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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding the difference between constructivism and constructionism can be tricky, because some researchers knowingly use them interchangeable. Last semester in Qual I, we talked about the differences. Michael Crotty, the author of The Foundations of Social Research, explains the difference like this: constructivism is …”the meaning-making activity of the individual mind” and constructionism as “the collective generation [and transmission] of meaning” (p. 58). With constructivism, each individual has a unique way of making sense of the world, while constructionism looks at how our culture influences or shapes us. According to Crotty, within a social context, the individual is at the center of meaning making for constructivism and the social context itself is at the center for constructionism. Crotty also points out that “constructivism tends to resist the critical spirit, while constructionism tends to foster it” (p. 58).
ReplyDeleteDavis echoes the ideas Crotty presented about the two stating, for the constructivist the core concerns are, “the manner in which the individual construes a personal sense of the world” and “the core concerns of constructionist discourses are more toward the manner in which the world is jointly construed and the manner in which the world constructs the individual” (p. 121). In addition, it seems that Piaget is a constructivist, while Vygotsky is a constructionist. Do you agree? Davis tells us that Piaget focuses on individual truth or how the individuals’ makes meaning and Vygotsky believes meaning making came from mimicking what we observe around us, therefore is more of how our culture influences us.
Think individual for constructivism.
I think the clarification helps a little in regards to the distinctions between Vygostky and Piaget. But still for me, I see Piaget's Learning Cycle as being exactly what I could interpret from the reading, except for some of the ideas like maturation and genetics into the discussion. It seems that some of the difference making that an individual can go through in understanding its environment are direcly linked some very important environmental factors that attribute to cognitive development. Or is it because all of these things are already inherent in the individual that they are lumped into the understanding that individual is going to construe ideas anyway?
DeleteA little disjointed, but I guess that I just feel that the alignment between the individual and the environment, or the world, are a little closer than what we may initially see in the ideas of constructivists.
I like your distinctions here Jenny. I agree with the descriptions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Could you expand a little more on the quote "constructivism tends to resist the critical spirit, while constructionism tends to foster it?" I understand that constructivism is more about the individual and the meanings we make, but it is still based on our experiences in context, right? And thats our culture. I think the biggest struggle Im having is with the word resist. I feel its very strong, perhaps too strong? What do you think? Can you offer some more insight here?
ReplyDeleteMatt, I agree that constructionism has a more social element like you said, But I don't know if I can go so far as to consider constructivism a closed system. Because as I mentioned it has to do so much with language and "culturally framed structure" (p 120) So it is about you, but only inasmuch as what you bring with you. The experiences you have had in your culture. We get to knowledge in an individual way, but it has an element of "compatibility" because of language and circumstance. (p 121) Am I factoring that in too much?
One of my favorite sentences in the book so far has been about poststructuralism. "Poststructuralist discourses have the particular quality of being discourses about discourses." (p 124) The emphasis on the importance of language and words to teaching, learning, and understanding. It makes me wonder about people that are deaf or mute. Before sign language, was their level of understanding truncated because they had no language in which to express themselves? Or are their other things we can consider as language besides reading, writing and speaking? The three themes of poststructuralist literature, as indicated in chapter 13, are language, identity and power. Challenging what is "normal". That is where critical theory comes in. Structuralism poses that teaching is about enculturation, poststructuralism is about bucking enculturation. You must know about it first and then you must act in order to affect it. Matt, you may be right that discussions may center here. It is of course for me again interesting in a social studies context. It is a look in to our history, our progress as humanity in to fostering equality. Promoting the idea that more, and different, types of people deserve the state of mind that they are powerful and also the ability to use that power to be a part of decision making that affects them. This is certainly not mainstream on our planet. But isn't that one of the other points made? That it can never be, for then it ceases to be poststructuralist.
Lindsay, I think you extending your thoughts of poststructuralist into the death and mute is a worthy exercise. However, I think the poststructuralist would say that language and understanding reach much further than words. Take the idea of "the front door of house," or "church altar," I'm trying to find a universal here, a deaf or mute person still understands what those symbols mean, they may not have the word "door" or "altar" but its purpose and inherent meanings are understood.
DeleteAs far as power is concerned, I like to think of how groups of people have specialized vocabularies. If you lack the vocabulary the ones with it have power over you, at least in that specialized setting, this can often be seen in classrooms, it's demonstrating that there is a certain knowledge students lack and must attain. I think poststructuralism recognizes this and tries to mitigate the feelings a student has when they are placed in that new setting with that new knowledge and language.
I think you are on the right path with your definitions of structuralism and poststructuralism. The difference in the two, to me, is that poststructualism attempts to recognize the effects of structuralism and adapt in away to lessen the effects. It is though postructuralism is practicing structuralism on structuralism.
If students cannot master the habits of the majority, they become marginalized. Critical education gives students the tools needed to advocate, liberate and empower. Through critical education students are “uncovering normative structures and developing counternormative strategies,” (p. 142). This is done through language (by learning to use new words), identity (by interrogating limits set on us) and power (by inventing new structures).
DeleteMust students master the habits of the majority? Is knowledge based in those habits? Or, are you suggesting that critical education become the habit of the majority? Because that sounds like a post-structuralist curriculum. And if so, are you suggesting that they know less or we are allowing them to be marginalized?
DeleteI think that students should be aware of the habits of the majority, perhaps even know how to navigate them in order to effect any kind of change. Knowledge is everywhere, so I think it would be safe to say it is there also. Know thy opponent :) Can critical education become the habit of the majority? If we are talking about critical education of current power structures, in theory wouldn't those power structures then dissipate, and no longer would need criticizing? I don't think that is a reality, but isn't that the idea of critical theory being a moving target? or are you saying that is rather what we should aspire to?
DeleteKnowing those habits, knowing how to navigate them to effect change, to me sounds structuralist (not a criticism, just clarifying what I understand). I do think critical education can become the habit of the majority and I do think power structure would dissipate, yet they would be replaced and it would become a cycle, however I feel like it would be a beneficial cycle. So yes, I do say it is something we should aspire to, and I feel that is a post-structuralist position (am I on the right track here, at least in my interpretation of the two theories?).
DeleteLindsay, I agree. From the perspective of critical theorists, which branches from poststructuralism, students do not need to master the habits of the majority, nor would critical theorists want them too, but they do need to be aware of them. By giving them the tools to develop counternormative strategies they learn to live in a world that marginalizes those who don’t conform to the norm.
DeleteConstructionism (also known is social constructivism) branches from structuralism, and critical theory branches from poststructuralism. Yet I noticed in the glossary of Davis on page 204, critical theory is a branch of social constructivism. This is useful because it might help explain why, “constructivism tends to resist the critical spirit, while constructionism tends to foster it.” (Although I am not sure how critical theory can branch from both social constructivism and poststructuralism!) Also, I am assuming critical spirit and critical theory to be synonymous, which may be incorrect.
ReplyDeleteIf constructionism is essentially connected to critical theory, it’s simple to see why it fosters the critical spirit, so maybe it’s easier to look at what constructivism is not—it is not exploring cultural meanings through a critical stance; it is not interested in understanding the world through a critical eye; it is not interested in challenging or bringing about change; it is not looking for oppression. Maybe because constructivists are not concerned with culture influences, but with the individual mind, there is no need for a critical spirit? Constructivism focuses on the individual mind and “the unique experience of each of us. It suggests that each one’s way of making sense of the world is as valid and worthy of respect as any other, thereby tending to scotch any hit of a critical spirit” (Crotty, p. 58).
To understand this a bit further, we can look at the views of teaching for each of them: teaching as facilitating, guiding, enabling (constructivism) and teaching as empowering, liberating and emancipating (critical theory—which is a branch of social constructivism, which is also known as constructionism).
Hopefully this helps Lindsay, although I can’t really say why Crotty chose to use the word “resist.”
This does make sense! Since you are looking at making your own sense of things, learning that is valid to you, you might not go so far as to question what is going on further. So does it seem a little more passive than active resistance?
DeleteSo I could be wrong (because I have been wrong about a great deal up to this point), but it seems like we have spent most of our time focusing on what each of these structures look like through the eyes of the educator, which makes sense given our current roles. We've examined teaching, learning, and knowledge as an educator evaluating each of these bifurcations. However, while reading this week, and in particular Jenny's "clarifying" post above, I was really struck as a learner, meaning I absolutely see myself as a learner (my attitudes, actions, etc) fitting into the definition of a constructivist, even though that's not necessarily where I would place myself when wearing the "teacher" hat.
DeleteThere has been some discussion about the fluidity within an educator and their approach/understanding/beliefs to teaching and learning being based primarily within one theory, and not being fluid (adapting to the needs of the kids/situation). So my question is... Can a learner? If so, what are the implications of a learner constructing knowledge in different ways?
Lindsay (and All),
ReplyDeleteI thought you'd enjoy this picture of a tree of languages. Wasn't sure where else to post it for you to look at, so I will just share the link here. http://www.businessinsider.com/this-tree-beautifully-reveals-the-relationships-between-languages-2015-1
A thought I had during the reading of chapter 13, directly relates to the importance of postructuralist discourse centering on the, "hidden and implicit structures that support imbalances, oppressions, and aggressions among humans." (p. 140)
ReplyDeleteSo in regards to any type of education, religion, or various setting where any type of knowledge is set upon an agenda, without need to label or identify the agenda as negative or positive, that those who seek to empower don't have the skills necessary to do that.
What I don't agree with is the ideology of empowering a group, but the methods of deliverance don't further the re-centering of the marginalized, but rather create in the learners or believers, false hope. Although be it that that false hope is disguised as being helpful, because some of the educational forms it takes are supportive of the traditions that those people groups might align with.
Adam, you may have a valid criticism, but I feel as though when we speak of theory, or of metaphors of teaching, such as post-structuralism, we have to look at the absolute and not the actual. While it may cause false hope, I do not think it is meant as a pseudo-theory merely making other theories palatable.
DeleteAlso, I think that maybe many teachers that ascribe to these theories maybe do not have a firm grasp or understanding and so their implementation becomes corrupted.
My only point is let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater.
Hey all. I've been super, super sick for the past several days. Sorry I was MIA for the "conversation" but I am hoping to be in class tomorrow. The medicine has done little up to this point, but you never know, maybe tomorrow I will wake up feeling like a spring chicken.
ReplyDelete