How Do You Define Literacy?

While reading through my education-related feeds, I came to an interesting post on "The English Blog" written by Jeffery Hill. He teaches overseas and blogs about learning, writing, and speaking English. I do not deal as often with learners of English as a second language, but his post brought up an interesting point. His quote from a local radio program got me thinking:

"The ABCs are apparently no longer as easy as 1-2-3. Recent federal studies indicate that the average American teenager's vocabulary is less than half that of the average teenager in the 1950s."

This comment made me recount my recent lessons in English literacy through my undergraduate and graduate studies at Missouri State. Naturally, I read the post carefully a few times again and composed a response to outline my thinking:

"I think the valuable question we need to ask ourselves here is, "how important is knowing specific words to literacy?" Does knowing what "abscond" means help people to do business better? Does understanding what "ad hoc" means help you write a better poem or essay? Communication and composition are specific only to the environment that their authors occupy. People learn what they need to in order to accomplish their goals. If teens today know less words than their parents, then is it a crisis or a sign of shift in literacy? Maybe this generation is redifining the word."

After I posted my reply, I sat back in thought. Did I really think that a lack of vocabulary represented a shift in literacy or was I simply playing devil's advocate to this easy-to-accept commentary on the lazy youth and their social media addiction? What research could I find to support my statement?

I turned to E.D. Hirsch Jr. and his best-selling book on cultural literacy in America. In this book, he has lists of words, dates, and phrases that "literate" Americans should know. Do you know the significance of 1066 CE? How about absolute zero or amicus curiae? These are supposed to be common terms that Mr. Hirsch requires of you. Maybe you happen to know when the Battle of Hastings was because you were a history or an English major in college, or because you were on the quizbowl team in high school, but otherwise why should you know it?

Of course, I would tell you that learning about the importance of historical events would enrich your life. If you know that the Normans defeated the English in 1066, then you may come to learn that this military event changed the face of the English language forever. Many of the French words present in our vernacular today were introduced by good ol' Billy Conqueror via the sword and arrow.

That being said, would you really say to someone who didn't know the significance of this date, "I'm sorry, but you are illiterate" ? I hope not. What kind of message would that send to people? I think Hirsch has only the best intentions in mind as he writes that you should know what "aeschylus" means. He is saying that you should want to be smarter (and I agree). He says only 2/3 of our society (in America) is truly literate. Is there really a "network of information that all competent readers possess" or is literacy something more than common or shared knowledge?

I think that literacy has more to do with conveying and understanding ideas than with specific words, phrases, or concepts. If you don't understand covalent bonding or absolute zero, but you can define curricum vitae and synecdohe, are you more or less literate than a person who can do the opposite? It sounds like the first person teaches science and the second English, but I would say neither are illiterate for having very specific gaps in their knowledge.

While it would be wonderful if we could count on every American to be able to discuss the importance of stereoisomers in optical science upon pulling out a pair of sunglasses, I don't think it's necessary to be considered literate. For most of the third of America that Hirsch sees as illiterate, I would imagine their chief concerns are more to do with basic needs than their intellect.

Hirsch has a lot of great data to back up his thoughts on literacy, and I agree with a lot of it, but he uses a lot of anecdotal evidence too, like in the introdcution. Ben Stein recalls his experiences with California high school students, claiming that in many years not one has ever been able to tell him the dates of any US war, any of the first ten presidents, or where Chicago is. I find that very hard to swallow. As a teacher in a sub-rural Missouri public high school, I could easily find ten students in five minutes who could answer all three of those things clearly.

There is validity to the arguments though. Students are pump and dumpers when it comes to reading, learning, and testing. Students usually can't tell you who that World War I started in 1914, or 1917 for the US involvement, because they only chose to remember it for "the test." It is the challenge of the teacher to help students build knowledge connections so retention of information is easier. I think Hirsch comes to this point as well, that of making connections; I think we're starting on opposite ends of the same spectrum though. He gives a determined set of information that people need to digest to be literate--a product to be obtained--while I think the process is where literacy is built.

In the words of Avenue Q, "Slow down, guys; it's not a race!"

I want to discuss the speed of our units. I often find myself taking longer to accomplish units, yet I am still on pace or ahead of schedule on the curriculum. I sometimes feel I am a snail crossing a busy road. One teacher may say, "Oh, that novel is fast and should only take five days." Another teacher might say, "I teach characterization in about 20 minutes." At this point, I feel like a cartoon whose jaw dropped to the floor. I can't imagine teaching some of these hard to understand and master concepts in such short period of times! I then wonder: if my class and I are moving so slow, then why am I not having such a difficult time completing the curriculum? I think I may have a possible answer.

I think, sometimes as English teachers, we mistake curriculum with literature.

Allow me to explain using the following lists, and be honest about which way you think while planning:

First, we will start with The Most Dangerous Game, then move to
A Sound of Thunder, spend three weeks on To Kill a Mockingbird, then read Through the Tuner, then and then Seabiscuit, then The Gift of the Magi, and then A Cask for Amontillado. Hopefully, we can get through all of this by Thanksgiving.

OR

First, we will learn plot structure, then the elements of characterization, then symbolism, and then irony. We will practice these concepts in literature in the book. Hopefully, we can get through all of this by Thanksgiving.

I find myself planning more through the first list more than the second, but I believe the second list to be more beneficial and curriculum based. Really, couldn't all of these concepts be taught and applied in any of the above literature.

I spend three weeks on The Most Dangerous Game. I'm sure many of you are shrieking at that amount of time. We read three-quarters of the story out loud, we annotate together, and then I let the students read and annotate the final 10 pages or so by themselves. Even after the individual practice, I still talk about each of the things they should know about. I want to make sure they understand what they are reading before we move on. Further, I will spend two to three days introducing and practicing the elements of plot. I spend about three days introducing and practicing characterization. Again, I'm not sure how 50 minutes is enough for students to fully comprehend all the types of characterization and how one determines the traits from the story.

Where do I make up the time? I spend the slightly longer time on the literary concepts, and then we apply all the discussed concepts together as we read together. We may not be applying the concepts to all the stories in the literature book, but we are applying all of the concepts together to fully comprehend a story.

I haven't had this experience here, but at my previous school, my students would come to me before class or after class and ask, "All of the other students have read six or seven short stories now. Why haven't we read them?"

I then replied back and asked, "Apparently, you have talked to other students about their stories. Did they say they understood the story?"

The students replied back, "No, they didn't get it."

I asked, "Do you understand what happened in The Sniper and The Most Dangerous Game?"

They replied, "Yeah."

I then said, "That is why.

This year, I the students complained about the Post-It note assignment for To Kill a Mockingbird. My Post-It note assignment is asks the students to find the literary concepts as they read, write the example and labeling the example on a Post-It note, and then place the note in a notebook for use later on with our projects. I told them from the beginning we are not speeding through this assignment, and you cannot do multiple chapters or sections in one night. We will be reading through the book slowly, but we will understand the literature. We did one chapter a day, and I gave them class time to work on the chapter. Yes, we spent over a month on one book.

However, about two-thirds of the way through the book, a student in each of my classes said, "I hate you Tibbles!" (They were exaggerating.)

I asked why.

They replied, "Because now when I read a book or watch a movie, I keep finding similes and metaphors, and I am predicting and looking for character traits all because of your stupid Post-It notes."

I smiled and said, "Then my job is done!"

In summation, I believe the focus of units for reading ought to be on identifying and analyzing literary concepts rather than on the number of stories. I believe we should focus on quality and not quantity. This year, I am guilty of breaking this idea more than I have in my previous two years of teaching.

I'd love to hear from you all, especially any opposition! Unfortunately, my computer is having difficulties responding to posts. I'm working on a solution. Take care all!

What is in the plot?

Apparently, I have decided to use this blog as a philosophical outlet discussing why we teach the things we teach and do the lessons we do. My posts are not, nor never will be, in response to a specific teacher or instance, but rather about trends I am noticing at conferences and from conversations with teachers from here and at other schools. One nice thing about coaching speech and debate and traveling every weekend to tournaments is I have the opportunity to talk to teachers from all over the area about what they are doing. Plus, since I am a trained speech, theatre, and mass communications teacher and English is my secondary certification, I can, perhaps, give an outsiders perspective of the field. Anyways, I hope you enjoy my posts. I look forward to discussions and responses.

I have always been confused about the empahsis on the rationale of teaching the plot of stories. The first day of school, I tell my students I am not an ordinary English teacher. I don't care if you know, according to posters I see around many high schools, the plot of the top 100 books all people should know. I don't really care if they can regurgitate facts and details about Romeo and Juliet, The Scarlet Letter, or any other story I am required to have them read.

I really don't care.

My fellow comrades, when is The Most Dangerous Game REALLY going to play a role in the future lives of our students?

It won't.

What I do care about is teaching them how to fully comprehend and analyze ANY piece of literature anyone places down in front of them. I care students can determine the point of conflict in the story, what challenges and obsticles the characters face in achieving their goals (the rising action), where the characters have to make a decision they cannot escape the consequences (the climax), and I care they can analyze the consequences of that decision (the falling action). We all know these stories were not just written to entertain people for a few minutes each night, although the stories can be entertaining. The authors are making some sort of argument. I care that my students can understand when the sun shines or meteors fly in the sky or clothing starts glimmering like metal in the Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne is making a statement about right and wrong and not just saying light was shining in a certain direction. While I don't care if my students can tell me about the names of the families or state the events in Romeo and Juliet, I care my students can comprehend the old English language and be able to comprehend Romeo's mother committed suicide because Romeo is was exciled.... without me having to tell them Romeo's mother committed suicide.

Other than to check if the students are actually reading the assignments, I don't understand why emphasis in classrooms and assessments on literature is on what happened in the story, opposed to analyzing why the characters are doing the things they are doing, evaluating the actions and effects to the characters, and tunring these themes to connections to their own lives.

I know, I really am a strange English teacher.

Expectations

The handout McCabe provided at PLC this morning has the quotation, "Lowered expectatiosn only give you lower outcome." I find this maxim especially true. I know I'm not beloved by students, but when I ask them why, they always say things like, "you make me work," or, "you actually make me do things." I never have issues with these answers. I guess I plead guilty as charged. However, because of my higher standards, I've noticed a couple things: a) my students have performed incredibly well on common assessments, and b) I now find students who fought me at the beginning of the year about having to do work telling other students complaining about turning in work on time to, "just do it." (Like the Nike commercial!) I now also find I have a group of students who come to my room before and after school on their own accord to do work because I will challenge them. I admit, with the nice weather, I'm expecting attendence to dwindle for awhile!

As I type this blog, my freshmen students are working on Odyssey projects. The students, for a mere 100 points, are excited about doing the equivallent workload of two three-page essays in 10 days. While the students have the opportunity to do different projects, including cartoon drawings, videos, and other activities, the workload is still the equivallent of two three-page essays in 10 days. Not bad for freshmen level! Not bad for junior level! Despite the difficulty, I find the projects, the essays, the videos, the drawings, and the other projects much more relevant and beneficial to the students than a quiz or test over the plot.

I worry about the lowered expectations in k-12 education. I worry this trend is leaking into the college level. I remember from my days of a professional grader (as opposed to any better name for my GTA position there) essays looking like poetry because the student thought changing the margins to three inches to make the length requirement wouldn't be noticed by me. I remember collegiate essays where "evidence" is wikipedia or blogs by someone named, "Cinnamon." I guess if Cinny said something is true, then it must be true! I believe many of these issues can and should be addressed at the high school level. If the we, the educational community, expect our freshmen to only be able to write a paragraph, then we shouldn't be suprised when students at the beginning of the year cannot combine ideas in a structured essay.

I admit, I was lazy in high school. I called myself the King of Procrastination. I assure you I earned every word of that title. However, I remember my junior honors English teacher who whipped me into shape. She made me work harder for my C than I have ever worked before. The hard work didn't just knock the lazy out of me, but the hard work also taught me more about English literature and writing than I have learned in all other classes in my life combined. Without her, I know I wouldn't have been able to survive the WVU graduate school, and I definately wouldn't have three publications to my name. I'm planning on writing a letter thanking my junior English teacher for these lessons; however, I'm too afraid I will make a grammar or mechanic mistake. Even after nine years, I still don't want to disappoint her!

This post is a referendum on k-12 values and ideals as a whole. I hope teachers, in general, realize their students maximum potential. Accomplishing this potential may not always be fun or easy. In fact, often the path is quite tedious and difficult. I just enjoy students, at the end of the year, looking back at what they have accomplished and saying, "Wow, I used to write like that?"

Plus Snacks

I saw this just after Lisa and I set this blog up and it made me laugh. Since we're going to be talking about using this blog at a meeting for the first time on Monday. I figured it would be a good place to start. Let's make sure we consider our time wisely (be it wasted, spent, or saved) and enjoy some snacks along the way :-)


I found this fun image through a contact in my PLN (which you will find out about later), Scott J. Elias, a principal at a high school in Colorado.