Moje and Dillon -- How not to be taken seriously...Seriously?

Chapter 5 “Adolescent Identities as Demanded by Scientific Discourse Communities”
Elizabeth Birr Moje and Deborah R. Dillon
The authors revisit a study they did for the first edition of this book (in 1998) – about two female 9th grade students – Carolyn and Heather. Each girl is in a science classroom with a well-reputed teacher. Carolyn is in Mr. Ruhl’s biology class. Heather is in Ms. Landy’s chemistry class. Moje and Dillon talk a lot about the various identities each girl (and each of us) bring to various other situations and, interestingly, suggest we look at the interplay between identities (p. 90).
The first time through, they concluded that it was teachers who needed to do a whole lot more critical self-examination. They came up with a terse set of “helpful” questions of self examination that “good” teachers would, no doubt, embrace.

Moje and Dillon re-looked at their data and came up with different conclusions, based on their study of new research conductd since the first edition. They remain committed to a critical stance – but seem to have critiqued their own work in light of new information. They came up with the various participation structures and even the room arrangements which can serve to disenfranchise a student – e.g. call on her least appropriate identities for the situation at hand as in the case of Carolyn. She had plans to be a vet, but Mr. Ruhl saw her as a ditz; thus, she was passed over for opportunities that only a teacher’s belief in a student can afford.
They end up voicing the concerns of teachers who have 150 students every single day, that it’s not realistic or fair to ask them (like in 1998) to REALLY REALLY (a la Zoolander – only kidding) get to know their students but then also to look deep within themselves for self critique.

Now, the authors have become aware that discourses are colliding, and participation structures may be contributing to the student’s poor self-positioning; and, to the teacher’s not-seeing of that student’s other, agentive identities. They also acknowledge that for teachers to really get to know their students and to do the kinds of reflection that is necessary, we need small schools, smaller classes, block scheduling and time for teachers to really engage in reflective practice that holds the key to genuine change. These authors have credibility for me in that they, themselves, have examined their own practice and revised their former positions which is an essential part of what they are asking teachers to do.