No More Passive Consuming!!

In the essay by Giroux titled, “Reading Texts, Literacy, and Textual Authority” he is enforcing the need that a change in the education of students is drastic. The old ways of students being “passive consumers” and teachers being “reduced to a dispenser of knowledge” needs to change (86). Teachers need to be able to adapt to the different discourses that surround students’ lives. He writes of the “Great Books approach” and how it represents a model in which students are not active in their learning (86). They read to only come to class and discover the “true” or only meaning of the text. This of course is not the case because there is always more than one interpretation of a novel. What students often think is that there is only one correct way to interpret a novel and it may not be till college level they feel comfortable or are even aware that other interpretations are available. This brings it back to the point that teachers need to stop allowing students to be passive learners and allow them to become active in their education.

When novels are interpreted there is also the problem that educators lead their students towards the direction of the popular interpretation. This is the one students will often find while scrolling through the SparkNotes website. Yes, these interpretations often have the most evidence to support them, but it does not mean there are absolutely no other ones. Teachers need to be aware that they educate their students on how important it is to provide solid textual evidence that supports their interpretation. This way, teachers are not hindering their students and taking away their creativity to explore the text for themselves. Of course, as an educator, it is important for teachers to make sure students are not going totally off course when giving their interpretation. This line between, what is the “correct” answer and what is deemed “wrong” is often blurred and may vary from teacher to teacher.

An important point Giroux focuses on in his essay, is the importance that teachers of English need to “employ textual authority as forms of social and political discourse that bear significantly on the ways in which knowledge and classroom social practices are constructed in the relations of domination and oppression” (87). Giroux claims that students are not able to benefit from learning because it is not placed within a context that is relatable to a student’s life. He argues, for example, that the lesson plans being set on student’s learning writing skills are being “devalued because it is falsely defined as a pedagogy of skill acquisition rather than a ‘creative and genuine’ form of cultural production” (88). Students are being taught elements of writing, but think it is only necessary to learn this skill to pass tests and pass the class. They need to be exposed to life events that incorporate the skills they are learning in the classroom to justify why they are learning what they are. This seems to be the missing link that Giroux is claiming teachers are lacking in their lesson plans.

Giroux is not simply stating that teachers need to implement everyday life into the skills students are learning, he is also writing this essay for a call for action by teachers. He wants teachers to be active members of their school and challenge the ways in which education is being conducted. Are teachers capable of this type of all-powering notion that they can surpass all? Even with teachers that have families and other responsibilities besides teaching, can this amount of “public intellectual” identity be carried out? Or is Giroux asking for a sacrificing of teacher’s lives in order to create his idealistic type of education system?