Saturday, March 5, 2016
Week 7 March 1 - March 8
From the Brune's view of teaching, learning and knowing part 1 (chapters 1, 2 y 3) I am intrigue that in the second essay Folk Pedagogy he brings in the idea that teachers do no always approach teaching and learning effectively. Teachers (and students) bring with them to the classroom pre-conceived ideas of how learning happens, explained in part by install cultural beliefs about how the mind works. Bruner outlines four models of the mind based on pre-conceived ideas, and the related education goals of each. To my understanding Bruner is sugesting that by examining and evaluating each carefully, we are then able to rethink our approach to education. What do you think? Am I in the right track?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Bruner is bringing up current theories of teaching and current problems in education, to point toward improving education in American schools. I think you are right as in these first three chapters of Bruner's book he is trying to teach us to analyze our teaching to improve it to help learners. I found the quote on p. 63 intriguing, "Real schooling, of course is never, confined to one model of the learner or one model of teaching." I certainly agree with that statement. Bruner wrote on p. 79, "It is through this process of becoming aware of practice that the good school and the healthy classroom can provide even the child of poverty, even the outsider immigrant child, some working vision of how a society can operate." The way I interpret this statement is that Bruner is speaking of the children who fall through the cracks and miss out on opportunities to improve their lives through education.
ReplyDeleteMaru,
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in chapter 2 "Folk Pedagogy" as well. I agree with you and Steve that I believe that Bruner is trying to show us all different models of education so that we can take a deeper look into what is going on in today's educational system. I find is interesting that Bruner wrote this book in 1996 and now 20 years later it doesn't seem that the educational system is much different than Bruner described from two decades ago. One thing that I can see that has possibly changed is the more willingness of teachers and teacher prep programs to really involve the students in their own learning. However I see this mostly being done in exploratory lessons or in some group work but I believe Bruner was hoping for more. It seems that he is leaning towards a hope of and intertwining of intersubjectivity and interobjectivity in every classroom. So that as Bruner stated on pg 49. "they can begin to 'think about thinking' as well as about 'the world.'" I do love the quote that Steve uses on pg. 63 about "real schooling." I believe that if Bruner were in our blog group he would want us to remember that education is never "done" or "fixed" it is constantly changing and moving in some direction. I believe that as educators we should make sure every student gets the same opportunities and that we are very aware of what Bruner called the "deprivation hypothesis." As Steve said we must be aware of those who "fall through the cracks" of our current educational system. I found the background on the "Head Start" program intriguing. I almost feel that Bruner was saying that we quit the program too soon and that there should be secondary follow up programs in the early childhood part of school and possibly even higher in elementary so that lower income students not in "ideal" home environments could be nurtured and even taught some basic study skills for example complete your homework, get a good nights sleep, etc. that some kids get automatically in their homes while others are neglected in this way. Did anyone else pick up on this... or am I just putting my personal thoughts in there too much?
I was also drawn into Bruner's explanation of antinomies. It seems that there are many antinomies out there and that through these truths (or parts of truth) these antinomies can both be true and contradicting at the same time. I think of these as the discourses that Davis talked about in his book. Does anyone else see these as parallel?
I also got the sense that Bruner was saying that we judged and sentences Head Start too early. It reminds me of Davis’s thought that, behaviorism, while somewhat alienating and “less and less useful as learners become more and more complex”, played an important role in “its acknowledgement of the roles of context and experience in learning.” (Davis, p90) Concerning Head Start, Bruner tells us that it, ultimately, “created a new consciousness that, by intervening in the developmental scene early enough, you could change the life of children earlier.” (Bruner, p75)
DeleteA question I have, though, is how else could have Head Start started in a seemingly less condescending way? I have no direct experience with Head Start, but it seems to me that the idea that the program implied that black and Hispanic culture were at fault for their “cultural deprivation” is an over-analyzation (if that’s permitted), especially in retrospect if the program has shown to be beneficial over a sustained period of time. In all honesty, I’m shocked to know that Head Start started as a program for the disadvantaged. To this point, I’ve only know it, as its title suggests, an extra push for children before entering elementary school. Also, I imagine that most programs that serve as bootstraps, from the more privileged to the less-privileged, are inherently condescending, in the sense that they see themselves as equipped to help. Both sides of this local-knowledge voice vs. authoritatively universal voice antimony seems necessary.
I know is late, but it is important to clarify what I posted earlier about narrative. What I really wanted to say is that Bruner states that there are essentially two ways by which we organize and manage our knowledge of the world: logical- scientific thinking, and narrative thinking. Schools traditionally favor the former and treat the narrative arts — song, drama, fiction, and theater — as more "decoration" than necessity. "It is only in the narrative mode," Bruner points out, "that one can construct an identity and find a place in one's culture. Schools must cultivate it, nurture it, and cease taking it for granted." (p. 42)
DeleteIn the reading this week I tried to really pay attention to the list of words that the class tried to define during the last class period. I believe that the class was close on symbolic capital and situated learning. I feel that Bruner is saying that symbolic capital is the resources available on basis of prestige. I see this when he was talking about how some students have better opportunities, from their home lives and then others are missing out on some of those key elements that can give a learner a better "start" in their education. Also I feel that we hit the nail with situated learning being learning as a function of activity. This was exemplified in the several different learning situations/ styles that Bruner introduced in chapters 1, 2, and 3. Did you get the same ideas? Do you feel like we covered these with our definitions fairly well?
ReplyDeleteI do feel like we possibly need to further discuss narrative, which I would have thought we could have easily nailed prior to reading. In class we defined narrative as self story, however I believe that Bruner would say it is more of a "thinking and feeling that helps children create a version of the world in which they can envisage a place for themselves." pg 39 And then on page 41 Bruner continue to say tat narrative could be made an instrument of mind but that would require analyzing and discussing the meaning making with others.
Throughout the reading I believe that I have grasped authority and community but I do not remember there being a specific place where Bruner states these two ideas. I believe that Bruner would say that the authority would be those in charge of determining how education should look. Those in authority should forever be looking and seeing how education can be better for the majority of learners. How we should use culture or be aware of the culture so that we can make changes in the betterment of schooling and ideally allowing the learner to have authority over their own learning.... so am I close or how do you see authority?
I agree with your observations about narrative, however to elaborate, Bruner tends to incorporate logical-scientific thinking that is necessary for our technological culture; and narrative thinking which deals with literature that provides the knowledge of where one thinks she fits in the larger world. This is manifested in the abilities of children and adults to create their stories
DeleteAbout the concept of antinomies as I understand Bruner, he is suggesting that are many theories at many different levels where some are true, some are true but conflicting, and some are doubtful. Bruner feels that the primary way of developing objectives is through the culture that individuals belong to and in particular the individuals, as they are educated in that culture. They also promulgate their culture itself. Once these objectives are established, then based on different antinomies, pedagogic methods can be developed. But, I do no see a strong connection with Davis’ discourses.
Delete
DeleteI think that many of the terms we tried to pin-point toward the end of last Tuesday’s class can be found in chapter one, as Bruner lays the foundation for is argument that education is a not a bureaucratic island, but instead a collective effort. So, I will share my understanding of the terms agency, authority, and intersubjectivity in context of Bruner’s writing.
In chapter one, Bruner says that, “We are obliged to experience ourselves as invariant across circumstances and continuous across time”. He later states that we should see ourselves as “agents”. It seems to me that Bruner is encouraging us to see ourselves as a medium through which many beliefs and philosophies pass. As we experience these beliefs and philosophies, we redirect our thoughts about events in order to make our own meanings. My effort to explain may be causing even more confusion, but I liken Bruner’s explanation to that of a single, stationary check-point wherein several boats stop but then are given orders to go in different directions. I’m also thinking of a travel agency, where we bring our preconceived notions about a particular vacation destination, and are, in the end, influenced to go to that or a different place.
Concerning, authority, it seems to me that Bruner uses the term “authority”, on page 21, in reference to a particular role of the teacher, but one that should not be abused or over-exalted. I believe that here, and at several points in these first three chapters, we see a tendency toward an interobjectivist model, as outlined by Davis in Inventions of Teaching. Bruner states, “contrary to traditional critics, such subcommunities do not reduce the teacher’s role nor his or her “authority”. Rather the teacher takes on the additional function of encouraging others to share it”. (21) This is one of several parallels that I see (or maybe just imagine) between Davis and Bruner. Does anyone else agree, or can anyone steer me in the right direction?
I see Bruner’s use of the term “intersubjectivity”, as a mixture with interobjectivist views. For example, he defines intersubjectivity as, “the human ability to understand the minds of others, whether through language, gesture, or through other means.” (20) I think that this statement mainly emphasizes the importance of different meanings based on different contexts, situations, folk pedagogies. Bruner later goes on to say that, “the more mutual community...provides “scaffolding” for novices”. (21) The idea of scaffolding, commonly known as loosely formed structures proposed for the repair of the outside of a building. It seems that Bruner is suggesting that, just as the loose physical structure allows workers to inter-connect information and materials, so too does a mutual learning community allow the known to be shared with the “unknowing”. I liken it grouping students who are strong in a certain area of understanding with those who are weaker in that same area for the purpose of building the knowledge of the novice.
I agree, we could and should spend more time on the concept of “narrative”. I initially saw the term as more of an individual construal of past experiences. After reading chapter one, though, I see it as a tool for meaning making, or evaluating how a person fits, or how a group of people fit, into a community. The reiteration that made the most sense to me was Bruner’s statement on page 40 that, “The Importance of narrative for the cohesion of a culture is as great...as it is in structuring an individual life. I enjoyed the Peter Pan example because, in all honesty, it is simply nostalgic, and because it helps me to see the importance Bruner places on the cultivation of “narrative” in order to feel important and part of a community or, in the case of the Lost Boys, see their existence as more than orphan servants.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the term “community”, I am still searching for a moment wherein Bruner gives an explicit definition. I do, however, find it mentioned through these first three chapters in what seems to be a call for re-assessing our approach to education and schooling. The high-point of this week’s reading, for me, was Bruner’s story about the lower socio-economic school in Oakland, CA. This Oakland Project, as Brunner explains, exemplifies “an enabling community” (p76) wherein “children had learned to treat ideas respectfully, pragmatically, and actively.” (p77). I’ll continue searching for a Bruner definition of community, but I think his aim is to bring attention to the importance of viewing education as collaborative instead of unilateral, from all-knowing teacher to blank-slate student.
I believe on a whole that Bruner leans away from a metaphysical approach to education and leans towards a physical approach. As I was reading especially about the "tenets" for education within chapter 1, Bruner had many examples of "learning," "teaching" and "knowledge" that in my opinion leaned heavily towards the physical realm. Many times Bruner discussed learning or knowing as understanding, looking within oneself, looking at the culture around, perceiving, thinking and feeling, interpretation, bootstrapping, interaction, and using the "tools" of the society we live in to deeper our understanding.
ReplyDeleteI really like the way Bruner focuses on so many different aspects and really gives a very broad range of his views on schooling and education. It seems like Bruner is an activist for the learner and expects that the learner would be an active participant in their own learning. From Chapters 2 and 3 I feel that Bruner is very much interested in the value of the student coming to their own understanding and that they learn best from the "culture" they are an active member in (even when that culture is their classroom of peers), than they do if they are simply being "told" the truths/knowledge from someone else.
In commenting on Reginald's post about the school in Oakland, CA. I thought that Bruner showed a great example of students "teaching/scaffolding" others in their group. When they had to come up with their own ideas for the oil spill in Alaska, everyone was able to participate with out the worry of being wrong. This example was on page 77, and Bruner even said this is "teaching as sharing." At one point in the reading Bruner said that knowledge can be gained from the culture around you but no culture has all the answers, that sometimes we have to go outside our current culture and do some "research" within a different culture. I still believe that the Oakland example of the oil spill would be great to illustrate that even if the "classroom culture" gets stuck or needs a push, they are able to go outside their culture and research a specific issue that can not be resolved within their current "culture." Once resolution has taken place then the other members of the classroom have a new knowledge base to begin to use to tackle other related issues. I love Bruner's quote, "we have known for years that if you treat people, young kids included, as responsible, contributing parties to the group, as having a job to do, they will grow into it-some better than others, but all will benefit." Pg. 77
I feel like much of what Bruner advocates for education is common to Davis. Each theorist has a unique style of communicating but they have similar underlying messages. For instance Bruner's emphasis on "humans organize knowledge logical-scientific thinking and narrative thinking," seems similar to Davis' episteme and gnosis. Episteme has components of logic and empiricism and gnosis could be expressed as narrative. These seem to be essential components of knowing.
DeleteI think Bruner would say education must constantly change to help students have more equal opportunities to minimize the inequalities caused by symbolic capital. I think programs like "Head Start" are important as it directly helps the learner get more reinforcement in learning skills needed in a school environment to succeed later in life.
ReplyDeleteBruner's discussion of narrative seems like both an individual process, an instrument of mind mixed with interacting with others to discuss and decide one's own meaning making.
Bruner wrote (p. 39) that humans organize knowledge logical-scientific thinking and narrative thinking. I think students need to learn to integrate these in appropriate ways as aboth are important.
I would like to elaborate more in what Bruner calls the four dominant models of pedagogy that I mentioned earlier. As I understand, the first views the student as an imitative learner and focuses on passing on skills and "know-how" through example and demonstrative action. This approach emphasizes talent, skills, and expertise, rather than knowledge and action. The second views students as learning from didactic exposure. It is based on the idea that learners should be presented with facts, principles, and rules of action, which are to be learned, remembered, and then applied. The third sees children as thinkers and focuses on the development of intersubjective interchange. This model revolves around how the child makes sense of his or her world. It stresses the value of discussion and collaboration. The fourth model views children as knowledgeable and stresses the management of "objective" knowledge. This perspective holds that teaching should help children grasp the distinction between personal knowledge, on the one hand, and "what is taken to be known" by the culture, on the other.
ReplyDeleteBruner states “Modern pedagogy is moving increasingly to the view that the child should be aware of his or her own thought processes (models three and four)" and that “achieving skills and accumulating knowledge (models one and two) are not enough. (p. 64) "What is needed," Bruner stresses, "is that the four perspectives be fused into some congruent unity, recognized as parts of a common continent. Older views of mind and how mind can be cultivated need to be shorn of their narrow exclusionism, and newer views need to be modulated to recognize that while skills and facts never exist out of context, they are no less important in context." (p. 65)