As part of a class assignment at the University of Colorado at Boulder, this blog is designed to achieve four goals: 1. Provide an objective discussion of each education tradition (Humanist, Developmental/Progressive, Social Efficiency, and Social Meliorist/Critical Pedagogy) 2. Serve as a platform for my personal analysis of each tradition. 3. Provide an avenue to connect current issues in education to the traditions. 4. Be a center for supplementary material about the traditions.

Order of Posts

Please use the blog archive to access posts in chronological order. The main page is updated with the most recent posts appearing first, and this is opposite of the order in which the blog should be read.

Progressivism: My Take

Progressivism sounds really, really good. It’s appealing to the core of a caring soul. Yet, support of Progressivism has fluctuated throughout history, and this is because there are many questions that are hard to answer about how Progressivism really manifests itself in the classroom. Kohn mentioned that when things get tough and we get scared, we feel a level of comfort reverting to “drill n’ kill.” This is exactly what happened with the launch of Sputnik in 1957.

But what is it about Progressivism that raises doubt? Kohn acknowledges that traditionalists view progressive ideas as abstractions. But I don’t believe Progressivism is too abstract. After all, Kohn emphasizes that, “no one argues that kids should be taught to think about nothing, that facts ought to be omitted so that only higher intellectual processes can be used.”

What I see undermining Progressivism is disbelief in students. Progressivism appears so flaky because it is entirely dependent on students to care about their own education. Why wouldn’t this cause concern? Even if our students are not failing (as Kohn suggests), they are certainly apathetic. Would students, under the current cultural mindset, take initiative to learn if given more liberty in schools? Or would it be the case that students would exploit this liberty? It seems apparent that we have a fear students would take a mile if given an inch. And I must admit, I hold this fear myself. Again, teaching in China taught me so many applicable lessons. Consider this: We entered the Chinese classrooms looking to introduce a progressive form of education to students that had never experienced anything other than extreme “drill n’ kill.” It should also be noted that Chinese students are certainly more willing to submit to authority than most American students, and they have a profound respect for educators. Yet each and every teacher saw problems arise within their classroom as soon as the second week. Students began to exploit their freedom. And given a chance to actively participate in the design of their curriculum, only a few students participated, while the others alienated themselves. Even if assignments were fun and interactive, there was often very little participation. I think this was more than a reflection of my ability as a teacher. It was experienced universally, and in my mind, speaks volumes about the psychology of children in an education system. This experience forced me to weigh the appealing aspects of Progressivism against some harsh practicalities.

But isn’t this all just a rebound effect of students entrapped in traditional models of teaching? It could be. But that doesn’t give us the liberty to discredit current context and culture. We must be able to have an answer to the question, “Is it naïve to allow students more liberty in their personal learning and expect results?”

I will attempt to answer all of this rhetoric. To a certain extent, Progressivism may need to be age dependent. Progressive techniques may just be futile for certain age groups. I mention this because I personally didn’t experience true Progressive education until I was a freshman in college as part of the Presidents Leadership Class. I thrived under these conditions at age 18 but have doubts about my desire to do such a thing at age 14 or 15. More research in Child Psychology may lend some answers to this question.

Ultimately, there is hesitance toward Progressivism not simply because it is a bit abstract, but because there appears to be very few methods of student control. One reason to revert back to “drill n’ kill” in times of hardship or employ traditional methods from the very beginning is that it allows teachers to demand discipline and work ethic. The fear is that if the classroom isn’t authoritative and teacher centered, no learning will take place. To this, I again offer the solution of having good teachers. It would be a challenge, but it seems that teachers could demand discipline and work ethic by other means than the nature of the curriculum. This would likely arise from a culture of immense respect developed toward the teachers because of actions by the teacher—actions that demonstrate the passion of the teacher and the teacher’s concern and effort to really get to know each student individually. I believe in the ability of students to reciprocate things like kindness, respect, and curiosity—even in wake of a mass exodus from traditional control. It's the role of the teacher to establish this environment.

No comments: