Kurt Stemhagen

Disciplined Judgment: Toward a Reasonably Constrained Constructivism

Teachers wishing to apply constructivist theories to P-12 pedagogy must skillfully move between student knowledge constructions and powerful disciplinary knowledge and discourses. Although the gulf between these two ways of knowing varies markedly by discipline, constructivist methods are often taught as if they can be applied uniformly across all subjects. This paper provides a critique of overly-simplified applications of constructivism in P-12 pre-service programs by illustrating the way constructivist methods are constrained to differing degrees in the classrooms of three disciplines: literacy, history and mathematics. Building on recent arguments for the need to foreground disciplinary differences in P-12 instruction, the authors draw on published accounts of teaching from the scholarly literature to discuss ways in which pedagogy and discipline interact in praxis. By citing published classroom accounts across three subject areas, the authors illustrate differences in the ways judgment may play out across the disciplines and suggest a framework for future exploration of their method.

Social foundations educators of the world unite! An action plan for disciplinary advocacy

Every year, it seems, there are cries that foundations of education is in peril. A panel at the recent meeting of AESA focused on the fate of foundations in teacher education programs (Morrison et al. 2007). At this panel, foundations scholars engaged in lively conversation about how to protect and promote foundations of education at the departmental, college, university, state, and national level. Panels such as this recent one crop up nearly every year at professional meetings of foundations scholars.1 To us, this indicates a number of things. First, foundations scholars feel threatened. At their home institutions, in their home states, faculty who focus on foundations of education often feel isolated, marginalized, and occasionally under siege.2 Professional meetings of these scholars serve as a refuge, where one can find others who understand not only one’s disciplinary interests, but also one’s precarious position within the perch of one’s university. Second, these sessions generate more light than heat. Little action seems to emerge from these discussions. The fact that these sessions appear on programs year after year indicates not only that foundations scholars feel threatened, but it may also indicate foundations scholars are not doing so well in countering what seems to be a persistent threat.3 We spend considerable time discussing the threat, articulating our own version of what seems to be a ubiquitous story, but we are not doing so

Beyond the “Pragmatic Acquiescence” Controversy: Reconciling the Educational Thought of Lewis Mumford and John Dewey

This article provides a reconsideration of the intellectual altercation between John Dewey and Lewis Mumford in the 1920s, and a sketch of some educational implications that follow this reconsideration. Although past scholarship has tended to focus on ways in which the altercation obscured similarities in their thought, we consider whether important differences were also obscured, particularly regarding their outlook on science and technology, their potential place in society, and their ideas about the best means to positive social change. We also consider how these differences might play out in philosophy of education/educational practice, concluding that Mumfords commitment to regionalism can augment Deweys philosophical vision while also helping deal with pressing contemporary social and educational needs.

School Math: From Algorithms and Conceptual Understanding to Democracy and Opportunity

This chapter considers math class as a site for working toward equity and opportunity. Traditional, constructivist and critical approaches are presented and contrasted. Democratic mathematics education is posited as an approach drawing on the best characteristics of other approaches as means to teach math skills and knowledge to help students become empowered to act in and on the world. It mediates between constructivist and critical mathematics education and also between traditional and constructivist perspectives. The chapter considers relationships between mathematics teachers’ beliefs/practices and how these relationships affect the role of school math in broader educational efforts toward increased equity.

On the Uneasy, Unavoidable, and yet Not Entirely Undesirable Tensions between Student Knowledge Construction and the Disciplines: A Response to Malewski.

This is a brief reply to Malewskis response to our article, “Disciplined Judgment: Toward a Reasonably Constrained Constructivism.” There are several essential problems with the arguments presented in his article: (a) first, the intentions ascribed to our project in Dr. Malewskis response are inaccurate; (b) the response is supported by a false dichotomy between access to canonical knowledge and social justice; and (c) some examples used to support claims in the response are hyperbolic. We believe that this sort of interaction is a good model of scholarly discourse and we hope that this sustained discussion of our disagreements will produce the sort of discourse that can increase understandings across theoretical and political divides and eventually contribute to efforts to bring about positive social change.