“STUDENT” AS A COMMONPLACE, VII

 

Focusing on the student or learner in developing a curriculum seems obvious enough.  This blog has been focusing on students with emphasis on such concerns as students’ social and political interests.  This posting turns to their pedagogic interests.  And in that area, this blog has argued and presented evidence that currently the natural rights perspective, with its emphasis on individualism,[1] has dominated the curricular outlook that civics education has followed.

          Consequently, any attempt to change that state of affairs, to shift to what this account promotes, a liberated federalism view, would most likely be considered by students as counterintuitive.  Therefore, students would need to be cognitively aware of the shift and mature enough to deal with any content that would ensue from the application of such a change.

          Here, there are promising findings.  Reflecting to a degree Jean Piaget’s claims from an earlier time,[2] more recent accounts place 12- to 18-year-olds being able “to think systematically about all logical relationships within a problem…” which is an ability acquired over time.[3]  Therefore, the basic cognitive maturity to handle a curriculum shift to a more communal orientation, as called for by the liberated federalism approach, should be in place with the vast number of adolescents. 

And with even younger or challenged learners, not to mention on-pace students, there is good benefit in using narratives – which liberated federalism encourages – to facilitate informational instruction.[4]  Situational or case study approach such as historical study, to government or civics, would employ story type materials to initiate content, and serve as stimuli for class work.

The story element of such a method encourages students to relate the content of the lesson to their own conditions – this blog developed the claim in its review of the parochial/traditional federalism construct.  And this blogger, elsewhere, has written of the importance of using relevant content in curricular materials, particularly when dealing with low achieving students.[5]

That material should be relevant in terms of the social issues it deals with and the level of power the student realistically enjoys.  In any case, relevancy is enhanced by stories that are relatable to students’ conditions in their current lives.  And this calls on educators to look more analytically at students’ thinking patterns – substantively and procedurally.

Then there is the use of schemata in conceptualizing the cognitive requisites for retaining information.

 

A schema, or scheme, is an abstract concept proposed by [Jean] Piaget to refer to our, well, abstract concepts. Schemas (or schemata) are units of understanding that can be hierarchically categorized as well as webbed into complex relationships with one another.

For example, think of a house. You probably get an immediate mental image of something out of a kid's storybook: four windows, front door, suburban setting, chimney. However, if I were to amend the object's name slightly, your scheme would shift to a more refined version. How about: Shotgun house? One door, maybe no front windows, low income setting. Mansion? Multiple windows, side entrance for the help, sweeping front drive.[6]

 

With such a use, curricular material developers and teachers are cautioned to present materials that are characterized by some level of generality.  One can take from these theorists the notion that material or content presentations should be sensitive to that level of abstraction being used.  The use of situational or case study materials allows teachers and developers of materials to gauge this factor to a viable degree.

          Furthermore, the constructivist approach offers a framework by which to effectively present this situational material and enhance student pedagogic interest.  Story telling naturally lends to communal settings – stories don’t happen, for the most part, in isolated places.  The approach situates teachers in the collaborator role in that they are to help students construct knowledge through settings of social interactions and reflective debates and discussions.[7]

          The constructivism view proposes a strategy of socialization that insists that steps be taken, when necessary, to establish and maintain order, but that encourages a shift toward the participatory end of the adult-centered to child-centered continuum (see previous posting).  And these sentiments can extend to other factors of teaching, for example class rules and discipline which are more apt to be internalized and extend leadership roles beyond teachers to students.

          Through this view and its implementation, students not only learn teacher devised lessons, even if inspired by the liberated federalism model, but can also experience its messaging within the confines of the classroom.  In that, students’ long-term interests are truly served.  And that completes this blog’s efforts to answer the earlier identified questions associated with the commonplace – the student.  This account will proceed to the next commonplace – the teacher.[8]

---

[1] For example, see Jean M. Twenge, Generations:  The Real Differences between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents – and What They Mean for America’s Future (New York, NY:  Atria Books, 2023).  It should be noted that individualism is not all bad.  It has its positive elements, but here the concern is with excessive individualism at the expense of communal interests.

[2] Jean Piaget, The Child’s Conception of Time (London, England:  Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969).

[3] “Cognitive Development,” Cincinnati Children’s Health Library (April, 2023), accessed October 4, 2023, URL:  https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/c/cognitive#:~:text=During%20adolescence%20(between%2012%20and,logical%20operations%20happens%20over%20time.

[4] For example, Carys Shannon, “Why Storytelling is Important,” International House Trust (2023), accessed October 4, 2023, URL:  https://ihworld.com/ih-journal/issues/issue-43/why-storytelling-is-important/.

[5] Robert Gutierrez, “Teaching Secondary Social Studies to Low and Moderate Achievers:  A Modest Proposal,” The Social Studies (July/August, 1995), 149-154.

[6] “Schema Theory,” Center for Teaching Excellence (n.d.), accessed October 4, 2023, URL:  https://www.etsu.edu/teaching/resources/more_resources/schema.php#:~:text=A%20schema%2C%20or%20scheme%2C%20is,example%2C%20think%20of%20a%20house AND E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Josephy F. Kett, James Trefil, Cultural Literacy:  What Every American Needs to Know (New York, NY:  Vintage, 1988).

[7] Vera Idaresit Akpan, Udodirim Angela Igwe, Ikechukwu Blessing Ijeoma Mpamah, and Charity Onyinyechi Okoro, “Social Constructivism:  Implications of Teaching and Learning,” British Journal of Education, 8, 8 (September 2020), 49-56.

[8] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).  The commonplaces can be defined as follows:

·       The subject matter refers to the academic content presented in the curriculum. 

·       Learners (students) are defined as those individuals attending school for the purpose of acquiring the education entailed in a particular curriculum.

·       The teacher is the professional instructor authorized to present and supervise curricular activities within the classroom setting.

·       Milieu refers to the general cultural setting and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.

“STUDENT” AS A COMMONPLACE, VI

 

This posting continues a review of student political interests as an item of consideration in developing a civics curriculum.  What follows is in line with one of William Schubert’s commonplaces of curriculum development, the student.[1]  The review is reactive in that it is posed as an alternative approach to what prevails today in American classrooms – a curriculum guided by the natural rights perspective. 

In turn, what prevails, ala natural rights, has a strong proclivity among Americans to treat government policy in a neutral fashion.  That includes dependency on such analyses as what is rendered from neutral protocols such as cost-benefit analyses.  This blog’s last posting describes this practice as it affects classroom instruction of civics. 

A contradictory approach would be one that explores how people feel about the subject or whatever aspect of life is being considered.  A civics curriculum guided by liberated federalism, what this blog promotes, relies heavily on normative, value laden content.  Moral considerations are central and, therefore, are not neutral but guided by federated, constitutional values. 

Moral analysis, as what is being promoted, is more in line with the long-term interests of the individuals or any other entities, such as politically active groups, that engage in political behavior.  Philip Selznick writes about the challenges such a position places on the socialization processes of young citizens.[2] 

The challenges involved are about reconciling the demands of authority and autonomy or with repressive policies as they relate to participatory socialization – a socialization that encourages a civic engagement by students as they are ready to enter their adult years.[3]  Given the issues facing young people during adolescence, these distinctions are highly meaningful.

Of course, in repressive socialization, one is relying on punishment and uses methods to elicit obedience to what is usually considered by adults – mostly parents or teachers – as appropriate behavior.  Often, respect is the sought after disposition of young people.  This sort of socialization relies on external sources of motivation, striving for conformity to some collective standards such as those of a family or religion. 

Here, there is a distinction between adult-centered and child-centered socialization.  In short, each places different emphasis on determining how young people are socialized into what is good, correct, or appropriate behaviors.  In both, adults lead the socialization process to what children and young people should do, but both take different paths.

The more adult-centered participatory socialization places the adult as responsible for ascertaining compliance, and a child-centered participatory socialization places the adult as responsible for ascertaining the child’s needs instead of the other way around.  The child-centered approach is further characterized by extending freedom to youngsters, assuming that learning is the product of trying things out. 

But this latter method should not be confused with parental indifference.  Parents and other supervising adults who engage in participatory socialization do exert a great deal of worry and attention.  They express these concerns in general – as in creating or providing an inquisitive environment – as opposed to detailed supervision. 

This, in other words, is not an either-or choice.  Selznick sees how both are necessary components of a viable socialization strategy.  He writes:

 

At times, repressive authority is in truth the only means of establishing order or accomplishing a morally worthy task; in the circumstances the alternative may well be utopian and self-defeating.  But it is more often tempting to claim there is no other way and to rely on repression as a first rather than as a last resort.  For its part, participatory authority requires very congenial conditions and may readily degenerate into weakness, negligence, and undue permissiveness.  Yet it holds the greater promise, not only for moral development but for high levels of personal achievement.[4]

 

A fraternal ethos best regards this distinction as a continuum in which functional levels of order must be established to be effective and efficient.  But the adults should move toward the participatory end. 

Why?  Because it is the participatory end that promises to result in optimum levels of effectiveness and promises that community can be reached as young people learn how to be active citizens.  A well-thought-out instructional plan can give young students face-to-face experiences that expose students to the real human concerns facing the communities in which they live.

          A relevant national trend noted as early as 1991 is the movement away from traditional institutions and associations, such as political clubs and parties, toward single interest groups.[5]  The consequence of such moves is that public debate tends to disregard the general good.  Politics and its rhetoric become the sole domain of self-interested parties only fighting for narrow ends, which seems to be selfish to the rest of the population. 

A review of a Pew Research Center report adequately shows the negative poll results which document the low esteem among the public in its views of both politicians and current political processes.[6]  Under the natural rights perspective, as it is judged in this account, such alienation to politicians and the political process is tolerable among Americans, even expected given the levels of individualism one finds in the national culture.[7] 

The federalist-republican view sees that alienation as being a political problem in and of itself.  The liberated federalism perspective takes the stand that the nation’s core institutions, such as schools, should actively strive to encourage citizens’ involvement in all aspects of governmental processes.  According to this view, the citizen has a duty and obligation to take on such a role. 

Beyond the obligational aspect, this account judges that such involvement is in the long-term interests, if not the short-term interests, of each individual citizen.  The ideal is that such a role should be taken up by every citizen because it adds to the knowledge base, skill base, and social base of each participant.  These benefits are again intangible and not easy to measure.

          Insofar as the political processes of the nation have been the product of group dynamics, such as the work of special interest groups, the liberated federalism model is insightful regarding the processes of those groups.  While that model is not a group theorist model, it does have a certain overlap with those models.  Students have an interest in understanding the workings of groups in a pluralistic, democratic society, so that they can better understand current political operations.

This posting argues that the national welfare will be served to the extent that group structure and group decision-making processes approach the ideal that the liberated federalism model offers, in which the participants of such groups feel a sense of partnership with their fellow group members.  The students’ long-term interests are advanced by each student becoming aware of such an ideal and acting to support, both in words and actions, its normative aims.

---

[1] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).  The commonplaces can be defined as follows:

·       The subject matter refers to the academic content presented in the curriculum. 

·       The teacher is the professional instructor authorized to present and supervise curricular activities within the classroom setting. 

·       Learners (students) are defined as those individuals attending school for the purpose of acquiring the education entailed in a particular curriculum.

·       Milieu refers to the general cultural setting and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.

[2] Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth:  Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1992).

[3] See for example, Michael Fullan, Leading in a Culture of Change (Hoboken, NJ:  Jossey-Bass, 2020).

[4] Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth, 268, emphasis in the original.

[5] Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart:  Individualism and Commitment in American Life (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985/2007).  More recently, see Omer Taspinar, “America Remains Self-Centered, Brookings (December 6, 2010), accessed September 30, 2023, URL:  https://www.brookings.edu/articles/america-remains-self-centered/.

[6] Public Trust in Government:  1958-2023,” Pew Research Center (September 19, 2023), accessed September 30, 2023, URL:  https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/public-trust-in-government-1958-2023/.

[7] For example, see Jean M. Twenge, Generations:  The Real Differences between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents – and What They Mean for America’s Future (New York, NY:  Atria Books, 2023).  It should be noted that individualism is not all bad.  It has its positive elements, but here the concern is with excessive individualism at the expense of communal interests.