Category: Uncategorized

A couple of individuals in the class asked for some further information respecting grading after our session yesterday. You’ll find the Postman discussion about the origin of grading that we read in class in the comments sections on the proposals of individuals in Group 6 (Sophie, Cristina, and Blair). Postman doesn’t argue for or against grading — he merely notes that it is a curious practice and results in a particular perspective on teaching and learning.

Probably the most outspoken individual against grading is Alfie Kohn, an independent scholar and advocate for Progressive Education. Kohn has written many books and articles on the subject over the years. One article that synthesizes his position is here (Kohn, 1999). There are also many who critique Kohn’s perspective (e.g., Chance, 1993).

———-
References

Chance, P. (1993). Sticking up for rewards. Phi Delta Kappan, 787-790.

Kohn, A. (1999). From Degrading to De-Grading. High School Magazine. Available: http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/fdtd-g.htm

I spoke with a couple of groups yesterday about what are sometimes referred to as educational “commonplaces” (knowledge, child, society). The commonplaces as iterated above are referenced in some educational literature. For example, Holmes (1984) writes, “In terms of emphasis, the aims of education may be child-, society-, or knowledge-centered.” However, Holmes evidently deems this notion so ubiquitous that he fails to reference his source. Schwab is the key curriculum theorist who articulates the notion of commonplaces, alluding to the bodies of experience that play into the act of curriculum planning, including the following: subject matter, learner, milieu, teacher (503-504). He goes on to ponder what curriculum planning might look like when one centres activities more on one commonplace than another: “Imagine a child-centered planning which emphasizes above all else the present inclinations of students, the interests they bring with them or those which can be aroused by the shrewd placement of provocative objects and events in the educational space” (509). Just as easily, we might imagine a curriculum emphasizing other commonplaces.

———-
References

Holmes, B. (1984). Paradigm shifts in comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 28(4), 584-604.

Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The school review, 81(4), 501-522.

Hello Teachers,

Yesterday I met with Teresa and was given two lovely books as gifts, received with gratitude. It means a great deal to me that you have kept me in your thoughts while you are so busily preparing for the teaching adventures that await. These books will be my companions as I endeavor to appreciate the changes in my own little world and in the world at large. Books have that amazing capacity to function as a conversant. A good book does this: as you read its pages, it reads your mind, it sends out feelers into thoughts unformed and prods them into existence. It doesn’t put the thoughts there…the thoughts are always your own, but without good literature, those thoughts might remain dormant for an entire lifetime. Isn’t that what the theory of reader response was meant to enlighten us about? I wish also to thank you not only for the books, but for allowing me to share in your seminar II inquiries. Your groups have already gone much deeper into content-related explorations, and your questioning is sophisticated and purposeful. I feel honored to have spent time learning with you and from you. Thanks for all these wonderful gifts.