<see comments embedded in text>
--- "Linda J. Graham" <ljgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Lisa,
> This is a really interesting question/diversion. In
> Australia, I don't think we are as far down the
> bureacratisation of teaching and teacher ed as the
> US but there is a strong backlash against anything
> smelling remotely "postmodern". This has resulted
> in very strong suggestions that we remove the "F"
> word from govt research grant applications (believe
> it or not this is a reference to Foucault, not the
> other F word - that could probably still fly!). The
> trick it seems is to get the concepts in but not
> name them.
Foucault once said that he would quote Marx without
citing him, disguise Marx's concepts in forms that are
prima facie unreconizably Marxist.
The other thing I've seen work is
> secondary citations - the work of philosophers of
> education (i.e. Michael Peters and the like).
> The same applies to teacher ed in a way. Although I
> guess this is "un-truth telling". I was teaching in
> a core unit last year which is pretty much based on
> Foucauldian principals but the thing is that only a
> bare minimum of students would go away and read
> three chapters of D&P, or some of Rose's Governing
> the Soul - about half didn't even read the unit text
> (which I found an entertaining read!). Those that
> did read some Foucault were like deer in headlights
> - it was very hard for them to relate what they were
> reading to anything else in their teacher ed course
> (or life for that matter) because everything they'd
> been learning was decontextualised and discretely
> packaged in line with the requirements set out by
> regulatory bodies - the standards of any teacher
> education program as you describe.
> My way around that was (in the very, very short
> tutorial times we had) was to explain the
> connections by way of analogy and concept (and
> groovy drawings on the board). I even got the F
> word into a developmental psychology class "not
> everything is bad but everything is dangerous"...
> although I was never invited back to that one! The
> more scripted our work becomes or the more we move
> to on-line environments the harder this gets to do -
> which I guess, is where you're at?
> I'd be very interested to hear more about the
> constraints that limit your work in this area.
> Linda J. Graham
> Centre for Learning Innovation
> Faculty of Education
> Queensland University of Technology
> Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia
> CRICOS No 00213J
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lisahennon@xxxxxxx
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:34 PM
> Subject: [Foucault-L] How do we use Foucault texts
> in teaching?
> Hi, I've always tried to avoid discussions of
> moderation because the procedures obscure the
> issues, at least for me. Instead, I have a very
> open-ended question for the list serve. I would not
> consider myself a Foucault scholar, but I do use his
> work in my own research in education and teacher
> education. At a time when U.S. educators are held
> to standards of procedure, especially the reductive
> notions of "good teaching practices" and
> "outcome-based" research, I find it nearly
> impossible to incorporate Foucault into my teaching
> for prospective teachers. I teach a History of
> Education course and find ample opportunities there,
> but in other teacher education courses, I confront a
> rather Foucaultian obstacle of failing to meet the
> standards of "truth-telling" as required by any
> teacher education program. Any thoughts?
> Lisa Hennon
> Foucault-L mailing list>
> Foucault-L mailing list
Dating: It's free to join and check out our great singles!