why we learn

Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society is unique in its ability to expose the distorted rationale of public schooling. This is not to say that his argument is completely convincing, but the time spent reading the 116 pages or so is certainly worthwhile. My time with the text has presented two questions.

• What assumptions does Illich make in his critique of the public education system?
• How does Illich’s views of public education relate to his views of society as a whole?

My assessment of each is addressed below.

Read more

I very much enjoyed reading Glaser and Strauss (1967). I found the text very liberating. It seems as the authors have turned the world on it’s head a bit, pushing back against the positivist sense of validity and the traditionally understood notion of systematic inquiry. The push against positivism was not as significant (for me) as the alternative form of systematic investigation provided. My history has been in the sciences, so I understand quite well the characteristics of the scientific method. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not the application of the scientific method to the interactions of organisms as complex as human beings is practical. My sense is that there is a consensus that is starting to build, as more and more people are coalesce around this idea that researchers “use the method that fits”.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) go further. One of the best points the authors make is related to the phenomena of researchers coming upon data within the course of the study that the chose to ignore because it runs contrary to their predetermined experimental design, or provides insight, that while interesting, fall outside the bounds of the study’s charter. This is just silly, they say. And, I tend to agree. What is the benefit of sticking with a tree that is bearing no fruit? The way in which the authors describe inquiry is exciting, as if you are on a quest, all sorts of possibilities exist and all forms of data are available for consumption. I’ve compiled a list of quotations from the text, which is nice in that it allows me to quickly scan and/or search what I considered noteworthy as I read.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. AldineTransaction.

As I read chapter 9 in Ormrod¹, I couldn’t help but think of the parallels between the way we represent cognitive structures and computer programming. I’m not a programming guy, but I’ve written enough code and read enough books on the subject to see the similarities. For example, the hierarchical representation of information (p. 241) could be represented vary easily using XML.

<Animals>
    <Vertebrates>
        <Fish></Fish>
        <Mammals>
            <Cats></Cats>
            <Dogs>
                <German_Shepherds>
                    <Rin_Tin_Tin></Rin_Tin_Tin>
                    <Tippy></Tippy>
                    <Anna></Anna>
                </German_Shepherds>
                <Cocker_Spaniels></Cocker_Spaniels>
                <Collies></Collies>
                <Mutts>
                    <Tobey></Tobey>
                </Mutts>
            </Dogs>
            <Bears></Bears>
        </Mammals>
        <Birds></Birds>
        <Reptiles>
            <Snakes></Snakes>
            <Dinosaurs></Dinosaurs>
        </Reptiles>
        <Amphibians></Amphibians>
    </Vertebrates>
    <Invertebrates>
        <Mollusks>
            <Clams></Clams>
        </Mollusks>
        <Insects></Insects>
        <Creey_crawlies>
            <Things_Under_Rocks></Things_Under_Rocks>
        </Creey_crawlies>
    </Invertebrates>
</Animals>

Read more

I’ve just finished reading Rogoff’s¹ book on development. Initially, I had planned to finish much earlier. But, my wife and I had a child, and to be quite honest I needed some time off. I’ll be starting class again on Monday though, and I’m happy to say I feel ready. Two final quotes from Rogoff before I move on…

On development

Cognitive development consists of coming to find, understand, and handle particular problems, building on the intellectual tools inherited from previous generations and the social resources provided by other people. Development involves children’s progress toward local ideals of mature thinking and action, rather than progress toward a universal goal (p. 190).

And on creativity:

First, it must be recognized that such creativity builds on the technologies already available, within existing institutions. A creative idea is in some sense a reformulation of existing ideas; there is nothing completely new under the sun. Something completely new would not even be recognized (p. 198).

1. Rogoff, Barbara. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press

From Rogoff’s Apprenticeship In Thinking,

The “master,” or expert, is relatively more skilled than the novices, with a broader vision of the important features of the culturally valued activity. However, the expert too is still developing breadth and depth of skill and understanding in the process of carrying out the activity and guiding others in it. Hence the model provided by apprenticeship is one of active learners in a community of people who support, challenge, and guide novices as they increasingly participate in skilled, valued sociocultural activity (p. 39).

There is a focus here on “community”. While the “master” holds a special position within that community, it is assumed that other members serve as both master and apprentice at varying times. Soon after this passage, Rogoff stresses the superordinate role of the “master” and their ability to model the completion of tasks in their entirety.

Apprenticeships provide the beginner with access to both the overt aspects of the skill and the more hidden inner processes of thought (p. 40).

I wonder what percentage of public educators share this sense of incompleteness that is attributed to the “master”, as it seems to be an essential component within the communal organization.