|
It’s
Déjà vu All Over Again!
A retrospective
|
||
|
For a formatted copy of this response, click here! The author, Aleen Nilsen, provides a historical perspective on the gender issue as it refers to book publications/selections and the imbalance of male/female protagonists, as opposed to the narrower focus initiated by political and feminist agendas. She refers to the country’s political efforts, after the Russians’ successful Sputnik launch, to inspire male students’ greater participation in the sciences. Next she refers to the recognition by many in the 1970s to the imbalance in books and educational materials that reflected a significant focus on male themes, interest and protagonists, to the detriment of female interests. This resulted in a needed reform in the 1980s-90s that is providing a greater balance in books and materials for females in particular. She is currently concerned about a feminist backlash, causes of which she does not discuss, and an effort by some to change our curriculum based on a singular event such as the “Columbine Shooting.” The
author focuses our attention on non-gender-based considerations.
First, frustrated and disenfranchised students not reading at grade
level, mostly boys, but not exclusively, do not respect institutions and
teachers who have not taught them to read.
Second, an anti-achievement culture is growing in our middle and
secondary schools. Third,
macho and gang peer groups are disrupting the learning process in our
classrooms. Fourth, some teaching styles suit girls more than boys.
Fifth, the limited choice of books in the classroom and many
libraries causes disinterest, disengagement and even resentment when
compared to reading options outside of the classroom. She
concludes with three important points.
Don’t go overboard on gender in our schools.
Don’t expect all students to read and love a single book in
whole-class instruction. Don’t
restrict the reading genre acceptable, available and promoted in the
classroom---allow more student ownership in the process. “What
is good for the best (input yourself, your gender, group, minority, etc.)
is good for the rest” (author unknown).
In other words, seek what is best for our children our students our
society, focusing on inclusiveness, remediation, enrichment, and the many
voices found in our classrooms. In
contrast, feminist Carol Gilligan in her book, Making Connections
(1991) and the AAUW (American Association of University Women) have chosen
to place blame rather than to encourage and promote equity.
Myra and David Sadker, in their 1994 publication, Failing at
Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls, have also chosen to
focus on the negative rather than positively addressing what educators in
the classroom can and are desirous of doing.
Feminist efforts to promote female interests is warranted, helpful
and desirous. Their efforts
to denigrate the male schema, fault all males for their maleness, and
socialize away core components of the male stereotype have contributed
significantly to this backlash. Investigation
and research into the validity of selected AAUW assertions and hype have
proven them to be incorrect, misleading and fertile ground to justify and
warrant some of the backlash they are currently experiencing. I
have had the opportunity to discuss some of these issues with Dr. Stephen
Christensen, Dr. Charlie Silva, Dr. Lawrence Rogien, Dr. Jeanne Bauwens,
Dr. Lamont Lyons, all in the BSU Education Department, and Michael Dudley,
principal of my daughter’s elementary school.
It has been insightful, invigorating and stimulating to me.
This process has also helped me to resolve some of the negative
feelings I initially experienced and to return to a more healthy and
constructive frame of mind about who I am and what positive influence I
might promote in the classroom. Students
do not respect institutions and teachers who fail to teach them to read!
This statement lends possible insight to better understanding the
frustration of some of our learners.
Ivey Gay speaks to this issue in his article, “A multicase study
in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers (1999).
Many students who are categorized as unable to read at grade level,
or as reluctant, unmotivated or passive readers, are much more complex
than these descriptors would indicate.
His research showed that students could read, used active
strategies and were motivated when they received materials appropriate for
their skill level on themes of personal interest, and when they read with
a purpose meaningful to them. Teachers
need to step out of the box of a narrow reading curriculum to respond to
the world of these readers. Both
genders want to read about protagonists similar to them or about dilemmas
and problems they are required to overcome as they strive for a role among
their peers and an identity in addition to that of their parentage. There is a test called Degrees of Reading Power, which identifies, within certain limits, the level of text difficulty a learner can comprehend and manipulate without assistance, with assistance or not at all, even with assistance. This test can guide the teacher and student in their efforts to select appropriate level materials. Disenfranchised readers are made to feel incompetent, dumb, isolated, foolish because teachers do not recognize the mismatch between what the learner can do, will do, wants to do and what s/he is asked to do with grade-level materials for which the teacher is unable to or does not find substitute materials that address this mismatch. As this mismatch persists, the learner refuses to play the failure game any longer and almost by default becomes part of the anti-achievement culture. These learners then gravitate to or reluctantly become involved with macho or peer groups that, though they occupy student desks in the classroom, are really in a parallel dimension quite removed from their physical location. Do
certain teaching styles favor girls over boys?
I have read about this statement in two other sources, one being
from England. After my
discussions with several of the education faculty, I have reached a few
tentative thoughts. Many
girls (don’t want to stereotype) may have more patience, a greater sense
of obedience to authority and more tolerance for non-engaging
instructional practices than boys. Is
there research to support these ideas?
None of the faculty members I spoke to was familiar with any
relevant research and in fact seemed to indicate that this had not been a
topic of consideration in their professional development.
Inclusive instructional strategies that encourage cooperative
learning, roles in learning circles, multiple means to demonstrate
learning and multiple sources that provide learners a certain amount of
ownership in the learning process do address this question. Three
components will enable teachers to respond in a positive manner to gender
concerns. First, promote and
encourage an extensive variety of reading genre.
Second, know the issues and themes your students are concerned
about and the book titles you can recommend that respond to these
interests. Third, understand
that the differences in reading skills are greater within a single grade
than between grades. This
means that if you teach the 6th grade, you need materials that
satisfy the first two components and that represent reading levels found
in the 2nd to 9th grades. I
believe that the challenges teachers face daily, are among the greatest
and most important to our society. Literature
and reading websites on the Internet can help us and our students make
meaning of our world and the individual concerns each of us faces.
The need before us is identified, the challenge is multi-culturally
pronounced and the path before us is rich and rewarding.
As I challenge my children, “do your best and be your best!” For a formatted copy of this response, click here! |
||
|
|
