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 21st-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!
Here is the second part:
ReplyDeleteI am glad I learned more about the scholar academic ideology. When I first read about it, I thought it was simply about making students learn as much as possible about topics, through rote memorization… a very stereotypical view, and when I saw Bruner’s name on the syllabus, I was a bit confused.
According to this ideology, curricula revolve around the idea that students not only learn the content, but also learn “how to think and behave the same way university academicians do” (p. 19). Therefore, what is learning, from this perspective? How does it occur?
Considering the fact that “knowledge must be accepted by a discipline before it can be used as curriculum content” (p. 22), I would like to ask you: what is knowledge, from the scholar academic perspective?
Because knowledge is generated by academics within their disciplines, what is the greater aim of curricula developed following this ideology? What is the place of democracy: is it an outcome or a prerequisite, or is there a cyclical relationship? What would the Scholar Academic ideology say about diversity? Citing Whitefield, Schiro explains that what is not drawn from the disciplines is not be part of the essence of the curriculum (p.23). Therefore, how does this ideology envision the teaching of social skills? Is teaching social skills a role of schooling?
Considering the idea that for each school subject there is an academic discipline, does this assertion necessarily negate what Noddings encourages in chapter 5 (the stretching of disciplines from within)? Does it prevent teacher collaboration to the extent described by Noddings? How do you think Bruner and others would justify this segmentation of disciplines?
Academicians and educators highly educated in the discipline make curricula choices. Does this preponderance of highly discipline-focused individuals encompass an implicit hierarchy between academics and teachers, since the first category is in charge of deciding what is worth knowing and the others of how to make it teachable? Doesn’t it create a society where the ones who know are in power, again? How does this impact democracy and equity?
Hello all, Emma, you pose so many sound questions. This line of thinking that asks these questions that revolve around power, democracy, and equity make excellent points in and of the questions themselves.
DeleteHi Emma, thanks for help us initiate into discussion. :)
ReplyDeleteFor your first question about Schiro, the word choice "same" used several times in Scholar Academic (SA) ideology made me feel a bit suffocated honestly at first, "they constructed their curriculum so that children could explore the "same" questions scholars in the fields ask..." (p.18). This same thinking/behaving-orientation seems to be emphasized in this ideology. However, as I read more, I think I see their perspective better than before, as they focus on "academic discipline." Discipline into the academic thinking, behaving, and exploring.
To answer your question (what is learning for them?), p. 46 clearly stated SA educators' perspectives in learning. "Learning is results from teaching, and how a person learns is a consequence of how a person is taught....Learning is thus viewed from the perspective of the "transmitter" rather than from he perspective of the receiver of learning" (p. 46).
The word "transmitting" sounds a bit passive to me, and very traditional, so this is another factor that made me felt a bit negative about the ideology. However, I see that SA is not a necessarily limited view for learning, because one good (positive) aspect of SA to me is that they see the children not only in the bottom of the academic hierarchy (as object to transmit knowledge), but also see/value the children's capability of moving up towards the top of hierarchy through academic discipline. Their purpose seems to raise children from academic immatureness to higher academic thinking levels, SA view the students as "an immature member of a academic discipline who is capable of acculturation within the discipline as a result of learning its content and was of thinking" (p. 45). So, I do see a mix of traditional perspective (transmitting) and a kind of prospective (i'm so careful to use this word here) perspective (seeing children being capable of growing) here. What do you think?
A new thought I learned about SA was the fact that they are not that strict on curriculum making. What I mean is that they are open to teacher's or school's discretion on deciding specific enacted curriculum as long as the overarching point is met.
ReplyDelete"Didactic knowledge is repeatable and impersonal. It can be repeated without losing its point, the occasions for delivering it are not fixed....this means that information tied to particular nonrecurring circumstances, such as particular item of conversational....information is NOT considered to be worthwhile knowledge for the school curriculum" (p. 43-44). This notion seems to tell us that SA may be seen as a NOT super-strictly traditional and nonnegotiable ideology in curriculum making, which is to me a mind-blowing learning about this ideology (I think I had a bias to them before). What do you think? Can we say that SA is still conventional (conservative) or SA has a liberal characteristic as well?
Thank you John for your comments. Having read Bruner in Instructional Issues, I have a hard time seeing him and therefore this ideology as "conservative". But what do you mean exactly by "conservative"? They were actually "radicals" when the ideology first emerged: it was born because academicians were "dissatisfied" with what had been done in the past.
DeleteI feel, still, conflicted, regarding this ideology. I see the benefit of adapting disciplines to the children, letting curiosity be explored.However, the idea of acculturating disturbs me. In addition, there is, I think, a risk of building some sort of ethnocentrism through this type of teaching (but is it not the case for most?). which is why I want to read more about the rest of the ideologiies to weigh the pros and cons of each, hear about what you all think of them, discuss them and then make my opinion after having a deeper understanding. What do you think?
Hi Emma, I really like your point of illustrating SA as radicals because of its background: it is born because academicians were "dissatisfied" with what had been done in the past. What I mean by "conservative", I should confess that I am biased and may not grasp the concepts thoroughly yet by the way, is based on when we see the SA ideology in the broader continuum of the four ideologies: scholar academics, social efficiency, learner centered, and social reconstruction. I may have presumed these four with the lenses of "traditionalist" and "progressive" viewpoints in W&S's book. With that in mind, I carefully see that SA would be leaning towards "traditionalist" than the latter two ideologies (learner centered and social reconstruction). But, your point of "radicals" was fascinating to me, which led me to assume that when SA was emerged, people at that time might have thought that "wow this is very progressive (?), or radical", again to them that time and within the given context. The radicalness and progressiveness seem relative to time. That being said, my stance from the social reconstruction or W&S's progressive might have biased my thoughts thinking that SA would be categorized in the conservative (or traditionalist) area. But, I was critiquing my idea as well, because I see that even SA was not that strict in terms of guiding teachers about how to teach/design curriculum. So, I saw that SA is not that traditional (focusing on the basic) but also open to flexibilities within its ideology. Any thoughts? :)
DeleteHi Emma, for the ethnocentrism concern from SA ideology, could you tell us more about why you thought that SA might teach ethnocentrism? Ethnocentrism is, by definition, "judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture" (Wikipedia). I think that I see you point here, but still implicitly yet. Could you unpack your idea a little be more please? To wrap up, what connections do you see between SA ideology and ethnocentrism? :)
DeleteHi John,
DeleteWhat I meant by "ethnocentric" was that this type of education, because it emerges from the academic disciplines only, disregards some aspects related to what it considers to be "influenced by special interest pressures" (I cannot find the page here, it's right before the section on "Disciplines, Intellect, Knowledge: An Assumed Equivalence". Indeed, academic disciplines were, in the 1960s, primarily in the hands of privileged social classes, mainly Euro-American males, and unfortunately, it has not changed much when we look at demographics. I guess I could phrase this as a question instead: does this ideology negate a focus on social justice through the academic disciplines? Is in inherently the case (in the academic disciplines) or just the way it ended up being taught in the classrooms?
Additionally, the aim of cultivating the human mind appears ethnocentric as it is cultivating for a specific end, making tacit judgement about what is and is not "cultivated". Indeed, cultures place diverse values behind what constitutes mental cultivation. In my mind, the way I picture it is that a cultivated mind would be knowledgeable about the Banquet but not necessarily about the Analects, if this makes sense (but again, this is done pretty much everywhere).
Thanks Emma. I see your point, and which makes sense to me that SA might include teaching "ethnocentrism" with that background - European male dominant thinking discipline. I haven't thought about it this way. Thanks. For your question about the probable negating social justice from SA, I would carefully say no because the basic principle of SA was not that. Rather their purpose/aim was to discipline people academically so that people can move up to the higher levels in the academic "hierarchy". Again SA encourages students to move up through the discipline. One quote caught my eyes in SA chapter was that "evaluating SA as a just traditional (somewhat conservative) is not a fair judgment" (I also can't find the page, but it is in the conclusion section I guess). But as you pointed at the second question, the SA scholars' aims, philosophy, and suggested practices have been maybe twisted and misunderstood through diverse practices in history. You and I were surprised to see Bruner in this ideology, and we know that Bruner would never ignore social justice, nor any other SA scholars. So I think that abundant curriculum workers may have worked to manipulate SA's pure aim, in which it may seems to disregard social justice with the background as you addressed. What do you think?
DeleteGood evening John and Emma,
DeleteYou both bring so much to the table in your thoughts and ideas. Thank you very much. Regarding ethnocentrism, I wanted to say that I followed your dialogue with great interest.
I agree with these concerns of ethnocentrism.
From 2.1 on page 28 (Schiro 2013) we can clearly see the hierarchical organization of a discipline. I see SA as creating little mini-scholars. So much can be said regarding this. First, this allows for the deep philosophical thinking that I have previously mentioned… and how some may thirst for, yet may not even have the terminology, means, opportunity, or privilege to explore their intellectual ideas. That said, what would the world be like if it only consisted of scholars? I have, for some time believed that when I have worked in the field of teaching and/or when I observe others who excel in their field of teaching, that I see an overlap of theories. We will all identify more fully with one, but at this point, surely we must acknowledge the overlap of theoretical matters regarding educational perspectives. I see nothing wrong with this. For there is no way that we can allow for students to fully seek knowledge through the SA approach without then, at some point allowing for student interest and ability to come into play beyond this… for our world to function. Just think for a moment. What would the world be like if it consisted of nothing but scholars? The answer has to be identifying with one theory in particular while allowing for some overlap? I hope you all get a chance to throw in on this, or we will discuss at class. Or, better yet, perhaps Emma is correct in that we may first consider the material cumulatively and then come back to this.
Hi Tina, very good question. To me, SA's idea is not to "make" all people scholars, but help them think scholarly as which is one of the appropriate thinking processes in this codified world (I can't find the page number though). As SA proponents believe that the knowledge is not reality, rather it is representing reality, cultivating the academic thinking is regarded very important in this ideology. However, I think it is about helping people think, not become a real scholar.
DeleteIf it happens as you assumed, everyone becomes scholars, then, hmm, what kind of world would this world be? Everything should be rational? reasonable? and then...maybe all the media-driven phenomenon (overconsumption for example) would be diminished? Not very certain though. Let's talk more tomorrow. :)
Hi Tina,
DeleteI don't think the ideology's aim is to fill the world with scholars, but rather have all individuals initiated to the scholastic/scholar(?) way of thinking in all disciplines. I see it as a way of expanding one's perspective, but again, I keep getting back to the ethnocentric (and perhaps this term is not exactly the one I mean, but for lack of a better word, I continue using it) perspective it emerges from, delivers and might turn people into.
Hi Emma, let me now touch your first question bout Noddings, you asked, "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?"
ReplyDeleteFrom Noddings, I see that the practicality has critiqued liberal arts pretty reasonably, as a parent might ask to their daughter, who wants to major in English literature by saying "what will you do with that?" (p. 60). A bitter sweet smile was on my face when I read this line, but at the same time, I nodded my head agreeing with the parent. My parents and relatives also mentioned this type of comment to my current major actually. haha.
Although Noddings' and the liberal arts education advocates' arguments might sound too ideal, I agree with them. One fascinating notion is that the liberal arts have kept the "immortal conversation" alive. The immortal conversation includes questions such as: "What is the meaning of life?...What is good?...Is there a God?...How should we live?" (p.57). I still see that, "so what?" type of critique from the proponents of practical/vocational education, still these are the questions and discussions we, human beings, want to keep talking as it is one of our duty as a mankind.
In reality, I really like Nodding's suggestion to incorporate Bruner's spinal curriculum idea for realizing the liberal arts education across disciplines (p. 62). For example, she said that when teachers of English, math, and history mentioned Beethoven, Goethe, and Napoleon in cross-sectional ways a carefully embedded liberal arts education should be feasible. I really like this idea. And, I see that this notion might tie into the concept of "ecology" we discussed in chapter 7, as from that type of education/curriculum, our students might "look around" the forest, not the trees with the broader viewpoint that involves self-understanding. Am I maybe too much extending this thought? What do you think? :)
Hello all,
DeleteJohn, Yes, we must be able to see the forest. I like the ecological connection that you made at the end here. I also liked that you shared your bitter sweet smile thoughts and your family’s views of your current major. And I now recall Noddings statement that her focus throughout this book is, however, is on American secondary schools. This does not change what I feel regarding abstract thinking as applied to k-12 public schools, but is even more so in my mind. For if k-12 schooling does not allow the privilege of deep thinking, surely we would pray that secondary schools would serve as a safety net. Yet I find myself only allowed to do so when working on advanced college level course work. I am not comfortable with this. Regarding another generation, my children and their friends, for example, they encountered these philosophical opportunities in our home, with me.
So I agree fully that it is our duty as mankind to deeply consider these questions of, “What is the meaning of life?...What is good?...Is there a God?...How should we live?” (p. 57). However, I do not see this sort of dialogue happening in all the institutions at the levels that would represent what I dream of. And that dream would be that even the guy fixing the roof deserves to make these considerations, for deep philosophical thinking extends the human mind. And even the guy fixing the roof leak deserves this privilege.
Thanks Tina. This notion might be off-topic, but this discussion reminds me of one of the basics in education; education matters in one's life. The countless time, dialogues, and implicit/explicit interactions in schools (either k-12, higher Ed, or ESL) influence students' life, ego, and identity. Thus, I do agree with Noddings and you for the need to touch the fundamental questions (e.g. How would we live?) in our curriculum even for vocational institutes. Noddings mentioned that this type of balancing movement between practical Ed and liberal arts Ed occurred in colleges too; she showed that an engineering school requires students to take a few liberal arts classes. But the class content was at the surface level with lots of facts, not deep thinking oriented. Hmm, this discussion led me to think that there might be connections between liberal arts education and the Scholar Academic ideology. As liberal arts deal with how to think about the fundamental questions, and as one of the ways of doing it is to think "academically", the two are maybe based on the same root. Eventually, in the SA hierarchy, one of the goals for pupils was also to empower them to move up to the top academic thinking level, where they can think critically, see the forest, and even create knowledge. So do liberal arts. I could be wrong though. What do you think?
DeleteHello all, John, I have been seeing Noddings as Learner-Centered, yet as I continue to research her, she is very complex. Every word you have written makes sense. I want to give all of this some more thought. And, again, perhaps, we might continue as we are, guessing about these matters, and all of this may change at the end when we have completed the course work, reading, discussions, and activities in class. That will be acceptable in that if we change our thoughts and ideas in connection with a better understanding of matters we are seeing growth.
DeleteOnce more, I hope you get a chance to share a response, or I am sure we will get to this in class.
So John and Emma, I keep reading and coming back to our posts. And now what is standing out to me is when John wrote, "In reality, I really like Nodding's suggestion to incorporate Bruner's spinal curriculum idea for realizing the liberal arts education across disciplines (p. 62)." Perhaps this observation that you noticed John, regarding liberal arts across disciplines will lead to a more comfortable way of contextualizing our material for this week. Before class I will be making every attempt possible, as time allows to go back to look at everything once again. I enjoy this learning process of written dialogue. Thanks so much to all!
DeleteIn the mean time, I have checked the Hirsch's core knowledge website (http://www.coreknowledge.org). First impression was to see how well the contents are organized. Among the various examples there, my eyes looked up the ESL sample lesson plan for a writing class. (http://www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/lesson_plans/901/Bridging%20the%20ESOL%20Student%20to%20the%20Writing%20Process.pdf)
ReplyDeleteLearned that one of the SA's fundamental purposes is to teach (discipline) how to "think academically", the graphic organizers in the lesson plan's appendix tell me that they are maybe based on the SA ideology (e.g., a planing sheet for brainstorming and venn diagram for comparing/contrasting). Before I read about SA, I thought the graphic organizers are just helping tools for thinking and planning, but, now I see the probable connections between them and the SA. What do you think about this interpretation? Or, have you found any other interesting things at Hirsch's website (or the other one) as well? :)
John, I am about to clock out for the night. We may discuss this tomorrow.
DeleteSee everyone there!
Thanks Tina. Yes, let's talk about this more tomorrow at class. Thanks!
Delete