Readings for Jan. 28
February 2, 2008
This week’s readings answer the discussion questions posed in our syllabus. I take them in no particular order:
Why teach Shakespeare? To infer from Gibson’s book, because it’s potentially a lot of fun. I found the “Principles” chapter to be the most interesting — it outlines the assumptions underlying Gibson’s approach. The assumptions include things like Shakespeare being learner-centered (something of which my mentor teacher keeps reminding me!) and physical (you have to act it out). The most maddening chapter was the one about perspectives, which discusses how Shakespeare may be viewed through various theoretical lenses. While I realize that we use some of those lenses ourselves, they seemed so … dare I say it? … silly. By using these perspectives, they seem to be making the study of Shakespeare much more difficult than it needs to be.
What is a case study? I guess it’s the subject of the article by Johnson and Fox. Interviewing a couple of tomboys was interesting, of course, and I’m sure it represents at least one student point of view among many competing points of view. But the authors go on to admit that while these girls aren’t typical, they believe that their feminist desires represent the desires of all young girls. Actually, I’m more inclined to believe that these girls actually represent the biases and prejudices of Johnson and Fox.
Learning from Teacher Research. According to Cochran-Smith and Lytle, teachers ought to do their own research. I think this is what my research teacher was talking about when he described “action research.” The general idea, as I understand it, is that Knowledge (with a capital “K”) is not limited to university researchers — classroom teachers can get into the act, too. In the article the authors write of six examples of hands-on classroom research.
<
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
I totally agree with you about the case study that we read. Case studies on one hand can be very interesting and thought-provoking, but on the other hand, they can be very limited. The research found in a case study can only shed light on the person or group being studied and typically as readers we must question the reasons that the authors chose their particular study. Are they trying to persuade us to believe what they believe or do they really feel that what they discovered in their research is really relevant to the field? I think that while the Johnson and Fox case study did have its biases, it is imprtant for us to take something away from it. It is important that we try to at least understand what they are trying to show us.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Teaching Shakespeare can be difficult; it is hard to motivate the students who are so disconnected from the text. Depending on the play, they can open up rather quickly. The themes in Romeo and Juliet, for example, hold their attention rather well, at least once they realize what they are.
I’m with your mentor teacher–Shakespeare must be learner centered, and it really needs to be read out loud. It is supposed to be heard. We all have rather elaborate envisionments in our heads of what these plays look like and mean; part of being teachers is helping students to find their way to their own visions of what these plays are to them.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I love the idea of action research! I would argue that it is absoultely necessary, especially for preservice teachers. I think this approach helps preservice teachers to acquire more accurate expectations from the education system as well as their students.Teachers that do their own research can develop their own hypotheseis, come up with methods of research that are most comfortable and inspiring and most importantly research specific topics of intrest. But at the same time, it is just as important to analyze the research of other educators because this could possibly open new doors of enlightenment.