The computer=the new pen and paper; The internet=the new round circle discussion...I am not an old-school snob, but socialization is still necessary.

I am willing to admit that I am old-school when it comes to writing. I prefer pen/pencil and paper/notebook to any other writing tools. It could be that I am simply a creature of habit, but it is not that simple...I do not feel connected if I am not writing it down. My fondness of digital writing and communication continues to grow, but I will never give up my old-school ways.

However, I believe in media literacy, and part of why I continue to learn about it is because I know it is important for students in the world today.

Creating a class wiki and/or student blogs is certainly a way to decentralize the teacher and give students power over their own learning. In addition, it sets up a space that students can navigate without the pressure of speaking in front of their classmates. However, it is equally important that the social aspects of discussion are still emphasized and learned. Technology is a great tool for getting students out of the teacher centered dialogue while also building their technological literacy, but face to face socialization, or at least the language involved in face to face interactions must be incorporated into the learning or any technology.

I am not an old-school snob. I know that what is comfortable or relevant to me is not necessarily comfortable or relevant to current high school students. I recognize that the world I have already learned to navigate is very new to the younger generation and that the tools needs to succeed in contemporary society are very different from the skills that I needed many years ago. Regardless, the one skill that I needed and still need is the ability to communicate, appropriately and effectively.

I agree that so many wonderful things may come from the use of technology in education: inquiry, identity, enlightenment, motivation, creativity, etc. Students with technology experience can navigate this world better than those do not have the experience.

The trouble is access, overuse, and resistance.

Access: Not all schools have access to technology that allows teachers to bring it to students, or worse, teachers bring it to students but students have no access outside of school to develop those skills.

Overuse/Misuse: Just because it's technology does not make it relevant to student learning. Technology should have a purpose like any good lesson, it should not be used as a babysitter and it should not be used just because it's there to use.

Resistance: Teachers, students, and parents may be resistant to technology simply because they do not know how to use it or they feel it is not educational. When teachers and parents can see the possibilities, they may be more likely to support a move to technology in the classroom. Students may be resistant because of lack of access, lack of knowledge, or their ability to know that the teacher doesn't know what he/she is doing. Teachers need to be willing to tell the students that they are learning too and make it a group effort rather than a dictatorship. Again, as mentioned above, technology is a great way to decenter the teacher.

Overall, what I like most is the idea of endless, global collaboration. Technology has changed our small neighborhoods into entire worlds of information exchange. How amazing to imagine students from all over the world collaborating on a project. Also, this hones in on my determination to still focus on socialization skills. Just because it is technology does not mean that the human element goes away, in fact, it is more important to know and understand face to face socialization and language because without the face to face there are no physical clues.

Bottom line, we are living in a technological world, whether access or no, so we owe it to our students to prepare them for the world they are going to enter. You don't send a mechanic out to fix a car with a doctor's medical kit, so why would we send our children out into this world with only paper, pencil, and knowledge of standardized testing? The tools need to fit the job, and if we want our students of today to be the leaders of tomorrow, then we must equip them.

Evaluation!

On the first day of the term, my cooperating teacher gave the students a writing assignment. They were to write about themselves for her. She explained that she would not share the essays with the class, that the essays were to help her get to know them. She gave them a few ideas about what to write about and off they went.

Well, to my surprise, a few WEEKS later, she handed back the essays and had graded them! She marked students off for grammar, length, etc., and she used red marker--I was in shock. You should have seen the looks on the students' faces. Some of them looked as though they felt betrayed and others looks embarrassed. I didn't know what to say. How do you evaluate and give a grade on something that you said was for your personal knowledge. There was no indication that she would grade this.

What would I have done? Each student would have received a response from me without a grade. I would have used the essays to get a general idea of where the students were at with their writing and to get to know them, but some of them shared some very personal information and they were graded on it without warning!

I believe in personal responsibility, and I think that teaching students to evaluate their own writing before you ever see it is beyond valuable, but it must be done with their knowledge. I cannot imagine grading students on something that I didn't even mention I would be grading.

Now, the students moan and groan if they are asked to write and then they raise their hands constantly to make sure they are doing things correctly. It is so sad to see them so defeated that they don't trust their own skills.

I know from experience that the best way to evaluate is to be clear about the evaluation, to give student the opportunity to improve their writing before handing it in for a grade, and sometimes allowing students to gain extra points for revision. It is about them LEARNING, not about JUDGING.

RE-VISION:

Teachers need to re-vision their approach to teaching grammar. I struggle not to jump out of my seat as I watch a teacher put vocabulary and grammar exercises up on the overhead that have absolutely no connection to what the students are reading or writing. It baffles me that teachers think this works. Then at the staff meeting when all of the teachers for one grade are annoyed that their students are failing the grammar and vocabulary tests, I want to jump in and say, "well, if I gave you a list of mechanics tools right now, and then in 20 minutes tested you on the tools and what they are used for, would you have learned the information? Or, would it be better if I had you all gather around an engine and participate in fixing the engine while learning what all the tools are for as well as all the parts of the engine?"

Of course, I don't say this because I want to keep my options open for a job next year, but that does not make it an less difficult to hold my tongue. It seems so intuitive to me that I don't have a lot to say except, "we must teach things in context." Why is this concept foreign to some?

Also, there is such judgement in the classroom about intelligence based on grammar. I know it is anecdotal, but I know a lot of brilliant people who cannot spell or write a complete, syntactically correct sentence. These skills are important, and I plan to teach them, but I am also willing to accept that some students with struggle with this regardless of their level of intelligence. Therefore, it is my duty as a teacher to make the process as open and non judgmental as possible so that those who do struggle will continue to work at it. Again, I don't see how this is not intuitive. I have heard teachers say, "oh, he's not very bright, he's a really bad speller." HUH!? Wel, I hapin to no my levil of inteligents and I no that speling has nothing to do with it! So, teach me to spell without assuming I am an idiot.

"Write To Learn"

I believe there is a place for both traditional academic (5 paragraph essay) writing, as well as the multigenre paper or digital project. It seems that we get very caught up in product and not enough in process. The 5P essay is not a bad place for students to start when they are learning about analysis and evidence, but the way the 5P essay is taught could cause stagnation for the student and their learning. At the same time, the multigenre paper is not widely accepted or used at the moment, so students would be at a disadvantage if that is all they were taught. So, there needs to be a balance and there needs to be an understanding reached about how these are taught.

Academic writing is important. This is not to say the the multigenre paper is not academic, but it is not a widely accepted form of academic writing at this point in time. Therefore, it is necessary that students learn the 5P essay format. However, the point must also be made that the 5P essay is not the ONLY way to write. Student deserve to be informed why they are being taught to write this way--transparency is a must.

The multigenre paper offers students choice and ownership in a way that the 5P essay does not. Instead of textual quotes, students are proving their knowledge through interpretation. This is equally, if not more powerful than straightforward academic writing. Learning to interpret and express such interpretation is a very valuable skill that will transfer outside of writing. This is also why multigenre and digital writing are important--it is what is in the world today. We cannot pretend that the world isn't changing because it is and our students know it because they live the disconnect every day. We must give them the opportunity to interact with material in a way that makes sense in todays expanding literacies.

I would not do away with traditional writing, as I believe that all writing has value, but we must begin accept new forms of expression and creation as valid, otherwise we will continue to lose student interest and therefore put the future in jeopardy--even though that sounds dramatic, I believe it to be true.