Although these articles were short, I found myself furiously underlining a large amount of what I read. However, rather than trying to incorporate every quote I found intriguing, I would really like to respond to a few key ideas that I found particularly interesting. The first is from the Pirie chapter in which he states:
“Ultimately, it is the machinery of textuality, not the individual text, that is our object of study” (98).
Though we have been studying this concept for the entirety of this course, we have not spoken about it in such an articulate way. This is where being a multicultural educator comes into play. Yes we can choose to have certain texts on our shelf rather than others, but the main purpose (in my opinion) of multicultural education is the approach we take to the textuality, not the specific text. Like someone mentioned in class, we may not consider texts like Pride & Prejudice to be “multicultural” we can teach them using multicultural methods. I also think that teaching methods, styles and motivations are what makes a good teacher—not necessarily knowledge of a certain canonical text, etc. (Though obviously this is helpful!)
I also agree with Pirie’s assessment of redefining English to be “cultural studies” however I am not sure it is entirely plausible. I wonder how he feels about the term “language arts?” In Minnesota, our licensure is called “Communication Arts and Literature,” would he think that this is more all encompassing than just “English?” I am personally glad that our licensure is not just English because I do think that we do more than that, especially because English really has two meanings—the literature and the language. With the growth of ELL programs, being an English teacher can really mean multiple things and I think that Language Arts or Communication Arts/Literature does a nice job of differentiating that.
In regard to the Amanti piece—I was particularly intrigued by this quote:
“In this project, we challenge the status quo by asserting that local knowledge has a legitimate place in our educational institutions for both our students and our pedagogical knowledge as teachers. We also say that no matter what background our students have, there is knowledge in their home, that can be tapped into and used in the classroom” (132).
I really, really like this idea. This is also an aspect of teaching that, quite honestly, cannot be taught. We need to develop this part of our pedagogy entirely on our own. If we are teaching our students to be global citizens, we need to teach them about their surrounding as well as those abroad and across the country. She also says, “this project cannot be packaged or standardized for export” which I think summarizes this idea quite well (138). In order to truly teach our students well, we must be willing to constantly adapt and revamp our lessons, ideas and texts. I truly believe that it is nearly impossible to write a lesson or unit plan for a group of students you have not yet met.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Wednesday, August 4 (DJ #7)
So, dialogic tension. There is so much to be said here, I am not quite sure where to begin! First off, I really like this particular phrasing. We talk about internal conflict and common conflicts in literature: man vs. nature, man vs. man, etc. And save for the fact that these are sexist…dialogic tension really allows for a more expansive understanding of the concept of conflict. It allows for us to have the interaction of lived worlds and text worlds that is so important in a multicultural classroom. Most of the methods we have talked about incorporate elements of text worlds and lived worlds because each of these is a product of culture. Each of the students we have and the books we teach come to the table with different cultural experiences and creating lessons and activities that allow us to dissect the effect these interactions have on readings/interpretations is crucial to a successful multicultural classroom. Unfortunately, reading Beach et al. chapter 9 was difficult because I have not had the opportunity to read any of the texts to which he was referring. Just like the Enciso article and Maniac Magee, I think I will have a much better understanding of this article (and use for it) after I have read these texts. Each of them sounds like a great text to use in a multicultural classroom, so I will definitely have to add them to my ever-growing list. Although I have not read the three main texts, I see the value in using them in the classroom. I really like the idea of using “competing narratives” in the classroom. Whether or not they are embedded in a larger text like a novel or if they are two poems written by speakers with very different views of a similar issue. Reading competing narratives would be a great way to have students start thinking about writing their own narratives or writing monologues from a character’s perspective.
I was particularly struck by the discussion of the phrase “white trash” in this chapter. I have always considered this term to be extremely offensive, but I have never talked about it with students or colleagues, only in passing with friends. I have actually been invited to “white trash” parties in which the guests are to dress a certain way (lower class) and drink cheap alcohol (perhaps in a paper bag) and pretend they live in a trailer park. I have been SO offended by this proposition that I adamantly opposed attendance. (Though I was tempted to go and give everyone a talking to…). These people who host these parties are ADULTS and this was not too long ago. I was really glad to see that the students addressed their understanding of this language quite thoroughly because I honestly don’t think that many people think about it. I am also glad to know that there are young people out there who are really thinking about the way language affects culture—this gives me hope!
The other piece of this chapter that really struck me was the focus on assumptions. I think we as teachers are so focused on being P.C. and appropriate that we are not willing to admit to our own assumptions. If we aren’t willing to do this, how can we expect our students to be? The dialogic tension between cultural assumptions and cultural narratives is HUGE and we need to address this head on in our own readings of lived and text worlds so that we can teach our students how to do the same. We can never break down stereotyping and the like if we don’t first admit what the stereotypes are, where they come from and that we hold them, whether we like it or not.
I was particularly struck by the discussion of the phrase “white trash” in this chapter. I have always considered this term to be extremely offensive, but I have never talked about it with students or colleagues, only in passing with friends. I have actually been invited to “white trash” parties in which the guests are to dress a certain way (lower class) and drink cheap alcohol (perhaps in a paper bag) and pretend they live in a trailer park. I have been SO offended by this proposition that I adamantly opposed attendance. (Though I was tempted to go and give everyone a talking to…). These people who host these parties are ADULTS and this was not too long ago. I was really glad to see that the students addressed their understanding of this language quite thoroughly because I honestly don’t think that many people think about it. I am also glad to know that there are young people out there who are really thinking about the way language affects culture—this gives me hope!
The other piece of this chapter that really struck me was the focus on assumptions. I think we as teachers are so focused on being P.C. and appropriate that we are not willing to admit to our own assumptions. If we aren’t willing to do this, how can we expect our students to be? The dialogic tension between cultural assumptions and cultural narratives is HUGE and we need to address this head on in our own readings of lived and text worlds so that we can teach our students how to do the same. We can never break down stereotyping and the like if we don’t first admit what the stereotypes are, where they come from and that we hold them, whether we like it or not.
Tuesday, August 3 (DJ #6)
As stereotypical as it might be, I was REALLY excited to talk about this issue in class not only because I am a part of the GLBTQ community, but because I am looking forward to hearing the insights of my colleagues on these issues. Before I begin I would like to recommend a couple of books which I will bring to class:
Am I Blue?—short stories, fictional and non-fictional that deal with teens “coming out”
One Teacher in Ten—short stories/personal narratives about GLBTQ-identified teachers and their experience being GLBTQ in a school setting (out or not)
Annie on My Mind—okay this one might not be with me, I think I lent it to someone…but it is the story of a young lesbian and her first love
Absolutely, Positively Not—hilarious story of a young man (in Minnesota!) who comes out after constantly saying he’s “absolutely, positively not gay.” You can listen to my podcast review of the book here:
Now that I have plugged a few great texts, I will turn to the articles. I must first say that I was very impressed that Reiko Liu is a brave soul. I was very impressed at her willingness to so boldly tackle such a controversial (unfortunately) topic. Although I agree that GLBTQ literature has a place in the multicultural curriculum—I really liked Athanases’ rationale:
“to encourage inclusiveness and to work against stereotype formation, thoughtful educators can select texts by and about groups defined by not only race and ethnicity, but also gender, sexual orientation, religion and other significant definitions of cultural and social groups” (233)
—I was surprised that she chose a politically charged letter to teach and discuss rather than a piece of literature about a teenager dealing with GLBTQ issues. Not only does it tackle political issues of Heteronormativity, but it also deals with Catholicism! Again, bold soul. In addition to church, government AND sexuality, the article is focused on gay teachers—yet ANOTHER taboo topic. Many people might be “tolerant” of GLBTQ individuals, but take issue with “one of them” teaching their child(ren). This complicates the issue to an even greater extent. I found myself wondering if Reiko would still tackle this topic if she identified as a lesbian? Athanases reminds us of the tension: “even when teachers are convinced of the importance of exploring gay and lesbian experiences in literature, they often still fear that community members will view such study as promoting homosexuality, thus instigating a backlash” (233). As a gay teacher, I am extremely worried that any piece that I include that represents a GLBTQ character or deals with homosexuality will be considered a personal agenda. It is for this reason that I often consider not being open about that aspect of my identity with my students. Although I still consider her to be a courageous educator, I must say that my opinion changed slightly when I realized where the school was located. Teaching about GLBTQ issues in San Francisco, at least to me, does not seem nearly as risky as other places. Most of these students have friends, family and community members who identify as GLBTQ and likely have learned much about that particular “social world.” That’s not to say that it isn’t important for the classroom, but I also think that this particular teacher probably has a bit more leniency in the GLBTQ department. I must read “Dear Anita” as soon as possible!
Am I Blue?—short stories, fictional and non-fictional that deal with teens “coming out”
One Teacher in Ten—short stories/personal narratives about GLBTQ-identified teachers and their experience being GLBTQ in a school setting (out or not)
Annie on My Mind—okay this one might not be with me, I think I lent it to someone…but it is the story of a young lesbian and her first love
Absolutely, Positively Not—hilarious story of a young man (in Minnesota!) who comes out after constantly saying he’s “absolutely, positively not gay.” You can listen to my podcast review of the book here:
Now that I have plugged a few great texts, I will turn to the articles. I must first say that I was very impressed that Reiko Liu is a brave soul. I was very impressed at her willingness to so boldly tackle such a controversial (unfortunately) topic. Although I agree that GLBTQ literature has a place in the multicultural curriculum—I really liked Athanases’ rationale:
“to encourage inclusiveness and to work against stereotype formation, thoughtful educators can select texts by and about groups defined by not only race and ethnicity, but also gender, sexual orientation, religion and other significant definitions of cultural and social groups” (233)
—I was surprised that she chose a politically charged letter to teach and discuss rather than a piece of literature about a teenager dealing with GLBTQ issues. Not only does it tackle political issues of Heteronormativity, but it also deals with Catholicism! Again, bold soul. In addition to church, government AND sexuality, the article is focused on gay teachers—yet ANOTHER taboo topic. Many people might be “tolerant” of GLBTQ individuals, but take issue with “one of them” teaching their child(ren). This complicates the issue to an even greater extent. I found myself wondering if Reiko would still tackle this topic if she identified as a lesbian? Athanases reminds us of the tension: “even when teachers are convinced of the importance of exploring gay and lesbian experiences in literature, they often still fear that community members will view such study as promoting homosexuality, thus instigating a backlash” (233). As a gay teacher, I am extremely worried that any piece that I include that represents a GLBTQ character or deals with homosexuality will be considered a personal agenda. It is for this reason that I often consider not being open about that aspect of my identity with my students. Although I still consider her to be a courageous educator, I must say that my opinion changed slightly when I realized where the school was located. Teaching about GLBTQ issues in San Francisco, at least to me, does not seem nearly as risky as other places. Most of these students have friends, family and community members who identify as GLBTQ and likely have learned much about that particular “social world.” That’s not to say that it isn’t important for the classroom, but I also think that this particular teacher probably has a bit more leniency in the GLBTQ department. I must read “Dear Anita” as soon as possible!
Monday, August 2 (DJ #5)
Following the readings and discussions on “social worlds,” I couldn’t help but think of Beth Brendler’s course and learning about Communities of Practice. Although a bit different, they stem from the same idea that we have many identities to many different people and that the discourse in each of our “worlds” is varied. I think that social worlds is an easier term for students to understand and I would lean towards that phraseology if I were to teach it to my students. That being said, I think that the short story by future Ph.D student Jessica Dockter was an excellent way to teach the concept of social worlds. It really forced us to consider how these two young women differed from one another and how the forces around them really affected their discourse and action. I would definitely use this activity in my classroom because I think it allows students access to the text in a way that is relatable for them. It worked particularly well for this story because both of the girls were from the same town and of the same age (similar to our students), however their cultural, linguistic and family histories were very different. I think it would be great to actually map these worlds out and see where (and if) they overlap. You could bring in the idea of Communities of Practice into this as well by asking students to identify things that this group or world does or says that are specific to them and seeing where this language and action overlaps with other groups. As I write this out I am getting more and more excited to use it in my own classroom! (Now to just get a job…!)
The Enciso article really helped me to see other ways we can negotiate discussion of MC texts (or texts multiculturally). I really liked the idea of “talking back” that Enciso quotes from bell hooks because it is framed in such a way, like social worlds, that would be simple for students to comprehend. It also makes the texts come to life, which I think is a huge part of our role as English teachers. I would like to come back to this text after reading Maniac Magee because I think it would be very helpful to have the background knowledge going into it. Reading the transcripts of classroom discussion was fascinating—I think even this could be a useful tool in a high school classroom, in a way decoding or analyzing genuine responses to literature. One particular piece of the discussion really stuck out to me. At one point they are discussing a part of the novel in which “Maniac puzzles over the nature of skin color the meaning of black and white. Maniac belives that we are all many colors—black and white are meaningless” (28). One student responds, “We’re not white. We’re skin color. We’re not white” (28). This really struck me because I thought of two things: bandaids and crayons. Bandaids were designed to “blend in” with the skin as to not be seen. But they only blend in on certain skin. I would love to discuss this with my students. Crayons are another story, though they have gotten better. I really like this video, “Crayola Monologues” that discusses race using crayons and also delves into the history of Crayola and the color naming process:
I intend to show this to my students, it is short and to the point and I think it would be a great conversation starter.
The Enciso article really helped me to see other ways we can negotiate discussion of MC texts (or texts multiculturally). I really liked the idea of “talking back” that Enciso quotes from bell hooks because it is framed in such a way, like social worlds, that would be simple for students to comprehend. It also makes the texts come to life, which I think is a huge part of our role as English teachers. I would like to come back to this text after reading Maniac Magee because I think it would be very helpful to have the background knowledge going into it. Reading the transcripts of classroom discussion was fascinating—I think even this could be a useful tool in a high school classroom, in a way decoding or analyzing genuine responses to literature. One particular piece of the discussion really stuck out to me. At one point they are discussing a part of the novel in which “Maniac puzzles over the nature of skin color the meaning of black and white. Maniac belives that we are all many colors—black and white are meaningless” (28). One student responds, “We’re not white. We’re skin color. We’re not white” (28). This really struck me because I thought of two things: bandaids and crayons. Bandaids were designed to “blend in” with the skin as to not be seen. But they only blend in on certain skin. I would love to discuss this with my students. Crayons are another story, though they have gotten better. I really like this video, “Crayola Monologues” that discusses race using crayons and also delves into the history of Crayola and the color naming process:
I intend to show this to my students, it is short and to the point and I think it would be a great conversation starter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)