Three main challenges/opportunities as an ELA teacher in contemporary classrooms.
One the main challenges I see for myself as an English Language Arts (ELA) teacher is having realistic notions of what it means to be an English teacher. Ursula A. Kelly (2000) writes about the expectations and intentions of beginning (student) ELA teachers. As Kelly points out, the choice to teach secondary English is “about an intimate, often passionate, relationship with English,” and this relationship can often get in the way of real, involved learning in the classroom (pp. 80-81). Kelly suggests that beginning teachers should invest this often idealized, self-embodied energy about English into the realities of the classroom (81). According to Kelly, beginning teachers usually have clear positions or perspectives about English that fall into four broad categories: “communication skills and rhetorical/function discourses, cultural heritage and aesthetic/cultural discourses, personal growth and ethical/progressive discourses, and social and cultural criticism and political/critical discourses” (83). As Kelly rightly points out, these discourses can (and will) lead to contradictions, and it is my job as a beginning ELA teacher to embrace these contradictions and use them to inform and expand my notions of English, what it means to teach English, and what English might mean to my students. This task will be both a challenge and an opportunity: maintaining my passion for ELA while putting my students’ interests and learning first and not becoming pessimistic about the realism, verses the romanticism, of English.
Another challenge I see revolves around what Kelly calls “splitting off.” Splitting off refers to a kind of dualism when beginning teachers ignore their personal teaching philosophy and (perhaps only temporarily) adopt the “normative wave” of their mentor teacher or their school (Kelly, p. 85). I agree that this splitting off is problematic: it is a “denial of agency and a refusal of the very human capacity to effect change where change is necessary” (85). The challenge for me as a beginning teacher will be to uphold my own ideas, understanding, and skills, while respecting the norms of my school and the advice of my mentor teacher. I also see this as an opportunity to develop new skills as I negotiate between my personal educational philosophy and the established system of norms within which I will be operating.
A third challenge I see for myself as an ELA teacher is finding ways to connect with students who are accustomed to primarily communicating via technology (cell phones, social networking), and perhaps at the same time trying to integrate different forms of technology into the classroom. In class we viewed two videos on YouTube: “A Vision of Students Today” and “What its Like Being a Highschooler.” These videos explored the (sometimes startling) realities of the average contemporary student. For me, what was very apparent in these videos was the extent to which the life of the average Canadian adolescent has changed, even from when I was a secondary student. One of the most apparent ways the student’s life has changed is in the forms of communication commonly used. This is important, because for me English is largely about communication – I will be trying to teach students how to become better communicators (in a variety of modes, including reading, viewing, speaking, listening, and representing) through the use of different forms of communication (textbooks, novels, essays, films, etc.). As Dr. Nahachewsky pointed out in his PowerPoint “Teaching English,” the conception of “text” are ever-expanding in form and content along with the “evolving notions of what it means to be literate in a rapidly changing and multi-modal world” (Slide 5). The challenge for me will be to engage my students (even though I might not always understand them) with texts they will find stimulating and relevant to their current lives.
The positive/negative aspects of the BC ELA IRP in supporting you as a beginning English teacher.
For me, the greatest positive aspect of the BC ELA IRP is its openness. Essentially, the Prescribed Learning Outcomes (PLOs) for secondary English are not connected to specific texts. For example, one of the PLOs in the ELA 10 IRP is “read, both collaboratively and independently, to comprehend a variety of literary texts” (ELA 11 IRP, p. 50). The IRP does not specify which texts to read, only that texts must include a variety of vague criteria. In other words, I can use whatever texts I deem appropriate to enable students to meet the PLOs. This leaves me with a great deal of freedom and room to explore - I can draw upon my personal and/or professional opinion, or whatever other sources are available to me (textbooks, novels, plays, films, internet sources, etc.). I can also tailor the texts I use to the needs of my students – what will they find interesting? What will engage them? What will they find relevant? What will help them meet the PLOs? Essentially it is up to me to how I will enable my students to meet the PLOs, which is thrilling.
At the same time, I also see this as a negative aspect of the BC ELA IRP. I imagine it will be very difficult coming up with the appropriate texts to teach specific (or multiple) PLOs. This lack of structure is not evident in most IRPs, such as Social Studies, Math, and the Sciences. In these subjects, the PLOs are much more specific and are linked to specific pieces of information or knowledge that the students are required to know and understand. In English, there essentially is no required content – the content is simply the means by which I will teach the skills and knowledge outlined in the PLOs. Conversely, in most subject areas the content is the PLO. As Dr. Nahachewsky pointed out in his PowerPoint on teaching ELA, English is a “’content-less’ subject discipline” (Slide 3). For me, this lack of apparent content is both intimidating and exciting.
No comments:
Post a Comment