Folks,
This small conversation seems to me to have drifted from the Eugene's
initial question; I'd take a different tack on responding to this
part of his original post:
I think we need to unpack the notion of voice (any help can be highly
appreciated) My students, preservice teachers, become so excited when
I stated that, in my view, the purpose of teacher education is to
develop their teaching voices. That seems to liberate them from any
standardized judgment that does not take their personal agency into
account in changing their performance. However, they challenge me, as
an educational researcher, to develop the same voice-oriented
approach to all academic areas like math, science, English& They said
that it is easy for them to see open-ended voice- and person-
oriented approach in teacher education, art education, even English
education but it is more difficult to see it in math or science
education. What is a math voice as personal agency? What can be
personal in 2+2=4?
I know Eugene has been thinking hard about Bhaktin lately but I would
be willing to bet his students do not have that framework in mind. My
guess is that they view making developing preservice teacher's
"voice" the purpose of education as a way of saying that personal,
deeply felt, intimate, _expression_ should the outcome. The analogy
is almost certainly developing voice in writing class (which course,
I believe everyone at UDel has to take or pass out of?) --the
mechanics are not questionable at the base in this vision. One
deviates from standard grammar only in the service of what you want
to say; in service of the craft.
My unpacking is not of voice as such, but of what I believe these
students mean when they react so fervently to Eugene's declaration of
purpose. They believe that Eugene is saying: "The subjects you learn
in subject classes, I will help you learn these craft elements in a
way that supports your own voice; you will then "express" yourself by
teaching the material in the idiosyncratic but responsible manner
that you then choose."
Viewed using that division of subject, craft, and voice I don't see
why math or science couldn't be as easily assimilated as any other
subject. Voice, to put it crudely, becomes the way that the teacher
packages the purposes and methods that in their judgement will best
engage the kids. It is analogous to writing a good "essay to
convince" in "your own voice."
Especially in a department where the students feel very acutely the
strictures of a rigidly formulaic and sequenced approach to math
instruction a promise such as Eugene's could be very liberating.
My objection and I am sure the objection of others responding in this
string would be that the division that this is based on is all wrong
and will inevitably lead to grief. (It is chillingly close to the
content, methods, and execution categories that structure our teacher
ed curriculum in the US.) At the same time I am not sure that it
isn't a bridge to a fuller conception of what a teacher's role in the
classroom should be.
John St. Julien
>
> >
-- 401 St. Charles St. Lafayette, La. 70501Land Line: (337) 269-0150 Cell Phone: (337) 739-6118
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 01:00:09 PDT