentage of those jobs are going to involve the bright lights of a first-person shooter game. Another complaint I had with the idea of game-based learning is its impracticality. As a future teacher, where am I supposed to find the games to teach my students the concepts I want them to learn? I certainly can’t create them, and I certainly can’t afford them.

The ideas asserted in the Chase and Laufenberg article “Embracing the squishiness of digital literacy” and the Knobel and Lankshear article “Wikis, Digital Literacies, and Professional Growth” were more immediately applicable than those in the Prensky article. I feel that frequently the methods for “using technology in the classroom” are often just attempts to use technology for the sake of technology; students see through these attempts and are not any more engaged by these weak attempts to snare their attention than by any of the others. Chase and Laufenberg suggest more natural and authentic integrations of technology into the classroom. The use of wikis in order to compile information puts the pace and direction of learning into the hands of students. For our students to be successful in their new digital world, they must learn to navigate the flood of information that they live in, and how to read it critically. A wiki is a valuable tool in regulating and promoting this sifting through and sharing of information.

The idea that stood out to me in the Knobel and Lankshear article was using audio recordings to promote reading fluency and as a way to promote the critical usage of audio files. Integrating podcasts, interviews, and read-alouds into students’ skill sets expands their understanding of “digital literacy” and teaches them to use critically another form of information sharing.

References

Chase, Z., & Laufenberg, D. (2011). Embracing the squishiness of digital literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy , 7(54), 535-537. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxsbGVkMzUzMHxneDoyOTYxYzQyNDM2MmEwYTI3

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2009). Wikis, digital literacies, and professional growth. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy , 7(52), 631-634. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxsbGVkMzUzMHxneDo2ZDg0MTU1NzM3Yzg5NzA5

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants . On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxsbGVkMzUzMHxneDo1ZWQ5YTllNmVkMjZmMmZl&pli=1

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part II. On the Horizon, 9(6). Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxsbGVkMzUzMHxneDo0OTQ5OGIyYjg1MzdmYjA5

Bringing Pop culture into the classroom

I identified with Leigh Hall’s article “How popular culture texts inform and shape students’ discussions of social studies texts.” She discussed how multiple ways in which non-traditional literacy (or “popular culture” as she calls it) can be used in the classroom to bridge the gap between students’ previously held knowledge and the curriculum that we’re attempting to teach. As Hall says, “Youths, however, often see knowledge from different parts of their lives as distinct from school knowledge. As a result, they don’t always see their existing skills and knowledge as legitimate for academic learning” (Hall, 2011.) This discrepancy in the minds of our students between “home knowledge” and “school knowledge” prevents students from making valuable connections and stretching their knowledge. While some students may come to class as History Channel fans and having scoured Wikipedia for every mention of the American Revolution, most students are coming to class with a very different body of popular culture knowledge. Nonetheless, every student comes to class with knowledge, and all of it is accessible and useable for social studies classes.

I would like to take the concepts of the article a step further (reminiscent of the SLS idea from the Shah article) and purposefully include popular culture in my social studies classroom, including “systematic instruction that allows them (students) to identify and deconstruct messages found in both types of texts (popular culture and social studies texts)” (Hall, 2011.) By including popular culture references and texts in conjunction with traditional or scholastic social studies texts, we teach students how to critically digest the popular culture that they’ll be faced with all their lives. Hall says that in the classrooms observed, “No questions were raised about the reliability of pop culture texts that were fictional or were not intended to communicate historical information” (Hall, 2011.) This lack of connection and questioning passes up an opportunity to teach students to be critical consumers of information, which is one of the main goals of a social studies classroom. As one of the students in the study said, “I learned a lot about video games and cartoons and how some of them have pieces of history in them. So now when I’m watching TV or something, I pay closer attention to see if I can learn something about history” (Hall, 2011.) Students will “learn to question and examine the ideas put before them” instead of being “passive recipients of information” (Hall, 2011.)

By extending the bounds of a social studies classroom beyond the typical social studies texts and into the realms of both popular culture text and “real world” texts such as news reports, we can expose our students to the skills necessary to be critical consumers of information beyond the walls of the school. The evidence that students already engage prior-held information from popular culture is proof that students are willing and capable of making this leap, connecting their knowledge basis from home to school. Leigh Hall’s study reinforces the value of this connection in the social studies classroom.

Bringing literacy home

A topic that has long fascinated me is that of the expansion of the definition of "literacy." As an active member of the technological generation, I am interested and participatory in technological literacy. I connected with Dr. Alvermann's assertion of the importance of including multiple genres and mediums in the modern definition of "literacy." As students develop, they begin to either identify themselves as "readers" or "non-readers." Once students have convinced themselves- or been convinced by outside influences- that they're "non-readers," the negative emotional reaction that they have to everything termed "literature" will stick with them for the rest of their life. Broadening the definition of literacy to encompass all of the technological mediums and genres that are such a huge part of their lives prevents this emotional shutdown to reading as well as giving students more opportunity to tap into and increase their literacy skills.

The applications in the "Learning from our mistakes" article were helpful, concrete, in depth, and backed up by research. They also backed up the assertions made in Dr. Alvermann's interview which reinforced the importance of using technology in the classroom. Nice!