So, it's been a little while since my last post...and next has actually already occurred. After scouring books, seeking the wisdom of colleagues, and the internets...I found a short story for the boys and I to dig into after we finished Romeo and Juliet.
"One Good Turn" by Pensiri Kiengsiri looked at the dynamic of two men in Thailand who at first glance seem worlds apart due to economic status. I thought this would be a great "bridging story" because we'd looked at issues of gender by juxtaposing female/male roles when we read "Girl," and now I could infuse a bit of racial/economic tension by focusing on male protagonists. This unit was much shorter than the first (I think because I had a better sense of what I was doing) and the boys really responded well to the activities.
In an effort not to essentialize and tokenize the Thai perspective, we did a few activities that looked at history, tourism, and national identity. While it would have been easier to just "read the story," these pre-reading activities, in my opinion, provided a way for us (myself and the boys) to confront any potential stereotypes/ignorance out of the way and perhaps truly engage with the story with a bit more awareness. I found that the South Asian perspective was not one my boys had ever confronted...in their exploration of English lit or in History. It was important for me to offer this perspective...
I think back to my first inclination do actually do this project. I wanted to female authorship and perspective apart of the voices my boys and I interacted with as we learned the "stuff" of English literature and language.
Simultaneously we've been busily at work practicing grammar constructions...participial phrases, parallel constructions, and absolutes. And wow! I think I've finally figured out a way to truly make grammar learning fun, relevant, and tied to the actual review/writing of literature. "One Good Turn" provided a seamless way to review semi-colons (the grammar element attached to "Girl") and evaluate the role of participial phrases in context. One of the activities that the boys and I completed (as we constructed meaning from the story and our class discussions) were participial poems linked to a character, conflict or theme in "One Good Turn."
Again, I was taken aback by the nuances of masculinity the boys hinted at...how they assigned and perhaps resolved issues of racial/ethnic/economic insecurity between the characters and how the relate to their world at large. It was a very brief exercise, but the boys (fusing their knowledge of this grammar element with literary analysis) truly produced quality work. The cyclical nature of Rosenblatt's transactional theory was evident. There were several times when I had to stop class, just to grab the recorder. Activities that I hadn't planned on taping became rich of data...
It was awesome!
Beaming...
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Reconsidering Next...
This week I've been preparing for the next short story unit (and data collection point) for the boys. This past summer, I'd settled on "Girl" by Jamaica Kincaid, "Ghosts" by Edwidge Danticat, and "Ru" by Kim Thuy. At the time, and not knowing the boys I'd teach, these short stories seemed best suited for the aim of constructing meaning...through the stories themselves and as the boys interacted with them. Yet, as I've been reading (and re-reading) each of the stories, I'm uncertain if they are as well suited for the boys as I once imagined. One of the main reasons for this ambiguity was a telephone conversation with my advisor on Monday.
As we hashed out the next phases of data analysis and getting a jump on planning (I've been a little lax), she asked if the emerging themes I observed with "Girl" (ideals about masculinity, femininity, social pressure, and parents among others) would be transferable between the stories. She didn't phrase it like that, but what I took from her prompting me to think centered on fluidity, alignment, and a sense of building (like each story allowed the boys to build on, create new meanings out of, and interact with former constructions of meaning present in the previous story). I hope I'm making sense...
I looked back on my initial proposal for clarity. My initial aim was to, define curriculum (these short stories over the course of a school year) as text [centered on Louise Rosenblatt's transactional theory, a more universal application of the reader-response theory (1938)] because it "has special meaning, and more particularly, [...] submerged associations [of] words and images [that] for the reader will largely determine what the work communicates to him" (Rosenblatt qtd in Church, 1997). There was a reason I chose these stories. The School is a primarily an affluent and White community, I was interested in what types of meaning all boys in this context would assign to learning experiences (the short stories, the class discussions, homework, and other class activities) that were outside the periphery of this environment. One major voice, in my opinion, that was missing/silenced/ventriloquized/erased was the female voice. Instead of overhauling the entire 8th grade English curriculum, I decided (giving my teaching stance, which I'll go into later) to use the short story medium to open the door to my "sistren" so to speak.
Furthermore, my perspective and pedagogy are also informed by my ethnic/racial identity and not just my gender. Given this, weaving female authors of color (non-Western) into the mix of Steinbeck, Alexie, Orwell, Shakespeare, and Wiesel was purposeful. Yet, this conversation with my advisor has prompted me to reconsider these choices (also informed by students, not just me) as I plan the next unit.
Is this part of my own curricular transaction? As I interact with the texts produced by boys who've constructed particular meanings about boyhood, masculinity, and femaleness, I too am on what Rosenblatt terms a "reading journey." In a way, my transactions are multidimensional (spatially, aesthetically, and in efferent ways). I am simultaneously engaging with my memory of teaching/learning with "Girl," the boys' discussions (prior to, during, and after the story), my previous students' feedback about the types of texts they'd like to read (as that produced the impetus for doing this project), and the texts my current boys produced as they made sense of (meaning making through cultural production) the themes, and fact (we worked on using the semi-colon) all while trying to "write" and author a dynamic curriculum...the next phase in our collaborative "reading journey..."
Whew...I can't believe I was actually able to put that into words. In any event, I'm reconsidering next...
Signing off...
As we hashed out the next phases of data analysis and getting a jump on planning (I've been a little lax), she asked if the emerging themes I observed with "Girl" (ideals about masculinity, femininity, social pressure, and parents among others) would be transferable between the stories. She didn't phrase it like that, but what I took from her prompting me to think centered on fluidity, alignment, and a sense of building (like each story allowed the boys to build on, create new meanings out of, and interact with former constructions of meaning present in the previous story). I hope I'm making sense...
I looked back on my initial proposal for clarity. My initial aim was to, define curriculum (these short stories over the course of a school year) as text [centered on Louise Rosenblatt's transactional theory, a more universal application of the reader-response theory (1938)] because it "has special meaning, and more particularly, [...] submerged associations [of] words and images [that] for the reader will largely determine what the work communicates to him" (Rosenblatt qtd in Church, 1997). There was a reason I chose these stories. The School is a primarily an affluent and White community, I was interested in what types of meaning all boys in this context would assign to learning experiences (the short stories, the class discussions, homework, and other class activities) that were outside the periphery of this environment. One major voice, in my opinion, that was missing/silenced/ventriloquized/erased was the female voice. Instead of overhauling the entire 8th grade English curriculum, I decided (giving my teaching stance, which I'll go into later) to use the short story medium to open the door to my "sistren" so to speak.
Furthermore, my perspective and pedagogy are also informed by my ethnic/racial identity and not just my gender. Given this, weaving female authors of color (non-Western) into the mix of Steinbeck, Alexie, Orwell, Shakespeare, and Wiesel was purposeful. Yet, this conversation with my advisor has prompted me to reconsider these choices (also informed by students, not just me) as I plan the next unit.
Is this part of my own curricular transaction? As I interact with the texts produced by boys who've constructed particular meanings about boyhood, masculinity, and femaleness, I too am on what Rosenblatt terms a "reading journey." In a way, my transactions are multidimensional (spatially, aesthetically, and in efferent ways). I am simultaneously engaging with my memory of teaching/learning with "Girl," the boys' discussions (prior to, during, and after the story), my previous students' feedback about the types of texts they'd like to read (as that produced the impetus for doing this project), and the texts my current boys produced as they made sense of (meaning making through cultural production) the themes, and fact (we worked on using the semi-colon) all while trying to "write" and author a dynamic curriculum...the next phase in our collaborative "reading journey..."
Whew...I can't believe I was actually able to put that into words. In any event, I'm reconsidering next...
Signing off...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)