Ugh! The last chapter was, for me, a big let down.
I did like this book, but I'm not sure I like the authors' conclusions. I'm left with quite a few questions.
First of all, I do kind of think that the authors were pretty invested, before the fact, in their "inquiry units"...and I'm not sure those impress me quite as much as the authors seem to think they should. My main reason: I don't love the idea of reading literature with an eye to finding evidence to use in a pro/con type of debate. Early college students have enough trouble doing justice to complexity; this type of training isn't going to make that problem any better. It could make it worse.
Next: In general, the authors say they end up believing that literature should be demoted from its special place in the high school curriculum. But...but...but: How does this conclusion fit with the fairly encouraging results they got from their story-reading protocols?
Also: Do Smith and Wilhelm adequately address the importance of rebellion in adolescent life? I don't think they do. At times, I suspected that "school" played an important role in the boys' lives as something in opposition to which they could define themselves. I don't want that to turn into a cop-out for teachers. But, still...I would have thought that this possibility might be discussed. I definitely remember thinking that the one girl I knew who wanted to be just like her parents was incredibly lame.
I may write more later.
I think that your point about rebellion is so on-the-nose. It is important in adolescent life and now that you mention it, I would have liked the authors to have addressed this point. I am surprised, now, that they didn't--what a huge factor to take into account.
ReplyDeleteAs for point about demoting literature, I think that the authors were trying to say that canonical literature that students cannot relate to should not be taught just because it is "canonical." I'm pretty certain this is all they meant by that....am I wrong?