Friday, July 30 (DJ #4)

I have to start off by airing out some dirty laundry, some beef, if you will, with the past few articles we have read. Both Pirie and Goebel have approached classrooms as dichotomous—“all white” or “all of color” (Goebel 22). How in the world are we supposed to be “multicultural” teachers if we keep positioning people as one OR the other. What about individuals who identify as bi-racial or multi-racial? (I don’t know if people actually do this, but it seems quite plausible given the large amount of individuals who identify with more than two races or ethnicities). I think that this discourse positions people as opposites of one another in the same way that the pesky M or F checkbox does on various forms and documents. Although I did have this initial reaction, I did find the Goebel piece to be helpful—he addressed some issues we have yet to discuss in our class. One of the most important issues he brought up, in my opinion, was the issue of class. We cannot have these conversations about race and culture (and gender) without talking about class. Class is absolutely HUGE in this discussion. Class determines discourse about education, culture and experience. Class also determines access points. In my experience I have noticed that it is more likely for students of different races to have more in common if they are of the same socioeconomic status than those of the same race who are not of the same class. As much as I hate to say it, money is a big deal. How we are raised, what are values are, what we aspire to do as adults is all determined by the way we have been positioned in society based on class. Goebel gives a great example when he talks about the ways middle-class students are more prepared for schooling in the way it is currently structured than working class children: “middle-class children and adolescents have grown up in families who value the ability to floor-hold in conversation and construct monologues unsupported by listener response…working class children may not only appear less competent to their teachers, they may also experience school as a place where oral language skills, as they understand them, are not valued” (Goebel and Hemphill 24). One specific example I can think of (this does not refer to class necessarily, but differences in communication across cultures) is film viewing in the classroom. In my experience, when you are viewing a film in class you should be silent, listening and taking in what the film has to offer. However, this is by no means a value that spans across cultures. Many of my students get very involved in what they are watching and talk to the characters in the movie/film or make predictions vocally. At first I felt that this was rude, but then I realized that this was how they were interacting with the text that I had presented to them. They were not trying to be disruptive or rude, they were trying to learn from the film and to engage with it. This was an excellent learning experience for me.
Goebel also mentions that “two studies suggest that women and working class students might immediately benefit from a shift from individualistic, teacher-centered instruction to cooperative student-centered instruction” (24). I think that ALL students would benefit—and DO benefit—from this style of instruction. This suggestion among many others that have been seen as ideal for “multicultural education” are really just good teaching.
Glazier and Seo do an excellent job of transitioning from the theoretical into the practical smoothly and they offer some great suggestions. One of the points they made that resonated particularly strongly with me was their mention of White students saying, “I’m not anything” (687) or “I don’t have a story” (686). This is so very true. Many of the students (and other teachers I know!) believe that their Whiteness is the absence of culture rather than a culture within itself. This is why everyone should read Learning to be White by Thandeka (shameless plug). This text explores the development of Whiteness and how it came to be a revered “culture.” Although I have only read bits and pieces, it really helped me to see the ways in which the privileging of Whiteness came to be. I would highly recommend it!

Thursday, July 29 (DJ #3)

During our fall and spring cohort courses, we read a lot of articles on the pitfalls of the FPT, so I feel as though I can speak pretty eloquently to that. I think what Pirie says is particularly important: “the FPT is a valuable teaching tool; comp teachers just need to be sure that their students don’t perceive is as an end in itself” (76). This is absolutely crucial. The way to combat this mindset is to use authentic assessment as much as possible in the school environment. Though some might argue that the FPT IS in fact authentic because it allows students to pass high-stakes tests like the MCAs. However, I would argue that the FPT does not prepare students for college writing, resume and cover letter writing or logical-analytical writing that is necessary for math-science-computer careers. I also liked the metaphor he made of the paint-by-numbers kit: “the paint-by-numbers kit absolved me of any responsibility to do what real artists do, which is to experiment and make decisions about color and shape” (77). How will our students learn the varieties of writing if they are only given one style in which to practice. This is where I take the positive stance on teaching multi-genre writing in the composition classroom. Multi-genre also seems to be a way to be more inclusive of non-North-American styles of writing. I think that it is extremely valuable to give students the opportunity to construct their own writing using a variety of methods and organization schemes. They need to learn what works for them. This calls for a serious differentiation situation. I also found it particularly interesting that the author focused on the potential limitations of essays/papers written around a definitive thesis. He suggests, “It might be more useful for students to defer the drive for answers in favor of more thoughtful elaboration of questions” (80). I think that our need to base all of our writing assignments in one “closed thematic statement” comes from a North American cultural value of precise, scientific, research-based knowledge. One of the beauties of English/Language Arts is that it is NOT scientific. It is philosophical. It is hard to pin down. This is the arena in which we are allowed to talk about things like race, culture, gender and the “self.” This idea of creating “lateral contacts” is a great way to think about literature. Imagine if we tried to categorize species laterally rather than hierarchically. Literature is valuable in a different way than science. Literature allows for a more lateral relationship between the teacher and the students, the students with each other and students with the text. I think that secondary English class is a great time for students to experience a variety of different types of literature AND different writing styles. Giving them a FPT outline that just makes them “fill in the blanks” does not challenge them and to be quite frank it is telling them that they can’t do it themselves.
Now that I’ve ranted enough about the FPT to last me a while…I really enjoyed reading the suggestions for writing activities to use with multicultural texts. I think the idea to do an “Ibo Diary” (or something similar that related to the text) would work really well as a way to give students a chance to develop writing skills while simultaneously being cognizant of the way they and their peers construct knowledge based on cultural, personal and family experience. The dialogue presented in the Vinz text also seemed to be facilitated in an effective way. The teacher continuously re-focused the class to “work out of each other’s statements” which I thought was a really great way to get them to listen and truly hear one another. This forces them to think about language and how it is used differently by and for various audiences. Learning this skill will then translate into their critical thinking and reading skills.

Wednesday, July 28 (DJ #2)

After today’s discussion and reading the theoretical articles and chapters for tomorrow really made me consider the differences between discomfort and disequilibrium. I think it is important to consider the difference because it refers to—I believe—two separate states of being; discomfort being a physical or emotional unrest versus disequilibrium, a psychological or intellectual instability. I think that while the latter might often cause the former, it is the second that we should be striving for in our classrooms. That being said, the English classroom is a fantastic starting point for these types of equilibrium-busting conversations. I found Toni Morrison’s quote at the beginning of the Dilg chapter to be quite a good jumping off point: “You don’t know anything about a person just because you know race.” This is very true, but it also begs the question, then why is “race” the word we always use when discussing difference rather than cultural identification? I recall reading an article that strongly resisted the idea of “colorblindness” because it doesn’t allow people to be seen for who they are. But taking Morrison’s quote into consideration, neither does race. So, how can we be culturally competent—if that is indeed the goal—without essentializing races and cultures? How can we give our students the chance to learn about other cultures while also teaching them that one person’s reflection does not equal the larger community? The reference to Beverly Tatum’s concept of “allies” was particularly interesting to me as I often think of the term “ally” when I think of those “on the side of” GLBT individuals. Is it possible to be a cultural ally? How do we make it known that we are an ally of a certain identity? Putting up a “safe space” sticker in our classroom allows our students to see that we are allies of the GLBT community, but how do we show our students that we are committed to inclusive (or anti-racist as some say) classroom practices? One way I think I would consider making this aspect of my teaching clear to my students would be to engage them in an activity like the one we did in class today with our collages. Like Kim was saying, putting our “best faces forward” or most comfortable selves might be a good way to let students begin to share pieces of themselves in a way that is safe. It would also allow students to “self-label” at the beginning of the course so that future labeling by others would be lessened. One way I attempted to do this in my student teaching courses was a project I called, “The Block” in which students made representations (audio, visual, digital, tactile, written) of their neighborhood, block or community. Although Dilg questions whether or not these things “define us,” in my experience my students sought out elements of their community that were points of connection or disconnection with their personal lives and talked about them in the larger group. It was a good way to get them to think about how their environment played a role in their development as a young adult. This followed a lesson on Romare Bearden’s piece of the same name. One of my students wrote a one-act play entitled “GLBT,” in which a young girl wakes up one morning and announces to her family and friends that she is “GLBT.” The entire play consists of everyone in her life trying to get her to say which part of the acronym she identifies with, but even with their support, she still says things like, “no one understands me” and “stop discriminating.” At the end of the play she comes back to her community and corrects herself, “I meant I’m Asian!” For a white actress, this is intended to come across as funny and it is meant to be a satire of the strong inclination teenagers have to define themselves in some way. It was a smart piece that resonated strongly with a number of my students. I think things like this are important points of discussion in a class in which students are discovering who they are and more importantly, how they want others to view them. Giving them the opportunity up front allows them to start to “test the waters” as it were, take risks and begin to trust you as their teacher. I think Bill Lundgren did some very cool things with his classes that allowed for this type of relationship building with his students and it sounds as though he allowed himself to also be vulnerable, as evidenced by his letter to his students at the end of his experience. I did something like this when I was done as well and I know I will continue that practice in the future.

Tuesday, July 27 (DJ #1)

Following the readings for today, I couldn’t help but feel slightly to mostly overwhelmed and humbled by the magnanimity of the task before me. The list of questions that Smagorinsky poses have been on a constant reel through my mind since I finished the article. However, he makes some very interesting points, many of which I found particularly intriguing. For example, he asks, “Can a member of one cultural group authentically write about the experiences of another?” (Smagorinsky 291). I think this would be an incredibly interesting question to pose to my future students. A question of this depth would require a series of other questions including but not limited to: what does it mean to write “authentically?” Where are the borders drawn for where one culture ends and another begins? How do cultural groups with little or no written language get their stories told to more reading/writing-based cultures? What makes one person’s experience an authentic representation of a given culture? These questions have definitely come to mind when reading YA literature particularly from authors like Laurie Halse Anderson who writes from a variety of perspectives, a number of which are outside of her “home” culture. Another questions he poses is: “At what point do the selection principles become censorship?” (Smagorinsky 291). I would be lying if I didn’t admit that this question made me want to hang my head and cry. There is no point at which our decisions as teachers become apolitical. That is extremely overwhelming to consider. There is no text that we can choose that will be a perfect representation of one group or another and we will never choose texts that please everyone. Now that I’ve let this truth be known, I guess I can begin to construct the ways in which to best approach the teaching of texts to students in a way that is the most rigorous and least offensive to all parties involved. Smagorinsky captures this concept well when he says, “Teachers can give their preferred interpretations, and students can pass tests on them, but this does not stop readers from seeing something else in the literature” (Smagorinsky 293). I can blab all I want about politically correct language and being social justice-y, but when it comes down to it, I really want my students to grow from my classes rather than just regurgitate Ms. Rose’s liberal propaganda. From this sentiment, I think it was good for me to begin the Vinz text because it allowed me to see some examples of multicultural strategies one might use in a classroom. This idea of “becoming other(wise)” is a very intriguing idea to me and I think the way it is phrased is a great way to describe the modern multicultural classroom. I think this question “what’s in a label?” emphasizes the challenges we face as educators to be inclusive without categorizing. But then why do we feel the need to post the demographics of our students’ ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, racial backgrounds on our school websites? What does categorizing our students do for them as members of common communities of practice in our classrooms and schools? Her mention of Korzenny’s simile of culture being like water for a fish resonated particularly strongly with me. I think that this would be a great way to get students to understand what culture is in a way that they can picture. I can imagine actually bringing in a fish tank (and maybe a fish!) to represent this to my classes and show them a very tangible example of culture and how changes of a culture—perhaps the image of the fish being brought home from a carnival in a plastic bag would be helpful—can affect the individual and how the individual affects the culture. The example of Mr. Gordon’s classroom project was extremely appealing to me as well. I think that his idea of having students really get into their characters is an excellent way to allow them to really see multiple perspectives. Although I doubt it would be possible to spend that much time on one novel, but I could definitely see using some of the strategies he used. I might use a online role play to achieve a similar goal.