Notes and Thoughts

Today in class, DrM noticed a page of scribbles I had in my Baxter Magolda book. Anyhow, yeah, that's what I do. It wasn't really to clarify anything in particular, but a place where I record my thoughts after reading parts of the book. In addition to the thoughts that related directly to the reading (see previous post), here are my scribbles:

*******************************************************
Frustrated. I am still on Ch 1 of our book. I find myself wholly and utterly frustrated by my inability to just sit and read. Sometimes I wish I could just sit and read - just take it in and think about it later. But the more I read things that are connected to something I studied before or to something someone said or to an experience I had, I find my mind straying from the reading and reflecting back. It is frustrating to take entirely too long to read something because your mind keeps bouncing around and you cannot keep up - with your thoughts OR your readings.

*****
My problem is my mind bounces around too much. I am too affected, too intrigued. I feel pulls in all directions. But I like the connections and feeling strings connecting me to people, ideas, words, and thoughts. --That these "strings" of connections can go both ways are what I find to be most compelling and beautiful.

*****
motivation --> what is behind motivation - parents, grades, intrinsic learning, etc

*****
How do you eat knowledge? Do you smell it and hesitantly taste? Do you bite? Do you savor it or quickly consume it waiting for your next fix? Do you swallow right away or chew a bit? Do you ever spit it out because it tastes a little funny and then look at it, maybe pick through it because it tasted a little odd... do you pop it back in your mouth again? Or maybe it is so disgusting you don't even try it? Do you lick your fingers clean? How do you eat your knowledge?

*****
Children
-uninhibited
-haven't yet learned to stifle their creative imagination

*****
Active engagement in learning

*****
We can't generalize from only one perspective...at the same time, we shouldn't deny the value of individual experiences.

*******************************************************

SO...yes. In addition to my previous post (which made sense) these are my random scribbles in my book. Some are indirectly related to the reading while others are...a few tangents removed from the reading. :)

A few other thoughts I had that I didn't write down here was how feminist literature influenced Baxter Magolda. In the second semester of my first year of college I took a great psychology of women class and we read some of the works that Baxter Magolda cites - We read the first part (it was in our reader) of Belenky et al's Women's Ways of Knowing and Hare-Mustin & Maracek's Making a Difference: Psychology and the Construction of Gender.

That psychology of women course was the first time I was introduced constructionism AND...I went back to look at my midterm for that class and believe it or not, I mentioned Perry's "dualism"! Wow. Totally did not remember that AT ALL. (Though I do remember writing it at like...4 am.........) It's an interesting paper. On the first day of class, our prof asked us to write down questions we hoped the class would answer for us and she collected our paper. For our midterm assignment, she handed those papers back to us and we had to answer our questions based on what we had learned in class thus far. I thought it was an amazing assignment. Though the class seemed to have more of a feminist theory background than a "psychological" one, it was my first introduction to feminist theory and constructionism and that was exciting.

Baxter Magolda's Epistemological Reflection Model.....and other thoughts

Baxter Magolda’s Epistemological Reflection Model

Absolute knowing
-Focus is on acquisition
-Knowledge is certain and comes from authorities
-Gender patterns are receiving (females) and mastering (males)
Transitional knowing
-Focus is on understanding and process
-Knowledge is uncertain
-Gender patterns are interpersonal (females) and impersonal (males)
Independent knowing
-Emphasis on open-mindedness
-People are equals in holding their own opinions as valid
-Knowledge is mostly uncertain
-Gender patterns are interindividual (females) and individual (males)
Contextual knowing
-Emphasis on thinking for oneself
-Analyzes existing knowledge and gives weight to context

So I’ve read half the book (and I have read some of this book before) and here are some of my thoughts:
1)Her preface/intro is great. I really like how she brought in the feminist background…I wish it were more of a theme throughout the book.
2)I find myself intrigued by these “within” differences vs. the actual “stages” themselves. I’d like to see more about the progression of the gender-related (but not dictated!) differences.
3)These ways of knowing do seem to follow (at least somewhat) the structure of college curriculum. Freshmen typically start out in large lecture classes and over the course of their time at college, courses get more focused (regarding subject matter) and smaller in size –which is more conducive to discussion. So I’m just curious as to how much this model would differ if students were continually lectured to throughout all four years OR had an overall more discussion-based curriculum. –Or perhaps there was already an awareness of this progression and thus the curriculum style sprung from it? What came first? Chicken or egg?
4)I am curious as to how other constructs such as motivation/caring play a role in this process.

I’ve thought back over the differences of my overall “mindset” from high school to college to graduate school and I think the biggest changes for me have been the shift in hrm…how do I phrase it? Epistemic value or priority perhaps? Prior to high school, my motivation and “care” for school was primarily external. My parents prioritized it, so I did (influence of authority) as well as the “achievement” piece – public recognition and awards. In high school, much of that remained similar, but I’d say somewhere around junior or senior year, it shifted more to “this is for me” – it was still not pure intrinsic motivation, but it wasn’t entirely extrinsic anymore. Then in college, my focus shifted away from being completely self-centered to more open and inclusive of my peers (the first time I saw them as “equals”). I’d say I cared more about learning on a more altruistic level than in high school, but I was still (at least somewhat) motivated by my grades.

After college, I joined the “real world” and that’s when I truly began to appreciate learning the sake of learning - the concept of the “lifelong learner.” I took post-bac classes in a subject I didn’t study in college just for fun. I couldn’t just be a person in a job and here, this is my life. It wasn’t enough. My shift here at that point was to an entirely internalized goal – I wasn’t living for some reward, for a pat on the back, for someone to tell me how great I was. It was entirely and completely for me and nobody else. Now in graduate school I find myself longing to explore connections between not just subject matters but with life -my life and the lives of others I know. This is, after all, the intention of my blog – a piece of personal history, a way for me to take what I’ve learned over the years and reflect and analyze and compare things to what I’m learning now, what’s going on around me, as well as with the people around me.

Today I went to a lecture by Nel Noddings which was thought provoking, especially given my thoughts regarding motivation and achievement. How do we, as a society, create “excited” learners? How can we teach students to grow to find what they love? How do achievement rewards and things like measurements/tests (ie NCLB) hinder this path? How dare we impose quantitative measures on qualitative learning! *sigh*

It’s interesting to see this push for “standards-based” curriculum and testing in the K-12 spectrum (ie NCLB) while more and more colleges and universities are doing away with looking at SAT’s as a measure for entry to college (most recently in California...)

Education, Technology & Globalization

Shame on me for not commenting on Obama's address to Congress in which he included education as one of his top priorities (yay!) Here's the direct transcript from his 2/24/09 speech...well...just the part about education:

The third challenge we must address is the urgent need to expand the promise of education in America.

In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity - it is a pre-requisite.

Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialised nation. And half of the students who begin college never finish.

This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education - from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.

Already, we have made an historic investment in education through the economic recovery plan. We have dramatically expanded early childhood education and will continue to improve its quality, because we know that the most formative learning comes in those first years of life. We have made college affordable for nearly seven million more students. And we have provided the resources necessary to prevent painful cuts and teacher layoffs that would set back our children's progress.

But we know that our schools don't just need more resources. They need more reform. That is why this budget creates new incentives for teacher performance; pathways for advancement, and rewards for success. We'll invest in innovative programmes that are already helping schools meet high standards and close achievement gaps. And we will expand our commitment to charter schools.

It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this system work. But it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it. And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country - and this country needs and values the talents of every American. That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

I know that the price of tuition is higher than ever, which is why if you are willing to volunteer in your neighbourhood or give back to your community or serve your country, we will make sure that you can afford a higher education. And to encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of senator Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country - senator Edward Kennedy.

These education policies will open the doors of opportunity for our children. But it is up to us to ensure they walk through them. In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father who will attend those parent/teacher conferences, or help with homework after dinner or turn off the TV, put away the video games and read to their child. I speak to you not just as a president, but as a father when I say that responsibility for our children's education must begin at home.

It is quite a goal but we must start somewhere - and thank you, Mr. President, for point out that it's not just resources, it's reform. Yes, money is great and I'm sure those dollars will be received with gratitude, but if you want change, you can't just throw money at it.

I also wanted to tie a few other things in with the importance of education as a priority. I was recently at a meeting where P-20 initiatives are being discussed (mostly in regard to federal funding). Anyhow, one of the priorities is a better way to track students along their educational paths to try to find out what works and what doesn't. Imagine all the data! (And that's an excited "!")

What about education in the context of an increasingly "global" world? In class today we discussed an article "Wake Up and Smell the Epistemology" and talked about it in relation to positions/stages of Perry's theory. I think the author's perspective is interesting - that due to what he sees as the influence of technology, students are coming into college at a higher (albeit apathetic) level of cognitive development. This quote from a student in the article summed this point up nicely:

It is imperative that someone studying this generation realize that we have the world at our fingertips — and the world has been at our fingertips for our entire lives. I think this access to information seriously undermines this generation's view of authority, especially traditional scholastic authority.

So let's see...so far I've talked about education as a national imperative (regarding both resources and reform) and cognitive levels of students in the "information age." I wanted to bring one more idea into this blog, which is globalization. The world has always been complex within and among disciplines, but when you broaden the scope to include the whole world, and not just the U.S., somewhere, we must account for the rapid pace of globalization include economic, political, financial, and yes, even educational.

I got this link from a friend and I highly recommend taking a look at it - it really puts the technological revolution on a global scale and ties education into it quite nicely: Did you know?

I think when we take a step back and look at the future of education in the realm of a global community, there are many things we need to address. We are ill prepared for the future. A couple of the most salient issues would have to be the current economic crisis as well as climate change. I think other issues include apathy and lack of direction. Do people (including students) really not care? Or do people not care because they feel at a loss of knowing what they can do?

Maybe students are apathetic about what they learn in the classroom - but are they entirely apathetic? Or does it have to do with relevance? How is this relevant to the student - and how is it relevant to the future of society in a technological age of global growth? Furthermore, how can academics become relevant if the teachers cannot relate the relevance of their teachings to our global society? How can educational institutions prepare students for careers in a new globalized and technologically advanced future when the teachers themselves aren't equipped to guide their students in this direction?

I don't have the answers, obviously, but I think there are too many people with closed minds out there that inhibit the possibilities....and much like the Clydesdale article suggests, I don't think the ones with the most closed minds are the students. (!) I love it when I hear teachers, administrators, and professionals I know say things like, "I'm learning so much from my students" or "I love what my students are teaching me!" Yes, thank you!

It's not about "I'm right" or "I know it all" or even "I know much that I would like to share" - it's a step further. The convergence of minds, the idea of synergy, that the most can be achieved when everyone is involved...that when everyone (let's say, in a classroom) works together not just for mutual benefit, but for even more...the sum of what the teacher knows and what the students have to offer is greater than what the students can learn from the teacher alone (or what the teacher can learn from their students alone).

Now, I don't know how we can find out how best to address the current and emergent issues in our society (and around the world), but I know one thing: we are all in this together, and there's no way we can survive without a combination of individual and social responsibility and reliance. Hrm. Does that make sense? That we need to hold ourselves accountable and each-other accocuntable. That we need to keep our minds open, not just for ourselves, but for what can be an even greater benefit.

Now the big question is - how can we achieve this?

Thinking about Thinking (and some of the things I'm thinking)

So we're now moving from the psychosocial models of development and moving on to the cognitive structural models. Now that I didn't love the psychosocial models (because I did), but I am extremely excited about cognitive structural theories - after all, that's kind of my purpose of doing this blog in the first place! I love learning and thinking - it is a hobby and an addiction. I am intrigued by ways of learning and ways of knowing, and how people come to know what they know, how people learn new ideas and concepts, and what they then come to decide is important to them.

I have always loved school, books, and libraries. In the public school system, I was one of the lucky ones. As a little kid, I was identified as someone that should be placed in honors curriculum. In elementary school and middle school, I was on this track and it's true that the "highest" classes tended to have the "best" teachers - and that we were basically like a cohort - those in honors English were the same as those in honors math. It just ended up that way.

In high school I became more aware of these differences and made sure I was getting the best education I possibly could, with attending a mainland college as the motivating factor. If for some reason I wasn't placed what I thought was the course I belonged in, I was the first to grab my Stanford Achievement Test scores and march my way over to the counselors office to complain. But even knowing to do that, my awareness of that, came from a perspective of someone who knew that being in these "honors" classes was truly advantageous. What about all the other students that don't know? I'm not saying there aren't learning differences out there because there are. But what about everyone else? What about the students that weren't hand picked early on? What if they want the best education they can possibly get - the best teachers, the best academic track - shouldn't they be able to pursue it?

For me, the most important factors were: 1) parents that valued education a great deal, 2) excellent teachers that pushed me academically and 3) internal motivation. I'm sure 3 is related to 1 and 2.

I've had great teachers through my life, particularly in middle school which are very critical years in education. I wonder about the teachers that have replaced my teachers that have since retired. Are they pushing (and supporting) their students? Are they as passionate about their field? Can their students tell they care? Being able to think critically, and think outside the box were things I was pushed to do. Knowledge wasn't something these teachers claimed to own - it was something they loved and wanted to share. Learning was symbiotic. They cared just as much about what we thought about what we were learning (qualitatively) as they did about how much we were learning (quantitatively). It does seem to make sense that if one enjoys the process they would be better able to grow and learn. Sometimes I think that if I were to become a middle school teacher, I would be able to make a bigger impact on the world than I would in any of the jobs I've ever had or aspire to have.

Being a college administrator or professor is great and you still play a large role in the life of the students at your institution...but I can't help but think of the students that never make it there. The ones that don't have the opportunity to go to college or have the knowledge of what is necessary to help them get there. The ones that don't get adequate support from their family or their teachers. The ones that don't have the social and culture capital. How can I best help these students? Research? Policy analysis? Maybe the best way to help is to actually be in the trenches with them.....

Never Enough Time

There is never enough time for me to put down my thoughts - about current events, about class readings, about general life reflections. Well, here I go:

Intellect vs. Emotion

So, I attended the colloquium (see previous post) presented by the women's studies department in conjunction with UH's CEJE (Collective for Equality, Justice and Empowerment). I think what struck me most was neither the presenters, nor what they presented, but the intent of the gathering -- to bridge the gap between academic study and social justice. This got me thinking about what I think is the reason for the gap, what I see a a battle between intellect and emotion.

The battle between intellect and emotion is something that many of us (I hope) have had to deal with in our lives. It is hard because they are inextricably linked, yet for some reason we have grown to see them as dichotomous opposites. I recall a teacher in high school saying the definition of "intellectual" is not one who is smart, but one who lacks emotion - and while I've rarely heard it discussed as such, I think this is something we've come to understand. --There are the "brains" that tell you the facts. "Well, here is x and this is z. But you'll notice that when y is introduced, z has a tendency to....." And then there are the emotional ones, sometimes crying, sometimes screaming, but always full of passion, "This is an injustice! How dare you reduce this issue and my feelings and dismiss them as irrelevant!" I have to admit, I've had the tendency to steer myself away from the impassioned folks and hang out on the intellectual side of the fence.

Though to be honest, I don't think the two are all that different - they just see things from different perspectives. Or perhaps, they've made the active decision on how to present their thoughts and feelings. Or perhaps (as some of the models we've looked at in class present) we are more "mature." Hmmm. --I don't think I am lacking emotion, but I have a tendency to turn to the facts, to look at the numbers, to count, to deduce. I often turn away from the stories, the faces, the hearts full of passion, the gut-wrenching details. Am I becoming one of those "academics" that examines society as "other" as a "thing" and not something I live and breathe and am part of? Don't we want to be objective? Isn't that what makes our work valid?

At the same time I look at myself and I look at my academic passions and yes, that is what they are. They are academic passions - the meeting of intellect and emotion. So if I feel this way, why is there this seemingly daunting chasm between academic study and social justice and advocacy? Will I get lost in the abyss? Will I have to choose? Will objectivity take over completely? I hope not. I hope I never lose sight of my passions, for without my passions I am useless as a student, as a researcher and honestly - as a human being. While I don't see myself as an angry voice or an impassioned voice, I am also not a voice out of a can or out of a book. I hope I will always be able to meld the two - to always have a passion underlying my academic drive. I hope we all do.

TOMORROW 2/27/09

In case your vision is as poor as mine, here's the info:
2/27/09
12:30pm-1:30pm
Saunders 541

Sexual Identity Readings

Our readings for this week were on Cass’ and D’Augelli’s homosexual identity development models. When I first read through the models, I thought they were both somewhat similar in process, however, the differences lie in their framework. Cass’ model presents homosexual identity as a relationship between psychological and social factors where the individual is seeking congruence as a means to achieve their identity. D’Augelli’s model itself is incredibly succinct, but the framework in which he places his model is extensive. His model is rooted in a lifetime developmental process framework where identity is a social construct that evolves throughout the lifetime where at some points one’s sexual identity may be salient/crystallized than at other points. His model takes into account personal aspects, interactive intimacies, and sociohistorical context. I think D’Augelli did a better job at placing his model within a framework, while Cass explained her model in extensive detail just kind of throwing in an, “oh, by the way, this is subject to change depending on society.”

I’m currently reading a book called “The New Gay Teenager” by Ritch C. Savin-Williams that offers an interesting perspective on gay adolescents. From his perspective, homosexuality is an invention that today’s teenagers don’t necessarily see as relevant to them. He foresees a “postgay” future where (perhaps) sexuality is irrelevant. Some of the more interesting points the book has brought out for me thus far are the following:
1)Gay culture (and hetero culture) is the result of society.
2)Gay adolescent research has (for a long time) focused on those that were available to study – troubled teens – and how to help them. Research often completely ignored bisexual students or students that were “other” not to mention students that were not out, thus only studying one facet of the gay youth. (Not to mention that the grant money was for research to support these youth and not anything otherwise.)
3)The outcome of gay research depends on the operational definition of “homosexuality” to which we should really question “What does it mean to be gay?” Is it an inner orientation? Is it sexual behavior? Is it someone saying they are gay? What about a virgin that thinks they are gay? Or someone who labels themselves as heterosexual but sleeps with their gender? What if no sex is involved but there is an intense relationship otherwise?

As someone that identifies as a lesbian, I think this research is fascinating and it made me look at my life not just from a personal perspective, but from a historical perspective. Maybe the only reason I consider myself to be a lesbian is because society has made me a lesbian. When I was little, I saw a show on TV (maybe on Oprah or 60 Minutes) where there were gay people on TV and it seemed to me to be something that was not desirable. What if I had seen a different show – one where there were lesbian couples with children and families – maybe things would have been different. I was experiencing my most intense inner incongruence during the time of Ellen’s original sitcom. When she came out and her show was cancelled and there was media backlash, I took it personally. What if, instead, I had seen Ellen on TV with her current talk show – knowing that she’s a lesbian, but seeing its irrelevance to the show?

It took a long time for me to “come out” and it took me a long time because I was scared and I wasn’t sure. How do you know? I hadn’t even dated anyone at the time – how could I come out if I didn’t have “proof”? What if none of that mattered? What if you just had feelings for who you had feelings for? Maybe it isn’t truly a big deal – it’s all in society’s perception and in our perception. For me, it took a long time to say I was a lesbian. I started out saying I was queer. Then I stuck with “gay” for awhile. As I got older, I kind of settled into “lesbian.” When I finally said, “I am a lesbian” it was more than a declaration of who I am, but an identity with a minority group. It was acceptance of my gay history, a gay “family” of people out there that I don’t know. People that fought for my rights that have made my life easier, I see them as my “ancestors.” Here is an excerpt from an old blog of mine:

Anyhow, this pride was RI’s 30th Pride celebration. At one point, a man came up on the stage to talk about the first pride back in 1976 (the original pride folk from back then are referred to as "76ers"). His speech was brief, but it was extremely moving. He stood onstage and looked at the vast expanse of people who showed up for pride noting how many people there had children and how many people in the audience weren’t even ALIVE in 1976. I don’t remember exactly how he phrased it, but he spoke of how different it was back then, what it meant to be gay back then, as well as the rise of AIDS. He closed his speech with a message to all the younger folks in the audience saying "If we have in any way made your lives easier, than all the difficult times, and all the struggles have been worth it." -What a wonderful message, and what a great legacy. He referred to himself and the 76ers as our "ancestors" and that is truly what they are. That, for me, was what pride was all about. I felt the "Pride" - that I am a "child" of an ongoing gay revolution with ancestors who have paved the way and have responsibility to give back to this community who has made my life easier.

I don't think my lesbian identity was ever the most salient identity for me, but as I've gotten older, it has become less salient. Maybe Savin-Williams is right - maybe someday there will be no differentiation between "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals." Then something comes up like this whole civil-union ordeal and I feel like maybe that time will never come.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is. A civil-union is not "equal" to marriage - and there are people that don't even want to let people be recognized in civil-unions. This is not equality, all we want is equality. This isn't a "gay" issue or a "religious" issue. It's a human rights issue, and by not allowing some people to marry, by allowing or even not allowing civil-unions, the rights of gays are taken away.