Consequentialist Pedagogy In The Texas Secondary English Classroom

Consequentialist Pedagogy in the Texas Secondary English Classroom

In the eighth chapter of his text, Meaning, Language, and Time: Toward a Consequentialist Philosophy of Discourse, Dr. Porter argues for a shift towards a consequentialist pedagogy in the classroom. Porter rejects the current practice of “authoritarian, rigid teaching methods” involved in what he terms “pedagogies of severity,” as these severely restrict the consequences or meanings available to students when writing or reading (278). Instead, he argues for a consequentialist pedagogy, which promotes flexibility in both the interpretation and consequences of a text or utterance (303). While this propagation of the multiplicity of meanings is emphasized in some post-secondary

Much of the student expectations outlined in the ELAR TEKS are concerned with students’ interpretation of a text’s meaning. The syntactical choices in the TEKS create a vague notion of “meaning,” as the outlined expectations alternate between using and omitting a definite article. For example, in the “Reading” strand, within the “Comprehension of Literary Text” component, students are asked to determine “the meaning” of a text as well as “how the author . . . creates meaning” (Texas Education Agency 19). An educator closely examining this text would be confused by the lack of syntactic consistency when it comes to “meaning.” The use of a definite article, “the meaning,” implies that there is only one accepted meaning to be found within a literary text. However, when the definite article is removed, it acknowledges the multiplicity of meanings within a text, as students simply search for “meaning.” If an educator were to interpret the TEKS in this way, consequentialist pedagogy would not only be possible, but encouraged by the TEKS itself. It is important to note that the ELAR TEKS does not explicitly instruct teachers to guide students towards the privileged meaning or to dismiss their alternative interpretations as invalid. However, this seems to be the consequence of the ELAR TEKS, as teachers continue adhere to rigid interpretations of texts in order to ensure student success on standardized tests. Many would contend that this is the only choice for educators who wish to successfully teach the TEKS; however, I would argue that just as the ELAR TEKS straddles the line between promoting a singular meaning and multiple meanings of a text, teachers can exhibit the same duality in their pedagogical