Quickly, on chapter 2, since I already commented on Chloe's post on chapter 2 and expressed my opinions on it, I did actually like the discussion of "flow." I get it--but I keep thinking about how difficult it would be to accurately assess the right level of challenge for each individual students, and students are not necessarily able to pin point that either.
Now, chapter 3, I actually liked this chapter a lot more than chapter 3. It brought up a lot of interesting points and I think that I learned a lot from this chapter--it made me think.
It doesn't surprise me that when it comes to school and reading, the students they interview value it for what it can bring in the future versus the immediate. I can recall many times in my life, and I'm sure others have also probably had this experience, where teachers, parents and adults of the like emphasize that you "need to do good in school for your future." It's drilled into our brains from the time we are young that school and academic success is intrinsically linked to future success.
The discussion on Dewey is somewhat problematic for me. They quote Dewey as saying, "Healthy work, done for present reasons and as a factor in living, is largely unconscious" (67). I understand why Dewey is saying that a focus on the future undermines the very purpose of schooling--but I do not think that the purpose of schooling is the same for every student, for every human, and it doesn't need to be. Let's face it, some students have purposes and dreams and drives that have nothing to do with school, and for them, school really is a means to an end. Is this a good thing? This is definitely not ideal. Regardless, I do not think that it is helpful as a teacher to judge or value purpose, dreams or to aspirations. I think that if teaching in a way that promotes health work done for present reasons is possible, then it should be done and it will most likely benefit all students--no matter what their aspirations are or how they view school and reading. This is on a day-to-day basis though. Not all teachers in all classes will be teaching as such which means that in the big picture, even if you achieve this kind of teaching, overall, students still may still place value on their schooling as being a means to an end. If students have goals that are more fitted for vocational school, then school really is more or less a means to an end for them. If we are able to teach "healthy work done for present reasons" will they learn something valuable along the way? Yes--most definitely.
I think that what I am saying is that school does have an instrumental value. We should not kid ourselves about that and we can't deny it. It is not the end of the world that students recognize this. As long as we are able to teach in the way set out in this chapter it shouldn't matter, because at least while they are in our classrooms they will be focused on the task at hand.
I do agree with you that it's not a teacher's place to pass judgment on students' aspirations for the future. Do you think that Smith and Wilhelm ARE passing such judgment? Or do you think Dewey was? I would definitely be interested in hearing you elaborate.
ReplyDeleteNow, I *do* think that with the exercise that had the boys comment on fictional profiles did invited the *boys* to pass judgment on other (fictional) boys' aspirations, but I don't think that implies that the authors themselves are likewise passing judgments. I think the authors are interested in *discordances* in the boys' judgments. In other words, how does what the boys say they believe NOT match up with the ways they live their lives? Oh, and how does what the boys say they believe clash with the realities of the culture in which they live? (Example: They tend to believe that the boy who is mechanically inclined should go against his inclinations and get his 4-year degree. They also perceive the reader, Andre, to be headed for success. And yet, the reality of the culture is that many mechanics make more money and have more job security than librarians.)