Freire Ch1 & 2

Here are a few questions to get our conversation started:

From chapter 1, Freire gives an introduction to his point of view.  He was clear that he was against fatalism and neoliberalism, therefore what is he for?

In chapter 2, Freire tells us that "to teach is...to create the possibilities for the production or construction of knowledge" (p. 30)  How does Freire suggest that teachers create these possibilities?

What is Freire trying to tell us when he says there is no teaching without learning and that learning is teaching?

According to Freire, "correct thinking" or "right thinking":

• knows that words not given body (made flesh) have little or not value (p. 39)
• is a willingness to risk (p. 41)
• rejects discrimination (p. 41)
• is dialogical (p. 43)
• is reflecting critically on one's practice (p. 43).

Expound upon Freire's thoughts on correct or right thinking.

How does Freire suggest we change and advance from ingenuous curiosity to epistemological curiosity?

Bruner 7, 8, 9

Good afternoon!

I still have part two of Chapter 9 to read, but I had a lot of thoughts I wanted to get out before I forget them or they get muddied with the rest of the reading.

Chapter 7 goes even deeper in to the idea of narrative. How we use it, its constraints, its universals, and of these he lists 9.  Under the #2 Generic particularity, he discusses, among other things, the idea that "we people our world with characters out of narrative genres, making sense of events by assimilating them to the shape of comedy, tragedy, irony, romance." p 135. That genres are "culturally specialized ways of envisaging and communicating about the human condition." Understanding it. Making meaning of it for ourselves and with others by sharing experiences. For me this is profoundly important to learning. I continually catch myself ( as some of you might as well) making references to pop culture: music, movies, TV, etc. It made me think even more about this considering his #7 universality, The Centrality of Trouble. Like in the Matrix when all the people died because the machines provided them an experience devoid of "trouble". That we as humans have to experience a right of passage, a coming in to our own. And if we don't, we'll make something up; hence "first world problems". My constant reference to pop culture is a way for me to make sense of my world through narrative, and to perhaps work my own narrative in when trying to help others make sense of things.


I thought it was interesting the mention of big T truth on page 148. " No sensible human being would deny that the methods of science have vastly increased man's power of predicting and controlling his environment, particularly his physical environment." What did the rest of you think about this quote and the subsequent sentences? Any connections to Davis that you saw?

Also the mention of intersubjectivity on page 161 and the difference between "classical" psychology and "folk" psychology. "A culture's folk theories about the nature of human nature inevitably shape how that culture administers justice, educates its young, helps the needy and even conducts interpersonal relationships- all matters of deep consequence." I think as he mentioned earlier the relegation of these topics as enrichment as far as education goes is a grave mistake. What are your thoughts about how we reconcile hard science with matters of culture in the realm of educating our youth?

All of this again back to the big ideas of culture, knowledge and learning.
The biggest questions for me for this entire text has been, what does it mean? (others behavior, symbols we create, text we write/read) and what have we learned about how we "should" act? To me, thats the point of learning, and thats culture.

Bruner Chapters 4, 5, 6

Good Morning!

First off, let me apologize for the delay in getting this week's blog posted. There were multiple snafus, but Dr. Beach was very understanding and accommodating and has assured me that we will have some extra time to make up our responses/posts for the week. So again, please forgive me for this coming to you so late! I promise to make it up to you all in the form of tasty treats or adult beverages (you choose).

As usual, this week's reading left my scratching my head and wondering why it is necessary to use so many big words in one sentence. Anyways, at the end of it all, there were some really big (and applicable) ideas I walked away with and definitely some things I was left reflecting on.

Chapter Four, "Teaching the Past, Present, and Possible", focused on the value of narratives and the range of impact that they can have within our world. Bruner begins by discussing four "crucial ideas": agency, reflection, collaboration, and culture.

In the section on reflection, Bruner clarifies the difference between interpretation and explanation. On p. 90 he states "The object of interpretation is understanding, not explanation; its instrument is the analysis of text. Understanding is the outcome of organizing and contextualizing essentially contestable, incompletely verifiable propositions in a disciplined way. One of our principal means for doing so is through narrative: by telling a story of what something is "about"."

I am wondering what experiences you may have had with the use of narrative to interpret and understand, as well as your thoughts on the value of this method, and what it implies for the role of the teacher and student?

At the end of Chapter Four, Bruner discusses the role of culture in narratives. On p. 98 he states "What is the point is the procedure of inquiry, of mind using, which is central to the maintenance of an interpretive community and a democratic culture. One step is to choose the crucial problems, particularly the problems that are prompting change within our culture. Let those problems and our procedures for thinking about them be part of what school and classwork are about."

Although we are to refrain from discussing how our reading relates to our personal realm of experience in education, I feel like the challenge Bruner presents here is intended to be much bigger than what we can affect in our own little world/classroom. How do you interpret this challenge?  How do you feel this type of change could be initiated? Do you agree or disagree with his suggestion(s)?

Chapter Five, "Understanding and Explaining Other Minds", extends the conversation of interpretation and explanation. Bruner emphasizes three characteristics of interpretation on p.112-113. He states "Perspective, discourse, and context: surely nobody believes... that you can make sense of what people tell you about their beliefs concerning mind without taking this triad into account."

I am wondering how these variables play into the bigger picture of knowledge, knowing, thinking, and believing. Your thoughts?

In Chapter Six, "Narratives of Science", I got stuck on the discussion of spiraling curriculum (as the result of something I have struggled with in my experiences as an Instructional Coach and curriculum trainer). To save you the details of my inner dialog, I will focus on what Bruner suggests on p.127. He says ""The art of raising challenging questions is easily as important as the art of giving clear answers." And I would have to add, "The art of cultivating such questions, of keeping good questions alive, is as important as either of those.""

So... what challenging questions were you left with after this week's readings? :)

- Mackinley

Bruner Chapter 1

Since there are just a few more pages, I chose to post, for the mean-time, on chapter 1. 

I think my initial internal dialogue was based on which of the tenets do I see most often and as most important.  So with that I would start out by asking what tenets stuck out to you?

For my own answer I'll start off with one of my favorite quotes from Bruner during his discussion on the 4th tenet of The interactional tent. "Unlike any other species, human beings deliberately teach each other in settings outside the ones in which the knowledge being taught will be used."  I think if I had to get a tattoo of an inspirational quote that was directed in the pursuit to create authentic learning environments, it would be this one.  To me this creates, maybe one of the greatest and easiest ways, to re-structure any approach to education, and maybe the most critical.  By taking on the understanding that for what ever institutional subjectification we have to education, it seems as though innately, we take the opportunity immediately away from the spaces in which it is most needed.  Do we do this because, according to the 6th tenet, "Education, however conducted in whatever culture, always has consequences in later lives of those who undergo it." (p.25).  Do we innately move towards "safe spaces" or learning so that the consequences of what we teacher are safely cast into the later years of an individual and not really experienced in their lives today?  I think maybe we do, because then we can place the procedural nature of education within these removed settings in order that we can label them as successful, in order to keep the learner sheltered from what inevitably awaits them?  Whatever the reasoning, for any institution, it is certainly a great phrasing of the tendencies in which we move learning and the knowledge created far away from the actual situations that would necessitate its usage.  So for me I appreciate the 4th tenet somewhat more than the others.

I also found accord with the 7th tenet The institutional tenet.  "Cultures are not simply collections of people sharing a common language and historical tradition. They are composed of institutions that specify more concretely what roles people play and what status and respect these are accorded..." (p.29).  In all of our hopes to complete our doctoral degrees, I would imagine that there is always some unrest, or at least deliberation of what our place will a midst the culture of higher education.  Do we see ourselves as the researcher?  The practitioner?  Or because of our experiences within an institution we just don't want to belong to that tradition at all?  Can we remain within a tradition long enough, that we are able to buy into the means of success that are outlined within that institution, and carry out a role that isn't representative of who we wanted to be, but because of its power and safety, can we then find comfort in maybe not being who we wanted, but at least being more than we were?  How does that type of thinking drive our own students today? Or on a even larger scale, how does that motivation, or maybe, de-motivational thinking, perpetuate the ways our schools are set up?

Complexity Science V Ecology

Davis quotes Maturana as saying "everything said is said by an observer"; he goes on to say, "an act of observation entails more than something that is observed; there must also be something observing" (p. 145).   Therefore, there is no observation without an observer; nothing acted on without an actor; nothing perceived without a perceiver.  As we look at the relationship between each of these, Davis presents two ways of viewing interobjectivity, through complexity science and ecology. 

Complexity Science is a new way of studying knowing and knowledge as it looks to “better understand self-organization mainly through close observations of complex systems and computer modeling” (p. 152).    Matters of knowledge, learning, and teaching are influenced by the belief that humans are both biological and cultural beings.   Two key qualities that Davis presents for complexity research is that it is adaptive and self-organizing.   What is your understanding of these two qualities?

For education purposes, complexity science is interested in the relationship between the individual and society.  Davis introduces the term coupling as a way to describe this relationship.  Coupling is the “intimate entangling of one’s attentions and activities with another’s” (p. 166).  The act of coupling demonstrates that humans are biologically and culturally destined to be teachers.  How does the idea of coupling transfer to the classroom?

Moving away from the practical know-how (complexity science) and onto the ethical know-how, ecology asserts, “that life in all forms is inherently valuable” and “the role of humanity is” understood as “mindfulness and ethical action” (p. 156).   Ecologists look at knowledge as more than a strictly human phenomenon.  They’re concerned with questions of morality, values and conduct.  They believe in taking action now.  How would you describe ethical action?

From this view of the world, teaching is described as conversing, caring, pedagogical thoughtfulness, eco-justice or hermeneutic listening.  Davis expands on the idea of conversing.  He stated, “when engaged in conversations, our working memories are vastly larger than they are on our own” (p. 177).  Although the research found this idea to be true, I don’t totally agree that when conversing we “recall more detail” or “maintain better focus than when alone” (p. 177).  For me, I tend to work better, have better focus, and recall more detail when working alone.  What about you, do you agree with the research?

Week 5 team!!! Now we are starting to venture into, what I feel may be, more recognizable territory. Structuralism and Post-structuralism.

Chapter 11 does a good job of laying the groundwork and showing that both structuralism and post-structuralism, even though they are a branching on our family tree, are actually pretty closely related and are complements to each other. He notes "their departures from one another tend to be around matters of emphasis, not conceptual commitment."

It is here in S and PS that the idea that knowledge is created and not just found, as in early chapters, begins to take root. Giambattista Vico started this branch according to Davis and we start to see structuralism form into existentialism, phenomenology, pragmatism, and so on. What is important is that all of these have a structure, that they are all look into the relationship between different concepts within their own frameworks. In a sense, are of these structures somehow mirror nature in that it can be both "caused and accidental." What is important is that there is a relationship and those relationships can be examined.

Chapter 12, is Structuralism: Teaching as Facilitation. We are now breaking away from knowledge as an outside phenomenon and start seeing it as an individual creation. Here we start seeing another break, implicit and explicit knowledge and the idea of understanding, not just "knowing." Davis begins to really help define some key ideas for us in this chapter. Mainly, constructivists and constructivism, see knowledge as individual and a closed system. They look at individual potential. Constructionist and constructionism deals with the frameworks through which knowledge is created and has a much more social element than the "vism." Do you think I have this distinction hashed out? Or does anyone have anything to add?

Chapter 13, Poststructuralism: Teaching as Empowering. Postructuralism is concerned with "how individuals own identities are shaped." I think this is one of the branches of the tree we are both familiar with as modern day educators. This make it very difficult to talk about because it may be difficult to remove our ideas and biases from what we think we know about poststructualism, which in itself is a type of poststructualist thought I suppose. Yet, we have "to make the familiar strange." I am going to cut it off here for now. There is lots to talk about. I am sure most of discussions will center here, so I am going to leave this wide open.

Week 4 Episteme

It seems to me that rationalism and empiricism are evolutions, rather than departures, from gnosis. Initially, I think I would have characterized them as departures because they seem to look at things very differently. However, in Chapter 9 Davis says, "The idea that humans move along a steady and stable developmental trajectory from birth to adulthood is an ancient one that was originally associated with the mystical assumption that humans must engage in a continuous project of gaining a lost perfection" which also goes along with the "rational impulse to impose a logical order on all areas of knowledge". p86 Also the idea of nativism, that our brains are fixed, which Davis calls, "an idea that is little more than a modernized restatement of the mystics-religious beliefs that souls are pre-given and unchanging". p 87 In this same paragraph he discusses the idea that personality types, learning styles and multiple intelligences are all theories that are flawed. I guess I never thought about these theories as pigeon hole-ing someone. I always thought about them as ways to have more insight about ones self or a learner so that things can be more fun, more engaging, more intune to your preferences. Not as the ways things are or have to be. Probably because so much of our schooling system is patterned off of sequential, in step, "mathified" procedures that "parse and linearize" (p 86) subjects like art, and put students in grades based on their age and cut subjects off from other subjects (hence the new use of the word discipline in this chapter) and have preservice teachers develop lesson plans in absence of the consideration of the learners. Does this also have a connection to the ideas on page 81 about devoting so much time to teaching/learning long division when we don't even do that anymore and, my favorite, "necessary knowledge -even if that knowledge is necessary only for success in school"? However, there is a distinct departure from gnosis when Davis discusses the empiricist belief that, "one's personality and role in life were suddenly and completely understood as matter's of one's experiences." p89. But how can these ideas, both branches of episteme, be one evolution and one departure?

I can see how rationalism and inductive reasoning are part of the metaphysical, because it is using your mind and your logic. But, "Bacon prescribed that all claims to truth must be verifiable through demonstration- which is to say measurable." p 69 So, if empiricism and deductive reasoning is gathering evidence which is measurable and observable, I am still struggling with that as a metaphysical construct. Am I missing a piece here, or just not interpreting it correctly?

Both of these ideas posit that you must question things. Rationalism by doubting everything until it can be proven; empiricism, observing and measuring until it can be proven. I think the view of reality for these metaphors is that you can't trust anything without investigating instead of taking any idea based on what you've been told or what you might even "think" is right. "Both Descartes and Bacon, rationalist and empiricist, agreed that one's inner representation is doomed to be flawed." p 73 So you have to use doubt and logical argument to figure it out, which Descartes deemed as the first and second principles of learning. So we get cognition, which is what is happening in your brain, and behaviorism which is what you can see (but its still metaphysical...?). So many times I have had to write objectives that were measurable (both as a teacher and as a teacher trainer), so behaviorism is deeply engrained in me. We have to prove that something happened to prove learning occurred. But as Davis points out at the end of Chapter 9, behaviorism is less and less useful as learnings become more complex. Perhaps we are keeping these types of standards, and mathifying the curriculum for a reason. We say we want education for everyone, but maybe we mean just enough schooling to make them the most efficient cog in the wheel they can be. See Davis' comment about the wealthier classes on page 79. My only question about that sentence is why he uses past tense.

Week 3-School Cults or Teacher Cults

I think our blog posts, and our discussions on Tuesday night were beginning to lean in this particular direction. Namely, that schools are somehow based on a spiritual model. I have to say, this concept makes complete sense to me. I instantly began to see parallels between the way schools and school governments are structured to that of intra-religion governments.

So are religion and schools in someway synonymous terms? Perhaps, I think it is safe to say that religion has played a major part in modern formal education, even though that point is yet, or may not ever, posited by Davis. Here I begin thinking of monasteries as some of the first educational institutions.

However, to delve into the reading. This branch of the Davis educational tree deals with the history of Mysticism v. Religion. He begins chapter 4 with a quote from Joseph Conrad that alludes to the idea that we are no longer one with God or the eternal and that God or the eternal is away from us and we search to reclaim that oneness. An obvious parallel to knowledge. Which, in biblical terms is the idea of Adam and Even eating from the tree of knowledge in search of that oneness and being banned from the garden. Hearkening back to last weeks readings that once we define knowledge we change the definition of knowledge so it becomes and ever elusive search.

The Mysticism v. Religion dichotomy that Davis is drawing on in chapter 4 is that of the individual v. the collective. Here I think mysticism is the ideal, religion is the actual. Regarding mysticism, "The task of the know is to divine--through intuitive, supernatural, or other means---these truths." 40. I feel that is what would happen in an idea educational environment. Students would be schooled in such a way as to become self aware and self educated. He continues this idea in chapter 5 that a persons fate or destiny, or realizing ones potential, is tied to personal motivation. "For the most part, success in such learnings is seen as a matter of self-discipline..." 54. The teachers role in this relationship is seen in the verbs used to describe teaching, such as nurturing, fostering, and tutoring. 54.

On the Religious side, knowledge comes down from On High. Davis points out in chapter 6 the idea and labels of master and doctor are forms of this knowledge transfer. That knowledge is an object (61) that can be bestowed upon others and the idea of the student as an open vessel waiting to be filled is part of this model. To be honest, in my reflection this week I was okay with the idea of knowledge as an object because it is an easy concept to grasp. Now, I feel I am leaning  to more of mystic. The idea that teaching is the affect to the learner and not the effort to affect the learner. 51. In my interpretation knowledge is a path of self discovery, not a search for the divine. Teachers may feel this way, but I still think they work within the established religious system.

Feel free to add, modify, or outright disagree with any and all of this. These are only my initial impressions and I really learn more from everyone else's input and insights.

Week 2 - The Metaphysical and The Physical

Although I am still digesting this text, I wanted to get our conversation started.  At the end of Ch. 1, Davis states that this book was written to make sense of the world. For this first post, I am going to focus on understanding the metaphysical (first part of ch. 2 and ch. 3).  Once I finish reading Ch. 10, we can discuss the physical (second part of ch. 2 and ch. 10).

To help us make sense of the world, Davis presents two worldviews: the metaphysical and the physical.  Davis defined metaphysics as, “the things after (or beyond) the physical (or natural)” (p. 16).   While Davis suggests four key indicators to a metaphysical attitude, I will focus on the fourth one: “an attitude toward knowledge that involves the dichotomization of forms” (p. 18).  He divides knowledge into two categories: gnosis and episteme.  I thought it was helpful to see the examples side by side: 

God versus Newton

Religion versus Science

Transcendent versus Reductive

Enchantment verses Explanation

Gnosis is “…a reference to mystic-religious belief” and “had to do with matters of existence and questions of meaning” (p. 26).  Figurative devises are used to help explain the world around us and to help us understand how the world works.  Because there are certain things about this world that are beyond our comprehension, figurative devises are “used to address matters of meaning in ways that logic and reason cannot” (p. 27).  

What were your thoughts on how Davis explained the use of myths?

Episteme is the ““…everyday know-how that is based in a logical-rational mode of thought—was focused on practical matters around how the world works” (p. 26).  This category of knowledge doesn’t need figurative devises to understand the world, but realistic information and facts.  It uses the analytic method “to reduce all claims to truth to their root assumptions in order to reassemble an unshakeable edifice of knowledge” (p. 32). 

At one point in time, gnosis and episteme, were both seen as necessary categories of knowledge, but throughout the ages, they’ve been pitted against each other and episteme overshadows gnosis.  

What are your thoughts on this transition?

Week 1 Everything is Relative

                                                                    

The four themes I found throughout these texts were context, relationships, construction of knowledge, and the role of groups when constructing knowledge. Context could be interpreted two ways; whether that be the background that the learner brings that we must use as a resource in order to bridge to new learning, or the context of the learning experience itself. In the preface of The Culture of Education, Bruner stated that, “you cannot understand mental activity unless you take into account the cultural setting and its resources, the very things which give mind its shape and scope.” Context is also important to consider when designing instruction that includes active learning. He says, “Acquired knowledge is most useful to a learner moreover when it is discovered through the learner’s own cognitive efforts, for then it is related to and used in reference to what one has known before.” Relationships are an important aspect when considering the other three, whether that be understanding content, the classroom environment or even yourself. As Freire states, “learning begins with taking the self as the first -but not the last- object of knowledge.” I believe this can be so powerful in a classroom if teachers would let it be. After all, what subject does anyone know the most about? Themselves. A great place to start when adding and interpreting new knowledge, and when promoting a positive environment and relationships. Freire also says, “both participants bring knowledge to the relationship and one of the objects of the pedagogic process is to explore what each knows and what they can teach each other.” In this process context is considered and valued, relationships are fostered, and knowledge is constructed in a social manner.

I think the following quote from the Theories of Teaching and Learning text converges the four themes succinctly. “These two beliefs” (individuals learn by doing and learning is a social phenomenon), “lead to the idea that knowledge and learning exist in the interactions between individuals and the contexts in which they live, in the activities we participate in.”

While I believe and promote the themes in these texts, I am often faced with the reality of the absence of these ideas in teacher practice. I was recently sitting with a group of undergrads who are doing their student teaching this semester. They are all but done with the formal training that should prepare them for teaching and certification. They seem excited about being in classrooms, but mostly nervous. And as I have seen before, for some reason that nervousness often leads to lessons that focus more on telling and less on active learning. Perhaps it is classroom management issues (which can certainly feel daunting in certain districts) the attitude of their cooperating teacher, or pressure to “cover” a certain amount of material. Either way, it seems to cause an instant reversion to lessons that are teacher focused and devoid of inquiry or student voice. I would not despair so much though if it were a situation exclusive to new teachers. In my constant interaction with veteran teachers, the use of, or the shift to, incorporating student context and active learning in to lessons is sadly absent. Again, I have my theories as to why, and in some cases I have actually been told specific rationales. “Our kids can’t/won’t do that”, “parental involvement has more to do with academic achievement than what goes on in my classroom”, “lecture is how I learned and I liked it”. But I do not accept these as excuses (especially when the teacher down the hall is doing authentic instruction with great success). I once said “because its on the test is not an adequate reason for learning material.” The looks of shock and confusion I received from the group were staggering. To a few of them, it’s the only reason.   

 The theme of learning as socially attained was also interwoven throughout these readings and that reaches in to context as well. What gaps can be filled by another person’s perspective or outlook? What is their context? How does where someone comes from, what they already know and their experiences inform their learning and the connections they make? In a nutshell, mine is teenage mother, first generation college graduate, education as a third career, six years of success in an urban secondary classroom, and a penchant to cultivate and help others as I have been helped.

So, Matt and Jenny what is your context? And how does that inform your ideas about education and these readings?