With the Blessing of Vygotsk...

Vygotsky has had his excellent reputation in the field of education for a while. When we talk about human development, Vygotsky is mentioned; when we explore how human beings make sense of everything and make meaning out of everything, Vygotsky is thought of; when we examine the influence of society and culture upon an individual or a group of people, Vygotsky is noted; when we say social interaction is crucial for teaching and learning, Vygotsky is revived. Undoubtedly, zone of proximal development (ZPD) belongs to Vygotsky, and scaffolding is a direct link to Vygotsky. In his text, Smagorinsky has elaborated explicitly what Vygotsky has offered and will continue to be offering for teachers, educators, and researchers.

If Smagorinsky’s elucidation on Vygotsky’s thoughts and ideas provide theoretical accounts for many teaching and learning practices, then Lapp and Fisher’s text shows an example of Vygotskyan approach of teaching and learning. Though there are many interesting points in both texts, my attention is caught by the connection between ZPD and strategies used in Lapp Fisher’s article.

Smagorinsky’s explanation on Vygotsky’s ZPD indicates that “the ZPD exists as an individual’s zone of potential that can be scaffolded into something new by a skilled adult or more competent peer, resulting in tomorrow’s new, individual competencies” (p. 199). In other words, it implies that every student has different personal potential and ZPD, and thus, every student might need different scaffolding to make him/her reach his/her potential. If this is the case, strategies used and mentioned in Lapp and Fisher’s article make sense for teaching English/Language Arts. In their curriculum design, Lapp and Fisher incorporate a variety of strategies and activities, such as read-alouds, think-alouds, independent reading, book club reading, self-selecting books, and teachers’ remarks as motivation, to assist students at varied levels in understanding the content of reading, the routine of the class, and the expectation of teachers. Also, such way also encourages students to participate in discussion and engages students in continuing exploration of personal reading interests. In the words Lapp and Fisher, “They[Students] have to be challenged, supported, and encouraged but at the end of the day, they need to have their say about the text” (p. 561). Therefore, regardless of students’ diverse background, their learning is supported in one way or another.

            

                                                         Zone of Proximal Development

               (Source: http://designerelearning.blogspot.com/p/what-is-learning -interface-design.html)

I think Smagorinsky’s article is very informative in many ways. He let us know what is in Vygotsky’s work with a comparison of different versions of Vygotsky’s publications; how Vygotsky has a great impact on English education, especially when teaching English involves in teaching thinking, perspectives, and all sort of works of art; and the possibility of Vygotsky’s work might maintain its influential application to the field of education given the growing diverse student population. We will be blessed by Vygotsky for another while. 

Question: 

How do you perceive the role of Vygotsky in the field of education, in theory and/or practice? 

Identity and Heritage

Jacob and Reyhner’s text provides an overview of supporting teachers to value Native Americans’ cultural heritage and assist Native American students to achieve academic success. From identifying students’ learning styles and respecting students’ cultural background to providing culturally responsive pedagogy and curriculum, Jacob and Reyhner show key points that teachers should note when teaching Native American students. Though I only know little about Native Americans, I think one theme I find across the article, the video clip, and Sherman Alexie’s novel is identity.

Across these three pieces of reading, identity seems to be an emerging issue. On one hand, it is about Native American students’ identity. As they usually live and walk in the two worlds – in one world they learn the mainstream culture from books, and in the other they learn from stories passed down from their parents, grandparents, or even great grandparents, their identity seems to be a site of struggle. Just as Junior in Alexie’s novel, he struggles at school for being a Native American, and he struggles at his hometown for going to a so-called White school. I surmise that in reality, there are many Native American students who share similar experiences as Junior with multiple and oscillating identities.  On the other hand, it is about teachers’ identity. I could imagine that for non-Native American teachers, teaching in schools on the reservation puts them in a role of an outsider. As outsiders, how to earn trusts from Native American students and people within the community as well as how to understand Native American students’ learning styles might bring challenges to teachers and have an impact on how they perceive themselves. Should teachers teach the way they are taught, or should they adopt a more responsive instruction to approach Native American students?

The exploration of identity issue in the readings all comes to the point of valuing students’ cultural and linguistic heritage. The worldview of living with Mother Nature, the learning of tribal language, the importance of oral tradition, and the value of sharing and reciprocity all contribute to how students perceive themselves and their culture. Teachers may draw on the cultural and linguistic heritage to develop lessons or curriculum let Native American students know their roots and be proud of themselves.

Sherman Alexie’s novel somehow makes me think of a movie, Windtalkers, which is about using Navajo language for coding during World War II. I think this movie could be a good one to show Native American students the importance of valuing their own culture and language.

                                   Windtalkers Trailer [2002]

                       

Question: 

What are some activities or strategies that can be used for teaching students to value their culture and language heritage?

It is interesting for me to find that there are some similarities between Native Americans and Native Taiwanese. Actually many of the most popular Taiwanese singers and athletes are Natives. I wonder how you would draw on these characteristics for teaching (e.g. using songs/poetry). 

I know Darth Vader is coming!

Teasley and Wider’s text continues to impress me as I read through this chapter. The viewer-response approach they proposed stresses the active role of viewers as well as the importance of discussion and collaboration in literary/film study. They believe that as students become active viewers, they would be more awareness of different perspectives and techniques that a movie contains, which prepares students to become long-term viewers and learners. As for the role of teacher, Teasley and Wider consider teachers are listeners, facilitators, and consensus builders who assist students in becoming film connoisseurs. Via curriculum design and viewer-response approach, teachers can guide students with many possibilities. After reading this chapter, some thoughts linger on my minds.

As shown in the chapter, Teasley and Wider made a twist on reader-response approach and turned it into viewer-response approach which would be fit for film study. I actually like this idea, for “viewer” would be a broader term than “reader.” That is, a viewer not only reads but also listens, which makes viewing a film an integrated experience of texts, images, and sounds. However, it is a pity, I think, that the example in chapter as to how a teacher guided students to respond to film does not seem to show the discussion about music or sound effects in the film. I understand that Teasley and Wider intended to employ film as an instructional tool to teach English and literacy, yet as music and sound effects have a huge impact on viewers’ feelings toward a scene, a character, or even the whole movie, it would be better to have some conversations about how music and sound effects contribute to the viewers’ interpretation and understanding of a movie. (Let’s just think about how many times we remember a movie because of the song in it, and how many times when we hear a unique sound effect in Star Wars, we know Darth Vader is coming.)

World's Greatest Dad
(Source:http://thewisecracker.com/2011/11/funny-star-wars-cartoon-darth-vader-worlds-greatest-dad/)

 Another thought I have is about the writing activities. Teasley and Wider mentioned some writing activities, such as personal essays, analytical essays, imaginative writing, writing film treatments, scripts, and storyboard, and film reviews (from chapter 2). All of which are useful for teachers to use as a mean to nurture students’ literacy skills and creativity. I am thinking that having students to write about film may have already been an exciting activity for students. To make it more motivating, teachers may also encourage students to write a review for a latest movie and submit it to local newspapers or school newsletters. If students’ reviews get published, it may also motivate students to keep writing, which might be another way to foster students becoming lifelong viewers.

Overall, I think Teasley and Wider’s text is a good resource for English teachers who hope to incorporate film in teaching literacy. Though what they suggest is feasible and practical, teachers still have to tailor lessons according to students’ needs and class schedule.

Question: 

Will you use film in teaching other content areas? And how will you use it? 

The Glamour of Film

Teasley and Wilder’s chapters are captivating. They point out reasons why teachers do not use films in the classroom, why the way teachers present films bores students, and why using films, if they are used well, could benefit students as well as help them develop literacy skills. Moreover, the detailed step-by-step unit plans Teasley and Wilder provided seem to be highly accessible for teachers without boring students. Although this books has been published for more than a decade, many ideas that are considered obsolete by Teasley and Wilder still exist.

One of examples that I can relate to is when Teasley and Wilder mentioned “They [Teachers] tend to show films but not teach films” (p.8). This is exactly what happened to me as I reflected on my high school life. Whenever teachers let us watch movies in class, it meant that teachers had already finished the scheduled lessons, or we just finished our midterms or were at the end of the semester. In this regard, films were not an instructional tool but a reward – a reward for us as students who had completed the assigned tasks and a reward for teachers who could take a break from teaching. After the movies, we were only asked about whether we like them or not. Under this circumstance, films are for entertainment, just as they are shown in the cinema.

What Teasley and Wilder proposed is to employ films as an instructional tool for teaching and learning, not only because films entertain students but also because watching films are experiences shared by students. As Teasley and Wilder pointed out, “Student have prior experience with film – almost all of it positive” (p. 4). Thus, films have their charm to catch the attention of students. Also, as I read this statement, I also think that even though students have negative experience with films, such as watching a film they dislike (or hate), they would still continue watching films. This would be quite different from reading books. If students do not like books or stories they read, it is more likely for them to give up reading. Since I have no idea about how to explain this sort of phenomenon, I give the credit to the glamour of film.

Finally, a recommendation for film selection that could be added to the chapters is that teachers may also choose some international or multicultural films for teaching. They could invite students to join the discussion of movie styles and diverse cultures.

                                                   3D Movies V.S. Pop-Up Books
               (Source: http://bilbosrandomthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/05/cartoon-saturday.html)

Question:

Would you use the lesson plans proposed by Teasley and Wilder? Why?

Poems as Songs and Songs as Poems

It was a summer time when people got burned walking outside and cooled down in an air-conditioned room. There were some people sitting in the room, either having conversations with others or doing something unimportant. Waiting. Suddenly, a 6’5” man walked in from the back of the room, with a guitar on his back and a messenger bag on right shoulder. He wore a light blue Hawaiian style shirt with palm trees, beaches, and sea gulls on it, a khaki short, and a pair of black sport sandals. His short mid-long gray hair, his gray mustache, and his strong and steady strides caught everyone’s attention. No smiles, no facial expression, no greetings. Nothing. He walked straight, and his eyes looked straight ahead as if there were no one else in the room. He looked as if he just came here from beaches, or as if he just came out of jail. As he walked to the front of the room, he put his bag on the desk, leaning his guitar against the wall. “Hi folks,” he said, “welcome to the class.” “I’ll introduce myself first, and then all of you.” After the introduction, he gave out and talked about the class syllabus. “Questions?” he asked, “No?!” “Alright, you can ask me whenever you want.” “Don’t be scarred by me though I look like a killer. I frown because I am thinking, ok?!” He continued, “Then, let’s sing and play guitar!” A burst of thunderous cheers filled in the room. “This is the song I wrote a few years ago…”

        This unforgettable moment happened when I was doing my mater program in California. In one summer, my graduate program did not offer any classes, but I wanted to take one or two classes to improve my reading and writing in English. So, I took an undergraduate English composition class, and the one who played guitar was the instructor. We read some, poems, and some excerpts from classical literature; we also watched classical movies in class. One thing I remembered clearly till now was what the instructor said as we read a poem. He said, “As an English major, I sucked at reading and writing poems. I felt so frustrated when my poetry professor asked me to write a poem. It beat me. But when I started to write songs for my band, I started to realize that my songs are my poems. The lyrics express my thoughts; the melodies express my feelings; the rhythm and the rhyme; taken together, my songs are my poems.”

        As I read through Koch’s chapters, I thought of this instructor and his words that are so powerful and so true. For many times, teaching and learning poems could be a daunting task for teachers and students. I have an ambivalent feeling toward poems as well. However, Koch’s gentle approaches to guide students to read poems, feel poems, think about poems, and then write pomes seem to be able to let students experience and appreciate the beauty of poems. Of course, selecting appropriate poems for teaching is the first step that Koch stresses. For example, teach William Shakespeare’s poems with a focus on song-like rhyme and fantasy, William Carlos Williams’ poems on the one-word-per-line form of poetry, and Walt Whitman’s poems on using repetition for self-exploration. Such suggestions by Koch may be a start for teachers to want to try teaching poems.

                       At Fiddlers Green (Ha'penny Bridge Band), written by Mark McKinnon.

                       (Mark McKinnon, the guitarist, was my English composition instructor.

                   This was the performance of him and his band, Ha'penny Bridge Band.)

       To date, in Taiwan many popular songs are written in the form of ancient Chinese poems and become teaching materials for many Chinese language arts teachers. Also, some musicians will compose melodies particularly for some famous ancient Chinese poems which become so popular that many young people know the poems because of the songs. I wonder whether there are similar phenomena in the United States, and whether English teachers would use songs as a way to introduce or teach poems. 

Knowledge and Emotion

Bomer’s chapters continue to introduce his thoughts about literature being not only for teaching and learning reading and writing but also a way to live our lives. Bomer took readers on a tour to different English classrooms to see how teachers guided students to respond to literature. Also, Bomer explained how strategies introduced in the preceding chapters could be used along with experiencing literature. As I read through chapters, I noticed that what Bomer carefully and purposefully presented is to show teachers’ teaching philosophy matters and how knowledge and emotion are connected.

        Usually teachers’ teaching philosophy affects how they arrange the class, select reading materials, and assign coursework. In chapter 5, we see teachers arranged their class differently every day with different reasons. The reason to do so could be summarized by Bomer, who stated that “The point is not to inject them with, for example, paired reading so that they have ‘had that,’ but to provide an experience that will add to their repertoire of situations into which they can put themselves, and perhaps to situate them in a conversation that will change their mental habits – get them to actively construct sense, test a text against their own life, or formulate questions as they read, for example – when they read on their own” (p. 99). In other words, the teachers, including Bomer, tried to construct a reading life for students, helping students to build a relationship with literature before they jump into interpreting and analyzing literature as they read. The purpose, according to Bomer, is “opening opportunities for what Frank Smith calls ‘membership in the club,” helping them [students] to see themselves as ‘the type of person’ who would meaningfully engage in and with reading and writing” (p. 105). This sort of teaching philosophy – encouraging students exploring literature via their senses, their curiosity, and even their impulse – is close to the quintessence of reader-response theory and highly related to John Dewey’s educational philosophy.

        John Dewey recognized that emotion plays an important role in thinking and learning, stating that “Knowledge is a small cup of water floating on a sea of emotion” (Fishman and McCarthy, 1998, p.21). That is, emotion is a source of knowledge. Our feelings toward a person, an event, or an incident influence the choices we make, which affects the way we reason and construct knowledge. TV commercials are examples of arousing customers’ emotion by blending sound and image to influence our choices. What happened in the courtroom at the end of the book, Monster, is another example that defendant lawyers and the prosecutor used language to appeal to jury and, to some extent, elicit their empathy for James King and Steve Harmon.

         Overall, Bomer’s texts enable me to see how teaching philosophy can be actualized and put into practice via the use of teaching strategies and the purposeful-arranged classes. I always think this is a very difficult task for teachers, but Bomer seemed to make it possible!

Reference:

Bomer, R. (1995). Time for meaning: Crafting literature lives in middle and high school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 

Fisherman, S. M. & McCarthy, L. (1998). John Dewey and the challenge of classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press. 

(Source: http://bemusingjobingo.blogspot.com/2010/02/tok-again-knowledge-and-emotion.html)

Question: 

In Figure 7.1 (on p.121), Bomer showed examples of possible schedules for introducing different genres to students. Do you think they are feasible? Why?

Multiple Literacies

        Speaking of adolescent literacy, Bomer seems to be influenced by John Dewey’s educational philosophy profoundly, stating that reading and writing are meaningful when literacy experience is based and drawn on students’ lives. With this being said, Bomer presented some reading and writing strategies, including free writing, keeping writer’s notebook, one-on-one student-teacher conference, and reading-writing workshop, that he considers useful and meaningful for students. On the other hand, Pirie calls for reshaping high school English curriculum by adding elements of media and popular culture to English classes. He advocates the importance of the web of textuality by stating that “the ‘web’ is the accumulated experience ‘texts’ that students bring to the activity of ‘reading’” (p.22). In this sense, “text” is referred to products of mass media and popular culture, and “reading” involves viewing and listening. Both readings provide authors’ thoughtful insights with respect to adolescent literacy development and experience, which reminds me of the idea of multiliteracies proposed by New London Group.

        The essence of the idea of multiliteracies lies in that literacy is for communication, and since we are living in an era in which our ways of communication are changed by technologies, we need to have multiple literacies to live and survive. That is, reading goes beyond reading physical texts, including reading perceived texts as well; writing may involve different modes of products. As reading and writing expand their scopes, we need more varied skills and abilities to function within the society. Typing, navigating websites, and critically analyzing information are examples of being a literate person in the sense of multiliteracies.

        With the idea of multiliteracies in mind, Bomer’s and Pirie’s reading address different types of literacies. In Bomer’s text, though he especially focuses on the so-called traditional ways of reading and writing, and he has his particular approaches to train students’ ways of thinking and then reading and writing, I think the training he provides for students is the foundation that enables students to experience “the web of textuality.” Pirie’s argument, on the other hand, is closer to the idea of multiliteracies with a particularly emphasis on critical literacy.

        What I think is lacking in both readings, in terms of multiple literacy, is the discussion of writing – the different ways to present writing. As mentioned above, writing has expanded its scope, and students can use different means to produce “writing.” Making a Youtube video and designing a game (board game, video game, or online game) are examples which have the characteristic of blending sound, image, and text. Also, in the process of creating these products, students need to exercise their creativity and draw on their web of textuality. Their products, thus, would be a remixing of cultures (culture of their own and cultures they have experienced), which might address Pirie’s concern of literacy education only passing on a cultural heritage (i.e. dominant values). Since middle and high school students have already experienced literacy via multiple media, providing an opportunity for them to create different “writing products” may also support their literacy development. 

Literacy Mushroom
(Source: http://allthingslearning.wordpress.com/tag/multiple-literacies/)

Questions:

What are some strategies in Bomer’s and Pirie’s texts you find useful and/or practical? What are some other strategies you would recommend for teaching reading and writing?

Deconstruction: Love or Loathe it, or both!

           The second half of Appleman’s book introduces other literary lenses for reading literature, and they include the social construction of gender, postcolonialism, and deconstruction. Among these theoretical perspectives, I am interested in the chapter with the discussion of deconstruction and would like to focus on it in this response.

            Deconstruction, the word or the idea I have heard many times but have not understood what it really means. Whenever someone mentions “deconstruction,” I always wonder what it is and why it is needed.  I am as confused as students mentioned in Appleman’s chapter. However, as exploring more about this term and read through Appleman’s chapter, I stared to get a rudimentary understanding of what deconstruction is and even began to be fond of it.

            Although deconstruction is a term or an idea that can be difficultly defined, Appleman showed the gist of it by pointing out that “Deconstruction seeks to show that a literary work is usually self-contradictory” (p. 98). In following this statement, self-contradictory could be identified as the essence of deconstruction, and such self-contradictory nature could be intimidating because it might imply there is no truth existing. Take Holden’s narrative in The Catcher in the Rye as an example. In the novel, Holden always has a long train of thought that keeps his narration about one incident lasting for one or even two pages with a long paragraph. Within this incessant monologue, he would, at times, insert the phrase “if you want to know the truth.”  Even in the very first paragraph of the very first chapter, the phrase “if you want to know the truth” appears. What does it mean, then? From the deconstructive perspective, this phrase seems to imply that if Holden says, he will not tell the truth. However, Holden has already said a lot before this phrase pops up. So, does it mean he is lying? It seems that on the surface, Holden is telling the truth, but in fact, he is lying – the self-contradictory is played here.

            As I tried to use deconstructive lens to read The Catcher in the Rye, I began to understand why deconstruction puzzled or irritated students. A fuss but also a power statement made by a female student, Jessica, on page 108 presents students’ uneasiness and insecurity of using deconstructive lens to read literature, for deconstruction suggests no right or wrong and no black or write. It rejects binary and asks students to question their beliefs, their assumptions, and even everything they see and hear. Using deconstructive lens stirs emotions of confusion, rejection, and anger, putting people in the state of chaos at first. However, as I follow such non-linear thinking process of deconstructive point of view, I find that perhaps the world of deconstruction is the one that can portrait the reality most. Maybe it is its closeness to the real world that makes people love and/or loathe it. As for students, taking a deconstructive stand may help them find the connection and/or disconnection between the literary text and social text they live in.

(Source: axsoris.com)
Deconstruction: An apple or a orange?

Question: As I read Appleman's book, I feel that every literary perspective she introduced is Freire's critical pedagogy slightly. This makes me wonder: what is the difference between critical pedagogy and critical thinking?  

Reading Lenses

Both Appleman and Beach addressed issues of teaching literature to adolescents. Why, what, and how we teach literature as well as why adolescents need to read literature and what they can learn from reading literature are discussed in both readings. While many points mentioned in the readings are critical and interesting, making me think about their connection with my reading of The Catcher in the Rye, I would like to focus on the discussion of the reader response lens and perspective-taking.

Reading through the lens of reader response caught my attention as my first encounter of Louise Rosenblatt, a pioneer of reader-response theory. Her ideas intrigued me because I was always an invisible reader as I reflected on my education experience in Taiwan. I remembered no matter whether it was in my Chinese or English class, teachers interpreted readings for students, and students had to memorize what teachers impart and reproduce teachers’ explanations during the tests. Thus, when I read about Rosenblatt’s conception of reading – efferent reading and aesthetic reading, I thought that finally there is someone speaking up for readers. However, as I explored more in the realm of reading and writing, I was baffled.

Why?

With an unexpected opportunity, I read an essay, Good Readers and Good Writers, by Vladimir Nabokov, author of Lolita. In his essay, he likened writers to mountain builders and readers to hikers. As writers build a mountain via their work, what they wish is that one day they can meet readers on the top of the mountain. Although writers know that such an opportunity is rare, once it happens, every effort writers put into creating the work of art pays off. This totally makes sense for me, for I consider that the purpose of writing lies in not only telling a story but also having the story be known, be heard, and be understood.

So, here comes my confusion. On one hand, I believe readers should have the freedom of interpreting texts on the basis of their personal experiences. On the other hand, I also believe literature carries messages that writers try to deliver to their readers. I felt I got lost in the ideas of scholars, wondering around the forest of reading theories, not knowing which direction to go.

Chpater 3 in Appleman’s book saved me. After reading that chapter, I started to realize that the use of reader-response approach depends on student population and literature. I agree with Appleman’s statement that “Meaning is a result of a kind of negotiation between authorial intent and the reader’s response” (p.31). That is, both writers’ intention and readers’ personal responses are crucial in the act of reading literature. Also, using reader-response approach may be a starter to attract students to read, but to support students to read in breadth and depth, they need more. That is why both Appleman and Beach mentioned that one of the important components of teaching literature to adolescents is to prepare them with the ability to adopt different perspectives to see the world. Taking different perspectives enables adolescents to understand different aspects of reality. Then, from reading literature, they will know that reading is not merely about themselves but beyond.

(Source: http://www.theillustratedprofessor.com/?p=1356)

Questions: 
In Beach's reading, it mentioned three learning theories that shaped instructions, and they are transmission theories, student-centered theories, and practice-oriented theories. In transmission theories, teacher modeling ways of interpreting texts has an implication of "correct answer." However, in practice-oriented theories/Socio-cultural learning theory, Beach also talked about the importance of teaching modeling ("I do, you watch; you try, I watch," p. 9). I wonder whether modeling in socio-cultural learning theory also suggests a correct way to interpret texts too. 

Testing

                                                     Magnolia on Pullman Campus