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?