How to not call it Remedial
One of the questions I came up with when I read Delpit's article was whether anyone would view this more direct, basics approach to teaching language as a remedial approach, and how that could be avoided. Or, if it should be avoided in the first place.
It certainly seems like a remedial approach. Whereas the teacher can assume easily that the kids of WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant) parents "get" language, because they use its Edited American English form at home, when it comes to those kids from different cultures, who might not even speak English, the teacher must be more direct. Being more direct means assuming the student knows less, and then teaching them what they don't know, while the students from the culture of power stir in their seats from boredom.
However, I don't see this as a particularly bad thing. If the students from other cultures need to learn more so they learn the language of power, then that's just how it has to happen. It's probably best not to refer to the "explicitly taught" class as remedial, you know, to avoid bullying and teasing, but isn't that essentially what it is? That is, aside, of course, from the connotations of its students being dumber, which would definitely be untrue.
posted by max @ 6:02 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the "direct approach." Do you mean skills-based instruction? Or are you referring to the ways in which teachers interact with the students? I didn't really think of any of the forms of teaching as remedial when I read the article. I think there are different ways to teach, and some educators are more familiar or more comfortable with some than others. Not all people who do not come from a family that is familiar with the culture of power will find the direct approach effective either. I understood explicitly teaching things as being more direct in exactly what you want accomplished through writing rather than simply allowing students to write and then going over each other's papers for what could be changed. Both options seem viable and of use to me, which is why I'm not sure as to where the idea of one being "remedial" comes from. :)
The difference I saw between the two teaching styles was that one was explicit in the knowledge it was transferring and one was kind of implicit - in that through the workshopping process that you mentioned students could improve their work. I think of any class that relies on a student's initial input without explicit direction as more advanced, because you are already assumed to know something. The explicit style, then, seems more remedial. Does that make any sense?
How you're explaining it makes sense. I think I'm just not partial to the term "remedial" because of its negative connotation and the things which I think it implies implicitly apart from your definition of a kind of explicit education. While I think a more subtle approach is usually used in advanced classes, I also think it is often founded upon those explicit classes and learning that we receive, and which are often very necessary when you are initially involved in learning something new.
I don't really think being direct with students constitutes a remedial class, although it would very easy to become condescending or overtly authoritative if the circumstances forced assertive communication. I think there is a difference between "basic" and "direct" approaches, although I cannot define them in terms which would shed any light on them yet; I need to develop the ideas more.
I think alot of it has to do with the intructor's perception of the students. If the teacher respects the students' positions adn treats them as individuals and people rather than numbers or statistics, I think then it would be feasible for a student to be taught in a direct approach without it qualifying as a remedial course.
This is a hot topic in education right now, actually, but it's shifted more towards the integration and teaching of the children of immigrants for whom English is not their first language. These kids usually have to be put in some sort of basic English program, and I'm sure they teach them proper grammar instead of catering to their home's dialect. Of course, this sort of class may be insulting to put native speakers in.
One of the interesting things about kids and labels for stupid students is that, no matter what you call it, the kids eventually catch on. Stupid kids used to be called retarded, back in the day when people wouldn't giggle at the phrase "retarded electron spin," but kids caught on and it became an insult. Somewhere along the line they changed the name to 'special ed.' But any kid today knows that the word "special" means stupid, and the insults of how special someone is freely fly around the playground.
Another term for direct or explicit instruction might be "traditional." There are schools (including charter schools) that are based on traditional methods of teaching, which tend to be more explicit. There are plenty of students at this university who are in no way in need of remediation but who really want explicit instruction.
I have to disagree with the comment that "WASP" kids would sit bored in their desks while learning the language and grammar of the culture of power. I grew up with explicit and extensive grammar instruction from early grade school up through high school. When I meet a "WASP" kid (or adult for that matter), I can often quickly gauge their level of explicit exposure to the language of power. What is more, learners of English as a second language often possess a much greater knowledge of grammatical structure. What is really happening is that those WASP kids who grow up failing to assimilate the language of power gain their power and privelige by other means (often simply by being white, or being protestant, etc.)
I think that Scott S and other people have brought up a really interesting point that struck a chord with me. I had forgotten how precise the English language sounds when it is fully mastered by a foreign student. So often we hear English in the middle of the process, with plurals left out and tenses confused, but by the time a student of English as a second language learns the rules and has practiced them enough, they sound better than the native speakers.
Isn't that interesting?
Post a Comment
<< Home