Monday, September 5, 2016
Week 3 - W&S Ch. 2-4, Noddings Ch. 2-3.
Hello all, I hope you are enjoying the long weekend. :)
This week's readings were about aims of education, equality, and democracy as an umbrella of both with different theorists' viewpoints. Sorry to have a bit long posting. I have 6 things to discuss with you as below.
Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey
Walker and Soltis introduced diverse and fundamental theorists regarding aims of education in clear ways from Plato to Dewey. Honestly it was my first time to learn that Plato's aim of education was to make a just society; Rousseau's was to truly free individuals,;and Dewey's was to reconcile between the two. At this point, W & S seems not to address the fourth ideology in Schiro's book, Social Reconstruction. Plato's aim seems to tie with Social Efficiency, Rousseau's aim ties with Learner Centered, and Dewey's aim seems to embrace both. However, Social Reconstruction idea seems absent in W & S's book so far. I could be wrong though, what you do think about this? Thinking further, do you think that social reconstruction could be an aim of education? Among the three aims of Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey, where would you place your stance?
The progressive vs. traditionalists
The debate between the progressive and the traditionalists caught my eyes, and it does catch your attention too I think. We see the diverse pros and cons of each, and saw that each stance sounds plausible when we think the situations of each side and their justifications. Between the two, what side would you locate yourself? I see my self leaning more toward progressive for many points. However, the progressive's one viewpoint about history is a bit not plausible to me, because the statement in p. 23 seems to too much focus on the value of present experience. "Actual experience of people in the present are a surer guide that their inherited "wisdom" of a past quite different from our present" (W&S, p. 23). I agree with that they say the present experience is "surer" guide than the knowledge learned from history; but, still I see that learning (wisdom) from the past is still valuable, or in some cases it can be more "surer" as well, for making decisions. What do you think about this progressive's viewpoint about history?
Bannock & Industrialization
The authors (W&S, Noddings) addressed that interpersonal skills (communicating ability) is one of the significant subject to be taught at schooling. With that in mind, Bantock's assertion was interesting. According to Bantock, it seems that industrialization got rid of humanity in working class and undermined folk culture. "The efficient, mechanical organization of work replaced the organic, personal, and natural flow of interpersonal interaction prevalent on the farm, in the shop, and in the home" (p. 32). Do you agree with this statement? Does industrialization (or digitalizing as well) take out interpersonal aspects from our society?
High/Folk Culture
Bantick's another argument about literacy was compelling yet subject to debate. Arguing that embracing high culture's (elite group) literacy aspects in school curriculum (for the illiterate working class as well), he points out that it seems that a structural unjustness has existed from the beginning. "In school...there was no room for the non literate, oral tradition or for the nonliterary arts - dancing, singing, handicrafts....that constituted the popular culture of the day" (p. 32). Also he goes that "for children of the working class the results of this education were alienation from the only living, encompassing culture open to them, along with failure to induct them fully into the high culture" (p. 32). This analysis and critique were compelling to me, but on the following page he seems to claim that the "high culture" is in a higher stage than "folk culture." He claimed that "for them (working class), education needs to unite thought and feeling; to use their natural propensities toward direct participation, sensing, and feeling; but to use them to the ultimate end of introducing them to higher, more serious, more refined, and ultimately more truthful and satisfying ways of dealing with reality" (p. 33). More truthful? What do you think about this statement?
Hirst's idea vs. ILAC
Pointing out the "different domains of human experience call for different ways to process experience and to justify our clams about that sort of experience" (p. 52), Hirst argued that different modes of different initiation in curriculum is necessary for students' learning. Hirst idea is plausible as one example was good enough to persuade me, "the concept of beauty is essential to arts" (p. 52). Thus, his main assertion tells us that "different subjects do exist and do have their own concepts, theories, methodologies, and standards of judgment" (p. 52). However, this argument seems against to our department's (ILAC) philosophy that emphasizes the inter-disciplinary cores (humanity oriented) across any subjects. I may think it too much, but this lines caught my eyes as an ILAC student. What do you think? Does Hirst's idea contradict to our department's aims or your teaching philosophy?
Noddings
Noddings argued that "children are not equal in their capacity for academic learning, and a universal, academic curriculum may well aggravate academic difference" (p. 30). Thus, she said that there should be both common learning and individual learning. Also, she argued that we should encourage young intellectuals as we encourage young musicians and artists. What do you think about this argument? To me, this Noddings' assertion about the "not equal capacity for academic learning"constradicts to Freire's argument that humans are not finished and humans can transform through honest and true eduction. I could be wrong. What is your opinion about this "not equality in terms of students' academic learning capacity"? If you agree with this idea, how can we serve the different students in our education?
In p. 37, Noddings critiqued the "free-market system of schooling." She also criticized the voucher advocates' claims that "a vigorous marker will force failing schools" (p. 37). I am not an economy specialist, but I do see the connections between capitalism's ugly sides (viciously producing failing classes in poverty) and what she just pointed out here. Bearing Social Reconstruction ideology's mindset, isn't this "failing"implicitly structured in the system of "free market" or "capitalistic" society system? What do you think about this voucher advocates' assertion?
Any other questions and comments to discuss are always welcome. Thank you very much! :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow John, that's a lot to take in! Yikes! Ok, so I'm going to take a stab at a few thoughts here and possibly even throw a little wrench in the conversation.
ReplyDeleteThe first topic you mention is with regards to Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey, and how their philosophies align with the aims of education and curriculum ideologies. Clearly the authors make the connection between the ideals of these three, however I am not sure that the link to a specific ideology can be made based solely on the aim presented (given that this is the task and we must push aside all other prior knowledge that we have about each of the three).
In the introduction (p.13) the authors state "All educators have aims that motivate them and guide what they do. Some aims are remote and intangible; others are more immediate and accessible." Later they continue, "What good, then, are such ideal aims if we cannot attain them? One answer might be that they point in a direction that is better than their opposites."
The reason I bring this up is because last week I was reading for another class and came across an essay by Roger Scruton called "Schools and Schooling". In this essay Scruton refers to both Rousseaus' and Deweys' aims of education as "preposterous". This is not the first time that I have come across these two discussed together, and although this link is rather weak, I refer to it to remind all of us that clearly not everyone receives these aims as "ideal". I also wonder, even when the ideals are different, how much does that trickle down into the day to day practices within the classroom? Specifically I think of this with more negative associations than positive. How often do teachers/administrators/district & state leaders/ publishers/ curriculum developers lose sight of their ideals on a day to day basis? How does this affect their interactions with one another, and more importantly, the students in which they are employed to serve?
Huge tangent? Perhaps. Yet maybe not. I'll be back tomorrow to respond to your other thoughts. :)
Mackinley, what you point out regarding losing sight of "ideals" is definitely a core idea of our class. Indeed, exploring our own ideals, and seeing how our practice can sometimes/often differ from them and reflecting on how to gain awareness and systematize the realignment of practice and ideals is central here. I am wondering however how this gap between ideals and practice affects and influences the development of ideals and practices of our students. How does the lack of explicit ideals translates into cultural practices?
DeleteHi Mackinley, thank for furthering our thoughts. I really like that you brought up Scruton's argument about seeing Rousseau and Dewey's aims "preposterous" (new word added to me! :). Does Scrunton see it that way probably because Rousseau's and Dewey's ideas sound too ideal?
DeleteTo make a thought-chain to your follow-up questions (how often do we lose sight of our ideals, gaps between ideals and day-to-day practices), I think that the concept of the four curriculums (written, in-use, enacted, hidden) discussed last week may nudge our brains.
We do know that there is gaps between an ideal and other ideals, between ideals and practices, due to various reasons. The more important topic here would be about our stances, guts, or daily actions that can either make an active and harmonious change to curriculums or follow what ideals and three curriculums (written, in-use, hidden) guide us.
Might sounds abstract. But I believe that teachers' (our) mindset, action, and initiatives out-matter other aspects as teachers are one of the influential curriculum workers. That is why W&S and Noddings encourage us to keep talking, thinking, and acting on this topic for the "fairly and fully considered curriculum." Any thoughts? :)
OK, so I really don't want to get too off track here, but your comments brought me back to last weeks reading of Ch. 1 in Schiro where he discusses the different types of Curriculum Workers. He mentions curriculum practitioners, disseminators, evaluators, advocates, developers, and theorists. I have been able to work in several of these capacities over the past few years and it has been very insightful in many ways. One thing that I have noticed, however, is that there is often a disconnect between these workers, even when working on the same "curriculum" and for the same "client". What I have heard repeatedly is the practitioners say "This is too idealistic. There is no way to make this happen in MY classroom, with MY kids, with MY resources, in the time that I have to teach it in." I also often hear practitioners say that "they (i.e. disseminators, evaluators, developers, and theorists) are disconnected from the classroom" and "forget what teaching is like." Just this week in another class I had a fairly veteran teacher state in class that she did not feel that teachers (practitioners) needed to operate with an understanding of aims or ideals because they were unrealistic and "what was the point?"
DeleteSo I guess my thoughts are, how do "we" bridge this gap? Is it OUR responsibility to do so? If curriculum truly lies in the hands of all of those involved, then who is responsible for taking a stand to ensure that the "ideals" are not forgotten?
Hmm, interesting story indeed. In your case, I am curious about what the other workers (disseminators, evaluators, developers, and theorists) respond to the practitioners' feedback?
Delete"Ideally", the practitioners' comments and complaints are a good start to me, and I hope that there were mutually constructive follow-up meetings or actions out of it. How was it?
To bridge the gap, I believe that open discussions and "fairly and fully considered" curriculum and school culture, which means all the workers' voices are considered in a fair way in curriculum-making, should be established. However, I agree with you up to the point that it is easier said than done.
DeleteI do remember that my colleagues and I, back in my Korean school in 2013 and 2014, took approximately 10 hours in a row to decide student placements and setting up curriculum for a following semester. I think we should build a culture that allows talk, talk, and talk, not only between peers, but also across the classes (developer, evaluator...etc...and even students) about the curriculum.
First reason is that there might be lurking gaps among different "ideological" stances across workers. Your example, and the veteran classmate's example seem to overlook the ideological differences "across" the curriculum workers; rather the stories seemed to focus on the gaps between "the curriculum makers" and practitioners. As we discussed last week, there should be ideological differences across the diverse curriculum workers in the deep level; we should open that and collaborate to find solutions. Then, once multi-ideogy-considered curriculum ideas are made through agreement, we may focus on narrowing down the gap between written curriculum and what practitioners do in the classroom. I know this sounds "ideal", but this is what I understand from readings both last and this week. What do you think?
ps.
With this discussion in mind, I think teachers and the curriculum workers (developer, evaluator, disseminator, and even students) should be paid, or compensated, for curriculum meetings. W & S pointed out that teachers usually don't get paid for curriculum writing. Is it true? What do you think about this issue - schools should pay teachers for curriculum writing or curriculum meetings? (to bridge the gaps)
Hi Emma, I really like your question: how does the lack of explicit ideals translates into cultural practices?
DeleteFor this inquiry, I would like to extend this question by asking this way; what would make the "lack of explicit ideals"? The reasons might tell us the possible answers to your questions.
One reason would be the gaps in aims among the curriculum workers, for example, developers may follow Plato's aim (a just society), whereas practitioners' aim may follow Rousseau's (to free individuals). This is just an example, however, this type of gaps reside not only between the aforementioned two classes, but also across the various curriculum workers (even between students and teachers). I think there are more reasons than this example. What do you think? Any thoughts? :)
Hi John,
DeleteI think the lack of explicit ideals often translates into an attempt of reproducing what we have been exposed to ourselves as students, sometimes by lack of creativity, sometimes because we are not bold enough when we start in the profession and rely on what the curriculum and peers recommend us to do.
But again, they remain implicit ideals, or not conscious ideals, if this makes sense.
DeleteI remain very conflicted regarding the similarity of secondary school curriculum. Again, coming from a country where everything is hypercentralized, including education reforms, which emanate from people living primarily in Paris - you can imagine they have a different perspective from people living in Martinique and Guadeloupe, or simply in the village I come from - I am able to see the irrelevance of such curriculum, just based on the geographic diversity of people having to follow it. Additionally, to reuse the argument made by Noddings, or by social reproduction theorists (I am thinking about Bourdieu and François Dubet here), this hypercentralization negates the equality of other members of the population and therefore often serves the (un)conscious cycle of privilege and power of those already at the top of the society. However, as a child moving back and forth between my tiny village and a big city, I benefited from some aspects of this uniform curriculum because I never had to "repeat" a subject: we all take the same classes at the same grade level. Again, my awareness continues growing regarding the critics of such system. Yes, it enables comparison, especially comparison of excellence (cf Prakash and Waks) through some type of standardization, but in a global (glocal?) context valuing multi/intercultural education, I struggle seeing the applicability of having national curricula and valuing this intercultural education in terms of pedagogical practices. So, if anyone understands one I mean here, and has ideas, please share them with me.
I would like to add one more thing about a presentation I attended today at a conference dedicated to international and intercultural education. Prof. Yun-Kyung Cha is currently working on a model of multicultural curriculum merging both Western and Asian perspectives, therefore integrating Confucian values of harmony (he) and responsibility. I will share it with you either via email or in class next week. I found the whole concept very interesting (not the simple integration of both philosophies, but the model itself) and I found it very relevant to our class in general, and to this week's readings.
I guess I have a comment/question related to this model, implemented for now in a couple of schools in South Korea. Do you believe such curriculum, based primarily on intercultural values is something implementable in all environments? Another talk I attended was on Poland and the speaker explained the conversation on intercultural education is only very recent, because of the homogeneity of the country. I know she meant religious and ethnic relative uniformity, but I kept thinking that intercultural education is not about international cultures and migrations, but simply about diverse cultures, related to socio-economic status, social capital, etc. What do you think? Is the creation of intercultural curricula out of place in, let's say, rural Oklahoma? I believe it is also the right place, but I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
John,
DeleteIn response to your comments regarding the curriculum "issues", yes, compensation would be nice, however I don't think that would solve any of the problems or gaps that I have heard about. Some states/districts/schools do compensate their teachers to work on curriculum projects, while others ask for them to donate their time for the benefit of the students (and those that do are usually more than happy to do so). The problem that I see is that the ideals of each of the groups are so different and often so disconnected. Another issues is a lack of training or professional development on how or why a curriculum is written as it is, why and how it works (or will work with "their kids"), so the practitioners are left with a pile of "stuff"- be it materials, guidelines, standards, or whatever- and they do not understand WHY they should be using it. In a secondary classroom where a math teacher teaches only math, and possibly only geometry, this may not be nearly as much of an issue because that teacher is or can become somewhat of an expert in that content area over the course of their career. However, in the elementary classroom, where a teacher is teaching math, reading, language arts, writing, science, social studies, art, music, physical education, foreign language, etc, there is no way that they can be an expert in every subject at every moment of every day all year long. This is particularly true now that we are in a time of "crisis" in our schools when the average years of experience among teachers is rapidly decreasing and we no longer have veteran teachers to lead the newbies and answer the questions that they have as they arise or provide the resources that they need. Yes, there are resources available online, but not all of them are tried and true, and I have yet to find a website that can listen to my explanation of what a student is doing in a class and then give me a bunch of suggestions and ideas of how to help that student.
So, I don't know how to solve the problem, but I do know there is a problem and there is frequently very little communication between the levels of curriculum workers. I also know I want to help solve the problem. Ha! Where is my cape and magic wand??? :)
Emma, for the implicit and explicit ideals (or aims) we discussed, I think that we need to clarify the meaning of both in our discussion. My understanding is that one of the main focuses here is gaps ( either implicitly or explicitly) across the curriculum workers "horizontally", not "vertically". I mean one of the fundamental reason for all these different types of conflicts may be based not he horizontal gaps between workers (there should be also effect from the vertical gaps as well). But, I think the horizontal gaps (among the people) outweigh the vertical effects (among the curriculums - written to enacted under one aim/ideology). I may make our discussion more confusing; but, I hope this makes our talking clearer.
DeleteSo, in your example, French K-12 curriculum which almost has similar curriculum across different locations, seems to have less vertical gaps among the curriculum in written to what teachers to in reality. Which seems good for learning the "same" content where you are, in the lens of "reproduction" concept. However, I agree with you that which system may negate individual's authentic learning ("equal" by Noddings) because they seem to focus on teaching the same thing, not creativity, flexibility, or critical thinking. Is my understanding appropriate here? Any other comments please? :)
Mackinley, I really like your points about the "disconnectedness" among the curriculum workers' ideals/aims, and I do agree with the "crisis" happening in public schools. For some reason, one concept that Noddings emphasized was resonating in my brain this morning when I kept thinking about our discussion: "interdependence."
DeleteMy interpretation for that word here in curriculum-wise context is that we should understand that each of the ideology proponents need to help each other. In other words, we should depend, lean on each others' (ideological) shoulders in order to agree on our own "ideals & aims" in a given context.
The compensation ideas, and building up a culture that welcomes open talking, are all probably about having the interdependence environment in school. We know that we are the people who can find a solution, and constructive and fair dialogues should be there as a vehicle that leads us to there. What do you think? :)
McKinley, I agree, John did an excellent job with synthesizing here. I arrived late from the holiday and in no way could I begin to address all of John's points, even if I had access to internet where I have been. But kudos to you John! I learned from reading that extremely thought-provoking introduction. McKinley, I made no attempt to connect Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey with specific ideologies... as of yet. Perhaps we will return to this later!
Delete
DeleteEmmanuel===. I am very interested in hearing about the intercultural curricula from you, when we have time. As previously mentioned, regarding language, but I will go ahead and say that in regard to education in general, it has always been my view that culture is of exceptional significance, not only one’s own culture, but also cultures all over the world. I hope for a more global perspective in education.
Emmanuel, when you mentioned rural Oklahoma, my mind raced. Most rural areas have so many of their own issues, much like marginalized urban areas, however different the problems may be, we have some work to be done in rural areas, just as we do in poor urban areas. Urban areas lack opportunity, there is too much isolation for the children and the community, and of course, there are the rural drug problems. Having said that, I cannot help but to think that revitalizing old ways, Native American basket weaving, quilting, connecting the elderly with the young, in fact, connecting history, as far back as possible, such matters along these cultural lines should be given some thought. As we continue our work with Noddings, I look forward to rounding out my ideas philosophically to include what brought me into the field of education to begin with: care. It will be a journey to learn more and more.
meant to say "rural" areas lack opportunity, have too much isolation, etc.
DeleteTina, I really like your comment about "connecting history" as a solution there. This reminds me of Anyon's article comparing the 5 different schools. She observed lack of history information in the working class schools, but many and deep history information in the upper class schools. History matters more than we expect maybe. And, that is probably why our building (college of ed) has inspiring historical photos in the walls - I like it and I see them in different viewpoints now. Learning about history of where you are seems important, and this ecological setting should be a part of our curriculum as it may contribute to better free individuals (Rousseau) and for students to better locate themselves as both a just citizen of society and a true human being (Dewey). Yeah, I'm trying to connect the thoughts. :) History would be a key aspect for intercultural education as well for this reason. What do you think?
DeleteTina,
DeleteThanks for your comments! I just wanted to make something clear: when I said "intercultural" in the context of rural Oklahoma, I associated the idea of internationality, having in mind "latin week", "black history month" and other types of celebrations of diversity that do not, in the end I believe, reach the goal people expect or hope them to have: increase reflection, dialogue and mutual understanding (Paul Gorski has a pretty long list of articles against these celebrations, like "Taco Night": http://www.edchange.org/publications/TacoNight.pdf). My point is, these manifestations do nothing to fix marginalization, oppression and injustice (in rural or urban schools). After reflection, I think the term I used or the meaning I associate with it is completely biased based on my own obsession of international education. I think intercultural education has its place anywhere, in that it is also related to social, racial, ethnic, religious, gender/identification, sexual orientation differences... I guess what I want to say is that equity should be at the center of (inter)cultural education first so the interculturality can be more meaningful.
John,
DeleteThank you for your comments and for giving history further thought! I believe that history is overlooked and Euro-centric in our schools. This is very sad. And Dr. Macedo would say this leads to broken identities for African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, for example. I am working and will not elaborate further, so that we may begin with the next reading blogs.
Emmanuelle,
DeleteI also thank you for extending thought. The entire country of America is a tad bit self absorbed. Working toward global perspectives through education is extremely vital. We will talk more in the next reading.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey all. So once again I have an off topic question/ thought for you. (John I am so sorry! Your questions this week are awesome. My brain feels like it is exploding with information and you all are the only sounding board I've got, so I apologize.)
ReplyDeleteLast week in class Dr. Beach asked us to compare ways of knowing vs. learning. Well, last night, I had this thought (and I could be totally wrong). What if ways of knowing were interpreted as the different ways (Gardner's Multiple Intelligence theory) in which learners acquire and assimilate new information? What if ways of knowing referred to knowing something linguistically, logical-mathematically, spatially, naturalistically, kinesthetically, musically, interpersonally, and/or intrapersonally? When you think about how this kind of knowing would impact the various types of curriculum and how we would define learning, it makes sense.
What do you think?
Great question that made me open canvas and my class notes! :)
DeleteIn our group last week, you, Barbra, and I, discussed that ways of knowing as "social, context-based, and personal", and learning as "active meaning-making process." I think we pointed out that the former is more about demonstrating (?) what we know, and the latter is more about how to acquire knowledge.
But I do see your point, and it all depends on how we define each terms. If we define ways of knowing as "acquiring ways/strategies" , it sounds more like learning though, I think you have a good point. If it means acquiring, I think that it definitely affects the types of curriculum, e.g., using TPR (total physical response) for L2 education is bodily-kinesthetic plus linguistic intelligence-based for bodily-kinesthetic students. Again it may depend on how we define it still. What do you think? :)
Ok, so I have tried to avoid this conversation, however your questions, and Noddings comments, struck a sensitive chord with me, so I have decided to address them, rather than avoid them.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you stated "Noddings argued that "children are not equal in their capacity for academic learning, and a universal, academic curriculum may well aggravate academic difference" (p. 30). Thus, she said that there should be both common learning and individual learning...What do you think about this argument?"
I agree with Noddings statement that children are not equal in their capacity for academic learning, and would even go a step further to say that not all humans are equal in their capacity for academic learning. I believe that anyone with the understanding of the Intelligence Quotient scales and various battery of tests available to assess IQ would agree with that statement.
This does NOT mean that I believe that all children are incapable of consistent academic progress OR that all children should not be held to high expectations or accountability. I believe that students will rise to the occasion and work hard for those whom they feel are invested in them and believe in them. (I believe that Noddings would agree with me.)
I also agree that a universal, academic curriculum CAN (but will not always) aggravate academic differences. As a special education teacher, I assure you (and the research backs this as well) that students along the spectrum of performance know where they stand performance wise among their peers. This is true even with the little bittys, but even more true as they get older. If all students are expected to know and accomplish the same things within a universal curriculum, the higher performing students would do so quickly and easily, likely become bored and lose interest, while the lower performing students would struggle, become frustrated, lose motivation, and fall further behind as they grapple with foundational skills necessary to complete the higher level skills they are now being tasked with.
As for providing a balance of common learning and individual learning, I also agree with this, kind of. Of course my own ideologies are going to come screaming out at you here, but I envision how the common learning (such as the written curriculum) directs WHAT the end goal is for the students to be able to know (content) or do (process skill), but the individual learning is the self-directed/self-selected manner in which the learner goes about some step(s) along the path to that goal. It may be method in which a student chooses to solve a problem, or the way in which they want to demonstrate mastery of selected content, or their selection of content to study but the path that they must follow (comparing and contrasting) is provided to them.
I am very interested to learn more about what Noddings has to say about this in upcoming chapters!
John, you continue with "To me, this Noddings' assertion about the "not equal capacity for academic learning"constradicts to Freire's argument that humans are not finished and humans can transform through honest and true eduction. I could be wrong. What is your opinion about this "not equality in terms of students' academic learning capacity"? If you agree with this idea, how can we serve the different students in our education?"
I think that I have already touched on this, however I will address it again. It is pretty simple (although this is not to say that it is done well in every classroom, school, district, or even state across the country), but this is what we are already doing in the US. We serve the general population, the gifted population, the ELL population, the special education population, the hungry/homeless population, and so on. Doing this is not an easy task, and again, I certainly believe in many areas we can do it better than we have been doing it up to this point, but it should be acknowledged that this is what we do now.
Ok. Rant over. Stepping off of my soap box. ;)
McKinley,
DeleteI deeply admire your work. I adore hearing responses from teachers who are professionals in their field of specialization. I see no rant. I see an individual sharing their thoughts in a safe space created for such.
Thanks Mackiley, I also personally really like Noddings ideas and her writing style, straightforward and neat. Just to constructively critique your points about the different population categories (general, gifted, ELL, special ed, and hungry/homeless), you may get the message a bit wrong way (again critique purpose :). What I mean is that Noddings seemed to point out the "academic" inequality, not SES inequality. I mean, for example, within one category among them, in a special ed for example, there is inequality existed even within the category. So, the scope should be more precise, and with that in mind, it may be very difficult to realize common and individual learning, and our current ed system may not serve our kids in that consideration (I do agree with Noddings' point, but it seems going against what Freire said, so I would like to discuss more). What do you think about this scope consideration for Noddings' inequality argument?
ReplyDeleteThis comparison with Freire and Noddings is quite interesting. I know that no one is up right now, so I hope we can talk about this tomorrow night. Also, I believe that we really need to take a very close look at two words here: "common" and "individual" .....
DeleteThanks Tina! Yes, I could be wrong about understanding Freire's point here, but it seems, to me, that Noddings' inequality somewhat contradicts with Freire's "transform-ability" of human beings. Let's talk about it more tonight. Thanks! :)
DeleteHello John,
DeleteI believe that Dr. Beach asked us, for now, to avoid trying to connect Freire and Noddings. However, I fully relate to being carried away with Freire's brilliant mind John. I truly do.
Out of all assigned readings for this week, what stood out for me the most was the ancient connections of Greek philosophy to present day education.
ReplyDeletePlato was Socrates’ student…. and later used Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas.
Philosophy did begin in ancient Greece. But there are other places, China, most prominently, some people say India…. in terms of the most influential philosophy did begin.
But the big deal was that Socrates started laying foundations for what would become Western philosophy. He practiced Socratic ignorance, which is assuming that one knows nothing. And he practiced the elenchus, which is similar to the Socratic method of education in which one poses a question to an interlocutor (a speaker) and enters into dialogue with them.
As I read further I became and more fascinated with the way that Plato thought and how I was reminded of stratification. ….
Although Plato has a great passion for dialogue, Plato is not an egalitarian. I look forward to class.
.....in terms of the most influential, philosophy did begin ..... in ancient Greece.
DeleteHi Tina, I also really like the fact that I see the connections between ancient greek philosophers' work and our current thoughts and practices in the 21st century. We know that their work is phenomenal and the scope is much broader (ranging from rationalism to science, and more probably) than what we are discussing in terms of curriculum and education aims. But to me, it is very interesting to zoom in their philosophies in the lens of curriculum and education. I really like it. And, it worth thinking that how their work has formed, influenced our daily practices, ideologies, and thoughts. (I personally try to critique their thoughts with the lens of post-structionalism and interobjectivity though :). I like that you pointed out that Plato is not an egalitarian, which makes me keep thinking. I also look forward to our discussion tonight. Thanks!
DeleteJohn,
DeleteOur class discussion went very well! And, this is a class that will keep us thinking for the rest of our lives.