Ok, now I’m REALLY confused. Comparing this”Silenced Dialogue” article with Woodford’s depiction (citing Dewey) of a democratic classroom leaves me wondering if the two can be reconciled. Plus, the Teachers, Research and Curriculum article put so much stock in various forms of research. Did that author intend it for only certain audiences? I didn’t get that feeling from the initial reading, but when I consider the use of language in that article compared to this one, I wonder if certain levels aren’t automatically excluded.
In response to the quote at the beginning of the article referring to the process method of writing, I can’t help but think about my classroom compared to that of grade level teachers. Of course, I’m speaking in just some instances, but I do see lots of “process method” teaching happening, and I often look on jealously, because I don’t have that luxury in the music class. I have had little success in attempting to use it in class, and I always just attributed it to the wide variety of skill levels. It had never occurred to me that this is a divisive thing among teachers of different races. Does anybody have any personal experience with this?
Reflecting on the use of veiled commands- something my induction program is vehemently coaching me in- I find that this difference is probably not true just of black families, but from white as well, leaving some student very confused about how to respond. Similarly, students that are used to hearing question-commands respond with strong negative feelings to the ‘authoritative’ commands. In my school, I think we have a variety of students from these backgrounds, and is why when classroom assignment time comes around, different parents advocate for “not this teacher- she’s too strict,” or “not this teacher-he doesn’t have enough structure.”
What are the “dialect readers” the author refers to on page 29?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Lori I totally agree with what you said about the Curriculum (spelling) article. Not only did the author spend way to much time giving us a history lesson about educational research, the article becomes a victim of its own jargon. It almost is unreadable at points.
Way to much jargon in the curriculum article- I agree. I was not really sure what the author was trying to get at. He spends so much time discussing different curriculum ideas when at the end nothing really ties it up. I was waiting for something to really hit me and it never did
Now that I know that this was just the first introductory chapter outlining subsequent views on curriculum and research, I can see it's purpose a bit clearer. It would be interesting to see how the author ties it all up at the end of the book.
Post a Comment