"When students post their writing online, the audience transforms from one person (i.e. the teacher) to a larger social community." (Sweeny, 2010, p. 127)
We are constantly reminded in this program to use authentic activities in our curriculum that provide for real-world experiences. The idea is to transform the schooling process from being just practice for the "real world" to being something that is useful and applicable every day. This transformation can be facilitated by integrating ICTs in the ELA classroom.
Traditionally, students' writing in ELA classes is submitted only to the teacher for evaluation. The relationship between student and teacher in this situation is like a defendant in court facing a judge alone. Aside from any occasional peer editing that may occur in class, a student's work is primarily subject only to the teacher's appraisal. The opposing nature of the duality between teacher and student can translate into intense pressure on the student's performance. Additionally, it reinforces the notion that students are merely practicing their writing while in school; they are not being given genuine opportunities to be authors in their own right.
As Sweeny (2010) points out, the Internet offers a vast sphere for students to engage with audiences. By utilizing this resource, teachers offer students the chance to be "real" writers, not just "practice" ones. Students can share their work with other teachers, students, and the people all around the world. In a sense, the students become published authors. Offering students such a role empowers them, and the students' self-efficacy can benefit from writing for a real audience rather than for a grade. Furthermore, technology offers numerous platforms for the students to get feedback and dialogue with others about their work. This practice thus aligns with sociocultural principles of engaging in authentic activities and socially constructing knowledge.
The following news clip is an excellent example of utilizing online resources to help students write in genuine contexts. These elementary school students are motivated by blogging to write frequently in their free time. They enjoy being creative and having ownership of their own content, and they especially like having an audience to share their writing with. The interviews with the students really express their engagement with the writing process now that they can be writers in an authentic setting.
When my eighth graders read Bierce's "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" last year, one metaphor that many of them seemed interested in analyzing was that of the "dancing driftwood" that Farquhar watches floating down the river. Some interpreted the metaphor as representing Farquhar's life drifting away from him as he stands on the brink of death. Others saw foreshadowing of Farquhar's escape as he himself would soon float down the stream, just as the driftwood did.
Likewise, the students had multiple interpretations for the ticking of Farquhar's watch.
Some imagined that it pointed to Farquhar's "time" running out since he was facing death.
Others thought it represented his heartbeat and, thus, his will to live.
Below is a clip from the 1963 short film adaptation of the story that features both of these scenes.
In my opinion, all of them were right. I think that the dualistic symbolism that they found in the metaphors further enhanced the story's plot point of a dual reality. By finding multiple meanings for these symbols, the students tapped into subtle hints in the story that would not be available to them if each metaphor were assigned only one interpretation.
Though I had been working with these students on identifying metaphors and other forms of figurative language throughout the entire unit, I feel that it would have been beneficial to have them use some of the informal writing activities suggested in the Phillipot & Graves article. In particular, a dialogue journal between pairs of students would have been effective for facilitating a deconstructionist analysis by encouraging multiple interpretations of the work.
I agree with Appleman's assertion to use the term "gender theory" instead of "feminist theory." In my conversations with women throughout my adult life, a prevailing idea I have come across is that while many enjoy the benefits afforded them by second wave feminism, they do not consider themselves feminists. The term "feminist" has, for many women, taken on the image that Appleman mentions students associate with it: that of man-hating, unfeminine, militant activists. The woman in the image below would represent the opposite of this idea, though the text includes common phrases that describe so-called feminists.
Additionally, the symbol adopted by the feminist movement suggests militant activism using masculine motifs and imagery.
While I do not agree that the term "feminist" means these things, and I am happy to call myself a feminist, I certainly understand how these stigmas can interfere when trying to convey the impact of feminist theory on literature to adolescents. This is one reason why I would choose to use the term "gender theory" for my own classroom.
Another reason I would prefer to use "gender theory" over "feminist theory" is because, by the nature of its title, "feminist theory" is very limited. As Appleman notes, "Men have gender, too." While it is, in my opinion, essential to examine the roles of women in literature through a critical lens, it is equally important to examine those of men as well as those of people who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles. Though men on the whole have not experienced the large-scale subordination that women have historically been subjected to, they are still exposed to gender-based ideologies that can be destructive. To give a literary example, The Catcher in the Rye's Holden Caulfield could be interpreted as responding to the push and pull of masculine expectations, both submitting to and rebelling against them.
It is no wonder the boys in Martha's class groan at the mention of feminist theory. To them, it means they're about to spend an hour exploring all the ways women have been wronged and victimized while men have enjoyed prospering at their expense. How dare we deprive these boys of exploring their own gender's history from a critical standpoint. To position women as the only victims of gender-based limitations and persecution is a blatant fallacy.
A modern example of offensive ideas of men that I often refer to is Carl's Jr. commercials. A common theme found in them is depictions of men as bumbling idiots who think of nothing but sex and food. In one, a man cannot even figure out how to open a box of cereal. Many of these are followed by the slogan, "Without us, some men would starve." The video below features a recent example of this type of commercial from the fast food chain.
This commercial features what I call Carl's Jr.'s "caveman" character, a man who has the intelligence of a brick and can only respond to basic animal needs. While this ad also has obviously sexist implications for women, it implies that cooking is not a man's activity and that men are not competent enough to take care of themselves. Does this mean that boys who do enjoy cooking are feminine or, perhaps, gay? Are bachelors who engage in domestic activities, such as keeping a tidy home and eating well, to be deemed "un-manly"?
It is as important for adolescent boys and girls to be able to read media and literary representations of men from a critical perspective as it is to critically analyze those of women, not to mention examining representations of sexual orientation and non-traditional gender identities. Thus, in my own classroom, feminist theory will be only one part of gender theory that is examined.
Traditionally, students' writing in ELA classes is submitted only to the teacher for evaluation. The relationship between student and teacher in this situation is like a defendant in court facing a judge alone. Aside from any occasional peer editing that may occur in class, a student's work is primarily subject only to the teacher's appraisal. The opposing nature of the duality between teacher and student can translate into intense pressure on the student's performance. Additionally, it reinforces the notion that students are merely practicing their writing while in school; they are not being given genuine opportunities to be authors in their own right.
