I have been reading Class Warefare by J. Martin Rochester for my foundations class and have been deeply troubled by the light in which he is evaluating national standards for English established by the NCTE. Maybe I am just used to and supportive of the standards as they are today, but it seems like Rochester believes that what matters most in education is rote memorization and ability to regurgitate facts. I would be interested to find out what standards, if any, were in place 20, 30 or even 40 years ago.
Obviously this type of pedagogy differs greatly from our discussions in 506. In spirit of embracing the Flat World Platform, we are trying to make our subject as enlivened and as far from rote memorization as possible. As an English teacher, I do not believe it is our job to make sure that students can list off definitions and examples of literary devices. They do need to be familiar and comfortable with using these terms to discuss and analyze texts, but knowledge of these facts is not the end all purpose of the study of English. With this basic knowledge base, students can then move beyond the surface structure of literature and delve into deeper areas of discussion. I feel that we need to use the study of English and the language as a way to expand their horizons and see the universality of the human experience, all while providing them a forum to improve their writing and communicating abilty. In a Flat World, knowing literary devices will have very little functionality, so if we want to make sure that the study of English and literature continues well beyond the 21st century we need to make it as 'real world' applicable as possible.
Is this disparity stemming from the fact that our education at Cortland has thoroughly endorsed Constructivism as its learning pedagogy and Rochester seems to prefer a more 'teacher-centric' Behaviorist classroom? This type of pedagogy might (?) help students perform well on standardized tests, but how useful is a good SAT score in this ever flattening world? Do the abilities that this type of teaching enstills enable one to function and perform in this new era? I do not believe so. I am having trouble understanding why anyone would subscribe to this line of thought (the book isn't that old...it was published in 2002).
Thoughts, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Charm, I read that book as well in my foundations class. And I think that your post brings up some conflicted feelings that I have been having this semester. I think that there is a lot of contradiction between what we are being told to do in various classes here at Cortland. I kind of feel at this point like I can't win. Think about what we did in Hill's class only a year ago. I had to construct a 100 page unit plan on a literary work that consisted of lessons on literary devices. In theory, my class would learn (identify, analyze, evaluate, compare/contrast) the definitions and functions of literary devices. Every single lesson was the same--look at this blown up passage, what is the definition of this literary device? How does it function? Write a double-entry journal for homework. I got an A+ in that class, but according to what we are doing in 506, that kind of teaching would fail me. Think about the differences in pedagogy we were learning in the grammar class vs. the YA class (oh, wait, did we learn any pedagogy...? Well, or lack thereof) We all know that NCLB and high stakes testing are a very real part of the job that we are all getting ready to take on, and that kids failing these tests is a real worry for us if we want to keep our jobs. Maybe that will change in the next few years, but it seems as if the incidence of high-stakes testing is only increasing. The NYS Regents doesn't test fluency in digital media, it tests a critical lense essay. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevent when that is the reality.
As far as Rochester is concerned, I certainly disagreed with a lot of what he had to say, and I think that he is one of those people who think, "If such and such was good enough for me when I was in school, then it's good enough for my kids." I think that I also have to struggle not to think that way. But he does have a valid point when he talks about "new math" (maybe you haven't gotten there yet.) There are some things that you have to memorize if you expect to know them, like the multiplication tables, and I think that trying to get away from memorization completely in all areas is not a good idea, beacause then you end up with people who can't add and subtract.
Maybe Rochester should move to India. It seems like their education system is doing exactly what he advocates. Friedman describes a system committed to excellence, culminating in a rigorous standardized test. And it appears to be giving them an edge in the flattening world. What do you say about that?
Of course, I think Tracie has a point that it does depend a lot on the academic subject. Direct instruction is much more suited to math and engineering subjects—the types of fields that the Indian “zippies” are in. When there is always a defined process and conclusion, I’m not sure how valuable a constructivist approach can be to students. However with a subject like English, the discovery process is much more important. It’s more valuable to let students discover their own conclusions when there can be multiple, defensible interpretations of the subject matter.
p.s.- I stole some of these ideas from Chris (a.k.a. Mr. Johnston). Go read his latest post.
-James
I just want to add, with Alex, that English Education is a site of contestation--like EVERYTHING else in education...the math "wars," the conflict in the 90's over the US History standards, the fundamentalists' incursion into h.s. biology classes in some locations where teachers are not allowed to talk about evolution...inclusion, single sex schools, small schools, testing, cooperative learning, etc. etc....you could go on and on about the English wars! You are right to be questioning everything you are learning/doing in your Cortland classes.
If you weren't asking these questions, I'd be worried. That you are makes me very optimistic about the future of Amer, education.
Indubitably.
Throughout the MAT program at Cortland, we have encountered conflicting pedagogies that have left us feeling confused.
But it's a good thing.
We, as future English teachers, have to experience and understand sundry pedagogies to enhance our own understanding of "effective teaching."
Rochester does have some interesting points. It is true that some educators stretch theories too thin (i.e. Gardner's multiple intelligences).
What are we going to do in the classroom?
As for the Flat World competition... there is a reason why the US is the entertainment capital of the world: some countries eliminate liberal arts from the curriculum. For instance, one of my good friends, an Indian, grew up in Bahrain. While in high school, he studied only Math and Science--there was no English, Art, or Music.
Of course foreign students are going to be more equipped in those areas. Not to mention that I think Americans are more complacent.
JackHazenJr
Hi Charm, just browsing for new content!
Post a Comment