So, concurrent with teaching this class, I’m also plowing through data gathered from a multi-state study of upper elementary and middle school first and second year teachers’ teaching practices using new literacies tools and, bigger, tasks. Of the 112 participants, about 15% actually worked during their first year to integrate new literacies practices throughout their teaching — and 50% used at least one instructional strategy or activity that fell into that work. The challenge of how we’re looking at that is that in order to “count” the practice needs to put kids’ hands onto the tools – and kids need to be using them to create, produce, evaluate, synthesize, etc. (In other words, it isn’t enough to lecture using PowerPoint and call that multimodal presentation of information…) The survey data and follow-up interviews of randomly selected teachers reflects that there were three basic ideas that guided their decisions about what to teach and how (and, SURPRISINGLY, none of those had to do with tangible access to “stuff” or tools as we talked about in class) — they consider (in no significant order) what their students have learned in past work – and how a new literacies task would thrust that forward (to use an interviewees’ phrase), their students’ likely knowledge of the tool/task, and what the positive impact would potentially be of implementing it. What surprises me about this is that they don’t consider what they do and do not know as users/teachers/writers… Nor are they thinking about instructional time, access to resources, or, what I thought would REALLY be a big deal – if anyone else had ever done it in that way (again, either in that school or within the community influencing/informing their practice – i.e., like those who are writing about their teaching). Does it surprise you?
Category Archives: writing
One of the blogs I read most often is written by Ewan McIntosh, a teacher, thinker and new literacies theorist in the UK. He included this image in a recent post , and I was really struck by how it played into the words and ideas of Murray, Rief, Newkirk and other thinkers in the field of composition rattling around my head. Any reading is a re-writing, in part through the process of connecting and combining of that text in dialogue with all of the other things we think, and read, and know. Murray talks about the “new composition teachers” who don’t have all the answers but DO have an inventory of pedagogical strategies ready to deploy. He explains “all we see or hear connects with something else, passing through out unconscious and conscious until it ripens into a subject that is ready to write” (11). So, that leads me to wonder – we’ve all had those brilliant, compelling teachers who captivate our thinking and inspire us to work harder. Do those teachers have the largest treasure trove or collection of texts and ideas to draw from – or is it the way in which they interweave and connect those texts and ideas (and, perhaps, tools) that they do have?