Eugene asked:
David, can you elaborate on your statement, "What I think is new in this
analysis is the possibility of facilitating cultural transformation in a
way
that does not coerce identity", please? I'm not sure I understand what you
mean by "in a way that does not coerce identity" (of students, I assume?).
Also, what do you mean by "facilitating cultural transformation"? Can you
give examples please so I can visualize the terms, please?
Hi Eugene et al.
To clarify, I am talking about coercion within learning pedagogies. I'm not
talking about the effects of schooling broadly. That is, I'm talking about
the effects of pedagogical strategies designed to promote learning of
various sorts. Thus, I may not be addressing your concerns about whether
students are coerced by general institutional norms and practices.
My point is simple. First, my framework seeks to pull apart the notion of
learning into 3 discrete metaphors, learning as habituation, (conceptual)
construction, and enculturation. Teaching toward students' enculturation
seeks to have students gain cultural dispositions of a target culture. For
instance, a mathematics teacher may seek to have students come to
participate in the specialized mathematical form of argumentation known as
proof. There are two kinds of legitimate strategies--a student centered
strategy and a teacher centered strategy--that can be used toward this end,
depending on how the teacher assesses the students. A student centered
enculturationist pedagogy builds on the dispositional characteristics
already present in the classroom microculture. For instance, the teacher
asks for students to explain and justify their assertions and finds that
students' arguments tend to involve material, rather than logical,
inferences, have recourse to authority, and the like. Then she or he seeks
to support the evolution of more sophisticated forms of argumentation (from
a mathematical point of view) within the classroom microculture. This is a
form of pedagogy that does not rely on the students' identification of
themselves as a proto-mathematician, nor does it try to instill that kind
of identity.
Next, consider a teacher of masters level mathematics students, who makes
the (reasonable) assumption that the students in her or his class are
identified as mathematicians, and are interested in acculturating
themselves to mathematical culture. In this case, it suffices for the
teacher to model appropriate proving behaviors, and to rely on the
students' eagerness to emulate that form of participation. Indeed, many
excellent and generous university faculty support their graduate students'
enculturation in exactly this way.
However, in our integrative pedagogical discourse, we tend not to be very
analytical about the forms of learning we're supporting or the basic
pedagogical options we're working with. Thus we usually organize
enculturationist pedagogies as a mix of Enculturationist and
Acculturationist strategies. (In fact, the miserable truth is that proof is
usually taught--with startlingly poor results--through habituationist means
by doing repetitive practice of proof exercises--but that's another story.)
The result is that we engage in a coercion of students' identities,
creating an expectation they should be culturally identifying themselves as
mathematicians (or scientists, or historians, ...), rewarding those who are
so identified, because they are the ones who benefit most from such a
pedagogy, and creating subtle pressures with many reverberations on
students' identity structures. So this analysis of pedagogical intentions
and related assumptions about students gives us a new ethical standard
related to coercion of identity that is tied directly to instructional
practices rather than to the more general institutional structures of
schooling that you voiced concern about in your note.
Thanks for your question. Hope this helps.
David Kirshner
"Eugene Matusov"
<ematusov who-is-at udel.e To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
du> cc: (bcc: David H Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
Subject: RE: [Fwd: ethnicity and pedagogy?]
10/01/2003 02:15
PM
Please respond
to ematusov
Dear David and everybody-
David, can you elaborate on your statement, "What I think is new in this
analysis is the possibility of facilitating cultural transformation in a
way
that does not coerce identity", please? I'm not sure I understand what you
mean by "in a way that does not coerce identity" (of students, I assume?).
Also, what do you mean by "facilitating cultural transformation"? Can you
give examples please so I can visualize the terms, please?
I feel that what you are talking about is very important for me but I need
more clarity. I teach future teachers and I hate (traditional?) schooling.
Using a binary language, I teach future oppressors-oppressed and I'm their
current oppressor*. My intentions are often (not always) good but my deeds
are not. I'm a part of the system (but maybe not a very good citizen of it
or it can be one of my illusions). My students and I are "thrown" into
semester by institutional impersonal forces. We impose our "projects" on
each other (using Heidegger's terms).
Now, where is in this picture "facilitating cultural transformation"? And
why should I be concerned with not coercing students' (and my own?)
identities? Please help.
Eugene
* My simplistic "test" on oppression is very simple: students are not
oppressed if they come to class and do work for the class because they
freely choose to do that. I doubt that my classes can pass this test.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David H Kirshner [mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2:26 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: ethnicity and pedagogy?]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juanita Cole asked:
> how can students' racial/ethnic culture be remote
> from target disciplinary culture? This sounds
> confusing especially when considering, for example,
> Ancient Egyptians and "mathematical culture".
>
> Juanita, this is a complicated question you ask.
> My post to which you responded said:
> I generally take the reference culture for enculturationist pedagogies to
> be disciplinary cultures (e.g., mathematical culture, historiographical
> culture, etc.) that are presumed to be specialized cultures remote from
the
> varied ethnic and racial cultures in which students' identities are
vested.
>
> Thus I'm not really making the claim that disciplinary cultures are
remote
> from ethnic and racial cultures--they're not!--, only that for the
purposes
> of enculturationist pedagogy they are treated as remote. My
reasons--still
> being formulated, and certainly subject to review--have to do with the
> framework for pedagogical methods I'm constructing. The framework
> articulates 6 pedagogical methods that constitute what I call the
"learning
> pedagogies" aimed at individual learning, to distinguish them from
critical
> and liberatory pedagogies aimed at social transformation.
>
> In a previous post (which I've appended below), I outlined an
> Enculturationist and an Acculturationist pedagogy each aiming to
> enculturate students to disciplinary cultures. [take a moment to read
this
> post, or the following won't make sense.]
> What's tricky is that critical pedagogies also make use of
enculturationist
> learning techniques. Generally critical pedagogies employ one (or a
> combination) of the following approaches to influence the broader
society:
> (a) create a microcosm of a utopian society in the classroom, or (b)
create
> a subculture of resistance to mainstream culture. The first approach
relies
> on an enculturationist pedagogy, whereas the second relies on an
> acculturationist pedagogy.
>
> My strategy for distinguishing enculturationist/acculturationist critical
> pedagogies from enculturationist/acculturationist learning pedagogies is
> with respect to the target culture: critical pedagogies target utopian or
> resistance cultures; learning pedagogies target disciplinary cultures
> (e.g., mathematical culture, historiographical culture, scientific
culture,
> literary criticism culture...). My reason for adopting this strategy is
> essentially traditionalist: disciplinary cultures are of transcendent
value
> to a society. A society has an obligation to reproduce disciplinary
> cultures through institutions of public education so that all members of
> the society have an opportunity to participate in the disciplines.
>
> The fact that students' different cultural backgrounds may tend to locate
> them differently with respect to disciplinary cultures shows that it is
> almost always a bad idea to use acculturationist teaching strategies in
> schools--such pedagogies build on students' cultural identification.
> However, enculturationist strategies are the pedagogical vehicles par
> excellence for bridging cultural gaps and creating equity of opportunity
to
> participate in the disciplines. In such a pedagogy, the teacher is
focused
> on supporting the evolution and consolidation of more sophisticated forms
> of participation (dispositions) within the classroom microculture. This
is
> done by working to ensure that all individuals are active participants in
> the classroom microculture, and by sanctioning increasingly sophisticated
> practices. It's true that there may be systematic differences in the
level
> of contribution that students of different backgrounds make to the
> evolutionary process. But because disciplinary cultures are highly
> specialized, becoming enculturated will be a stretch for all students. It
> is in this limited sense that the teacher can be said to exploit the
> differential cultural resources that the students provide, while viewing
> all of the students as entering a new or remote culture.
>
> What I think is new in this analysis is the possibility of facilitating
> cultural transformation in a way that does not coerce identity. Usually,
> when we think about enculturationist pedagogy we think about a melding of
> Enculturation and Acculturation. Thus a degree of coercion is assumed.
> Indeed, by building on the students' current cultural location,
> acculturationist pedagogies can really be pernicious w.r.t. magnifying
> cultural advantages rather than reducing them. In fact, my tendency is to
> want to discourage acculturationist pedagogies--to create an educational
> ethic (at least a K-12 education ethic) against pedagogies that seek to
> influence students' cultural location. However, this move would seriously
> limit the possibilities for critical pedagogy. That's because critical
> pedagogies seem to have to rely on acculturation to a much greater extent
> than do learning pedagogies. The primary strategy of critical pedagogy is
> (b), above. Creating a culture of resistance entails winning the students
> over to a new cultural identification. Even in the case of (a), creating
a
> utopian microculture in the classroom doesn't seem like it provides an
> effective means for social transformation unless the students identify
> themselves with a utopian mission. Thus the framework of learning
> pedagogies I'm formulating seem, potentially, to threaten or undermine
the
> projects of critical pedagogy. I'm going to be presenting these ideas at
> the Bergamo curriculum theory conference this week, and am very grateful
to
> you, Juanita, Mike, and others, for encouraging me to articulate these,
> still very tentative, thoughts.
>
> David Kirshner
>
> __________________________________________________
> Previous Posting on Enculturationist and
> Acculturationist Pedagogy
> __________________________________________________
>
>
> Enculturation
>
> All of these pedagogical methods are conceived within the dominant
> discourse focused on individual student learning. However,
enculturationist
> learning techniques also turn out to be central to critical pedagogies
that
> aim for social transformation. Thus, following is an introduction to this
> learning metaphor and its associated learning pedagogies. Enculturation
is
> the process of acquiring cultural dispositions through enmeshment in a
> cultural community. I interpret dispositions broadly as inclinations to
> engage with people, problems, artifacts, or oneself in culturally
> particular ways. Thus, for example, the NCTM's (1991) objectives that
> students come to "explore, conjecture, reason logically; to solve
> non-routine problems; to communicate about and through mathematics ...
[as
> well as] personal self-confidence and a disposition to seek, evaluate,
and
> use quantitative and spatial information in solving problems and in
making
> decisions" (p. 1) all reflect an enculturationist learning agenda.
(Recall
> that the cognitive dispositions like critical thinking and problem
solving
> are understood as culturally located in the crossdisciplinary framework,
> and hence are addressed through enculturationist/acculturationist
> pedagogies.)
>
> A paradigm example of enculturation is explored by social psychologists
> under the rubric of proxemics (Hall, 1966; Li, 2001). Proxemics, or
> personal space, is the tendency for members of different national
cultures
> to draw differing perimeters around their physical bodies for varying
> social purposes. Thus, natives of France tend to prefer closer physical
> proximity for conversation than do Americans (Remland, Jones, & Brinkman,
> 1991). I count coming to participate in this cultural norm a particularly
> pure instance of enculturation because it is accomplished without
> volitional participation. Generally people within a national culture
> acquire proxemic dispositions through culture enmeshment without
intending
> it, and even without awareness of the cultural norm.
>
> This pure form of enculturation is possible in a unitary culture in which
> only a single dispositional variation is present. However, one also can
> come to be enculturated into a subculture whose dispositional
> characteristics are distinctive among a range of other subcultures'
(e.g.,
> being a scientist, being a punk rocker, etc.). In such instances,
inductees
> often seek to actively acculturate themselves to a subculture, thereby
> bringing volitional resources to the task of acquiring the subculture's
> dispositional characteristics. Acculturation is intentionally "fitting
in"
> to a cultural milieu by emulating the cultural dispositions displayed
> therein. However, this process needs to be understood as supplementary to
> the more basic unconscious processes of enculturation going on around it
> all the time. A cultural milieu is constituted of innumerable cultural
> dispositions, of which only a limited number can be consciously addressed
> through strategies of acculturation.
>
> Enculturationist Pedagogy: This distinction points to two pedagogical
> strategies that can be discerned in the education literature. In
> enculturationist (student centered) teaching, the teacher begins by
> identifying a target culture and target dispositions within that culture.
> The instructional focus is on the classroom microculture, which the
teacher
> works to shape so that it comes to more closely resemble the target
culture
> with respect to the target dispositions. In a pure enculturationist
> pedagogy, students "learn" through their enmeshment in the cultural
milieu
> of the classroom rather than from motivated efforts at becoming
> acculturated to some other cultural milieu for which the classroom
> interaction is an entryway.
>
> Often disciplinary cultures are targeted in enculturationist pedagogy.
For
> instance, Sexias (1993) sought to organize instruction to establish
> "criteria for historical evidence, methods of determining historical
> significance, and limits on interpretive license" (Windschitl, 2002, p.
> 149)-dispositions of historiographers. Similarly, Lampert (1990) and
> Schoenfeld (1994) have worked to establish mathematical communities in
> their classrooms so that students can acquire characteristically
> mathematical modes of argumentation and problem solving, as well as other
> mathematical dispositions. Yackel and Cobb (1996) most clearly articulate
> an enculturationist pedagogical agenda in their discussion of
> sociomathematical norms as the targeted dispositions of mathematical
> culture (e.g., the preference for mathematically elegant solutions) that
> come to be "interactively constituted by each classroom community" (p.
> 475). Implementing this kind of pedagogy requires sensitivity to the
> current dispositional character of the classroom microculture relative to
> the target dispositions, and the ability to work over an extended period
of
> time (the duration of a course) to nurture increasingly sophisticated
> cultural norms.
>
> Acculturationist Pedagogy: Often the enculturationist teacher helps
develop
> the dispositional character of the classroom by positioning her or
himself
> as a central participant in the evolving classroom microculture (for
> example, by regularly signaling deep appreciation of student solutions
that
> tend toward mathematical elegance). However, the teacher need not signify
> as a representative of the target culture for such cultural dispositions
to
> take root within the classroom microculture. Students are learning from
> their enmeshment in the classroom microculture, not from their efforts to
> acculturate to the disciplinary norms. This can be distinguished from
> acculturationist pedagogy in which the teacher overtly models cultural
> dispositions for the benefit of students who are culturally identified
with
> the target culture. For instance, a science teacher may stress the lab
> procedures he/she is modeling are the authentic methods of science, so
that
> students who are self-identified as novice-scientists can have access to
> these valued cultural practices to further their own scientific
> acculturation. Or acculturationist pedagogies may seek to encourage
> cultural identification, for instance by positioning students as experts
on
> a particular scientific topic and involving them in email collaboration
> with actual scientists (Brown & Campione, 1996). Concern for "authentic
> practice," (e.g., in apprenticeship models of pedagogy inspired by
situated
> cognition theory, Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989, p. 34), is a hallmark
of
> an acculturationist agenda (though cognitive apprenticeship also employs
> enculturationist strategies).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PST