Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h76KRm727862; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <527587D4.20C12A65.0AB94E44@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AndresMuro@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:574] RE: Who needs to know? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 5106 Lines: 21 Jackie and Co: In my own applied experience, theory connects to practice and viceversa. The problem does not lie in the theory itself, but in the critical reflection of how theory and practice tie together. Some people looking at, or explaining a theory have difficulty tying it to practice. However, the connection is there and it has to be made. The gap is in making the connection. Failed theories come from practice too. Those people that argue that teachers shouldn't focus on theory because there is no applicable connection between these two worlds are essentially theorizing and coming up with a theory. Their theory is that theory and practice do not connect. What they need to do is critically analyze a theory and then, see the connection. The failure to me rests in the fact that connecting theory to practice requires some critical thinking and the connections are not seen on the surface. Ultimately, every teaching approach is based on some theory of the world. If we don't see it, we may be teaching and embracing a theory, or model that may lead to unwanted results. The other day, I was explaining Freirian theory to my staff. I mentioned that Freire was a Marxist, and wanted them to be aware of this because a lot of people do not realize this, and claim to be Freirians. When you point to them that he was, in fact, a Marxist, they go Ahhh!!!, that is evil and I ain't no Marxist and dump Freire. Anyways, I was trying to make a connection between Freirian theory and applied it to classroom instruction because the question about the relationship had emerged. I will try to illustrate how two apparently unconnected worlds can be intimately connected. Freire argued, like Marx, that social reality was divided into a base and a superstructure. We live in the superstructure and only see it, but our reality is shaped by forces that we don't see, at the base. Freire argued that the purpose of literacy was to objectify reality so that people could see the base, better understand the superstructure and engage in a praxis to bring about change. The above is totally obscure to the untrained eye, and teachers may wonder what the hell does this mean, and why should they know this. This is the explanation I presented to my staff about Freire, and they wanted to know how this connected to practice. I explained that many of our classes are in colonias in El Paso. Colonias are impoverished areas that lack utilities, paved roads, hospitals, schools, transportation, etc, etc. Residents of colonias often look at themselves as the cause of their inability to succeed in American society. The rest of society also looks at colonia residents and blame them for their failure. Essentially, colonia residents feel that if they studied harder, worked harder, learned English, etc, etc they would be able to succeed and it is their responsibility to change. In Freirian theory, the are only looking at the superstructure or surface. Freire argued that they needed to look at the forces that shape their reality, the base, objectify them and then try to understand them. This could be done through a photograph. With a picture of a colonia, students could step outside of the reality and begin to look at the actual picture of this reality. They would see, shacks, unpaved roads, no school or hospital, no railroad, bus stop, or cars, no utilities, dirt, children running barefooted in the dessert, etc, etc. they could also look at the pictures of other neighborhoods in the community and see the differences. Based on comparing differences, they would conclude that same elements in their community are lacking, and procuring these may enhance their chances of succeeding. So, students through literacy, can bring about change by going to city council meetings and demanding paved roads and public transportation. Or, they can write letters to the newspaper requesting a hospital. They can send press releases to the media stating that incidence of hepatitis, respiratory infections and asthma is greater in a colonia than in the rest of the USA. they can argue that their children lack computers or access to the www while virtually every child in the USA is computer literate by age 7. So, in essence looking at Freirian theory can reveal a lot about practice. However, while the connections between theory and practice are there, we need to think critically to find them. If we cannot make the connections then, we can be sold any model since we do not understand its relationship to the theory. Every approach that we use in a classroom is ultimately based on some theory. Some theories are failed, others are successful, others are good or bad depending on context. the role of the teacher is to engage in the critical analysis required to understand the relationship between the theory and the practice. Otherwise, they are using a theory that they do not understand and may not be in tune with their ideals or that of the students. So, teachers need to decide if they prefer to be technicians, or intellectuals. Andres go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:15:15 EST