"Reading Don't Fix No Chevys"

I enjoyed reading "Reading Don't Fix No Chevys" by Michael W. Smith and Jeffrey D. Wilhelm. Because the authors have had teaching experience, they have first-hand knowledge about the challenges of teaching and the issues that arise with teaching boys specifically. Their research is very hands-on and I appreciate the high value they place upon having a personal knowledge of students and validating their experiences and the unique perspective that they can offer.

I think one of the most helpful parts of the book (especially for those who plan to teach) was chapter two, which discussed that boys need "a sense of control and competence, an appropriate challenge, clear goals and feedback, and a focus on the immediate" in order to learn effectively (53). The authors didn't just pick these conditions for effective learning at random, however; they compiled them after researching the ways boys learn and engage in non-academic activities. By finding out what drives boys in their activities outside of the classroom, what contributes to them sticking with certain activities while they may give others up, the authors gained valuable insight (along with some outside research from psychologists) into ways to help boys have a more positive experience in school. Of course, the authors are not saying that if boys like playing video games at home, they should be able to play "educational" video games in school. Mimicking student's extracurricular activities in the classroom is not the point. Rather, the authors realize that boys are driven in other activities outside of school for the reasons mentioned above ( a sense of control and competence, an appropriate challenge, clear goals and feedback, and a focus on the immediate) and those things can and should be reproduced in the classroom. I agree with the authors completely. Learning needs to be about what is best for the student, not about teachers or schools pushing an agenda simply because it's what has always been done. If there is an epidemic of boys not reading or being interested in school, obviously something is not working.

I loved the example about how Wilhelm taught Thee Death of A Salesman to his eleventh grade American Literature class. After protesting about having to teach the book because he thought his students would not be able to relate to it, his department chair insisted that he still must teach it. Rather than treating the book as an "artifact," Wilhelm found creative ways to make the book more relevant to his students. He formed the curriculum around the question, "What are the costs and benefits of of the American emphasis upon sports" (85) and incorporated other texts (including Sports Illustrated and sports related articles) and projects. All the students found this approach to be relevant to their lives in some way, and the class became a rewarding learning experience for everyone involved. This is a wonderful example of how when teachers think outside of the box in an effort to relate to their class, students will often rise to the challenge and have a much more effective learning experience. This example relates to both boys and girls, but the call for teachers to revise their teaching style for the sake of boys is still very important. Boys are the ones who are most vulnerable at this point in history to falling through the cracks when it comes to literacy. Teachers would do well to learn from "Reading Don't Fix No Chevys" to understand what motivates boys and how they can make their classrooms, and reading in general, positive experiences that will foster lifelong learning.

Literacy Overload?

In her article "Accumulating Literacy: Writing and Learning to Write in the Twentieth Century" Deborah Brandt discusses how literacy learners today are faced with the challenge of absorbing new forms of literacy in addition to those passed on from past generations. Essentially, she believes that we have a "surplus" of literacy and that the main challenge surrounding the issue of literacy is not for more people to be able to learn the basics of reading and writing, but for individuals to be able to acquire, manage, and apply the vast array of literacy forms already available to them. I thought it was interesting how she pointed out that "the mass of American workers has had to shift from growing food to manufacturing goods, to principally, managing information" (652). Because of this shift in how American (and global) society functions, the demand of literacy goes far beyond the basics of reading and writing. As important as these basic skills are, they are increasingly becoming minimal forms of literacy in our information and technology rich age. This can pose a problem both for older generations who did not grow up with the same skill sets that younger generations are automatically expected to acquire, and it can also pose a problem for those who may not have access to the tools (computers, internet, cell phones, etc.) that would enable them to "keep up" with the ever-changing forms of literacy surrounding them. At the same time, the advantage of living in an information-rich age is that information is much more widely available than it has been in the past. Many people still do not have computers in their homes, but public libraries offer both the "old" forms of literacy (books) as well as free (although not as readily available were they in the home) access to newer forms of literacy through computer and internet access. Overall, I think Brandt's article points to how complicated it is to grow up and acquire literacy in the Twentieth (now Twenty-first) century. We have come a long way from the days of the one-room school house, but our advances also mean that literacy is less simple to acquire and maintain in a constantly changing world.