Again, the compulsion with product over process underestimates the value of
the rich interaction which occurs in group settings. Students seem as
anxious as teachers to get the teacher's official right answer as quickly
as possible. I think the teachers are driven by clocks and curricula, two
inanimate objects which in fact objectify learners and learning. I find
the curriculum for most teachers is more than just unrealistic, when
addressed in fragments, but it is also oppressive for teachers, while
punitive to many learners for whom it is not developmentally appropriate.
I have argued elsewhere that the bell curve is more a statistical
representation of educators' pedagogical failure to meet the needs of
certain students, than it is a reflection of the innate abilities of the
students we're teaching. Think of the effect this practice has on the
affective domain of learners and the clasroom community overall! This is
why your interest in subjective, emotional, and affective dimensions of
learning are so important. Have you looked at John Schumann's early work
on the Accultural Model in Second Language Learning? It addresses many of
the affective issues which applied linguists have been taking into
consideration in their pedagogical praxis and theoretical models for many
years now.
I'd also say the critical pedagogues have long been arguing that what is
left out of the curriculum is often more critical than what is included. I
think this also has roots in behaviorism with its fetish for measurement of
objectives, and psychology driven by standardization. Who's standard
becomes the measure of a person's academic worth? In the field of
bilingual education, we have had a federal policy of subtractive
bilingualism, whereby a person is Americanized as quickly as possible into
English. Even the literature speaks more to ways in which schools can help
learners to adapt to the rigid system in order to "succeed", rather than
ways in which the system can become more flexible to meet the needs and to
reaffirm the cultural identities of our pluralistic learners. I
problematize this by asserting the clear connection between the
self-concept of a learner and learning. You cannot edify a learner's
self-concept while simultaneaously trashing first language and culture, the
very identity of the learner. What effect does this have on the affective
domain?... Look at the disproportionate representation of linguistic
minority learners in special education classes and drop out statistics.
Have you read Herbert Kohl's brilliant monograph "I Won't Learn From You"?
He introduces the concept of deliberate "not learning" for cultural
identity motivations.
I'd also like to address the important work being done on teacher attitudes
and dispositions which serve as strong predictors of their eventual
effectiveness as educators. I think this is a field which critical
pedagogy has addressed considerably, especially Freire, Giroux, Bartolome,
and Shor. It is the "humanization" dimension of this work which addresses
the affect so well. Freire has long made the distiction between
"subject/object." I could go on. I'll end by saying I enjoy your comments
thusfar. I think you can see where my interests are.
roberto