In the text, “But Will It Work with Real Students?”, Alsup and Bush (2003) address the complex issue of teaching second language learners in the English classroom. The chapter opens with major concerns from that many teachers are not trained and prepared for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse students. I think this is definitely an issue because most high school English teachers at the Bachelor’s level were only taught literary theory and analysis. Pedagogical training usually doesn’t take place until the Master’s or certification level. ESOL endorsement is usually a separate type of training. To maximize English classrooms, I think that ALL English teachers should have at least some type of ESOL training because all students can benefit from the strategies and teaching language is apart of English instruction. But at the same time, there are so many things to consider when teaching English learners.

The issues that are addressed in this section also hit very close to home for me. I have had three years experience teaching ESOL. I worked with Pre-K, second grade, and adult ESOL students but had no academic training in the field. But I used my own experiences with foreign language to help guide my teaching. I remember what it was like for me sitting in a Spanish class in middle school and high school listening to the teacher speaking Spanish. It was always hard sitting in a class, not understanding what was going on, but it helped when she/he spoke a little English in order for us to grasp the concept. This helped me with my own ESOL students. I taught majority Hispanic and could speak and comprehend enough Spanish to where I could understand my students in their native language and they could understand me. This helped both my adult and children students to feel more comfortable. This approach provided building blocks. Also, I remember how my Spanish teachers would introduce us not only to the language but he/she would also try to submerse us in the Hispanic culture through food, dance/music, religion practices, history, and literature. I also think that this approach helps with ESOL students. In order to be an effective ESOL teacher, one must put forth the effort in understanding and incorporating the culture of the student into the classroom. Speakers of other languages experience some pretty tough emotions while trying to connect to an unfamiliar culture and language. Making connections to their own culture as well as American culture gives students a necessary comfort zone. It also allows students to feel that they are adding to their ability and not being raped of their cultural identity.

I loved the Alsup and Bush’s section on technology in the classroom. It discusses the initial frustrations of incorporating technologies into the classroom while also maintaining classroom management. At the beginning of the year this was the main concern that I had in my own classroom. Often I had heard about how the use of different technologies could create aesthetic experiences for my students, so I was thrilled about coming up with activities for my own students. I soon realized that without the proper planning, I was running the risk of loosing control of my class. Using technology takes more one-on-one time with students as well as coming up with specific strategic plans for the students to follow. I also realized how important it is to devise a “plan B.”  Although these necessary steps can be challenging it is well worth it. To see students actually enjoying the learning process is well worth the sweat. With the incorporation of technologies, students begin to see school, the teacher, and the classroom in a more positive light.

As described in chapter six of Appleman’s Critical Encounters, deconstruction encourages readers to reexamine the constructs and relationships around which text are created. I agree that this is a wonderful approach for high school students as an introduction to analyzing texts and as a way to use high order thinking. Deconstruction is very beneficial to the average high school student that finds the “classic” literary text boring because this theory allows for multiple interpretations and reactions. Under this lens students are not obligated to read into a text in a specific way. At this age, high school students live to rebel against any authority and I believe that this literary theory gives students academic grounds to use this aggression.   

Appleman made a striking point in this chapter when discussing the challenges of teaching deconstruction to adolescents. She explains the difficulty of defining the theory. While reading this chapter, I came across the same concerned because it seems so easy for students to misunderstand this theory as questioning and critiquing every aspect of a text instead of studying contradictions in order to gain a better insight into the text. Students must understand that the purpose in applying deconstruction is to learn to appreciate the ambiguous and unstable concepts found within texts.

One thing that bothered me about this chapter was the idea that “uncertainty does not create comfort…the implications of this particular lens is extremely frightening to them” (Appleman, p.113). I believe that these generations of students find great excitement in uncertainty and in an internet driven word, it gives students a purpose for research and analysis. In today’s society most students have the natural ability to question and look for ambiguity as way to drive interest.    

Chapter Nine of Rex Gibson’s 1998 Teaching Shakespeare offers some wonderful ideas that will help engage students with Shakespeare. As many scholars and teachers would agree, it is best to approach Shakespeare’s dramas as scripts instead of readable text. In other words, it is important that teachers allow students to reenact, rewrite, and reproduce dramatic version of Shakespeare’s works. As a first year teacher, this text has really given me some great interactive lessons that I plan on using next year. This year, I taught Macbeth for the first time and it turned out okay. I naturally included some of the activities that Gibson recommended such as allowing the students to rewrite certain scenes in modern day language, having students to act some of the scenes out in groups, as well as giving them the opportunity to view a unique version of the play. Although my students participated in these dramatic activities, I still don’t feel as if I focused on the text as a dramatic play. Like Gibson argues in his text, students need to see themselves as actors that are performing, not as students that are reading a play (166). He advises that as students prepare to perform a scene that they should read the lines a few times so that they can get an impression of the scene. I also love the idea of the next step which is the “W-structure” (Gibson, 1998). After reading the section twice students will respond to the following questions: Who are the characters? What’s going on? Where is this taking place? and Why do the characters behave the way they do? Next students will focus on the “how to stage the scene” (Gibson, 1998). This lesson is one that I look forward to using because it “provides a framework which students can use in latter lessons, enabling them to work independently in groups, preparing scenes for some kind of reenactment.” (161).

Gibson’s text is also very helpful because it gives you specific lines and scenes from several of Shakespeare’s plays that work well with this particular lesson. Another activity that I would like to incorporate while teaching Shakespeare’s dramas is having students to perform everyday actions independently and in pairs. Although Gibson does not mention this, this type of activity will help students to get comfortable performing in front of their peers. It could also open doors for students to understand the power of performance. If I were to do this activity in my classroom I would encourage students that are acting to be very dramatic and expressive and then I would have students write one to two paragraphs in which they add characterization, setting, and emotions based on the performance. This allows students to actually transfer their understanding of the performances into verbal language. I also think that this activity could be used to explore all kinds of plays as well as to explore other concepts in the Language Arts classroom such as verbs, adverbs, and descriptive language.  

In chapter five of But will it work with real students, Aslup and Bush address the reality of discipline and management as primary problems in secondary education. They argue that “effective classroom management is a by-product of effective pedagogy (Aslup & Bush, 142). As a first year teacher, I can definitely agree that in order to achieve a healthy classroom environment of learning and fun, it is necessary to maintain quality classroom management. Because I teach in an inner city school where discipline is a major problem, this topic hits very close to home. It is quite frustrating to plan creative lessons that engage students when many are preoccupied with behaving poorly. After speaking with several teachers and administrators, I have begun to understand that this is not just a problem that educators in the inner city face. It is an issue that continues to affect teachers all across the spectrum.

The one thing that many of my colleagues, including Aslup and Bush, have suggested is establishing individual authority with my students. This is very important and I am very proud of the open relationship that I have with many of my students but I think that they take advantage of this. Although they know the rules, the consequences for breaking them are not intimidating. I don’t feel that I have much authority because there is not much I can really “force” them to do. When students curse or are disruptive in my class the only option I have is to either ask them to leave the classroom or send them to the office. What I have found on the secondary level is, that the students who have discipline issues tend to have a nonchalant attitude towards everything and typically don’t care about academics, nor do they exhibit fear of consequences.  How do you deal with these types of students? And how important is it for the entire school (administration and faculty) to establish a collective authority that supports its teachers’ individual authority?

As a first-year teacher, my most challenging experience was actually teaching Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Most of my students have a great dislike for Shakespeare’s plays because the language is such barrier for them in understanding the plot and characters. So, my focus was to try to get them to first comprehend the actual story and then use their understanding of the events to go back and explore the language. This approach wasn’t a complete failure because many of the students enjoyed the action of the play but I believe that I deprived my students from truly experiencing Shakespeare’s greatest qualities and contributions. After reading chapters four through seven of Rex Gibson’s Teaching Shakespeare, I realize that I definitely took the wrong approach. Gibson offers several ways to introduce and engage students in Shakespearean language. He argues that the language should be explored by addressing the question “How might it be spoken and performed on stage?”(46). Language that is performed is quite different from language that is read. Gibson’s ideas will help my students to explore how Shakespeare uses language to develop plot, character, and theme instead of focusing completely on “What does this language mean?” Gibson’s approach to language when teaching Shakespeare is helping me to understand that language is the key ingredient to not only understanding Shakespeare but appreciating his works as well.  

Although Gibson offers several strategies to discovering characters, plot, and language in Shakespeare, I have a concern about time frame. While teaching Macbeth in my own classroom, I was allotted three weeks to complete the unit. Based on the time allowed and the concepts presented by Gibson, my three week unit should consist of students reading the entire text in class, exploring the main aspects of Shakespearean language (personification, metaphor, simile, imagery, assonance, etc) in addition to studying characters, plot, and theme. Let me not forget to also mention the inclusion of dramatic and performance pieces of the play. With so many concepts to address, how is it possible to teach these ideas without overwhelming the students or emphasizing or deemphasizing certain aspects?

Arthur Applebee wrote an intriguing article about the importance of moving towards a curriculum that fosters discipline-based conversation. Published in 1994, Applebee’s article discusses the idea that curriculum should be broader and focused around social learning. One point that this articles brings up is the idea that “teachers expect students to answer questions and demonstrate knowledge in a specific manner by hinting up to their own answers” (Applebee,1). Let me be the first to admit that I have been guilty of leaning students towards a certain answer and this is an area I would like to improve in. Allowing students the room for various interpretations helps students to become independent thinkers as well as opportunities for critical thinking.

I truly believe that curriculum is necessary in order to create the most effective learning environment. With the array of material that can possibly be taught in a Language Arts class, curriculum serves as a guide of what should be covered in addition to helpful resources. One problem that continues to surface is the idea that curriculum is set in stone and inflexible. Meaning, as educators we must step outside the box to reach goals of mandated curriculum as well as the domains that make up curriculum standards. As Applebee highlights in his article, “curriculum may be used as domain for culturally significant conversation.” (6). I love this idea and constantly use conversation for writing instruction, formal and informal assessments, and reading instruction. I have found that most teenagers thrive on social interaction thus becoming more engaged when social activities are incorporated into classroom instruction. My students also respond better to readings in conversation than by any other method. Literature circles and book critiques allow students to express their understanding or misunderstandings. This also works well when students can discuss pop-culture and real-life situations. These topics can assist students with reading books for comprehension, making arguments, writing papers, and contributing to larger discussions.

Many teachers are reluctant to focus on culturally significant conversation in fear that students will not be prepared for standardized testing. I think this is a legitimate concern but as long as the conversation is constantly aligned and somehow connected to standards and curriculum goals, students should be prepared for exams as well as speaking, listening, and viewing in a real life setting. This brings me to another possibility…would standardized test be more effective if they incorporated text and material that relate to the culturally significant curriculums/conversation that educators should be working towards?

In their text entitled, “But Will It Work with Real Students” , Bush and Alsup (2003) offer some wonderful insight into the ideals about teachers dealing with standardized test in the Language Arts classroom. One issue that truly hit close to home was the idea that most teachers have such a negative attitude towards testing. I am definitely guilty of this as an educator but I have recently realized that no matter how frustrating standardized testing can be, it is a part of the education system that is here to stay. My concern, as most teachers, is the idea that these tests are the central focus during instruction which can prevent us from providing real-life applications and nurturing lifetime learners.

Standards, which in my opinion are necessary, continue to guide our daily lesson plans and unit plans but this situation becomes problematic when these are the only ideas that shape classroom instruction. I believe that state-mandated standards should only be a portion of classroom instruction and that the rest should be based on other factors such as tests, culture of the students, overall goal and objectives of the teacher, school and school board, as well as instruction that teaches students to apply academic knowledge to real life. But how difficult is it for an English teacher to implement all of these things when standardized test are the only emphasis in schools?

Alsup and Bush (2003) offer intriguing questions that address the major concerns of teachers have when it comes to this issue. They ask “How can teachers negotiate the realties of a testing system without foregoing their classroom goals and pedagogical ideas? How can they help students do well on these tests while not revising their curricula to apply ‘teach to the test?’ ” These are questions that my colleagues and I continue to discuss in frustration at meetings, conferences, and workshops. As an educator, I find it more frustrating that many do not believe it is possible. I think the key to achieving success in this area is first realizing that it is achievable. If we as educators have negative attitudes about the exams, imagine how the students must feel? We can’t ignore the fact that our attitudes about standardized tests influences are students’ attitudes as well as their performance. In addition, it is important that teachers prioritize the goals and objectives in the classrooms. It is impossible to teach a course without implementing our own classroom goals and pedagogical approaches and as a result these ideas should be top priority but it is also our job to make sure that these goals are building blocks to state mandated standards and exams. We must attach what we want our students to know with what they are required to know.

 Although I continue to assert a positive outlook on the issue of standardized testing in the Language Arts classroom, I cannot help to address one major concern; What if my students can read, write, and speak on a level that is conducive to their future and still fail standardized tests? Did I fail as a teacher or is the system chastising these students?

Smith and Lytle’s (1993) article, “Inside/Out Teacher Research and Knowledge” offers an outstanding insight into knowledge about teaching. Although many educators argue in support of teacher-research, this article explains why it is absolutely necessary. “Defining and redefining the knowledge base for teaching” has become such a significant focus throughout the education field that most Master, certification, and professional development programs use educational research as a foundation for developing stronger teachers, classrooms, and most importantly student learning (43).For example, in many states it is required for certification that preservice teachers complete some type of research based course. After completing an educational research course last semester, I have truly gained an appreciation for research in the education field. As a final project, we were required to work in groups and draft a research proposal on the topic of our choice. After completing this assignment, I gained insight into actual research strategies. I did not realize that educational research was so extensive and time consuming. But as I began to understand how research provides alternatives and solutions to curricular problems, I developed a great appreciation for educational investigations.

 Research is an imperative instructional tool because it teaches educators to observe and analyze classroom situations and instructions in order to provide students with a better curriculum and learning experience. Educational research is so vital to a preservice teacher as it accurately illustrates the diversity of learners. Many educators go into their first year of teaching and are really caught off guard by the various types of learners that they encounter. I am definitely speaking from personal experience. My first year of teaching has truly yielded some very difficult realizations. Instead of sitting and observing classrooms for a year, it would have been helpful to incorporate some type of research that would give me a realistic glance into the issues of education. Upon entering the classroom, I was unaware of the complexity of standardized curriculums, overall student achievement (test scores, failure rates, and literacy rates) and the politics involving education. I believe researching the educational field itself is just as necessary because it provides teachers with more realistic expectations which allows for better approaches. In addition, educational research allows teacher to compare expectations to results of research and then use the information to develop new theories, pedagogical approaches, and classroom and community environments.  

I also love the idea of educational research that is useful in creating distinctive curriculum and positive classroom environments. Just as Smith and Lytle (1993) contend, “Teacher research is a powerful way for educators to understand how they and their students construct and reconstruct the curriculum.” Students are more likely to succeed at learning if pedagogical approaches are created with their specific needs in mind. For instance, I teach in an inner city, under privileged high school where students’ learning is significantly affected by outside influences such as poverty, domestic violence, drug and sexual abuse. My students need specialized instruction that is sensitive to their needs and interests. Utilizing the results from educational research can help develop and improve necessary curriculum, programs, and teaching approaches and tools for all students. After all is this our goal as educators?