10/24

I just spent all day at a workshop on teaching with museum objects and it reminded me of other, somewhat contradictory approaches to get students to get at the content. The rest of the participants were classroom teachers, some late in career, most teachers of social studies. We were asked to share observations much in the same way we looked at the poem. I noticed a definitely trajectory when sharing noticings. This group of school teachers seemed very conscious that while it is all well and good to explore, there is content to be learned. Moreover, because the workshop was "Using Art Objects to Study Religion and Sacred Space," the teachers were heavily influenced by their interest in balancing tensions over their own faith practices and the faiths of others in the group as well as ideas about the classroom. Many had come to find out how to productively combat stereotyping and exclusion in the classroom, and therefore, much was at stake in terms of what did and did not constitute appropriate answers. This is not to say that the group was not welcoming of controversial or unpopular opinions; examining assumptions was a key theme and that cannot be done if assumptions remain buried. However, it was central, for good reason, that not all answers could go unquestioned. Because the group comprised self-selecting adults interested in this particular subject, the conversation stayed appropriate. However, a few times, a participant would use a word like "mythology" with regard to Hinduism--a living religion--and we would discuss why a word like "mythology" would exclude practitioners of non-Abrahamic religions. One cannot imagine "getting away" with referring to an image of Jesus as a painting representing "Christian mythology" to a public school classroom in America.
I began to wonder where the lines should be drawn in critical inquiry around issues in which much is at stake. How can we promote open exploration and acceptance of all answers, but also ensure that students reach beyond their experiences and biases? Are we just to put all our faith in long term answers, like providing enough information to contradict assumptions without actively pushing back against them? How would this look when addressing very distant issues and fine distinctions?