Classroom Curriculum

 George Newell and Ruth Ann Holt’s article on “Autonomy and Obligation in the Teaching of Literature: Teachers’ Classroom Curriculum and Departmental Consensus” was eye-opening to say the least. The pressures that Martha feels about teaching her AP classes along with the English department dissension would not make for a very conducive work environment.  I was surprised that the administration allowed the teachers to separate into three subgroups: “one represented a commitment to interdisciplinary curriculum in line with the principles of the school’s reform agenda; another group rallied around the more recently developed core curriculum . . ., and a third group seemed to have removed itself from the issues dividing the department—‘Just let me teach my classes and be left alone for awhile’” (27). I am assuming that there is at least a basic outline of goals each group has to incorporate in their curriculum to be compliant with their state’s standards, but that is not made very clear since one of the groups is devoted to the core curriculum.

My questions have the teachers in the class experienced similar dilemmas in their departments? Do they feel the same pressures as Martha does? How do you work within the ever changing system of theory for educating our youth?

Performative Literacy

Sheridan Blau’s definitions of literacy from the American Colonies through the late 20^th century make sense to me. I am from the “analytic literacy” era. I do not remember having a choice in the texts that I read or being required to deconstruct a text. I did have to state main ideas, themes, plot, character, etc., but not much more than that. I certainly did not get to give my interpretation of the story.  

I am drawn to Blau’s concept of “disciplined literacy,” and how he breaks it down into three subsections: textual literacy, intertextual literacy, and performative literacy. Some might say that he creates a scaffolding effect but I think it is more of an overlapping step process, which is demonstrated by his seven traits in what he calls a “performative literacy in action.” The seven traits detail how a student may evolve into an active participant of the text they are reading, and learn to develop “alternative perspectives and to recognize the possibilities of alternative or multiple constructions of meaning” (21).

Blau’s concept enables the student to empower and challenge themselves as readers, writers, and interpreters of texts, theories, and criticisms. I liked how he gave examples to use in class to help students develop a deeper ever evolving mindset to literary studies.  The first part of the second bullet is a must if we want students to take risks while learning.

"Fill in the Gaps"

 

The exercise “fill in the gaps” in the article by Mellor, Patterson, and O’Neill was thought- provoking. I did not realize how much I automatically fill in the gaps when reading a text. This exercise could be used in a classroom to gage not only students’ thoughts on how they automatically filled in the gaps, but their perspectives on a story. The students’ cultures and environments would influence their perspectives and be apparent during the class discussion. By implementing this exercise in a classroom the teacher gains valuable insight into her or his students’ thought processes, comprehension levels, and perspectives.

This tool could be used in conjunction with Andrea Tange’s method of reading and unpacking a long novel over an extended period of time. As the class unpacks each section the students could also look at where they “fill in the gaps,” and how that impacts their impressions and understanding of the text. Mellor, Patterson, and O’Neill discuss how there are “dominant readings” in texts; by this they mean readings that the majority of society agree about, or in a classroom setting the majority of the class agrees with. The small groups that disagree are called “alternative or resistant readings.” I wonder if assigning the exercise “fill in the gaps” in conjunction with reading more slowly would show students how their cultural, environmental, and societal beliefs impact their thought process, thereby falling into one of the three readings, i.e. dominant, alternative, or resistant. Would Tange’s method of reading at a slower pace lend itself to the exercise of “fill in the gaps,” or would the combination of the two be too cumbersome? 

I really enjoyed Andrea Tange’s presentation last Monday. I have lamented for many semesters about not being able to read a text more slowly or at least have more time to unpack one of the texts assigned. I know we miss many small details during class discussion in order to touch on the main points in a text. While reading a variety of texts in one semester does give each student a sampling of the many books out there to read, it saddens me not to be able to explore an individual text completely. I want to see what others think about each section and learn other perspectives on a text. As it was stated by Tange and others in class, many times students are reading multiple texts for other classes, so reading one book over the semester while reading others at a faster pace would not be an issue to me. I like the challenge of reading and annotating the smaller sections in great detail.

NCTE

J. N. Hook’s article on the development of English education over a ninety-year span was very enlightening. While it was just a synopsis of major changes that had happened during that time, it still gave one an idea of the evolution of education. Hook states that if not for the formation of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), English literature would have had more difficulty trying to establish itself as a sound, necessary discipline.  He discusses the choices for canonized texts being instituted as part of a “framework of courses” thereby unifying English literature across universities and colleges. According to Hook, "Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, and others" were the first to be canonized. Hook does not say what criteria are involved in choosing a text for such worthy status, but as we know, these texts remain the staples of English literature today, along with many others.  

He goes on to say how over the years significant changes occurred to keep English teaching alive and evolving to meet the students’ needs across high school and college levels. With that said, many of the other articles we were assigned discuss the difficulties in meeting the ever-changing needs of students. Ken Donelson states that we need to know our history in order to better meet our students’ needs. He says, “We need that perspective to insure that we don’t hang onto the old because ‘we’ve always done it that way’ or grab onto the new because ‘everyone’s doing it’” (229). Donelson believes we need to understand what worked in the past and what did not in order to gauge what will work with students today. Granted he is arguing his case from the early 1980s, but have any of the arguments really changed?  Teachers still debate what the best techniques for teaching English literature are. Many contend that some of those canonical texts need to be set aside and more contemporary and relevant texts of today (non-British) should take their place. I am not sure about the criteria that go into making a canonized text, but I am sure there are several texts out there that fit the bill and are not British in origin.  I too would like to see more contemporary texts become canonized. What do you think?