03 December 2007
Clarification of previous post
I just wanted to say that I did see the chart in the last chapter contrasting thematic and inquiry units. It just seemed from his descriptions that he came up with the ideas and questions. Maybe they did arise from the dialogue, but I didn't get that from what he wrote. The chapter in which students reflected on what is language came out of discussion, but was in the context of another inquiry. So.......I'm just saying that, is having students all do the same inquiry much different from having them all read the same (teacher-chosen) book, if an open discussion and real questions are involved in both?
Thoughts on Fecho
I left wanting more information about how exactly Fecho structured his inquiry units, and how exactly he defines inquiry. (Maybe he did and I missed it.) I wonder because it seems like he is doing most of the choosing: he chooses the inquiry question and he chooses the texts the students read. My understanding of inquiry has always been more student-centered, that it is an investigation of a topic the student has chosen and researches. If the teacher is doing the choosing then these seem like theme units.
Also, as with the last book, I wished for something more in terms of how discussions worked in the classroom. It seems especially important that a book describing a classroom structure of inquiry (thought the use of that term here is problematic to me) have examples of actual classroom talk. When the topics discussed are such as the ones here, it would be helpful to see how a teacher facilitates a meaningful classroom discussion.
All of that said, I can imagine that for many, if not most, students, this classroom was engaging and meaningful and something they'll always remember as important. I think I would have loved a class like this in high school, one in which students are treated as if they can (gasp!) understand and ponder the complex issues that make our world what it is. I think it serves students well to give them a space to begin coming to grips with who they are and what their place in the world is and can be.
I do wonder about students in these classes that fell silent because of some disconnect, fear (or threat as Fecho puts it), or simply disinterest.
Also, as with the last book, I wished for something more in terms of how discussions worked in the classroom. It seems especially important that a book describing a classroom structure of inquiry (thought the use of that term here is problematic to me) have examples of actual classroom talk. When the topics discussed are such as the ones here, it would be helpful to see how a teacher facilitates a meaningful classroom discussion.
All of that said, I can imagine that for many, if not most, students, this classroom was engaging and meaningful and something they'll always remember as important. I think I would have loved a class like this in high school, one in which students are treated as if they can (gasp!) understand and ponder the complex issues that make our world what it is. I think it serves students well to give them a space to begin coming to grips with who they are and what their place in the world is and can be.
I do wonder about students in these classes that fell silent because of some disconnect, fear (or threat as Fecho puts it), or simply disinterest.
28 November 2007
An Aside
Since we talked a bit in class about genocide, I thought perhaps some of you might be interested in this. The Frontline that aired last week, "On Our Watch," is about the genocide in Darfur. You can watch the full program online for free.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darfur/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darfur/
25 November 2007
Later Thoughts on Gaughan
I had a lot more to say before it took me five hours to return to Austin instead of the usual three.
I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about this book. First off, I think his classes sound stimulating, and it's clear that his students are not pressured to fall in line with a certain way of thinking. He raises some challenging and important issues, which is easier to do since his classes are electives. I appreciated his understanding that he can't force students to think a certain way, but he can help them to think, period, about their own beliefs and what undergirds them. (I haven't changed my mind from my first post, though. I definitely have problems with him telling a student that other students are racist.)
I took a class very similar to this my first semester in college. Its title was something like "Fighting Racism, Sexism, Antisemitism, and Homophobia Through Education," and it was taught by my mentor (the term my college used for advisor) and still-in-my-top-five-favorite- professors, Dr. Platizky. Roger has faced a lot of discrimination in his life (he's Russian, Jewish, and gay) and so this class was clearly close to his heart. We read things like The Fixer and a lot of pieces about AIDS--this was the early 1990's. What made the class I took different from the ones in this book, I think, is the honesty of the students, and I think that's something we should speak to. Classes like the ones Gaughan teach don't work if students bring in their dishonest best, if they only say and write what they think the teacher wants to hear. I think it says a lot about Gaughan, but also a lot about his students, that they wrote honestly. In the class I took, our discussions were okay, but no one really tried to say anything against the grain. Perhaps that's truly how everyone felt; we had chosen to take this class, after all. But without honest dialog, well, that's the whole point. That being said, I would have liked Gaughan to have written more about how talk occurs in his classroom. I get Four Corners and stuff like that, but I'd like more details about discourse structure. Is most everything written response? If so, that creates a different sort of dialog than oral discussion--perhaps a more honest one?? I don't know, but I am curious about more than the texts and written assignments. How do kids talk in this class?
I was left with some other thoughts, too. For one thing, I wasn't quite sure what this book was supposed to be. At times it seemed a book about teaching strategies; at others it was about analyzing and evaluating students' writing. At still other times the author seemed to be defending his curriculum. All of this could happen in the space of a couple of paragraphs.
I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about this book. First off, I think his classes sound stimulating, and it's clear that his students are not pressured to fall in line with a certain way of thinking. He raises some challenging and important issues, which is easier to do since his classes are electives. I appreciated his understanding that he can't force students to think a certain way, but he can help them to think, period, about their own beliefs and what undergirds them. (I haven't changed my mind from my first post, though. I definitely have problems with him telling a student that other students are racist.)
I took a class very similar to this my first semester in college. Its title was something like "Fighting Racism, Sexism, Antisemitism, and Homophobia Through Education," and it was taught by my mentor (the term my college used for advisor) and still-in-my-top-five-favorite- professors, Dr. Platizky. Roger has faced a lot of discrimination in his life (he's Russian, Jewish, and gay) and so this class was clearly close to his heart. We read things like The Fixer and a lot of pieces about AIDS--this was the early 1990's. What made the class I took different from the ones in this book, I think, is the honesty of the students, and I think that's something we should speak to. Classes like the ones Gaughan teach don't work if students bring in their dishonest best, if they only say and write what they think the teacher wants to hear. I think it says a lot about Gaughan, but also a lot about his students, that they wrote honestly. In the class I took, our discussions were okay, but no one really tried to say anything against the grain. Perhaps that's truly how everyone felt; we had chosen to take this class, after all. But without honest dialog, well, that's the whole point. That being said, I would have liked Gaughan to have written more about how talk occurs in his classroom. I get Four Corners and stuff like that, but I'd like more details about discourse structure. Is most everything written response? If so, that creates a different sort of dialog than oral discussion--perhaps a more honest one?? I don't know, but I am curious about more than the texts and written assignments. How do kids talk in this class?
I was left with some other thoughts, too. For one thing, I wasn't quite sure what this book was supposed to be. At times it seemed a book about teaching strategies; at others it was about analyzing and evaluating students' writing. At still other times the author seemed to be defending his curriculum. All of this could happen in the space of a couple of paragraphs.
23 November 2007
Early Thoughts on Gaughan
I've only read the first two chapters so far, but I wanted to comment on something. Does anyone else think the author's judgments about his students have colored his interpretations of their writing? It really bothered me that he writes that "little hope is reflected" (p. 15) in Billy's piece "Life in Arlington Heights" and says Billy is a bigot, while he has no issue with "hopeful" Dae Dae's piece that includes statements such as, "She says the trash belongs with the other trash....As though no one in Lockland has any morals and just runs wild....I guess my family are the only humans in the bunch" (p. 15). Gaughan writes that he hopes she'll try to protect her child as her mother did her........hmm........while Billy is simply a bigot.
I also wonder about telling students that now they know they have racist peers (p. 29). I'm not suggesting tough topics shouldn't be discussed, but for a teacher to label students that way to another student seems problematic. Maybe I'll feel differently after I read the rest.
I also wonder about telling students that now they know they have racist peers (p. 29). I'm not suggesting tough topics shouldn't be discussed, but for a teacher to label students that way to another student seems problematic. Maybe I'll feel differently after I read the rest.
19 November 2007
How English Teachers Get Taught
This was an interesting read because not only do I have to create a syllabus for this class, but I'm creating one in real life, too, for a class next semester. It made me reevaluate what I've done so far and make sure that it's connected week to week, has a balance of theory and practice, and gives students a chance to workshop. It meets most of the criteria on paper, but there's still a lot to be said for execution, as these authors note as well.
Reading this book also made me think back to my initial certification route and the classes that got me there. I was in a five-year program that culminated in an M.A.T. (a B.A. in year four [in an area other than teaching; mine is in English]), and like many people only had one methods course. I would say it fell into the heavy on theory/ light on practicality category. I remember lots of debates about things like politically correct language and who gets to decide what is p.c. and where that comes from, etc., but little to no talk about what to actually fracking (BSG rules!) do in a middle or high school English classroom besides the wonderful advice, "They just need to read," which implies school is completely irrelevant (yes, there is some truth to that, but that's another discussion) AND gave me no real starting place.
However, I must also say that I had to take a class in reading methods-because I was an English person-and we had one hour each session devoted to writing workshop. (Our text was In the Middle.) Because of that experience, I entered the classroom was ahead of many people in that I had read about and experienced this approach to writing, which in 1997, still seemed cutting edge. I attribute my learning and understandings and the fact that this course made such an impression on me to the fact that it was a workshop approach and we actually DID what we read about.
Reading this book also made me think back to my initial certification route and the classes that got me there. I was in a five-year program that culminated in an M.A.T. (a B.A. in year four [in an area other than teaching; mine is in English]), and like many people only had one methods course. I would say it fell into the heavy on theory/ light on practicality category. I remember lots of debates about things like politically correct language and who gets to decide what is p.c. and where that comes from, etc., but little to no talk about what to actually fracking (BSG rules!) do in a middle or high school English classroom besides the wonderful advice, "They just need to read," which implies school is completely irrelevant (yes, there is some truth to that, but that's another discussion) AND gave me no real starting place.
However, I must also say that I had to take a class in reading methods-because I was an English person-and we had one hour each session devoted to writing workshop. (Our text was In the Middle.) Because of that experience, I entered the classroom was ahead of many people in that I had read about and experienced this approach to writing, which in 1997, still seemed cutting edge. I attribute my learning and understandings and the fact that this course made such an impression on me to the fact that it was a workshop approach and we actually DID what we read about.
11 November 2007
Alvermann, Part II--Wilder & Dressman
I actually want to start with something from chapter 15 (Stevens) because it touches on an idea I've been thinking about a lot, and which could provide reasons for why change, such as Wilder and Dressman advocate, is so hard to come by.
"The researchers posit that this gaming generation has experienced a differing construction of neural pathways and cultural practices during their teenage years, largely spent gaming, and that those shifting mindsets are resulting in a youth-led transformation of the business world" (p. 303).
The idea I'm interested in here is the construction of neural pathways. I admit that my first introduction to this was a few years ago in the much criticized (though I got a lot out of it) movie What the Bleep Do We Know?, which basically introduces quantum physics and string theory to lay people. Anyway, one of the ideas presented in the movie is that the situations we're in, the relationships we have, basically, the way we interact in these situations and relationship, are the result of our neural pathways. But of course, these pathways are mapped out by.......the situations we're in, the relationships we have, and the way we interact in them. [In the movie they give the example of battered wives' syndrome, suggesting that over time, the women's pathways were wired in such a way that their discourse pattern was an abused person.]
This has such important implications. It's why, even with laptops, software, and training, things don't change, at least quickly. It also supports the contention that change CAN occur, that we're not doomed to repeat history, because we can rewire our neural pathways; it just takes time and conscious effort. It's also why learning/being apprenticed into a new discourse takes time (and effort).
"The researchers posit that this gaming generation has experienced a differing construction of neural pathways and cultural practices during their teenage years, largely spent gaming, and that those shifting mindsets are resulting in a youth-led transformation of the business world" (p. 303).
The idea I'm interested in here is the construction of neural pathways. I admit that my first introduction to this was a few years ago in the much criticized (though I got a lot out of it) movie What the Bleep Do We Know?, which basically introduces quantum physics and string theory to lay people. Anyway, one of the ideas presented in the movie is that the situations we're in, the relationships we have, basically, the way we interact in these situations and relationship, are the result of our neural pathways. But of course, these pathways are mapped out by.......the situations we're in, the relationships we have, and the way we interact in them. [In the movie they give the example of battered wives' syndrome, suggesting that over time, the women's pathways were wired in such a way that their discourse pattern was an abused person.]
This has such important implications. It's why, even with laptops, software, and training, things don't change, at least quickly. It also supports the contention that change CAN occur, that we're not doomed to repeat history, because we can rewire our neural pathways; it just takes time and conscious effort. It's also why learning/being apprenticed into a new discourse takes time (and effort).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
