Kelly Gallagher's Readicide is a text that I think we can all relate to whether it was as a student or as a future teacher. I thought that every conclusion that Gallagher made was spot on and made perfect sense. As I looked back on my high school and middle experiences I couldn't help but realize that readicide was heppening right in front of my eyes. One point that he made that I took interest in was when Gallagher wrote, "Teaching to the test is not the problem. The problem occurs when we spend most of our time teaching to a shallow test" (Gallagher 12). I think this is aboslutely true as we see it in classes all of the time. It typically involves a story where the teacher force feeds you information and you spit back out in order to ace an exam. However, just touching the surface of a story is not the way to get students to think critically about any text that they encounter. Any more it is quite easy for a student to slip through the cracks and take a test, ace it, and not really no much about the text at a deeper level. I feel like this causes a lot of problems all across the board. It allows teachers to get away with doing the bare minimum and not testing students in a way that they can compete globally with critical thinking skills. In my high school, it was clear to students what they needed to exceed in a class. In an honors english 11 class, one teacher read aloud The Great Gatsby. In doing so, she would pause after certain paragraphs and tell the students what information was important and what they should write down in order to do well on the test at the end of the book. According to Bloom's Taxonomy, this teacher was barely touching the surface of the knowledge or comprehension category. This also pushes students away from wanting to read and not an effective teaching strategy. Instead of reading to them she should have allowed these students to explore for themselves and not be tested on facts or the teacher's opinion. It is no wonder that students tend to despise reading after taking english classes like that. They are not allowed to form an opinion and these multiple choice test leaves students with no way to interpret and enjoy a text the way that they want to. If they read the way they want to then the teacher would be "promoting literacy" without saying so.
Personally, I found that Chapter 2 was eye-opening and my favorite between the two chapters. With that being said, I would like to take a closer look and express my opinion on a few of the bigger points that he makes. The first point that he makes is when he states, "Unfortunately, putting good books in front of our students has not been the focus in many of our nation's schools" (Gallagher 30). Once again, I completely agree with Gallagher and how books are few and far in between. Even in Chambersburg, where I live, there are no bookstores anywhere to be found. Therefore, students are not going out and exploring what types of books they might want to read. Instead, they are being confined to the literature that teachers have on the shelves. However, even if we did have bookstores there is the case that students wouldn't go because they have such a bitter taste in their mouths about reading. That is why it is neccessary for teachers to have an array of books in their classroom and it is important for students to see their options as well as for teachers to encourage and promote books just like Gallagher did. They are often forced to read the literature that is on the shelf in the classroom but is that enough? I don't think so. Books in the curriculum have been accessible to students but how are we to create lifelong readers if they don't have options of their own to choose? It is a great disservice to students if with our budget we cannot use it on what is important. Of course, it all has to go with what teachers find a priority and I think that a lot of people need to step back and see what is really important. The more options students have the more likely they are to find something they like to read. It also allows teachers to work with many different genres and to see what students like to read and how they're reading. That way, teachers can tailor their teaching to what they are observing. That, to me, helps create a good teacher.
Another thing that really stood out to me that I have taken notice to is how students as well as adults are not spending their time reading things that pertain to real-world events. I like Gallagher's idea on implementing this when he writes, "These are real-world writings taken straight from news stories, essays, editorials, blogs, and speeches. I cull them from newspapers, magazines, and websites. Sometimes the articles are related to the unit we are currently studying and sometimes they are completely unrelated, but all the articles have one purpose-to broaden my students' knowledge of the world" (Gallagher 47). It is disturbing how much about America, and our government, and our history that students do not know. I think it is just as important to discuss the bigger picture when teaching just as it is to teach the text. Not only is the article idea a good one to add, but it is also important to talk about these events if they correlate with a text. When teaching texts like The Hunger Games it is crucial that teachers make students understand how it relates to the world today and the events that are occuring. Once again, how are people supposed to compete globally when they do not know critical things about where they live? It is really concerning and our job as teachers to make sure that we have them read not only literature but texts that directly relate to the world we live in. Connecting concepts of the world to concepts in a text is a great way to get students more interested in reading and a good way to use unconditional texts to teach (basically anything else other than a book).
One concept that Gallagher brings up that I don't agree with fully is that of SSR and its importance. Personally, I loved SSR when I was in school; however, it is easy for SSR to become a waste in the classroom. When I was in school there were times when students would simply sit there and stare at the page. Ever so often they would flip the page to make it seem like they were reading. Also, kids would often pick a book that they read before so that if they had to reflect on it they would have something to say or something to write about. I think it is crucial that students read for pleasure but I think there has to be a more effective to do this. I have been pondering to solution but I simply cannot find an assuring way that they are reading. The only thing zi could come up with is that students should start book clubs when they SSR. Give the students a few different choices of books to read; however, make the choices plentiful. Then once they are done reading for the day have them get in a book circle once a week to discuss the book that they are SSRing. That way, as a teacher, you can walk around and make sure everyone is sharing something and it is a way to make students read the books.
One of the most important, if not the biggest point he brings up that I agree with is when he writes, "Many schools have removed novels and other challenging works to provide teachers and students with more test preparation time" (Gallagher 56). This is sad but very true statement. With the pressure of standardized tests it seems as though a lot of schools are making school a place where there is one focus (standardized tests) instead of many scopes of focus that make a student well-rounded. How are students supposed to learn texts if the focus is not on the texts? It seems as though more and more teachers are supposed to rely on the literature books alone and not texts such as Jane Eyre. Obviously, is the length of the pieces and what they want students to know. For example, in a short story in a literature book there may be a story where there may conflict similar as to one in Jane Eyre. However, schools may find it wise to choose the shorter story in that the concept still gets covered but in a shorter amount of time. Once again, this is a disservice to students. Long novels are not long because these authors choose for them to be. It is because they contain substance and validity that pushes students deeper. It is VERY important that students are exposed to these texts because they are tools in english that are important. I am not saying that all novels are just as important or that shorter texts are not. I just think it is sad that longer books are being cut because standardized tests have consumed a classroom. In order for students to be effective readers they need to think critically and search far in the text. The playing field is not level and it seems that it is becoming even more off balance now that important texts are being removed.
I guess the biggest question is how ELSE should "we teach literacy". We should teach it with an open-mind and in consideration of the students. To practice literacy students need to be engaged and it needs to capture their focus. For example, Gallagher makes this claim when he introduces students to I Know What You Did last Summer (Gallagher 52). You need a way to entice them to read without any catches. Not to focus on tests or to spill out information back to the teacher. They also need to be engaged in real-world news that can be reached in a text (Gallagher 46-47). Basically, in order to get students back in to reading they need to shift what is important for students.
I guess a big question would be. How do I plan on teaching literacy? I think the answers go back to what Gallagher has been saying in his book. Naturally, I will be expected to teach towards standards because that is unavoidable. However, I still want to make sure that students do not resent reading. I want to give them options. I think that is the key. Give them plenty of options. I also want them to understand that reading is more than knowing the facts or rehashing what people have been saying since a piece has been written. I want them to form their own opinions and be able to express their opinions effectively and back them up. I also don't want to bog them down with tests in class and stress them out even further. Their assessments should be more about what they want to tell me..not what I want them to tell me. I want them to be confident in what they say and know that I am not going to grade them on my beliefs. I feel that it is important for them to think critically...as long as they do that then I would be happy. I also want to show them that these traditional literary texts are important today. As a whole, I do not want them to read, listen to me talk, and re-say what I say. I want themt to read both things I find important and things they want to read, hear what they have to say, and have them present their ideas and theories. I think students would be more apt to read if they knew that their opinions were valued and could be formed independently.
Overall, Gallager is on key with what he says in this very engaging text. Even if a person just read the first sentence they could realize how right Gallagher is in his claims. His first sentence states, "When we consider what to do about readicide, we must start with the elephant in the room: how the overemphasis on testing is playing a major part in killing off readers in America's classrooms" (Gallagher 7). It is these tests that are giving the wrong impression to students about reading. These tests are making students read things that they might not be interested in, it is consuming their classroom, and it is putting a lot of pressure on them as well as the teacher. As english teachers it is our job to help students engage in texts, learn from them, connect with them, and be inspired by them. That is how one can "promote literacy". Every day it seems as though those opportunities are more and more limited. That being said, students are resenting the english class as well as books as whole. I believe that America's Educational Gods have their heart in the right place; however, I do not think their mind is in the right place. If they want to see improvement in schools why don't we go back to the basics? Back to where learning was about the students and teaching them in a way that would be beneficial. English should be about a spectrum of things, not just one thing.
Side note: I am in a coffee shop writing this and someone asks me what I am writing about and I tell her. She then decided to talk really loudly about what is wrong in American schools and pretty soon the whole coffee shop was in a huge discussion about schools. Awesome....
No comments:
Post a Comment