The three readings I chose were: A Richer, Broader View of Education (2015); Is Teaching a Practice (2003); and Learning from Our Students (2004).
Here were some thoughts that I had while reading it:
- As we have discussed before in class, Noddings puts a great deal of emphasis on student choice (e.g. "...provide the guidance students need to make wise choices among them," (p 236, 2015)). Are the kinds of choices she talks about possible?
- Noddings (again in 2015) states, "we should ask what each child can do and how we might help him or her to find an opportunity to do it," (p 236). How does this jive with the "spirit" of accountability? I guess what I'm asking here is - how do we accommodate students this way in spite of accountability?
- A good question raised by Is Teaching a Practice, I thought, was: Does teaching imply learning? Noddings seems to imply a two-way relationship between them in Learning from Our Students, but I wonder if the case can be made that is is not a two-way relationship?
- What do you think Noddings was speaking of when she says, "many of a teacher's acts do not have learning as the intention"? (p 243, 2003).
- On page 246, Noddings (2003) states that, "It is not the subjects themselves that induce critical thinking, but the ways in which they are taught and learned." What do you think a Scholar Academic might say to that?
That's enough to get you started, I'd wager - and also, who was major jealous of Noddings' time to read for pleasure as listed on page 158 of Learning from Our Students? I totally wrote in my margin: #lifegoals.
Happy Monday from Philadelphia!
Great question in regard to Scholar Academics and how critical thinking is taught in ways Noddings maintains is important. How I understand it is,,,each academic discipline has its own ways of reasoning and teaching its' members the discipline's core knowledge. On page 27, Schiro states that "Academic disciplines are not static communities concerned only with preservation of "what was." They are also extensions into "what will be". Within my own personal experience, there are Academic Scholars that do not foster critical thinking, but rather reflect the discipline "as the scholar himself regards that discipline" (Schiro, p. 26).
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, underlying the ideology of the Scholar Academic is man's ability to think, so I would say, that most scholars would induce critical thinking to further one's ability to reach a state of knowing based on reasoning and exercising one's intellect. This leads me wonder if extending learning (stretching the curriculum) across disciplines as Noddings suggests, is possible with Scholar Academics that are firmly set within their community and its' members. Would higher education, where Scholar Academics reside, extend their domains of knowledge across disciplines providing preservice teachers a different vision for 21st century classrooms?
Great questions indeed Melissa, Thanks! :)
DeleteI agree with you Barbara, to me SA also seems to include the ways of "critical thinking" in their teaching, as which is one of the scholar ways of thinking. Viewing SA as representing traditional (static) education is not fair (Schiro, p. 54). Rather SA stimulates children "to explore the exciting world of knowledge and intellect in the same manner as scholars goes far beyond traditional educational practice" (Schiro, p. 54). This "going beyond" aspect ties into the critical thinking piece I think.
I also think that you brought up an interesting follow-up topic. With SA's criteria for what belongs to academic subjects and what is not, I think that inter-disciplinary curriculum might be hard to realize under SA. As we discussed, under SA ideology, some subjects might not be regarded as "academic" discipline such as, education (professional discipline), law, andy maybe computer science as well. Thus, applying Nodding's notion of extending (stretching) curriculum might conflict with SA proponents. What do you think?
Yes, the push to explore and deepen knowledge, even within a particular discipline distinguishes SA as not merely a traditional static curriculum ideology. Is it valid to call that exploration deepening of knowledge evolutionary thinking instead of critical thinking? My thought is that each discipline, instead of coming to see its own idiosyncrasies and flaws, through the lens of other disciplines or communities, aims to preserve itself.
DeleteHi everyone! I think the main critique made by Noddings to the SA ideology is that it specifically tends to reduce itself to not reaching out to disciplines beyond the ones it values, and it erects fences between disciplines instead of creating space for a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena.
DeleteI will take my own example: when enrolled in a PhD program in History in France, I was investigating and comparing how two Native American historians wrote the history of their peoples. Every time I tried to read essays in sociology, anthropology and psychology, I was discouraged by my advisor. I was enrolled in a dual program (History and English) and both were rejecting my research because it was not too much imprinted in the other discipline.
Barbara, Schiro also mentioned your point regarding critical thinking in SA. However, he also explained that it is not the goal of SA. This is also why Noddings does not entirely reject this ideology, but seems to recenter it, moving it from one aim to another while embracing some of its core ideas. Thoughts?
Reginald, I see your point regarding disciplines trying to preserve themselves. Even when they seem to be overlapping in many ways (take "American history" - in a History department and "American civilization" - in an English department in France for example), they defend themselves and claim to be using different tools and methodologies for research. Having background in both, I see no difference but I'm aware I remain in the minority.
DeleteMelissa, to try to answer your first question regarding students' choices, I remain skeptical regarding the current stigma some choices are associated with. The hierarchy resulting from centuries of cultural habits and looking down upon the working class and vocational learning is difficult to undo, and when valued, it is often because it is associated with some kind of luxury. Take mechanics, for example, or a chef. When both jobs require a tremendous variety of knowledge, different types of skills, an understanding of systems, physics, chemistry, and perhaps more "social skills", they are often admired and applauded when visually attached to some type of luxury. Does this make sense?
I particularly like how Noddings advocates a shift in thinking about a comprehensive school for democracy (2015, p 233), but it requires so much more reflection not only on the part of the teachers, but also the administration, families, etc. One step at a time...
And again, how can choice be a choice in a society marked by social hierarchy? How can choice be a choice when we as teachers or school counselors are not familiar with so many professional pursuits?
For your first question about the guidance for "wise choices", I think yes it is possible. The choice example illustrated in the page 234 was about "tracking" between academic and vocational paths in high school. Noddings pointed out that students' track between the two was often "assigned" not "chosen" by themselves. This is against the one great aim of education in Nodding: to produce the better adults, as the students at that time of being "assigned" they were most likely remained passively. I think it is possible to give the guidance as long as the curriculum stretches across the disciplines with rich and broader education purpose. I really like Noddings' idea of connecting the disciplines (p. 235) as the effort of guiding students for the holistic and genuine intellectual interests, because through which, I believe that students will grow as better "adults" who can make a choice among the numerous paths waiting for them in their life. It is easier said than done, but I think we can. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI love the idea of giving students choices, however what if the choice they make as a junior in high school is completely different than the choice they want to make as a junior in college? I just think for this to be successful all of secondary ed would have to drastically change. I think as John state the curriculum would really have to stretch and all teachers would need to make sure a minimum was met, all students should be literate, and know basic math. My fear from the choice thing would be for students not to feel stuck... currently many colleges nation wide are going to pathways where as a freshman you decide what "path" or "meta-major" you lean more to... then you take more specific general education courses that fall within that umbrella of careers. This reminds me of what Noddings is suggesting in the high school. Where Noddings would not want to create a new tracking for students, students would have to be able to "switch" their choices... however this might cause them to have to go back and take different courses. I think this is typical in college, however because of time or money I feel some individuals feel stuck because they cannot take the time or afford to go back and take other courses, so often they stay put... so even though they have a "choice" does their environment keep them "tracked"?
DeleteHi Alana, I see your point about the possibility of being "stuck" as which in not unusual in our social structure. What I would like to add here for the "choice" concept is two, (biased by other SR theorists): (1) empowering students from being an object of the choice assigned by others towards being an active/thinking subject as a decision maker, and (2) as you mentioned, the overall social environment that supports this dynamic changes or adjustment regarding their choice is needed. This reminds me of the Finnish education system and social atmosphere that Noddings mentioned in her book, which encourages and supports students' decision making, and I believe which involves the rooms for "shifting" from one track to another along the way. Yes, just like you said and the Finnish example, the social agreement and environment needs to be made to support this "choice" consideration for students. It is not uncommon to see grown-ups, after even getting married and having children, regret for what they've done in their career path or academic path by saying, "well, now I see that this path was not what I was hoping for." One story resonates with me for this discussion. I heard that one very intelligent student's - with an affluent background - real dream was to become a taxi-driver, because he likes people and driving, but his parents wanted him to be a medical doctor. So, he went through all the MD path, and when he got the degree, he showed it to the parents, and bought a taxi. I don't remember the exact reference for this story, but this story illustrates the pressure or paradox of being "assigned" in a track to some extent. Noddings (2015) mentioned that "happiness" should be a part of our curriculum on page 234, and taxi-driving seemed strongly tied with the student's happiness. This story could be off the topic here, but this story is resonating with me for this discussion about having our school structure to support students' "choice". What do you think? Any comments or thoughts? :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I liked your story of the taxi driver. Alana, I too grabble with how choice would look in a system of systems. I have to believe there is a better way than how we conduct school in our middle and high schools. The courses outlined currently in our middle schools and high schools have no connection to the outside world. I've discussed many times in the blogs before that communities need to engage with the schools--not for an agenda to recruit, but to mentor and give an awareness to the different options of work and career outside the walls of school. Our system of course work that does not connect to the world allows for students to feel disengaged and frustrated spending time doing "work" with no understanding of how learning facts and information will connect with life outside of school. As a society, we can do better. I have to believe that. Our K-12 schools and its stake holders have to have leaders that will infuse our school system in a system where students see purpose in their schooling. We don't instill purpose--not as individuals or for their role in society. What outcomes can we expect from students that graduate if they don't have purpose?
ReplyDeleteI personally think we have to be careful when claiming that the courses in middle and high schools have no connection to the outside world. I can bake cookies without a timer because (in part admittedly) my understanding of Maillard reactions (thanks to high school chemistry). Even if I didn't teach mathematics, the habits of mind that I developed in those uncomfortable desks of my high school would still help me critically think through abstract problems. My two years of French in middle school helped me eat on my honeymoon in Paris (ok, probably not really, but I actually used it). I think the real problem with school experiences being disjoint from "reality" isn't that they have no connection, but that we as educators fail to temper expectations of the utility of our coursework. Maybe this is the argument you are making.
DeleteAs for the choice conversation, I think we all sort of agree that given the current structure of secondary schools it is incredibly hard to imagine how we can honor student choice while respecting (related to Alana's comment) the fact that choices may change.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell put Devon! I really like your examples. Actually, me too, now I can imagine how the engine in my car works thanks to my middle school technology class, which was designed for boys only. I agree with you that the ill-structured secondary schools hardly respect students' choices and the changes. One point to remember is whether the choice is 'assigned' by others or 'pursued' by students themselves. Noddings pointed out the necessity of holistic collaboration across disciplines to support this aspect I think.
DeleteAs to Melissa's earlier question: What do you think Noddings was speaking of when she says, "many of a teacher's acts do not have learning as the intention"? (p 243, 2003).
ReplyDeleteI think Noddings was most meaning that the teacher's acts do not have "learning" an objective as the intention... I think Noddings would argue potential learning can happen from any act. I think Noddings would say that the teacher is there to guide and through her actions the students can learn kindness, caring, manners, etc, even though the teacher did not write an objective and plan for such things to be learned.... what do yo think?
Alana, I appreciate your positive spin on the "learning as the intention" question. I immediately took Noddings' statement an indictment of those who enjoy hearing themselves talk before a "captured" audience moreso than inspiring critical thought and problem solving strategies. (I have been guilty of this "bad teaching" in my earlier days of teaching.)
ReplyDeleteNow, onto your more positive take. I believe in the old adage that says, "actions speak louder than words". There is much to be learned in observation of a teacher's manner, as mentioned by Noddings. As Noddings states, "a teacher's job extends well beyond introducing students to a particular subject" (2003, p. 245). When I hear students telling their horror stories about their experiences in first semester language classes, they always seem to refer, unknowingly, to the teachers manner, and the lack of the characteristics you above (kindness, caring, etc.).
Hi Alana and Reginal, I think that you pointed out very meaningful aspects and I agree with your interpretation. "The potential learning" through any act, as in Alana's wording, is one of the most meaningful and real teachings in my opinion. All the actions, voice tones, facial expressions, and others made by teachers are very crucial for making the curriculum itself, thus students will learn from them. This notion reminds me of Bernstein's point as well, students learn not only through the subject, but "more" from the teachers' actions, the relations between teachers and admins, and all the school's relation environment. Hidden 'objectives' are always there, so hidden (often multiple kinds) learning occurs simultaneously and dynamically. I really care about what I do in the classroom after learning this notion. What about you? :)
Delete