A theme that pervaded both The Literature Workshop and “Confronting Resistance” seemed one of learning to let go.  Wilner came to the realization that she had to let go of her own preconceptions and biases simultaneous to her students letting go of their previous cognitive frameworks of belief.  Both were forced to identify when feeling ended and thinking began, what was a critical reflection and what was merely an automatic response.  Blau described the deliberate shift a teacher must make when letting go of what you’d like to present in favor of what you’d like your students to discover.

While we often readily seek to de-bunk the tradition of lecture teaching I can’t help but wonder if it’s reasonable that we expect others to let go of anything while in the act of becoming educated.   Blau puts it rather nicely in the guise of a cliché: “What is needed, of course, is the fishing pole and the fishermen’s lore that the wise benefactor gives to the poor man, instead of a handout of day-old fish” (31).  This is all well and good in the context of promoting self-discovery and learning, but it fails to recognize the inherent value in some of that hand-me-down knowledge as well as the real mental leaps that must take place when belief and value networks form the basis for interpretation.   While I very much appreciate Blau’s stance on the righteousness of the academic relationship between teacher and student, I temper my own over-glorification in light of real-life constraints and forces at play inside and outside of the classroom.

Wilner very courageously attempts to confront these forces, but falls victim to one of my cardinal pet-peeves: Humanities experts are not social scientists.  While I believe that there is a dearth of wonderful research out there about pedagogy, rhetoric, composition, learning styles, genre communities, and so on and so forth, there is a hard limit to pedagogical experts making claims about religion, ethics, morality, and psychology.  Cognitive theory can yield some very powerful conclusions about feeling and thinking, but cannot be finessed into a comprehensive overview without also associating the necessary experts in the supplementary disciplines.

Blau’s perspectives on “From Telling to Teaching” heartily preconceives that learning how to interpret texts must be a process that students come about determining for themselves.  It’s not good enough to just “hand-down” our own knowledge or the historical/background information (although, sometimes these lectures are imperative).  If you have ever worked with a “student” (adult or otherwise) than you know that there is something that isn’t being said here… the student will only determine such a process for themselves if they are personally emotionally driven to do so.  Teachers are not just contending with how to present or collaborate on texts; we’re contending with apathy.  I can’t help but think of this in terms of embodiment.  I think of embodiment as the level at which we take ownership of a task and personally care about its success.  Embodiment of a critical practice such as reading or writing is wholly driven by my personal interactions with text, mind, and peers (not to mention a million other variables).  Accordingly, it is all similarly dependent on level of engagement.

Am I able to focus my mental faculties substantially enough on this task?   Stressed?

Is my mind wandering?  Sleepy?  Hungry?  Bored?

Am I distracted by unrelated thoughts?  Did I remember to switch the laundry?

Is this person irritating the heck out of me?

Are some mental distractions actually favorable parallels that will actually catalyze the depth of my engagement?

Are others just a manifestation of my previously held beliefs and values?

Are those impeding my growth or interpretation?

What does all of this add up to?  Think about what you’re thinking about!  Meta-cognitive awareness must be enacted in the individual, but can we actually teach meta-cognition?  Blau says we should embrace “readings that disrupt coherence and subvert certainty” (46), but as we saw in Wilner’s “Territory” experiment, the result can be less than a pleasant ride.   She said she wouldn’t arrange the writing assignments in the same fashion the next time around.  “To move in the wrong direction is not progress, but to move backward in order to correct your course is” (46).   Embrace your fallible nature (as teacher and student)!  If haven’t been bucked off once or twice you’re not riding enough horses.