Response for Class 7

A few things occured to me whilst reading this week's literature. The first was how great the Youth Voices project seems to be; I'd never heard of it before, but now I'm planning on using it in my own classroom, especially since I'll be teaching solely writing. The project also brings to the forefront the question of audience, which has been touched on before. Not only will students hopefully be more motivated to produce great work, knowing that someone other than myself will be reading it (not that they don't try their best for me, of course! ;) ), but I like the fact that Youth Voices seems to be a massive project, which means that there is far more chance for students' writing to be seen and commented upon. One of my big fears is for the student who writes a post, only to receive no comments at all, whilst another student may have ten comments. How demoralizing that must be! Opening writing up to a potentially limitless audience is a great way to generate interest, and really make a writer feel special, and motivated to want to write more. I feel that such global feedback will really move the classroom away from an instructionist ideology, too, where the comments of the teacher are the most important, to a more constructivist model.

I also permitted myself a wry smile at a certain line in the story of the all-girl's private school poetry project: 'In groups of three or four (depending on the size of the class and the number of cameras)' (emphasis mine). This only serves to heighten the pre-discussed divisive nature of technology between those schools with money and those without; by Schwartz's logic, a class of thirty students would need at least three cameras, and that's if the students shared them around!

Response for Class 6

Of all the interesting points raised by the readings today, the notion of quite how we assess the so-called 'new' writing is of the most concern to me. I'm tech-savvy and just a-burstin' with ideas for how I'd use the technology in my classroom, but the issue of assessment gives me pause for thought, especially given the essentially collaborative nature of much of this new writing.

To what extent do we view the finished product as assessment for a whole group? We could produce something wonderful, but could we really be sure that even such a product has improved the writing of all of our students? The authors of the chapters we read seem to suggest so, and I tend to believe them- but only to an extent.

Also, how does this transfer to more rigorous, 'academic' writing? Perhaps the later chapters, being focused on high school, will answer that question, but as a teacher who is starting in the 8th grade in September, I feel as though I want to prepare my students for the extra rigor of high school, whilst still maintaining the freedom and creativity of middle school. Of course, the two things aren't mutually exclusive, but still. I guess that utilizing wikis for peer review, etc, is something that can apply to all kinds of writing. It's interesting to think about.

Response for Class 5

There is no doubt that the tension between what we actually teach- and want our students to learn- in our classroom and the requirements of standardized testing will become stretched to breaking point in the upcoming years, until something finally has to give. The reason for this? Quite simply, as technology becomes a larger and larger part of our classrooms, lives, and pedagogy, the current testing format becomes increasingly obsolete.

Knowing, however, that something must break in the future is of no help in the present; I love technology, I believe strongly in its pedagogic potential if corrently harnessed, and I am convinced that something special could be achieved with its use. However, as a teacher entering his first full year, I am aware that I can't afford for my students to do anything less than well on their standardized tests. So, what'll happen? I would imagine that we'll spend the majority of the year doing interesting things, then a few weeks teaching solely to prepare for the test. That's fine, I guess, but wouldn't it be great if they could be tested on all the exciting, fresh, wonderful activities we'd spend all year doing (which, after all, is what the government have decided our students need to be prepared for the 21st Century workplace anyway!)

Of interest, too, in the chapter read is the fact that standardized tests actually vary (sometimes considerably) from state-to-state. Given that, what's the point? In the UK, where I was educated, the system is entirely different, and in my opinion, preferable. But I'm a little tired right now and it's a long discussion to get involved in. Sorry! :)

Response Paper for Class 4.

The belief, as described in our readings, that an increase reliance on technology is doing little to address the inequity that exists within American today, certainly has much substance. Although I believe strongly in the potential and power of technology to increase opportunities for all (color and social class are not immediately evident online), the simple fact is that those without access will be at a greater disadvantage than ever before- not only academically, but socially, too. For the majority of us, it seems impossible to countenance anyone not possessing a computer with internet access- many of us even have multiple computers. However, for those who still live on or around the poverty line, who struggle to meet rent and feed themselves, the luxury of $50 a month spent on internet service provider fees is unimaginable. If we accept that the majority of those living in poverty in New Jersey are city-dwelling people of color, then it seems inevitable that the achievement gap will remain despite, perhaps even be exacerbated by, an increasing reliance upon technology.

An example; during my student teaching fieldwork, I taught a 10th-grade inclusion class specifically designed to give students confidence using computers; many of the students were so unfamiliar with the technology that they even resisted it. Of the 14 students in the class, 12 were people of color- and this is in a school with an almost exact 50/50 split of white and black students.

It is interesting, too, to consider how market forces drive shifts in education. The existing hierarchy of subjects in schools, for example, where Mathematics and English are considered somehow more valuable than Dance and Art, is surely influenced by the needs of the country during the Industrial Revolution. Although few would dispute that technological literacy is vital in today's society, are students being encouraged to learn it for their own benefit, or simply because this is what the market now demands? Are the two inextricably linked? It seems that education has become, over the past century and a bit, far more about preparing us for the workplace, and far less about a love of what we learn.

Also, since 'literacy' is defined by those in power (e-bonics, for example, are frowned upon by the powerful institutions of the nation), it seems logical that it will be used to their own ends; to perpetuate people like themselves remaining in positions of power- it does not benefit them at all to make their vision of literacy accessible to all.