Table Of Content

— o == = = ° —~_~ = ° S ga = - < S:o |o f te eS oon oo DouglasJ . Simpson, Texas Tech University, Editor 2 Alan H. Jones, Caddo Gap Press, Publisher i . 4 a —_ ge nN ” aa}] 4 3 Volume 45, Numbers 1 & 2 Spring-Summer 2010 S i] Journal of Thought Published Quarterly by Caddo Gap Press with Sponsorship of the College of Education at Texas Tech University James Van Patten, Founding Editor, 1966 Editorial Staff Douglas J. Simpson, Editor, Texas Tech University Sally McMillan, Associate Editor, Texas Tech University Judy Aycock Simpson, Associate Editor, Texas Tech University William Hull, Senior Editorial Assistant, Texas Tech University Jacqueline Romano, Editorial Assistant, Texas Tech University Everett Egginton, Associate Editor, International Issues, New Mexico State University John Keedy, Associate Editor, Leadership Issues, University of Louisville Ann Larson, Associate Editor, Curriculum Issues, University of Louisville Phyllis Metcalf-Turner, Associate Editor, Diversity Issues, Illinois State University Editorial Review Board Tunde Adeleke, Iowa State University: Heesoon Bai, Simon Fraser University; Suc Books, State University of New York at New Paltz; Jeanne Connell, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Bernardo Gallegos, Washington State Univer sity; William Hare, Mount Saint Vincent University; Sue Ellen Henry, Bucknell University; Richard Lyons, University of Massachusetts-Lowell; Juan S. Munoz Texas Tech University, John P. Portelli, University of Toronto; Jose Alejandro Ramirez, Universidad de las Americas, Puebla; A. G. Rud, Washington State University; Sam Stack, West Virginia University; Shirley R. Steinberg, McGill University; Barbara 8S. Stengel, Millersville University; Sofia Villenas, Cornell University; Alan Wieder, University of South Carolina Editorial Review Panel Mary Frances Agnello, Texas Tech University; Connie Anderson, Texas Tech UniversitJya; n Armstrong, University of New Mexico; Lars G. Bjork, University of Kentucky; Bonita Butner, University of Missouri, Kz City; Joseph Claudet, Texas Tech University; Steve Crooks, Texas Tech University; Joseph L. DeVitis, Georgia College and State University; Lee S. Duemer, Texas Tech University James S. Kaminsky, Auburn University; Kimberly Lenease King, Auburn University; Aretha Faye Marbley, Texas Tech University; Steve Miller, University of Louisville; Luis F. Miron, Florida International University; Barbara Morgan Fleming, Texas Tech University; Sherrie Reynolds, Texas Christian University Jennifer A. Vadeboncoeur, University of British Columbia Publisher: Alan H. Jones, Caddo Gap Press Copyright 2010 by Caddo Gap Press 3145 Geary Boulevard, PMB 275, San Francisco, California 94118 U.S.A Telephone: 415/666-3012; Fax: 415/666-3552; E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 0022- Annual Subscriptions: $50 individuals; $100 institutions see ordering information on page 54 Journal of Thought A Journal of Critical Reflection on Educational Issues The Journal of Thought is a quarterly publication devoted to the reflective examination of educational issues and problems from the perspective of differ ent disciplines and interdisciplinary lenses. The Journal welcomes scholar’s work that represent varied viewpoints, methodologies, disciplines, cultures, and nationalities as it seeks to treat the most comprehensive issues and problems confronting education throughout the world. Essays that develop a reasoned and supported argument, that offer insightful analysis and critiques of other's arguments, or that report on significant research of interest to the field are welcomed. The editorial goal is to stimulate a warranted synthesis of diverse viewpoints and to encourage interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary dialogue TheJournal is published by Caddo Gap Press, San Francisco, California. Edito rial correspondence and inquiries should be addressed to Douglas J. Simpson, Editor, Journal of Thought, Collegeo f Education, Texas Tech University, Box $1071, Lubbock, Texas 79409-1071, U.S.A All manuscripts should be submitted electronically to [email protected] and [email protected]. The proposed article and notes or references should not ordinarily exceed 20 double-spaced pages. Manuscripts must be original and not have appeared in print previously. Since the Journal of Thought is a refereed, peer-reviewed publication, manuscripts are submitted for blind review to two or more reviewers. When sending materials, two files are needed: (1) the title page with author identifying information, email and regular addresses, and telephone number and (2) the manuscript itself. Complete, formatted references, text citations, and notes should be provided according to the Chicago Manual of Style ( 15" Ediotrthie Poublnica)tio n Manual of the American Psychological Association (5'" Edition). If the Chicago Manual of Style is used, the author date-page system is strongly encouraged, i.e., a text citationw ith author-date-page given, e.g. (Dewey 1938, 111). See Chicago Manual of Style page 597. When the APA Manual is used, always state the page number(s) in a text citation, e.g., (Dewey, 1938, p. 111). See APA Manual page 118 Quotation 1 The opinions and views expressed in the Journal are those of the individual authors and are not to be construed as the opionf itheo edinto r, the associate editors, the publisher, the editorial review board, the editorial review panel, Texas Tech University, or Caddo Gap Press. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher Subscription rates to Jourofn Thaoulgh t are $50 annually for individuals and $100 annually for institutions and libraries. Subscribers outside of the United States must add $60 per year to cover additional postage. Back issues are $25 per copy. All subscriptions and single-copy orders should be addressed and payable to Caddo Gap Press, 3145 Geary Boulevard, PMB 275, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A. (telephone 415/666-3012; fax 415/666-3552; e-mail [email protected].) See subscription form on page 76 Journal of Thought, Spring-Summer 2010 Contents Guest Editor’s Introduction A G Rud Syntactic Knowledge in History and Science Education: Teacher Education and Neglect in the Academy Timothy D. Slekar & Leigh Ann Haefner Educating for Autonomy and Respect or Educating for Christianity? The Case of the Georgia Bible Bills Suzanne Rosenblith “Self-enlightenment” in the Context of Radical Social Change: A Neo-Confucian Critique of John Dewey’s Conception of Intelligence Huajun Zhang & Jeffrey Ayala M Moral Education and the Academics of Being Human Together Ronald B. Jacobson Political Economy of Academic Writing Practices Jan Armstrong Contents Richard Kearney, Post-secular Continental Philosophy and Education Douglas R. Davis <ducational Attainment and Economic Inequality: What Schools Cannot Do John F. Covaleski Contributing Authors Subscription Form Editorial Staff, Editorial Review Board, & Editorial Review Panel inside front cover Editorial Statement and Guidelines for Authors inside back cover Journal of Thought, Spring-Summer 2010 Guest Editor’s Introduction A. G. Rud ngton State University The roles that foundations scholars can play in a university and in the wider world of practice continue to develop. A standard and needed role that many of us serve is in teaching the usually mandatory history and philosophy of education course to our undergraduates as our contribution to preservice teacher preparation. Some of us work closely with other colleagues, in other parts of the education college, or in areas such as American Studies, or the many departments ofa university that sponsor teacher education, while others teach in schools, and advise school boards, education agencies, and national panels. In this issue of the Journal of Thought, you will find articles that delve into multiple topics that revolve around the varied roles taken by foundations scholars Iftihs aenyr deoub t that there is vitality among foundatsichoolnasrs , it is dispelled by reading the articles in this issue. The area of teacher preparation is in need of more attention by foundations scholars, and there are examples here. Articles describe ways of affecting practice, such as Timothy D. Slekar and Leigh Ann Haefner’s essay about teaching history and science that shows how teacher educators teach reflectively and emphasize practice. The inquiry these scholars talk about is rigor- ous and a systematic consideration of evidence and data Careful consideration of teacher preparation is a valuable contribution that foundations scholars can make in their colleges and in the wider world of educational discourse. So is delving deeper into educational policy, and exposing paradoxes and tensions that may too easily be glossed over. John F. Covaleskie makes this a central claim of his es {Guest Editor's Introduction say, when he considers the paradoxical faith that we have in education He explodes some of these myths, that education is both good for the individual and the economy. Ifit is good for the economy, then education should be praised when the economy is booming, but it is not. Education is generally ignored during those times, Covaleskie contends. He goes on to add that “the relationship between educational attainment and economic success is more apparent than real.” The paradoxical pushes boundaries, and causes us to question why a reality is the way it is, as in the hermeneutic religious philosophy of Richard Kearney. Douglas R. Davis asks us to consider Kearney’s work in light of education. Kearney is an Irish thinker not as well known to educators as his mentors Charles Taylor and Paul Ricouer. Davis asks us to consider Kearney within educdaiscotursie doue tno haisl emphasis on ethics, social justice, and the meaning of the other. Additionally, Davis believes that Kearney can be valuable to educational thinking due to his post secularism, namely, an “empowering, optimistic, and positive voice for social change and meaningful transformation of human society.” Kearney’s emphasis upon the imagination calls us to look at ancient texts not as essential products, and social justice as not a defined goal, but as something that we continue to strive for and reinvent in particular times and circumstances Those times and circumstances may call forth extraordinary quali- ties of individuals, and this is the theme of the paper by Huajun Zhang and Jeffrey Ayala Milligan. They masterfully treat Dewey’s method of intelligence in the context of rapid social change in Chinese society, and add the insight of a Chinese contemporary of Dewey, Liang Shuming, on self-enlightenment or zijue to treat what they see as a deficiency in Dewey. This self enlightenment needs to be “something not in conflict with but complementary to intelligence in that it provides a motivation for creative action that does not rely on clearly articulated purposes. The individual will not get lost in the radically changing social context when he/she develops ‘self-enlightenment’ and instinctively knows what to do, even though the individual may not have clearly articulated purposes.” It is an uncontroversial fact that foundations scholars emphasize reflective thinking and practice. While those of us who have studieadnd written on such activities find these topics famialndi aalmros t overdone, this is not the case in educational practice, where reflection is not taken for granted. The paper on moral education by Ronald B. Jacobson in- vestigates how morality is developed relationally and dialogically, and provides a counter to didactic means of moral instruction. Jacobson relies upon two examples from the work of celebrated teacher Vivian Gussin Paley to show how morality is not something espoused, but developed g A.G . Rud Paley’s work shows in dialogue the journey that students take, in their inquiry and back and forth contention with others and the teacher, in determining among themselves what is moral There are still forces and factors allied against reflective thinking in the classroom, as the paper by Suzanne Rosenblith points out to us Rosenblith is like many a foundation scholar, in thinking that schools are more than information transaction centers, but are places where students wrestle with moral and existential concerns. The discussion of religions if done properly, and this is where Rosenblith and Kearney speak to each othearl,lo w one to expand one’s frame rather than constrict it. Rosenblith looks at the Georgia bible legislation as an exampleo f how the liberal ideals of critical thinking and autonomy were sidestepped in favor of a more rigid evangelism. She urges us to think of ways to weave religious study into the curriculum, but points out that it is not suffi- cient to make it part of a multicultural course. A task for philosophers of education is to find ways to encourage the reflective study of religion, what Rosenblith, citing Robert Wuthnow, calls reflective religious plural- ism, where we actively acknowledge how we are different in religious traditions as well as give a rationale for why it is important to engage with people who have these different religious traditions. Rosenblith acknowledges that “Learning about a ranofg beleief s and values, which in many cases are incommensurable, forces students to think deeply, critically, and thoughtfully about these beliefs.” Who is the audience for these papers? I fear that whJana Armtstro ng calls the political economy of publishing continues to structure and filter such discourse to be available only to a few. If we as foundations scholars are to reach out to others beyond our disciplinary and institutional confines, we must take what Armstrong calls “writing small” to heart, that is, writing in many different ways to reach a numofb conestirtue n- cies. I fear that Armstrong’s moniofk “werirtin g small” is too restrictive, however. It does not get at ways to upset the current political economy of journal writing by writing practices that reach out in transformative ways, and that do not merely serve as counts in academic productivity A step we can all take to that end is to give these essays the kind of at tention that will give them all a life beyond the pages of this journal Journal of Thought, Spring-Summer 2010 Contributing Authors Jan Armstrios onn gth e facultoy f the Collegeo f Education, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Her work focuses on professional cultures, anthropology and education, qualitative research, and contextual human development. She is the President of the Council for Social Foundations of Education (CSFE) and a longstanding memboefr th e American Edu- cational Studies Association (AESA) John F. Covaleskie is Associate Professor of Educational Studies, University of Oklahoma and Professor Emeritus, School of Education, Northern Michigan University. He is an active member of the Phi losophy of Education Society and the American Educational Studies Association Douglas R. Davis is an Associate Professor of Educational Leader- ship and Coordinator of Educational Leadership Programs, University of Mississippi. His main areas of expertise and research are teacher assessment and professional development, the preparation of educational leaders, and history and philosophy of education. Dr. Davis has published in many educational journals and has presented at over fifty scholarly and professional conferences. He is past ediof Ttheo Jorurn al of Personnel Evaluation in Education and is past president of the Society of Philosophy and History of Education Leigh Ann Haefner is an Associate Professor of Science Education, Penn State Altoona. Her research interests include prospective elementary teachers’ understandings of scientific inquiry and the role of evidence in scientific explanations. She is a member of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching and the Association of Science Teacher Education —continued on page 42— Journal of Thought, Spring-Summer 2010 Syntactic Knowledge in History and Science Education: Teacher Education and Neglect in the Academy Timothy D. Slekar Leigh Ann Haefner Penn State Altoona Introduction What does it mean to be a generalist? The term generalist is often used in the teacher education literature to describe the preparation of elementary teachers because they are prepared narrowly across a breadth of disciplines, rather than in any one discipline in-depth. However, this same literature struggles to conceptualize an “essential knowledge base” for teaching (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). If we cannot clearly identify and articulate what teachers prepared within specific disciplines need to know and be able to do, what does it mean to be prepared across multiple disciplines? Although elementary school teachers are prepared as generalists, they still need a strong grounding in disciplinary ways of knowing (Grossman, Schoenfeld, & Lee, 2005) and be able to use that knowledge to develop powerful content representations that support meaningful student learning. Unfortunately, how teacher education programs support the development of this knowledge is fraught with difficulties. Teacher education has been characterized as fragmented and disconnected because coursework and classroom practicum experiences are often separate, courses are divided to address different professional skills, and courses taken in the arts and sciences are isolated from education courses—leaving the prospective teachers to bring it all together and make it meaningful in school classrooms (Darling-Hammond, 2006) While this paper focuses primarily on the role of the preparation of disciplinary knowledge in elementary teacher education, this attention