[Xmca-l] Re: good article attached

[Larry Purss]

This topic of student centered, or learner centered approaches overlaps
with Morten Nissen's article when he discusses the place of "standards" in
educational settings. On page 104 he suggests,

"The point in standardization is to govern by descriptions of what works
best as *judged* by effect studies. As simple as it sounds, that tends to
veil political issues about what is the problem, for whom, in which
situations, etc.  In other words, each time a standard is defined, a
particular intentional structure is *taken for granted and the question of
its relevance is excluded* from awareness, in the interest of pragmatic
simplicity."

Do we need to engage in dialogue which "unveils" the taken for granted
political issues about "standards" and explicitly question the approach of
"pragmatic simplicity"?  My question more specifically  is addressing
"public school" standards, since this is the place where most students are
developing through standards based judgements [governed by descriptions]

How especially to encourage this dialogue with the "best" schools where
they have successfully risen to the top of the "standards" and so are
achieving recognition.  Is the only approach to create "alternative" third
spaces [hybrid spaces] and try to have them be recognized as "models" and
then try to "describe" the standards achieved in these alternate settings??





On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Julian Williams <
julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> RL again hi,
>
> Ok then: if this is not too off-beat, let me develop this point.
>
> Being critical it seems to me (in my sense, then) involves a certain
> contradiction within the notions of 'teacher authority' ( whether it is
> arbitrary or in some sense 'useful'Š) and in fact many of the concepts
> that seem to be taken for granted in the classic Vygotskyan account - thus:
>
> Personal learning: does such learning intrinsically involve something
> developmental, or something 'good' because it is personal?
>
> Which way is 'development': did the Nazi youth league offer a ZPD for
> 1920s youth .. ?
>
> What is the 'target subject matter', and is it ever necessarily,
> intrinsically developmental, in any sense?
>
> When is an 'environment' developmental (e.g. treblinka: since we are im
> memorial now), was it developmental, or has it become so?;
>
> What does it mean for the learner to be 'centred', or 'free', and how can
> we know when this centre or freedom is in fact just the freedom to exploit
> and oppress others?
>
> All these questions seem to be largely obscured in the classic
> interpretation of Vygotksy's ZPD,  see what I mean?
>
> My working hypothesis then: Vygotsky/AT plus a class analysis (e.g.
> Bourdieu) is a minimal requirement to deal with 'development' as process
> and 'telos'.
>
> Julian
>
> On 09/02/2015 21:35, "Robert Lake" <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu> wrote:
>
> >Hi Julian,
> >I absolutely agree with you. After all it is *critical* pedagogy we are
> >talking about which requires personal understanding and the
> >personal is always political.
> >RL
> >
> >On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Julian Williams <
> >julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I agree with most of this, and it seems a pretty fair account of  V.s
> >> view, with which I'm of course sympathetic.
> >>
> >> Yet it does seem to treat knowledge as neutral, as something to be
> >> acquired but in merely in need of an efficient obuchenie, whereas I
> >>think a
> >> critical approach requires something else, pace Bourdieu and Marx, a
> >>view
> >> of schooling as reproduction of class society, and as such as being in
> >>need
> >> of a more radical critical analysis.
> >>
> >> In such an account, a teacher may be not just more or less effective in
> >> development of learning, but aligns with different class interests in
> >>what
> >> they do, and helps in the conscientisation of learners ... Or maybe
> >> obscures such 'consciousness raising'.
> >>
> >> Freire thought that literacy was not just learning to read and write,
> >>but
> >> learning to interpret and resist authority, and what Bourdieu called the
> >> cultural arbitrary.
> >>
> >> I may be off on my own thing here... If so, sorry to be distracting.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >>
> >> On 9 Feb 2015, at 18:55, "Robert Lake" <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > It is interesting to note that the Cherokee viewed white people as
> >>half
> >> > baked in the great spirit's creation oven :-).
> >> >
> >> > And...while we are on the topic, it is important to distinguish
> >>between
> >> > "student centered" and "learner centered" activity in a ZPD.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Vygotsky is very clear on the role of the mentor/teacher¹s role to
> >>lead
> >> in
> >> > development even though the goal is the co-construction of knowledge.
> >>In
> >> > this context it becomes necessary to distinguish between a ³student
> >> > centered² approaches with a ³learner centered² one.  In both
> >>approaches,
> >> > what the student is able to internalize is more important than a ³top
> >> down²
> >> > method which is characterized by a teacher centered delivery of
> >> > instruction. But in a learner centered environment, the teacher or
> >>mentor
> >> > is able to maintain certain parameters within the target subject
> >>matter
> >> in
> >> > an environment of interaction and dialogue that enhances student voice
> >> and
> >> > personal agency.
> >> >
> >> > *Zone of Proximal Development-*The developmental space between a
> >> learner¹s
> >> > actual and potential levels of, thinking, problem solving, acting and
> >> being.
> >> >
> >> > There are many similarities between Vygotsky¹s view of learner
> >> > centeredness and problem solving/problem posing education and that of
> >>the
> >> > Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire (1921-1997) and although they
> >>obviously
> >> > never knew each other they were both influenced similarly by Hegel and
> >> > Marx. Joe Kincheloe had this to say about Freire¹s approach to
> >>teaching.
> >> > The parallels to Vygotsky¹s views are striking.
> >> >
> >> > By promoting problem posing and student research, teachers do not
> >>simply
> >> > relinquish their authority in the classroom. Over the last couple of
> >> > decades several teachers and students have misunderstood the subtlety
> >>of
> >> > the nature of teacher authority in a critical pedagogy. Freire in the
> >> last
> >> > years of his life was very concerned with this issue and its
> >> > misinterpretation by those operating in his name. Teachers, he told
> >>me,
> >> > cannot deny their position of authority in such a classroom. It is the
> >> > teacher, not the students, who evaluates student work, who is
> >>responsible
> >> > for the health, safety, and learning of students. To deny the role of
> >> > authority the teacher occupies is insincere at best, dishonest at
> >>worst.
> >> > Critical teachers, therefore, must admit that they are in a position
> >>of
> >> > authority and then demonstrate that authority [sic] in their actions
> >>in
> >> > support of students. One of the actions involves the ability to
> >>conduct
> >> > research/produce knowledge. The authority of the critical teacher is
> >> > *dialectical*; as teachers relinquish the authority of truth
> >>providers,
> >> > they assume the mature authority of facilitators of student inquiry
> >>and
> >> > problem posing. In relation to such teacher authority, students gain
> >> their
> >> > freedom--they gain the ability to become self-directed human beings
> >> capable
> >> > of producing their own knowledge. (Kincheloe, 2008, p.17)
> >> >
> >> > This notion of the role of the teacher in the ZPD brings us to
> >>Vygotsky¹s
> >> > use of the Russian word for education, *obuchenie *which is
> >>translated as
> >> > teaching but ³is interchangeable for the activity of the teachers and
> >> > students. (Wink & Putney, 2003, p.xxiii). This means that Vygotsky
> >>viewed
> >> > teaching as learning and therefore confirms what we said about the
> >>role
> >> of
> >> > teachers in the progressive classroom. In the mind of Vygotsky, the
> >>zone
> >> of
> >> > proximal development is environment out of which the teacher and the
> >> > student co-construct and create knowledge together rather than just
> >> moving
> >> > in the ³top down² approach that Freire calls the ³banking model² of
> >> > education wherein the teacher makes ³deposits² of knowledge into the
> >> empty
> >> > ³account² of the student and draws the information back out on test
> >>days
> >> in
> >> > the exact form and manner in which it was deposited.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> >> > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I share your reservations, Michael.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm sure it is possible to trace elements of racist recapitulationist
> >> >> thinking in the work of nineteenth and early twentieth century
> >> >> educationalists but I don't think it is accurate to suggest that
> >> >> recapitulationism was in any way at the heart of the romantic view of
> >> >> childhood which fuelled arguments for child-centred pedagogy. As the
> >> >> article points out, Rousseau put the 'noble savage' above the
> >> >> hyper-civilised white European male of the eighteenth century with
> >>his
> >> >> powdered wig, elaborate finery and obsessive concern for social
> >> niceties.
> >> >> The cultural shift from thinking of childhood as a 'savage' stage
> >>out of
> >> >> which children should be educated as quickly as possible to an
> >>exalted,
> >> >> prelapsarian state of innocence coincided with a growth of political
> >> >> radicalism which challenged the right of those with power to rule
> >>over
> >> the
> >> >> lives of others. The celebration of the 'inner child' by romantic
> >>poets
> >> at
> >> >> the start of the nineteenth century specifically challenged the idea
> >> that
> >> >> adulthood should supplant and displace childhood (as
> >>recapitulationism
> >> >> would suggest).
> >> >>
> >> >> It may be true that 'progressive' education does not miraculously
> >>repair
> >> >> the manifold injustice of social structures but to take this as an
> >> >> indication that the fault lies with progressive education seems
> >> wrongheaded
> >> >> to me.
> >> >>
> >> >> Rod
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> >> >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael
> >> >> Sent: 09 February 2015 17:19
> >> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: good article attached
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know Peter.  This article strikes me as being very political.
> >> It
> >> >> fits very much into the narrative that more progressive education
> >> >> initiatives work against the interests of (economically, politically,
> >> and
> >> >> educationally) marginalized groups.  That's why we need KIPP type
> >> schools.
> >> >> I have just never brought into this.  I think the article is really
> >>not
> >> >> that fair to Dewey.  Dewey had his warts, including when it came to
> >> issues
> >> >> such as multiculturalism and he was called out on it.  But I think
> >>it's
> >> >> pretty clear that he did not like Hall at all or his
> >>recapitulationist
> >> >> ideas - this may be too simplistic but I sort of remember Hall and
> >>Dewey
> >> >> struggling for the soul of Franz Boas in this arena.  Dewey's desire
> >>to
> >> >> merge psychological factors - which were more behavior related (see
> >> reflect
> >> >> arc article) and the social I think was the opposite of embracing
> >> >> recapitualationism.  And the author relies mostly on recollections
> >>from
> >> the
> >> >> school and the teachers and not Dewey.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just my take.
> >> >>
> >> >> Michael
> >> >> ________________________________________
> >> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >>[xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu]
> >> >> on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky [smago@uga.edu]
> >> >> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 11:54 AM
> >> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture,     Activity (xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu)
> >> >> Cc: cori jakubiak
> >> >> Subject: [Xmca-l]  good article attached
> >> >>
> >> >> The Savage Origins of Child-Centered Pedagogy, 1871-1913 Thomas
> >>Fallace
> >> >> William Paterson University of New Jersey
> >> >>
> >> >> Abstract: Child-centered pedagogy is at the ideological core of
> >> >> progressive education. The simple idea that the child rather than the
> >> >> teacher or textbook should be the major focus of the classroom is,
> >> perhaps,
> >> >> the single most enduring educational idea of the era. In this
> >>historical
> >> >> study, the author argues that childcentered education emerged
> >>directly
> >> from
> >> >> the theory of recapitulation, the idea that the development of the
> >>White
> >> >> child retraced the history of the human race. The theory of
> >> recapitulation
> >> >> was pervasive in the fields of anthropology, sociology, and
> >>psychology
> >> at
> >> >> the turn of the 20th century, and so early progressive educators
> >> >> uncritically adopted the basic tenets of the theory, which served as
> >>a
> >> >> major rationale for child-centered instruction. The theory was
> >> inherently
> >> >> ethnocentric and racist because it pointed to the West as the
> >> developmental
> >> >> endpoint of history, thereby depicting people of color as
> >>ontologically
> >> >> less developed than their White counterparts.
> >> >>
> >> >> ________________________________
> >> >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
> >> >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> >> >>
> >> >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
> >> for
> >> >> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> >> >> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> >> >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely
> >>on
> >> it.
> >> >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> >> >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are
> >>not
> >> >> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
> >> accepts
> >> >> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
> >> emails
> >> >> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> >> responsibility
> >> >> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> >> >> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
> >> accompanied
> >> >> by an official order form.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > *Robert Lake  Ed.D.*Associate Professor
> >> > Social Foundations of Education
> >> > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> >> > Georgia Southern University
> >> > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
> >> > P. O. Box 8144
> >> > Phone: (912) 478-0355
> >> > Fax: (912) 478-5382
> >> > Statesboro, GA  30460
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >*Robert Lake  Ed.D.*Associate Professor
> >Social Foundations of Education
> >Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> >Georgia Southern University
> >Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
> >P. O. Box 8144
> >Phone: (912) 478-0355
> >Fax: (912) 478-5382
> >Statesboro, GA  30460
>
>
>