What is a justifiable reason for assigning a particular book? What should be your rationale?
There are definitely many justifiable reasons for assigning certain books in your English classroom. For one, the book may meet certain standards that are set out by the state, the district, or by the school itself. It may be a required text at that grade level. For books that do not fall into this category, a book may be justified if it deals with a topic that is of particular interest to the students and is educational in some regard as well. It may deal with actions and decisions that may come up in our students' lives, or it could be about a topic that could help prepare our students for life after and outside of school. Books may be justifiable if they open our students up to new ideas or if they pertain to certain assignments our students may be doing throughout the school year. Overall, I think the two most justifiable reasons for assigning a particular book are that it is of some interest to our students and that it is educational or eye-opening in some manner.
A teacher's rationale for assigning a certain text ought to be rather detailed. It should include the parts of a book that do prove to be educational. It should include the assignments and lessons that will go along with the text. The rationale should include some sort of information that would help them if an argument over the book were to arise in regards to its validity within the classroom.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Gee vs. Delpit
Gee introduces us to the ideas of primary and secondary discourses, what Delpit essentially calls home and dominant discourses, respectively. However, Delpit takes these discourses a bit further. Gee says that a secondary discourse is any that is not your primary discourse (the one you use at home, that was acquired subconsciously). However, for Delpit, a dominant discourse is a secondary discourse that carries some sort of power or control with it. They are both generally attached to some sort of instituation. Gee also tells us that "acquisition" of a discourse is a subconscious process. There is no forward, official teaching of it. However, Delpit responds that acquisition of a discourse is indeed a conscious action. It is what Gee would call "learning". Delpit again takes Gee's argument to a new level. She says that discourses can be acquired and used to "cheat" the system, or, in other words, that we can use dominant discourses to benefit our own situation, to assist with our own purposes. Gee addresses this to some extent in his discussion of literacies, but I believe discourse is a more proper term for it. I feel that I side more with Delpit in this argument. I feel it is important for us as future teachers to understand varying home and dominant discourses, and that it is part of our responsibility to teach our students how to become successful within these various discourses. They may not have to fully adopt them, but knowing how to use them and work within them may be important for their futures. I also agree very much with Delpit's "not-learning" and "not-teaching" ideas. We must be aware of students who are resisting learning, and even more so, we must be aware of what within ourselves or our lessons or our language is cauing this resistance so that we may be able to change it. Not teaching, as Delpit discusses, is just not an option. We must provide our students with as many skills as we can that they may need for the "real world," not just the ones we feel are relevant in our own lives and beliefs.
This may raise questions regarding what extent we have to go to in order to keep students from decing to not learn. We also must ask how much of the superficial features we need to teach our students in order for them to have the tools they need to be successful without putting all the time into that subject and neglecting the other important parts of language classes.
I would definitely like to learn more about ELL's at some point. I have had a few classes that focus on how to help them, but it's always beneficial to know more. Multi-literacies can always be elaborated on as well for it seems that there are never ending possibilities within that subject.
This may raise questions regarding what extent we have to go to in order to keep students from decing to not learn. We also must ask how much of the superficial features we need to teach our students in order for them to have the tools they need to be successful without putting all the time into that subject and neglecting the other important parts of language classes.
I would definitely like to learn more about ELL's at some point. I have had a few classes that focus on how to help them, but it's always beneficial to know more. Multi-literacies can always be elaborated on as well for it seems that there are never ending possibilities within that subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)