Data+Analysis

I am uploading the charts I used to start to analyze the Banned Books podcast by Fresh Press. I decided that I will use Fresh Press's podcasts for our talk. I got this info on critical literacy from Lewison, Seely Flint, and Van Sluys (2002).

Here are the REVISED charts for the banned books podcast. These have both of our stuff on them.



Banned Books: Disrupting the Commonplace: Many groups felt that the banned label placed on their favorite books (//The Giving Tree, Where the Wild Things Are, Harry Potter, The Road, Where’s Waldo?//) positioned them as book defenders. Groups used different strategies to defend their books or rationalize reading them. Meghana’s group retold a story that I told the class about parents in our school district questioning and challenging our use of Cormac McCarthy’s //The Road// as a class text. “No way!” they said. “Everyone in our class loves that book!” Many groups adopted “adult” methods of defending their books, using “traditional” literary terms and tools (“literary education,” “monomyth pattern,” explicating character traits and themes, creating their scripts using an introduction-body-conclusion format) to defend their favorites. The fact that they had been favorites places the students in a defensive stance. Everyone expressed outrage about censorship and questions the legitimacy of book banners’ claims, saying that book banners’ seem to think that books will “make kids” behave in a certain way, but there’s “no empirical evidence” of this “supposed risk.” The overall message is that kids’ and readers’ opinions are stronger than the powers that book challengers try to assert. As Nora’s group said, “The opposition doesn’t stand a chance!” The activity of podcasting allowed a disruption in the regular pattern of our class, creating a space of fun and play. Groups mimicked favorite YouTube videos (Harry Potter Puppet Pals) and used British accents to have more fun with this project.



Banned Books Sociopolitical: All groups except David began this project with the personal. They read lists of challenges against books on websites, identified books that meant something to them, and then expressed outrage against the challenges to these books. One group stayed at the personal level, ending their segment by saying it’s “So lame!” that their favorites were banned. Others more explicitly rejected the adult claim that these favorite books were risky to kids, saying that books don’t make kids behave badly; and in fact, can make kids behave better by providing positive role models and exposure to positive themes. The //Harry Potter// group went into a lot of detail about the validity of the series. The concept of resistance in this podcast was really limited to kids’ rejection of adult pronouncements about what to read. “The opposition doesn’t stand a chance!” said Nora. In fact, the class support of Harry Potter framed the entire podcast, as we used their version of the Puppet Pals song as transition music. Further, they tested my tolerance of their resistance by including “Harry Potter touch my body” in the lyrics of that song, which can be heard at the end of the podcast. The classes of sophomores also negotiated within and among themselves for capital in this project: Which class would make the best podcast? Which group would make the best segment? Who had skills to edit and enhance the podcasts? Which segment would make the biggest impact on the 3rd graders?



Banned Books Multiple Perspectives: Overall, I don’t think the sophomores interrogated multiple perspectives much in the podcasting project. In this banned books podcast, every group decried book banning. No one entertained the legitimacy of the book banners’ claims. I also did not model this in class, as I told them about parents’ challenges to the book we were reading at the time, //The Road//, which was enormously popular with the class and for many the favorite text of the year. I did not make it seem like the parents' challenges had validity. I also told them about another time parents questioned a book because the book mentioned homosexuality. I did not give this claim validity. David included my perspective in his segment, saying that inclusion in “regular school curriculum” was evidence that a book indeed has validity and quality. That surprised me because he was extremely anti-establishment most of the time, questioning my legitimacy as teacher and the course’s rigor and relevance. In this project, I was aware of my power as the teacher and the privileging of my narrative.

[|Taking Action and Promoting Social Justice.doc]

Taking Action and Promoting Social Justice: Within our classroom context, this was the only writing project we had that had an audience outside of ourselves. I think the sophomores tried to take up the ideas that the third graders expressed: it is wrong to ban books; they don’t want to “break kids’ dreams” and reflect and extend those in a podcast about books that meant something to them – //Harry Potter// and //The Road//, in addition to favorites from childhood. I think they saw themselves in joining the 3rd graders in standing against book banning. They did not choose to take up the relative positions or positions defending banning for younger children.


 * Here are the charts for the literacy George Baker podcast. I'm working on REVISING them and writing the narratives.**

Interrogating Multiple Viewpoints: Mr. George Baker Podcast The sophomores presented a mostly-unified viewpoint that reading is positive. They seemed to view their purpose in this podcast to encourage the 3rd graders to read. Jon includes a character in his rap who didn’t read early in his life, but then learns to read and finds pleasure and success in it. This story mirrors the message they understood from //Mr. George Baker.// After we researched and produced our first segments and found that no one explicitly discussed the book, I led the class in a discussion about the issues in the text. The result of that discussion is in Allie’s segment at the beginning of the podcast: “Everybody should have access to education so everybody can be happy and learn.” I think her use of “everybody” allows her to avoid a conversation about race. Similarly, the kids who participated in the Pass the Book segment avoid specifically discussing poverty, but point out that it doesn’t have to be expensive to get new books. In her Pass the Book segment, Meghana mentions that literacy rates in “3rd world countries” are lower than other countries. She also says that women are more likely to be illiterate than men. She does not discuss any reasons she found to explain these statistics. Several students discussed Mr. Baker’s age and pointed out that he was inspirational for wanting to learn to read at 100. Ellen said she also wanted to “keep wanting to learn no matter how old” she is. Samie added that “Anyone at any age can learn how to read.” Anna and Kalyna said it was “nice” that Mr. Baker wasn’t too embarrassed to return to school when an adult character in another book they’d read had been ashamed to admit her illiteracy. Overall, the primary difference the class made visible was age. Other differences were inferred (race and class), but otherwise ignored. David wrote a satirical segment that included reasons not to read, including “Knowledge without power is bitter” and “Ignorance is bliss.” He spoke intentionally fast, so that others would not be able to hear his message. In this endeavor, he resists the dominant discourse of our classroom.

This podcast represents one of the teaching dilemmas I faced with this class. I wanted to offer free choice and multiple topics to explore, but when I did that, they missed the topics that I felt were most important. This probably can be related to Jenkins' Ethics Challenge.

[|Focusing on Sociopolitical Issues2.doc] (I didn't add anything to this one. The kids didn't really do this in this podcast)

Sociopolitical Issues: George Baker As a class, the group stayed at a personal level with this text. They focused on the idea that reading is enjoyable and that’s why kids and adults should learn how to read. They enjoyed reading //Mr. George Baker// because "the themes were inspiring" and "it was easier to read than their other books." Some students alluded to social and political issues, but none explored these in depth. To make this podcast, we actually recorded twice. The first segments were a little confusing and lacked information gleaned from research. I asked the class to revise to include more research and more thoughts on the text, //Mr. George Baker//. These revisions included a segment we wrote as a group that leads off the podcast. Overall, the kids thought //Mr. George Baker// meant that “Everybody should have access to education so everybody can be happy and learn.” The access issue is touched upon by Jerry and Meghana in the Pass the Book segment. Jerry says, “Certain places around the world struggle more than others,” and Meghana mentions “3rd world countries” and women. Mr. Baker is an American man, but the groups did not address his barriers to literacy. Meghana ends her segment with a return to the personal: “Everyone should know how to read so everyone can enjoy books.” I don’t think the kids challenged unequal power relationships or used literacy to engage in the politics of daily life in this podcast. There were some allusions to using literacy as cultural citizenship and for participation. The Harry Potter group asserted that literacy is a way for kids to gain power. Samie says reading “creates new ideas about topics that are compelling.” Overall, though, this podcast focuses on the personal experience of reading, connecting with, and enjoying literature.



Taking Action and Promoting Social Justice: George Baker As I think the kids viewed their purpose in this podcast as promoting reading for the third graders, they probably thought they were taking action. Later in the year, the class entered a contest to win a trip to the Harry Potter’s Wizarding World at Universal Studios. They had to make a video, which they did during their lunch hours. The video had to show “why the class was extraordinary.” Publishing their podcasts “for” third graders was one of two reasons they felt they were extraordinary. Using class time to write podcasts felt to all of us like a subversive and meaningful activity within the context of our school, so in that way, we were taking action to make the class “better” and different from other classes. However, in terms of critical literacy, I don’t think the kids did any significant reflection on //Mr. George Baker// or the nonfiction texts they read to support their segments. The kids focused on enjoyment of texts rather than access to texts. They used the words “everyone” and “all” to avoid talking about specific groups who have been excluded from literacy.

Disrupting the Commonplace: George Baker The class resisted examining //Mr. George Baker// as a legitimate text, and in this way, clung to the status quo of high school English classes: “real” books are dense texts that are difficult to read. I led the class in a discussion of the book using a simple frame: “We Like/We Wonder/We Think.” The class identified three things they liked about the text, which the sound engineer, Allie, read at the beginning of the podcast: “it was easier than their other books,” “it had pictures,” and “the themes were inspiring.” The theme they identified later in the podcast was that people can learn no matter how old they are. The Pass the Book segment reflected some status quo thinking about the United States’ position in the world by pointing out that “some places in the world” and “3rd world countries” “struggle” with literacy more than the United States. No one addressed inequity within our country. We also engaged in a lot of status quo teacher/student interactions during the making of this podcast, as I rejected a few segments for lack of substance, and kids re-recorded them. David once again resisted his position as a participant in this project by using his “policy debate” voice to record his satirical segment, which made it incomprehensible to most listeners. Students did include popular culture and media in this podcast. A large group used Harry Potter as a frame once again, and Jon’s group wrote a rap. Overall, the fact that we were making a podcast during instructional time was really the only way this podcast disrupted the commonplace.


 * The Right to Read Around the World**









In this segment, the podcasters focused more explicitly on social and political issues than in the other two. Many groups discussed an opposition between “the government” and “the population” to talk about people’s rights to their opinions and their rights to access information. In their segment on internet censorship in Iran, Jake and Danielle asked, “Are opinions a right or a privilege? Is this fair?” They clearly thought it was not fair for the government to limit access to websites. All of the groups thought access to multiple perspectives via the internet was important. Ellen and Allie discussed Chinese censorship from a teen perspective, saying teens want to both express themselves and learn about current issues. Molly and Emily echoed this sentiment, saying that in today’s society people use the internet for all kinds of reasons, including sharing ideas and opinions and learning about current issues. All groups touted the rights of the citizens over oppressive governments who don’t want people questioning their systems. The hoe-down at the end of the podcast has some troubling lyrics. The group admitted that they just found names of countries that rhymed instead of transmitting factual information. They also use “Jiggitystan” as one of their countries. No groups discussed social or political issues within the United States; however, as we were studying world literature, I steered them toward “world” issues.