Last Chapters of Schiro and Noddings

Hello Gang,

Well I will have to say I wish I would have read the "conversations" between the SA, SE, LC, and SR at the beginning of the book... it just seems like it made so much more sense to see their "debates" over tangible issues. However if I would have read the conservations prior to the knowledge I now have I may have just been more confused!

In reading Schiro I was amazed by how ofter the SR agreed with the SA, on ideas such as needing to acquire academic content, but the difference between SR and SA is why or for what benefit does the academic content need to be acquired.

I did find the whole set of of each "play" interesting, typically the SA took charge and described the task and the SE had the "efficient" program, it seemed that the LC took the back listening seat until they were asked and the SR jumped in when it seemed they couldn't hold back any longer... did you also notice these idiosyncrasies?

I did find comfort in Shiro stating that you can waiver between learning ideologies, and I would dare to say possible uphold multiple ideologies at once based upon what task you are interested in the students doing, even in Chapter 11 of Noddings she states that its ok for students to have certain facts memorized if that opens up a bigger idea or problem for them to concentrate on.... I almost feel that all of them have some place and merit, but perhaps as educators its our overall duty to discern when are where to use each type? What do you think? Also after reading about the teachers best and worse students I realized maybe the "school" needs all types of teachers teaching different ideologies because different students learn and thrive under different organization and teaching/learning styles.... Would Noddings say that choice of teacher ideology should be another choice students can and should make?

As Noddings wrapped up her book I found her take on Common Core (even though now Oklahoma is not adopting) but I found it interesting that she stated it was nothing new... that we had had these same standards for decades now the language was just a little more straight forward... what did you find interesting from Noddings?

Macedo

Let us blog.

On pages nine and ten, Macedo speaks against the tongue tying/mind-tying of America, stating that it is, “incapable of producing educators and leaders who can rethink what it means to prepare students to enter the...multicultural world of the 21st century” (1991, p. 9-10).  This statement reminded me of Noddings who said, “one universal need that we should take seriously is the need to learn standard English” (2013, p. 110).  Are Macedo and Noddings in opposition with regard to English learning, or are the above statements two sides of the same coin?

One of Macedo’s statements that I found to be most interesting was, “educators and political leaders need to create a new school grounded in new educational praxis” (1991, p. 17).  This statement struck me because, amidst all of the similarities between Pinar and Macedo (identity, race), it smacks of educator and politician working together toward the Deweyan progressive dream of democracy.  Is this feasible, that the “bad guys” and the “good guys” for the good of “the masses”?  Please help if I’m misunderstanding Macedo’s suggestion.  I just keep recalling Pinar’s punchy proclamation: “Theory must stay out of bed with current reform”.

P.S. - To be honest, I almost chose Macedo over Pinar, because of the language aspect.  To be honest, I was most intrigued by Macedo’s mention of the Boston /r/.

I’ll blog on Macedo’s other articles later tonight.

Pinar

Week 8 Social Reconstruction

Shall we blog?

To better understand SR (Social Reconstruction)  ideology, I thought it best to highlight some of the differences I saw that distinguish it from (SA) Scholar Academic, SE (Social Efficiency), and/or Learner Centered ideologies.  I’ll start with SR vs. SA.  The aim of SR, according to Schiro, is “to eliminate from their culture those aspects they believe undesirable, to substitute in their place social practices and values they believe more desirable,” by way of creating “a social consensus that rejects the faults of existing society and affirms the virtues of a future good society” (p. 176).  The aim of SA seems to be the extension of specific disciplines by way of transmission of information from scholars to minds that are “missing something” (p. 45).  The child in SR is viewed as meaning-maker, or one that is able to contribute.  Is there not, however, a parallel between children who are “born helpless” as expressed in Schiro (p. 177) and the neophyte?  Both SA and SR ideologies place the individual as secondary, but are they viewed the same?  I would say not.  The participant’s experience is valued in SR, while the scholar's theory is valued in SA.  What other distinctions do you see between SR and the other three ideologies mentioned in Schiro?  Are there any descriptions of SR ideology that seem confusing or difficult to imagine in practice?    

The tenor of Social Reconstruction  ideology seems to be “change”, so why do Schiro and other theorist avoid calling it “Social Change Theory”?  What would you say is the between social change and social reconstruction?

Week 7 Learner Centered

There is SO much that can be discussed over the readings this week! Here are some questions and wonderings to ponder from this week’s readings.  Pick one or two, and let’s make an effort this week to build on each others' conversations in regard to where the discussion may lead us this week.

Schiro

     Schiro states that children of a Learning Centered Ideology are organisms that naturally create meaning, and thus knowledge for themselves as a result of interacting with their environment; in addition, children contain their own capabilities in regard to growth (pg. 133).  I wonder, despite an engaging environment of activities and experiences, what happens if students do not have a content area’s background knowledge, and students do not receive direct instruction within the content, how could they create the highest level of meaning that might be possible?  According to the Learner Centered ideology, knowledge requires a personal connection before it can become a “way of knowing.  Wouldn’t deeper understanding and “ways of knowing” occur if background knowledge, direct instruction, and activities and experiences were given?

According to Schiro, a critical component of the Learner Centered Ideology is the child’s self-concept, and maintaining that if children have a “robust self-concept”, then children will initiate and take responsibility for their own learning” (pg. 134).  I wonder if Learning Centered curriculum developers and educators believe that all children have the innate capabilities to grow and perpetuate their own motivation to learn?

Perhaps the Learner Centered ideology would acknowledge that knowledge could occur through transmission; however, to gain knowledge on a more meaningful and deeper level, an individual needs to interact with others through experiences, activities, and reflection.  Schiro states, “The Learner Centered educator emphasizes the learning person rather than knowledge…meaning making abilities rather than the knowledge of objective reality that they possess” (pg. 144).  I’m thinking the Learner Centered view of knowledge relates to a person’s abilities to include critical thinking, being rational in decision making, looking at multiple perspectives without bias, and the ability to construct meaning independently. What do you think the response of the Learner Centered educator or curriculum developer would be in response to my questions or inferences?

We experience a Learner Centered and constructivist perspective of learning in our Curriculum Theory class.  Each student in the class has individual cognitive structures, learning styles, and is at different stages of development in regard to our abilities to respond to the stimuli that is given by Dr. Beach.  Would you also say  (without lamenting over the question), that our class reflects other facets of contrasting ideologies in regard to learning, teaching, and our acquisition of knowledge, such as Scholar Academic, Behaviorist, or Social Efficiency Ideologies? 

Do you feel a sense of knowledge construction and reconstruction during the learning activities of our class?  What enables or hinders the reconstruction process of your learning to take place?  Why?

Schiro states, people’s conceptions of “house” or “justice” is not so different where people are not able to communicate about the topics; however, different people will have different conceptualizations of the topics.  I wonder if one of the reasons that Learner Centered education can be challenging for many teachers and students is due to the environment where knowledge is being constructed through the processes of assimilation, accommodation, and reconstruction among students that exist at different cognitive structures and learning styles?  Do you think that all preservice teachers can be “trained” for a Learner Centered teaching role, or do you think they must have the innate personality to be able to conduct learning within this style/type of environment?

Noddings

In Chapter 6, Educating for Home Life, I have to smile.  I’ve spent much of my life “fighting” for the same opportunities that men have been given most of my career life.  Few schools that have had Home Economics are now retitled Consumer Sciences, which have taken away the type of curriculum that Noddings discussed in this chapter. These courses, if they do exist, have been tied to an EOY (end of year instruction test).  I’m afraid the Learner Centered curriculum developer would not approve of the present direction of this content.  What are your thoughts?

As I was reading Chapter 9, Educating the Whole Person, I kept thinking of different ways I would or would not approach the subject of spirituality in my classroom.  I couldn’t help but think of how Mindfulness has entered education, and become popular with administrators and workshops.  I was wondering if anyone else had the same thought?

Sept. 22-28 Social Efficiency

This week's readings were interesting. I did read the material in the order suggested by Dr. Beach and I feel that was a good choice. I will have to say I did not feel Noddings was a direct critique of Social Efficiency, instead I felt as her Vocational Education was almost a theory of its own.. not inline with social efficiency, but not in an opposition to it either, rather a different context altogether. Did anyone else feel this way or did I just not read into the "critique" enough?

Seeing as Dr. Beach did say Noddings chapter 8 was a critique of social efficiency, I will do my best to highlight the differences I see between the two chapters and ideas. As I began Schiro I had a hard time thinking of what the social efficiency ideology would look like when played out in education. I truly appreciated the example of Type to Learn. I kept going back to that example to try and fit the schema of social efficiency to. Social efficiency definitely looks at the behaviors and actions of the learners and insist that "learning consist of a change in behavior, learning takes place only a result of learners' practice of the behavior they are to learn" (Schiro, p. 62).  I didn't find Noddings addressing this subject, but rather she discussed the "big picture" top down teaching where when exposed to the bigger ideas than students could choose based off of talents and interests (p. 108-109). I believe based off of these ideas Noddings would not care for the "factory" approach of education describe by Schiro for social efficiency.

Another area I feel does align between Noddings description of  vocational education and social efficiency is Noddings idea that no grades be given during middle school, that this is a time for exploration (p. 114), verses Schiro's social efficiency description that everything is sequential and must be learned/completed at a level before progressing forward to the next task, it takes the successful completion of many individual smaller task to "learn" the larger task. It seems that social efficiency is concerned with creating a better society by "prescribing" the same education to all in little pieces of stimuli to response pieces. Where Noddings is looking to not prepare the individual for a mere routine job but one in which brings satisfaction (p. 103).

As I was reading through the social efficiency chapter even after the type to learn example I found it hard to see social efficiency in the school of today, but then as I kept reading I think I can see the social efficiency in a few ways besides the obvious accountability of teachers, schools and students. One way is by looking at the lower grades and looking at the standards often a child has to complete a standard a a given target before they can go onto something else. Such as reading they must take AR test at their reading level and until the benchmark test says they can read at a higher level these books are restricted. Where else do you see social efficiency playing out in today's schools?

Not that we are suppose to compare social efficiency to the scholar academic ideology I find it hard not to at least briefly discuss a couple of similarities and differences. One similarity is that students do not receive much choice but rather they learn what is prescribed for them to learn either by "scholars" or by "behavioral engineers."  I feel in both students are to progress as far as they are able to, both do not restrict education to certain individuals.  In scholar academic the learner is an empty vessel but in social efficiency they are active, and must do something to learn. Another difference is social efficiency address the "non-academic" ideas such as homemaking or even societal accountability, where scholar academic is only concerned in the academic disciplines. What other differences or similarities did you pick up on.

The Bobbit article was definitely a good example of the social efficiency ideology at play or dare I say an argument for social efficiency? It seems Bobbitt had a good realization of the concerns against social efficiency and tried to address such concerns and possibly debunk misbeliefs about the ideology. What did you think of the Bobbitt article?

Curriculum Theory, Week 3, Sept. 15 - 29

     Hello, everyone.  Let’s talk about the Scholar Academic ideology of curriculum, as presented and explained by M. S. Schiro, and then let’s discuss liberal arts education and the interesting things N. Noddings has to say about it.

    Without expressing my opinion of the ideology, I cannot say that I, after one reading, understand all that Schiro is telling us about the Scholar Academic approach to curriculum.  I have, nonetheless, noticed the following recurring themes and phrases that seem to characterize the ideology: hierarchical structure, enculturation, transmission of shared acculturated knowledge, the essence of the discipline, initiation into and imitation of the discipline, indoctrination of students, the disciplines as a vehicle for becoming fully human, cultural heritage, and cultural literacy, to name a few.  Are there other recurring themes that you noticed in chapter two? 

     Before jumping into the details of Schiro's explanations, I want to go ahead and link the Schiro reading with the Noddings reading by mentioning the 1893 Committee of Ten.  One of many recommendations that came out of its report was the standard high school curriculum that I was so familiar with, meaning a prescribed dose of English, history, mathematics, science, and foreign language.  Several of these disciplines are referred to in Noddings' discussion of liberal arts.  After reading other chapters in Noddings, and then Schiro’s explanation of the Scholar Academic ideology, I expected war between the two camps (Noddings vs. the scholar academic).  I read Noddings' take on liberal arts education, it’s heritage, how it is viewed and how it can be improved, and I cannot say that she is diametrically opposed to what Schiro has to say about the Scholar Academic ideology.  She notes that the liberal arts tradition of learning for learning’s sake is part of a legacy from classical Greece.  She also admits to having, “strong sympathy for the intellectual way” (p. 55).  As opposed to the scholar academic, Noddings does not equate intellectual ability with a person’s essence.  Rather, she asserts, “I can find little evidence that learning for its own sake has done much to improve the human condition” (p. 55).  What Noddings does view has valuable, though, is good teaching that speaks of the “immortal conversation”, those existential questions that seem to have disappeared from the liberal arts.  In reference to the stereotypical view of the liberal arts as snobbish and superior, Noddings asks the question,”In what does this superiority consist?”  Her answer, I believe is that “The great gift of the liberal arts has been to keep this [existential / immortal] conversation alive.  It is in this sense that it is better than other forms of education” (p. 57).

     Speaking of conversation, let’s start and I’ll stop monologuing.  Some points of interest for me include the teaching methods in the Scholar Academic ideology, as presented by Schiro, Noddings' recommendations for improving and “stretching the disciplines” across the liberal arts, and teacher vs. technical education.  I just want to ask a couple questions, though.  First, Is it possible to continue the immortal conversation, those existential questions (p. 57), today, in such a ethnically and religiously diverse democracy such as our own?  Second, I noticed that “fine arts” is included as part of core knowledge on the E.D. Hirsch-based website.  Why is fine arts included here and not in Schiro’s explanation of the Scholar Academic ideology?