The transformation of Martha as documented by Appleman in this chapter is quite astounding. When I firt read this discription, I immediately thought of my high school English teacher who is responsible for me wanting to become a teacher: "She taught literary terms, interpreted texts for symbol and themes, assigned study guides for novels, tested for vocabulary, and was especially adept at teacher her students to write academic papers...her approach was text centered" (p. 118). This New Critical approach to teaching literature was one I was very good at. I could pick apart texts for symbols and search for indirect characterizations for days, and in doing so I felt good about myself. After being in this class and being introduced to several critical theories, I realize the importance of putting on someone else's shoes to interpret a given situation. If I would have never taken this class or read these books, I may have attempted to teach literature strictly from the New Critical perspective because that is how I learned to interpret the canonical texts. Although I taught basic writing here at WMU last fall, employing a very student-centered model of instruction, I hadn't taught literature, and am I glad that I didn't! Luckily for me I am currently being educated with the latest educational theories. But being aware of Martha's changes, I realize that I may need to do the same ten years from now when today's theories are succeeded by more efficient ones.
There are a few major reasons why I am excited to integrate literary theory into my English language arts instruction. First, it allows students to become their own interpreters of the texts instead of relying on the teacher for a sole, correct interpretation; thus literary theory inherently seeks to "shift the balance of power" from teacher to student. Second, it enables students to connect with texts in ways that may be unattainable in the absencse of critical theory. Third, and probably most importanly, it enables students to consider multiple perspectives in regards to situations outside of the classroom, hence causing them to make better decisions, decisions they may not have otherwise made. In other words, multiple perspectives transcend the classroom, and any device that does so is worth using in the classroom.
I'm pleased to see that Appleman included an excerpt from Martha that describes how some students will naturally latch-on to particular literary theories, while some will totally resist many of them. It is my belief that no matter your content area, some students will be resistant toward learning certain concepts; literary theories are no different. Since I plan to teach math, maybe some kid will hit me with the phrase "when am I ever going to use derivatives in my lifetime?" Students' own personalities are constantly waging war with the material they learn, and this is completely normal. What I am getting at is that even though there may be some resistance toward certain theories or concepts, that should not deter us as teachers from implementing them. If we can somehow get the students to not totally give up on learning a difficult or abstract concept (the hardest part!) and shift these students' views, it can be a very powerful learning experience for those students.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Jeff I totally feel you on the English 1000 thing. I am glad we don't have to teach literature to them because I would definitley be lost not having this class in my background. Addtionally, I agree about how there will be students who disagree with certain topics. This all comes in the package of becoming a teacher. This is only one of the many challenges we will face as educators.
Post a Comment