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
When thinking about your first question, I turn to his discussion on reflection. Each week Dr. Beach has us reflect on what we’ve learned. While this is a challenge, I have a great respect for it. As we reflect, we are making sense of what we’ve learned. It shows that we “get the gist” of what we know. If I truly reflect (and not summerize, which I’ve done) on what I’ve learned and can articulate it through words, it confirms that I understand what I’ve learned. Therefore, I see great value in reflection.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Bruner's challenge...
ReplyDeleteI see this challenge as making learning authentic, meaning providing experiences that relate to the students. As Bruner states, “...school begins to present so alien or so remote a vision of the world that many learners can find no place in it for them or their friends” (p. 98). If teachers present authentic problems that their culture is facing, students see value in what they are learning and take ownership of their learning. By giving students a Problem they are facing and providing them time to think about the Problem and a chance to work together collaboratively to find a solution (or not), gives them more control. I believe this way of teaching is very powerful.
I completely agree with your understanding of his vision. Where I struggle with it is how a teacher balances this approach in the age of reform and testing and accountability and mandates. I know that when authentic teaching and learning takes place, students reflect that knowledge and those processes and as a result, have greater achievement on those very tests most of us despise. However, the reality is that our system (the education system in general) does not align with the necessary freedom(s) needed to teach in that manner. I do believe we need to reform once again (as if it ever ends), but I don't know where we begin.
DeleteI too was really drawn to this particular quote. I battle with it everyday. My students often do not see the point in "school" but can see the point of some classes. But on a whole they are disconnected. On that same note, teachers are often disconnected. Even today, I had to be taught that authentic assignments, grading, or assessments are not nearly as important as entering a fallacy so that there has been a "grade" for the week. Essentially, it's better to grade behavior than learning. And being taught how to behave would also put me in "who cares" attitude, and I'm afraid many teachers are already there.
DeleteThe bulk of my current position is to support teachers in implementing inquiry based teaching and authentic lessons. I have found, like you Mackinley, teachers struggle to balance this with what they think is in conflict with testing. And you are right, research shows students do have higher achievement on standardized tests when learning this way. Bruner mentions specifically the school in Oakland (p 76) that is taking this approach and all the gains they are achieving. So, I think it goes back to a couple of things, and since you mentioned reform Im going to go there. First, are those in power keeping the system the way it is to make sure society says just productive enough to create wealth for them, but not mobile enough to challenge the status quo? Second, (and you may have heard me say this a number of times), why is school still based on an agrarian calendar where students (and teachers) are out for harvest season? Teachers should work year round and be compensated justly for their time. Certainly breaks should be taken, but teachers need time to plan such inquiry based lessons, to collaborate together to create cross curricular lessons and to decide and gather the resources they need to do so. Coming back to school 3 days before students return is a joke and though many teachers return much earlier on their own accord, the standard should be teachers having weeks to work together and plan their year.
DeleteTo me, there’s seems to be different types of spiral curricula. For example, I have taught Saxon Math in the past, which is considered spiral curriculum. As a teacher I did not like teaching it, because it did not make sense to me how Saxon planned each lesson. One day we would be adding decimals and the next day we would do a lesson on shapes. So, the arrangement of the lessons did not make sense to me. What I liked about Saxon was that each day the students did problems from past lessons, not just the current lesson. Thankfully, my school chose another math curriculum.
ReplyDeleteI was reminded of another type of curriculum when Bruner stated, “A good intuitive, practical grasp of a domain at one stage of development leads to better, earlier, and deeper thinking in the next stage when the child meets challenging new problems in that domain” (p. 120). This sounds like an online curriculum that a friend of mine is doing with her daughter at home. The curriculum builds upon previous skills and students can go at their own pace. Her daughter was very successful with the online school and actually skipped a grade.
Yet, I honestly don’t know if either of these examples are what Bruner is actually talking about!
Jenny OKCPS uses Everyday Math, which is a math curriculum published by McGraw Hill. I have taught EM in several grade levels and states and am very familiar and comfortable with it. It is a spiraling curriculum just as Bruner describes- it begins with "an "intuitive" account that is well within the the reach of a student, and then circle back later to a more formal or highly structured account, until, however many more recyclings are necessary, the learner has mastered the topic or subject in its full generative power."
DeleteI am not familiar with Saxon Math, but from your description it sounds as if it aligns somewhat with this model.
I would feel very confident in saying that most teachers who are asked to teach EM are not comfortable with the spiral, so much so to the point that they do not follow the curriculum as designed. And as we know, changing a teachers mind can be a very difficult thing to do, however once they understand the design and purpose (and have an opportunity to hear the research behind it), most teachers change their mind and are more willing to give it a try and trust the spiral as written for at least 1 year to see if it works (which they previously claimed it did not, but had never seen it through long enough to know).
I have not taken Curriculum Theory yet, so I don't know if this is the sort of things that will be discussed in that class, but I have to admit that I was excited to hear Bruner's claim that he was the one who had "proposed the concept of a "spiral curriculum"". I had no idea, and as an avid believer in EM, it was exciting to make that connection.
I really like this idea of a spiraling curriculum. It sounds like teaching! I guess my issue is can you teach a teacher to spiral without spiraling out of control. I do not expect an answer, but it alludes to something I've been wondering about in my own life and career. Of course, it has to do with Bruner. It's that I wonder if that type of culture is possible? It so often seems that teachers get caught in a curriculum and get good within it, to see it change, but we still lump this teaching as curriculum. In effect, the culture is do what is prescribed and do not deviate. Follow the instructions, teaching takes care of itself. These are not to be exclusive statements. Just thoughts rattling around after the chapters.
DeleteI also like the idea of a spiraling curriculum, but still not sure if I understand it enough to apply it to a content area. I see how it would work in elementary and I feel like it would work in secondary, but perhaps in a different way. Mackinley, the curriculum theory class I took discussed the aims of teaching, democratic education and also four theories of curriculum structure: scholar academic, social efficiency, learner centered and social reconstruction. I think if a spiral curriculum were to happen to fit in any one of these it would probably be learner centered because of the focus on the student and their grasp, however, I could see a case being made for social efficiency or social justice. Does anyone else that has taken that class see a different umbrella that it could come under?
ReplyDelete