Inkheart in the classroom

          We have created a varied, cross-curricular unit plan and as such, the result has become an idealized version of a unit.  In this way, one problem we have identified with our unit is that of time management and logistics; by this we are referring to being unable to complete the unit lessons in the allocated time frame. Initially, we considered including a “Pause Day” during which students would not be introduced to new material; however, as per the parameters of this assignment, all time needed to be accounted for. We do feel that in practice, “Pause Days” are a valuable tool, and should be encouraged.

 

          One issue that might arise in the implementation of this Unit Plan is the use of technology in the classroom.  We have created a Unit that uses a wide range of multimedia resources in order to incorporate media literacy in the classroom.  However, in doing so, our Unit Plan was designed for an economically advantaged school that is able to provide such technologies to its students and teachers which include a class set of Chromebooks, a projector, and speakers.  In this way, our Unit Plan would need to be adapted for schools that do have these materials available in order to nullify the online presence of activities. However, it is not impossible and the learning outcomes would remain the same.  For example, activities such as The Inkwell, The Parchment Scroll, and the Final Project could be adapted to a physical medium rather than a virtual medium.

          In terms of Differentiated Instruction, we have made efforts to vary our methods of information transmission in order to appeal to students with multiple intelligences in our classroom.  However, we have not  been able to account for variances in student ability or student exceptionalities, such as dyslexia. We acknowledge that our unit plan would need to be modified to accommodate student IEPs. However, given the range of possible accommodations and modifications that could be needed, we chose to construct a unit plan that displayed common forms of Differentiated Instruction and not IEP specific modifications and accommodations.

 

          Another issue that could arise is that of not reading (Broz).  While this is a challenge for any English teacher no matter the novel, this issue is of particular importance to us given the page length of our chosen novel.  While its length did make us question its viability in a Grade 10 Applied classroom, we ultimately decided that its merits outweighed any trepidations surrounding its length.  Inkheart was written in 2005, meaning the language it employs is not yet out of date.  Furthermore, the identified reading level is that of a Grade 8 standard.  Thus, while it may seem daunting at first, it employs language that students may easily understand and relate to, which circumvents the alienating influence of the language of many canonical texts.  We also made efforts to segment the novel into small daily chunks (one or two chapters a day) to encourage manageability.  We have also incorporated silent reading time into our lessons in order to lessen the amount of homework students would be required to complete outside of class time. An issue related to the problem of not reading is that of motivation. We acknowledge that lack of student motivation could complicate the implementation of this unit plan. We feel that if students do not see themselves represented in the literature they read, or if the literature holds no interest for them, they will be unwilling to participate in any associated activities.

 

          Another major aspect of our identified teaching practice is the prevalence of group work and peer collaboration. If students “hate group work” or are “social loafers,” then many of the lessons would need modification as many of the collaborative activities require that the students be active and supportive members of the classroom community (Isaac).  Throughout the unit, the teacher must keep a close eye on student dynamics and be cognizant of student relationships in order to ensure appropriate and productive interactions. We acknowledge that some lessons require a high level of maturity and trust. If the classroom community lacks cohesiveness or maturity, Lessons 17 and 18 would need to be modified. That being said, we are hopeful that students would have built a strong community, as this is the last unit in the course.

 

          Throughout this unit, our philosophy has focused on students mastering the ideas and concepts behind the lessons instead of rote assignments, that is, “[caring] more about students’ mastering the hows than about any of the whats” (Wilson).  We endeavour to encourage our students to be responsible online citizens, to be cognizant of social issues, and to use critical lenses when consuming messages in the literature, media, and world around them.  We do not view the scope of this unit as staying contained within a Grade 10 Applied English classroom; we see this unit as teaching our students skills they will use throughout their lives.  For example, they will be able to evaluate the validity of media sources, understand how their online actions influence each other, take the perspective of an FNMI individual, and see how the larger tapestry of popular books/movies/music could be influenced by past generations.

 

          In terms of this assignment, we learned that advanced planning is key when it comes to a project of this magnitude. In January, we established a rough timeline of when we were hoping to complete this project. With this goal in mind, we used Backwards Design to establish mutually agreed upon deadlines. In addition, we also learned that trusting your project partner can make the experience less stressful. Both of us admit to being a little ambitious at times, and like to be as detailed and thorough as possible. With a project of this size, you must have faith that your partner with complete her portions to an agreed upon standard. That being said, we found that we worked well with each other as we had similar philosophies concerning how we teach, and similar ideas of what we would like to see in our ideal unit plan.

 

          Another point we would like to briefly touch on is that of conversation. This project could not have been completed solely online in Google Documents or via small conversations. On several occasions, we sat down for long periods of time to discuss the implementation of lessons and assignments, organization strategies, and other teaching practices. From these sessions, we learned that the planning and conversation stages were more important to the unit than the actual writing of the various report sections, as many aspects of the unit’s design had to be thoroughly discussed before they were committed to paper.

 

          Finally, we would like to acknowledge that inspiration is a fickle thing and may strike at inconvenient times, like after you have completed a series of lessons that must now be reframed to fit new ideas. From this, we learned that unit construction is an ongoing process and continually evolves under new influences and theories, so be open to change, even if it is inconvenient, and allow for unexpected journeys!

 

 

References
 

Broz, William J. “Not Reading: The 800-Pound Mockingbird in the Classroom.” English Journal 100.5 (2011): 15-20. Online.

 

Isaac, Megan Lynn. “‘I Hate Group Work!’ Social Loafers, Indignant Peers, and the Drama of the Classroom.” English Journal 101.4 (2012): 83-89. Online.

Wilson, Beth. “Teach the How: Critical Lenses and Critical Literacy.” English Journal 103.4 (2014): 68-75. Online.