We then spent time discussing the articles. Fantastic. I listened in on some of the conversations and they were insightful and enthusiastic. They dug into the articles and “got them.” It was really fun and exciting to talk with different groups about the articles.

I went over the essay outline and expectations and asked the students to bring in a rough draft – however far they get – so we can workshop it next week. When we workshop it, we can also use the graphic organizer to think about content.

Class ended with a bit of a lecture from me going over the different theories. I got as far as the new literacies. Next week I’ll dig into that some more. I asked the students for questions, and most of the questions had to do with Lankshear & Knobel’s work. Their stuff is intense and dense, but of all the readings we’ve done these past few weeks, I believe it to be the most theoretically important. I keep alluding to it in my discussions, so I’ll be making it more explicit.

In all, it was a great class. I know there are natural swings to the energy of a class, and last week’s was on the downswing. This week was an upswing. And I’m loving it. I knew the students had it in them. It’s just so cool to see.

That flopped.

I’m fearful that discussion wasn’t deep tonight because the texts aren’t being read as closely as they were at the beginning of the semester. I’m not collecting the annotations anymore, so I’m fearful that the readings are getting short shrift – especially the harder ones like Lankshear & Knobel. I understand the temptation to skim, especially as things heat up in other classes, in jobs, etc., but these are important readings that will move thinking forward. 21st century literacies and skills is where all the professional discussion is.

Now, I’ve come to realize there were some problems in the assignments.

One thing I’ve decided is that the Larson & Marsh chapter on the New Literacies has to go earlier in the semester. Either when reading the Heath piece or when reading about sociocultural theory.

The other thing is, I’m having mixed feelings about the literacy artifact review. I think the assignment needs to be severely rewritten. The way it’s written does not meet my instructional objectives.

Next week we’re going to revisit the Lankshear & Knobel article. I took out chapter 3 from L&K’s book because it is closely related to the ELearning article, so I don’t feel badly about revisiting it.

Why is L&K 2007 so important? It’s the difference between Web1.0 and Web2.0 ethos. The idea that the new literacies afford different ways of thinking about the world and being in the world. It is a shift in our way of thinking about literacy and how the changing nature of literacy impacts teaching and learning. Yes – we need to spend some quality time with that article.

The other thing with the L&K article:  I realized that Mr. Zogby’s use of iPods is an example of L&K call “old wine in new bottles.” He’s really not doing anything new or different in terms of instruction – he’s just delivering it with new technology. What I need to do is find someone who really is doing something new in terms of instruction. Really engaging kids in new ways of thinking that tap into participatory culture. That’s hard to do in the era of NCLB. I’m going to sound cynical here, but I think that the constraints put on teaching by NCLB etc. ensure that the haves stay haves and the have nots remain have nots. If teachers across the board were consistently supported in their efforts to develop critical thinkers, participatory thinkers, web 2.0 thinkers we could have a revolution on our hands (an intellectual revolution – not a violent one). It would upset the status quo, and the job of schools is really to maintain and perpetuate the status quo. Yes, a pessimistic view of things.

This is the germ of an article I want to write. I’m not quite ready yet. I have to immerse myself in the literature before I write.

I’m also concerned that the understanding of critical literacy isn’t developed enough. We’ve got to revisit that too. I need to find better readings on it. I’ve got a new book on order that focuses on critical literacy, so hopefully that will help. I know Dr. Maples focuses on critlit in 652, so I know some people understand it, but those students in 652 are in the minority.

I had been struggling with Larson & Marsh’s separation of the NLS from sociocultural/historical theory. Megan B.’s annotation clarified it for me. NLS explicitly reminds us that literacy practices occur outside the walls of the classroom – which is what Gatto does a great deal of. Sociocultural theory does not explicitly address that, although it is implicit when you understand that learning is a social act.

That’s why essay 2 isn’t going to be a “cut and paste” from essay 1 because it’s going to address expanding definitions of literacy. If the essay just repeats what was discussed in the first essay, the students haven’t progressed. We’ve done a lot of reading since midterm and the ways of thinking about literacy should be expanding. What was discussed at midterm is just the foundation. The rest of the semester takes us into the present and future.

So, next week is going to be the literacy artifact review, and essay prep, but we need to also review the readings in depth. I think it’s time for a short lecture.

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.