Sunday, November 9, 2008

PINAR Chapter 10

Is There a Queer Pedagogy? Or, Stop Reading Straight!
by Deborah P. Britzman

Is there a queer pedagogy? Damn straight!

I have to admit that when I first started reading this article I thought it was more than I wanted to take on. As I started reading it a bit more, my opinion started to change. Finally, by the time I was finished, I had my own perspective which is what I would like to present here. Basically, my perspective will be as follows, unless the shoe fits, you can’t walk a mile in my shoes.

The first point that Britzman makes is the reaction that gay and lesbian can have not only on his own colleagues, but also on society in general. “Why is it unthinkable to work with gay and lesbian writing when one thinks about experiences like friendship, community, research methodology, curriculum theorizing, and education theory? (Pinar, p 211)

When talking in terms of gay and lesbian, Britzman discusses the idea of pedagogy as a dichotomous relationship between an open and honest discussion of difference on the one hand, and the traumatic perception of difference as a disruption, as the outside of normalcy, these same terms evoke in “normal” people on the other. (p 212) Britzman thinks of Queer Theory as “provoking terms of engagement that work both to recuperate and to exceed the stereotypes that contain and dismiss gay and lesbian subjects. (p 213)”

At this point I want to inject with my own perspective of what being gay means. For one, in almost every context, every day, gay people are usually defining themselves—not as being gay but as not being straight. Not one day goes by where we are not confronted with the heterosexual schema of daily living. I don’t believe that heterosexuals think in the same way. What I mean is, they unconsciously take for granted what is deemed to be “normal”. Their being straight does not hinge on ‘their not being gay’. Yet, as Britzman has pointed out, the idea of dialoguing with gays and lesbians is almost considered to be disgusting. There is great difficulty in separating the notion of sexuality from the physical act of sex. This is what I mean about the dichotomous relationship or one perspective hinging on the other. Queer Theory “insist, using psychoanalytic methot, that the relationship between knowledge and ignorance is neither oppositional no binary. Rather, they mutually implicate each other, structuring and enforcing particular forms of knowledge and forms of ignorance. (p 214)”

Britzman chooses to follow Queer Theory’s insistence upon three methods: “the study of limits, the study of ignorance, and the study of reading practices (p 215).”

The Study of Limits

The first begins with the idea that one “must engage the limit of thought—where thought stops, what it cannot bear to know, what it must shut out to think as it does—allows consideration into the cultural conditions that, as Judith Butler writes, make bodies matter, not as sheer positivity, but as social historical relations, forms of citation that signify more than individuals or communities need or want (p216).” Fouceault summed it up by saying that exclusion sets the limits of inclusion. I would venture to say this is also the reverse when it comes to the ‘club of heteronormalcy.’ Queer Theory aligns itself to this notion of both Fouceault and Douglas Crimp who states “identification is, of course, identification with an other, which means that identity is never identical to itself (p218).” Therefore for a gay curriculum to be included would be in the form of a “special day or event” [gay pride day] or some other publicly recognized symbol of ‘acceptance’ or tolerance.

How I loathe the word tolerate. By explanation it means “to put up with” which people equate with acceptance. Wrong people! It means we [those who are “deemed normal”] will allow you [those deemed to be on the outside of “normal”] to believe that you are participating members of society—for now. But don’t get too settled in for we can remove tolerance at our discretion. “But in thinking beyond the limits of curriculum, more is required than a plea to add marginalized voices to an overpopulated sit. Inclusion, or the belief that one discourse can make room for those it must exclude, can only produce, as Judith Butler states, that theoretical gesture of pathos in which exclusions are simply affirmed as sad necessities of signification (p219).” However, I have meandered from the main topic here which is queer pedagogy. So, to continue...

The Study of Ignorance

What Delany defines as queer space or “the margin between claims of truth and the claims of textuality [a space where] all discursive structures are formed (p221)” is in reality lived experience. Britzman then goes on to try and explain this experience in terms of ignorance. Using the example of “No One is Safe”, I got the impression it was a rather fear-mongering tactic used by heteronormal society as a means of keeping those queers in their place. Why is it we fear what it is we don’t [want to] or are afraid to understand? This is the sense of ignorance which is most predominant.

Queerness is set up to be the social disease which can be transmitted to anyone. In particular, heterosexual men are in the most fear. Like AIDS, it is suspected that queerness can be spread to anyone at anytime. This places everyone one as suspect. It could be the mailman, the guy who packs your groceries, even the guy you work with at the factory. No one is immune from suspicion [though most straight men would deny this]. The problem is that when gay men or women talk to non-gay men and women, we aren’t looking at them as potential sexual partners. However, when a straight man is talking to a gay man, his main thoughts are about the guy’s sexual partners and this instils disgust and fear of catching “it”. Sedgwick explains this idea that everyone is suspect in her example of a class on gay and lesbian literature. The discourses which evolved due to the readings blurred the boundaries between “us and them” and widened the divide of who is suspect. Anyone could be gay or lesbian and therefore the group was leery of everyone else.

The Study of Reading Practices

Shoshana Felman breaks down reading practices into three sub-categories of 1) reading for alterity; 1) dialogue; and 3) reading for theory. Her first begins with the acknowledgement of difference in identity. Hello! The reading goes back and forth between the signified and the signifier [what is being read, and the reader]. What is the transformation [to and within myself]? Secondly, reading evokes a dialogue within the reader. This seems quite natural and yet for the heterosexual person reading, they can’t imagine the life of the Other. Finally, how one reads is important. “There is a consituitive belatedness of the theory over the practice, the theory always trying to catch up with what it was that the practice, or the reading, really was doing (p 225).” In my mind, this leads to the dialogue always taking place in retrospect and does not directing the reading.

My Thoughts

Wow! I really did enjoy this reading up to the part where it got a little too technical in the language being used. I am such a hillbilly from the backwoods of Cape Breton. I dunno, big words just seem to make we want to go take a nap! Overall, I felt that Britzman did a good job of explaining the lack of gayness in the curriculum without denying there is definitely a gay pedagogy. The way that I learn, relate, think, and ultimately transform information and turn it into a retrospective dialogue within, is different than that of the heteronormal community. As I said, they can not walk a mile in my shoes because they are not me. How can on truly know what it is I am experiencing when they are in no way sharing the same experience? Unless you are on the fringe, can you know what it is really like? If you are not a minority, can you understand what they go through? There are many things we try to understand however, we can never honestly put ourselves in someone else’s place. To say, “I completely understand” is condescending and unreal. I would rather be honest, accept the differences, and be empathetic to the Other. Know that deep down, we are the same, not different, and we need acceptance, not tolerance.


Pinar, W. F. (1998). Curriculum: Toward new identities. Pinar, William F. (Ed).

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Reimagining Schools Chapter 9

Can Educational Research Inform Educational Practice?
pg 86 - 95


In this chapter, Elliot Eisner writes about the disconnect between educational researchers and educational practitioners. Although he is the former head of the American Educational Research Association, and a university professor at Stanford, Eisner feels the researchers aren’t really taken seriously by those working in the field.

Duh? In what sand dune have these researchers hiding their heads? In my opinion, and as an ESL teacher, I would have to agree with Eisner. Although we may read some of the research that is coming out in our various educational fields, we don’t really use it to inform our practice. Instead, we, as educators, do what we must in order to meet our objectives (if as Eisner says we even bother to create them) and to deliver the content of our programs. According to Eisner’s research, a “typical” response is that research findings function in the background as a frame of reference. “After all, research in education does not provide the kind of prescriptions that are employed, say, in medical practice as a result of research in medicine. The use of research in education is more heuristic’ it provides a framework that we can use to make decisions, not a set of rules to be followed slavishly.”

Eisner tries to define this connect by breaking it down into two specific problems. Problem one concerns the use of educational research as a framework to inform practice. Basically, he states that being aware of the research does not necessarily mean the practitioner is going to make it a part of the practice. Whether the educator actually uses the results of the research to aid in the design of the curriculum remains to be seen. How the research is thus interpreted by the teacher and used within the system is an individual choice and its expression is portrayed in different ways.

The second problem is whether or not the research actually improves practice. Instead it is more of an influence over how the curriculum is delivered. Eisner agrees that “some educational practices have changed as a result of educational research.” (p 89)

What is often forgotten is the learner. How has the image of the learner changed? In what ways is that image different than in the past? Eisner talks of how research must have had an influence on the way we envision the learner but then goes on to say that research usually follows changes within the practice. First comes change, and then comes the research into the effects of those changes. This is reminiscent of the image of the dog chasing its tail. Educational research and educational practice are caught in this inextricable dance, going round and round, a Viennese waltz of sorts. Even when the dancing stops, the choreographer continues to create new steps (okay, so I’m watching So You Think You Can Dance Canada as I am writing this). My, and Eisner’s point is that research and practice really haven’t caught up with each other.

To conclude, Eisner states that in order for research to truly inform practice, a language must be allowed to develop which will be able to accurately express the research and make the connection to practice. Research must become intimate with those who are in the field and then talk to all aspects of the practice, not just the curriculum, nor the image of the student, nor the subject matter. Research must be all-inclusive and be more than a make-work project for researchers to maintain or achieve tenure. Eisner doesn’t write to be critical but rather to be constructive in his observations and to express an optimism and hope for the future of educational research. “What is pessimistic is a failure or unwillingness to recognize our condition—to look at our professional world through glasses that allow us to see only what we wish. That would be pessimistic.” (p 94)

Sunday, September 28, 2008

FRAME FACTORS

Chapter 8 (pg 189 - 201)

Doyle (1992) and Walker (1990) state “A curriculum is not implemented until a teacher uses it to teach students; that is, implementation must take the realities of teaching into consideration.” (pg 192)

Chapter 8 introduces us to five tasks to which teachers must attend and the major kinds of frame factors that restrain these tasks. The factors which constrain the teachers are:
  1. Temporal Frames—the amount of content to be delivered vs the students’ mastery of said content; seasonal constraints such as statutory holidays, vacations etc., time set aside for each subject both in elementary and secondary schools.
  2. Physical Frames—consists of the physical space in which teachers teach as well as the materials with which they teach—“the existing physical frame, regardless of the purposes for which it was intended, makes certain curricular forms likely, others unlikely, and still others impossible.” (pg 195)
  3. Political-Legal Frames—refers to the government’s involvement in the testing of knowledge i.e. standards testing—“as might be expected, the greater the pressure for accountability, the greater the influence of the test.” (pg 196) This ultimately leads to teaching to the test rather than exploring other methods of teaching. These standards are also linked to cultural frames (see below)
  4. Organizational Frames—based on the school district’s selection of teaching materials (textbooks) as well as the division of students into grade levels (both individual and mixed-level classes). Other factors to consider are referred to as “proximal” and consist of class size, ability levels, and streams (academic vs. vocational). Infrastructures such as school size would be considered to be “distal”.
  5. Personal (or Personnel) Frames—include the characteristics of teachers, students, administrators, custodians and other support staff. Although these personnel may change over time, the characteristics of the replacement staff can still be rather predictable. The most salient point here is that teachers will shape the curriculum in place based on their own personal beliefs and values. The areas of subjects taught are based on the perspectives of the teachers. “The issue that you need to address is not whether teachers will accept or reject the curriculum, but how they might shape it as they attempt to make it fit their belief systems.” (pg 198)
  6. Economic Frames—ultimately, the bottom line. How much are things going to cost in the long run? What are the benefits which need to be taken into account? There are factors such as student morale, the learning which takes place, extra-curricular activities, time and commitment by teachers, outside factors such as parental and community support. “A curriculum analysis includes an estimate of the probable costs and benefits associated with the curriculum change, including a determination of who will likely bear the costs and experience the benefits.” (pg 199)
  7. Cultural Frames—“A curriculum depends on two different sets of cultural factors, the culture within the school and the culture of the community in which the school exists.” (pg 200) Curriculum is chock full of values and values conflicts, both internally and externally; through the culture of the school and the culture of the community.

    QUESTIONS:

    Can you, as educators, think of any other factors which might not have been considered as part of the curriculum frame?

    Which do you feel are the most important factors affecting the curriculum framework? How can those who set the curriculum come to understand and implement a curriculum which would be based on the needs of those doing the learning, as well as, the needs of society and big industry?

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Comments to Others

Chapter 3 Theoretical Perspectives on Curriculum pgs 53-65
Structure of the Disciplines

Jacquie…

As I was reading your entry into this week’s submissions, I couldn’t help but compare myself to what you were seeing and trying to then incorporate this into my old schema—I guess a kind of constructivist notion according to Piaget and his assimilation theory.

What struck me was the fact that there are many methods of teaching at an educator’s disposal and in order to “reach the masses” has to wear many hats. We all want to reach as many students as possible, however this is an incredibly daunting task. I look at some of the ways in which I am reinforcing my own students’ behaviors (behaviourist model) and wonder if perhaps I am doing them any harm. We all have our own philosophies of teaching which also include fragments of various models. Whether that model is rooted in cognitivism, behavorism, or constructivism, ultimately, we are trying to achieve the same thing—to make learning enjoyable enough that it becomes memorable for the students and perhaps they will continue the legacy.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Curriculum Purpose and Content

Pg. 67 – 89

Overall, I would have to say this was a very enjoyable article. The main purpose is to try and give definitions to some of the terminology, in particular, education, training, aims, goals and objectives, which are tossed around within the field of education. In trying to do so, Posner exposes us, through example, to some of the more well-known people who have also tried to distinguish between the various forms of knowledge acquisition.

Posner first gives us a definition of training as “....the specific situations in which people will use what they learn” and education as “....the situations in which people will use what they learn.” (pg 70) When it comes to curriculum, we are looking at content approaches and process approaches. In many ways, the two overlap quite often and as Posner states, “....the assumptions when formulating curricula for educational contexts is that most of the situations for which we prepare students are unpredictable.” (pg 70) From a learning standpoint, knowledge of some subjects is used “associatively” and “interpretively”, whereas knowledge of other subjects is used “replicatively” and “applicatively”. The former, as explained by Posner, is education and the later is training. It is the difference between fundamental principles as one receives in education and the job-related skills one receives through training.

Some of the other terms Posner tries to explain are the differences between aims, goals, and objectives. Although they are often used interchangeably, there are slight differences in the meaning. The impression I got when reading Posner, was that of a funnel with aims being at the widest part and then gradually becoming more focused with goals, and finally, the most detailed with objectives. Posner also goes on to categorize them into societal goals, administrative goals and educational goals. The chart on pg 72 does a good job of incorporating the terms and showing the relationship amongst them. In this section, the most significant statement was: “as societal values have changed throughout history, the intended purpose of an education has followed suit.” (pg 74) Societal goals are those which try to change society for the better, administrative goals are those which are required by an organization, and educational goals are the result of what is supposed to take place “over the years and across the subject matters of schooling.” (pg 76) On the other hand, the more narrowly defined are learning objectives, which can be further broken down into lesson objectives and course objectives.

From learning objectives, we are them re-introduced to the likes of Bloom along with his taxonomies of learning, mainly cognitive, affective, and psychomotor, Gagne’s five major categories of learning outcomes, and Ryle’s two types of knowledge; “knowing that”, which deals with “subject matter” and “knowing how” , which deals with “skills”, and the distinct differences between the two.

Up to this point, Posner has dealt with the process of learning. In the latter part of chapter 4, he focuses on content from a behavioural psychological view, a pedagogical view, and a multicultural view (which I don’t cover here). The amazing facet of this part of the reading was the fact that depending on how you look at curriculum the way in which educators teach it will be skewed towards that view.


QUESTIONS FOR THE CLASS:

  1. How important is it for educators to distinguish between education and training when it comes to curricula?
  2. Is education curricula, as you deliver it, primarily content or process based?

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Concepts of Curriculum and Purposes of Curriculum Study (pg 3 - 12)

One thing is for certain after reading this particular section and it is this; the actual definition of what precisely defines a curriculum has eluded educators and pragmatics for a very long time. Instead, what we are left with is a series of questions remaining to be answered.

  1. “Why engage in curriculum study?
  2. What good does it do?
  3. What is a curriculum? For example, is a textbook or a syllabus a curriculum?
  4. What should a curriculum include?” (pg 3)

I can totally relate to Peter’s frustration and also wonder why we as educators cannot come up with an appropriate response. Posner, in trying to answer these questions, gives his own definition yet, somehow, still remains uncommitted to actually saying “A curriculum consists of blah-blah-blah.” I agree that a set of standards (as guidelines and not a doctrine to be followed) are required in any profession. This does not seem to solve the problem but rather just adds to the confusion.

Trying to understand the difference between curriculum study and curriculum seems to be quite a daunting task. No one among what Posner calls the curriculum “cultists” is able to come to agreement. Rather he supplies us with a means of deflection—a way of saying there is no correct answer based on the large number of curriculum alternatives. This “reflective eclecticism seems to be ‘at the heart’ of curriculum study.” (pg 4)

Curriculum, as argued by “others” then, seems to be "the students" actual rather than planned opportunities, experiences, or learnings.” (pg 5) The problem here then becomes whether educators embrace the idea that curriculum is either an ends or a means (depending upon, through which end of the lens you are viewing it) or else a plan or report of “actual educational events.” (pg 5) Confused yet? Well, to further add to that confusion, “outcomes are fully understood only in retrospect or as teaching unfolds” whereas, “when we focus our concept of curriculum on education plans, standards, and intended outcomes, we are taking a political stand.” (pg 5)

Even though Posner suggests a solution, that is, to “stipulate a decision and then stick to it” (pg 5), the problem is that “definitions are not philosophically or politically neutral.” (pg 5) On pages 6 and 9, Posner examines seven common concepts of curriculum, namely:

  1. Scope and sequence (Figure 1.1 pg 7)
  2. Syllabus (Figure 1.2 pg 8)
  3. Content outline (Figure 1.3 pg 9)
  4. Standards (Figure 1.4 pg 10)
  5. Textbooks
  6. Courses of study
  7. Planned experiences

“Each of these seven definitions has different consequences in terms of accountability.” (p 12) Overall, whoever is guiding the curriculum, that is the main “stakeholders”, then, these same stakeholders are setting their own expectations as to the delivery of that curriculum. This can be through the guise of guidelines which educators must adhere to, texts which educators must follow, or through expected outcomes of learning set in place and thus, to be reached. Posner then supports this idea further when stating that the general consensus amongst the experts is the notion of “no definition of curriculum is ethically or politically neutral.” (pg 12) The fact remains there are too many cooks in the kitchen trying to decide on a menu, meanwhile, there are hungry people wanting to eat.

Questions for discussion:

  1. When it comes to teaching, who should be in the driver's seat as far as the delivery of the curriculum?
  2. As educators, do you see curriculum as an ends, a means, or as a plan of learner experiences?
  3. Recently I saw a news item on television where parents stated they feel that students should be learning ways of interacting socially since school provides the largest time block in the day to do so. Parents are not concerned about academics. Is this a failure of the curriculum, the education system or merely a deflection of responsibility by parents? What do you think?