Response #1 to an article in another professional journal

-- Anonymous, January 26, 1999

Answers

Response #1 to an article in another professional journal

Jane S. Townsend, who teaches at the University of Florida in Gainesville, interviewed quiet students during a case study of one teacher's classroom literature discussions and discussed her findings in her article, "Silent Voices: What happens to Quiet Students During Classroom Discussion?" This was a classroom where real, broadly interactive discussion was a regular element; both teacher and students asked questions which were without ridicule or disparagement.In every classroom, however, there are students who speak very little and are assumed to be unprepared, disinterested, or not as sharp as their outspoken peers. The author of this article was intrigued by their silent perspectives, and I wanted to also find out if classrooms where the value of talk is extolled sometimes neglects to help all students feel comfortable and confident speaking to a large group and if these quiet students are doing imporatnat mental involvement with the issues under discussion.

Townsend concluded, after her private, informal interviews with quiet students and after their review of a taped classroom discussion, that each student made sense of the same classroom events in different ways. Often, teachers like myself, simply don't have the time or energy to worry about students who don't talk when other students are asking for immediate responses to their ideas and questions. So what can I do - what can all teachers do? Townsend wrote that we should consider that students are silent for wide-ranging reasons, that students who are quiet ARE probably learning, and that there are multiple means to collect and spur student thinking.

First of all, why students don't speak out is complicated. One quiet student she interviewed was confused about the course material even after serious personal effort was made to make sense of it. Talkativeness was apparently not a fixed characteristic. This student was typically "chatty" when the literary piece under discussion was not so "confusing." Another student was generally quiet because of a shy personality, even though she did speak out when circumstances were encouraging. A third student was silent because of a shy personality as well as her irritations and impatience with the inconclusive nature of personal interpretation. Other students' reasons ranged from mood to cultural conflicts and gender role expectations and prejudices. Many factors influenced the participation style of this classroom's students. How much preparation they'd done; what opportunities arose for injecting a topic of particular, personal interest; preconceived attitudes and peer judgements about their classmates; and fear of the possibility that the teacher would ask for elaboration of a not yet fully formed idea influenced these students' choices about when, how, and whether to speak up.

Secondly, we teachers should not assume that students who are quiet during discussion are inattentive, unprepared, disinterested, or uncooperative. Some possibly need more time to formulate their thoughts than the discussions generally allow. For others, their shyness does not give them the confidence to hold their own opinion.

Finally, students who do not feel comforatble, for whatever reason, in speaking out to the group at large need other opportunities to express their reactions, musings and puzzlement. The author cautions us about the wisdom of awarding points for out-loud comments during classroom discussion, suggesting thereby that spoken contributions alone are valued. The quiet students told her that listening to the teacher and their peers helped them prepare for tests and for papers and planted seeds of thought for later, private cultivation. Moreover, listening to their peers' questions alleviated like-minded confusion.

Townsend concluded her article with suggestions for helping all students speak out; I appreciated the variety of ideas and the practical methods of implementations for these ideas. This article reminded me that the range of reasons that students are quiet during discussion are sure to be as varied as each student who finds it hard to express ideas out loud in a large-group setting. We must find ways of helping all students feel confident and comfortable while expressing their comments and concerns. Some of Townsend's ideas that I liked are (some we may already do, but for different reason than helping quiet students be willing and able to explain their ideas):

1. Encourage students to generate questions they care about and ask them to bring to class, in writing, their own topics for discussion. 2. Allow 5 to 10 minutes at the beginning of class for students to collect their thoughts or skim the assignment. 3. Before discussion, have students write down their reactions to their reading and, after the discussion, ask them to assess the influence of the class talk on their thinking. 4. Give students a chance to rehearse their thinking by talking with a congenial partner. 5. Allow "run-overs" by continuing the discussion of an issue from one class to the next.

These were only a few, and not all of them will work with every class; I found validation, however, in this article for my belief in the value of classroom discussion for quiet and talkative students alike. Classroom discussion gives opportunities, whether verbal or mental, to form thinking and stretches students' understanding. We must always look for ways to encourage all students to reflect on issues and deliberately explore multiple perspectives.

Townsend, Jane S. "Silent Voices: What Hapeens to Quiet Students During Classroom Discussions?" English Journal. Febvruary 10998, 72-80.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 1999

Response #2 to Other Professional Journal

The excerpt entitled "Tongue Tied: The Push for Diversity is Hurting Textbook Quality" from Sandra Strotsky's book, LOSING OUR LANGUAGE, appearing in the February 1999 issue of TEACHER MAGAZINE begins by comparing two versions of a story by Cruz Martel in two fourth grade reading textbooks printed by two different publishers.

The story was originally printed as a picture book to be read by adults to very young children but was chosen by the publishers for use in their textbooks because it deals with Puerto Ricans. Despite the story's lack of paragraph development and the simplicity of its sentence structure and vocabulary for grade 4, it was selected because of the push for multicultural diversity in the instructional materials schools use. The author explains that since the mid-1960s, educational publishers have made changes in the racial and ethnic content of their textbooks because their academic advisors wanted to present students with a realistic picture of the racial and ethnic nature of the U.S. population. The belief has been that such changes would enhance the self-esteem of low-achieving minority students. This in turn would advance their reading achievement. Groups who believed that minorities were not represented equitably in textbooks pressured teacher organizations, state school boards, publishing houses, and politicians to bring about these changes. For some schools, state laws require that textbooks pass approval first in departments of education. The schools then choose books for purchase from a "recommendation" list. While Strotsky believes students do need to gain an understanding of the multicultural nature of our country and the world from the literature they are asked to read, she feels publishers are not producing quality literature anthologies and are therby promoting "multicultural illiteracy." The author finds the majority of the multicultural selections in school textbooks today have "banal plots, bland characters, and humdrum language."

I agree with the author's conclusions and findings. It is the language arts department's turn at Two Harbors High School to order new textbooks, and I am having a difficult time selecting a literature anthology for my 10th grade English class next year. I question the criteria by which the literary pieces are chosen. The multicultural selections are of inferior quality. There is no depth in characterization, plot development, and use of literary devices. Vocabulary, paragraph development, and content are substandard for grade 10. Given the unusually rich heritage of literature in the English-speaking world, I lament the loss of previously selected literary pieces demonstrating high academic instructional value. Whatever textbopok is selected, I will have to use supplemental handouts to teach at the level I believe is necessary for grade 10 English.

Strotsky, Sandra. "Tongue Tied: The Push for Diversity is Hurting Textbook Quality." REACHER MAGAZINE. February 1999.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 1999

Wow, Sue! I loved both your critiques. I am frequently one who does not speak up in large group discussions. Although I love to read, and discuss in a small group, I really have difficulty offering anything to a large group. There are many reasons; but certainly lack of preparation or thought about the assignment is never, EVER among them! I'm glad that someone studied that phenomena: I could give her some more fodder for her study. I never assume that someone who doesn't speak up does not know what is going on. However, once one takes the risk, and jumps in to class discussion, it is generally an enjoyable experience. As far as the multicultural textbooks -- what a shame! For both reasons -- that some excellent English works are thrown out to make room for inferior work; and that work of other cultures often can't be translated adequately to make it available and challenging and worthy of high school English classes. I've read so many wonderful books about other cultures, and often in translation -- but I imagine that they don'd lend themselves easily to an anthology. Anyway, thanks for two thought-provoking and very well-written articles!

-- Anonymous, March 14, 1999

My Response #3 to an Article in Another Professional Journal

Cornelia Brunner, Associate Director of the Center for Children and Technology/Education Development Center in New York City, in her article entitled "Opening Technology to Girls," reports the results of a series of studies by her organization on gender differences in the position or feeling toward technology. The survey population consisted of technology experts in the fields of architecture, science, filmmaking, and software and hardware development as well as students from age 11 to 18. The survey, which focused on feelings and fantasies about technology, found the following differences between male and female respondents:

(1) Masculine technology fantasies are about magic wands (or brain implants) that allow one to be transcend the limitations of time and space. Technology is seen as a source of power.

(2) Feminine fantasies are about small, flexible objects that can be worn or easily carried and allow bearers to communicate, connect, and share ideas. Females focus on technology as a medium.

(3) Masculine fantasies are more concerned with one-way communication--like a brain link that provides access to all the genius minds in history. In feminine fantasies, communications technology is used to have conversations with others like ourselves.

(4) For males, technology conquers nature. Females question the effects of technology on nature. (55)

Brunner then listed ways in which these differences have an impelling effect on classroom use of technology:

(1) The feminine take on technology looks right through the machine to its social function, while the masculine view is more likely to be focused on the machine itself.

(2) When technology is introduced as an end in itself, as in a programming class, young women are less likely to be interested.

(3) If the technology is introduced as a means to an end--as a tool for research or for making a multimedia presentation--young women are as likely to take it as young men.

According to the author, technology can be made more interesting, appealing, and influential to young women. First she encourages instructors to focus on designing assignments that emphasize solving authentic social problems. Next, she advocates mentoring programs. Brunner explains that "girls need a forum in which to air their concerns about technology" because critical self-evalution on their technological abilities make them "feel that they are 'not right' for technology careers" (55). Women in high-tech professions, Brunner contends, need to act as guides, tutors, coaches, and counselors to technology intimidated young women.

The author also addresses the question of how to successfully open technology to girls by suggesting that teachers use more Internet or World Wide Web activities. She states that "the ability to communicate with others and share ideas and stories corresponds to feminine fantasies" (55). According to Brunner, activities that encourage student interaction (forming questions and answers) with other students, the instructors, and the mentors appeal to both boys and girls. Clearly Brunner has emphasized that the approach taken by computer-using teachers may make the difference in opening technology to female students.

From reading other articles in professional journals, I find there is a growing number of public school teachers around the country who are tailoring computer courses specifically for girls. They share a concern that girls could miss out on important education and career opportunities if they aren't encouraged to study and use computer technology.

Girls, it seems, are not as eager to join the technological craze. In the schools where I've taught, boys dominate most elective computer classes. When I've discussed this observation with my colleagues, the consensus seems to be that girls are less inclined to study computers than boys because of the "geek stereotype"--the idea that if you're interested in computer science, you don't have a social life.

The way computer science is usually taught--as an abstract subject in and of itself--contributes to this perception. According to Brunner's article, girls are more interested in computers to do something else. It's not just hacking for hacking's sake. It's computers to do medicine or art or science.

I'd like to see an "alternative technology" course using a female approach to combine technology skills with the study of issues seen as particularly interesting to adolescent girls, such as nutrition, eating disorders, career exploration, and women's self-defense. During the unit on eating disorders, for example, this class would talk about how advertising influences the way girls and women view their bodies. The students would also analyze the World Wide Web sites of companies that make products for girls and send the companies critiques via e-mail. While they are learning about important topics, they are also getting to know the computer better. Many curriculums in public schools already have inter-disciplinary courses. I believe with this type of course offerings, the ratio of girls to boys in technology electives would be almost equal. In addition, girls would probably feel more comfortable in such classes and with fewer boys in these classes, girls undoubtedly would not be intimidated to ask questions.

I don't think public schools could legally offer single-sex classes. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states that a school receiving federal money can't provide any course or otherwise carry out any of its educational programs or activities separately on the basis of sex. But the law includes a provision that could be used as a justification for offering single-sex technology classes. A school may, in certain circumstances, take affirmative action to overcome conditions that have limited participation by boys or girls. Given how computer programs and courses have been geared toward boys, technology could be considered consistent with Title IX. But from a legal standpoint, single-sex classes are "problematic."

To be safe, schools that offer such courses could make it clear that the classes are open to boys. Boys would not be barred from taking the course. But, at the very least, schools should actively recruit girls for their grade 7-12 computer, science, and math classes. I can visualize a math and technology teacher holding an assembly each year for, say, all 7th and 8th grade girls. During the assembly, she shows a video she's made featuring girls in her advanced placement computer-science class and also meetings of the after-school Young Women's Technology Club, which holds breakfast meetings between lower and upper levels of female classmates in math, technology, and science classes, discussing, among other things, the importance of those classes. It's not like teachers can just hope girls show up in their classes.

This type of effort plus a basic computer class requirement for 7th or 8th graders would help boost, I believe, the enrollment of girls in any school's computer programming and advanced placement computer science courses. I'm sure there would be the usual problems of scheduling and financing for additional equipment and teachers. But my other readings indicate that once girls get into computer classes, they do fine. The problem to be addressed by schools is to get girls into computer classes and to keep them interested in taking classes other than an inital basic course.

Brunner, Cornelia. "Opening Tecnology to Girls."ELECTRONIC LERARNING. February 1997: 55.

-- Anonymous, April 19, 1999