This week we discuss gnosis in terms of mysticism versus religion. 1. Comparing mysticism and religion where does Truth/truth come from or how is it accessed in each tradition? 2. What implications could these views of Truth/truth have on teaching and learning?
Concerning Davis’ distinction between mysticism and religion, his explanations seem to be clear. He explains that branches of gnosis ascribe to knowledge as being “out-there”. They differ, however, in the way that knowledge is attained. Davis explains, “…the main difference between mysticism and religions is that, for the latter, knowledge of higher things is not a matter of introspection but of enforcing a body of knowledge that is imposed from the outside” (43). As I understand it so far, Davis is saying that knowledge is divined in mysticism and revealed from the Divine One in religion. I find it helpful that Davis highlights that religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism) tend to personify the Giver of knowledge whereas mysticism (neoplatonism, hermeticism) do not. Davis states, “The convictions that knowledge…is out there waiting to be divined, that it dwells in minds…that minds do not require bodies…were all expressed within ancient mystical traditions” (44). I do see here a loose parallel with Intersubjectivity (even though it is concerned with the physical). Does anyone else see this connection, whereas both mysticism and Intersubjectivity look inward – one spiritually and the other physically)? For me, it’s important to remember that all of these bifurcations, or branches, have a common root. In terms of education in Western society, it seems that more emphasis is placed on Truth (big-T) as opposed to truths (little-t). I’m not referring to a certain faith here, but rather the more empirical institutionalized stance that we in Western society take concerning the classroom. What I’ve gathered from Davis’ writing so far is that we, at least in the United States, tend to exclusively imitate separation seen in the Divine and non-divine relationship, as seen in religion, when there should be more integrated ecological experience in the classroom. Returning to page one of the book, I noticed that all of the synonyms (indoctrinating, inducting, instructing, lecturing, managing, etc.) lean toward a religious tradition. It makes sense to me now that, as Davis states, “There were no critical interrogations of gaps and contradictions,” among his pedagogy students. Becoming critically conscious of how we view knowledge (i.e. gnosis V episteme religion V mysticism) in a step toward more productive classrooms. Did anyone see any parallel between any of the terms on page one and mysticism?
I like the way you are interpreting the same paragraph I used (p. 43) because as Davis states in different paragraphs along chapter 4 (By the way, I can not cite the pages because my book is Kindle) “Both mysticism (divine knowledge/pantheism) and religion (revelation/theism) posit a transcendent unity and the tension between them are actually more matters of common assumption than incompatibility. They are common roots, different branches but the branching point of mysticism and religion is neither on the nature of knowledge, but on whether or not truths should be actively mined or passively awaited.” So, at the end the matters of learning and teaching have significant ramifications but the implications vary dramatically depending on whether one assumes a mystical or religious attitude.
3. In this week's reading Davis mentions mysticism is more individualistic while religions are more collective. Religions emphasize teaching as drawing in while mysticism emphasizes teaching as drawing out. For society to exist it seems like there should be a balance between the individual and society. What theoretical concepts from mysticism and religion are necessary in teaching to help balance the needs of individual students and the collective (society/ the classroom)?
One concept from mysticism that I believe is important in regards to balancing the needs of students and the collective is the belief that anyone, anything, anywhere can be a teacher. Learners can draw out knowledge in various settings or from various objects, people, situations, etc. (p. 54). Davis continues with his explanation of the "Socratic Method." The Socratic method, which is used by many teachers with activities such as the Socratic circle, holds that the "teacher's task is to draw out of the learner what is already there. The teacher in this case does not give information directly" but "poses questions that are based on the learner's answers." This is intended to "prompt learners to realize their own misconceptions or bolster their existing understanding (p. 55).
Stacey, I also picked up on the “anyone being a teacher” from mysticism, and I found the terms derived from religion such as: master, doctor, discipling, etc. to be extremely interesting. I can see the balance of both of these past theories deep in work in our current education system in the Western World. I feel like while problem based learning is designed to be a more constructivist approach with possible past ties to mysticism I feel like the "religion" ties are still at work and I would even say hard for the "modern day" teacher to break free from. I think that most teachers do see themselves as training, guiding or in the leadership as instructor where knowledge is given not discovered. I don't think that "modern teachers" necessarily see themselves in the more all-knowing, indoctrinating, discipling way but the deep roots of the religion theory are hard to break free from. I think much like the mysticism theory that we as teachers should be more concerned with drawing out the knowledge of the learner than trying to just "tell" the learner the knowledge they should know. I would say that Davis is trying to show the beginning of both of these theories not only to help us better understand gnosis, but to allow us to see the left over strands of what one might just consider "past theories" as something that is still present in our educational system today. Would you agree?
I do agree. Davis provides wonderful examples of how gnosis and the theories within gnosis are still rooted within the educational system, looking both at mysticism and religion. One interesting concept within mysticism is the idea of "fate," "pregiven identities," "ideal careers," etc. "Learning is seen mainly as a process of actualization of one's true self" (p. 53). I looked up the term fate because I always had assumed that it meant futures are predetermined and that the concept of free will wouldn't really change fate. The definition of fate is "the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power" (Bing search). So, combining this idea of fate with the mystic belief of teachers role to draw out of learners what they already know would suggest to me that fate is, for lack of a better term at the moment, maybe the "ideal" result of discovering knowledge throughout one's lifetime. A teacher (or anything/anyone that the helps the learner draw knowledge from within) could, as a result, help the learner reach or achieve his fate. I'm not sure if I'm reaching here. What do you guys think?
I agree. Each of us as an individual has some limits (related to fate?) but also a certain amount of freedom to draw knowledge from within (the mystical portion). I think a learner can draw some knowledge from outside (the religion portion) that complements the knowledge from within. Perhaps in studying a language a learner memorizes verbs (knowledge from outside) and after practice makes connections (knowledge from within) to become comfortable using the verbs in conversation.
Davis states that in mysticism "teaching was understood in term's of learner's response not the teacher's intention." In contrast, however, "religious traditions" focuses on the "teacher's aims" and holds that "authority is invested in the master, doctor, or teacher rather than in the disciple, patient, or pupil" (p. 59). In student-centered learning, which seems to be aligned with mysticism's ideas surrounding teaching and learning, students get to guide their learning and focus on studies that interest them. Most, if not all, of the students in curriculum theory last semester were proponents of student-centered learning. Does this balance the needs of individual students and the collective? Or, does this support just individual students? I'm curious to see what other's think.
I could not agree more. In line with religious traditions, there has to be some initial presentation of information, but I think that learning, or rather discerning, happens when the subsequent lessons are student-centered. For the last few years, I’ve understood the verb ‘to teach’ as meaning ‘to show’. I was reminded of this when reading Davis’ finding that the Old English word for teach, ‘tacn’, can be interpreted as ‘to sign’. It was also interesting to see his explanation of the terms ‘profitieri’ and ‘lecturer’ on page sixty. I won’t stay on my soap-box for too long, but I’ll just say that I feel somewhat validated after reading these explanations. I usually discourage my students from calling me ‘profesor’ as opposed to ‘maestro’, Spanish for ‘teacher’ and derived from the verb ‘mostrar’ (to show). I highlight this portion of this week’s reading because it helps me to student-center my lessons. I tell them, Okay, professors profess and teachers show, so I’ll demonstrate and expect you to participate. I think what I’ve been trying to do, oblivious of the terminology until now, is eliminate the chasm that can easily set-up between student and college professor. I could lecture on Spanish and profess the grammatical rules, but the students would learn very little. Sadly, I believe that students would prefer a lecture, because it seems more akin to our Western in-class teacher-centered procedures. Instead of passive indoctrination, the language teacher in particular (and I imagine most other fields of study as well) should inspire participation. Does any agree or disagree with this idea?
I agree. Davis, while discussing theories within mysticism states that the theories are "based on the assumption that each person is imbued with specific traits and abilities that determine interests, modes of engagement, and social roles. Not surprisingly, notions of teaching as nurturing and fostering fit well with and tend to be represented alongside these sort of populist theories" (p. 55). I believe that encouraging participation definitely coincides with the concept of teacher as fostering learner. You, as teacher, may initiate and foster discussions; however, learner must then participate in order to realize the knowledge that they possess, maybe based on past experience or past knowledge received/realized.
Reginald and Stacey, I agree with you guys... like Reginald said the student seem to want you to just "tell they what they need to know" instead of them being actively engaged. At the beginning of each semester I have to "break" them from just want to sit and listen instead of participating and taking control of their own learning. I have ponder this often before... I admit I know little about early education but it seems that the students learn mostly though interaction, play and practice... whether it be an educational topic such as adding numbers or something as simply as pour milk into a glass. I mean really no matter how many time you tell a child how to pour milk do they ever really learn until they try it and probably make several messes (failures) before they actually reach success. I see the fostering and nurturing and other aspects of mysticism (letting learning come to their own knowledge) more heavily in play in the younger grades... just think about it you seldom ever hear a kid say they don't want to go to kindergarten. It seems that at some point within elementary a shift mystically takes place where the learner is less in control of knowledge and reaching the truths and then the instructor takes on the role of the giver of information. By the time the students reach high school they have typically transformed from someone trying and doing everything in their power to gain the Knowledge out there to simply sitting back and relinquishing control and waiting for knowledge to be given to them, a much more religious idea. I have found from my own personal experience it is hard to break out of this cycle, and in the beginning it often takes more time and effort to bring the learners back to student-centered learning... I have found though after a time of winning them over they really start to enjoy learning again and they typically always have positive things to say in the end of the course.
In this week’s reading I found the commonalities and differences between mysticism and religion intriguing. Before reading if someone ask me if mysticism or religion had anything in common my answer would have been no. To me in my “Western thinking mind” religion is everywhere and almost an everyday occurrence where as mysticism is more “out there and magical” and almost looked down upon by our society, “at least here in the bible belt of Oklahoma.” Just using the simple “Harry Potter” example from the text, I could name individuals who would say that I was a bad person for reading the books to my kids and taking them to Harry Potter World and buying them a wand. But regardless of where one stands on Harry Potter, before the reading this week I would have said that religion and or mysticism have really no part in modern day education. I have now however changed my mind.
I thought how Davis begins diving into gnosis showing the common roots of mysticism and religion interesting. Both mysticism and religion regard Truth as a fixed and unchanging thing, and both assume spiritual truths arrive from a different and higher place, realm, or domain, and Identity is pre-given, unchanging, and eternal. However, the similarities seem to stop when teaching, learning, and knowledge are brought into the conversation. Davis says, “despite their (mysticism and religion) shared conviction that teaching must first and foremost be concerned with matters of the spirit, their divergent assumptions about the origins of gnosis give rise to very different, even compatible recommendations for the teaching of children.” (pg 57)
Mysticism and Religion where both base as gnosis theories have extremely different ideas about what learning is and how knowledge is obtained. Mysticism is all about the learner being responsible for their knowledge, and when one conforms to a rigorous system of discipline they can achieve some measure of unity with the universe. Mysticism has the learner using intuition as a mode of learning that exceeds purely rational thought, and wants the learner to obtain “a knowledge that surpasses oneself.” Mysticism believes that knowledge is already there and only needs to be brought out of the learner. Davis said that one of the core problems with mysticism is “in matters of teaching and learning arise the assumption that knowers are always and already part of the wholeness of creation, but they have somehow lost or forgotten their place within the grand unity.” I think Davis is pointing out this problem to show a possible weak spot in the mysticism beliefs. If we whole-heartily believe that the learner has “all knowledge” already in them then at what level do we think they have reached the “Knowledge max.” I see this as a major downside of Mysticism. I fully believe that we should question our students, use their life experiences, let them explore and come up with their own conjectures, that we should prompt them and then allow them time to reason out a solution. But I do think that there is abundant truths/knowledge that is out there and unless the learner is exposed they might not ever come to the Knowledge on their own. Does anyone else think that Mysticism has an “upper bound limit” where knowledge is concerned?
As far as Religion the ideas about what teaching is and how knowledge is gained is in complete opposition of mysticism. In Religion discipline and mastery are not responsibility of the learner but duties of the teacher. Davis said that religion is, “concerned more with drawing persons into established systems of thought then drawing thought out of the person.”(pg. 58). Religion does not rely on intuition for the belief is “the inward self is seen as easily corrupted” and therefore religion focuses on tuition the contrast to intuition. Davis even states that tuition, “watching over” has become a synonym for teaching. Another difference is religion views Knowledge as a supernatural source and knowledge has an existence that is independent of knowers, teaching is a divine calling and is responsible for imparting knowledge.
I have found the similarities and differences between Mysticism and Religion and their ties to modern Western education eye-opening. I feel like I should make a chart and list all the commonalities and contrasts between the two! Am I the only one who before these chapters would have said that mysticism and religion really have no bearing on what is going on in classrooms today? I now see how wrong I was and how much of just a superficial knowledge I had about all the threads that make up education, teaching, and knowledge. What commonalities of mysticism and religion do you see still at work in our Western educational system?
I wonder if knowledge from within is related to inquiry teaching, so that the learner begins to realize and put together what already she/he knows to extend it to more complex ideas. I enjoy reading Davis because I never knew so much about the history of where many of our world views originated. Without awareness I could not previously question my world view.
I imagine there is a strong tie between inquiry teaching and knowledge from within. I'd be interested to find other ways mysticism has influenced current teaching method - and for the better. I can say from personal experience, as both student and teacher, that lecturing and passive listening (even when note-taking is involved) can yield poor results. I think it's important to realize that aural learning skills need to be aided with activities that require introspection and reflection. That is, the student should be required to make connections or find conflict with his/her own world view.
That said, I'm not sure I agree with Davis' statement about learning styles and learning modalities on page 55. Davis claims that, "These theories are based on the assumption that each person is imbued with specific traits and abilities that determine interests, modes of engagement, and social roles." I may be reading his statement incorrectly, but I've been under the impression that styles of learning form via cultural influences. I'm thinking, for example, of how many students in the 21st century are more visual than auditory. I see this tendency as a reflection of technological advances (from the television in the mid-20th century to today's tablet and Google glasses). I'll dare to say that learning styles are just as much drawn-in as they are drawn-out. Does anyone agree or disagree. I have some teaching experience in the middle school and high school arena, but mostly at the post-secondary level. Maybe someone with more elementary through high school experience can help me here.
Alina, I could not agree more with you about making a chart and list all of the similarities and differences between mysticism and religion. I need a reminder that both are still part of today’s education and I have to reflect more in the way that Davis connects them into teaching and learning. In chapter 5 he states that “within mystical traditions, the core problematic in matters of learning and teaching arises in the assumption that knowers are always and already part of the wholeness of creation, but that they have somehow lost or forgotten their place within this grand unity. While, in religion the learner’s surrender of authority is possible in the assumption that knowledge has an existence that is independent of knowers which, in turn, is hinged to the believe that the mental-spiritual realm is distinct from and even opposed to the physical-fleshy world”. I wonder in which of this traditions the modern students holds onto?
4. I think when society is out of balance with individual rights/freedom, problems arise at either extreme when only society matters but not the individual and well as when only an individual matters and society doesn't. Davis commented about only society matters and not the individual on p. 58. He discussed western religions view the inward self as easily corrupted, and the truth is available from the outside. Self-denial is also a theme in religions as the collective is the priority, not the individual. At the other extreme Davis comments on p.54 that today's ego grasping has replaced discovering oneself and locating oneself within the web of existence. Instead of letting go of the ego, now the emphasis is to distinguish oneself. I think a democratic society is sustainable if both the long term needs of individuals and society are balanced. It seems like classrooms could model this to help students learn this. Perhaps this indicates that both mysticism and religion can inform how to balance the needs of individual students and the collective (society/ the classroom)?
This is my take of what Davis discusses in these chapters about the two knowledge sources mysticism and religion. Davis implies the origins of the descriptions of knowledge began in the Greek community (Plato and Socrates). At that time the knowledge was basically derived from mysticism. That is, one was concerned about his physical surroundings and the cause of those physical surroundings was attributed to some spirit making things happen. The religions already had the knowledge of the world, usually recorded on sacred texts. This knowledge was distributed to people trough religious structures. At this particular juncture of Greek consolidation the evolution of modern scientific though to develop knowledge began and it has currently evolved into the accepted way of thinking. Davis states that academically speaking, the main difference between mysticism and religions is that, for the latter, knowledge of higher things is not a matter of introspection, but enforcing a body of knowledge that is imposed from the outside (or, perhaps more commonly, from above). For religion, truth is not about divination of immanent truth, but above revelation of sacred truth. (46). Davis also reflects on the amount of mysticism and religion that still in our culture. He emphasizes that “the current academic literature around matters of knowledge, learning and teaching” (p. 39) are based on this modern though, and mysticism and religion has been eclipsed. With this in mind I wander on How can we improve teaching of our modern methods of gaining knowledge?
Discussion Week 3 Feb. 2-8: Davis Chapters 4-6 Gnosis In Depth
ReplyDeleteThis week we discuss gnosis in terms of mysticism versus religion.
ReplyDelete1. Comparing mysticism and religion where does Truth/truth come from or how is it accessed in each tradition?
2. What implications could these views of Truth/truth have on teaching and learning?
Concerning Davis’ distinction between mysticism and religion, his explanations seem to be clear. He explains that branches of gnosis ascribe to knowledge as being “out-there”. They differ, however, in the way that knowledge is attained. Davis explains, “…the main difference between mysticism and religions is that, for the latter, knowledge of higher things is not a matter of introspection but of enforcing a body of knowledge that is imposed from the outside” (43). As I understand it so far, Davis is saying that knowledge is divined in mysticism and revealed from the Divine One in religion.
DeleteI find it helpful that Davis highlights that religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism) tend to personify the Giver of knowledge whereas mysticism (neoplatonism, hermeticism) do not. Davis states, “The convictions that knowledge…is out there waiting to be divined, that it dwells in minds…that minds do not require bodies…were all expressed within ancient mystical traditions” (44).
I do see here a loose parallel with Intersubjectivity (even though it is concerned with the physical). Does anyone else see this connection, whereas both mysticism and Intersubjectivity look inward – one spiritually and the other physically)? For me, it’s important to remember that all of these bifurcations, or branches, have a common root.
In terms of education in Western society, it seems that more emphasis is placed on Truth (big-T) as opposed to truths (little-t). I’m not referring to a certain faith here, but rather the more empirical institutionalized stance that we in Western society take concerning the classroom. What I’ve gathered from Davis’ writing so far is that we, at least in the United States, tend to exclusively imitate separation seen in the Divine and non-divine relationship, as seen in religion, when there should be more integrated ecological experience in the classroom. Returning to page one of the book, I noticed that all of the synonyms (indoctrinating, inducting, instructing, lecturing, managing, etc.) lean toward a religious tradition. It makes sense to me now that, as Davis states, “There were no critical interrogations of gaps and contradictions,” among his pedagogy students. Becoming critically conscious of how we view knowledge (i.e. gnosis V episteme religion V mysticism) in a step toward more productive classrooms. Did anyone see any parallel between any of the terms on page one and mysticism?
I like the way you are interpreting the same paragraph I used (p. 43) because as Davis states in different paragraphs along chapter 4 (By the way, I can not cite the pages because my book is Kindle) “Both mysticism (divine knowledge/pantheism) and religion (revelation/theism) posit a transcendent unity and the tension between them are actually more matters of common assumption than incompatibility. They are common roots, different branches but the branching point of mysticism and religion is neither on the nature of knowledge, but on whether or not truths should be actively mined or passively awaited.” So, at the end the matters of learning and teaching have significant ramifications but the implications vary dramatically depending on whether one assumes a mystical or religious attitude.
Delete3. In this week's reading Davis mentions mysticism is more individualistic while religions are more collective. Religions emphasize teaching as drawing in while mysticism emphasizes teaching as drawing out. For society to exist it seems like there should be a balance between the individual and society. What theoretical concepts from mysticism and religion are necessary in teaching to help balance the needs of individual students and the collective (society/ the classroom)?
ReplyDeleteOne concept from mysticism that I believe is important in regards to balancing the needs of students and the collective is the belief that anyone, anything, anywhere can be a teacher. Learners can draw out knowledge in various settings or from various objects, people, situations, etc. (p. 54). Davis continues with his explanation of the "Socratic Method." The Socratic method, which is used by many teachers with activities such as the Socratic circle, holds that the "teacher's task is to draw out of the learner what is already there. The teacher in this case does not give information directly" but "poses questions that are based on the learner's answers." This is intended to "prompt learners to realize their own misconceptions or bolster their existing understanding (p. 55).
DeleteStacey,
DeleteI also picked up on the “anyone being a teacher” from mysticism, and I found the terms derived from religion such as: master, doctor, discipling, etc. to be extremely interesting. I can see the balance of both of these past theories deep in work in our current education system in the Western World. I feel like while problem based learning is designed to be a more constructivist approach with possible past ties to mysticism I feel like the "religion" ties are still at work and I would even say hard for the "modern day" teacher to break free from. I think that most teachers do see themselves as training, guiding or in the leadership as instructor where knowledge is given not discovered. I don't think that "modern teachers" necessarily see themselves in the more all-knowing, indoctrinating, discipling way but the deep roots of the religion theory are hard to break free from. I think much like the mysticism theory that we as teachers should be more concerned with drawing out the knowledge of the learner than trying to just "tell" the learner the knowledge they should know. I would say that Davis is trying to show the beginning of both of these theories not only to help us better understand gnosis, but to allow us to see the left over strands of what one might just consider "past theories" as something that is still present in our educational system today. Would you agree?
I do agree. Davis provides wonderful examples of how gnosis and the theories within gnosis are still rooted within the educational system, looking both at mysticism and religion. One interesting concept within mysticism is the idea of "fate," "pregiven identities," "ideal careers," etc. "Learning is seen mainly as a process of actualization of one's true self" (p. 53). I looked up the term fate because I always had assumed that it meant futures are predetermined and that the concept of free will wouldn't really change fate. The definition of fate is "the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power" (Bing search). So, combining this idea of fate with the mystic belief of teachers role to draw out of learners what they already know would suggest to me that fate is, for lack of a better term at the moment, maybe the "ideal" result of discovering knowledge throughout one's lifetime. A teacher (or anything/anyone that the helps the learner draw knowledge from within) could, as a result, help the learner reach or achieve his fate. I'm not sure if I'm reaching here. What do you guys think?
DeleteI agree. Each of us as an individual has some limits (related to fate?) but also a certain amount of freedom to draw knowledge from within (the mystical portion). I think a learner can draw some knowledge from outside (the religion portion) that complements the knowledge from within. Perhaps in studying a language a learner memorizes verbs (knowledge from outside) and after practice makes connections (knowledge from within) to become comfortable using the verbs in conversation.
DeleteDavis states that in mysticism "teaching was understood in term's of learner's response not the teacher's intention." In contrast, however, "religious traditions" focuses on the "teacher's aims" and holds that "authority is invested in the master, doctor, or teacher rather than in the disciple, patient, or pupil" (p. 59). In student-centered learning, which seems to be aligned with mysticism's ideas surrounding teaching and learning, students get to guide their learning and focus on studies that interest them. Most, if not all, of the students in curriculum theory last semester were proponents of student-centered learning. Does this balance the needs of individual students and the collective? Or, does this support just individual students? I'm curious to see what other's think.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more. In line with religious traditions, there has to be some initial presentation of information, but I think that learning, or rather discerning, happens when the subsequent lessons are student-centered.
DeleteFor the last few years, I’ve understood the verb ‘to teach’ as meaning ‘to show’. I was reminded of this when reading Davis’ finding that the Old English word for teach, ‘tacn’, can be interpreted as ‘to sign’. It was also interesting to see his explanation of the terms ‘profitieri’ and ‘lecturer’ on page sixty. I won’t stay on my soap-box for too long, but I’ll just say that I feel somewhat validated after reading these explanations. I usually discourage my students from calling me ‘profesor’ as opposed to ‘maestro’, Spanish for ‘teacher’ and derived from the verb ‘mostrar’ (to show).
I highlight this portion of this week’s reading because it helps me to student-center my lessons. I tell them, Okay, professors profess and teachers show, so I’ll demonstrate and expect you to participate. I think what I’ve been trying to do, oblivious of the terminology until now, is eliminate the chasm that can easily set-up between student and college professor. I could lecture on Spanish and profess the grammatical rules, but the students would learn very little. Sadly, I believe that students would prefer a lecture, because it seems more akin to our Western in-class teacher-centered procedures. Instead of passive indoctrination, the language teacher in particular (and I imagine most other fields of study as well) should inspire participation. Does any agree or disagree with this idea?
I agree. Davis, while discussing theories within mysticism states that the theories are "based on the assumption that each person is imbued with specific traits and abilities that determine interests, modes of engagement, and social roles. Not surprisingly, notions of teaching as nurturing and fostering fit well with and tend to be represented alongside these sort of populist theories" (p. 55). I believe that encouraging participation definitely coincides with the concept of teacher as fostering learner. You, as teacher, may initiate and foster discussions; however, learner must then participate in order to realize the knowledge that they possess, maybe based on past experience or past knowledge received/realized.
DeleteReginald and Stacey,
DeleteI agree with you guys... like Reginald said the student seem to want you to just "tell they what they need to know" instead of them being actively engaged. At the beginning of each semester I have to "break" them from just want to sit and listen instead of participating and taking control of their own learning. I have ponder this often before... I admit I know little about early education but it seems that the students learn mostly though interaction, play and practice... whether it be an educational topic such as adding numbers or something as simply as pour milk into a glass. I mean really no matter how many time you tell a child how to pour milk do they ever really learn until they try it and probably make several messes (failures) before they actually reach success. I see the fostering and nurturing and other aspects of mysticism (letting learning come to their own knowledge) more heavily in play in the younger grades... just think about it you seldom ever hear a kid say they don't want to go to kindergarten. It seems that at some point within elementary a shift mystically takes place where the learner is less in control of knowledge and reaching the truths and then the instructor takes on the role of the giver of information. By the time the students reach high school they have typically transformed from someone trying and doing everything in their power to gain the Knowledge out there to simply sitting back and relinquishing control and waiting for knowledge to be given to them, a much more religious idea. I have found from my own personal experience it is hard to break out of this cycle, and in the beginning it often takes more time and effort to bring the learners back to student-centered learning... I have found though after a time of winning them over they really start to enjoy learning again and they typically always have positive things to say in the end of the course.
In this week’s reading I found the commonalities and differences between mysticism and religion intriguing. Before reading if someone ask me if mysticism or religion had anything in common my answer would have been no. To me in my “Western thinking mind” religion is everywhere and almost an everyday occurrence where as mysticism is more “out there and magical” and almost looked down upon by our society, “at least here in the bible belt of Oklahoma.” Just using the simple “Harry Potter” example from the text, I could name individuals who would say that I was a bad person for reading the books to my kids and taking them to Harry Potter World and buying them a wand. But regardless of where one stands on Harry Potter, before the reading this week I would have said that religion and or mysticism have really no part in modern day education. I have now however changed my mind.
ReplyDeleteI thought how Davis begins diving into gnosis showing the common roots of mysticism and religion interesting. Both mysticism and religion regard Truth as a fixed and unchanging thing, and both assume spiritual truths arrive from a different and higher place, realm, or domain, and Identity is pre-given, unchanging, and eternal. However, the similarities seem to stop when teaching, learning, and knowledge are brought into the conversation. Davis says, “despite their (mysticism and religion) shared conviction that teaching must first and foremost be concerned with matters of the spirit, their divergent assumptions about the origins of gnosis give rise to very different, even compatible recommendations for the teaching of children.”
(pg 57)
Continued:
ReplyDeleteMysticism and Religion where both base as gnosis theories have extremely different ideas about what learning is and how knowledge is obtained. Mysticism is all about the learner being responsible for their knowledge, and when one conforms to a rigorous system of discipline they can achieve some measure of unity with the universe. Mysticism has the learner using intuition as a mode of learning that exceeds purely rational thought, and wants the learner to obtain “a knowledge that surpasses oneself.” Mysticism believes that knowledge is already there and only needs to be brought out of the learner. Davis said that one of the core problems with mysticism is “in matters of teaching and learning arise the assumption that knowers are always and already part of the wholeness of creation, but they have somehow lost or forgotten their place within the grand unity.” I think Davis is pointing out this problem to show a possible weak spot in the mysticism beliefs. If we whole-heartily believe that the learner has “all knowledge” already in them then at what level do we think they have reached the “Knowledge max.” I see this as a major downside of Mysticism. I fully believe that we should question our students, use their life experiences, let them explore and come up with their own conjectures, that we should prompt them and then allow them time to reason out a solution. But I do think that there is abundant truths/knowledge that is out there and unless the learner is exposed they might not ever come to the Knowledge on their own. Does anyone else think that Mysticism has an “upper bound limit” where knowledge is concerned?
As far as Religion the ideas about what teaching is and how knowledge is gained is in complete opposition of mysticism. In Religion discipline and mastery are not responsibility of the learner but duties of the teacher. Davis said that religion is, “concerned more with drawing persons into established systems of thought then drawing thought out of the person.”(pg. 58). Religion does not rely on intuition for the belief is “the inward self is seen as easily corrupted” and therefore religion focuses on tuition the contrast to intuition. Davis even states that tuition, “watching over” has become a synonym for teaching. Another difference is religion views Knowledge as a supernatural source and knowledge has an existence that is independent of knowers, teaching is a divine calling and is responsible for imparting knowledge.
I have found the similarities and differences between Mysticism and Religion and their ties to modern Western education eye-opening. I feel like I should make a chart and list all the commonalities and contrasts between the two! Am I the only one who before these chapters would have said that mysticism and religion really have no bearing on what is going on in classrooms today? I now see how wrong I was and how much of just a superficial knowledge I had about all the threads that make up education, teaching, and knowledge. What commonalities of mysticism and religion do you see still at work in our Western educational system?
I wonder if knowledge from within is related to inquiry teaching, so that the learner begins to realize and put together what already she/he knows to extend it to more complex ideas. I enjoy reading Davis because I never knew so much about the history of where many of our world views originated. Without awareness I could not previously question my world view.
DeleteI imagine there is a strong tie between inquiry teaching and knowledge from within. I'd be interested to find other ways mysticism has influenced current teaching method - and for the better. I can say from personal experience, as both student and teacher, that lecturing and passive listening (even when note-taking is involved) can yield poor results. I think it's important to realize that aural learning skills need to be aided with activities that require introspection and reflection. That is, the student should be required to make connections or find conflict with his/her own world view.
DeleteThat said, I'm not sure I agree with Davis' statement about learning styles and learning modalities on page 55. Davis claims that, "These theories are based on the assumption that each person is imbued with specific traits and abilities that determine interests, modes of engagement, and social roles." I may be reading his statement incorrectly, but I've been under the impression that styles of learning form via cultural influences. I'm thinking, for example, of how many students in the 21st century are more visual than auditory. I see this tendency as a reflection of technological advances (from the television in the mid-20th century to today's tablet and Google glasses). I'll dare to say that learning styles are just as much drawn-in as they are drawn-out. Does anyone agree or disagree. I have some teaching experience in the middle school and high school arena, but mostly at the post-secondary level. Maybe someone with more elementary through high school experience can help me here.
Alina,
DeleteI could not agree more with you about making a chart and list all of the similarities and differences between mysticism and religion. I need a reminder that both are still part of today’s education and I have to reflect more in the way that Davis connects them into teaching and learning. In chapter 5 he states that “within mystical traditions, the core problematic in matters of learning and teaching arises in the assumption that knowers are always and already part of the wholeness of creation, but that they have somehow lost or forgotten their place within this grand unity. While, in religion the learner’s surrender of authority is possible in the assumption that knowledge has an existence that is independent of knowers which, in turn, is hinged to the believe that the mental-spiritual realm is distinct from and even opposed to the physical-fleshy world”. I wonder in which of this traditions the modern students holds onto?
4. I think when society is out of balance with individual rights/freedom, problems arise at either extreme when only society matters but not the individual and well as when only an individual matters and society doesn't.
ReplyDeleteDavis commented about only society matters and not the individual on p. 58. He discussed western religions view the inward self as easily corrupted, and the truth is available from the outside. Self-denial is also a theme in religions as the collective is the priority, not the individual.
At the other extreme Davis comments on p.54 that today's ego grasping has replaced discovering oneself and locating oneself within the web of existence. Instead of letting go of the ego, now the emphasis is to distinguish oneself.
I think a democratic society is sustainable if both the long term needs of individuals and society are balanced. It seems like classrooms could model this to help students learn this. Perhaps this indicates that both mysticism and religion can inform how to balance the needs of individual students and the collective (society/ the classroom)?
This is my take of what Davis discusses in these chapters about the two knowledge sources mysticism and religion. Davis implies the origins of the descriptions of knowledge began in the Greek community (Plato and Socrates). At that time the knowledge was basically derived from mysticism. That is, one was concerned about his physical surroundings and the cause of those physical surroundings was attributed to some spirit making things happen. The religions already had the knowledge of the world, usually recorded on sacred texts. This knowledge was distributed to people trough religious structures. At this particular juncture of Greek consolidation the evolution of modern scientific though to develop knowledge began and it has currently evolved into the accepted way of thinking. Davis states that academically speaking, the main difference between mysticism and religions is that, for the latter, knowledge of higher things is not a matter of introspection, but enforcing a body of knowledge that is imposed from the outside (or, perhaps more commonly, from above). For religion, truth is not about divination of immanent truth, but above revelation of sacred truth. (46). Davis also reflects on the amount of mysticism and religion that still in our culture. He emphasizes that “the current academic literature around matters of knowledge, learning and teaching” (p. 39) are based on this modern though, and mysticism and religion has been eclipsed. With this in mind I wander on How can we improve teaching of our modern methods of gaining knowledge?
ReplyDelete