Just a few random thoughts that I've been tinkering with as of late, or that I've been tinkering with for a while.
Curriculum as student: students define their curriculum because of who they are today, not because of what they should be. Who does curriculum think you are? Recall Ellsworth's paper.
21st century learning: learning communities whose individuals have differentiated skills, or should everyone have to know the same thing? See a paper by Katerine Bielaczyc and Allan Collins, Learning Communities in Classrooms: Advancing Knowledge for a Lifetime, in the NASSP Bulletin, Febraury 1999.
Justice in education: what's right? Career education first? Maybe show career paths to with detailed presentations of the skills, not just the courses to take, to get there.
A just society, what should it look like? Pierre Trudeau had a vision of one. Did Canada become a better place after Trudeau?
Friday, April 11, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Class 12: April 7, 2008
Closure
What a way to end: art deconstruction. I wasn't sure tonight if I had learned more about being an art critic or a curriculum designer! Both works were quite thought provoking. I haven't been to the WAG in years... many years. Maybe its time for a trip.
One of the sharp sticking points for me in this course was the concept of deconstruction. It's not as if I have not deconstructed anything in my life. I, and all of us, have been deconstructing all kinds of things since birth (though not necessarily consciously). During this course, however, the term took on a new meaning. So, I read a little bit about Derrida. It was worth it.
Marshall McLuhan was a great deconstructor. Recall from McLuhan's Wake that is was said that Marshall needed to get right to the bottom of things. I found a kindred spirit in McLuhan in that way. I am notorious for wanting to prove everything at an axiomatic level. Once I can't dig any deeper, it is then that I think I've achieved necessary understanding. With curriculum and education, the exercise it is quite interesting. We really need to become philosphers and ask the big questions, like, "What's the point of it all?" Who does education serve? Curriculum really is a tool in the social construction process, no? We shape out tools, then they shape us? I think so. Yet, it's not something totally unnatural. I am not necessarily a Darwinian evolutionist, but I believe in evolution nonetheless. I think of the neanderthal with the bone in the Space Odyssey clip. Discovery is natural, and how much by accident? And, once we discover how to think, the eureka moments just keep coming. We even learn to consciously deconstruct the reality that shapes us. What a life! There is so much to learn. What is possible? What can we know? If I'm going on a tangent, well, I'll forgive myself. I must make that trip to the WAG.
I'm still thinking about those paintings. With Rockwell, if the man's head is at the center, then perhaps with the suggestion of the cosmos in the colour painting, it means that there is one mind at the center of the universe, reality, reason, truth. Who's the author of truth? Maybe some guy in a grey suit who walks with an umbrella, even on sunny days. You think that guy ever rode a horse? It looks more to me like he's dressed to ride on a train. I just went back to look at the Colville painting in Google images (see the course blog for the link) and considered this idea. There is a single light on the train (if someone said this in class, I didn't hear it well). Might the horse be drawn to the light? What if the horse went into the light? Perhaps then a transformation occurred: the old horse died... the horse changed, saw things differently, changed direction, and became the light itself. At one time, neanderthal man was wild and free, but one day, became aware of the light of reason, and voila... progress. With reason, neanderthals could light their own way, construct their own reality... change the direction of their lives. Who knows... it's a painting! Must go the WAG.
What a way to end: art deconstruction. I wasn't sure tonight if I had learned more about being an art critic or a curriculum designer! Both works were quite thought provoking. I haven't been to the WAG in years... many years. Maybe its time for a trip.
One of the sharp sticking points for me in this course was the concept of deconstruction. It's not as if I have not deconstructed anything in my life. I, and all of us, have been deconstructing all kinds of things since birth (though not necessarily consciously). During this course, however, the term took on a new meaning. So, I read a little bit about Derrida. It was worth it.
Marshall McLuhan was a great deconstructor. Recall from McLuhan's Wake that is was said that Marshall needed to get right to the bottom of things. I found a kindred spirit in McLuhan in that way. I am notorious for wanting to prove everything at an axiomatic level. Once I can't dig any deeper, it is then that I think I've achieved necessary understanding. With curriculum and education, the exercise it is quite interesting. We really need to become philosphers and ask the big questions, like, "What's the point of it all?" Who does education serve? Curriculum really is a tool in the social construction process, no? We shape out tools, then they shape us? I think so. Yet, it's not something totally unnatural. I am not necessarily a Darwinian evolutionist, but I believe in evolution nonetheless. I think of the neanderthal with the bone in the Space Odyssey clip. Discovery is natural, and how much by accident? And, once we discover how to think, the eureka moments just keep coming. We even learn to consciously deconstruct the reality that shapes us. What a life! There is so much to learn. What is possible? What can we know? If I'm going on a tangent, well, I'll forgive myself. I must make that trip to the WAG.
I'm still thinking about those paintings. With Rockwell, if the man's head is at the center, then perhaps with the suggestion of the cosmos in the colour painting, it means that there is one mind at the center of the universe, reality, reason, truth. Who's the author of truth? Maybe some guy in a grey suit who walks with an umbrella, even on sunny days. You think that guy ever rode a horse? It looks more to me like he's dressed to ride on a train. I just went back to look at the Colville painting in Google images (see the course blog for the link) and considered this idea. There is a single light on the train (if someone said this in class, I didn't hear it well). Might the horse be drawn to the light? What if the horse went into the light? Perhaps then a transformation occurred: the old horse died... the horse changed, saw things differently, changed direction, and became the light itself. At one time, neanderthal man was wild and free, but one day, became aware of the light of reason, and voila... progress. With reason, neanderthals could light their own way, construct their own reality... change the direction of their lives. Who knows... it's a painting! Must go the WAG.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Class 11: March 24, 2008
Second to last class! This has been a great course. Denis' leadership and the contributions from everyone has made for a very rich experience. Thanks to you all!
Deconstruction
An interesting exercise with the poem. To me, the definition of the word deconstruction was straight forward. If construction meant to assemble, then deconstruction simply meant to disassemble. However, as we learned, the key in the deconstructive disassemblage is to have the words speak as they are. This is curious. How do words speak without a meaning assigned through everyday use? Is not language socially constructed? What can words mean when strung together? We have talked about authorship and that it is the author who can really clarify the intention of his/her text, be it poetry or prose. But, as we again discussed tonight, texts can take on multiple meanings independent of any intention. As words stand alone or in combination without an authority to explain their intention, they present different meanings for their readers, meanings derived from the frames of reference of the readers. The simplicity of this at its root is beautiful... a little like math! Deconstruction: yet another critical modality (see http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/derrida/deconstruction.html).
Sidebar Thoughts
Language as a communication technology - it seems so. Language as medium - it seems so. Langauge as message - yes, but which one? One medium, many messages. Social control through language? Why not? Which language: English, French? How about music? Maybe art? Is Curriculum a language? Sure.
This is fun. Yet, after an analysis of what curriculum could be, especially in light of text deconstruction, it seems clear that curriculum is for sure but one thing: a word. And if a word, then how about just a brick!
Goodyear
The reasons why the word curriculum was chosen to describe plans of designated study is irrelevant, but at an atomic level, it is interesting to consider linguistics and how certain combinations of symbols were assigned particular meanings. The Curriculum Design course could be analyzed the same way. The concepts presented came in a particular order, as did the readings/presentations.
As we moved through the course, it became clear that there were significant relationships amongst the readings. There was a grand plan being discovered at the same time as it was being followed. Though in the course a formula for how to design a curriculum was not explicitly stated, the readings shed light on the fundamental elements to be considered when desigining one: philosophy, context, content, organization.
Goodyear's framework includes fundamental elements that interact when a curriculum is being created. For me, the most significant is the pedagogic philosophy, yet environment can dictate a philosophic stance taken. The cyclic orientation of the framework is strong because curriculum needs to be open-ended, always ready to change with the wind. This is postmodern and allows becoming, as Baudrillard would say. A 21st century design should be guided by such a framework.
Deconstruction
An interesting exercise with the poem. To me, the definition of the word deconstruction was straight forward. If construction meant to assemble, then deconstruction simply meant to disassemble. However, as we learned, the key in the deconstructive disassemblage is to have the words speak as they are. This is curious. How do words speak without a meaning assigned through everyday use? Is not language socially constructed? What can words mean when strung together? We have talked about authorship and that it is the author who can really clarify the intention of his/her text, be it poetry or prose. But, as we again discussed tonight, texts can take on multiple meanings independent of any intention. As words stand alone or in combination without an authority to explain their intention, they present different meanings for their readers, meanings derived from the frames of reference of the readers. The simplicity of this at its root is beautiful... a little like math! Deconstruction: yet another critical modality (see http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/derrida/deconstruction.html).
Sidebar Thoughts
Language as a communication technology - it seems so. Language as medium - it seems so. Langauge as message - yes, but which one? One medium, many messages. Social control through language? Why not? Which language: English, French? How about music? Maybe art? Is Curriculum a language? Sure.
This is fun. Yet, after an analysis of what curriculum could be, especially in light of text deconstruction, it seems clear that curriculum is for sure but one thing: a word. And if a word, then how about just a brick!
Goodyear
The reasons why the word curriculum was chosen to describe plans of designated study is irrelevant, but at an atomic level, it is interesting to consider linguistics and how certain combinations of symbols were assigned particular meanings. The Curriculum Design course could be analyzed the same way. The concepts presented came in a particular order, as did the readings/presentations.
As we moved through the course, it became clear that there were significant relationships amongst the readings. There was a grand plan being discovered at the same time as it was being followed. Though in the course a formula for how to design a curriculum was not explicitly stated, the readings shed light on the fundamental elements to be considered when desigining one: philosophy, context, content, organization.
Goodyear's framework includes fundamental elements that interact when a curriculum is being created. For me, the most significant is the pedagogic philosophy, yet environment can dictate a philosophic stance taken. The cyclic orientation of the framework is strong because curriculum needs to be open-ended, always ready to change with the wind. This is postmodern and allows becoming, as Baudrillard would say. A 21st century design should be guided by such a framework.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Class 10: March 17, 2008
Marsh
First, thanks to Kala for bringing the Samosas and Timbits... and the sauce. Very well enjoyed.
Marsh for me read pretty straight forward. It would be a good paper for those in a pre-service program to read, to give an overview of the issues surrounding curriculum development.
My favourite part of the paper was the curriculum game section on the last page. I liked it because it calls us to play the philosophical game called Curriculum. For me, it is actually an invitation to consider both curriculum design and the purpose of education. Having said that, I can invoke my partiality to chaos theory and ask these questions: 1) Why should one be educated and by whom? and 2) Why should anyone care to educate another; that is, what's in it for the educator to educate anyone?
If we consider societies like those tribal we saw in the Space Odyssey clip in class one, we can imagine that among those people there will be some who will be touched by different experiences, external and internal. Today, we may call such people gifted in a particular area. No society is homogeneous: there will always be those clever and cunning, able to discern truths that live amongst the group, and those not so perceptive. Those wise, gifted in the discernment of truth, don't have to share what they know, the truths they have discovered. Why should they? Sharing knowledge means sharing the power to survive.
So, why educate? Is it a moral good to do so? Perhaps. Is there a fortune to be made? Maybe. The easy thing to do is play the curriculum game with the pieces offered by Marsh. The more difficult task is to define the role of education in society. It may be obvious: enact a (someone's) vision, or develop individuals, or support social emancipation (as Freire might say). But, it may be that at a very basic level, curriculum is just a weapon in the human drama of good vs. evil. It's fun to consider such ideas... it really is like a game.
Cyber-bullying
Like Dianne said in class, it all begins with a person's moral disposition. If a person knows it is wrong to defame someone, then even in a cyberworld, that person will not commit defamation. I am of the pursuasion that parents have a lot to do with the moral development of their children, and that they are the ones who should monitor their childrens' internet or cellphone use. I don't think it's an option for parents to claim ignorance about technology, perhaps saying that "the kids know more than I do." Parents have the inherent responsibility to know about the world with which their children interact. As Denis had said in class and on CJOB Thursday morning (March 20th - I didn't hear it, just heard about it), kids are travelling the globe before being able to cross the street. If parents want their kids to be able to criss-cross the globe, they had better first teach them to look all ways before they cross a street!
Plagiarism
Here's a new definition for plagiarism, which so far as I know is original: postmodern academic disease. Here's another one: cut and paste syndrome. The last one is not so original.
Plagiarism has been made easier thanks to technology. Years ago, to plagiarise, someone would need to write out the text, or type it, thereby expending some real energy. Having said that, a problem with plagiarism at the school level may just be ignorance; that is, students may have never been taught about it. So, should parents have a responsibility here too? At the university level, there is no excuse.
The music examples were funny. The Twinkle Twinkle Little Star melody sure has made its mark. I wonder about Row Row Row Your Boat! Something about rowing a boat... people need to row their own boat (an excerpt from a recorded work by Dr. Wayne Dyer).
First, thanks to Kala for bringing the Samosas and Timbits... and the sauce. Very well enjoyed.
Marsh for me read pretty straight forward. It would be a good paper for those in a pre-service program to read, to give an overview of the issues surrounding curriculum development.
My favourite part of the paper was the curriculum game section on the last page. I liked it because it calls us to play the philosophical game called Curriculum. For me, it is actually an invitation to consider both curriculum design and the purpose of education. Having said that, I can invoke my partiality to chaos theory and ask these questions: 1) Why should one be educated and by whom? and 2) Why should anyone care to educate another; that is, what's in it for the educator to educate anyone?
If we consider societies like those tribal we saw in the Space Odyssey clip in class one, we can imagine that among those people there will be some who will be touched by different experiences, external and internal. Today, we may call such people gifted in a particular area. No society is homogeneous: there will always be those clever and cunning, able to discern truths that live amongst the group, and those not so perceptive. Those wise, gifted in the discernment of truth, don't have to share what they know, the truths they have discovered. Why should they? Sharing knowledge means sharing the power to survive.
So, why educate? Is it a moral good to do so? Perhaps. Is there a fortune to be made? Maybe. The easy thing to do is play the curriculum game with the pieces offered by Marsh. The more difficult task is to define the role of education in society. It may be obvious: enact a (someone's) vision, or develop individuals, or support social emancipation (as Freire might say). But, it may be that at a very basic level, curriculum is just a weapon in the human drama of good vs. evil. It's fun to consider such ideas... it really is like a game.
Cyber-bullying
Like Dianne said in class, it all begins with a person's moral disposition. If a person knows it is wrong to defame someone, then even in a cyberworld, that person will not commit defamation. I am of the pursuasion that parents have a lot to do with the moral development of their children, and that they are the ones who should monitor their childrens' internet or cellphone use. I don't think it's an option for parents to claim ignorance about technology, perhaps saying that "the kids know more than I do." Parents have the inherent responsibility to know about the world with which their children interact. As Denis had said in class and on CJOB Thursday morning (March 20th - I didn't hear it, just heard about it), kids are travelling the globe before being able to cross the street. If parents want their kids to be able to criss-cross the globe, they had better first teach them to look all ways before they cross a street!
Plagiarism
Here's a new definition for plagiarism, which so far as I know is original: postmodern academic disease. Here's another one: cut and paste syndrome. The last one is not so original.
Plagiarism has been made easier thanks to technology. Years ago, to plagiarise, someone would need to write out the text, or type it, thereby expending some real energy. Having said that, a problem with plagiarism at the school level may just be ignorance; that is, students may have never been taught about it. So, should parents have a responsibility here too? At the university level, there is no excuse.
The music examples were funny. The Twinkle Twinkle Little Star melody sure has made its mark. I wonder about Row Row Row Your Boat! Something about rowing a boat... people need to row their own boat (an excerpt from a recorded work by Dr. Wayne Dyer).
Monday, March 10, 2008
Class 9: March 10, 2008
Ornstein
The medical perspective Francis brought to Ornstein was revealing about medical school and was overall good food for thought. Last week, Francis told about the artificial bodies that will be used for medical education, citing them as simulacra. This week, he posed some very key questions about how to teach the "soft" skills of medicine: sympathy, empathy and response to sorrow.
Angela also mentioned last week that patients are now more reluctant to have medical students involved in their diagnosis and treatment, which consequently has led the medical profession to adopt the artificial patient as an education solution. Now, I commented tonight that sympathy, empathy and response to sorrow can't be taught, but come about by direct experience. Actually, as Angela called them tonight, "those unassessable skills", might be able to be taught through narratives, as Francis pointed out. In a large degree, however, I think those skills are learned through experiences as we mature, but the experiences we have that develop them need not be traumatic. The simple win/lose outcome of a hockey game can teach about sorrow, and enduring the frustration of a math problem with a friend can invoke sympathy. It is significant to note here that what is common to these situations is real people. Those soft skills are learned with other human beings, not with robots. How can upcoming doctors learn the soft skills if they are not interacting with human patients?
The design models discussed in the article have, of course, educational philosophies behind them. It seems that it was no coincidence that Denis had us look at Goodyear's work prior to class and then have us engage in a curriculum framework activity. Ornstein's article was all about framework.
The construct of a curriculum framework is abstract and leads to the idea of universality, something we talked about more when Brad presented the Chambers article. My play on universality is this: can there be a universal curriculum model sufficiently abstract to absorb all possible instances of specifically tailored curricula? In the computer science world, it is possible. Such an abstraction is called a class, in particular, an abstract class. These terms come from the world of object-oriented programming, which is a way to program computers so that data and procedure code are grouped together into "objects", which are nothing but instantiated classes which have been defined to do specific things. An example of such objects are textboxes and labels that are available for PowerPoint (or Visual Basic, if you are a programmer). Both can perform specific tasks and store basic data. One, however, is not able to receive input, while the other can. These specifically designed tools are built from a common abstract class, perhaps called DATA. To create the abstract class DATA, the designer would include a data area that would store the text input in a textbox or displayed via a label. And in the abstract class, that item could just be called TEXT. But now, what could be done with TEXT? It could be copied, cut, pasted, printed. These actions on the text could be, in the abstract class, defined by an item called ACTION, and multiple actions could be defined in a specifically defined class based on the abstract class, say a class called TEXTBOX. The textbox class would inherit all the properties of the abstract class, but redefine them to fit its specific purpose. Basically, what is written in Ornstein can be mapped to each level identified in Goodyear's framework, which is the same type of construction as an object-oriented abstract class. For example, Ornstein's Society as Source might be the Philosophy in Goodyear's framework. Broad Fields Design could be the High Level Pedagogy, and the Pedagogic Strategy could be a Thematic Unit. You can fill in for the Pedagogic Tactics.
So, where does postmodernism and the likes of the authors we've read thus far fit into a framework design? I suggest that Baudrillard's point-of-view would be influential in determining the philosophical dimension of a curriculum design. "What are the outcomes desired by those who engage the curriculum?" might be the guiding philosphical question, which is consistent with Tyler's first question, "What are the purposes of the school?" From here, the other layers of the design can be addressed, but interestingly, the design process probably wouldn't be linear. We all know what it is like to plan a unit or lesson. We go back and forth, from goal to activity and back, hashing and rehashing our ideas until we are satisfied that the students will get the best we have to offer them. We need to look at designs from the top down, but too from the bottom up.
Regarding a postmodern curriculum, it needs to be flexible to accomodate postmodern phenomena. Maybe a better term to describe such a curriculum is fluid. Assessment rules are currently being rewritten and will need to continue to be to realize fully postmodern curricula. The concept of PLAR (prior learning assessment and recognition) speaks to the idea of flexibility in assessment. My thoughts on reform in this direction include flexible deadlines for course completion, and my position on this has been strengthened by my experience teaching in a Hutterite community. The Hutterian culture sometimes requires that students miss classes and miss deadline dates for assignments. At the high school level at least, is there anything wrong with allowing a credit to be picked up on a student's own time, so long as the coursework is completed satisfactorily? Philosophically, such an idea is learner-centered, and should work. In fact, many high school courses in Manitoba are offered by distance delivery and WebCT, but the period of course completion from the date of registration is one year. That timeline seems reasonable, but why not make it negotiable? After all, postmodernism is about removing barriers, not maintaining or erecting them.
The medical perspective Francis brought to Ornstein was revealing about medical school and was overall good food for thought. Last week, Francis told about the artificial bodies that will be used for medical education, citing them as simulacra. This week, he posed some very key questions about how to teach the "soft" skills of medicine: sympathy, empathy and response to sorrow.
Angela also mentioned last week that patients are now more reluctant to have medical students involved in their diagnosis and treatment, which consequently has led the medical profession to adopt the artificial patient as an education solution. Now, I commented tonight that sympathy, empathy and response to sorrow can't be taught, but come about by direct experience. Actually, as Angela called them tonight, "those unassessable skills", might be able to be taught through narratives, as Francis pointed out. In a large degree, however, I think those skills are learned through experiences as we mature, but the experiences we have that develop them need not be traumatic. The simple win/lose outcome of a hockey game can teach about sorrow, and enduring the frustration of a math problem with a friend can invoke sympathy. It is significant to note here that what is common to these situations is real people. Those soft skills are learned with other human beings, not with robots. How can upcoming doctors learn the soft skills if they are not interacting with human patients?
The design models discussed in the article have, of course, educational philosophies behind them. It seems that it was no coincidence that Denis had us look at Goodyear's work prior to class and then have us engage in a curriculum framework activity. Ornstein's article was all about framework.
The construct of a curriculum framework is abstract and leads to the idea of universality, something we talked about more when Brad presented the Chambers article. My play on universality is this: can there be a universal curriculum model sufficiently abstract to absorb all possible instances of specifically tailored curricula? In the computer science world, it is possible. Such an abstraction is called a class, in particular, an abstract class. These terms come from the world of object-oriented programming, which is a way to program computers so that data and procedure code are grouped together into "objects", which are nothing but instantiated classes which have been defined to do specific things. An example of such objects are textboxes and labels that are available for PowerPoint (or Visual Basic, if you are a programmer). Both can perform specific tasks and store basic data. One, however, is not able to receive input, while the other can. These specifically designed tools are built from a common abstract class, perhaps called DATA. To create the abstract class DATA, the designer would include a data area that would store the text input in a textbox or displayed via a label. And in the abstract class, that item could just be called TEXT. But now, what could be done with TEXT? It could be copied, cut, pasted, printed. These actions on the text could be, in the abstract class, defined by an item called ACTION, and multiple actions could be defined in a specifically defined class based on the abstract class, say a class called TEXTBOX. The textbox class would inherit all the properties of the abstract class, but redefine them to fit its specific purpose. Basically, what is written in Ornstein can be mapped to each level identified in Goodyear's framework, which is the same type of construction as an object-oriented abstract class. For example, Ornstein's Society as Source might be the Philosophy in Goodyear's framework. Broad Fields Design could be the High Level Pedagogy, and the Pedagogic Strategy could be a Thematic Unit. You can fill in for the Pedagogic Tactics.
So, where does postmodernism and the likes of the authors we've read thus far fit into a framework design? I suggest that Baudrillard's point-of-view would be influential in determining the philosophical dimension of a curriculum design. "What are the outcomes desired by those who engage the curriculum?" might be the guiding philosphical question, which is consistent with Tyler's first question, "What are the purposes of the school?" From here, the other layers of the design can be addressed, but interestingly, the design process probably wouldn't be linear. We all know what it is like to plan a unit or lesson. We go back and forth, from goal to activity and back, hashing and rehashing our ideas until we are satisfied that the students will get the best we have to offer them. We need to look at designs from the top down, but too from the bottom up.
Regarding a postmodern curriculum, it needs to be flexible to accomodate postmodern phenomena. Maybe a better term to describe such a curriculum is fluid. Assessment rules are currently being rewritten and will need to continue to be to realize fully postmodern curricula. The concept of PLAR (prior learning assessment and recognition) speaks to the idea of flexibility in assessment. My thoughts on reform in this direction include flexible deadlines for course completion, and my position on this has been strengthened by my experience teaching in a Hutterite community. The Hutterian culture sometimes requires that students miss classes and miss deadline dates for assignments. At the high school level at least, is there anything wrong with allowing a credit to be picked up on a student's own time, so long as the coursework is completed satisfactorily? Philosophically, such an idea is learner-centered, and should work. In fact, many high school courses in Manitoba are offered by distance delivery and WebCT, but the period of course completion from the date of registration is one year. That timeline seems reasonable, but why not make it negotiable? After all, postmodernism is about removing barriers, not maintaining or erecting them.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Postblog: March 8, 2008
Just a note on where we are at. Baudrillard's article brought together the threads being woven through the course thus far: the canon, metaphor, simultaneous occurrence, gaps, centrality, difference, social domination, eclecticism, critial theory and simulation. All sounds pretty postmodern to me.
Thought: at a basic level, curriculum is a canon, a set of basis vectors (to use a math term) from which all vectors in a defined space can be constructed. In the case of curriculum, the basis vectors are not specifics, but general lessons. What is common to humanity? Certainly not a common codification scheme (language). Yet, in today's world, we all need to be able to read and write - perhaps the better way to say it is, to be able to construct real meanings with symbols and logic. Basic numerical and combinatorial understandings, and problem solving skills are also important. And, so too are classification skills: behaviour (pattern) recognition. Regardless what is included in the canon, it should address the ability for one to survive in society.
Note: it is possible to change the basis of a vector space, but there is only one absolute basis for any vector space. Many truths vs. absolute truth, again. For a discussion of vector spaces and their bases, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpaceBasis.html.
Thought: at a basic level, curriculum is a canon, a set of basis vectors (to use a math term) from which all vectors in a defined space can be constructed. In the case of curriculum, the basis vectors are not specifics, but general lessons. What is common to humanity? Certainly not a common codification scheme (language). Yet, in today's world, we all need to be able to read and write - perhaps the better way to say it is, to be able to construct real meanings with symbols and logic. Basic numerical and combinatorial understandings, and problem solving skills are also important. And, so too are classification skills: behaviour (pattern) recognition. Regardless what is included in the canon, it should address the ability for one to survive in society.
Note: it is possible to change the basis of a vector space, but there is only one absolute basis for any vector space. Many truths vs. absolute truth, again. For a discussion of vector spaces and their bases, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpaceBasis.html.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Class 8: March 3, 2008
Postmodern, Post-Slattery, Post-Baudrillard: Where to Next?
Something we didn't talk about in all the celebration of Slattery and Baudrillard and postmodernism was if postmodernism is here to stay. Might it wither away like modernity? Might modernity return after a postmodern implosion? Who's to say? People could, after the exponential information dissemination of the late 20th century that continues now, define more aggressive social interests, possibly rendering highly polarized and internally aligned social castes. Ingested information (education) creates personal independence and, in the mind of the right individual, considerable power. Just think of the Watergate scandal. Baudrillard said it wasn't a scandal until Nixon's enemies got hold of the information and spun it to make it appear like a scandal. Also, consider the those who learned, in the US, how to fly the planes that brought down the Twin Towers.
Knowledge about the power that information can create isn't 21st century wisdom. I like the biblical proverb that says, "Get the truth, and sell it not - wisdom, instruction and understanding" (Proverbs 23:23). The gospel of Matthew also says (7:6), "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces." These days, information isn't even being bought and sold (yes it is , but), it's free, all thanks to the internet. Should there be univerally tighter controls over information and regulation of internet content? We regulate content availability in schools. However, regulation takes us back to modernity, doesn't it?
Slattery
On p18 of his article, Slattery points out that "postmodern educators are committed to a new concept of curriculum development that will complement the social and cultural milieu of [the postmodern] era of human history." Are we? We are all postmodern educators because we are all teaching in postmodern times. But do we believe that the curriculum we create complements the present social and cultural milieu? We need to really be in touch with the milieu before we can begin, so should we all own a cell phone or an iPod? I have neither, but have been considering a cell phone because it is cheaper than my OnStar subscription and car phone. Also, with the increasing use of podcasting to deliver programs that actually interest me, it might do me well to succumb to some kind of iPod technology. This is Baudrillard's object domination of the subject.
I am not saying Slattery is wrong about the commitment of postmodern educators, but agree with his implication suggesting that before a postmodern educator embodies a postmodern spirit. I also agree with him when on p20 he says that "postmodernism offers the best theoretical paradigm for exploring curriculum development." This implies eclecticism, an operative mode that makes good pedagogical sense.
A section of Slattery's paper that demonstrates a problematic with postmodernism is found on on p30. There, Slattery says that Pattie Lather and other feminist researchers would argue that David Griffin is an ultramodernist because he attempts to reconstruct a worldview that includes truth and God. What in heaven's name is wrong with that? Is there no room for God and an idea of absolute truth in a postmodern reality? Yes, postmodernism acknowledges many truths, but within those many is the possibility of one absolute. There is something common to all in the human condition, and that is the capacity to experience truth, even if it is personal. Perhaps this common experience could be considered an absolute truth if one founded upon a deity can not.
In class, I summed up Slattery's article with what at the bottom of p31 he quotes Henry Giroux as saying: "Giroux's inclusive political theory affirms the democratic, eclectic, and empowerment dimensions of postmodern thought." And, as it says a few lines above that quote, traversing "subject-area disciplinary boundaries" demonstrates a commitment to postmodern reform. Therefore, math can be taught with science, and ELA with social studies. Great news. Yet, has that not always been known?
Baudrillard
Drumroll please. "Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!" (Ecclesiastes 1:2). Yes, I quoted the wrong verse in class (I said 11:1, then 1:11), but at least my quote is in Ecclesiastes.
The simulacrum. I took for granted that everyone would have understood the word to mean simulation, an artificial reality, so I didn't define it. It may have been worthwhile to, however. Also, though I discussed it in my handout, I didn't address in the presentation the flip of the Borges map. I looked up Borges in my preparation for the presentation and read the fable, but made no mention of it. Regardless though of my significant omissions, I think I satisfactorily discussed Baudrillard's ideas of simulated reality.
The questions I had posed for reflection (see http://www.forrm.ca/edub7560/PresenterSheets.pdf) were intended to foster dialogue on the simulacra that exist within society and in particular education. Curriculum, though it is guided by "reality", can be seen as a pure simulacrum. Curriculum is the map which preceeds the territory: teachers teach and the world is shaped by the teaching, which in turn informs curricularists, who inform teachers, who again teach, and the cycle repeats itself. It is an endless trade in codes (values), models (identity) and signs (signifiers of values and identity), which Baudrillard says is the mark of pure simulacra. This implies that reality is just one big simulation that is conceived within peoples minds and enacted by their bodies. Shakespeare said "all the world's a stage, and we are all mere players on it" (maybe not a perfect quote, but it's off the cuff). The global village has become a Disneyland, and we are all actors in a world of our own creation, which scarcely resembles the natural... the real. This may be true, but the reality principle, that natural law which governs the cosmos and protects metaphysics, can never be overtaken by the world of simulation. The true reality principle is not connected to capital, as Baudrillard might have us believe, but to nature, the order of existence. And though the signs of a simulated bank robbery might be the same as those of one real, making them equivalent at a sign level, there is still a distinction between the two at the level of intention, which is of the real order of things and not simulation.
Intention, as we have discussed in class, is one of those things that in the classroom, gets flipped around. What my intentions are for a math lesson may actually have the reverse effect, depending on the variables at play. So, Baudrillard's reversal idea makes sense. Yet, when the map can't scribe out the reality, it is the map which changes to adjust to the reality. How many of us have had to create a lesson on the fly because the students directed it so? Reality principle to the rescue! Also, grades are the common currency of education, signs that open doors to scholarships and advancement. The problem with grades, as we all know, is that an 80% from Teacher A may be equivalent to a 90% from Teacher B. Where's the truth? Who would really deserve the scholarship? At one level, the signs are equivalent. Is standardized testing the only mechanism we have to build justice into the system? What about a homogeneous delivery where every teacher teaches the same lesson for the same amount of time, using the same assignments and assessment tools? Justice? Truth? Jusuth? Truice? ?!? Post-reality?
Last comment. My play on tautologies to deny Baudrillard's claim of the truth of the simulacrum didn't actually prove the simulacrum false, but just cast Baudrillard's claim into doubt. The laws of logic definitely state that a true statement can not imply a false one. However, the T --> ~T statement actually had nothing to do with the assertion that the simulacrum was true. The claim that the simulacrum was true was just a claim Baudrillard had made, without proof. The thing was, he lied. So, the sumulacrum is as much false as it is true, which makes it meaningless. Vanity of vanities!
Something we didn't talk about in all the celebration of Slattery and Baudrillard and postmodernism was if postmodernism is here to stay. Might it wither away like modernity? Might modernity return after a postmodern implosion? Who's to say? People could, after the exponential information dissemination of the late 20th century that continues now, define more aggressive social interests, possibly rendering highly polarized and internally aligned social castes. Ingested information (education) creates personal independence and, in the mind of the right individual, considerable power. Just think of the Watergate scandal. Baudrillard said it wasn't a scandal until Nixon's enemies got hold of the information and spun it to make it appear like a scandal. Also, consider the those who learned, in the US, how to fly the planes that brought down the Twin Towers.
Knowledge about the power that information can create isn't 21st century wisdom. I like the biblical proverb that says, "Get the truth, and sell it not - wisdom, instruction and understanding" (Proverbs 23:23). The gospel of Matthew also says (7:6), "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces." These days, information isn't even being bought and sold (yes it is , but), it's free, all thanks to the internet. Should there be univerally tighter controls over information and regulation of internet content? We regulate content availability in schools. However, regulation takes us back to modernity, doesn't it?
Slattery
On p18 of his article, Slattery points out that "postmodern educators are committed to a new concept of curriculum development that will complement the social and cultural milieu of [the postmodern] era of human history." Are we? We are all postmodern educators because we are all teaching in postmodern times. But do we believe that the curriculum we create complements the present social and cultural milieu? We need to really be in touch with the milieu before we can begin, so should we all own a cell phone or an iPod? I have neither, but have been considering a cell phone because it is cheaper than my OnStar subscription and car phone. Also, with the increasing use of podcasting to deliver programs that actually interest me, it might do me well to succumb to some kind of iPod technology. This is Baudrillard's object domination of the subject.
I am not saying Slattery is wrong about the commitment of postmodern educators, but agree with his implication suggesting that before a postmodern educator embodies a postmodern spirit. I also agree with him when on p20 he says that "postmodernism offers the best theoretical paradigm for exploring curriculum development." This implies eclecticism, an operative mode that makes good pedagogical sense.
A section of Slattery's paper that demonstrates a problematic with postmodernism is found on on p30. There, Slattery says that Pattie Lather and other feminist researchers would argue that David Griffin is an ultramodernist because he attempts to reconstruct a worldview that includes truth and God. What in heaven's name is wrong with that? Is there no room for God and an idea of absolute truth in a postmodern reality? Yes, postmodernism acknowledges many truths, but within those many is the possibility of one absolute. There is something common to all in the human condition, and that is the capacity to experience truth, even if it is personal. Perhaps this common experience could be considered an absolute truth if one founded upon a deity can not.
In class, I summed up Slattery's article with what at the bottom of p31 he quotes Henry Giroux as saying: "Giroux's inclusive political theory affirms the democratic, eclectic, and empowerment dimensions of postmodern thought." And, as it says a few lines above that quote, traversing "subject-area disciplinary boundaries" demonstrates a commitment to postmodern reform. Therefore, math can be taught with science, and ELA with social studies. Great news. Yet, has that not always been known?
Baudrillard
Drumroll please. "Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!" (Ecclesiastes 1:2). Yes, I quoted the wrong verse in class (I said 11:1, then 1:11), but at least my quote is in Ecclesiastes.
The simulacrum. I took for granted that everyone would have understood the word to mean simulation, an artificial reality, so I didn't define it. It may have been worthwhile to, however. Also, though I discussed it in my handout, I didn't address in the presentation the flip of the Borges map. I looked up Borges in my preparation for the presentation and read the fable, but made no mention of it. Regardless though of my significant omissions, I think I satisfactorily discussed Baudrillard's ideas of simulated reality.
The questions I had posed for reflection (see http://www.forrm.ca/edub7560/PresenterSheets.pdf) were intended to foster dialogue on the simulacra that exist within society and in particular education. Curriculum, though it is guided by "reality", can be seen as a pure simulacrum. Curriculum is the map which preceeds the territory: teachers teach and the world is shaped by the teaching, which in turn informs curricularists, who inform teachers, who again teach, and the cycle repeats itself. It is an endless trade in codes (values), models (identity) and signs (signifiers of values and identity), which Baudrillard says is the mark of pure simulacra. This implies that reality is just one big simulation that is conceived within peoples minds and enacted by their bodies. Shakespeare said "all the world's a stage, and we are all mere players on it" (maybe not a perfect quote, but it's off the cuff). The global village has become a Disneyland, and we are all actors in a world of our own creation, which scarcely resembles the natural... the real. This may be true, but the reality principle, that natural law which governs the cosmos and protects metaphysics, can never be overtaken by the world of simulation. The true reality principle is not connected to capital, as Baudrillard might have us believe, but to nature, the order of existence. And though the signs of a simulated bank robbery might be the same as those of one real, making them equivalent at a sign level, there is still a distinction between the two at the level of intention, which is of the real order of things and not simulation.
Intention, as we have discussed in class, is one of those things that in the classroom, gets flipped around. What my intentions are for a math lesson may actually have the reverse effect, depending on the variables at play. So, Baudrillard's reversal idea makes sense. Yet, when the map can't scribe out the reality, it is the map which changes to adjust to the reality. How many of us have had to create a lesson on the fly because the students directed it so? Reality principle to the rescue! Also, grades are the common currency of education, signs that open doors to scholarships and advancement. The problem with grades, as we all know, is that an 80% from Teacher A may be equivalent to a 90% from Teacher B. Where's the truth? Who would really deserve the scholarship? At one level, the signs are equivalent. Is standardized testing the only mechanism we have to build justice into the system? What about a homogeneous delivery where every teacher teaches the same lesson for the same amount of time, using the same assignments and assessment tools? Justice? Truth? Jusuth? Truice? ?!? Post-reality?
Last comment. My play on tautologies to deny Baudrillard's claim of the truth of the simulacrum didn't actually prove the simulacrum false, but just cast Baudrillard's claim into doubt. The laws of logic definitely state that a true statement can not imply a false one. However, the T --> ~T statement actually had nothing to do with the assertion that the simulacrum was true. The claim that the simulacrum was true was just a claim Baudrillard had made, without proof. The thing was, he lied. So, the sumulacrum is as much false as it is true, which makes it meaningless. Vanity of vanities!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)