I have been in a lot of classrooms, grades 7-12 mainly, in the
last 20 years, as observer (mostly in New York in mostly in
science subjects, but also in other cities, other English-
speaking countries, and other subjects). "Fun" is not much to be
found as an organizing theme of education; "work" is (from the
teachers), and so are various modes of resistance to work (from
the students: minimization of work, disruption of work,
digression from work, absenteeism from work). The best I can say
for the affective climate of some classrooms is that there is a
sense of humor (usually from the teacher) and occasional episodes
of interest (from the students; i.e. temporary curiosity).
It is rumored that primary school teachers occasionally encourage
play or fun as a break from work (note the dichotomy), and dream
of somehow fusing the two. Many find that there are some things
that students have fun doing from which they also learn (e.g. the
beginning phases of science experiments, field trips, new and
interesting stories, anecdotes, etc.), but that as learning is
emphasized as the organizing principle of the further evolution
of the activity, the fun is lost and it becomes more work. This
occasionally happens in the higher grades as well, but the 'fun'
phase is even briefer.
Teachers do have a generally "developmental" model, I think. They
believe that learning is somehow an aspect of personal and social
maturation, that it takes time and maturity, but is mainly the
product of work. School is preparation for, and rehearsal for,
the world of work (note the implications for social class
differences in whether both of these, school and work, are seen
as unrewarding but necessary drudgery, or potentially rewarding
career activity). Teachers in the earlier grades believe on the
evidence that learning is 'natural', but must be supplemented by
work. In the later grades teachers believe, on the evidence, that
learning may be a natural potential, but in their classrooms
students must be cajoled into work (cf. management attitudes to
workers).
As to that bizarre article by the fellow from Tennessee (which I
deleted after a few screens as being useless as scholarship), I'm
afraid it does reflect rather poorly on the general quality of
what passes as scholarship, even in the most old-fashioned
definition of the term (having carefully read the most relevant
sources), in education. As a 'professional' field, education
deserves some latitude for discourse that is useful to
practitioners whether it is of interest to scholars or not, but
even so, there's an awful lot of 'dreck' and the academic
reputation of the discipline (beneath notice apart from a few
exceptional researchers) is completely deserved in my opinion.
However there is one aspect of the thesis of the article that
deserves more serious notice: that one can empirically determine
what methods work best for what kinds of students (did he get
that subtle?) if the goal is to impose belief systems on them, or
at least to get them to remember briefly what we tell them to
believe. This is surely possible. What I fail to see is how it is
morally justifiable. I do not think there is much to be gained by
a theoretical critique of such research. It is a critique of the
fundamental _value_ assumptions on which such work, and the
'educational' programs it supports, rests that is needed.
JAY.
--------------
JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU