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?
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?
Alana, I see the social efficiency theory very prevalent in today’s schools and classrooms. The social efficiency ideology is seen in classrooms that are teacher centered and teacher directed. This instructional approach is seen in classrooms where complex tasks are broken down into smaller and sequential tasks that are taught separately; first-whole class, then followed by individual drill activities and practice. Primary classrooms where reading is taught, many teachers break down the skills to be taught into sub-skills to be mastered sequentially, such as phonemic awareness, letter recognition and their corresponding sounds, then digraphs, etc. Within the social efficiency curriculum, the teacher sets up the objectives so that evaluation can be seen through observable skills and abilities demonstrating those objectives are mastered. The teacher has control over the learning experiences, and is responsible for creating those experiences to evoke learning, which is taught through programmed curriculum.
ReplyDeleteIn our current schooling system, I see behaviorist engineers (teachers) at work everyday as they move students from incompetence to competence using programmed curriculum with little input or creativity altering the prescribed instruction. The behaviorist ideology is still alive and being implemented in classrooms all over our country.
Referencing your contrast of the scholar academic and the behaviorist to learning, the behaviorist may be different than the scholar academic in that the behaviorist may be looking for an interaction, or change in behavior, but the outcome between the two is the same, to mirror the prescribed curriculum. I think that is what you were also saying…
My reaction reading the Schiro chapter on social efficiency was one where the author presented a much more negative undertone within this chapter’s ideology. The analogy comparing curriculum development to steel rails, and teachers as “factory workers” (pg. 65) and children processed from “raw material” into finished products (adults), in other words, for this ideology, according to Schiro, education is viewed as a shaping process in what I perceived as a negative perspective.
Schiro is clear to point out that “free will plays little part within this system—events are entirely determined by previous causes” (pg. 77). He then quotes Bobbitt expressing that spirit of determinism. According to Schiro the focus is not on the individual student, but on developing the skills of that individual to meet the needs of the society first, and shaping student behavior to meet those needs. To ensure that schooling is mirroring societies and education’s purposes, evaluation through standardized assessments, according to Schiro, only reflect bureaucratic needs, and has done little to improve the future lives of students (pg. 97).
Looking at our society and the degree of poverty, the recent hate crimes, racial divide, and lack of respect for our flag and those that protect our country, should education be viewed as shaping students to serve society as a whole? Schiro states that Social Efficiency educators call knowledge as the ability to act in an appropriate manner, “to know”, “to understand” and “to appreciate” how behavior should be. From where I sit today, I can see how that component of the curriculum would be considered valuable.
I’ll save my reaction to reading Bobbitt’s article for a later post. In comparison, Bobbitt seemed to “soft-pedal” his views as compared to how they were critiqued by Schiro. More to come later…
I do see Noddings’ ode to vocational education as a “thumbs-up” to a part of the Social Efficiency ideology. Certainly, she is not advocating for standardized tests and atomization in curriculum design/evaluation. She doesn’t, however, “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. I have to go back to her earlier statements that, “We should give up the hopeless search for panaceas”, and that, “Education in the 21st century must put away some 20th-century thinking” (vii). I sense a great emphasis on “21st century” and “some”. Throughout the book, Noddings seems to encourage us to take a close look at the good that can be found in the ideologies explained in Schiro, while encouraging us to eliminate the bad (standardized tests) and the ugly (NCLB). The good in Social Efficiency, from Noddings’ perspective in chapter eight, seems to be an ode to vocational education. It’s after 3am, so I’ll save more on Noddings until normal human hours.
ReplyDeleteConcerning Schiro’s explanation of Social Efficiency (SE), I found the Type to Learn explanation to be nostalgic, as I recalled learning how to type faster using, perhaps, the very same program. I don’t recall the name of the program, but it was basically the same.
I’d like to contrast the Schiro description with the Bobbitt text, though. Just as Mozart probably did not say, “I’ll call this style “The Classical Style of Music”, I imagine that Bobbitt was not settled on the term used by Schiro, and I see, perhaps, some evolutionary differences. Bobbitt is clearly unamused by the Scholar Academic “subject-storage” “pseudo-educational” treatment of the pupil as “an empty knowledge-reservoir”, but I see some incongruence between the amount of attention given to the idiosyncrasies of the pupil in Bobbitt as opposed to those in Schiro. Bobbitt, in his critique of the “older education”, says, “The varying natures of the children need not be considered. The specific needs of the adult community which these children were later to constitute could be mostly ignored” (p. 46). Is Bobbitt, in essence, saying that the varying natures and specific needs of the “man within the child” ought to be attended to at some level?
Also, does Bobbitt, at this point in the evolution of SE, place equal importance on inner behavioral activity and outer behavioral activity? My question comes from Bobbitt’s rebuttal to his opponents 1st objections to his activity-analysis. He asks, “Which is more important for the activity-analyst, the inner or the outer activities of child and man?” (p. 52). His answer seems neutral, claiming “We need not attempt an answer. Both are essential portions of human life” (p. 52). I recall Schiro’s section titled “A Century of Forgetting” wherein he explains that SE advocates, at one point in time, began serving special interest groups, just like Scholar Academics, and it causes me to wonder about other areas of evolution in SE history. In his [Schiro’s] description of what counts as knowledge within SE, he states, “Social Efficiency educators accept the duality of subjective and objective reality and they believe that objective reality is more significant of the two” (p. 86). Does anyone else see Bobbitt’s mention outer behavior as a reflection of objective reality and his mention of inner behavior as subjective reality?
I was also concerned about Schiro’s tone. I asked myself, “Is Schiro’s revealing some of his bias here,” as I read his descriptions. When I read the section title, “The Child: Lack of Concern” and phrases like the one mention by Barbara, “This deterministic view of direct causes and effects…”, (p. 83). I wondered about the integrity of Schiro’s objectivity in presentation of the SE (Social Efficiency) and subsequent ideologies. I was so impressed by what I see as an objective presentation of the SA (Scholar Academic) ideology. After reading Bobbitt and noting the tenor of the SE view of education and curriculum design, I still see Schiro’s description as objective. Throughout his presentation, the SE advocate is presented as viewing the student an inanimate product, a bundle of skills, in the shaping process, a “man within the child”, likened to the rails of a railroad. I noticed that Bobbitt also refers to the pupil as “the man within the child” and uses industrial manufacturing related terminology like “workman”, “the proficient carpenter”, and “the competent secretary” (p. 50). I’ll venture to say that Bobbitt and fellow SE ideology advocates champion such analogies. I’ll settle on the hope that Schiro is merely taking on the mind of the SE educator.
ReplyDeleteNoddings, it seems, again wants to separate the bitter from the sweet, acknowledging in chapter four that knowledge for knowledge’s sake is appealing and nostalgic but not infinitely practical in a 21st century democracy, and that vocational education is valuable. She advocates for choice of vocation instead of forced vocation by way of standardized testing and sorting, stating, “I share his [Dewey’s] aversion to using schools to sort students arbitrarily according to their probable destinies” (Noddings, p. 105). She also argues for recognition of vocational education as integral to general education as opposed to education for those “too dumb” for academics, suggesting that, “Industrial/commercial arts would join the traditional subjects as a requirement” (p. 114).
My question, after reading chapter eight in Noddings, is, to what extent would a student need to be counselled or guided -- especially less experienced middle school students? How would checks and balances be administered for the potentially “heavy-handed” and “short-sighted” counselors/teachers mention by Noddings (p. 108)?
Reggie, I also see a correlation between Noddings and the Social Efficiency Ideology where they both believe that education should offer useful skills that will provide a pathway for students to participate in society and have the abilities to navigate the world upon graduating from their years of schooling. Noddings states, “Schools should direct their efforts toward producing people who can act purposefully and morally in every domain of life”, although Noddings recognizes that not all citizens will have abundance and meaning from their occupations. She maintains that in a democratic society, workers should be able to earn a livable wage, and if satisfaction can’t be gained from their occupation, they should be able to receive that satisfaction from other domains of their life (Noddings, pg. 103).
Delete“Bobbitt states, “The new education is the process of developing human beings. It is the process of cultivating and unfolding man's powers and qualities” (pg. 48). It sounds good, but what are the qualities that have been designated as the qualities to live a life that is generous and abundant? So, is Bobbitt claiming that all students that receive education according to this vision of new education should or will have a life that is generous and abundant?
Barbara,
DeleteI feel with Bobbitt and the SE ideology that they are most concerned with "society" and that society seems to change through the text to either, teachers, policy makers, etc. but it seems those are who decide the qualities that qualify as a "good life" or a life that would be generous and abundant. It is back to that "factory" perspective or the one size fits all idea that if it is good for person A then it is good for everyone, and when individuals exposed to the "stimulus" develop the correct response for the "society" for that time then they will have a generous and abundant life. My question to this thought would be since society/the world is always evolving then someone who "learned the behaviors" of society say in the 50's would not necessarily know the behaviors of today? So does Bobbitt see educating and learning taking place continually even out of a "school" context?
I feel that in contrast to Bobbitt Noddings would say that individuals determine their own path and happiness... that everyone would be different therefore their paths would be different.
Barbara and Reginald
ReplyDeleteI also thought that initially their was a negative undertone to the SE as Schiro explained it, but I think I would end up ultimately agreeing with Reginald. I feel that the SE educator would like the analogy of the "factory" for educating learners. I think they would feel it was efficient and in each step of the assembly line the learner would master his/her skill thus changing the behavior and the "appearance" of the raw material.
As mentioned above Schiro describes the behavioristic approach to SE, and I have a similar pondering question if only good "behavior" for society's concern is rewarded and "unacceptable behavior" ignored... Then as Barbara stated why isn't our society different? It seems everyone would agree that respect would be a good "behavior" but the things Barbara listed above that are happening all around today so not seem to be respectful.
As the term "behavioral engineers" goes I see the term representing those in charge of making curriculum, but not necessarily the ones who carry it out? Above Barbara referenced "behavioral engineers" as teachers. Where I think teachers could do this role and possibly sometimes do... I feel in SE the choice is taken away from the teacher and what is to be learned in what measurable way is created by someone outside of the school in a very scientific way? Do you feel I am on the right path or way off? (Personally I'm still confused).... Also SE says curriculum is created for consumer, but it seems the consumer has changed from teachers, schools, and students to policy, legislature, and government officials.... Would you agree? Would you think that Bobbitt would agree with the SE of today being aimed at pleasing government and educational policy such as NCLB?
Alana, as I reread that section on behavioral engineers. I see that “behavioral engineers” are referenced as those that create the curriculum. The social efficiency development of curriculum align with Tyler’s questions which led me to draw parallels to the teacher implementing and developing the tasks, but you are right, behavioral engineers design programmed curriculum to shape the behaviors of learners. According to Schiro, the curriculum developer investigates what society wants from students completing the K-12 factory, and provides a curriculum that achieves those goals. The teacher is the factory worker that creates situations to evoke the desired behavior for learning to occur.
DeleteI understand the behaviorists develop curriculum based on creating citizens who will function appropriately and effectively within society, with a goal for growing individuals to participate in society’s activities at the highest level of civilization (pg. 70). Alana, as you pointed out, the path leads back to society, where those in power, members of government and policy-makers determine the needs that the individuals need to meet based on their perspectives of what society needs from these individuals. The needs of society change with time; society’s evolve, but has our education and schooling evolved to meet the needs of our current society, as was the intention of the social efficiency ideology?
Alana and Barbara, I’m also trying to distinguish the view of teacher in SE ideology from teacher in SA ideology. Frankly, the SA ideology seems more clear to me, wherein the teacher (or mini-scholar) transmits the curriculum to the neophyte/amateur scholars in the SA way, meaning via lectures (didactic) with visual aids, supervised practice, and interrogative discussion (Socratic). Something I overlooked in Schiro’s description, though is his use of the word ‘interpretation’. I have always thought of transmission as a direct transfer of information, as in a teacher reading from a text to the student with no pedagogical influence, zero explanation. Schiro states, however, “teachers are mini-scholars who devote themselves to interpreting and presenting a discipline to students” (p. 51). Much of my background is in music, so my idea of interpreting is playing a musical piece with artistic license; maybe a little slower here, more legato there, or “Surely Bach would have played it like this if only had the technology in the 1700s”. I have to remember, though, that the teacher (as opposed to a computer screen or a recording) is present for more than mere feedback. I confess, I’ve had visions of Rosie the Robot (from The Jetsons) when I think of the SA teacher.
ReplyDeleteI should add, if Rosie the Robot is the ideal SA teacher (which I doubt), I believe that Noddings would try to find the best situation for her “teaching” “style” - maybe a daily drill over the periodic table or verb conjugations.
Concerning the SE view of teacher, Schiro uses the terms managing, directing, supervising, guiding, and motivating. He also states that teachers assess students’ work, “as the progress through the curriculum”. I’m trying to recall whether the SA teacher simply tests at the end of instruction or assesses mid-instruction. The most telling difference I see between the SA mini-scholar and the SE “manager of conditions of learning” is in Schiro’s explanations that the teacher, “both prepares the learning environment for learners and supervises their work in that environment” (p. 92). Concerning teaching, he states, “The job of teaching is to fit the student to the curriculum and fit the curriculum to the student...This entails knowing students and taking into account their idiosyncratic natures” (p. 93). The key phrase, I think, is “taking into account their idiosyncratic natures”. I juxtapose this phrase with Schiro’s explanation that that, “Scholar Academics are less concerned with the child than with [transmitting] the curriculum content” (p. 45). Can we safely say that SE advocates, like Bobbitt are more concerned with growth (academic or vocational) of the pupil? Does anyone else see the beginning of a trend toward more student consideration in teaching, and a narrowing of the gap between curriculum design and student?
I would say that there is not a trend in SE toward more student consideration. I just think the overall aim of SE differs from SA. The aim for SE would be to make productive members of "accepted" society, therefor students may learn vocations or other tasks that will help them succeed in their needed place in society. But I feel SE determines where the individual will be needed. For example there is a need for mechanics, so certain individuals will learn the mini tasks to become eventually a master mechanic, but that might not be what the individual necessarily wants its just where they fit? But I am not sure SE may take into account more aptitude of students and then guide them into that field?
Delete