Saturday, February 13, 2016
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere are my thoughts on rationalism, which I believe is moving away from gnosis and how I think it's connected to the metaphysical.
ReplyDeleteMetaphysical is the belief that knowledge is out there. At one time humans possessed this knowledge but lost it and now must find it again. It is a constant progress to the ideal, the truth. Rationalists believe the way to truth or knowledge is through deductive (rational) logic. Knowledge is logically constructed, as individuals “go about assembling inner representations of outer reality” (p. 77). Truth is beyond question and whatever is doubted is rejected.
A metaphysical attitude casts “learning as an orderly and linear progression from incomplete child to completed adult” (p. 22). For the rationalist, learning is a linear and logical process. For Descartes, two principles of learning are “systematic doubt and logical argument” (p. 73). One theory of learning is mentalism, “that focused on the mental operations of the individual learner” (p.73). From this branch of thought came cognitivism, “brain as computer” and learners that construct their own meaning.
A metaphysical attitude believes that teaching causes learning. For the rationalist, teaching is helping learners construct a logically coherent world. Teachers do this in a logical manner, through linear lesson plans. Rationalists believe what is taught is independent of who is taught. Teachers help learners
• to structure inner knowledge (instructing)
• by laying out-information in clear ways (explaining; telling)
• with formation of inner knowledge (informing)
• to construct the edifice of knowledge (edifying)
• to set straight their understandings (directing).
Empiricism erased the notions that one’s role in life is predestined or a divine calling (gnosis) to be understood “as matters of one’s experience” (p. 89). A shift occurred in the definition of intuition as well in that it was “entirely rooted in experience” not knowing something “without any direct knowledge of the source” (p. 52).
ReplyDeleteAgain we see the metaphysical belief that knowledge is out there to be discovered in the empiricist. According to Bacon, knowledge is found by “making inferences about the truth on the basis of gross experiences ” and “engagement with the world” (p. 68). He believes all truth is measurable, which birthed the positivist movement. For positivists, knowledge is discovered through analytic science and the scientific method. Locke also believes knowledge is based on experience and sees a child as a “blank slate ready to be inscribed and imprinted by encounters with the world” (p. 89).
If the metaphysical attitude believes that teaching causes learning, the empiricist is aligned with this thought as well. For the empiricist, teaching is seen as “control of process and predictability of outcomes” (p. 84). Teachers are watching over and supervising learners, keeping control of them. Teachers “stamp in” knowledge through repetition. Learners should be kept within the ‘normal’ boundaries. Behaviorist principles are part of teaching, as teachers’ train or condition students to have “a desired response to a set of conditions” (p. 88).
As mentioned before, a metaphysical attitude casts “learning as an orderly and linear progression from incomplete child to completed adult” (p. 22). Empiricists see education as a process that is mechanical and efficient. Much like an assembly line, “incomplete children were seen as progressing toward completed adults” (p. 84) as they are schooled. Schooling equals linearized and standardized curricula, mass instruction, and grouping of students by age. For the behaviorist, learning is seen as “changes in behavior that are due to changes in the environment” (p. 88).
Okay, so I think I may have it (perhaps it will stick this time :) . Because empiricists are still looking for the one Truth, even thought they are doing it through physical means, because it is unchanging and we just have to discover it, its still metaphysical ?
DeleteI think it is still metaphysical because it is not grounded to a physical world. Thought, knowledge, truth, they all kind of exist in an ether of existence. They are phenomena that are not easily explained by physical sciences, or were not at the time, so they are metaphysical.
DeleteI think the answer you are looking for might be explained on page 69. Davis states that Bacon set in motion a "new attitude toward gathering and verifying knowledge" not a new attitude toward knowledge. He goes on to say that positivists are not denying "the existence of transcendent, eternal truths, merely the possibility of human access." Then on page 70 Davis said positivists don't deny the existence of immeasurable events, they just ignore them.
DeleteJenny, I think Davis' quote pointed out by Lindsay strongly supports what you are saying. That people have a natural progression through life and so we have linear and understandable lessons that mirror that idea. This linear progression, which apparently is a branch of the rationalism tree, that there should be a logical order to things seems to be, well rational. However, Davis notes that these same concepts were applied to the fine arts and honestly it just does not seem to be as rational anymore.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me, from the reading, that this is the reasoning behind the subjects we now have in school and for the classes that are considered core classes. But did anyone catch the small insight on page 79 that suggests that schools were set up like this in order that lower class people would live "unexamined" lives? I thought this was extremely interesting and it poses the question of why we teach? Is it just to keep thinkers busy thinking about useless things until they enter a work force, or could it be that wealthy families are getting better educations elsewhere?
Or maybe it is all just a product of the Industrial Revolution and empiricist insights. Things to think about.
I like that Davis clearly identifies Thought and Knowledge on page 73 and that they are uniquely human characteristics. While it seems that it is closely related to Gnosis, it does not seem it is as clear that Knowledge is an outside agent for which we search, but it is an internal perfection for which we strive. Or I could be off base so somebody pick up this thread and let's unravel it please.
Davis’ comment of the wealthier classes having a vested interest in the unexamined lives of the lower class was set in a time when the wealthy were the only ones being educated. Much of their workforce was illiterate and included children. They didn’t want their workforce to be educated because they wouldn’t have workers. I can see your point that this is still happening today, I just don’t know if it’s the truth. Maybe a better question is why are the rich getting a better education?
DeleteThe education that the wealthy received in which Davis described on page 79 was Classical Education. (I currently teach at a Classical school and love it.) While the wealthy were receiving a Classical education, the middle class and lower class were receiving an education that was “not considered appropriate for formal schooling” (episteme). In other words, the middle class and lower class were receiving an education that was deemed inappropriate compared to what the upper class was studying. The middle class and lower class were getting a “basic” education that was practical and based on the everyday know-how. With the current obsession with testing and accountability, are we moving backward to this way of schooling?
Hmmmm... When Davis states "in curricula that were intended for working-class children, a key consideration was practicality", I thought that he was referring more to the practical education that prepared an individual for a specific job, kind of like a trade school, and similar to the education systems in countries around the world. The development of master/apprentice systems in the late Middle Ages supports this concept, however the use of the common day "internship" is rooted in the same structure.
DeleteI agree Mackinley, which proves the point even more...the lower classes were receiving an education that wasn't worthy of the rich. Maybe that doesn't mean the education of the rich was better , but it makes me wonder?!?
DeleteSo then and now, do the different models have different conceptions of thought, knowledge, thinking, teaching, learning??? Whatever the case, are these conceptions universal or do certain ideas work at certain times in history and have to shift as our world shifts?
ReplyDeleteMatt, I do believe there have been shifts due to the progression of time and other factors such as population, technology and the continued investigation of, well, everything. And even thought Davis points out that this text is a genealogy rather than a chronology, I think it is safe to say that we have been historically progressing through ideas thus far. We have discussed the ideas of the unexamined life and the difference between the "education" of the wealthy versus lower class (or should I say education versus schooling respectively?). And I believe there is a pattern. Early education was focused on gnosis, and was only for those who could afford not to labor ( scholar academic) and episteme was "more oriented toward practical everyday matters." p 27. When we started to educate everyone, I think maybe it was in response to the economic needs of a country (social efficiency) that was also a democracy, rather than the more benevolent other way around. If you look at the titles of Chapter 8, Rationalism: Teaching as Instructing and Chapter 9, Empiricism: Teaching as Training, you can still feel these ideas when we design schools, subjects and curriculum, even though I feel we are trying to distance ourselves from those descriptors more and more. Behaviorism especially seems to measure not only what is low on Bloom's, but also the ideas Dr Beach discussed almost two weeks ago concerning Taba's levels of knowledge and the levels under "knowledge in use": replicative, associative, applicative, interpretive. As I say "we" are trying to distance ourselves, that we may be only those who are pursuing reform, change and continued reflection. So Jenny, perhaps those who are pushing testing and accountability are perhaps the very ones that want to keep economic classes just the way they are. Enough education for people to get a job, but not enough to challenge the status quo? Is the emphasis on testing and what can be measured the very catalyst of the underperformance of groups that traditionally do not do as well?Is it specifically set up that way? I dont think they are any easy answers, just thought it also might be something worthwhile to discuss.
DeleteThese are really good descriptions of what we are reading. I guess what I want to know is what is being considered knowledge, thought, and learning? Again, episteme deals with knowledge as an object. But, as below, the idea of discipline lies inside that knowledge. The knowledge collectively is the discipline, and now subjects. So in essence, do the rich have a different concept of knowledge for themselves, and for the lower classes. I agree with Jenny, this could perhaps be trade schools, or vo-techs, yet they idea seems hopeful to me. I just feel that perhaps the rich push down their ideas of education because they are the ones with the most social and political cache to do so. I do not think the lower classes decide much about their own education because they don't know that they can.
DeleteSo if this is the case are there to competing ideas of knowledge. The knowledge for us, and the knowledge for them? If so, then a further question would be does an educational theory have validity if a social group is advocating for one education for a certain group while ascribing to their own idea of education? I am trying very hard not to get off topic, but they seem at odds with each other... You guys over here, operate under Gnosis, we over here use Episteme. You must be self-disciplined, while over here already have self-disciplined, so we learn from the knowledge, it no longer has to be sought, only understood.
Lindsay,
DeleteYou brought up a point I wanted to comment on, educating verses schooling. It seems Davis switched from using the term educating in Chapters 4-6 to the term schooling in Chapters 7-9? I probably would not have noticed this had Dr. Beach not asked us to define them. Is there a reason Davis has done this and is it important for us to know why?
On page 185 of the text, Davis lists conceptions of teaching. With schooling, he has: inculcating, conditioning, training, & remediating. He states on page 84 that “schooling quickly came to refer to scripted movement through topics and tests in a manner highly reminiscent of an industrial assembly line.” With educating, he has: nurturing, fostering, and tutoring. He states on page 54 that educating is “developing the innate capacities of learners.” It seems like this distinction is important, I’m just not sure why.
I found myself having some real issues with some of the ideas that Davis presented in this week's chapters. For example, when he states that nativist discourses have "captured the contemporary educational imagination...(which) include theories of personality types, learning styles, and multiple intelligences- all of which are anchored in grains of truth...(but) fundamentally flawed in the assumptions of inflexible brains." (p.87)
ReplyDeleteGardner is very clear in his theory of multiple intelligences that individuals possess "different kinds of minds and therefore learn, remember, perform, and understand in different ways." According to MI theory, "we are all able to know the world through language, logical-mathematical analysis, spatial representation, musical thinking, the use of the body to solve problems or to make things, an understanding of other individuals, and an understanding of ourselves... (however) individuals differ in the strength of these intelligences... and in the ways in which such intelligences are invoked and combined to carry out different tasks, solve diverse problems, and progress in various domains."
Gardner argues against "an educational system that assumes that everyone can learn the same materials in the same way and that a uniform, universal measure suffices to test student learning." He continues with "Students learn in ways that are identifiably distinctive. The broad spectrum of students - and perhaps the society as a whole - would be better served if disciplines could be presented in a numbers of ways and learning could be assessed through a variety of means."
To see Davis place Gardner's theory (which was developed in 1983 and continues to be researched and developed by Thomas Armstrong) in the realm of Nativism, and the claim that it is faulty in the "assumption of inflexible brains", makes me question his understanding of a theory that is based on flexibility, not only within a system, but clearly states that an individual can learn in a variety of ways, and that not all learning will occur in one intelligence, but that an individual may move from one to another in order to process information and knowledge.
The issue of discipline. Here I feel like we can get trapped in the multiple meanings of a word. But it seems to me, from Davis, that under Gnosis, discipline was embodied in the learner. Meaning they had to approach the subject, be willing to learn from the teacher, they were self motivated. In Episteme, the discipline is now synonymous with the subject. We are in an Education discipline, there are English disciplines, so on and so forth. Here, it is the subjects, and the teachers, job to review the discipline to the students. It must be presented and taught. This sets subjects and the core classes in a different position than they would be in Gnosis. In Gnosis, there is a perfect knowledge that is sought. In Episteme, that perfect knowledge reveals itself. It all adds up and removes learner self-discipline and replaces, to me, in a more scholar academic role. The subject, the discipline, is pure and cannot be corrupted. Or am I confusing all the ideas we are being presented?
ReplyDeleteInteresting point Matt. I was intrigued by the transition of the word discipline in this weeks reading, and it got me wondering about the origins or multiple meaning words and how they came about. I can't help but wonder if the meaning was deliberately morphed, in an effort to clearly state that the new and improved line of thinking had moved beyond the control of ones self, as you described above, OR if the transition of the word was an after thought, where the idea, role, and practice developed, with the term discipline being later applied to the new concept, as if someone made a connection between the old and the new, but long after the transition had begun...
DeleteMatt, I think that it might be important to see the seperation of the Knowledge and Truth within Gnosis and Episteme. It seems as though within the Gnosis framework the Knowledge or Truth that one can hope to attain is all-inclusive. Whereas within the Episteme framework the Knowledge and Truth are now sectioned out into subjects. I like this transition from Gonsis into Episteme, because as a learner its hard to ever imagine that I would have a total understanding of everything within a Knowledge or Truth. The idea of seperating these subjects out makes it a little more plausible to move towards a truth or knowledge represented within a subject.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is an expansion on the subject, as a discipline, being pure and not influenced by corruption? But then again there is so much crossover between disciplines that is difficult to say that they are able to be left as pure. Certainly it can be seen within the educational process that subjects are so segregated from each other in the forms of instruction or the basis of knowledge that are to be gained.
Mackinley,
ReplyDeleteI read over that portion of the reading, perhaps a little too quickly. Because after going back and looking at the material, it did seem that there was a disregard for the idea of MI or the need for an individual to move between learning strategies.
If I'm looking at the movement of a learner to come to understand a Knowledge or Truth, wouldn't it then be understood that we all learn in various forms, even if we come to the same conclusions. In trying to better understand the differences between episteme and gnosis, it seems that it would be hard to count at the individual as varied which is a pretty important part of the understanding of the metaphysical. There it would seem important to see the the unique variations in people, instead of using that as a platform to move towards diagnosing or remediation as the term teaching was then understood.