On a cautionary note, Smith and Wilhelm point out that there are two issues where the concept of flow falls short. First, applying the characteristics of flow to boys would be equally true of girls, and thus their analysis couldn’t be used to make a comparison. Second, the authors feared over-generalizing among the young men that participated in the study. The initiation of flow for some boys on their own might not manifest in the group. Indeed one of the strengths of the book is the way it takes the reader away from stereotypical images of boys and helps us realize their individuality. Over the course of the two-year study the authors became passionate about celebrating the uniqueness of their fifty participant’s literary behaviors while trying to identify techniques and models that would serve to engage all boys, and girls, in the classroom.
Smith and Wilhelm utilized a broad definition of literate behavior in boys including such activities as listening to music, reading Vibe magazine, or watching and discussing popular movies. This is what the authors emphasize as redefining literacy in semiotic terms, Semiotics being “the study of all meaning-making signs” (p.186). Consequently, the implications for selecting materials in an English class where the teacher actively wishes to engage boys gets messy. Smith and Wilhelm address this issue by presenting inquiry as a more “learning-centered” model (p.186), which aims to capitalize on the expertise that students bring with them while bridging toward “schoolish literacy” (p.96) and ultimately instilling life-long skills to decode and comprehend all literature. As one of Smith and Wilhelm’s students revealed, “[My teacher’s] been kinda showing me the road and the path. I kinda thought reading was dumb, but now I’m kinda getting more into it.” (p.40).
No comments:
Post a Comment