Response to “Evolving Technologies and Standardized Assessment”

While reading Anne Herrington and Charles Moran’s “Evolving Technologies and Standardized Assessment,” I laughed out loud at this:

The rubric for a 6 includes the following explanation:

You have put together a convincing argument. Here are some of the strengths evident in your writing:

Your essay:

• Looks at the topic from a number of angles and responds to all aspects of what you were asked to do
• Responds thoughtfully and insightfully to the issues in the topic

Why is this funny? First of all, it didn’t help that Dr. Crovitz wrote “Ha” next to it. Mainly, it was because this describes a standardized test that is essentially graded by a robot. Which for some reason makes me think of this: 

It was so hilarious, I had to tell my boyfriend. He chuckled, then launched into a diatribe about how much he hated the 5 paragraph essay. This surprised me because:

• I didn’t even really mention the 5 paragraph essay part.
• My boyfriend is an engineering student.
• Because of this, all he cares about is math and science.
• He hates reading, writing, grammar, spelling, and anything else English-related.

We’ve been going back and forth about the issue of formulaic writing in our composition class. That class has a handful of M. Ed. students who all seem to be in agreement that the writing formula is a good thing–because it makes grading easier. No offense to these students, but I have to disagree.

Now, I’m not in a classroom, I’ve not tried to teach writing to students, I have no experience…But I will do my very best not to fall back on this “science.” Clearly, the formulaic approach doesn’t work. Anyone recall the definition of insanity?

Yes, it has one thing going for it: It’s good as an introduction for younger students. That’s it. I remember using it in middle school, but I don’t recall being able to use it after that–we were discouraged. I do remember using it on standardized tests though, because I knew that was what they wanted–and I always tested very strongly, so clearly it’s the system that’s broken (duh.)

My boyfriend said he even used it on the SAT, but I didn’t, and I scored QUITE well if I do say so myself. 🙂

I think it’s more important to encourage kids to just WRITE, then teach them organization without telling them exactly where everything belongs, how many sentences they need in each paragraph, etc. I know I still sometimes have trouble completing paragraphs (scroll up), but if you’re told you have to have eight sentences, you’re going to just write anything to reach that minimum.

That seems like a good place to stop, since I started this post seven hours ago, had to stop, and now Stella is having trouble getting her groove back (I’m too young for that reference, but watch me go.)

Response to “Scrutinizing the Cybersell”

In “Scrutinizing the Cybersell: Teen-Targeted Websites as Texts,” Darren Crovitz (another shout-out to Dr. C!) discusses using ads targeting adolescents as a teaching text in the classroom. I have only had two classes assign an analysis of an advertisement; my American literature class in high school, and my intro to women’s studies class in college. I really enjoyed the assignment both times; I read a lot of magazines, and there are so many ads. Some catch my eye, and a lot of them are just ridiculous. I definitely consider myself to be a feminist, and I believe there is a lot that can be said about any ad from a feminist point-of-view.

Using advertisements in the classroom as a teaching tool is a great idea because it gets students to practice writing, as well as overall communication; they can be descriptive, persuasive, argumentative, analytical, view the ad from various lenses, etc. Much like writing an analytical paper about a novel, writing about an ad requires the student to make an argument about what they see; ads are also subjective, so one person may believe one point is being made while another student thinks the ad is saying something completely different. As long as everyone can argue his or her point effectively, everyone is right.

While reading the description of the Doritos ad, I found myself shaking my head. Who makes a user account with Doritos? That just seems like such a (for lack of a better word) random thing to do–it’s a food, and not even a staple, just a junk food. (To be fair, I think Doritos are good, and I can’t let myself near a bag. They’re like crack, not that I’m a crack expert.) I also thought about a conversation I overheard a couple weeks ago. My boyfriend’s grandmother (on his dad’s side) met his cousin (on his mom’s side.) They had nothing to really talk about, most likely because of the 60 year age difference between them. They did, however, find common ground in their love of Doritos. So remember that, Doritos suits. 80 year old women love Doritos, too.

I was also reminded of the ads from back in the day; for example, this commercial that shows the Flintstones hawking cigarettes:

Yes, cartoon characters from a kid’s show trying to persuade people to try their favorite brand of cigarette. I’ve seen a lot of ads from the 1950s that are outrageous to us today, but weren’t then. Like everything else, advertising has changed drastically. We would never allow a cartoon character to sell cigarettes now, but now we allow them to sell sugary cereals and McDonald’s. Is that any better? That would be another approach to take in the classroom.

Response to Caitlin’s research blog

My lovely classmate and friend Caitlin chose to do a research blog on the canon, where she will compare the arguments of those in favor of using only the canon in the classroom, those who are opposed to its use, and those who are in the middle. I’d like to offer my personal opinion on the matter.

I tend to find myself in the middle, which is generally a good place to set up camp. I see the value in the canon–I would never have known how good Huck Finn, The Scarlet Letter, A Raisin in the Sun, Great Expectations, To Kill a Mockingbird, A Doll’s House, The Great Gatsby, A Rose for Emily, 1984, and Jane Eyre were if my various teachers hadn’t assigned them. I think they are so good everyone should read them, and I look forward to teaching them to my future students.

With that being said, the entire Harry Potter series, The Hunger Games series, The Glass Castle, The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits, The Brief and Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, The Smell of Apples, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, Cal, The Golden Compass, The Road, and The Bloody Chamber were just as life-changing for me. I know many of these authors would say they are inspired by Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Cather, Twain, and the Brontes, but there is a whole new crop of writers coming up who would say they are also inspired by Rowling, Donoghue, Alexie, and McCarthy.

The main argument I have against using only the canon is that literature, like technology, has transformed a lot in the past 50 years. Writing styles have changed, themes have changed (and yet stayed the same); these things will keep changing. We’re doing our students a disservice by ignoring these changes and staying behind the times.

In addition, if we want students to enjoy reading and become lifelong readers, we need to give them interesting material. While I think (most) of the canon is interesting, it doesn’t appeal to many students. We need to include all of these students and be cognizant of their likes and dislikes. I know many people say “Oh, I just don’t read” but I think you would be hard-pressed to find a student that has never enjoyed a YA novel. These books were written specifically for adolescents to relate to; as entertaining as Huck Finn is, most students can’t relate to a boy running away with his slave. Huck Finn is great as a history lesson, but relate-able (relative?) it is not. Of course, many students can’t relate to the fact that Harry is a wizard and goes to a wizarding school, but they still see themselves in  his character…Probably more so than they do in Huck.

Response to The Shallows

The pushback text I chose to read is The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains by Nicholas Carr. I’m not going to lie, it’s very scientific, and if I was into science, I’d be in a science program. Just saying.

With that being said, this book has an interesting point (he just goes about writing it in a roundabout way.) Basically, Carr is referring to what I call sensory overload; I decided in high school that I suffer from this made-up disease because I would be sitting at the lunch table attempting to talk to my friends, but I was too busy looking everywhere, watching people, listening to their conversations, etc. There was just too much going on for me to focus. Now, I might say that’s more like ADD.

However, I would now say I have sensory overload when it comes to the internet, though Carr would say most people do as our brains are being rewired thanks to our increasing use of technology. I found a lot of irony in reading Carr’s book: for example, he refers to Kindles, and doesn’t sound like a huge fan of them, and I’m reading the book…on my Kindle. But I would just like to say I had to buy it really quickly because I forgot to get it before class started, and here is the breakdown:

Buy it used online and wait a week that I didn’t have to get it: $8

Buy it used online, have it expedited, and get it three days later: $10

Buy it new in a store but have it then: $18

Buy it on my Kindle and have it then: $8

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

One of the most interesting parts about this whole discussion was that Carr, first of all, says e-readers are not very popular. The book was published a couple years ago, and as iWrite has shown us, technology can be transformed in two years, patterns change, etc. He also gave statistics to support this, so I believe him. However, he then goes on to say he doesn’t believe e-readers will ever be more popular than books, and I’m not sure I believe that. Even since 2010, e-readers have exploded in popularity. I, personally, own two. When I was at my boyfriend’s family’s house a couple weeks ago, we all had a big laugh every night because we were all sitting around (playing games, but still!) on our Kindle Fires (I’m not a paid spokesperson.) This included his grandmother. Even my grandmother has a Nook! My dad, who ten years didn’t know how to use the space bar on a computer (but is now an Apple snob) has a Kindle Fire (because iPads are three times the price, and you don’t get back in use what you pay extra for compared to the Fire, but I digress.)

Parentheses aside, I will now relate this back to the classroom, as I have failed to do in my last three blog posts.

I observed at a high school last semester. This school, I will admit, is in an affluent area. I was in a social studies class, where 10 of 30 students were in the special education program (mainly for ADHD, but some for various learning disabilities.) As part of the special education program, the students were given Kindles. They were used to download “books on tape” so the students could still do their assigned reading, but they were allowed to listen to the story. I know all schools can’t afford to do this (and that’s a rant for a whole ‘nother day) but for the sake of this argument, if 25% of the schools in the US bought, let’s say, 50 Kindles…That’s a lot of e-readers being bought!

So think about that, Nicholas Carr.