Today I was mulling over the "research" questions people always ask me about teaching graphic novels. I find myself saying many of the same things over again when I talk to people about comics in the classroom -- "graphic novel" is a fine term to use; "sequential art narrative" is even better; there's nothing wrong with calling them "comics;" they're a form or medium, not a genre; Will Eisner did not actually coin the term "graphic novel" in 1977 -- and when they ask about the research, I often inform folks that people have been studying comic strips and comic books in terms of education and literacy since at least the 1930s*.
I have my sources I quote, etc., but now I'm thinking I need to take a different strategy.
"Question: What does the research say about how effective using comics in the classroom is?"
"Answer: What does the research say about how effective using poetry/American Literature/Shakespeare/etc is?"
See, we don't have much quantifiable evidence that teaching Othello or The Bluest Eye or Of Mice and Men or The Catcher in the Rye or Beowulf improves students' literacy skills. If we focus solely on these texts or their larger forms or genres, we're essentially in the same boat as we are with graphic novels: we have tons of anecdotal evidence and personal experience from practicing teachers that show literacy and ELA skills and critical thinking skills can be engaged and seemingly improved via interaction with these texts. But, when it comes to NCLB quantitative data, not so much.
What we do have is data on how effective different teaching strategies can be. So, I'm thinking maybe we've been asking the wrong questions, and I've been giving the wrong answers.
It's a crapshoot whether texts teach independently, since in that case everything is completely dependent on reader variables. But when a well-trained and informed teacher utilizes good strategies to teach students a text, things can change. I am absolutely sure this holds true with any text. Don't believe me? Look at what Michael Bitz has done with The Comic Book Project, or what Nancy Frey and Doug Fisher have done with their students, or what I've talked about upon working with mine.
So, I'm thinking that the more important thing to tell teachers is not just to look at what the research says specifically on teaching comics, but to think about the gaps in evidence we have for the effectiveness of every text in our curriculum, and to think about what makes learning happen: it isn't the book or work itself so much, but the way the teacher and students interact with the texts and with one another. Whether we're dealing with ol' Shagstaff or Craig Thompson, the ans wer has always been in the how, not necessarily the what.
* This longevity is evidence to me that though the popularity of considering comics int he classroom may eventually lessen, as education does seem to be a field of trends -- it will never completely dissolve. Fads don't last 70+ years.
**The more I consider research vs. practical experience, the more frustrated I become. I certainly understand the need for solid qualitative and quantitative work related to teaching, but we can't dismiss auto/ethnographic stories of experience. As I learn more about the competitive world and fissures of educational and professional philosophies, the more I seem to think that the problem with anecdotal evidence is that it comes from the individual.
Think on it: I can tell my story about how comics influenced my reading development and how they seemed to engage my students, and so can scores others, but there are still many who will say that personal anecdotes aren't strong enough evidence. However, if we all tell our stories to a researcher, and they write up our stories and triangulate the data, it gains more respect. It is vetted. Now, if someone can somehow quantify the triangulated variables and run ANCOVA's or ANOVA's or whatever on it, those results are even more impressive.
All research is flawed, regardless of methodology. Useful, but flawed. But when it comes to anecdotal evidence, I wish we'd just cut the crap and say, "The reason it isn't compelling is because your story coming from you doesn't help me get tenured/published." As for practicing teachers, knowing the charades associated with academic careerism, ideological alignment's place in academic careerism, and the inherent falliblilities of each type of research may be just as important as focusing on research-based practices.
1 comment:
Hey Bucky, in reading what you had to say about teaching comics in the classroom, you have to remember that it is difficult to teach something like sequential storytelling to those that are used to having instant gratification. In the end, if the student is committed to the craft and really wants to learn the subject then he will embrace the genre and the methods which are used to teach it.
I am a Lit major, but I always had a penchant for reading so Othello and Of Mice and Men helped me realize different things about writing and what work goes into writing well.
Each comic is a world onto itself, each person that reads a comic is immmersed in the book in their own unique way and take from it a perspective that only they can comprehend.
To describe a comic to another person, once you have read it is a difficult task because once you tell them, they color it and imagine it in their own unique way.
its not like a movie where the action takes place and the movement is fluid, in a comic our eye is led through a series of panels, borders, lines on paper, and a preconcieved interpretation of the human form, of people or creatures that dont exist, and this is hard to teach to people who are not used to using that part of their brain where imagination is key to enjoyment of the art.
Just keep doing what you love and you'll be rewarded, but you as a teacher should already know this!
Thanks!
ray
Post a Comment