Alright, so I've made some allusions to the work I'm doing w.r.t. education reform. This work springs from my doctoral dissertation, so I'll start there. I begin by looking at the National Governors' Association's version of standards-based reform as framed in the National Education Summits. That's Chapter 1.
From there, I go on to talk about my experiences in Marine Corps bootcamp. Here, you have a "strong standards" environment," but one that changes two key elements. First, people actually want to be there in the first place. Sure, some leave, but ultimately they have the choice to disengage from the process. Kids in school have less choice in that regard. The other difference is that you actually are trying to become something quite specific, a Marine, and everything you do has to do with making the change (yeah, yeah, "the change is forever" I saw the commercials, too.). That is, they understand that you must be motivated by something internal, in this case a kind of growing identification with an object of desire--yourself as the Marine. It's a far diffent thing to earn a diploma and to pursue vague dreams of your future, than it is to go through a process that highlights and makes possible as series of specific changes that make you a Marine.
The next two chapters, 3 and 4, are about my experiences training in kung fu (ving tsun, moy yat family, for those who need details). Here, you have a much more self-directed and self-paced version of training. There is no "right" or "wrong." You are shown some things, you work on them alone and with others, and you get better. Again, it is a choice, and many people choose not to follow this path either, for a variety of reasons. However, I think it illustrates the extent to which assessment can interfere with the process of learning. Also, it blurs the lines between teacher and learner, basic and advanced, and many other dichotomies posed in much of regular educational processes.
From here, the post-doctoral life, I hope to do more with this. I've reworked the first chapter, and hope to keep most of the bootcamp stuff. I will probably turn the kung fu chapters into something a bit more limited and focused, but that depends on how it develops. I would also begin to look at the relationships between self-identity, self-inscription (a new idea I'm looking at), and power. I'm sort of trying to get to the idea that people who have been really fucked up in life, whether they do it for themselves or have it done to them or some combo of the these, can use the act of creation to get themselves back. Some may use writing as a way, some may use art, some may use some sort of physical training, some may use mental training of various kinds, including meditation. Whatever the path they choose, my hypothesis is that they are, at least in part, creating both a new sense of themselves (their subjectivity) and projecting that power onto their world. This is key for me. We can take power over self and the world. I'm talking here, first about the limited world of the specific thing that makes you feel most real (art, writing, skateboarding, or whatever). If one can find a powerful self in that, there is a potential for building a more puissant sense of self in other contexts. The goal here is self-knowledge that makes us better somehow than we were.
I'm not sure whether that's coming out correctly or not, but it sure is a lot different than what school is about, mostly at least. I'm not saying that people don't benefit from going through some trauma. It's good to go through some shit. It can lead to wisdom, if you can take the next step after trauma, and not fall into self-pity or self-loathing. I'm saying that we mostly don't give people the tools for making something of it, for the acquistion of wisdom. Take me for example. I've been through a lot of things that have made me feel weak, stupid, inadequate, or whatever (moving around a lot, not knowing how to fight, not having a lot of constant friends). I've also seized upon other things that have helped me grasp power (satanism, racism, sexism, scholarship, kung fu). I'm not particularly proud of what I've done in the past, at least in some regards. However, I feel pretty good about what I am now. Part of it was my scholarship, part of it was a lot of self-reflection about what it means to be a good person, husband, teacher, student, etc. Part of it was my kung fu. It's amazing, for me, the extent to which my anger was a product of fear and self-doubt. Notice though, what I've been able to personalize, and turn into a tool for self-making, has been useful as a ground for learning, understanding and ethical strength.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Sunday, November 20, 2005
I'm Back
I'm back from Boston. Got back last night, was completely exhausted. Unfortunately, I had to go to a birthday party for a friend of ours. I wasn't too much fun. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm kind of schizoid in terms of social life. Like this: I just spent about three days surrounded by 5,000 people. The only times I had alone were few, when I would go back to my room at night (late) and in the morning. But even that was weird, because it was in a hotel room, not my personal space, my comfort zone, surrounded with the things that make it my place. I got to see a whole lot of friends, but even that is a bit exhausting, because it's not like people you're around all the time. I felt the need to try a lot harder, if you know what I mean. So, I didn't get much sleep, and on top of that, I interacted a lot. I mean I like people and all, but I don't always find that being social recharges and energizes me. Instead, I feel the need to be silent and still, and alone in my head with something that reminds me of the different between me and the rest of the world. Maybe that's because I have a sense of self that is at once strong and weak. Strong in the sense that I manifest strongly, and weak in the sense that I have what may be a hyperrefined sense of the interpersonal. I manifest both as the me I know and as the me others remember and, especially, as the me that is most needed in the given situation. As a result, I think the boudaries between self/others/environment get sort of blurred and I need time to remind myself to act normally. It's draining. Does anyone know what I mean? Does this happen to you too?
The conference itself was fabulous. I loved Boston. Wouldn't mind living there if I had the money to do it (I don't). I managed to locate three or four potential publishers for my book. It's a lot easier for me to pitch my work than it was to pitch myself, like I did on the academic job search. It was fun to talk about the possibilities. Now I have to get some more stuff written, and then try to get a proposal and three or four chapters together.
I met a lot of new people there, particularly people who are working on some of the theoretical stuff I'm interested in. I'm a big fan of Kenneth Burke, an American scholar whose project was, more or less, to reconcile Marx and Freud. That is, to try to figure out a way to make the environment (material conditions of life, of production, etc.) and the mind (the conscious, unconscious, etc.) key elements of describing human cognition, intellect, subjectivity, action, motivation, etc. Hard to read, but ultimately worth it. I went to the KB interest group business meeting, met some folks, and volunteered myself to review papers for next year's NCA in San Antonio. They seem very cool.
I also had a chance to hang out with some old friends. That was the best. I've been in the academic game for about ten years now (since I started grad school) and it's cool to see how, over the long term, people get work done (or don't), find happiness in work and relationships (0r don't) and more or less to see how cool and weird their (and your) lives are. It really makes me think a lot about advising undergraduates. A lot of people at that stage think in terms of jobs and careers. I try to tell them that it's hard to plan life that way. You start off toward the goal, but you ultimately don't have much control over the specific outcome. Instead, to get a little Zen here, one should live in the moment, enjoy and work on a good process of living, and then find themselves in a good place, even if it's not quite what you expected. It's hard to tell that to people who've been told all of their lives that they are in control, that they can plan, that they are accountable for what happens. It's not that simple. It never is.
So, no big things to report beyond that. For those of you who have been following me, I have a request: Help me write my book. I would like to get a list of you who are willing to talk about school, learning, boredom, happiness, guilt, excitement, etc., in learning. I want to talk about how you manifest yourselves through intellectual and practical pursuits, work, play and life. The only thing is you have to be eighteen or older. I'd love to be able to talk to everyone, but it's hard to get that kind of research proposal through an institutional review board. You need parental permission, and so forth. Hard to do with your "virtual friends," no?
Let me know if you are interested.
The conference itself was fabulous. I loved Boston. Wouldn't mind living there if I had the money to do it (I don't). I managed to locate three or four potential publishers for my book. It's a lot easier for me to pitch my work than it was to pitch myself, like I did on the academic job search. It was fun to talk about the possibilities. Now I have to get some more stuff written, and then try to get a proposal and three or four chapters together.
I met a lot of new people there, particularly people who are working on some of the theoretical stuff I'm interested in. I'm a big fan of Kenneth Burke, an American scholar whose project was, more or less, to reconcile Marx and Freud. That is, to try to figure out a way to make the environment (material conditions of life, of production, etc.) and the mind (the conscious, unconscious, etc.) key elements of describing human cognition, intellect, subjectivity, action, motivation, etc. Hard to read, but ultimately worth it. I went to the KB interest group business meeting, met some folks, and volunteered myself to review papers for next year's NCA in San Antonio. They seem very cool.
I also had a chance to hang out with some old friends. That was the best. I've been in the academic game for about ten years now (since I started grad school) and it's cool to see how, over the long term, people get work done (or don't), find happiness in work and relationships (0r don't) and more or less to see how cool and weird their (and your) lives are. It really makes me think a lot about advising undergraduates. A lot of people at that stage think in terms of jobs and careers. I try to tell them that it's hard to plan life that way. You start off toward the goal, but you ultimately don't have much control over the specific outcome. Instead, to get a little Zen here, one should live in the moment, enjoy and work on a good process of living, and then find themselves in a good place, even if it's not quite what you expected. It's hard to tell that to people who've been told all of their lives that they are in control, that they can plan, that they are accountable for what happens. It's not that simple. It never is.
So, no big things to report beyond that. For those of you who have been following me, I have a request: Help me write my book. I would like to get a list of you who are willing to talk about school, learning, boredom, happiness, guilt, excitement, etc., in learning. I want to talk about how you manifest yourselves through intellectual and practical pursuits, work, play and life. The only thing is you have to be eighteen or older. I'd love to be able to talk to everyone, but it's hard to get that kind of research proposal through an institutional review board. You need parental permission, and so forth. Hard to do with your "virtual friends," no?
Let me know if you are interested.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Off to Boston
I'm off to Boston early tomorrow morning. It'll be nice to see some of the folks from grad school. I haven't been to NCA as a presenter since 1999. Didn't go last year, and the year before I went on a job search. That's sort of like doing the same sales presentation for two days straight. I hate wearing a suit, and I think I spent about 24 hours in one over the course of two days. I didn't get a job out of the eleven or so interviews I had there, but I did get a lot of practice with my pitch. That's another good reason to go to the conference.
So, what's the paper all about? My argument runs something like this. Standards-based reform policy in U.S. public education is based upon a flawed model of human experience and motivation. Essentially, policy makers imagine students in an idealized fashion, and tend to believe that the best way to get them to learn is to establish "standards," test their learning of those standards, and then hold them responsible for the outcomes. I argue that the difference between students as conceived in policy, and students "for real" makes the outcomes of policy potentially devastating. By assuming that people will learned if threatened and bribed enough, the policy tends to ignore that different people are motivated in different ways. Moreover, it virtually eliminates the idea that student "audiences" actively interpret what happens to them, sometimes in ways that are reactive against the imposed policies. I address these points through some of the work in media, rhetorical, literary and cultural studies that touches upon audience, and attempt to use the notion of ideology to provide a central concept for understanding audience and critiquing policy makers' understandings of audience.
I tried to write something short and sweet, but was unsuccessful. I think I'm going to try to shop it as the first chapter in a book. We'll see if I find anything good at NCA, in terms of prospective publishers.
See you all soon.
So, what's the paper all about? My argument runs something like this. Standards-based reform policy in U.S. public education is based upon a flawed model of human experience and motivation. Essentially, policy makers imagine students in an idealized fashion, and tend to believe that the best way to get them to learn is to establish "standards," test their learning of those standards, and then hold them responsible for the outcomes. I argue that the difference between students as conceived in policy, and students "for real" makes the outcomes of policy potentially devastating. By assuming that people will learned if threatened and bribed enough, the policy tends to ignore that different people are motivated in different ways. Moreover, it virtually eliminates the idea that student "audiences" actively interpret what happens to them, sometimes in ways that are reactive against the imposed policies. I address these points through some of the work in media, rhetorical, literary and cultural studies that touches upon audience, and attempt to use the notion of ideology to provide a central concept for understanding audience and critiquing policy makers' understandings of audience.
I tried to write something short and sweet, but was unsuccessful. I think I'm going to try to shop it as the first chapter in a book. We'll see if I find anything good at NCA, in terms of prospective publishers.
See you all soon.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Out of Town Until Saturday
I will be gone to the National Communication Association conference in Boston from Wed (11/16) until Sat (11/19). I'll be presenting a paper (Reconsidering the Pedagogical Audience: Limitations of the Rational Actor Model in Standards-based Education) on Thursday, and spending the rest of the time seeing other panels, meeting up with colleagues from grad school, and seeing how many publishers I can quiz on getting my dissertation into print. The paper I'm presenting is an adaptation of one of the chapters of the dissertation. I'm hoping I can get a little bit more of it updated and then find a publisher for it.
In any case, I might have one more post before I go.
In any case, I might have one more post before I go.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Welcome to Cooking with Children!
I'm Doc Johnson. What I will do here is talke about K-12 educational policy, educational theory, and different ways of learning and doing teaching.
I got interested in this area when I started graduate school I took a class called Politics of Literacy from Dr. Carol Severino at The University of Iowa. It opened my eyes. My relationship with education and its various institutions had been long and rough. I felt compelled to pursue more study of schools, how they're supposed to work, and how they actually do work. I did much of my graduate work on the topic, including my doctoral disseration (Rhetorics of Pedgogy: A Study of Three Models of Student Subjectivity).
I believe that the student is the most important person in any classroom. I also believe that schools, as they are, do not do a very good job of serving students. Unlike many so-called experts, policy makers, and others who think they know a lot about school, I don't blame that fact on students, but rather on how schools are forced to go about their business.
Schools, at present, are not about teaching students to be passionate about learning, nor do they give students much incentive to pursue this passion on their own. Instead, schools are designed to deliver a course of instruction that is easy to describe, assess, and use to hold people accountable for results. Right now, teachers get a lot of the blame, but students, ultimately, pay for this dynamic.
Moreover, people, particularly, politicians and administrators, use education and its reform as a way to curry favor with the public, to look busy and take up conceptual space, so that we feel their contributions actually matter. To do this, they use children. This is why the name of this blog is Cooking with Children.
More later.
I got interested in this area when I started graduate school I took a class called Politics of Literacy from Dr. Carol Severino at The University of Iowa. It opened my eyes. My relationship with education and its various institutions had been long and rough. I felt compelled to pursue more study of schools, how they're supposed to work, and how they actually do work. I did much of my graduate work on the topic, including my doctoral disseration (Rhetorics of Pedgogy: A Study of Three Models of Student Subjectivity).
I believe that the student is the most important person in any classroom. I also believe that schools, as they are, do not do a very good job of serving students. Unlike many so-called experts, policy makers, and others who think they know a lot about school, I don't blame that fact on students, but rather on how schools are forced to go about their business.
Schools, at present, are not about teaching students to be passionate about learning, nor do they give students much incentive to pursue this passion on their own. Instead, schools are designed to deliver a course of instruction that is easy to describe, assess, and use to hold people accountable for results. Right now, teachers get a lot of the blame, but students, ultimately, pay for this dynamic.
Moreover, people, particularly, politicians and administrators, use education and its reform as a way to curry favor with the public, to look busy and take up conceptual space, so that we feel their contributions actually matter. To do this, they use children. This is why the name of this blog is Cooking with Children.
More later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
