RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act

["David H Kirshner" <dkirsh@lsu.edu>]

Thanks, Tony. 
Still working on it--happily, of course.
David


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Tony Whitson
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 11:33 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act

David, have you published on this (I know you were working on it for 
publication)?

I'm sorry I haven't had time to follow this thread, but if you've
already 
cited something you have published, I hope you won't be hesitant (over 
concerns about self-promotion) to repeat the citation.

Also, congratulations on living in the #1 happiest state in the US 
(according to a study reported in newspaters today)!

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, David H Kirshner wrote:

> Michael,
>
>
>
> Finally, a moment to respond, to you, but also to the many subsequent
> posts that have lamented the politically intractable landscape of
> education.
>
>
>
> I'm reminded of the Math Wars (my own home turf) that has been a
scourge
> in the U.S. for almost 15 years now. In it, reformers, rallying around
> the Curriculum & Evaluation Standards promulgated by the National
> Council of Teachers of Mathematics, are pitted against conservatives
who
> insist on repetitive practice and lecture methods. As expected,
> legislatures that have been drawn into the fray (e.g., California)
have
> tended to side with conservatives. Conservatives, in this dispute,
> number among their members a large and vocal cadre of prominent
> mathematicians (see the 1999 open letter to the U.S. Secretary of
> Education signed by 200 of them denouncing reform curricula:
> http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/nation.htm).
>
>
>
> Reformers have been quick to lament the ideological tenor of the
debate.
> But it should be kept in mind that mathematicians are not your usual
> ideologues. Rather in California (the epicenter of the Math Wars)
where
> NCTM's Standards were adopted in the early 1990s, mathematicians only
> become involved following widespread anecdotal accounts of
dysfunctional
> learning environments spawned in the name of reform curricula.
>
>
>
> I condense my previous points:
>
> 1. The universe of pedagogical discourse is framed by 3 distinct
> metaphorical notions of learning related to acquisition of skills,
> concepts, and dispositions, respectively.*
>
> 2. These distinct notions of learning also are guiding intuitions for
> the major psychological schools-behavioral/cognitive, developmental,
and
> sociocultural, respectively.
>
> 3. The best possibility for a coherent and accessible pedagogical
theory
> parses "good teaching" into 3 separate genres related to these 3
> intuitive notions of learning.
>
> 4. Such a parsing separates out values issues (what sort(s) of
learning
> should we pursue in educational settings) from efficacy issues (how
can
> we best support learning).
>
> 5. Current pedagogical theorizing is not oriented around genres, but
> rather is integrative; the orienting goal is to identify a single set
of
> practices that constitutes the practices of good teaching.
>
> 5i. Good teaching framed in this integrative fashion obscures
reference
> back to the grounding metaphorical intuitions about learning. As
result
> such theorizing tends to be intellectually intractable.
>
> 5ii. Any particular version of good teaching framed in this
integrative
> fashion reifies certain learning goals over others. This conflation of
> values issues with issues of efficacy makes pedagogical theory
> inherently divisive.
>
> 6. The tendency toward integrative theorizing in education traces back
> to two sociological circumstances: (i) the preparadigmatic status of
> psychology; and (ii) the historic subservience of education to
> psychology.
>
> 6i. As a preparadigmatic science the historical imperative is to
achieve
> paradigmatic consensus. Thus each psychological school works outward
> from its primary intuitions about learning to try to encompass the
> broader concerns of the field. The hegemonic agenda for each is to
> present learning as a complex and multifaceted process that eventually
> can become an umbrella for the whole field.
>
> 6ii. Because education is in a (subservient) partnership with
> psychology, educators have come to adopt the psychologists'
aspirational
> view of learning as unitary or integrative, thereby denying what is
> plainly obvious: at this historical juncture learning is diversely
> conceived within unreconciled psychological traditions. Indeed,
> education plays out as a surrogate field for psychology's competitive
> ambitions.
>
>
>
> In short, I think we have been less than effective in influencing
> education because what we provide for education is a discourse that is
> both confusing and divisive.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> *Michael, my point isn't that philosophical and ontological analyses
of
> the sort you referenced aren't important and relevant. Rather, I see
> these as background influences on the psychological framings of
learning
> that orient education.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:02 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> I think your ideas on the three metaphors are salient in terms of
common
> sense, but I also think that what is wrong with the Learn Act is that
it
> doesn't really connect up with any of them.
>
>
>
> Near as I can tell (and perhaps somebody can set me straight here)
this
> idea that children should learn knowledge in preschool of basic
letters,
> numbers, vocabulary so they can be ready to learn immediately (and if
> they are not doing this something is wrong) is a sort of mash up of
> nativism (the idea that humans are programmed to recognize certain
types
> of information and once they are exposed to it they will integrate it
> into their thinking), cognitive architectures (the idea that you
should
> build specific types of architectures in the brain early which will
> allow children to make connections with new more complex information
> later), the efficacy of direct instruction (see nativist), and a
realist
> perspective (that there is specific type of information in the world
> that the child needs to know that will make them more successful -
once
> they are able to recognize and process this information they will be
> able to use it to their own and society's advantage).  Underlying
these
> assumptions is the idea that the child is basically a passive learner,
> and that once the mind recognizes important information it will take
> over.  I find the arguments confusing and circular, and in some ways
> dangerous (suggesting that there is a specific type of knowledge that
is
> valuable and should take precedence, and that this knowledge can be
used
> to control nature).  It is also opposite of what early chilhood
> educators such as Friedrich Frobel, Maria Montessori, the people who
> have been working in Piagetian, Deweyan, and Vygotskian paradigms have
> been doing for over a century.  All of that work has simply been swept
> aside for this new - it isn't even a paradigm.  I don't know what it
is.
>
>
>
> I don't think there is any strong logical argument that can be made
for
> this position.  And I think there is really no empirical evidence that
> suggests this leads to better learners (unless some great breakthrough
> occurred while I was asleep).  And yet over the last couple of decades
> it seems to have become gospel in some very important circles
> (especially in the government).  The only answer I can think of is
that
> it fills some social and/or economic need.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of David H Kirshner
> Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 2:26 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>
> Michael,
>
> I think our discourse fails to sway politicians because it fails to
> connect up with our cultural commonsense about learning.
>
> Broadly speaking I see our cultural commonsense involving 3 main
> metaphors of learning corresponding to 3 major kinds of learning goals
> informed by 3 major theoretical thrusts in psychology:
>
> METAPHOR     LEARNING GOAL    PSYCHOLOGICAL THRUST
> Habituation             Skills            Behaviorism/some cognitive
> science
> Construction             Concepts         Developmental / Piagetian
> Enculturation            Dispositions      Sociocultural
>
> The problems arise from the sociological imperative of psychology to
> become a paradigmatic science. Rather than elaborate these alternative
> notions of learning in a way that highlights their distinct conceptual
> foundations, psychologists of all stripes are bent upon extending
> outward from their basic intuition about learning so as to incorporate
> the interests and concerns of the other camps. In this way,
eventually,
> one school succeeds in capturing the field and paradigmatic psychology
> is achieved.
>
> In the meantime, (1) theories of learning become intractably complex
> even as the intuitive underpinning of each psychological thrust
becomes
> increasingly opaque, and (2) values decisions about which form(s) of
> learning should be pursued in education become absorbed into
theoretical
> discourses about learning.
>
> The legacy for education is a pedagogical discourse that is
> simultaneously confused and conflicted. The real alternatives that
COULD
> be framed for pedagogical practice toward diverse goals become
> homogenized within a shapeless, integrative discourse. Sloganeering
> substitutes in for intellectual foundation; competing camps attest to
> the strength (i.e., influence) of the psychological schools whose
> theories have inspired the slogans.
>
> David
>
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 11:05 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>
>
>
> I really think that this legislation is, among other things,
> historically insensitive.  Do people really think, given our society's
> history with assessment tests, that these tests are not going to be
> geared towards middle class values?  Do people really think that these
> tests are not going to be used to label and differentiate groups?  Do
> people really think that these assessments are not going to be used to
> in some way reinforce a deficit model for children who don't do well
on
> the tests?  The fact that these tests are being conducted at such a
> young age makes these ideas even more painful.
>
>
>
> These senators Brown and Franken and Murray have their hearts in the
> right place, but our discourse on education in the United States has
> become so convoluted and narrow and so dominated by a faux realist
> perspective (actually an unholy combination of realist and idealist)
> that even legislators who mean well are I think making thoughtless
> mistakes.  It still pains me that Ted Kennedy and George Miller were
> major forces behind NCLB.  There are many reasons for this I think,
not
> the least of which is control of public discourse by a relatively
small
> group of educators - but just because you are giving money towards
> education initiatives does not mean that you are helping the cause of
> universal education.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of cconnery@ithaca.edu
> Sent: Sun 12/13/2009 10:10 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>
> Hi Peg and others:
>
> Here is the specific language under section 9, e,1,c of the LEARN Act:
>
> SEC. 9. SUBGRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES IN SUPPORT OF BIRTH THROUGH
> KINDERGARTEN ENTRY LITERACY.
>
> (e) LOCAL USES OF FUNDS.-
> (1) IN GENERAL.-An eligible entity that receives a subgrant under this
> section shall use the subgrant funds consistent with the plan proposed
> in subsection (c) to carry out the following activities:
> (C) SCREENING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASURES.-Acquiring, providing training
> for, and implementing screening assessments or other appropriate
> measures to determine whether children from birth through kindergarten
> entry are developing appropriate early language and literacy skills.
>
> The question is, "WHO will determine what is appropriate and HOW will
> they assess it?" This goes to the heart of Vygotsky's work.
>
> Cathrene
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>

Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK  DE  19716

twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________

"those who fail to reread
  are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
                   -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca