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
Hi Mackinley, I now may see why Dr. Beach last week mentioned the importance of "bracketing" our bias when reading this week's topic. Social Efficiency (SE) ideology ideas and assumptions are quite strong and, which could be a good subject to be critiqued; however, now I am trying to figure out and grasp what SE is and the backgrounds first by drinking their kool-aid first.
ReplyDeleteAmong your second question set, let me put a thought chain onto this one: "If a behavior isn't "solidified"/mastered, does this indicate that the individual has not learned anything up to that point?"
In SE's perspective, I think that they would say that "no learning" is accomplished yet if a student's behavior is not changed enough up to the standard that they made in a certain level. Prerequisite mastering is very important for SE proponents, because without fulfilling it at each level, the student cannot move forward. As illustrated in the Type to Learn example, if a student failed in mastering typing "f j" keys, they will never be able to open the next stages - practice word-level typing and longer typing tasks.
Again under SE ideology, meeting standards - not only up to the terminal objectives, but also for each progressive (step-by-step) objectives - are crucial. Thus, they would say that the student in your scenario would not learn yet, rather need more practice to master that. It is hard say that whether the student did not learn "anything" up to that point, but it is definite to say that the student is failed in the given phase, thus he/she needs more practice to meet the standard (and SE teachers will approve that he/she learned (mastered) it). What do you all think? Any comments or ideas?
Hi John. Thanks for the response. I think I understand what you are referring to in your first paragraph, but please don't read too much into the intention behind my question. It was not a judgmental one, but more of a "Is it possible that a human can be in the 'process of learning' within the SE ideology?" or does SE reflect a cut and dry view of either you have or have not learned a concept?
DeleteAlthough the book used the Type to Learn program as an example, there are many "programs" or examples of curriculum based on SE theory being used in elementary schools across the country today. I had NO idea until I read this chapter and was able to connect the dots between what I have seen/am seeing being used and the in-depth explanation of how SE curriculum is structured.
I bring this up because if SE curriculum/ideology/practitioner mindset indeed aligns with what we have mentioned, I would think that this certainly impacts the student/teacher/parent interactions and relationships. It also makes me wonder why we see so many SE programs in our schools right now? Is the "mastery of objectives" approach appealing to schools who are held accountable with high-stakes testing?
Thanks Mackinley, I read your point - thanks for taking the devil's (?) advocate. :) Yeah, when reading I was also simultaneously reviewing what I have learned (before my doctoral program), what I have done when making curriculum, and even what I have taught. Setting an objective and planning things to meet the objective is so compelling; with that in mind, I think yes, the mastery of objectives approach appeals to schools who are held accountable with high-stakes testing. Any other thoughts friends?
DeleteIn addition to this "objective" concepts, I think the "standards" concept also plays a big role here in SE. The Type to Learn example excellently illustrates SE, because for example, we don't agree to call anybody who has not passed the BAR exam a lawyer. This notion about "standards" seems tied into the SE as well, and which is a backbone of this ideology, and what we have been doing in our pedagogy to some extent. What do you think?
Hi everyone,
DeleteI admire the discrepancy between what I personally think my classroom should achieve -with all of its inconsistencies-, and how I contradict myself in many ways in my practice. Again, I am glad to unveil the gap between written or implicit curriculum and enacted curriculum.
John, I agree with you when you mention that learning is not achieved as long as it is not "automated". However, I am curious about how SE conceive it. I would not say that it is a completely binary perception of what learning is (incompetent vs competent). Indeed, in the associative stage, it is explained that the learner is in the process of eliminating errors gradually. However, because of its sequential nature, its stages, learning is really broken down into small bits, or subordinate objectives, where one can actually, when looking at each tiny sub objective, conceive their mastery as binary. What do you think? Do SE/some SE consider the mental connections as the ultimate stage of learning, or can these connections be made during the intermediate stage (associative) and therefore be parts of the learning process?
I had a question regarding evaluation. Because it assesses the acquisition of a certain behavior to see if a learner is ready to move and build on what has been learned, can we still say that it is mostly a formative assessment, despite the fact that it is phrased as "pass/fail" (p. 95)?
One last thing for the night. I am uncomfortable with the idea that I should be repulsed by this ideology, when I see that it is an extremely common one, especially in the field of language learning, where we see every year new teaching techniques being demonstrated as the effective way of teaching/learning. I am thinking about Total Physical Response for example; an activity during which someone gives commands (stimuli) and repeats them to a point of saturation/automation to create an internalized habit/response to the command/vocab.
Hi Emma, to advocate SE, yes, I think SE considered the "mental" connections in the associative phase a part of learning to some extent. They seem not to explicitly mention this, but, the point that they review students' progress and adjust the each task levels accordingly (lowering the bars or changing the content at a level, still towards helping the students master the level) seems to reflect this thought. Their main point is to make more "practical" and "functional" education than just filling knowledge in one's mind (brain) without real performance. Thus, the intermediate phrase seems not highlighted in SE, but still I think they regard it as a part of learning, or the process of making the product. (Yeah, I'm using SE's terminology :). What do you think?
DeleteJust a quick thought to talk:
SE advocates, including Bobbitt, critiqued the "filling knowledge in one's brain." To me which refers to the Scholar Academic ideology, but not sure, so I want to ask your opinion. What do you think about my interpretation of seeing that "filling knowledge in one's brain" refers to Scholar Academic ideology?
Emma asked:
DeleteI had a question regarding evaluation. Because it assesses the acquisition of a certain behavior to see if a learner is ready to move and build on what has been learned, can we still say that it is mostly a formative assessment, despite the fact that it is phrased as "pass/fail" (p. 95)?
John:
Hi Emma, I think SE focused both summative and formative assessment. For the progressive objectives (step-by-step), they seem to focus on formative assessment. However, SE does focus on summative evaluation as well to basically check whether they meet the clients' (society) needs. On p. 65, Schiro pointed out that "such information [evaluation data <- i think] can be used as a basis for revising....or for proving that the curriculum accomplished its purposes (summation evaluation)." Also, the fifth reason of evaluation illustrated on p. 95, about the role of standards, seems to say that SE's stance on summative evaluation as well. What do you think?
Hello all, I will first acknowledge my bias by explaining that I am not comfortable with treating students and schools as if they are a steel manufacturing process and I am particularly uncomfortable with the lack of free will within this ideology. That said, I will be speaking from the point of view of SE as best I can in my contribution to this discussion. I believe that SE proponents would direct us to page 74, Figure 3.1 and explain how crystal clear this process is.
DeleteThank you John for replying, it helped me a lot.
DeleteTo answer your interpretation regarding "filling knowledge in one's brain" as a reference to Scholar Academic ideology, I think you are indirectly correct. SE was indeed officially developed during the 1910s, and SA, or at least enacted curriculum "based" on the liberal arts and the idea of filling up one's brain is a very old practice one can find with Socrates already.
Bobbit and therefore SE ideology reject superfluous teaching/knowledge/practices if it is not something one can demonstrate as a skill with an obvious and measurable outcome.
Hello all,
DeleteJohn and Emma, I like your dialogue above. And, yes John your response to summative and formative assessment helped me as well. Thank you.
Emma, in response to the teaching of language, I am in complete agreement and would add that I fully believe that meaning is what is so crucial. I could go on and on. But this is my bias peeking out. Perhaps SE proponents would have some rational hierarchical response to all of this.
Thanks Tina. Yeah, I also see my bias a lot when I read about SE, especially about their choice of words (factory, steel manufacturing..), but I like some aspects of them. Bobbitt nicely critiqued the staticness of filling in one's brain, and the Scholar Academic's (for example) neglect of "learner's style." Social Efficiency does recognize learner's style, needs, and circumstances, which is complex, so that they see the connections between the behavior (actions) and the learner's mind, life, and needs. I like this point in SE. And, now curious about how this learner consideration defers from the Learner-Centered ideology later. What do you think about this idea?
DeleteEmma-
DeleteEarlier you stated "One last thing for the night. I am uncomfortable with the idea that I should be repulsed by this ideology, when I see that it is an extremely common one..."
Coming from someone who is straight, across the top, Learner Centered (and always has been), I don't think there is any reason that you should feel repulsed by SE ideology, or any of the others for that matter. Regardless of where your personal preferences of beliefs lie, I think that a true academic can understand and appreciate the value of other ideologies and their methods. As I mentioned in another post, SE methods are rampant in curriculum materials and programs in the schools and districts that I have worked in across the country over the past 16 years. In many of these places this curriculum is mandated and enforced, so I had no choice but to make sure my students were using it as "prescribed". And... in many cases, it did help students meet designated goals and objectives. So, even though it is not my preferred method of teaching, and I do believe that for many (ok, most, if not all) students there are more effective ways to learn, I can see the value in SE curriculum for certain uses.
I don't want to come across as condescending, but I don't think you should hesitate to share your reluctancies because you probably aren't alone in your thoughts. Also, for people who are along the lines of thinking that "their" ideology is the "only" ideology, hearing others explain and justify their reasoning may actually plant a seed that someday grows into a sprout of openness and understanding.
Following your another question Mackinly, "how is that/ can that be documented, or is there a need for documentation of these "failed" learning attempts?", Schiro mentioned that the programmed curriculum does keep "failed" learning attempts in SE ideology. In the Type to Learn example, each student' trial is archived in a way, with their progress and failure, so that teachers later can adjust the task level by changing the vocabulary word level for example. "Their performance is saved in a teacher management program...Teachers can thus review each students' records and individually adjust passing scores for tests, the amount of practice required, vocabulary level, and so on" (p. 61). I personally like this point because it reminds me of the washback effect (assessment's effect on both teaching and learning). So, I think, yes under the SE ideology, students' failed attempt are kept and be used for helping their learning more "efficiently," and I believe this is a quite legitimate aspect in SE. What do yo think?
ReplyDeleteWhile reading and discussing, the word choice of "efficiency" resonates in my brain. To me, this word implies not only the efficiency to meet the society's needs, but also to meet the instruction's efficiency needs (the two are connected here in SE ideology indeed). What I mean is about the concept of "prerequisite" subjects, which is very common in schools including our program. Cagne in Schiro's book pointed out the importance of "construction of learning hierarchy" by stating this question, "what must the student already know how to do, in order to learn this performance?" (p. 64). The importance of prerequisite seems to be based on SE's very fundamental idea, and which is currently wide-spread out in higher education setting as well. This thought led me to think that the word choice of "efficiency" is not only regarding to meeting society's needs, but also for making any "instruction" more efficiently, which has been permeated into our everyday life. This interpretation might be off the topic, but, to me it seems interesting to see the scope of the term here. What do you think about this interpretation? Any thoughts or comments?
Agreed, and obviously a computer program makes the documentation process easy (and perhaps this is one reason why these programs are so attractive), but I was thinking beyond the computer program, in all of the other modes of delivery, or even in the bigger picture of SE, does the reason why a student has not mastered ever come into play? Perhaps I overlooked it in the readings (and if so please point it out).
DeleteRandom thought, but one I had and was wondering if anyone else would agree.... Do you think we could explain SE ideology as being the "Classical Conditioning" approach to education?
What SE curriculum makers would do for the "not mastered students" would be adjusting the task levels, not only for the computer program example, but also for any other type of subjects I infer. On p. 63, Schiro mentioned a math example as well (not necessarily for the "not masters students though). So, under SE, a not mastered student also comes into play in the curriculum making/implementation in the forms of adjusting each task to help him/her better master the level. I could be wrong though, what do you think?
DeleteFor your random thought Mackinley - about the possible connection between SE and classical conditioning, I agree with you up to a point, because SE emphasized the two terms "stimulus" and "response." However, I think that SE goes beyond the classical conditioning, because SE seems to focus on the "activeness" than the latter. On page 59, Schiro cited Tyler's quote, "learning takes place throughout the "active" behavior of the student." I assume that a majority of us may share the similar feeling not favoring the term "behavior" through this ideology (before bracketing our biases), but I really like the role of this word "active" does in this ideology. So I think that SE is going beyond the classical conditioning, which is more purely about stimuli-response relations regardless of the activeness of the respondents. Any thought or comments? :)
DeleteJohn, I agree fully. Of course failed attempts are documented due to the hierarchy of the SE model. One may not continue with learning until mastery of pre-requisites. When thinking of literacy, this reminds me of how I was taught to read. Because of my age, at the time, emergent reading was taught in such a way that “only” until all phonetic sounds were memorized, were children allowed to hold a book and begin to attempt the process. The teacher kept a record of failed attempts throughout this process as she held up letters and worked with students one on one…. until mastery of “all” sounds were accomplished. I might add that the entire class sat in total silence while this arduous task was carried out day after day. This is an example of SE. And this demonstrates the tracking of failed attempts without technology.
DeleteJohn, In responding to your second paragraph regarding the meaning of efficiency, I marked each time this word was used and tried to focus on the SE ideology. Of course, you are on point, to mention the importance of “construction of learning hierarchy,” as the SE reading clearly drove this home again and again. Back to this word, “efficiency.” I agree with
Deleteyour thoughts on this term, and would add that when I think of the word “efficiency,” what stood out the most was on page 69, “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” (Schiro, 2013). The SE ideology means well. SE folks know that what is happening in society is perfectly fine and so must be perpetuated. And SE folks know exactly what it means to lead a meaningful life and feel that they must see to it that their definition of a meaningful life in society must be mastered by students.
Mackinley, responding to the “Classical Conditioning” …. This crossed my mind as well, but I tried to push it aside to avoid a negative connection with SE. I would say the SE proponents might take offense, possibly they would want to be separate from classical conditioning.
DeleteMcKinley, I am thinking on the classical conditioning more and more.. maybe SE proponents may not mind this connection?
DeleteThanks Tina, I agree with you; your reading class with phonics components exemplifies SE well, and it broadened my horizon within SE towards other disciplines. You mentioned the SE folks' approach to society, which is very important to understand SE I think. I do remember that they regard society as a "client", so we can see that they through eduction not only support society, but also get some directions from society to what teachers do in schools. I see your "bias" regarding how to see society, you mentioned that "SE folks know that what is happening in society is perfectly fine." I haven't thought about SE in that way, so it is really interesting to bear in mind when comparing it with other ideologies. To delve into why SE proponents came up with this idea, I think that perhaps they have focused on the limitation of the old (to them) surface-level/not practical teaching subjects (filling in brain with knowledge). Thus they seemed to try to develop more practical and reality-based education by thinking about social needs. Which means that for them, critiquing the gaps in what happened in the schools and what society (students' real life) expected was more important than the society's justness or unjustness. For them the former was too problematic to think other aspects in education probably. What do you think?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi everyone,
DeleteI was surprised to see the way Schiro talked about SE in the chapter, compared with SA. The analogy he used of the steel rails and factory revealed a lot about his position regarding SE. Indeed, when reading Bobbitt's examples, even though I disagree with some aspects of the ideology, I understand how it can seem relevant in some ways, and I could feel the enthusiasm and radicalism at the time. Bobbitt may be talking about efficiency, but it is with the aim of perpetuating the society and culture, raising human beings who will contribute and "live in proper ways, generously and abundantly." When we recontextualize this text, we are in the middle of the 1920s, the Roaring-Twenties, in post-WWI years, with a growing economy and industrialization. SE makes sense there. We are trying to develop a society with more manufactured goods, and vocational education is fully perceived as useful by an entire portion of the population. Even though it had long been denigrated by people in power, it was perceived as useful. Bobbitt makes it seem like a logical, useful and "obvious" turn, where "activity-analysis" is "obvious" as well (p. 50).
John, just like you, I like the idea of activity being at the center of SE ideology. However, if I am tempted to define SE as a mere conditioning of stimulus-response, I do not think it is limited to it. Indeed, both Schiro and Bobbitt emphasize the idea of learning by doing, and Bobbitt even qualifies humans as "doers" (p. 47), and I am under the impression that there is a gap between what the purpose of education is, according to SE, and what they actually recommend doing in a classroom. Indeed, according to Bobbitt (p. 47), the purpose of education is to "help the pupils to live in proper ways, generously and abundantly." SE is perceived as the principle of assembly-line applied to society, but Bobbitt disagrees with this purely materialist idea, because he thinks it reduces the ideology to what it is not: it does not have to be limited to vocational education, and it can be applied to academic disciplines. Therefore, what does Bobbitt mean by “generously and abundantly”? If he criticizes the way traditional educators perceive his new education because they consider it too materialistic, then what does he mean, in the 1920s?
What struck my mind the most in the ideology is the way education is defined (Bobbitt, p. 48): "the process of growing human beings." In other words, to teach children how to be humans, which is to be adults contributing to society in an efficient way, "active participants" (again, action). Education is not about right now, but rather about later in life. Because of the identification of activities that humans mainly perform, I was wondering what you thought the effects of such way of defining education, and teaching, affect creativity. If everything is identified as what we mostly do as humans and included as curriculum, how does this affect the idea of normative activities, and the perception of what is done differently or done outside of the norm? What is the place of creativity for students? Is creativity even valued in this ideology, since creativity disrupts normative behavior, and perhaps the culture?
Actually, I will add one thing to my previous post ("Education is not about right now, but rather about later in life."). Education is about adult life preparation, but adapted to the stages in one's life (Bobbitt, p. 54): "The analysis is to show what is normal for each of the levels." The emphasis on "normality", average through the best way of making something well (p. 53 gives simple/limited instructions regarding how to develop good behavior on a task), seems to negate the place of "abnormality". Is there space for it? Is it even conceived in this ideology, if we try to find the best way of conditioning people's behavior? Does it negate differences in abilities based on one's sociocultural environment because, in a way, it aims at limiting, if not erasing the impact of sociocultural environment through behaviorism and activity-analysis?
DeleteI don't know if I make sense here, but I would be happy to discuss it in person in class.
Emma-
DeleteThe definition also struck me and I found myself going back to it numerous times, as if it would provide some clue to better understand the aspects of the SE ideology that are still unclear to me.
As far as appreciating creativity, or having a place for it within SE, perhaps this will provide a clue... "evaluation's 'purpose is to compare each student's performance with an external standard representing the defined objective'"(p.96). Also, from that same section, "Social Efficiency evaluation involves comparing a curriculum, student, or teacher to a predetermined standard through the use of criterion-referenced tests." "The data obtained from evaluation come in a 'pass or fail' form, not a ranking form."
To me, this indicates that there is likely little to no value for creativity, as that is typically viewed as "frill" or "excess" beyond the basic skills required in any given objective. What I mean is, regardless of how high the level of thinking that is required in a particular objective, an individual can demonstrate mastery of the objective and level of cognitive demand without displaying any creativity. Although in many classrooms the "added effort/creativity" is what sets the top students apart from the rest of the class, SE ideology says that there is no ranking, no "good, better, best"; you either have it or you don't.
I could be way off, but that's what I got from it. Thoughts?
Hi Emma, Mackinley, for the discussion about whether there is a room for creativity in SE, I carefully want to say 'yes' although the readings seem not explicitly mention it. (I'm trying to do my best to advocate SE by putting myself in their shoes). Bobbitt's article seemed radical at that time as Emma mentioned, and he criticized the "selfishness" of academic interests (p. 49). From there Bobbitt seemed to emphasize on human "behaviors" (not merely materialistic, rather involving inner behavior - mind in individuals) to tackle the static results that academics had pursued. What Bobbitt focused on through recognizing human behaviors (actions) seemed to recognize both actual behaviors and "mind's activities" (p. 52). The term "mind's activities" Bobbitt mentioned implies that he considers human creativity or individual's particular needs/adaptation throughout the process of education. Thus, I think that SE, or Bobbitt's new education idea, does consider creativity implicitly. What do you think? Let's talk more in the class. :)
DeleteHello all, As we have discussed Noddings, very little, I wanted to briefly, throw in on some of her writing. Noddings opens the chapter by stating that U.S. vocational education is in a state of neglect. She also acknowledges the wisdom of Dewey yet explains that his ambiguous language leads to confusion (Noddings, p. 101) She also writes that Dewey “deplores work that requires machine-like responses from a worker” (Noddings, p. 102).
ReplyDeleteWhat I am most drawn to is that Noddings addresses degrading work and calls for caution in avoiding talking aimlessly, “thoughtlessly” about the dignity of all work (Noddings, p. 102) I instantly thought of Michelangelo, who was beaten as a child for being drawn to color since his father had other ideas in mind for his son’s future.
Noddings writes that all students—particularly teachers (in training) should read some of the most noted utopian writing. Although I am not that familiar with B.F. Skinner’s Walden Two, I understand that it is set in the U.S. and reveals a fictional society where problems are solved through technology and human conduct. I have also read an article by Sadler who wrote of Bellamy as if she had “drank his koolaid” with Equality or Looking Backward. I appears that Bellamy saw democracy, equality, and liberty as being in complete contradiction when compared to the economic system of the era (Sadler 1944). Also it was written that Bellamy’s predictions had unfolded in the last fifty-six years (prior to 1944) (Sadler 1944). I do seem to recall reading in Walden Two a reference to Bellamy calling for the streets to be covered…. What does all this mean? How does this utopian writing intersect with SE?
Thanks for initiating us into talking about Noddings Tina. :) I read her lines about the utopian writers again and again. "All students - especially teachers in training - should read some of the best-known utopian writers who have tackled the problem of what to do about degrading work" (p. 102). The words "degrading work" catch my eyes here. In my opinion, what Noddings said introducing utopian writers was probably about waking up people from stopping thinking about the degrading works (conditions) and how to improve the workplace in terms of humanity. I haven't read any utopian writers yet, but from the context of Kliebard (1999) in Noddings and her wordings, I infer that the utopian writers illustrated some problems about degrading works - "hardest, dirtiest, and most boring work" (p. 103). And their purpose might be how to solve the degradingness in light of revitalizing humanity in that. Kliebard (1999) denoted, in Noddings p. 102, "When all work, even under the most degrading conditions, is declared to be ennobling, the need to reform the workplace somehow seems much less urgent (p. xv)." Thus, I think that the utopian writers did reveal the problems in degrading works, and urge people to handle them; but the society or socially constructed concept of "dignity" to the unpleasant jobs may has blinded people's mind about this topic. Which may have cued SE proponents to tackle the real-life issues through education rather than pursuing 'pure' academic education. I could be wrong though, what do you think?
DeleteTina-
DeleteThanks (I think) for bringing Noddings into the discussion. I may or may not have been avoiding it because honestly I just could not see any connection to SE. I did find the chapter very interesting (as I have all of Noddings work up to this point), but I just can't make the connection to SE. I am hoping that our discussion tomorrow night will help! :)
I liked Noddings’ vision for middle schools as being a time to explore. Noddings envisions middle schools as portals of options for students (Noddings, p. 113). Mackinley’s thought-provoking question:
ReplyDelete“What might this look like in different content areas, age groups, and in different areas around the world?”
In response to this question, I was drawn to Noddings’ writing when she explained that the U.S. continues to force children into academic studies that may not be best for them (Noddings, p. 114). And then she points to Finland, who is admired for high test scores, offers 9 years of broad education, and then students choose either vocational or academic high school (Ravitch, 2012, Sahlberg, 2012) (Noddings, p. 115). And last, Noddings calls for a renewal in the U.S. regarding vocational education.
Is this choice offered to students in Finland something that aligns with SE?
Tina, in my opinion, the Finland case is somewhat combination of both SE and SA (or general education, not vocational), as they have both in their K-12 curriculum. What's more important in their curriculum to me is the "choice" given to the students and the social atmosphere (culture) to support either path as long as the decision makers (students) are satisfied. At this point, the concept of "satisfaction" Noddings used many times in her chapter (she used Dewey's ideas too), resonates with me. What I see behind the Finland system is the freedom to choice, between academic and vocational paths, and satisfaction attaching to it. I think that this concept also supports SE ideology to some degree as well; social needs are not only for vocational needs, but also for academic needs. What I means is that society also needs academicians as social needs (as academician is also a vocation, this could be off-topic here though). Noddings pointed out that half of Finnish students select each, which seems balanced. However, Noddings suggested that we can adapt their example, not copying, to make it more appropriate for our context. Yeah, tried to write short, but ended long... what do you think about my interpreted connection between the Finnish education system and SE? Any thoughts? :)
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHi John, I agree with all that you have written. I have been reading Noddings so I am not sure that she aligns with SE, but as we have discussed previously, often times, it appears that we see some overlap, to some degree. This was a lot of material to digest for the week. Thanks for the response!
And… most definitely I like that the students have a choice in matters, which as you stated, involves creating a climate that makes these choices possible.
ReplyDeleteThanks Tina and Mackinley. For the connections between SE and Noddings' Ch. 8, I think that I can see them with a very simple lens from the term "vocational" education. The word "vocational" implies occupations (jobs), and jobs are based on what society needs. SE's fundamental idea was to support the society (client)'s needs, thus I do see the connection between SE and Noddings. I understand that there are more topics in Schiro and Bobbitt than the concerns only about "vocational" education, however, still vocational topics seem to be within the Schiro and Bobbitt's ideas about SE for the reason mentioned earlier. One dilemma here is that which way should we focus more on between academic and vocational education (as both are what society needs)? Or, what degree of balance should we keep? Is the Finland case the best? What should be done to help us keep our balance in our context? Let's talk more tomorrow night. Thanks! :)
Delete