> Hi Nate and everybody--
>
> 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.
My concern was not so much a particular activity being fun or enjoyable,
but having that fun being an area of inspection. Just as assimulation is a
naturally ocurring cultural process in all activity, in schools it becomes
the object of inspection (tests, so called authentic assessment) I have
concerns with learning as enjoyable, identity construction, ownership etc.
being an object of inspection. Students go into an activity with similar
and different goals and my concern with learning being fun or enjoyable is
its a way to assimulate the teacher, professors goal of the activity to the
child. Why must a particular child see the love of learning as the goal,
can we accept a variety of goals within an activity. People go to work for
a variety of reasons, can't they also go to school for a variety of
reasons. If we talk of environments that need to be more humane that will
acknowledge a variety of goals, I agree, but if our rational for creating
a particular activity is so they will share our/my goal I have to disagree.
So, my argument is not that learning shouldn't be fun, or enjoyable - it
should for reasons of creating humane environments in which to learn. My
concern was, maybe my interpretation, that you were argueing more than
that - a construction of a student whose goal of the activity (learning for
enjoyment) was very specific, and assumed that the negation of that goal
was because of particular educational environments that the students
actually having a goal that differed from the teacher.
I don't mean to sound anti-love of learning which I am not, but have
concerns when we have assumptions that it is the best, only goal for
participating in a learning environment. I guess your message gave me a
strong sense of constructing students who will approach learning with a
rather specific goal, the joy of it. In a cynical way, maybe incorrectly,
I saw it as knowing is not enough but you also have to identify, own, and
enjoy it in the process.
>
> 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).
>
I wouldn't go that far. In general the objective nature of the tests
severed learning from experience outside of school and for this particular
student he liked that severing. Freedom for this student was a severing
from the identiity formation that occurs in a community of practice. He,
while not always, was not comfortable with this identity construction.
There was a sense of struggleing between two worlds, which can I relate to,
and a "resistance" with having those worlds blurred. Just like some of us
like a seperation from home and work the same goes for students in schools.
About the lack of freedom I am not sure, maybe because freedom is such a
loaded concept for me. When we chose a particular way of teaching we are
always negating freedom, so we are always talking about freedom in some
confined space. That is why I tend to be more eclectic or lean toward a
variety of teaching/learning strategies because it is then I have a more
clear view of freedom. I guess that why I am not comfortable with totally
negating any approach (traditional views included)because by doing so I
also negate a view of the student. I don't think bubble sheets or any
practice have any value in itself, but recieves it value in activity for a
vaiety of reasons. Along these same lines I also do not assume they have
no value in themselves and some students will enjoy them for a variety of
reason.
Nate
> 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.
> >
> >
>