I agree with some Nate's criticism about glorifying learning for the sake of
learning as a middle-class illusion. I also share concerns about just
following students' interests and motivations -- of course, education should
also promote and foster new students' motivation (but not control).
Although, I would say that this is a very last problem with the mainstream
education. I wish it at least followed kids/students' interests.
However, I strongly but respectfully disagree about learning being fun. I
guess there may be some language and cultural differences between English
and Russian but I mean "fun" as rather serious business that as Rachel
points out can lead people to trouble with their institutions and
communities. I'm not talking about entertainment although I won't rule it
out. Bakhtin's notion of carnival can probably be appropriate here.
What I mean by "students' pleasure from academic learning" is enjoyment from
any non-alienated labor/activity that people do.
Like Nate, I also question SOEs. However, for me SOE is a part of the chain
of MAINSTREAM schooling.
Finally, Nate wrote,
>Some students like to do worksheets, listen to long
> boring lectures at least in those environment their soul is not at stake.
> I knew one child, who I see from time to time that loved those
> standardized
> tests because at least while he was taking that test his feelings,
> thoughts, dreams were his own and not an object of inspection by me via
> journals, asking how he personally related to a particular character, not
> accepting 4x4=16 but wanting to also now the process of his thinking.
I think we should focus not on magic teaching method but on promoting
sensitive guidance for all which involves in a discussion and negotiation
with students what is education for (Diane's question).
By the way, Nate, from your description of the case, the child you are
talking about seems to like standardized tests because other forms of public
expressions are closed for him, or in your own words "because at least while
he was taking that test his feelings, thoughts, dreams were his own." So we
are talking in this example about a lack of freedom for the child and
teacher-students collaboration rather than about value of standardized
tests. In general, I agree that human spirit can be smuggled in any awful
and abusive forms of activities and practices (you can think of examples
yourselves).
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nate [mailto:schmolze@students.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 1999 7:36 PM
> To: XMCA
> Subject: Re: teacher ed critique
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eugene Matusov <ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu>
> To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 1999 3:44 PM
> Subject: RE: teacher ed critique
>
>
>
> > I can offer my personal observations about preservice teachers that I
> teach
> > to refute each of the points. Let me start in the reverse order. In my
> > view, I, as a SOE instructor, struggle exactly with my students being
> very
> > school-successful. They are often ones of the best. And this is the
> > problem (for me). They have very high grades (and GPA). They study and
> > work for grades. This is not just my observation but their own
> testimony
> > articulated in our class and web discussions. They often have never
> > experienced academic learning for pleasure and they think, at least
> > initially, that it is impossible.
>
> Why should academic learning be fun, and if we are concerned with
> making it
> fun for whose benefit? Is it for the students or ourselves? I get a
> wonderful feeling when child is actively involved and enjoying what there
> doing, but is not that too reproducing a certain - middleclass - way of
> approaching education. Learning for the sake of learning is an
> enlightenment ideal that not everyone feels.
>
> For example my SOE gave grades for participation and if you did the work
> you petty much got an A or B. Since an A was guaranteed it allowed me to
> take risks, be creative and the freedom to pursue the enlightenment ideal
> of learning. But, a lot of the other students this lack of motivation,
> partly due to hectic teacher education schedules, often translated into
> only doing what was absolutely necessary for the grade. Blaming
> the lack of
> the enlightenment ideal about learning on education or society may not be
> entirely fair, the enlightenment ideal might be a motivation or assumed
> motivation of the upper intellectual middle class than society at large.
> Like it or not more and more jobs require a university education
> in which a
> larger proportion of our society needs the university for job training.
> Many see the enlightenment ideal a waste of money and time. While we
> should always strive for environments that are humane, I do have concerns
> with the way we tend to try to reproduce an enlightenment way of learning
> in SOE.
>
> I often question if SOE's do more bad than good. It definately created a
> paternalistic ideal that children need to be protected from the great bad
> society or parents. Success or normalization is entirely defined
> from some
> sort of middleclass standard. If the poor, minorities do not fit
> into that
> ideal they are in need of being fixed. The so called "community
> involvement" reinforce their previous schemes of normacy and leave with a
> sense of urgency in saving all those poor, minority children from those
> environments. Is the active child who enjoys and takes responsibility for
> learning a similar construction that normalizes the middle class ideal of
> normacy.
>
> I don't mean to be overly negative, but I think we need to
> question what is
> seen as normal - an active child, SOE students who love learning etc. and
> realize they are not simply acknowleding needs and interests but also
> contructing them. Some students like to do worksheets, listen to long
> boring lectures at least in those environment their soul is not at stake.
> I knew one child, who I see from time to time that loved those
> standardized
> tests because at least while he was taking that test his feelings,
> thoughts, dreams were his own and not an object of inspection by me via
> journals, asking how he personally related to a particular character, not
> accepting 4x4=16 but wanting to also now the process of his thinking.
>
>