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]

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.

[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?