Frank Smith's classic view of learning says "we learn without knowing we are learning." He follows up with: "we unfortunately learn things that we might be better off not learning." (p 3, The Book of Learning and Forgetting). After discussing foreclosed identities in chapter 2 of Nakkula and Toshalis and reading chapter six this week, the latter quote takes on an eerie tone.
If students are not given the safe spaces they need (identity moratoria, or "homespaces") to think and to question and to challenge status quo, they will be less likely to achieve an identity or realize an authentic self. And it's up to us as educators to offer students these spaces. If not, and they find themselves trapped in a foreclosed identity, underground, or in the closet, they cannot "be fully present as learners, as classmates" (115) (I realize it might be a bit of a stretch to put kids with a foreclosed identity in with the others discussed in chapter 6, but parallels can be drawn between the two---it's just that they are not actively hiding parts of themselves. Like the others, they are actors following a script, they just don't know it.)
N&T also write on page 115, "The heavy scripting of adolescent gender identity forces most youth to hide critical parts of themselves and in so doing robs them of vital opportunities for optimal development." Students can spend so much of their energy trying to follow the script of the patriarchal status quo, that little is left over for creative and academic endeavors. This is where gender identity development directly relates to student learning. How is a kid supposed to pursue flow experiences, or do their nightly math problems for that matter, when they are consumed by how they are viewed by their classmates? Given this, the facilitation of refocusing student's energy becomes paramount for educators.
Christina and Madonna both mentioned that their schools have clubs geared towards offering such spaces. But these clubs leave out kids like Jerry (115-117). He is white, heterosexual, and male. And he is just as susceptible to following "the script". All students that experience inauthenticity need to be included because, "sacrificing part of the self leaves one less resilient, less fully equipped to thrive and to defend oneself in the face of life's demands, including those demands to forego aspirations for a lead part in exchange for a 'supporting role'." (103)
One thing I question in chapter 6 is the prevalence of Skiba et al's finding that "girls are highly underrepresented in advanced placement math and science classes." (105) I have an advanced placement biology class with 8 male students and 21 female students. Just sayin'.
"Learning--fully engaged learning--requires vulnerability. It requires the capacity to leave oneself open to criticism and to willingly seek and provide support. These are not 'masculine traits,' which is why for so many boys, particularly from late elementary school onward, 'school learning' is seen as the educational terrain of girls. Boys' learning happens in the 'real world'" (page 113).
ReplyDeleteI know what you're saying about your AP bio class as well as your critique of Nakkula's position on the representation of boys and girls in advanced classes, but I thought the above quote would put you back in your place. Just sayin ;) Seriously though, you should ask our AP Calc teacher about her gender breakdown.
I feel comfortable saying that girls are more likely to work to their potential where boys do enough to get by. In the greater scheme of things, this implies that our leveling of classes and process of recommending students for classes is woefully inadequate. However, are we as teachers any better than the stereotypical and archetypical prejudices that we read about? In other words, do I as a male teacher see the more potential in the male students that are taking courses one level lower than they could? Moreover, am I more likely to think a female student understands the material better because of the role I expect she's playing? Yes and yes, but I'm an incredibly small sample, and for better or worse, the faculty is made up of many shapes and sizes, so how do we get away with performing at such a level that is less than our best? I think it is because society wants us to.
Society wants us to.....
Delete...because it needs the actors?
By the way, I looked into some numbers...
At ORRHS, there are 122 total kids taking AP courses...72 females, 50 males (roughly 60/40).
Also there have been 64 discipline referrals this year...50 boys (16 of them repeat offenders) vs. 14 girls (3 repeats)
Are girls more likely to work to their potential because society teaches them to be like that, unquestioning and conforming? Boys are allowed to "be boys" so they're allowed to slack off a bit, or do the exact minimum, because that's what society expects?
ReplyDeleteI've found the same thing as you guys with the upper level science and math classes. I remember there were far more girls than boys in those classes in high school. None of my male friends would take the hard classes! I wonder if that's changing or if it's a reflection of where we teach (MA) vs. other parts of the country. I know in Friday Night Lights the disparity is ridiculous (girls never taking high level science and math classes). That was set in Texas. Remember, we do live in a pretty forward-thinking state (in comparison to others).