EDUC 1F95 - Seminar 12 - The Pedagogy of Possession

I have been very excited to reach week 12 (in my Graduate 5P30 - Teaching, Learning, & Development) and read Norris’ article Arendt, Freire, and the Pedagogy of Possession as it links so closely with the TA work I am doing for Norris’ current EDUC 1F95 course. 

In 1F95, we are guiding first and second year students through the Introduction and Foundations of Educational History, Philosophy, and Sociology. For some of these students, it will be the first time they are exposed to applying critical thinking skills to micro and macro lenses of education from both a student and educator’s point of view. This paper weaves together an understanding of consumption and possession and how it relates to education, schooling, policy-making, and hidden curriculum. The big concept this week for 1F95 is exploring hegemony and how it exists in schools. Hegemony, in a very basic description is domination by consent. I am hoping by sharing this paper, written by their professor, with the students in 1F95 that with guidance, they will make connections between hegemony, consumption in schools and the pedagogy of possession.
 
Linking this article to the theme of development – we can see that the influence of consumerism has a major potential effect on the self-image and self-worth a student places on his or herself. The concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy is “the notion that the assumptions and expectations that teachers and other service workers hold about students can influence students’ lives” (Wotherspoon, 2013, p. 43).  The multiple influences that students receive at school help to shape their self-identity and meaning making processes. Agents of consumerism (marketing departments and companies) are constructing generation X & Y consumers as part of the socialization process in schools. Students are exposed to hundreds of consumer messages a day at school, these products and concepts embedded in the education environment make escaping the consumer reality near impossible. It is by illuminating the intent behind marketing and consumer culture to students that they can begin to create their own idea of how to construct their identity. In no way can we erase the inevitable influence consumerism has on students but making students aware and critical of it is one way to develop students as agents of change.
 
This model of preparing students to think critically about the choices and purchases they make does not work well for companies who bank on youth blindly consuming. There is a ‘significant incompatibility between commercial values and the promotion of critical thinking” (Norris, 2005, p.261). I wonder about the implications for the economy and society as a whole if in the next 50 years schools have encouraged students to develop exceptional critical thinking skills about the consumer culture around them. It seems like a good idea to have youth be aware of the obvious and hidden influences consumer culture has on identify and life-long meaning making. What if this has a profound negative impact on the way consumers exist in relation to the economy? It would seem as if the whole system would have to shift to accompany this new standard of critical thinking. Perhaps, however, that at that point the people running this consumer culture will be from Generation X & Y and will have a fantastic response to altering the consumer culture.
 
Norris, T. (2005). Re-thinking re-producing consumption: Hannah Arendt, Paulo Freire and the pedagogy of possession. Philosophical Studies in Education, 36, 77 - 90.

Wotherspoon, T. (2013). The Sociology of Education in Canada 4rd Ed. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-542660-1
 

What is development? Defining for a purpose. (5P30)

Teaching, Learning, Development:

What is development? Defining for a purpose.

“Our main critique of a traditional notion of development is that it has been assumed that development is independent of an observer. We argue that development is a social construction emerging in and among communities of practice” (Matusov, Hayes, & Drye, 2007, p.1).

In an attempt to fully understand the scope of the field I am researching under (Teaching, Learning, and Development), defining the broad discourse that falls under each of these concepts will assist in conceptualizing my work. During my undergraduate education classes and pre-service education, I was exposed to many opportunities to discuss, reflect, and define learning and teaching. I had previously assumed that the scope of what development encompasses was a concise, easy to define term used to enhance our understanding of teaching and learning. After reading Matusov, Hayes, & Drye’s article Whose Development?Salvaging the concept of development within a sociocultural approach toeducation, I was able to see that defining the discourse of development was more complicated than I had anticipated.

I am wondering how does education fit into the scope of development? Three differing angles to this debate have fueled education research on the development of students. Piaget believed that development was a constraint for education which cautions educators against implementing curricula and instruction that lay outside the student’s developmental stage. Where Vygotsky believed in the zone of proximal development in which more capable peers, adults, or a sociocultural activity (e.g. play) engage a child in more advanced actions than he or she would have done on their own and thus defines the child’s development (Matusov, Hayes, & Drye, 2007, p.2).  Third, there is also the belief that development is a self-organizing dynamic system that pulls focus to the emergence of stable patterns of relations. This view of development shifts focus from the student (how much they learn/how they behave) to the student’s emerging relationships (with peers, teachers and parents as ‘hidden curricula’ of education) (Matusov, Hayes, & Drye, 2007, p.3). 

The paper reviewed here examines the traditional notion or development and then provides an alternate, sociocultural view to development as a response to defining development in education and psychology. The traditional notion of development assumes that development is independent of an observer. What is common among these attempts to define development is how its observers define development, thus playing an integral part of the development of development. Defining development as something that is tangible and is effected by observers/outsiders allows education to apply pedagogical actions to enhance certain developmental phenomenon specific to the sociocultural aspects of the school/board/classroom. I would be interested in incorporating a more comprehensive understanding and definition of development in my future qualitative arts-informed research.

Matsuov, E., Hayes, R., & Drye, S. (2007). Whose Development? Salvaging the concept of development within a sociocultural approach to education. Educational Theory, 57(4), 1-8.