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?