RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act

["David H Kirshner" <dkirsh@lsu.edu>]

Mike,

Transmission is not a metaphor for learning related to contemporary
learning theory. 

My typology of pedagogical methods includes two pedagogies for each of
the three metaphor, a "teacher centered" pedagogy that assume students
have certain attributes that positions them for a relatively
straightforward pedagogical approach, and a "student centered" pedagogy
that requires a more challenging pedagogical practice. 

"Lecture" is the teacher centered pedagogy associated with conceptual
construction. From a Piagetian-based constructivist interpretation,
concept development implies juxtaposing expectations generated by one's
current concepts with the results of experience. Lecture is an effective
pedagogical method whenever the student is metacognitively sophisticated
enough to orchestrate their own discrepant events. In this case, the
teacher can happily believe they are transmitting their ideas to the
student, as their pedagogical role does not require anything of the
teacher beyond organizing the material in a way that is sensible to
them. 

In the student centered version, the teacher assumes for the particular
concepts to be taught the students he/she is working with are not
sufficiently metacognitively sophisticated to benefit from lecture. Thus
the teacher organizes a task environment intended to produce specific
discrepant events based on a model of the students' current conceptual
structures.

David



-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:17 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act

David--- Wouldn't Transmission be the first metaphor of your three
(the other two being construction and enculturation?).

Jay, Tony, et al.  At the end of the senior seminar i teach the students
watch "The Graduate." Its a little dated -- why is Benjamin so passive?
But
he and Elaine, the two young "pro" tagaonists are very certainly not
encouraged to enter the moral order into which they are being inducted,
willy nilly. A very unattractive representation of the "California
Dream" of
consumption and infidelity. Plastics. Their reaction is silent surface
compliance, and
after the fact breaking away, they know not toward what.

Seems normative enough to me. Reading *The Joy Luck Club* where the
parents
want to induct, but the kids want to be Americans, is not all that
different.

Off to today's real life.
mike

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:

> In Texas the State Bd of Ed is making no pretense of consistency on
this,
> however. Last year for the Science standards they insisted that
students be
> given a balanced presentation of "both sides" on evolution, and be
> encouraged to decide for themselves. This year they're doing Social
Studies,
> and conservative board members are saying directly and explicitly that
they
> don't want balanced Social Studies, but instead social studies that
preaches
> patriotism and free enterprise.
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>  Jay, that "critical thinking" has a chance of being a shared aim of
>> education is supported by the fact that the bible bashers now prefer
to
>> argue that Natural Selection is an unproven hypothesis, and that
Genesis is
>> another equally plausible hypothesis, rather than trying to claim
exclusive
>> access to the truth. A lie of course, and a damn annoying one at
that, but
>> still a concession to our postmodern, sceptical times. Critical
thinking is
>> part of the fine liberal tradition going back to Burke and Locke,
about not
>> being sucked into "ideology". Isn't this something Jesus would have
>> supported? :)
>>
>> andy
>>
>> Jay Lemke wrote:
>>
>>> Tony and all,
>>>
>>> Not sure if this post was meant for xmca or not, certainly the many
>>> references will be of interest.
>>>
>>> The closing quote thought included this:
>>>
>>> " ... 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."
>>>
>>> Even in 1966, when it was published, it seems unlikely to have been
the
>>> case, though maybe it was an ideal for many people. I certainly
don't
>>> remember being "systematically encouraged" to enter that debate. It
was more
>>> like having to crash the party, start the discussion, or fend off
the
>>> disparaging attitudes of all the people who thought it quite
unnecessary to
>>> have such a debate. Even at the University of Chicago, where in 1966
there
>>> really was an intellectual tradition of critical thinking that
>>> systematically encouraged it among undergraduates, I eventually
realized
>>> that it was still a foregone conclusion that at the end of the
debate we
>>> would be affirming the Western tradition, and its pinnacle, the
beliefs,
>>> principles, practices and institutions of the good old USA -- with
room for
>>> some small improvements, of course, so long as they carried out the
same
>>> principles.
>>>
>>> By 1968 I was wondering if those principles could ever be enough. By
1972
>>> I was quite sure they would not be. Today I look back on them as
>>> hysterically naive. Or maybe just as the best of the 18th century
hopelessly
>>> overwhelmed in the 21st.
>>>
>>> Still, I'd be happy if people far more conservative than I could
agree
>>> with me and my ilk that such systematic encouragement ought to be
the
>>> primary goal of education. With that settled we could get round to
arguing
>>> about how to organize the debate in ways that did not try to
conclusively
>>> pre-empt its outcomes.
>>>
>>> JAY.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jay Lemke
>>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
>>> Educational Studies
>>> University of Michigan
>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>>>
>>> Visiting Scholar
>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
>>> University of California -- San Diego
>>> La Jolla, CA
>>> USA 92093
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Tony Whitson wrote:
>>>
>>>  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
>>>> <SCIENCE TEACHING ORIENTATIONS.pdf><3
>>>> traditions.zip>_______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
>> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
>> http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
> Tony Whitson
> UD School of Education
> NEWARK  DE  19716
>
> twhitson@udel.edu
> _______________________________
>
> "those who fail to reread
>  are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>                  -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca