We usually spent a lot of time together negotiating how learning could be more meaningful to students, more self-directed and less determined by instruction according to textbooks which are seen as the abstract of the obligatory curriculum.
But we also spent a lot of time reflecting on the constraints which teachers perceive as being imposed to them like the curriculum, the marks, the expectations of the teachers taking over their class in the next grade, the expectations of parents who want their children to be well prepared for secondary school or higher education and for a society where competition rules.
An alternative to closed curriculum base instruction is self-directed learning organized around authentic text productions ("free texts" as Freinet calls it) and meaningful content brought up by the students themselves. This approach "values the unpredictable outcome of self-chosen personal encounter above the certified quality of professional instruction" as Ivan Illich puts it.
Of course this presupposes that teachers are partly convinced that learning can be more self-motivated and self-directed, that children need, that they like and that they want to express themselves and that they are willing to learn by themselves and for themselves.
If so, teachers can be fascinated by the motivation of their students and the quality of their reflections but also chocked and confused by their sincerity, especially when they use writing to communicate their personal state of mind, their current emotional disruption, their problems as adolescents, their conflicts with their family, their negative self-image mostly constructed through humiliating experiences in school, their dreams or their sometimes apocalyptical expectations regarding their future.
At the same time through authentic text productions teachers usually make the disillusioning discovery how ineffective their teaching was regarding spelling, grammar and vocabulary. They inevitably have to face their students' incapacity to use in real what they, as teachers, thought they had administered so well to them.
Out of this discovery they not seldom draw the conclusion that they haven't done enough instruction reinforcing their teaching style more than questioning it. (Illich speaks of the "manipulative institutions" (...) which "are either socially or psychologically addictive" where "social addiction, or escalation, consists in the tendency to prescribe increased treatment if smaller quantities have not yielded the desired results." An the students, confronted with their poor spelling usually have adopted the same logic and react in the way that the institution expects them to do - by acknowledging that they should practice more - meaning that they should do more exercises. In Illich's words, students demonstrate already their "Psychological addiction, or habituation, results when consumers become hooked on the need for more and more of the process or product."
In teachertraining teachers have been taught how to organize school around an obligatory curriculum, how to package instruction and certification which means how to do short term testing of instructional outcomes and to validate students work on the percentage of conformity to specific norms.
How should they deal with authentic text productions armed with such teaching concepts and skills, and with textbooks full of pre-constructed content and knowledge? How should they find the time to engage in high quality conversations with their students with all the institutional constraints? How should they organize language learning, mathematics, science, art or any other subject around authentic productions based on self-interest, when these productions are unpredictable, extremely complex, heterogeneous, sometimes provoking, often questioning and demanding?
These are challenging questions, I know. And as a teacher you might want me to give you the answers to those questions. So, what are the answers? Do I have any?
My response as a coach is this:
- First, it is already an achievement to find questions that really matter and that you share with other teachers.
- Second, if the answers are not close at hand, that's no reason to abandon the search but on the contrary to pursue the inquiry.
- And third, if there are any answers, you will probably find them if you share the same questions with your students.
I completly agree with your post but i want to add some comments on the therm authenticity.
ReplyDeleteIn fact it is a word often used when we are talking about language learning. But after many observations (including reflection about my own behaviour in classroom), i´m not so sure that any method or artefact could be more authentic than another or could promote authenticity better than another. Perhaps it is the authenticity of the teacher himself that promotes authenticity. So called authentic texts were not produced for classroom settings and for students to struggle with.
So, as you wrote, only texts that came frome the "learners heart" or interest can be authentic or perhaps authentificated.
Or, when a student brings in a text that refers to a certain topic discussed in school, the text was found for a certain demand. Couldn´t we talk of a "finders authenticity"? Once a text has been instituitionalized , fixed and mainstreamed, one can no longer call it authentic. It doesn´t come from the students and it doesn´t give an opportunity to the student to be authentic as a finder, as a (re)searcher.
)There I am refering to textbooks for language learning, where, especially in german textbooks, one can find a huge number of texts treating so called authentic problems, taken out of the childrens real life experiences (i.e. texts about poverty, divorce, friendship,...).)
Or how Jean Paul Sartre wrote: "If you seek authenticity for authenticity´s sake, you are no longer authentic".
to be continued...