pedagogical theory
Jun. 6th, 2010 09:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
velvetpagehttp://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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-07 07:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-07 10:42 pm (UTC)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. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-07 11:45 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-08 12:31 am (UTC)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?