David, I'm enclosing some things that might be of interest. I'm also copying to Bill since he's more familiar with these than I am (I expect he was using these things in classes at LSU before I got there). Here are some citations (an Endnote library with these citations is attached in a zip file. you can probably import from that if you use other bib software. I have also included a pdf of the SCIENCE TEACHING ORIENTATIONS article -- see top paragraph of p. 221): Barr, Robert D., James L. Barth, and S. Samuel Shermis. Defining the Social Studies, Bulletin - National Council for the Social Studies, #51. Arlington VA: National Council for the Social Studies, 1977. ---. The Nature of the Social Studies. Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publications, 1977. Flitner, Andreas. "Theories of Adolescence." Paedagogica Europaea 2, (1966): 226-32. Friedrichsen, Patricia Meis, and Thomas M. Dana. "Substantive-Level Theory of Highly Regarded Secondary Biology Teachers' Science Teaching Orientations." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42, no. 2 (2005): 218-44. White, Charles S. "A Validation Study of the Barth-Shermis Social Studies Preference Scale." Theory and Research in Social Education 10, no. 2 (1982): 1-20. B, B, & S identified "three traditions" in Social Studies. White found teachers' thinking & practice did not line of consistently with any of the traditions, in particular (this is from memory, I haven't read the White piece since it first came out. I thought TRSE was supposed to be available on the web with a rolling wall for recent volumes; but I don't see it. I'm sure it's in the LSU library, though. Maybe Bill knows about Web availability.) I think you're right, descriptively; but I don't come to your prescriptive stance. I would argue for educating for competence in the respective fields of praxis, which creates a standpoint for critiquing any of the orientations insofar as they can be shown to fall short of forming competence in students. The only valuing that's required for this is the valuing of competence. The fact/value dichotomy in general is of course positivistic. Martin recently posted a quote that I see as an example of one approach for making the case for competence: " static societies assign to young people a definite place within the social order as it is: young people are given the status of adults and inherit their forms of behaviour. This act of taking over may be brief or slightly longer, but the result is clear. Young people are being fitted into the existing system of values and orders and thus become indistinguishable from adults. On the other hand, it is the distinguishing mark of our highly civilized and individualized society that nothing is simply handed on and accepted - it must be understood and affirmed. Within our civilization every young man or woman is systematically encouraged to enter more or less profoundly into a debate about the moral values and intellectual assets that determine our order of life. The young woman or man ought to comprehend this form of life, affirm or deny its value, and thus work out his [or her] own position in the world. The psychological crisis of adolescence is essentially the outcome of this debate." (Flitner, 1966, p. 228) -----Original Message----- From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David H Kirshner Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 12:15 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act Michael, Finally, a moment to respond, to you, but also to the many subsequent posts that have lamented the politically intractable landscape of education. I'm reminded of the Math Wars (my own home turf) that has been a scourge in the U.S. for almost 15 years now. In it, reformers, rallying around the Curriculum & Evaluation Standards promulgated by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, are pitted against conservatives who insist on repetitive practice and lecture methods. As expected, legislatures that have been drawn into the fray (e.g., California) have tended to side with conservatives. Conservatives, in this dispute, number among their members a large and vocal cadre of prominent mathematicians (see the 1999 open letter to the U.S. Secretary of Education signed by 200 of them denouncing reform curricula: http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/nation.htm). Reformers have been quick to lament the ideological tenor of the debate. But it should be kept in mind that mathematicians are not your usual ideologues. Rather in California (the epicenter of the Math Wars) where NCTM's Standards were adopted in the early 1990s, mathematicians only become involved following widespread anecdotal accounts of dysfunctional learning environments spawned in the name of reform curricula. I condense my previous points: 1. The universe of pedagogical discourse is framed by 3 distinct metaphorical notions of learning related to acquisition of skills, concepts, and dispositions, respectively.* 2. These distinct notions of learning also are guiding intuitions for the major psychological schools-behavioral/cognitive, developmental, and sociocultural, respectively. 3. The best possibility for a coherent and accessible pedagogical theory parses "good teaching" into 3 separate genres related to these 3 intuitive notions of learning. 4. Such a parsing separates out values issues (what sort(s) of learning should we pursue in educational settings) from efficacy issues (how can we best support learning). 5. Current pedagogical theorizing is not oriented around genres, but rather is integrative; the orienting goal is to identify a single set of practices that constitutes the practices of good teaching. 5i. Good teaching framed in this integrative fashion obscures reference back to the grounding metaphorical intuitions about learning. As result such theorizing tends to be intellectually intractable. 5ii. Any particular version of good teaching framed in this integrative fashion reifies certain learning goals over others. This conflation of values issues with issues of efficacy makes pedagogical theory inherently divisive. 6. The tendency toward integrative theorizing in education traces back to two sociological circumstances: (i) the preparadigmatic status of psychology; and (ii) the historic subservience of education to psychology. 6i. As a preparadigmatic science the historical imperative is to achieve paradigmatic consensus. Thus each psychological school works outward from its primary intuitions about learning to try to encompass the broader concerns of the field. The hegemonic agenda for each is to present learning as a complex and multifaceted process that eventually can become an umbrella for the whole field. 6ii. Because education is in a (subservient) partnership with psychology, educators have come to adopt the psychologists' aspirational view of learning as unitary or integrative, thereby denying what is plainly obvious: at this historical juncture learning is diversely conceived within unreconciled psychological traditions. Indeed, education plays out as a surrogate field for psychology's competitive ambitions. In short, I think we have been less than effective in influencing education because what we provide for education is a discourse that is both confusing and divisive. David *Michael, my point isn't that philosophical and ontological analyses of the sort you referenced aren't important and relevant. Rather, I see these as background influences on the psychological framings of learning that orient education. From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Glassman Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:02 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act David, I think your ideas on the three metaphors are salient in terms of common sense, but I also think that what is wrong with the Learn Act is that it doesn't really connect up with any of them. Near as I can tell (and perhaps somebody can set me straight here) this idea that children should learn knowledge in preschool of basic letters, numbers, vocabulary so they can be ready to learn immediately (and if they are not doing this something is wrong) is a sort of mash up of nativism (the idea that humans are programmed to recognize certain types of information and once they are exposed to it they will integrate it into their thinking), cognitive architectures (the idea that you should build specific types of architectures in the brain early which will allow children to make connections with new more complex information later), the efficacy of direct instruction (see nativist), and a realist perspective (that there is specific type of information in the world that the child needs to know that will make them more successful - once they are able to recognize and process this information they will be able to use it to their own and society's advantage). Underlying these assumptions is the idea that the child is basically a passive learner, and that once the mind recognizes important information it will take over. I find the arguments confusing and circular, and in some ways dangerous (suggesting that there is a specific type of knowledge that is valuable and should take precedence, and that this knowledge can be used to control nature). It is also opposite of what early chilhood educators such as Friedrich Frobel, Maria Montessori, the people who have been working in Piagetian, Deweyan, and Vygotskian paradigms have been doing for over a century. All of that work has simply been swept aside for this new - it isn't even a paradigm. I don't know what it is. I don't think there is any strong logical argument that can be made for this position. And I think there is really no empirical evidence that suggests this leads to better learners (unless some great breakthrough occurred while I was asleep). And yet over the last couple of decades it seems to have become gospel in some very important circles (especially in the government). The only answer I can think of is that it fills some social and/or economic need. Michael ________________________________ From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of David H Kirshner Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 2:26 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act Michael, I think our discourse fails to sway politicians because it fails to connect up with our cultural commonsense about learning. Broadly speaking I see our cultural commonsense involving 3 main metaphors of learning corresponding to 3 major kinds of learning goals informed by 3 major theoretical thrusts in psychology: METAPHOR LEARNING GOAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THRUST Habituation Skills Behaviorism/some cognitive science Construction Concepts Developmental / Piagetian Enculturation Dispositions Sociocultural The problems arise from the sociological imperative of psychology to become a paradigmatic science. Rather than elaborate these alternative notions of learning in a way that highlights their distinct conceptual foundations, psychologists of all stripes are bent upon extending outward from their basic intuition about learning so as to incorporate the interests and concerns of the other camps. In this way, eventually, one school succeeds in capturing the field and paradigmatic psychology is achieved. In the meantime, (1) theories of learning become intractably complex even as the intuitive underpinning of each psychological thrust becomes increasingly opaque, and (2) values decisions about which form(s) of learning should be pursued in education become absorbed into theoretical discourses about learning. The legacy for education is a pedagogical discourse that is simultaneously confused and conflicted. The real alternatives that COULD be framed for pedagogical practice toward diverse goals become homogenized within a shapeless, integrative discourse. Sloganeering substitutes in for intellectual foundation; competing camps attest to the strength (i.e., influence) of the psychological schools whose theories have inspired the slogans. David From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Glassman Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 11:05 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act I really think that this legislation is, among other things, historically insensitive. Do people really think, given our society's history with assessment tests, that these tests are not going to be geared towards middle class values? Do people really think that these tests are not going to be used to label and differentiate groups? Do people really think that these assessments are not going to be used to in some way reinforce a deficit model for children who don't do well on the tests? The fact that these tests are being conducted at such a young age makes these ideas even more painful. These senators Brown and Franken and Murray have their hearts in the right place, but our discourse on education in the United States has become so convoluted and narrow and so dominated by a faux realist perspective (actually an unholy combination of realist and idealist) that even legislators who mean well are I think making thoughtless mistakes. It still pains me that Ted Kennedy and George Miller were major forces behind NCLB. There are many reasons for this I think, not the least of which is control of public discourse by a relatively small group of educators - but just because you are giving money towards education initiatives does not mean that you are helping the cause of universal education. Michael ________________________________ From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of cconnery@ithaca.edu Sent: Sun 12/13/2009 10:10 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act Hi Peg and others: Here is the specific language under section 9, e,1,c of the LEARN Act: SEC. 9. SUBGRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES IN SUPPORT OF BIRTH THROUGH KINDERGARTEN ENTRY LITERACY. (e) LOCAL USES OF FUNDS.- (1) IN GENERAL.-An eligible entity that receives a subgrant under this section shall use the subgrant funds consistent with the plan proposed in subsection (c) to carry out the following activities: (C) SCREENING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASURES.-Acquiring, providing training for, and implementing screening assessments or other appropriate measures to determine whether children from birth through kindergarten entry are developing appropriate early language and literacy skills. The question is, "WHO will determine what is appropriate and HOW will they assess it?" This goes to the heart of Vygotsky's work. Cathrene _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Attachment:
SCIENCE TEACHING ORIENTATIONS.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
3 traditions.zip
Description: Zip compressed data
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca