Chicken or Egg?

At the beginning of this semester, David raised the issue of theory and practice as a kind of chicken and egg question, prompted by his reading of the Randy Bass article, “The Scholarship of Teaching: What’s the Problem?”  David appreciated Bass’s suggestion that scholarly questions about teaching emerge from classroom “problems” and echoed that his own interests in and questions about pedagogy, always also begin there.  He offered the example of an incident in his class last year that had served to shape his initial “Teaching Statement,” and then pointed out that, with the semester starting, the “problem” of how to approach the first day of class (boring overview? or jump_right_in?) was looming now. 

This made me think about how we had structured the practicum during the first semester, starting with a slew of “big questions” about concepts of schooling, the identity of Community Colleges, concepts of literacy and knowledge, civic education, etc. If Peter and I had been more “constructivist” in our approach we might have asked more specific questions about your (practicum participants’) prior teaching experiences and your immediate questions and concerns about going into the classroom, and then started with readings and discussions that would address those issues. From there, many of the theoretical issues would have emerged.

For example, it’s interesting to think back now on our conversation, last fall, about the concept of civic education. The Carnegie article was superficial and didactic and almost everyone recoiled, and distanced themselves from it and, consequentially, also from the idea of civic education (I first typed “civic vacation”—why do they put the spring break so late in the semester…?) Yet, Susan, in a recent blog entry wrote:

Today we began our discussion with a comparison of ideology and agenda. I used George Bush as an example, asked them to identify common ideological catch phrases Bush uses. They did well on foreign policy (homeland security; war on terror; axis of evil) but not so good on domestic policy (family values (should have been easy, that one!); no child left behind). I think they understood better when we finished, though. Then we mapped the ideologies to political agenda. They did very well on that! I will turn them into little subversives, if it's the last thing I do.

Sounds like a commitment to, or at least an interest in something like “civic education. No?

Back in February Neil wrote:

But even in 101, I'm used to spending more time discussing content.  I would rather talk about the implications of Marx on our contemporary experience than discuss the mechanics and style that make up a "manifesto.

which also suggests (to me) that he sees a potential value, in a writing class, in introducing students to ideas  that could effect how they function as citizens.

I’m thinking also that another effect of foregrounding pedagogical theory and “the big questions” (in the chronological structure of the practicum) is that it places a political (for lack of a better word) agenda, shared by Peter and I, at the center of the conversation, from the start. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it has some consequences, which I want to consider, as we reflect on the year and think about next year’s practicum.

Finally, as I said in class when David first raised the issue (of theory and practice/chicken and egg) I feel strongly that whether we are thinking about (or even directly interested in) the “big questions”;” we are always enacting choices in our teaching that reflect our beliefs. For this reason, I think it’s crucial to explore these questions/issues and to examine the (evolving) relationship between our practices and our beliefs. BUT, I’m wondering whether it might work better to approach it more from the other side in the practicum—starting with more focus on practice and moving towards theory?

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Comments

[Susan Craig]

My thoughts:
1. I think we are all intellectuals and, thus, trained to deal with "Big Questions" as a matter of course. In this seminar, I think a blind poll would reveal that we all hoped for help dealing with troublesome issues of practice.
2. If I had to "foreground" issues of practice, they would be: taking attendance in a reliable fashion that doesn't make me feel like a school marm from Little House on the Big Prairie; being better able to discern gaps in their knowledge (I say, "Do you know how to find apppropriate books for a research project?" They nod. I move on.); using a diversity of effective group discussion techniques.

[Belle Gironda]

Once I have learned their names well (by week two or three) I take attendance silently--then i usually say outloud quickly who I have marked absent to make sure i haven't missed anyone who is actually there. Its still a drag, but a necessary one, I think. The school marm analogy is funny, apt--maybe Peter or others have an idea about how to get around it better.

As you've discovered, its generally not enough, with this student population, to ask them if they know something and beleive them when they nod. They need a lot of help with pretty much everything having to do with research. Its very useful to hear you bemoan this because I realize that we need to build that into next year's practicum more intensively: how to design and support a research assignment for QCC students.