Comments on: The fundamentals http://dangerousdirtyunfun.com/2010/04/the-fundamentals/ "Although the odds against it are staggering, it MIGHT turn out to be sublime." Sun, 20 May 2012 04:56:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Nicky http://dangerousdirtyunfun.com/2010/04/the-fundamentals/comment-page-1/#comment-2956 Nicky Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:10:29 +0000 http://dangerousdirtyunfun.com/?p=841#comment-2956 Although I mostly agree with your conclusion that any reading is good reading, what's ultimately being argued here? That children read low-level texts? Or that children should be reading Non-Fiction as opposed to select Fiction? Or a combination of both - that children should be reading high-level non-fiction? Diana Goldstein seems to assert that "students aren't reading at a high level because they read shitty books. They should read more non-fiction because standardized tests test this!" Okay. Is there even a direct correlation here? As a teacher, I know that a lot of the stories we read actually are, in fact, non-fiction, historical fiction, or at least autobiographical "faction." We have an entire non-fiction short story unit in which we read eight or so purely non-fiction stories. And although dramas such as Miller's Crucible are fictional, they involve historical persons and historical accounts. Hemingway does a good job at surmising WW1 and the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder on soldiers... is this historical fiction completely irrelevant to Goldstein? In addition to what Goldstein mentions as the only non-fiction read in schools, our curriculum includes Frederick Douglas, Equiano, Ben Franklin, Thoreau, Emerson, Darkness at Noon, etc. We do it BECAUSE standardized tests test on it. Despite the fact that non-fiction is actually read in schools (there is, in fact, an initiative that requires all non-English subjects at my school to read 15 minutes each day, and this reading is usually non-fictional pieces as well), it's difficult to "teach" someone how to analyze a piece. English is the one wild card in schools. It's unlike Math, Science, and other subjects in which concepts build on one another. If you teach a student the rules of Algebra, and there are Algebra problems on a standardized test, the students can use their knowledge of addition, subtraction, whatever in addition to algebraic formulas to figure out a problem. This isn't necessarily the case in English. There are too many variables in the randomly chosen texts that find themselves on these standardized tests - historical background, vocabulary, etc. If any given student does not know a word, a significant meaning could be missed while reading. If the student is asked an analogy question, and the student does not understand some of the vocabulary words in the choices, does the student need work in analogies? or vocabulary? or both? The tests do not accurately assess any given student's ability to comprehend a text or concept. The problem isn't the standardized tests, thought, right? If an ELL student can't comprehend a dense English vocabulary or history, it's the student's fault... the teacher's fault, the school's, the books these students choose to read. Twilight and Harry Potter have a ton to offer young, inexperienced readers (although this does personally offend me to compare these two series - Twilight is a slow-moving, bogged down plot with an abundance of spelling and grammar errors while Harry Potter is, at the very least, mature writing with references to Greek history, Latin, and mythology). What happens when the excuses dry up for why students perform poorly on standardized tests? Is it the teachers? Is it the curriculum? Is it because our culture encourages a quick-shift attention span, so much so that any story longer than a paragraph has students shifting their head to the bug on the ceiling, then immediately to the car starting outside, back to the book, then to the student bouncing a foot? I call foul on the tests themselves. Although I mostly agree with your conclusion that any reading is good reading, what’s ultimately being argued here? That children read low-level texts? Or that children should be reading Non-Fiction as opposed to select Fiction? Or a combination of both - that children should be reading high-level non-fiction? Diana Goldstein seems to assert that “students aren’t reading at a high level because they read shitty books. They should read more non-fiction because standardized tests test this!” Okay. Is there even a direct correlation here?

As a teacher, I know that a lot of the stories we read actually are, in fact, non-fiction, historical fiction, or at least autobiographical “faction.” We have an entire non-fiction short story unit in which we read eight or so purely non-fiction stories. And although dramas such as Miller’s Crucible are fictional, they involve historical persons and historical accounts. Hemingway does a good job at surmising WW1 and the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder on soldiers… is this historical fiction completely irrelevant to Goldstein? In addition to what Goldstein mentions as the only non-fiction read in schools, our curriculum includes Frederick Douglas, Equiano, Ben Franklin, Thoreau, Emerson, Darkness at Noon, etc. We do it BECAUSE standardized tests test on it.

Despite the fact that non-fiction is actually read in schools (there is, in fact, an initiative that requires all non-English subjects at my school to read 15 minutes each day, and this reading is usually non-fictional pieces as well), it’s difficult to “teach” someone how to analyze a piece. English is the one wild card in schools. It’s unlike Math, Science, and other subjects in which concepts build on one another. If you teach a student the rules of Algebra, and there are Algebra problems on a standardized test, the students can use their knowledge of addition, subtraction, whatever in addition to algebraic formulas to figure out a problem. This isn’t necessarily the case in English. There are too many variables in the randomly chosen texts that find themselves on these standardized tests - historical background, vocabulary, etc. If any given student does not know a word, a significant meaning could be missed while reading. If the student is asked an analogy question, and the student does not understand some of the vocabulary words in the choices, does the student need work in analogies? or vocabulary? or both? The tests do not accurately assess any given student’s ability to comprehend a text or concept.

The problem isn’t the standardized tests, thought, right? If an ELL student can’t comprehend a dense English vocabulary or history, it’s the student’s fault… the teacher’s fault, the school’s, the books these students choose to read. Twilight and Harry Potter have a ton to offer young, inexperienced readers (although this does personally offend me to compare these two series - Twilight is a slow-moving, bogged down plot with an abundance of spelling and grammar errors while Harry Potter is, at the very least, mature writing with references to Greek history, Latin, and mythology). What happens when the excuses dry up for why students perform poorly on standardized tests? Is it the teachers? Is it the curriculum? Is it because our culture encourages a quick-shift attention span, so much so that any story longer than a paragraph has students shifting their head to the bug on the ceiling, then immediately to the car starting outside, back to the book, then to the student bouncing a foot? I call foul on the tests themselves.

]]> By: Miles http://dangerousdirtyunfun.com/2010/04/the-fundamentals/comment-page-1/#comment-2953 Miles Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:20:26 +0000 http://dangerousdirtyunfun.com/?p=841#comment-2953 Even though I scoff at your lack of this in other matters, I have to say, one of the things I admire about you is your ability for open-mindedness in regards to literature. You're en educated English major, who has read what I can only imagine are books that are considered the highest echelon of acquired and revered reading. Yet, you stick up for comic books, who are mostly looked down upon for their niche writing and often times childlike art. And 100% agree with you that, as your tag so eloquently puts it, "as long as third-graders aren't reading fetish porn I'm cool with it." I'm inclined to write more, however, I think you've written quite well already my feelings towards this subject. I whole heartedly agree. And am glad you feel this way. 'Nuff said. Excelsior! :) Even though I scoff at your lack of this in other matters, I have to say, one of the things I admire about you is your ability for open-mindedness in regards to literature.

You’re en educated English major, who has read what I can only imagine are books that are considered the highest echelon of acquired and revered reading. Yet, you stick up for comic books, who are mostly looked down upon for their niche writing and often times childlike art.

And 100% agree with you that, as your tag so eloquently puts it, “as long as third-graders aren’t reading fetish porn I’m cool with it.”

I’m inclined to write more, however, I think you’ve written quite well already my feelings towards this subject. I whole heartedly agree. And am glad you feel this way.

‘Nuff said.
Excelsior! :)

]]>