Matt+S's+Action+Portfolio

Twitter: @dustmite333 **List of Tweets** School: Franklinton High, LuAnn Corsale


 * Preface**

I thought this article was an excellent resource to questions surrounding the beginning of the school year, and I think it hit the nail on the head with the focus on creating a community with the students and within the students. Classes that have this kind of community will be much kinder to discussion and education as the year goes on. A repertoire is necessary if a teacher wants the student to listen to anything they say, and the article did not demean or patronize the student because they were young, something that so many teachers did to me in high school that would drive me crazy. It plainly stated that they are more educated and ready for education than a teacher would think, and it is spot-on in that assessment. The first part of class, I think, should be based instead on creating a relationship with the students who are in your class, getting to know who they are while allowing them to know you. The kind of activities we did in the first day of our class seems more appropriate--creating an actual relationship with the students in the class, learning their names and something about them. This is important so that later, times when you are questioning the meaning of the word, they do not see you as some evil devil's advocate determined to rip their beliefs apart, but someone who is an actual person that simply wants you to learn. I think a "getting-to-know-you" activity would take up my first part of class, but something more creative than just asking their name and something interesting about themselves. Show that the student is the most important part of the class by starting by focusing on them, and they will appreciate it later.I liked some of the writing-based activities, especially the "fib" writing. I feel that students would be more willing to share their writing when it is something humorous, and supposed to be ridiculous. **Postman and** **Weingartner "What's Worth Knowing?"** One Word: __Questioning__ why we know what we know, how we have gotten to know, and what it actually means helps educate a student better then trying to get them to learn and repeat information from a curriculum they had no choice in picking. Interpretation: I found this chapter to be quite interesting. It is an advocate for the Socratic method of teaching, and of having the students question what they think they already know. Only when an individual questions their beliefs and finds reasons behind them can they actually hold their beliefs. Beliefs without reasoning are shallow. It also advanced the idea of having this kind of discussion with students. Having students question even what they should be learning is learning in action. Regardless of whether a teacher is teaching the "subject" of English or History, it is a good practice for all teachers. Interrogate: At what point does the questioning stop? Is constant questioning without an answer truly productive, or will it only frustrate the student? Is there not an answer to every question that the students should get to?
 * Tchudi & Mitchell “Getting Started”: Reaction**

Evaluate: I could definitely see myself using this strategy as a teacher in English. Simply asking what an author meant in a certain statement, and then further questioning what the student means to that definition could help garner discussion from the students. Having a discussion with students to question what they are learning and what they feel they should be learning, and why they should learn it, can help them more motivated to learn what they feel is important, and in the end, will probably be important. If I question students at each turn, it will in turn allow them to question their own thinking, which is learning in action.

What's Worth Knowing Questions: Why should we learn? What should we learn? Who should decide what we learn? Why should we read? What should we read? Who should decide what we read? What is Truth? Is there Truth? How can we find Truth? Are we able to find Truth? Does something have meaning on its own, or does a society put a meaning on it? Are meanings interchangeable? How can meanings change? Do meanings change? Should meanings change? Why should we ask questions about what is worth knowing? **ELA Standards** I feel like the NCTE standards are good ones. They stated what they felt each student should learn in an English or Language Arts class without specifying it to certain works or books. It was broad enough to allow the teacher to work within its parameters, being able to incorporate a variety of written word, but specific enough to show the end goals, what the student should be learning from what written words the teacher chooses. The ones from ELA seemed a little more specific. They knew exactly what they wanted each student to be able to do in each grade, but then stated it in very broad terms. I looked at the Grades 9-10, and one of the statements of what they should be able to do was to "read and comprehend pieces of literature" which was not very specific at all. What does "comprehending" actually mean to these standards? Both sets of standards asked students to step out of their own cultures, and sometimes their own language, and to look at English and literature in a new light--which is good. Reading is empathy after all. However, they both took this on a little bit differently. NCTE was more broad in their standards, telling teachers that students needed to be able to reflect on works, while ELA gave bulleted points of just how well they had to do on each reflection. And while multi-cultural literacy was mentioned by both, the "classics" (and an understanding of them) seemed to be more appreciated than anything else. Students seemed to be treated as numbers that needed to reach a specific goal, while ELA treated them more as people that needed to be educated. Both, however, treat teachers with a good amount of leeway, not specifying how they need to reach their goals, just that they need to reach them. They work together well on most things, but I feel like the NCTE gives more freedom to the teacher to teach whatever they need to, so long as students are meeting their broader strategies, while the ELA is looking for percentages and numbers out of the teachers. I will do my best as a teacher to reach a middle ground between these goals. I will teach reading comprehension and try to have them reach the preset standards. However, I also want to add my own goals: I want my students to have a better multicultural education than they have set down, as well as become better writers in both essays and fiction writing. I believe that a student who understands how to write a fictional piece of work understands fiction better. **Invitation to Reflection:** Activity 1-4 While I like the idea of having a circular desk pattern, as shown in diagram C, I would most likely choose the open square in diagram B. I would like all the students to be able to see each other and myself in order to facilitate discussion, but don't want them to be forced into a circle. In my experience, though, it is diagram A that was most common: straight desks facing a teacher who lectured for the entire period. It shows the teacher as the forefront of the classroom, and as the only focus. All students face them at all times. There is no engagement, because everyone is facing the same direction. As a student, I probably would have preferred diagram D, just because I could have talked to my friends during the class if I wanted to--so for the wrong reasons. I have never seen myself sitting while teaching. Teaching is an active process, and moving from place to place helps keep attention and keeps discussion going. If I had to choose a different design, it would be diagram C. I think it shows that the students are the most important part of the class, bud I dislike the lack of mobility while in the class. Diagram E is the craziest one to me. It shows the teacher to be disorganized, and maybe even on a lower level than the student. Discussion is my biggest plan when teaching, and I think diagram B will coincide with that well. Traditional practices in education are the strategies used by educators since the inception of America. These are the teaching of lessons having to do with grammar, reading, and writing. They moved on to having students gain an appreciation of "great literature", but there's always debate as to what that actually is, and who gets to decide it. Alternate beliefs see English as the medium for not just reading and analyzing books, but for teaching students to read the world in a real way. All in all, I think a combination of the two is the message we need to take. We obviously need to teach our students how to read and write, and from there to appreciate literature and be able to discuss it. Using new techniques, though, as well as new technologies to allow them not only to read their books, but also their surroundings, is necessary for a successful English class. I particularity enjoyed the section on how students become independent learners. Their analogy was of a teacher being the support or scaffold for a student who will eventually stand on their own for their thinking. I think this is essential in learning. If a student is not learning to think for themselves, but instead just regurgitating information lectured at them, then this is not thinking at all. A teacher needs to set the student up for success, and then "eventually fall way and allow the learning to stand without assistance" (9) **Online Status Report** My online status report is available to view [|here.] **Positive/Negative Graph** My positive/negative graph for my time in high school can be viewed [|here.]

Seeing Passion: Every time I hear a technique that an effective teacher uses, I can always relate it back to my ninth grade English class. He led us in discussion and lectures that taught things that we were actually interested in, and then would magically relate it back to the book, and we would all accidentally learn. His assignments were super creative and fun for us to do (having us create a smear campaign against a character in Animal Farm and writing our own songs based on The Odyssey—which led to full rock bands and boy bands) and we worked hard on them because we wanted to. Calabria did it for me. If I wasn’t sure that I wanted to be a teacher before, I was sure then.

The man had a passion for his subject, and for his teaching. He inspired us to be better, not for him or for grades, but for ourselves. He understood had to connect to students, and his passion was infectious. **My Name** My name is Matthew, which is an obvious Biblical reference to the disciple who left behind his deceitful riches to follow Jesus. When my parents were looking to name me, Matthew was not that popular of a name, and that is where they got it from--although they had to use the name "Mateo" when relaying it to my grandparents. My middle name, Allen, was picked for no reason other than my parents said they thought it "flowed". I know that my last name, Sellek, is Lebanese in origin, but not much else. My grandmother was Lebanese and my grandfather Hispanic, so technically my birth name was Garcia-Sellek, but hyphenated names suck in America so we dropped the Garcia when I was young. Upon research, I found that my name was originally Hebrew, but it was Matityahu, or Mathias. The English pronunciation of it just became Matthew. The meaning of it is "gift of YAHWEH", Yahweh obviously being the Hebrew name for God. So that made me feel pretty special. I also learned that it is one of the most popular names in the English language,and even the third most popular name of all time in Northern Ireland. But over there, they don't shorten it to "Matt", but instead to "Matty". There's not much information on Allen, but I did find out it is Scottish in origin, and means "handsome". So as of right now my name means "handsome gift of God". My last name, though, came up pretty dry. It is not everyday you meet someone with the last name of Sellek, so I was not surprised. It is probably derived from the other spelling of "Selleck" which is far more popular. I have had countless people make Tom Selleck jokes to me over the years, and they were never that funny. Selleck's origins are still unclear, although I found some resources that claimed it to be British. But there is even a tiny town named Selleck in Washington. It was started by lumberman Frank Selleck, and is on the National Register for Historic Places for being a King County landmark. I feel like a name inquiry project for my students would start off the same way this one did. I would ask students to gather information about their first, middle, and last names and summarize it. I would then have them question and respond to if they think their name suits them or their personality. After that, though, I would ask them to name themselves, to use either a real name whose meaning they connect with, or a name they create that means something that describes them better. I would want them to create this more creatively, but present a first, middle, and last name for themselves, including a description of why they would want that to be their name. Each student would then present their name and description to the class, explaining why they think this name is more of who they are than the one they were given. Bryne, J. (n.d.). Selleck, Washington. Retrieved from @http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html

Campbell, M. (n.d.). Behind the Name. Retrieved from @http://www.behindthename.com/ Hanks, P., Hardcastle, K., & Hodges, F. (2006). A Dictionary of First Names (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. **Language Exploration**- How Do I Agree With Thee? Let Me Count the Ways. a.. Yes: Use with just about everyone, an easy way to affirm. b. Yeah: Probably the affirmation I use more than any other. I feel like it is appropriate in all situations. c. Yep: Mostly among friends and peers, and in a non-professional situation. d. Uh-huh: Used to agree in passing, or when I want a conversation to end e. Affirmative: Only used in a joking matter, usually among friends f. Correct: Used at work, sometimes when I want the other to feel above me- Does that all sound correct? g. Sure: When agreeing to a favor for an acquaintance. and usually with another word- Sure, yeah, I could do that. h. OK: When someone gives me a criticism or tells me to do something (usually a boss), but also used when I want to show my hesitancy or dislike of the situation I'm forced to agree to i. Fine: When I want to reassure someone that I agree with them j. All right: Usually used when I'm processing what someone said to me, or when something lesser than I expected is offered- Yeah, I guess that will be all right. k. Okey-dokey: Never. I think it makes you sound like an annoying kid...especially when the always deplorable "cantaloupe-y" is added to the end. l. Right on: Never. Not really for any reason, just because it's something that I never really said. m. I agree: Used in discussion, usually with classmates or a higher-up (teacher, administrator, etc) Through this all, the way to find which one is appropriate is the situation. I use "Yep" all the time when texting or talking to my friends, but I would not use it when talking to a police officer about a speeding ticket. "I agree", on the other hand, only seems to show itself in my dialogue when I am having a discussion with someone, especially someone that I have a base disagreement with. This is not just in "higher level" discussions either. If we're discussing whether or not Ben Affleck is a good choice for Batman, and my conversational partner is against me, I would say something like "I agree that I can't see him as Batman, but I still think he will be a good Bruce Wayne." **Teaching Grammar in Context** I really do actually like grammar. I think it is so interesting to see the rules of the English language laid out in front of me. This is why I never complained when, in 7th grade, we had our grammar unit. And by that, I mean we were handed workbooks and handbooks, were sat down, and instructed to do at least two pages a day in class. I didn't mind it, but I knew everyone else did. They all griped at their busy work, and I can't see that they actually learned. As a teacher, I know this would not work. Having students correct sentence after sentence is not the right way to go about things. Instead, I liked the ideas presented in the article. The Peterson article described the method I find to be the most helpful: having the students become passionate about what they're writing and learning from it. Only when they find this passion will they care enough to actually try to learn what you are teaching them. Their view of teaching students "in context", or trying to reach out to teach them what they specifically need, and teaching grammar through it, is excellent. We learn grammar by writing, and we learn writing when we are actually passionate about what it is that we are writing. Weaver continued this article well, showing how grammar should not be taught just as a subject on its own, but alongside with writing. I like her idea of "less is more" for grammar, because if you are actually learning to write well, then you are actually learning to do grammar well. **Three Prerequisites: Takeaway** In the text, I was most interested in the idea of using language as a social event. Andrews described how most students see schools as a social event, a place where they can hang out with their friends and meet new people. The teaching of language, therefore, should reflect this. Language should be taught as "authentic discourse in real, social circumstances" (53). This was most interesting to me because I have been struggling with the question of why we have to teach "proper" English to those who have dialectal differences. I was astounded that there would be even a demand for this, but I think I finally understand the other side after reading this chapter. I did an activity last week where I described when I would use different forms of "yes", and it all depended on what social situation I was in. Language is the same way. Language is a social skill as much as anything else, and ti is necessary for students to observe social facts (54) while in the world. This does not necessarily mean stealing away their dialect, but like me not using "Yup" to my boss, students maybe should not use frowned-upon methods of speaking, or writing for that matter, when in certain contexts. **My Name Project** **Mini-Lesson (A Work in Progress)** **Classroom Plan and Annotation** **Unit Readings Takeaways** Tchudi and Mitchell: Units work best when formed around themes instead of a timeline, because it creates a natural integration from a variety of authors, as well as in speaking, writing, and reading in the classroom.
 * Andrews Chapter Eight Language Exploration**

Tchudi and Lafer: Good themes in units should not only lead to an expanded knowledge of the subject, but should lead students to exploration of the topic and of related topics. A good sign is if students are starting to look for answers to questions they are raising themselves. **Shakespeare Reflections**