[Teaching_Composition] Re: Teachers shaping student discourse

Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:54:28 -0500

------=_Part_168572_24646338.1158249268890
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I've enjoyed reading the responses to this module. I was particularly struck
by one of the examples Laura Card gave in her response:

<snip>
Sometimes coercion comes from other students in the class because of the
abdication of the responsibility of the teacher to conduct the class. For
instance, my daughter recently came to me in great frustration because her
teacher at a local state-run institution of higher education had done
nothing when a student had voiced his views on a topic only to have another
student ridicule him by snorting and saying, "Oh, so now we're supposed to
take stupid pills." The teacher remained silent and the first student was
silenced. The other students in the class were uncomfortable, but didn't
know how to continue the discussion with such antagonism in the air and were
also silenced.
<snip>

For me, this example doesn't so much provoke a specific response as a
cacophony of brain sound. Reading this example, I have a range of
(conflicting) thoughts revolving around questions like these:

* What is a teacher's responsibility to create a classroom space where
students feel "safe"? where students feel protected from the angry and/or
prejudicial discourse of their fellow classmates?
* What is a teacher's responsibility in shaping students' discourse with one
another? to define for (adult) students what makes discourse appropriate or
inappropriate?
* Where marks the limits of that teacher responsibility? the door of the
classroom? the campus? class time? the class roster?
* Where is the teacher's responsibility for shaping discourse and speaking
for the silenced distinct from general civic responsibility?

I can't imagine myself letting an in-class comment about "stupid pills" go
unchallenged, but I also see problems with other potential responses. One
standard response: "We don't speak with one another that way in this class"
is definitely a form of malicious coercion. I silence one student for the
sake of others.

An interrogatory approach: "What about that viewpoint do you find stupid?"
might open the door for other voices but begins by giving further voice to
the prejudice.

Telling the class that such approaches are rhetorically ineffective seems to
me increasingly to be a lie. The politicians and Ann Coulter's of the world
(disclosure: I'm a liberal) make big money and get power through just this
type of silencing rhetoric. Do we benefit students by leaping into the fray
and defending their honor (however disingenuous we might be in our defense),
or do we contribute to their silence ... to letting others speak for them?

All of these questions lead back, I think, to the issue of the ABR because
the most obvious interpretation of the ABR would be to create an
anti-political classroom environment (which, of course, would be a political
choice to maintain the status quo, but at least most students wouldn't
realize it).

Alternatively, we could try to create a classroom environment where every
position is equally accepted, students are gently prodded to shore up their
beliefs rather than challenge them, and students speak to one another in
kindness. A pretty option but not one that prepares students for life
outside our classrooms.

Like Bill, Doug, and Laura, I don't advocate dismissing the ABR outright,
but I've already typed too, so I'm stopping.

Back to malicious coercion ... I mean, grading. ;-)

Terri

-- 
Dr. Terri Fredrick
Eastern Illinois University
tfredrick@gmail.com

------=_Part_168572_24646338.1158249268890
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I've enjoyed reading the responses to this module. I was particularly
struck by one of the examples Laura Card gave in her response: 
 
&lt;snip&gt; 
Sometimes coercion comes from other students in the class because of
the abdication of the responsibility of the teacher to conduct the
class. For instance, my daughter recently came to me in great
frustration because her teacher at a local state-run institution of
higher education had done nothing when a student had voiced his views
on a topic only to have another student ridicule him by snorting and
saying, "Oh, so now we're supposed to take stupid pills." The teacher
remained silent and the first student was silenced. The other students
in the class were uncomfortable, but didn't know how to continue the
discussion with such antagonism in the air and were also silenced. 
&lt;snip&gt; 
 
For me, this example doesn't so much provoke a specific response as a
cacophony of brain sound. Reading this example, I have a range of
(conflicting) thoughts revolving around questions like these: 
 
* What is a teacher's responsibility to create a classroom space where
students feel &quot;safe&quot;? where students feel protected from the angry
and/or prejudicial discourse of their fellow classmates? 
* What is a teacher's responsibility in shaping students' discourse
with one another? to define for (adult) students what makes discourse
appropriate or inappropriate? 
* Where marks the limits of that teacher responsibility? the door of the classroom? the campus? class time? the class roster? 
* Where is the teacher's responsibility for shaping discourse and
speaking for the silenced distinct from general civic responsibility? 
 
I can't imagine myself letting an in-class comment about &quot;stupid pills&quot;
go unchallenged, but I also see problems with other potential
responses. One standard response: &quot;We don't speak with one another that
way in this class&quot; is definitely a form of malicious coercion. I
silence one student for the sake of others. 
 
An interrogatory approach: &quot;What about that viewpoint do you find
stupid?&quot; might open the door for other voices but begins by giving
further voice to the prejudice. 
 
Telling the class that such approaches are rhetorically ineffective
seems to me increasingly to be a lie. The politicians and Ann Coulter's
of the world (disclosure: I'm a liberal) make big money and get power
through just this type of silencing rhetoric. Do we benefit students by
leaping into the fray and defending their honor (however disingenuous
we might be in our defense), or do we contribute to their silence ...
to letting others speak for them? 
 
All of these questions lead back, I think, to the issue of the ABR
because the most obvious interpretation of the ABR would be to create
an anti-political classroom environment (which, of course, would be a
political choice to maintain the status quo, but at least most students
wouldn't realize it). 
 
Alternatively, we could try to create a classroom environment where
every position is equally accepted, students are gently prodded to
shore up their beliefs rather than challenge them, and students speak
to one another in kindness. A pretty option but not one that prepares
students for life outside our classrooms. 
 
Like Bill, Doug, and Laura, I don't advocate dismissing the ABR outright, but I've already typed too, so I'm stopping. 
 
Back to malicious coercion ... I mean, grading. ;-) 
 
Terri -- Dr. Terri Fredrick Eastern Illinois University <a href="mailto:tfredrick@gmail.com">tfredrick@gmail.com</a>

------=_Part_168572_24646338.1158249268890--