Old-School School

I'm not sure if this is just a part of my student personality, but I'm going to provide a little bit of naysaying in this post. It's not that I think that what Smagorinsky or Beach are arguing in their respective texts is wrong but that I think it may reflect a strong adherence to a very effective teaching philosophy that may sometimes result in the lack of attention to potential problems and their subsequent clarification. Of course, I have no actual teaching experience. Smagorinsky and Beach both know a lifetime more about teaching and English education. I also think they would agree that learning requires a sort of conflict between an individual's prior knowledge and new material, such as their own texts. If I am going to benefit from their claims and suggestions, in other words, I need to analyze them against what I already think.

Now that my disclaimer is over, what exactly are the issues that I am having problems with? Well, good thing everyone likes lists:

1. Constructivism as be all end all - I wrote about this a bit in my previous post. As ideal as the philosophy seems, certainly it must run into problems. Yet, neither texts seem to ever bring up any potential problems with the approach. What do we do when we have a classroom with a large majority of unmotivated students? What does autonomy look like for those students who are not used to having ownership over anything?
2. The authority of the teacher - Sometimes, when I read what these texts argue, it seems to me that the lines between teacher and student get blurred to a degree that I can see the possibility of students not taking you seriously. If the framing is, "we are completely in this together," how do we maintain the essential fact that we are the teacher after all and our students need to follow our rules? Neither text provides the type of classroom management techniques required in order to carry out constructivist teaching. Students cannot decide every single aspect of the class themselves because that can include inappropriate behavior as well. 
3. Textual evidence? - This is perhaps my biggest concern so far and is definitely more of a traditional conception of literature and reading. Now, I agree with Rosenblatt and the transactional nature of reading, that reading does not have an "official, static meaning" as Smagorinsky also argues, and that each individual's prior knowledge and experiences will affect their reading of a text. However, Smagorinsky and even sometimes Beach take this too far, in my opinion. For instance, in one description of a student-centered activity, Smagorinsky writes, "This activity allows students to discuss the literature in their own language, reconstruct the events in terms of their own experiences, and translate the author's language and themes into their own rendition." Where is the actual text here? Do we not value what the author is saying at all but instead are only concerned about how students can rearrange them into something that can potentially have little or nothing to do with the actual text? I think the danger here is allowing students the conception that what they read can mean whatever they want it to mean. Rosenblatt's brilliance is in her commitment to always reminding the teacher that students' interpretations are always fair game as long as they connect it back to the text. In other words, textual evidence and synthesis are required for each individual reading. One part of teaching English is teaching literature and how to read literature. Most of us got into this game because of our love of great novel, stories, plays, and poems. We can both utilize student's individuality and background experiences AND simultaneously believe that these texts have inherent worth without being regarded as simply outdated.

Like I said, I still find these texts to be incredibly useful but that doesn't mean we can't be critical of them at the same time. 

Cheers