“Some people would rather die than think”

Bertrand Russell

I do not know if the Bertrand Russell quote is appropriate for this blog post, but since it could be my last post as I believe I have fulfilled the course requirement, I wanted to include it. Like most people, I have been influence by many people over the course of my life; Bertand Russell is one of them. Russell is a fascinating person to learn about, having lived nearly a century from 1872 – 1970, and having an influence in so many different fields. This includes important work on mathematics and logic, social activism including being an outspoken pacifist, and also being a sublime writer, culminating in the Nobel Prize. I highly recommend reading about him, as he is often forgotten in modern society.

Chapter seven of Teaching Literacy had some sentient points, but continues the trend of leaving me scratching my head. I will admit that bemusement is not necessarily a negative thing, but it is somewhat frustrating to feel so isolated from the text. This chapter is entitled “Aesthetic Education”, and deals with a broad mish-mash of topics regarding transactional education. Important is the theory of the “good-enough teacher”, the teacher that is skilled enough to meet the needs of his or her student. I find this hypothesis interesting, as I like to think every teacher strives to be good enough, but clearly not all do. The difficulty is defining this teacher, as being good enough largely differs from student to student, and is hard to quantify. In fact, I have had many teachers who felt they were being a difference-maker in students’ lives, but were actually merely being humored by their students.

Novak and Wilhelm also introduce the “implied teacher”, which as far as I can tell, involves teachers really on artistry rather than curriculum. I do not consider myself particularly dogmatic, but I do think I question this approach. While it is true that many teachers are artistic, and that they often are creative in their lesson designs, fully embracing this philosophy can be a disservice to students. Too often I have experience ambitious activities meant to stimulate my thinking fail where a more basic approach would have sufficed.  I would caution against embracing this approach — at least until one becomes settled as an educator — due to the risks involved. Curriculum has to be taught first, artistic influence has to be in addition.

The third portion of the implied teacher in Teaching Literacy is the “philosopher teacher.” Frankly, I completely fail to understand the role of the philosopher teacher. Apparently, the teacher’s role is to “provide love directly, and they offer it through providing a supportive environment.”  The summation mentions fairly standard evocations, such as making a difference, but the ultimate meaning is lost on me. After one paragraph of definition, a full five pages are dedicated to the author’s stories. I found this unnecessary and off-putting, feelings I have felt far too often with this reading. While Deeper Reading and Critical Encounters have proven to be valuable resources, I cannot find too many redeeming qualities in Teaching Literacy. I think I am too cynical and skeptical to be open-minded enough to give it a chance, unfortunately.

“The love of learning, the sequestered nooks, And all the sweet serenity of books.”

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Chapter three of Critical Encounters deals with the pervasive high school literary theory of reader response. Rather than evoking the benefits of these methods, Deborah Appleman cautions on the perils of overuse. Indeed, most, if not all, teacher candidates are familiar with reader response from their high school careers. Yet, at the time, we could not identify it for what it was, and only used this method of evaluation because it was what we were made to do. Appleman suggests that teachers use reader response when it is appropriate, but not without explaining the purpose of its use. For example, the above quote from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, while amusing and endearing, is not really appropriate for this discussion!

That is not to say Appleman is not a supporter of reader response. In her words, reader response has made the study of literature “more relevant, immediate, and important.” In fact, she sees reader response as the logical evolution of the education system. As constructivist and progressive thought pervaded the field, the focus became the student, and reader response is the obvious response to this. Ultimately, these changes served to empower students and give them more personal connections to their work.

Appleman provides numerous cautionary tales to support her argument that reader response is overused. For example, one teacher received a response from a student that was more about the student’s life than the text. Reader response also focuses on the individual; society today requires a great deal of cooperation and collaboration. Other criticism deal with the implementation of the practice.  Many teachers fail to explain the purpose of reader response, somehow assuming students understand the utility. In many cases, this leads to students just writing what they hope the teacher wants to hear, rather than anything of meaning.

So, what is a teacher to do? If reader response is underused and poorly explain, what is to be done. According to

, teachers need to “pull back the curtain” and inform their students of what they are doing. Rather than treating reader response as the modus operandi in English, it needs to become just one tool used by students to analyze texts. This is where the other, oft-ignored literary theories come in. In Appleman’s opinion, good teachers should incorporate these methods with reader response to broaden his or her students’ understandings. And I would be inclined to agree.

“To doubt everything, or, to believe everything, are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.”

Henri "Crazy Eyes" Poincaré

This post, regarding chapters eight and nine of Deeper Reading, should hopefully contrast well with the previous response to Teaching Literacy. That is because chapter eight of Deeper Reading is entitled “Leading Students to Meaningful Reflection” and chapter nine is called “Reading the World.” While Teaching Literacy served as an academic position on reflection, Deeper Reading presents a true teacher’s perspective. Gallagher begins with the question that all teachers – and teacher candidates – are familiar with, “Why are we reading this?”

First, Gallagher mentions many responses that are guanteed not to work, including the prospect of good marks, the threat of punishment, and vague appeals to authority. The two responses he recommends are suggesting the book is being read because “it’s a great story” and because “it affords us the opportunity to recognize and appreciate the writer’s craft.” Thus, teachers should choose literature that contains a great story and a significant amount of craftsmanship. However, Gallagher stresses that each text needs to be chosen for specific reasons. In his example, he tells his students they are reading 1984 because it “demands that students consider their obligations as adults in a democratic society.” These reasons, the general and the specific, serve to guide students in their reflections as they interact with the texts.

As always, Deeper Reading contains a wide array of example activities that are genuinely useful to a neophyte teacher. There really isn’t much point in listing them all, but they are generally creative and well-reasoned. Rather than espousing reflection for the lofty – if not cryptic – goals of Novak and Wilhelm, Gallagher stresses that all reflection should ultimately answers the question of “why are we reading this?” It is recommended to start with personal reflection and slowly broaden the issue until it involves all of humankind. These “Circles of Reflection” help students understand their place in the world, and encourage them to think about the human condition.

Chapter nine greatly ties into reflection, but focuses on teaching critical thinking about the world. Gallagher notes that students are often “woefully unprepared” to actually question what they are told. This is the specific reason I included the above quote by French mathematician Henri Poincaré. He notes how pervasive consumerism, propaganda and advertising is in today’s society. Therefore, he suggests numerous activities to get students to critically evaluate what they encounter. Even things that seem concrete, such as statistics, are not immune to alteration to fulfill agendas. Much of what Gallagher promotes should be regarded as basic civics lessons for today’s students.

“Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him.”

John Locke

The final dimension described in Teaching Literacy is the Reflective Dimension. As John Locke notes in the above quote, formal education is only a portion of becoming enlightened. To truly become knowledgeable, one must incorporate their own personal views into their mindset – reflection. This is a common trend in modern education, yet often implemented incorrectly or ineffectively. To truly work, students have to actually reflect on meaningful events in their life to actually influence their own thinking.

Reflection is a word familiar to every student in the College of Education. To be honest, it is brought up so much that many of us satirically poke fun at the constant reflection. Deep down, however, I think all of us – ironically when we reflect – actually appreciate the importance reflection has on teaching. Many of us were exposed to transactional reflective teaching in our own schooling, and generally acknowledge the effect it has had on our lives. Otherwise, we would be going into teaching with an ingrained philosophical opposition to current methods. This would only make sense if one hoped to change the system from the inside out – maverick style – which I feel few, if any, teacher candidates expect to do.

Much of this chapter is devoted to an exploration on what influence the authors’ own teaching – reflection on their own experiences, really. This exercise is both insightful and frustrating, as it buoys many of my own ideas about what influence me, but at the same time gives the appearance of narcissism by the authors. The overall theme is that of aesthetic reflection, what the authors define as “a blossoming of the love one has felt for an implied author through a transitional object in a meaningful understanding of how the power of that love is in very large part the accumulated power of one’s own life force and how this needs to be exerted in one’s actual life.” Essentially, I understand every word in this sentence, but struggle to glean any sort of actual coherent meaning.

I’m now realizing my response to this chapter is lacking cohesion, but I would like to suggest this is because the chapter itself lacks cohesion. While I appreciate the value of reflection, I am not totally sure how the authors sharing their own experiences benefitted me. Ultimately, I think having more content that focused on the student could have made the benefits of reflection more apparent. I have always appreciate the phrase “show, don’t tell”, and think it should have been applied to this chapter more thoroughly.

“Every author in some way portrays himself in his works, even if it be against his will.”

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The second dimension of responsiveness, according to Teaching Literacy is the Connective Dimensions. This connection is meant to be formed between the reader and the author, or at least the authorial intent. As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe stated, even in the most intentionally non-fictional works, some aspect of humanity representing the author remains. While the range of visible authorship ranges from overt to obscured, students can learn a great deal about the work’s motivation by thinking of — or like — its author.

All of the aspects of reading are interrelated, in this case, frontloading can be both evocative and connective. Prior to reading a text, a teacher can introduce information from the authors life, especially if it influenced the work. At the same time, care must be taken not to infer things that the author has never stated. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to pretend an author’s work was not influenced by events in their own lives.

Novak and Wilhelm present several useful activities to help students understand the author’s motivation. On particularily memorable example is that of the “author’s chair.” In the exercise, which could double as a game, one student has to take the place of the author, and attempt to explain the choices they made in writing the work. This activity has many variations that can be done in groups, in reverse, etc. What they all have in common is fostering exploration of authorial intent.

In all honest, I am not sure how I feel about the Connective Dimension. I think we often try too hard to link an author’s work to events in their own lives. For example, The Lord of the Rings is frequently described as an allegory for World War II. J.R.R. Tolkien himself denied this several times, even in the foreward to the novel, yet the view still exists. Examples such as this suggest this kind of thinking can compartmentalize authors by their personal upbringing and characteristics, which is almost a subtle form of prejudice.

“We don’t know a millionth of one percent about anything.”

Thomas Edison

This quote comes from a great inventor, Thomas Edison, and illustrates how much there is to learn about if one opens their eyes. I feel this ties in greatly with the fourth chapter of Teaching Literacy entitled The Evocative Dimension. Essentially, Wilhelm and Novak point theorize that their are three dimensions to responsiveness: Evocative, Connective, and Reflective. I will attempt to decode what exactly the authors mean by this, starting first with the aforementioned Evocative Dimension.

Evocative is defined in the dictionary as  “bringing strong images, memories, or feelings to mind.” In that sense, the Evocative Dimension refers to a text engaging with a reader on a personal, emotional level. Wilhelm and Novak suggest that current educators often fail to allow any engagement to occur, leading to students who read the text from a distant point of reference, or worse, not at all. In failing to do so, teachers are essentially missing an opportunity to create meaning for their students.

Novak and Wilhelm suggest that for literature to be evocative, there needs to be a certain amount of “Frontloading.” These gateway activities are a way to allow students to activate prior knowledge and approach texts at a personal level. In my mind, this essentially means students have a stake in what they are reading. Frontloading can take many different forms, but the example given involves getting students to bring in aspects of their own lives. In this case, on a unit about humour, the teacher asked students to post links to websites that they found funny.

The next point Teaching Literacy makes is the importance of pleasure to reading. It is not so much that as educators we want students to have fun — we do, but it is not our priority — it is the fact that unpleasing reading is ineffective. The authors indicate many students create a clear line between their home reading and their school reading, as one is enjoyable and one is a chore. A good educator strives to erase this boundary, giving meaningful texts that are also interesting to students. I have already discussed this regarding Gallagher and choosing appropriate texts, but it is truly an important base. Without a solid text to build open, the lesson is doomed from the start.

“The best teacher is the one who suggests rather than dogmatizes, and inspires his listener with the wish to teach himself.”

Edward Bulwer-Lytton

Chapters six and seven of Deeper Reading deal with the collaborative nature of teaching. I thought the above quote, by Edward Bulwer-Lytton, was appropriate because it shows that teaching is not merely about being an expert. Rather, teaching is about collaboration with students, other teachers, and in some ways, the text itself. Bulwer-Lytton, I might add, was a nineteenth century British nobleman and author who coined the phrases “the pen is mightier than the sword”, “the great unwashed” and the classic — some may say cliched — line, “it was a dark and stormy night.”

What Gallagher stresses in Deeper Reading is that “there is not a single book on Earth that is completely understood by any one person.” At first glance, this idea may seem pretty straightforward, and frankly common knowledge. But the more one ponders it, the clearer it becomes how the fallacy of the teacher as expert is often implemented. Thinking back to my own experience, I realize it was the teacher — the cynic in me says the teacher’s edition — who developed the conclusions of what we had read. Our only object was a paltry summary of each chapter to prove that we had read the work. Only now do I see how this was a wasted opportunity for collaboration.

Gallagher suggests that getting the students to work in groups is the single best way of creating understanding. What makes Deeper Reading an invaluable text — as it does in every chapter –is by giving concrete ways of actually implementing this strategy. In the case of group work, a primary goal is avoiding “hitchhikers”, that is, students who join the group but do not actually participate. One consideration is the size of groups; Gallagher suggest three is an ideal number, as it includes a variety of opinions, but also discourages hitchhikers. My goal is not summary, so I will not list all the aspects discussed, but overall, the chapter successfully covers every variable I can think of.

Chapter seven, in contrast to chapter six, deals with an important figure of speech: the metaphor. Long a staple of primary education, the metaphor is something that I have been taught numerous times in my days as a student. However, rather than merely stating the obvious, Deeper Reading explains why the metaphor is a critical part of the English language. The three main points are that metaphors enliven ordinary language, require interpretation (and this require higher-level thinking), and create new meanings. While most students are aware of the existence of metaphors, this chapter successfully illustrates why they are so important. To round out the chapter, Gallagher suggests several graphical organizers that can be used by students to identify metaphors. For some reason, this is the first part of Deeper Reading I do not actually find useful at all. Maybe I am not fond of learning visually, but I felt that these tools actually promoted the kind of simplistic thinking that Gallager is rallying against. Feel free — actually, I encourage you — to disagree with me, as I am very open to suggestions of why these are useful.

“Education… has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.”

G. M. Trevelyan

Hardly anyone disputes that the modern educational system has allowed the vast majority of the population to become literate — undeniably a great achievement. What critics have pointed out, as G.M. Trevelyan’s quote illustrates, is that schools have failed to actually allow readers to gain a deeper understanding using their new found literacy. In essence, literacy was a wasted gifted. Trevelyan, a historian, was a staunch believer in the common man, and was greatly disturbed by how easily they were deceived by those in power. In many ways, this lesson is more relevant today than ever.

Critical Encounters in High School English addresses the gap that exists between the superficial understanding realized at the high school level versus the more advanced analysis used at the post-secondary level. Put simply, Deborah Appleman is embarking on a mission to incorporate literary theory into the high school classroom. Her analysis of the current situation — I believe correctly — surmises that teachers are currently using two methods of literary theory in the classroom: New Critical and reader response. The issue is that teachers often never explain the methods being employed to their students, and in some cases do not even understand the theories themselves.

The most memorable aspect of Critical Encounters is the extended metaphor of a pair of glasses. Appleman contends that while any reader can understand literature at the most basic level, the different “lenses” of critical theory can be applied to see things differently. Thus, applying a feminist lens while reading a novel does not change the content of the novel, but can influence the meaning derived from it in many ways, much like a pair of sunglasses changes the saturation of an image, but not the image itself. While a common criticism of literary theory is that academics are frequently creating explanations that are not really what the author intended, Appleman suggests that literary theory can actually reveal reality.

The undenable truth is that high school students have yet to be exposed to a wide range of worldviews. The goal of introducing literary theory is to illustrate the concept of multiple perspectives. This reminds me of a TED Talk we watched in class by Chimamanda Adichie called “The Danger of a Single Story.” Without the varied of lenses of literary theory, teachers may be unintentionally telling a single story. That is, the literature that is introduced in class will be analyzed from a single perspective — most likely a white European perspective. That is not to say this perspective is wrong, but rather that a richer understanding can be gained by understanding a story on several levels.

“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. “

William Butler Yeats

This quote, from one of my favourite poets, William Butler Yeats, is a critique of the “banking” system of education theorized by Paulo Freire. Generally speaking, it suggests that students are not empty vessels meant to be filled with knowledge, but are autonomous humans whose thought processes and judgement are equally valid. This is something I have always held true, before I was aware of the philosophical connection.

Deeper Reading, by Kelly Gallagher, is a textbook that emphasizes teaching children how to think on their own. More specifically, it gives advice for teachers in order to help get their students to think on their own. In my opinion, it does a very good job of outlining methods for instructing English Language Arts. Gallagher’s prose is concise and clear, but does not state the obvious. He clearly has developed his knowledge from actually working with children, which I prefer to theory-driven work.

The part of chapters 1-5 that stuck to me most was the three keys questions that we need to ask students after they have read something:

What does it say?

What does it mean?

What does it matter?

These three questions summarize the purpose of English Education more clearly than whole works on the topic. Simply put, students need to understand what they read, understand what the author’s intent was, and understand how this applies to the real world. In my opinion, the last step is usually the least emphasized, which is why there are continual accusations of English not applying to real life.

The most useful aspect of Deeper Reading is the exercises Gallagher has developed to help achieve the aforementioned goals. Sometimes they are less than obvious, such as focusing the readers before they begin, which even veteran teachers sometimes forget to do. The range of options is immense, but some that I found particularly interesting were “theme spotlights”, in which students are asked to engage with big ideas, or “focus poems”, where a small poem sets the stage for a larger work. The best part is all the examples are based on literature that teachers may actually use in the classroom.

Deeper Reading is a teacher’s textbook, that is, it actually helps teachers construct their lessons, rather than focusing purely on theory. Thus, it is the most valuable resource I have yet to encounter in the College of Education. Not only is it incredibly valuable to me as a teacher candidate, I also look forward to reading more, as Gallagher is an interesting and enviable writer. I can say with certainty the text will be near the front of my bookshelf for years to come.

“Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.”

John Dewey

Well, after finding out that they had the Internet on computers now, it is my great pleasure to present my eclectic, spastic, and sometimes irreverent — but not irrelevant — views on eduction.

The titular quote, although a tad cliched, sums up the philosophy I feel a teacher must possess. It relates to the idea of lifelong learning, and the knowledge that education is much more than what lies within the curriculum. Of course, it comes from a good source, John Dewey, one of the preeminent educational reformers from an era long passed.

I would like to begin my blog by exploring the first three chapters of Jeffery Wilhelm and Bruce Novak’s work, Teaching Literacy for Love and Wisdom: Being the Book and Being the Change. Although we recently discussed the textbook Deeper Reading by Kelly Gallagher in class, this was technically the first assigned reading, and feels it gives a better introduction to the idea of education.

If I were to summarize Teaching Literacy for Love and Wisdom with one word, I would describe it as ambitious. Novak and Wilhelm set out not to better equip teachers — as I will soon describe Gallagher doing — but in reforming the entire system of English education. As they ambitiously declare, the time for implementing “Personal Studies”, their replacement for English is “now, at the same time as we seek to interactively solve our social, political, and ecological problems” (73).

In theory, the ideas espoused in the initial section of the book are both well-meaning and selfless. However, I find the argument breaks down at times when the authors attempt to get into detail about their new worldview. Rather than presenting their ideas in clear, sensible and useful ways (as Gallagher does), Novak and Wilhelm seem to dwell on small issues, quoting philosophers and educators arbitrarily and often unnecessarily. In my humble opinion, the prose often veers off into academic jargon that, while I was able to understand, made the work resemble a well-meaning but impracticable literary criticism paper.

Nevertheless, I come into the College of Education with an open mind, and understand that some people may find Teaching Literacy for Love and Wisdom incredibly insightful. It provides a broad overview of the profession that Deeper Reading does not, and clearly has an ambitious plan for the complete overhaul of the field. While the language is sometimes unnecessarily heady at times, I still found it valuable to read the text.