"intellectual capital" and its "so what?"
I would like to respond to Russell, although more to some of the ideas he presented in class. Since he hasn’t yet been able to join the blog, I’ve made this as a new post instead of commenting on what he already wrote.
I find the idea of “intellectual capital” very interesting. And I agree with Donna that Freire would neither object to nor disagree with the idea that an understanding of basic, common facts is very important to cultural literacy. I think most would agree that we learn by making connections, but if we don’t have a certain foundation, we have nothing on which to build those connections.
That said, however, I do want to make two comments about the questions Russell presented. Firstly, most of them fell in the realm of social studies and language arts. What about “intellectual capital” in other areas, such as knowing the four bases that compose DNA or the name of the note on the top line of bass clef? And as we broaden the basis of “intellectual capital,” we cannot neglect popular culture. I am sadly lacking in my knowledge of popular culture (as Kristin can confirm), and so I am actually at a disadvantage when reading the Everyday section of the Post-Dispatch, and I was unable to follow some of the references fellow students made in a film class last semester.
As an English major, I am hardly one to argue that people don’t need to know that Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick. But as my second point, I am unsure what being able to match the title and the author signifies. If a person knows that Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales, are we supposed to presume that he or she has actually read them? Similarly, I can tell you that Ottowa is the capital of Canada, but I only know that fact because I learned it at a trivia night last week; personally, I know little else about Canada that would make my knowledge useful. I think this example, of my knowledge of a random fact with little else, is what Freire wants to avoid about the “banking concept of education.” Here, I agree with Faith’s post. “Seeing” may be a twofold activity. The physical act of seeing may be analogous to knowing basic facts. But, based on those observations/facts, one should then ask questions like “why?” or “what do I do with this information?” I also agree with Keri that for Freire, the ideas students have is less important that their ability to work with and interact with those ideas.
I find the idea of “intellectual capital” very interesting. And I agree with Donna that Freire would neither object to nor disagree with the idea that an understanding of basic, common facts is very important to cultural literacy. I think most would agree that we learn by making connections, but if we don’t have a certain foundation, we have nothing on which to build those connections.
That said, however, I do want to make two comments about the questions Russell presented. Firstly, most of them fell in the realm of social studies and language arts. What about “intellectual capital” in other areas, such as knowing the four bases that compose DNA or the name of the note on the top line of bass clef? And as we broaden the basis of “intellectual capital,” we cannot neglect popular culture. I am sadly lacking in my knowledge of popular culture (as Kristin can confirm), and so I am actually at a disadvantage when reading the Everyday section of the Post-Dispatch, and I was unable to follow some of the references fellow students made in a film class last semester.
As an English major, I am hardly one to argue that people don’t need to know that Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick. But as my second point, I am unsure what being able to match the title and the author signifies. If a person knows that Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales, are we supposed to presume that he or she has actually read them? Similarly, I can tell you that Ottowa is the capital of Canada, but I only know that fact because I learned it at a trivia night last week; personally, I know little else about Canada that would make my knowledge useful. I think this example, of my knowledge of a random fact with little else, is what Freire wants to avoid about the “banking concept of education.” Here, I agree with Faith’s post. “Seeing” may be a twofold activity. The physical act of seeing may be analogous to knowing basic facts. But, based on those observations/facts, one should then ask questions like “why?” or “what do I do with this information?” I also agree with Keri that for Freire, the ideas students have is less important that their ability to work with and interact with those ideas.
posted by jhertlein | 12:42 PM
2 Comments:
I hate to admit, though I love history, literature, and just learning about anything, I missed a bunch from the cultural literacy test. Sorry, Russell. It’s not that I was unfamiliar with the questions. For a moment I couldn’t even remember Chaucer’s name, at least for a moment. Actually I agree with Russell and Searle that we can expect shared information as part of the American culture and historical experience. I have two questions about this. First, how do we know that students are not taught this information? I would bet that the information on Russell’s test is part of most if not all school curriculum at some point, and that teachers are covering this information, or at least making it available through textbooks, lectures, quizzes, etc. I wonder about the methods used to help students learn facts and trivia (like what Jennifer mentioned in her response). Just because a student doesn’t know something doesn’t mean it wasn’t taught. It’s not a content concern as much as it is a pedagogical one. How do we help students find connections for information, a way to hook the information to something they already know so that they create meaning and not a list to memorize and forget? I think (though I could be wrong!) that many teachers share this desire for students to know the information on Hirsch’s list; it’s a matter of debate as to the best way for this to happen. It is difficult to point fingers at students or schools or teachers when we don’t really know the “facts” of what was taught, how, why, and other factors.
My second concern is about the content of Hirsch’s test. If I was to create a test for cultural literacy, it could be very long and always changing. The information is doubling so fast in our world that I am sympathetic with my students (and myself) as to how we can keep up with vast amounts of knowledge. I also see that, even if we keep the “list” to historical facts, there will be differences as to what people expect to see influenced by locale and previous experience. The content choice also depends on what a person finds important—aren’t we reaching infinite possibilities of good content? And I agree with the questions as to why doesn’t Hirsch’s test include other areas of knowledge (art, music, mathematics, etc)?
I feel like the cultural literacy questions we answered in class are outdated. I don't know if anyone needs to know, anymore, about who invented the cotton gin. I think they might need to know who invented hypertext before they need to know that. I agree with Amy that the "test" needs to be changing.
A point from class: I do not think that Friere--because he encourages democratizing education--means that content should not be taught.
Post a Comment
<< Home