I miss Blau. I realize that I’m not saying anything new here, but I’m not very inspired by Text Book. Since we had read a piece by Scholes earlier in the semester and I found myself referring to it often when discussing other readings, I was looking forward to reading Text Book. Sigh. I’m hoping I’ll have more warm fuzzies towards the book as we continue discussing and reading. Here are some of my thoughts on Text Book…

• As a couple others have mentioned, the formatting of the book has been a hurdle for me. I’m very OCD, and the format of the book with the headings, subheadings, etc, is really messing with me! Some of the headings seem to be in the wrong place, and sometimes it is unclear what text is part of an excerpt, and what text is the commentary of the authors!

• While the readings are interesting, I keep thinking I’m reading a study of linguistics and semiotics. Granted, these areas of study play into literature, but I keep expecting more.

• Are the authors really accomplishing their goal of teaching that we “[learn] literary theory by emulating literary practice” (v)? Yes, they include various writing activities after the reading selections, but are these activities really new and different? They often require the reader/student to examine the writers use of language, as mentioned in the point above, and many activities are creative (such as POV responses), but I’m still questioning “writing through literature.” Am I missing something?

• I do like how the book focuses on studying how writers use language. The authors also ask their readers (students) to consider the effect of this use of language. These are two big key words we use in IB English—HOW (technique, choices) and EFFECT (why? So what?)

 • Another positive…Text Book speaks to and reaffirms the notion that we are constantly interpreting! I think it’s important to remind our more reluctant students of this very true fact. My regular-level students complain that “we always have to look for a deeper meaning.” In reality, they’re always looking for deeper meanings, and they pick up on these deeper meanings—in TV shows, movies, advertisements, text messages (as someone in class pointed out a few weeks back), etc. I like how the authors of Text Book discuss the interpretation of things such as advertisements and dreams, not just literary works.

As much as I like the idea of blogs, I’ve always struggled with my own blogging. I stress over my blog post entirely too much, and I struggle with narrowing my focus. In a way I feel that I should be thinking of a blog like a paper, but papers and blogs are also two different formats. (These are some of the observations I’m making while reflecting on my blogging that won’t necessarily show up in my actual posts.)

This week’s task of analyzing our own blogs has been insightful. Here is what I’ve discovered about my blogs:

• I’m very critical. I seem to read the texts with a “prove it to me” approach, as if the author needs to “sell” me on their points and theories. I don’t think that this is a bad approach, though. The points and issues I bring up in my blog posts are supported, either with examples from my classroom or passages from the texts. Don’t we teach our students to prove (support) their thoughts and ideas?
• I think I’m also defensive in my responses. (Here’s where my critical, “prove it to me” approach can be bad.) Several times throughout my posts I give teachers more credit than I feel that the author(s) are giving us in their books. For instance, when discussing Salvatori and Donahue’s ideas, I pointed out that I would like to think that most English teachers are already implementing the approaches and strategies presented in the text. I mention this again when discussing Gee and his lack of specific references/examples for an English classroom.
• In addition to pointing out that most teachers are probably already implementing some of the approaches presented, I point out that we may just be using different jargon. For instance, I have several activities that are quite similar to Salvatori and Donahue’s  formal “Difficulty Paper.”
• I make connections to my own teaching experiences, and I often use some of my own class activities as examples. I share activities that I think are successful, as well as learning experiences and areas in which I need to grow and improve.
• I also make connections between the texts that we are reading. In particular, I make a lot of connections to Scholes and the expert/novice learner article we read for the first class.
• Although I am critical, I think that I try to stay positive in my posts. (I really do love the class and the texts we are reading!) I do find that I end each post with my “issue” with (or question about) the text. For instance, “Although I understand and agree with Gee’s principles, I am concerned about…” Or, Along with the praise for Blau’s work […] I do have some questions.” I seem to structure my responses by first discussing what I agree with, and then discussing the issues/questions.

Finally, my blogs are very lengthy. I’m almost always well beyond the suggested word count. I worked on it—here’s 501! 🙂

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Blau’s work, and I know that I will continue to refer to his book and work to implement his workshop ideas and writing assignments in my classes. I would love to know about even more of his writing assignment ideas!

Although it seems to be very time-consuming, Blau’s Reading Log assignment sounds very beneficial. My students have “Writer’s Notebooks,” but I give them prompts, and the entries are not nearly as regular as Blau’s Reading Log entries. While I see benefits to the Writer’s Notebook entries (and my students have acknowledged benefits in their end-of-the-year course evaluations), I’m interested in trying Blau’s approach. I am also a fan of his Interpretation Project because it touches on so many skills, and I would love to be able to incorporate his grading and portfolio ideas into my classes! (Any thoughts on how to adapt the portfolio assignment for high school classes?)

I’m also interested in trying his Reading Process Research Report. At the beginning of each school year, my IB students have a “Processes of Reading and Writing” assignment in which they reflect on how they approach texts and writing about those texts. Blau’s assignment is much more authentic, though, since students are actually working through an analysis of a text while reflecting on their process. I plan to revise my assignment and adapt Blau’s. I do not think I will adopt his “twist” on the assignment, though, where he has students share their writings and then allows them to revise their papers (171-2). It seems that the purpose of the assignment is to see where students are in their analytical process at the beginning of the school year. I don’t want to see their “tainted”/influenced interpretations or approaches—I want to see theirs!

On this note, I sense a bit of a contradiction in Blau’s ideas and assignments. At some points he seems to encourage students to use outside sources (collaborating with colleagues on the Reading Process Research Report, stating that research is not prohibited for “The Interpretation Project,” etc), but then he is also critical of students using Cliffs Notes or similar resources as it can result in borrowed, “unearned” interpretations, which Rosenblatt says is “like having someone else eat your dinner for you” (187-8). Am I missing something? Obviously, students should be able to enter the conversation of literary interpretation and respond to other interpretations in a “they say/I say” way (term borrowed from Graff). But I feel that Blau is sending mixed messages. Shouldn’t we start with students’ “untainted,” uninspired-by-outside-source interpretations? How do we balance?

I was very surprised by how much I enjoyed Gee’s book. I particularly enjoyed his introduction and first few chapters as I felt that he became repetitive, essentially saying the same principles in a different way, as the book went on. (I also found some of his examples to be rather long-winded and, at times, redundant.) What struck me most about Gee’s points were the connections to other works we’ve read thus far in the course. I noticed some strong similarities between Gee’s work and the article on expert/novice learners that we read for our second class. I also noticed connections to Scholes’s points about textual power and “codes.”

Like Scholes, Gee speaks to the idea of expanded literacy. Gee says that “print literacy is not enough” (20). It’s not enough to be able to “read and write.” Rather, what matters is how successfully an individual can communicate in any given domain. In chapter two of Textual Power, Scholes states that “our job […] is to show [students] the codes upon which all textual production depends and to encourage their own textual practice” (24-5). Similarly, chapter two of How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School stresses the importance of learning concepts rather than facts. Really, we should be helping our students to further develop their skills so that they can read and send “signals”/codes in any situation. Yes, we love it when our students truly analyze and discuss the novel we’re studying, but we should also want them to be able to apply those skills outside of the text, observing and analyzing the world around them.

Gee argues that “a great deal more is at stake than ‘content’” when it comes to video games (38). The same applies to literature studies, too. While our students may think English is just about reading and analyzing certain texts, we need to be teaching our students to think critically about the texts and the world around them. (Hopefully we’re already doing this and the students just don’t realize it—like the gamer who told Gee he never thought of playing video games as learning.) Gee repeatedly references science and math classrooms, and his book truly lacks significant references and direct application to English classrooms. I’d like to think this “lack” is because we, as English teachers, are already applying many of the principles Gee mentions. Gee’s point seems to be (if I really simplify his arguments and principles) that learning needs to be meaningful and relevant. In order to really learn, the learner must really care. We (naturally?) work to make literature studies meaningful and relevant by making connections between the texts we study and the world around us. We’re making “bridges” between identities (57). This being said, though, it’s important to reflect on our practices. I’m sure we could be doing more to apply Gee’s principles.

Although I understand and agree with Gee’s principles, I am concerned about the “fun and games” mentality. Gee states that if “learning is not compelling to the learner, at some level, then little deep learning is liable to occur” (59). In terms of our classrooms, then, is Gee suggesting that we need to do “tricks” to make everything compelling?? Doesn’t it, at some point/level, come back to the individual and his/her motivation? Gee also states that “children must be motivated to engage in a good deal of practice if they are to master what is to be learned. However, if this practice is boring, they will resist it” (65). Gee acknowledges that we can’t guarantee or make students think actively and critically, but we can set up learning in such a way to encourage deep learning. We can plan lessons and activities in such a way that they are meaningful and relevant. On the flip side, though, life isn’t all fun and games, and I don’t believe that learning is, or needs to be, either, at least not at all times.

Gee somewhat acknowledges that, at some level, it does come back to the individual students’ motivation and learning style.  He points out that students with an identity as someone who dislikes school are at a disadvantage when it comes to meaningful learning (45), acknowledging that some students simply dislike school. (We all know what a challenge it is to try to “entice” that student!) Gee also acknowledges that “video games are particularly good […], at least for some types of learners” (58). Some students may be engaged with a video game, or a novel of study, and some may not. Yes, we should strive to make our lessons meaningful and engaging, striving to make literature studies relevant and meaningful, but I believe there is something to be said for personal motivation and dedication on the part of the student.

(I really don’t mean to sound negative as I end this post. I really believe in the principles Gee shares, and I believe they can be applied effectively in our English classrooms. I guess I’m just commenting on some of the realities I see, too, and I’m always concerned when student accountability is potentially downplayed in some way. One more thing—sorry for such a long post! I always have so much to say about our readings!)

As Scholes points out, we, as teachers, must realize and be reminded that very few, if any, of our students will go on to study literature at length or depth in college or in their careers. The question then becomes, how do we reach the average/typical English student? Scholes speaks of teaching students “textual power”—“how to use it and how to protect themselves from its abuses” (21). He also states that “it is not so much a matter of generating meanings out of a text as it is a matter of making connections between a particular verbal text and a larger cultural text” (33). Scholes is speaking of what I call the “larger ‘So What?’” of a text. (In his discussion and analysis of Hemingway’s “Interchapter VII,” Scholes expands to this larger “So What,” making statements about war.) Similarly, Linkon comments that “We should be just as concerned about what students are learning about how to read critically and culturally” as we are about their knowledge of specific concepts or terms (257-8).

The point that both authors emphasize here, and throughout their works, is that we need to give students the “tools,” not the answers. This role is key! As Scholes states, “our job is not to intimidate students with our own superior textual production; it is to show them the codes upon which all textual production depends and to encourage their own textual practice” (24-5). As I mentioned in my posting last week, we need to be careful with how much we influence our students and their interpretations. Activities and discussions need to be student-centered and student-led. Scholes discusses how he uses questions to guide close reading and understanding of the textual “codes,” which is something I do in my own classroom. For instance, when students complete the POV writing assignment, Scholes has them consider why they made changes (if they did). Although Scholes doesn’t state it directly,  we need to ask these same questions of the original text. “Why did Hemingway do      ?” Why didn’t he do                 ?” To put it in IB English lingo: What is the effect of the piece, and how is that effect achieved? And, “So What?”

Linkon also emphasizes the importance of continuing the conversation(s) about a text. She makes the point that analysis is never really “done” (252)—it’s an ongoing conversation that students enter into at various points and levels, and from various backgrounds and experiences. I saw echoes of Salvatori and Donahue when Linkon discusses expert vs. novice approaches to encountering and dealing with “difficulty” (251). She points out that “experts” ask questions. My IB students question and dig deeper while my regular 10’s give up or complain. My regular students are not aware that deeper understanding rests in figuring out and working through difficulty. As their teacher, I need to do more to teach these strategies and give them the tools!

On that note, I feel that both authors emphasize the importance of modeling. Many of my students have shared that they don’t really understand how to analyze a text, mark-up (annotate) a text, etc. Students need to see and hear us grabble with a text! Modeling is not only beneficial for our students, though—modeling can help us remember the process. I appreciated Linkon’s observations and ideas, her reminders about the process. We skip steps when we teach, forgetting the process. As teachers, it is critical that we don’t lose touch with the process.

Finally, I think both authors acknowledge the idea of expanded literacy. It’s not just about reading and responding to the text in class, but it’s important to learn to go beyond that text and enter the conversation. This expanding notion of literacy also encompasses different forms of communication, and both the expanded notion of literacy and the various forms of communication rely on understanding textual “codes.”