The Nature of Knowledge

Written for L500 Week 2 Prompt 1

January 16, 2012

Embracing Inquiry as an Attitude

On page eight of the Harste & Leland article, they say, "Embracing your responsibility to inquiry is an attitude. It is accompanied by the dual beliefs that every question can be researched and that you have a right as well as a responsibility to collaborate in the construction of knowledge."

I did not grow up in a household that embraced inquiry. Going along with the flow, getting along with others, and belonging were much more important than "why." Fortunately—unfortunately (depends on the perspective and mood I'm in)—I could not drop the "why," and I have lived an incredibly rich academic and learning life. To see this quote that not only is inquiry acceptable but it is my responsibility, is intimidating and liberating. And it is an attitude that guides my daily life. Reflection on all aspects of my life—personal, professional, intellectual, emotional, physical, mental—is a habit for me, not just an attitude.

The Nature of Knowledge and Collaboration

I agree with Harste & Leland that all questions can be answered in varying degrees of completion and from various perspectives. Collaborating in the construction of knowledge is pretty heady stuff. But as an undergraduate philosophy major, I very much came to terms that all knowledge, even that which we call hard fact or scientifically proven, is still built on pre-suppositions that may or may not be sufficiently buttressed with other proven facts. Go back far enough and you will find a starting assumption that cannot be sufficiently proven. A leap of faith—or an impatience with justification—often pushes us to accept an assumption without analysis.

By accepting this philosophy of constructed knowledge, I am more comfortable in my role to collaborate in building knowledge. I think this is very lofty yet achievable. It is inspiring yet grounded.

Challenging the Blue-Collar Label of Teaching

Sagor describes teaching as a "blue-collar profession." I totally disagree with that label. However, I very much empathize with Sagor's argument. Many people view teachers as blue-collar workers; some teachers themselves view teaching as a job they must 'get through' for the day.

Teaching in schools (like we know them today) emerged during a time of industrialization. Mass education practices reflected mass production theories. Education, in an industrialized paradigm, is a mixture of 'babysitting' and preparing youth for jobs. These practices differ from apprenticeship models or higher education institutions that drove much research and critique.

Teaching Is Not Factory Work

As I mentioned, I disagree that teaching is a blue-collar job. People are not widgets to be cranked out. Uniform policies, practices, rules, methodologies do not replicate the same learning for each person. While many things can be broken down into instructional segments for easy transmission of knowledge, the pace, connection, transference, and coding (like language) that is used often cannot be uniformly applied to all learners.

While management theory can help guide some learning, we have come a long way in research since the inception of mass education. And I think much of this research infuses the actual practice of teaching, even if it is not reflected in public opinion or policy. Most teachers today try to offer more customized approaches while juggling administrative and policy requirements, and navigating diverse interpersonal relationships.

Critique of Sagor’s Argument

I think Sagor was not trying to reach me to convince me that teaching is not a blue-collar profession. I found his arguments unmoving mostly because I think he overstated positive elements from 'professional' jobs. His example of sunny words motivating a team felt superficial. Motivational words must be paired with critical, constructive guidance or they risk becoming empty.

Additionally, professionals often have fewer interpersonal relationships to manage than classroom teachers. They usually don’t have to code-switch or navigate such a wide range of social dynamics. I also think Sagor overemphasizes the reward of creativity in professional fields. If the culture does not support it, creativity is not rewarded—no matter the profession. Professionals can be just as constrained as factory-line workers. In that sense, I felt Sagor’s view was too optimistic.

---

Response to Peer 1

Admiration for Academic Style and Recognition of Teaching Practices

I love that you are a true scholar. Adequately referencing within your forum post. Inspirational! (Especially as I am struggling to move from blog-style writing to academic style!)

I appreciate you outlining blue-collar style teaching by specific behaviors. "Straight from the book" teaching and "do not implement a variety of instruction" are two behaviors I witness and hear discussed frequently in South Korea. Korea imports native English-speaking teachers regularly; all that is needed is a bachelor's degree—in anything—to teach English. There are many expats with no formal teaching background. Given a textbook and a detailed lesson plan, they can manage, but otherwise, many struggle. I view this philosophically: these teachers might be inspired to further their education after realizing that teaching is much more than following a script.

Acknowledging Action Research and Reflective Practice

I also appreciate you marking action research as a "different way of sharing." Our brains are beautiful and capable of reflection and analysis. Teaching is performative, and we constantly receive feedback from our students. Most of us reflect on this feedback internally, and many of us act on it externally. When we share this reflection with others, that’s what I see as action research.

Centering the Learner and Deconstructing Assessment

In reading about NCLB, I have been consistently surprised by the lack of focus on the learner. ESL teachers especially are working hard to shift away from teacher-centered approaches. “Students in charge” of their own learning is critical. While learners have access to more information than ever, they need guidance in analyzing, questioning, and interpreting it safely and critically. That’s where educators come in—as mentors and facilitators.

I appreciate that your students were "lost" when given control. I see this too. In high-stakes, test-based environments, risk-taking is discouraged. NCLB uses assessment as a tool for judgment rather than improvement. Yet all learning includes failure. We’re cultivating fear instead of growth.

The Importance of Transition and Learning Curves

I found your mention of a “transition process” very insightful. I want to focus my PhD on adult literacy, particularly digital literacy for Digital Immigrants. Your idea reminded me of Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody and Cognitive Surplus. People who didn’t grow up with digital tools need to unlearn how they used to do things. For example, I personally struggle to read without holding and marking up a physical book. I feel skeptical of knowledge that doesn’t exist within the library system. We all need time and space for new learning curves.

On Comfort Zones and Learning Diversity

The only part of your post that gave me pause was your last paragraph about allowing learners to choose their preferred mode of assessment. I agree—but I also think there’s value in sometimes choosing their least favorite mode. As Connected by Christakis and Fowler suggests, our networks shape us deeply. Staying in a comfort zone can create echo chambers. By occasionally working with our ‘unfavorites,’ we remain open to diverse perspectives and develop the empathy and resilience necessary for true lifelong learning.