In his classic work, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Erving Goffman shows how regions of behavior (frontstage, backstage) and performance teams are important in the staging of regular, everyday social interaction. His insights led me to design a Sociology of Education course in which my students moved "behind the scenes," from their usual posture as the academic audience in the frontstage of the class to a more active role as part of the teaching team, creating the class on the backstage. The idea here was to teach a class that would allow students to examine the relationship between education and society while observing process of putting a course together. That would give them a first-hand experience in the creation, preparation, and delivery of class materials and they would also see for themselves the learning dynamics we discuss in Sociology of Education: the effect of the hidden curriculum; the gender, race, and class biases in educational systems, and the social functions of education. Moreover, as part of the teaching team they would discover how teaching affects student learning and how the integration of knowledge is important to its application in everyday life. This paper describes how the concept for the class evolved, how it was prepared, and the actual class experience (through they eyes of the actual students). The conclusion brings out the lessons gained in the process.
In his classic work, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Erving Goffman shows how regions of behavior (frontstage, backstage) and performance teams are important in the staging of regular, everyday social interaction. His dramaturgical approach to reality led me to design a Sociology of Education course in which my students moved “behind the scenes,” from their usual posture as the academic audience in the frontstage of the class to a more active role as part of the teaching team that created the class on the backstage. Goffman’s regions of behavior opened my eyes to the importance of students seeing all that goes into creating a class from the point of view of a teacher. Once brought behind the scenes, they could become participants as well.
The idea here was to teach a class that would allow students to examine the relationship between education and society while observing process of putting a course together. That would give them a first-hand experience in the creation, preparation, and delivery of class materials and they would also see for themselves the learning dynamics we discuss in Sociology of Education: the effect of the hidden curriculum; the gender, race, and class biases in educational systems, and the social functions of education. Moreover, as part of the teaching team they would discover how teaching affects student learning and how the integration of knowledge is important to its application in everyday life. This paper describes how the concept for the class evolved, how it was prepared, and the actual class experience (through they eyes of the actual students). The conclusion brings out the lessons gained in the process.
Goffman’s dramaturgical approach has been used extensively in sociology (especially in symbolic interactionism) to document social interactions. As a method of social analysis, it is a unique and useful way of doing sociology. However, as I began to prepare an upper level undergraduate course on Sociology of Education, I realized that it could also be used as a pedagogical tool. If students could see the social construction that goes into classroom performances, perhaps they would be better positioned to understand the objectives, dynamics, and social consequences of education.
Key concepts in Goffman’s approach supported my insight. For instance, in arguing that as “an actor takes on an established social role, usually s/he finds that a particular front has already been established for it” (1959:27), he provided me with a richer definition of social role than the usual one adopted by sociologists. I could explore the role of the teacher with my students as a front role. If we follow Goffman’s logic, for the teacher’s performance to be convincing s/he relies not only on the usual social expectations for her/his role, but also on the setting where the role is performed (furniture, décor, physical layout, stage props for her/his performance) and on her/his personal front (facial expressions, appearance, manner, expressive modes) which identifies her/him as the role player (1959:22, 24).
As a performer the teacher offers observers “an impression that is idealized” (1959:35). That is key to exploring classroom dynamics. Don’t teachers incorporate in their performance “officially accredited values of the society” (“more so, in fact, than [their] behavior as a whole”) (1959:36)? Don’t we work hard to forgo or conceal what is inconsistent with the idealized standards? Aren’t the classroom performances idealized and structured ways of transmitting knowledge? Goffman’s insights kept pushing me to re-think Sociology of Education not as an academic exercise, but as a practicum, an experiential process.
It was Goffman’s discussion of performance concealment (due to what he calls idealization) that clarified all that goes into the role of the teacher (or any similar profession for that matter) for me. A performance, says Goffman, all its ideals notwithstanding, also happens as a for-profit activity; one whose profitability is concealed from the audience for the sake of creating a certain image of the performer (1959:43). But professors are professionals. As such they have vested interests in the success of their profession. Part of that means making sure that errors or possible mistakes in performance are often checked before the performance; or if they happen during it, that the corrections are concealed as much as possible from those on the receiving end (1959:43). Teaching therefore requires a certain amount of energy that is used in creating and maintaining an image of professional preparedness, or “correctness.”
Furthermore, when we present our product to the students, we tend to show them only the end result in the form of lectures. Rarely do we discuss the process by which such product was created. Since we tend to be judged on our ability to deliver the final product, the process gets mystified by not being alluded or explained (1959:44). We seldom discuss with the audience all the “dirty work” that goes into keeping our performance running – the mechanics creating class notes, of testing, grading, the fairness of our evaluations (1959:44). Those things are there as given. Their importance or rationale are seldom fully discussed with the audience. When they are, arguments are framed in ways that sustain the idealized presentation.
Finally, Goffman reiterates that in performing we seek to give the impression that we have ideal motives for fulfilling our role, that we have ideal qualifications to perform it, and that we have not suffered any indignities, insults, humiliations, or made any tacitly understood “deals” in order to acquire it (1959:46). The illusion is maintained and the performance is complete.
The more I re-read The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, the more convinced I became in Goffman I could find the tools to explore the classroom with my students in a new fashion – by taking them “behind the scenes.” In fact, his method led me to organize the class as a sociology of Sociology of Education. The discussions of regions and region behavior provided invaluable insights into classroom dynamics (1959:106-140), and his exploration of impression management helped me in letting my students understand the tactics and strategies that professors use in the classroom as they fulfill their tasks (1959:208-237).
So, I thought, why not transform the audience into team members, and take them backstage, behind the scenes? My interest was in discovering what would happen if students were allowed to see how a class is put together – from writing the syllabus, to choosing texts, to preparing class lectures, to deciding on evaluative strategies (tests, exams, journals, papers), to its actual delivery. Would that give them a deeper insight into the role of education? How would they see their own college experience in light of this? What kind of cognitive dissonance would be created when they realized how academic performances were prepared? Those questions led to the next stage of the project – preparing the class...
A teaching grant from the University of Richmond allowed me to spend the Summer of 1994 developing the class. In the grant proposal I argued that Sociology of Education had to be an unusual course given its emphasis on in-class pedagogical training. Unlike other sociological courses, I explained, this one would be intended both as a content-course on the subject of education and society but also a pedagogical laboratory, where learning itself would be examined as a process and pedagogical tools would be role-modeled for the students.
As I envisioned the class, course contents would follow the usual prescription for Sociology of Education. We would examine the relationship between education and society, exploring the social end-results of education, its social functions at the primary, secondary, and higher levels, the role of educational attainment in Western society, the effects of race, class, and gender on educational attainment, and other typical units. But unlike other Sociology of Education courses, this one would make students aware of the dynamics of classroom learning, the factors that come together to enhance or limit learning.
At the macro level I hoped we would be able to look at basic areas covered in the study of education and society: the conflicting functions of education in modern society – issues of cultural transmission, social control, personal development, individual adjustment, selection and allocation of status, promotion of change and innovation; the effect of education on social stratification – issues of tracking, social class reproduction, gender/class/race effects in educational attainment; the comparison of educational systems around the world; a closer look at the American educational system; and finally, a look at the reform movements in America during the 20th Century – alternative education, adult education, back to basics, accountability, etc.
At the micro level I expected us to explore the “behind the scenes” part: the school as a social organization – its social system, decision-making structures, the role of professionalization in teaching; the formal school statuses and roles; the informal system and hidden curriculum – the educational climate, school effectiveness, power dynamics, and roles; the dynamics of learning – the connection between teaching and learning, effective instruction, the use of goal-related education, educational tools (syllabus, textbooks, written and media materials), classroom patterns (lecture, discussion, personalized systems of instruction), learning assessment tools (test, exams, written and oral assignments), and finally the role of teacher evaluation.
Summer was spent compiling and organizing resources for the course. First, I selected the reading materials that formed the class’ academic core – textbooks, secondary readings, articles, monographs, and specialized books. Then I developed the class’ bibliographical support (mostly sociology of education titles or related books published in the past four years) which would be available in the library for student use in classroom projects. Finally, I used similar procedures to select media resources (audio and video) for student assignments. In the latter part of the Summer I reviewed research findings on effective teaching and pedagogical approaches. I tried to summarize the findings into a coherent body of teaching strategies that I could present to the students in the classroom. I also tried to incorporate some of the novel approaches to classroom learning into the format of the class itself.
Once the materials were ready, I created a syllabus with a regular outline – dates, topics to be covered, readings for the particular dates, etc. But instead of setting dates for tests, exams or papers, I decided to use a student-centered grading system. On the syllabus I told students that since they had different reasons for taking the course, as well as different learning styles, I was giving them a chance to be in charge of their grade. They would put together their own portfolio for the class.
Portfolios assignments would differ in levels of learning difficulty. Students would complete one assignment per week but only submit their assignments for grading three times during the semester. The levels of difficulty for the assignments were labeled “beginner,” “intermediate,” and “advanced.” The rationale was that in some weeks when they had tests or assignments in other classes they could do a “beginner” or “intermediate” assignment without hurting their final grade. Assignments could be “upgraded” with further re-writings.
Students knew that “A” portfolios would include only “advanced” assignments; “B” portfolios would balance “advanced” and “intermediate” assignments; “C” portfolios would have mostly “intermediate” assignments; and “D” portfolios would have only “beginner” assignments. Samples of “beginner” assignments were: an attendance log (short comments on class discussions), a multiple-choice quiz, a two-page reaction paper (to campus lectures, exhibits, topics raised in class), a short article review from non-academic but reputable sources, or a TV show review. Samples of “intermediate” assignments included: a reading log (a reading journal where students would examine a certain topic through several readings and integrate their knowledge on the topic), a class journal (1-2 page responses to each class discussion), a short-essay test, a four-page reaction paper, a general article review (academic but not highly technical), a film review, a short experiment, or a class presentation. Samples of “advanced” assignments would be: a book review, a class journal, a long-essay test, a 6-8 page reaction paper, a Sociology article review, a documentary review, an experiment, or a more thorough class presentation. Students were also given the choice of suggesting other forms of assignments that might involve sociological or pedagogical practice such as educational experiments, or data collection (as a participant observer, through survey, or creating profiles of classes visited).
The idea was to make this course a laboratory even in terms of their grading, so that they would be able to understand the rationale behind grading strategies. I wanted them to realize that since students learn at different paces and are attracted to different aspects of a course, professors have to think carefully about how to gauge the amount of learning that goes on inside classrooms. Giving them the responsibility to structure their grade was part of showing them how hard it was to create assignments that truly measure the learning that took place.
Since I did not wish to penalize them for experimenting with the grading component of the course, I thought it only fair that each student should have the opportunity to re-write assignments until the final product was satisfactory to both of us. Directions for assignments were kept very general so that the students would have to take the initiative in detailing how to measure their own progress. Judging from the responses I got in the students’ final evaluations, I would say the idea worked quite well:
In looking back over the semester and the Sociology of Education class I notice that compared with many other classes, the output of the class was definitely proportional to the input for each student. Both the attendance policy, opportunities for discussion, and the portfolio allowed students to have as much or as little involvement as they pleased. As I was taking the class out of general interest and really did not know what to expect, I felt that in many ways I was able to tailor the classes to my needs and my interest. Because I am not an education major, at times, I felt that the material was not applicable for me, but the portfolio assignments allowed me to delve into the aspects of education that I felt were closer to my interests and experiences (student 18, final evaluation p. 1).
A survey of the students’ portfolios showed that they covered more content in their assignments than if they had been given standard tests and exams. One surprising element was their creativity. Students were very creative in their assignments. One student used a survey to measure college students’ attitudes toward formal, traditional teaching styles versus more liberal, modern approaches. Her subjects were given the questionnaire, results were tabulated, and a significant gender difference was found: females were more likely to agree on more liberal, modern approaches. Not only did she learn about her peers’ reactions to teaching styles, she also picked up important surveying skills!
Students were very conscientious in choosing documentary or film reviews. Despite the fact that they were free to choose any film, the selection was scrupulous and serious, as a sample of the movies reviewed outside of the classroom indicates: Rosie the Riveter; Making Sense of the Sixties; Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America; Hoop Dreams; Higher Learning.
Students were also serious about selecting articles for reviews. They used mostly materials from our texts, but that may have been more a reflection on the library holdings (as an undergraduate library facility) and their limited choices in looking for other sources. The following articles were reviewed by different students in the class: “Socialization to Gender Roles: Popularity Among Elementary School Boys and Girls,” “Creating Gender Equality,” “Paths to High School Graduation or Dropout,” “Tracking: From Theory to Practice,” “From Nerds to Normals: The Recovery of Identity Among Adolescents from Middle School to High School,” and “Restructuring Students for Restructured Work: The Economy, School Reform, and Non-College Bound Youths.” One student used S. K. Stroeher’s “Sixteen Kindergartners: Gender-Related Views of Careers” from The Elementary School Journal.
Among books reviewed for portfolio assignments we had Paul Berman’s Debating P.C., Ed Farrel’s Hanging In and Dropping Out, James William Noll’s Taking Sides, Virginia E. Wolff’s Make Lemonade and Martin M. Wooster’s Angry Classrooms, Vacant Minds.
Several schools in the Richmond area were visited by students who wished to observe and compare class dynamics in different learning environments. They were careful to visit schools in different neighborhoods, in both secular and religious settings. All in all I would say that the portfolio strategy generated a lot more work (for them and for me) and student involvement than what would be expected if we had adopted regular assignments.
The main texts for the class were Jeanne Ballantine’s The Sociology of Education and Joel Spring’s Wheels in the Head. Ballantine covered the more sociological aspects of education. Spring introduced students to the pedagogical and philosophical aspects of learning. I also selected seven controversial works (Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis’ Schooling in Capitalist America, Paulo Freire’s The Politics of Education, E.D. Hirch’s Cultural Literacy, Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society, A.S. Neil’s Summerhill, Neil Postman and C. Weingartner’s Teaching as a Subversive Activity, and Carl Rogers’ Freedom to Learn) to be used in group projects. Students were expected to read the works outside of class and present summaries and arguments to their peers in class during the semester. Here are a few reactions to the assignment:
I really enjoyed both participating in and listening to book reviews in this class. I learned a great deal from these presentations. The book Teaching as a Subversive Activity really brought out the radical in me. Even though much of this book contained unrealistic ideals and goals, I found myself agreeing with a lot that the authors had to say... I also liked the idea of teachers asking themselves why they are teachers. I liked the idea because I think you should only teach for the right reason... I thought the book discussions in this class taught us to think critically and often taught us to be upset with the way things presently are. Often something may be alright and fair in your own eyes, but when you look at it through someone else’s or some other group’s point of view, things may not be alright. I think this class helped teach that (s14, f.e., pp. 3-4).
I enjoyed learning about some of the more radical approaches to teaching such as those in Postman and Weingartner’s Teaching as a Subversive Activity and in A.S. Neil’s Summerhill... Even though I didn’t agree with many of their ideas there were some which I felt did deserve a chance. For instance, even though I wouldn’t send my child away to a boarding school, I did like the idea of giving the child the opportunity to make some decisions on their own such as when to go to bed or when to clean up their room. If someone is constantly telling you what to do and when to do it you will probably experience a lot of difficulty in making those decisions when that person is not there (s16, f.e., p. 3).
Reading Carl Roger’s book, Freedom to Learn, caused me to reflect on my past and present academic career. I actually questioned the amount of knowledge that I had acquired over the last sixteen years. I found myself comparing the amount of knowledge that I had been taught in school with the amount of knowledge that I knew that I realistically possessed at this particular moment in time. Sadly, these two amounts are not even relatively close. Hearing Carl Rogers promote the idea of free learning and teachers as facilitators sharing their knowledge with their students, gives me the impression that I was cheated by both my professors and myself. Up until recently, I had never been given the chance to choose what I wanted to study and to be able to study in such a way that I could internalize the information as to maximize my learning potential (s8, portfolio, book review, p. 1).
I asked the Media Resource Center in the university to show four full-length movies outside the regular class meeting times. The movies were shown during the evening, roughly one a month. Following the movie viewing we always had an informal discussion tying the topics or issues raised by the movie to what we had already covered in class. The movies shown were: Conrack (based on Pat Conroy’s novel, The Water is Wide), Dead Poets’ Society, Educating Rita, and Fat Man and Little Boy (about Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project). Students had the option of using the films for classroom assignments. Their reactions show the extra time outside of the classroom was well worth the effort:
The thing, though, that had the most impact on me was not the information from the books, or reading over my notes, but through observation. Teaching is not just a skill, it is an art. This became obvious to me as I watched Conrack and Dead Poets’ Society. We learned in class about the four basic models of teaching: didactic, apprentice, collegial, and friendship. Most teachers use a style that encompass more than one of those models, but it is an extraordinary teacher who can weave them together in a way that reaches and touches his or her students. (s4, f.e., p. 3).
As I progressed through college, I started to question if I really wanted to be a teacher. Eventually I decided that yes, I did want to be one. Still, it wasn’t until I watched Conrack for this class that I was once again reminded of why I really wanted to be a teacher. Conroy’s book and the movie show a teacher who has a profound impact on people’s lives. Teaching is one of the few professions that enables a person to do this... Watching the movie for this class helped me remember. I relearned something I had lost. (s14, f.e., p. 3).
I’ve learned that with knowledge comes power, but not just the power to improve oneself or society. Knowledge can be dangerous as we saw in the film Fat Boy and Little Man. There are definitely moral issues which result from education. For example, if you knew something that could possibly cause the destruction of human life, do you have the right or the obligation to withhold this information? People can get caught up in the excitement of the moment and may not take into account the ramifications of their actions. Another example is Dead Poets’ Society. Did Mr. Keating over-step the boundaries by giving the students the idea that they must try new things and do what is best for them? (s16, f.e., p. 3).
The various movies illustrated some different teaching styles, as did the article ‘On the Ethics of Teaching and the Ideals of Learning,’ by Robert Audi. Students were also exposed to yet another model of teaching simply through observing how you chose to conduct this class. I think the most important idea that I drew from the combination of all these sources was that learning can be made fun. The classroom experience does not have to revolve around textbooks and lectures. Moreover, when exciting and intriguing methods are used, the learning process becomes more meaningful” (s20, f.e., p. 3).
Watching the movie Educating Rita allowed me to get a better perspective on the role of the social stratification system in education. Although this movie’s setting is Great Britain, I feel comfortable assuming that Rita would have experienced the same struggles (although to a slightly lesser degree) in the United States (s8, portfolio, movie review, p. 1).
Keeping up with class readings (mainly from Ballantine and Spring) was the full responsibility of the students. But so was creating class notes for the course! They were told on their first day that they were expected to complete the readings on the assigned dates but also to create the class lecture notes for them as if they were teaching the course. We intentionally did not cover the material from Ballantine and Spring in class lectures. Students were told that their class notes would be a required portion of their portfolios. I would then comment and grade the notes from the point of view of a teacher – questioning the activities they planned for class presentations, the strategies they used to discuss different aspects of the materials, and the method they devised to evaluate the effectiveness of their presentations. Again, judging from the students’ reactions, the idea was effective:
One of the most effective aspects of the course was the way in which the class interacted with the textbook. In giving the students the first crack at sifting through and understanding the Ballantine book, the student was able to form his/her own opinions without input and possible bias from the teacher. It has been extremely frustrating to me to be told by teachers what the text means and what we as students should get from it. When teachers lecture from the book it stunts the students’ interest in the subject as well as an ending of further questioning on the material covered in the book (s3, f.e., p. 1).
Since I was no longer responsible for covering the textbook contents in class, I organized class presentations around three discussion clusters: epistemology (What is knowledge? How do humans learn? What enhances or limits our ability to learn throughout life? Do different people have different ways of learning?), pedagogics (Can knowledge be transmitted? What techniques work better for transmission and retention of knowledge? How do we determine that someone learned something at a proficient level?) and education and social power (How do societies use/appropriate the knowledge they generate? Is learning a means to screen people into different levels of social stratification? Are nations made more or less powerful in having the capacity to generate new knowledge?).
The epistemology cluster provided the class with the theoretical underpinnings for the rest of the course. We spent a good amount of time exploring issues related to the human ability to learn and to the individual and social filters that mediate the acquisition of knowledge. My interest was that the students explored why people learn the way they do and what are the limitations to knowing (intellectual, social, cultural). For this section of the class I relied heavily on a book by Otto Maduro, Mapas para a Festa, a work in Portuguese that I translated for class discussion.
The pedagogics cluster revolved around the techniques and art involved in teaching. We used articles, books, videos, and music to explore how transmission of knowledge takes place. Students explored important issues related to teaching using a series of articles written by professors for college professors (“insider material”) on the difficulties of being a teacher (Audi, Schoenwald, and Pratt were the chosen scholars). The students had never seen any material like that before. It was a revelation to see how hard it was for a professor to decide how to best organize the knowledge they had to transmit and how to find the right distance from students in the process of influencing their lives. I also used two texts to discuss knowledge as the end product of a process – Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and H.J. Perkinson’s Teachers Without Goals, Students Without Purposes.
The cluster on education and power dealt with the social uses of knowledge and teaching. Here the heavy emphasis was on how education was linked with economic and political interests. We discussed how education worked as a screening device in reproducing social classes domestically and as a power tool in establishing a country’s hegemony internationally. Students got a glimpse of how their particular educational histories prepared them for a certain kind of future; how their life opportunities reflected not only their social status, but also their educational privileges.
As it might be obvious, I organized the books for group presentation and the full-length films around the three clusters. We watched Conrack for the first cluster; Dead Poets’ Society for the second, and Educating Rita and Fat Man and Little Boy for the third. We discussed books by Rogers and Neil during the first cluster, by Illich and Postman and Weingartner for the second cluster, and by Bowles and Gintis, Paulo Freire, and Hirsch for the remainder of the semester.
Class meetings were used for lectures, group discussions, group presentations, documentaries, video clips (shorter 20-30 minute video presentations), music analysis (two Harry Chapin’s songs: Taxi and . Better Place to Be, Joshua Kadison’s Postcards from L.A., and Dvorak’s 9th symphony, From the New World), and reading exercises. I tried to organize the meetings in ways that preserved a storyline throughout the semester, but the students had plenty of space to explore particular aspects of the storyline as much as we could fit into the class schedule.
At the beginning of the semester I realized that I had mostly an audience of seniors. These were folks who had had four years to grow cynical about education, who had learned every trick in the book about getting good grades and keeping their GPAs up without putting their souls into class work, and who were not necessarily eager to explore new ways of learning (most of them were more concerned with graduation and job interviews). Luckily, the class was mostly divided into education and sociology majors, which proved to be an important connection in the long run (of course, the education majors complained that the course was too sociological, and the sociology majors complained that it was too pedagogical).
On the first day of class I discussed the reasons for offering the course and how I envisioned it unfolding. I also spent the first week explaining Goffman’s basic concepts so that students would understand what I meant when I said I wanted them to be part of the teaching team. I made sure they knew I did not wish to own the course, nor control it, but rather let them use this opportunity to explore and understand how things work inside a classroom. A good number of them were dismayed by my lack of directions or need for control, even more so with my lack of specific requirements! No set tests, a liberal attendance policy (“come when you are prepared to contribute”), and self-organized assignments. Needless to say, I got initial mixed reviews. But in time students realized that no control meant more work for both of us. Two students put it best:
When I first entered the classroom, I did not know exactly what to expect. Perhaps I thought I would suffer through countless boring lectures similar to those I experienced in my other sociology classes. But what a delightful surprise! No boring lectures, no tests, no exams: I must admit that it all sounded too good to be true. And the more you described the course, and the more I thought about it, I imagined that this may be the most difficult class I take all year! (s6, f.e., p. 1)
Not only did I have more fun in this class but I learned more as well. Due to the portfolio assignments I was forced to do a great deal of work independently. But as opposed to working on meaningless tasks, students were able to explore topics that are of special interest to them. These portfolios served not only as a form of assessment, but they also provided another opportunity to reinforce the ideas discussed in class, or seek new ideas. By applying the information received in the classroom to situations outside of class, the lesson becomes even more meaningful. This, in turn, resulted in personal reflection and the incorporation of new ideas into practical experiences (s20, f.e., p. 2).
As the weeks went on, I tried to balance lectures with other pedagogical strategies. Even when lecturing, I would shift the students’ attention from the content of the lecture itself to the process – posture, use of audio-visual materials, use of blackboard, use of question-and-answer, presentation of self -- and back. I wanted the students to understand the dynamics of the classroom process as much as the content of what we were discussing. Eventually, as they understood my strategy, they put me on the spot as a teacher, since they were able to gauge whether I was being effective in my front role and if so what technique, mood, and presentation of self I was using to accomplish.
Because of their readings for the portfolio, students also brought other resources to class discussion that we did not have time to structure formally into the official outline. Those interested in economics would highlight the connection between education and economics in class. Students majoring in education would focus on the how-to aspects of teaching. History majors brought information related to the development of education in America (we had an interesting class presentation on how primary, secondary and higher education evolved during the past 100 years in the U.S.). Women studies majors always made sure we included the gender perspective in our discussions.
After a few weeks a core of students began to “own” the class process – they actively read the material and discussed it in and outside of class. These students pushed others into getting involved in group assignments. They would react to the readings with questioning and strong opinions. They wanted to go farther behind the scenes, questioning me about their own education and about most professors’ expectations, fears, and skills. Once they began to reflect on their own educational experience, they came to realize how much their learning had been influenced by their social location. The class came alive then. And they were the ones who benefited most from the experience....
Sociology of Education proved to be somewhat of a roller-coaster for me this semester. Some of what I learned fascinated me and convinced me that teaching truly is the world’s greatest profession. Other times, I was equally convinced that education, in its present form, is making a mockery of American society. That our schools do little more than teach children to conform to societal norms, perpetuate the inequalities the power structure of our society so enjoys, and serve as a free babysitting service for many uncaring, irresponsible parents... Much of what I ‘learned’ I already knew. I was aware of the funding inequalities which pose a tremendous obstacle for many teachers and students in the poorer school districts across the country. Other such obstacles such as violence, drugs, security, lack of resources, teen pregnancy, and divorce rates were things with which I had at least a shallow understanding of. Despite my brilliant command (ha ha) of many of the subjects we discussed, there were still quite a few things I was able to take away from our class (s5, f.e., p. 1)
Other students tailored their participation – whenever things were discussed that interested them they would get more involved; as we moved on to other topics their participation slowed down...
I realize on the outside surface I may appear to have learned little the past few months from this class. I participated infrequently in classroom discussions (that, however, is common to most classrooms and many discussions... I enjoy the listening and the observing far above the sharing); yet, I certainly took things in and followed the exchange of ideas. I wrote summary papers instead of the analytical papers or papers integrating outside materials with classroom discussion and readings. Despite this, I have not left empty handed... (s15, f.e., p.1).
In the next sections I would like to let the students own words explain what they experienced as we moved through the three clusters. Given the spirit of the class, I feel that it would be inadequate for me to summarize their thoughts. They owned the class and they certainly own their own ideas. And since their final evaluations (f.e.’s) were not counting toward the largest portion of their grades, I was able to get very honest reactions and some insightful responses to the way the class ran.
Students were surprised to discover that knowledge could be formally or informally gained. They had been trained to validate only the formal process. Many were not attuned to the importance of the ongoing informal learning taking place in people’s lives. They were also glad to know that informal learning can be a way to “counter” the bad influences of formal learning; that once in charge of their own educational experience, they could “learn from within”:
I believe that most of us, since our pre-school days, have been conditioned to learn in a certain way, in a very controlled environment. We have been conditioned to expect to be taught and receive knowledge in a certain way. Teachers provide us with knowledge through lectures, visual aids, handouts and assignments. In return, we are expected to regurgitate this knowledge back to them through tests, papers, homework assignments and participation. I suppose this is an adequate process because it has been the norm for as long as I can ever remember. But it leaves me to wonder, what are really getting out of these lectures and these classes that we probably would not have chosen to take had they not been required? What are we getting out of the educational system as we know it? More importantly, is this what it really takes to learn about our world, ourselves and life in general? (s1, f.e., pp. 1-2).
Furthermore, I benefited from the discussion of glasses people wear [the personal, social and cultural “lenses” that mediate the knowledge people gather in everyday life]. This helps me to step outside of myself to see the student and the student’s perspective. Students will be coming from different places, with different motivations, different desires, and different experiences. A teacher able to recognize students’ differences and students’ glasses will be better able to make the classroom a positive, educational, beneficial experience (s15, f.e., p. 4).
The issue of learning as an ongoing part of the human experience was something that intrigued the students. Once learning was taken out of the classroom, all kinds of possibilities could be further explored:
I learned that knowledge is power, that education transmits culture, that learning for technique is different than learning for life (which is wisdom). I learned that education is a process that continues throughout one’s entire life (just as I learned to read at age 4, my grandfather learned to water-ski on his 70th birthday). I learned that education and learning are contingent upon many factors – the teacher, the student, the administration, the society, and the economy, to name a few. (s4, f.e., pp. 1-2).
Now I fully realize that learning takes place everywhere... The learning process doesn’t cease at the end of the school day, at graduation, or even when an individual turns 70, 80, or 100 years old. Learning never stops. The emphasis may shift from learning your a, b, c’s to learning how to raise a child or change a tire, but the process whereby an individual learns is ever-lasting... I’m beginning to learn that to be educated is to have a thirst for knowledge, to love the learning process. To understand and appreciate that what I’ve learned thus far is such an insignificant tip of the iceberg to what’s still out there to be learned. I can honestly say now that I’m not ready to leave the classroom. Six months ago I could not understand how some people spend 30 years of their life in school. But now that not only seems foreign, but somewhat attractive and enticing. I’m beginning to understand that to be a truly educated man is to be able to discuss, intelligently, a wide range of topics with someone I have never met before. At the same time, to understand that this same person has so much he/she could teach me that would help me become even more ‘educated.’ Today I can look at the learning process as exciting, a chance to improve myself in many ways, and even fun (s5, f.e., p. 2).
Students even wondered about what a good education or an “education-for-life” would be like. That helped them to re-organize their notions about schooling altogether. Why do we create schools? Why do we limit schooling to certain age brackets? Who decides what should be formally or informally taught?
An ideal education imparts the particular skills of an occupation to the student as well as incorporating a philosophical aspect into the learning experience. It is the combination of this technique and meaning which produces a well-rounded student. The technique, or mechanical aspect of an education, enables the student to reach a particular goal, while the meaning, or philosophical aspect, endows the student with a competency in life, not just in a career. The ability to deem things worth contemplation for their own sake, and not just because they are relevant to a certain career problem stems from a total education of the mind and soul... It is important to have a complete education because a career is not the only part of life for which it is necessary to be skilled. There are countless other elements of life which bring meaning to an individual’s world. In order to be happy, we must be able to face these other elements with some sort of competency. This does not mean that experience is necessary, although it is always helpful, but merely that a preparation for, and an ability to handle the unexpected is a large part of managing problems. Education gives a person the ability to map out life, and when she encounters problems along the way, it is possible to explore many different routes around them (s13, f.e., p. 2).
Another important idea that I learned from this class is that knowledge must come from within. Teachers can teach just so much. True learning occurs only when a person is ready and willing to truly incorporate a new idea/fact/emotion into their whole being. A person must embrace knowledge with their heart and mind while adding it to their existing schema. Once something becomes a part of you in this manner you have truly learned about it. And this can be done from within (s20, f.e., p. 5).
It is one thing for students to criticize teachers as students. It is another to look at them once you understand the dynamics of knowledge transmission. Once you realize teachers have to help students learn basic concepts and integrate them at higher levels, things change. As students become part of the teaching team, their perception of teaching and learning changed:
In all of the education classes that I have taken, we always tag on ‘other factors that influence a child’s achievement,’ but I realize now that most often that has not even begun to really address the impact that individual experiences can have on the classroom and on the individual, himself. That scares me to death as I think about actually trying to teach a class of twenty young, impressionable individuals. This semester I had to actually prepare and teach a lesson to a kindergarten and a first grade. As I was preparing the lesson plan and the activity, it was so easy to think of the class as just ‘the class.’ As I was driving to the school to actually do the lesson, though, I found myself thinking things like, ‘I wonder if Michelle will be able to follow these directions... I wonder if Chad will be able to sit still for that long... Will this be too easy for Carrie?’ I couldn’t do it by just thinking of them as ‘the class’ – it would be meaningless (s11, f.e., pp. 2-3).
On the very first day of class I read (on the syllabus) that ‘teaching is the most difficult task a human being can do because it involves changing the lives of strangers by touching their thoughts and experiences’ but that this must not ‘compromise the integrity of the learner.’ It is a very delicate balance. This related to the four obligations of teachers: grading, modeling, advising, and befriending, and the balance that must be kept between them. To achieve the goal stated by David Carr in the above quote, it is important to understand that learning isn’t just about facts and figures; it is about imagination, creativity, experience, connecting facts with situations, and LIFE. It is teaching someone how to learn and how to think critically and creatively. That is quite a challenge to accept, and I wonder how many of those whose ambition it is to become professors, actually live up to it (s4, f.e., p. 2).
The teacher is in a constant battle in between the structure and the process of education. Is it better for her to meet the needs of the children or the society? Is her goal to stretch the student to his potential or to fulfill the demands that society places on her? As a future teacher, I must search my heart and motives in order to realize where I stand on this battleground. I realize that I do not have control over the entire process, but I can put things into the system that will benefit my children and teach them to believe in themselves and their potential. I can implement activities and lessons into my day that will hopefully feed their souls and develop a passion for learning (s21, f.e., pp. 3-4).
Some students were actually surprised that the process of teaching involved learning for both the teacher and the student! That was one of the “behind-the-scenes” insights they gladly appropriated:
I learned that learning is reciprocal. The misconception of the teaching profession is that the learning process is a one-way street. The teacher teaches and the students learn. While this is certainly true, the teacher and the student can and do change roles quite frequently. From the students a teacher can learn about other cultures, how to interact with people, how to stay young and how to be filled with wondrous imagination and curiosity. Students can teach their teacher as much as a teacher can teach his/her students... (s5, f.e., pp. 3-4).
This class has made me think about questions like can teachers and students be friends? What is the role of the student/teacher? What are the responsibilities of the teacher, and at whether or not it is cruel to tell a student that anything is possible when the teacher knows that it may not be possible for that student (s16, f.e., pp. 1-2).
Some of the technical aspects of teaching became a lot clearer for the students. They wrestled with issues such as what model of teaching to pursue in the classroom, how to teach students at different stages of development and intellectual capability, and how to keep students motivated to learn:
On a more practical level, this course gave me the ‘big picture’ in terms of what factors affect the learning process. I had always felt that the source of many of the problems of education came from the teachers themselves and the lack of resources given to the teachers. I had never envisioned how many factors influence and shape the educational system. I had a belief that most teachers cared little for change and perpetuated the status quo. It was not until I learned of the level of bureaucratization in the school systems, also of factors such as the PTA, the taxpayers, the school boards, the superintendent, the principal, the teachers union, the government (at all levels) that have a hand in affecting the educational system that I realized the difficulties of controlling good education (s3, f.e., pp. 5-6).
The multiple roles of the teacher is another thing I probably knew but didn’t know I knew. The modeling, grading, advising, and befriending aspects of teaching we discussed each play an equally important role in teaching. The instructor must learn to juggle these roles effectively and know when to jump into each role at the appropriate time. The teacher must learn that what is an appropriate role for student A in any given situation may be completely inappropriate for student B in the same situation. Similarly, the teacher must realize that s/he cannot possibly hope to become friends with each and every one of his/her students. Some students simply are not ready for this. Others may have personality traits which would prohibit a friendship. Still others may not give the teacher the opportunity to befriend him/her. Sometimes a teacher may have to provide a shoulder to cry on for a student one day, and still give a test to that same student the following day. A proper balance must be maintained by the teacher. Only through experience can a teacher begin to make sense of all this (s5, f.e., pp. 3-4).
Each student that attends school is very different from the child sitting in the next desk. Each child has not only different tastes, talents, backgrounds, and limitations but also has been exposed to different socialization and experiences. Thus, due to these differences teachers must incorporate these individual characteristics into their lesson plans. They must also acknowledge the fact that they can not cater to every individual student. Realistically, the only way to successfully please the students is to be able to separate them according to their interests, progress and social backgrounds... (s8, f.e., p. 1).
I learned that the best teachers are those who inspire their students to seek knowledge independently. I have a clearer perspective of the type of teacher I want to be and how I can achieve that. The article by Audi outlines four types of teachers. I hope that I am never placed into one of these categories. I want to be able to incorporate all four styles into my classroom and be able to adapt my methods to best suit the needs of individual students (s20, f.e., pp. 3-4).
Perhaps the part of the class that most troubled students was the cluster dealing with social privilege, power, and schooling. Most students were aware on an individual level that education provides opportunity for progress, for social mobility. What they were not aware was that the opportunity was not evenly spread throughout society...
Schools teach the most intelligent children that they are ‘the future of America’ while the less gifted children learn their place in society will be to find a stable union job as a painter, carpenter, or other blue collar position. These less gifted children never learn that they ought to have an equal opportunity to succeed because they don’t. Schools teach one thing and show another. ‘America is the land of opportunity’ kids learn. What they find out later is that the small print reads, ‘America is the land of opportunity if you happen to be a white male who learns how to play the game by not ruffling anybody’s feathers.’ These things would surely make Ivan Illich proud but I’m not ready to completely abandon compulsory education, as Illich would have us do. Rather I do recognize some positive qualities which we can build on to improve our schools... Our schools provide at least a glimpse of some things that many students would otherwise never have exposure to. Children can see school plays, participate in the school chorus, learn to play an instrument, and participate on athletic teams at no expense to their family. Through these and other similar activities, children learn dedication, discipline, loyalty, pride, and love (s5, f.e., pp. 2-3).
Some students (especially education majors) questioned whether education could really fulfill the function of creating excellence in gifted human beings while at the same time training the larger masses who were not as well endowed:
Another question that I found myself asking is whether it is possible to really make mass education relevant for everyone. I found this one somewhat disheartening. If preparing citizens for places in society is one of the functions of education, and the needs of society range anywhere from dishwashers and garbage collectors to doctors and lawyers, then it seems like something in the system must be inherently unequal and, because of how it ends up working, unfair. The way that much of education works presently, millions of children with very different needs are placed into a system where it is expected that they are all virtually identical, and of course some will fare better than others, just because they happen to fit into the system more easily. I guess the larger question, though, is how well the educational system is matched to the needs of society, and how much the needs of the individual should be sacrificed to those societal needs (s11, f.e., p. 4).
An elementary education peer of mine the other day during the class evaluation time, commented on how this class brought a realistic aspect to the idealism from the education department. Whereas I saw through the idealism of education classes, I also saw through the realism of this class. The education classes, because of my cynicism, were not so idealistic to me. I wouldn’t let them be, but tried instead to see reality and wonder what would really work and what would really teach something. This class showed the reality of capitalism and education, poverty and education, family background and education. A lot of times, the reality is ugly and unfair. The idealism I saw in this class saw that ugliness and that unfairness and said, ‘Let’s change it! We can do it.’ My response? The same as my response to cute lesson plans, ‘That’ll never work.’ It is nice to think of a place where education is not hindered by race, by economics, by vested interests. However, I am not much of an activist to see that happen. It may one day, and great that will be. However, until then, I will work within the system and do the best I can at modeling life and a life of continuous education, at teaching, and at teaching students to teach themselves (s15, f.e., p. 3).
Probably the topic about which I learned the most over the course of the semester is the relationship between education and society. I had never viewed my experiences in the classroom as having the purpose of molding me to fit American society to quite the extent that I do now. My understanding of the racism and sexism in the relationship to education have also increased, and I recognize the power that schools have to maintain cycles of class. I think I have also gained a better awareness of the many pressures on education systems and teachers. Although I am still planning on teaching in the future, I have a greater appreciation of the teaching profession as I now see the many pressures on teachers from the administration and the community (s18, f.e., pp. 3-4).
I’ve also learned about how our educational system may actually perpetuate class and gender differences through the ‘hidden curriculum.’ It is very interesting how much socialization we are subjected to without really knowing it at the time and sometimes not even being able to recognize it after the fact. Even though it is thought to be a social institution through which one can improve their class standing, social stratification still plays a major role... (s16, f.e., p. 2).
Running a class where students are not only paying attention to what you say but how you say it, whether you are following your own rules or not is scary. Most of the time I had to make a conscious effort to live what I was preaching! That meant extra preparation time and quick thinking on my feet. Eventually, however, as the students began to own the process, I was able to relax and even acknowledge my own limitations as a teacher. Having them as part of the teaching team took some pressure off for all involved. In their own words, the experience was different, and hopefully worthwhile:
Specifically, I found it interesting to have the insights of education majors in the class as it made the topic seem more grounded in reality, which is often lacking in sociology courses... I noticed that while the textbook had sociological grounding, the classroom experiences seemed more directed toward education majors. While I found myself feeling comfortable with the functional and conflict analyses of education in the text, I often felt that the class lectures an discussions were not as sociologically-oriented as I am used to (which in many cases allowed me to recognize that the theory that was discussed does not fit the system as easily as hoped). Overall, I felt that a good balance existed between ideology and practice (s18, f.e., p. 2).
This class was unlike any other I’ve ever taken. I never took down a page of notes. I never went into class thinking there was going to be something discussed that I absolutely had to know in order to reproduce it at a later date on a test or exam. I never felt the strain of obligatory learning. I tried to go into the first class session with a completely open mind. I looked at this class as an opportunity to learn for the sake of learning, not for the sake of pursuing an ‘A’ like I had in so many other classes... Approaching the class in this manner allowed me to learn a great deal. I believe I could now reproduce everything we discussed throughout the semester if I were to engage in a conversation with someone about education or any other topic. I believe I have taken away a substantial amount of ‘knowledge’ from this class (s5, f.e., pp. 4-5).
Naturally, since students were very much aware that they were responsible for the learning, they came to the conclusion that part of good teaching involves making the learner conscious of his/her part in the process:
Questioning was a big part of our classroom dynamics. This was enlightening to me because my professors that I had prior to taking this class, have nine times out of ten, been strictly by the book. There is no second-guessing. Questions get a direct, factual response – almost as if the professors’ word was final and foremost. It is as though their opinions on various subjects were beyond reproach. This ties in well with the articles we analyzed and discussed, entitled ‘Teachers Without Goals, Students Without Purposes.’ An alternative theory suggested in the article dates back to the days of Socrates and Plato who ‘maintained that that knowledge comes from within – from the knower.’ Our education, the kind we get in the classroom, is simply one facet of a huge array of ways we receive and grow from knowledge (s1, f.e., p. 3).
In comparison to many of my classes, this class offered a radically different teaching style which was helpful in making the ideas real. I have had other classes, for example, feminist philosophy, in which theories have been discussed about education, but the professor did not implement them in the classroom so I received the feeling that they were actually not really that important. I felt that the class was taught with a lot of integrity, meaning that the theories were actually put into action instead of simply being presented in lecture form (s18, f.e., p. 4).
During the past few months, I have discovered many things about myself, my beliefs, my opinions, and my goals. Instead of providing answers, this class served as a catalyst for critical thinking about various issues in the fields of sociology and education. Before taking this class I was doubtful that I wanted to pursue a career in education. However, this class enabled me to pinpoint reasons for my doubtfulness. Through handouts, discussions, and movies the difficulties facing educators today were constantly reinforced. At the same time, I saw firsthand the positive impact good teachers can have on students and the school system. They may have to do it carefully and quietly, but teachers can make a difference. This was emphasized in Conrack and Dead Poets’ Society, as well as in the classroom, through your use of novel approaches and ideas. Therefore, while this course provides many reality checks with regards to the educational system in America, it also provided inspiration. I learned that I definitely do want to become involved in education at some point in my future. This realization was extended even further. I was also forced to think about what kind of teacher I want to be (s20, f.e., p. 3).
In 17 years of college teaching this was probably the most exhilarating class I have taught. It was also the most time-consuming and the most demanding both inside and outside the classroom. Students took to heart being part of the teaching team and quickly became very educated consumers. They would not only criticize each other’s presentations in class, but were very attuned to my presentations and to my strategies to transmit what I deemed to be important knowledge to them.
So I had to prepare thoroughly before class but I also had to make sure the dynamics inside the classroom were reflective of our discussions related to epistemology, pedagogics, and education and power. Learning for learning’s sake had to go along with stimulating teaching and teaching materials and paying due respect to gender, race, class, and other forms of social conditioning. For the students this was a very empowering experience. For me it was a very challenging, humbling, but also inspiring semester. It was great to see them understand the purposes of education and to be able to gauge when education was at its best and when it was at its worse in terms of individual and societal outcomes.
Perhaps the best reward came from reading a student’s suggestion of what the right schooling would be like. Her words showed the depth of her comprehension and the extent to which she made the best of being taken “behind the scenes” of classroom learning. The student was an economic major who had never taken any classes in education before. Her concessions to the team approach show how far she traveled in one semester:
Ideally, if I were to be in charge of creating a school to best meet the needs of the students, my school would be an institution advocating both free learning as well as traditional requirements. In the early elementary years, teachers would teach their children in an authoritarian manner. I believe it only natural to teach children how to read, write and learn about spelling, handwriting and grammar in this manner as they have to take what the teacher teaches as fact. Children need to be taught these basic courses in a no-nonsense manner as they are vital for building upon their future academic lives. However, once they get past learning about fundamental requirements, they should then have the liberty of being able to select their own courses of study. They should have more autonomy and the teachers can act as collegial or apprentice type models. Teachers are no longer standing above their students and lecturing them, but are instead working alongside them as either models or co-workers. Teachers are helping the students to create their own educational study as to be able to maximize the students’ learning and intrinsic rewards. Teachers can advise students, but they are more on an equal level with their students. Students are faced with taking the initiative in their learning, and consequently they get as much, if not more, than what they initially put in their learning. Learning, thus, becomes more important to the student. They are in school because they want to learn and be there, not because they have to be there to secure their place in society. Formal structure is de-emphasized. Grades are not as important as they no longer measure the students’ effort. Ultimately, what is the most important is that the child is taking responsibility of his/her learning and is doing so because he/she wants to, not for the sake of a grade. All in all, both students and teachers give to the system and both benefit from their interaction with one another. They teach one another about life and its valuable lessons and meanings and, thus, learn from one another (s8, f.e., pp. 9-10).
Audi, Robert. “On the Ethics of Teaching and the Ideals of Learning.” Academe, Sept-Oct. (1994): 27-36.
Adler P., S. Kless, and P. Adler. “Socialization to Gender Roles: Popularity Among Elementary School Boys and Girls.” Sociology of Education 65 (1992): 169-187.
Baker, D. and D. Jones. “Creating Gender Equality” Sociology of Education 66 (1993): 91-103.
Ballantine, Jeanne H. The Sociology of Education. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 1993.
Berman, Paul (ed.). Debating P.C. New York: Dell Publishing. 1992.
Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books. 1976.
Ensminger, M. and A. Slusarcick. “Paths to High School Graduation or Dropout.” Sociology of Education 65 (1992): 95-113.
Farrell, Edwin. Hanging In and Dropping Out: Voices of At-Risk High School Students. New York: Teachers College Press. 1990.
Freire, Paulo. The Politics of Education. Massachusetts: Bervin and Garvey. 1985.
Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. 1959.
Halliman, M.T. “Tracking: From Theory to Practice.” Sociology of Education 67 (1994): 79-84.
Hirsch, Jr., E.D. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. New York: Vintage. 1987.
Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row. 1971.
Kinney, D.A. “From Nerds to Normal: The Recovery of Identity Among Adolescents from Middle-School to High School.” Sociology of Education 66 (1993): 21-40.
Maduro, Otto. Mapas para a Festa. Rio de Janeiro: Vozes. 1994.
Neil, A.S. Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1977.
Noll, James William. Taking Sides. Connecticut: Dushkin. 1993.
Perkinson, H.J. Teachers Without Goals, Students Without Purposes. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1993.
Pirsig, Robert M. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. New York: Bantam Books. 1981.
Postman, Neil and C. Weingartner. Teaching as a Subversive Activity. New York: Delta. 1969.
Pratt, Linda Ray. “Liberal Education and the Idea of the Postmodern University.” Academe, Nov.-Dec. (1994): 46-51.
Ray, C.A. and R.A. Mickelson. “Restructuring Students for Restructured Work: The Economy, School Reform, and Non-College Bound Youths.” Sociology of Education 66 (1993): 1-20.
Rogers, Carl. Freedom to Learn. New York: C.E. Merrill. 1983.
Schoenwald, Richard L. “We and They: It’s Like Smoke, Like Ashes.” Academe, Sept-Oct. (1994): 9-14.
Spring, Joel. Wheels in the Head. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1994.
Stroeher, S.K. “Sixteen Kindergartners: Gender-Related Views of Careers.” The Elementary School Journal 95 (1994): 95-103.
Wolff, Virginia E. Make Lemonade. New York: Henry Holt and Company. 1993.
Wooster, Martin M. Angry Classrooms, Vacant Minds. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. 1994.
© Radical Pedagogy