Week 12 - Schiro Ch. 6. 7 & Noddings Ch. 11

Hi all,

Wow, it is week 12! Time flies. I think that this week's reading helped us a lot about reflecting on what we have discussed, struggled with, and pondering to since the first day of our class.




1. Based on Schiro, I think that I should ask this question. What is your posture toward different ideologies among the four: dualistic, relativistic, contextual, and hierarchical (p. 257) and why? In other words, have you changed your curriculum ideology over your teaching career as the figure 7.1 in p. 249 as attached here? How and why?











2. From Schiro, I was thinking about the needs or our consideration towards society. To me it seems that SA and LC have less or very low consideration about society, comparing to SE and SR. For example, in the imaginary dialogue on p. 201 SA said, "Enough arguing about social issues!" And, LC kind of supported this by saying, "...you [other ideologies] overlook the needs of individual children" (p. 201). What do you think about my interpretation about the ideologies' consideration towards society? Is it legitimate? Any thoughts to this?



3. Comparing four ideologies was fun and insightful to see the differences, which enlightens each's characteristics more clearly. For example, I learned that LC's aim is not only help students' self-actualization, but also teachers' self-actualization. How fascinating it is!? On p. 205, Schiro pointed out that the LC's aim "includes within it secondary aims of stimulating curriculum developers' own growth and the growth of teachers (both of whom support the growth of students)." This is new to me, as my thought so far for LC was more focusing on "learners." What do you think about this? Is this new to you as well? Is my understanding legitimate? Any thoughts to it?



4. One point surprising me about SR in the various charts and tables on this week's reading is on p. 239. For SR, it illustrates that the people who gets or benefit from the results of student evaluation is "teacher." For SR, really? I think that both teachers and students benefit from the result of student evaluation in SR, as SR values subjective meaning-making in students' mind (p. 221), and the use of knowledge by the students (p. 214). What do you think?

Okay, I think that we can start from here. I will post more questions for Noddings soon. Any questions, comments, and critiques are more than welcome as always. Thanks! :)



Alright, here's my topics to talk about Noddings ch. 11.

Nodding critiqued the standardized testing. It was surprising for me to see the reaction from New York city policymakers' decision to make their tests more difficult when the students all passed the tests (p. 145). My question for this example is, what ideology would have made the policymakers' decisions to make it more complicated? SA? SE? Or, any other thoughts attaching to this topic?

Her final section about critiquing languages in education is fascinating. It was interesting to see that she critiqued the business-based terms in education, which aligns with Pinar I think. For alternative, she ended up her book by focusing on the concept of ecology. What do you think about her critique about the business-based languages and ecology as a solution? In reality, how can we touch these issues?

Also, any other questions, thoughts are welcome. Thanks! :)

Week 10 - Pinar

Hi everyone, 

Similarly to last week, I chose to read the articles in a chronological order to see the ideological evolution of Pinar, and I was wondering the order you read them and your rationale behind it. 

Do you see an evolution in his writing, and if so, how? 

In "Aspects of Gender Analysis in Recent Feminist Psychological Thought and Their Implications for Curriculum", Pinar refers to 3 theorists (Dinnerstein, Chodorow and Rubin) to build his argument that "reorganization of gender structure might lead to the reorganization of the social structure of schools." (p. 125). By unpacking the concept of gender identity formation, how it expresses itself and how it is related to sexism, the author seems to actually start from a series of postulates, a process that reminds me of Aristotelian logic, where he/they draw the postulate based on the conclusion and context they already have (does this make sense here?). What is the link between mother and daughter experiences and disciplines focused on experience such as "literature, the arts and elementary education" (p. 124)? Are "hard sciences" (and I apologize for the poor word choice) not based on experience as well since they are based on empirical methods? 

Is this theory not too deterministic, even though it questions the socio-cultural product of gender? I am thinking about non-traditional situations (for lack of a better word): How do Pinar and the 3 theorists he builds his argument on envision the effects of single parents, homoparentality, or of children raised in orphanages on sexual and gender identity? Is the power structure within the family more "deterministic" than that of the rest of society and therefore of schools?   

Pinar's main argument that we need to reconceptualize curriculum and the social structure of schools via the reorganization of gender structures is powerful. From this article, how do you think he envisions the enactment of curriculum change? 

The article is from 1980, and might be slightly outdated. Are we not seeing policies of gender reconceptualization in schools - such as the debate over bathrooms - without a change in the social structure of the classroom? In France, a current debate (there was a demonstration about it last week) focuses on theories of gender, and a large part of conservatives is currently fighting for conservation of the binary concept of gender, and criticizing schools for critiquing this binary view, leading to a very uncomfortable situation for teachers who are not themselves educated about gender. Any thoughts?

I will post about the other two articles tomorrow and wish you a lovely evening! 

Week 9- Dewey

Hello, hello! I hope that everyone is well and has gotten a lot accomplished in the past few days. :)

I was a little uncertain as to how I should approach the four articles by Dewey, and contemplated several methods, but ultimately decided to read them in them in the chronological order in which he wrote them. I was hoping that by doing this I would be able to see his theories progressing over time, and to my delight, I felt that I was able to do so. So my first, and very informal question for you is, what order did you read the articles in, how or why did you choose this sequence, and do you feel that by doing so it provided you with any additional insights or perspectives into the readings or Dewey himself?

In "Democracy in Education" Dewey begins Section 1- "As to the teacher" by discussing the lack of teacher input into the educational system. He states "Indeed, the opposite situation is so common that it seems, as a rule, to be absolutely taken for granted as the normal and final condition of affairs" (p.195).
Given that we all come from different experiences and educational systems, I was thinking we could discuss this more along the lines of how other people that we have read, such as Apple or Anyon, might respond to this statement.

In the same article, at the bottom of p. 196- top of p.197, Dewey describes a very scripted curriculum and how restrictive this can be for the teacher. He presents what he feels will be presented as the opposing argument to his ideals. I have pulled what I felt were some key words from that selection... "This state of things, while an evil, is a necessary one... without it confusion and chaos would reign... such regulations are the inevitable accompaniments of any graded system... The average teacher is incompetent to take any part in laying out the course of study or in initiating methods of instruction or discipline."
My question is... Is this argument still used to 'justify' (for lack of a better term) a scripted curriculum (or ultimately a traditional curriculum)? Regardless of if this aligns with your personal preferences for teaching and/or learning, do you think that this argument for a traditional curriculum (and I'm referring to its use for academic knowledge as described in the article ("reading, writing, spelling, and arithmetic officially laid down; outline topics in history and geography are ready-made for the teacher..."[p.196]), is ever valid? If so, when and why? If not, why not?

Last question from "Democracy in Education"- On p. 198 Dewey begins the second paragraph with "The system which makes no great demands upon originality..."
Reflect on this paragraph and how you feel it relates to the current state of education (feel free to interpret that word as you wish).

Jumping right through to the last two pages of "The Educational Situation", Dewey states "We have been trying for a long time to fix a curriculum upon a basis of certain vague and general education ideals: information, utility, discipline, and culture" (p.117). He continues by explaining that these are not the ideal methods, but rather "to study the typical necessities of social life, and the actual nature of the individual in his specific needs and capacities" (p.118).
Do you see evidences of this in curriculum that you have encountered or in the works of other theorists? Given that this article was written 100 years ago, how do you feel that our system has progressed in this respect?

In "Education for a Changing Social Order", Dewey states that many students "leave school with the attitude of wanting and expecting to be told, rather than with the attitude of realizing that they must look into things, must inquire and examine" (p.99).
Do you feel that this is true today? If so, at what levels of schooling? What do you attribute it to? Have the reasons changed at all in 82 years?


Ok, I am going to stop there for now. I've got lots of ideas about "Experience and Education", but I think we have somewhere to start for now, and if we need more to chat about, we can add in more as the days progress. Have a great week!

Week 8 - Social Reconstruction Ideology - Schiro 5, Noddings, Apple, Bernstein

Hi everyone,

I am particularly excited about this week's readings as they challenge everything we have been reading thus far.

First, I am particularly interested in your own experiences as educators and what you have perhaps observed with your colleagues. Mackinley, you mentioned this week that you consider yourself to be an LC educator, and I was wondering if you had implemented elements of SR discussed in Schiro such as the Highlander or the Math examples in your own classrooms. John, the closest example I can think of of SR at CESL is the service learning class, but it remains I think very much about trying to "solve" a foreign issue not directly relevant to our students' lives by having them more involved in the community, but not necessarily the community they are part of, such as bringing bags of clothes to Goodwill, painting a room at a local shelter, etc. I could see elements of SR, but not the entire logic or utopian vision of identifying problems, developing a vision and how to implement it and then enacting this vision for the greater good. Very often, I feel that such courses focus more on helping us feel better rather than really solving deep structural issues.

Therefore, I would like to move to the binary vision of the world (p. 165 and beyond): good guys vs bad guys (and eventually the masses). Does it not prevent people from seeing themselves as sometimes oppressors as well, if they think of themselves as good? Don't we generally think we are the good ones? I remember Freire particularly insisted on this aspect in Pedagogy of the Oppressed and in Pedagogy of Freedom, but it seems like the description given by Schiro limits it. What do you think? Since this ideology emerges from "cultural relativity", I find the words in Schiro sometimes incoherent with this relativity. How can someone consider himself a good guy only and not reflect on this contextual good/bad dichotomy? Did I understand Schiro's description correctly? Is it okay for someone who considers herself/himself a good guy to force the masses into what she/he considers to be good because she/he considers it as such? Is manipulation of the masses for their own good coherent with the SR ideology?
One thing sticks with me. When I met Paul Gorski, who is a social reconstructionist, he emphasized the idea that we do not have to convince people. We do not have to be liked to do the job, to do what is right, because what is right is right. I feel that even though SR considers cultural relativity, it also denies it sometimes by stating things like there IS a RIGHT/GOOD side vs a BAD one, inherently. While I agree with both aspects, the fact that there are elements of inherently good/bad, there are also contextual/cultural elements. Let's take the example of rape of a little girl: I do not think we will disagree: it is bad. However, some forms of violence are ritualized and even though perceived as violent, they are also accepted by the culture(s) performing them. For example, peace makers in Choctaw societies: a group of people would be born as peace maker and if a conflict arouse between two groups, then a peace maker would sacrifice himself/herself for the greater good. I don't know if I am going too far with this though, but I hope you get my point about absolute and relativity. All this to say that from my understanding, there are different types of SR ideologues: some are okay with imposing their views onto the masses and others do not share this idea and actually let the masses develop their own understanding, their own visions, their own tools for action, etc... Freire is for example, I think, a good example of the second group. What do you think?

Regarding teacher education, do we need to make major changes to what is being done to form teachers? Are colleges of education, staffed and taught by individuals privileged enough to receive college educations, equipped for social reconstruction? Some courses aim at SR, while others are so far removed from such ideologies! At our individual level of Graduate Teaching Assistants, what do you think Social Reconstructionists would recommend we do to implement their ideology in an environment focused on standardized tests and similar pace for everyone? When the risk is to simply not be hired or renewed or to be fired, what is the space for SR? Last month, I attended a short talk by Alexis Arczynski at the Center for Social Justice and she explained precisely that she had to avoid mentioning her focus on social justice on her CV and during job interviews in the past. How can we deal with this, when we are just still at the beginning of our career?

How can we implement SR when dealing with students who may not be able to quickly fathom pedagogical thoughts who differ from SA and SE? Students who have been used to evolving in a system denying - both at school, at home, and generally politically - their individual or community thoughts, opinions and beliefs for a more standard, collective and polished understanding of phenomena? I am thinking about some Chinese students from particular social backgrounds evolving in environments close to the Party, whose opinions on issues were not valued, and thus kept silent for so many years that they sometimes had difficulty formulating these thoughts even internally. Also, I feel that the format in higher education of semesters hinders the development of deeper bonds between students to undo the previous harm I just mentioned, and therefore start constructing an alternative vision. What are your thoughts?

What is the place of culture and intercultural encounters, intercultural competence development in this ideology? Even though this ideology challenges the dominant culture, does it allow space for exploring other cultures and being proficient in more than one's own?

We can also start discussing the aim of education/view of the learner/learning/teaching/knowledge and evaluation if you want.

Week 7 - Lerner Centered - Shiro 4, Dewey, Nodding's 6, 9

Hi Mackinley and Emma, 

I assume that you all enjoy reading about LC as we love the fundamental concept. However, for some reason, I have tried to find some points in LC that we can critique about in order to better construct our meaning about this ideology in dynamic ways. 

1. Evaluation in LC.

Schiro pointed out that LC prefers "authentic evaluation" that "describes students' performance during typical instructional activities" (p. 146). I like the richness of authentic evaluation (through portfolio or journal logs) than traditionally numbered or alphabetized grading, as the former can facilitate learners' development and growth more authentically. However, LC proponents' basic assumption seems too ideal in this society. They oppose to standardized testing because to them it "fails to describe children's growth....provide no information to individualize and improve instruction....emphasize lower order thinking" (p. 145). But, the reality in our society is that there are numerous standardized tests waiting for our students, such as SAT, GRE, BAR exam, and others. What do you think about this gap between LC's ideal aim and practices (development of individual growth) vs. standardized testing's expectations (social needs)? Have you incorporated this ideal LC curriculum in your school, really ideally? Have you encountered any conflicts? What is your stance about this LC's one of the fundamental assumptiosn that encourage us, teachers, to incorporate authentic evaluation, no grading, but long and rich narrative evaluation?

2. Children's Own Decision Making

Another basic assumption in LC is that children (learners at any age) will decide what they will learn. In LC, adult's intervention is regarded negatively as Schiro cited Johnson in p. 106, "children should not be conscious of [or subjected to] adult expectancy. This is a source of self-consciousness and waste in childhood." Children make their own decision - based on the age and development level. One question to ponder here would be, what if parents (or other curriculum makers) argue that the students are too young to make right decision? The pond water example was awesome, but what if students decided to not to progress further learning, for example what if they decided not to move up the the points of writing booklet of the poisonous ivy (going against the teachers' suggestion/direction)? We see that there was a teacher's suggestion/direction at every point in the pond water example, that is, giving books about dragon and letting them read and write using them. What if the students decide to not to follow the teachers' suggestions based on their decision? Rather, what if they vote to play more days in the pond? Should the teacher accept that decision made by the students? In LC, any decisions children made should be accepted (as the decision is their "interests" at that time)? Or would a teacher at that time intervene to say "no, we should do that"? If she intervenes, it loses the fundamental philosophy of LC? (We may recall that the W&S's book in its appendix illustrated the drawbacks of having too much freedom given to students in curriculum making - some students just play outside, taking music classes only...and eventually many parents and even students complain about the "freedom" given to the students.) What do you think? 

3. LA incorporating SA 

To me, LC seems ideal. Interesting things in its details are that I can see some instructional aspects deriving from SA and even from SE. For example, in the pond water story, giving the students books about dragon and have them read (expecting them to construct meaning (reading skills and others) while they read) seems tied with SA, because the teacher's goal/intention/expectation (by giving the books) would teach the students the ways of scholarly thinking - I see that the learning here will occur from learners actively, as they will read by themselves, however, still the fact is that the teacher gave the books (if the teacher didn't give the book, it (the chances of learning in that way) might have not happened, thus "giving the book" might refer to "teaching" in my opinion). This is not clear cut indeed...however, I think that SA concepts (not 100%, but in modified way) embedded in LC. What do you think? 

Incorporating SE as well?

Also, LC teachers assess students' progress by "observing, recording, and documenting" (Cruz-Acosta, cited in Schiro, p. 144). We see that the aim of this assessment is to plan and adjust the learning environment so that which can better facilitate students' growth. Despite the different goal of this assessing, this whole procedure (monitoring - changing environment - monitoring again...) recalls me the SE ideology's recording not mastering students' progress and adjusting the task level. I see the different nuances here between the word choices (mastering vs. growing, planning environment vs. adjusting task level). Nonetheless the recurring big cycle seems to align with SE. What do you think?

4. Reflection in Your Real Life

In Korea, at least to the best of my experience, LC-based school is very rare. Although this ideology was developed in early 1900s, I don't know why Korean education system seems not consider this ideology. What about in the US or France? Have you seen or experienced any LC-oriented school curriculum? How does it look like? 

5. Dewey - Self-realization and Now or never

Reading Dewey's article, I kept nodding my head saying "ah....yeah....ah...wow..." He is phenomenal and I can see his stance to the old education and mere teaching that lead everything easily will be forgotten. Among many many great notions here, I would like to point out two concepts: "not knowledge or information, but self-realization, is the goal" (p.4) and "it [learning] is perhaps a matter of now or never" (p.5). From the constructivism viewpoint, Dewey pointed out that learning occurs through self-meaning-making through self-realization. He went, "to possess all the world of knowledge and lose one's own self is as awful a fate in education as in religion" (p. 4). This notion ties with the "now or never" concept, as if arbitrary external subject-matters led one to lose one's self, according to Dewey, the "now" moment may vanish and will not come again. This notion is fascinating to me, as it underlies the LC's foundational thoughts; however, I carefully want to critique the "never" part here. Is it really "now or never" type of thing? Can't learner recall the learning moment? Dewey said, "an opportunity goes, never to be recalled" (p. 5). Really? Is there any chance that a student tries to recall the moment as a process of self-realization even later? Again Dewey's article is very compelling to me as a whole, I try to be critical to construct better meaning. Any thoughts on this? And, what other notions in Dewey resonates with you? 

5. Noddings - Shelter for thinking

In Noddings' chapter 6, one concept resonates with me is the home for "shelter for thinking and daydreaming" (p. 70). Her argument was very compelling as I agree with that we need private and public places at home, and the private place for daydreaming is essential in meaning-making, reflecting, and probably self-actualization as well. A quick thought to talk with you is that do we have this private "shelter for thinking" in our schools? What about your current or past schools? This notion reminds me of the Google's 20% free time for their employees; Google allow (or encourage) their employees to do nothing but anything they 'want' to do or think about for the 20% of their paid working time. Usually, coming with some unrealistic ideas, innovative ideas come up through the "shelter for thinking" time. What do you think? Have you experienced this as a teacher or a student? How may this notion be connected to the LC ideology?

6. Noddings - Spiritual but not religious

In ch. 9, her ideas for spiritual education just had my headache go away and wake up my brain while reading. What do you think about this concept of teaching "spiritual but not religious" aspects in our school? Specifically, questioning about God's omnipotent-ness, omniscient-ness, and all-goodness was very compelling to me (p. 128). One question about all-good-ness is here, to save our time, "if he is all good, why is there so much suffering in the world?" (p. 128) We know that her point was not leading believers to atheists, no. Rather she seems to help the whole human education, through discussion, not indoctrination. I may draw connections between this notion and LC in terms of helping "self-realization" (Dewey, p. 4), but honestly, the connections between the two seem subtle. So, two questions: (1) what do you think about this spiritual but not religious curriculum? (2) how do you think this notion relates to LC?

Any other questions and comments are welcome as always! Let's see how and where our human creative, simultaneous impulses led us to. Thanks! :)

Week 6- Social Efficiency Ideology- Schiro Ch.6, Bobbitt, Noddings Ch. 8

Hi everyone. Let's tackle social efficiency ideology this week. I've got a few things that struck me while reading this week's selections.

1. Bobbit states...

One should live abundantly if one is to become properly educated, but one should not at the time be greatly conscious of the educational aspect of his living, except in retrospect. The little child should be so occupied with life, so lost in his living, that he is not aware that he is being educated. Certainly there should be no recognition on his part of the fact that his memory is being stored with knowledge. In the case of the older child it should be much the same and likewise with the youth and with the man. Let life be full, diversified, and abundant, and pitched on the humanistic levels of twentieth-century civilization, and education cannot be prevented. Let one be unaware of the educational results of living; they take place just the same. (p. 47)

How does this support and/or conflict with the role that performance objectives play within the structure/ design of curriculum as seen via social efficiency?

2. Schiro states "Social Efficiency curricula specify behavior that is learned, not content that is acquired" (p.59).

Is it possible for all "information" to be learned and demonstrated as a behavior? What might this look like in different content areas, age groups, and in different areas around the world?

If a behavior isn't "solidified"/mastered, does this indicate that the individual has not learned anything up to that point? How is that/ can that be documented, or is there a need for documentation of these "failed" learning attempts?

3. Schiro states "The aim of education is twofold: first, to perpetuate the functioning of society, and second, to prepare the individual to lead a meaningful adult life in society" (p.69). 

Obviously he is speaking specifically with regards to the aims of Social Efficiency ideology, however, are these "themes" present in other aspects of our society? If so, can or how does their presence help or hinder what needs to be accomplished in school? If these themes are present elsewhere, what might it look like to incorporate/utilize them in the "learning activities" that are present in a SE curriculum?

Let's start with those ideas and see where they take us! Have a great week and happy blogging! 

- Mackinley

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Week 5 - Noddings 5 - The Liberal Arts in Schools

Hi everyone,

This first post focuses on Noddings' chapter on the place of Liberal Arts in Schools.

After addressing the tradition of placing the teaching of liberal arts at the core of schooling, for the sake of learning them and cultivating one's humanities, rather than for a direct application and usefulness to better our societies, Noddings rapidly concludes that "looking at the world as it is, [she] can find little evidence that learning for its own sake has done much to improve the human condition." (p. 55). As she demonstrates, we often perceive this motivation for learning (for its own sake) as an intellectually higher purpose (even though she reminds us of Hutchins' perspective on its usefulness, p. 54) compared with the idea of learning for a more practical purpose. As a consequence, this erects an intellectual barrier in addition to the often inherent social barrier. 

How do you imagine getting rid of this hierarchy and either implementing this thirst of learning for its own sake in vocational schools, or developing a practical purpose to one's learning of liberal arts? Would this mean lowering the essential quality of learning liberal arts (and if so, what is the essential quality of learning liberal arts)? I think cultivating curiosity and imagination rather than mere mechanical learning should be at the very core of any field, but I am curious about how we could actually implement these aims. Often, students in vocational schools (I am thinking about France because I am very ignorant of the actual system in the US) are in a hurry to finish their studies so they can start working and being paid. Indeed, most of them come from socially/economically marginalized families who count on the 16-year-old children to provide some financial relief. How and where/when should we try to foster this thirst for learning when students' goals are purely for future career use of the skills they learn so they can get a salary? What is the study of liberal arts for? What do you think it should be, according to Noddings? Is the study of liberal arts inherently ethnocentric?

I particularly enjoyed reading about the “stretching of disciplines from within” (p. 61) and the renewal of the liberal arts by "rejecting the emphasis on their content as cultural literacy" (p. 59). By this effort of transdisciplinarity or stretching of disciplines, blurring the boundaries in order to comprehend a topic through a more systemic approach (this reminds me of Edgar Morin, who wrote on La Pensée Complexe - Complex Thought, https://www.amazon.com/Complexity-Advances-Systems-Theory-Sciences/dp/1572738014) we encourage not only the digging into a topic from a much deeper perspective, but a precondition is teacher collaboration, creativity and critical thinking, which are among the 21^st-century aims mentioned p. 60. Indeed, our aims should not be limited to students but be extended to everyone.

The spiral curriculum mentioned p. 62 (cf Bruner) was what I was exposed to in France, especially in history. Risk of indoctrination into thinking about time in a chronological and teleological way.

Epistemologically, when one fits into constructivism or constructionism, to go back to Davis’ book even (cf Theoretical Issues in ILAC), I find it very difficult to be pedagogically neutral. Do you have any examples/stories of yourself as a teacher or student where you felt you/your instructor succeeded as being pedagogically neutral while exposing your/her/his views?

The following paragraph/set of reflections and questions might be trivial, but it caught my attention. On page 58, Noddings mentioned that "all children should learn and should use standard oral English." The rationale behind this remains very thin and Noddings justifies not talking about it more extensively in the present chapter since she will dig more when talking about vocational education. From a purely practical perspective, I agree with her that the use of standard English polishes, in appearance, some discrepancies between individuals, and therefore slows down the judgement we might make about one another based on the level of mastery of the mainstream language. However, even though I have an idea of what she means by "standard English", why should it be the standard version when in some areas of the country, a different English is being used, and is the standard in particular communities? Why can't we try to de-standardize English and people who live in standardized English to make them more accepting of what is considered to be less standard, and very often, to be an inferior form of English? Why, again, should marginalized populations have to align themselves when we actually talk about interrupting a forced normativity and normalization? 

John, I can't wait to read more about Macedo!