"Teaching is multifaceted. The teacher wears many hats" (p.2) I went into this read with the challenge that was presented to us during class, many times, "Think globally." With that framework in place, thinking about the theoretical issues that will be discussed in this book, I wonder how this view, or martyr-esque pressure, that a teacher may place on themselves here in the U.S. would compare or contrast to that of our fellow teachers around the world? Even within our society, at the highest levels of education, do educators wear many hats? Take for example all of the terrible professors that we have had in the past, it doesn't seem that they wear too many hats, perhaps only one, lecturer. Dumper of knowledge into our empty tanks. What about around the world where in many cultures the teacher is held with such high regard, even over a student's guardian or parental figure/s, are they taking upon themselves the burden that teachers who guiltily strive for the lofty goals, of creating the great learning environment where all perspectives are respected?
Trying to return to a open-minded and eager want to investigate the material, Davis then continues into using Darwin's Theory of Evolution and to use Davis's phrasing of Darwin's theory, "is slowly but surely nudging lifeforms toward perfection", (p.20). Are we as educators moving towards perfection? And if that perfection is actually attainable, and we are in fact broadening our own terms of education to incorporate the different hats a teacher wears to be better suited for the needs of our students, then why are so many people leaving education as a profession? Are we really moving toward a more perfect type of teacher, better equipped to take on the challenges of education? Or are we setting ourselves up to be so overwhelmed to the point of quitting?
Considering Davis's thoughts on the idea that, "gnosis points us toward wisdom and ethical action, episteme points to the rational and pragmatic competencies that allow us to function in the physical world." (p.30). To me this resounds the nature of praxis within our studying of pedagogical theory and the implementation of those ideals. Perhaps some of the great educators so much about the epistemological views within a "gnosis" point of view, that we are never able to carry out the "episteme" in our function within and outside of the classroom.
Davis continues, "many systems and events emerge in the interactions of agents that are themselves dynamic and adaptive." (p.94). Does our educational system move in a fluid nature that can be seen within this type of systematic interaction? Is our educational system over powered by those who are dynamic and an adaptive in ways that undermine what we would hope our educational system to resemble. With so many involved in the decision making process, it becomes hard to hold out hope for an educational system that seeks to carry out both the hopes of "gnosis" and "episteme" within education.
Interobjectivist discourses as Davis states, "their shared concern is the social construction of knowledge", (p.110). Hope for our educational system can certainly be rooted in the grounds of continued interobjectivist discourses that are shared by, what may seem to be such varied and differing views of education, policy makers and those who are subject to them. What will it take for the two to find a common thread of epistemology?
Although I missed class last week, Mackinley shared her notes and explained to me that we needed to “think globally” in our blogs. At first, this concept intimidated me because I am often so caught up in my tenth grade bubble at U.S. Grant high school that I don’t even consider educational progress or practice happening globally, so I am happy for the challenge. I really like the example Adam used when discussing the idea of teachers wearing many hats, and I truly believe they do. I’m not as researched as I should be about educational practices happening around the world; however, I do imagine it is impossible, especially working with younger students, not to be “caring, conditioning, educating,” etc. I do, however, find the contrast of professors that Adam uses to be quite interesting and true in many instances, especially during non-major courses. I often encountered professors who were simply lecturers and could not help me understand even in one-on-one conferences during office hours. There was one hat, from what I could tell, that they wore. I wonder if teachers in countries where there is more educational pressure on young students to be highly successful wear that same hat as lecturer and or instructor and leave the other multifaceted hats that we have become accustomed to out of the picture.
ReplyDeleteI then pondered on Adam’s question of “are we as educators moving towards perfection?” Davis examines the contradictions found in words we use to describe educators when he states that “it is not unusual…to encounter references to teaching as instructing and facilitating in the same sentence despite that these terms actually point to conflicting, even contradictory assumptions about learning” (p. 2)
Adam then asks, “Are we as educators moving towards perfection? And if that perfection is actually attainable, and we are in fact broadening our own terms of education to incorporate the different hats a teacher wears to be better suited for the needs of our students, then why are so many people leaving education as a profession? Are we really moving toward a more perfect type of teacher, better equipped to take on the challenges of education? Or are we setting ourselves up to be so overwhelmed to the point of quitting?”
Maybe part of the reason that teachers do feel overwhelmed and are leaving teaching is because we are in a profession that is telling us we should do one thing while making it impossible for us to do that one thing. Teachers are told not to teach to a test; however, tests scores are a vital part of their evaluation system. I know at least here, nationally, this is problem friends of mine who teach all over the country face every day. Teachers can’t ignore the fact that testing exists, especially for low achieving students.
Educational systems seem to be broken, even though there are so many educated individuals in education who seem to have wonderful theories as to successful implementation. I’ve been in graduate school for many years and have read many books on successful practices/theories, yet I do not see these tools being implemented. Many teachers who try are faced with bureaucratic obstacles. Teachers are frustrated with the system in many cases.
Stacey you said "we are in a profession that is telling us we should do one thing while making it impossible for us to do that one thing."
DeleteThis makes me think of something that Dr. Beach has said to me on numerous occasions since I began her class last semester: "You need to begin thinking more like a scholar and less like a practitioner."
(Dr. Beach you are not allowed to get mad at me for what I am about to say!)
Now, while I understand this thought when it comes to being able to see education and teaching as a bigger picture picture than the little snapshot than I have from my classroom experiences, I can't help but wonder if this mindset isn't part of the conundrum that Stacey described...
why curriculum doesn't meet the needs of the diverse students in today's classrooms...
why new teachers say that their teacher prep program did nothing to prepare or equip them for the realistic demands of the classroom...
why the nationwide average years of experience of teachers in the classroom is now less than two, and why most teachers leave within five years of beginning their teaching career...
why any teacher you ask, regardless of grade level, school, district, or state, will tell you that they feel their is a tremendous disconnect from those that tell them what to do and what they can do on a day-to-day basis in their classrooms...
I wonder how we begin to attack this issue of scholarly expectations and promises vs realistic demands and consequences?
Will change come from within or from the outside? Will teachers demand the opportunity to teach and assess their students in more flexible ways? Will parents demand that the system change in ways that require "good" teaching, not "good" testing? Will administrators defy authority and implement programs that allow students and teachers to demonstrate success in ways that do not align with stated government expectations? Will legislators release control back to the districts and schools upon the realization that what they've put into place hasn't had the desired effect?
I've got lots of questions and not many answers, but I appreciate the clear and concise manner in which you made this statement. :)
When reading chapter 3's section about the metaphysical and looking at the ideas surrounding gnosis, I was reminded of Rosenblatt's Reader Response Theory. Davis discusses how art is viewed and the idea of "author's purpose" (which ironically is the unit the 10th grade team is starting at Grant). He says it seems "that when a painting, play, piece of music, or another work of art is presented, the first question to come up is around the artist's intention. What was the painter, author, or composer trying to say: (P.28). Davis continues by stating that "such a question is rooted in the assumption that the artist is fully aware and in full control of the elements that are woven together into a finished piece" (p. 28). He explains that gnosis and episteme balanced each other out and that "expressive forms," meaning various forms of art, "would not likely have interpreted so narrowly" (p. 28). He reminded me of Rosenblatt's Reader-Response Theory which I used in my thesis with application of art in ELA classrooms when Davis quoted Philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer who suggests "art, to be art, must fulfill a twofold function. First, it must represent-that is, it must remind the experiencer of something familiar. Second, it must present-that is, it must offer new interpretive possibilities, one that are not necessarily accessibly to even the artist" (p. 29). Rosenblatt suggested the same for readers. There is not a singular meaning of texts. Every reader brings their own experiences and makes meaning of the text, meaning that is personal to them.
ReplyDeleteWith all of this being said, I find it interesting that standardized curriculum chooses to place so much emphasis on determining what the author is saying. It all ties in to what Davis says about the changed that occurred in the 1600s when gnosis and episteme were seen as contradictory instead of types of knowledge that were able to coexist (p. 26).
This same section of text also stood out to me, yet I do not know anything about RRT, so it's interesting to see the connection that you've made.
DeleteI really struggled through Chapter 10 (too many big words, big ideas, and just a rough one to wrap my head around), however one thing Davis discusses on p.100 is that "Human perception is fallible. The world we see is not the world as it is, but the world as we have learned to see it..."
I feel like this also helps support your connection between the two. As a reader, one interprets the text based on their own experiences, whether or not those are correct or incorrect in relation to the intended meaning. What do you think? Am I way off here?
Chapter 10 was tough for me as well. During all of the chapters I was experiencing "mind blowing" revelations. As Davis describes the shifts in human thought process throughout history with the revelations of new philosophies, I began to evaluate how much my thoughts are determined by what others have written about. One thing that stood out to me in chapter 10 (I believe) was the discussion around Marx who famously challenged God as creator but humans as creator of the idea of God. That concept goes along with the quote you used above, Mackinley. "Human perception is fallible. The world we see is not the world as it is, but the world as we have learned to see it." It's interesting to try to comprehend the idea that everything around us, everything we find important or necessary, it could all be a result of the mind shift after different philosophical periods.
DeleteStacey when you said "I began to evaluate how much my thoughts are determined by what others have written about", it brought me to a conversation that we are having in the multicultural class Adam and I are in right now. It revolves around the idea that we (and far too many other students in America) have such a washed out view of history, as many events are overlooked and even omitted in history textbooks. We are realizing the need for either new or heavily supplemented curriculum in order to provide students with a far more realistic exposure to the often ugly, and embarrassing, history of our country. This is so reflective of your aforementioned comment about believing or basing your thoughts around what someone has written. Whether a text book or theoretical reflection, there is definitely a need to read and examine with a discerning ear.
DeleteIn response to Mackinley:
ReplyDeleteChapter 10 wasn't my favorite either, but it did seem to just kind of repeat some common ideas and feelings that we all have, just with a little more emphasis and time to be able to articulate those ideas.
Sometimes I just feel, maybe not deflated, but more on the margins as a teacher who would try to advocate for change within today's educational system. And if there are groups that are on the margins within the States, then we might as well not even place those who are in even more extreme situations on the spectrum of what marginalization means.
As an educator, no matter your setting, it should be a state regulation that you must go and teach something in another country. Or better yet, as a POLICY maker, it should be required that you go and visit the lowest "achieving" school in your state. I'd let the state take a tax out of my pay check for that. Then maybe there might be a shift to expand everyone's perspective towards a more global account of educational realities.
In response to Stacey:
I think that there can be some overarching themes that we as educators can always value as important or necessary. Some of those ideologies we have don't change per say, but we just learn how to implement them into new schemas or opportunities. Either way I don't know if I felt the same mind blowing revelations in chapter 10. It seemed that most of the ideas and phrasings are the general consensus that teachers may have, or what we've heard, in most of our educational discourse when we are in class. I was hoping to find something really new and liberating when the writing was focused on human perception and its nature to shift from one idea to the other.
I think Chapter 10 blew my mind in the "Oh dear heavens what are they even talking about kind of way?" lol
DeleteI really enjoyed Chapters 1-3, and was kind of surprised that I did. In particular I enjoyed all of the morphology and explanation of words and relationships among and between words, as that is certainly a huge area of interest for me.
I felt like the first 3 chapters helped make connections for me, ones that had been previously discussed, but had not really melded together in my mind yet. In particular were the ideas of knowledge, meaning, teaching, and learning and the different roles they play in gnosis and episteme. I was not familiar with either of these terms prior to this class, and yet just in the first 2 weeks of class I feel like we laid the groundwork for me to be able to grasp onto these concepts a little better. I am really looking forward to reading the rest of this book!