|
|
Interpretive Authority What does it mean for students to have "interpretive authority"in the literature classroom? Most would agree that it involves becoming better readers, thinkers, and writers as students shape their own interpretations and encounter a range of critical opinions about literature. Becoming a full participant in the conversation, speaking with specificity about texts, suggesting new interpretations also play a role. But what's the balance between students constructing their own meaning from texts while remaining responsive to the text (and, of course, what is The Text?)? What should be the balance between instruction and freedom, direction and openness? These, of course, are vexing theoretical and philosophical questions that my study cannot answer directly but must engage. English scholars in a time of theoretical flux (a "post-theoretical" time, say some), must continue to explore such questions. One could place to begin is Peter Rabinowitz and Michael Smith's Authorizing Readers: Resistance and Respect in the Teaching of Literature. Rabinowitz states the aim "is to find a theoretical frame that can help us simultaneously to teach our students to respect authors and the texts they produce without falling back on authoritarian pedagogy" (2).
|
|
|
A Caveat My project focuses on an online class discussion. But it is absolutely crucial for researchers working with emerging technologies to recognize how this discussion was deeply embedded within the discourse, methodology, and structure of my class. Any conclusions that might be drawn about this online discussion must keep that embeddedness in focus. The patterns of communication I established from the first moment of the class, my willingness to share authority with students, my attitudes toward the shared construction of meaning, my expressions of goals for the class, all influenced our discussion. The online community obviously reflects the values and procedures of the face-to-face community I establish in the classroom; just how the two facets of community interact, however, will have to be the focus of future research.
|
|
|
Continuing... Much work remains to be done for this study and beyond. Among my questions for further research are these: 1. To what extent does the hybrid form of the computer conferencewritten talk, talking through writingtruly change the nature of student interaction and reflection? That is, does this less formal means of writing promote more interaction than traditional essays, and does the greater structure of the written word (as opposed to oral discussion) promote more critical reflection and sustained argument than in classroom discussion? 2. To what degree should the instructor be present, directive, or intrusive in discussions, both online and face-to-face? And in what ways can instructors shape different modes of interaction by using electronic resources? What measures of monitoring and reward are helpful for fostering true discussions and interactions? 3. To what extent does an active online discussion enhance in-class discussions? How frequently do we find meaningful interaction, constructive reflection about in-class activities in the online discussion, and active reference to online discussions in class? What factors enhance these elements? These are important questions to pursue for my own pedagogy. I have assumed certain things about my classroom practice and uses of technology, but it would be very useful to inquire more actively into the effectiveness of my practice and to engage in scholarly reflection on my teaching. But this inquiry is even more important for the teaching profession at large, for we have with increasing frequency embraced the headlong push to incorporate technology into our classrooms without pausing very often for reflection, let alone scholarly research. I think it is especially important to turn our attention to uses of technology in seminar classes, for the preponderance of attention has been focused on distance education. Finally, I cannot overstate the impact this research has had on my practice in the classroom. Not only did this project make me very aware of how I interacted with my seminar class, but it opened up a line of talk with my students about what we do together to make meaning in the seminar. The investigation forced me to re-examine the criteria I use for evaluating student participation in classroom and online discussions, made me re-evaluate my role in discussions, and changed the dynamic of the classroom as my students gained a stronger vocabulary for shaping and understanding their experience.
|
|
|
|
<QUOTE>On the topic of authority, I think that through this class, we have gained a bit more knowledge to become authoritative in discussions involving Shakespeare, among other things. In the beginning, Dr. O and a few other Shakespeare buffs tended to use the authority they had, but in the end I think we all took a larger role. I think I have figured out that authority can be very easily paired with knowledge. I know that I certainly would not claim to have authority of a discussion on Shakespeare if I had never read one of his works.On another note, I think that true authority, in our terms, has a lot to do with "open mindedness." People who are authoritative often times has their very own specific opinions on topics, however, the ability to see and understand others' opinions is key. If for nothing else, simply to make sound arguments against their claims. Overall, I think all of us have grown in this class, in our knowledge of Shakespeare, as well as people about to enter "The Real World"...scary thought. I know that I looked forward to going to class everyday, which, sadly, I cannot say about many of my other college classes. ~Cori <ENDQUOTE> *** <QUOTE>As far as authority goes, I don't know if I feel like I have more or less of it since midterms. Seven weeks ago, I thought I was on the road to knowing what these plays were about. By last week, I think I had more questions than I started with. But, at the same time, I have much more insight into these texts and Shakespeare as a writer. So, perhaps that is a sign of authority. More than anything, I learned to question myself through these plays. By looking at the way I originally interpreted characters and themes, then putting them up against all of your ideas, I realized more about myself than I thought I would. As Cori said, maybe I was one of those people who tried to have authority over a play to start with (even if I didn't always voice it), but then learned that authority meant looking at it from other perspectives as well. As my last real term at Alma, I would have to say this has been my hardest, yet most favorite class. I wanted to come to class; I wanted to read your posts; I wanted to learn. So, next year, when I have to really "grow up," I will appreciate college more because of experiences like this one." ~Alice <UNQUOTE>
|
|
|
|
Evidence Gathered and Methods The major evidence I have gathered is the entire transcript of the Blackboard online discussion conducted by my students in English 354. Blackboard access is limited to on-campus participants; however, I have made pdf versions of some individual threads: Taming of the Shrew, the first play to be discussed; Hamlet, discussed midway through the term; and Measure for Measure, discussed late in the term. My analysis of the Taming of the Shrew discussion is now available; the others should be forthcoming soon. (These are also available in my resource bin.) I collected additional information from the members of my seminar, although it is not clear at this point how useful it will be. This includes a brief questionnaire about seminar classes administered early in the term, one tape-recorded classroom discussion from late in the term, ongoing but sporadic reflection about the class on the Meta thread in the Blackboard discussion board, reflective analyses of some discussion board postings by some members of the class, and two hour-long focus group discussions with some members of the class. The analysis of the transcripts is not complete at this point. One major challenge of this research is to shape an adequate rubric for analyzing online discussion. As a first step, I simply labeled different discourse strands in the discussion, including: Intro (introductory remarks, opening) Response (direct response to others questions) Connection (explicit linking to other members of the seminar, naming of others) Meta (metacritical commentary about one's own knowledge or approach) Question (asking a question) Opinion (stating an opinion) Report (offering information from a secondary source or personal experience) Cite (direct citation from the text) Closing (closing remarks, signing off) I am currently in the process of testing this framework as I analyze the transcripts. I will perhaps change the rubrics, partly through the influence of discussions from other researchers.
|
|
|
Conclusions - Interpretive authority is complex and multi-dimensional: we need to think about theoretical contexts for authority and about multiple authorities
- Explaining the content of the online discussion is problematic and still evolving; but the discussion does show a rich pattern of student interaction that encompasses a wide variety of interpretive modes and authoritative modes
- Excellent postings for the online discussion show a rich variety of discourse modes
- Most important, the online discussion helps considerably in changing patterns of authority and developing multiple kinds of authority
|
|
|