We started off by doing a little writer’s workshop. I wanted the students to share their learning from writing the essay and to identify elements of what makes a good essay. Interestingly, the students identified the issues that I found were the potholes students struck in their writing. That was reassuring. I’m working from memory here. The elements identified were transitions, clear thesis, authorial voice, and appropriate/professional language. The thing I want to stress, and I didn’t talk about it last night, is that these issues of form are integral to content. It’s impossible to separate form from content. Gaining control of these elements also helps one gain control of the content. By using transitions, one is showing the connection between ideas, by using professional language appropriately, one is demonstrating an understanding of that language. And of course, being to write a clear thesis demonstrates an understanding of how all the multiple pieces in an essay are linked together. It’s what makes a piece of writing cohesive. In an academic piece of writing, the thesis is explicit whereas in a literary piece it may very well be implicit. So understanding the genre is part of the picture as well. The thing that really strikes me is that by writing the essay, the students are also engaging in the theory as explicated by Olson.

We also spent some time talking about the texts. I gave some guiding questions, but I’m not sure they were effective. The discussions I listened in on weren’t as deep as previous discussions. The whole group discussion however was quite interesting. I admit, I kind of took over, but as I explained to the class this is a topic I feel passionately about.

I find it interesting how introducing critical literacy brings up the concern of “fitting it into the curriculum” even though we’ve just spent 8 weeks talking about the role of oral language in literacy acquisition and the difference between acquisition and learning, and sociocultural theory and how learning is through participation. Yet, when we come to critical literacy, resistance and fear and mandates appear. It shows me that even though  theories can be talked about, it’s not integrated into the ways of thinking yet. But it’s developmental. At least the ideas and questions and struggles are out there. I was really serious when I said, baby steps. It takes time to be the kind of teacher we want to be and there are so many forces pushing back at us. I get those pressures too. But rather than giving in to the pressures, critical literacy gives us a way to respond to and push back. It’s a way to subvert the system.

Again, I didn’t talk about it last night (I can only say so much), but as a former English teacher, I believe that any text can and should be taught critically. So even though I’m no fan of the western canon of literature, if I were “forced” to teach it, I would do so critically. The question I would ask is, why do we read these pieces of literature? Whose voices and experiences are represented in this literature? What perspectives on life do these pieces of literature lead us to? What responses can we give to these pieces of literature? These types of questions all support the ELA standards and by engaging in these questions the students would be well prepared for the ELA exam – yet we would be engaging in important questions. Heck, we could even analyze the ELA exam critically as part of test prep. Hmmm, maybe it would be fun to get back into English education.

Granted, critical theory is scary. It may bring up things that people don’t necessarily like to talk about. It forces us to uncover our own assumptions and believes let alone what the text says (or doesn’t say). The same with media literacy. Frankly, the term media literacy bugs me. I didn’t talk about that either. It’s a dated term. If we have an expanded definition of literacy, then “media” or multimodalities is automatically part of that. It’s something to think about in terms of updating the syllabus.

We spent the last half of class on the literacy artifact review. I gave an overview of what the institutional (read NCATE) requirements are for the assignment, but then let the students go. My intent is for the students to begin to build an understanding of the new literacies and critical literacy through engagement in the literacies. It goes back to the acquisition versus learning thing. We can talk and read about it, but to really understand it and know it, you have to experience it. I know it makes a lot of the students concerned/scared/confused because there aren’t strict guidelines and directions. But that’s the thing with the new literacies – the rules are being formed and the rules are being formed by social interaction. It’s Jenkins and Lankshear & Knobel and…

I’ve got midsemesteritis too. I’m discouraged and frustrated by the institution of school. I love teaching and learning, but I hate the institutionalization of those processes. We’ve lost the joy and the excitment of discovery. I want it back. I’m hoping some of that will be found as students create their literacy artifact review.