As I was reading, I thought of these questions, and I'm curious to know how you would respond to them - and also what questions you had!
- On page 25, Schiro writes, "In assuming that there is a loose equivalence between the world of the intellect, the world of knowledge, and the academic disciplines, Scholar Academics also accept the belief that the contents of these three areas are identical." That seems to be quite a leap in logic. Does this seem to be rooted in a positivist view of the world, do you think? Why or why not?
- If knowledge is separated into these autonomous disciplines, how are there not infinitely many of them? Couldn't everything be thought of as its own discipline?
- How would schools be organized under this ideology?
- Describing the cycle of education in the SA ideology, Schiro says, "it involves dropping out of the discipline when one can no longer function as a constructive member of the discipline" (p 30). Who decides what is "constructive?" Then later, on page 37, "...all children were to have equal access to an excellent education." Are these statements contradictory?
- On page 47, it is stated that, "Although Scholar Academics profess an interest in the writings on learning theory produced by philosophers and social scientists, they tend to ignore such writings..." Then why be interested in them at all?
- This outlook on learning theory seems to be contradictory to the idea that "all students" should receive education in the academic disciplines. If we're ignoring how students best learn and focusing solely on the "nature of knowledge" in each discipline, aren't we leaving some out on purpose? Is it because they would be seen as not having a "knack" for that discipline?
I think that's enough to start with :-)
Great questions, Melissa! In response to your first question, I also felt as if this was a big leap to go from the three ideas having "loose equivalence" to being "identical." The more I look at this notion, the more I think I'm starting to understand it. By being identical, I think Schiro is saying that the three areas are dependent on one another. He seems to be suggesting that one cannot exist without the other. On page 25 he states, "The primary concern for schooling should be the development of the child's intellect, which involves the acquisition of knowledge, which in turn entails learning the content of the academic disciplines" (Schiro, 2013).
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I do believe this seems to be rooted in a positivist worldview. I think that positivism tends to be rely on reason and logic in order to determine authoritative knowledge. Compte, as mentioned in the text, was a positivist that believed in dependency relationships. In order to learn one subject, you may first need to see where it originated in order to fully understand it. He would say that "biology is dependent on chemistry, which is dependent on physics, which is dependent on mathematics, etc." (Schiro, 2013, p. 31).
I've been thinking more about your second question, Melissa. I think, in theory, there could be infinitely many disciplines, especially since the scholar academics hold to the idea that disciplines should be autonomous. Its seems, though, that the Committee of Ten did some work to narrow the number of subjects down from 40 to five. There must be some overarching categories that the disciplines fall under or things would get out of hand. For example, the discipline of science may consist of many subjects: botany, anatomy, physics, chemistry, meteorology, etc. So, while everything can be thought of as its own discipline, it makes sense to start categorizing in order to have some sort of structure.
ReplyDeleteI think this categorization of disciplines and subjects leads into trying to answer your next question about how schools are organized. Looking at the high schools I have been connected to, I would say most (maybe all) have been organized and influenced through the Scholar Academic ideology. We have disciplines (and subjects within those) that are autonomous, standing independently.
I think Noddings does a nice job of talking about the balance between subjects taught in the liberal arts. We rarely see mathematics teachers incorporating other areas of study in the curriculum. This might be against the SA way of thinking, but it seems reasonable. While Noddings seems to agree that liberal arts education is mostly good, there are some ways of making these disciplines more integrated, more holistic, and less "snobby." I feel like the organization of the school needs balance, or else it becomes really isolated. I'm starting to see the merits of the SA ideology, but also where its shortcomings are as well. There are so many things to think about this week!
And every week.... :-)
DeleteI think a SA would disagree with Noddings there, though, because as a "mathematician" (or "scientist," etc) I am concerned about the purity of my discipline, right? No need for application.
DeleteRight. I think they disagree as well. It's this idea of learning for learning's sake that Noddings takes issue with. I'd say they definitely disagree on most things.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAbout your question on page 47, I wonder if the scholar academic is interested in the subjects themselves. Since this ideology tends to focus on the purity of the discipline, those who adhere to it may see the purpose of studying the subject for the sake of the subject. They would then ignore its implications in other fields since disciplines are autonomous. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI think you may be on to something. Even as an "applied mathematician" the thinking of "let the physicists figure out how to use it" is still very prevalent. To a scholar-academic with these thoughts, math (even applied math) is studied for the sake of math. While to the physicist it is merely a tool to better study physics for the sake of physics.
DeleteAs I'm thinking about your fourth and final questions, I'm not sure if the two can be separated and they are causing me to think of more questions; therefore, I'll try to answer from some one else's vantage point. I think if Quirk were to try answering your question, he would say something to the affect of needing to train more quality teachers that can properly transmit core content to our students. Furthermore, reaching all students is done by having high standards in place for everyone and providing students with content knowledge that has been passed down from previous generations. I think he would also go so far to say that its not how the student learns, but what the student learns that is considered important. Focusing less on the process and more on the content itself may be a challenge for students, but "eventually they fly" (2011).
ReplyDeleteSo, I guess it boils down to not whether students have a "knack" for the knowledge, but what they have been taught early on by quality teachers, what they have remembered, and how they are growing in their content knowledge. In an ideal world, students would all receive the same core content based on the high quality standards in place, which provides an equal opportunity for all students to progress as far as they can within the subject. I'm not saying I agree or if it is right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle, but I thought I'd try to throw out an answer from a different point of view than Schiro or Noddings.
I'm sorry to be 'that guy' in the group...
ReplyDeleteI want to start with the second question you've posed. And I would like to share a comic that explains why there aren't infinitely many subjects...
[img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png[/img] (of course if pics are not enabled in comments, you'll have to copy and paste that address)
I don't know how to answer many of your questions (I honestly just finished the readings myself--thanks Army--and need more time to just reflect on the reading), but I am afraid that with respect to your third question, schools are very much already organized in a way that the scholar-academic would possibly approve of. Courses are delivered in isolation of each other (none of that social studies stuff in our math here) and the faculty is even split up in departments of knowledge transmitters that run in parallel to each other with relatively little impact on each other.
As for your fourth question, I imagine that the acceptance of unequal abilities may help. Every student is entitled access to excellent education, but if they are unable to contribute to the discipline, then it is imperative that they leave the discipline.