Changing the Metaphor
The idea of what it means to teach effectively is contingent upon how one defines, thinks,and talks about such concepts as effective reading and effective learning. Until the educational community comes to some agreement on what these terms actually entail in the 2020s and beyond, the same theoretical squabbles will continue to plague education. Such theoretical arguments are not helpful for the teaching profession or the teaching of reading.
The cognitive scientists who study conceptual, or embedded, metaphors have identified a direct relationship between the embedded metaphors, the ways we think, the language we use, and the ways we behave. This has huge implications for classroom pedagogy.
Instead of a pendulum metaphor or a war metaphor, both of which imply sides, stances, and diametrically opposed viewpoints, the profession needs a metaphor which honors each learner’s construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of meaning. This is true for the whole range of learners found in learning settings. Everyone — young children, classroom teachers, leaders of schools, parents, and beyond—is learning together.
We suggest a metaphor of quilting might more aptly describe the realities of most learning experiences. Quilting invokes a purposeful process of selecting and creatively reshaping existing pieces of fabric in new and interesting ways, reflecting the definition of creativity offered by Jacob Getzel and Philip Jackson (1962). We believe this way of thinking more accurately describes the reality of most classrooms. Whatever metaphor is held and used, it is crucial for educators to become consciously aware of how these metaphors influence their instructional language and behaviors. Educators need to ask themselves this question: Are the embedded metaphors in the language I use and my behaviors aligned with my values and beliefs about learning and learners? The way we answer this question should ultimately determine how we approach professional discussions and go about teaching children to read and write. As cited in Rothman’s original piece on the ‘reading wars (1990),’ Steven Stahl, professor of education at the University of Illinois, suggested “the real hope for a consensus in reading is with teachers…[Teachers] are inherently reasonable…[They] get the best things out of whatever’s out there…[If] there is a synthesis, it’s going on in the classroom.”
We agree!
References
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: the great debate. New York: McGraw Hill.
Cobb, M. (2020). The idea of the brain: The past and future of neuroscience. New York City, NY: Hatchette Book Group
.
Darnton, R. (1990). The kiss of lamourette: Reflections in cultural history. New York City, NY: WW Norton & Co.
Gabriel, R. (2018). In Valerie Strauss, The straw man in the new round of the reading wars. Washington Post. h
Getzel, J. and Jackson, P. (1962). Creativity and intelligence. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Goodman, K. S. (1965). “A Linguistic Study of Cues and Miscues in Reading.” Elementary English, 42, no. 6: 639-643.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate—The essential guide for progressives. Hartford, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Paisey, D. (1978). Learning to read: Professor Friederich Gedike. Primer of 1791. Accessed at: https://www.bl.uk/eblj/1978articles/pdf/article11.pdf
Rothman, R. (1990). From a 'Great Debate' to a Full-Scale War: Dispute over teaching reading heats up, Education Week. Accessed at: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/from-a great-debate-to-a-full-scale-war-dispute-over-teaching-reading-heats-up/1990/03
Schaffner, A. K. (2012). You’re not a computer. You’re a tiny stone in a beautiful mosaic. Psyche Digital Magazine. https://psyche.co/ideas/youre-not-a-computer-youre-a-tiny-stone-in-a beautiful-mosaic?utm_source=Psyche+Magazine&utm_campaign=cf4cf9d15c
.
Double-click to add text