Thanks so much for the model summary. It was a good experience to see things through your eyes.
I've not heard of Atwell's workshop approach. I found three links that give some good background. Thanks for the learning extension!
http://www.sedl.org/cgi-bin/mysql/buildingreading.cgi?showrecord=18&l=description
http://www.learner.org/workshops/middlewriting/images/pdf/W1ReadNancie.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/books/30reading.html?pagewanted=all
Has anyone used StudentsReviewBooks.com ? What was your experience?
Thank you for explaining the tone of Cochran-Smith & Lytle. Understanding their reactionary tone is helpful. I think of a Paul Nation quote when I think of practitioner inquiry. "Do we write to influence/publish or do we write to learn?" Or something like that. I've asked one of my colleagues to direct me to the quote as I can't find my reference to it exactly.
My thoughts in answer to your questions:
Is it better to offer an "impure" and tainted introduction to inquiry than to do nothing at all?
Inquiry is a natural part of being curious. I think 'sneaking' inquiry into any interaction - no matter how 'teaching to the test' the lesson objective is, is possible, natural and regularly done. As humans we think, we question. While the pedagogy and practice of 'inquiry as stance' is ever evolving, you can always jump on and off the its Merry-Go-Round process when needed.
Is it better to join a project with principles we consider suspect, or is it better to just wash our hands of projects that don't dovetail with what the field knows about literacy?
This is an excellent question and one that really plagues me. When I was younger I was more idealistic and passionate. I was also more immune to being slapped down, and more patient with myself and others in our learning process.
As I am getting older, I still have ideals, am still incredibly passionate about my work, but my immunity to rejection is not protecting my spirit like it used to, and I am finding myself more and more of a crotchety old lady. I also find myself wanting to wash my hands of projects that don't dovetail with what I see are good practices and respectful towards all players.
But then I read things like Here comes everybody by Clay Shirky about 'unlearning.' And I look at graphic representations of democratic and republican blogs and news that don't have enough points of connectivity in books like Connected by Christakis and Fowler and I wonder how we will ever learn to live peacefully if we don't take the risk to dialog with people different from us.
And then I read words from a local entrepreneur and philanthropist that make me realize we need to be uncomfortable; we need to reach out and engage. All the more so because projects with ideas, theories, practices that are not compatible or 'right' to us are all the more critical for us to really help us find and express our voice. Those imperfect, wrong projects are the right spaces to start to dialog about what's wrong!
From Lindsey Nash of Say Kimchi Recruiting in Gwangju News Magazine February 2012
