Humans as Product of Society - Literature review Example

Curriculum and Pedagogy Analysis Being a “Product of Society” Name of student: Student No: Date: Name of Supervisor: Introduction This essay will examine the premise that we or our children are ‘products of society’ (MacLachlan, Fleer and Edwards, 2010, p. 28). By coming to an understanding of why this is so, the idea is to have a better idea of how to bring about change. This will assist teachers to forge better partnerships with parents in the education of their children. The following statement will be the focus of the essay as it pertains to curriculum and pedagogy: “Much recent writing has effectively merged cultural-historical theory and critical pedagogy approaches to the curriculum in order to understand how children are the product of the society and culture in which they are raised and that their development and learning may have differing trajectories, based on the experiences, values and understandings that each community provides” (McLachlan, Fleer & Edwards 2010, p. 28). It is important to take an objective look at the context in which we are and the attendant challenges that are faced. It is important to acknowledge that the children or students of today are not the same as the previous generations. They have a different vernacular that is digital and their ways of learning are different to the way that previous generations learned (Brown, 2006). The second point that Brown (2006) makes is that despite the increased importance of education in the contemporary society, many people are unwilling to pay for it. This means that educators are challenged to tap into the natural curiosity of students in order to enable them take up learning on their own. Thirdly, he states, the education of 21st century students must take into account that fact that they will most likely not have one fixed career but are more likely to have a work trajectory that involves several career changes. This dynamism means that what skills they picked up in school may become irrelevant and they may need to acquire new skills outside of the conventional learning environment (Brown, 2006). Based on text by Alden Le Grand Richards (1984), it is possible to conceive of the science of education as poiesis which attempts to create an operating theory which can serve as a guideline to pedagogy, improve the efficiency of processes and is of necessity limited to two sectors; genetic development and socialisation of environmental conditioning. Focus is on the one hand on the biological-psychological growth of the student while on the other, it also takes in the societal variables which influence the distinctive nature of each person. The first is a psychological perspective while the second is sociological. Both of these were previously considered to be ‘helping sciences’ to pedagogy but in contemporary circles are more likely to cause contention or claim to usurp it (Bohm, 1981). History Looking at an overview of historical theoretical perspectives on early childhood literacy developments shows that there are three paradigm shifts. These are from Behaviourist to cognitive to socio-cultural perspectives. Some of these perspectives still retain validity and have generated maxims that are accepted to this day. This includes the fact that phonological awareness is accepted as a key factor in early literacy development. The importance that is placed upon reading for meaning is credited to the psycholinguistic perspective. Metacognitive theories outline the cruciality of metacognitive processes in spelling, reading and writing and cognitive apprenticeship models have resulted in emphasis being placed on the ability of a child to solve problems in a literate setting with the help of someone more skilled (Kennedy, Dunphy, Dwyer, Hayes, McPhillips, Marsh, O’Connor and Shiel, 2012). Socio-cultural theories of literacy are those which outline the role of culture in education, and the social nature of learning, as well as the niche that literacy holds in the greater economic, political and social context (Kennedy et al, 2012). Political Democracy and education have long been viewed as being interconnected. Democracy is perceived as a fundamental value of and practice in education while education is a method of reinforcing and maintaining democracy. Democracy has been a nuclear premise for prominent pedagogues in the last century such as Paolo Freire, John Dewey and Loris Malaguzzi. This premise is still supported today as is seen from Fielding and Moss (2010) OECD (2006) Swedish Ministry of Education and Science (1998) and Wagner (nd) but the discussion about democratic education is muted compared to others such as quality of education and markets of education. The debate on quality dwells mainly on management and views education as a means to deliver outcomes that are predetermined. It aims to congregate children, teachers and institutions into accord with norms that are derived from experts. In contrast, the market debate leans toward deregulation although it sees that early childhood education and care is a product that is sold to the parents as consumers. The value of democracy is both these debates is non-existent. Carr and Hartnett (1996) observe that any point of view of education that takes democracy seriously cannot differ from educational reforms that advocate for language and values of market forces as well as views pedagogy as a commodity to be procured or utilised. Education which values democracy does not have to wait for the later phases of education. The Swedish preschool curriculum states that it can be a basic value of early childhood education. George (2009) states that democracy and day nursery are not concepts which are synonymous in people’s minds. However, democracy can begin at that stage. Democratic practice in early childhood education is operational at various stages not just institutional but also national/federal, regional and local levels. Cultural The ‘culture of power’ is represented by beliefs, values, ways of acting and being which skews the socio-political positions of certain groups in a way that is inequitable and uneven to others. The advantaged group as categorised in the West is mostly white, upper and middle class, male and heterosexual. They are further elevated to positions where they can accumulate more control over finances, people and societal norms than those who do not fit into this group (Delpit, 1988). The segregation of groups through these arbitrary parameters brings about a society that is structured in tiers where there are unwritten rules and ideological perspectives which bring about disenfranchisement of those who do not belong to the culture of power. These delimitations are man- made but are validated by the caste-oriented mindset of the society and accepted as normal. The ‘culture of power’ and its repercussions are embedded in almost every American institution including schools. Lisa Delpit (1988) divides this phenomenon in schools into five aspects. These are: Power issues are manifested in the classroom. Certain codes of rules apply in the participation of this power, that is, a culture of power. The rules inherent to the culture of power mirror those of the culture that is in power. For outsiders who are not participators in the culture of power, being informed of the rules eases the path to participating in this culture. Those who wield the power are least aware of its existence or are in denial of it, while those without it are the most aware of its existence. Delpit (1988) proposes the view that if these rules for cultural power are not made clear, then those who are unfamiliar with them will not have the opportunity to progress and they will be viewed as deficient in some way or inferior or disadvantaged. They will be perceived as the cause of society’s problems. The divide between those who are participants in the culture of power vis a vis those who do not is wide. Even where there is progressive thinking with the members of the culture of power being sensitive to the requirements of those who are outside of this circle, the latter group that do not have the beliefs, values and ways of acting of the culture in power are viewed as ‘disadvantaged’ (Pianta and Walsh, 1996). The debates about the disadvantaged or at risk students have been going on for thirty years and are instrumental in policy development and practise in America. These labels of ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘at-risk’ has been put on low income, urban, ethnic minorities time and again, who have for various structural and ideological reasons remained on the periphery of the culture of power (Pianta and Walsh, 1996). These labels of ‘disadvantaged and ‘at risk’ have described the extent and emphasis of educating the disenfranchised by the culture of power in ways that compete (Natriello, McDill and Pallas, 1990). One viewpoint subscribes to the belief that being disadvantaged is the students’ fault and the outcome is that they are unable to function within the infrastructure of the school and society (Morrow, 1987). Those who are proponents of this viewpoint are of the belief that children who are unsuccessful in the school system or in society should be enrolled in remedial and compensatory programs which attempt to treat children that cannot function effectively in society. The problem with this philosophy is that it assumes that comprehending or complying with the culture of power is sufficient to bring about equity. This can be demonstrated by the 1964 Civil Rights Act which gives underprivileged ethnic minorities the opportunity to access education in order to pull themselves out of the circle of poverty and participate fully in the culture of power. Nevertheless, research proves that these remedial programs which downplay the cultural background of participants and therefore they have not been successful in helping the students attain excel in their educational endeavours (Heath and McLaughlin, 1993; Knapp and Associates, 1997). Current Educational Philosophies Focused on Curriculum and Pedagogy Child development as a naturally evolving process has been institutionalised in the early childhood education of certain jurisdictions such as UK, New Zealand and Australia. The structure of childhood as well as its development inside the infrastructure of the educational institution as well as the society and individual is a topic of research by Hedegaard (2008). He borrows a lot from Vygotsky’s (1998) seminal critique of child development but is more concerned with modern contexts of education and the role of culture and linguistic differences (Hedegaard, 2008). Vygtosky’s did some research on dialectical method of development and how the social situation impacts upon development. Hedegaard has a perspective of development as a connection between the child and society. Development does not take place within the child but happens when the child takes part in the activities of the community. When the child’s development diverges from what is expected by the cultural community there is conflict. Hedegaard’s (2008) premise is that the problem is not a factor of the child but of the institution. In these circumstances, the educator does not perceive the possibilities of both the children’s diversity and the potential for incepting divergent development trajectories in the context of the institution. Learning institutions including nursery schools, preschools and schools are arranged according to age (Rogoff, 2003). The parameters of the institution are divided according to age, but defining learning according to age brings with it, its own problems. Defining development by age is also an issue. Memory varies according to cultural development as well as family and community and this demonstrates the importance of the social situation in development. Conclusion From this it can be concluded that society plays a key role in the education and learning of a child and therefore educators and parents are of necessity collaborators in leading the children to knowledge. Society determines the attitude of educators towards their charges and therefore the amount of effort that is put into teaching. In order to ensure effective learning, this fact must be taken into account. References Brown, John, Seely. “New Learning Environments for the 21st Century. Paper Presented at the Forum for the Future of Higher Education’s 2005 Aspen Symposium. (2006). Carr W, Hartnett A. Education and the struggle for democracy. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 1996. Delpit, L.D. (1988).The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298. Fielding M, Moss P. Radical education and the common school: A democratic alternative. London, UK: Routledge; 2010. Fleer, M., Hedegaard, M. & Tudge, J (Eds.), (2008). Constructing childhood: global–local policies and practices. World Yearbook 2009, Education and Policy. George S. Too young for respect? Realising respect for young children in their everyday environments. The Hague, the Netherland: Bernard van Leer Foundation; 2009. Heath, S.B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993).Identity and inner-city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender. New York: Teachers College Press. Kennedy, Eithne, Dunphy, Elizabeth, Dwyer, Bernadette, Hayes, Geraldine, McPhillips, Therese, Marsh, Jackie, O’Connor, Maura and Shiel, Gerry.” Literacy in Early Childhood and Primary Education (3-8) years. Commissioned Research Report. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2012). Knapp & Associates. (1997). Teaching challenge in high-poverty classrooms. Teaching for meaning in high poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Morrow, G. (1987). Standardizing practice in the analysis of school dropouts. In G. Natriello (Ed.), School dropouts: Patterns and policy. New York: Teachers College Press. Natriello, G., McDill, E., & Pallas, A. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children. New York: Teachers College Press. OECD. Starting Strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: OECD; 2006. Pianta, R., &Walsh, D. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. New York: Routledge. Pianta, R., & Walsh, D. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. New York: Routledge. Richards, Adrian L. Grande., Academic Secularization and Education,” review of Pedagogy / Pedagogical Arrangement 42 (1984): 31- 43 Swedish Ministry of Education and Science. Curriculum for pre-school. Stockholm, Sweden: Regeringskansliet; 1998. Wagner JT. An outsider’s perspective: Childhoods and early education in the Nordic countries. In: Einarsdottir J, Wagner JT, eds. Nordic childhoods and early education: Philosophy, research, policy and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; Winfried Böhm, "The Seven Deadly Sins of educators logic," Education and Science, ed. Helmut Konrad. (Kippenheim, 1981) 91- 100 Read More