pedagogical theory

[velvetpage]

http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1734


I'm caching this here to come back to later. It briefly discusses one of the items that has been bugging me subconsciously for a while now: the fact that I'm using a constructivist approach which ostensibly prioritizes the social construction of knowledge within a culture of critical thought while at the same time using and upholding a "hidden curriculum" based firmly in the perpetuation of middle-class core values, not least of which is a hierarchical authority that students must simply accept or else find themselves labeled and categorized as troublemakers.

It was a bit difficult to read because when discussing constructivism, he doesn't use that term, so I had to read between the lines to figure out which elements of my version of constructivism he was talking about, and which he was leaving out. He also used the term "hegemony" where I would have used the term "acculturation;" as far as I can tell the meaning is the same. As always, harmonizing the jargon is key to understanding the work. There are a few elements here that don't apply to me, since he's speaking specifically about the American context.

My feeling is that this dichotomy between classroom management based in the hidden curriculum and constructivist teaching methods for all knowledge and skills is the root of my struggles to create the type of classroom environment I envision. The methodological separation between behavioural expectations and academic expectations is contrived and doesn't work very well; the students I need to reach the most are the ones resisting the former out of self-defense as they perceive it, and then resisting the latter precisely because they are inseparable.

Comments

[labelleizzy.livejournal.com]

us overeducated teacher types can sometimes use a lot of jargon.

if you were going to explain what you are thinking about here to a non-teacher, would you use different language?

and AFAICT, Hegemony has the connotation of rulership or even forceful conversion to a given gulture (i.e. Greek hegemony in Macedonia and Crete in classical times) vs. acculturation, your term, is less forceful and more gradual in my view. Also, perhaps, kinder.

p.s. the students don't have to accept the hierarchical authority. Many simply won't. In a discussion about respect earlier today with my spouse, the question who gets respect? how is it earned? should I get respect automatically or do I have to earn it?

Do those students have to leave the educational establishment because they refuse to "give respect" to adults who have not earned it? Is that the right thing? Can there be other models of behavior and coping with the hierarchical strata that these kids will find actually align with the kids' own values? And do those other models *have* to be subversive by definition, or can they just be a case of "thinking outside the box"?

I look forward to your further cogitations on this topic.

[kisekileia.livejournal.com]

Agreed on hegemony vs. acculturation.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

The article is a summary of certain books, and I suspect the difference in the actual books is that school as an establishment is being seen as the driving force behind middle-class values, the body which stratifies people into the class they will continue to hold for the rest of their lives. In that sense, it is a cultural institution rooted in classism, which makes it a tool of cultural hegemony. The process at an individual level is acculturation (or enculturation, for middle class kids whose parents hold those same values.)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Many students won't accept the hidden curriculum, and when they don't, we punish them. We send them to the office, we make them write apology letters to the teachers they were rude to, we call their parents in for conferences, and we come down harder, sooner, on their repeat behaviour. In general, we make school rather uncomfortable for them. Then we turn around and ask them to think their way through the problem, there's no one right way to get this answer, what is the author trying to make you think and feel and do you agree - and a host of other questions and modalities that we don't allow them to apply to our behavioural expectations. No wonder they're confused.

I believe in (and teach) several levels of respect. I think all human beings on this planet deserve the first (one of many reasons I'm against capital punishment; it violates that.) The second is given to people in authority over you, and this is the one that kids generally rebel against. The third is respect for character and integrity, and it's earned. I can generally get the third out of my kids, because they know I'll listen to them and seek a path that will be fair and honest to everyone involved. It's the kids who don't really want to be fair to their peers who continue to have trouble with me. With those, I end up falling back on the second level of authority - you'll do this because I'm the teacher and you're the student and this is simply what students do when teachers ask them to do something.

Now I have to seek a way to teach kids who are rebeling against authority without appealing to it, and tie in constructivist principles of knowledge and learning while I'm at it.

[ankh-f-n-khonsu.livejournal.com]

cf. Gatto, Weapons of Mass Instruction.

[labelleizzy.livejournal.com]

yes to much of this. I have struggled with these issues as well.

The third is the one I try to work with the most in a classroom setting... and yes, the hypocrisy of treating high school students as though they are able to think, reason, empathize in one setting and like they are recalcitrant children in another, has not escaped me.

I think authority qua authority is generally an unhealthy idea for the soul-life of teachers or students, it crushes the spirit of justice and fairness and right-behavior that students are learning the rules of at this developmental stage. The Double-standard and the hypocrisy are parts of what drives students (and other people) nuts when they are trying to figure out ethical (or their personal) standards of behavior... the sheer unfairness of a treat this person this way because I said so, but you will be treated according to your apparent deserving, well it's maddening, isn't it?

You have reached a similar conclusion on this issue to what I have reached.

the most ethical and useful phrase I ever used with a rude, rebellious student (which doesn't work well in front of a whole-classroom, but there you go) is to quietly, calmly, and politely, work with your third level of respect. To one who mouths off rudely or hurtfully to you, in a teaching context, you simply say, holding their gaze, "Have I ever (treated you/spoken to you) in that tone of voice/in that manner?" It appeals to their sense of fairness, if you have been fair, polite, and respectful to them (as it sounds like you make a big effort to do).

I only wish that would work with the manipulative, nasty-minded adults I have sometimes worked with.
(meh)

Blessed be and best of luck in your work to bring these coping skills and self-awareness skills to your students. Keep writing!~

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

My biggest issue is dealing with the same behaviour cropping up in different contexts and with different students. Students don't seem to get that S would probably cry if I spoke sharply to her, while M won't notice me at all unless I speak sharply to him. So M figures I never discipline S, because he doesn't see me give her a teacher look that works - all he knows is I don't speak sharply to her. He sees that as unfair because it's not equal. He truly believes that I never discipline half the class, because he's always talking so he doesn't notice me quietly calling their attention back.

I've used the, "I've done nothing to deserve that disrespect from you," in the past. It only works on the kids who truly believe I'm trying to be fair. That's most of them, but it's not the M's of the world. They believe the world is out to get them, and when they set out to prove it, they either find or fabricate ample evidence.

[labelleizzy.livejournal.com]

Yup. And you can't be teacher AND therapist for all of them.

(sigh)

After four years, I really realized I had to do what I could with those who were willing, and minimise the damage from those who were not willing, doing outreach to the latter category when I had the energy. And that was all I could really do, in the end.

That experience is part of why I'm retraining to work in elementary, and specifically in the Waldorf system. I feel my management style can really do some good there, as can my knack for teaching beginners.

[kisekileia.livejournal.com]

It seems to me like this dichotomy could come up in parenting too. I'd guess parenting requires a pretty delicate balance between teaching your kids to think critically and ask questions, and making sure that your kids do actually obey you when it's really important.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Oh, absolutely. But parenting has the benefit of a relationship based in love (in theory, at least) which makes for a lot less simple appeal to authority once kids get to the point where they're challenging that.

[ankh-f-n-khonsu.livejournal.com]

Giroux is one of my personal heroes.

No, hegemony ≠ acculturation. Not even close to the same thing. Have you read any Gramsci?

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I know that, but the way it was used in the summary article made me think that either the summary was equating the two, or it wasn't very clear in what it meant by hegemony. I can see how the two concepts are related, but I couldn't get a clear idea of what he meant by hegemony in a classroom context from that article.

[ankh-f-n-khonsu.livejournal.com]

Well, hegemony is definitely promulgated through acculturation, so it's not like the two concepts are completely unrelated. It's moreso an issue of construing acculturation as a form of hegemony.

Gramsci is really *the* reference for hegemony. See: Hegemony in Gramsci's Original Prison Notebooks (http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/soc2r3/gramsci/gramheg.htm).

That aside, I grok your frustration with jargon - and enthusiasm for constructivism. Giroux advocates a socio-constructivist approach to critical pedagogy. His blend of cultural studies and critical pedagogy is woefully needed, IMO. But I'm biased because my grad research involves applying cultural studies to epistemic positionalities, a la Giroux. ;)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

That link is copyrighted to my (first) alma mater and hometown university. :)

At some point in the next couple of years, I'll be starting a Master's in education with a focus on the social and cultural contexts of education in Canada. (In Canada, you need a bachelor's degree to get into a program of teacher education which grants a second bachelor's degree; the master's is a theoretical degree that is designed for people who are teaching full-time while they take it. I know many American teachers have a M. Ed., but their M.Ed involves about the same amount of education as my B.A. and B. Ed. plus one or two additional courses.) I'm planning right now to write my thesis on the topic of enculturation and acculturation in Ontario schools, with a particular focus on the teaching of mathematics. It should be interesting, but it will be a while before I'm ready for that; among other things, I have to be able to drive forty minutes each way to St. Catharines to Brock University one or two nights a week, and I can't do that right now.

[ankh-f-n-khonsu.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm currently in BC and they have a similar series of hoops. However, I think there might be differences here in the MEd track. Here it's certainly not an issue of "people who are teaching full-time while they take it", but it is for teachers who want to refine their teaching practice through educational theory. The MA track, on the other hand, is less methodological in orientation and far more research-based and/or theoretical. And here MEd programs may or may not involve a thesis, but MA programs do. I think that's probably a local issue and suspect there might be wide variance across Canada.

Anyway, from what you describe there it sounds as though you're flirting with an MA rather than an MEd. Regardless, with your interest in math and acculturation, have you dug into any of Buckminster Fuller's explorations in math ed?