One thought that stood out to me specifically after class was when Dr. Souder was reminded of who Howard Gardner was and was almost baffled at herself for the mistake. As educators and those totally engrossed in the academy, we need to, at times take a post-modernist approach to our lives and detatch ourselves from the "center" and remember our roots in pedagogy.
As we decenter ourselves, we look at the world of pedagogy in a new light; approach classroom management, literature, and composition in a different way. Just as Kenneth Bruffee proposes in his essay on collaborative learning. According to the presentation on Neitzche, the meaning of literature is open to interpretation and that so-called Superman is the altering factor and changes as knowledge changes.
Knowledge, however, changes for people at different paces. All a person needs to do is observe any classroom and notice the different abilities that students have. This is why Bruffee's recommendation to have students and teachers learn collaboratively, and go against the Cartesian model of "to know is to see" is beneficial. Bruffee suggests that we "accept the premise that knowledge is an artifact created by a community of knowledgeable peers constituted by the language of that community and that learning is a social not an individual process" (555). Allowing the community of learners to work together can benefit students more in literary interpretation and in language learning as Neitzche also stated that Language was not essential or inherent.
De-centering ourselves and allowing for a new look at pedagogy can lead to great inclusions such as collaborative learning to take hold and enhance student learning. We can't always be the Superman in our classrooms -- sometimes we have to let the student be the Superman and come in to save us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok, where is my Superwoman? I agree that de-centering allows us to develop multiple perspectives, seeing idea from other places and cultures, which allow answers that are outside of conventionally accepted wisdom or even proofs. The impossible becomes possible.
ReplyDeleteI found George Hillocks, Jr's essay, "What Works in Teaching Composition" to be valuable (537). Hillocks and Bruffee are focusing on what works, not bemoaning the state of poor writing in the classroom. And we know that there is poor writing in the classroom because the CSAP tests will prove it. The very strategy that Hartwell dismisses in his article on recognizing/teaching the five different forms of grammar. Two weeks ago, Amy presented on compositionist Wendy Bishop. Since then I have been doing a great deal of reading on Bishop who believed that teachers of writing had to be writers with their students. She felt this was critical in discovering for herself the demands on her students, which made her a better instructor. Theorist have offered many successful strategies that work in producing better writers. Teaching and testing grammar in isolation isn't one of them.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of students and teachers learning together could be very helpful. Not only does it allow teacher to understand the pressure their students are under, but it may allow the students to eventually see the value of their work. If teachers write with their students, the students see that writing is not just busy work, or a means of moving from freshman English to sophomore English. Many schools desire to put the notion of life long learning in their students. If students see their teachers participating in a learning process, they may begin to view learning as something for life.
ReplyDelete