Mutiny on the Boundless: A Review of 'Leap into the Boundless …'
| Autor: | Peter B. Mosenthal |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 1998 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Literacy Research. 30:163-167 |
| ISSN: | 1554-8430 1086-296X |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10862969809547987 |
| Popis: | According to the author, "The purpose of this paper is to consider whether any single philosophy of teaching can provide teachers with the freedom necessary to meet the needs of the diverse range of students they face in classrooms and move those students toward flexibility, creativity, and freedom." Although the paper goes on to argue against the "monistic" problem of adopting a single approach to teaching, the paper begins with the monistic claim, "The ultimate goal of education is to help students develop the motivation as well as the conceptual, strategic, and metacognitive knowledge base that will enable them to pursue the goals that they set for themselves, effectively address the various challenges they will face in their lives, and in general realize true freedom." Using the writings of Chuang Tzu, the author proceeds to metaphorically illustrate and discuss three central factors that he considers to be limitations to true understanding and impediments to complete freedom: conceptualization, attachment, and language. The author then considers how these factors apply to two educational philosophies: whole language and eclecticism. In laying out his argument, the author develops what Walter Weimer (1979) has termed the tu quoque argument against science (i.e., that any method used to empirically verify observations in science must be able to verify itself). For instance, the author cites Chuang Tzu who (as interpreted by the author) suggests that all conceptualizations are inadequate, for even Chuang Tzu himself "must draw on conceptualizations that inadequately represent reality," but this observation in itself does not prevent the author from continuing to create his own categories in this essay. The author also argues, based on Chuang Tzu, that all conceptualization is evaluative (i.e., "things begin to be seen as 'good' and 'bad,' or 'constructive' and 'unconstructive' based on the way they are conceptualized in the knowledge structure"). The author further claims that "we simply cannot capture dynamic qualities through static conceptualizations." After laying out the tu quoque argument, the author turns his attention to conceptualization and philosophies of teaching. Here the author applies the tu quoque argument to the "philosophy of teaching" as a form of conceptualization. Hence, the limitations of any conceptualization in general are argued as applying to teaching philosophy in particular. At this point, the author reintroduces his own monistic philosophy for a second time |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|