Response to Book Reviews/Semester

Shelby's book review of "Not For Profit: Why Democracy needs the Humanities" got me thinking. I totally agree with the book's premise that the humanities are important to a democracy and are worthwhile disciplines to pursue. Shelby spoke about how people express concern over the fact that she is a philosophy major, because she "wont make any money". Throughout the semester, we have commented on the fact that education- especially college- should not be about job training, but instead about a love for learning. While I love the idea of learning for the sake of learning, it is not realistic in this economy. People who are lucky enough to go to college are hoping it will get them a high paying job in the future because money is so important to survival. The people who can view college as "learning for the sake of learning" are lucky. It must mean that, generally, they do not have to worry about money. I have seen people at MCLA who are so focused on getting their degree as fast as they can and getting a good paying job because they have to be. They can't afford to stay in college forever and just take classes that interest them.
Question: How can we re imagine the world to be a place where people could afford to learn for the sake of learning?

Response to Ed, "Fairness"

Is it more important to present the world as it is, or the world as it could be?

First off, I totally agree with you that we must acknowledge that the world can change, and we can make it more fair. I think the answer to your question is both: we need to present the world as it is, and as how it can be. I think it's really important for teachers to acknowledge unfairness in the world, because students come from all different walks of life and if some of them have experienced unfairness (which I'm sure all of them have at some point) then it should be acknowledged. It makes it easier to identify the problem when other people around you are talking about their experiences; it helps you understand that you are not the only one experiencing inequality. After discussing and reflecting upon inequality with others in a classroom setting, it may be more clear how to make the world better. It is probably hard for teachers-especially if they teach younger students- to be honest about how unfair our world is, but it does not have to be an entirely negative conversation if it is turned into a productive discussion on how to combat unfairness.

Question: How can teachers minimize unfairness that happens in the classroom?

Response to Jessica, "Reading"

Question: What are some of the ways we keep reading a positive experience for children?

Firstly, children should be allowed to read about things that interest them. As you articulated in your post, it is not fun to read material that is assigned to you, rather than chosen by you. To tie this back to our conversation on multiculturalism, children should have many books available to them that reflect their reality. I think children may lose interest in reading because they cannot relate to it. It is necessary to expose children to books about all different types of people, from different points of view, for them to stay interested.
Some children also may not like reading because it is associated with schoolwork and testing. If there were no deadlines that students had to finish reading by, then they might enjoy the reading more. When reading is made to seem like less of a required chore, and more of a chosen activity, and when children are allowed to read material that is interesting to them, then less children will give up on reading.
Question: How can a teacher let students read at their own pace?

Can education be used to prevent prejudice?

Critical pedagogy aims to give students the tools and resources to challenge an oppressive system. While this is extremely worthwhile, I wonder if education can be used to prevent prejudice in its students. In my education, there was very little attention paid to our (the students') differences. In fact, a "we are all the same" rhetoric was very much present. Students are typically taught that they all have the same potential for success. If students were taught about the differences between people, I think they may be more likely to accept people that are not just like them. For example, if you are told your whole life that anybody can achieve success if they work hard enough, and you have never thought critically about this claim, than you may look at an underprivileged who has not achieved success and say "What's wrong with you? You threw away opportunities". The reality is that not everybody in this society has the same opportunities; why don't we tell students the truth about that? Then they would see the underprivileged person who is not successful and feel compassion, not contempt. This could potentially eliminate a lot of prejudice in the world.

Why are we afraid to tell students that the world is not fair?

Response to Kim, "Critical Pedagogy"

Is critical pedagogy trying to lead students to view the world in specific ways or does it encourage them to form their own opinions?

I don't think critical pedagogy is attempting to indoctrinate students. All people accept certain things to be true about the world, and teachers are assigned to teach their students what they believe to be true about the world. Most elementary schools teach that 1+1=2, but we don't accuse them of trying to indoctrinate students into believing that 1+1=2. This is because we trust teachers to teach things that they believe to be true. Of course, some points are more contentious than others. Most of our class came to the conclusion last week that a teacher should not teach creationism in schools just because he or she personally believes it to be true. However, a religious belief is rooted in faith alone, whereas oppression is something people experience in the world. When people have experienced something, they know that it is true. Therefore, I think it is acceptable to teach students how they can be conscious of the power dynamics they exist in and how to challenge them.


Question: What is the distinction between a teacher teaching a relatively benign belief like "1+1=2" and a teacher teaching a controversial belief, such as creationism?

Why Don't We Value Life Experiences as Evidence?

In class, we starting talking a little bit about how, as a society, we generally value scientific facts, logic, and objectivity. While these things are important, we also devalue things like emotion, intuition, and personal experience as evidence. This is interesting, because we have ideas about scientific research being objective, when it often isn't. Scientific research is controlled, funded, and validated by an elite group. Science also changes over time, so it is not always correct. For example, science has been used historically as a way to validate racist ideas (scientific racism). Clearly, this is not objective and non-biased. So why do we put science up on a pedestal? I'm not anti-science, and I'm certainly not suggesting we disregard all of the great things science has to offer us. But there is more to understanding the world than learning facts. For example, we can learn about the world through experiences. These experiences are valuable, and can be used as evidence for knowledge. Sometimes, science ignores certain groups, rendering their experiences extremely valuable, because it is all they have.

My question is the title of this post: why don't we value life experiences as evidence for knowledge?

Response to Kim, "Pedagody and Race"

Thank you for bringing up this topic. This is a common theme I have noticed in social justice circles. For example, second-wave feminism has been criticized for not being inclusive to women of color, lower class women, queer women, etc. I think this happens because it is a privilege to be able to sit around and discuss oppression. Additionally, the language used in these circles can be very inaccessible to most people, especially underprivileged people. This becomes a problem, because something that is supposed to be (and, I think, genuinely is) concerned with liberating an oppressed group isn't even accessible to said group. The faces of human rights movements (such as the civil rights movement, feminist movements, gay rights movement, etc) are typically people who are pretty privileged. People who are underprivileged are probably too busy trying to survive to participate in these movements. They also may not have the language to participate in discussions about these issues because of education inequalities.
I think a way to combat this problem is to make the language we use to discuss these issues more simplistic. I am not suggesting we "dumb down" our ideas though; the ideas are still very complex, and underpriveleged people are very capable of grasping them. However, making the language inaccessible while we talk about them alienates people who deserve to be a part of these discussions.

Question: What are some other ways we can make these movements more accessible to underprivileged people?

Morality in the Classroom

People tend to be resistant to teaching morality in schools. People think it involves teaching controversial topics such as religion, sexuality, politics, abortion, etc. However, we do teach morality in schools, and I don't see how we could avoid it. With children, we teach "right" from "wrong" probably as much as we teach academic things. Children need to learn how to behave in socially acceptable ways in order to grow and be able to function in the world. Even with older students, we still teach them right from wrong. For example, colleges take plagiarism extremely seriously, because it is wrong to steal people's intellectual property. Some things, we accept as clearly right or wrong. Others, such as the controversial topics I mentioned above, are less clear, so we avoid talking about them. However, we apparently do teach morality to students.

Question: Where do we draw the line between morality that should be taught in schools and morality that is too controversial?

Response to Bryan, "Life-Long Learning"

Q: “What specific activities should be implemented to encourage “life-long learners?”

As you touched upon, reading for pleasure seems essential to learning. More generally though, engaging in any sort of self- directed learning (and I think this can involve mediums other than books, such asTV, internet, etc) is vital to life-long learning. I think the key is curiosity and passion for learning. When school is viewed as a means to an end (the "end" usually being a job), of course people are going to stop learning after they graduate. As you said, learning is something people think they have to suffer through. I think this can be traced back to our earlier discussions of motivation and grading. When you are constantly being judged and critiqued for how much you have learned, it may seem like a chore for some people. If learning truly is a life-long process, then students should not be graded on their work, as it is never complete. Schools also tend to suppress critical thinking (at least, in my experience) which can stifle the innate drive to learn. I think that, if there was no grading, teachers would send the message to students that there work is never complete. To be a life-long learner, you should always question things that others take for granted, stay open to alternative opinions and views, keep evolving your own views, talk to other people about what they have learned, and surround yourself by people and situations that challenge you. I don't know if schools can necessarily instill all of those things in their students, but I think a start would be getting rid of standardized testing, minimize the need for grades in general, encourage students to question what they are learning, and make connections across disciplines.

Question: Is critical thinking necessary for life-long learning?

Response to Shelby, PFC and Parents

Is it possible to do philosophy in classrooms without broaching controversial topics (e.g. God)?

Probably not, but I don't think this is a bad thing. If you encourage children (or anyone, for that matter) to question things around them and think critically, then they are going to stumble upon some controversial topics such as God. As you said, something relatively benign such as "what does it mean to be alive" could get controversial fast. I think at the heart of every inquisitive question lies something controversial. Again, I don't think this is a negative thing. Children should be allowed to explore these issues; it doesn't mean the school is telling them what to believe. Children shouldn't be sheltered from these "controversial" topics; they are going to think about them anyway. I don't think we give children enough credit. Children are capable of thinking abstractly, and they will, whether people want them to or not, because humans are naturally curious.

Question: Encouraging discussion among children is one thing, but how much should school's teach children about morality?

Response to Shelby, "Philosophical Jargon"

Is philosophical jargon a help or a hindrance to philosophical discussion?


This is a good question, and I think you addressed it well. You are right that philosophical terms (such as your example "utilitarian") can leave people out of the discussion. This reminds me of a really great passage from the article "Stupidity Deconstructed" by Joanna Kadi:

"As far as I can tell, postmodern theoreticians say nothing new, but their inaccessible language makes it appear as though they do. For example, they're fascinated with the notion that multiple realities exist in society, and they've written and theorized extensively about this.
Puh-lease. Everybody in my neighborhood, including the mechanics who had to sniff carbon monoxide in tiny, enclosed garages all say long, grasped that idea with no problem. We lived it. We had our reality, the bosses had theirs, and we understood them both. Theorists like W.E.B. Du Bois wrote about double consciousness-whereby African Americans understand their reality and white people's-at the turn of this century. But I've never seen postmodernists attribute these ideas to the people of color and/or working-class people who've lived and understood them for centuries. Instead, postmodernists steal these ideas and dress them up in language so inaccessible only a tiny, elite group can discuss them."

This is a really interesting point. Without knowing the language used in philosophy, one may still understand the concepts. Many people know what a utilitarian is, without actually knowing that term. When people use these terms and don't explain what they mean, they are excluding people from the conversation who might understand this concept really well and have some great insight into it. When teaching philosophy to children, I think before you introduce philosophical terminology to them, you should introduce the concepts and make sure they have a good understanding of them. For example, get the children thinking about utilitarianism without using that word. Ask them, "Should one innocent person go to jail if it means the rest of the society feels safe?" or a similar example. The children will explore the idea of choosing the action that harms fewest people, and whether that is fair or not. Once the children understand this concept, you can tell them that it is called utilitarianism. If you do it in reverse, by introducing a foreign word and then going on to explain what it is, children may be scared off by the word and not grasp the concept as well.

Question: How can philosophy for adults be made more accessible using language?

Response to Mike, "Special Education in the Public School System"

So, I ask you, given the specific, albeit fragile, parameters of Individual Education Plans, are they really beneficial to the students that have them?

Yes, they are. When you have a disability, chances are you cannot function in school normally without special accommodations. I think it is insulting to refer to this as a "get out of jail free card", and to suggest that special education kids use it to their advantage. How do you know this is what's happening? It is possible that the child's disability is "invisible" to you. What looks like a child being "lazy" and opting out of schoolwork may actually be very necessary for the child. I think you made a lot of harmful assumptions based on your limited experience with special needs children. You refer to these children as "running the show" when they ask for accommodations that they are entitled to. You're implying here that it is easy to live with a disability. With this logic, wheelchair users are "running the show" if there is a ramp to get inside the building for them. There is a reason these accommodations are available for people with disabilities: they need them. Not because they are fun, cool, or get them out of work.
You also suggest that we "baby" students with disabilities. As Professor Johnson has said, paternalism is not necessarily harmful; it if often necessary. It is appropriate to give disabled children accommodations that are suited to their needs and will help them achieve academic goals. I don't doubt that students sometimes get misdiagnosed, and maybe IEPs are not always designed the best way possible. But generally, they give students benefits that they are entitled to, not a "free ride".

Philosophy in Elementary School

When I was in elementary school, we had a "philosophy class" (it wasn't it's own separate class but there was some time designated to philosophy in the classroom). This philosophy time mostly consisted of discussions of ethics. The teacher would often give us a scenario involving an ethical dillema, and ask us what we would do in that situation. These discussions got us thinking about fairly complex things. Not only did it get us thinking about how we would act in an ethical dilemma, but it got us thinking about why we would act a certain way. I think these discussions were a positive experience for me personally. When you are young, you are still learning "right" from "wrong", but it is rare that you get an opportunity to reflect on and even challenge why certain things are considered right and certain things are considered wrong. Allowing children to explore these ethical questions could actually stengthen their understanding of right and wrong. For example, if you tell a child not to hit people, they may not obey you because they don't understand why hitting is wrong. If you allow the child to explore what they believe is right and wrong, and why, they may develop a deeper understanding of morality.
Question: Should children be taught logic and reasoning?

The Value of Work

What makes certain types of work more valuable than others? We have talked in class about "hard work", but I honestly think most people work pretty hard. Some jobs may be more intellectually demanding, while others are more physically demanding, but that doesn't mean they are not "hard work". Also, how do we determine how much to pay a worker? Women do two-thirds of the world's work, but because much of this includes raising children and running a household, they only receive 10% of the world's income. This is because we do not value women's work. Why should some workers get paid a lot, and some get paid barely anything, or nothing? Like I said before, I think everybody works hard, so that's not it. We don't pay people based on how valuable their job is, because we give the most money to athletes and movie stars instead of firefighters and teachers. So, why do we pay some workers more than others?

Response to Bryan, "American Dream"

Q: In your view, Is the ‘American-Dream’ truly an illusion?

Yes, it is. You said in your post that hard work usually leads to success. I disagree with this. I think that most people who are successful have worked hard, but many people work really hard and do not become successful. This is because everyone in this society is born into a class (middle class, working class, etc) and class mobility is not easy. It is much easier for people born into wealth to achieve success (this is not to say that they still don't work hard). It is very hard for someone born into a lower class to make their way to the top of the hierarchy. It is possible with a lot of hard work, but it's more work than someone born into wealth has to put in to get to the same place. It's extremely hard to get out of poverty in this society. Even if somebody worked as hard as he or she could, they still have very limited resources to help them achieve success (money for college, connections, parents who can help them achieve their goals).

Question: How can we make class mobility easier?

Student-Worker Analogy

Something I have brought up in class before is how, in my experience, educators have often compared being a student to being a worker. When I was younger I was told that school was my job and my report card was my paycheck. I think that teachers probably said this as a way to motivate students to work towards a reward, but I think this student-worker analogy is flawed. Students really are not like workers. Workers are contributing something to society, whereas students usually are not. Students are learning things that other people already know, so although students do "work", they are usually not discovering anything new in their studies. I have heard college students say things like "Why should I pay to go to college and do a lot of work when I would be getting paid to do work at a job?" The answer is because as a student, you are studying things that other people already know. As a worker, you are either serving society in some way or creating new important things. When students are treated like workers, they develop a sense of entitlement. After all, workers are entitled to pay and benefits. So students come to feel like they deserve rewards just for being students.

Question: How should students be treated, if not like workers?

Response to Shelby, "Swearing"

Should swearing, and other paternalistic ploys that aim to increase student learning, be employed in the classroom?

As we have said in class, most things teachers do in class are slightly paternalistic (such as assigning readings, having tests, etc). If there were no "paternalistic ploys", there would probably be no point in attending class. However, I think swearing is different because it relies on shock tactics to entice students. I must admit this is a huge pet peeve of mine. A similar example of shock tactics is using sex to advertise a product. It may be true that "sex sells", but it doesn't make the tactics used to sell a product ethical (in other words, the ends do not justify the means). I feel similarly about swearing in classrooms. Although I am not morally opposed to swearing the way I am morally opposed to sexualized images of women in the media, I am uncomfortable with people trying to get my attention by trying to shock me. If anything, it sends the message that "this class is going to be so boring that I'm resorting to shocking you with curse words in order to get you to pay attention". I'm okay with teachers cursing sometimes out of habit, if they are speaking casually, and curse words are a part of their vocabulary. However, I'm less accepting of teachers cursing in order to get my attention. It makes me feel like they do not view me as an adult capable of paying attention simply because I want to.

Question: When (if ever) is shock value a good tactic to get people's attention?

Response to Bryan, "Grading"

Bryan suggested in his blog that it is idealistic and even "ridiculous" to want to get rid of our current grading system. I am saddened by many people's inclination to reject something because it is too idealistic. It would not be easy to get rid of our grading system, and I'm not even saying it would ever happen, but if you believe something is wrong, you should try to fix it. So many amazing things in history would not have happened if people had been "realistic" and not gotten carried away with their ideas. Even if you were to fail at trying to do something radical (such as eliminating the grading system), having that goal and working towards it would effect more change than just accepting things the way they are.
Additionally, you cite some reasons why we should keep grades, such as grad schools and employers looking at them. However, I think you are highlighting the fact that the problem with grading is a problem in our whole society, and in order to get rid of grading, we would have to amend more than just the way our schools function. This makes it a lot more complicated, but no less important.
Question: Is it always appropriate to be idealistic in one's goals?

Response to Andrew, "Being Called Upon"

Andrew discussed the multiple reasons why a student may not be able to answer a teacher's question when called upon in class, and concludes that even if the student is allowed to say "pass", the student may still be embarrassed by clearly not knowing the answer. I think that another reason students should not be called on in class is the fact that the classroom does not exist in a vacuum. Each individual student comes from a very different home and, especially in compulsory education, teachers should act under the assumption that students are coming from a bad environment or situation to be on the safe side. For example, in my elementary school, we were required to get our agendas signed by our parents every night, to ensure that they knew what our homework was. However, this put certain students at a disadvantage. If a student had parents that worked late hours, or didn't have a large presence in their child's life, the student may not be able to get their parents' signature. Similarly, some students may have social anxiety or a fear of public speaking, which would make being called on a traumatic experience. Teachers must be mindful of the fact that all students come from very different backgrounds. It would be nice if we could assume every student were perfectly adjusted and went home to a loving, functional family every afternoon, but, as Allison said, you must deal with the students you have, not the students you wish you had.

Question: How can a teacher be respectful of the various backgrounds students come from?

Self-given grades

We have discussed in class how grades are not always accurate. Sometimes, teacher cannot truly assess how much a student has learned. So, what if students gave themselves grades? Only the person doing the learning can truly know how much he or she has learned. The are the only ones with access to that information. There would be no need to "prove" through tests, projects, class participation, etc, what he or she has learned. However, there is a problem with honesty. Especially with younger students, you may see students giving themselves better grades than they deserve. However, if a real desire to learn was instilled in students, then they would want to give themselves accurate grades so, if they are not understanding the material, they can identify what they need to work on. I think in order for this to work, grades should not be something that can hurt students. In other words, grades should be nothing other than a self-assessment of what has been learned; there are no report cards, and parents should not have access to grades. Grades shouldn't be something the student gets praised or reprimanded for.

Question: Can the honesty problem be worked around with this idea?

Learning Through Games

In class, Becky brought up the example of learning US state capitals as something that you need a test for to ensure students are retaining information. This reminded me of something I had completely forgotten about: the way I learned the US state capitals in fifth grade. My class played a competitive game every day to help us memorize the state capitals. We were divided into two teams: The Capital Connoisseurs and The National Know-It-Alls. Each team would send up a representative to the front of the room, and my teacher would name a state. The first person to say the capital of the state got a point. We kept score every day, and at the end, the winning team got their name put on a big trophy our teacher had bought. This was such a fun and effective way to learn something pretty mundane. Everyone had learned the capitals within a few weeks, because we all wanted to win. The winning team didn't get a better grade; this was just a game. We retained this information better than we would have if we had taken one test on it and moved on. Not only that, but we loved playing that game, so learning the capitals became something fun. Most humans enjoy friendly competition, so I think this is a great way to teach kids something that might otherwise be boring to them.
Question: Have you ever used games as a way to learn something?

"Choosing the Best Answer"

Multiple choice tests often implement a "choose the best answer" policy. This can be very frustrating for the test-taker. The ability to choose the best answer is not always the same thing as choosing the right answer. What is the value in choosing the best answer out of a few not-so-great answers? This may teach students some problem-solving techniques, such as how to choose the best possible solution to a problem where there is no perfect solution, but it does not accurately assess a student's knowledge of a subject. For example, when I was in sixth grade, I had to take a nutrition class. One of our test questions was:
Which of the following should one eat? a)a healthy meal b) a healthy diet.
My teacher argued that the best answer was "a healthy diet" because one healthy meal wont do much for you in the long run, unlike a healthy diet, which is more beneficial. However, this question confused me as an eleven-year-old because you can't eat a healthy diet without eating healthy meals. Eating a healthy diet includes eating healthy meals. Maybe there was a best answer, but both answers were right. Sometimes neither answer is right, even if there is a "best" answer. These kinds of questions seem unnecessarily tricky and confusing.

Improvisation in Music

I played an instrument for 9 years in school, and we were never once faced with the opportunity for improvisation. For me, this is probably a good thing because I know that, while I was pretty good at playing my instrument, I would probably freeze up if ever asked to improvise. I've been thinking about why this is. At first, I thought that it was because I was never exposed to the concept of improvisation in music. However, I think it has more to do with the environment I played music in: school. Schools are very focused on performing tasks as close to perfectly as possible, and following rules as closely as possible. In some respects, this is a good thing. But, because of this, music class was like any other class: a place where students strive for perfection. So, how could a music student feel comfortable ignoring the rules and just playing? We are so rarely given the opportunity to just abandon all the rules and let our emotions guide us in this society.
Question: Do you think the environment affect one's ability to improvise?

Improvisation

The article we read for this week's Q&A on improvisation provoked a lot of questions for me. I understand that improvisation can make music (or art, or public speaking, or teaching) better. In fact, I think it may be essential. I remember learning in Philosophy of Music that if a computer plays a song 100% perfectly, it is not pleasing to listen to as humans (I could be remembering this wrong so please correct me if I am mistaken). There is a human element that makes music pleasurable, and that element may be improvisation, even if it is not done consciously. However, I am wondering just how much improvisation is enough, and how much is too much. Deviating from the rules (both explicit and implicit) can make something more interesting, but deviating too much could be confusing and unpleasant. How much improvisation is too much? Is there a fine line or do you simply know it when you hear it?

Response to Mike, "Music and Education"

Should students be required to take music education? Or should it be an elective to those that are interested?


I am inclined to agree with you that, while music education certainly can be beneficial for students, it should not be required, as music is something one should have a passion for if they are going to dedicate their time learning about it. However, you could say the same thing about any school subject. Why should all students have to learn about history if only some are passionate about it? I think that young people should be exposed to a little bit of everything, so they know what is out there and can see for themselves what they are interested in. That is why we teach them a variety of things that may never be beneficial to them in their life. Maybe it would make more sense to expose young students (like elementary school age) to as much of a variety of subjects as possible, and as they get older, they can choose what they want to learn based on their interests. We already technically use this model in our society, but you pretty much have to wait until college to pick your own classes, and even then, there are many required classes. Maybe middle-schoolers should be allowed to start creating their own schedules.
Question: At what age should students be allowed to decide what they want to learn and what they don't want to learn?

Response to Becky, "Why Music Education Is Important"

Becky maintains that teaching music in schools is beneficial to students. While I agree with the arguements made in favor of music (it increases self esteem, encourages teamwork, increases understanding of math, etc), I haven't seen a convincing argument for requiring music education. I definitely think students should have the option to learn music, but I don't see why they should have to, anymore than they should have to play on a sport time, learn to paint, or write a novel. These are all very beneficial things, that can increase self-esteem, teach valuable lessons, and be very intellectually stimulating. But, why should these things be required classes in school? If something is valuable, does that alone mean everyone should learn it?
I think the question of "What makes something worth learning" needs to be addressed first. In this post, I have argued that music education doesn't seem to be something that ought to be required in schools. But then again, why are students required to take Math, Science, English, and Social Studies? Why were these subjects deemed the most worthy of learning?

Radical Constructivism and Multicultural Education

I have been thinking about Radical Constructivism and how it relates to our last topic, multicultural education, and I think they go together quite nicely. Radical Constructivism is concerned with experience. No student/learner comes from the same perspective. No student/learner has experienced the world in the same way. Multicultural education acknowledges and honors differences in students that may shape they way they perceive the world. So, I think a Radical Constructivist would be suited for multicultural education. The article "Re-examining lived experiences: Radical constructivism and gender", by Angela Calabrese Barton*, discusses radical constructivism and teaching science to girls. The article argues that science typically "embraces masculine values and ways of knowing the world". By taking a radical constructivist approach to teaching science, these biases may not be as harmful to students.



*Here is the article: faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/m-osbor/osborne/4.rtf


Question: Do radical constructivism and multiculturalism really go hand in hand, or have I overlooked something?

There have been discussions both in class and on the blogs about certain hypocritical statements, such as "Nothing can be objective", or "it is always wrong to judge others". The hypocrisy of a radical constructivist trying to convince others that their theory is right has been pointed out. While I think these contradictions are worth discussing, I don't think they detract from the actual argument. For example, Ernst Von Glasersfeld may argue that his theory of radical constructivism is true, but if part of the theory is that one cannot know anything outside of his or her experiences, then of course he should be willing to admit that the theory of radical constructivism is based on his experiences. I don't think this is hypocritical of him. Even if it was, I think it is a weak argument to say "this person doesn't always act in accordance to their beliefs; therefore, their beliefs are wrong". By focusing on these possible contradictions, we are skirting around the actual belief we should be evaluating. In other words, I don't think you should judge the merit of an argument by focusing on the person making the argument.

Response to Stephen, Practicality of Constructivism

When would it be prudent for the Radical Constructivist to doubt reality and objective truth in everyday life?


I think that it is probably never necessary to question things like "Is this person I'm talking to actually real?" or "Is this paper that I'm writing actually really due tomorrow, or did I just construct that in my own reality?". For the sake of functioning in society, these kinds of questions are not necessary. However, in the vein of teaching and learning, it is practical to question "objective truths" that one learns in school, or things that are taken for granted as "fact" by the general population. Because we only have our own experiences to make judgments of the world from, we must always be mindful of the fact that everybody assesses "truths" about the world from their own point of view, and therefore there is no way for a human to be objective about anything. However, I don't know if a radical constructivist can pick and choose what he or she is going to question in everyday life. I would think that, especially being radical constructivism, the radical constructivist would want to apply this philosophy to everything in his or her life.

Question: Should a radical constructivist pick and chose what they are going to apply their theory to in everyday life?

Response to Stephen

"Were it to seem 'viable' to a student that 1+1 came out to some other figure, would a teacher be in a position to correct them under RC theory?"


You have to accept certain "truths" in order to do math. 1+1=2 means nothing unless you accept certain postulates as true. So, if a student refused to do math because he or she did not accept these postulates, then I think that would be supported by a radical constructivist. However, I am less sure about what a radical constructivist would think of a student who came to the conclusion that 1+1=3 after accepting the postulates. It seems hard to argue that that could be correct. I think there is value in the notion that "objective truths" that we take for granted (such as 1+1=2) should be challenged. However, in every area of life, we must accept certain "postulates" in order to function. I wouldn't even be writing this if I was a radical constructivist because, for all I know, nobody in this class actually exists and my blog will never be seen by anyone. For my own benefit, I have to just accept that there is a reality outside of my own perceptions.

Question: Is it valid to reject radical constructivism solely because it makes it very hard (or maybe even impossible) to function normally in society?

Response to Ed

"Should schools be concerned with the physical and emotional well-being of their students as well as the intellectual?"

Yes. Schools (at least the public schools that I attended) usually show an interest in more than just the intellectual development of students. Much time is devoted to the students' development of morals and values (we had "Character Development" sessions in middle school, which was supposed to teach us how to be good people). More obviously, most schools require physical education up to a certain age. Since people younger than 18 typically spend most of their time in school, it makes sense for schools to take responsibility for more than just mere intellectual development. Between going to school, doing homework, after-school activities, and parents' busy work schedules, it is unrealistic to assume that parents will teach their children values outside of school. Schools should probably take responsibility for the development of students in most areas, such as intellectual, emotional, character, and yes, physical education. However, the way most schools go about physical education is problematic. Most people have horror stories about "gym class" from when they were younger. Sports are supposed to be recreational, so it seems odd to force somebody to do something for fun. Since sports are just one of many ways to get physical activity, I think there should be a broad range of physical activity for students to chose from. For example, MCLA requires 2 physical education classes, but I think our school has a lot to choose from, so there is something for everybody. Of course, you need a bigger budget to have more options for physical education, which many schools probably cannot do.
Question: Should schools teach morals and values to their students?

Knowledge=Justified True Belief

Today in class, we discussed the theory that knowledge is a justified true belief. How do we know when something is true and justified? I think that most of the things students learn in school is not true or justified to them. For example, a student learns about World War II. How does the student actually know if what he or she is learning is true and justified? How do any of us know that events in history as we know them are true and justified? We believe them, because trusted authority figures tell us that these events happened a certain way. But since we have not experienced these things, we cannot know if this "knowledge" is true and justified. It seems to me that the only way for a belief to be justified is if one has experienced something in the world to confirm the belief. So, a justified belief is really only justified for the person who has experienced something that justifies the belief. Therefore, most of the things we learn in school are not justified true beliefs to the learner. So, knowledge claims are obviously beliefs, and they can be justified through experience.
Question: How can a knowledge claim be proven true?

Math and Constructivism

As I read about constructivism, I began to think about how it could be applied in the classroom, and I think that constructivism would be a good approach to learning math. Many people seem to be frustrated and confused by math because it seems "made up". As someone who loves math, I have heard this so much from people. They feel like the rules of math are completely arbitrary, random, and just do not make any sense. I believe that people may feel this way because they have been taught a set of rules to memorize. Math is something that can be discovered, and I think what you learn is a lot more valuable if you discover it on your own. Instead of just teaching kids that 1+1=2, because that's just the way it is, kids should be able to explore math on their own and come to an understanding of the concepts. I know that the first time I was shown a hands-on, concrete example of the concept of pi, I was so amazed that I had been using pi for so long without having any understanding of it. And I immediately understood it after seeing it. This may be an example of different learning styles, but I think this approach would work with most people.

Question: Do constructivist teaching methods cater to certain learning styles?

Response to Mike

Although I have already made one post about this topic, I wanted to respond to Mike's post to emphasize a different reason that multiculturalism in classrooms is valuable. In my last post, I stressed the importance of students learning multiple points of view through a multicultural curriculum. However, that is not the only benefit. Reading books by African-American authors, female authors, etc, is important because students who are African-American, female, etc, deserve role models that are like them. If kids are only reading White male authors in school, then they may believe that only White males can write books. Furthermore, a fictional story is easier to relate to if the protagonist is like you in some way. For example, I got tired of reading books with male protagonists in school. Every book was about a man discovering something, or going on an adventure, or just generally being active in the world. I wanted to do all of those things, and I felt like I could relate to those characters in a way, but I felt like I wasn't supposed to relate to them. I'm not saying that the individual author intended for the book to be for White males. But when this kind of exclusion of women and people of color is so institutionalized, it just feels like the world is not made for outsiders to feel like they belong. When literally every book you read in school is written by a White male, I think this makes people who aren't White males subconsciously (or maybe not subconsciously in some cases) feel like an outsider. So, in addition to multicultural education providing different valuable points of view, it also gives children from marginalized groups role models and a feeling of inclusion.

Response to Jacob

Jacob asked: Is there a danger is seeking authors of different races rather than the merit of their work?
I don't see why seeking authors "of different races" and seeking authors for "the merit of their work" has to be mutually exclusive. A similar question was brought up in class and it seems like their is an assumption that if we supplement students' reading material with books written by people of different cultures, that the quality of their education will necessarily decrease. There are many good authors from different cultures, so I don't see why a school would choose a bad book to teach just because it was written from a different perspective. However, I think the question of what makes a book worthy of teaching needs to be addressed. Because I think that, if a book offers a unique perspective that is rarely discussed in classrooms, then that alone is valuable. Obviously, though, there are other things that make a book appropriate to teach in classrooms. If we are talking about nonfiction (such as first hand accounts of historical events) then I think a perspective from a different culture is always very worthy of being taught. However, if we are talking about fiction, then you would have to hold "multicultural" books up to the same standards as the usual books are. I think most people would agree on that.
You said that choosing books based on the author's culture is "dangerously close to perpetuating very false distinctions between races". Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I disagree with your suggestion that there aren't distinctions between races. Of course I believe that there are no relevant innate distinctions between races, but it is undeniable that the world treats the races very differently, and to try and erase that is what's dangerous. The reason for offering students different cultural perspectives in school is partially to help them understand that we live in a world where races unfortunately haven't been treated the same, and because of that, different cultural groups may see the world very differently. Also, I can only speak for myself on this, but I know that in high school, I was really bored with books written by males after a while. I felt like I couldn't relate to their stories at all, and so I completely lost interest in reading. Because my experiences as a female in this society are different than a male's, a person of color will have different experiences that a White person's. This alone is a good reason to assign reading students at least partially based on the author's culture.
Question: Has anyone had a clearly multicultural education? What was it like?

"Black Feminist Thought"

Last semester, I read "Black Feminist Thought" by Patricia Hill Collins, and she addresses a lot of issues that we spoke about in class, especially in the chapter "Black Feminist Epistemology". She outlines two political criteria that influence knowledge validation processes:
1. Knowledge claims are evaluated by people who typically come from a heterosexual elite white male perspective.
2. Scholarly communities cannot stray from beliefs held in US culture without losing credibility.

So, because knowledge claims are influenced by our political environment, people in marginalized groups (such as Black women) may not trust them. In our reading for this week, the author claims that Black students may favor intuitive ways of learning. Collins says in her book "Knowledge without wisdom is adequate for the powerful, but wisdom is essential to the survival of the subordinate." Because subordinate groups have learned to distrust "knowledge", they may rely on intuition and lived experience for information. Collins also states that Black people develop knowledge through a dialogue with other community members, they expect people to be accountable for their knowledge claims, and they consider it essential for individuals to have definite opinions on issues. These are some more examples of how Black students may approach learning differently.
Question: Why do we favor logic, reasoning, and objectivity over intuition and lived experience?

Textbooks

Yesterday in class, we spoke about how textbooks can be biased. Although this seems like a problem that we should to fix, I think it is unavoidable. Everyone has their own perspective, so anyone who writes a textbook is biased. There is nothing wrong with this. I think it is interesting how textbooks from different regions sometimes contain different information. Maybe it should be that way. I don't think everything should have to be so standardized. I'm not saying that it's acceptable for textbooks to contain false information, but biases are natural. However, I do think students need to be more aware of the fact that a textbook represents one perspective. Teachers should emphasize that other textbooks may say different things because in the "real world", people will always disagree on things. Teachers should also encourage students to question, evaluate and challenge the content and authors of their textbooks. I don't think there can be an objective textbook, but I think you can teach students to think critically about what they are reading, which includes questioning the content of their textbooks.
Question: Should education strive for objectivity?

Black History Month

Regarding celebrating Black History Month in schools:

"At the end of 28 days, Whiteness walks away from this with a false confidence that comes from believing that one has confronted all racial privileges and that the world really is equal. Black history month soothes the senses, because it is easy and over quickly, thus allowing Whiteness to continue to fixate on the project of colonizing people of colour. Instead of settling for this false mission, I suggest that it is time that we demand that Black history become something that is part of the daily agenda. There is no reason to believe that we deserve any less, and I absolutely refuse to settle for being part of a side show."

http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/02/why-i-am-skipping-black-history-month.html#more

Repsonse to Bryan

Bryan asked, "Do you think that students who are not passionate about improving their intellectual abilities while in college should even be allowed to be in college?"

I think everyone should have access to higher education, and since it is unattainable for so many people as it is, I have trouble saying that I think that we shouldn't allow certain people in to college. However, I am frustrated by the people who go to college when they don't appreciate it, when there are so many people who would to do anything for those opportunities. I think that one reason why we see so many ungrateful college students is because it has become more and more necessary to have a college degree in order to get a job. I think this is a bad thing. Not all jobs should require a degree. I don't understand why certain people should have to go to college for something that they can just learn how to do on the job. Obviously, a college education can make someone a more well-rounded person, and if somebody wants to go to college just to become more well-rounded, then that is totally legitimate. But I think many people today feel like once they graduate high school, they have to go to college, because it is just the next step in life. This may be why a lot of college students may seem apathetic, or unappreciative.

Question: How can we make college for accessible to everyone, but still exclusive to people who want it?

Response to "Students and Internet Summaries"

Mike asked if internet study guides (such as sparknotes) are helpful to students. He points out that many students utilize these resources when they don't feel like doing their assigned reading. Knowing that these resources are so accessible could discourage students from reading the actual book, but I think that many students ( high school age or younger) don't want to read books, and sparknotes or no sparknotes, they will not read books. I think that the problem here is that schools are so goal-oriented. Obviously, achieving goals is a good thing. But there is a lot of pressure to complete assignments by some arbitrary deadline. Not everyone reads at the same pace. Also, not everyone likes reading, or is good at reading. Some people have learning disabilities that make reading hard. So, because reading assignments are so standardized, some students are bound to not be enthusiastic about it. So, I think these "internet summaries" have partially come out of frustration and anxiety about deadlines.
My understanding of reading novels is that it is supposed to be for entertainment. I personally never liked fictional books, yet I was always assigned to read them for school. If reading fiction is a form of entertainment, why are students required do so much of it? I understand reading some novels every once in a while, but why is it so frequent? Reading, obviously, is an important skill. But is reading for pleasure that important?

Tests

I think most of us would agree that there is something wrong with how test-focused most school curriculum are. Teachers end up teaching students how to take a test, instead of teaching the actual material. A big end-of-the-year exam seizes control of the entire course, so that there is no room for learning anything that is not relevant to the test. Tests also create a lot of anxiety in young people, teaching them that education is something to be fearful of. In addition, tests are not always an accurate assessment of a student's knowledge. Students who are not good test-takers or have test anxiety may not do well on exams, but may still be understanding the material. However, there are some benefits to testing. The most obvious benefit is that it is an easy and convenient (although not foolproof) way to assess a student's learning. Additionally, test-taking itself is a good skill to have. Granted, the fact that I can ace a history test by using my test-taking skills does not mean I have actually learned anything about history. However, learning how to take tests teaches students how to be problem-solvers and logical thinkers. I think test-taking in itself is a valuable skill. However, I also believe that our schools' strict focus on tests as the only form of assessment is damaging to students' education.
Question: Should schools get rid of traditional testing, have fewer tests, or stay the way they are?