Hi all,
Wow, it is week 12! Time flies. I think that this week's reading helped us a lot about reflecting on what we have discussed, struggled with, and pondering to since the first day of our class.
1. Based on Schiro, I think that I should ask this question. What is your posture toward different ideologies among the four: dualistic, relativistic, contextual, and hierarchical (p. 257) and why? In other words, have you changed your curriculum ideology over your teaching career as the figure 7.1 in p. 249 as attached here? How and why?2. From Schiro, I was thinking about the needs or our consideration towards society. To me it seems that SA and LC have less or very low consideration about society, comparing to SE and SR. For example, in the imaginary dialogue on p. 201 SA said, "Enough arguing about social issues!" And, LC kind of supported this by saying, "...you [other ideologies] overlook the needs of individual children" (p. 201). What do you think about my interpretation about the ideologies' consideration towards society? Is it legitimate? Any thoughts to this?
3. Comparing four ideologies was fun and insightful to see the differences, which enlightens each's characteristics more clearly. For example, I learned that LC's aim is not only help students' self-actualization, but also teachers' self-actualization. How fascinating it is!? On p. 205, Schiro pointed out that the LC's aim "includes within it secondary aims of stimulating curriculum developers' own growth and the growth of teachers (both of whom support the growth of students)." This is new to me, as my thought so far for LC was more focusing on "learners." What do you think about this? Is this new to you as well? Is my understanding legitimate? Any thoughts to it?
4. One point surprising me about SR in the various charts and tables on this week's reading is on p. 239. For SR, it illustrates that the people who gets or benefit from the results of student evaluation is "teacher." For SR, really? I think that both teachers and students benefit from the result of student evaluation in SR, as SR values subjective meaning-making in students' mind (p. 221), and the use of knowledge by the students (p. 214). What do you think?
Okay, I think that we can start from here. I will post more questions for Noddings soon. Any questions, comments, and critiques are more than welcome as always. Thanks! :)
Alright, here's my topics to talk about Noddings ch. 11.
Nodding critiqued the standardized testing. It was surprising for me to see the reaction from New York city policymakers' decision to make their tests more difficult when the students all passed the tests (p. 145). My question for this example is, what ideology would have made the policymakers' decisions to make it more complicated? SA? SE? Or, any other thoughts attaching to this topic?
Her final section about critiquing languages in education is fascinating. It was interesting to see that she critiqued the business-based terms in education, which aligns with Pinar I think. For alternative, she ended up her book by focusing on the concept of ecology. What do you think about her critique about the business-based languages and ecology as a solution? In reality, how can we touch these issues?
Also, any other questions, thoughts are welcome. Thanks! :)
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteThank you John for your questions regarding Schiro.
I would like to start by answering #2 and the individual/societal dimensions. My understanding of LC, especially through Noddings, does not limit the focus of the ideology on individuals separated from each other. Indeed, Schiro and Noddings explain that by starting from the individual's interests and needs, we can expand to the societal level. If individuals become better people, then they develop this caring relationship for/with each other. In this way, it is both revolving around the individual and the societal level, but my understanding is that if it starts from the micro/individual level, it grows to touch a larger "circle of we"/macro level.
Does this make sense? Thoughts?
Hi Emma, thanks for your input; I like it. Yes, LC also has consideration of "society" as individual's betterness or the degree of self-actualization is most likely to have a strong relation with society. Despite that, when comparing LC and SA with other ideologies, from the beginning, society seems to come a bit later for them; because SA cares the "academic" discipline first, and LC cares children's needs and interests first. Apparently, SE and SR seem to care society, as a client for the former, and as a object to reconstruct for the latter. I see your point here again, but my point is that we may see their different degrees of weight on society. What do you think? :)
ReplyDeleteHi John,
DeleteI agree with you regarding the main focus. Social Efficiency and Social Reconstruction carry the societal focus in their names :)
My understanding is that Social Efficiency negates individual differences, whereas Social Reconstruction works toward acknowledging these differences and working with them in order to have these differences respected.
To answer #4, I am under the impression that students benefit from SR evaluation as well in that it enables them to individually and subjectively reflect on the issue they focus on. I am still very curious about how to implement such evaluation types in our current system. How can we implement this in higher education? What does it look like in a language classroom?
Hi Emma, thanks for your input, which made me clarify the consideration of society and students in SR and SE. I agree with you that SE negates the individual differences (or interests) whereas SR does care them.
DeleteFor your response for the question #4, I also agree with you that SR seems not only benefit teachers but also students from its evaluation. And, how to implement SR in higher ed is a meaningful question to us, especially in terms of the L2 classrooms as it is our field.
DeleteI remember two key words here from Macedo, which tie with SR's fundamental elements - "reflection" and "political action." The SR's approach for the Columbus example depicted on p. 209-210 in Schiro has given me lots of ideas. The example focused on injustice and unethical aspects on Columbus's journey to the new land, and the teacher effectively connects the theme to the students' life by asking "so, do you see this type of unethical issues in your life? what is that?" I am thinking that I can include SR aspects in L2 classes like this example. My concern, however, goes with my students' not-high-enough proficiency on the L2 yet (and I think this is my bias as well). Realizing SR-based class seems to be more doable with advanced speakers of L2, many people say that it will be hard to realize it with students in the beginners' level. However, I am seriously thinking about how to incorporate this important curriculum even for the beginners. Because we know that the critical thinking/intelligent-ness is not related to their L2 proficiency, rather to their life and mind. Yes, this is a big question to me to deal with. Specifically, I am thinking about any unethical issues or lies (manipulation/indoctrination of reality/truth) towards Mexican people in OK, as my current students are from that group. But, still not sure about this idea, so I would like to discuss more. What do you think? Any thoughts or comments? Suggestions?
Hi there. John, I somewhat agree with what Emma is saying but think of it with a little bit of a different approach. I like to think of the different ideologies as cars driving to the same destination, but taking different routes to get there.
DeleteNoddings approaches all kinds of social issues in the breadth of her work. In her book "Critical Lessons: What Our Schools Should Teach" she emphasizes the importance of giving kids the opportunity to think critically about important issues, including war, the influence of advertising, self-reflection, and so on. She stated this in a recent interview:
I know that I wrote somewhere that our aim should be to produce caring competent, loving, and lovable people. It wouldn't be a bad aim. But you could put in more politically acceptable terms, I guess. I think we should be trying to produce citizens who have a commitment to the common good. We're neglecting that very, very badly. So interested producing people with high intellectual capabilities. But look at some of the people that we're producing- graduates of some of our finest universities who don't give a fig for their fellow people. So to produce people who can think critically. I wouldn't make that the top aim, but I would make it one of them. To think, at least think critically; to have this commitment to the common good; to have some sense for what makes a happy life; all of those things I think should be built into what we are doing.
With that quote in mind, in her book "The Challenge to Care in Schools", Noddings approaches caring issues, such as caring for strangers, people within one's inner circle, animals, plants, the earth, the human-made world, ideas, and issues for which one has no physical connection to.
While SR appear to be more "aggressive" in their approach to bettering society, I feel that they simply make it more transparent by stating up front what the problem is and how they are going to address it.
LC acknowledges the "big" problems within society but approaches them by supporting the individual learner in becoming an agent for change for those problems.
Now obviously Noddings is not the only LC theorist out there, nor the ideal who should be placed on a pedestal. However, I think that by examining her work, it allows one to see how the destination (the betterment of society) can be sought after with equal zeal and motivation, but by traveling a different path to get there.
Hi Mackinley, thanks for your comment. I really like Noddings' quote your cited here, I like how she touches the importance of caring, pursuing happiness, and producing not only critical but also caring thinkers. Yes, I agree with you, and this discussion reminds me of the talking we had last week as well. Noddings' argument is that empowering students as LC, in hopes of, or in light of, making the society more just, and by helping students become loving people. I like it.
DeleteAnd, I like your point about the distinction between SR and LC, as SR states up front what the problem is and deal with the problem directly. And, LC probably does it implicitly. Here's my question, LC's pure purpose is "self-actualization." Which mean, we value and respect learners' idiosyncratic interests, needs, and goals, and usually we would like to think that which includes critical thinking and loving - which may goes with SR's ideas, implicitly. However, what if a learner's authentic goal for life is not towards SR's ideas, for example drawing a picture of beautiful landscape for the rest of his/her life? In that case, under LC we still support his/her decision, (and I like it as long as the decision is for the student's happiness, and the degree of caring-ness), as it is for his/her self-actualization. However, in that example, I rarely see any overlapping aspects in SR. My point is that, at some point (and usually it would for most cases), LC can touch the social and ethical issues, however, it might be not at the same time. Does it make sense? What do you think about this question?
Hi John,
DeleteTo respond to what you mentioned a couple of posts earlier regarding the level of proficiency being a possible obstacle, Bill Van Patten argues we can build awareness with very little language skills. I think perhaps a fundamental way is to transform how we perceive our language classes: are they purely skill-based? Should they not expand their interests to the cultures we are talking about? I think that this is a way of achieving the SR aspect, but it encompasses reforming what we are used to, especially at the beginner level. Some linguists argue that the language classroom should be a space where only the target language is spoken, whereas others recommend not overwhelming students with the TL... so opening the language classroom to a larger dimension might be what we could strive for!
Hi John. I think that the idea of what LC looks like in an early childhood and elementary setting versus a secondary and higher ed setting are very different. In one of her articles Noddings discusses the need for vocational education (as we have previously discussed). A critical component to making a model like she suggests successful is "extensive counseling and mentoring services so that students can make intelligent choices of program." I think this is relevant to what you mention for a few reasons.
DeleteFirst, LC is not always free to be without parameters. Take for example our theorist exploration project. The entire project was very LC from start to finish but had clear parameters and expectations, but few guidelines. We were allowed to choose our ideology, our theorist, the readings we wanted to include, choose our method of delivery, and design our own evaluation tool. Through this process we all came to create our own understandings about our theorists, and hopefully made connections to other theorists and ideologies. However, if/when one of us started to stray off course, Dr. Beach did not stand by and let us find out the hard way, nor support our decisions, rather she provided corrective feedback and asked questions to get us thinking in a more appropriate direction.
Second, I am not sure that I comfortable defining LC's pure purpose as being self-actualization. I do agree that is one of the main purposes, however I would not agree that it stands alone.
I think you ask a really good question. I know it sounds like a cop-out of an answer, but I think that it is like comparing bananas and strawberries. Sure they are both fruit, but that's pretty much where the similarities end. One os yellow, the other red; one you consume the external and internal flesh vs just the internal flesh; external vs internal seeds; grows on a tree vs a ground plant...
I think that LC embeds addressing the social and ethical issues into every aspect of instruction, so it is much less visible or expressed, but it certainly is intentional. It also can take place in the form of "in the moment" opportunities that are not planned for but that present themselves and the teacher takes advantage of as what we refer to as a "teachable moment."
Hi Emma, interesting to hear about Van Patten's argument about this issue. Thanks! I agree with you that using L1 can be a way to make L2 classes more dynamic, which can help students' awareness on the SR topics. I personally welcome L1 use in my class because it is more about respecting us and focusing on the meaning-makings, not just for facts and skills. As you said, there is a long way to go though. Let's go for it! :)
DeleteAnd this reminds me of Macedo's point of the significance of sociocultural aspects when making meaning, not just linguistic aspects. We remember the example of that "uneducated" people can read the unjust context better than educated White male jury group. Is this tieing with our topic? What do you think?
Hi Mackinley, I like your example of the fruits. The consideration of society between LC and SR could be metaphorized in that way. I like it.
DeleteThe concept of "in the moment" reminds me of Dewey's "now or never" for the importance of students' present interests. I also see that our projects for this coursework is LC-oriented, we make our meanings based on our interests, but at the same time with our professor's considerate guides. We have had lots of "teachable moments" as well. :) So, Noddings' and Dewey's points of having a "breath" for teachers is important I think. That is more organic and ecology-oriented. Thoughts?
I found Chapter 7 in Schiro to be very interesting, so I was pleased to see you bring it up with question 1. John you asked "What is your posture toward different ideologies among the four: dualistic, relativistic, contextual, and hierarchical and why? In other words, have you changed your curriculum ideology over your teaching career? How and why?"
ReplyDeleteI understand each of the four positions that an educator can take with regards to the ideologies, and see how one can fit within any one of those positions depending on numerous influential factors. While I believe that I view education and teaching as being contextual in nature, I have more of a dualistic position of what goes on within the realm of my own classroom. I realize that within education there is much that lies outside of my control, and that in the grand scheme of life I have very little time with "my" students. I choose to let a lot of things go in general in an effort to not drive myself crazy. What other teachers do in their classrooms, what mandates I am asked to complete, and what "programs" are put into place could drive anyone nuts. However, I choose to approach them with a different attitude than many other teachers, and when I close my door, my classroom is LC all the way because that is the time and space that I am able to facilitate without restriction from outside parameters.
What I found really interesting was the list of common reasons why educators change ideologies on p.258. I can honestly say that I have experienced every single event on that list (several of them more than once), yet I have carried the same ideology from my experience as a toddler in preschool through my own schooling, plus more than a decade and a half of classroom teaching experience. My ideological life history as an educator would likely look like a boring straight line, but I don't really know how to teach any other way. It just isn't the right way for me and the kids I am lucky enough to work with.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience Mackinley. Yes, we know that there are different ideological influences among different teachers, admins, parents, and even students. For me, I would say that I also stand with the dualistic posture of LC and SR, but at the same time, I vacillate among the other two as well, based on the content and students' responses. One thought from Noddings is pondering me; she said that research shows that both behaviorism and construction based instructions work well for learning. And my understanding of Noddings is that she also pointed out that teachers should be flexible and creative and integrating things based upon contexts. But still, we can see our main weight on one of the 4 ideologies. That's very interesting. I'm curious about how my ideology may evolve along my Teachjng career. :)
Delete