Dear John and everybody-
I think my students are more concerned with their "ed philosophy" teaching
voice rather than just teaching style. They seem to be happy not to commit
to any of the presented ed philosophy presented in their classes as
principles outside of their personal agency (even if they like some of these
principles) but rather they want to experiment and find out whom they will
develop. Ed philosophy, in my view, is more than guidelines for pedagogical
design but a shape of teacher agency.
What do you think?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: John St. Julien [mailto:john@johnstjulien.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:43 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: personalizing voice
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. 70501
Land Line: (337) 269-0150
Cell Phone: (337) 739-6118
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 01:00:09 PDT