David E. Kirkland recalls a time when a student in his class expressed his frustration while reading Beowulf, a text which Kirkland asserts offers no connection between the student and the reading. In other words, the students simply are unable to relate themselves to the text and experience a sense of alienation, leading them to question what the point of reading the text is. As Ball and Freedman indicate, the “ideological self” acts as an “identity apparatus” that culminates ones “present interests and past experiences” (Kirkland, 200). Kirkland refers to these as “reading ideologies”, and argues that these interests greatly influence one’s reading practices and literacy engagement. In other words, if a reading is not relevant to the student’s experiences or unrelatable, chances are the student will express a sense of apathy towards the lesson. Kirkland offers a hopeful view of how American schools can dispel the image of apathetic, rowdy, and uncooperative black men from classrooms, and issues this task to be completed by teachers who must “reconfigure this failed scene and insist on another that is capable of characterizing a new sort of narrative”.

Do you agree with Kirkland? Is bridging the gap between student apathy and student attentiveness such a binary fix as relatability/unrelatability? 

Customizing Literacy for Diverse Learners

Much of what we have learned in this course has been based on the introduction of new ideas. As Buehl states in Chapter 7 of Developing Readers in the Academic Disciplines "So much of what we endeavor in our work with students pursues the possibilities of extending who they are"(264). This is a question that is important to note as we continue our studies: are we allowing, through our mediation, the evolution of identity or have we created an dictatorial space where all students become mini versions of ourselves. Many times, we have been faced with teachers who are a little bit of both, allowing for the free expression of ideas but driving students to the same conclusions with the force of knowledge and a classroom bordering on a cult of personality.

When we think about the classrooms we desire to have, it is in the best interest of the teacher to not have a dominating identity in the classroom. The injection of personal bias into teaching is inevitable, but it is important to monitor what is being said in our classes. It is righteous and vital to know the dominant narratives, especially in the realm of history and society, and teach our students to question that. When I was in middle school, the mere thought that I would ask my history teachers about Kwame Nkrumah and Stokely Carmichael was enough to turn them an even lighter tone than what can be assumed.

When we have students who ask these questions, we should not attempt to deflect. It may not fit into our lesson plan, but we should always provide a space for the ideas and notions a student has, whether that is in, before or after class. As I am won't to draw from Freire, I will do so again. "If the structure does not permit dialogue, the structure must change". This statement is applicable as much in our own classrooms as it was when Plato taught Aristotle over 2000 years ago. Create the spaces which allow for questions, controversy and a flourishing of oppositional thought and identity.

Customizing Literacy Practices

To be completely honest, I came into the semester rather doubtful of the course. I thought, "How is this course even a requirement? I am trying to be a math teacher, not a literature teacher." I really had never given much thought to literacy in terms of math.

It is easy to come in with preconceived notions. We have always linked literature and reading to Language Arts courses yet we rarely put it into other contexts. In grade school through high school we are given textbooks to learn from for most subjects yet textbooks were never really classified or even called "literature". We reserved literature and literacies for Shakespearean novels and the like.

I personally think that this closed mindset seems to be changing. With our ever-expanding technology and access to new knowledge at the click of a button, we are able to better expose students to different texts and literacy practices.

It is vital for us as future teachers to take different strategies and mold them to fit our own curriculum. If we see an interesting and or helpful strategy used in history why not customize it to our own discipline. By using different literacies we essentially broaden our students' mindsets and make them think outside of the box. We must teach different skills to our students so that they are ready for the difficult readings and tasks that lie ahead of them. In using different strategies we can hopefully make them enjoy reading and search for more information outside of the classroom.

The Importance of Critical Digital Literacies

 It comes as no surprise that critical digital literacies, or “those skills and practices that lead to the creation of digital texts that interrogate the world [and] allow and foster the interrogation of digital, multimedia texts”, have a great deal of potential in terms of benefiting students (Avila & Pandya 2013).  For one, they can offer an opportunity for better engagement to students that are less inclined to engage with printed work.  Furthermore, they can also blur the line between teacher and student and, most importantly in my opinion, “disrupt traditional banking systems of education” (Freire, 2000).

This is a great benefit to students because it allows them to participate more actively in their own education, instead of simply receiving a ‘knowledge dump’, so to speak.  And so, while the incorporation of digital literacies into one’s classroom can be challenging, their ability to promote knowledge ownership and critical thinking make it worthwhile.

Critical Digital Literacies

     

          The first reading "Traveling, Textual Authority, and Transformation: An Introduction to Critical Digital Literacies" showed the different ways teachers can bring critical digital literacies to the classroom. Avila and Pandya explain that "critical literacies provide skills and tools to address social and educational inequalities and assist us in continuing to read the world". We want students to think critically about their surrounding as well as view social justice and culture within their own classrooms and build a connection to the world.  It's also mentioned that "Critical digital literacies are those skills and practices that lead to the creation of digital texts that interrogate the world". By doing so students would have a better understanding of what goes in their own neighborhoods and even go further and look into their own states and so on. They also mention that "critical digital literacies have the potential to reach learners who might be otherwise reluctant to engage in print-based critical literacies work". Going back to what we have learned, this type of engagement becomes beneficial as we want students to become engage in the classroom. By bringing in topics we can get students to "critique the cultural worlds they inhabit".  Avila and Pandya do a great job in explaining why it’s beneficial to incorporate Critical Digital Literacies in the classrooms. Critical literacies provide a gateway to a student’s self-identity in the world as Avila and Pandya mention "we need to teach intentional authoring in multi-modal design so that learners can develop their own senses of who they are in the world in relation to others". We keep hearing and reading that as future teachers we should be able to engage students in the classroom and by bringing such social and cultural dynamic to the classroom. It would engage students to think about the world and how it can be either connected to them or to other people.

          This then brings the use of such technologies. We are in a world that consist of technology so what better way to engage students to think critically about the social justice and look into the different culture within their school. As suggested in the reading “the use of blogs, iPods and mobile media, videos, and digital storytelling” become handy in providing the tools to engage the students to the world. The article explained how to use such devices and I do think it's a good way to show students how the world is perceived. But I began to wonder how could this be incorporated within a Math discipline. Or more specifically how can Math teachers provide students with right tools to critique the cultural world and engage them in social justice? 

Social Justice and Culture Through Critical Digital Literacies

The question that the readings were trying to answer this week was how can teachers support critical approaches to literacy that engage in social justice work with texts. Because many of us will eventually become teachers in the Chicago Public Schools or other urban settings, understanding how to work social justice into our teaching is exceptionally important. Chicago is an area where there is an uneven distribution of wealth and there can be a drastic change in culture from one neighborhood to another. It is extremely important for us as teachers to expose our students to the idea of social justice and to expose them to other cultures and people in Chicago and around the world.

One way to bring social justice and different cultures into the classroom is through the use of critical digital literacies. The Avila and Padya article explains the benefits of this strategy well. From other readings in this class and others, I have learned that one of the most important things a teach must do is to make sure students are engaged. In my opinion, the use of technology is a great way to do this. As Avila and Padya theorized, “critical digital literacies have the potential to reach learners who might be otherwise reluctant to engage in print based critical literacies work (Avila 3).” If we can engage students through digital means, then I believe they should be implemented.  Using technology also can expose students to a multitude of culture much easier than traditional print texts can. At the click of a mouse, students can be exposed to culture and social justice issues in their own neighborhoods and all around the world. Vila and Padya also stated that “critical digital literacies provide opportunities for students to critique the cultural worlds they inhabit (Gainer, 2010) and to expand their understanding of culture (Avila 3).” In this current political climate, I think it is more important than ever for students to learn about the many different culture of the Chicago area.

The use of critical digital literacies also allows students from many different cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds to interact with one another. This is one thing I do not think that print literacies are as capable of. They allow the “privileged” to “interact alongside the less privileged (Avila 5)” exposing them to the social economic injustices that exist in our culture. Avila and Padya also quoted Dyson 2010 stating “classrooms too should be defined by such participatory culture where there is not a linguistically proper “us” and an improper “them” to be fixed. Rather, there is a “we” that embodies distinctive linguistic and social cultural histories that intersect to open a classroom world to the larger society (Avila 4).  I really like the way this was put and I think this is very important in order to prepare students for their next steps.

Overall I think the use of critical digital literacies is a great way for teachers to expose students to many different cultures around Chicago and the entire world. Through the use of blogs, I pads and other technology devices teachers are able to show students a cultural world that was not available as easily a decade ago.  

Chapter 5.

In chapter 5 of Developing Readers, Buehl presents us to a type of learning that situates the student in a manner that most would not be accustomed to. That being of inquiry based learning. Seeing that this class focuses on literacy and skills to improve literacy within our students, Beuhl focuses on inquiry mind sets in students for when they are presented with disciplinary/literacy text. Throughout the chapter the point that is being presented is that students, through the help and mentoring of teachers, must be able to learn to question what they are reading while reading. In other words, students must be reading for inquiry not reading for answers, which is what most students commonly do.  As Beuhl refers to, and as Wilhelm states, “students must be the ones asking the majority of questions and doing the bulk of the classroom talk. They must shake off the passive role of receiving information and become apprentices who actually do the work of the disciplines they are studying.” Not only does this sum up what I believe is they main idea of this chapter, it is also a good way to transition to the bulk of the remaining chapter; which are examples and key aspects of disciplinary taxonomies based on, and parallel to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Through the use of these disciplinary taxonomies that students will be taught to use for self-question, students go through the six stages; creating, evaluating, analyzing, understanding, and remembering. The goal, and what we as future/current teachers must take from this reading, is that students must be the ones who seek out knowledge, through our guidance, in order for true knowledge to be built.

1. Here I present a simple picture that depicts what inquiry is not, hopefully making clearer what the chapter is saying what inquiry actually is.

With all that being said, I do have a concerns that arose in my mind as I read the text. The concern is that of the subject I plan to teach and that is the subject of mathematics. While Beuhl does touch on mathematics with his explanation of types of questions to ask one self, as a student, and then provides a simple taxonomy for it, I still have one major concern. This concern is as follows; as Beuhl states that we must create an inquiry based mindset in our discipline, when it comes to math, to what degree should this be met? In other words, while we teach children how to solve problems, they might ask why this is important or how this applies in real life, are we also expecting them to ask why this mathematical material is correct? What I mean by this is that until recently in college courses, I never asked myself why this is correct or why this happens, and it wasn’t until a college course where I was presented the answer to these questions. I learned a simple question such as “1x0=0” becomes a complex proof and something I had difficult figuring out. So to what extent are we expecting children to question and to what extent do we answer?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know

     Buehl elaborates on a topic that I am very familiar with at my high school concerning self-questioning taxonomy (Bloom's Taxonomy). I was introduced to the concept several summers ago while creating curriculum material for our World Civilization classes and we had to begin incorporating these ideas into our classes. "Bloom's Taxonomy offered us a blueprint for our instructional planning by helping us conceptualize how thinking at progressively more sophisticated levels might be integrated into our work with students." (Buehl, pp 180). 

     Bloom's Taxonomy allows us to create questions that promote deeper thinking and understanding of the material that we teach by having them question the reading--which is no easy task, especially if the students are not interested in the material. Hence, selecting and promoting relevant and meaningful material is crucial for success in this regard, which I had to find out the hard way in my classroom since this aspect was not given in our summer curriculum training. If we get students onboard with material that can interest them, then half of the battle is won since they are more likely to thinking more deeply about what they are learning. My first big leap this semester in this regard will be to have them read my personal financial money rules and have them question all fifteen rules since they have expressed critical interest in my money rules while teaching them basic economics in our ancient history units. It is my hope that since some students like to challenge teachers as a matter of fact, why not give them opportunity to challenge me in a constructive context that will get them to think more deeply and provide to them the ammunition to accomplish this.

     Collaborative teamwork and think-pair-share and other forms of teamwork will help students begin to see the metacognitive thinking processes as well by working with their fellow apprentices. In my experience, team efforts will go a long way into building deeper frameworks of thinking as students can teach one another than if you tried to do this individually. 

     But there is also the problem that still persists that some students feel they cannot do the deeper levels of thinking because they believe they do not have the thinking capacity. That is why we also need to promote the idea of a growth mindset and teach them that they do not possess a fixed mindset but that their intelligence can grow and develop. But they have to be convinced of this if they are to get anywhere.

     Thus,  a teacher can incorporate Bloom's Taxonomy to his or her's heart content, but unless one thinks about other critical factors like relevancy and growth mindset and other important issues, you will not be able to get very far with your students in the daunting task of getting them to think more deeply and begin to question what they read. It takes time and practice and even some tears before you start saying some crucial results. Even now I am not fully satisfied with the results at times, and I must reflect constantly on what else I can do to tweak my methods. But in the end, it will be worth it as you see your students begin to grow into more capable thinkers. 

Self-questioning Through a Disciplinary Lense

Throughout my elementary and high school education, my job as a student was always to answer the questions provided by my instructors. Even while writing essays, my job was simply to answer the question provided and use evidence to back it up. However, this all changed when I entered college since some classes  made me responsible for writing my own essays without having an actual question to answer. As a college student, I was suddenly responsible for understanding the complex disciplinary text assigned and writting my own essays based on my own questions and arguments. In the beginning, creating my own questions based on readings and answering these questions through essays was complicated for me because I was so used to simply giving answers and not questioning the text. This is due to the fact that in traditional classrooms, teachers often ask the questions while the students simply provide the answers. However, the questions that students are asked are often used to simply check for comprehension and often have a right or wrong answer. Although these type of questions might seem like a great way to check for understanding, in reality they do not help students think critically. Thus, as educators we must move away from designing questions to check for understanding and instead focus on creating questions that will help students understand.

The reading for this week indicated the importance of helping students ask meaningful questioning through a disciplinary lense. If students are able to ask meaningful questions they will gain a better understanding of what they read and can monitor their own thinking. Thus, as educators, we must help students look at the bigger picture and help them think like insiders of a particular discipline. This can be done by  modeling our thinking process as we read and by asking students essential questions. This is due to the fact that essential questions can be used as bridges to connect the new material being learned to the student's prior knowledge and can even spark genuine interest. Asking our students essential questions is also important because they are arguable, which means that they  require students to back up their answers and evaluate their understanding.

Additionally Buehl,  mentions that students must be able to think in all six cognitive levels. These levels include creating, evaluating, analyzing, applying, understanding, and remembering. Thus, we must promote self-questioning taxonomies using specific disciplines. By promoting self-questioning taxonomies we can promote deeper thinking. Since these meaningful questions can guide students thinking and understanding.

Chapter 5: Building Inquiring Minds Around Disciplinary Texts

Doug Buehl opens Chapter 5 with this essential question: "How can teachers mentor students as disciplinary readers, writers, and thinkers?" What is the answer? How can teachers tackle such an enormous challenge?

I think Ben Franklin hit the nail on the head, involvement. Students need to be involved in learning to understand it---to own it.

I believe Buehl fostered this idea as well with the vignettes he provided in the beginning of the chapter. Buehl reasoned that he is a disciplinary expert in baseball because he can provide first hand experience along with devoted research to the game. His wife on the other hand, is categorised as a disciplinary expert in classical music because of her years of playing violin and her dedication to the art. Both feel confident being engrossed in their preferred areas of discipline because they have a great variety of connections to the discipline. As a teacher, I try to bring this frame of mind to the table. I strive to incorporate this percept into the planning, delivering, and reflecting of teaching. If students are provided inquiry based learning their ownership of learning enhances and therefore can be applied to further problem based learning.