http:\/\/www.ning.com<\/a>).\u00a0 Layering a new virtual classroom atop an existing physical classroom, though exciting, resulted in a stress-inducing workload. For Allison, it resulted in preparing forum questions well in advance of when she normally would and being inundated with blog and forum posts to comment on and moderate.\u00a0 For her students, it resulted in having to cultivate both a virtual and physical classroom presence, with the added pressure of now having an audience for their informal writing\/posting.<\/p>\nOn the one hand, Allison was able to leverage tactics with this space by connecting her home self to her professional self; her profile picture featured her holding her cat. On the other hand, Allison lamented the loss of her ability to strategically perform her authoritative professional teacher identity.\u00a0 This meeting of the tactical and the strategic once again resulted in a tangle of boundaries: personal versus professional. After describing how glad she initially was to be able to contact some students through the Ning after school hours, Allison went on to say the following:<\/p>\n
Allison: \u00a0In some ways, I love that because anytime I want to contact them \u2026but at the same time it just blurs that this is what my job is, this is what my personal life is…and I got on it and I kind of at some point I was, like\u2026okay, because I got on it…later….and was looking at their blogs, and I started commenting and I was, like, \u201cI’m not going to do this.\u201d<\/p>\n
Julie: \u00a0Because then it’s going to take forever, and once you comment on one you have to comment on everyone’s\u2026<\/p>\n
Allison: \u00a0Yeah. And even this idea they probably don’t notice, they look and see I commented at 6 o’ clock at night, and this idea that all I’m doing is stuff for them all the time…I didn’t want to perpetuate that.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
For Allison, the logistical affordances of the new media tool (such as the ability to connect with students effectively both inside and outside of school) also presented one of its largest constraints: the lack of boundaries around time, privacy, and space.\u00a0 Her wrestling was squarely at the intersection of technology (\u201cNow I can be available 24\/7!\u201d) and pedagogy (\u201cHow available should I be to my students?\u201d) and, thus, situated in the technological pedagogical knowledge sphere (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).<\/p>\n
While I initially translated her chief concern as being one of time and stress (\u201cOnce you comment on one you have to comment on everyone\u2019s\u201d), Allison clarified her real fear: that she might \u201cperpetuate\u201d the notion, \u201cAll I\u2019m doing is stuff for them all the time.\u201d\u00a0 Thus, this blurring of boundaries between official school time-space and personal home time-space presented a troubling representation of her teacher identity, one that positioned her as \u201chaving no life outside of school.\u201d<\/p>\n
Although connectedness was a desired tactic wrapped up in the Ning adoption decision, a sense of intrusion on personal time was unsettling, eroding an important strategy of self-preservation or separation.\u00a0 Interestingly, Allison ended up negotiating her inability to control students\u2019 perception of her teacher self on the Ning space by largely disengaging from participation after school hours.<\/p>\n
A Tangle of Tasks: Multitasking Versus Singular Focus<\/h3>\n Because new media tools often enable quiet, efficient, quick ways to communicate thoughts and ideas, and because adolescents are generally attuned to using several different applications and tools at the same time, Allison and I often confronted the question of whether to plan for students to multitask (a tactic not usually acceptable in English class) or to focus on one task at a time (which would strategically maintain the norm). For instance, when I initially introduced the idea of asking American Literature students to use Twitter in character while reading The Crucible<\/em>, Allison immediately voiced her concern:<\/p>\nRight, which is actually why I was wondering if and maybe it’s just me being stuck in this.\u00a0 I’m really concerned about them reading and tweeting.\u00a0 They are reading and also being expected to tweet. They probably could do it, but maybe it’s just me on this “that sounds distracting idea.”\u00a0 So that’s why I was wondering if there was an audio version of it so maybe they could listen and tweet…So no one was reading.\u00a0 But then I think to myself what happens, then will they check out and become so consumed with the tweeting?<\/p>\n
Various binaries marked Allison\u2019s qualified concerns.\u00a0 Listening to an audio version of the play is framed as an inherently less demanding task than reading aloud.\u00a0 Tweeting is seen as a potential distraction from the real work of text comprehension.\u00a0 These frames of pedagogical understanding are not only steeped in deep ideologies and histories of which literacies count and what English class is really for; they also come from years of experience of working with teenagers.\u00a0 We decided to go on with the experiment of letting them multitask, reading the play aloud while tweeting in character.<\/p>\n
Because Allison showed her students movie scenes after reading the scene in class, we decided to have them try tweeting in character by following the real time of the movie.\u00a0 A sample of our discussion after observing both layers of multitasking (reading play\/tweeting vs. viewing movie\/tweeting) follows:<\/p>\n
Julie: \u00a0It was really interesting to watch them tweet when we read versus watched the movie and, in general, it felt like it worked better while they watched the movie.<\/p>\n
Allison:\u00a0 They weren’t responsible for reading, right.<\/p>\n
Julie: \u00a0… I think just doing it during the movie might have been better…<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Interestingly, this same scene played out when we had the English 10 Honors students compose status updates on the Ning, personally reacting to Streetcar Named Desire<\/em>, both while reading the play and while watching the movie. The visual medium of video, paired with the fact that students were experiencing the plotline and characters a second time, allowed an easier flow to tweet beside.<\/p>\nEnvisioning digital media work as play and essay-writing as work unearths the assumption that digital media evokes low-level, copy-and-paste skills rather than real lasting critical engagement.\u00a0 It also reveals the difficulty of operating in the same mode (written words) in two spaces at the same time, as well as the more doable task of operating in two different modes (watching\/hearing a movie and writing\/reading status updates.)\u00a0 In this case, several students protested that tweeting while reading the play aloud for the first time was \u201cdistracting\u201d them and asked if they could please just take formal notes to prepare for the exam.<\/p>\n
These tangles are not easily resolved, and there are no easy winners in terms of the teacher\u2019s choice to act tactically or strategically.\u00a0 In fact, preserving the status quo of the English class while reading the play would arguably have better-served their comprehension than having them multitask by tweeting while reading the play.<\/p>\n
Allison found herself in the center of Mishra and Koehler\u2019s (2006) conceptual framework, as she juggled her desire to use social media authentically (technological knowledge) with her desire for students to be able to focus in-depth in the moment (pedagogical knowledge) and, therefore, comprehend and absorb the play\u2019s plot and themes (content knowledge).<\/p>\n
Not only were we enacting strategies and tactics, but students were performing them, as well, in reaction to the assignments and experiences we designed.\u00a0 When one student resisted the tweeting exercise in favor of formal note-taking, she intentionally chose a strategy over a tactic, exemplifying the difficulty of finding the precise balance of activities in pedagogical design that stimulate without overwhelming and inspire without overdoing.<\/p>\n
A Tangle of Expectations: Freedom Versus Structure<\/h3>\n Classroom-based research on incorporating new media in the classroom often discusses the tensions inherent in the need for teachers to be flexible simultaneously while working alongside students (Curwood & Cowell, 2011; Wilhelm, 2012) while also providing direct instruction and modeling (Teng, 2012).\u00a0 Unsurprisingly, the search for balancing freedom with structure for meaningful classroom multimodal participation (Beach & O\u2019Brien, 2009; Gustavson, 2008) also emerged in our planning process. Allison and I consistently vacillated between the tactic of giving students freedom by avoiding constricting their creativity while also wanting to enact the traditional English teacher strategy of providing supportive scaffolds and guidelines.<\/p>\n
Because we were trying out new methods, we were often explicitly open to student feedback and initially resisted handing out strict expectations.\u00a0 Students, however, especially in the honors class, resisted the dialogue and asked for more specific rubrics detailing the breakdown of their grades.\u00a0 Following is an email Allison sent me early in the semester regarding her tangled feelings on how to structure students\u2019 Anna Karenina<\/em> blogs on our Ning:<\/p>\nAttached are two documents. One is the sheet regarding Anna Karenina<\/em> that I showed you yesterday with information regarding the book. At the top it very briefly discusses the blog. The second is a draft for the blog assignment. I had a lot of mixed feelings here. I don’t want to restrict what they might do, but also want to provide them with suggestions, expectations, etc. What do you think? Is this what you had in mind? (Personal Email Communication, January 2012)<\/p>\nAllison and I saw providing guidelines and enabling freedom as potentially convergent possibilities, although we were aware of the difficulty in presenting them this way.\u00a0 As we engaged with students on the design process, we often found ourselves hedging, saying, \u201cThese are some expectations [a teaching strategy], but if you have a better, more creative way of representing this, go for it [a teaching tactic]!\u201d\u00a0 In general, we were surprised by the way that freedom seemed to paralyze rather than empower students, who were actively seeking norms for these new classroom spaces.<\/p>\n
The tangle of freedom versus structure emerged again in practical management issues of controlling time and space during the Photovoice assignment in the American Literature class.\u00a0 Our dynamic with this class differed radically from our dynamic with the more well-behaved English 10 honors students; several students in American Literature were suspended or failed a class on a regular basis. \u00a0In our desire to give students other spaces and props to work with in staging photographs, we tactically wanted to let them travel around the school.\u00a0 This tactic, however, was quickly met with concerns about safety and surveillance.\u00a0 The confluence of the two contradictory aims were clear as we discussed strategies that sought to control students\u2019 movements through time and space:<\/p>\n
Allison:\u00a0\u00a0 And then we could start giving them 20-30 min of work time per class…<\/p>\n
Julie: I think that’s plenty. We don’t want them, like, loose in the halls \u2013<\/p>\n
Allison:\u00a0 And then I’m thinking if they’re staging them right…probably they should for the most part, stage them here or out there.<\/p>\n
Julie:\u00a0 Yeah, so that’s a question. I think that what we need to have them do is come to us…so we’re going to tell them about it on the Tuesday, and we’re going to say, \u201cStart when you’re walking around school. Look around and start thinking about \u2013 because we aren’t going to let you go anywhere unless you are telling us exactly what you are going to do.\u201d Because I am afraid of restricting it, because I do think there is something about space.\u00a0 Like, a lot of them are talking about tutorial in the auditorium so they will want a picture in the auditorium.<\/p>\n
Allison: So here’s the thing. I think they are saying, \u201cOk, tutorial in the auditorium is awful,\u201d so they should take a picture of tutorial in the auditorium…. But yeah, I think they should have to tell us what they want to take and why.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
We realize in hindsight that during a project when we asked students to critique their school as an institution, we found ourselves using strategies to perpetuate the same types of rules and logic (e.g., \u201cstudents can\u2019t be trusted\u201d) that drove one student to do her entire photography project around the metaphors of school as jail and teachers treating students like prisoners.\u00a0 We found ourselves conflicted by the intersection of our technological knowledge (which introduced new paradigms around mobility, artistic license, and the need to move freely through space) and pedagogical knowledge (calling for firm structure, expectations, and adult supervision).<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, our discussion elucidated our arrival at a sort of freedom\/guideline compromise; students would be allowed some freedom to move around the school, but only in predetermined time intervals and only after they had clearly described their desired photograph and rationale ahead of time.\u00a0 While such constraints resonated with familiarity in school spaces, they directly clashed with the tactical spontaneous, everyday surprises that often define digital media artistic expression outside of school.<\/p>\n
Summary and Significance<\/h2>\n The first research question asked, What tensions emerge when a classroom teacher and a collaborating researcher integrate digital media tools and pedagogies into a traditional English class curricula?\u00a0 The findings distilled the countless minor and major tangles we encountered throughout the semester into five distinct categories: vantage points, genres, boundaries, tasks, and expectations.<\/p>\n
The frequency with which Allison and I encountered these tangles reveals that, although frameworks like TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) are helpful in unpacking the complexity of the decisions to be made, they do not easily resolve questions of what teacher moves would best serve all of the combinations of teacher knowledge around technology, pedagogy, and content.<\/p>\n
For example, our decision to have students compose literary blogs in class was a compromise, one that sacrificed authenticity around what we knew about technology (e.g., blogs are informal and interest-driven) in order to avoid sacrificing the genre norms that we held as important in our content domain (e.g., cite the literary text we are requiring you to blog about in an academic way). Understanding that pedagogical design contends with the complex intersections between technology, content, and pedagogy is useful, but it is equally important to realize that, at times, these interlocking layers may lead teachers toward divergent pedagogical plans creating disequilibrium (or tangles) rather than the one clear, best teaching move.<\/p>\n
The second research question pushed more fine-grained analysis: How and why do these tensions emerge?\u00a0 Data pointed to the fact that tangles emerged at the intersection of two, often irreconcilable, urges: to preserve the regular classroom space (a strategy) and to reinvent it (a tactic).\u00a0 The tangle of strategies and tactics that emerged included researcher-versus-teacher vantage points, formal-versus-informal genres, preserved-versus-erased professional boundaries, multitasking versus singular focus, freedom versus structure, and competition versus collaboration.<\/p>\n
Implications for Teacher Education<\/h2>\n Teachers are often portrayed as strategy enactors, authority figures who benefit from maintaining traditional flows of power among social actors and literacy practices.\u00a0 The data illuminated, however, that we were far from merely strategy enactors.\u00a0 Our negotiations of these various pulls often involved the tactical type of \u201cmakeshift creativity of groups or individuals already caught in the nets of discipline\u201d (De Certeau, 1984, p. xiv).\u00a0 We often made quick changes based on the opportunities we could seize within the structures and institutional norms we felt we were powerless to change.<\/p>\n
In comparison to the ways teachers are commonly portrayed in the literature as clean, uninhibited tour guides from academic objective to student learning (Day, 2010; Kremer & Sanders, 2012), this pattern of creative pedagogical redesign sheds new light on the messier paths that teachers travel when incorporating digital media into classroom spaces.\u00a0 Teacher educators can do a better job at making visible this complexity by resisting the urge to reduce the host of planning decisions by teachers into a step-by-step formula or lesson plan template.<\/p>\n
In critiquing the popularity of content-neutral teaching-with-technology classes so often required for preservice teachers, Mishra and Koehler (2006) asserted that such one-size-fits-all approaches which assume that \u201cknowing a technology automatically leads to good teaching with technology\u201d (p. 1031) are flawed due to the accelerating rate of technological change, the imperfections in software design, the situated nature of learning, and the \u201cemphasis on what<\/em>, not how<\/em>\u201d (p. 1032).<\/p>\nThe TPACK framework they described is one attempt to illustrate the complex dance of bodies of knowledge that play in teacher decision making.\u00a0 They proposed that high-quality teacher education integrating technology into practice should be firmly located in design practices that push preservice teachers to consider teaching not as \u201ccollections of isolated pedagogical elements\u201d but as a \u201ccoherent system\u201d (p. 1034).\u00a0 If prospective teachers are given authentic, engaging problems around technology-driven tasks (such as constructing a webpage in their content area, making digital videos, or redesigning an online class), they are more likely to become<\/em> practitioners, rather than only learning about practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991, as cited in Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1035).<\/p>\nWhile Mishra and Koehler\u2019s (2006) TPACK framework importantly emphasizes the various interrelating foci that master teachers navigate when thinking through tool and pedagogy decisions, it does little to address the fact that the best pedagogy, content, and technology knowledge is a socially mediated construct that does not remain constant.\u00a0 Thus, teachers can be taken by surprise by tensions that emerge when good pedagogy foregrounds one choice, but good content or good technology foregrounds another.<\/p>\n
This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the framework by displaying that when practically enacted, TPACK is buzzing with tension, with competing foregrounded goals and paradigms.\u00a0 Mishra and Koehler (2006) argued that successful teaching practice is \u201clocated in the interplay between theory and practice, between constraints and tradeoffs, between designer and materials, and between designer and audience\u201d (p. 1035).\u00a0 This study zooms in on these messy interplays, and preservice teachers should spend much of their time examining these difficult spaces, laying a foundation for navigating terrain that is not always predictable or smooth.<\/p>\n
In addition, Mishra and Koehler (2006) located their web of decision-making generally in the individual head of each teacher.\u00a0 Our teacher-researcher partnership revealed the richness of TPACK when experienced in dialogue.\u00a0 The only reason so many tangles emerged in such explicit clarity in this study is because of the emails and the spoken conversation that erupted due to the inherently collaborative nature of our decision-making that semester.<\/p>\n
In this era of professional learning communities and cross-pollination of ideas, space must be made for decision-making frameworks that incorporate more than one actor.\u00a0 There is perhaps no greater opportunity for such cooperative meaning-making than in cohorts of preservice teachers.\u00a0 Teacher educators should leverage these communities of practice in classrooms by designing authentic, collaborative planning and decision-making projects and networks.<\/p>\n
All of this talk around making space for wrestling with teaching tensions resonates with the widely touted notion of cultivating a reflective practitioner (Sch\u00f6n, 1983), a teacher who pushes first to understand an experience situated in relation to self and context and then to reimagine for a better future (Ryan, 2013).\u00a0 In this sense, deep reflection is empowering:\u00a0 \u201cCritical, transformative reflection suggests that an alternative reality can be recast in which the student or professional can take an intellectual stance in dealing with critical issues and practices, and is empowered to initiate change (Giroux 1988)\u201d (Ryan, 2013, p. 2).<\/p>\n
Certainly, such rich negotiation requires time and space to delve deeply into how things went, how things might have gone, and what might change in the future. \u00a0Researchers have found many practical barriers for practicing reflective teaching in reality (Khan, 2015).\u00a0 \u00a0In this study, our reflection often took the form of casual conversation at the end of the day, prefaced by a cup of coffee and, \u201cHow do you think that went?\u201d<\/p>\n
Each time Allison and I asked ourselves the question, \u201cHow did that go?\u201d and, \u201cWhat does this mean for tomorrow?\u201d we opened up the floodgates for tangles about vantage points, genres, boundaries, tasks, and motivations.\u00a0 \u00a0If a teacher is working alone, however, such reflection can take the form of a teaching journal, an action research project, or a presentation to colleagues.\u00a0 Either way, teachers who have space (time, energy, resources, and professional development communities) to investigate the plan after the fact are far better equipped to more fully understand the tensions undergirding the decisions they have made and to resolve them productively, accept them, and move forward.\u00a0 Part of our work in teacher education, thus, must be to cultivate these reflective practices in the widest range of modes and media possible.<\/p>\n
Allison and I found that our deepest reflection spaces were, interestingly, triggered in the tangles. Surprised by unanticipated consequences or nagged by contradictory urges, these pause-inducing spaces then opened up a space for Allison and me to reflect. While reflection at times resulted in confusion, frustration, or giving up on an idea we had initially been excited about, it also demanded attention, promoted dialogue, and, perhaps most exciting, helped to forge the way for change.<\/p>\n
In order to have something of worth to reflect upon, preservice teachers should be doing more than simply reading about success stories using these approaches. They should be \u201clearning by design\u201d (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) by trying out digital media approaches with young people and then being mentored through the various tensions and frustrations that will occur.\u00a0 This study unearths tangles that are particular to ELA classrooms teaching with technology, such as the clash between informal technology-mediated genres and what are considered more academic genres.<\/p>\n
Preservice ELA teachers should be given opportunities to work collaboratively through these constraints and affordances with authentic tasks such as, \u201cHow would YOU grade this blog?\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Such an activity pushes them to a tangle that they may not have envisioned: the desire to embrace a new platform while simultaneously assessing with old platforms, such as grades or rubrics.<\/p>\n
Another tangle described in the findings of this study involved competing urges to allow students to multitask (to keep them engaged) versus asking them to focus on one task (to ensure undivided attention).\u00a0 Preservice teachers might create two versions of one lesson plan: one involving multitasking with technology and the other demanding focus with technology.\u00a0 Then, they might try out the lesson plan by microteaching to their cohort and reflecting as a group as to which approach proved most effective.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the current educational climate often calls for integration of technology without the necessary space for reflection. \u00a0Teacher educators, therefore, must create opportunities for future and current teachers to practice collaborative, TPACK-oriented reflection.\u00a0 Reflection works best in dialogue with another educator or collaborator (Baird, 1992; Nicholson & Bond, 2003), such as in the teacher-researcher partnership so central to this study.\u00a0 Teachers gain clarity when they intentionally reflect, not just broadly on what happened, but specifically on the repercussions of the teaching choices made in relation to technology, pedagogy, and content.<\/p>\n
These findings also illustrate, however, that these TPACK categories are not comprehensive.\u00a0 When learning to integrate new media into the classroom, teacher candidates are most certainly juggling pedagogy, content, and technology.\u00a0 The framework fails, however, to elucidate the host of complicating factors influencing those three main categories: outside community, school context, access, equity, out-of-school networks and affinity spaces, to name a few.<\/p>\n
Preservice teachers who propose bringing Twitter into the classroom need practice probing the mismatched expectations and objectives that might result.\u00a0 Otherwise, teacher educators risk sending out teachers who expect a sort of automatic, grand convergence when they hand students an open social network with one hand and a rubric marking off standards with the other.<\/p>\n
This work pushes the boundaries of similar research about digital media in the classroom, because it is concerned with the everyday realities that teachers and students negotiate when digital media is added to the mix of official curricular demands in schools spaces.\u00a0 Teachers must be better equipped to employ, not only strategies but tactics as they navigate the competing demands from various spaces and stakeholders.\u00a0 Teacher educators can begin this important work before teachers even enter the field by deliberately cultivating collaborative, reflective practices in preservice teachers as they engage in active pedagogical design for authentic environments.<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n Baird, J. R. (1992). Collaborative reflection, systematic enquiry, better teaching. Teachers and Teaching: From Classroom to\u00a0Reflection<\/em>, 33-48.<\/p>\nBeach, R., & O\u2019Brien, D. (2008). Teaching popular-culture texts in the classroom. In J. Coieo, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.) Handbook of research on new literacies<\/em> (pp. 33-65). New York, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\nBenson, S. (2010). I don\u2019t know if that\u2019d be English or not: Third space theory and literacy\u00a0instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy<\/em>, 53<\/em>(7), 555\u2013563. doi: 10.1598\/JAAL.53.7.3<\/p>\nBisplinghoff, B. S., & Allen, J. (1998).\u00a0Engaging Teachers: Creating teaching and researching relationships<\/em>. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.<\/p>\nBoyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens<\/em>. New Haven, CT:<\/strong> Yale University Press.<\/p>\nBruce, D. (2009). Writing with visual images: Examining the video composition processes of high school students. Research in the Teaching of English<\/em>, 34<\/em>(4), 426-450.<\/p>\nCollins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and the schools.<\/em> \u00a0New York, NY: Teachers College Press.<\/p>\nCsikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention<\/em>. New York, NY:\u00a0Harper Collins.<\/p>\nCurwood, J., & Cowell, L. H. (2011).\u00a0 iPoetry: Creating space for new literacies in the English\u00a0curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy<\/em>, 55<\/em>(2), 110-120.<\/p>\nDamico, J., & Rust, J. (2010). Dwelling in the spaces between” What Is” and” What Could Be”:\u00a0The view from a university-based content literacy course at semester’s end. Journal of\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0Language and Literacy Education<\/em>, 6<\/em>(2), 103-110.<\/p>\nDay, J. (2010). Of mice and media. English Journal<\/em>, 100<\/em>(1), 70\u201375.<\/p>\nDe Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life<\/em>.\u00a0 Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.<\/p>\nEhret, C., & Hollett, T. (2014). Embodied composition in real virtualities: Adolescents’ literacy<\/p>\n
practices and felt experiences moving with digital, mobile devices in school. Research\u00a0<\/em>in the Teaching of English<\/em>, 48<\/em>(4), 428-452.<\/p>\nErtmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.\u00a0Computers & Education<\/em>,\u00a059<\/em>(2), 423-435.<\/p>\nGee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method<\/em> (3rd<\/sup> Ed.). New York, \u00a0NY: Routledge.<\/p>\nGustavson, L. (2008). Influencing pedagogy through the creative practices of youth. In M.L. Hill\u00a0& L. Vasudevan (Eds.), Media, learning, and sites of possibility<\/em> (pp. 81-114). New York, NY:\u00a0Peter Lang.<\/p>\nGutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the\u00a0classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational\u00a0<\/em>Review<\/em>, 65<\/em>(3), 445-472.<\/p>\nJenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture<\/em>. New York, NY: New York University Press.<\/p>\nJewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy, and learning: A multimodal approach<\/em>. New York, NY:\u00a0Routledge.<\/p>\nJewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. <\/em>Review of Research in<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>Education<\/em>, 32<\/em>, 241\u2013267. doi:10.3102\/0091732X07310586.<\/p>\nKhan, M. I. (2015). Impediments to reflection in teacher education: A UK case. FWU Journal of\u00a0<\/em>Social Sciences<\/em>, 9<\/em>(2), 22.<\/p>\nKnobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Remix: The art and craft of endless hybridization. Journal of \u00a0<\/em>Adolescent & Adult Literacy<\/em>, 52<\/em>(1), 22-33.<\/p>\nKremer, N., & Sanders, H. (2012, May).\u00a0 Shakespeare in 3D: Bringing the bard to life through new\u00a0(old) media.\u00a0 Voices from the Middle<\/em>, 14<\/em>(9), 57-64.<\/p>\nLampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55,<\/em> 178-194.<\/p>\nLeander, K. (2007). \u201cYou won\u2019t be needing your laptops today\u201d: Wired bodies in the wireless\u00a0classroom. In M. Knobel &C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler<\/em> (pp. 25-48).\u00a0New York, NY: Peter Lang.<\/p>\nLeander, K.M., & Sheehy, M. (2004). Introduction. In Leander, K.M., & Sheehy, M. (Eds.), \u00a0Spatializing literacy research and\u00a0<\/em>practice <\/em>(pp 1-13).\u00a0 New York, NY: Peter Lang.<\/p>\nLeland, C., Ociepka, A., & Kuonen, K. (May 2012). Finding our way: Eighth graders explore social\u00a0networking sites.\u00a0 Voices from the Middle<\/em>, 19<\/em>(4), 28-34.<\/p>\nMerriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education<\/em>. San\u00a0Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\nMishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework\u00a0for teacher knowledge. Teachers<\/em> College Record<\/em>, 108<\/em>(6), 1017-1054.<\/p>\nMoje, E.B. (2004). Powerful spaces: Tracing the out-of-school literacy spaces of Latino\/a\u00a0youth.\u00a0 In Leander, K.M. & Sheehy, M. (Eds.),\u00a0Spatializing literacy research and practice\u00a0<\/em>(pp 15-38).\u00a0 New York, NY: Peter Lang.<\/p>\nMoje, E. B. (2009). Standpoints: A call for new research on new and multi-literacies.\u00a0Research in the Teaching of English<\/em>,\u00a043<\/em>(4), 348-362.<\/p>\nNespor, J. (1997).\u00a0Tangled up in school<\/em>. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.<\/p>\nSaldana, J. (2009). An introduction to codes and coding.\u00a0The coding manual for qualitative researchers<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0London: SAGE.<\/p>\nNicholson, S. A., & Bond, N. (2003). Collaborative reflection and professional community\u00a0building: An analysis of preservice teachers’ use of an electronic discussion board.\u00a0Journal of Technology and Teacher Education<\/em>, 11<\/em>(2), 259-280.<\/p>\nRyan, M. (2013). The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflection in higher education.\u00a0Teaching in Higher Education<\/em>, 18<\/em>(2), 144-155.<\/p>\nSaldana, J. (2009). An introduction to codes and coding.\u00a0The coding manual for qualitative researchers<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0London, UK: Sage.<\/p>\nSch\u00f6n,\u00a0D.\u00a01983.\u00a0The reflective practitioner<\/em>.\u00a0San\u00a0Francisco, CA:\u00a0Jossey\u2010Bass.<\/p>\nStevens, L. (2011). Locating the role of the critical discourse analyst. In R. Rogers (Ed.),\u00a0An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education<\/em>\u00a0(2nd ed .; pp. 183-202).\u00a0 New\u00a0York, NY,\u00a0 Routledge.<\/p>\nTeng, A. (May 2012).\u00a0\u00a0Writing teachers should comment on Facebook walls.\u00a0\u00a0Voices from the Middle,\u00a0<\/em>19(4)<\/em>, 34-39.<\/p>\nWarschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2008). Learning, change, and power: Competing frames of\u00a0technology and \u00a0literacy. In J. Coieo, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.). Handbook of r<\/em>esearch on new literacies<\/em> (pp. 215-240). New York, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\nWilhelm, J. (May 2012). Our compulsory goals: Effective teaching and meaningful learning\u00a0through powerful cultural tools.\u00a0 Voices from the Middle<\/em>, 14<\/em>(9), 81-84.<\/p>\nYoung, C. A., & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English language arts with technology: A critical approach and pedagogical framework.\u00a0Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education<\/em>,\u00a04<\/em>(1), 1-22. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-4\/issue-1-04\/english-language-arts\/teaching-the-english-language-arts-with-technology-a-critical-approach-and-pedagogical-framework<\/a><\/p>\nZhang, J. (2009). Toward a creative social web for learners and teachers. Educational \u00a0R<\/em>esearcher<\/em>, 38<\/em>(4), 274-279.<\/a><\/p>\nAppendix A Anna Karenina Blog<\/p>\n
\u201cYour blog is what you say when there is nobody standing over your shoulder telling you what to do.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -lorelle<\/p>\n
\u201cA blog is in many ways a continuing conversation\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 -Andrew Sullivan<\/p>\n
\u201cA blog is merely a tool that lets you do anything from change the world to share your shopping list.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 –Unknown<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cThe casual conversational tone of a blog is what makes it particularly dangerous.\u201d\u00a0-Daniel B. Beaulieu<\/p>\n
Blogs are created for all kinds of purposes.\u00a0 There are cooking blogs, sporting blogs, fashion blogs, parenting blogs, music blogs, news blogs, political blogs, and even academic blogs.\u00a0 Blogs are usually born from personal investment or passion in a theme or topic.\u00a0 Your blogs over this novel, however, are not simply intrinsically motivated.\u00a0 Despite this, your goal is to write blogs that get at the heart of the novel using humor, personal connections, informal voice, links to other resources, images, videos, etc, etc.\u00a0\u00a0 Keep your audience (your classmates) in mind, and feel free to use pop culture references that would resonate with your peers.<\/p>\n
COMPONENT ONE<\/u><\/p>\n
Four<\/u> <\/strong>of your eight blogs (one for each book), need to address (however creatively) at least one<\/u><\/strong> of the following prompts:<\/p>\n\nDiscuss a theme you see being developed in the novel. What does Tolstoy seem to be trying to say (his claim) about this theme?\u00a0 What imagery displays this theme?\u00a0 Remember, a good blog will discuss theme without being predictably boring or academic sounding.\u00a0 You might begin illustrating the theme with a short anecdote about something that happened to you the other day.\u00a0 Then go on to relate the theme to the novel.\u00a0 You could enhance the imagery displaying the theme with actual images posted on your blog.<\/li>\n Discuss a conflict in the book. What is the conflict?\u00a0 Which characters are involved?\u00a0 What are the sides? Are there even sides?\u00a0 Do you predict that this will develop into a significant conflict within the larger novel? Why or why not? Remember\u00a0 all conflicts fall under one of the following types: character vs. character; character vs. external force <\/strong>(nature, society, spiritual) ; character vs. self.<\/strong> Which is being developed here? Also remember that conflict is what moves a plot along.\u00a0 How is this conflict working to drive the story?\u00a0 Conflict always makes for an interesting read, so this would make a great blog prompt.\u00a0 Again, how do these conflicts relate to a larger contemporary conflict, news story, personal experience, etc?\u00a0 And how can you seamlessly tie together the textual analysis with the \u201cbig\u201d picture?<\/li>\nDiscuss a significant event in the book. What makes it seem significant to you?\u00a0 What do you think about how Tolstoy relates the event? What descriptions do you notice? What draws your attention to them? Our lives and our cultural landscape are marked by significant events, so this will be easy to adapt into an informal blog form.<\/li>\n Discuss a character in the book. How would you analyze this character?\u00a0 What seem to be the character\u2019s defining traits? What are his\/her relationships with other characters? Is the character a protagonist<\/strong> or antagonist<\/strong>? Are they a foil<\/strong> to any other character? Is he or she flat<\/strong> (remains essentially unchanged and tends to be more of a type than an individual) or round<\/strong> (changes throughout the novel and is more of an individual and complex)?\u00a0 Does the character remind you of any characters from other novels, movies, TV shows, etc. you have seen or read?\u00a0 Does the character remind you of your Aunt,\u00a0 distant cousin, best friend . . . or even yourself?\u00a0 Blog about it.<\/li>\nCreate an entire blog inspired by a compelling idea, thought, or question that surfaced in one of your classmates\u2019 blogs. What does your classmate write that you find interesting, insightful, significant, and how can you expand their ideas or take them in a different, nuanced direction\u00a0 This is a typical convention of the blog genre.\u00a0 Bloggers will link to a past blog or fellow blogger and will write their own reaction.\u00a0 You need to have something substantive here to add to the conversation.\u00a0 This is a larger endeavor than just a comment posted at the end of someone\u2019s blog.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThe questions with each prompt are designed to prompt your thinking.\u00a0 Your blog should not simply be a listing of answers to each question, but a well-developed paragraph or two that works to understand, interpret and respond to the novel.\u00a0 You may end up answering all the questions or you may answer none.<\/p>\n
Strong blogs will include:<\/p>\n
\nCitations from the text to illustrate the blogger\u2019s<\/li>\n Multimedia (pictures, videos, sound) that enhance the meaning.<\/li>\n An engaging voice (humor is commonly used, but not required)<\/li>\n Connections between the text and pop culture or personal life<\/li>\n An exploration of the \u201cSo what \u2026what does this mean for me?\u201d<\/li>\n An invitation for further conversation about your thoughts<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nCOMPONENT TWO<\/u><\/p>\n
You also need to make sure you post comments on at least five classmates\u2019 blogs for each book.\u00a0 (You are encouraged to go beyond this minimum requirement.\u00a0 You should be at least skimming everyone\u2019s blogs and then commenting on things that interest you.)\u00a0 Strong response posts may . . .<\/p>\n
\nGo beyond just saying \u201cgood job\u201d or \u201cI disagree\u201d; get specific about areas of excellence or flaws in logic.<\/li>\n Ask the blogger questions to better clarify their main points.<\/li>\n Address one of the comments to the blog rather than the blog itself.<\/li>\n Sound like an informal debate between peers<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/a><\/p>\nAppendix B CONTENT: \/55 <\/strong><\/p>\nCitations from the text to illustrate the blogger\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n
Multimedia (pictures, videos, sound) that enhance the meaning.<\/p>\n
An engaging voice (humor is commonly used, but not required)<\/p>\n
Connections between the text and pop culture or personal life<\/p>\n
An exploration of the \u201cSo what \u2026what does this mean for me?\u201d<\/p>\n
An invitation for further conversation about your thoughts<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Structure and Form<\/strong>: \/15 <\/strong><\/p>\nEach entry is clearly labeled with the title of the text and includes page numbers if necessary.<\/p>\n
Original quote is included.<\/p>\n
Entries are in order.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Convention<\/strong>: \/15 <\/strong><\/p>\nIs well-edited.<\/p>\n
Run-on, incomplete, and unclear sentences have been eliminated<\/p>\n
There are no errors in spelling, capitalization, or punctuation<\/p>\n
Pronoun use is clear<\/p>\n
Verb tense is consistent<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Documentation \/15 <\/strong><\/p>\nEach quote in entry has parenthetical citation using MLA format.<\/p>\n
Commonplace Book includes a \u201cworks cited\u201d page in the back.<\/p>\n
Works cited includes all necessary texts and is completed following MLA guidelines. \u00a0No information that is the intellectual property of someone else is included WITHOUT being cited. ANY <\/strong>plagiarism will result in zero points on this paper (see your student handbook)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
TOTAL \/100<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/i> <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The unpredictability of pedagogical design resonates loudly when digital media collides with official classroom spaces (Jewitt, 2006).\u00a0 This digital, or new, media is more than just a collection of digital or screen-based devices or platforms; rather, it encompasses a conglomeration of shifting tools, practices, norms, and expectations that help create particular kinds of spaces, activities, […]<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/i> <\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":[],"meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"publication":[97,95],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7303"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7303"},{"taxonomy":"publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication?post=7303"},{"taxonomy":"paper_format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/format?post=7303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.s3.amazonaws.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/v17i2English1-Fig1.png\")
<\/a>