IT AIN’T WHAT IT USE TO BE

In the last posting, I wrote about two important aspects of the American sociological landscape that have had an enormous influence on the nation’s educational efforts:  a strong work ethic and a belief in balance between equity and liberty.  This posting will add a third: the strong dynamic quality of American society, the rate of change.  As Allan Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins state, the rate (the speed of change) is more important than the direction.  Let me share how Ornstein and Hunkins introduce this topic:

Curricula appropriate for various groups cannot be determined with certainty because groups are changing, ethnic demands are emerging, information is exploding, philosophical views of the nature of knowledge are becoming more diverse, views of what it means to learn are expanding, new frontiers on the nature of the brain are being discovered, behaviors of students and teachers are being modified, and attitudes and values are being altered … the particulars of society are shifting.[1]

So, for a potential change agent, this rapidity of change and the change itself are both good and bad.

It is good to the degree that change is not so dissimilar from what people expect.  But the bad is multidimensional.  For one thing, a singular change effort is seen as just another disruption, something to tolerate, not embrace.  The second, more serious consequence is that people in such an environment find it more difficult to form and keep meaningful value commitments and that includes values associated with work-related concerns. 

When the ground is shifting under one’s feet, it is difficult to latch on to a steady sense of what is morally good and morally bad.  And this includes making such determinations concerning education.

          In this, the work of David Purple is important.  He points out the need for moral standards and frameworks.  These are important when one speaks about the social, political, and economic arrangements with which one is engaged.  Without them, it is nearly impossible for people to have a mode of behavior one can consider just as immediate demands steer people to those options that provide immediate rewards with little to no concern for long term consequences.[2]

          All this hoopla, when it is directed to education, has built-in tension.  Education, by its very nature, is a conservative institution.  As the critical theorists point out, a primary function for education is “reproduction” or, as mainstream sociologists describe, “system maintenance.” 

That is, in order for a social system to operate with any viability, it needs to go about insuring that its basic values and norms, its processes and structures, its very sense of itself, be passed on and kept within certain parameters.  That social system, in our case the society itself, needs to make sure that each new generation is sufficiently taught what all that entails for that given society.

Perhaps that is why in the field of education, as we have seen in previous postings, most teachers and administrators tend to choose the more conservative philosophies, approaches, and psychological views; at the same time, why the rate of change is seen as threatening and mostly fought against.  Schools are noted for their cultural lag.

And yet in a stroll through any school, one will see many of the trappings one associates with the changes we are experiencing, especially when it comes to technological change.  The computer has changed many schools, and determining their full impact will take some more years to determine and that might be blurred by further change.  One is reminded of the warning of the late futurist Alvin Toffler who proclaimed we were in for a future shock.

And in no aspect of life is this change more evident than in the number of choices we have from the very personal dimensions of life to every consumer option one encounters.  We have choices over things we didn’t know we would have choices.  We have “needs” today about which we didn’t know we would have “needs.” 

For example, we are currently considering a world where labor will no longer be needed; where, between robots and artificial intelligence, Marx’s warning about labor saving machinery will “be on steroids” (a saying that had no meaning in my early adult years).  How will we handle such a change and then what will be the role of schools?

This topic of societal change will be front and center in this blog over the upcoming postings.  This one posting serves as an introduction.

---

[1] Allan Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins, Curriculum:  Foundations, Principles, and Issues, (Boston, MA:  Allyn and Bacon, 2004), 140.

[2] David E. Purple, Moral Outrage in Education (New York:  Peter Lang, 1999).

WORKING HARD AND BEING ME

When speaking of the sociological factors that affect American education, there are two overarching cultural commitments that serve as social backdrops to any study of such factors; those two commitments are our countrymen/women partiality for the work ethic and an equality/liberty balance which are broadly felt and acted upon.

So say Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins.[1]  In their text on curriculum, they highlight these values.  They also claim that, although there might not be total adherence to them, the American citizenry by and large lives by and believes in these cultural dispositions and further, that the implications of such value commitments are found to be strong in all segments and regions of the nation. 

One can safely say that one does not hear of any opposing messages that attack the core meaning of these values, at least not on public communication outlets.  Oh, there might be a comedic work or two that pokes fun at the work ethic bias (the films Animal House and Fast Times at Richmond High come to mind).  Usually, those efforts are aimed at a youth audience. 

And there is a history of downright bigotry that undermines the nation’s commitment to equality (as depicted, for example, in the film, Gangs of New York).  But current common discourse holds those incidents to be despicable.  Oh, there is racism and bigotry against ethnic groups, but generally such expressions are kept to private conversations.  At times, behaviors indicating these feelings come to the surface, but usually those incidents flare up in times of stress.

Even then, such examples are held by the population as being generally illegitimate and not being American.  That is, generally, bigotry and unequal treatment are seen as less than stellar behavior.  Therefore, if you ask the vast majority of Americans whether the work ethic, liberty, or equality is important, the answer would be unequivocally yes.  One point should be remembered: liberty and equality can be at odds with each other from time to time. 

As for the work ethic, Americans like to believe that they are the hardest working people on the face of the earth.  And this is almost true.  Compared with European countries, where month long vacations and shorter work weeks are the norm, yes, Americans do work harder. 

But Malcolm Gladwell’s book tells about the work ethic exhibited by rice-growing countries such as China and Japan and how they put everyone else to shame by how hard they work (an interesting account, I can heartily recommend).[2]  But short of them, Americans seem to take the prize.

The implications of this bias are many.  Of course, if you put a hard-working people on a continent rich in resources, you are bound to have a successful economy.  Hence, the US has the richest economy even with nations like China and India dwarfing its population.  Add to this the equality/liberty mixture Americans enjoy and you have a system where everyone has an individual, vested interest in doing his/her part to add value to the overall economic riches.

Yes, China is bound to eventually surpass the US in total numbers, but on a per capita basis, there is no comparison of how much better off Americans are.

This work ethic manifests itself in many ways.  For example, as a people, Ornstein and Hunkins point out that Americans are very time-conscious and that can be attributed to this belief in a strong work ethic.  “Time is money” and other idioms betray our obsession with time and work.  We are a punctual people and it is rare that one runs into a person without a watch. 

As for the liberty/equality balance, I have, in this blog, identified certain perceptions of this balance in our nation’s history.  Under the concern for equality, I have written about five different orientations.  What is prominent today are two orientations:  what is generally called equal condition and what I call regulated condition. 

In both of these orientations, Americans express a deep belief that everyone is entitled to an equal opportunity to succeed and to develop his/her natural talents.  The difference between these two is the extent to which the government should have a role in guaranteeing that equality. 

The equal condition orientation, with its emphasis on liberty, sees that role as limited.  Perhaps the government can have a public school system, but with strong competition being provided by charter schools – both publicly and privately funded – vouchers, and the like.  But other than that, government should stay out of the competitive markets in which opportunities are provided and simply make it certain that everyone is equal before the law.

On the other hand, regulated condition sees a strong role for government in both regulating markets – so that the large corporations and other businesses are prohibited from taking unfair advantage due to their abundance of assets and resources – or providing other laws such as minimum wage, public health facilities, subsidized insurance programs (Medicare), or outright individual subsidies (Medicaid). 

This view might diminish liberty a bit, but in the eyes of those who adhere to it, concern over liberty takes on a different angle.  The belief here is that if one’s income and wealth are below certain levels, there are qualitative realities in play that prohibit that person from having a meaningful, equal opportunity and, therefore, a truncated liberty.

And besides that, there is the “there but for the Grace of God go I” view that should give everyone an interest in supporting government action to provide and support equal opportunity, or so these advocates believe.

But under either of these orientations, equal condition or regulated condition, one can sense a view that sees life as a “construction” process that ends only with death.  That is, Americans, by and large, believe that one can always improve one’s condition in whatever way he/she believes is best. 

Almost all Americans have a strong commitment to this notion that it is we, individually, who determine what our values and life goals should be and that, in addition, we determine what the best mode or strategy should be to acquire fulfillment of those goals. 

This train of thought is bolstered by the prominent political orientation the nation adheres to:  the natural rights perspective.  But even when the nation was more in line with the federalist sense of political thought, there was always a strong commitment to one’s responsibility to fulfill one’s part in the grand partnership under our national compact, the US Constitution.

---

[1] Allan Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins, Curriculum:  Foundations, Principles, and Issues, (Boston, MA:  Allyn and Bacon, 2004).

[2] Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, (New York, NY:  Little, Brown and Company, 2008).

GOING AHEAD OR VIGOROUSLY GOING BACK

To date, this blog has posted a series of entries that have been aimed at providing information that would be useful for anyone, short of being an expert, who is willing to work toward curricular change at a school or, perhaps, a school district.  In that effort, the blog has presented short accounts of the various curricular philosophies, approaches, and psychological views that are prominent in the field of curricular work.

That material began with the posting entitled, “A Functional Philosophy of Education.”  That entry was posted on February 16, 2016 (access can be obtained by using the archival feature found to the right on this page).  I wish to continue with that general theme by next looking at the sociological perspectives scholars have put forward in regard to curriculum and the different views curricular workers have proffered.

With this posting, I want to share some general concerns that these workers bring to their efforts so as to provide context for what will follow.  The first sociological concern is the function of the educational institution in our society.  All societies have institutions – established ways of dealing with built-in challenges.  All societies have to deal with the personal needs for security and safety, with emotional needs of individuals, with threats from the outside world, with health issues, with production and distribution of things and services, with power and leadership, and with dealing with the unknown (such as why we are here and who or what is ultimately responsible for us being here). 

And more associated with education, every society has to deal with ignorance; we are not born with the knowledge or beliefs we need in order to survive or to live in comfort and in a self-fulfilling manner.  For all of these, every society develops institutions, the accepted and established ways for handling these challenges.  The universal categories of institutions are family, religion, economy, governance and, to meet ignorance, education. 

While every society has its values and mores, processes, and structures – defined by that society’s culture – the overall needs or functions just listed are shared by all of them.  The health of a society can be gauged by how healthy and well-defined its institutions are.  For example, many are concerned with the health of the US society today given the nature of the presidential campaigns during this election cycle.

Education, as an institution, reflects whatever comprises the other institutions.  For some, the overall function education plays is to transmit, to a younger generation, the values and mores, the accumulated knowledge and beliefs, and even the biases and proclivities that characterize the culture of the society.  This is a very conservative view of what education should be about doing.  On the other hand, there are those who see education as an institution that should function as an instrument of change, as a vanguard of transformation.  This is a radical view.  And of course, there are those who see education being both, selectively preserving what is perceived as good and wholesome and helping to change what is seen as not so good.

Speaking of this presidential election cycle, we have had candidates who are portrayed as protectors of the status quo; it would be odd if a candidate actually depicted him/herself as such an agent.  Somehow, to say one is for what is, one is seen as promoting the problems of the day and not the assets of what makes the society or nation admirable. 

At the same time, we had and have candidates who claim they are revolutionary in instituting a movement.  Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are/were so described by their respective campaigns.  One promised a more egalitarian future and the other a revival of a more glorious past.  Since many citizens voiced their approval through voting for these two candidates, one can surmise the educational system has not been too successful in transmitting very well the cultural elements that now exist.  After all, these voters want drastic change.

Or it can be more of a reactive posture to what is currently going on.  Often, such views for change are shared among those who are not faring so well under the current economic conditions.

There are two groups of people who are almost guaranteed to vote on election day:  ideologues and angry people.  Satisfied people are more likely to stay home.  Of course, staying home will very likely help lead them to becoming a future angry person.  But all of this is what the educational institution either addresses successfully or doesn’t.  Given some of the opinions being currently expressed, one fears the latter to be the case.

There are those education workers who are generally satisfied with the social conditions of the day and they tend to be those who, at least in the moment, can be considered “transmitters” of the cultural elements and the culture in general.  There are those not so happy with the status quo and they tend to lean toward the radical end of the continuum. 

These latter workers tend to be those who have been upset with the inequalities within society.  These folks hold reconstructionist philosophical beliefs and work toward “reforming” the educational establishment by introducing curricular changes that inform and encourage students to work toward furthering social justice.  But perhaps this election will usher in a newer view of curriculum as an instrument to reestablish a culture that once existed – let us say, a reestablishment of the culture that existed in the 1950s with all its beliefs and prejudices.

Are there signs of this retrograde?  I believe some of the decisions of certain state educational officials, as in Texas, seem to be so inclined.  How can education assist in retracing cultural steps?  One way is to mandate that history, for example, emphasize certain aspects that glorify the prior mindset – perhaps glorify Confederate images and calls for states’ rights, as those earlier views defined states’ rights.  That history can downplay or even ignore other events and figures that ushered in the contemporary biases that now exist – the stories of the anti-Vietnam War movement, for example. 

Listen to the rhetoric of Trump: “You see, in the good old days, law enforcement acted a lot quicker than this … A lot quicker. In the good old days, they’d rip him out of that seat so fast.”  It is this and other messages – “Make America Great Again” – that smack of this “let’s get back to the way it was” view.  What is it about this earlier time that seems so appealing to so many?

Central to this role of education is how learning is viewed.  This blog reviewed various psychological approaches to this study of curriculum.  One basic distinction is whether learning is seen as merely presenting the external world and the student absorbing that presentation or of a student constructing in his/her mind what that world is and should be. 

The latter view can better explain why there is such a difference between what appears to be believed by the average Trump rally participant and a person who attends a Clinton rally.  And in that difference, one might ask, what was the curriculum each of these rally goers experienced that makes each have such a differing view of what is important:  improving on what is or going back to the ‘50s?

The upcoming postings will look at the different elements of this sociological nature of curriculum.  One can, I believe, already tell from this posting that there is a strong political flavor to this concern over sociological factors affecting education, generally, and curriculum, more specifically.

“THE WHOLE IS GREATER THAN ITS PARTS” (cont.)

[Note:  this essay began with the last posting (9/6/16).  In order to understand the context for what follows, I suggest that if you have not read that posting, click on that entry by using the archival feature found on the right side of this page.]

As a holistic approach, humanist psychology focuses on the whole instructional setting when its study turns to instruction.  Part of that concern is what a person, a student or a teacher, naturally contends to be his/her felt needs.  And this leads us to look at the first of two influential theorists of this psychology, Abraham Maslow.[1] 

I have, in this blog, referred to Maslow’s model on the hierarchy of needs.  As with Piaget’s and Kohlberg’s models (described in the 9/2/16 posting), Maslow’s model has a developmental dimension to it.  Basically, this model claims that from birth, humans have needs and those needs can be categorized as types which follow a progression. 

That progression is as follows:  physiological needs (food, water, etc.), safety/security needs, belongingness and love needs (friendship, intimacy, etc.), esteem needs (prestige and feelings of accomplishment), and self-actualization needs (achieving one’s full potential).  A summarized way of describing this progression can be from basic to psychological to self-actualizing. 

The more basic needs need to be sufficiently satisfied before the psychological needs become stridently felt and, in turn, the psychological needs need to be sufficiently satisfied before self-actualizing needs become stridently felt.   As with Kohlberg’s model of moral development, not all individuals arrive at the highest levels indicated by this model. 

As with the other developmental models, I sense there is a progression from the concrete and parochial to the abstract and universal.  One can define maturation by these progressions.  And whether one is concerned with cognitive ability, moral reasoning, or motivational needs, teachers and curriculum developers need to know about these changes and account for them in their plans and actual teaching practices. 

Throughout, the dignity of the person, the experiences the person has had, and the person’s march toward knowing and understanding who he/she is provide the focal concerns upon which this particular development of needs is fixed.  Accounting for the dynamic nature of the development can be challenging to a teacher as he/she prepares lessons and interacts with students.

The other theorist is Carl Rogers.  His main psychological model is concerned with self-perceptions.  His “perceptionalism” heightens, as a determinant force, how a person perceives him/herself and how that perception affects the manner in which that subject engages in challenging activities such as learning.  In terms of children, how they perceive they are wanted, liked, and loved are very important to their success in the classroom. 

Teachers need to develop a personal relationship with the child so that the young one feels emotionally safe in the school setting.  With this security, he/she can progress.  A student who falters is either not sufficiently prepared intellectually or is suffering from some psychological hindrance obstructing his/her growth in developing a positive self-perception.

The self-esteem movement found its origins in how Rogers’ theoretical work was received by the general public.  His message seemed to congeal with a general reaction to the more Puritanical traditions that used to characterize American educational modes of operations.  I have previously made the case,[2] that this shift coincided with the upgrading of the natural rights construct as the main perspective that guided our substantive beliefs concerning politics and, therefore, authority.

Perceptionalism, under the influence of Rogers, ushers in a softer, more student-friendly approach and discards such practices as paddling and other forms of punishments that were deemed to demean a student’s self-definition of his/her worth.  Concerns for dignity became more prominent in the strategic planning of school officials and even in laws governing teacher disciplinary practices.

Positively, humanistic psychology would emphasize the more artistic educational activities a curriculum could offer.  The arts, literature, dance, and other expressive subjects work well with this increased focus on self-defining aims.  It is through these subjects that students are assisted in learning who they are. 

I would point out, though, that with this concentration on the individual – in his or her determining life-defining values and other decisions – humanistic psychology shares an important attribute with the more behaviorally oriented perspective of the natural rights construct.  Both promote an emphasis on the individual.  This heightened individualism has been castigated, in this blog, as an enabling factor which contributes to a more narcissistic culture.

Many have pointed out that this concentration on the self is a counterproductive influence in regard to our striving to attain the common good or social capital; that is, promoting a societal quality, which is characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.[3] 

The concern is one of balance:  how weighted should one’s beliefs be in terms of placing importance on oneself?  How positive does a self-image have to be in order for a person to accomplish learning objectives or succeed in other, self-defining activities?  Yes, one needs a sufficiently healthy view of oneself, but are there prudent and constructive limits?  If yes, what are they?

These questions do not seem to be asked by the adherents of humanistic psychology.  Their language speaks of authoritarian school systems that avoid humanistic relations and interactions with students.  This, I would submit, is not accurate in the main.  Are there over-oppressive teachers?  Surely, but overall my experience has been that most of the teachers I encountered were reasonable, caring people who seek positive relationships with their students.  While most teachers are not adherents to humanistic psychology – they tend to be behaviorists – they can still care for their students and want the best for them.

One can attribute many positive results from the influence humanist/phenomenological psychology has had.  And many of these results can be found in our nation’s schools.  But there have been detrimental effects as well.

One of these negative results has been a language by which a selfish and self-centered youth culture has been justified and promoted.  Perhaps what is worrisome is not so much the message this psychology communicates, but the degree to which this message is carried out by a good many teachers, a good many school officials, and in some cases, a good many school policies.  Balance is the key to achieving and maintaining sound educational practice.

---

[1] Abraham Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being, 2^nd ed. (New York, NY:  Van Norstrand Reinhold, 1968).

[2] As stated in the last posting:  As I described in the posting, “Formal Critique of Critical Theory,” what I named reconceptualism is a branch of critical theory, the leftist, to varying degrees, Marxist construct.  Most educators who ascribe to critical theory today adhere to this line of thought.  A quip that I believe summarizes this view is to just marry Marxian thought to natural rights biases that idolize the individual, and you have reconceptualism.  With reconceptualism and its reliance on postmodernism and post structuralism, there is a call for self-referentiality and a rejection of any grand narratives or ideologies.  It is subjectivism on “steroids.”  Adherents call for a serious approach to seeking the truth through historical interpretation that relies heavily on contextualizing the information gathered and delving into subjective forces about historical characters and the researchers themselves.

[3] A la, Robert Putnam.  See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

“THE WHOLE IS GREATER THAN ITS PARTS”

[Note:  Due to the length of this material, it will be presented over two postings:  this one and the next one which will be posted on 9/9/16.]

With descriptions of behavioral and cognitive psychologies presented over the last three postings, this posting will present, in a rudimentary fashion, a “psychology” that not all in the discipline recognize as a psychology.  That would be humanist/phenomenology psychology.  Yet despite this reluctance by fellow educational psychologists, it has had an observable influence on many teachers and curriculum developers. 

Some have called it the “third force” – another way to visualize psychological factors that affect how and what a person learns.  It is criticized as being a “soft relative” of the more “scientific” approaches to educational psychology.  The practitioners who engage in this approach’s research do not depend on sophisticated experimental designs to gather their data, but on testimonials and interviews.  The information gathered by these qualitative techniques ventures into personal accounts of what the “I” experiences are in learning and/or in handling other challenges. 

Those who adhere to this psychology place great importance on self-definition – how we view ourselves.  They see this introspective determination as highly influential in how one will function in life, generally, and in the classroom, more specifically.  This is true both for students and teachers and even administrators.  And this self-awareness, or lack of it, is not a quality that is abstracted out of one’s psyche, but instead a quality that takes in the whole person and the whole environment in which that person is situated. 

Perceptions become central:  does the person perceive him/herself as a learner, a scoundrel, a lover, a hater, a leader, a follower, an actor, or a dropout?  These are various self-inflicted titles that then evolve into illustrative behavior that manifests their meanings.  An actor will act and a self-perceived dropout will, more than likely, be a dropout in real life.  This describes the phenomenological aspect of this psychology.  And these perceptions are not of a temporal nature, but instead define the whole person – a summary of who the person is through his/her own eyes.  The longer and more established these perceptions exist, the harder they are to dislodge.

Therefore, an educator, in order to be successful, needs to be conscious of this reality, be able to plan for it and, in a humanistic way, account for it as the educator interacts with the student.  The aim, of course, is to encourage and enable a person to perceive him/herself in ways that are rewarding to the person, not debilitating or self-destructive in any way or to any degree.

With this approach, the emphasis is not on how one responds to this or that stimulus or how the brain’s structure processes information.  The emphasis is on the Gestaltic aim to see and understand the total interaction between the individual and his/her environment – less analysis and more synthesis is this psychology’s orientation.  This view is particularly sensitive to the interpersonal relations that mark a person’s space.  In this, humanistic psychology leads teachers and curriculum developers to be more attuned to communication qualities such as connotations, symbolism, and configurations of interactions among subjects of a given “field” (a field being those aspects of a space that provides any effect on an interaction).

Learning, therefore, is viewed as complex.  There are mental processes that take in what a field has to offer; the elements have to be analyzed in order to identify any problem(s); the mind has to discriminate and tease out what is important from what is not and it has to see and understand the consequential relationships among the people and things present or potentially present.  Curriculum is not seen as a set plan, but an evolving concern which is better designated by the verb, currere, than the noun, curriculum.  This is the central ideal of reconceptualism which is usually associated with more recent expressions of reconstructionist philosophy.[1]

And by referring to the people and things present, the concern is not only with the physical proximity to the situation in question, but also includes those elements that can have an influence from afar.  All of this is a dynamic reality which calls on the person to accommodate to the changes that are constantly taking place.  Nothing is set in stone, making all perceived knowledge or beliefs unreliable and subject to questioning and critique.

But what is maintained, throughout the instructional interchange, is framing the teaching effort toward addressing the whole, the whole person and the whole environment.  Truth is not only in the detail, but also in the entirety of the situation, not just in external elements (rewards and/or punishments) or in internal mental elements (the structural processes of the mind and brain), but in the whole interactive reality.  All this does not lend itself to measurement or analytic diagramming, but to “gut” senses that can get a hold on the whole (see fn 1 above).

---

[1] As I described in the posting, “Formal Critique of Critical Theory,” what I named reconceptualism is a branch of critical theory, the leftist, to varying degrees Marxist construct.  Most educators who ascribe to critical theory today adhere to this line of thought.  A quip that I believe summarizes this view is to just marry Marxian thought to natural rights biases that idolize the individual, and you have reconceptualism.  With reconceptualism and its reliance on postmodernism and post structuralism, there is a call for self-referentiality and a rejection of any grand narratives or ideologies.  It is subjectivism on “steroids.”  Adherents call for a serious approach to seeking the truth through historical interpretation that relies heavily on contextualizing the information gathered and delving into subjective forces about historical characters and the researchers themselves.

THE STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES OF THE MIND (cont.)

[Note:  this essay began with the last posting (8/30/16).  In order to understand the context for what follows, I suggest you click on to that entry by using the archival feature found on the right side of this page.]

With the overall explanatory remarks found in the last posting, hopefully we at least have a feel for the processing elements of thinking described and explained by cognitive psychology; that is, we have an idea of what this concern for processing knowledge entails.  But there is a backdrop to all of this of which an educator needs to be keenly aware.  That would be the genetically determined developmental aspect of our ability to process information and knowledge. 

I think the best way to describe this aspect is to delve directly into one of several models cognitivists have formulated to describe this longitudinal process.  Let me take this opportunity to point out that there is no physical component one can point to that houses these distinguishing features between brain and mind.  An MRI will not be able to detect that portion of the brain where the mind resides.  Yes, scanning devices can detect where in the brain certain types of thinking take place, but this is mostly speculative interpretations of neurological and blood flow changes that coincide when certain types of experiences take place.  But does this reflect where or what the mind is doing as opposed to some other physiological phenomenon?  Who knows?  But what we do know is that it is convenient to describe psychological functions and activities in the ways the last posting went about it.  And so it is with this developmental or growth component of the mind. 

We do know we develop in discernable ways and we do know we don’t learn how to do it.  It just takes place.  But studying the patterns that people tend to experience and by using some creativity, cognitive psychologists have developed models that trace the development over the years in which the process takes place.  I will in this posting share two of these models: that of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg.

Probably the most famous one is the one provided by Jean Piaget – have you heard the name?  Piaget’s model gained notoriety in the US in the 1950s and ‘60s.  Like other such efforts, his model identifies stages that begin at birth and go on until death.  They are the sensorimotor stage, the preoperational stage, the concrete operation stage, and the formal operation stage.

Let’s look briefly at how each stage manifests itself:

1) Sensorimotor stage (birth to two years of age) in which the young child learns to consciously react to surroundings, as opposed to reflexive reaction which characterizes his/her initial behavior.  Also, the infant to toddler period teaches the young one that things have permanence; if you store something, for example, it will be there in the future. 

2) Preoperational stage (two to seven years old) in which the child places conceptual or symbolic qualities onto things (clothes are for wearing; crayons are for coloring).  This conceptualization includes the rudimentary ability to attach attributes and categorization qualities to common sets of things. 

3) Concrete operation stage (seven to eleven years old) in which the child is beginning to make more complex and logical relationships among objects and even ideas.  The level of complexity is still relatively low, but complexity is beginning to characterize mental relationships as long as the child is dealing with familiar things or ideas.  So, for example, he or she can figure out, especially in the physical realm, reversibility and reciprocal relations in the physical world (water, if chilled sufficiently, will turn to ice, and ice, if heated, will turn to liquid and, if heated more, will evaporate or, in another conceptual relation, he/she understands that a long, thin glass can hold as much water as a short, wide one). 

4) Formal operation (11 years old to death) in which the person can begin and continue the ability to understand, apply, and develop ideas of ever more sophistication and complexity.  These ideas can, as the years and education advance, be of increasing abstraction.  This progression also leans toward the universal, as opposed to the parochial.  Learning no longer depends on direct experience but on knowledge derived from instruction and reading and other exposure to communication outlets.  The nature of the learning process takes on more formal forms such as the adoption of rules governing logical argumentation.

While these are the developmental stages identified by Piaget, an individual’s progression will be influenced by many factors.  Some are inborn, but many are environmental.  This reflects the nature/nurture debate which is still very much a part of scholarly and popular discussion over such matters.  “Nurture” factors include the quality of parent/child relations, the quality of household conversations including the topics family members address and the assumptions such discussions develop and promote, the quality of the schooling that a subject experiences, the opportunities presented (either planned for or occurring by chance), the presence and quality of any mentors a subject encounters, and the like.

The other developmental model I will review is one I have referred to in this blog several times.  That is the model offered by Lawrence Kohlberg.  Highly influenced by Piaget, Kohlberg developed a moral developmental model.  His model consists of the following: 

1) Pre-conventional level in which behavior is simply judged to be good or evil based on, first, whether it elicits punishment (observed as the bad) and then, whether it elicits rewards (observed as the good).  I still remember the first time my son confronted the bad at this level – he was not happy. 

2) Conventional level in which good and evil are dependent on what others (mostly parents) think of the child, as a person.  This is likely to take the form of, first, being considered nice (observed as the good) or considered not nice (observed as the bad) and then, later, whether the person lives by the rules (observed as the good) or does not act in accordance with the rules (observed as the bad). 

3)Post-conventional level in which ideals of morality are generally based, at least initially, on what other people feel or on perceptions of who or what has authority (parent, schools and churches, police, government officials, one’s own conscience).  This is followed by a concern or determination to obey contractual provisions (observed as the good) or not obey contractual provisions (observed as the bad) and then, at the highest level of moral thinking and feeling, abiding by one’s own accepted principles of morality (observed as the good) or not abiding by those principles (observed as the bad) and ultimately by one’s own principles of conscience which are self-defined principles or accepted, universal principles (such as those contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).  Again, the progression is toward the abstract and the universal.

Of course, not all of us get to the upper levels.  Often, the examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King are given as two individuals who made the complete progression as outlined by Kohlberg’s model.  One can either agree or disagree with these examples, but I am sure that it is generally accepted that only very few people will have advanced through these three stages or six hierarchical dimensions of moral thinking and living.

Other names associated with cognitive psychology are John Dewey (of course), Jerome Bruner, Lev Vygotsky (an interesting example to look up), Howard Gardner (multiple intelligences), and Daniel Goleman (emotional intelligence).  An offshoot of cognitive psychology is constructivism which focuses on the processes by which “knowledge” is formed.  The term, “construct,” which has been used extensively in this blog, is derived from this perspective.  Let me quote Ornstein and Hunkins on this view’s take about understanding the world:

Meaning is imposed on the world by those who reflect, those who think about the world.  Meaning does not exist in the world independent of us.  It is we who structure the world, as we construct reality so as to comprehend it.  In other words, learners do not simply “bank” knowledge from the external world into their memories. They do not receive understanding as a gift.  They do not arrive at knowing as a prize received for persistent practice.  Rather, they must engage in conjecture, question themselves and their views, contemplate projections of their held views, then formulate interpretations of the world shaped by their past experiences and interactions with the world.  They must bring into their cognitive processes their “world knowledge.”  They must draw on their perceptions of context, present and past.  Reflecting on contexts relevant to their learning results in the emergent formulation of understanding.[1]

Excuse the length of this citation, but I think that in relatively few words, its authors capture not only the essence of constructionism, but also all of cognitive psychology.  Before I was exposed to this fancy language, I realized that if you wanted students to learn something – whatever that meant – they had to reflect upon it.  Otherwise, it would not be much better than short-term memory.  Oh, there were those students with good memories who would retain the material for the weekly test and get their good grades.  In most schools, they are still the ones honored on the dean’s list and other designations.  But they are not necessarily the ones who later on will excel in the professional world.  It will be those students who learn to reflect or had at least an intuitive sense for what Ornstein and Hunkins describe above.

Let me end with an anecdote:  It came to be when I taught high school students that I got to know a young lady quite well.  She graduated from the high school where I taught back in the 1990s.  She was not my student but was dating another student to which I was quite close – a family connection.  She graduated with top honors, just about a straight A student.  She went on to matriculate in an undergraduate program at one of the state universities and graduated cum laude with only one grade below an A – reflecting some foul-up in which she was deprived of the higher grade due to some arbitrary act by an unreasonable prof.  She then signed up, at another state university, in a psychology doctoral program.  She couldn’t finish that program. 

During that time, we talked and what I could figure out was that in all of her preparation for this last schooling challenge, she had not been taught how to think; most of her experience consisted of seeing knowledge as something you memorize, and now she was being asked to construct knowledge.  Unfortunately, in terms of getting through the doctoral program – which entailed a hefty investment in funds, by the way – she was simply not prepared and had to eventually drop out. 

She is presently doing fine, has a good job in the financial world and lives in the D.C. area.  I guess her experiences, as opposed to her formal education, taught her how to reflect and appropriately engage System 2 thinking in order to do her job and to do it well.

---

[1] Ornstein, A. C. and Hunkins, F. P.  (2004).  Curriculum:  Foundations, principles, and issues.  Boston, MA:  Allyn and Bacon, p. 117.

THE STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES OF THE MIND

[Note:  Due to the length of this essay, I will submit it over two postings.]

Continuing with a review of the different psychological schools of thought that have had an influence on education, cognitive psychology is the next approach I will address.  Whereas most school teachers and administrators are behaviorists by inclination, this next approach probably enjoys the second most favored position among those educators.  Not that any significant number of teachers and administrators wake up in the morning consciously thinking they are cognitivists, but given the general ideas attributed to this approach, I would suppose cognitive ideas probably have a fairly wide acceptance among them.

What are those ideas?  To begin with, more committed cognitivists are heavily concerned with the issues of growth or development, as opposed to learning, per se.  With this emphasis, they make a conscious differentiation between brain and mind.  With this distinction firmly established – which I will describe shortly – they contextualize the difference between development and learning.  Development is wired into the human make up; it’s a genetic trait, although it varies, in terms of its pace and its qualitative aspects, among people.  In regard to this concern, there have been famous models developed (no pun intended) by famous psychologists; that is, their names are somewhat commonly known and I will in this review describe the work of two of them.

But before we take a look at representative models (a topic for the next posting), let’s review this distinction between brain and mind.  In common parlance, many of us interchange these two terms.  But cognitivists, when they are speaking seriously about their field of study, make a distinction.  Let me describe this by using an analogy.  If you think of a radio or TV, you might think of a plastic casing in whose insides are filled with wires, transistors, and the like.  This constitutes these items’ physical attributes.  This, in the analogy, is akin to the brain.  The brain is the organ in a person’s head that takes up the relatively large area situated behind a person’s eyes, within the skull.  I’m sure we have all seen extracted brains of deceased people. 

What exactly is included and excluded from what is considered the brain might vary among those who talk about the brain, but generally we all know to what the term refers.  The brain provides the physically required mechanism by which thinking can take place.  There are portions of the brain that are associated with certain types of thinking – knowledge, beliefs, and emotions – and this passing reference is a good place to point out that cognitivists have no qualms about going inside the brain to try to figure out why we think and behave the way we do (remember, I pointed out the reluctance of behaviorists to do so).[1]

But we don’t buy radios and TVs to marvel at this complex amalgamation of wires and transistors.  Instead, we buy these appliances to be informed and entertained.  That is, spewing out of a radio or TV is programming which has its own order and logic.  This aspect of these devices is what is akin to the mind.  The mind is the sum total of all the “content” of our thinking.  The mind is also organized with structured content.  This content is not all consciously “observed” by a person; some of it is subconscious and nonconscious.  For example, we are not conscious of how the mind is genetically geared to develop at its own pace (more on this below).  Of course, all of these mind activities are dependent upon a functioning brain and we can observe in people what happens when portions of the brain are damaged and how such injuries affect thinking and, therefore, the mind.

So, cognitivists are very interested in all of this; they study how the mind organizes its thinking and the knowledge it holds and processes.  They spend a lot of time thinking about how the mind structures that knowledge and what actions it takes to hold and expand that knowledge.  Such mental processes, such as organizing, storing, discovering, creating, evaluating, and implementing content, are central to their study of psychology.  This, by necessity, expands their interest into not only the quantity of knowledge, but also the quality of knowledge.  That is, how does certain knowledge and how it is structured affect further thinking?  For example, how does something surprising or challenging to present knowledge that spurs an individual to become curious or creative or apt to solve a problem that is contained within that which the mind is considering? 

Note the avoidance of using the term stimulus – its use is not taboo, but it harkens back to those other psychologists about whom we just learned.  I might be imposing this distinction here, but my experience with this issue is that behaviorists are concerned with what is external to the mind; that is, what is the stimulus, while the cognitivists’ concern is centered on what is internal by analyzing, as best they can, the structures and processes of the mind.

The other area of concern that cognitivists are drawn to is memory.  Here, a very important distinction is made between short-term memory and long-term memory.  Short-term memory is the immediate sort of images, thoughts, connections (to prior stored information), and proclivities (such as the influence that framing has) in which the mind engages.  Much of this thinking, using short-term memory, is automatic and much of its content is a product of genetic factors.  For example, if I, out of the blue, offer you a gambling opportunity in which you put up $100 to win $150 with an 80% chance of success, you, if you are like most people, will decline the bet, not because it’s logical or reasonable to decline it, but because that’s just the way most of us are.  We are, automatically, a risk averse species.[2]  Yes, there are some who are not so averse to such bets; you know who they are, but most of us firmly believe the adage – “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” – as too chancy a proposition.  This proclivity is not learned; it’s just there and cognitivists can tell you what part of the brain “lights” up when considering this bet and this bias.  And short-term operations based on short-term memory deal with all of this.  It is mostly what Daniel Kahneman considers effortless thinking.[3]

He calls it System 1 thinking, but there is also System 2 thinking which is effortful.  That is, a person delves into long-term memory, the memory that is composed of knowledge that is retained for more than thirty seconds (as it is with short-term memory) and is available to apply to new situations confronting a person. 

There is something about these kinds of situations that spurs the mind to mull over what is being perceived and brings to bear memorized information that can assist in meeting what the situation calls for.  It could be a problem, a delight, a curiosity, or an emotionally inducing image.  In all such cases, at least initially, there is a surprise element to it, something a person did not expect.  The point is that whatever such an occurrence substantively contains, the person is willing to move into System 2 thinking which is, by its nature, lazy and unwilling to be activated.  Apparently, System 2 needs prodding to get going.  Generally, it is activated so as to arrive at a satisfying result that “resolves” the situation in question.  That is, it solves the problem, understands the delight, quells the curiosity, or handles the emotion so as to be satisfied with what happens next.  At least, that is what System 2 sets out to accomplish. 

Why is System 2 reluctant?  We know it is tiring to use it.  Studies show that such thinking physically eats up energy (noted by the quantities of sugar that blood carries to the brain when System 2 gets activated).  Therefore, it calls for effort.  It rummages through long-term memory and finds, understands, and figures out how to apply those memories to the challenge presented by the situation at hand.  Sometimes that’s relatively easy to do; at other times it is not. 

People who are good at this sort of thing, who have learned (through instruction and/or experience) to find such thinking enjoyable, and, as a result are good at problem solving or creatively dealing with emotional material, can command, usually, a hefty salary.  We hope our doctor is that sort of person; we hope our political and government leaders are, and we hope our teachers are. 

My experience is, though, that most are not.  But so it goes.  How to rummage and how to enjoy rummaging through our long-term memory are important aspects of education and some educators are conscious of the challenge to fill that memory with important “stuff” and to teach students to diligently, analytically, creatively retrieve and process those memories so they are able to do important and rewarding things in life.

---

[1] This intrusion into the brain is by the means of scanning devices.

[2] There are evolutionary reasons for this bias.

[3] Kahneman, D.  (2011).  Thinking, fast, and slow.  New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.