Bartolome – Week 3
I chose this as the title for this blog, because it is what
I consistently found myself writing in the margins of Lilia Bartolome’s piece. In the first paragraph she begins to outline
a “humanizing pedagogy that respects and uses the reality, history, and
perspectives of students as an integral part of educational practice.” (173) In
particular, she mentions “culturally
responsive education and strategic teaching” which she explains in more
detail
in the end of the article. Overall, she is addressing the need for
teachers to be culturally responsive to the needs of the students of
various backgrounds in their classrooms.
While reading, I was excited by the recent studies and new
research that Bartolome was using to support her findings. What shocked me was that these studies were
from the 1980’s and 1990’s (with publication date being in Summer of 1994). Many (ok some) of these studies were
published before I was even born and yet here I am working towards my master’s
degree and we are still talking about how we can effectively implement them in
the classroom. These ideas aren’t new,
yet many (most?) schools haven’t made the shift required to benefit all
children who walk through the doors.
One area that Bartolome and Delpit both highlight is the
concept that “the teacher cannot be the only expert in the classroom” (Delpit,
32). They both stress the importance of
discovering students’ prior knowledge, recognizing individual cultures, and
bringing real-life experiences into the classroom. Bartolome continues by saying, “learning is
the act of linking new information to prior knowledge” (Bartolome, 182). Through being able to effectively engage all students in the learning process the
learning process will be shared between the teacher and students and therefore
be more authentic.
One area that Bartolome and Delpit both highlight is the concept that “the teacher cannot be the only expert in the classroom”
ReplyDeleteThis is very true Christina. I wonder though how Delpit would feel about the idea of negotiating with the students. Bartolomé comes right out and praises this idea but Delpit wasn't as clear on it. Any ideas?
Jim, on page 186 Bartolome writes, "efforts to uncritically export the Kamehameha Education Project reading program to other student populations resulted in failure. It could well be that the teachers' effort to negotiate and share power by treating students as equal participants in their own learning is what made the difference in Hawaii." I don't think she's saying that it works for all students.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the quote "the teacher cannot be the only expert in the classroom" and Bartolome's tale of the special ed teacher on page 189: I think taking the students cultural background and personal life into account is important, but I'm skeptical that it can work in public school setting with 18-30 students in a class...
GK
Geoff, I agree that with 18-30 students per class and many classes a day this is an overwhelming expectation. I have an unfair advantage (although it doesn't always feel like it)when it comes to this, because I am with my students all day. Sometimes I wish I didn't know so much!
DeleteI think by starting small, trying to connect with a few students a week might be a less daunting experience.
Christina, I agree with your comment about the "recent studies and new research". You'd think that twenty years later, the research might be outdated. But the fact remains that if you look at most students who struggle academically, they lack the independence and metacognitive skills that Bartolome mentions are necessary to monitor their own learning (p. 186). Perception is that they don't care, but the reality might be they've never been taught these skills.
ReplyDeleteChristina, I hadn't considered how controversial these ideas must have been in the 90s, compared to now, when it seems obvious that these are issues in the classroom, although they are still difficult to bring up in most schools.
ReplyDeleteThe peanut butter and jelly principal article was great! The Portland principal seems like he's trying to open up a tough conversation by linking the students' prior knowledge to learning. Lunch is a great way to connect to kids.
Of course, the media picked up on the controversy and had make it more sensationalized, rather than mentioning how the principal was doing something ground-breaking and unique.