Comments on First Readings

The first thing that caught my eye in Kirsch and Sullivan was the quote from Jane Flax, "How is it possible to write?  What meanings can writing have when every proposition and theory seems questionable, one's own identity is uncertain, and the status of the intellectual is conceived alternately as hopelessly enmeshed in in oppressive knowledge/power relations or utterly irrelevant to the workings of the technical/rational bureaucratic state?  This sounds like a line right out of "Waiting for Godot", but I'll take a crack at the existential question.  Isn't writing all about power?  Writing is constructing meaning, so when we write, we are constructing our own meaning about us and the world in which we live.  When I cover a poem with my students, for example we're reading "Totally" by Tony Hoagland today, what they get out of this poem says a great deal about who they are as people.  When they write a response to this poem, they are constructing meaning and thus gaining power, right?  

As a teacher with many years of experience, the readings for this week's class really made me think about the way (is there one?) by which new methodologies are chosen and used in the classroom.  When K and S discuss the "competing methodological contexts" I thought about how often that is true where I teach.  There is no vision, just a haphazard throwing out into the void.  We don't really have to time to dig into the research that makes Collins, for instance, a viable option for our students.  Where's the research to back up the premise of Collins?  And what happens when Reading Apprenticeship comes along?

It was interesting and assuring that K and S bring up Friere in their discussion of theory and practice.  That idea that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two is enlightening and positive.  I think I agree with what Phelps says...that, "theory as defined by the natural sciences, cannot govern daily teaching practices, but that conceivably it might work the other way around.  The practices that Alvarez explores justify that idea.  She has to start with what is happening in the classroom now, then go to the thereoretical drawing board, ask the right questions, and come back to the classroom with new methodologies.

My last comment on the K and S reading comes again from Flax (I'm going to have to find some of her stuff and read it) as well. On page 325 she writes about the "paradoxes and ambiguities that multiplied as our research progressed..."  She intimates that these problems had been avoided, but she promotes the idea that we have to embrace these problems, not avoid them.

Julie asked us to come up with some questions in last week's class.  When I was reading L&A I couldn't stop thinking about questions.  They detail modes of inquiry and really they are describing ways of exploring questions, and after reading K&S, I couldn't help thinking that you better be darn sure and damn specific in the question you want to pursue, especially if you opt, as they recommend, to do multidimensional research.  

I've never done this kind of research so I appreciated the general principles of empirical research outlined in the book.  I had to offer a hollow laugh, however, when L&A discuss the 400 (or more) basic dimensions of human behavior.  I think it would have been beneficial to give an example of an empirical research topic and then outline a few of the behaviors that the researcher would have to monitor.

The discussion of meta-analysis on page 17 was interesting and a little formidable.  Once a theory has been posed, research conducted, and ideas put into practice, how often does meta-analysis happen?  Who's to say if a practice has been successful?  Like Vicki, I ask that in my classroom when I try something new, but these big programs that my district buys into...it seems they don't want to spend the time or energy in reflection or analysis that would indicate whether a program is successful or not.

The narrative of Deborah Alvarez was a nice change from reading inquiry theory.  Several things came to mind as I was reading it.  The idea of detachment is important.  If we tenaciously  cling to what we love, it's hard to be objective; it's hard to clearly look at what our students need.  When Pam came into Deborah's class and made the comment, "You don't like them" she was offering that detached judgment that Deborah would never have been able to see on her own.  She was made to see what was obvious to someone from the outside.

I liked the chart that Alvarez provided.  I think that most veteran teachers have gone through the same processes, although it was nice to see it outlined so clearly.  I would have like to hear more about the ideas that Alvarez used in her classroom. There seemed to be big gaps in the information she provided in the article.