Rosenblatt talks about the ways that literature can influence our ideas, such as that of romantic love. She goes on to say that, of course, those ideas would never have sound their way into literature were not that already present and a part of human experience, even if not as an accepted form of relationship in a particular society (Campbell's illicit love, for example).
Well, this made me think of my all-time favorite movie--and Ann's, too--High Fidelity, wherein (my boyfriend) John Cusack posits:
Which came first, the music or the misery? People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?
30 September 2007
Rosenblatt
These are some somewhat disorganized thoughts I have so far on Rosenblatt.
1. I am wondering how, behind all the beautiful and passionate words and thoughts, do we get (some) students to care? And even more, an argument I have made before, why should they? For example, "Once the student has responded freely, a process of growth can be initiated. He needs to learn to handle with intelligence and discrimination the personal factors that enter into his reaction to book" (p. 102). Am I the only person who reads this and thinks it sounds like an awful lot of work? What I mean is, not everyone cares for the type of introspection and analysis that this type of literature response and interpretation calls for. And isn't that okay?
2. I am thinking of someone I lost last week, someone who NEVER found success or acceptance in any type of educational setting. But he read poetry on his own, sought out music that meant something to him, and discussed and appreciated films. I liked how Rosenblatt opened up the idea of literary forms to include texts beyond print. This idea flows from my first in that if we could open up our English classes to all forms of media, more and more students would find things that spoke to them, and then "success" would follow. Even I, with all my fancy degrees, have felt alienated in all three books we've read thus far as each author alludes to poems and books and mentions writers with whom he or she assumes the reader to be somewhat intimately familiar. It is a turn off, and I'm sorry, but I don't know who Pamela is. Maybe I'll go look her up on Hirsch's list. [UPDATE: I am soooo off the hook because Pamela is not on Hirsch's list. Take that, Rosenblatt. Just kidding!! I love you, LMR.]
3. I am having a hard time reconciling the role of the teacher. I know that at some point the teacher must make judgments, and these will have influence over students. But I still sort of cringe at some of the language used. Here's an example (italics are mine): As the student is led to clarify his own sense of it, the teacher will be able to lead him to the various kinds of knowledge that will enable him to achieve the experiences offered by this particular text (p. 108). This still reads a bit too heavy-handed to me on the teacher's part. On the other hand, I totally get and respect that interpretations must have some textual basis. I am still coming to terms with the role of the teacher's influence and how that must balance with students' power.
4. I am curious to read next week's book.
1. I am wondering how, behind all the beautiful and passionate words and thoughts, do we get (some) students to care? And even more, an argument I have made before, why should they? For example, "Once the student has responded freely, a process of growth can be initiated. He needs to learn to handle with intelligence and discrimination the personal factors that enter into his reaction to book" (p. 102). Am I the only person who reads this and thinks it sounds like an awful lot of work? What I mean is, not everyone cares for the type of introspection and analysis that this type of literature response and interpretation calls for. And isn't that okay?
2. I am thinking of someone I lost last week, someone who NEVER found success or acceptance in any type of educational setting. But he read poetry on his own, sought out music that meant something to him, and discussed and appreciated films. I liked how Rosenblatt opened up the idea of literary forms to include texts beyond print. This idea flows from my first in that if we could open up our English classes to all forms of media, more and more students would find things that spoke to them, and then "success" would follow. Even I, with all my fancy degrees, have felt alienated in all three books we've read thus far as each author alludes to poems and books and mentions writers with whom he or she assumes the reader to be somewhat intimately familiar. It is a turn off, and I'm sorry, but I don't know who Pamela is. Maybe I'll go look her up on Hirsch's list. [UPDATE: I am soooo off the hook because Pamela is not on Hirsch's list. Take that, Rosenblatt. Just kidding!! I love you, LMR.]
3. I am having a hard time reconciling the role of the teacher. I know that at some point the teacher must make judgments, and these will have influence over students. But I still sort of cringe at some of the language used. Here's an example (italics are mine): As the student is led to clarify his own sense of it, the teacher will be able to lead him to the various kinds of knowledge that will enable him to achieve the experiences offered by this particular text (p. 108). This still reads a bit too heavy-handed to me on the teacher's part. On the other hand, I totally get and respect that interpretations must have some textual basis. I am still coming to terms with the role of the teacher's influence and how that must balance with students' power.
4. I am curious to read next week's book.
24 September 2007
Applebee, Part II
I have been spending time, lots of it, transcribing videos of Angie. The instruction is very much the integrated structure of curriculum Applebee discussed. As the class read and discussed fantasy as a genre, they truly were involved in a "process of continuing reconstrual not only of what has just been introduced, but, in light of new ideas, everything that has come before" (p. 77). Students were very much part of a conversation about what is fantasy.
I have been struck lately, and was reminded again in Applebee, of the delicate interplay between content and discourse. Teachers must must must have a deep knowledge and understanding of content or even the best discourse in the world won't be effective. And clearly the opposite is true as well. I'm sure this is an obvious point, but I wonder how deeply most teachers (myself included) know their subject area. Even with a bachelor's in English, I don't feel I have a deep understanding of that field. I'm working on a doctorate in literacy studies and often feel like I know nothing! When I think back on my best teachers, they all invited us to be participants, but they also really knew their stuff.
I have been struck lately, and was reminded again in Applebee, of the delicate interplay between content and discourse. Teachers must must must have a deep knowledge and understanding of content or even the best discourse in the world won't be effective. And clearly the opposite is true as well. I'm sure this is an obvious point, but I wonder how deeply most teachers (myself included) know their subject area. Even with a bachelor's in English, I don't feel I have a deep understanding of that field. I'm working on a doctorate in literacy studies and often feel like I know nothing! When I think back on my best teachers, they all invited us to be participants, but they also really knew their stuff.
Applebee, Part I
I have to first comment on how much I keep thinking of Gee as I read this book. Applebee's "traditions" are Gee's "Discourses" and the idea of apprenticeship is the same. I noticed that these books were published around the same time, and it makes me wonder about the context in which these guys were writing. What happened that caused people to start writing in these terms? I'm sure it was many things, but I was struck at the similarity in their ideas and that there were writing separately but at the same time.
I really appreciate Applebee's arguments and line of thought, but I do have to quibble with him a bit, and, yes, you might find this petty in the grand scheme of things. However, I sense a bit of Hirsch-ian bias in some of Applebee's statements (which I realize is contradictory to the spirit of his argument). He keeps making references to conversations that matter, and culturally significant conversations and tools, and yet, as always, I wonder, conversations that matter to who? Tools that are important to who? Whose cultural knowledge? Who makes these decisions? It is ironic that Applebee address these questions himself, but is at times guilty of making judgments. Statements such as, "We begin with a consideration of the conversations that matter" (Ch. 5) just sound....... well, like I'm reading Hirsch. I get that he wants to have a conversation, but his own biases come through at times. For example, he devalues Judy Blume and Stephen King by somewhat implicitly suggesting their books don't have enough meat to sustain a conversation. (I mean, these were books chosen as favorites by people not going to college, so obviously they can't be that rich.) Students have been left out of the conversation already, especially those not bound for college.
Moving on, I really liked his ideas about a shifting framework, that curriculum has always been framed as what one should know/be taught versus "the discourse conventions that govern participation" (Ch. 3). Shifting one's ideas about this allows a departure from scopes and sequences to a new framework that focuses on the discourse.
More tomorrow.
I really appreciate Applebee's arguments and line of thought, but I do have to quibble with him a bit, and, yes, you might find this petty in the grand scheme of things. However, I sense a bit of Hirsch-ian bias in some of Applebee's statements (which I realize is contradictory to the spirit of his argument). He keeps making references to conversations that matter, and culturally significant conversations and tools, and yet, as always, I wonder, conversations that matter to who? Tools that are important to who? Whose cultural knowledge? Who makes these decisions? It is ironic that Applebee address these questions himself, but is at times guilty of making judgments. Statements such as, "We begin with a consideration of the conversations that matter" (Ch. 5) just sound....... well, like I'm reading Hirsch. I get that he wants to have a conversation, but his own biases come through at times. For example, he devalues Judy Blume and Stephen King by somewhat implicitly suggesting their books don't have enough meat to sustain a conversation. (I mean, these were books chosen as favorites by people not going to college, so obviously they can't be that rich.) Students have been left out of the conversation already, especially those not bound for college.
Moving on, I really liked his ideas about a shifting framework, that curriculum has always been framed as what one should know/be taught versus "the discourse conventions that govern participation" (Ch. 3). Shifting one's ideas about this allows a departure from scopes and sequences to a new framework that focuses on the discourse.
More tomorrow.
16 September 2007
Myers
Where to begin.
My mind isn't on this. I've home all weekend for a funeral, and I'm having trouble recontextualizing my thoughts.
A lot of what Myers said I have read in other places--Olson, Bomer's OLT last spring, Hoffman's History of American Reading Instruction this summer, etc. Still, it was good to get some of this again. I'm not sure I would argue too many of his points--the importance of context, the way what literacy "is" changes and evolves, and how those evolutions create other changes, the role of tools (technology) in literacy, and the shift the translation/critical literacy.
The chapters I found most interesting where those on translating among stances/modes/speech events/sign systems. The reason I liked these four chapters is that they speak to how we all can get stuck in certain ways of communicating and how in this world, we can't allow that to happen. And what that means for English instruction is very important: students must be able to negotiate various systems, discourses, or whatever lingo you want to use.
Part of what is so difficult in shifting instruction is that often those teaching aren't part of the shift--they're stuck in whatever form of teaching and/or literacy they have used. Our discussion in class last week about what counts as text will be moot in a few years when those in school now are teachers and incorporate all forms of media without even considering it. It will be just a part of life. Of course by then they'll be behind the curve on some other emerging technology or literacy that is developing.
Okay, not the best thoughts ever. But acceptable to me, post-funeral.
My mind isn't on this. I've home all weekend for a funeral, and I'm having trouble recontextualizing my thoughts.
A lot of what Myers said I have read in other places--Olson, Bomer's OLT last spring, Hoffman's History of American Reading Instruction this summer, etc. Still, it was good to get some of this again. I'm not sure I would argue too many of his points--the importance of context, the way what literacy "is" changes and evolves, and how those evolutions create other changes, the role of tools (technology) in literacy, and the shift the translation/critical literacy.
The chapters I found most interesting where those on translating among stances/modes/speech events/sign systems. The reason I liked these four chapters is that they speak to how we all can get stuck in certain ways of communicating and how in this world, we can't allow that to happen. And what that means for English instruction is very important: students must be able to negotiate various systems, discourses, or whatever lingo you want to use.
Part of what is so difficult in shifting instruction is that often those teaching aren't part of the shift--they're stuck in whatever form of teaching and/or literacy they have used. Our discussion in class last week about what counts as text will be moot in a few years when those in school now are teachers and incorporate all forms of media without even considering it. It will be just a part of life. Of course by then they'll be behind the curve on some other emerging technology or literacy that is developing.
Okay, not the best thoughts ever. But acceptable to me, post-funeral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
