Nancy Bailey writes about Carol’s 9th grade
English class, and how Carol reconfigured curriculum to get students excited
about interpreting literature through a multimodal lens. Now that we’ve digested a series of
articles that pertain to various teachers and how they incorporate multimodal,
technology-based curriculum into the classroom, I wanted to reference to a few
statements and how I’d like to reflect on them in a synthetic fashion.
Bailey states that theorists of the New Literacy Studies argued: “If teachers do not use new technologies, the authors say, they ‘attach them in unengaging ways to the anachronistic curriculum’ (p.127).” To say that educators who aren’t buying into New Literacy theories are practicing “anachronistic curriculum” sets this dichotomous-two-schools-of-thought frame in which educators are presumed to occupy either stance, and I don’t think that is the case. As I was wary about from the start of this class, many schools (particularly urban, low-income based schools) are not well-equipped enough for teachers to facilitate learning that utilizes heavy technology. Although we do not get insight as to how Carol utilizes equipment and resources from her school to implement her projects, we do know that her class of 28 students are from a suburban, middle-class background in the Northeast (she asked them to watch “Friends” to analyze literary elements, so that might look different in an urban, West Coast school).
Also, as I have reiterated before, another issue other than resources is teacher training. I appreciate that preservice teachers are to take a technology course during credential training, but I think that realistically, schools should have ongoing professional development and workshops catered to technological pedagogy. I know that that might be an idealistic and extreme suggestion that is obviously beyond the scope of me, but I think that teachers need some sort of “homework” or accountability piece for technology integration, since they are so busy with the rest of their daily demands.
Moving on, Bailey states that: “getting freshmen to become engaged, interested and excited about something, especially reading and writing, is an extremely difficult task. However, by incorporating technology, I have found a way to ‘hook’ them and keep them ‘on the line’ for the rest of the year’ from Graduate Course Position Statement (p. 215).” I really like this analogy of technology being the sugar on the spoon that feeds the “medicine” for kids, and I don’t see what’s so problematic about that (I have 9th graders now and I relate, that it is so hard to get 14-year-olds excited about literature).
Bailey states that theorists of the New Literacy Studies argued: “If teachers do not use new technologies, the authors say, they ‘attach them in unengaging ways to the anachronistic curriculum’ (p.127).” To say that educators who aren’t buying into New Literacy theories are practicing “anachronistic curriculum” sets this dichotomous-two-schools-of-thought frame in which educators are presumed to occupy either stance, and I don’t think that is the case. As I was wary about from the start of this class, many schools (particularly urban, low-income based schools) are not well-equipped enough for teachers to facilitate learning that utilizes heavy technology. Although we do not get insight as to how Carol utilizes equipment and resources from her school to implement her projects, we do know that her class of 28 students are from a suburban, middle-class background in the Northeast (she asked them to watch “Friends” to analyze literary elements, so that might look different in an urban, West Coast school).
Also, as I have reiterated before, another issue other than resources is teacher training. I appreciate that preservice teachers are to take a technology course during credential training, but I think that realistically, schools should have ongoing professional development and workshops catered to technological pedagogy. I know that that might be an idealistic and extreme suggestion that is obviously beyond the scope of me, but I think that teachers need some sort of “homework” or accountability piece for technology integration, since they are so busy with the rest of their daily demands.
Moving on, Bailey states that: “getting freshmen to become engaged, interested and excited about something, especially reading and writing, is an extremely difficult task. However, by incorporating technology, I have found a way to ‘hook’ them and keep them ‘on the line’ for the rest of the year’ from Graduate Course Position Statement (p. 215).” I really like this analogy of technology being the sugar on the spoon that feeds the “medicine” for kids, and I don’t see what’s so problematic about that (I have 9th graders now and I relate, that it is so hard to get 14-year-olds excited about literature).
--BUT, I might just be saying this because I haven’t been
able to discern how to integrate technology in English curriculum in a seamless
way and not as a “staple-on” or afterthought. To digress a bit, I’ve used “traditional quizzes” this
semester (mostly to follow my CT’s structure) to monitor student’s reading of
the text, and I’m not sure what “authentic assessment tools” might look like –
maybe an oral element?? But that
still wouldn’t be using technology.
Maybe next year, in a CT-less world, I’d have more liberty to integrate
tech. Maybe I can implement the
Audacity project (Project #1) I envisioned for students to discuss the text’s
essential question in an auditory, multimodal way, as opposed to writing a
“traditional” essay. Maybe I can
ask students to submit their I-search paper (or any essay that is extensive and
contains lots of drafts and notes) as a Google Folder URL link to me (my
Project #3) and we can begin to move to a paper-less world.
I appreciated how this course expanded my thinking and I will try to be less skeptical of technology integration (and the internet cutting out on me when I want to play a video).
I appreciated how this course expanded my thinking and I will try to be less skeptical of technology integration (and the internet cutting out on me when I want to play a video).
Thoai, I don't see what's so problematic about using technology as a spoonful of sugar either!! I did think about it for awhile, and I think I *mostly* understand the difference. Bailey's issue seems to be with treating technology as separate from course content (I actually wanted to talk about this in my blog and forgot, so thanks for reminding me!) When Carol has her students look for literary elements in songs and shows, she does it in hopes that they'll be able to then map that understanding onto traditional, "authorized" content and instruction. And I have decided I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that! It's a perfectly good hook. But in the case of the poetry interpretation, the technology is the means through which students are doing the work of interpreting. The computers/multimodal capabilities are the tools and the text is the focus (whereas in the first one multimodal texts are the focus and then print text is, and they are disparate?) I dunno, I'm still trying to work my mind around it, too. But I guess I should try to plan more activities where students need to think multimodally do to the serious work of the class, whatever that may mean.
ReplyDelete