"Teaching For the Test"

   

    In my last post, "Stick to the Conventions!" I wrote about conventional AP writing and how my AP English Literature teacher taught the course based on what she thought would be essential in order for her students to earn a passing grade on the AP English Literature test rather than teaching us based on what she thought would allow us to be successful in future English classes. This brings me to "teaching for the test." Basically "teaching for the test" is a concept used to described just what I mentioned above: teaching solely to prepare for a test; nothing more, nothing less.

        I never was a big fan of "teaching for the test" because I felt, in part, that a teacher who taught in this way wasn't effectively doing their job. As a prospective future educator, I feel that, as a teacher, my job would be to prepare my students for the future; teach them everything they need to know in my course so that they can be successful in other courses to follow. And by "teaching for the test," a teacher falls short of that. Students only learn the material they need to know for the test they take at the end of the year, and that's it. And if any other student is like me, once the test is over, all of the information that was soaked into their brain throughout the year, is all released once the test is over.

        I took numerous AP courses in high school, from AP History to AP Physics C, and out of all my high school years, I can't say that any of the information I "learned" in those courses actually benefited me in college beyond getting credit and being exempt from taking those particular classes. Don't get me wrong, not having to take a course in college because you already have the credit is always nice; it saves your time and your parent's (or the government's money). But, I would rather have something much more rewarding, such as the knowledge and/or understanding of a particular subject, to bring to college with me than a piece of paper saying that I don't have to take a particular class.

When teachers "teach for the test," I feel as if students aren't really learning all they need to know; they are restricted to learning solely for one purpose, which does not prepare them for other learning experiences to come. And for this reason, AP testing and standardized tests, such as the STAAR test, should not be set up in such a way that forces teachers to only teach their courses to prepare students to pass them.

What are your views on "teaching for the test?" Do you agree or disagree with this teaching method, and why or why not?

Stick to the Conventions!

        As a high school student, I found myself enrolled in an Advanced Placement (AP) English class year after year. Whether I enrolled in them every year for my own satisfaction and pleasure, or just because my counselor recommended them and the fact that they were excellent rank boosters is questionable. I'll be honest, although I considered English one of my stronger subjects and myself somewhat of a strong writer, I sat in those classes for four years for the sake of my rank: math was my main subject of interest. But nonetheless, I still held high expectations of myself in these classes. Even though each class varied from year to year, it seemed as if the conventions of the papers were all the same. Since they were AP classes, we wrote papers year round with one goal: to be able to write successful papers on the AP test at the end of the year.

        I personally don't think I was ever taught to write effective papers no matter what the occasion or topic was, but only to write a good enough paper to satisfy the requirements and graders of the AP test. The prompt of each paper was different, but the conventions on writing the paper, to me, all seemed the same: read the prompt/question, analyze the question, annotate the passage, answer the question. And the set up for each and every paper was exactly the same. Although it sounds like common sense and the appropriate thing to do, I feel as if there are other ways that a student could effectively write a paper and still respond to the prompt in it's entirety. Because of these conventions, I struggled in my English classes significantly. I would answer the question, but I wouldn't right my paper in the routine way that the teacher expected according to the AP standards (or what she thought were the AP standards), and because of this, my grades suffered, and I never passed any of my AP English tests. But now, as a college student, I've managed to obtain As in all of my English courses I've taken this far, making extremely good grades on the various papers I submit.

        English is a subject where a question can be answered in many different ways, unlike math where, in most cases, the answer is strictly that answer. And with the different answers being so broad, there shouldn't be one set format to formulate these answers. Two students can have the same topic to write about, but answer them in two different ways, but both students are completely capable of responding the the prompt effectively and appropriately. This is why I am such a strong adversary of "teaching for a test." Some teachers get so stuck on preparing their students to pass a certain test at the end of the year, that they overlook teaching them the skills they need beyond the test in order to be successful in other subjects, similar and different, to follow.

What are your views on AP English classes and "teaching for the test"? How well did your high school English classes prepare you for your college English courses you've taken thus far?

The Most Wonderful Time of the Year

        For my family, Christmas is by far the most important holiday of the year. In fact, I feel as if it's more heavily celebrated than actual birthdays of the members of my family. As far as birthdays go, when you're younger, birthday parties are planned out in full detail from beginning to end. But once the years go by, and you get older and older, birthday celebrations become less and less intense. However, Christmas is quite different. No matter how many years pass, my family will host a wonderful, family interactive Christmas celebration every year on December 25th.

        As Christians, this is such an important day for us because it marks the day that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was born (although this can be argued by many others). We start by decorating the house with lights and other decor, and putting up the Christmas tree (this happens about a week and a half to two weeks before Christmas). This doesn't sound "not-so-common" right? Well, we have a tradition where everyone in my household puts up the tree together. One person sets up the tree, and we all contribute to adding each individual branch of the tree, ornaments, icicles, and other decorations.

        But the celebration also stretches past my immediate family. On Christmas day, my grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, parents, siblings, and I all gather together in a common location and celebrate this day. The celebration used to be held and my grandparents' house, but six years ago it moved to my parents' house, and it has been held there every since. So now, every year, approximately twenty people all come together to celebrate this religious day, open gifts, play games, for literally the entire day. It is such a wonderful occasion, and no matter how old I get, Christmas will always the holiday I look forward to the most - not because of the gifts received (don't get me wrong, I am very thankful for every gift I receive), but because my family and I all gather together in one place, every single year, rain, sleet, or snow, to celebrate the occasion and enjoy each other's company. We all enjoy it so much that we don't even realize just how quickly time flies by.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, celebrations play a major role in defining one's culture; some more than others. But they are definitely a significant aspect of my own, especially Christmas and Thanksgiving, just to add another.

What are some holidays or occasions that your family celebrates and how do they play a role in defining your culture?

Same Gesture, Different Meaning

     As we all may know, gestures are just as important in playing a role in a person's culture as the food they eat, the clothes they wear, or what they believe. "What is a gesture?", you may ask. Well, according to Merriam-Webster, a gesture is "a movement ususally of the body or limbs that expresses or emphasizes an idea, sentiment, or attitude" (www.m-w.com). Even though the same gestures are commonly used in different cultures, what they actually mean may not be the same. A specific gesture may be acceptable to use in one culture, but derogatory and offensive in another.

     Take the "ohh" gesture for example. This gesture is made by  creating an 'O' shape with your thumb and index fingers, while leaving your other fingers pointing upward. In the United States, this gesture simple means "OK" or "good." In France it is understood as "zero" or worthless. In Japan, the gesture means "money." Same gesture, three different meanings.

     Another gesture, especially favored by Aggieland, is "thumbs up." You create this gesture by simply pointing your thumb up and resting your remaining fingers on your palm. While this gesture means "Gig 'Em" in Aggieland, it can also mean "OK" in the United States. This gesture is also commonly used by hitchhikers in Britain and Australia, in hopes of lucking out on a ride to their destination. But this signal should be avoided in Southern Sardina or Greece, where it is an extremely obscene insult to it's receiver.

     There are many cultures that use the same gesture, but for a different purpose. Can you think of any? But.. just for a heads up, be cautious when using different gestures in different places because there's no guarantee that it will have the same meaning you intended it to have!

(Source: http://ingenira.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Read-Others-Thoughts-by-Their-Gestures)

Nightmare on Blog Street: Rhetorical Analyses on Gun Control

How do different people feel about gun control? Should the laws remain the same or should there be tougher enforcement of the law? Below are rhetorical analyses of two different blog posts relating to gun control:

Blog Post #1:

Title: Guns and Gun Control

Author: jacobsjn

Jacobsjn addresses how the gun control has yet again appeared as a major topic in recent news with mass shootings such as the Virginia Tech shooting, the massacre at the movie theater in Colorado, and now, the tragedy in Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary. He mainly uses ethical appeal and certain diction to persuade the reader to take his side in implementing better gun control. Words like "massacre, "coffin," and "horrific murder" reveal just how devastating these events were, and give the reader a better reason to take action to prevent events like the Sandy Hook shooting from ever happening again. These words also leave the reader empathetic to not only the author himself, but also all of the those who were affected by this tragedy. 

(Source: http://blogs.longwood.edu/jacobsjn/2013/02/08/blog-post-1/)

Blog Post #2

Title: Murphy, Etsy Continue Post-Newtown Gun-Control Efforts In Washington

Author: Jon Lender

Lender takes a much different approach in his blog post compared to the previous author. He takes on the issue of gun control through the eyes of U.S. Senator Christopher Murphy and U.S. Representative Elizabeth Etsy using logical appeal. However, one thing that was similar between the two blog posts was that they both were for stronger gun control enforcement. He uses evidence taken from President Barack Obama, and the Professional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force in an effort to show support for the cause. The PGVPT claimed that they "intended to reduce gun violence while respecting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans" (Lender). Even though gun control will be implemented more strictly, the rights of Americans regarding this particular freedom will not be ignored. Through this logical appeal and others to follow, the author is able to establish credibility and effectively support his claims, in an attempt to get the reader to take his side. 

(Source: http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/murphy-esty-continue-post-newtown-gun-control-efforts-in-washington/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CapitolWatch+(Blog+-+Capitol+Watch))

Which appeals do you think are most effective in persuading the reader to take a specific side? Or are all appeals created equally?

The Shift from Page to Screen: The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly

In the generation we live in now, print is disappearing and "going digital." Now, newspapers that were commonly thrown out by the paper boy in the morning are getting replaced by online articles and news websites. With the rate at which commonly printed items being replaced by more modern, digitized version rapidly increasing, we stand face-to-face with a bitter-sweet moment: recognizing the opportunities and gains, but also the hazards and losses due to a shift from page to screen. It's important for everyone be aware of these benefits and consequences because everyone is affected by this shift-some more than others.

I'm more of a visual learner, who likes things short, sweet, and to the point, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to spend your time reading line after line of  the negatives and positives of "the shift," so I think a list would be more appropriate for this topic.Since Turkle and Gopnik caused me to think about this issue, I also think its appropriate to compare their views:

The Good

• Continual connectivity to technology could increase productivity and memory (Turkle)
• News gets transported more quickly than in earlier times (Turkle)
• Online, we feel enhanced because networked, we are together (Turkle)
• Some technologies have shaped our lives, minds, and societies (Gopnik)

The Bad and the Ugly:

• Turkle argues that we expect more from technology and less from each other. She also states that the digital era has turned us all into cyborgs now, and addresses the contradiction that technology always keeps us connected, but very alone.
• The global reach of connectivity can make the most isolated outpost into a center of learning and economic activity (Turkle)
• Technology allows you to wonder in and out of the physical real. It alse leads to distracted academics and a decrease in attention sharing (Turkle)
• Technology dominates everyday activity (Gopnik)
• It's hard to know how new technologies will affect us (Gopnik)
• Technology will lead to devalued and alienated lives rather than enriched ones (Gopnik)
• We communicate through highly abstract symbols, rather than face to face (Gopnik)

From the two opposing lists, we see that Turkle and Gopnik point out more negatives than positives in making the switch from page to screen. Do you agree with their arguments, disagree, or both? Are there things that you think should be added to either list? 

Defining Culture

Culture: a simple word with a not so simple meaning. According to Merriam-Webster, culture is: "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also: the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time" (www.m-w.com). Of course, there's more to it, but this definition, I would say, hits the nail on the head.

Culture is your way of life, and what ultimately influences everything that happens in your life. It is what makes you the person you are. Culture is not something that can be learned in an educational setting, like how to annotate literary text or how to derive an equation. It’s naturally learned and instilled in you from the day you were born. Throughout your life, you may decide to alter it or tweak it up a bit to fit your evolving lifestyle, sticking with the things you feel are necessary, and getting rid of those that aren't. Even though culture can be personal, it can also overlap between different people. A particular culture can fit one person; just as it can an entire group. Some aspects may be the same-some different, but all in all, everyone has a culture that they are a part of and can relate to.

 I really like this quote relating to culture because it aligns so perfectly with my own definition:

“Culture is everything. Culture is the way we dress, the way we carry our heads, the way we walk, the way we tie our ties-it is not only the fact of writing books and building houses”
                                                                                                            -Aimé Cesairé

Do you agree with this quote? What are your views on culture? Is life centered around it or is it just a mere aspect of life? What exactly does culture mean to you?