In chapter four, Fecho points out the fact that teachers worry tension stimulated by discussions of topics such as sexism, or tension surrounding a dialogue on an unpopular school policy, will cause them to lose control of their classes. Fecho further states that rather than sparking generative dialogue, teachers fear that calling a tension to the surface will ignite a verbal conflagration that will burn out of control. This idea resonated as a key point for me based on a past teaching experience in which I was able to provide a framework for a controversial discussion regarding the legalization of marijuana. While teaching a lesson on Fourth Amendment jurisprudence at Coral Gables Senior High last year, I realized that our class discussion concerning randomized drug testing and automobile searches was prompting the students to ask numerous questions about drugs themselves--specifically marijuana. In that moment, in my capacity as an educator, I felt uncomfortable addressing the topic of drugs with high school aged students and I assumed it would be better to just try and keep the class focused on other Fourth Amendment issues. Yet, after I left class that day, I realized I had let the tension in the room build exponentially solely because I did not want to address the students questions and concerns about marijuana. With this in mind, I decided to work within the tension and address the students' need to voice their questions and concerns. The next week, I taught an entire lesson on the constitutionality of the legalization of marijuana. The students obviously had issues they wanted to talk about, but I felt as though by addressing the uncomfortableness as a group, instead of just ignoring it, we were able to use the tension to our benefit.
In chapter five, Fecho begins by pointing out that for many reasons, teachers are frequently afraid to use the difficulty, and that as an initial idea, education in general tends to create an expectation of perfection. Although Fecho's chapter moves toward a discussion related to allowing ourselves to engage the lives of students in a learning process that connects substantively to their experiences, this idea of education as perfection is one that resonated as a key point to me. I remember a day last semester that I was presenting a lesson on Election Law to my teaching class and a fellow teacher asked me about a facet of Election Law that I had no idea how to answer. I was uneasy being among other teachers and having no idea how to answer this question...I was the teacher, presenting a lesson...I felt as though I needed to know everything about the topic and be able to answer every question I was asked. I thought that I, as the educator, needed to represent perfection. I spoke with my Professor about this dilemma after my lesson presentation and she had some wonderful advice to offer. She told me that it was okay, even for a teacher, to not know everything about the topic she was teaching, and that I had not failed as a teacher because of this. She suggested that next time I commend the student for asking such a challenging, thoughtful question, and follow up by saying that I would do some research and come back to the class armed with the answer. Fecho's point here made me recall this experience.
Finally, in chapter six, Fecho clarifies that when asking her students to participate in the "wobble," she is not asking them to necessarily change their minds or believe as Fecho believes. He is simply asking them to trust the process: to consider the possibilities, ask questions, gather data, and then decide what their stance is. With my law students, it is amazing to me how often they have already decided what their stance is on a particular issue without having considered wobbling in any capacity. Whether it be a gay marriage, affirmative action, or legalization of marijuana debate, too frequently are students willing to wobble. I think this is primarily due to the fact that most law students have an inflated idea of their own intelligence, so that whatever they think is "obviously" the right way to think. I find it challenging to convince my students to wobble, even though so much of a law school exam involves being able to see "both sides" of the case. I will definitely take Fecho's advice here to heart and try to incorporate his ideas more thoroughly in my classroom discussions.
In chapter five, Fecho begins by pointing out that for many reasons, teachers are frequently afraid to use the difficulty, and that as an initial idea, education in general tends to create an expectation of perfection. Although Fecho's chapter moves toward a discussion related to allowing ourselves to engage the lives of students in a learning process that connects substantively to their experiences, this idea of education as perfection is one that resonated as a key point to me. I remember a day last semester that I was presenting a lesson on Election Law to my teaching class and a fellow teacher asked me about a facet of Election Law that I had no idea how to answer. I was uneasy being among other teachers and having no idea how to answer this question...I was the teacher, presenting a lesson...I felt as though I needed to know everything about the topic and be able to answer every question I was asked. I thought that I, as the educator, needed to represent perfection. I spoke with my Professor about this dilemma after my lesson presentation and she had some wonderful advice to offer. She told me that it was okay, even for a teacher, to not know everything about the topic she was teaching, and that I had not failed as a teacher because of this. She suggested that next time I commend the student for asking such a challenging, thoughtful question, and follow up by saying that I would do some research and come back to the class armed with the answer. Fecho's point here made me recall this experience.
Finally, in chapter six, Fecho clarifies that when asking her students to participate in the "wobble," she is not asking them to necessarily change their minds or believe as Fecho believes. He is simply asking them to trust the process: to consider the possibilities, ask questions, gather data, and then decide what their stance is. With my law students, it is amazing to me how often they have already decided what their stance is on a particular issue without having considered wobbling in any capacity. Whether it be a gay marriage, affirmative action, or legalization of marijuana debate, too frequently are students willing to wobble. I think this is primarily due to the fact that most law students have an inflated idea of their own intelligence, so that whatever they think is "obviously" the right way to think. I find it challenging to convince my students to wobble, even though so much of a law school exam involves being able to see "both sides" of the case. I will definitely take Fecho's advice here to heart and try to incorporate his ideas more thoroughly in my classroom discussions.
I recently observed a student teacher come across a similar situation And not only did she not address it but neither did I when providing feedback although I had recognized it as a perfect time to use context to control /encourage dialogue. Now that you bring this up I'll have to go back and address it. Thank you.
ReplyDelete