Poling, who is an administrator in Maryland, looks at the span of uses that blogs can have in a school environment, including:

• individual blogging,
• classroom blogging,
• collaborative blogging, and
• staff development blogging.

Her biggest statement is regarding increased motivation she observes in students who are blogging as part of curriculum:

“[B]ringing children and adults together in an online setting to build communication and deeper understanding, truly motivates children to learn and grow” (12).

She states that while individual blogging can be effective, blogging as part of a class is especially powerful because it “helps build communication and collaboration among students”(12).

In addition, she compares blogging to journaling with a positive edge to technology:

“Handwritten reading response journals allow students to communicate only with the instructor.  Students are motivated not only by the use of technology and the ability to type rather than use pencil and paper but also by the audience they have when writing online” (13).

Lastly, she cites growth as something an educator can observe over the course of a semester and/or school year.   Because the blog can become a portfolio of sorts, students can also observe their growth as writers, thinkers, and collaborators/debaters of ideas.

Poling, C.  (2005, March).   Blog on:  building communication and collaboration among staff and students.  Learning and leading with technology.  Vol.  32, No. 6:  12-15.

Related posts:

1. Inspiring through collaboration. Sullo, B
2. Wiki, blog, or moodle? Fryer, W.
3. Mining the internet: a space for “writing without writing.”

Nelson and Feinstein focus on “Netspeak,” which they define as “a blend of speech and writing” (1).  Their greatest point, however, is found in trying to battle the idea/theory that writing frequently leads to improved writing overall (especially by using blogs, e-mails, and instant messaging).

Their conclusion is in three parts after completing a four-year study in two Midwestern high schools:

First,

“classroom compositions. . .endure inconsistent applications…online writing…suffers a downright shoddy performance” (19).

Second,

“Students who write via e-mail, IM, and/or blogs show worse usage of standard conventions than those…who do not write online…” (19).

And third,

“Students, for the most part, do switch gears when writing in different situations” (19).

The writers make no poignant notions as to how educators should address this, but a few statements make readers fill in the blanks for themselves.  They write,

“The writing process can help conquer [the online] arena with multiple revisions and help from teachers and peer editors, but those have become luxuries most writers cannot afford.  We need to know how to write well the first time and see content, form, and conventions as inseparable” (20).

They continue:

“We cannot stop writing, since written communication has become such a staple in our ever-connected digital world, but we do need to stop writing badly” (20).

And they leave readers (and presumably English teachers with this:

“…when writing in school and on the internet, we must ask ourselves two simple questions:  Will my reader(s) understand what I’m trying to communicate, and is my writing reflecting my best thinking?  Conventions can help us do that” (20).

Thus, the writers leave educators in the English field the task of trying to get students to use these new communicative technologies by writing better, rather than the opposite.

It’s bizarre that young people are “simply want[ing] cell phones with e-mail and/or IM capabilities,” but Nelson and Feinstein suggest that this isn’t altogether terrible; getting student to “understand the importance of how they say what they say” may be the real trick, and key, to improving writing in a fast-changing, fast-paced digitally publishing world.

Nelson, L. and S.G. Feinstein.  Research on writing conventions:  U R what U write.  (Retrieved from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 495-170).

Related posts:

1. Mining the internet: a space for “writing without writing.”
2. Do-it-yourself broadcasting: writing weblogs in a knowledge society.
3. Notes from the battlefield: toward a theory of why people write. Fox, M.

Lankshear and Knobel elaborately outline:

• the history of blogging,
• the anatomy of a weblog,
• a detailed step-by-step process of how to set up a blog, and
• the types of blogs that existed as of 2003.

It’s also worth noting that some commentary in this article reflects its five-year-old presence in the Web 2.0 world, as some cautions are certainly important but somewhat dated.  Important information for “beginners,” no doubt.

The authors go on to focus on whether or not blogs can be a window for what they dub “powerful writing” (6).  They write,

“Blogs provide some interesting angles on such questions, particularly from the perspective of power in relation to language in the context of ‘an information society’ where, potentially, our use of ‘written language’ (broadly conceived) can reach larger audiences than could ever have been imagined even a decade ago” (6).

They go on to share and analyze a study on the power of quality writing in blogs by Clay Shirky in relation to writing pedagogy, and thereby share the 2003 perspective on blogs and online writing, which ends up being largely critical.

Another example later is regarding simply using new technologies for the sake of using new technologies:

“…our concern is that school blogs typically present themselves as earnest attempts to meld new technology use, student interest and school work in ways that risk ‘killing’ the medium by reducing its potential scope and vitality to menial school takes in which students seemingly lack any genuine purpose” (16).

No doubt, whether 2003 or 2009, this is important.

Interestingly enough, while powerful writing is not often present for a variety of reasons, Lankshear and Knobel recognize that,

“[t]o be influential means gaining purchase or edge in the market of ideas.  From this standpoint, powerful writing will be a function, in the first instance, of achieving success in some market or other.  This is why blogs are especially significant so far as offering a contemporary window on powerful writing is concerned.  Blogs are most emphatically operating under market conditions and are widely being written and thought about as such” (8).

Regarding the pedagogy of powerful writing,

“Shirky’s ideas suggest…much of the power in powerful writing lies in affiliation with some larger collective” (11).

In online writing, this affiliation and grammatical editing don’t always take place, largely because getting ideas out there overshadows grammar and mechanics.  However, the strength of blogging and online writing altogether can be found here:

“…there is little or nothing in writing pedagogy that invites students to begin from their concrete membership of affinity groups, or to go about establishing a constituency for real life (non artificial) purposes.  On the contrary, much of the authentic writing students do in school settings for real audiences is ultra vires and discounted, if not punished” (11-12).

In other words, a refreshing opportunity here exists; one example is the wonderful opportunity to teach point of view and perspective in such writing.  In another example, teachers can reveal to students ways in which they can be concise.  K. Shanmugasundaram is quoted in the article as stating,

“Readers [of weblogs] come from a variety of backgrounds.  Write to the point, be simple and short…Usually I spend a minute or two on a weblog to see if there is anything new and interesting.  You probably have 30 to 45 seconds to get a user’s attention” (14).

The authors go on to point out a number of additional advantages to using online writing over classroom writing, most importantly stating the clear evidence of purpose-driven writing online versus generic, situational writing in the classroom (journaling, etc.).  They also cite the potential “process of becoming knowledgeable about something” through “learners and teachers beginning from having authentic problems and questions to investigate” (16).

Perhaps most interesting is their citing V. Bush, who wrote an article in 1945 about the “memex”, which he defined as a

“device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility.  It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his [or her] memory” (17).

This is exactly where the Web 2.0 technologies seem to be taking everyone – and fast!

They close by focusing on the epistemic potential of blogs in that

“blogging could be made into a highly sophisticated form of learning that engages directly with systematicity in searching” and “become important indices to and evidence of personal and collective knowledge structures by both recording and unveiling an individual’s or a group’s knowledge or epistemic effort over time” (18).

They also highlight the potential for a place of great reflection for students (and staff alike).

“Understanding where one went in an online search and why one went there thus becomes a key component of a blog, in ways that are not so evident and are not necessarily available in 5-part essay writing” (18).

Poignantly they conclude,

“In these and other ways research as blogging, and blogging as research, could potentially become potent pedagogical approaches to writing.  And such writing might indeed be appropriately described as powerful” (19).

Lankshear, C. and M. Knobel.  (2003, April).  Do-it-yourself broadcasting: writing weblogs in a knowledge society.  (Retrieved from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 478-120).

Related posts:

1. Mining the internet: a space for “writing without writing.”
2. Blog on: building communication and collaboration among staff and students.
3. Research on writing conventions: U R what U write.

This article really was by Emily Van Noy, the teacher who employed blogging in her classroom, and Kajder and Bull assisted in writing it.  The focus was primarily on steps in setting up and using blogs in the classroom.

Van Noy states that journaling in class was dying, and she even gave up on it altogether, until the new technologies came forward, and thus resurrecting journaling through online communication.

Essentially, Van Noy emphasizes the importance of planning and setting up a blog for a class in predicting its effectiveness with students.  From parent surveys to student technology permission slips, she covers all the pre-blogging steps thoroughly before cracking application.  Another step emphasized setting up accounts and assigning usernames that are appropriate, protect identity, and also contain something that a student will likely remember later (forgotten usernames and passwords can quickly affect a blog’s potential).

Van Noy then highlights some uses, including reflection postings, student responses, and “sharing ideas and work within communities” (34).

She also pointed out the benefit of archiving options that some sites contain.

Lastly, Van Noy stresses the importance of spell check tools – something many sites do not include (or if they do, are difficult to locate).

Favorite line at the end:

“We are convinced that, as we continue to work with blogs in language arts, they will expand the possible ways in which we engage and lead student writers in the classroom” (35).

Kajder, S. and G. Bull with E. Van Noy.  (2004, March).  Mining the internet:  a space for “writing without writing.”  Learning and leading with technology.  Vol. 31, No. 6:  32-35.

Related posts:

1. Blog on: building communication and collaboration among staff and students.
2. Do-it-yourself broadcasting: writing weblogs in a knowledge society.
3. Research on writing conventions: U R what U write.

Before I was introduced to wikis in April 2008, I never would have envisioned how much my teaching could use these new technologies.  More importantly, my students could not be more ready to take their education to a new level that I sincerely hope will better connect them to the world and prepare them to participate in a digital world.  The time is now, and while students have been hungry for this opportunity, the reinforcing research is thorough enough to justify using wikis,blogs, podcasts, Flickr, Moodle, and online writing technologies that I feel can significantly improve students’ writing, and perhaps more importantly, prepare them for digital citizenship.

This series, based on action research I collected while studying for my M.Ed, explores the impact digital technology can have on how our students learn, and how we, as educators, can leverage that impact for the good of our students.

Online literacy and new literacy

Another important line of literature focused on the importance of students both being exposed to concepts in and employing online literacy.  In their article, “Information Literacy 2.0:  Empowering Students Through Personal Engagement,” Brown and Bussert, who used the Web 2.0 technology Flickr in a learning community in Cairo, Egypt, point out that

“[c]ommon Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, wikis, and social bookmarking tools are ‘intrinsically user-centered and can be leveraged by Information Literacy (IL) instructors for a creative, student-centered teaching and learning environment” (Brown, Bussert, 2007).

And while some resources argued that simply exposing students to these technologies does not improve their online literacy, this article opposes that position, stating that the

“. . .fundamental hypothesis underlying the use of social software to teach key information literacy concepts is that student learning will increase due to personal engagement, use of preferred learning styles, and application to daily life” (Brown, Bussert, 2007).

These resources go on to detail ways in which exposure is important, and also how they can more specifically be applied as powerful classroom tools.  But in this set, understanding how to use them is part of the education, according to authors like Luce-Kapler, who cites visual literacy using these mediums as yet another layer of important learning students get while utilizing new technologies.

Calling these new literacies “radical change,” which is also a portion of the author’s title, Luce-Kapler highlights three main forms of new literacies:

“(1) changing forms and formats such as new forms of graphics, new levels of synergy between text and pictures, nonlinear and nonsequential organizations and formats, and multiple layers of meaning and interactive formats;

(2) changing perspectives such as multiple points of view both visual and verbal and previously unheard voices, including youth; and

(3) changing boundaries such as dealing with previously forbidden or overlooked subjects and settings, new types of communities, characters portrayed in new and complex ways, and unresolved endings” (Luce-Kapler, 2007,  p. 215).

And although Jakes doesn’t come right out and say it, his assertion that using wikis and Web 2.0 writing technologies also “promote[s] a lifetime of participation and contribution,” leading to what some writers described as digital citizenship.  Students will be sharing ideas, debating, agreeing, asking questions, and leading discussions using these technologies, and through such collaborative efforts, they will also be challenging their own thinking while challenging the thinking of their peers as well.

Finally, it is one thing for students to know how to participate in social networking Web 2.0 technologies, and many are doing so rather comfortably, but do they really understand what they are doing?  Do they understand the potential that exists beyond the social web as they move toward this “digital citizenship” that undoubtedly stands before them?

J. Salpeter’s article “Make Students Info Literate” focuses on what the author calls education’s most clear goal for the next century:  “[H]ow to develop a new generation of knowledgeable digital citizens who can operate in the unregulated online world” (Salpeter, 2008, p. 25).  She also makes emphatic mention of the NTCE’s adoption of new literacy goals and correlating definitions – an obvious eye-opener to any educators (especially English instructors) who are failing to pay attention.  The authors I read seemed to predict the NCTE’s move, as Brown and Bussert already understood through their Flickr implementation back in 2004-05, defining information literacy as “the set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information” (Brown, Bussert, 2007).

Jakes’s most profound statement in his article, “New Literacies:  Enrichment or Essential?” supports these claims, stating, “Our kids need to use the Web for learning in many ways, but we have to structure online learning so that it is true inquiry, supported by the requisite information literacy skills, so that students, when in need, have internalized a problem-solving approach to build answers to questions of importance.”  In K. Bolan, M. Canada, and R. Cullin’s article “Web, Library, and Teen Services 2.0,” the authors go so far as to argue that

“[g]aming is one of the newer services that libraries are implementing that embraces library 2.0 beliefs.  Contrary to what some may think, gaming is recognized as a literacy activity” (Bolan, Canada, Cullin, 2007, p. 42).

At this point, I can quickly see how information and online literacy is of great importance, and the NCTE obviously will be pushing all of us forward.  For me, when I have historically looked at Wisconsin and national standards, the technology pieces are often those that are given the least attention, mostly because I know that although important, they will not be addressed on the test.  But that is my motivation – not to teach to a test, but to prepare these students for digital citizenship.

One might argue that by not preparing them as such, they will be ill-equipped to fully function and contribute within our democracy, and further, with our international neighbors.  By employing Web 2.0 technologies, I will already be assisting them in becoming more digitally literate – helping them to decipher quality resources from those that are potentially fraudulent.  This always mattered to me, but now I will implement that concern by embedding that in my teaching.

In addition, as an English teacher who teaches a research paper and incorporates literary research with analysis papers, there are a number of opportunities for me to teach to these new literacies, and not to simply meet the “F” criteria in the Wisconsin State Standards.  As for environmental aspects, I suspect that with these technologies will come new responsibilities for students as they are not working in their own corner of the room any longer; because a number of their contributions will be accessible to all students in my classes, they may feel more inclined to take care with the work they do, and more naturally become more conscious of the quality and compassion behind what they contribute.  Jakes continually asked his title question:  “Enrichment or Essential?” (Jakes, 2006).  It will become my job to make online literacy essential, not simply an exercise in enrichment for my classes.

Bolan, K., M. Canada, and R. Cullin (2007). Web, library, and teen services 2.0 Young adult library services, 5 (2), 40-43

Brown, N.E. and K Bussert. (2007). Information literacy 2.0: empowering students through personal engagement. Eric Document Reproduction Service : ED 500-136

Jakes, D. (2006). New literacies: enrichment or essential? Paper presented at TechForum in San Diego, California

Luce-Kapler, R. (2007). Radical Change and Wikis: Teaching New Literacies Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51 (3), 214-223 DOI: 10.1598/JAAL.51.3.2

Salpeter, J. (2008). Make students info literate. Technology & Learning, 25-28

Related posts:

1. Brown, N.E. and K. Bussert. Information literacy 2.0: empowering students through personal engagement.
2. New literacies: enrichment or essential?
3. Wikis and literacy development.

Before I was introduced to wikis in April 2008, I never would have envisioned how much my teaching could use these new technologies.  More importantly, my students could not be more ready to take their education to a new level that I sincerely hope will better connect them to the world and prepare them to participate in a digital world.  The time is now, and while students have been hungry for this opportunity, the reinforcing research is thorough enough to justify using wikis,blogs, podcasts, Flickr, Moodle, and online writing technologies that I feel can significantly improve students’ writing, and perhaps more importantly, prepare them for digital citizenship.

This series, based on action research I collected while studying for my M.Ed, explores the impact digital technology can have on how our students learn, and how we, as educators, can leverage that impact for the good of our students.

The Pedagogy and Politics of Technology in the classroom

Talking with just about any administrator about the importance of technology in a school, one will find him/her pointing to the computer labs available, the existence of a school webpage, and maybe to the SmartBoards the school has installed thus far (if lucky enough to afford them).  But J.D. Bransford points out that technology’s existence is not guaranteeing anything at all to a mother who is about to enroll her child in the district’s high school.  In an ever-increasingly politicized educational system, taxpayers are crying foul over every expenditure, especially on new and constantly changing technology.

Bransford combats these issues by stating, “Because many new technologies are interactive, it is now easier to create environments in which students can learn by doing, receive feedback, and continually refine their understanding and build new knowledge” (Bransford, 2000, p. 208).  What’s particularly wonderful about these new technologies is that they are all free to access and use, especially when you are talking about educational purposes (my own wiki pages, because they are clearly of an educational nature, are free and one level above a basic page, meaning that I have more gigabyte space for backing up pages, and no advertisements whatsoever).  And while I have to address how much access students have to internet services outside of school by using an early technology survey, I always allow sufficient time in class and extended deadlines for certain types of online work that allow students enough flexibility to participate successfully, even if they don’t have access to the web after school is out.

Motivation

A number of the sources in my research focus on how technology can help to drive motivation and keep students focused on real-world tasks using new real-world technologies, all the while giving them the opportunity to “perform and learn in far more complex ways than ever before” (Bransford, 2000, p. 215).  And while Glasser doesn’t directly address new technologies in his somewhat archaic article from 1997 and 1998, he nicely massages any questioning administrator or parent into believing in the potential these technologies have on student motivation, mostly because they are intrinsically supportive of his belief in choice theory, where students take ownership and responsibility for their actions.

Web 2.0 collaboration and activity can easily meet the four psychological needs he cites in his article, “’Choice Theory’ and Student Success,” including “the need to belong, the need for power, the need for freedom, and the need for fun” (Glasser, 1997, p.17).  And J. Willis’s article, “Preserve the Child in Every Learner,” shows just how important it is that students feel that they are an integral part of what is occurring in the classroom.  Looking at the function of the amygdale and the brain chemical dopamine, Willis makes a clear brain-based assertion that dopamine in students’ brains is not as readily blocked when teaching strategies include “exploration and investigation activities, cooperative learning, allowing students to establish some of their own learning goals, student choice of subtopics to investigate, social collaboration, and physical activity connected to academic study” (Willis, 2007, p. 35).

Perhaps even more revealing in the literature is the fact that the barriers that have historically existed between student and teacher could be knocked down using such new technologies.  Bransford argues that the use of these technologies in the classroom can actually redefine the roles of students and teachers alike, stating that “[o]ften both teachers and students are novices, and the creation of knowledge is a genuinely cooperative endeavor.  Epistemological authority – teachers possessing knowledge and students receiving knowledge – is redefined, which in turn redefines social authority and personal responsibility” (Bransford, 2000, p. 227).

Glasser could not be more thrilled, stating that students have a “personal world” where only a select few are allowed to enter.  If teachers move from bossing to leading, and these technologies can allow for exactly that, then “[w]e follow [teachers] because we believe they have our best interests at heart.  In school, if [a student] senses that particular teachers are now caring, listening, encouraging, and laughing, he will begin to consider putting them into his quality world,” and the environment of that classroom can be truly special (Glasser, 1997, p. 18).

Willis’s brain-based research also reinforces the importance of a safe, stimulating, comfortable environment for quality learning to take place, stating that “when students are in a positive emotional state” and “when subjects express feelings of contentment and safety, a stimulating, but comfortable amount of challenge has a positive influence on the amygdala’s affective filter,” which in one study showed “students tested under these conditions show better working memory, improved verbal fluency, increased episodic memory for events, enhanced creative problem solving, focus, and higher order executive function and decision-making abilities” (Willis, 2007, p. 35).

When looking at my own instruction, there is no doubt that using Web 2.0 technologies allow for me to break down the barriers that exist between teachers and students, creating an online forum and digital environment that can quickly spread into the classroom, making a safe place to share ideas, writing, and other project-based learning I might involve in the curriculum.  Two springs ago, I first experimented with employing a wiki page in my English 11 courses, and the feedback (in the form of surveys and in verbal communication) was phenomenal.  Even in my summer school class, students with whom I had little or no connection were able to develop a relationship with me by using a website called shelfari.com, where we shared good books we have read in the past and were reading at that moment.

Exciting, to say the least.  For me as an English instructor, considering the topics we cover in our reading of J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye alone, if students do not feel that I genuinely care about the trials and tribulations of teenagers, how can teaching such an important piece of literature really be effective?  These technologies really do take the impact of my teaching Catcher to another level altogether.  And finally, when considering assessment, it’s clear that my students perform better as a result of what is a more inviting, involving, caring environment using these new technologies,

Related posts:

1. How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Bransford, J.D., A. L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking, eds.
2. “Choice theory” and student success. Glasser, W.
3. Online literacy and new literacy

Brain-based research provides teachers with a lot of helpful do’s and don’ts to bring back to the classroom.  “We do one thing in one way and hope for the best, but for many of our students, it will not be enough” (Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch, 1998).  Even if we teach using the brain-based approach, there is still the problem of all of the different levels of learners in one classroom.  These complicated organs called brains all develop at different rates, and there are some students that are far more ready for complicated tasks than others.  With all of the different levels, we do need to make sure they’re all enriching their brain as mentioned above, but what can we do in our classrooms?  We differentiate!

“What we call differentiation is not a recipe for teaching…It is not what a teacher does when he or she has time.  It is a way of thinking about teaching and learning.  It is a philosophy” (Tomlinson, 2000).

Differentiation is one of those complex ideas that cannot just be copied off of the internet and pasted into a classroom.  Differentiation is something that teachers need to believe in.  All students are different, and therefore need to see school and learning differently.

Lori Tukey (2002), a sixth-grade teacher, gave a great analogy comparing golf to learning.  We all understand the concept, but our skill levels vary greatly.  Any golfer on the course has similar goals, but how those goals are met varies greatly.  No two golfers will have the same game.  Neither will any two learners have the same experience in a classroom. The following are some ways to help reach all students’ brains, regardless of their current level.

Prepare the Students

Differentiation can only begin if each student feels safe to learn in the classroom environment.  “When a child feels intimidated, rejected, or at risk, an overproduction of noradrenalin causes that child to focus attention on self-protection rather than on learning” (Tomlinson & Kalbfleish, 1998).  This again brings us back to the problems that stress causes the adolescent brain.  Another quote from Sabbagh (2007) states, “when adolescents are in situations with few competing demands, they do indeed behave like adults.”  We need to make sure, as teachers, that all baggage and other competing demands stay outside of the classroom and that all students feel like they are welcome to take chances and learn.

One suggestion from Eric Jensen (1998) was using a “dumping box” near the entrance where students can physically or just symbolically drop any problems off at the door so that all students can start on a clean slate.   Another way is to again maintain consistency with rules and expectations.  When students are confronted immediately after making a bad decision that effects the positive classroom environment, they will quickly learn how to act appropriately, and create an environment where the teens can feel more able to make adult-like decisions.  Once all students feel welcome and ready to learn, we then need to find ways to reach all students.

One way to start each unit off on the right track is to simply explain what you’re going to be teaching.  Tomlinson (2000) spoke of one teacher, “At the outset of each chapter, the teacher delineated for students the specific skills, concepts, and understandings that they needed to master for that segment of the curriculum.”  By explaining the requirements at the beginning, students’ brains are already processing what is to come and will be more prepared to take on the work.  They can also begin making connections right away, and won’t be surprised when the new ideas are brought up.  As mentioned in Part 1, it’s important to help students work on organizational skills, because many of their brains are not yet prepared to do it on their own.  By giving them visuals to look at and see what they need to know and do, students are better able to prepare themselves for what they need to accomplish.  Schedules on the board is something I have used in the past, and I know that it helps, not only the students, but also the teacher’s aids and myself.  They keep us on track and remind us what needs to be accomplished and when.

Give students ownership

Lori Tukey (2002) is a sixth-grade teacher that is seeing the rewards of differentiating her writing curriculum.  She starts by preparing helper sheets for her students.  These sheets document goal-setting, conferences, and record-keeping.  But before they are given to the class, she gives students the opportunity to critique the sheets and change them.  Inevitably, what they come back with is always “simple and user friendly,” she said.

Once she began the writing process, students had already been given the choice of how their helper sheets were going to look, and they also chose what their writing goals were going to be.  This definitely differentiated the writing process for each student.  There were similar requirements, but each student had a specific goal for improvement in mind.

“When students can actually see their own growth through many drafts, they are motivated to do even more.  Even the poor writers felt success and took pride in what they were able to produce” (Tukey, 2002, p. 64).  By differentiating her writing curriculum, students are seeing the relevance of each writing assignment, because they had created their own personal goals for each writing assignment.  This again correlates with the brain-based learning; she was including their emotions by giving them the chance to feel success in something that they found important and relevant.

Students are also getting constant feedback from her and other students.  They’re seeing the learning as meaningful, because it applied more specifically to their individual needs. Though I can’t see myself creating this miraculous writing process in my classroom this year, I think students can feel ownership if they set their own goals, and in the end, have a part of their grade which documents whether or not they achieved their goal.  I am also a strong believer of self- and peer-assessment, where students can see what needs to be improved and make those corrections before moving on and getting their final grade.

Create Open-Ended Activities

If we want all students to be able to understand, enjoy, and contribute to the group, we need to make our instruction open-ended, with many different answers to the question.  Hileman (2006) said, “Real-world problem solving allows the brain to do what the brain does best, make decisions that promote creative, meaningful and productive judgment.  Modeling and organizing projects and activities that require higher-level thinking should be your main instructional goal when developing thinking skills in students.”  By creating activities where all students get a question that is relevant to the curriculum, but are allowed to create their own answers, their brains will be enriched at the appropriate level.  As stated before, students don’t need to come up with a right answer for students’ brains to make connections; as long as they’re challenged, and continue to problem solve possible solutions, we are helping their brains learn so much more than by giving them a fill-in-the-blank worksheet.

One example of an open-ended activity is a Socratic Seminar.  To create a Socratic Seminar, students should be given a text and then have to create a viewpoint or answer to a question, using the text as proof of their answer.  Students should create their “answer” individually, and then as a group, get together in a circle.  Students will then all get a chance to explain their viewpoints.  Not all students will agree, and discussion will be created.  “The teacher’s open-ended questions in the Socratic seminar differentiate process, allowing each student to deliberate and respond at his or her own level using a variety of reasoning strategies” (Schneider, 2000).

The great thing about Socratic Seminars is that all students come to the circle at their level of learning, with their comprehension of the text on paper, but through discussion, ALL students will see different ways to look at the text, regardless of their learning level.  All students come from different backgrounds, and will be able to share different ideas with the group.  This gives students a chance to make many different connections at one time, and makes the information very meaningful.  Socratic seminars are a different way to teach, leaving the discussion up to the students, instead of having the teacher ask questions in front of the room and students raise their hand if they’re daring enough to share an answer.

Though I have never used this process yet in my classroom, I have been a part of some through St. Mary’s, and I’ve seen how well they can work.  All students are given the chance to speak, and some new ideas that I would never have thought of were brought to my attention.  This gives more students a chance to lead the conversation, since all need to take part, and provides a simple way to formatively assess the students’ comprehension of an idea.

Another idea that incorporates more creative thinking is the sketch to stretch.  Students fold their paper into four sections, and get two minutes to sketch a picture in each of the segments according to what they felt was most important in the portion of text given.  This allows students to use their creativity, but again, at the depth that they are comfortable with.  When the eight minutes are up, students join in a round-robin circle and share what they drew.  Schneider (2000) explains, “When participants share their representations of the chapter in a round-robin, the struggling and advanced learners witness each other’s process.”

This process gives the necessary repetition for some brains to understand the text, but it keeps it interesting, since no two students will create the exact same representation of the text.  Again, this is another great way to assess learning of ALL students, without them even feeling like they’re taking a test.

One last idea for differentiated activities would be a literature circle.  Schneider (2000) explains the four roles that she begins with.  The “literary luminary” finds quotable lines to discuss with the group.  The illustrator makes an illustration to show the important idea from the text.  The “vocabulary enricher” finds words that need to be defined or words that really stood out in the text.  The connector makes connections between the writing and real life, explaining how the text relates or could relate to a real-life situation.

Schneider’s way of differentiating this activity is to allow students to choose the role that they play.  Students that may not be as comfortable with the text may choose to illustrate or be the vocabulary enricher.  However, all roles can be given to students of any level; since it is a group activity, all students will be able to evaluate and reflect on all students’ work before sharing it with a group.  Schneider continued by saying that roles can be switched, or changed, if another may be more fitting.  Some other example roles could be that of a discussion director or summarizer, or any number of other roles that students or the teacher create.  Students each get a chance to be leader, since all of their roles are different.  Students are working together to accomplish the problem-solving instead of getting direct instruction from the teacher as well.

Summing It Up

Is it a challenge to enrich the brain of every student that we encounter throughout the year?  Of course!  One of the most reassuring and helpful quotes that I came across was one from Lori Tukey (2002), who summarized Wehrmann by saying that she, “…argues that the most important thing about bringing differentiation into the classroom is to take small steps instead of leaping into it at full speed.  A teacher should add differentiation gradually, so the students and teacher don’t become stressed and overwhelmed.”  I know that I’m the sort of person that, without the idea that differentiation should be a gradual process, would jump in head-first and attempt to completely recreate my entire curriculum.  However, we’re worthless to our students if we throw brain-based differentiation at our students all at once at the beginning, and then burn out before the year is half over.  By starting with one subject, or with one unit, we can use bits and pieces of the brain-based differentiation and find out what works for us and our students.

While brain-based differentiation may take time and effort, I can only see the process to be worthwhile to our students.  Eric Jensen (1998) sums it up best by saying, “Humans have survived for thousands of years by trying out new things, not by always getting the “right,” tried-and-true answer.  That’s not healthy for growing a smart, adaptive brain.”  Not only should this be an inspirational quote for our students, but it should be something for us to bring to our classrooms.  Brain-based teaching may not come smoothly at first, but it is our nature as humans to continue to try until we do find the best answer.

Some of us may already be using differentiation throughout the day, while others may be strictly by-the-book and have a lot of work to do.  But, like we need to differentiate with our students, the idea of differentiation will be different for all teachers.  Though there is no “right answer” to differentiation, it is obvious to me that brain-based differentiation should exist in all classrooms.  By understanding our students’ brains, and teaching in a way that continually challenges and energizes them, they will learn so much more than they could in a more traditional atmosphere.  As I will be challenging myself throughout the rest of my career to create a differentiated, brain-based classroom, I challenge you to take the leap and do what you can to stretch and enrich the brains of every student you encounter, and look at all attempts, as small as they may seem, as the next step to success.

Related posts:

1. The Teen Brain Pt 2: Feedback
2. Motivating students using brain-based teaching strategies.
3. The Teen Brain Pt 5: Making Learning Meaningful

An Annotation

A great essay on the change in her students when the author moved to more “meaningful” assignments—particularly related to writing.  The big hurdle for many writing teachers is moving students from creating a piece to be checked off (a hoop to jump through), to a level of caring where they take part in what T.S. Eliot called, “the intolerable wrestle with words and meanings.”  Fox’s argument is that when we, as teachers, strive to make assignments meaningful for students, students care more and wrestle more.

A great essay on the change in her students when the author moved to more “meaningful” assignments—particularly related to writing.  The big hurdle for many writing teachers is moving students from creating a piece to be checked off (a hoop to jump through), to a level of caring where they take part in what T.S. Eliot called, “the intolerable wrestle with words and meanings.”  Fox’s argument is that when we, as teachers, strive to make assignments meaningful for students, students care more and wrestle more.

Related posts:

1. Research on writing conventions: U R what U write.
2. Storming the citadel: reading theory critically. Brookfield, S.D.
3. “Choice theory” and student success. Glasser, W.

An Annotation

Recommended for grades 3-8, this book is loaded with specific lessons, tools, and activities designed to teach Language Arts skills (such as reading and writing) with gender in mind.  The authors do very little linking brain-based gender issues to pedagogy, so the value of this book lies in its practicality and activities, of which there are plenty.  In short the activities are presented as things that work without much discussion about why they work.

One additional value of this book is at the very end, where you’ll find an annotated bibliography of nineteen sources related to gender and Language Arts—none of which I’ve included here.

Related posts:

1. Classroom strategies for interactive learning. Buehl, D.
2. With boys and girls in mind. Gurian, M., Stevens, K.
3. Mining the internet: a space for “writing without writing.”

“Mr. Wondra, could you read this to make sure I’m doing this right?”

“Sure.”  I knelt down at her side.

“Autumn.  Do you have any examples from your life in this?”

“No.”

“Did you decide whether you agree with your sign or not?”

“No.”

“Does your introduction include a story?”

“No.”

I think it was at this point that I noticed she was crying.

In the past, this would have baffled me.   In this post, I’m going to discuss why Autumn was crying.  But first I’d like you to consider the following research.  Trust me, we’ll get back to the drama between Autumn and Mr. Wondra shortly.

In 1991, Janel Caine, a graduate student at the University of Florida, set out to design a study to determine if playing music to premature babies might lead them to improved appetites and faster growth.  What she found was interesting: babies exposed to soft music in their cribs did grow faster, had fewer complications, and were discharged home from the hospital an average of five days sooner than babies that were not exposed to music.

That data alone has far-reaching and potentially powerful implications, but when you break her findings down by gender (which, surprisingly, she doesn’t do in her paper), they become truly startling.

Baby girls exposed to music left the hospital an average of nine and a half days sooner than babies that were not.  Baby boys exposed to music left no sooner at all!

Again, interesting data.  But these findings become even more significant when linked with research documenting that the range of sounds around 1,500 Hz is critical for understanding speech.

All this helps to explain why, on average, girls pick up language skills sooner than boys.  But does this head start give girls an advantage throughout their years in school?  And what can we, as teachers, do about this?

We’ll get into what this all means for language skills in a minute.  But first, I’d like to discuss what this new information might mean for how our students experience the classroom environment.

If it is indeed true that girls can hear certain tones related to speech “significantly better” than boys, I’m going to want to keep that in mind when planning my seating arrangements.  I may want to avoid placing a girl near the door.  If someone is talking in the hall, she’ll have a greater chance of hearing it and being distracted.  On the other hand, since I often give instruction from the front of the room, and know boys don’t hear as well, I may want to seat them near the front.  Being a male myself with a voice that projects, I may also want to avoid seating girls in front or they may think I’m shouting.  This might also have implications for oral reading.

As a man, with a voice that carries, I also want to keep this information in mind when addressing girls individually.  If I use my normal tone, she might think I’m yelling at her.  In fact this is exactly what happened the other day with Autumn in the computer lab.

Because girls hear certain tones much clearer, often times, depending on a teacher’s tone, a boy will have trouble hearing it, and a girl will hear it as loud.  This has implications for both male and female teachers.

Women with softer voices may want to project a bit more for the boys.  Men with low booming voices may want to tone it down a bit so as not to overpower the girls. Teachers are presenters, and so we should reflect on the tone and volume of all our auditory instruction—not only our speech, but also any audio we present.

This also has implications for one-on-one communication—as illustrated in the example at the start of this post.  In the end, I told Autumn that I knew why she was crying, that I wasn’t angry, and I apologized for being loud.  When I toned it down, we began again and made progress on her paper.

The Anatomy of Aptitude

If you begin reading the literature on gender differences, it won’t take long before you stumble upon a book entitled Brain Sex: The real difference between men and women, by a couple of researchers by the names of Anne Moir and David Jessel.  Published in 1991, this was one of the first serious brain-based looks at the difference between sexes.  One of Moir and Jessel’s thematic premises is that innate differences in the biological brains and anatomy of children lead them naturally to different interests, which in turn strengthens that aptitude.  For example, they contend that girls learn language at an earlier age than boys because their brains are more efficiently organized for speech.  Then, since they are able to use language earlier, they do–playing and practicing their way to ever higher levels of proficiency–while boys don’t–which compounds any perceived language deficiency.

Cain’s study, combined with the growing scientific brain and sensory research indicating that girls hear better, leads us to the conclusion that girls are naturally better equipped at an earlier age to learn language.

It makes sense that girls would typically use language more often as they mature.  In fact, observation proves this.

Girls on the playground use more language in their play–working out who will roleplay what relational role, (“Ok, this time you be the mommy and I’ll be the baby . . .”).  Boys, on the other hand, are more often content making engine noises (trucks, cars, planes, backhoes), pushing things through the dirt, or throwing things through the air–crashing, chasing, tumbling, and kicking things around.

As Moir and Jessel point out, because language (both reading and speaking) is learned more through sound than sight–when it comes to learning to speak and read:

. . . the structure of the female brain gives girls the advantage.  This learning function resides in the left hemisphere of the brain . . .their more natural female strength, which is hearing, not seeing  (62).

They go on to support this finding by citing studies that indicate that while boys are better at identifying animal noises, girls are better at identifying human, social, and verbal communication.

It is neither the relative immaturity of boys, which results in their being  (less able to read), nor is it that they are backward, though much educational damage has been done in the past by the assumption that a boy’s slowness in learning to read must be due to stupidity or laziness.  It is just that while the girls are using the right tool for the job—the “hearing” skills—the boys are better endowed with the skills of seeing, not hearing.  And that’s not a good way of learning to read, says American psychologist Dianne McGuinness:

“It is clear that visual processing has little to do with reading, and in fact a strong reliance on the visual mode is often antagonistic to progress in learning to read.”

What does this mean for my eighth grade language arts class?

All that is well and good.  But I wanted to test some things out in my own classroom.  To my way of thinking, if all the above is actually true, by the time my students hit 8th grade, the average boy should have read significantly fewer books than the average girl.

So I had all my students sign up for a Shelfari account–listing every book that they could ever remember reading.  Next, I simply had them tally the books up.  The data was striking.  On average, girls listed 52 books.  Boys listed 25.

The next set of data I collected was from a Reading Interest Inventory.  My student’s answers to two questions from that survey were particularly striking:

On a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is extremely important and 1 is not at all important:

• How important is reading to you? and,
• How important is reading to the world?

In both cases, girls valued reading more than boys.

Intrigued, I went on to have my students complete a survey in which students rated themselves according to Howard Gardner’s Multiple intelligences.  I was interested in how boys rated themselves in regard to the Verbal/Linguistic intelligence compared to girls.

As it turns out, of all the intelligences I measured, the greatest average difference was the Verbal Intelligence.

On a scale of 0-100, boys scored themselves at an average of 29.71—the lowest ranking of all the intelligences, while girls ranked themselves at 45–somewhere in the middle.

There were a couple of other interesting data points from my survey that showed up and are supported in the literature on gender differences:

• Boys rated themselves higher in logical intelligence,
• Boys’ viewed their highest intelligence as kinesthetic.

If you read the literature, all this makes sense, which might also explain why boys also wrote about sports in their daily journals more than any other topic.

For reasons I’ll have to write about later, the literature also supports the idea that boys would write in a more autobiographical nature than girls.  Girls also wrote more often about “school,” “friends,” and “family” than boys did.

So Now What?

So what does all this mean for teachers?  Simply put, we need to understand.

Interestingly, in his article, Getting Boys to Read, Jeff Wilhelm says that, “The reason certain text types (like nonfiction) and features of texts (visuals) tend to engage boys has much less to do with the text itself, and much more to do with the connection (my italics) these features encourage the readers to make to the world.”  Wilhelm goes on to list a number of features and conditions that contribute to boys being able to engage in their reading:

• Short
• Visual
• Challenging
• Edgy
• Real
• Current
• Humor
• A clear purpose and immediate feedback
• An appropriate challenge and assistance to meet it
• Functionality and a developing sense of competence
• A focus on the immediate experience
• The importance of being social

I agree, but when it comes to gender differentiation in the classroom, there is a lot more that can be done.  Stay tuned.  In coming weeks I’ll share with you some ways you can use gender differentiation to increase student engagement in your classes.

For now, however, let me ask you:  What differences do you notice between how boys and girls learn in your classes?

Related posts:

1. Reading, writing and gender: Instructional strategies and classroom activities that work for boys and girls. Goldberg, G., Roswell, B
2. With boys and girls in mind. Gurian, M., Stevens, K.
3. Getting boys to read: it’s the context! Wilhelm, J.