The Nystrand article might be one of the longer ones we’ve read, but I appreciated seeing transcripts of the three class discussions. These types of examples help me situate the concepts we read about. I realize teaching may not come with a “how to” guide, but these examples make me more aware of what types of practices and mindsets to avoid.
Seeing the conversations in print enabled me to really understand the difference between recitation and true discussion, or monologic and dialogic lessons. Lindsay and Turner’s classes were clearly more collaborative and engaging. The discussions were driven by the students’ comments and responses, unlike Schmidt’s class. Schmidt’s students also seemed very tentative—like they were searching for a “right” answer. One student, Mary, didn’t add any additional comments after her first response was dismissed. So, it’s easy to see how some conscious role-reversal, directed questions, encouragement, and flexibility can promote some active thoughts and interesting discussions.
And saying simply “Good idea” isn’t a good idea. According to Nystrand’s description of “high-level evaluation,” productive evaluation also involves elaboration or a follow-up question (21). I think we all probably do this to some extent in our everyday conversations, particularly with people we don’t know: someone makes a statement, and then to keep the conversation going, you respond and ask another question. It makes sense, and Lindsay and Turner’s classes do resemble conversations more than question-and-answer sessions.
I also found it interesting that, as Nystrand mentions, teachers have traditionally promoted the autonomy of texts by “eschewing references to both the writer (I) and the reader (you)” (13). I’m sure we’ve all had those types of teachers--I remember struggling over whether or not to use “I” in my 101 papers. Although I suppose there are appropriate venues for third person, it’s strange that there is that some teachers promote that kind of disconnect—that kind of distance—between writer and text. Teaching new college students to remove themselves from their words undermines the fundamental goals of composition courses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hmmmmm. Nystrand.
From my own experiences as teacher and student, I know his evaluations of monologically organized instruction and dialogically organized instruction are absolutely correct, but my question is: is recitation/moi style ever a good thing?
I have to admit I was a little disappointed when I discovered his article, "When Recitation Becomes Conversation," wasn't what I thought it would be: an argument in favor or recitation. I thought, "Now here's a guy taking a risk. Everyone knows that student-centered learning is better than the teacher preaching from a proscenium stage. (Not everyone practices it, but everyone pretty much knows it.)"
I guess I've been looking for someone to defend recitation because I secretly enjoy it.
So I guess my question to Nystrand is: do you [mr nystrand] think ALL classes should be set up dialogically? In the text you seem to speak specifically to lit classes, but I'm wondering if you'd like the whole curriculum running off conversation (as opposed to recitation)--biology classes, philosophy, education, etc.
In English classes, conversation/doi does seem best (though a recitation course with, say, Toni Morrison would be pretty freaking amazing I bet) but I wonder about other courses of study.
I also am thinking about what Becca mentioned--the "I" conundrum in writing classes. Just this week I discouraged a student from using "I" in his essay (for his first essay on climate change, his conclusion consisted of a first-person narrative about his belief in God, and what God would think about global warming). While I don't want to "disconnect" any students from their writing, I think laying down a few base rules early on ain't such a bad thing.
I had a poetry teacher in New York who told me "For your next poem, don't use any form of the verb 'to be.' You can use it after this assignment in every other poem you ever write, but just for now: don't go there." This ground rule, while constraining in a way, made me aware of how often (and to no effect) used the verb "to be." I think high school English teachers (and even 101 and 201 English teachers) aren't wrong when they create similar rules.
I guess I'm just weary about these things because if we eliminate some rules--some recitation--there are more chances for apathetic students to squeak by, or trick us into believing they are engaged. "We must be careful, too, not to define pedagogical engagement in terms of either how much students actually talk [...]" (Nystrand 7). Last week, I learned that the hard way. One of my most vocal students had not even purchased the course text yet. (We were supposed to be finished with it last Wednesday; he hadn't read a word.)
I think some recitation i necessary to help students orient themselves to a text and to make sure that they have the most basic information down. (Sometimes important points can be missed...) However, I do not see much merit in it beyond that. When recitation is all that is demanded of them students do not engage with the text. They become computer spitting back information. When they are asked to think critically, however, and can no longer just "get by" by memorizing a few things, they have to find their own way to connect with the text.
Let's face it, we've all memorized countless things in classes over the years, and forgot them just after the class. It isn't learning. It doesn't last, for the mot part. (I still remember my ABC's... haha, so it has a place somewhere!)
I agree, Ashley. And like Pam said in class, dialogic teachers can reach into the monologic tool box and use any of those "tools" to their end.
I guess my defense of mologogigigigsm comes from some biased experiences as both a teacher and a student.
Student: Because I'm a better listener than talker, I often do better in the classroom being with a teacher who guides, who lectures, who has his/her own agenda. I love attending academic lectures. The only thing I love more might be listening to podcasts.
Teacher: Last year I helped teach a course on Joyce's Ulysses at SUNY Purchase in New York. The class structure relied 95% on students-teaching-students (which sounds like an easy way out for teachers but was actually incredibly difficult!). In the final evals, many of the students (most, rather) said they appreciated the dialogical instruction style (or some synonym), but ultimately wanted more lecture/direct instruction from my co-op teacher, Kathy McCormick (who is a super-genius Joycean; the woman's amazing). I think in the end they learned more about themselves and writing and reading, but many of them signed up to learn about Joyce--and they felt a little shortchanged. I was surprised to read that so many of them (upperclassmen, even) would have preferred to sit in on a lecture than collaborate on a group paper.
In my experience right now, I'm running into the same problem. Today my students' first essay was due. I asked them to write a brief letter to me talking about their process, how they feel about their final product, the course, etc. Many of the letters are positive, but nearly all express some trepidation about the topic. "Climate change is something I knew nothing about in August. Writing this paper, I only knew a little more. It was really difficult, but I guess I learned a lot."
It's comments like these that make me think more direct instruction/monologicity (and maybe even memorization!) would be beneficial.
So I guess I'm not saying anything profound. Just that it we shouldn't discard monologic organized instruction
completely. Like anything, I think variation in teaching styles is a good thing--if only because our students will all have varying styles of learning.
I agree with Ashley and Mel that some amount of recitation is necessary, if only to ensure some basic understanding of a text or history. As much as it is frowned upon nowadays, there is a still a lot that i remember that was forced into me by the teacher only. I mean, if there are five classes a week and the teacher talks and lectures for one day out of five, i dont think that is ridiculous or particulary damaging to the student. I think that i am mostly talking about this in the high school sense though, because where we are going to start out we will not have that kind of time. My one composition teacher in college used to use "mini-lessons" to help teach. These were monologic lessons with her talking and explaining small grammar or composition based ideas. These lessons would last between five and ten minutes and then we would move on. I think i would like to utilize something like this in my classroom. The rest of the time would definetly be more dialogic, because, lets face it students do have remember more when THEY have to do the thinking or talking.
I also agree with what Becca said about the "good jobs." I think it is so easy to make "good" comments commonplace. It is difficult to think of something new and helpful to each student that makes a comment or writes a great paper. But after each time they receive a "great" the student is going to begin to wonder what was so great about it. It is our job to explain why we think things are "good" and "cool" or whatnot. I hated whenever you would get a paper with just the grade or comments that were so broad that you knew the teacher wrote them on every other paper. Writing decent comments is time consuming and hard, but i guess that is what we are getting "paid" for right??? We need to help the next generation...go us!!
you know, what you all are really talking about in some ways is the relationship between theory and practice. universals are difficult to make in practice; maybe the only universal is that any universal can be proven wrong. we can't say that recitation is universally bad - as one of the mels points out, mini-lessons at the beginning of a writing class can work, and as the other mel suggests, a recitation class with toni morrison would probably be a tremendous learning experience (but maybe not if she lectured every day for a whole semester, and maybe not for every student in the class either).
the point is what do you want students to get from the class? what is your pedagogical goal?
and the things to remember are: we are not our students. what we feel comfortable with as learners is actually, according to some educational theorists, contrary to natural learning processes. how many non-academic settings can you think of where you learned because someone lectured? think of all the learning kids do in the first five years of their lives, before they go to school. they might get an explanation and some modelling, but they are immersed in learning experiences (with support and encouragement).
(and actually, most science classes - biology, physics, chemistry - have a strong experiential component to them, at all grade levels. the theoretical assumption being that students cannot learn chemistry or biology through lecture alone. in this way, i think humanities classes are probably not as good a parallel with writing classes as the sciences - in both writing and the sciences, the act of doing is as important or moreso to knowledge and learning as the content).
pam
Post a Comment