Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers
Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers |
|
From: Jacob Goldman
Email: monster@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: psyc100G:Diversity in Development
College: Porter, UCSC
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych100G
ChildrenObservations: No
Date: 13 Dec 1996
Time: 15:58:22
Remote Name: porter-lab11.ucsc.edu
This is a pretty long paper. It examines the way technology, the social sciences, culture, economics, and politics have advanced diversity, particularly in the classroom. Considering the globalization of the phenomena in the fields mentioned, the possible movements towards and away from diversity are investigated. As it offers up several future paths, and directions to the paths, this paper is relevant to people who have a stake in education, especially if they have to write a paper on universality and diversity in the classroom. This paper should be read particularly by those who have a lot of spare time on their hands. If the gist of the paper is listened to then peace will reign across the land.
Introduction
In recent times, technology, culture, and the findings of the social sciences have combined to place the classroom in a historically unique position. People on every corner of the globe are gaining access to the knowledge and practices of other societies. The cannons in sociology and psychology, both of which have guided educational theory, have reevaluated ethnocentric research practices and their results. Psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have discovered great variation in styles of teaching and learning across and within cultures. Once considered universal, theories such as “scaffolding” (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) have been revealed as culturally specific and unique, or at least have encountered heavy skepticism ( Griffin & Cole, 1984).
In today’s academic atmosphere it seems that the only evidence for universality is that everywhere there is diversity. Yet with the construction of a “global village” , the increasing overlap in cultures via mass media and technological advances in communication, is the world wide expansion of awareness and acceptance of alternative perspectives a basis for universality. In our exploration of the roles of universality and diversity play in the classroom we will address the following questions:
I. What theoretical changes are occurring in education?
II. How are these reflected in American classrooms?
III. What are the forms of resistance to change in schools?
IV. What political and ideological reasons underlie this resistance to change?
V. How are world population trends and those in economics, technology coming together in the classroom?
I. As mentioned earlier, scaffolding was found to be “the basis for a theoretical model of the teacher in informal education” (Greenfield, 1984, p.118) by psychologists Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976). Until recently this model of teacher-student interaction was believed to be a universal pattern of learning; the discovery of other instruction such as guided participation (Rogoff, 1995) proved this model to be ungeneralizable to all cultures. The ground for universality debunking was previously laid by Soviet psychologist Alexander Luria’s landmark study of formal reasoning across cultures (1976). His findings challenged the Western assumption that the syllogism is the universal paragon of rational thought and reasoning. Studying illiterate cultures, he showed that cognitive processes are embedded within one’s sociohistorical context and cannot be judged by a universal standard. Also, he showed that formal learning itself impacts the way in which people learn and think (Luria, 1976).
Some such theoretical innovations may have been facilitated by a philosophycal movement towards Soros’ notion of reflexivity. The realization that thought and reality are intertwined - that how we think about something affects the object of thought itself- has transformed the former belief that there is one right way of doing things into a quest of learning from diversity. Rather than fitting actual learning processes into preconceived notions theories and models, educators and researchers are uncovering the interdependence of theory and reality. This more open perspective should lead to a wider view of education in which no single “right” prototype of learning and teaching is forced on others, and judgments are free from the current ideological hegemony of the western world.
II. While these theoretical changes may seem somewhat distant from actual teacher-student interactions, there are a number of specific classroom changes that have occurred in the U.S. which have both influenced and been influenced by these theories. In today’s academic uncertainty, where scientific and moral “truths” are questioned, and with the increase in cultural awareness, there is no longer one right way, no longer one authority on any given subject. From this theoretical framework it follows that there be a shift from adult-run classrooms where the teacher supposedly has all the answers, to a classroom in which everyone is expected to have something to contribute, everyone's voice is heard and valued. Students and educators from diverse background have things to learn from and teach to one another. There is no room in post-modern classroom for the narrow definition of what makes an ideal student - the white, middle class, English-proficient mold (DeLashmutt & Braund, 1996). "African Americans, Asian Americans, Puerto Ricans/Latinos, and Native Americans have all been the victims if an intellectual and educational oppression that has characterized the culture and institutions of the United States and the European world for centuries," states the New York task force to revive the school history curriculum (DeLashmutt & Braund, 1996). There must be a shift towards inclusion. DeLashmutt and Braund go so far as to propose that African Americans should have their own language in which they are taught, and should learn English as a second language. Indeed, the post-modern world calls for deconstruction of the classroom as we have known it. As post-modern scholar Johnella Butler puts it, "the colonization of minds [has been] characteristic of American education" (DeLashmutt & Braund, 1996). In a post-modern world, this can no longer be the case.
The focus of the post-modern classroom is the construction of knowledge as opposed to its discovery; this new attitude challenges the assumption that there is a universal "truth" just waiting to be uncovered. The more collaborative learning environment involves aspects such as social interaction, individual exploration of subjects, room for creativity, and acknowledgment of different learning styles. In the past it was thought that "students do not control knowledge, but rather must write their student roles and scenarios in conformity to the teacher's master script" (DeLashmutt& Braund, 1996). In a post-modern classroom, creativity is valued in order to encourage diverse viewpoints. Emotions and intuitions are acknowledged ducation t-modern classroom has a new mission: to strive for diversity, equality, and tolerance through inclusion, acceptance, and the broadening of horizons.
III. Though there is a way to conduct a class that follows from recent environmental and theoretical and changes, theories are much easier to change than people. In his book How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms 1880-1990, Larry Cuban (1993) discusses the ways schools have resisted the trend towards a more diverse surroundings. For example, teachers in rural, conservative, homogenous communities may lack the administrative support, funding, and cultural experience to bring diversity into the classroom. Cuban reviews studies which suggest that it is hard for teachers to go against the grain. In traditional schools and classrooms, teachers may have trouble breaking the mold - especially when they lack the resources and knowledge to implement changes. But the teachers who have the support of their school districts are more likely to switch successfully to non-traditional styles of teaching.
Aside from lack of support and funding, educational reform is further inhibited by the prevailing assumption that the teacher loses control over the students in non-traditional classroom settings. For example, collaborative learning, which depends on a pluralistic form of discussion, is a threat to the authority of teachers who are accustomed to traditional, adult-centered classroom organization. Cuban also points out that the traditional classroom setup is more convenient and efficient for teachers with limited time and increasing class sizes. Yet with an eminent shift toward diversity on the horizon, how long can schools resist change? In light of the recent findings that diversity and collaborative styles of learning can be beneficial to students, the questions arise: Why are school districts so hesitant to fund and support teachers in making the transition to non-traditional schooling? To answer these questions, it is necessary to look beyond educational institutions and examine the societal superstructure as a whole.
IV. The educational system of a society can be viewed as a means of reinforcing, perpetuating, and legitimating the configuration of that society. Sociologists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1976) maintain that American schools' basic function is to reproduce a hierarchically organized class society. Sociologist Pam Roby (1972) also documents how the pyramidal economic structure of capitalist societies such as America has shaped and influenced the development of educational institutions.
In the video Preschool in Three Cultures (Tobin, Wu, & Davidson, 1989), atypical day of preschool is shown in Japan, China, and the United States. The structure of each school, from classroom setup to teacher involvement to curricula, clearly reflected the political configuration of the governments of each society. In China, conformity and the ability to think, work, play, and perform necessary daily activities as part of a group were emphasized. These traits are particularly useful in an overcrowded, communist society such as China. In the United States, the democratic, capitalist paragons of individuality and responsibility were fostered.
Even within one culture, there are differences (Cookson & Persell, 1985; Lareau, 1987; Roby, 1972). In America, children of working class families often attend public schools, where they are taught unquestioning obedience to authority and are shown their place in society. Often they are relegated to remedial or vocational classes, while middle class children are geared towards college preparatory skills and courses (Roby, 1972). Upper class children often attend elite private schools in which a totally different set of values is fostered: leadership and entrepreneurial thinking(Cookson & Persell, 1985). The meritocratic model of American schools prepares children for their place in a democratic, capitalist society. It would not be useful in a democracy for everyone to excel in math or biology or art, because our society is limited in how many mathematicians, scientists, and artists we need for optimum social and economic production (Matusov, personal communication). Because formal education is instrumental in maintaining the current social structure, it seems that resistance to change in schooling, in any society, is an attempt to perpetuate that society's present political and ideological practices.
V. Though the resistance may seem to be against the changes in theory, to resist theory isn’t resisting very much, and what actually is being fought against are the world wide changes out of which the new theoretical framework has arisen. Since the sixties there have been a number of economic, technological, and cultural changes that have had a global effect associated with an increase in the quantity and quality of information available to people. These developments have been collectively identified under the label "post-modernity" (Gergin, 1991; Jameson, 1984).Some of the changes, such as in technology, are easily connected to the classroom. Technological advances have made it possible for teaches to bring new realms of experience into the classroom by adding audio, video, computers, and CD ROM to the teachers' tool pallet (Soloff, 1996).
The changes in economics are more difficult to link to the classroom, but they have been so vast that there is bound to be a relation. Increases in global competitiveness have influenced schools by pressuring them to train their students for the world market, where an awareness of how to deal with other cultures is necessary. Also, if an economy is wavering, then comparison with educational systems in more prosperous countries is intensified, thereby increasing intercultural scholastic awareness and communication (Hargreaves, 1994).
Global competitiveness has made the teacher's role of protecting national identity more important today than ever by fostering international corporations and economic unions, both of which blur cultural distinctiveness (Hargreaves, 1994). While these changes have put classrooms in the position of preserving national heritage, they have also - and perhaps this is why there is such a change in focus - made that heritage harder to define. The national identity dilemma has been further inflamed by the worldwide increases in immigration and emigration, complicating the teachers' job of defining national identity while facing multi-national classrooms. Technological advances have made it possible for learning to take place on a global scale. Commercials for IBM show a man in Italy taking college courses from Indiana State University, and children in Africa learning music from a man in Ireland.
Due to the advent of mass communication, education is becoming less dependent on immediate surroundings. The teacher and classroom are less and less central to the learning process. In this class, for example, we have discussions in cyberspace; elsewhere discussions like this may be taking place between people thousands of miles away who have never met and may not even speak the same language. The possibility of learning about educational diversity firsthand has the potential to dramatically change the way in which we view education. More and more people have increasing access to vast and almost instantaneous information about any person, place, or thing. Children in elementary schools are learning how to "surf the net" and use the world wide web to communicate with pen pals on other continents(Leshin, 1996; Tolin, 1996). All these changes are happening at light speed, and nobody knows where they are going.
Conclusion
Each of the approaches taken in this paper discuss the recent changes in diversity and universality in the classroom through theory, technology, economy, and the techniques and base of the resistance to these seem to point to a general direction where the class is headed. When different points in the changes in education are emphasized, however then the range of possible futures in diversity and universality becomes much more diverse.
If the changes in the world of educational academia are emphasized, since they look more closely at how things should be, if all goes well according to their master plan, diversity will be embraced throughout the lands, and all the children of the world will join hands and sing “It’s A Small World After All” in their own national language and culturally unique dialect. All the voices will be heard and respected, each child learning about the one down the chain of hands and song. If the classroom is looked at from outside disciplines such as economics and politics, however, a new tune emerges.
Many of the changes have been caused by economic and political forces, and what emerges is very likely to support the current power structures it comes out of. In this case “It’s A Small World After All” is taped in many languages, but the tapes are most available to those with the most powerful stereos. An example of this is found in a study which looked at different learning styles in African-American and Caucasian students (Michaels & Casden, 1986). The study showed that the African-American kids were forced to conform to methods of learning that were inconsistent with their home environments. Children in “gifted” programs, on the other hand, received the advantage of traditional teaching methods and benefited from the very alterations which the researchers found would be helpful to African-Americans. Considering that the kids in the advanced classes came from already advantaged background, these findings give new meaning to the word “gifted”.
Educational academia and technological advances in the classroom may be looked at again, and a new song will emerge. All the voices might be so well respected, and so clearly heard through the use of high-tech amplifiers and intercoms, that the songs sung begin to converge. This homogeneic version of “It’s a Small World After All” is in a new language comprising elements of them all. Melting pot predictions, however, have been debunked before.
If the current trends in the mass media are followed then the English, top ten pop chart hit version of “It’s a Small World After All” will have by far the loudest speaker system of all. All the other languages, submerged in the English hit version, will begin to echo its words. Eventually all that will be heard beyond the cochouphony of this best seller will be an occasional token ”mundo pequenio”.
Also, it is important to remember that there are always those who hate “It’s A Small World After All”. There are those who don’t like singing at all, and don’t want to hear anything but the empty ringing between their own ears. Those people have been represented in the paper as the resistance to change section. Though it is hard to erase a song that has increased in volume so considerably, there has been some success in our own state with the passing of exclusionary legislation such as props. 187 and 209, and nationwide there has been much positive attention on these laws.
Hopefully the paper has shown that there is a right way to diverse and universal and a wrong way, and a no way as well. Because the none of the people who support the views represented in this paper, from those who research diversity an support it with recommending techniques to those who resist diversity, are shy singers, much of what will happen depends on power structures, namely the gobment. Here are some singing tips that have proven to work. The state should intervene directly in the culture, media, and education since the three have become so intertwined (Raboy, Bernier, Sauvugean, Atkinson, 1996). Also, when there is intervention by the government, it should be done in more then just the process of singing, it should focus directly on the results of singing, rewarding those who sing the song of diversity, lalala (Haney & Huarto, 1994). Aside from creating incentives to sing beautifully the state should also emphasize those inherent in the singing itself, not least of which is an economic advantage in today’s global business market. Singing “It’s a Small World After All” in harmony with other cultures not only sounds good, but can also make you rich, RICH, RICH, RICH (Josephs, 1996). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Just so I don’t take all the blame for this, you should know that Angie Burkett, Nili Kirschner, Annie McDevitt, and Marni Williamson all wrote huge parts of this paper.
REFERENCES
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
Cookson, P.W. & Persell, C.H. (1985). Privilege and the importance of elite education. Preparing For Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools, New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Cuban, L. (1993). How Teachers Taught: Consistency and Change in American Classrooms, 1880-1990. New York: Longman.
DeLashmutt, G. & Braund, R. (1996). The Postmodern Method, Education (Ch. 6); http://www.crossrds.org/doteduc.htm
Gergin, K. J. (1991). The Saturated Self. New York: Basic Books.
Greenfield, P.M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff and J. Lave (Eds.) Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Griffin, P. & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: the Zo-ped. In B. Rogoffand J. Wertsch (Eds.), New Directions for Child Development, 23: 45-63. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Haney, Craig & Huarto, Aida (1994). The Jurisprudence of Race and Meritocracy. Law and Human Behavior, 18,223-248
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, Changing Times: Teachers' Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. London: Cassell.
Jameson, F. (1984). Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism, New Left Review, 146: 53-92.
Josephs, Sussan(1996). Diversity Teaching Tips; http://www.cob.ohio- state/~diversity/teach.htm
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: the importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60 (2): 73-85.
Leshin, C. (1996). Kids on the web, Internet Sites For Kids, cleshin@primenet.com
Luria, A. (1976). Cultural Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Matusov, E. (1996). personal communication from lecture for "Issues of Diversity in Developmental Psychology"; University of California, Santa Cruz.
Michaels,S., & Casden,C.B.(1986). Teacher/child collaboration as oral preparation for literacy. In B.B. Sheiffelin &P. Gilmore(Eds.), The Acquisition of Literacy: Ethnographic Perspectives. Norwood, N.J.: ABlex
Raboy, M., Bernier, I., Sauvageaun,F., & Atkinson, D.(1996). Cultural Developementand the Open Economy: A DemocraticIssue and a Challenge to Public Policy; http://hoshi.cic.sfu.ca/calj/cjc/BackIssues/19.3/raboy.html
Roby, P. (1972). Women and higher education. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 404: 118-139.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, apprenticeship. In J.V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, A. Alvarez (Eds.) Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Cambridge, UK: cambridge University Press.
Soloff, J. (1996). Technology at Penn State, maintained by the Cetre for Academic Computing. March 1996 (key words: technology in the classroom)
Soros, G. (1995). The failed philosopher (interview with B. Wien). In G. Soros, B.Wien, & K. Koenen (eds.) Soros on Soros: 209-236. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tobin, J., Wu, D. & Davidson, D. (1989). VIDEO: Preschool in Three Cultures: Japan,China, and the United States. Fourth Wave Productions.
Tolin, D. (1996). Verda James Elementary School in Casper, WY (key words: email penpals in elementary school).
Wood, D.J., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17: 89-100.
