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?
I’ve chosen to comment on Bernstein’s chapters four and five. I shall not enter into a “long and perhaps tedious conceptual journey” to explain my attempted understanding of Bernstein’s chapters four and five. Rather I shall briefly highlight what I think to be the most helpful points in relation to the Schiro and Noddings readings. In chapter four, Bernstein lays the foundation for an explanation of educational codes, both collection and integrated, by distinguishing between two broad types of curriculum: a collection type (which is more akin to a traditional approach to education) and an integrated type (which we might read about in Noddings, Dewey, Pinar, and Macedo, albeit in early stages of characterization). In chapter five, Bernstein reviews his explanation of collection type and integrated type curriculum before distinguishing between two educational knowledge codes, which “refers to the underlying principles which shape curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation” (p. 85). These two types of educational codes are collection codes and integrated codes. I will attempt to be concise and “cut to the chase” by citing Bernstein’s theory, which suggests, “the movement away from collection to integrated codes symbolizes that there is a crisis in its structures of power and principles of control” (p. 111). Throughout his analysis, Bernstein uses the following the following terms (and many more) in reference to collection type curriculum and collection codes: insulated, closed relation, prescribed limits, specialized, selective, autonomy, bounded, pure, hierarchical, self-perpetuating, and rigid. Without having made a tedious analysis of Bernstein’s chapters four and five, do any of these terms remind you of a particular curriculum ideology mentioned in Schiro? How so? I can think of at least one. In reference to integrated type curriculum and codes, Bernstein employs the terms reduced insulation, open relation, common, and general to name a few. Do any of these terms remind you of a particular curriculum ideology mentioned in Schiro? How so?
ReplyDeleteReginald
DeleteThis is a reply to your first post. I do see several differences between SR and the other ideologies. It seems that you are correct SR is not so focused on the individual as on the betterment of society. Schiro states "Social Reconstructionist's concern is primarily the forces at work in society that shape human experience and secondarily the individuals at work who shape society" (p. 163).
One parallel I see between SR and LC is the idea that the individual has to learn through experience, the difference I see is in LC the teacher presents an environment, or lesson that would have students experiencing something that was more defined and preset vs SR the teacher is a learner as well and together with the students they explore society to find injustices or places where society is "unhealthy" then they work together through action to develop a plan to help society "save" itself.
One question I had was from Schiro pg 166. Schiro states that only the "oppressed" are the ones who can find strength and vision to rectify the problems in society... so does that mean if I am a white middle class women, I could not lead/learn with a group of children with a different socio-economic background and or different race? I remember Freire addressing this topic about the understanding of the "oppressed" but from reading Freire, I thought that the empathy and understanding was the key... but that you would not necessarily have to be "oppressed" or even be teaching a group of "oppressed" individuals to create a SR learning environment. What do you think?
Reginald and Alana,
DeleteSorry for not posting prior to this...I was glued to the Presidential Debate and post media coverage, and today was crazy..it's Monday! I need to come out and confess/come clean or whatever you want to call it. I embrace many of the Social Reconstruction Ideologies. I enjoyed this chapter more than any other chapter in Schiro so far, and although I raised my eyebrows a couple of times reading the Apple article (I'll share those tidbits on another post), this ideology is one I see as important to understand.
Reginald, you asked why this ideology is called Social Reconstruction rather than Social Change...as I look at the meaning of "reconstruction", I see it to mean, "constructing again". In other words, I see that Social Reconstruction ideology shares some of the Learner Centered ideologies, so it isn't an entire social change in education and schooling, but rather a restructuring that is being called for. The Social Reconstruction ideologies shares ideologies similar to the LC ideologies, such as, content taught through simulations, discussion, and follow-up activities (experiences) (p. 159). They share the ideologies that curriculum should include problem solving and critical thinking. Both share that fostering these cognitive abilities are important for creating participating citizens in a democracy.
Where the contrast between the ideologies of SR and LC may exist are their purposes for citizens within a democratic society. SR have a clear purpose on promoting and instilling an acute awareness of the ills that exist within society in the hope of creating a "good" society (p.163). SR is centered on vision--a vision of the social crises that exists, and a vision of a society where freedom reigns with good individuals, good education, and where worthwhile truth and knowledge exist, while also calling for transformation to occur (p.165). I perceive classrooms that embrace this ideology to look like this: I see discussion, debate, opportunities to build on other's ideas, and open conversations in our world of political correctness. I see classrooms that have expert guides (teachers) developing the abilities for students to explore different perspectives, and learn how to reason different (even opposing) ideologies with rational thinking.
Nodding also drew attention to critical thinking as being important as we enter the 21st century. The purposes of critical thinking within schooling between Noddings and those of Social Reconstruction may not be exactly the same, but the intent for education and schooling to embed critical thinking in our students as an aim for a democratic society is a pathway that is shared by both. Your thoughts?
Alana, I think that the abundance of cultural diversity in the United States allows conditions for most to understand oppression. I have witnessed situations wherein the stereotypical oppressor becomes the oppressed, specifically when a white male or female becomes the target of oppression by a black or Hispanic male or female. I don’t mean to limit the field to only two “minority” groups; I just haven’t witnessed, at least not to my recollection, other less populous “minority” groups play the role of oppressor. I believe that a white middle class woman can lead/learn with a group of children from different races and poor economic backgrounds.
DeleteExperiences are unique and of utmost importance, I imagine the SR would say. In response, I believe that Noddings would say that critical thinking, a skill not limited to experience, in the key to good teaching and growth.
In reference to Schiro’s description on page 166, I have to believe that he’s taking on the mindset of the SR advocate by identifying merely three social subgroups: the “bad guys,” the “good guys,” and the masses”. I’d say that, when society is generalized in this way, discussion leader might be able to harness emotion and inspire action.
Without hailing one over the other, does anyone else see SR as the inverse function of SA, wherein the latter seeks to maintain what has been established and the former seeks to reconstruct the status quo?
I believe that SA and SR are on very different sides of the spectrum. SA is concerned about giving the knowledge that is the "truth" (and I assume these truths would be developed by a few elite individuals within that field) where as SR is concerned about students learning through discussion and experience where even the teacher is the learner. I see Knowledge in SA being very old and nostalgic where if there are changes in the knowledge or curriculum it is very slow evolution process. But in SR I see knowledge and what is best for society changing more quickly and radically based off of the group being considered. I feel like SR would say just because we were able to "fix" the problem today tomorrow will have a new problem. What do you think?
DeleteHey Guys,
DeleteI am trying to reply to Reginald's post about Bernstein... but this is where it keeps making me post... so I am sorry it is out of order!
In looking at the "reference to collection type curriculum and collection codes: insulated, closed relation, prescribed limits, specialized, selective, autonomy, bounded, pure, hierarchical, self-perpetuating, and rigid" I see some of these words such as hierarchical, specialized and insulated as SA being that each discipline is insulated from the other disciplines they are individually specialize and within each discipline there is a hierarchy of knowledge.. however without context it is hard to say that these also would not be SR do to looking at the hierarchy within society and what can be done, or specialized as being each student is exposed to a specialized situation... etc. So without the context surrounding the words I feel most of the ideologies could pick up and use the terms in some way?
The Apple article was very interesting to me in relation to specifically another course I am taking this semester. Apple attacked the platform of a national curriculum in the article and specifically the implication that a national curriculum and or state testing and objectives would ensure a equal education for all. Apple states "the 'same treatment' by sex, race, and ethnicity, or class is not the same at all" (p. 232). In my social justice class we have been talking about equality vs equity... I never before would have probably distinguished between these two words but after my class and even Apple brings it up... having something equal could actually hurt or further oppress the already oppressed. I now view equity as what everyone needs not that it will be the same for all... would you agree? Do you think the SR perspective would agree?
DeleteIn reference to your question about SR and context , I had a similar thought when reading Schiro’s description of teaching in SR ideology. He states that at the hidden levels of teaching, “the discussion process and the social environment in which the discussion takes place mold students to think and act in accordance with an educator’s beliefs” (p. 185). Such a description reminds me of the LC teacher who frames the learning environment. Both LC and SR tend to avoid prescribed ends while focusing on meaning making. I would say that the key difference is SR’s call to action and realization of change and LC’s focus on the individual as opposed to the masses.
DeleteCasey and I were chatting about Bernstein before Proseminar on Tuesday, and we discussed collection type curriculum as Bernstein’s take on a traditional approach. We saw the integrated type curriculum, as mentioned in Bernstein as a precursor to Noddings’ LC approach and the SR approach. I do see SR as a political extension of LC.
Most interesting to me in the Schiro readings has been the history of each ideology; I enjoy tracing the evolution and pondering questions like: Was the whole language approach ever considered in Europe, or is it an American English concept? Bernstein, in his description of the integrated codes, admits to not using many literary sources. Much of what he says about integrated codes is, at the time, speculative. He writes, “it is probably true to say that the [integrated] code at the moment exists at the level of ideology and theory with only a relatively small number of schools...attempting to institutionalize it with any seriousness” (p. 100). In Schiro, we have some examples of serious attempts at employing what I would call integrated type curriculum in SR. Another telling statement made by Berenstein is, “With integrated codes, both the role and the form of the knowledge have to be achieved in relation to a range of different others, and this may involve re-socialization if the teacher’s previous educational experience has been formed by the collection code” (p. 108). Does this last quote smack of SR learner and teacher collaboration?
So sorry Alana! I didn't see or have your Apple post reflected on my blog screen when I posted my Apple comments. I would have just extended upon your comments. If you have time tomorrow, will you clarify what you mean by saying, "equity is what everyone needs". i understand that equality can never really be equality for all in regard to free choice of schools as referenced in the article. Free choice of schools seems to me to be a dangerous road that will divide us further between the haves and the have nots.
DeleteToward the end of last Thursday’s class, Dr. Beach alluded to the possibility of a theorist demonstrating characteristics of one of Schiro’s ideology while at the same time exhibiting traits from other ideologies. I know it is certainly the case for me in the classroom, and I believe that the mainly Learner Centered Noddings may present a SR (Social Reconstruction) to approach education for a particular purpose.
ReplyDeleteThe aim of SR ideology, according to Schiro, is “to create a social consensus that rejects the faults of existing society and affirms the virtues of a future good society” (p. 176). Also, a couple of the major tenets of SR ideology are social action and critical awareness. Is what Noddings says in chapter 10 go as far as lining-up with SR ideology? On one hand she writes, “critical thinking is necessary in every subject,” and “it is a major task of education to involve students as participants in democratic settings and move them toward deliberative engagement” (p. 131).
On the other hand, Noddings states, “Our aim is not to produce cynics or revolutionaries but, through dialogue and persistent questioning, to encourage critical thinking” (p. 133). I don't see Noddings as self-contradictory, simply given to integration of disciplines. Does she suggest, though, an aim that includes active participation in bringing about or preserve social justice, or in her case, democracy?
What other ideas stand-out to you in Noddings' chapter ten?
Reginald,
DeleteAs you can see I included my response to your Noddings comments regarding critical thinking within my 1st response post...unfortunately, it was too long commenting on two conversations within the one post...sorry!
Noddings focus on critical thinking, awareness, and an openness in thought and perspective are important elements for 21st century students and classrooms. Race and multiculturalism are topics so important to discuss openly (in my opinion), but require gifted guides to facilitate those discussions, with the goal of providing questions to ponder, rather than looking for absolutes or "correct" answers. I wonder if teachers of the 21st century must have those internal traits for meaningful and critical discussions embedded in their own person or toolbox, or if teachers can learn to be facilitators as described by the Social Reconstruction Ideology? Is it my age that has facilitated my abilities to discuss topics that can be viewed as "socially charged", or is it because I learned to value different perspectives through my own diverse cultural experiences? Has it been my practice and past experiences in open dialogue that has helped me to feel these conversations are worthy? Do you think most teachers can embark on and facilitate the type of open dialogue that Noddings advocates such as, conversations of assimilation, patriotism, and military service?
Barbara,
DeleteNoddings makes a couple (at least) important statements midway through chapter ten, noting that Schlesinger’s concern is, “that emphasis on group (ethnic) identity might undermine the unity of our nation” (p. 135). Earlier, Noddings states, “Those of us who want to do “the right thing” find ourselves polarized, afraid to talk openly about problems lest we...stand accused of racism” (p. 134). That said, I applaud you for engaging emotion, one of the major tenets of SR ideology, in a scholarly, professional manner. I cannot say that I am yet emotionally mature enough to speak on some topics in such a manner (although, I’d better get there fast).
I’ll try to answer your last question with a question. Noddings states, “I do not believe that all children are capable of high levels of academic achievement, but I do believe that all children deserve the very best” (p. 136). If I consider the SA ideology as the only valid approach to curriculum, Noddings statement becomes offensive. However, I feel certain, based on her argument in chapter five (about renewing the liberal arts) and chapter eight (about valuing vocational education), that she uses the term “academic” with an awareness of other types of achievement. Here’s my question: are most teachers capable of teaching at a high academic level? Should most teachers be concerned with teaching at a high academic level?
Great question...Do I think most teachers are capable of teaching at a high academic level? Yes, I believe they are capable, but the question is, is their belief system one where teaching at a high academic level is valued. For example, if your experiences have been to "learn" from experts in their disciplines reflecting a high academic level (college professors), but you did not gain the knowledge or engagement that was anticipated, your value for that experience would be low. In fact, if that is all you experienced in college, you may believe that teaching at a high academic level does not have value, however; in contrast, you believe that giving students what you have come to believe are the important tools for success (Self-Efficacy, Learner Centered Experiences) are much more valuable to your students, then most likely that is where you will reside.
DeleteExcellent second question asking if most teachers should be concerned with teaching at a high academic level. Personally, I look at all learning as socially contextualized and in a constant state of change. To be an expert in my subject area 30 years ago, would not make you an expert today without additional schooling, reading, researching, and professional exchanges within your learning community. I believe all teachers should be experts in their fields, and reflect practices that embed awareness to the needs of our society and democratic living.
OK... I have a question. This is in regards to Schiro's description of evaluation in the SR ideology. So I understand that the Social Reconstructionist would say that there should not be high stakes testing, corporations that design, run, and report on the testing and or develop curriculum, that states should not mandate objective standards for teachers to "teach to the test" etc. However my question is if someone wanted to take on the SR ideology in a current SA curriculum how would they do it? It students are required by the school, district, state, or national government to have a certain performance on a certain exam then teachers who are passionate about SR and want immerse their students into this way of learning what do they do besides just have a "special project" occasionally that might deal with a social justice issue?
ReplyDeleteGreat area for discussion. I don't have a lot of experience teaching Middle School or High School, but with that being said, I believe what I've done and experienced in Intermediate School can absolutely be applied to upper grades. To implement the SR ideology, critical thinking, and social justice in the curriculum, does not have to be difficult or ignored. Like Noddings, I believe every subject in the school curriculum is "loaded with possibilities for discussion of moral, existential, and religious questions" (p. 128). Areas such as Reading, English, Social Studies, and Science avail themselves to great discussion from text. Regarding math, I'm sure it also can, but in that area, I'm not close to being an expert.
ReplyDeleteAlana, I agree SR are not fans of high-stake testing, and formal objective evaluations as an area of concentration. Reading books that take on social justice subjects invite discussion and debate, and provide opportunities for evaluation of a different type. Within those discussions and exchanges, students develop an awareness of the implications and fall-out of laws, social circumstances, and events that occur or have occurred within our world. Slavery, the Underground Railroad, and what freedom means, were topics that I loved teaching to my 3rd and 4th graders through books, discussion, debate, and written response. I'll never forget a 3rd grader saying after I read "The Freedom Quilt" and "Henry's Freedom Box", he said, "I'd own slaves 'cause that's how I would be able to make my money, but I would let them come into the big house when they wanted". We obviously had a little further to go in our discussions of the topic.
Not to digress, but my experiences have been, if you use great teaching text, supported by discussion and meaningful exchanges, students develop the abilities to think critically, which in turn will return strong outcomes on state testing (certainly in the case of language arts). I felt that I had to spend less time teaching than my counterparts, and consistently scored better on state testing due to the fact that my class was constantly engaged in text and I dealt with authentic content that created engaging discourse. The students grew in self-efficacy because the classroom environment was one where all perspectives were valued even if we didn't all agree. Everyone was heard. Everyone had a voice. I gave mini lessons in using writing stems to develop and support their writing, speaking stems to learn how to build on each other's conversations in a respectful manner, and created motivation through engaging topics around social justice, which I believe ignites learning. Evaluation was easy as students expose what they know, their progress in their abilities to express themselves, and the growth in their ability to build on each other's ideas and perspectives. Does this sound like a classroom that you can envision to meet the standards of our state and prepare students to become participating citizens in a democracy? I think the wind can blow in many directions when educators are asked that question. Which direction does the wind blow for you?
Barbara I agree that you do not have to teach the standards in order for students to become deeper more critical thinkers. When I taught High School we did very little notes but also very little discussions about current issues.... However especially after my other class this semester Social Justice By Numbers I have seen so many ideas and areas I could improve upon this part of my teaching. I did try to bring quite a bit of history of math in to the lessons to develop a story and sometimes there were some discussions. Like when Pyrhagoras drowned one of his followers for suggesting there were numbers that couldn't be represented by fractions or intergers. This always sparked a decent discussion about rights we have today.... However I feel this could be turned into much more.
ReplyDeleteI will agree my students did outstanding on the test with just a quick review of how questions may be posed but typically they would come back saying the test was easy and their scores backed up their claims!
Ladies, The exams I give in my classes are but a formality. They are all take home exams, including the final, and they have at least three attempts to earn their highest score. At some point, I think my students catch on to the fact that what I label as Chapter 2 test or Final exam are, in reality, high-stakes homework assignments. What I know is that I must present some type of empirical evidence of student assessment for each of my classes. I’m almost certain there are other, less SA ways of assessing student progress, but I have yet to sit and do the research and planning. For now, I see my classes and most of the classes I took as student and observe as colleague to be under the overarching SA influence.
DeleteI see SA as the older sibling who always gets in the last word. Is it fair to say that the curriculum ideologies, as presented in Schiro, are reminiscent of a Chinese box, wherein each box fits neatly into or around another? Are not national reforms like NCLB and Race to the Top woven throughout chapters two through five, and aren’t they [the reforms] SA heavy? I’d like to observe some secondary and middle school classrooms in hope of finding a curriculum that’s managed to wriggle free - and I mean in the LC and SR sense - from the influence of traditional curriculum approaches like SA. My scope is limited, so I’d love to find some examples in addition to Highlander Folk School.
The Apple article this week was centered on a discussion if a national curriculum made sense. Apple drew attention to Japan and Great Britain which both have national curriculums. He drew connections between national curriculums and national goals. He posed the question if national curriculums were better or worse than the hidden curriculums that exist within our own country, especially considering that California and Texas control 20-30% of the textbook market (p. 224).
ReplyDeleteApple points to the purposes of education being transformed post WW II, and that it is the powerful groups within government and those that hold the power within our economy that have been able to redefine education. Apple sees the primary purpose of education being driven by the needs of our economy and global competitiveness, and placing much of the blame of our economic status on public schools. Do you think there is any truth to that belief? Should education play a part in the competitiveness and success of our economy? Why or why not?
Apple asserts that a "democratic curriculum and pedagogy must begin with a recognition of the different social positionings and cultural repertoires in the classrooms, and the power relations between them" (p. 232). Do you believe this to be so? Do you believe that exploration and discussion within schools must include dialogue of our diversities? Do you believe your schooling offered a democratic curriculum? If so, how?