velvetpage (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
velvetpage) wrote2010-06-06 09:06 pm
velvetpage) wrote2010-06-06 09:06 pm
Entry tags:
pedagogical theory
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.
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.
no subject
no subject