This posting and the next one do a couple of
things. It continues the critique of the
natural rights view by trying to describe an irony with that view. It also flushes out what the last posting
brought up, that being the favored natural rights answer for dealing with students
who are not performing well or even their behaviors regarding disciplinary
concerns.
To
remind readers, the natural rights view has a preferred approach to the study
of governance and politics; that is the political systems approach originally
offered by David Easton. This approach strips
from political analysis normative concerns as it objectively or scientifically
goes about designing studies.
These studies have political scientists
identify factors or variables so as to test them – through the measurement of
behavioral responses to stimuli – and determine whether significant correlations
can be detected. If so, cause and effect
relationships can be theorized as the aim is to discover explanatory causes for
what reality has to offer.
Given that, the natural rights view also
promotes levels of individualism, and while the above objectification of reality
takes place, the view ironically favors that people have the right to do what
they wish short of interfering with others to do the same. The irony lies in that commitment toward
individual agency might and does run counter to what scientific studies might discover
would be most advantageous for individual actors but which they, tested individuals,
might find distasteful to perform, consume, or support.
For example, how should young individual
students behave and conduct their studies in schools? In line with that concern, do natural rights
guided educators stay true to implementing what the social/psychological
sciences find to be effective, or should they shop for an approach that caters
to the wishes of individual students?
Some years ago, Barbara Lerner wrote,
Today’s teachers have been taught that
self-esteem is the answer, and many believe that it is. Others, who [usually] don’t often face great
pressure to conform to the prevailing view.
Some have been effectively silenced, or driven out of the profession
altogether. The result is that the role
of self-esteem in learning has a special status. On a host of other pedagogical questions,
teachers have varying viewpoints and express them freely. On this one, the settled answer goes largely
unchallenged. Teachers seem to accept
the modern dogma that self-esteem is the critical variable for intellectual
development – the master to learning.
According to this view, children with high self-esteem forge ahead
academically, easily and natural [sic]; children with low self-esteem fall
behind. They cannot achieve excellence,
or even competence, in many cases, until their self-esteem is raised. That, at any rate, is assumption one in what
I call the self-esteem theory of intellectual development.
Assumption two is that many
children are in this boat because low self-esteem is common in childhood.[1]
And more recently from Twinkl Teaching, the following is offered:
Studies have shown that teachers' self-esteem
is important for their success in teaching. It’s been found that teachers'
positive and high self-esteem positively affects their pupils' self-esteem and
enhances their learning. Teachers play a very important role in supporting
children’s self-esteem. They have a significant, lifelong impact on their
pupils, which extends further than just the fostering of academic skills.
They’re also responsible for fostering positive self-esteem, which in turn
leads to increased motivation and learning.[2]
Apparently, everyone needs healthy levels of
self-esteem in order to teach or learn.
And how much do such views coincide with the elevated levels of natural rights
thinking which is prevalent in the culture?
Self-esteem and personal wishes seem to this blogger to be two sides of
the same coin.
This
blogger argues that humanistic learning theory psychology (described in the
last posting), to varying degrees, has, if not by name but by substance, been
accepted by educational academia and school district administrations around the
country. It congruently matches the
whole market orientation and systems perspective described earlier in this blog
except for the argument of the essentialists.
In short, with its emphases on temporal
perspectives and individualism, this psychological school is highly congruent
with the philosophical historical development of the country since World War II
– the years in which the natural rights view has had increasing levels of
influence.
But
more to the point of this critique, as a prevailing, accepted position, it has
become part of the sociological forces operating in the nation. Its effects have furthered an atmosphere of
irresponsibility. Humanistic learning
theory psychology does this because it neglects communal realities. Culture and its sanctions toward improper
behavior are relegated to an illegitimate role (considered as
subjugation). Sanctions are seen as
interfering with the development of a “true self.”
This
posting will abruptly end here, and the next posting will finish this critique
with this blogger’s concerns about humanistic learning theory psychology – or as
it is better known, self-esteem psychology.
[1] Barbara Lerner, “Self-esteem and Excellence: The Choice and the Paradox,” American Educator,
20, 2 (Summer, 1996), 9-13 & 41-42, 9.
[2] “What Is Self-Esteem?.” Twinkl Teaching (n.d.),
accessed February 26, 2023, https://www.twinkl.com/teaching-wiki/self-esteem#:~:text=Studies%20have%20shown%20that%20teachers,esteem%20and%20enhances%20their%20learning.
Twinkl Teaching’s editorial stand
seems to be in favor of self-esteem psychology.
No comments:
Post a Comment