I really enjoyed reading How English Teachers Get Taught: Methods of Teaching the Methods Class by Smagorinsky & Whiting (1995). It is interesting to think about how teachers learn to teach but at this point for me, even more interesting to think about how methods course professors learn to teach teachers.
I strongly agree with Smagorinsky & Whiting that the methods class needs to be theoretically informed. Coming out of college, I did not feel like I had this theoretical background; I knew of quite a few activities to use in the classroom, but it was not until grad school that I started reading about the theories behind those approaches. I have always liked to know the why behind things, so I wanted to know why certain classroom strategies were better than others--I wanted to see the big picture. I do think that too many teachers go into teaching with a "bag of tricks," while they need to have an "understanding of teaching and leaning that can inform their decisions" (p.18) and not know only how to use the "tricks" in their bags, but also why and when. I agree as well that students need to read the theorists themselves rather than other authors' summaries (p.109). Teachers need to have this professional knowledge to be informed practitioners who are engaged in inquiry and everyday learning and research.
I also like the idea of including conflicting theories in the methods class but making those contradictions clear and explicit.
Another piece of the methods class that I believe is essential is the synthesis of knowledge. Planning individual lessons is a helpful skill, but students must learn how to organize larger instructional units. I think that students even need to plan semesters or years so that they learn how to see an overarching plan, a big picture, a larger purpose for each unit and day of instruction. Teachers need to know where they are headed and know their own big goals for themselves and their students (these should also be informed by theory and teaching philosophy).
A piece of teaching that I think may sometimes be left out of methods classes is assessment. I know that my classes focused on setting up instruction and carrying out those plans but did not spend time on how to assess student learning. Assessment is such a tricky topic that I can see why it might be avoided; however, it is for that reason that pre-service teachers should read and talk about it.
One question I have is how much do we prepare students for the system that is and how much do we prepare them to change or subvert that system? If we take on a Piagetian approach that works from the assumption that the teacher is not a diagnostician and remedialist, what will happen when our students go into our standards-based schools in which they are expected to diagnose and remediate?
Sunday, March 25, 2012
More Thoughts on Culture, Literacy, and Learning
I have been thinking about Lee's book since last week's class discussion. I have recently read Winn & Johnson's (2011) Writing Instruction in the Culturally Relevant Classroom, and I have found what I was looking for in Lee's text. Winn and Johnson state, "Culturally relevant pedagogy is not merely an invitation for students to explore their lived experiences, ideas, and communities, but it can provide ways to map these individual experences onto a global platform" (p.27). They further explain that culturally relevant pedagogy "seeks to allow students to examine and question sociocultural and sociopolitical realities that affect their lives" (p.22). This is the piece that I feel is missing in Lee's cultural data sets. She brings student's prior knowledge and cultures into the classroom, but once the students move to the analysis of "academic" texts, the process stops. It seems like the process needs to move back into students' lives for the learning to be relevant. The students now know how to perform close readings of literature--so what? How will that enable students to look more critically at their lives, their world, and work to change their world? I feel like there needs to be a larger purpose than just analyzing literature.
I am also becoming more and more wary of using a New Critical framework for teaching literature. (And this is coming from someone who used that very framework for years.) I do think that close reading is a skill that will aid students in high school and college work, but I do not think that is the best overall approach.
After our class discussion last week, I started thinking about how culturally relevant pedagogy is used primarily with African American and/or Latino populations. But I think that white students need this type of pedagogy as well. Why are there no articles or books about how white students need exposure to diverse texts and "cultural data sets"? For another class last week I read "There is No 'Race' in the Schoolyard: Color-Blind Ideology in an (Almost) All-White School" by Amanda E. Lewis (2001). She explains how the white teachers, students, and parents claim that race does not matter in their school, yet she sees interactions that prove those beliefs to be false. Lewis state that "it is often Whites’ lack of understanding of their own roles as racial actors that stands as a roadblock to further progress toward racial justice” (p.782) and goes on to argue that "education that is critical, multicultural, and focused on racial justice cannot be reserved only for students of color....In this way, it is crucial that Whites learn more not only about the reality of racial inequality, but also about their own role in its reproduction" (p.804). I absolutely agree and want to think more about this topic.
I am also becoming more and more wary of using a New Critical framework for teaching literature. (And this is coming from someone who used that very framework for years.) I do think that close reading is a skill that will aid students in high school and college work, but I do not think that is the best overall approach.
After our class discussion last week, I started thinking about how culturally relevant pedagogy is used primarily with African American and/or Latino populations. But I think that white students need this type of pedagogy as well. Why are there no articles or books about how white students need exposure to diverse texts and "cultural data sets"? For another class last week I read "There is No 'Race' in the Schoolyard: Color-Blind Ideology in an (Almost) All-White School" by Amanda E. Lewis (2001). She explains how the white teachers, students, and parents claim that race does not matter in their school, yet she sees interactions that prove those beliefs to be false. Lewis state that "it is often Whites’ lack of understanding of their own roles as racial actors that stands as a roadblock to further progress toward racial justice” (p.782) and goes on to argue that "education that is critical, multicultural, and focused on racial justice cannot be reserved only for students of color....In this way, it is crucial that Whites learn more not only about the reality of racial inequality, but also about their own role in its reproduction" (p.804). I absolutely agree and want to think more about this topic.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Culture, Literacy, & Learning
I like the title of Carol Lee's book Culture, Literacy, and Learning: Taking Bloom in the Midst of the Whirlwind. Schools do often feel like whirlwinds with little time for one-on-one interactions or meaningful classroom practices in a culture of high-stakes testing. I appreciate Lee's honesty about the often overwhelming culture of schools, negative attitudes of teachers and policy-makers, and difficulties in students' lives. She offers, however, pictures of engaged students and caring teachers involved in what she calls "Cultural Modeling."
I do have a few concerns about using cultural data sets. Teachers must recognize diversity within cultural groups and must avoid essentializing those groups, as Lee asserts. She acknowledges that she mistakenly assumed that her students would respond to an R&B song. We cannot assume that because our students are African American that they will necessarily enjoy a rap or R&B song. I wonder about classrooms that involve multiple cultural groups--how can a teacher use cultural data sets with students with diverse backgrounds and interests? I'm also thinking about how Lee uses the data sets to lead to canonical texts. The students practice problem-solving with more familiar texts, but the purpose is to use those skills with more "academic texts." Does this set up the cultural texts as merely introductory, as having less inherent or "serious" value than "school texts"? In using cultural data sets, the teacher would have to be careful to not "use" students' home culture or position the data sets as gimmicks to get students interested and involved. Similarly, how do we move students from an "everyday explanation" (usually oral) to a more "formal explanation" (usually written) without devaluing the students' language. Again, we start with the students' practices but then move them to school-based practices. It seems like no matter how hard we try to value what students know and do, we always end up privileging academic practices/language/knowledge.
As I read about the use of cultural data sets, I kept thinking about the position of the teacher and the cultural knowledge that the teacher must have. I kept asking myself, "What about my position as a white teacher?" Would my use of cultural data sets seem authentic to students?
Lee focused much of her explanations on how to connect students' lives and knowledge to school-based problem solving, but what about the reverse? How does literary reasoning and close reading transfer to students' real lives outside of school? How do the students see the discussions of literature as valuable and meaningful?
I like Lee's idea of focusing on "flexible conceptual understandings" rather than merely giving students procedural knowledge (p.38) and explaining to students how the concepts are related to each other (p.115). The knowledge of how rather than what is important in helping students problem solve across different contexts. What I'm struggling with is that the teacher is the one who "revoice[s] contextualized claims as general propositions that can be applied across similar problems" (p.76). If the teacher translates the students' words and labels what students have accomplished, do the students understand what they are doing or have done? Do they fully recognize what the teacher is labeling?
Lee says that she works from a New Criticism orientation (p.62) that focuses on close reading of texts. Is this the best place to start? Lee mentions Appleman once in her book, and I think that I would start with a critical framework and then work toward close reading.
Several of Lee's strategies reminded me of Rosenblatt: "rules of notice," metacognitive reflection, making sense while reading, rules of configuration, connecting details into patterns.
In a couple of post-conferences with interns, I have talked about how they feel about noise in the classroom. One intern spoke of her concern with students being quiet. Many pre-service and new teachers equate quiet with student attention and learning, when this may actually not be the case at all. Lee found that the students were most engaged when they were involved in mutiparty overlapping talk (p.101). Noise in the classroom can be productive and on-task. I have also seen the interns rely on the IRE pattern of talk; they feel the need to control the questioning so that they "cover" what they intend for students to know by the end of the lesson. Lee found also that student reasoning was highest when the teacher did not dominate discussion. How can we encourage new teachers and help them build confidence so that they feel comfortable stepping back and letting students take the lead?
I do have a few concerns about using cultural data sets. Teachers must recognize diversity within cultural groups and must avoid essentializing those groups, as Lee asserts. She acknowledges that she mistakenly assumed that her students would respond to an R&B song. We cannot assume that because our students are African American that they will necessarily enjoy a rap or R&B song. I wonder about classrooms that involve multiple cultural groups--how can a teacher use cultural data sets with students with diverse backgrounds and interests? I'm also thinking about how Lee uses the data sets to lead to canonical texts. The students practice problem-solving with more familiar texts, but the purpose is to use those skills with more "academic texts." Does this set up the cultural texts as merely introductory, as having less inherent or "serious" value than "school texts"? In using cultural data sets, the teacher would have to be careful to not "use" students' home culture or position the data sets as gimmicks to get students interested and involved. Similarly, how do we move students from an "everyday explanation" (usually oral) to a more "formal explanation" (usually written) without devaluing the students' language. Again, we start with the students' practices but then move them to school-based practices. It seems like no matter how hard we try to value what students know and do, we always end up privileging academic practices/language/knowledge.
As I read about the use of cultural data sets, I kept thinking about the position of the teacher and the cultural knowledge that the teacher must have. I kept asking myself, "What about my position as a white teacher?" Would my use of cultural data sets seem authentic to students?
Lee focused much of her explanations on how to connect students' lives and knowledge to school-based problem solving, but what about the reverse? How does literary reasoning and close reading transfer to students' real lives outside of school? How do the students see the discussions of literature as valuable and meaningful?
I like Lee's idea of focusing on "flexible conceptual understandings" rather than merely giving students procedural knowledge (p.38) and explaining to students how the concepts are related to each other (p.115). The knowledge of how rather than what is important in helping students problem solve across different contexts. What I'm struggling with is that the teacher is the one who "revoice[s] contextualized claims as general propositions that can be applied across similar problems" (p.76). If the teacher translates the students' words and labels what students have accomplished, do the students understand what they are doing or have done? Do they fully recognize what the teacher is labeling?
Lee says that she works from a New Criticism orientation (p.62) that focuses on close reading of texts. Is this the best place to start? Lee mentions Appleman once in her book, and I think that I would start with a critical framework and then work toward close reading.
Several of Lee's strategies reminded me of Rosenblatt: "rules of notice," metacognitive reflection, making sense while reading, rules of configuration, connecting details into patterns.
In a couple of post-conferences with interns, I have talked about how they feel about noise in the classroom. One intern spoke of her concern with students being quiet. Many pre-service and new teachers equate quiet with student attention and learning, when this may actually not be the case at all. Lee found that the students were most engaged when they were involved in mutiparty overlapping talk (p.101). Noise in the classroom can be productive and on-task. I have also seen the interns rely on the IRE pattern of talk; they feel the need to control the questioning so that they "cover" what they intend for students to know by the end of the lesson. Lee found also that student reasoning was highest when the teacher did not dominate discussion. How can we encourage new teachers and help them build confidence so that they feel comfortable stepping back and letting students take the lead?
Monday, March 5, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Short Stories
Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour"
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/webtexts/hour/
Ursula LeGuin's "The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas"
http://www.miafarrow.org/omelas.html
Ernest Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants"
http://www.has.vcu.edu/eng/webtext/hills/hills.htm
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/webtexts/hour/
Ursula LeGuin's "The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas"
http://www.miafarrow.org/omelas.html
Ernest Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants"
http://www.has.vcu.edu/eng/webtext/hills/hills.htm
From English to Cultural Studies
I've been thinking about how we name the subject we teach. Rosenblatt called it "the arts of language," which I like. But Deborah Appleman in Critical Encounters in High School English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents suggests the name "cultural studies," which I think I like even better. Calling the subject English is limiting in the languages and types of literature that the name suggests. Cultural Studies, on the other hand, opens up the subject to all types of texts, many aspects of culture, and multiple cultures.
I've also been thinking about why we study literature; isn't it about exploring the cultures in which we live? Appleman uses literary theory to give purpose to reading and studying literature:
- read from a multiplicity of perspectives and recognize the limitations in our current perspcetives
- read the cultural texts that surround us
- use the skill of reading to understand the world around us (read the world)
- recognize ideologies that exist in texts and in our world
- recognize what factors have shaped our worldviews
- move beyond dualistic thinking
- discern how power and privilege are inscribed all around us
Appleman says, "We are no longer transmitting knowledge, offering literature as content, as an aesthetic experience, or as neutral artifacts of our collective cultural heritage" (p.11). These reasons for teaching literature have seemed insufficient to me in the past. The use of literary theory, as Appleman describes it, gives purposes to studying literature that I believe are worthwhile and relevant in that we can connects what students do in school to the real world outside of school.
Studying literature becomes much more than learning and refining skills; it becomes "a political act whose aim is not simply to interpret the world but to change it, by changing the consciousness of those who read and their relation to what they read" (p.81).
While I find much value in Rosenblatt's theories of reader response, I find that approach a bit limiting. I enjoyed reading Appleman's response to a reader-centered study of literature, and I like the idea of teaching reader reponse as one lens of many, one tool that students can use. I also think it is important for students to be able to name what they are doing in school. I often used different literary theories with my studednts, but I kept them "behind the curtain" rather than explicitly telling students what they were doing. There is power in naming and in knowing what the theories are so that we can call upon them later.
Ideas from Critical Encounters that I would like to try:
- have students critique the lenses that they have used
- create questions about a text based on the lenses
- look at one piece through multiple lenses
- examine cultural artifacts using multiple theories
I've also been thinking about why we study literature; isn't it about exploring the cultures in which we live? Appleman uses literary theory to give purpose to reading and studying literature:
- read from a multiplicity of perspectives and recognize the limitations in our current perspcetives
- read the cultural texts that surround us
- use the skill of reading to understand the world around us (read the world)
- recognize ideologies that exist in texts and in our world
- recognize what factors have shaped our worldviews
- move beyond dualistic thinking
- discern how power and privilege are inscribed all around us
Appleman says, "We are no longer transmitting knowledge, offering literature as content, as an aesthetic experience, or as neutral artifacts of our collective cultural heritage" (p.11). These reasons for teaching literature have seemed insufficient to me in the past. The use of literary theory, as Appleman describes it, gives purposes to studying literature that I believe are worthwhile and relevant in that we can connects what students do in school to the real world outside of school.
Studying literature becomes much more than learning and refining skills; it becomes "a political act whose aim is not simply to interpret the world but to change it, by changing the consciousness of those who read and their relation to what they read" (p.81).
While I find much value in Rosenblatt's theories of reader response, I find that approach a bit limiting. I enjoyed reading Appleman's response to a reader-centered study of literature, and I like the idea of teaching reader reponse as one lens of many, one tool that students can use. I also think it is important for students to be able to name what they are doing in school. I often used different literary theories with my studednts, but I kept them "behind the curtain" rather than explicitly telling students what they were doing. There is power in naming and in knowing what the theories are so that we can call upon them later.
Ideas from Critical Encounters that I would like to try:
- have students critique the lenses that they have used
- create questions about a text based on the lenses
- look at one piece through multiple lenses
- examine cultural artifacts using multiple theories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)