1.) What is socioeconomics? Socioeconomics is defined as the social science that studies how economic activity affects and is shaped by social processes. In the reading, socioeconomics is used to describe the process of manipulating academic curriculum to include skills that are profitable for the business industry. The author uses socioeconomics to describe how education has not been used as a means to bring equality among the working class, but as a way to keep the flow of business profitable.
2.) I do agree that socioeconomics has manipulated the educational experience. Schooling is believed to, and should bring freedom to an individual by allowing them to explore. In reality, school curriculum is mostly mandatory, leaving little wiggle room for students and teachers. There is a board or committee that votes and decides what it is students should be taught. Because of this, one has to consider the fact that curriculum is biased towards the ones who control it. I have experienced this myself. In grade school there would be things we would hear about and ask our teachers about, and even though the would answer our questions, we couldn't learn about it because it was not a part of the curriculum. Students should be able to be involved in academics. Letting students have choice in what they want to learn would be beneficial because it would make students excited about the subject matter. Students might also feel like they have a voice and are not just getting ruled over by the big wigs. Instead, curriculum is built to compliment capitalism as opposed to the students. Students are evaluated by how well they follow directions, causing differences between the students. And these differences go through the college level as well. The author describes how college graduates often times end up on government assistance and unemployment for not going to the "right" college. Universities follow a hierarchy, with ivy league schools being the peak. So where education is supposed to promote freedom and opportunity, often times that only applies to the privileged. Workers and students eventually take on the role of machines and commodities because the goal for these individuals, whether they are aware or not, is to produce surplus product that is conducive to society.
3.) Is training students to have skills specifically related to demands of big business theoretically helping or harming our students? Does training students with vocational skills limit the individuality and imaginative spirit of the student? Are we as teachers contributing to the division of class that results from enforcing students to be well behaved? Are we sending the message to our students that being submissive is expected and rewarded? The author summed up the main idea of these questions by stating "Moreover, despite the important contribution of
education to an individual's economic chances, the substantial equalization of
educational attainments over the years has not led measurably to an equalization in
income among individuals". If curriculum serves its purpose correctly why is there still major divisions between classes?
Monday, July 27, 2015
Monday, July 13, 2015
McLaren, P. Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts (pp.72-81)
1.) What is discourse? The dictionary describes discourse as a written or spoken debate. In the reading McLaren describes discourse as being practices embedded and institutionalized into society in an attempt to regulate systems. Discourse leads to discursive practices which cripple the thought process of the student.
2.) I do agree with Mclarens idea of discourse. He describes in the reading how discourse becomes dominant by allowing dominant people of a certain class to control what textbooks students learn from and what material they are to be tested on. McLaren makes a great point when he describes how standard curriculum includes tasks and accomplishments of wealthy and/or powerful Caucasian men. Too often curriculum overlooks contributions made by women, middle to lower class citizens and people of minority cultures. curriculum can also be manipulated to to encourage the current status quo of society. In the reading McLaren describes how discourses are created and governed by rules and power. It is important to realize the relation between knowledge and power, especially in a school setting. I believe the discourse that is created is another way to maintain order within the school. By not giving teachers and students the freedom to explore various avenues of education, you strip them of their thirst for knowledge. As a result, students believe learning is not fun, it is more so a tedious task.
I believe that if students had more input on the curriculum, then society would improve. Students should have the freedom to explore their options and decide what works best for them. Instead, we are drilled from a young age that there are certain things we have to master or we will not be successful. These critical educators create the dominant discourse that leads to domination in education as opposed to liberation which in many cases leads to rebellion within students.
3.) How much would society improve, if at all, by letting students become involved in the mandatory condition? Would a division of power within the classroom lead to a division of power within society? Is knowledge abused in its connection to power?
2.) I do agree with Mclarens idea of discourse. He describes in the reading how discourse becomes dominant by allowing dominant people of a certain class to control what textbooks students learn from and what material they are to be tested on. McLaren makes a great point when he describes how standard curriculum includes tasks and accomplishments of wealthy and/or powerful Caucasian men. Too often curriculum overlooks contributions made by women, middle to lower class citizens and people of minority cultures. curriculum can also be manipulated to to encourage the current status quo of society. In the reading McLaren describes how discourses are created and governed by rules and power. It is important to realize the relation between knowledge and power, especially in a school setting. I believe the discourse that is created is another way to maintain order within the school. By not giving teachers and students the freedom to explore various avenues of education, you strip them of their thirst for knowledge. As a result, students believe learning is not fun, it is more so a tedious task.
I believe that if students had more input on the curriculum, then society would improve. Students should have the freedom to explore their options and decide what works best for them. Instead, we are drilled from a young age that there are certain things we have to master or we will not be successful. These critical educators create the dominant discourse that leads to domination in education as opposed to liberation which in many cases leads to rebellion within students.
3.) How much would society improve, if at all, by letting students become involved in the mandatory condition? Would a division of power within the classroom lead to a division of power within society? Is knowledge abused in its connection to power?
McLaren, P. Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts (pp.60-72)
1.) What is hegemony? The dictionary defines hegemony as leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over another. Peter McLaren describes hegemony in the reading as "a struggle in which the powerful win the consent of those who are oppressed, with the oppressed unknowingly participating on their oppression".
2.) In the reading, McLaren outlines traits of what he describes as a critical educator. A critical educator is one who is does not feel it is necessary to explore all realms of education. Critical educators do not consider the possibility of more than one solution to a problem. From the reading, we can infer that critical educators are hegemonic in their teachings. I agree with this idea. The mandatory curriculum for impressionable young students is closely correlated to the demands of society. For example, it is mandatory for students to learn how to use mathematical and scientific formulas. Students are taught that they will need this to apply to life in the real world if they want any chance of being successful. Students are taught that in order to be successful, you must follow the coursework that is created with the intent of being hegemonic. Once these students graduate they are sent off in the real world with no real concept of what it takes to truly be successful. I wish when I was a student money management was part of the curriculum, We spent so much time doing math I did not use and eventually forgot. As a broke, 18 year old college freshman, money management and accounting skills would have been more useful and more practical for my everyday life. These critical educators do not teach students how to think on a wider scale, it teaches students to follow orders. Critical educators are teaching the students they will be liberated by the knowledge they obtain, while controlling the knowledge that is distributed. As a result, students are confused with intertwined thoughts of domination and liberation.
3.) Is the curriculum as imperative to success as critical educators portray it to be? How may of the macro points do we utilize in our everyday lives in comparison to the micro points? How do we balance the curriculum to reflect liberation as opposed to domination?
2.) In the reading, McLaren outlines traits of what he describes as a critical educator. A critical educator is one who is does not feel it is necessary to explore all realms of education. Critical educators do not consider the possibility of more than one solution to a problem. From the reading, we can infer that critical educators are hegemonic in their teachings. I agree with this idea. The mandatory curriculum for impressionable young students is closely correlated to the demands of society. For example, it is mandatory for students to learn how to use mathematical and scientific formulas. Students are taught that they will need this to apply to life in the real world if they want any chance of being successful. Students are taught that in order to be successful, you must follow the coursework that is created with the intent of being hegemonic. Once these students graduate they are sent off in the real world with no real concept of what it takes to truly be successful. I wish when I was a student money management was part of the curriculum, We spent so much time doing math I did not use and eventually forgot. As a broke, 18 year old college freshman, money management and accounting skills would have been more useful and more practical for my everyday life. These critical educators do not teach students how to think on a wider scale, it teaches students to follow orders. Critical educators are teaching the students they will be liberated by the knowledge they obtain, while controlling the knowledge that is distributed. As a result, students are confused with intertwined thoughts of domination and liberation.
3.) Is the curriculum as imperative to success as critical educators portray it to be? How may of the macro points do we utilize in our everyday lives in comparison to the micro points? How do we balance the curriculum to reflect liberation as opposed to domination?
Monday, July 6, 2015
hooks, b. “Confronting Class in the Classroom”
1.) What is class antagonism? A synonym of antagonist is is adversary or rival. It is defined as actively opposing or hostile to someone or something thing. In relation to the classroom, Hooks describes class antagonism as the notion that students and educators from working class backgrounds are "outsiders" and "interlopers".
2.) I agree with this position. I believe that for those of us who have several obstacles to overcome before we can even begin to work towards our dreams have all felt like outsiders at some point during our academic careers. I like the comparison Hooks made between working class families and African American students (page 5). Hooks describes how African Americans often feel like they are in a different world when placed academically with privileged Caucasian students. African Americans feel they need to find ways to adapt and live between two different worlds, often feeling victims to circumstance. I find this to be accurate based on personal experiences. Myself being African American and a woman from a working middle class family felt I had to prove myself worthy of the education I was receiving. I did not feel everyone else had to do that, just me. I think that is tied into the victim mentality Hooks says is likely to occur. Some of my peers that were not in college wanted to know what I did to deserve to better myself. I often felt like my peers in my classes who were from the upper class backgrounds thought the same thing, leaving me in the middle trying to please both ends of the two worlds I was living in while remaining true to myself. I think this is true of people academically involved who come from working class backgrounds. At some point or another we all feel like we have something to prove. We feel it is our job to show we belong without causing to much of a fuss, because we don't want to be viewed as "lower class". The association of bad manners with class is just one example of class antagonism. Hooks makes a valid point when he describes class as more than materialistically or economically mature. Class, or the idea of class affects values, attitudes and relationships (page 1). I also find this to be accurate in comparison to the African American experience to the working class experience. When you look different than the majority of people around you there are multiple things that go through your mind. First is always the many stereotypes your wondering if you peers are thinking about you, followed by the obsession to prove them wrong by being the best you can be, all while trying to meet their standards. I have found in my experience with class it is a very real thing but it is up to you to create your own platform. Now instead of conforming or being militant in defense, I just do what works best for me. For some people, not all class is a very real thing. For others, its just a label. Whatever the case may be, you have to be true to yourself. You can not change your background only your future.
3.) What does Hooks mean when he says "Those of us in the academy from working-class backgrounds are empowered when we recognize our own agency.." ? How do you balance being outspoken when censorship is being asked of you? I believe Hooks is referring to the courage and strength it takes to work in these academic conditions and still be successful. Its about constructively using the antagonism we receive (page 6). By doing that we begin to challenge the existing structure. I believe this is true. I believe in a way class antagonism gives the working class an advantage. We learn hope to operate between two worlds. Being able to adapt and overcome while challenging the current structure in place can bring the change needed to better the academic environment.
2.) I agree with this position. I believe that for those of us who have several obstacles to overcome before we can even begin to work towards our dreams have all felt like outsiders at some point during our academic careers. I like the comparison Hooks made between working class families and African American students (page 5). Hooks describes how African Americans often feel like they are in a different world when placed academically with privileged Caucasian students. African Americans feel they need to find ways to adapt and live between two different worlds, often feeling victims to circumstance. I find this to be accurate based on personal experiences. Myself being African American and a woman from a working middle class family felt I had to prove myself worthy of the education I was receiving. I did not feel everyone else had to do that, just me. I think that is tied into the victim mentality Hooks says is likely to occur. Some of my peers that were not in college wanted to know what I did to deserve to better myself. I often felt like my peers in my classes who were from the upper class backgrounds thought the same thing, leaving me in the middle trying to please both ends of the two worlds I was living in while remaining true to myself. I think this is true of people academically involved who come from working class backgrounds. At some point or another we all feel like we have something to prove. We feel it is our job to show we belong without causing to much of a fuss, because we don't want to be viewed as "lower class". The association of bad manners with class is just one example of class antagonism. Hooks makes a valid point when he describes class as more than materialistically or economically mature. Class, or the idea of class affects values, attitudes and relationships (page 1). I also find this to be accurate in comparison to the African American experience to the working class experience. When you look different than the majority of people around you there are multiple things that go through your mind. First is always the many stereotypes your wondering if you peers are thinking about you, followed by the obsession to prove them wrong by being the best you can be, all while trying to meet their standards. I have found in my experience with class it is a very real thing but it is up to you to create your own platform. Now instead of conforming or being militant in defense, I just do what works best for me. For some people, not all class is a very real thing. For others, its just a label. Whatever the case may be, you have to be true to yourself. You can not change your background only your future.
3.) What does Hooks mean when he says "Those of us in the academy from working-class backgrounds are empowered when we recognize our own agency.." ? How do you balance being outspoken when censorship is being asked of you? I believe Hooks is referring to the courage and strength it takes to work in these academic conditions and still be successful. Its about constructively using the antagonism we receive (page 6). By doing that we begin to challenge the existing structure. I believe this is true. I believe in a way class antagonism gives the working class an advantage. We learn hope to operate between two worlds. Being able to adapt and overcome while challenging the current structure in place can bring the change needed to better the academic environment.
Friday, July 3, 2015
“The Student and Society: An Annotated Manifesto” (sections 4-8)
1.) What is an environment? An environment is defined as the surroundings or conditions in which a person, plant or animals operates or lives. In this case we are referring to the environment in which students learn. Goldfarb raises the question is the classroom environment just as, if not more important than the method of teaching being used. (page 6)
2.) I do agree with Goldfarb that environment must be taken into consideration while teaching, and is the instructors job to facilitate the classroom to ensure it is a positive learning environment. Goldfarb describes how monotonous the classroom experience has become, suggesting we should give students the freedom to learn within their comfort zone. As a college student I can safely say my fellow students and I have all experienced having an instructor who was more like a robot than a teacher; constantly drilling us with pointless facts while speaking into the blackboard while we only have view of their backs. My experience in the classroom has been that every student has their own personal learning method that works for them. I agree that teachers should pinpoint that and try to work around it. I myself have to write everything down because i am a photographic learner. I need to see it spelled out in front of me. Not all students learn this way. Goldfarb describes how he has seen students so used to having to please their teachers, that their true identity becomes a mask. The student simply becomes whatever is expected from them by their instructors.I also agree with this position. When I am given a writing assignment I do not write my true feelings or thoughts on the subject, I follow the rubric provided for me. I only include what I am being asked to include. This helps support the idea that students can often times be disconnected from what is happening in the classroom. The best learning experiences I've had in all my years of being a student came from the classes that taught me how to apply my education to my everyday life, and gave us the freedom to explore how to do that. My freshman creative writing course is the best example of that. We choose what we wanted to write about by making suggestions, and everyone had a chance to explore every suggested subject. Our instructor always found a way to tie in a lesson with our personal experiences. This all comes back to the instructor being a facilitator by positively influencing the learning experience. I do not think its the actual decor of the room that is important (although it plays a roll). It is more so teachers supporting the students in finding what works best for them during their educational journey.
3.) In the reading, Goldfarb states "The scariest thing about a classroom is that it acts as a sort of psychological switch. You walk into a classroom; some things switch on in you and others switch off" (page 6). Is this a good thing or a bad thing, and who or what determines what those factors that get switched on and off are? I believe Goldfarb is referring to the notion of students wanting to please teachers so much, they go into "student" mode as soon as they enter the classroom, and that mode can be different for everybody. The best learning experience comes when students walk in and switch "on" because they feel that the environment is conducive to their advancement and achievement.
2.) I do agree with Goldfarb that environment must be taken into consideration while teaching, and is the instructors job to facilitate the classroom to ensure it is a positive learning environment. Goldfarb describes how monotonous the classroom experience has become, suggesting we should give students the freedom to learn within their comfort zone. As a college student I can safely say my fellow students and I have all experienced having an instructor who was more like a robot than a teacher; constantly drilling us with pointless facts while speaking into the blackboard while we only have view of their backs. My experience in the classroom has been that every student has their own personal learning method that works for them. I agree that teachers should pinpoint that and try to work around it. I myself have to write everything down because i am a photographic learner. I need to see it spelled out in front of me. Not all students learn this way. Goldfarb describes how he has seen students so used to having to please their teachers, that their true identity becomes a mask. The student simply becomes whatever is expected from them by their instructors.I also agree with this position. When I am given a writing assignment I do not write my true feelings or thoughts on the subject, I follow the rubric provided for me. I only include what I am being asked to include. This helps support the idea that students can often times be disconnected from what is happening in the classroom. The best learning experiences I've had in all my years of being a student came from the classes that taught me how to apply my education to my everyday life, and gave us the freedom to explore how to do that. My freshman creative writing course is the best example of that. We choose what we wanted to write about by making suggestions, and everyone had a chance to explore every suggested subject. Our instructor always found a way to tie in a lesson with our personal experiences. This all comes back to the instructor being a facilitator by positively influencing the learning experience. I do not think its the actual decor of the room that is important (although it plays a roll). It is more so teachers supporting the students in finding what works best for them during their educational journey.
3.) In the reading, Goldfarb states "The scariest thing about a classroom is that it acts as a sort of psychological switch. You walk into a classroom; some things switch on in you and others switch off" (page 6). Is this a good thing or a bad thing, and who or what determines what those factors that get switched on and off are? I believe Goldfarb is referring to the notion of students wanting to please teachers so much, they go into "student" mode as soon as they enter the classroom, and that mode can be different for everybody. The best learning experience comes when students walk in and switch "on" because they feel that the environment is conducive to their advancement and achievement.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
“The Student and Society: An Annotated Manifesto” (sections 1-3)
1.) What is a poisonous school? A poisonous school is a modern school that thrives in the development and use of technology while completely lacking social change. Jerry Goldfarb argues that the outdated teaching methods used in modern schools are destructive to students due to the fact it teaches them to be submissive, passive and afraid. Goldfarb describes this best with the statement "Our schools teach you by
pushing you around, by stealing your will and your sense of power, by making timid square
apathetic slaves out of you authority addicts. (page 1)" In this manifesto Goldfarb argues that it is not the curriculum that is most important, but the way we teach our students.
2.) I do not agree that modern schools are poisonous. Although I do agree that schools add a substantial amount of pressure to the average teenager, I believe that extra pressure is necessary when preparing yourself to face the real world as we do after high school graduation. I have always felt comfortable in school. I began school as a first grader after passing an assessment that allowed me to skip kindergarten. From my first day, I was hooked. I loved to read and learn new things. Reading excited me like another world only grown ups knew about, and I always wanted to know more. I excelled through elementary, and it carried on into sixth grade, until I found out what I believe to be the most poisonous part of schools; popularity. Suddenly, I was being exposed to another world I knew nothing about. This world told my peers and I not only did we have to be smart, we had to look good too, and have a boyfriend (or girlfriend) that looked good, and lots of friends to hang out with. As I began to focus on the social world that overwhelms all preteens, my grades began to slip. By the eighth grade I'd gone from a B+ average to a C- average, and my parents had had enough. I started high school career that Fall in an all girl Catholic school. My parents thought I would have less distractions there. My grades actually got worse. I was so preoccupied with my friends in the high school in my neighborhood that I wished I were at that I completely neglected my studies all together. My parents finally gave in and let me transfer back. It started off rocky until I joined the track team. Track forced me to grow up by teaching me the importance of structure and commitment. The first change I had to change were my study habits. I had to stay eligible. That was all the motivation to study I needed. I had a commitment to not only myself, but also to my teammates. I ran on relay teams my whole track career. In track practice I had to count my steps and pay attention to my moves, study them so to speak. I had to be on time to practice, I had to listen to my coach as well as my teammates. The structure I had in track helped me understand the structure I had in school. My grades started improving. I was accepted into college, and moved three hours away as a 17 year old to a University. This was an even bigger world with even bigger distractions, but I knew how to handle it. I knew how to organize my time in order to completely sufficiently complete my tasks. Everything we do in this life that is worth doing is going to make us feel the pressure. I think that is a good thing. That is where we learn what we are made of.
3.) When Goldfarb says "Under a coercive system it isn't really the subject that matters; what matters is pleasing the authorities", is he saying that curriculum plays a minor role in the success of students, or that curriculum only matters if its done the way school authorities want it to be done? Goldfarb starts by saying that we rarely even remember things that we have learned while being in school. He goes on to say it is only the method in which we were taught that we remember. Is Goldfarb insinuating that all instructors have the same teaching methods or that all students get the same thing out of every method, and if the method is effective shouldn't that make students more incline to remember what they learned? I believe Goldfarb is calling out conservative school authorities for not taking into account the advances being made within the schools. It is not that there should be no rules, but sensible ones that promote growth as opposed to fear. He describes their rules as not effectively teaching our students material, but teaching them how to follow order. Goldfarb describes this by saying "The true and enduring content of education is its method. The method that currently prevails in schools is standardized, impersonal and coercive. What it teaches best is itself. If, on the other hand, the method were individual, human and free, it would teach that. It would not, however, mesh smoothly into the machine we seem to have chosen as a model for our society."(page 3). While he makes a good point, structure is very necessary to students.
2.) I do not agree that modern schools are poisonous. Although I do agree that schools add a substantial amount of pressure to the average teenager, I believe that extra pressure is necessary when preparing yourself to face the real world as we do after high school graduation. I have always felt comfortable in school. I began school as a first grader after passing an assessment that allowed me to skip kindergarten. From my first day, I was hooked. I loved to read and learn new things. Reading excited me like another world only grown ups knew about, and I always wanted to know more. I excelled through elementary, and it carried on into sixth grade, until I found out what I believe to be the most poisonous part of schools; popularity. Suddenly, I was being exposed to another world I knew nothing about. This world told my peers and I not only did we have to be smart, we had to look good too, and have a boyfriend (or girlfriend) that looked good, and lots of friends to hang out with. As I began to focus on the social world that overwhelms all preteens, my grades began to slip. By the eighth grade I'd gone from a B+ average to a C- average, and my parents had had enough. I started high school career that Fall in an all girl Catholic school. My parents thought I would have less distractions there. My grades actually got worse. I was so preoccupied with my friends in the high school in my neighborhood that I wished I were at that I completely neglected my studies all together. My parents finally gave in and let me transfer back. It started off rocky until I joined the track team. Track forced me to grow up by teaching me the importance of structure and commitment. The first change I had to change were my study habits. I had to stay eligible. That was all the motivation to study I needed. I had a commitment to not only myself, but also to my teammates. I ran on relay teams my whole track career. In track practice I had to count my steps and pay attention to my moves, study them so to speak. I had to be on time to practice, I had to listen to my coach as well as my teammates. The structure I had in track helped me understand the structure I had in school. My grades started improving. I was accepted into college, and moved three hours away as a 17 year old to a University. This was an even bigger world with even bigger distractions, but I knew how to handle it. I knew how to organize my time in order to completely sufficiently complete my tasks. Everything we do in this life that is worth doing is going to make us feel the pressure. I think that is a good thing. That is where we learn what we are made of.
3.) When Goldfarb says "Under a coercive system it isn't really the subject that matters; what matters is pleasing the authorities", is he saying that curriculum plays a minor role in the success of students, or that curriculum only matters if its done the way school authorities want it to be done? Goldfarb starts by saying that we rarely even remember things that we have learned while being in school. He goes on to say it is only the method in which we were taught that we remember. Is Goldfarb insinuating that all instructors have the same teaching methods or that all students get the same thing out of every method, and if the method is effective shouldn't that make students more incline to remember what they learned? I believe Goldfarb is calling out conservative school authorities for not taking into account the advances being made within the schools. It is not that there should be no rules, but sensible ones that promote growth as opposed to fear. He describes their rules as not effectively teaching our students material, but teaching them how to follow order. Goldfarb describes this by saying "The true and enduring content of education is its method. The method that currently prevails in schools is standardized, impersonal and coercive. What it teaches best is itself. If, on the other hand, the method were individual, human and free, it would teach that. It would not, however, mesh smoothly into the machine we seem to have chosen as a model for our society."(page 3). While he makes a good point, structure is very necessary to students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)