SCET Journal 2020

South Carolina English Teacher South Caro l i na Counc i l o f Teacher s o f Eng l i sh | 2018/2019

Reading and Writing

Around Our World

South Carolina

English Teacher

2018/2019

Journal of South Carolina Council of Teachers of English www.sccte.org

An affiliate of National Council of Teachers of English www.ncte.org

Co-Editors

Mary E. Styslinger University of South Carolina

Matthew C. Nelson Francis Marion University

A Professional Association of Educators in English Studies, Literacy, and Language Arts

South Carolina Council of Teachers of English

Table of

Contents

Letter from the Editors ................................................................................................. 4

Reconsidering Our Practice Summer Reading: Let Students Choose! .......................................................................... 5 Julianna V. Lux How Veteran Teachers Can “Do Better” by Learning from Novices: One Teacher’s Experiences with Writing Instruction ....................................................... 10 Caitlin Ramussen and Victoria Oglan Mastery of Word Wall Words in the Context of Writing . .................................................. 16 Jacqueline Transou Prompting Critical Thinking Critiquing the Truth in a Post-truth World: Navigating Content Online ............................ 21 Deidre M. Clary “Because I’m Saudi”: Critical Thinking in a Reader Response Class .............................. 29 Ali Alzughaibi Broadening Diverse Perspectives From Representational to Inclusive Diversity: Reading to Understand the Nuances within Racial and/or Cultural Group ..................... 34 Vivian Yenika-Agbaw and René M. Rodriguez-Astacio Meeting the Needs of LGBTQ Youth with CRP and YAL . ................................................ 39 Trever Cline Etminan Unit Planning to Provide Diverse Perspectives Through Literature . ............................... 46 Michelle Avila Vanderburg, Katie Spragg, and Kristina Flanagan Reflecting on Teaching VHS Cassettes, CD-ROMs, and Twenty Years of National Board Certification ................ 53 Jennifer D. Morrison

The First Day of Class .................................................................................................... 58 Bob Hanley

Call for Manuscripts .................................................................................................... 59

Letter from the Editors

We begin this letter with an explanation of the cover. Usually we select a picture of a teacher reading or writing on the beach, but not this year. The image of our vast and varied world encircled by books caught our at- tention because it supports the theme which emerged for this issue: Reading and Writing Around our World. Four sections frame and encompass articles: Reconsid- ering Our Practice, Prompting Critical Thinking, Broad- ening Diverse Perspectives, and Reflecting on Teach- ing. More so, these headings represent interconnected, overlapping, and mutually supportive practices. As you read around the ideas contained in these digital pages, we hope you will reconsider your teaching practice, grow your critical awareness, broaden your perspective on diversity, and reflect on your teaching so that we might ultimately create a better world both within and beyond our classroom doors. Through reading and writing around our world, anything is possible. This issue commences with guidance and encour- agement for reconsidering our practice. Julianne V. Lux synthesizes existing research on summer reading programs and attitudes at the middle and high school levels in order to encourage us to reflect on our sum- mer practices and to encourage students to read in “Summer Reading: Let Students Choose!” Next, Caitlin Ramussen and Victoria Oglan explore inconsistencies between pre-service and veteran teachers in “How Vet- eran Teachers Can ‘Do Better’ by Learning from Novic- es: One Teacher’s Experiences with Writing Instruction.” Through interviews and observations of pre-service and longtime secondary English teachers on the topic of writing, their findings reveal differences, similarities, and opportunities for us to learn from one another. And last, Jacqueline Transou shares the results of an action research study in which she explored word wall words and students’ writing in “Mastery of Word Wall Words in the Context of Writing.” In the next section, our critical thinking is prompted by Deidre M. Clary’s “Critiquing the Truth in a Post-truth World: Navigating Content Online.” In this article she translates theory into practice as she explains and pro- vides examples of critical literacy theory and pedagogy to foster the critical thinking skills needed by discerning readers as they navigate an enormous volume of their news from social media feeds featuring false, exagger-

ated or sponsored content. Next, Ali Alzughaibi sheds some light on the application of Rosenblatt’s reader response theory and its effects on critical thinking in a bilingual Saudi English as a second language (ESL) context in “Because I’m Saudi”: Critical Thinking in a Reader Response Class,” reminding us of the validity and importance of experience in bringing text to life. Our perspectives around diversity are broadened in this third section of the journal. In "From Representa- tional to Inclusive Diversity: Reading to Understand the Nuances within Racial and/or Cultural Groups," Vivian Yenika-Agbaw and René M. Rodriguez-Astacio share a few ideas for English teachers to consider as they work to create a more complex and inclusive English literacy curriculum, particularly as it pertains to being Black and/ or Latinx within our national and global settings, offer- ing suggestions for designing curriculum reflective of the nuanced differences among group members within minority groups. Trever Cline Etminan encourages edu- cators to make small daily instructional adjustments that establish a culturally relevant pedagogy centered curric- ulum in “Meeting the Needs of LGBTQ Youth with CRP and YAL.” And Michelle Avila Vanderburg, Katie Spragg, and Kristina Flanagan share practical ideas for planning activities around diverse young adult literature including The House on Mango Street and Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief in “Unit Planning to Provide Diverse Perspectives Through Literature.” In this final section of the journal, we include personal reflections on the art of teaching. In “VHS Cassettes, CD-ROMs, and Twenty Years of National Board Certification,” Jennifer D. Morrison reflects on her journey as an educator using her National Board for Professional Teaching Standards portfolios as markers along the road. She explains how the process afford- ed her lifelong learning including the value of taking small nibbles from a large project, perseverance, and "counting on your village." We conclude this issue with a poem, “The First Day of Class.” As we begin a new year and semester, Bob Hanley reminds us of the precious uniqueness of each child we teach. We hope you enjoy reading and writing around our world.

Mary E. Styslinger & Matthew C. Nelson

South Carolina English Teacher

4

Reconsidering

Our Practice

Summer Reading: Let Students Choose!

Julianna V. Lux

Summer reading—these two words are often a point of contention among students, parents, teach- ers, and administration in many districts. According to the very non-academic site, Urban Dictionary, summer reading is the “prickiest thing teachers could come up with, usually blown off until the last minute because kids shouldnt [sic] be forced to read” (Sum- mer Reading, n.d.). A quick glance at some South Carolina high school websites uncovered a variety of summer reading programs: lists of books from which students choose; a book or small number of books chosen by teachers for all the students to read; book lists sometimes accompanied by assignments includ- ing annotations, essays, journals, online discussions, projects, or other assessments during the school year. Based on my review, summer reading is rarely optional and seldom allows free choice. In the past 16 years, the English department at my freshman academy has implemented at least six different summer reading programs, with almost every program receiving a number of complaints from parents, students, or teachers including: books are inappropriate for the student; not enough options are available; the books are too hard for the students; the books are too easy for the students; the books are boring; my child would prefer to read a book of his own choice; we could not find the assigned book; we did not want to force her to read a book she did not want to read. And once the students return to school, the problems continue as teachers must decide how to assess the summer reading. Ultimately, students resent being forced to complete homework over the summer; parents resent having to give up vacation time to force students to read; teachers resent having to assess the students knowing some did not read and instead use Spark Notes or Pink Monkey or watch the movie. This is a no-win situation. Why is Summer Reading Important? The necessity for reading year-round is well-docu- mented (Allington, et al., 2010; Scholastic & YouGov, 2017). In 2017, 65% of the nation’s eighth grade students scored below proficient in reading (NAEP, 2017). Numerous studies have demonstrated the amount of time spent reading is a predictor of read-

ing achievement (Blanton, 2015; Whitten, Labby, & Sullivan, 2016). We need our students to read during the summer. Summer reading helps to curb the summer learn- ing gap—also known as summer reading loss, sum- mer drift, summer decline, or summer slide—through continued practice and engagement with text. In general, reading improves academic achievement (Blanton, 2015; Lindley, Giles, & Tunks, 2016) and develops vocabulary skills (Durán Bautista & Rendón Marulanda, 2018), deeper thinking skills, and critical thinking skills (Colwell, Woodward, Hutchison, 2018). Whitten, Labby, and Sullivan (2016) determined avid readers achieved higher academic averages than those who read little or not at all. Even children and parents recognize the impact reading through the summer has on expanding vocabulary and keeping the brain active (Scholastic & YouGov, 2017). Reading through the summer improves self-perceptions of reading ability and encourages additional recreational reading, which improves academic reading achieve- ment (Arnone, Small, & Weng, 2015). In contrast, the lack of continued reading and learning through the summer can lead to more pronounced achievement gaps as a child progresses through school (Alexan- der, Entwisle, & Olson, 2007). Reading also improves non-academic areas of development. Reading encourages agency (Ivey & Johnston, 2013); emotional and moral development (Colwell et al., 2018); identity development, relation- ship skills, and autonomy (Ivey & Johnston, 2013); and the desire to examine other perspectives and empathize (Colwell et al., 2018; Ivey & Johnston, 2013). With so many positive reasons to read, why not encourage our students to read as much as pos- sible? To curb summer reading loss, students need to be reading and enjoying what they are reading. Unfor- tunately, the students who need to be reading are not reading the classics we often assign during the sum- mer, at least not as much as we would like. Many of the classics are far more dense and challenging than most students are willing to tackle during summer va- cation. Very few of my students have ever expressed the desire to read To Kill a Mockingbird or Things Fall Apart

2018/2019

C CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

5

Reconsidering

Our Practice

or Jane Eyre of their own accord. Thinking back to my high school years, I remember my classmates (and on occasion, me) waiting until the last minute to read our summer reading books or running to the store to grab the Cliff Notes version. I wanted to read what I wanted to read, and the school-assigned book was shuffled to the end of the summer; however, a num- ber of my classmates would read for the assignment and be done. What message are we sending our students? Read one or two books, and they are done reading for the summer? Too boring? Too difficult? Hop on the Internet and Google the summary. Based on my teaching experience, assigning classics has not motivated students to read during the summer. Students want to read books they choose to read (Scholastic & YouGov, 2017). Effective reading, regardless of academic pur- pose, actively engages the student in reading and discussions about the text, whether with classmates, friends, family, or anyone else who may have read the same text (Colwell et al., 2018; Ivey & Johnston, 2013). Berit Gordon (2018), author of No More Fake Reading , suggests these discussions do not have to revolve around the same texts or in the classroom. Numerous scholars assert the most effective reading occurs when students choose to read and choose what they read (Barry, 2013; Blanton, 2015; Colwell, et al., 2018; Compton-Lilly, Caloia, Quast, & McCann, 2016; Gordon, 2018; Ivey & Johnston, 2013; Merga, 2014; Merga & Moon, 2016; Whitten, et al., 2016). Choosing to read not only in the summer but also during free time is often contingent on children’s and parents’ reading attitudes. Scholastic and YouGov (2017) surveyed a nationally representative sample of 2,718 parents and children ages 6-17 about the importance of reading and their reading attitudes. They found 86% of children ages 6-17 recognize the importance of reading, and 58% of children ages 6-17 like to read books for fun. Likewise, 96% of par- ents recognize the importance of reading in general, and 88% recognize the importance of reading for fun. However, less than 50% of children ages 12-17 read books recreationally more than once or twice a week. Eighty-nine percent of children ages 6-17 prefer the books they pick out. Eighty-eight percent of children What Do Our Students Think About Reading?

say they are more likely to finish a book they person- ally choose. Many of Scholastic and YouGov’s (2017) findings are corroborated in other studies. Many children like to read but prefer not to read (Durán Bautista & Rendón Marulanda, 2018; Merga, 2014; Scho- lastic & YouGov, 2017). Merga’s (2014) and Merga and Moon’s (2016) surveys of high school students revealed many students would read if they could find the right book. However, forty-one percent of children ages 6-17 struggle to find a book to read (Scholastic & YouGov, 2017). Many adolescents who do not like to read say they find reading boring, consider read- ing a distraction from more enjoyable activities, think reading requires too much brain work, and believe reading is too much like school (Love & Hamston, 2003; Merga, 2014; Scholastic & YouGov, 2017). Inevitably, reading for pleasure leads to more reading (Durán Bautista & Rendón Marulanda, 2018; Merga & Moon, 2016; Schüller, Birnbaum, & Kröner, 2016), but compulsory reading and lack of choice often quell desires to read (Merga, 2014; Merga & Moon, 2016; Scholastic & YouGov, 2017). What Influences Reading Attitudes? Students’ reading attitudes are impacted by numerous variables from their environment, relation- ships, and exposure to media. These variables can have a positive or negative impact on the students’ decision to read. Books influence reading attitudes. Despite the adage not to judge a book by its cover, the cover and appearance of a book plays strongly into selecting a book to read (Merga, 2014). Students choose books based on race and ethnicity (Ivey & Johnston, 2013; Merga, 2014) and the desire to read stories about diverse characters and experiences (Merga, 2014; Scholastic & YouGov, 2017). Students also choose books based on genre preference (Barry, 2013; Col- well et al., 2018; Lindley et al., 2016; Merga, 2014; Scholastic & YouGov, 2017). According to Barry’s (2013) survey of 148 eighth graders, adolescents enjoy scary books, funny novels, books in a series, realistic and urban fiction and cartoons, comics or graphic novels. Book selection can also be impact- ed by a student’s desire to connect with a character or situation (Barry, 2013; Colwell et al., 2018; Ivey & Johnston, 2013; Merga, 2014) and to feel represent-

South Carolina English Teacher

6

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reconsidering

Our Practice

ed by the characters in the book (Barry, 2013; Ivey & Johnston, 2013, Merga, 2014). Character gender and author gender also contribute to book selection, with male students desiring to read books by male authors (Lindley et al., 2016; Merga, 2014). Some students express interest in reading books from one series or a particular author, often reading all of the books in a series or by the author before looking for another book to read (Merga, 2014). Many students prefer recently published books over older books (Lindley et al., 2016; Merga, 2014). Environment also influences students’ selection of books (Ivey & Johnston, 2013; Lindley et al., 2016; Merga, 2014; Merga & Moon, 2016; Schüller et al., 2016). Access to literature through a classroom library, public or school library, family library, digital library, or bookstore increases the likelihood of stu- dents choosing to read (Barry, 2013; Blanton, 2015; Colwell et al., 2018; Ivey & Johnston, 2013; Lindley et al., 2016; Merga & Moon, 2016; Scholastic & You- Gov, 2017). Barry’s (2013) survey determined stu- dents would read more if the libraries included books affording them numerous opportunities to connect with and relate to characters. Similarly, the National Council of Teachers of English’s (NCTE, 2017) state- ment on classroom libraries delineates the need for classroom libraries to provide access to a wide range of texts reaching a plethora of interests and reading levels in an effort to motivate students to read inde- pendently. The people around them also influence students’ selections of books. Parents are the most influen- tial when it comes to encouraging students to read (Scholastic & YouGov, 2017) by demonstrating their value of reading and encouraging students to read (Blanton, 2015; Compton-Lilly et al., 2016; Lindley et al., 2016; Merga & Moon, 2016; Schüller et al., 2016; Scholastic & YouGov, 2017). Teachers mod- eling good reading habits and encouraging stu- dents to read are the second most influential (Ivey & Johnston, 2013; Merga & Moon, 2016; Scholastic & YouGov, 2017). In addition to teachers and parents, other family members, friends, peers, and social media all influence students’ reading habits (Blanton, 2015; Compton-Lilly et al., 2016; Lindley et al., 2016; Merga & Moon, 2016; Schüller et al., 2016; Scholas- tic & YouGov, 2017). Students’ reading habits can be negatively influ-

enced, leading to their refusing or not choosing to read. At times, the text itself can be a negative influ- encer. Text difficulty, reading level, word count, and page count can discourage students from reading (Durán Bautista & Rendón Marulanda, 2018; Lindley et al., 2016; Merga, 2014). Students may feel they do not have time to read because of other interests, such as video games, social media, television, sports, and other recreational activities (Merga, 2014). Com- pulsory reading and whole class texts also tend to discourage students from reading (Ivey & Johnston, 2013; McKenna et al., 2012; Merga, 2014). What Can We Do? Just because students are assigned to read books over the summer does not mean they will. Merga (2014), Merga and Moon (2016), Ivey and Johnston (2013), and Scholastic and YouGov (2017) all found students are more likely to read when given an abundance of options and encouragement to read what they choose. We need to change our summer reading programs. Instead of assigning that classic we would love to share with our students (and can actually share during the school year with guidance from us), we should ask them to read books they want to read with the intention of coming in to share one, two, three, or maybe more books with the rest of the class. We need to keep their brains moving, keep ex- posing them to new words, reignite a love for reading, and encourage them to share exciting new finds with their classmates. As teachers, we need to reflect on the impact of summer reading assignments we are giving our students. What is the goal of summer reading for high school students? Are our current summer reading practices benefiting or hurting our students? Can a summer reading program motivate high school students to read more and decrease the likelihood of summer regression? If so, what books should we assign? Or should we permit students to select any- thing they want to read? This article does not serve as an admonishment of current practices. Part of effective teaching is trans- ferring the passion you have for your subject to the students. Your school’s summer reading program may be successful because the English department and administration is supportive and encourages student participation. However, if you dread the be-

2018/2019

C CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

7

Reconsidering

Our Practice

ginning of the school year because of the complaints and lack of participation, I encourage you to take a few moments to reflect on the importance of reading and summer reading, the influence of reading atti- tudes on independent and summer reading, and the implications of summer reading programs on reading References Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Olson, L.S., (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review , 72, 164-180. doi: 10.1177/000312240707200202 Allington, R.L., McGill-Franen, A., Camilli, G., Williams, L., Graff, J., Zeig, J.,& Nowak, R. (2010). Addressing summer reading setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology , 31, 411-417. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2010.5050165 Arnone, M.P., Small, R.V., & Weng, S. (2015). Are self-perception measures used in school library research transferable to the context of public library summer reading programs? School Library Research, 19, 1-17. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/ contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1093961 Barry, A.L. (2013). Reading preferences and perceptions of urban eighth graders. Reading Horizons , 52(4), 353- 374. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1098197 Blanton, M.V. (2015). Keys to reducing summer regression: The reader, routine, and relationship. Journal of Organizational & Educational Leadership, 1 (1), 1-22. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1131513 Colwell, J., Woodward, L., & Hutchison, A. (2018). Out-of- school reading and literature discussion: An exploration of adolescents’ participation in digital book clubs. Online Learning, 22 (2), 221-247. doi: 10.24059.olj.v22i2.1222 Compton-Lilly, C., Caloia, R., Quast, E., & McCann, K. (2016). A closer look at a summer reading program: Listening to students and parents. Reading Teacher, 70 (1), 59-67. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1468

attitudes. If our programs are not inspiring students to read or improving and encouraging classroom dis- cussions in the fall, it may be time to rethink the way we approach summer reading. Let us strive to find a way to reignite our students’ excitement for reading during the summer. Durán Bautista, D.C., & Rendón Marulanda, M.A. (2018). Free voluntary reading: Promoting vocabulary learning and self- directedness. English Language Teaching, 11 (8), 51-64. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ ERICServlet?accno=EJ1184811 Gordon, B. (2018). No more fake reading: Merging the classics with independent reading to create joyful, lifelong readers . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Ivey, G., & Johnston, P.H. (2013). Engagement with young adult literature: Outcomes and Processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 48 (3), 255-275. doi: 10.1002/rrq.46 Lindley, S., Giles, R.M., & Tunks, K. (2016). Summer reading lists: Research and recommendations. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 4 (1). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/ contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1110861 Love, K., & Hamston, J. (2003). Teenage boys’ leisure reading dispositions: Juggling male youth culture and family cultural capital. Educational Review, 55 (2), 161- McKenna, M.C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B.G., & Meyer, J.P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a U. S. Survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (3), 283-306. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.021 Merga, M.K. (2014). What would make them read more? Insights from Western Australian adolescents. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2014.961898 Merga, M.K., & Moon, B. (2016). The impact of social influences on high school students’ recreational reading. High School Journal, 99 (2), 122-140. doi: 10.1353.hsj.2016.0004 177. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/ loginaspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ669235

South Carolina English Teacher

8

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reconsidering

Our Practice

NAEP (2017). NAEP reading: National average scores. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017/#/states/ achievement?grade=8

Whitten, C., Labby, S., & Sullivan, S.L. (2016). The impact of pleasure reading on academic success. The Journal of Multidisciplinary Graduate Research, 2 , 48-64. Retrieved from https://www.shsu. edu/academics/education/journal-of-multidisciplinary-graduate- research/documents/2016/WhittenJournalFinal.pdf

NCTE (2017). Statement on classroom libraries. Retrieved from http://www2.ncte.org/statement/classroom-libraries/print/

Scholastic & YouGov. (2017). Kids & Family Reading Report (6th ed.). Scholastic . Retrieved from https://www.scholastic.com/ content/dam/KFRR/PastReports/KFRR2017_6th.pdf Schüller, E.M., Birnbaum, L., & Kröner, S. (2016). What makes elementary school students read in their leisure time? Development of a comprehensive questionnaire. Reading Research Quarterly, 52 (2), 161-175. doi: 10.1002/rrq.164

j Julianna V. Lux is an English teacher at Dorman Freshman Campus where she has taught for seventeen years. She is in the process of earning her Ph.D. in Literacy at St. John’s University in Queens, NY. She has earned National Board Certification and the Project Based Learning endorsement. Currently her research focuses on reading motivation and engagement in the secondary classroom.

Summer Reading. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www. urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=summer%20reading

2018/2019

C CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

9

Reconsidering

Our Practice

How Veteran Teachers Can “Do Better” by Learning from Novices: One Teacher’s Experiences with Writing Instruction

Caitlin Rasmussen & Victoria Oglan

“When you know better, you do better.” ~Maya Angelou In 2006, I [first author] graduated from college with a B.A. in English and thought I knew it all. I then be- gan an M.A.T. program, but midway through the sum- mer semester, I was offered a teaching position with an option for alternative certification. So, at age 22, having never taken a pedagogy methods course and having never stepped foot in a public high school, I began working as a full-time English teacher at a high school in a low-income, high-minority suburb of a large southeastern city. I loved this job and worked hard at it, but I real- ized that I did not know what I was doing. I had little knowledge of adolescent psychology, classroom management, instructional practices, or culturally relevant pedagogies. Everything was trial and error, but being a person who learns best by experience, I did not mind. I thought I had the potential to figure out how to be a perfect teacher all by myself. Not until six years later, when I enrolled in an M.Ed. program did I begin to recognize that an enormous body of research exists to inform teachers about what works and does not work in education. Flash forward to the present, where I am in the fourth year of a Ph.D. in Teaching and Learning program, and after courses on curriculum theory, epistemologies, critical pedagogy, and research methods, I have increased my knowledge of best practices and the theoretical underpinnings which govern what we as teachers do and why. Thinking I now knew and did better than most teachers, I was excited to begin the teaching intern- ship component of the doctoral program in the fall. My research interests nestle the intersection of litera- cies and travel abroad, so being a teaching assistant in a writing methods course might have seemed like a strange choice, but I felt confident that as a 13 year veteran English teacher who had mastered the art of teaching grammar, test prep, and the five-para- graph essay, I would have much to offer the graduate

pre-service teachers; this mindset could not have been more misguided. When the class began, I realized I would glean far more from the course than I could give to it. It be- came evident my teaching methods were based on a traditional model of teaching writing that no longer served a diverse population of students. However, because I am hard working and open to change, I am learning and growing from being around the pre-ser- vice teachers. I can, want, and have learned to “do better” because of them, but I might be the excep- tion. When it came to teaching writing, I had an excuse: I did not know better. Now that I do know better— know from theory, praxis, peers, mentorships—I can do better. But what happens when teachers know better but do not do better? Or what if they think they know best but are misguided? What if they once did better but now do worse? This is the phenomenon I have observed since beginning my teaching assistant experience. I have an eye now for best practices in the teaching of writ- ing, but I have not and do not regularly see them in practice. I do not understand how very few teachers with whom I have worked—including myself —fail, refuse, or do not know to use the strategies offered in writing methods courses. We know what research suggests: writer’s workshop works; error-correction disheartens budding writers; formulaic writing fails to translate into the real-world. But what do we see in classrooms: five-paragraph essays, grammar work- sheets, and teaching to the test. There exists a disconnect in what pre-service teachers learn about how to teach writing and what veteran teachers do in the classroom. My questions are: How do novice and veteran teachers’ perspec- tives about writing instruction differ? What is the nature of this disconnect? And what solutions exist for bridging the gap? Statement of Problem and Research Question

South Carolina English Teacher

10

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reconsidering

Our Practice

Methodology To learn more about the disconnect between novice and veteran teachers’ approaches to teaching writing, I gathered data in several ways, beginning with a review of the literature. I conducted roundtable discussions and gathered written responses on the topics at hand from the two groups. I met with vet- eran high school English teachers whose experience averaged ten years, followed up by an email invitation to respond to the interview protocol in written form. During the writing methods course in which I was the teaching assistant, I asked pre-service second- ary English teachers a similar set of questions. I also analyzed their double-entry journal responses to one of the course textbooks (Urbanski, 2005) in which the author, a veteran English teacher, discusses her journey and shifts in praxis in writing instruction. Field notes taken during the roundtable discussions with veterans, transcripts from the roundtable with pre-service novices, and the written responses from both groups were coded using in vivo descriptive and process coding methods followed by thematic analysis. Findings On Differences in Teacher Perspectives Recurring codes, categories, and themes emerged in the data to distinguish novice teachers from vet- eran teachers. The findings transcended my initial intent to focus exclusively on perceptions of and approaches to writing instruction to include much broader understandings of each group. In other words, I learned some about how each group ap- proaches the teaching of writing, but I learned far more about how the two groups differ. Furthermore, I realized that for almost every difference between the two I identified, I encountered nearly as many excep- tions; paradoxically, veterans and novices might be as similar as they are different. Once I identified the salient points regarding the differences in the two groups, I paired them. The fol- lowing is a discussion of the four paired themes. Academic vs. Personal Concerns Veteran teachers want writing tasks to be rigorous, to require hard work from students, to indicate what students know as dictated by the teacher, and to function as criterion-referenced measures of stu-

dents’ learning with little to no regard for how stu- dents feel or who they are as people. One indicator of the veterans’ concern for rigorous academic writing is the disdain for the types of writing referred to as writers’ notebooks, reflections, creative writing, or as one teacher called it “feel good writing.” Another veteran called this “low stakes writing.” The reduction of writers’ notebooks and creative writing as strat- egies for lower-level students reveals that teachers’ underlying belief that good, high-level writing is the opposite: rigorous, academic, text-based. The novice teachers observed similar attitudes in their coaching teachers (CTs). “My teacher doesn’t do a whole lot of writing that isn’t text- and evidence-based,” said one who later described the writing her CT did assign as “very academic.” Some veteran teachers do acknowledge the place that creative writing has for building comfort and confidence. “I get the idea that all of these fun and creative writing activities will help our students feel more comfortable with writing in general” wrote one veteran, “but I feel a pressure to prepare our students for the writing they’ll experience on the test.” While veterans might see purposes for creative writing, these purposes are less valued compared with aca- demic outcomes. Meanwhile, novice teachers want students to feel deeply, to feel comfortable and confident as writers, and to understand the many forms of writing. In brief, novices value personal growth. “We must cultivate a safe space within our classrooms where students feel comfortable sharing and celebrating,” one shared, and “Students need to be comfortable writing without the intimidating gaze of the teacher,” wrote another. They felt the same regarding confidence: “[Self-re- flection] allows students to reflect but also build con- fidence and be proud of what they have created; it’s time to help students enjoy writing again” wrote one novice. This evidence points to the novices’ concern for students’ feelings, enjoyment of the writing pro- cess, and opportunities to express themselves. Veterans and novices also differ on how much get- ting to know students is important. One novice wrote, “Knowledge of students is the most important aspect of deciding on instructional content.” While the con- cept of knowing students personally is hardly new, some novices say they failed to observe this among their CTs. One novice stated her CT “doesn’t make an

2018/2019

C CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

11

Reconsidering

Our Practice

effort to get to know them.” Again, it seems novices care more than veterans about students’ personalities and personal development. Conformity vs. Authenticity The most obvious way veteran teachers condone conformity is by teaching to the test. This sentiment arose repeatedly in our roundtable discussions and also in written responses. “I feel pressure to prepare students for the writing they’ll experience on test- ing,” wrote one veteran. I have also witnessed this in action. The only writing our AP Literature and AP Lan- guage students get is practice versions of the essays they will encounter on those tests. The novice teachers are must less concerned with testing: “I’m really not sure I believe that standardized tests are a great indicator of either a teacher’s ability to teach or a student’s ability to learn. If we teach the important stuff well, it seems that the testing stuff may fall into place – teaching to the test won’t work for me.” Aside from testing is the phenomenon of each teacher’s beliefs about what is good writing. Vet- eran teachers often take a prescriptive formulaic approach, more often than not some mutation of the five-paragraph essay. This type of teacher-de- termined, criterion-referenced standard for writing is problematic because it conveys a fallacy to students that there is only one way to write and they must master it. Novices share a dislike for prescriptive, formulaic writing and want students to authenticate writing. They embrace using mentor texts or allowing stu- dents to choose what they want to write and the form which best accomplishes those goals. They value the process as much as the product and they normalize writing as a struggle for all writers independent of age or experience. “We tell students to create meaning, and structure, to come up with unique ideas, to be an individual,” and “I would much rather have my students…be true to themselves and their expression of thought,” one novice shared. The veterans’ use of rubrics and traditional grades—and by contrast, the novices’ skepticism towards grading in accordance to a single standard— also speaks to the conformity versus authenticity dichotomy. “Knowing that it is possible to assess students for what they know rather than expecting

them to learn exactly what you prescribe is a great way to grade in an authentic and encouraging way” explained one novice. Veteran teachers adhere to the one size fits all approach to rubrics and grading since it seems to simplify the process. Myopic vs. Holistic Approaches Myopia figuratively connotes a lack of imagination, and the inability to see the big picture. On the flip side, to be holistic means to view the parts of some- thing as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole. In terms of their perspec- tives on teaching, the veteran teachers’ surveyed trended myopic while the novices trended holistic, and their attitudes towards the teaching of grammar, specifically. The teaching of grammar in isolation or in context remains a divisive issue among English teachers. Some veterans cite Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer’s (1963) finding that “the teaching of formal grammar has a negligible, or even harmful effect on the improvement of writing” (pp. 37-38), and teach grammar in context only, if at all. Yet, the issue of grammar in the modern curriculum has, at times, been metaphorized as a war (Myhill & Watson, 2014; Halpern, 1997; Kamler, 1995). In my roundtable discussions, one veteran stated, “Ignoring grammar is bad!” Aside from this teacher, among those with whom I currently work, six of the ten of us teach grammar to some degree, at least four of us, includ- ing myself, in isolation, and the two I know that do not teach grammar at all are second- and fourth- year teachers, the youngest in our group. In short, teaching grammar in isolation, which I categorize as myopic rather than holistic because its role in a larger context is ignored, correlates with the teachers’ years of experience. Novices appear more united in their gram- mar-in-context-only stance. Not one of them indi- cated they would teach grammar in isolation. One wrote, “Ideally, grammar should always be taught in context,” and “We don’t have to police grammar mistakes.” They believe writing is about ideas not spelling and grammar which is a more holistic view of writing. “I hope that someday I can teach writing in a holistic, unforced, and natural way so my stu- dents can be flexible and prepared writers,” wrote one novice.

South Carolina English Teacher

12

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reconsidering

Our Practice

Over the years, many of the veterans I have en- countered--at times, myself included--do not or sim- ply cannot situate the skills they teach within a larger schema. Facts or skills or processes are taught as ends unto themselves rather than moveable pieces in a much bigger, more complex puzzle; grammar is but one example. Static vs. Dynamic Practices English teachers are familiar with the terms “static” and “dynamic;” the former referring to one who stays the same and the latter refers one who embraces change. I found veterans are more static in terms of their beliefs, practices, and attitudes, whereas novic- es are more dynamic. One novice commented her CT “has taught the same curriculum almost every year.” Another wrote, “I feel like there’s this point where you reach a place of complacency…I never want to be that way.” The perception among novices about veteran teachers is they get stuck in their ways, which is to say static, whereas the novices take pride in being the opposite, which is to say dynamic. Winkler (2002) found that veteran teachers active- ly dislike change since it might require sacrifice of beloved activities, compromise of educational philos- ophies, and sense of loss about professionalism and autonomy. By contrast, Winkler observed novice teachers are more open to change because they “had not accumulated a collection of favorite units or activ- ities; thus they found ample freedom to teach content according to their preferences” (p. 222). In short, Winkler’s findings support the claim that veterans are static and novices are dynamic. On Similarities in Teacher Perspectives At this point, the previous section might appear to deepen the schism between veteran and novice teachers, painting them as polar opposites. However, in the process of examining how the two are different, paradoxically a myriad of ways revealed how the two groups are similar. These similarities may reveal a po- tential remedy to the schism and improve the quality of teaching among both. The Value of Formulaic Writing Despite a wealth of evidence against the effec- tiveness of formulaic writing (Urbanski, 2005), both

novice and veteran teachers feel a certain need to teach formulaic writing to some degree, specifically the five-paragraph essay. By their own admission, veterans value formulaic writing. At the roundtable discussion, the general consensus was teaching formulaic writing early on provides a scaffold from which students eventually break free. “Formulaic writing is a necessity for set- ting basic standards and guidelines for writing,” one veteran said. A number of novices confess similar attitudes towards formula. One admitted, “I was raised on the five-paragraph essay, and though I do not think it the best way to teach writing, it proved a good starting point for me.” Some novices do have mixed or negative feelings about formulaic writing. One commented, “I cannot help but wonder where the balance lies be- tween helping students understand that writing follows no formula, yet teach them there are important formal elements they need to use in order to improve their writing.” While novice opinion veers toward continuing to teach five-paragraph essay writing in limited capaci- ty, a few novices remain committedly anti-formula. Teach the Way I Was Taught A second similarity is the compulsion to “teach the way I was taught.” Both a novice and a veteran teacher expressed this sentiment. “My first instinct when teaching is to emulate the classrooms that I’ve had the most success in.” The interesting part about this urge for both novices and veterans to teach this way is not its implications on the continuation of a cy- cle but the implications it could have for the nature of the mentor-mentee relationship. If we model what we see and teach the way we are taught, it is important novice teachers find effective veterans who are cur- rent in the field to mentor and serve as CTs for them. Positive Veteran/Novice Relationships A third similarity is the idea that each can benefit from the other. Even if the CT is stuck in her ways, having the novice as an intern somehow counter- acts her stasis. All but one novice teacher described her relationship with her CT positively in this regard. During the roundtable, the novices said things like “My coaching told me she loves having student teachers.” The veteran teachers did express the posi- tive impact novice teachers can have since they bring

2018/2019

C CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

13

Reconsidering

Our Practice

fresh ideas to the classroom which are rooted in best practice theory. On Bridging the Gap through Mentorship and Teaching Assistant Positions Despite initially setting out to examine how nov- ice and veteran teachers’ perspectives about writing instruction differ and to understand better the nature of this disconnect, what I actually found is that an ideal combination of differences and similarities exist between novices and veterans to pave the way for a mutually beneficial relationship. This has led me to conclude that novice-veteran relationships via mentorships and teaching assistant positions can help veteran teachers just as much as novice teach- ers. Through the novice’s closer proximity to recent scholarship and best practices, her youthful energy, her willingness to take instructional risks, and his attachment to pet projects and favorite texts not yet formed, the veteran is rejuvenated. I, personally, can attest to this. I learned so many new ideas in the writing methods course about how to teach writing that have affected my own practice. This has been invaluable, but more invaluable was being surrounded by optimistic, hard-working, socially con- scious novices who made sure my passion for teaching remained intact. Although I was in a role of teaching as- sistant, I gained far more from them than they from me. Research attests to the benefits of the mentor-men- tee relationship as much for the veteran as for the

novice. Zuckerman (2001) writes, “veteran teachers can learn from their mentee about innovations in pedagogy and technology-based instruction and be revitalized by their mentee’s energy and idealism” (p. 19). Levin and Rock (2003) also report findings that support the mutual benefits of the mentor-mentee relationship indicating they both would become more reflective, critical, and analytical about their teaching behaviors in the classroom as a result of relationships built upon critical analysis of teaching and learning. On a broader scale, research exists to justify the benefits of effective mentoring for the recruitment and retention of novice teachers, but the real lesson here is that the benefits for the mentor equal if not exceed the benefits for the mentee (Gschwend & Moir, 2007; Lee, 2018). Implications & Conclusion In the portrait I have painted of the differences and similarities between novice and veteran teachers, one solution to improve them both simultaneously is the mentor-mentee relationship where paired veterans and novices learn from each other. Understanding how veteran teachers can learn from novices might have major implications for how mentors are selected and trained. Circling back to the epigraph which began this paper, “When you know better, you do better.” Veter- an teachers can learn to “do better” from novices; I know because it happened for me.

South Carolina English Teacher

14

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reconsidering

Our Practice

References Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., and Schoer, L. (1963). Research in written composition . Chapaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Gschwend, L., and Moir, E. (2007). Growing together: New and veteran teachers support each other through practices that target the needs of high school educators. The Learning Professional , 28 (4), 20.

action research on preservice and experienced teacher partners in professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education , 54 (2), 135-149. Myhill, D., & Watson, A. (2014). The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A review of the literature. Child Language Teaching and Therapy , 30 (1), 41-62. Urbanski, C.D. (2005). Using the workshop approach in the high school English classroom: Modeling effective writing, reading, and thinking strategies for student success . Corwin. Winkler, A. (2002). Division in the ranks: Standardized testing draws lines between new and veteran teachers. Phi Delta Kappan , 84 (3), 219-225. Zuckerman, J.T. (2001). Veteran teacher transformations in a collaborative mentoring relationship. American Secondary Education , 18-29.

Halpern, J. (1997). A war that never ends. The Atlantic, 279 (3), 19-22 .

Kamler, B. (1995) . The grammar wars or what do teachers need to know about grammar? English in Australia, 114, 3-15 .

Lee, S.E. (2018). Mentoring new English writing teachers: Advice from experienced teachers. English Teaching , 73 (2).

Levin, B.B., and Rock, T.C. (2003). The effects of collaborative

j

Dr. Victoria Oglan is a clinical associate professor in secondary English education at the University of South Carolina. She is past co-director of the Mid- lands Writing Project and current director of the USC Accreditation Team for the South Carolina Indepen- dent School Association. She consults and con- ducts presentations on K-12 classroom topics. Her research interests include: adolescent/disciplinary literacy, high school reading/writing workshop, and classroom assessment.

Caitlin Ramussen is a full-time high school English teacher as well as a Ph.D. student in the Teaching and Learning program at the University of South Car- olina. Her primary research interests are literacy and international experiences among adolescents.

2018/2019

C CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

15