As I move through the program, the ultimate question that continually enters my frame of reference, is as follows; “What is the point of education?” Is it to create a literate (again open for interpretation) society, functional members of our world, little soldiers to enter the workforce and be good workers? Or to provide an endless supply of labour that can be slotted into positions for the greater good. Our current education system appears to be in a state of flux.
We want these independent thinkers, future leaders who are flexible, can be adaptable, able to work in a number of environments, have the ability to quickly learn new tasks, disseminate information from various sources. No longer will the future workers of the world be performing the same repetitive task over and over. They will work in a number of different careers and be the masters of the limitless future.
However there is a disconnect between what is going on the “real” world and what is happening in our education system. The systems being developed are static, cookie-cutter type programs that can be slotted into any classroom across the province or city. Learning cycles are all the rave, where certain things can be accomplished; diagnostic, summative and formative assessments are the key. Where are the children, where are they going and how are we going to get them there. The funny thing is that the kids are right in front of us and we never really ask them? We assume this is what needs to be known and come hell or high water we will get them there.
There is a constant need for justification of our efforts. Students need to be able to do this and the only way to see progress, is through a formulized testing model. What strikes me as ludicrous, is never in any job have I ever had, was I judged by a snapshot of some random event in time. Usually it was my body of work, how I traveled there might have been remarkable different than my colleague, but at the end of the line, if the volume of work produced emphasized growth, it was deemed successful. I can pull different resources, consult mentors or seek advice. I was being critical, inquiring and deciphering information.
So, what has been sold to me is that during my educational career, I need to follow this path but when I get to the “real” world I need to be able to juggle, chew gum and figure “stuff” out. Although throughout my whole career as a student, I did not seek information so much as I was force to seek it out passively.
Which draws me to the idea of critical literacy or inquiry based learning, words that are now being bandied about our current education system. Although these notions are not I believe what has been expressed within our readings or class discussions. It appears these areas are now seen as being a subject, a block of time to now begin to do critical thinking. All right everyone put there math away, let’s start thinking critically.
We as teachers some times fall into the trap, because we are in the system and want to do the best for our students. We are diligent, toe the line and we begin to clamour for resources. Where can I get this critical literacy or inquiry based learning text, I need the manual, let’s see how it is done. You want critical literacy; I will give you critical literacy. They will learn it by hook or by crook.
Sometimes we are our own worst enemies. We want the best for our students and whatever trend comes our way, we are going to deliver what they want. It is amazing the successes we can reach in spite of the system we need to slog through.
The difficulty lies in the fact that critical literacy is a way of being. This sounds fuzzy and warm. It is not tangible, there is difficulty in measuring it through some standardized test but I am sure out there somewhere, someone is developing such an instrument, ready to hock it at a reasonable price. Get ready for that workshop.
It involves understanding the position you take-up. How are you being positioned? What discursive practices are you involved in and how do I navigate these discursive practises. Being able to control the position you have been placed in. It is not telling students what to think but asking them to think differently,
Critical literacy is a process that is engaged with the students. It turns the model of teaching upside down and forces us into an active discussion with our students. It is not a block of time that exists before lunch in some manual somewhere. It encompasses your whole of approaching your role. No longer are you the authourity but the facilitator or if you will the tour guide. You show them the highlights and they react, remark and share what they see think and feel. They take the information, mix-it up, alter it or add it to the layers they have gathered. It is hard not to be the one steering the ship because that is what you are used to.
How are these kids learning if we are just talking? Is that play or that art expression really showing that they are learning, understanding and synthesizing. How will the stakeholders of the world, accept what is going on? What is the measure of success? The student who scores well on the standardized test or the student who has the ability to navigate a number of tasks by exploring and seeking. Or is that student one in the same. Can that student master the discourses of standardized testing, once they become critical literate? This makes me think of University, where I understood what the professor wanted and knew how to achieve the appropriate goal by playing the game. A means to an ends.
Can this way of teaching fit within our system. It is very much like fitting a square peg in a round hole. But if we start small, in areas that we are comfortable we can begin to look at leeching this notion of critical literacy into our classroom. Even, if we begin with our own teaching practise. Devoting more time to having discussions, embarking on adventures they want to take and bending or even shoe horning the curriculum into our work.
It is not easy or even comfortable at times because we were part of the system and succeeded. We were able to navigate the system and make it out through the other end. Though I wonder how much more we would have been able to accomplish, if we were exposed to a different way of doing things. I believe that the majority of us however were part of the power structure, to which school was geared towards.
Funny thing is that this notion of inquiry based learning of having children examine issues with a critical eye as opposed to an autocratic/assembly line style is certainly not new. John Dewey appears to have realised that there is definite merit in this model of learning and exchange. A classic example is where he had students examine bits of wool and cotton, look at the fibres, pick out the seeds and peppered students with questions about the simple notion of wool vs. cotton. This lead to a discussion of where is cotton grown, class structures, struggles of the Southern US, slavery the origins of cotton in Egypt, travel routes. From one little piece of cotton students examined prejudism, bigotry, geo-politics, history and commerce. Dewey allowed students to think laterally, reveal connections and even form original insights. From one question and a piece of cotton.
But his schools were shuttled because the students failed miserable at the standardized test of the day. There was no evidence of learning. Students attending his school formed a letter writing campaign to let the powers be know that they had learned and loved learning but those with the purse strings told them they had not shown evidence of learning. Irony?
Unfortunately today we are in the classic case of just a little bit of history repeating. Though all is not lost because we can always share with our students the story of the Trojan Horse!
No comments:
Post a Comment