Sorry folks, no poem this post. I was happy to see that Appleman answered the question I posed last week in chapter 7, at least somewhat. I asked if it was possible to introduce these lenses at the start of the year so that the students were able to use the multiple perspectives from the get-go. After reading the first paragraph, I started thinking about those students who have difficulty comprehending the text, let alone reading deeper. Luckily, I surged on and Appleman answered me. She stated that: "kids on the margins seem to be savvier about theory" (pg. 112). Why could this be? Is she assuming that those who experience difficulty with reading or comprehension have a certain set of life skills and prior knowledge that those who breeze through the readings do not? I believe she means that those children from minority groups have been forced to look at society in a different light, automatically allowing them to critically view the world. But what about those who are not from a minoritized group and still struggle? Are they able to comprehend how these lenses are to be used while not having experienced any of the "experiential knowledge" Appleman alludes to? I believe that in order to use critical theory, one must be able to comprehend the text first. If we do not know the surface level, how can we look deeper? It's like viewing an amazing comeback win in baseball, but missing the first seven innings where the winning team was losing. It's not really a comeback then, is it?
P.S.: I am writing this with the hopes that someone will dispute me. I can see the definite advantages to critical theory and lenses for ALL learners, no matter their grade. They are able to use the skills they have in order to understand the text in their own way, or in an opposing way, rather than struggle with frustration and give up. This process allows the students to argue their position, which brings in a democratic setting to the classroom - and studies show that discussion is one of the best ways to retain knowledge.
I was also drawn to the passage, "kids on the margins seem to be savvier about theory" (pg. 112). You asked a few great questions, such as “what about those who are not from a minoritized group and still struggle? Are they able to comprehend how these lenses are to be used while not having experienced any of the "experiential knowledge" Appleman alludes to?”
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do agree that students must be able to comprehend the text first, I think that all students have experiential knowledge about real elements of class, gender, race, etcetera that they can apply to these lenses. However I think students may believe that they do not have this experience because they struggle to see their own connections to these issues due to the fact that they have characteristics of being “blind” to structures such as power, color, and privilege. The students might also be defensive of their privilege which would probably make them struggle with recognising their experiential knowledge. If this is correct, it gives us all the more reason to teach theory. By teaching theory all learners can gain knowledge of a larger structured world, but also they can learn about themselves and their own positionality.
Ah, just what I love when discussing literature . . . a baseball metaphor! I think you placed that one there on purpose just so that I WOULD respond to your post. Well, here I am. Responding! ;)
ReplyDelete(If I can make it past proving that I am not a robot!)
I agree with Appleman and you about the marginalized groups having a somewhat easier time regarding application of the lenses. However, I do not like her patronizing attitude regarding their abilities. Way to set the bar extra low for those on the borders! I didn't include this in my blog, I took a totally different path, but it really bugs me now that I think about it. As to your opinion regarding comprehension, I do think that students need to understand what's happening, but I think they can do this by applying critical theory. Each person brings their own lives to literature as it is and the lenses allow us to focus our understanding on a specific aspect of the text. This, in turn, leads to comprehension. For example, when studying "Oliver Twist", the students would have a far greater understanding of what is actually happening if they applied the Marxist lens rather than just answering end of chapter questions, or doing a character analysis of Oliver, Sikes and Fagin. (or this is just coming to me now, using the Feminist lens to understand Nancy's inability to leave Sikes or how/why the Beadle loses his power once he marries.) I'm talking in circles here without really getting to the point. Yes, the students do need to understand what is happening in the text. BUT, I think the lenses will allow that to happen IF you lead up to it in the right way: such as, scaffolding, reading/viewing other texts, setting up the text first rather than jumping in without any prep.