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.
As a Christian, one who believes in God the Father, it’s hard to separate what I believe personally with what I believe about teaching. As I try to make sense of Davis’ perspectives, I feel it’s odd that my belief system is being challenged in an educational setting. Yet I must keep in mind this is one man’s interpretation and to take his word as complete truth would be ignorant of me. I’ve never actually studied the word religion, so I see this challenge as a good thing.
ReplyDeleteThese are my thoughts on teaching or the teacher:
To the religious, the teacher is seen as a transmitter of knowledge and one who brings others into a body of knowledge. I disagree with the notion of students as an open vessel in which to deposit knowledge. It seems impersonal. To the mystic, the teacher is there to nurture and educate or bring out what is already there in the learners mind. I agree with the mystic. The teacher’s role is to be protector, to foster a love of learning, and help the learner find oneself. I think it’s important to point out here that at one time the goal was not to boost the ego, but to locate oneself. Focus on finding or discovering oneself was not intended to be ego-grasping, like in today’s world.
Another point David brings about is that of calling. While I do agree that teaching is a calling, I also believe that anyone can be a teacher. Although my husband is not a teacher, in the sense of it being his career, he is a teacher in our home, to our children. He doesn’t teach in a school setting, but is called to teach in our home. Although I believe that anyone can be a teacher, does that mean that I believe that anyone can be a teacher in a school setting? What do you think?
Hi Jenny! I absolutely agree with your conundrum, as I felt the same way while reading this week's chapters (and even last weeks). I have to admit that it feels good to know that I'm not the only one wondering about this, or feeling a little frustrated at his blatant disregard for the things he does not see as truth. I think my favorite line to support this so far is when he says "To make a long story short" on p. 43. I just kept thinking "oh so now you want to shorten things up..." lol
DeleteAs for your thoughts on the role of the teacher, I keep referring back (in my head) to the "Theories of Learning and Teaching" article that we read the first week. I agree that sometimes a teacher is a transmitter of knowledge, and sometimes they are a facilitator of the knowledge that is already there. I think that the role of the teacher should be fluid, and change as the situation and learner requires if to, similar to how the article concludes that theories of teaching and learning can be fluid, and called on as needed and appropriate. I've found myself wondering, where is the theory that says "I believe in all theories when applied to the right situation at the right time"?
As for if anyone can be a teacher or not, well, I'm not quite sure. The optimist in me would like to think that everyone has a gift or knowledge that they can/should share with others. However, I'm not sure that I believe that everyone has the ability to communicate that knowledge or skill in a way that others can learn from them. It could also be thought of as the art and science of teaching (yay Marzano- lol). Anyone can learn the science of teaching, but not everyone can master the art of teaching. I would go as far as to say that this applies not only to school settings, but to any setting or content. As much as I would like to believe that anyone can be a teacher, I just don't think that is the reality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf we think of teaching in a broad sense of having an influence on a learner, I like the Buddhist saying quoted at the beginning of Chapter 5 "Even a stone can be a teacher". p 51 That does seem to put responsibility on a learner, that they will "take" or "get" something from any situation. But if I am open and curious, which are characteristics we attribute to humans, especially children (although there also seems to be much discussion about how our current education system in the US slowly drives that out of them), these things should happen, there should be a takeaway. Even if its learning what NOT to do, how NOT to be, etc. My senior in college told me her math syllabus says, "remember you are your own best teacher." She is past the point of frustration with this statement. We have had many conversations about what she brings as a learner, how she should form questions etc. But she says, if Im my own best teacher, what am I paying you for!? It made me think of flipped classrooms like Matt mentioned about the new church model and apprenticeships. I was thinking, if I was going to be an apprentice with a steep learning curve toward my new position, I would personally do as much research and prep before getting there, so I would have some basis on which to hang my new knowledge. I often picture hooks on a wall. If there if nothing in which to hang the new knowledge on, it just falls off, not able to be retrieved or added to itself. So, Jenny and Mackinley, I do think it is a combo; hopefully not in every lesson, but perhaps this depends on what the learner comes with. However, this is a slippery slope for me, because I hear teachers say all the time that they can't do this or that inquiry based lesson/discussion because kids don't know enough to add to the conversation, have any context, or any number of other "reasons" why they can't teach in a more authentic, inquiry based, mystic way. Which is tough for me to hear, because so much of what we talk about is that everyone comes with something. That is another reason I am a big proponent of the flipped model. It has the potential to give students a little more information and perhaps a little more efficacy.
DeleteMatt, as I connect my thoughts with yours, it makes we wonder about your statement: "Teachers may feel this way, but I still think they work within the established religious system". What we believe (or feel) may not be transferred into the classroom. This is an important point that I will ponder!
ReplyDeleteOne area that Davis spends a little time is on discipline. I think it worth our time to discuss its meaning too. Davis points out two perspectives related to discipline. To the mystic, discipline is seen as a responsibility of the learner, the work of the learner; their path to improved awareness. To the religious, discipline is seen as a duty of the teacher and the learner surrendering authority to the teacher. The religious also see discipline as referring “to someone who has been punished by someone else” (p. 58). While I do believe, as a Christian, I surrender authority to God in my personal life and there are consequences for my actions, I also believe discipline to be the work of the learner. I make this connection to what I am doing in this class. In order to learn this material, I as the learner must be disciplined. Dr. Beach isn’t going to learn the material for me; I must take on the responsibility and work hard to learn it on my own. It’s ultimately up to me as the learner to learn the material.
ReplyDeleteJenny, in the top post, you note the role of teacher as the nurturer, and I agree, but now I wonder what the purpose of education is now. I have no doubts there was a time when direct transfer of knowledge was not only the acceptable mode of teaching but the most useful for the society. I feel now, that the growth of students as people to participate in society is even more important, which places as the "mystics" in Davis' words. However, perhaps we should take a close inspection on what we expect students to get out of schooling. Is it possible we need to shift our perspectives? Do we somehow do a disservice by being nurturers and not information givers?
ReplyDeleteI feel like for the past few hundred years schools have had the charge to submit knowledge, much as the way it is described in the chapter on religion. I recently read something about the American school system being a replica of the Prussian model. Which was explicitly made to indoctrinate and produce state serving citizens. Very much authoritative and stressing obedience such as Davis describes religion. But this also features the idea of the collective versus the individual that you spoke of Matt. Which one is our society striving toward? What is do we want for our students? Is it a choice between obedient citizens that serve a collective good, or free thinking spirits, self aware, and self motivated? Jenny, is a focus on discovering or finding oneself inherently ego-grasping? Could you elaborate on more your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI dont think that religion and schools are synonymous. I feel like the higher education you pursue, the less and less telling and bestowing you experience. I also feel like there has been such a big push toward a more "mystical" method of teaching, at least in my education career. If you think about the ideas behind inquiry based learning, learner centered teaching, authentic teaching, culturally relevant pedagogy and Freire's ideas about conscientization, do you think they lean heavily toward what Davis would call a mystic approach? But how do we reconcile when to tell and when to provide opportunity to discover? i don't think we do a disservice by being a nurturer, but I feel it is important as a teacher to be able to be there for your students when they are close to the point of frustration and perhaps need a little bit of information.
Lindsay,
DeleteNo, I don’t think a focus on discovering oneself is inherently ego-grasping, but I do think it can be. I think the point Davis was trying to make on page 54 was that the original intent of discovering oneself was more about learning who you are, uncovering characteristics about yourself, etc, but in today’s world discovering oneself is more about boosting your ego in order to stand out. Honestly, when I think of discovering myself, I don’t think about it as trying to get ahead of others. Do you? Although, I do think Davis’ point is an important one to consider.
I see what you mean. As far as it being for yourself, at first I thought I don't see how it could be for anything else, but then I suppose you could be learning about yourself and developing yourself in order to contribute to a community? And I don't think it has to be for outward glorification or competition.
DeleteSorry, I was on someone else's chromebook, so I wasn't logged on as me.
ReplyDelete-Lindsay
Can it be a little of both?
ReplyDeleteFor me personally, I don’t see myself as an expert that imparts knowledge onto my students. I see myself growing alongside them (b/c honestly there are subject matters they know more about). With that being said, I think the purpose of education has changed. When schools first opened, I think their purpose or goal was to impart knowledge. But now schools are responsible for so much more. Schools feed, clothe, council, parent and so much more. I am not saying this is wrong, I am just saying the purpose has shifted.
As I look over the list of terms associated with religious traditions, I don’t like thinking of teachers as masters over children. It paints an ugly picture for me; like teachers are the master and students are the slaves. Yet, I do relate to the words training and guiding. Schools train students to do certain things—students are trained how to line up correctly, how to walk down the hall correctly, how to clean up the lunchroom, how to prepare for class, etc. When it comes to discipline matters, when students are misbehaving, teachers guide students back to the proper behavior. These are just a few examples.
As I look over the list of terms associated with mystical traditions, I more closely align with this way of thinking. The synonyms for teaching are educating, nurturing, fostering and tutoring. So to better answer your questions, maybe our conversation needs to focus back to the 2nd week of class when Dr. Beach asked us what is the difference between educating and schooling? Do you think mysticism is educating and religion is schooling?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the last comments stemming from Lyndsay's points and Jenny's response:
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to hear more on Jenny's point of "mysticism as education and religion as schooling". I think I see that religion is a representation of schooling, or as Davis went to explain the forms of indoctrination. I'm going to frame my points through the perspective of a sermon. There it would seem that a sermon is very much a passing on of knowledge from one's interpretation. That interpretation is either built on a large amount of background contextual information, or not, that is just the dependent on the speakers knowledge base. But for me the message and it's purpose are very separated from the delivery. I think that the purpose of the message is to help the intuitive or inward reflection process take place. I'm very much interested in the relationship between the purpose and how the presentation of the material is carried out. If knowledge is meant to be constructed through discourse and social interaction, I find the process then of a group of people learning from one person, as an interpreter of what has been provided by a deity, as a form of schooling rather than as an educational process. Where is the dialouge between the teacher and the learner. It tends toward a learning environment based on grasping an object, albeit an object that is created for the betterment of the whole.
If the point of religion is to be involved in the areas of social justice, building of one's self, and movements towards better understandings of God, then the teaching style the church uses seems a little disjointed. I find this in the reality that there is no dialogue between the teacher and the learner. What does the presenter of a sermon really know about what connections are being made by the learner? I mean at least in the worst cases of public education at least there is some basis of what knowledge students have gained through testing. Because there isn't any of that dialogue between the teacher and learner in the church setting, for the most part, and certainly not on the large scale of churches with thousands of attendants, it seems that the knowledge that the presenter wants the learners to have and be able to use, is merely a hope. A hope that wouldn't really feel like an educational process or a schooling process either.
I think that the church model of instruction has changed Adam.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the lessons taught at churches now is nothing more than a hope, then again, it is almost like the new fad of flipped classrooms, that parishioners are supposed to perform a certain amount of self-study, and the sermon is amplifying and guiding information.
On that idea, I just thought of the school models in some parts of Asia, where a single instructor teaches exceptionally large groups of students, or even the first year college seminar classes at large universities. Those feel very mega-church.
Adam, testing has come under a lot of contention in recent years, do you think that is an essential part of education? I only ask because I wonder if there is any value in testing students, I understand the rationale of testing, but I think portfolios would make much more effective assessments. I suppose that drift away from the mysticism v. religious discussion, but I think that if testing is valued, a person is ascribing a certain and similar value to knowledge in order to measure it.
Yes Lindsay, I do think Freire, and critical pedagogy lean heavily on Davis' mysticism. I do think, as Jenny said, that the religious is the schooling aspect of school and the mysticism is the educational element. I want to say that the need to coexist, but I am starting to lean more to the idea that only one can exist at a time.
Matt, do you think that they can both exist within a lesson? A week? A semester? In a given institution? I'm so perplexed by this idea because it challenges all of my personal beliefs on teaching, knowledge, learning, and pretty much everything else. :)
DeleteRegarding the appropriateness and/or validity of testing and/or portfolios, I think that you must consider the type of knowledge that you are wanting to assess. Replicative and associative knowledge can be pretty easily assessed with a test, however applicative and interpretive knowledge might be better assessed through a portfolio or authentic assessment task.
Side note- There has been a lot of talk in education lately about the success of students and the educational system in Finland. Finnish schools are entirely portfolio based and students take only ONE high stakes test during their entire K-12 experience!, and their students consistently out perform students in the US. Of course there have been lots of papers written that try to explain why that is happening, however it brings up an interesting thought when viewed through the lens of this weeks discussion. I don't know everything about the Finnish system, nor about the system here in the US (perhaps because implementation is often completely misaligned with the original intention), but how do our systems compare with regards to the role of the learner and teacher, discipline and authority, and education and schooling?
I agree Mackinley, we must consider what type of knowledge we want to assess, but we must also consider what we are considering knowledge. I know it sounds confounded.
ReplyDeleteLet me take my reading class for example...
What is knowledge in a reading class? Letter forms, letter sounds, sentence structure, different types of rhetoric, and the such, the list can go on. If you know these things, then you know how to read, right? wrong? No, they know how to read if they get and understand the text, but these lists are what they are tested on. So in fact, we do not value reading, but we value the underlying structures of writing and a persons ability to recognize them. In the end, they hate reading, because nothing we do is actually about reading. We have a disconnect between what is knowledge, and what is assessed. A better way of assessing reading is to talk about books after they are read. But what cannot be standardized is a persons relationship, understanding, and connection with a text.
As for the writing test, I think it does a pretty good job of assessing students, despite its recent scandals. Because in the end, its ability to affect the reader is judged more than its grammar. Yet there are still inklings of measurable objectives when they are graded, they just do not count for much in the end. If you look at many pop-culture books from any era, often grammar is atrocious, because it is made for the reader, not for a grade, and in the end the dollar signs are what count. So here, knowledge is the ability to manipulate words for entertainment.
The funny thing about authority is it is not an inherent right or trait of a teacher. Instead, it is a role relinquished or loaned by the student to the teacher. The same with discipline. If students do not buy into what is being taught, if they do not agree that they should be disciplined, if they do not hand over the authority, then the classroom is a management mess. Yet, as adults, we feel as if we naturally own these things. In the end we punish students in order to dominate and own these things, sometimes that works, but we must break the will of the student. So this brings me full circle to the mystic and the religious. I feel that those power structures are loaned to the mystic, by the learner, as a social contract for education. To the religious, that power is naturally bestowed. As such, compliance is mandatory.
Matt I've never thought about authority not being an inherent right or trait of a teacher before now. While it makes perfect sense, it just disagrees with everything I've ever thought or experienced. While the authority may still be relinquished by the learner, in other cultures (thinking particularly of the Pacific Islands), the role of the teacher is elevated, and revered, above others. The "power" or authority of the teacher is rarely questioned, and many families do not take an active role in their child's education because the family member's feel inferior and incapable of helping their child compared to the teacher. So with that in mind, I wonder, how does culture affect the role of teacher and student, knowledge and learning, authority and discipline, and how do we explain these differences with regards to theory?
DeleteDavis states, for the religious, “teaching must first and foremost be concerned with matters of the spirit” (p. 57). Currently, I teach at a Christian school and we are concerned with matters of the spirit or heart. I call them “heart issues.” Students are taught to put God and others above themselves and treat others as you would want them to treat you. Therefore, the focus is not on “self.” When “heart issues” come up, students may need discipline, but may just need to talk. I guess I see this is submitting to authority, but I don’t see this as breaking the will of the student. I see it as encouraging self-control, not breaking their spirit. I also don't see correcting behavior as trying to dominate the child.
DeleteJenny I think that the word discipline can mean different things, as discussed by Davis. I do agree that there is a need for "submission" of some sort because without it there is a sense that there is nothing that needs to be learned, because the teacher has nothing to offer. As for correcting behavior, couldn't that be viewed as a gift? Regardless of who corrects the behavior, if a person does not learn how to behave appropriately in various situations, the consequences can be much worse than having a "heart to heart" with someone who cares about them, such as their teacher, mentor, or friend. Rather than domination, I see this as empowerment.
DeleteIn response to Matt: Of course I agree with particular scrutiny in regards to the over-emphasis on the learner being assessed on replicative forms of knowledge as most important.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mackinley:
I like the thoughts on taking into account, in any educational setting, the role of the teacher the learner, discipline and authority, and their places within either an educational or schooling dynamic.
Higher Education: Somehow there is this amazing shift that takes place during the transition into higher education, where all the learners are not allowed to disrupt the course because the end result would be the instructor asking the learner to leave. A win for the class and the teacher, a loss for the learner. So in this fashion it seems that at the higher education level behaviorism because a key player in the perspective of learning taking place within both the individual and the group. Same for religious settings. When has anyone ever seen someone raise a hand to ask a question during a sermon? I certainly haven't. So what is being gained from this form of relationship?
With the example provided about the Finnish system that perhaps focuses on the movement towards project based learning and the creation of a portfolio would certainly help institute more of the learner-centered approaches to the construction of knowledge. However, I still wonder is simply a trade of measurements based on behaviorism that just help students adjust more easily with the challenges they face outside of the classroom.
In response to Matt: I like the piece about the understanding of the loaning of power that you refer to. Can we recenter the power onto the learner? Maybe it's more than just getting them to agree that they should be disciplined they should in turn see it is an opportunity to hold power of a subject they previously didn't see themselves as a possible expert of. Maybe it's not an exchange of power, or the rendering down of one's self to be able to participate in the classroom.
Differentiation within Psychology
ReplyDeleteDifferentiation refers to the struggle that all people face in striving to develop a sense of themselves as independent individuals. A person's identity is continually affected by interpersonal experiences that are either favorable or damaging to the development of his or her personality.
I find this important while looking at the processes that are encouraged in different educational settings. The goal of differentiation is not to see what a person needs to do in order to act accordingly to a set of standards presented, or authority in place. An example of this would be how in religious settings the authoritative figures would hold a service and the learner would then have to act a certain way in order to become a part of the group. The negative to this is that the learner might not be acting to their true self. Therefore the learner would either choose to stay in the relationship or leave, or negotiate a different set of behaviors. The problem is without the narrative of the learner there is no platform for negotiation. Without that presence of true-self the learner may just move onto a "better" set of regulatory learning that reflects their unspoken true self.
How does this apply to the dynamics within education as we are trying to better understand the roles of the learner and the teacher? Do we negotiate roles with our students that help them best identify their true-self? Perhaps we would like to, but with so many cultural barriers that exist, it is hard to know when to see someone's true self behaviors as favorable to the class model or learning environment that is trying to be achieved.
Because we can't always see the true self of others, or even have the chance to support their internal process of differentiation, we just exchange hopeful outcomes and help re-align learners with the behaviors we see as necessary to be successful in that learning environment.
Hi All, This conversation is very interesting, and touches on a variety of issues that are really germane to education today. However, I'm having some trouble finding the discussion of the ideas of gnosis/mysticism/religion as ways of looking at teaching and learning. By the way, Freire would not like to be considered a mystic in terms of looking at teaching and learning. More in class.
ReplyDelete