“But That’s Just Good
Teaching” hones in on ‘culturally relevant’ pedagogy, which according to
Ladson-Billings involves three avenues: academic success, cultural competence
and critical consciousness. With
regard to academic success, she stresses the importance of not simply making
students “feel good,” rather truly teaching to their academic needs. In other words, she insists that we can
get students to choose academic excellence over not succeeding. My question, is how? How can we create this type of
motivation for every single student?
One of our readings noted that as teachers, there is no way we can
possibly individualize our pedagogy.
I am in agreement with this, however we can absolutely aim to reach as
many students as possible.
Furthermore, I believe that the more students we can get on board, to
“choose” academic excellence, may have a budding effect. We know that many young people like to
do as their peers. What a great
way to get students into learning by inspiring them to piggy back off of their
classmates.
Ladsing-Billings then
explains what she means by cultural competence in that teachers with this awareness
will use students’ culture as a vehicle for learning. One of the teacher’s she observed, Ann Lewis, encouraged her
African-American students to speak in their home language while acquiring
“standard” English in the classroom.
Do you agree with this as a method of cultural competence? What other methods can we bring into
the classroom to create this type of cultural openness?
She ends her article with
two fundamental points. First:
teachers must have the belief that all students can and will succeed. What I want to ask all of you and
myself as future teachers is; can we fully adopt this mentality? Can we believe that every single
student we meet along the way has an opportunity for academic success? How can we make sure this is our
mindset? Furthermore, how can we
make sure to deliver based on this notion? Second: content of curriculum is always open for critical
analysis. Here she hit on topic
that has concerned me often; how am I as a teacher in this school system,
realistically supposed to follow the curriculum standards of the state, while
making sure my instruction is as relevant to my students as possible? The point she makes is that while we
are under certain requirements, we can always debate, analyze, and critically
think about what it is we are learning.
In theory, this sounds great, however I still am asking myself, is that
realistic? Can my students and I
challenge our curriculum, if that is our momentum on a topic? I have to say I believe anything is
possible. And while I cannot yet
imagine many of the challenges I will come across when in the classroom, I know
that the most essential step I can take is to make sure I have a truly open
mind. Moreover, I shall remember
each day that I will be learning from my students as much, if not more than
they will be learning from me.
I want to build on what you said regarding barriers to learning. I brainstormed and came up with the following possible remedies insofar as learning disabilities are concerned: For the hearing impaired, you could enable subtitles on the movies you play for your class. Visually impaired students, on the other hand, could benefit from the use of audio books. Furthermore, blind students could make use of voice recognition software to help them write their assignments. There’s also technology this called OCR (Optical Character Recognition), which basically converts printed text into computer readable text. An example of this technology would be the Ectaco C-Pen 3.0. Check it out on Amazon for a more detailed description. I think this pen, coupled with a text-to-voice software, might make reading textbooks/books that aren’t readily available in the ebook format much more accessible to students with the aforementioned disability. I just realized it all sounds like a sales pitch, so I’ll stop and let you guys come up with other types of assistive technology that that might help students with LD.
ReplyDeleteJacki, you ask a lot of great questions! I am going to focus on the question you pose in the last paragraph, asking: "how am I as a teacher in this school system, realistically supposed to follow the curriculum standards of the state, while making sure my instruction is as relevant to my students as possible." It troubles me that so many people ask this question because one would hope that standards would be a guide to promote success, not hinder it! Nonetheless, the unfortunate reality is that many feel the latter is true, and thus, we have to get creative. I think there are a number of ways to do this, for instance, in an English class, the teacher could juxtapose classic and modern/culturally relevant texts and compare certain literary elements within them. Something similar could be done in a History class, looking at events that are mapped out in the curriculum and comparing them to current events, and using that as a stepping stone to talk about societal evolution (or lack of evolution) and values. Science can be made interesting with neat activities, and while it is challenging, the same can be done with math. Undoubtedly there are many, many more ways to do this, and it will be an interesting journey as beginning teaching trying to figure out what they are!
ReplyDeleteI would like to address the question as to "Can all students succeed academically". Among philosophical debate there is a strong reality that is lost, Poverty. If we were to take the American School system and compare it to other school systems in the world we rank in the middle. Our main difference that holds us apart from Finland is poverty among children. I don't agree with the common belief that "not everyone is suited for academics". Many students in who are born into poverty have a steeper hill to climb. On top of that teachers will have a harder time trying to make their topic relevant to a student who has "real life" problems outside of school. However, that should not impede good teaching. Yes all students can succeed academically but a classroom should not be another roadblock in the success of students.
ReplyDeleteI think by acknowledging that there is a stronger influence than you on a student in your classroom is the first step to mending curriculum that must be taught and the learning of a student. This allows for you as a teacher to be flexible and open minded. I don't think there is a clear way of teaching or a style that will completely motivate all students. But teachers are students as well; we can be innovative and learn new ways to address our teaching styles. We can note the activities and lessons that worked and the ones that had a low impact on student learning. We may not have control on a student’s life outside of our classroom however; our classroom should have the environment that will maximize the learning of students.
In response to your question, "can all students succeed academically?", I believe the answer is yes. Although as future educators we will have to combat deterrents, such as poverty and other inequities. I suspect one solid way of combatting these types of deterrents is to utilize empathy and construct a solid understanding of where the students are coming from. I know that it is nearly impossible to prepare to the point of perfection, but as future educators we can at least begin to mull over possible solutions to long standing issues in optimistic belief that it will aid us...
ReplyDeleteI'd like to agree with Bart. If we make our instruction accessible to all socio-economic levels as well levels of education, we will become better equipped to provide our students with academic success. When molding our curriculum, I think it's important to keep in mind relevance, which can be fulfilled by implementing a significance towards culture as mentioned.
DeleteGreat OG post!
Saarah Mohammed
Hi Jacki,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. I appreciate your impetus to question the authors’ comments, rather than to merely report on the reading. I think the two-fold question, “Can we believe that every single student we meet along the way has an opportunity for academic success? How can we make sure that this is our mindset?” implies the tension that we will all grapple with in our imminent teaching lives. I think that the way to keep this tension in check is to remember that all knowledge is constructed. This theoretical framework allows for the concept of “knowledge” to be broadly conceived. Teachers can invite parents into the classroom to teach their lived knowledge, and importantly, this is real, situated knowledge (though it may not be able to be evaluated by a standardized test). The problem I have with the Ladson-Billings article, then, is not its ideological framework (for an ideology it is…). My problem is that she does not attempt to interrogate the nuances of such an ideology. “If school is about preparing students for active citizenship, what better citizenship tool than the ability to critically analyze the society?” Ladson-Billings asks. This isn’t really a question is it? It’s more of a transition statement that allows her to blunder forward with a topical Friere quote and her neatly trebled approach to “culturally responsive teaching. What of that “if”? Indeed, what “if” school is more about job training or inculcating a sense of national belonging/community or, perhaps most cynically, providing a kind of nationalized daycare that allows parents to go out and work during the day? Indeed, in discourses of literacy education, critical thinking and literacy are not necessarily keys to Freirean liberation. We may be able to criticize, but what then? My point is that Ladson-Billings does not question the theoretical basis upon which her argument lies. And again, I basically agree with the argument. All of us probably do because we have all been reading the kind of liberalizing discourse attendant with an urban education program. The trick is to notice how these liberalizing arguments are productively pushing against inequality, and how they are, perhaps, mere “truths” that our community rests on and uses to get published in the academy. Indeed, what is this article really saying that I (and probably you, reader) haven’t read in a textbook countless times? Culturally responsive teaching? Yes. Does a neat and easy five-page article really get at the very real tensions you point out Jacki? I don’t think so.
I'm interested in this question that you,Jacki,raised and that Liz then answered: “Can we believe that every single student we meet along the way has an opportunity for academic success? How can we make sure that this is our mindset?” In my opinion, I think the problem kicks off when this question itself is posited as a question. That is, to even ask if the students "we meet along the way" have an opportunity for academic success seems to mark a split between a division in the “them" (students) and “us" (teachers), a split that is first founded on a belief that we are of a higher intellectual order and that they, the students, are divided between those whom "we meet along the way," and those who are in our classroom but somehow fall off the wagon as well chug-a-lug ahead with our curriculum, however well its intentions and however nice we think we may be. What I mean is that we should begin with the assumption that all students are of equal intellectual capacities, that they are all capable of learning anything with the right amount of dedication and focus. And this is what brings me to Liz's point about Friere. I agree with you, Liz, in your assessment that equating Friere with a logic that has education's telos rooted in "active citizenship" is a shallow reading of Pedagogy of the Oppressed; to me, to conceptualize one's self as a citizen (and whether you are active in this conceptualization or not makes little difference) implies that one has some sort of allegiance to maintaing a distinction between yourself and another, one who does not belong to your fold of people, someone who, by placing themselves inside the folds of society, runs the risk of disrupting the order of who counts and who does not. But doesn't Friere remark that "The truth is, however, that the oppressed are not "marginals," are not people living "outside" of society. They have always been "inside"--inside the structure which made them "beings for others." The solution is not to integrate" them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become "beings for themselves" (74).
Delete
DeleteBut while I am on board with you, Liz, and your insight as to Ladson-Billing's error of "logically" going from one term (active citizenship) to another (the Frieirean notion of liberation), I do hold fast to the idea that critical thinking and literacy are, in the terms defined by Friere himself, necessary steps to liberation. Indeed he states that "Reflection upon situationally is reflection about the very condition of existence: critical thinking by meanings of which people discover each other to be "in a situation." Only as this station ceases to present itself as a dense, enveloping reality or a tormenting blind alley, and they can come to perceive it as an objective-problematic situation--only then can commitment exist" (109). So while it may be a problem to view active citizenship as synonymous with liberation pedagogy, it is, I think, necessary for the students who are not viewed as students--those who "fall off our wagon," who do not meet us along "our" journey--to see the world as fundamentally subject to change, one that has no logical basis for the inequality that exists between bodies that are of equal intelligence. And it is for this end that critical thinking seems essential. I share in your concern, Liz, for the sentiment of "criticize, but what then?" But Benjamin's words in "The Life of Students": "...in reality a student is only a student because the problems of spiritual life are closer to his heart than the practice of social welfare." To me, what this means is that if we continue to view society as this "dense, enveloping reality," then critical thinking might just as well be likened to musings on the level of the etherial. But where Friere (and I would like to think Benjamin) is concerned, the trouble is to first see the world is objective and that it is, in fact, capable of change--change that requires critical thinking, but is not limited to it.
Sorry for the multiple errors that abound; I had to break the piece up into two after I typed it on Pages, and somethings got lost in autocorrect in the haste to paste it onto this blog.
DeleteChanges:
#1: "as "we" chug-a-lug ahead with our curriculum..."
#2: the second Friere quote should read "Reflection upon situtionality is reflection about the very condition of existence: critical thinking by means of which people discover each other to be "in a situation." Only as this situation ceases to present itself as a dense, enveloping reality or a tormenting blind alley, and they can come to perceive it as an objective-problematic situation--only then can commitment exist" (109)
#3: But recall Benjamin's words in "The Life of Students": ....
I wish we were able to edit our posts.
Hi Chris,
DeleteThanks for your comments. I can always count on you to push my cynical assumptions a bit with some well-chosen theoretical insight. I’m very intrigued by the formulation of the “marginalized” as those who are always already inside, were never really outside, but in their inclusion in an oppressive structure are made “beings for others.” This almost feels like being outside the “other” group, that is the privileged or controlling set, yet necessarily connected to them, constituting them as the privileged group. I wonder if this comment was tangential or if you were trying to re-conceive of the us/them of the teacher/student? I was a bit unclear if this is what you were doing or if you were talking about citizenship more broadly.
Regardless, it has gotten me thinking then about how we can pull off the transformation of (classroom? national education?) structure required that allows for those “marginalized” to become “beings for themselves?” If transformation is conceived on a national level, I am pretty much hopeless. But again comes that notion of the power to close your classroom door. What can we do in our own spaces, our own classrooms to change a structure that constitutes the oppressive dichotomy of beings for themselves and beings for others?
Lastly, the notion that critical thinking and literacy are “steps” to liberation still troubles me. It’s that darn modernist mindset that prescribes causes (often in completely different culture/class contexts) that will, supposedly, produce stable effects. And maybe they are right after all. Maybe we do need critical thinking and literacy before liberation. But do we not all, as humans, practice and possess literacy of a kind? Is it not a fallacy to claim that critical thinking doesn’t happen if we do not see or appreciate evidence of it? Again, I think if we broadly conceive of a kind of constructed knowledge, the notion of “steps” gets problematized. If we concede that all people have kinds of critical thinking and literacy already, where’s the liberation? What’s our next “step?” Or am I wrong? Should we not be conceiving of critical thinking and literacy in broad terms? Alright I have other work to do. More later. Thanks Chris. I’m sure you will have very insightful answers to these questions.
And thank you for framing the discussion as the distinction between a modern/post-modern (surreal?) way of approaching the concept of critical thinking. More on the questions you raised in a moment.
DeleteBut to answer the question you raised in the first paragraph, you are absolutely right in your interpretation of what I had meant to originally convey. That is, the "marginalized" are only the "marginalized" insofar as our perception of reality dictates who counts and who does not . I am, admittedly and probably not to your surprise, ventriloquizing an the argument advanced by Ranciere in works like "The Ignorant School Master" and "Disagreement." In the latter he says that "we can deduce that inequality of social ranks works only because of the very equality of speaking beings" (49). We understand an order from our "superior" (i.e. our boss, our teacher, any sort of hierarchical schema) because of the fact that we possess the wherewithal to do so in the first place; so any sort of explanation that predicates the existing inequality on the assumption of an innate difference in human intellectual capacity is not only misguided, it is incorrect; our social inequality depends on equality--depends on one to first understand that they are given an order and that they are to obey.
But there are obviously problems in viewing society merely through (literally through) the lens of vision. If all that we need to do to rid ourselves of inequality is change the way we "see things," to note see each other as unequal, black/white, gay/straight, etc, does do enough, put enough pressure on the system fort their to be any structural change? It's an interesting question, and I think that you're right in approaching this notion of "steps" of critical thinking with a well-measured amount of skepticism. The modern notion, which I equate with literary realism and on the theoretical side a sort of Marxist determinism (scientific in its language), is problematic in that it does not allow for enough leeway for individuals to figure meaning out for themselves, outside of economic considerations. Critical of this determinism, Ranceire, this time in his work "The Philosopher and His Poor," is again relevant to what I'm trying to say. He states that "Philosophy is less to lock others up then protect itself from them" (52). To be able to participate in this "critical" discourse ought not require of you, the student, to demonstrate a certain amount of steps attesting to your knowledge of the object of inquiry and then, on the side of the teacher, for those steps to be sorted into "critical" or "uncritical" ways of approaching the concept. This is just a long-winded way of saying that philosophy, or any sort of critical discourse, does always seem to be troubled by the notion of its being taken up by those who stand to ruin it; those who appear to be incapable by virtue of their vocation, race, physical ableism, etc. In short, I agree with you in this mistrust of the modernist notion of "doing philosophy," that certain steps are sure fire ways to produce sure fire results. But I will not give up on causality in and of itself, and if that makes me a modernist, so be it. That, of course, is a conversation for another time.
@ Jacki, Liz, and Chris: awesome discussion!
DeleteLiz, I agree that Ladson-Billings plays fast and loose with her ideology. There is in fact a big difference between Core standards for "critical thinking" and Friere's call for students to materially overcome contemporary social relations. I agree with you Chris that critical thinking, literacy, etc. may be necessary for emancipation but I also like the way Liz troubles these broad categories. What does critical thinking in the classroom mean today? Reflecting on Plato so as to ennoble the soul? Developing problem solving skills that can be easily transferred to life in the workforce? "Yes," to both. But probably a resounding “NO” to a qualitative change of the structures of society that produce poverty, racism, exploitation, etc. So while a hopeful attitude toward our students and a dedication to critical thinking is a must, the recognition of the limits of these approaches clarifies them as stopgaps (eg we know we cannot teach every student out of poverty but we still try) and poses the problem (eg the structures of society today necessarily create wretched conditions of poverty for some students) in a way that it can be overcome. And, of course, to clarify the problem and frame the world as a transformable object, while in and of itself is not enough, helps students/society find a solution.
Jacki,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to reminiscing our own adolescence, I remember specifically when it came to school I gobbled up everything the teacher said. As naive as it may sound, I never questioned anything and believed that the teacher was always right. They want what’s best for us, why in the world would they teach us anything inferior to that? They are teachers after all. But recalling it now, I never really experienced that deeper understanding of the content. It was more about the facts, learning what I needed to know to pass, then disposing that new knowledge when it was no longer needed. However it seems that from our text of UbD and DI, quality learning will stem from quality curriculum and instruction, which in turn results in deeper understandings. The teachers I had never made anything relevant to the students, we never could connect to what we were learning, and hence simply threw away the information we learned once we were done with it. Accordingly, teachers need to “provide opportunities for students to explore, interpret, apply, shift perspectives, emphasize, and self-assess” (UbD and DI 8). In other words, we as teachers need to promote more than one way of learning, and allow different paths to reach deeper understandings.
Kara,
DeleteThis is interesting that you bring up this personal reflective anecdote. It goes to show that some students can succeed academically because their brains are simply "school-friendly." They can readily take in information, process it, and regurgitate it on the test for the A. This type of student is traditionally rewarded in our school system, and yet that deeper understanding, critical thinking, and other necessary cognitive tools to truly become what we have called a "good citizen" are not exercised. I think it's possible (if not, definite) that some students who may seem superficially "unsuccessful" because they don't do well on tests or who feel unmotivated in the classroom actually ARE exercising these critical thinking skills without even knowing it. I remember a student who was always punished and eventually expelled from my school asking our science teacher flat out, "How do we KNOW all of this is true? We can't see any of it. Where's the proof? Who says?" Literally all questions that any teacher should be so excited for a seventh-grade student to ask, and yet he was stared at, chastised and considered rambunctious. I remember him being removed from the classroom. (I believe later that month he pushed me and my friend to the ground on the playground a few blocks away from the school, but I digress.) Looking back, Tim's outburst of unconscious critical thinking was a really formative moment in my realization of why I wanted to be a teacher. We need to focus on building students' capacity for inquiry and encouraging all questions, rather than blindly accepting everything we teachers say to them. Focusing on these skills rather than content digestion/regurgitation, I believe, will truly make our students lifelong learners.
I think what you've meantioned about creating a safe space really goes hand in hand with the question "what can we do as teachers to promote identity exploration". You're right to mention everything students go through and struggle with on a day to day basis, and you mentioning these two things together makes me think about the importance of making our instruction relevant to the students' lives. I think that is a struggle each teacher will come across; being asked the question "When am I going to use this in real life?" I feel that if we can create this safe space, students will be able to express themselves and openly make connections to the instruction.
ReplyDeleteJacki,
ReplyDeleteI think it's great and also really important that you have prompted us to reflect back on our own experiences as adolescents as we think about what we need to do to promote a positive environment for our students in which they are able to express themselves while simultaneously exploring their identities. I remember as an adolescent, I very much favored expressing myself creatively through things like art and even poetry, so whenever that was provided as an option for a class assignment and activity, I always knew which would fit me best. That really helped me connect to what I was learning and understand it more deeply. Although I was given opportunities to connect to my class material, I don't really remember feeling that strong of a connection with any of my teachers, which is something I now see is equally important. As mentioned in the Chapter 2 of UbD and DI, it can make a difference when students feel that you truly care a for them and their success and are interested in getting to know them. I remember in the first methods course I took here at UIC, my instructor had each student set an appointment with him to just talk and check in. During the meeting, we didn't really talk about our class and actually talked about my life and what was going on with me at the current moment. Having that meeting with my instructor and seeing his genuine interest in his students lives outside of the classroom really got me thinking about the way I want to show my own students that I am genuinely interested in them. I definitely believe this is an important thing we should all be thinking about often as a stronger connection with your students can really make a difference in the classroom.
I tried to read most of the posts and I am happy to see that we hold ideals and hopes about our future as teachers. But a lot of the readings on the subject of teaching seem to be rather idealistic than realistic and the texts for this week's class have the same quality. I personally am convinced: I want to become the teacher who will reach all the diverse learners, who will make meaningful connections with her students, who will have a rich curriculum and captivating and engaging lessons. Hopefully I will be that teacher but in the meanwhile where is the manual that will help me deal with my first year of teaching? Another thing that is really worrisome for me is that in this great universe of public schooling there are many players that don't seem to be on the same team; there are the teachers, administrations, families, and students. There are only a few cases when they all come together and the outcome is a happy one. Most of the times there is a lot of finger pointing with the students having the most to lose and the teachers taking the blame.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJacki,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I, too, worry that as an educator I will encounter obstacles from without my classroom and school--for example, the imposition of standards and guidelines that serve to complicate, rather than facilitate, the process of developing curricula and instruction that meet the individual needs of a diverse array of learners--that, while troublesome, are nevertheless so entrenched in the system at this point as to be impossible to avoid. I suspect that the ability to successfully navigate the bureaucratic framework that we will all face as educators will develop with both time and meaningful on-the-job experience. It has been this attitude that, up to this point, has kept me from worrying too much about some of the things Oana discusses in her response to your post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to address the "ebonics" example you raised. In a previous class, an African American classmate has somewhat altered the way I think about ebonics. I'll admit I used to have a very negative viewpoint toward it, now my views are way more nuanced. Btw. you may think there is a strong racial component to my prior feelings, but I'm not sure that's correct. because I used to hold (and in fact, still hold) a very similar animus toward what we may call "the working class Chicago accent/speech pattern (dem. dose..etc. often used by working class ethnic whites) Going back to ebonics. my classmate Patricia made a comment that made me deeply re-think my previous attitude(s) toward ebonics - she essentially said - this is the language we use, the language we were raised in. the way we communicate. who has the right to tell us what is correct/incorrect in the way we choose to communicate amongst ourselves (I am paraphrasing, she said it much more eloquently (and passionately). Anyways . Patricia, however. as a teacher in a very disadvantaged African American community was also committed to teaching her students what we would call "proper English" and the way she communicated the need to learn that language to her students was to describe it as "the language of money" (which I thought was innovative) and she was successful in the way she communicated this to her students. (There may be other approaches to this than her "money" example, but I wanted to use her real-life example). Ultimately, all languages are constantly evolving (proper English today isn't proper English of 200 years ago, for e.g.) and even more importantly.. we all use what is now called "code-switching" in our lives
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching
I fervently believe that Code switching is actually an important skill to teach our students, particularly to students from underprivileged and low socio-economic backgrounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxGFAnY4nI
funny
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MTLeWsUVcY
Hi Jacki,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you in terms of how important the curriculum is and how important it is to make the curriculum relevant to our students. In terms of identity exploration, I would have my students read excerpts, poems, novels, etc. to help them explore this theme. I always tend to find myself in a character's shoes here and there. This type of reading relaxes me and it helps find some sort of solution. I also believe it is a good idea to present relevant material to the kids so they can be interested and motivated throughout the entire year. I think presenting material to the kids is possible, but it does require hard work/time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethe best way to reach as many students as possible is simple. Make the effort. Students notice when you remember something they told you in passing or when you actually keep a promise. Make the effort to personally get to know all of your students and their interests. You will always run into roadblocks, but that is not a reason to be afraid of your students.
ReplyDeleteCultural openness is great as a way to show value in both the culture they live in and the one that exists in other areas in the city. It is unfortunate that society limits people because of speech differences. But, it is true and must be worked around. People can say that you need to let people talk the way they do at home but while they are protesting the inequality, their family is going hungry. it is sad, but there is a difference in how life is and how it should be.
"Can all students succeed academically" I believe all students can succeed academically. As a teacher no matter where I teach I want to believe that all my students can succeed. As teachers it is our job for every student to be able to succeed no matter what. Even with limited resources, it is possible to teach students and therefore help them succeed.
ReplyDeleteJacki,
ReplyDeleteI feel your post raises many great questions and awareness we all need to have as aspiring teachers. I believe your ideal efforts of making the classroom a safe place, reaching each student individually, etc is commonly held and attainable. As teachers we will get attached to our students and look to "save" those that we feel we need it, and there will be times we feel we haven't/could have done more. But I think Dan is correct in saying, our follow through in making a constant effort is where the success is. As teachers we must never give up on our students or the impact we feel we are having on them. We must look to the bigger purpose of helping them, not the credits of being the one that did (not saying that is what you meant at all). But remaining selfless in our acts of teaching will have a greater impact than we could ever imagine.
And I think Bogey's thoughts on ebonics and teaching code switching are dead on. In Manski's class she used a fun/innovative example of having students bring in rap lyrics and then rewrite them in formal language, shakespearean language, etc. And just a simple lesson such as that helps the students become less defensive about ebonics, but open to there being no right or wrong way of speaking, but different times/places for all aspects of our language.
*students and teachers
ReplyDeleteI think your question of challenging curriculum is essentail for us as future educators to think of. I know that some teachers I have had in the past teach to their liking and others are strict on standards. But how do we do a mixture of both following our curriculum plans and bringing in our own ideas without getting phone calls from parents or having students struggle on standardized tests. How far is too much?
ReplyDeleteI think the main thing we can do as educators, is to be present for our students. As I look back at my adolescence in school, the teachers who were able to connect to me as a person, motivated my desire to learn. Unfortunately, not many took the time to figure out who I was. I would say of all the ideas being presented in the discussion and the blog, forming connections with students is the one thing within our power.
ReplyDeleteJacki, I really liked the closing line of your post, "Moreover, I shall remember each day that I will be learning from my students as much, if not more than they will be learning from me." I think this humility and open-minded attitude encapsulates an important tenet of the philosophy that (I hope) will keep the actual act of teaching more enjoyable for us as teachers, as well as transformative and valuable for own personal and professional growth.
ReplyDeleteOne of your many other thoughtful questions asks, "How can we create this type of motivation (to succeed academically) for every single student?" I too find this question challenging because, as we have discussed in a live group setting, every student may not want to go to college or be best suited for college, and succeeding at the high school level may not "make sense" to them. I do, however, think that in the school setting, we can find channels through which all students' interests and learning styles can be accommodated and all students can be motivated--of course, not at the same time, and not in an individualized way. Our reading in UbD and DI said that finding patterns of instructions that can accommodate a range of different needs for students is the ideal "medium," and I think what we should consistently strive for.
Jacki, I wanted to comment on Ladsing-Billings' cultural competence example, when a teacher encouraged her African-American students to speak in their home language, but speaking “standard” English in the classroom. I totally agree with students embarrassing their own cultures, but I believe that cultural competence is learning about culture other than your own.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in an Arizona high school a few years ago, there was a program called Raza Studies which was about Hispanic culture. This was great for the students, who were primarily Hispanic, since learning about their own culture helped to increase their grades in other classes. These classes also benefited Non-Hispanic students, since they were then able to learn about a culture other than their own and opening them up to appreciate another culture. Unfortunately, this program was considered to be controversial and was shut down even though it had such a positive effect on it's students. I also think that programs such as these would be successful in small, primarily Caucasian areas in America. Since some parts of the country have only Caucasian residents, it is important to teach different cultures so that when they are sent out into the world, they do not give into stereotypes and are culturally competent.
My question is, do you think that we should incorporate more culture into the classroom? America is such a diverse country with all kinds of different cultures. As a retail worker, I hear customers having conversations in different languages (Spanish, French, Polish, Italian, Arabic, etc.) and I think that is a beautiful thing. I think that once we all understand the different cultures that surround us, we can be more successful, understanding, and happy as a nation. As an English teacher, I believe that all schools should have some kind of English program, such as a Cultural Literary class in which students can learn about different cultures through books.
Hey Jacki,
ReplyDeleteI really like what you have to say here. To address the last two points of your post, I have struggled with the idea that every student can be academically successful. Not so much that I disagree with you, quite the opposite. I do in fact believe that all students are capable of being successful. What I struggle with is how to deal with those students who just simply do not wish to be successful academically, regardless of what you try and do to accommodate them (just for clarity, I am referring to just regular, mainstream students, and not ones with special needs). In the time that I have spent as a professor at the Air Force Academy, as well as a substitute teacher in a variety of high schools, I have found that there are students that simply don't care about the subject matter, and thus just do not put forth the effort to be successful. What do you do in that situation? It is a difficult question, and one that I am not sure has one universal answer. My answer is to try and find some aspect of the material that has meaning to the student, for it is then that the student might find some kind of personal association with the material, and thus work towards a greater understanding. It isn't easy to do so, though.
I do have to agree with the idea that the content of curriculum is always open to "critical analysis." Otherwise, you might find yourself left with a curriculum that is stagnant and unchanging, which is perfect for breeding boredom and apathy. Yes, we must adhere to state standards and do what is required by law, but I think that there is a flexibility inherent in the profession that would allow us to remain compliant with the standards, while being able to be flexible with the topics and materials being covered. Specifically with history, there is always new research being published that will allow us to challenge existing mainstays of instruction. New teaching techniques will be able to remain dynamic in the classroom, and engage students on multiple levels. It won't be easy, but in the end it is worth the effort, even if you don't reach everyone in the classroom.