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/
28 November 2007
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).
Alvermann, Part II--Gee
Just like last week, I found these chapters really engaging.
Starting off with Gee's ideas on identity in the modern world--He alluded to this a little bit, but I made a note right off the bat to think about this self-fashioning and shape-shifting [Off topic note: Am I the only person for whom this term carries baggage?] and agency. On the surface, they seem to go hand-in-hand, but if, as Gee says, shape-shifting is necessary, then the agency of choosing to do so goes out the window. (So identities today take work. A person is expected to craft them out of available social and cultural resources, p. 166). Of course, the last part of the second sentence--"available social and cultural resources"--presents other issues, such as access and hegemony. But, back to my first point--shape-shifting and agency's tenuous relationship. It seems that whatever agency one has still must conform to some extent to society's rules, expectations, and boundaries. Not that this is a new phenomenon.
Now, access. This is what Gee spends a lot of time on. Middle and upper middle class people don't need school to form the identities they need to perform "educated discourse" (Hymes? Gumperz? Someone from Beth's class, help me out!), while the schools or classes they're in often help. And working class students are in schools which don't give them access to language and ways of thinking, doing, and being to form those identities. Matthew effect, anyone?
I found very interesting the contrast between the language of the middle class students, effortlessly using educated discourse ("information, knowledge, argumentation, and achievement," p. 170; "distanced" and "impersonal," p. 178; "abstract argumentative talk," p. 180), and the working class students ("social, affective, dialogic," p. 170). While we know that the former isn't decontextualized, the students are using the language that used to be described as such. Just interesting to see an example.
Starting off with Gee's ideas on identity in the modern world--He alluded to this a little bit, but I made a note right off the bat to think about this self-fashioning and shape-shifting [Off topic note: Am I the only person for whom this term carries baggage?] and agency. On the surface, they seem to go hand-in-hand, but if, as Gee says, shape-shifting is necessary, then the agency of choosing to do so goes out the window. (So identities today take work. A person is expected to craft them out of available social and cultural resources, p. 166). Of course, the last part of the second sentence--"available social and cultural resources"--presents other issues, such as access and hegemony. But, back to my first point--shape-shifting and agency's tenuous relationship. It seems that whatever agency one has still must conform to some extent to society's rules, expectations, and boundaries. Not that this is a new phenomenon.
Now, access. This is what Gee spends a lot of time on. Middle and upper middle class people don't need school to form the identities they need to perform "educated discourse" (Hymes? Gumperz? Someone from Beth's class, help me out!), while the schools or classes they're in often help. And working class students are in schools which don't give them access to language and ways of thinking, doing, and being to form those identities. Matthew effect, anyone?
I found very interesting the contrast between the language of the middle class students, effortlessly using educated discourse ("information, knowledge, argumentation, and achievement," p. 170; "distanced" and "impersonal," p. 178; "abstract argumentative talk," p. 180), and the working class students ("social, affective, dialogic," p. 170). While we know that the former isn't decontextualized, the students are using the language that used to be described as such. Just interesting to see an example.
05 November 2007
Alvermann, Part 1
I actually really enjoyed reading these chapters. I think it's because they show such a respect to adolescents in general, and the participants of these studies in particular. What I mean is that each author worked so hard to bring the students' authentic voices to the piece, and to remind us that we must listen to the students that we work with. I think that so often in life (not just in teaching) we stop listening to others, and we forget that we are all such complex and multi-layered beings. I do think this is particularly important in teaching. As we do research and make hypotheses, it's easy to gloss over or set aside the wholeness of who each individual student is, and the reasons then that may help us understand why things are.
I was particularly interested in the first chapter (texts and performing identity) because this is an area I am interested in already. One of the sentences I underlined says, "As young people learn to see themselves in social and political terms, they have the opportunity to actively choose or to resist the discourses and roles available to them" (Neilson, p.8). This made me think about how School can expand or narrow the ways students can see themselves and the world. (Although I recognize that students have many other avenues to learn roles.) Part of what makes school what it is is its goal of grooming students to take their place in society. But that's such a powerful thing, and so easily abused. This goes to back to conversations we've had about text choice in school. This first chapter also showed how many things we have to say about texts that mean something to us, yet so often school isn't structured to allow us the voice to speak about them.
That leads into chapter five (Moje & Dillon) and their discussion of the relationship between classroom participant structures allow or disallow certain identities. I remember this one class I took as an undergrad about the civil rights movement. It is probably in the top three best classes I've ever had. I learned a lot and it was very stimulating. But the class discussions were dominated by two people. I remember many, many occasions where I opened my mouth to speak, and one of them would start talking. I'm sure other students in the class had the same experience. What was so frustrating was that we were graded on our participation, so the A's I got on my tests and paper lowered my final grade because I didn't talk enough. After awhile, I didn't even try to talk in class. This was made worse because the professor loved these two students and encouraged them to talk. My point is that the was participation was structured in this class positioned most of us as passive receivers of the insights Heather and Eric had. Our identities in that context were not of active contributors or even as someone "smart."
Chapter 6, as did other chapters, talked a lot about the need to create space for students to show what they know. I really like this idea, and the wording. It helps me to think of this in spatial terms as well, like literally setting aside a space (figuratively) for all the student to share and work from what he or she knows and brings. This goes back to listening to students and really seeing them for the people they are. Like in this chapter (6), while I know that it was about specifically working with African-American students, but I wish some of the statements were more general. For example, ALL students need a space to express their literate currency, not just African-Americans (p. 126).
I was particularly interested in the first chapter (texts and performing identity) because this is an area I am interested in already. One of the sentences I underlined says, "As young people learn to see themselves in social and political terms, they have the opportunity to actively choose or to resist the discourses and roles available to them" (Neilson, p.8). This made me think about how School can expand or narrow the ways students can see themselves and the world. (Although I recognize that students have many other avenues to learn roles.) Part of what makes school what it is is its goal of grooming students to take their place in society. But that's such a powerful thing, and so easily abused. This goes to back to conversations we've had about text choice in school. This first chapter also showed how many things we have to say about texts that mean something to us, yet so often school isn't structured to allow us the voice to speak about them.
That leads into chapter five (Moje & Dillon) and their discussion of the relationship between classroom participant structures allow or disallow certain identities. I remember this one class I took as an undergrad about the civil rights movement. It is probably in the top three best classes I've ever had. I learned a lot and it was very stimulating. But the class discussions were dominated by two people. I remember many, many occasions where I opened my mouth to speak, and one of them would start talking. I'm sure other students in the class had the same experience. What was so frustrating was that we were graded on our participation, so the A's I got on my tests and paper lowered my final grade because I didn't talk enough. After awhile, I didn't even try to talk in class. This was made worse because the professor loved these two students and encouraged them to talk. My point is that the was participation was structured in this class positioned most of us as passive receivers of the insights Heather and Eric had. Our identities in that context were not of active contributors or even as someone "smart."
Chapter 6, as did other chapters, talked a lot about the need to create space for students to show what they know. I really like this idea, and the wording. It helps me to think of this in spatial terms as well, like literally setting aside a space (figuratively) for all the student to share and work from what he or she knows and brings. This goes back to listening to students and really seeing them for the people they are. Like in this chapter (6), while I know that it was about specifically working with African-American students, but I wish some of the statements were more general. For example, ALL students need a space to express their literate currency, not just African-Americans (p. 126).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
