pedagogue/dialogue

2003-10-23T21:26:00.000-07:00

I have lived my life
As if in a lament
As if cemented in
A file folder
Of another’s devising
Or vision of the future
Much like the now
I can’t quite own

- Jeff Derksen, Transnational Muscle Cars

Ultimately, self-motivation comes from a sense of ownership over one’s work; if a student (or anyone) feels that they are doing something of worth then they will pursue it. Because youths develop at a different rate, some students have difficulty registering the more abstract reasons they might want to pursue a line of thinking or a subject; these more “concrete” students feel motivated to do their work (if they are motivated to do their work) because of the “prodding” of their teachers and parents (other stakeholders in the educational process) perhaps creating the perception that those other stakeholders “own” the ideas contained in the schoolwork. While this extrinsic motivation may “get the job done” as far as getting content across to students, it may not create the values and work ethic needed for students to become self-motivated learners.

How then do you teach the values students need to take ownership over their work? Is there a way to structure a hidden curriculum that would give students ownership over the work while still getting across required content? At Lord Beaverbrook last year, my partner teacher was very interested in project-based learning especially with students who did not work well within more traditional learning structures (ie. transmission model). This tactic worked particularly well with the group of students she taught, but how would something like this work with the grade 7’s I’m currently teaching, who need a greater structure to what they’re doing in order to get things done? What is the level of inquiry and play we can give students?

2003-10-15T19:50:00.000-07:00

I'm starting poetry with my grade 7's. Here are some HAIKU I wrote for them:

i. 'dividing line on road + leaves hanging on trees'

The black road divides
below yellow leaves hanging.
Fall and cut the air.

ii. 'crane + leaves falling from branches'

A crane swings its arm.
Pale leaves tumble from steel hands.
Wind shakes branches loose.

iii. 'smokestacks in railyard + group of trees'

Near the Ogden shops
a group of trees stands fiercely,
stares down the smokestacks.

2003-10-08T20:07:00.000-07:00

from the "infamous" poetry recipes lesson I've been working on:

GROUP ROLES IN THE KITCHEN

When you form a group to work on any type of project, it is helpful to define the roles each member of the group will take. For this project, I’d like each person to take on one (or two) of these roles. But remember, each group member is responsible for contributing to the ideas of the group in a meaningful way.

Lead Chef:

The Lead Chef is responsible for making sure that the meal gets prepared right and on time. Those people are hungry!!

In this project, the lead chef must ensure that the group is on task and finishes on time. However, the Lead Chef is not the boss and is not responsible for the entire project.

Mix Master:

The Mix Master is responsible for “stirring the pot” and making sure that everything mixes together in a tasty way.

In this project, the Mix Master must ask questions and push the group’s ideas forward to the best possible solution.

Oven Handler:

The Oven Handler is responsible for giving the meal a warm and rich environment for the meal so that it can reach its most flavourful.

In this project, the Oven Handler must make sure that the group dynamic is positive by settling disagreements and encouraging good comments.

Cook Booker:

The Cook Booker is responsible for making sure that the great recipes of the kitchen aren’t lost and can be shared by all.

In this project, the Cook Booker must record the group’s ideas toward a final and definitive poem recipe.

Table Busser:

The Table Busser is responsible for making sure that the meal is presented to the diner in the most appealing way.

In this project, the Table Busser must stand and deliver, telling the entire class how the group has come up with their recipe.

2003-09-25T19:37:00.000-07:00

Case 1 Initial Response

Doors have a back side also. And grass blades are double-edged. It’s no
use trying to deceive me, leaves fall more by the buds that push them off
than by lack of greenness. Or throw two shoes on the floor and see how
they’ll lie if you think it’s all one way.

-William Carlos Williams, Kora in Hell

The difficulty in integrating the various high school curricula lies in the range of ideas expressed in the various disciplines. While it may be relatively simple to integrate Social Studies and English Language Arts by studying historical or political literature, it might not be so easy to combine Social Studies and Math. This is especially true in High School, where curriculum content is so heavy in some courses that it is a trial for teachers to get through the prescribed content of their course without having to worry about the content of another course as well. The problem with this attitude is that the world is a complex place filled with complex questions that need answers encompassing the ideas from many different disciplines. As a social issue, cloning cannot be explored without both biology and ethics; war cannot be fully understood without politics, history, economics, and religion. As a poet, what has helped my writing the most lately is not reading other poetry but reading current events and political theory.

Of course for me the strongest argument for integration of the disciplines is the authenticity it provides; integration provides a “realness” in its complexity which resembles the complexity of the “real world”. My issue is the feasibility of these integrated curricular systems and how efficient they are. This issue is shared by a great many teachers to whom I’ve talked. Even in my Grade 7 classroom this week, the idea of combining figures of speech with short story writing seemed daunting, despite the two concepts being linked in my mind so closely. I guess sometimes two sides of a thing are never as close together as they might seem.

2003-09-23T20:53:00.000-07:00

Linda Hatfield, my partner teacher, writes:

"You mentioned your distaste for 'whole-class' instruction. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Can you explain?"

This comes out of a conversation Linda and I had about classroom management when conducting a whole class session, whether it is a lecture or discussion. Perhaps distaste isn't the right word, maybe distrust is better, though I imagine neither is as precise as I need it to be. My gut instincts about whole-class instruction come from both my own experience as a learner and concerns over creating a teacher-centered environment. As a student, I primarily learn through talking and listening. "Whole-Class" instruction allows for a lot of listening but not necessarily a lot of talking especially in its extreme form: lecturing. In my first two years of university, I took science lectures with 500 students in the class where I felt completely alienated. I worry that this could happen even in a classroom of 30. I believe that students need to feel ownership over their work and the direction of that work. Of course, this is an ideal pressured by the demands of governmental curricula as well as the demands of the "real world".

My worry though is that by creating a teacher-centered environment, we also model the world as a place where we are told what to do rather than having to figure things out for ourselves. This seems slightly paranoic (almost an alliteration), but I think that it is important to keep these thoughts in the back of the head. This is why when I have been instructing the "whole-class", I've attempted to open the floor to inquiry on the topics. I've noticed that this generally works but does raise some interesting management issues, like "how do you get all of the students involved?" or "how do you get all the students motivated enough to involve themselves?" that I will need to address. Add those questions to the list.

2003-09-16T20:55:00.000-07:00

"The question is not whether grammar should be taught, but how it should be taught."

"In order to construct a more effective grammar pedagogy, teachers must first address the deleterous effects of their traditional conception of grammar instruction as an accumulation of entities."

- Carl Blyth

As I'm immersed in teaching basic grammatical principles to my 2 classes of grade 7's the question becomes how to teach grammar without falling into my memories of grammar in junior high: copying dry notes about subjects and predicates and nouns and prepositions. Today, I tried to treat grammar through a constructivist approach, where the students get the opportunity to define the rules. While my vision of the lesson was originally much different than the result, the lesson started very well I think. What we did was to break the class into groups and hand each group a sentence broken into its constituent words with the instructions that they were to "assemble" the sentence. The exercise became an intuitive exercise in meaning making: quietly asking that question, "How do these sentences work?"

For me, another question raises itself then, "Will they get it?" The hope is that after we start looking for patterns in their now posted sentences (ranging from straight-forward to absurd) the answer will be yes.

We'll see.

2003-09-16T15:24:00.000-07:00

Mr. Comeau writes

"Hey Ryan,

Nice new fortified site! Anyway, I, too, had an odd encounter with a
cynical teacher yesterday. Actually, she left the profession not long ago
after many years of teaching high school English. Soon into our
conversation, as I was oozing enthusiasm, she snapped: "One day soon, you'll
find yourself at home on a Saturday night with a stack of really bad writing
to mark. About half way through, ask yourself, 'Do I really want to read
this sh_t for the rest of my life?' ... Really!" I suppressed a laugh.
For the past 25 years, I've been reading ambiguous corporate memos,
misleading executive directives, and irrational procedural documents. I'll
cheerfully take a stack of poorly written student essays home any day!

Regarding your site: For some odd reason, I was unable to scroll through the
whole entry. I got only as far as ""So Joseph sobbed. Both he and I
understood what this meant. There would be no additional help for me - or
children such a s Joseph - next year. The promises would". I was unable to
scroll any further. Now, maybe it's because I'm still groggy (it's early),
or there's a little glitch with the site. I'll try again later.

Once again, thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences.

Ciao,
Don, the oldest kid in class."

Thanks, Don.

As for the page jamming up, I've had the same problem. I find it all loads if you refresh the page though I'd like to get it actually working properly.

2003-09-14T16:05:00.000-07:00

As the new school year starts, I find myself thinking more about my ability to teach. A hiatus from anything may not necessarily rust one's ability, but at least adjusts the perception of one's ability ("I can play, but I'm a little rusty" is the comment I got from one of my drummer friends). Summer was certainly a hiatus from teaching. But last night, I had an interesting "talk" (not dialogue) with a former teacher whose only advice to me was a sharp and condescending "Good Luck". She questioned my right as a student teacher to talk about teaching; she was sick of listening to student teachers talk about teaching. I don't want to misrepresent her (she is a wonderful person and I am ultimately glad that I met her) but our conversation threw me. At a point where I am already a little nervous about my second foray into the schools, to be questioned about my motivations, abilities, and desire in the teaching field is not a good thing, though I suspect it may end up strengthening my resolve.

During some research for my case class I found a recent book by Michael Apple called Educating the "Right" Way (RoutledgeFalmer, 2001). At the opening of the book, Apple relates the story of Joseph, "a tough kid, a hard case, someone who often made life difficult for teachers". Apple taught Joseph in an inner city school in the Eastern United States. Despite the fact that Joseph had "made real progress during the year", Apple was instructed to keep Joseph in the fourth grade the following year. Because of the cash-strapped nature of the school and the poverty in the community, things would not improve in the next year:

"So Joseph sobbed. Both he and I understood what this meant. There would be no additional help for me - or children such a s Joseph - next year. The promises would remain simply rhetorical. Words would be thrown at the problems. Teachers and parents and children would be blamed. But the school system would look like it believed and enforced higher standards. The structuring of economic and political power in that community and that state would go on as 'business as usual'"

Teaching will be tough. I see it. And while I may not feel the weight of it now (though my shoulders are getting steadily weighted down), I can glimpse my future in stories like Apple's. There is no sense in pretending that teaching is anything other than a path to slowly enact change in the world. No one said moving mountains was easy.

2003-08-14T00:23:00.000-07:00

from stephanie young:

"THE FRIENDSHIP BOARD

The mirrors in the rehearsal studio last night were covered up with "hand portraits," painted by the daytime class. On the table by the door were a series of postits with student names, for use the next day. Instructions said "Put your name on the feeling board next to the way you feel."

I didn't get a close look at the feeling board, but I agree with myself that it would have made a good quiz.

I did examine the friendship board up close. Student names ran across the top and within each child's section, colored papers were taped to the board. The key said:

Green Paper = Questions
Pink Paper = Offers
Lavendar Paper = Compliment
Yellow Paper = Comment

Several names had far more paper below them than others, and I assumed those children were more popular, and then got a little sad thinking about why some kids might have more or less paper (questions, offers, compliments, comments) to their name than others. But when I got closer, I saw that each paper represented something the child had said to a classmate or teacher, instead of what had been said to them. The more verbal a person was the more popular they appeared on the friendship board. Another actor and I started to trace conversations ("It's a blog!" I shouted) and the categories unravelled. While compliments were pretty stable ("Nice shirt!" "Pretty Shirt!") the questions and comments were all mixed up. Many were variations on "Would you like to play with me," but also detailed exceptions, i.e. "________ informs _________ that the square root of 144 is 12." All of this was of course mediated by the teachers, who write down what the kids say since the group isn't yet writing the language on their one. One point of the friendship board, then, seems to be a patterning and organization of social (verbal) interactions."

2003-08-03T23:17:00.000-07:00

"The fixed categories into which life is divided must always hold. These things are normal - essential to every activity. But they exist - but not as dead dissections.

The curriculum of knowledge cannot but be divided into the sciences, the thousand and one groups of data, scientific, philosophic or whatnot - as many as there exist in Shakespeare - things that make him appear the university of all ages.

But this is not the thing. In the galvanic category of - The same things exist, but in a different condition when energized by the imagination.

The whole field of education is affected - There is no end of detail that is without significance.

Education would begin by placing in the mind of the student the nature of knowledge - in the dead state and the nature of the force which may energize it."

- William Carlos Williams, Spring and All

2003-07-04T23:02:00.000-07:00

check out teacher/kreature, a blog I am participating in with Christine Lee, a good friend of mine who is also (as I understand it) a fantastic math teacher.

we're also looking for other participants so if you're interested in participating, email Christine or I and we'll set you up.

2003-06-26T14:29:00.000-07:00

Bill Marsh writes:

"Hi Ryan!

I've been checking in on Process Documents for a while
but just came across your other blog, which I like
much. It seems 'infrequent' but I do hope you keep it
up.

I blog at sdpg.blogspot.com and for a while had it
as 'special delivery pedagogy group' -- testing out
names -- i'm real interested, as it seems you are too,
in the intersections of poetics and pedagogy

anyway, thought i'd make contact and encourage you to
rock on with the p/d work

(your grid, by the way, is a nice way to present
teaching orientations -- i'm thinking about
how 'process/product' might be added as traditional
binaries as well -- it gets messy when you start
looking at the way orientations (like group and
individual, social and personal) have changed
historically, trading places along the way --
what's 'traditional' now was radical thirty years ago,
in some cases if not all

anyway,

take care,
bill marsh"

Wow! It's great to see that someone is paying attention to the blog (not that I've been paying it much attention).

The intersection of poetics and pedagogy is an interesting, and is certainly a concern of mine. Underneath all of the discussion in this blog to date is my assumption that pedagogy has a shape, a rhythm, a poetics of its own. I know now that pedagogy's "shape" is not a simple one (something I suspected before), but as in geometry, we need to learn the properties of simple shapes before we can move onto more complex ones.

Bill's addition of the third axis to my pseudo-Cartesian/mathematical model creates a conundrum: what happens when I figure out what the fourth, fifth and sixth axes are, because certainly nothing that happens in the classroom can follow a simple three-dimensional model.

Perhaps a more detailed orientation to the present model is needed.

2003-05-27T21:20:00.000-07:00

Begin by drawing a line. Now at one end of the line write teacher-centred and at the other write student-centred. Draw a second line that bisects the first at a 90 degree angle. At one end write individual-centred, at the other write group-centred. Now, draw a box (or a circle, Yvonne) around the cross connecting the four.

What you now have is a divining rod to figure out where your philosophy as a teacher lies. A more traditional teacher might end up in the teacher-centred/group-centred quadrant, whereas I might be drawn to a different pole (student-centred/group-centred). Who knows? It's fun though.

2003-04-08T21:10:00.000-07:00

from Andrina Mellon:

"Hi Ryan,

I finally got around to reading your blog site and I must say it is impressive. I'm not sure about what I expected but either way I like it.

I found some of the comments in the process documents link really interesting. Especially the one sections on the peace protest, I have never protested for any cause. Call me sheltered but i think most people are, it is amazing how ethnic minority groups feel so strongly about certain topics such as young Arabic men with their opinions on the war in Iraq.

My parents are from Ireland and I can only imagine them in the same situation so many years ago. what is this war really about? Religion, oil or safety for the world by stopping the production of bombs?

No Peace in the Peace protest

Andrina"

Ultimately, Andrina's comments would have fit better on my other blog (process documents), but I thought since she's in the MT program as well it might fit better. As well it leads into something that I've been wanting to talk about and that is the process of dialogue in the face of confict. I am struck by the lack of real dialogue happening in the media, especially when someone is questioning the war. While I would admit that I am definitely biased on this subject (I was at the peace rally that Andrina talks about), I think that it is really important to explore this issue.

Here's an email I recieved anonymously about my other blog a month ago from sk8trboi@mchsi.com:

"While I fully support you right to protest (a right granted to you by the men and women who have fought and died for this country), I just don't understand how young people like yourself just don't get it. This conflict with Iraq is only 1 day old and already Saddam has set oil wells on fire (a crime against our environment and all humanity) and fired missles (which you liberals claimed he didn't have) at our troops. What's it going to take to make you realize the danger we face if we sit idol on this?"

The message takes on several tactics that are key to a rhetoric that tries to convince and change minds. First, the person states that he supports my right to free speech. The problem with this admission of support is that it is followed by an assertion that I "don't get it". What this kind of stance does is to undercut the first admission. What it also does is effectively remove my voice. I am part of a larger group that needs to be viewed negatively; I am one of "you liberals" and one of the "young people" who "just don't get it". I feel distanced and othered by this voice. To this voice, I feel I am nothing more than a silly protester that needs to be converted or cut down.

This reminds me of Parker Palmer's discussion of the "culture of fear". He asks us "What is the fear that keeps us beholden to those structures?" Those structures are the structures that separate us from others. He posits an answer:

"We collaborate with the structures of separation because they promise to protect us against one of the deepest fears at the heart of being human - the fear of having a live encounter with alien "otherness," whether the other is a student, a colleague, a subject, or a self-dissenting voice within. We fear encounters in which the other is free to be itself, to speak its own truth, to tell us what we may not wish to hear. We want those encounters on our own terms, so that we can control their outcomes, so that they will not threaten our view of world and self"*

This irrational fear of the other is an important thing to be aware of both in the classroom and in life. I feel so much now like others are trying to restrict my voice and I imagine that this is how many of our students will feel unless the classroom becomes an environment safe enough for students to speak their mind honestly. We cannot let ourselves be mini-McCarthy's holding witchhunts over disagreements of opinion.
--------------------------------------
Palmer, P. (1998). The Courage to Teach. (p.37). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

2003-04-07T21:54:00.000-07:00

"How do you create classroom dialogue when you have a script?" -Jennifer Robinson

Here's a comment I pulled from a conversation in our prosem class last Wednesday. While the comment was made regarding the difficulty of planning lessons, I think that the comment is appropriate to the problem of facilitating dialogue in the classroom. I would argue that people are socialized into different "scripts" and while this is much different than the scripts that the lesson plan might provide (is it different?), it is important to realize that when we create a script for actions in the real world, we are affected by our subconscious expectations of that world. If we assume that the world is flat, then the questions we ask could affect that assumption and close out the opposing idea that the world is round. What we need to do is build the possibility that there are multiple scripts into our lesson plans. We need to explore with our students those multiple scripts so they don't get caught in a monolithic world view that increasingly does not exist, especially in the ways our world is shrinking communicationally, yet growing culturally. We can no longer assume one truth exists in a pluralistic world.

In the English 30-1 class I partnered in, we discussed a variety of literary theories (ie. Marxism, Feminism, Psychoanalysis, Post-Structuralism, Post-Colonialism) that the students could use to apply to various literary texts. I never would have thought that this would be an option in the high school classroom. When I went through high school, the analysis that literature underwent was very monologic and New Critical, and it wasn't until University that I learned that there were a multitude of ways to read any given text. What I think that this multiplicity of views allows is a greaters set of scripts for students to try on to decide which viewpoints suit them best. For me, Marxism and Post-Structuralism are extremely valuable, whereas Psychoanalysis is a waste of my time, but I wouldn't know that if I wouldn't have had the opportunity to experiment with those scripts. Otherwise, I might have ended up in a dumb silence.

Which leads me to the infamous Mr Konojacki, who, prompted by some of my comments last week, weighs in on the issue of silence:

"Ryan,

You have provoked in me a few more thoughts on silence and the ambiguity thereof. You mention that silence could mean a number of different things to the person who is being silent; however, on that same train of thought, silence also invokes the people around the silent person to act/ react or to think in a particular manner. Your comment exemplifies some of this- if someone is silent, what are they thinking and/or feeling? Is that particular person comfortable with his/her silence? Thus, is it then you who become uncomfortable? Is it you that wants that dialogue to proceed as to remove your own discomfort? Does silence in the listener make the speaker uncomfortable because he/she does not receive any feedback on what has been spoken? More thoughts to ponder...Have you ever just met a person and for some reason have had to spend some time with them (I'm thinking a long car ride)? If silence accompanies this ride, it represents something very uncomfortable; however, if the people in the car know each other and silence ensues, the discomfort is absent. Now, you must be asking yourself, what the heck does this have to do with pedagogy? The point that I am trying to draw out (in somewhat of a long-winded fashion) is that silence, like everything else in the realm of pedagogy, is subjective. The comfort or discomfort with this absence of speech (dialogue) will be received by some students with disdain, while others might quite enjoy silence. I guess what I'm trying to say is, though people like you and I enjoy dialogue, there are many people who prefer just to listen. If a student of this sort was in a class wherein a multi-voiced discourse was taking place, should he/she be encouraged to engage in said discussion? Is the vocalization of one's opinion necessary?

Dave"

The issue of subjectivity is interesting, but also problematic when the written curriculum for language arts is considered. Within the curriculum there are 6 "language arts" that need to be handled in the classroom: reading, viewing, and listening on the receptive side, and writing, representing, and speaking on the other. I realize that what this response does is effectively sidestep Dave's final question, but I think that it is important to note that speaking is an important part of the curriculum and, I would argue, an important part of life. So while students must speak in some fashion in the classroom, the question becomes how do we get them to speak without having them develop negative feelings toward speaking in the classroom. There are any number of methods and approaches to reach this, some of which I have experienced and others I haven't. Small group discussion can reduce the diffusion of responsibility that happens in whole-class discussions. Another that plays into Dave's past suggestion that we give students a moment to think about what they are going to say before they say it, is one that I picked up from Dom Saliani, a teacher at Sir Winston Churchill High School. Before a class discussion, Dom has his students write non-stop for 3-5 minutes about a couple of questions that they are going to discuss. This gives the students an opportunity to develop thoughts about the questions, so that they don't get caught in a discussion "with their pants down", so to speak.

2003-04-06T22:15:00.000-07:00

The IP is done. Ryan is sleeepy. Big update tomorrow and then onto this blog's bio of learning destiny on Friday.

2003-04-01T22:28:00.000-08:00

Back to the issue of teacher-centered vs. child centered learning thanks to Dave Konojacki, who has been trying to get ahold of me for weeks:

"Ryan,

Though I have not necessarily come to any concrete conclusions regarding teacher centred versus child centred education, I will offer a few more bits of meat in which to chew upon. The "Godfather" of child-centred education, John Dewey, warns against educators choosing between two poles. Encapsulated within this idea is that it is not necessary to enter into a dialogue that captures this either-or paradigm; rather that, both sides of this dichotomy have some merit. Personally, I do not see how one can possibly teach from only one perspective. Child-centred education, in its purest form, essentially espouses the idea of expanding upon a child's whims and desires; however, as Dewey also states, "Nothing but crude can be developed from crude". In other words, if educators relied solely on the child's imagination, how would we ever get to topics like thermodynamics, enlightenment thinking, or the deep meaning of rhetoric and metaphor within the works of Shakespeare? Logically, it would seem then that the onus of creating an interest in the child will thus lie on the teacher. Therefore, in some manner or a another, teacher directed (read: teacher centered) education becomes a necessity. I will close this dicussion, for the time being, with a thought that reverberates with neutrality, neither extreme, or perhaps that is any extreme, has merit. Education, especially education in practice, seems to me, to be a juggling act- what is prudent one day, may not be so the next.

Dave"

I think Dave's idea here is sharp, and brings forward an idea I hadn't previously thought. The great ideas of western civilization will not spring forth fully developed from the student's head. The problematic question lies in the student's ability or opportunity to find those ideas on her own: Can the student depended on to discover those ideas for herself? Like the answer to most of life's important questions, the answer to this question is not simple: it depends. The student's ability, opportunity, or even desire to explore the circumstances of her world unfortunately depends on the individual circumstances of that student. For a child growing up in a household where reading is encouraged, the child is very likely to take up reading as an important pasttime (I know it was like this when I was growing up); reading becomes an authentic activity for that child. For a child in the opposite situation, reading becomes inauthentic and even stupid (this attitude is reinforced by society in general). Some of my grade 10's might call reading "gay".

To extend the Godfather metaphor a little, my anxiety lies in the teacher's ability to give the student's "an offer they can't refuse", so to speak. I am worried about the power imbalance in the classroom a great deal. So much that the utopian classroom situation would have me completely relinquishing my voice. This would require an extreme amount of trust in the students and an extreme willingness to work from the students, so much so that I wonder if this kind of society is possible. I share Dewey's anxiety that neither extreme is plausible, though for some teachers either extreme could be desirable.

Dave pipes up again about silence:

"A few words on the "art" of dialogue. First and foremost, as it has been mentioned on your site, is the necessity of creating a "safe" environment in which students can feel comfortable voicing their opinions without any fear of negative reprisals. Though, I am an ardent supporter of allowing and/or promoting a forum for student discussion, for the purpose of this discussion, I will play the devils advocate. There seems to be an underlying theme to the dialogue that has been expressed so far, in that there is a negative
connotation attached to the word silence. Just as there is merit in dialogue, there is also benevolence to be found in silence and the art of being a good listener. Thus, I think that a caveat must be added to incorporating dialogue into a classroom environment- if dialogue is to have apurpose, it must be purposeful dialogue. That is to say that dialogue in a classroom should be a thoughtful discussion, not just the uttering of whatever comes to the students' minds. Furthermore, how do you create an environment wherein all students have a chance to speak and express their views? All too often, the young lady/ man that needs to thoroughly formulate their thoughts before speaking never gets the chance to express themself, as the dialogue has progressed and they've missed the window of opportunity to speak. I wonder, in order to address this concern, if it would be prudent to encourage a moment of thinking time? Would this also encourage thoughtful dialogue?

Dave"

I agree that my bent toward silence has been extremely negative and I believe that it has something to do with the current state of the world (something I'm going to expand on in a later entry). I really like the idea that a moment of thinking time could help all students formulate a thoughtful response to an issue (freewriting and brainstorming could be excellent tactics here). All too often people can get caught in the heat of a discussion and say things that may not be as insightful or thoughtful as they could be. Silence is interesting because there is always meaning in that absence of language; could the silent be shocked, confused, frustrated, disinterested, upset, or fearful, or could the silent be thoughtful, patient, and interested in what others have to say. It's an interesting dilemma and a question that is certainly not invalid. I've had quite a few people come up to me and say that they really like this site, but don't feel that they have much to add. I honestly think that those people do have a lot to add to this discussion.

2003-04-01T16:15:00.000-08:00

I want to talk a little about dialogue in the face of war, but first here's an interesting article from the onion that should prime the pump a little.

I should not be allowed to say the following things about America

2003-03-26T22:54:00.000-08:00

High praise from Eugene Kowch:

"A respected colleague of mine, Dr. Yvonne Hebert, was gracious to share your "pegagogue / dialogue" with me online today: http://thepedagogicaldialogic.blogspot.com/

I found it a treat to read, and a very clever and elegant innovation. My congratuations to you for such an accomplishment, Ryan. I can not recall such a dialogue opportunity provided by an undergraduate teacher, and I think this is just great work and thinking.

Gene. "

While I fully appreciate the complement and fully agree that the blog format creates a unique and interesting public space to share ideas and thoughts, the problem comes at this point to "create" dialogue. This notion of "creating" or "producing" dialogue is a difficult one, since dialogue needs to come authentically and naturally and cannot be provoked. We can see what provocation does in the world when we turn our eyes to the news media covering the war. I was going to raise some more issues around that difficulty, but the response I receives from Christine Lee raises a number of issues that need to be addressed if dialogue is to happen:

"Fitz,

This can happen in any classroom where there is a lack of dialogue. Are you able to create a “safe” environment where people can voice their opinions without fear of negative feedback? Is it possible to establish this dialogue and foster its participants to engage in constructive criticism and feedback?

Under a pseudonym, I can voice, rant, bitch about almost anything because I feel safe using a different name. Another question is how many people know about the pedagogue/dialogue blog? Encourage your classmates and peers to volunteer ideas, opinions, etc. Someone once said that my voice over the telephone didn’t match up with my munchkin like stature; therefore, I must be compensating for my height through my voice unlike the boys who compensate for other bodily parts through the mufflers on their riced-out vehicles.

If children and adults can be socialized and trained to be silent, it is worth contemplating to undo the “damage” and let them have the opportunity to find their voice (it’s not destroyed or created at this stage, I’m assuming). I think my own teachers and professors would be thoroughly disappointed in me if I sat there complacent in silence worrying about what other people think of me.

A likely comparison is that I am no timid little rabbit, but rather the rabbit like beast who lives in the cave of Caeor Banorg in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and I have nasty razor sharp teeth *motions indicating razor sharp teeth*.

Christine"

Thanks again, Christine! You "rule" the school!

While I'll disagree that Christine is exactly like the rabbit-like beast from Monty Python and the Holy Grail the issue she raises is interesting, and one I'm not sure she is aware of. The "rabbit" is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing, seemingly soft and harmless, yet violent and defensive. While I know that Christine's use of the metaphor of rabbit-beast is one of assertiveness (her tongue placed firmly in cheek), I read the metaphor as one of a guarded and defensive aggressiveness, something that is not desirable in creating a space that supports a dialogue.

The issue of safety is an important one I think. A safe space is one that allows students to take risks. If risks can't be taken in opinion, then how can true dialogue occur. What might happen is that students will repeat back the words of the teacher (the "just give 'em what they want" syndrome) in fear that if they don't, the beast will leap forward and correct them. To requote Paulo Freire, "To speak a true word is to change the world"; the world will not be changed by the voices of talking heads and dictators.

Keep writing. I promise I won't bite

2003-03-26T11:27:00.000-08:00

But how do you create a dialogue when there are no other voices? This is the difficulty of trying to build a base of discussion over wires and screens instead of over voices: technology distances us. The further displaced we are from the one voice speaking (some of you might not even have an image of me) the less likely we are to speak. Our voices are dispersed into the air, vanishing in the air, molecule to molecule. The voice that speaks consolidates its power in the silence.

But how do you create voices? People have the right to speak but do they feel right in what they are speaking. Often people will only say what they think if they know that they won't look stupid. So maybe "creating" voices isn't the issue since all the voices already exist. Maybe the issue is getting those voices to speak. Small children don't censor themselves in what they say until they are socialized to silence themselves, so why do we, and why do we sit complacent in our silence?

2003-03-24T22:14:00.000-08:00

In lieu of doing my lesson planning for case and because Yvonne Hebert requested it, here is a "pedagogy" poem. It's by my friend Julia Williams from her chapbook the sink house*.

"leak

all my life I thought keys were keys

I thought critically

what can I say of twelve years in a cell

a slat underwater, a niagra box

these gaps implicate me

what is twelve years but a stunt

all my life I called a trick a trick

a thin trickle says sealant is porous

walls bend and angle my posters

but this is not criticism

I could be less happy, less homey

I could draw on my legs and carve scales in my forearms

all my life the window just bubbled

the sealant just poured"

While this isn't a poem about education expressly, the metaphors are certainly applicable. I find myself immediately drawn to the repetition of the word "twelve", a number as important to the span of education as "24" is to the span of a day. "Twelve" is described as both time imprisoned and as a "stunt", both giving "twelve" a negative connotation. The space of the poem is claustrophobic, with images of sealant pouring around the speaker, images of cells, images of boxes.

But there is an opening in the sealed room coming in the form of the leak. With sleight of hand, the speaker can open the "niagara box" and exit the sealed room. "sealant is porous" and the pores come with the effect of critical thinking. There's a bit of that cliche "thinking outside the box", but a questioning of how to begin thinking outside of the box. "all my life I thought keys were keys": this line fully exploits the double meaning of the word key (especially if we take the piece within an educational sense). What if the key (to the test) is the key (to life)? This can't be the case as there is always the problem of the subjective, of the disagreement, of the leak. The "trick" is what must be avoided. Life is not a series of "tricks" and so education should not be a series of "tricks". How then can the student slide out of the box when the bobby pin doesn't break the lock? There must be other ways to negotiate a way out.
_____________________________
* Williams, J. (2001). leak. In the sink house. Calgary: Self-Published.

2003-03-20T22:20:00.000-08:00

Christine Lee, a second year MT student teaching secondary math, writes

"On What kind of dialogue is this?

I respect that the teachers have taken a stand for what they believe in, but I think it would have been more effective to have the student produce a dialogue about the issues that have lead to the current situation in the Middle East which would require a look at culture, religion, and history. Let the students raise their voices to the issue.

As for Duffy, the first year teacher, it was probably more foolish on her behalf because you can’t step on any toes during the first few years of teaching until you are established and have a permanent contract, teaching certificates etc."

I agree completely that it will be like walking on eggshells for that first couple of years, but what we're talking about seems to run a little deeper than whether or not the issue was controversial. I agree that as teachers we cannot force opinions upon our students but to not debate those opinions honestly with our students would be a travesty. Let's turn back to the article for those who haven't read it:

"Carmelita Roybal, a ninth-grade English teacher, was placed on leave with pay Wednesday after refusing to remove a black-and-white "No War Against Iraq" poster from her classroom. Art teacher Heather Duffy was asked to leave Thursday and suspended with pay for refusing to remove a similar poster. About 45 students walked out in protest Thursday."

What I'd like to ponder is whether or not we can confuse a poster with an enforced political viewpoint. It's hard to tell what was going on in these two classrooms, but to suspend teachers over a poster seems ridiculous. It reminds me of the story of the man who was arrested for wearing a pro-peace t-shirt into the mall he bought it from. Where does this kind of censorship stop and where is the line to be drawn.

I completely agree with Christine that the best way to deal with the problem is to let the students parse the issue directly.

But, what are we to do when faced with the extreme nationalism coming from our neighbours to the south. I got a little chill everytime they would play the national anthem on monday mornings this semester at Lord Beaverbrook, something that was instituted only after the attacks of 9/11. It's not because I am not proud to live in Canada, but because the playing of the anthem felt like a cheap attempt at nationalism rather than an authentic show of patriotism (there is a razor thin line between these two things, so much so that I find it hard to tell them apart sometimes). I do find it interesting how this kind of political debate can enter into the classroom, not just as subject area content, but also how it can affect the school community.

2003-03-17T21:40:00.000-08:00

And what kind of dialogue is this?

2003-03-17T21:12:00.000-08:00

“You have spoken well, Govinda, you have remembered well, but you must also remember what else I told you – that I have become distrustful of teachings and learning and that I have little faith in words that come to us from teachers. But, very well, my friend, I am ready to hear that new teaching, although I believe in my heart that we have already tasted the best fruit of it.” *

As I listened to these words being read aloud by Dale Wallace to his class, I began to realize how there needs to be a willingness to listen to others ideas for dialogue to happen. It is a lack of faith and trust that causes true dialogue to fold inward to monologue. This is true of the teacher-student relationship in both directions: teachers must trust in what students have to say and students must trust in what teachers have to say. There must be a belief that each person will do what is best for the group. This cannot be confused with a version of “groupthink”, but instead must become an active negotiation of what it means to live in the world, with each person actively voicing and questioning her beliefs. I realize that this is an ideal but tempering a controlling pragmatism with an idealism can, I think, lead us toward a better world.

What struck me during Dale’s reading of Siddhartha was his willingness to open the text to discussion at multiple points, which was different than any other way I had been taught a text (but completely natural to the way I read). I feel that this lowered the authority of the author to allow multiple voices into the text. Instead of the text being the clear focus of discussion, it becomes a hub for multiple readings, allowing both personal and critical discussions of the novel.

And the wonderful thing about reading literature is that sense of the multiple reading. That things aren’t necessarily fixed. It seems such a beautiful place to begin that realization that the world is socially constructed by the decisions we make. That we can construct the truths of our worlds out of what is given to us is an enlightening position to start off at. Why are we confined to the truth handed to us when we have the power to renegotiate and change that truth?

________________________________
* Hesse, H. (1951). Siddhartha. p.22. New York: Bantam.

2003-03-09T13:08:00.000-08:00

Sorry about the week between posts. Immersion week was busy and I was teaching at 100%.

Last night, I watched a conversation explode. From the corner of my eye the space changed and we watched as he blew up, “you fucking europeans”. It seemed out of nowhere at the time as my friends Aaron and Kyle were subjected to a simple conversation gone awry. Comments were made and emotions boiled over.

And this made me think. What are the weaknesses of conversation as a pedagogical methodology? Is it too much of a risk to touch on controversial topics (like the war on Iraq) or is it better to confront those issues in a thoughtful way? My gut says to confront those issues, but every once in while, when things get out of hand, I begin to question.

Like last week. My partner teacher had decided to deal with a number of literary theories with our English 30-1’s, one of which was psychoanalytic/Freudian theory. While they watched this film The Mind’s Eye to analyze it, my partner teacher started pointing out phallic symbols. Some of the students took great offence to this, even trying to get my partner teacher in trouble. The question that comes out of this for me is whether or not my partner teacher should have avoided those topics despite the fact that they are a part of the extended discipline of the study of English literature?

2003-03-02T13:59:00.000-08:00

After a presentation in my case class this week, my instructor Darlene Abraham noted that when I was speaking all of the statements tended to be “I statements” (I will, I wish, I am going to). Her assertion threw me at first, but as I sat with it I realized that as I am learning I have this anxiety: an anxiety I hope most student teachers have. I am afraid that I am not doing the right things when I stand up at the front of the classroom (rather than the side) so I worry about whether I am doing the right things or not. This problematic naval gazing no doubt affects how the classroom runs, because the teacher’s focus becomes the teacher. Though I have started to move away from this naval gazing, I need to become even more aware.

Most in my ProSem and Field classes will have heard my theory of the “leak”, but let me dig into it here. My fave French Post-Structural Theorist Roland Barthes draws out a metaphor of teaching that I have found extremely useful:

“Thus, in accordance with psychoanalytic description . . . when the teacher speaks to his audience, the Other is always there, puncturing his discourse. Were the discourse held tightly fastened by an impeccable intelligence, armed with scientific “rigor” or political radicality, it would nevertheless be punctured: it suffices that I speak, that my speech flow, for it to flow away. Naturally however, though every teacher occupies the position of a person in analysis, no student audience can claim the advantage of the opposite situation: firstly, because the psychoanalytic silence has nothing pre-eminent about it; secondly, because it happens that a subject, carried away, emerges and rushes to burn on in speech, to join in the oratorical promiscuity (and should the subject remain obstinately silent, this is simply to give voice to the obstinacy of his muteness). Yet for the teacher, the student audience is still the exemplary Other in that it has an air of not speaking – and thus, from the bosom of its apparent flatness, speaks in you so much the louder”*

I think that Barthes would argue that a movement away from a psychoanalytic model is needed and I would argue that we need to become acutely aware of this perspective if we are to run learner-centered classrooms instead of teacher-centered classrooms. Ultimately, we need to realize that the “leak” is not problematic; instead, it is and entry into the dialogic and is the place where those “teachable moments” happen.

Also, I think that the “I” cannot change into a focus on the “them”, but needs to become a “We”.
--------------------------------------
*Barthes, R. (1982). Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers. In Susan Sontag Ed. A Barthes Reader. (pp. 378-403). New York: Hill and Wang.

2003-03-01T13:31:00.000-08:00

I’d like to start with by presenting a couple of ideas. The first comes from Paulo Freire’s discussion of dialogue in Pedagogy of the Oppressed:

As we attempt to analyze dialogue as a human phenomenon, we discover something which is the essence of dialogue itself: the word. But the word is
more than just an instrument which makes dialogue possible; accordingly, we must seek its constitutive elements. Within the word we find two
dimensions, reflection and action, in such radical interaction that if one is sacrificed – even in part – the other immediately suffers. There is no true
word that is not at the same time a praxis. Thus, to speak a true word is to transform the world. *

Freire’s conception of dialogue as a world-changing tool clashes with Michel Foucault’s discussion of a “discipline-based” society from Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison:

The chief power of the disciplinary power is to ‘train’, rather than to to select and to levy; or, no doubt, to train in order to levy and select all the more.
It does not link forces together in order to reduce them; it seeks to bind them together in such a way as to multiply and use them. Instead of bending
all its subjects into a single uniform mass, it separates, analyses, differentiates, carries its procedures of decomposition to the point of necessary and
sufficient single units. It ‘trains’ the moving, confused, useless multitudes of bodies and forces into a multiplicity of individual elements – small
separate cells, organic autonomies, genetic identities and continuities, combinatory segments. Discipline ‘makes’ individuals; it is the specific
technique of a power that regards individuals both as objects and as instruments of its exercise. It is not a triumphant power, which because of its
own excess can pride itself on its omnipotence; it is a modest, suspicious power, which functions as a calculated, but permanent economy. These
are humble modalities, minor procedures, as compared with the majestic rituals of sovereignty or the great apparatuses of the state. And it is
precisely they that were gradually to invade the major forms, altering their mechanisms and imposing their procedures. The success of disciplinary
power derives no doubt from the use of simple instruments; hierarchical observation, normalizing judgement and their combination in a procedure that
is specific to it, the examination.**

Wow, that was a long quote, but necessary for where we’re headed. What I’ve laid out are what seems to be the extremes of spectrum that stretches from pure dialogic (the utopian vision) to pure monologic (the dystopian vision). Teacher-centered learning leans toward Foucault, whereas student-centered learning leans toward Freire, yet in practice, it seems neither extreme is fully adopted; we are always stumbling in between the front of the classroom and the side of the classroom.

But I think that where we lie as teachers upon this spectrum shows to others (students, administrators, parents, other teachers, ourselves) how we see the world and how we want the world to be. If we expect students to be prepared to not just live in the world but change the world, the classroom needs to become a utopian vision. This is dependent on our views of the world. Because I call teacher-centered learning a “dystopia” does not mean that it is to every teacher. I know some teachers who think the reverse, that the chaos of dialogue removes a level of control from them; this comes from the weight of history.

Let me say that as this project unfolds, I hope it will turn and morph from its current heavy monologue into a rich dialogue. I encourage anyone who is reading to respond via my email rcfmod@hotmail.com and I will try to respond as best as I can.
--------------------------------------
* Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. p. 87. New York: Continuum Press.

** Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. p.170. New York: VIntage Books.

2003-02-26T22:29:00.000-08:00

testing . . . testing