Specs and Standards-Based Grading

     I became a proponent of Standards Based Grading (it is quite similar to Specs grading) before I left the secondary level of schooling.  It made sense to me, grade students on mastery of the content/standards that were important to your class.  It was so much more concise looking at the assignments I was going to give and seeing how they aligned to the standards that they were going to be graded on.  I found that it cut down on needless busy work assignments that I never found the time to grade anyway.  I wanted to focus on the important standards for my class, not filling time, and standards-based grading helped me do that.  Now do not get me wrong, as the lone ranger of this model in my school, it was not an easy road to travel.
     The idea behind this type of grading is that you are looking for students to re-visit work and continue to improve on standards, and it also helped to focus on the specific areas of weakness instead of the work as a whole.  For example, I have many students that did wonderfully citing their sources and using correct grammar in their papers, but some struggled with explaining their evidence and linking it back to their claim.  So I then conferenced with them about this skill and gave them the practice to help them with this specific skill.  I didn't have to waste time on the skill of citation because I had already assessed that they had mastered that skill.  I also liked that it let the students know what was expected at every level of performance on every standard (I based the levels off the rubrics that I already used for their writing), this gave the students ownership over their learning and how much effort they wanted to put forth and invest in their own learning.  There were some students that said I am okay with a C because I plan to be a mechanic and I won't do a lot of writing in my profession.  I had to respect their choice and that allowed me time with the students that struggled but really wanted to push their knowledge to the next level.
     As I said, it wasn't an easy road because I had to conform to the school's grading system while trying to implement the standards.  For me, I would've rather had a report that listed each standard and how the student performed on each one, but that doesn't work with GPA and sports eligibility which made my life a bit difficult trying to convert it.  Another issue that I had with grading is that standards-based grading is based on a philosophy of constantly redoing to achieve mastery.  This put a lot of extra work on me, especially when all of my students wanted to redo things at the end of the semester; however, I didn't want to deny them a chance at mastery, so I ran myself ragged trying to keep up.  This is where I think that Nilson in her "Specifications Grading" book is a genius!  She talks about tokens.  Giving students a certain amount of tokens that they can use on redo's and late submissions would have been an extremely useful technique for me.  It would have put the ownership on the students to really put forth their best work in the beginning because they could only have so many redos.  Some would argue that this flies in the face of the philosophy of this grading style because it is about mastery no matter when that occurs in the course, but there does need to be ownership on the student to make sure they are submitting their best work the first time, and a teacher can only do so much.
     I think that this grading is where schooling is going, and I couldn't be happier about it.  From the two short years that I enacted it in my classrooms, I could see the students that were really self-motivated to learn at the highest level.  It really became less about the letter grade and more about where do I go from here?  How can I do better? And to me that is what schooling should always be about!

Monsters and Others

     Race/racism and sexuality in literature can be difficult topics to discuss in any literature classroom, even at the collegiate level.  The topics are so difficult to discuss in part because they are wrapped up in so many personal values and beliefs of students in the classroom.  This throws many barriers in the way of looking at the content because the reader must first acknowledge their own biases and beliefs before they can analyze the beliefs that are portrayed within a piece of literature.
     Last week we read an article by Zuba called, "Monstrosity and Majority: Defamiliarizing Race in the college classroom".  The author talked about taking the approach of first dealing with monsters in the text and how they are portrayed and why, before moving to race and how different races are perceived and portrayed in literature.  This technique allows the students to be objective because they are not emotionally/culturally invested in how monsters are portrayed.  They are open to receiving these portrayals and thoughts and they are open to analyzing why they are portrayed in this light.  Consequently, when the students move from monsters to looking at a race they can more easily continue to use the lenses that they were previously looking at the literature through.
     This concept is similar to the article that we read this week called, "Befriending the Medieval Queer: A Pedagogy for Literature Classes" by Zeikowitz.  He states, "The pedagogical approach I propose here is not restricted to analyzing critically how some medieval texts construct queer/ normative boundaries. Reading queer also invites students to examine how their own cultural backgrounds influence their response to monstrous Others in medieval texts. A queer pedagogical approach to medieval literature thus has a political agenda: its overall goal is to create a society more accepting of difference" (76).  As a teacher, we can see that it is important to critically engage with a text to understand why characters are portrayed a certain way and how that relates or conflicts with beliefs and portrayals in the present day.  Readers need to recognize how their own cultural backgrounds influence how they read and interpret literature to be able to critically analyze the role of the character portrayals within literary works.
    "Giroux's critical pedagogy does not rest with reevaluating the past. He suggests that it can transform contemporary society. This transformation can occur only if students come to realize the part they play in an exploitative and unjust society. A queer critical pedagogy leads students who do not consider themselves oppressed marginalized, or silenced to examine the position of "queer" in texts as well as contemporary society, and, most important, it encourages these students to evaluating critically the role they may play in the denigration of both fictional and "real" queers (68-69)."  This is the political agenda that we see played out in all of these articles, from Zuba to Zeikowitz to Winans.  It is the idea of evaluating your understanding of your role in society of creating the "Others" and once that understanding is present, only then can you begin to "transform contemporary society".  This I would argue is some of the most important work that can be accomplished in a literature classroom, the literature is simply the vehicle to lead to that social understanding and change in society.

 

 

 

The Unemotional Teacher

     As I was reading Showalter's Teaching Literature, I came upon a chapter called "Teaching Literature in Dark Times".  In this chapter, she focuses on what options/reactions are appropriate to responding to current events (generally of importance to the mass population).  Showalter doesn't give a guide for a way that these events should be handled, rather she depicts several options that other professors have used and their results and reflections upon their handling of the event.  Showalter cites the thoughts of Rosenblatt by saying, "Rosenblatt believes that the teacher of literature should not assume a mask of unemotional objectivity or impartial omniscience".  Showalter also addresses the issue that teachers are not guided or taught possible responses in such matters, which can lead to an impulse reaction rather than a well thought out response plan.
     For sure there is no one size fits all plan for how to respond to a devastating effect as a teacher, but I do think that it is something that needs to be discussed at all levels.  I think that many people's knee-jerk reaction is to pretend that nothing has happened and go on with life/class as usual.  I think that this is a mistake, especially in the humanities; after all, I think part of this discipline is teaching humanity.  I clearly remember sitting in a college class when 9/11 occurred, no one rushed in to stop class and tell us what was happening.  We walked out of that class to a changed world.  Even after that class, not a single one of my classes ever discussed 9/11 and its repercussions in class.  One teacher commented on the sporadic attendance since the event, but just as a reminder that attendance is part of the grade no matter what.
     Another instance in my collegiate career was when I was heading to a meeting with a professor before our class started; outside the college, one of my classmates in that class took his helmet off and went to do a wheelie on his bike when he hit a parked car and flew off his bike smacking into the sidewalk head first.  I walked past him on my way to the meeting directly after it occurred, and I remember seeing his head cracked open.  I quickly walked away in shock and headed to my meeting. My professor could see that I was clearly shaken up and he did ask what was wrong, I told him about the student in class and what had happened and then we began our intended meeting.  The professor held class, despite the shock and awe of the students that began receiving texts that he did not make it.  The next week the professor did take a few moments to discuss his reflections on the past week and the revelation that he feels it would have been better to cancel class, as it wasn't a productive class anyway.
     I do not believe that instructors have to totally rearrange their syllabi to accommodate these events, but I do believe that it is our duty to acknowledge and give space to discuss these events.  I think that we need to be the frontline in demonstrating that everyone is human and these types of events do affect people.  They can change your mindset and your priorities, and that is not something that we should be glossing over if we want to create students that are not simply automatons.  Being humane and discussing life-altering events is not a waste of curricular time, it is necessary to humanity and especially the humanities.

Bad Revision

     I am quite interested in the idea of "close reading" texts for a number of reasons.  One of the reasons is that since common core has entered the scenes of the K-12 curriculum it has been a front and center focus.  There are numerous professional developments that exist to teach teachers the craft of instructing and grading close readings.  As a participant in one of those professional developments, the focus was to get students to interrogate the text.  As questions of who wrote it and why, what historically was going on while it was written, how did they format the text, and why did they choose the words and the format that they did (what purpose does it serve for the text as a whole)?  This is similar to the ideas that were put forth in our readings this week also, to interrogate a text and it's choices within, but the article by Kelemen brought up an interesting point.  Kelemen discussed close reading in an assignment that included critical editing and within he hits on an idea that never occurred to me.
     Kelemen discusses an assignment where he has the students critically edit a poem of Chaucer's.  He has students start "with a handful of the manuscripts...Students then transcribe and collate the texts" (Kelemen, 130).  The students then decide what type of editorial focus they will have when they rework the text and then they look at the words and the punctuation and decide what stays and how and what needs to change (Kelemen, 130).  The assignment already has me intrigued, but the brilliance comes into play when he says that the work he expects them to turn will be horrible reworkings of the original.  It isn't until the end when he illuminates the genius of why it's okay to assign this assignment and fully expect horrible results.  He says, "Exposing the inexperience is itself good: students come to know much better not only what sorts of expertise editing requires but also what severity of discipline an edition's exactitude and correctness involves" (Keleman, 136).
     I have always been consumed with everything that I do increasing student's knowledge, that I hadn't considered that having students understand and have an appreciation for what they don't know is also a valuable experience in their learning.  Even through this "bad" reproduction of the work, he says that his students say that they have never been more familiar with a text.  Their own hands-on production of the work has allowed them the insight to understand all the elements of the text better and how the text would or would not be better served written in another format, which gives them a greater understanding of why the text was chosen to be written in the format that it was.  It seems so simple in retrospect, deconstructing and reconstructing a text gives you an intimate knowledge of how it works as a whole, the same way deconstructing and reconstructing a watch allows you to better understand it's inner workings.

The Forbidden "I"

As I am reading Blau's chapter on "Writing Assignments in Literature Classes: The Problem", I am stunned by the blatant statement that colleges do not support the idea that students should not be using "I" in their academic writing.  What truly astonishes me is that I am a doctorate student and this is the first semester I have had to confront this idea.  This is the first semester in my educational career that my professor has told me to have a conversation with the texts, that we should be interrogating the texts.  I have always analyzed texts and interrogated how they correlate or disassociate from each other, but I have written in a perspective of an outsider looking in.  I questioned this professor and tried to clarify. "I understand that you want us to interrogate the text, but you don't want us to use "I" do you?  We need to keep our writing professional and not personal, correct?"  He smiled and said, "Professional is a must, but you can do that using I."  He immediately saw the look of confusion on my face and he pulled out models of lots of scholarly writing that used "I".  Do not think that I have gone to hack schools that do not have students read scholarly works, I have read plenty of scholarly articles-many of which have used "I"-but never had I made the connection that I was allowed this same privilege in my own writing.  These were people whose brilliance far surpassed mine, which allowed them to work outside of the constraints of normal academic writing.  They were obviously in a league of their own and thus afforded their own rules to the writing game; this must have been what I was thinking to never make the connection that I am also allowed to use "I" in my own writing.  I feel utterly terrible for promoting this subversion of personal identity in writing.  I am one of those high school teachers that have focused on my students conforming to an academic writing without the student's voice.  Not only have I taught high school students in this format, but it has seeped into my college teaching also.  I taught a test prep class for teacher certification and in that class, I was adamant about leaving "I" out of the paper.  I give myself a little leeway on this class though because standardized tests have promoted this type of voiceless writing.  One of the words that they use to assess this writing is "objective", and to be objective in writing many understand that to be yourself and your thoughts completely out of the paper.  I think this is where many of the disconnects between college writing and high school writing come into play.  I believe that many high school teachers do not think that students can stay objective if they use the word "I" because they will become too emotionally involved in their writing and let emotions instead of true analysis take over.  Don't get me wrong, this is true in many cases that I have seen at the high school and college levels, but instead of banning it altogether we should be taking a stance of how do we combat the ideas of emotion versus voice.  This idea seems very teachable.  Then, it is possible, that I would not be struggling to change the type of writing I do in my own academic pursuits.  Speaking from my own experience, it is truly difficult to change this behavior 10 years into your schooling when it has become so deeply ingrained in your mindset, that I have to consciously take the time to remember how I think and speak and then try to incorporate that back into my writing.

Reading Critically

     In Sheridan Blau's book The Literature Workshop, he comments on Schole's theoretical framework in regards to reading.  It is stated that the questions that readers should be asking are: "What does it say?", "What does it mean?", and "So what?".  I find this reading particularly interesting because these are the questions that a group of teachers (including myself) was asked to incorporate into our teaching, primarily looking with regards to informational text.  We went to a professional development on close and critical reading through Wayne Resa, and these were the questions that we looked at implementing within our instruction with one addition: "How do they say it?".  Referring back to Schole's questions,  I think that "How do they say it?" can likely fall under the umbrella of "What does it mean?" however, I think it might be important to make it explicit in student's thinking.
     Students are inundated with media of varying types and I think it is important for them to investigate the people behind a message and what strategies they employ to convey that message.  The political speeches that are delivered are prime examples of why it is important to look at how messages are being conveyed.  For example, Trump has talked numerous times about his need to keep America safe.  This is a message that he conveys to the America public, but how does he convey that message?  He conveys it by continually bringing up numerous atrocities that are occurring on our soil as well as across the globe because that engages the instinct of fear within people.  He summons their fears and nightmares and then conveys the message that he can keep us safe from all of this.  This is called fear-mongering.  Our students need to be able to engage in the ability to understand that fear-mongering is how he is conveying his message and then understand the repercussions of such a tactic.
     We want our students to analyze the message and be able to categorize what Trump literally says, how he says it, which will lead them to many different conclusions about what it all means and then finally decide the "So what" for themselves.  Is the so what that they realize that all he is doing is fear-mongering without a viable plan to back up his message of keeping them safe?  Is the so what that they believe that his fear-mongering brings us to an end that justifies the means, that we need this tactic to realize that his plans are what is best for America?
     I think that the question of "How do they say it?" is crucial in our society.  We need our students to be able to step back from ads and news stories and truly understand the tactics that they use to manipulate the feelings of their audience and to understand how that may change the message that they receive.  Most importantly, all of these questions help our students become critical thinkers and not blind followers of the trends of the moment, and we could use much more of that in today's society.

Political Debate Bingo

I went to the Digital humanities conference at Wayne State on Friday, September 30th and one of the many interesting presentations that I sat through was one that looked at popular Bingo's that make political statements. Many of them focused on Sexism however, there were a vast array of topics included. It was discussed that the bingos are not generally used for play, but more of a discussion starter and they are generally read and shared by those that agree on the topics. I thought it would be interesting to make one for the next political debate to see how accurate I am on topics that will be discussed.

Political Debate Bingo

Stronger America	Birther Movement	ISIS	Bankruptcy
Tax Return	Build a Wall	Putin	Terror
Emails	Make America Great	Mexico will pay for it	Let me just tell you
Temperament	NAFTA	Twitter	Wrong
Crooked Hilary	Own reality	All talk, no action	Racist