Hooks and Class ~ Post 10

"During my college yeas, it was tacitly assumed that we all agreed that class should not be talked about" (Hooks, Google Books p110).

     This quotation from Hooks' chapter 14 is going to be the focus of my blog this week. In reality, I could focus on the entirety of the following paragraph, but I'll try to restrict it to just this statement. The primary reason for this is that I feel that this quotation really shows the dated nature of Hooks' work. I believe this statement had merit when it was written, and to a lesser extent today. But the fact of the matter is Bell Hooks' college years were around the 1970s, a vastly different educational landscape in comparison to that which we have today. As such, I believe her ideas and thoughts in this area are wrong: class is absolutely something that should, and is, talked about in classes today.

     I am a fourth year education student, moving into teacher's college very soon. As such, I've essentially been through the ringer as far as modern educational courses are concerned. I cannot count how many times we have discussed the socioeconomic background of students, as well as teachers, and how this can take a role within the classroom. Its something that I'm extremely familiar with, to the point that not discussing it goes against a classroom norm. I'd be hard pressed to find an example of a class in which it wasn't brought up at least one time. This is something I consider to be a very good thing. Through Hooks' depiction of her past experiences, a rather vivid picture of teacher's education in the past is painted; it is not a place I would have wanted to be. They were heavily encouraged to stick with the factory style of education: keep the status quo, everyone aims for the same goal and no one branches out or alters the norm. Today, I feel like that context is finally beginning to change. It seems to me that from the beginning of my education, we've consistently been told that our system is, in essence, broken and needs to be fixed. The fact of the matter is, we are the next generation of teachers, and we're bring encouraged to make change. An entire generation of learners entering the teaching force who have had the ideals of class, race, ethnicity; all of these different ideas are something that have been instilled in us as future educators, and I think this speaks well to our system.

     Is this already being done in the actual classroom? That's hard for me to say. For the past four years I've largely been restricted to the university classroom, which is a progressive environment in its nature. Will this translate into the real world? Who knows. I would certainly like it to. However, my core point is that, at least within the context of a university level classroom, the environment has changed from the way Hooks has described it. We're improving, and becoming progressive. The future looks good, and I can't wait to be a part of it.

Pedagogical Engagement ~ Post 9!

"Many professors remain unwilling to be involved with any pedagogical practices that emphasize mutual participation between teacher and student because more time and effort are required to do this work. Yet this really is the only type of teaching that truly generates excitement in the classroom, that enables students and professors to feel the joy of learning" (Hooks, 124, Google eBook edition).

Within this weeks reading, the 'new idea' which I encountered was pedagogical engagement as a teaching practice. While I enjoyed reading and learning about it throughout the chapter in Hooks' work, the above quotation stood out to me. While I've been aware as I read Hooks' work that it was written entirely from her perspective and based on her own learning, this quotation was the first I've read that truly came across as biased, and in turn essentially ignorant to teaching practices that were not her own. She is almost literally writing off any teaching professional who does not participate in her idealized form of teaching as lazy, and making the assertion that there is no more effective teaching method than her own.

I don't aim to deny that engaged pedagogy has merit. On the contrary, I believe that in practice it genuinely is one of the most effective ways for a teacher to influence and help their students learning. However, to assert that anyone who doesn't conduct that pedagogical style are unwilling to due to time and effort constraints is ignorant to the issues surrounding engaged pedagogy. As I've mentioned both this week and last within my forum postings and blog, this form of student - teacher relation is one which is heavily scrutinized within society. One misinterpreted event and a teacher's entire livelihood could be jeopardized. It is important for teachers to care about their students and care about the learning that goes on, but to assume that any who are unwilling to risk behavior that is societally taboo is to assume that teachers need to never think about themselves or their careers. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a need for a teacher to be entirely selfish. Education is a career, not a life (in my humble opinion). If a teacher doesn't want to risk their livelihood by becoming personally involved in a student's life, they have that right - and they certainly shouldn't be labeled as lazy for it.

Getting beyond the assumptions made about the teachers, to assume that this type of teaching is the only one which generates excitement in the classroom is equally as biased and absurd. Teaching practices are constantly evolving and changing; to assume one in particular will always be above others is simply incorrect. On top of this, teachers are as unique as any other human being on the planet, and in this quotation Hooks' makes the assumption that any teacher can utilize this form of teaching effectively. The fact of the matter is this simply isn't true. A teacher who doesn't believe in what they're doing, or want to be doing what they're doing, is always going to be less effective than one who is passionate about their method of practice. To deny these outliers - fantastic teachers who simply cannot effectively utilize engaged pedagogy - the chance to be considered optimal teachers in their own right is, simply put, ignorance.

With that angry tirade complete, thanks for reading this week, and I'll see you back here next week.

Cheers!

More Ideas and Reinforcement ~ Post 8!

     This week, I was presented within one particular issue which stood out; one idea that made me somewhat uncomfortable: the notion of 'eros' and eroticism in the classroom. Reading over this part of Hooks' work initially, I had a hard time understanding what purpose this kind of teaching had in the classroom. I still do. Obviously, I had many of the reactions i think one would expect from this kind of reading: I was troubled with the notion of being 'too close' to students, the concept of utilizing erotic impulses for positive classroom gains seemed insane to me. Passion is good. Passion is a great thing to bring into the classroom. But as far as I'm concerned, your passion should be about your students success; students learning. Having a passion for the students themselves simply seems inappropriate, and frankly a little scary. Everyone has heard the horror stories of teachers being put on the chopping block after being accused of inappropriate relations with their students. Even if they're found to be not guilty of whatever it is they've been accused of, they are forever marked, likely to never find steady work again.

     On my initial post, I had a brief discussion with another student and realized where my issue with this concept may come from: the fact that I'm a male.Teaching and nurturing, stereotypically, are female concepts. As such, society in general is much more comfortable with female teachers around male students than the opposite. In tandem with this, there is much more likely to be an issue surrounding a male teacher and female student than the opposite; people are simply programed to be wary of men around women in a position of power. I believe it is this inherent societal bias that has me so opposed to the entire concept. It is so easy for someone to cry wolf and tell everyone you have an inappropriate relationship with a student, I feel it is best to make sure that opportunity never arises for them in the first place.

New Ideas and Reinforcement ~ Post 7!

"What new idea did you find in either of the readings? Did it change or reinforce your prior notions?" 

     The new idea which I gained this week was one which I already addressed within one of my forum posts. Coming out of Brookfield's 1995 work, it focuses on the idea that while there is an obvious class hierarchy in society, there is also a much less blatant hierarchy even within personal relationships and every day interactions. In his seventh chapter, Brookfield quotes Tiswell 1993) in saying "so while conversation can foster values of diversity, democracy, and openness, it can also marginalize and close down certain groups and perspectives". I don't think it is necessarily a new idea, but more or less something I had simply never considered before. "Structured silences and neglect of certain voices and perspectives" (Brookfield, Kindle Location 1960) is something I found myself noticing prominently while examining my experiences with a retrospective lense. Group work, generally speaking, usually consists of one or two core people leading and doing most of the work, while the others within the group tend to essentially stay quiet and do the work that these leaders allocate them. Often these leaders are the more charismatic and confident members of the group; personal knowledge doesn't always play that large of a factor. These other group members are marginalized and largely ignored because they don't have certain traits that are seemingly 'necessary' to lead.

     I guess the next question worth asking would be "where do these traits come from"? In my experience, it tends to correlate strongly with socioeconomic background, which was a large theme in this weeks readings. It seems that most of these charismatic and leader-oriented individuals I've encountered throughout my academic career come from a privileged background - and this makes sense. Privileges breed opportunities to socialize, and through this gain social ability and an overall confidence. Individuals from homes which aren't as well off financially may be less comfortable in these social and group settings, so when push comes to shove they are more content to sit back and allow another group member to take the wheel, even if they believe their knowledge base would be beneficial. They would rather keep it to themselves than risk entering the eye of the group; they simply aren't as comfortable.

     Knowing this, I want to make sure I try and make all of my group members feel valued going forward. I'm self-aware enough to know that I often grab hold of the leadership role in a group setting. I've done numerous extracurricular throughout my life - I'm extremely confident in my ability to speak out and lead in a group setting. Without doubt, I've likely unintentionally marginalized a member of my group in one situation or another - a realization which pains me. I hope to take the lessons learned within Brookfield's chapter this week, and apply them moving forward.

Thanks for reading, 
Cheers!