To be fair, Alsup and Bush do not completely argue against the use of PowerPoint in the classroom. Rather, they argue for an educated and thoughtful use of the software that is aware of why it being used and what it is hoping to accomplish. No one, myself included, can disagree with this point. Obviously instructors should always be cognizant of the objectives they seek to achieve, regardless of what technology they are using.

My arguement is simply that we don’t think that much about it. When teachers hand students a worksheet, give students book work, or use the overheard projector, they aren’t thinking about why that method is the best possible means for conveying the information. If we don’t spend the time analyzing our old school methods of instruction, then why are we holding newer methods up to a higher standard? PowerPoint has obvious advantages, namely that it is different. It breaks the cycle of worksheets and gives our kids something they actually might pay attention to. I’m in total agreement with critically thinking about what method is the most effective for accomplishing your teaching goal. However, if this long hard thinking causes teacher to become overly cautious and fearful of PowerPoint, then our students will suffer.

The above activity is presented in the text as an introduction to a discussion of the Marxist critical literary theory. 

While I certainly support teaching literary theory in schools (as reflected in my previous post) I have some serious concerns regarding the application of this activity.  Michael is asking his students to record their interpretation of their own socio-economic status, which seems incredibly personal.  The text goes on to say that Michael has “carefully constructed this part of the activity so that students would reflect privately on their own economic status…” yet the discussion that follows reflects that some students are sharing information with their peers. 

My fear is that such an open discussion of the status of individual students is distasteful, and potentially embarrassing.  Obviously the social status of students is visible to some degree.  For example, the clothes the student wears, as well as the car they drive all reveal this secret fact.  However, having students mark on a handout where they feel their family falls on a socioeconomic scale just seems to have so many problems.  What if students are not comfortable sharing this information (even just by silently marking the paper)?  What if students run home and tell their parents that their teacher wanted to know how much money they earn?  Could the same overall goal of the activity be achieved by instead asking students to just imagine themselves in a particular circle? 

One author whose characters are always memorable, full of distinctive voice, and able to evoke an array of emotions is Shakespeare.  I know many young (and old) readers may have preconceived notions, which taint their perceptions of Shakespeare.  However, the appeal of Shakespeare’s complex characters can be a way to overcome some difficulties students may have with the text.  Collaborative work between students can help them to sort through difficult plotlines and language.  Ultimately students will not only be exposed to these complicated characters, but also get to experience the beauty of Shakespeare through these activities.  Rex Gibson’s Teaching Shakespeare provides a variety of activities for introducing the complex characters found throughout all of Shakespeare’s works.

Most recently, I am grateful for finding Deborah Appleman’s thoughts on literary theory in her book Critical Encounters in High School English.  Appleman cites the ability of literary theory to help adolescents “appreciate the power of multiple perspectives”.  In our increasingly diverse society (and high school classroosms) I feel it is essential for students to learn to view the world from a variety of different lenses.  By viewing a text through different theories or perspectives, my students will hopefully also learn to view the world in the same multifaceted way.