Oh my! Gaughan wisely uses a combination of sequencing and pacing -- the balance of kinds of activity -- to help his students move from one stage or "rung" to the next: up and moving (like 4-Square), writing a reflection, a short whole class reading, quick-write reflective/mess-it-up activity (like responsing to The Language of Sex: The Heterosexual Questionnaire, Rochlin, 1992, on p.115), small groups in Lit Circles, etc. to help his students with energy and focus. He is creating a situation in the Deweyian sense of the word, anchored by theme...in which the students can transact (ok, Rosenblatt-ian) with various texts (in the Friere-ian sense).
While I don't agree with everything he says (I think he's a bit male-centric on p. 137, top; and loses his vision of what he's really doing in the whole "am I destroying her faith?" [pp.125-129+/-] thicket he's machete-ing his way around in), I do heartily admire him for asking the tough questions of himself and his teaching. He includes plenty of disconfirming or at least disconcerting evidence in the form of letters from parents and students, and excerpts from papers that keep the Teacher-As-Hero myth at bay. A big take-away for me is that learning to think critically is a messy, uncomfortable, potentially scary business. Not the least of the risks is that the Guide/Facilitator/Teacher will "see red" and go "off" on a student with whom he or she doesn't agree. Gives a whole new meaning to the word "safe". But, complacency, a binary world view, and mis-placed trust in toxic narratives are far more terrifying. Reading "Reinventing English -- Teaching in the Contact Zone" has gotten me thinking about how I might structure a learning experience for pre-service teachers to (1) begin to ask questions (if they don't already) using thematic units that follow a similar structure to what (I'd hope) they would use in schools; (2) put the ladder model out there and even construct it with them (like if Love is the top or near the top of the Sexuality "ladder" -- or murder at the top of the Discrimination Ladder --then what's at the bottom?, one up from there?, approaching the top? etc.) (3) Engage them in the practice of the reading/thinking/questioning/discussing/writing/ cycle and (4) apprentice them into a more critical world view. Just as we recognize that it's silly to expect novice teachers to be as up-to-speed as their 20-year veteran neighbors down the hall, I think it's just as silly to expect that these young people have deeply (and independently, somehow) examined their own (pre-) conceptions.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Methods
As I read Smagorinsky's and Whiting's "How English Teachers Get Taught", I was struck with what a good idea this book was. Is there an updated version planned for anytime soon? A methods course is part of an apprenticeship into the professions; so, by definition, it's a dense experience. I like how the authors talk about the work involved in a methods course and how tht work must be engaging, relevant and lead to "flow": "Our criterion of work as a requisite part of a methods course refers to the process that leads to growth and complexity in understanding, infused with high levels of affect and engagement" (28). I've been thinking about what I want to include and how I'd orchestrate all of it....it was heartenting to read the authors' recommendations for a "less is more", or depth-over-breadth approach, while still warning of a tendency of that approach to lead to an unrealistic or even "parochial" view of what good teaching is. I agree that it cannot all happen in one course. I think one should emerge from a methods course with a running engine made up of an intact ethic of inquiry, reflection, and student-centeredness, and "with an understanding of how students learn" (23).
Monday, November 12, 2007
"Walking resumes"
I gotta say, the Shape-Shifting chapter by James Gee (Ch. 9) shows how much we end up commodifying ourselves with "tags" -- like the student who helped build houses -- in the Caribbean -- not just plain ol' Hometown, USA. As "walking resumes" we're always on the lookout to stand out. What a metaphor! Remember actually sending out paper documents for a job? And, choosing the resume paper weight (the really good stuff was heavy with fiber and expensive), and the color (ecru? snow? dove grey? or....pink?!) -- he's remarkably right on with his "tag" of our "tags". The “new economy” has written us into particular niches of identity in order to create consumer markets. We buy the stuff that reinforces our identity, then the stuff shapes our identity (p. 165)...and, eventually, we shape the stuff that then shapes us...(Sheesh). No wonder fundamentalism is on the rise -- the pressure to shape shift can be disconcerting and dizzying. A black and white/yes-no/binaried world is a far easier place in which to understand one's role, place, and expectation.
When thiking about enfranchisment and disenfranchisement the skills of the New Literacies always figure. Chapter 11 by Wilder and Dressman addresses how schools have “routinely failed to capitalize on its promises” (p. 206) and the authors ponder why that may be. They consider reproduction theory as an explanation for negatively differentiating computer tasks as a reflection of the sorting and tracking that happens in schools (rote tasks are heavily emphasized in working class schools while integrative tasks that require synthesis and evaluation are emphasized in upper middle class schools. See Jean Anyon's "Social Class and School Knowledge"). Reproduction theory speaks to teachers’ and students’ habits of engagement; and, that teachers who already face an overemphasis on coverage look at New Literacy exposure as just another thing to cover (of course...when you put it that way..how did I miss that?), rather than a means for completely revisioning and enlivening, and making relevant one’s curriculum and classroom practices (p. 209).
My thinking tends to run like this: In order to meet the status quo and businesses' increasing demand for low wage service sector jobs (e.g. burger flippers), when there's a push in learning theory, like constructivism, New Literacies, there's a push from the other side to intensify teachers' work, add tests; call for accountablility, put up a smoke screen that points to schools not doing the job. That effectively shields policy makers from allocating the funds to the folks that should have them, and instead, routes them to test makers and textbook companies; and, in an elegant turn keeps the blame on teachers, students, and schools.
When thiking about enfranchisment and disenfranchisement the skills of the New Literacies always figure. Chapter 11 by Wilder and Dressman addresses how schools have “routinely failed to capitalize on its promises” (p. 206) and the authors ponder why that may be. They consider reproduction theory as an explanation for negatively differentiating computer tasks as a reflection of the sorting and tracking that happens in schools (rote tasks are heavily emphasized in working class schools while integrative tasks that require synthesis and evaluation are emphasized in upper middle class schools. See Jean Anyon's "Social Class and School Knowledge"). Reproduction theory speaks to teachers’ and students’ habits of engagement; and, that teachers who already face an overemphasis on coverage look at New Literacy exposure as just another thing to cover (of course...when you put it that way..how did I miss that?), rather than a means for completely revisioning and enlivening, and making relevant one’s curriculum and classroom practices (p. 209).
My thinking tends to run like this: In order to meet the status quo and businesses' increasing demand for low wage service sector jobs (e.g. burger flippers), when there's a push in learning theory, like constructivism, New Literacies, there's a push from the other side to intensify teachers' work, add tests; call for accountablility, put up a smoke screen that points to schools not doing the job. That effectively shields policy makers from allocating the funds to the folks that should have them, and instead, routes them to test makers and textbook companies; and, in an elegant turn keeps the blame on teachers, students, and schools.
Monday, November 5, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
