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?
Alana-I also think we benefited more from reading this last chapter at the end. We are better equipped to hold on to what each ideology stands for as we see their perspectives “acted” out in this chapter. I think once you have exposure to different ideologies, you start analyzing how each one fits into your own set of values. What has been interesting for me is how unaware I was of who I was in regard to my own educational ideologies. I wonder if anyone else felt that way?
ReplyDeleteWhat I have grown to admire about Noddings is her ability to recognize all perspectives and find a place where each one has a legitimate case for their ideologies. What is quite masterful is how she adds her own beliefs, like the crowning top layer, to each ideology, as the additional ingredient to make it all better. What I admire about her thinking toward education and schooling is she recognizes the system of education, although far from perfect, will not change overnight. Many things she has noted in her book are things that each teacher can do in their own classroom to create an environment that will nurture the whole child, and develop skills for critical thinking and caring.
Hi, ladies! It’s so good to get the band back together again - seems like old times. To your comments above, let me say, in true LC and SR form. “Yes,” and “I agree”. I’m pretty surprised that I hadn’t looked ahead to read the plays. I can appreciate having read through Schiro’s details, though. I believe it made reading the plays more enjoyable, and even comical at times. For example, SE’s constant mention of data and transcripts reeks of atomism. Also, I noticed that SE, started the conversation in most of the plays. Alana, I also noticed LC’s initial absence. I think it’s indicative of the teacher de-centering himself or herself and allowing everyone else to build experiences. Did anyone see any glaring characteristics in SA and SR’s speech?
ReplyDeleteBarbara, yes, I also noticed somethings about myself as I read through the plays. For starters, I identified with SA and SE’s constant drive to “wrap-up” the conversation. Also, I realized that I’ve had preconceived “good-guy” / “bad-guy” notions concerning each ideology. When X ideology would speak, it sounded like a goblin or the Wicked Witch while flying on her broom, accompanied by piercing squeal and cackle (maybe a bit exaggerated).
I’ll have to catch-up and comment on Noddings soon.
Reginald,
DeleteYour take on the LC is interesting.. I didn't think of them as allowing everyone else to build their experiences through the conservation but I see where this could be the case. I feel that since the LC is more into letting the student have choice and voice, then as a LC person they may be use to the different directions the ideologies seemed to progress down. However (I saw Noddings here) when the LC thought the child was not being "cared for" by the ideology then they spoke up... so to me it was a little like, you can think your own way and have your beliefs about learning but when that starts to possibly harm another's learning then I will speak up?
To add to our thoughts about our ideologies toward curriculum, a layer to ponder is objective and subjective realities. I would think we all have both of these within us. Of course, there may be some people that validate knowledge that is more objective, and vice versa, but isn’t it the subjective that leads to critical thinking? Facts and information can be presented to you, in fact verified with various forms of evidence, but isn’t it our ability to construct our own unique meanings that requires one to think critically? To think critically shouldn’t you have to look at information, to some extent, through a subjective lens to arrive at a personal perspective or belief? When we have to reason information that we have attained, to some extent our feelings play a part to what we believe. Beliefs could pertain to gay rights, civil rights, or any area that deals with equity in any form…I’d hope “caring” plays a part in all our decision making along with an objective reality of the world. Do you agree that both must play a part in being able to reason and think critically? If so, whose perspective does this reflect? The LC or the SR? Or a combination of others?
ReplyDeleteBarbara,
DeleteI feel the different ideologies would have a big comment on whether knowledge is subjective or objective. For instance I feel that SR and I know LC values experiences and feel prior experiences shape new experiences, but in the SA I feel they would say the knowledge is there and when it is presented then the students will learn, if it is not learned then the right presentation hasn't taken place, however I feel the way the student experiences the knowledge or their prior knowledge would have very little impact on the SA ideology.
Yes, objectivity and subjectivity are key terms throughout, I believe. As I read through the plays, I thought back to Walker & Soltis statements on Tyler’s rationale and value in curriculum development. They argue, “Kliebard considers as...sleight of hand Tyler’s notion that a philosophy of education can be used as an objective screen for choosing the worthiest among many possible objectives” (2009, p. 70). It seems to me that the SA defense of an exclusive discipline, carried-out in an exclusive way, relies more on subjective value, especially in a society that becomes more and more integrated socially like our own. When there are more, I’d say, there is a greater set-up for variation in value and, therefore, a greater tendency for subjectivity. I certainly see SR as evolving, from a focus on civil rights to gender rights to animal rights to air quality concerns, etc. Should we (or maybe I’m finally “having the light bulb moment”) view SA as evolving also - on a continuum within itself?
ReplyDeleteConfession time: When Devon, Melissa, and I monitored bloggroups 2 and 3, I sequenced and categorized each classmate’s comments. I even made copies. The SE force is strong in me, apparently. I think I know why though; my background is in classical piano (behaviorist) and Spanish grammar (atomistic). I’m asking myself right now, “Is the acquisition/learning of certain knowledge inherently given to a more atomistic vs. a more holistic approach, or is what counts as acquisition/learning a socially constructed perception?
I voted for Nel Noddings yesterday, or I would have liked to have added her to the ballot.
ReplyDeleteWhat I appreciate most about our Noddings readings, including the articles, is that her aims for education in a 21st century democracy are inclusive when necessary, as opposed to hegemonic and adhering to a particular ideology or group of disciplines. In chapter five she doesn’t deny the necessity for the classic liberal arts, just their supposed innate superiority. She even confesses to being a fan a intellect for intellect’s sake. In chapters seven and ten, she seems to stretch the “bounds” of LC ideology by touching on and calling for awareness to broader social and ecological issues. These issues might be, in a Schiro description, relegated to SR ideology.
For a while, I’ve been looking for ways to link Noddings’ and Pinar’s writing. I think I’ve found a link where Noddings states, “It is the job of teachers, working daily with students, to build the actual curriculum based on the broad initial outline provided” (2013, p. 146). I believe Pinar states the same, but from the curricularist viewpoint, noting that teachers should not be influenced by politicians. Thoughts on how Noddings links to other ideologies or theorists?
Early on in our readings, I had the impression that Noddings was strictly opposed to standards. However, based on her statements on page 142, can we say that she is not anti-standards, but rather anti-universal content standards and pro-objective standards?
Reginald I think it depends on the subject matter. For example, in teaching beginning readers, it is an atomistic approach. First the student needs to learn their letters and the sounds they make. From there students learn additional "pieces" such as digraphs, blends, and then how those sounds of letters blend together to make words with meaning. There is also socially constructed knowledge which I believe accounts for pretty much all we come to know. I think what we are all realizing is that we may have our main ideologies resting in one area, but there are other areas that we inhabit to some extent as well. Like you, I lived and modeled a social efficiency ideology for a long time. Although learner centered to some degree is important to my value system, it's not one that resonates with me all the time. Knowledge of these ideologies has helped me to realize what I have focused on in the curriculum I've taught (although not with awareness), and now what I've changed to become as an instructor of curriculum. How do you all feel? More aware or more confused?
ReplyDeleteBarbara, that makes sense to me, that certain subjects lend themselves to one ideology over another. In my case, I often feel like I stuck in atomism, as I tell students, “You guys have lots of little assignments, as opposed to a literature or composition class. Repetition is the key.” I believe that Noddings, in chapter eleven and throughout the book, urges us who teach inherently atomistic or seemingly exclusive disciplines to broaden our knowledge base so that neither we teachers nor our students get lost in the minutiae of it all. I’ve found that that’s a tall task, though, when limited to a small vocabulary in a foreign language. On Tuesday, I tried using all the question words we had covered throughout the semester to ask students questions about the election. Surprisingly, it went well - quite a bit of English, but a lot of Spanish was spoken, and spoken with emotion. My question is how might that work in a music performance or a math classroom? I think that Noddings has given us a few examples, which I’ll need to review. How could social concerns that seem to fit more in a SR ideology, concerning the electoral college pros and cons for example be addressed in other classes that are atomistic in nature?
ReplyDelete