Google Lit Trips: Reading About Reading
45.6K views | +10 today
Follow
Google Lit Trips: Reading About Reading
An Educator's Reading List of Contemporary Literature, Literacy, and Reading Issues. Visit us at https://www.GoogleLitTrips.org
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by GoogleLitTrips Reading List
Scoop.it!

New Google Lit Trip! Until the Last Spike, Journal of Sean Sullivan...

New Google Lit Trip! Until the Last Spike, Journal of Sean Sullivan... | Google Lit Trips: Reading About Reading | Scoop.it
Google Lit Trips, educational nonprofit, award winning, educational technology, place based storytelling, reading about reading
GoogleLitTrips Reading List's insight:
17 May 2016

Announcing the publication of a brand new Google Lit Trip for Until the Last Spike, the Journal of Sean Sullivan, a Transcontinental Railroad Worker, Nebraska and Points West, 1867 by William Durbin. 

 "Until the Last Spike, The Journal of Sean Sullivan, is about a fictional character named Sean Sullivan and his journey working on the Transcontinental Railroad. It's August 1867 and Sean has just arrived from Chicago, planning to work with his father on the Transcontinental Railroad... Sean discovers the rough and rowdy world of the towns that seem to sprout up from nowhere along the railroad's path over the prairie...Through Sean's eyes, the history of this era and the magnitude of his and his fellow workers' achievements come alive." – Goodreads


brought to you by GLT Global ED dba Google Lit Trips an educational nonprofit
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by GoogleLitTrips Reading List
Scoop.it!

Historical Fiction Gets No Respect -- Here's Why It Should

Historical Fiction Gets No Respect -- Here's Why It Should | Google Lit Trips: Reading About Reading | Scoop.it
Katy Simpson Smith, author of the new novel 'Free Men,' on the joys and frustrations of exploring the past.
GoogleLitTrips Reading List's insight:
1 April 2016

Yesterday I scooped an article entitled "Fiction v nonfiction – English literature's made-up divide." In my comments, while recognizing some of the benefits, I expressed concerns about the downside of genre classifications in the classroom.

When I came across this article, it seemed perfect follow-up evidence that genre classifications can have deleterious  impact upon readers by passing on the de facto bias of literary scholarship to students who may not be on track to become Literature majors. 

A question arose in my mind...
If we who teach literature teachers were evaluated upon the following two criteria, would we consider our efforts successful?
1. What percentage of our students grow up to be Literature teachers, scholars, or some kind of literati-type?
2. What percentage of our students become completely turned off as life-long readers specifically because of the esoteric nature of our efforts to have them read literature like scholars do?

Of, course the fallacy of my reducing the assessment of our efforts to these two categories, overlooks what we hope is still a significantly large portion of our students; that group that does not grow up to be literature scholars, but does gain a depth of appreciation for what they do read that does motivate them to become lifelong readers. 

That concession being made, ironically, I am reminded of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, a powerful attack on established tendency of curricula in universities that tends to pass on the biases of historical events taught in schools, from generation to generation, rather than to encourage a reconsideration of those often un-reconsidered biases to see if perhaps Custer was not so much of a hero as we had previously taught our students that he had been.

Transitioning the thought to the literary arts, we have made progress in reconsidering the long held biases that previously held reign in literary curricula. Consider the reduction in assumption that the "Dead White Poets" were worth more than women writers, writers of color, and cross-cultural global writers. 

But, to see educators still passing on biases implying or outright accusing genres such as science fiction, historical fiction, YA lit, as being "entirely" second rate at best by some sort of "default fault" is doing not only harm to our students who we hope to become life-long readers regardless of their eventual career decisions, but ironically even to those we hope will choose to become bearers of the literary torch who I personally, would hope would not enter future classroom, noses aloft, telling students that what they like to read is essentially trash or unworthy just because "those types" of books have always been under appreciated by too many university curricula planners.

Let us not throw a "one-size-fits-all" blanket of condemnation over historical fiction, science, fiction, YA and any other "genres" who have been so condemned. 

brought to you by GLT Global ED dba Google Lit Trips an educational nonprofit. 


more...
Flurries Unlimited's curator insight, April 1, 2016 4:37 PM
1 April 2016

Yesterday I scooped an article entitled "Fiction v nonfiction – English literature's made-up divide." In my comments, while recognizing some of the benefits, I expressed concerns about the downside of genre classifications in the classroom.

When I came across this article, it seemed perfect follow-up evidence that genre classifications can have deleterious  impact upon readers by passing on the de facto bias of literary scholarship to students who may not be on track to become Literature majors. 
 
A question arose in my mind...
If we who teach literature teachers were evaluated upon the following two criteria, would we consider our efforts successful?
1. What percentage of our students grow up to be Literature teachers, scholars, or some kind of literati-type?
2. What percentage of our students become completely turned off as life-long readers specifically because of the esoteric nature of our efforts to have them read literature like scholars do?
 
Of, course the fallacy of my reducing the assessment of our efforts to these two categories, overlooks what we hope is still a significantly large portion of our students; that group that does not grow up to be literature scholars, but does gain a depth of appreciation for what they do read that does motivate them to become lifelong readers. 
 
That concession being made, ironically, I am reminded of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, a powerful attack on established tendency of curricula in universities that tends to pass on the biases of historical events taught in schools, from generation to generation, rather than to encourage a reconsideration of those often un-reconsidered biases to see if perhaps Custer was not so much of a hero as we had previously taught our students that he had been.
 
Transitioning the thought to the literary arts, we have made progress in reconsidering the long held biases that previously held reign in literary curricula. Consider the reduction in assumption that the "Dead White Poets" were worth more than women writers, writers of color, and cross-cultural global writers. 
 
But, to see educators still passing on biases implying or outright accusing genres such as science fiction, historical fiction, YA lit, as being "entirely" second rate at best by some sort of "default fault" is doing not only harm to our students who we hope to become life-long readers regardless of their eventual career decisions, but ironically even to those we hope will choose to become bearers of the literary torch who I personally, would hope would not enter future classroom, noses aloft, telling students that what they like to read is essentially trash or unworthy just because "those types" of books have always been under appreciated by too many university curricula planners.
 
Let us not throw a "one-size-fits-all" blanket of condemnation over historical fiction, science, fiction, YA and any other "genres" who have been so condemned. 
 
brought to you by GLT Global ED dba Google Lit Trips an educational nonprofit. 
 
 
Lynnette Van Dyke's curator insight, April 1, 2016 8:32 PM
1 April 2016

Yesterday I scooped an article entitled "Fiction v nonfiction – English literature's made-up divide." In my comments, while recognizing some of the benefits, I expressed concerns about the downside of genre classifications in the classroom.

When I came across this article, it seemed perfect follow-up evidence that genre classifications can have deleterious  impact upon readers by passing on the de facto bias of literary scholarship to students who may not be on track to become Literature majors. 

A question arose in my mind...
If we who teach literature teachers were evaluated upon the following two criteria, would we consider our efforts successful?
1. What percentage of our students grow up to be Literature teachers, scholars, or some kind of literati-type?
2. What percentage of our students become completely turned off as life-long readers specifically because of the esoteric nature of our efforts to have them read literature like scholars do?

Of, course the fallacy of my reducing the assessment of our efforts to these two categories, overlooks what we hope is still a significantly large portion of our students; that group that does not grow up to be literature scholars, but does gain a depth of appreciation for what they do read that does motivate them to become lifelong readers. 

That concession being made, ironically, I am reminded of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, a powerful attack on established tendency of curricula in universities that tends to pass on the biases of historical events taught in schools, from generation to generation, rather than to encourage a reconsideration of those often un-reconsidered biases to see if perhaps Custer was not so much of a hero as we had previously taught our students that he had been.

Transitioning the thought to the literary arts, we have made progress in reconsidering the long held biases that previously held reign in literary curricula. Consider the reduction in assumption that the "Dead White Poets" were worth more than women writers, writers of color, and cross-cultural global writers. 

But, to see educators still passing on biases implying or outright accusing genres such as science fiction, historical fiction, YA lit, as being "entirely" second rate at best by some sort of "default fault" is doing not only harm to our students who we hope to become life-long readers regardless of their eventual career decisions, but ironically even to those we hope will choose to become bearers of the literary torch who I personally, would hope would not enter future classroom, noses aloft, telling students that what they like to read is essentially trash or unworthy just because "those types" of books have always been under appreciated by too many university curricula planners.

Let us not throw a "one-size-fits-all" blanket of condemnation over historical fiction, science, fiction, YA and any other "genres" who have been so condemned. 

brought to you by GLT Global ED dba Google Lit Trips an educational nonprofit. 


Luke Padilla's curator insight, April 4, 2016 1:38 PM
1 April 2016

Yesterday I scooped an article entitled "Fiction v nonfiction – English literature's made-up divide." In my comments, while recognizing some of the benefits, I expressed concerns about the downside of genre classifications in the classroom.

When I came across this article, it seemed perfect follow-up evidence that genre classifications can have deleterious  impact upon readers by passing on the de facto bias of literary scholarship to students who may not be on track to become Literature majors. 

A question arose in my mind...
If we who teach literature teachers were evaluated upon the following two criteria, would we consider our efforts successful?
1. What percentage of our students grow up to be Literature teachers, scholars, or some kind of literati-type?
2. What percentage of our students become completely turned off as life-long readers specifically because of the esoteric nature of our efforts to have them read literature like scholars do?

Of, course the fallacy of my reducing the assessment of our efforts to these two categories, overlooks what we hope is still a significantly large portion of our students; that group that does not grow up to be literature scholars, but does gain a depth of appreciation for what they do read that does motivate them to become lifelong readers. 

That concession being made, ironically, I am reminded of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, a powerful attack on established tendency of curricula in universities that tends to pass on the biases of historical events taught in schools, from generation to generation, rather than to encourage a reconsideration of those often un-reconsidered biases to see if perhaps Custer was not so much of a hero as we had previously taught our students that he had been.

Transitioning the thought to the literary arts, we have made progress in reconsidering the long held biases that previously held reign in literary curricula. Consider the reduction in assumption that the "Dead White Poets" were worth more than women writers, writers of color, and cross-cultural global writers. 

But, to see educators still passing on biases implying or outright accusing genres such as science fiction, historical fiction, YA lit, as being "entirely" second rate at best by some sort of "default fault" is doing not only harm to our students who we hope to become life-long readers regardless of their eventual career decisions, but ironically even to those we hope will choose to become bearers of the literary torch who I personally, would hope would not enter future classroom, noses aloft, telling students that what they like to read is essentially trash or unworthy just because "those types" of books have always been under appreciated by too many university curricula planners.

Let us not throw a "one-size-fits-all" blanket of condemnation over historical fiction, science, fiction, YA and any other "genres" who have been so condemned. 

brought to you by GLT Global ED dba Google Lit Trips an educational nonprofit.