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?
Thank you for your early post Reggie. I think you did a great job of not writing a monologue, but centered on a few key points to ponder.
ReplyDeleteThe scholar academic ideology is one that is not difficult for me to understand—this is what I have known and experienced for most of my schooling. Gaining knowledge in college was sitting in large stadium seating auditoriums listening to academic lectures, taking notes, and being tested on lecture material and book material selected by the academic professor. The question that I will revisit is, “Did the curriculum and scholar academic ideology that I experienced develop my intelligence and support me in acquiring the “intellectual and moral discipline” to function in a democratic society?” (pg. 38).
Ideologies seem to clash when interpretations vary regarding what it means to prepare students to live in a democracy. It seems that is the area of conflict between different factions and belief systems, which is perpetuated from each one’s value system. The scholar academic ideology of Harris as explained in Schiro, asserts that he was a “proponent of academic education who believed that the purpose of education is to provide individuals with the accumulated knowledge of the human race by having them study certain academic subjects” (pg.37). He also maintained that schooling should prepare students for a civilized life and be able to participate in an American democracy. I’ll ask the question I posed earlier in a different way, “What elements of schooling creates a prepared citizen for American democracy?”
According to the scholar academic ideology it is a man that has intelligence. “So, what is intelligence?” According to Schiro, the scholar academics, such as Harris, viewed intelligence as students acquiring knowledge that has been transmitted by scholars from academic disciplines that have deemed specific knowledge as “the essence of specified subjects” (pg. 39). I wonder now if a generation of citizens were created in part due to the knowledge that was transmitted from scholar academic ideology, which focused on ways of thinking about the world, which Tom Brokaw has called, “The Greatest Generation”. He describes the generation that lived through WWII and after as a generation of people that contributed greatly to the progress and greatness of the country. Many of our citizen’s values have changed since that generation. What part has education and schooling played if any in the shift in values?
Reggie, you asked, “Is it possible to continue the immortal conversation, those existential questions (p. 57), today, in such an ethnically and religiously diverse democracy such as our own?” As soon as I read your questions, I wanted to leap up and say, “We must!” I believe the difference between the ideology of the scholar academics and Nodding’s call for teachers to “stretch their discipline from within” is the element of critical thinking. What Nodding is criticizing is a curriculum that is prescribed in “standardized detail” (somewhat what the scholar academic ideology presented), rather than curriculum that provides for content AND opportunities to discuss controversial topics where students are able to begin to think on a higher and deeper level for themselves (Nodding, pg. 65). Nodding claims that it goes without saying that subject matter introduced by a teacher must be dealt with carefully and skillfully, but developing student minds to look and think beyond what they know, are critical elements that should be practiced, experienced, and acquired by skillful educators while in school. The skillfulness of the teacher is shown when the subject matter is elevated to question the overarching problem or concern, not the politics of the issue, but what characteristics need to be practiced and put forth to solve controversy and reach solutions.
Reggie and Barbara,
DeleteI would agree with Barbara, that yes Noddings would say we must carry on the immortal conservation, those existential questions, today. I feel that Noddings gave very sound advice on (pg. 63) "at the high school level, a good strategy is to encourage critical thinking by introducing exciting arguments that are no longer highly controversial." I feel another good strategy for teachers bringing in this controversial conservation is to have students take on the perspective of some group "like scholar academic" and then from that perspective argue for or against something... this may feel "safer" to students because it is not what they think, but at the same time develops some critical thinking as well as lessons on hearing all sides of a story. I feel like where Noddings might say "great idea" the Scholar Academic folks might say "cut out the fluff."
Reggie posted earlier, "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." I would disagree, I see Noddings not liking much from the Scholar Academics and vise versa, I think both as well as the other ideologies would agree that education is good and for the betterment of the individual and society, but that may be the end of similarities. What is education, learning, and knowledge, and how do we know and why do we care, differs very drastically between scholar academic and Noddings take on just Liberal Arts. I found as I was reading the Scholar Academic and making notes I was in the margin noting the things I felt that Noddings would disagree with. One of the main differences I see is how Scholar Academic feels "each discipline is autonomous, determining the nature of its own knowledge and ways on knowing" (Schiro p. 26) where Noddings states (p. 64), "at the high school level there has been a tendency to construe the liberal arts as a set of discrete subjects, not as a setting for deep thinking on eternal questions" which I feel she is not in favor for. Another point I see the 2 sides taking opposite stances on the teacher preparation: Noddings argues "one of the great mistakes of teacher educators has been acceptance of arguments in favor of educating teacher specialist in exactly the same way as others who specialize in the subject" (p. 61) vs Shiro "they (teachers) are transmitters of the discipline, and as such, they must have a thorough understanding..... this means they should have majored in college in the content area that they teach" (pg. 49). I definitely see the tug of war between these to ideas to still be in play in colleges of education. Some think that students should have more content while others think they should have more pedagogy. I remember when I was in 3 math classes past Calc 4 in one semester and 2 education classes, feeling that I was going to use the education information way more than the math!... However I can definitely see the point of people wanting teachers to develop the content at a very deep level. I however feel I fell short of the Scholar Academic's ideal "expert" in mathematics!.... but perhaps I became "expert" enough to qualify as a teacher who is still a learner?
Alana, that makes sense, that the Scholar Academics might see Noddings’ great ideas as “fluff”. I wonder, though, just how Noddings arrived at the point of proposing an ecological cosmopolitanism model for 21st education. Early on, in the preface, she admits, “We should give up the hopeless search for panaceas and instead ask of each idea suggested: Are there moral objections to it?” I feel certain that she would morally and ethically object to viewing the child as mind instead of unique individual who also needs spiritual nurturing, but I'll venture to ask: At what point in her development as a theorist did she make the transition from a more scholar academic mindset to a more progressive mindset? If there was not a tearing-away from behaviorist, high-stakes testing for Noddings, then under what, “ahead-of-their-time" progressives did she study? I’m so impressed at her attempt to disarm the scholar academic argument by admitting her affinity for learning for learning’s sake.
DeleteAlso, it seems to me that Noddings has a great deal of respect for the much maligned teacher. I hear her statements at the bottom of page 61 as a call to give teachers respect as something more than expert minds. So, I say, “Hooray for the “expert” who can still learn!” Now, for the Scholar Academic teacher - can he/she who must, “accurately represent and present the knowledge of the discipline they are teaching” (Schiro, p.49), ever assume the role of learner? The learner ←→ teacher dynamic that Schiro explains (p. 46) causes me to think that there is a fear of change within the Scholar Academic ideology. Is that so? Walker and Soltis affirm, “Traditionalists are suspicious of change” (p. 23). If it is, can we call scholar academics neo-traditionalists?
Reggie, nice points about Noddings, it would be interesting to know when she made the more progressive shift.
DeleteAs for the learner-teacher role in scholar academic, I do not see a give and take as Frerie might describe or believe, where the student learns from the teacher and the teacher learns from the student. I see the scholar academic saying that while your are "an expert teacher" there is still knowledge from higher in the pyramid that you can gain knowledge from, however I do not think Scholar Academic would say that "a teacher" could gain knowledge from "a less informed student"? So I do not see a fear of change in the scholar academic but rather a flat out rejection, you can only learn from someone with more knowledge than you? What do you think?
Reggie,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find the Fine Arts section you referenced on the Hirsch site. Where did you locate that on the website?
I found “fine arts” as part of a listing of skills taught in the Core Knowledge Preschool Sequence and Teacher Handbook, which is on the “What is the Core Knowledge Sequence?” page (http://www.coreknowledge.org/sequence). I think the appearance of disciplines like “fine arts” in the Scholar Academic curriculum could be an example of Noddings’ statement that, “Although the literature of the great books contains much wonderful material, the world has changed and continues to change” (p. 57).
ReplyDeleteThat brings me to Barbara’s first question, “Did the curriculum and scholar academic ideology that I experienced develop my intelligence and support me in acquiring the “intellectual and moral discipline” to function in a democratic society?”, I would say that it is possible. Exactly what a democratic society is seems to evolve as our values, as a whole, evolve. I imagine that the democratic society of 2016 might not look like the democratic society of 2056. It certainly doesn’t resemble the United States’ portrayed collective values of the 1980s, when discussions of sexual preference and identity were less welcomed in schools. What is considered knowledge, intellectual, and necessary for becoming “fully human” also seems to evolve, evidenced by the inclusion of disciplines like foreign language. I would encourage all students in the United States, in every discipline to study one more world language, but I never try to push my mom (Yea, Baby Boomers!), to take a single course in Spanish. The demand for foreign language education seems to have grown exponentially over only a few decades, catching most of us by surprise - and it just was not necessary for her and her classmates in high school and college en route to becoming functioning members of their democratic society.
I found both website interesting. I think that the "liberal arts" discussed on the core knowledge site would be more of the basics of language, not the history or how words have changed or under a different tone how they could feel to someone. I believe that the Scholar Academic would include fine arts but it would be a very structured presentation on the material, where Noddings would want to bring in the connections of the past, and implications for today and the future, as well as possible feelings upon the topic.
DeleteOn thing I found on the Quirk website to be interesting is the strong/possible hateful opposition to "constructivism." As I was personally reading Scholar Academic I was thinking back to one of our first blogs where the question was posed can someone be a little of multiple ideologies? I was thinking yes probably so... I could see someone liking part of scholar academic and at the same time possibly "learner centered." Some things I viewed in common were, (Scholar Academics do not want education to be sterile and boring," "all children have equal access to an excellent education," "the only demand that should be allowed to influence the school program is one that 'provides the base upon which the person as a person can develop to realize his full stature as a free mind'" (pgs. 35, 37, & 23). However after viewing the website and "seeing" the scholar academic really play out I am not so sure anymore. I think that possibly I was trying to open my mind too much to scholar academic and find what I would consider "good" within the ideology. What do you think now... can someone be in both Scholar Academic and say another ideology that you may be familiar with at this point?
Reggie, I’m curious…Do you think that the inclusion of a foreign language does create one to be more “fully human?” If so, why? I took 4 years of French in High School and 2 years of French in college. I’m a baby boomer. I’m still not sure why it was considered necessary for me to acquire a foreign language to enter college, or frankly why I continued to take French (probably because it wasn’t difficult for me if I’m honest). What curriculum ideology does the foreign language college requirement reflect? Is this a scholar academic discipline and perspective?
DeleteBarbara, these are interesting questions, one that require me assume the mindset of a Scholar Academic. I'll try. Here goes.
DeleteBecause we Scholar Academics consider the world of intellect as containing, "those ways of thinking, reasoning, understanding and reflecting that allow individuals to comprehend their world", it follows that foreign language studies be included in the curriculum. While we are not concerned with what society and special interest groups have to say about the importance or lack thereof of foreign language study, we have determined, through empirical research conducted by scholars, that foreign languages aide a person's ability to think, understand other people, to know what is being communicated, to reason, reflect, remember, question, and ponder that which is communicated in a way that would not otherwise be possible (See Schiro, p. 24). In short, we can consider foreign language study to be part of an intellectual process and therefore important in becoming fully human.
Foreign language as requirement, I believe, is a reflection of the Scholar Academic view. I imagine that Noddings would say that any prescribed requirements after middle school or high school originate from a Scholar Academic perspective. I'd still like to know why certain disciplines like foreign language and music were not included major contributors to curricula as earlier as Math, History, and English. Might it be be that the importance of knowing different disciplines emerged due to innovations in technology, in travel and long-distance communication?
Alana, my take is every ideology is on a continuum. Scholar academics can be extreme in believing fine arts has no place in creating “intelligence”, or in contrast, there may be other scholar academics that believe fine arts to reflect refinement, but not foundational importance like other core subjects.
ReplyDeleteI think there are certain core elements of each of these ideologies that most of us have and implement as long as we don’t consider ourselves extreme in any one direction. I interpret scholar academics to value particular sets of knowledge—I think of them as a “member group” that value what they know and want to share with those that will also develop a connection for the subject matter. What seems to create the division between the scholar academics and other ideologies is the belief that the acquired information and knowledge of the scholar must disseminate from the scholar academic to the student. The student learns and receives the knowledge from the scholar because the scholar knows what knowledge is worthy of imparting to the student.
The scholar academics may perceive that meaning is given in a downward direction to disseminate what they know to the student, and in contrast, a constructivist believes each individual constructs knowledge through interactions; those interactions existing within one’s prior knowledge and experiences, context, newly acquired information, and the interactions that take place with others. I do believe we can be a mosaic of many different ideological pieces in regard to curriculum theory, but that could be me. What about you? Would you describe yourself as a mosaic of curriculum ideological pieces?
I would definitely say I am a huge mosaic... maybe because I feel some of these ideas are from a higher power (school district, "standard of teaching" etc.) so where I think I am one thing I often get persuaded back to something else almost because of an underlying demand... does that make sense? Being in high ed now I definitely see the norm being a scholar academic ideology within the math department, but before I jump in 100% I want what Shiro said to be true all the time, "learning is a result of intentional activity initiated by the teacher and deliberately aimed at students" (pg 47), this may be what learning is in Scolar Academic, but I know many "expert" teachers who deliberately aim "knowledge" at students, but how does that gaurentee learning takes place?
Delete