My first encounter with Shakespeare.

            How I managed to bypass all of high school and three years of college without having a single piece of Shakespeare’s works is beyond me.  So here begins my delayed introduction.  I first thought I should get some background knowledge of Romeo and Juliet in its original form, rather than just taking my first interpretation from the magna version only, so I checked out a version from the library.  When I started reading the original, I quickly noticed I had to substitute a lot of the “F’s” for “S’s, and “V’s” with “U’s” and so forth.  So stuck, unknowingly, with the most primitive version of the play out there, it made for a very long read, and I often had a vague idea of what was going on.  I thank the magna version for clearing all of those ambiguities up.  And I cannot say much about the magna other than the fact that I really enjoyed it for the effects the illustrations played in supplementing the emotion and pace of the reading.  I thought how useful this would be in the classroom for getting the students acquainted with Shakespeare’s work in the sense that they would be familiar with the characters, plot and so on, and most importantly, having a fun time with Shakespeare.  From there, we could then transition into picking out some passages from the original play for analysis, or if time permits, read the play in its entirety. 

            Given I have so little background about Shakespeare and his works in general, I chose the article, “Goals and Limits in Student Performance of Shakespeare” by Charles Frey, wherein he discusses approaches he found most appropriate for students’ involvement with Shakespeare.  He specifies that conventional methods in teaching Shakespeare only orient students with the task interpreting the work the way the teacher wants them to, or a certain critic.  Rather than letting the students be the recipients of instruction, he structures his semester around having students first learn the bare essentials of the plot, characters, “unusual syntactical groupings . . . complexity of sentence[s]”, and so forth.  From there, Frey then breaks down his class into small groups where each group is designated a particular passage they would prepare to act out.  He finds collaborative efforts make for the best learning, and when students are asked to act out a scene, he finds they are usually passionate about making a genuine performance.  What can I conclude from his approach?  I like it.  I like that he is concerned about a taking the time to have students fully comprehend the grammar and unfamiliar syntactical patterns of words before moving on to a group based project.  And from the small scenes that are acted out, students are taught how tone, emotion and other theatrical conventions are employed to gain a better appreciation and understanding of Shakespeare’s work.   

Promoting technology in a suitable manner in the classrooms, but are there consequences?

When I read the article by Mark Bauerlein, “Decline of a Literate Culture,” it shows the statistic of our nation’s literary reading dropping almost twenty percent in young adults over the short span of two decades. And I felt that I instantly knew the answer as to why, which is a marked increase in technology – computers, cell phones, gaming consoles, and the internet.  All of these things have become more prevalent and more convenient to use as we move forward.  So when I read Tracy Tarasiuk’s article about moving the English class towards a more technological standpoint in order to be up-to-date, I began to understand that although the Internet is one of our ambivalences, insofar that it consumes much of our students time which may account for them not getting homework/projects done; but it can also serve as a great “medium,” like Tarasiuk explains, in getting our students to learn/connect to literature.  The part I respect most about Tarasiuk is that she was willing to take a chance with something she was uneasy at first about, but she was willing to let her students speak to her, in the sense that she observed what their hobbies were and asked what interested them.  So although we may sometimes feel that we are compromising a bit too much for our students because of what had worked for us learning in school should also work for the next generation, which isn’t necessarily true.  Tarasiuk knew how to differentiate her teaching strategies and made it effective, and I think that can only be done successfully if we’re willing to listen to our students and identify what works for THEM, and that involves supplying the right stimulus to have learning occur.

In addition to adapting her teaching strategies, she also found a way for each student to voice their opinion in a way that mattered, such as the wikis where each definition of a word had to incorporate some element of a student’s own interpretation.  So I think this collectivist approach the author takes is really useful, and could be effective in our classroom setting as well.  Furthermore, by knowing how much her students emphasized in putting quality work on the internet (YouTube videos, etc.) that if they work they published would be viewable by a large audience, then the effort put in their work would be more developed.   Overall, she knew how to make the classroom a fun and interactive place where learning was mediated by technology that the students were well acquainted with.  And from this article, we witness again how much it pays off if we’re willing to understand what interests our students and devise a learning approach that works for them (Wilhelm dwelled on this a lot), even if it does seem unorthodox to how we may have come up and been taught in the classroom.

However, it seems to me there is always going to be a pressure for us to keep on top of our students with the use of technology in our classrooms.  It’s just scary for some us to think how domineering all of its use really can be.  I had already been in a classroom that was taught by a professor on a TV screen, teaching to three different locations live.  It’s convenient, of course, but is the direction we’re heading in going to make our jobs obsolete someday, where thousands if not more can be taught by televisions and the like?  It’s easy to make connections to Feed and 1984 where technology had directed the peoples’ lives without the need of any human interaction, and unfortunately, it was for the worse.  Whether it was a capitalist or communist society the aforementioned books presented, it seemed irrelevant because technology was the main culprit for dictating/censoring the people.  What are your thoughts? 

Censorship could be leading us to a sterile society.

                Ok, so censorship is obviously bad from what our preconceived knowledge tells us, plus from our readings this week.  An ironic thing I found is the book we had read, Feed, is a likely candidate for being controversial (due to offensive language, drug discussion, and sexual themes) and thus being censored in the classroom, when one of the largest themes surrounding the book is the detrimental effects of censorship- but a disgruntled parent or a fearful school board member would look past the big picture of the book and only focus on the minute details that support their personal ideology or social standing. 

                Do you think Feed gives us insight of how our society is slowly transitioning into a state of censored citizens, contented with trivial activities as a way to occupy ourselves from larger issues surrounding us?  How much did technology and marketing divert the characters of the novel that they never looked outward to see the deterioration of their state?  Through the instilment of fear and diversion the head haunchos, those that ran all the ads and regulated the “feeds,” were the ones profiting off everyone else.  They accomplished their goal – which was to censor and push their products so that the average joe was a mindless occupant that cared for nothing but the latest fad, device or “hip” party upcoming.  They played the part for their destructive ideology so well.  What was the use of education?  Their feed could give them any facts they wanted to know right then and there.  So what was the use of the teacher, right?  A teacher would’ve been a counterintuitive model to the working of their society.  No, the good morale and knowledge of language and history that a teacher can provide would not jive with the ignorance these people relish in.  For instance, the Watts Riot in the 60’s widely known for police brutality and racism is shed light upon in the novel, because if someone can replicate a top and call it the “Watts Riot Top” and market it to a bunch of white suburban teenagers for a quick buck, they’ll do it.  Ignorance is bliss, though, right?  Not really. 

                One of the most astounding aspects of the novel I found was, which correlates to a large percentage of our society today, is how the consumer views everything on a product basis, even people.  Many people I believe could care less about the events unfolding in Libya right now, except for when they starting bombing the oil lines over there that we see an increase in our gas prices – yeah then we’ll start caring!  “Hey guys, cut the crap over there so speculators don’t have a reason to raise our gas prices!”  Only when issues hit near home will people generally start caring. When the Narrator is viewing Violet on her deathbed, he mentions “it was like being in the room with her if she was wood . . . [and] I had thought it would feel like a tragedy, but it didn’t feel like anything at all.” Don’t you think this is in large how a lot of our society is today?  Apathetic, like Wink, from one of the earlier articles we read, would describe it.  It’s becoming widespread that people view others as they would their consumer goods, a disposable and replaceable device.  So what if Violet died?  He would have a new girlfriend shortly to easily take her spot.  So what if his “up-car” got destroyed?  He would have Daddy buy him a new one.  That’s the overall mood taken on.  In addition to this apathetic point of view on humanity, people are also too much inclined to be a passive participant in a lot of areas.  It’s safer and easier to follow the status quo for fear of capitulating our social standing or possible monetary losses.  Think about it.  Wouldn’t it be playing it safe if we listen to the Principal to not attempt to teach a particular book for fear of parents’ outcry?  In doing so comes the possibility of us jeopardizing our job (like Marlowe being forced to resign).  Would it have been worth it to put all our investments in our education if we take the risk of losing the career choice we pursued initially, all because we had an active voice standing up for the students right to learn?  If not, a censored teacher plus a censored lesson plan for his/her students equals an overall huge deficit in their education. 

Just like our writing, active voice should be employed more than passive voice.

What is the biggest thing the authors from the articles we read want us as future teachers to do and instruct?  -  To have a voice.  Although it’s not that easy to accomplish, as we probably know.  I think there is a big conflict, like we read in Karen Wink’s article with teaching in a Military school, when the men and women are told to cooperate as a group and abide by order – as they have done from boot camp onwards.  And then in a classroom setting, Professor Wink wants her students to have an active voice rather than being passive.  Going off Pavlov’s theories, these students were conditioned to be the recipients of orders from months on end, and now they are told to have an individual voice – can you imagine the conflict occurring in these students’ minds? 

Like Wink referenced to in her article, these students don’t want to speak up for fear of compromising the group – whatever that may be, I don’t know.  But if we apply this to a broader scale, people’s social stigma can easily influence how we are going to act in certain situations, whether they are active or passive.  For example: You witness police brutality of an innocent man, and the cops know you saw the incident and they say, “If you report any of this, you better get used to living the rest of your life in a wheelchair.”  So what would you do?  Speak up and risk your physical well-being even though injustice will stand uncontested?  I use an extreme example because these situations do arise, obviously.  “’First, they came for the Jews / and I did not speak out / because I was not a Jew. . . . Then they came for me / and there was no one left / to speak out for me,’” and here we discover why being a passive participant can have implications, too (85).  Would we rather die having a voice possibly making an influence, or die for the same reason, anyway, without one?  Change will never occur if these systems aren’t challenged.  Back to Wink’s classroom when the one student, Derek, spoke out on Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” essay about promoting individualism when he was taught to perform collectively for the past however many months.  Derek was simply “generalizing” that because he obeyed orders in boot camp and held the belief the group dictates the response given, then, he could not have an individual voice of his own, now.  A lot of people apply this concept today based off past experiences.  Since I did so-and-so and was passive then, I may as well continue that pattern now because I got by that way before.   Hopefully we can encourage students to realize they have a voice of their own and that it matters, without having the fear of compromising their social standing in whatever little “clique” they are in at the time.

I thought about how we could apply a lot of what was detailed in these articles, and I was especially fond of Raquel Cook’s idea of having a bunch of posters on the walls that can get students thinking.  When our words drop on deaf ears, these posters will always be where the students can see them day-to-day and sit there and contemplate their meanings.  Cook also made herself available as a great facilitator of knowledge as well.  Rather than telling her students what they should believe, she would provide impartial material such as photographs or stories that the students could then ponder over and develop their own interpretations.  Was the American media feeding us lies about the events that occurred? - “’I don’t know . . . I wasn’t there,’” Mrs. Cook would state (20).  I like this way of teaching, because we are never imposing information on our students, but instead letting them construe their own meaning from the text or photographs.  Also, her promotion of having an active voice, like Wink argued for, is important because this knowledge is too important to keep silenced and must be transmitted to others, or else they fall in the same trap of inaccuracies, contradictions, and stereotypes like some of Cook’s students were exposed to before taking her class.