– Several questions/ hypothesis arose while reading these articles and I didn’t really have
a concise and clean synopsis to add so I have just bulleted reactions/ comments on two
aspects of Dr. Hollin’s article:
**One of the things that we keep learning about in this program (appropriately so) is how
children learn. I have been struck though with how few theories of learning exist. How
is it that Human kind has been around for so long and one of the distinguishing things
about humans that differentiate us from all other creatures is we have pedagogy (no other
creatures do) and yet the theories of how we learn are so sparse and ridden with the
ideology of the culture and time within which they were formulated? In our classes this
summer we covered learning theories which basically could be grouped in roughly 4
domains (behaviorism, constructivists (Piaget), socio-cultural (Vygotsky ), or multiple
intelligence (Garner). Hollins uses Piaget and Vygotsky as a foundation for theories she
proposes. I couldn’t help but think however that both of these theorists are themselves
constructing learning theories based on perceptions of Euro-centric reality. Both of these
theorists presuppose that the mind and learning have to do with shaping categories of
knowledge, adding to or adjusting those categories. In other words it may not be the case
that the world is divided into these kinds of categories or even categories at all. The
examples that are given (like the color recognition) are often based in the idea that all
people and cultures think in terms of categories. Also assumed are the ideas that learning
is sequential or at least linear (linear in terms of being additive) – it could be “spiral” or a
bit convoluted – but ultimately they assume an individual goes from point a to point b.
The whole idea of zone of proximal development supposes that learning is directional.
Some recent work coming out of the field of linguistics (at the Max Plank institute) is
showing how the fundamental concept of space – where one is in relation to other objects
around their bodies, all the way to how cultures view space around them (directions,
relations between entities) is fundamentally different in different cultures – and often
difficult to articulate linguistically without superimposing our own concepts. I guess the
point I am trying to make is that if different cultures have different ways of
conceptualizing where my computer (on which I am now typing) is in relation to my
body. If the concepts that underlie our basic perceptions of the world can be so
fundamentally different then supposing that learning can be systematically and
universally collapsed into these theories seems problematic.
**In Dr.Hollins article, approaches to instruction are placed in three categories based on
the relationship to students’ home culture. Implicit in Hollins definition of “culturally
mediated instruction” is that this particular type of instruction is more desirable in that it
most closely coordinates the memory structures and the intellectual processes of both the
teacher and student. The prerequisite for this kind of understanding, this all
encompassing overlap between home and school, is that the student and teacher be of the
same culture. [This is true in both authentic and intermittent definitions with the
exception being noted that an external apprenticeship can take place for non member who
“favor the adopted culture over their original culture…..” Pg 143]. I was thinking about
this and I question if that is the only way a teacher could attain that level of connection
with a student and their home culture could there be another way to bridge the gap and
attain culturally mediated instruction without being born of similar culture or adopting
another culture (what cultural anthropologist try to do in the field)….
Dr. Hollins makes a distinction between two different cultures the Home culture and the
School culture. I think this distinction is very important but I worry that creating a
dichotomy may in some ways reinforce stereo types of the underserved students cultures.
If teachers see students of a particular non- dominant culture as all sharing a singular or
similar Home culture then there is danger in not only stereotyping but in assuming a set
of cultural beliefs or practices that may not be related to this individual child. For
example if the white LAUSD teacher sees her African American child as belonging to a
particular African American culture and assumes that there are certain practices/ beliefs
inherent in that culture it may negate the fact that this particular child is from Maryland (a
whole different set of cultural identity and practice) this child lived in a rural community
(another set of ideas or world view that affect his or her culture) that the family of this
child are practicing Muslims (another set) and that this is an only child (another set). All
of these distinctions would create a series of overlapping sets of “home culture”,
perceptions of the world, that make the culture of this child different that the child who
perhaps is a native to LA.
In a similar fashion the School culture may have overarching Euro-American principles
that guide the structure, curriculum and materials presented to the students. However the
teacher’s culture (ethnicity, style, manner, accent, geographic and socio-economic
background) will filter the information and teaching that occurs in that classroom.
I truly believe that what Dr. Hollins is stating is crucial to tapping into the minds of the
students – I understand how important it is to get to know your students and to navigate
our way through the layers of our culture to connect with the students who are also
navigating through the layers of their culture to find the place or overlap between home
and school where real learning can take place. But I think that just knowing the
differences in the manifestations of culture can only take that learning to a certain level.
It seems to me that more than just getting to know the culture of our students we as
teachers need to have a very deep understanding of the idea of culture. The examples of
culture given in this article seem to be manifestations of certain cultural beliefs or
practices (e.g. ways of talking in Honolulu, the importance of a beaver tradition in a
Native American culture). These manifestations although important to draw into the
actual lesson plans have an underlying structure that is imbedded in the thinking (and
perhaps learning) process of the individuals who share that culture. I am not sure that
one has to be of exactly the same culture to really get that [as is implied by Hollins
defining culturally mediated instruction as most likely being attained by both teacher and
student sharing the same culture]. I think there needs to be a way of teaching teachers
how the idea of culture permeates thinking, world view and learning not just looking at
the manifestation of cultures (i.e. their traditions, narrative styles etc…) but that culture
affects the process, mechanisms, and categories of thinking. There is (in my opinion) no
thought that an individual can have, no action they can take that isn’t somehow guided by
or filtered through their culture. I think culture is profound and that talking to our
students’ families and knowing their particular ethnic groups history are in fact just tips
of the iceberg for how culture shapes the mind (and individual). Incorporating into the
classroom practices and ideas that are multicultural are ways to flag the students’
attention and acknowledge things that our society may not have previously. However to
be a teacher in a multicultural classroom one would not necessarily have to know the
history of a particular culture or their families traditions (and many classrooms have
many!) - a more than superficial level of “home culture” – it seems to me that if the
teacher was truly aware of how culture permeates all aspects of life, how it guides
thinking, how it underlies the schema of the brain and how the school or dominant culture
is one of many possibilities –if a teacher could attain some sort of cultural neutrality that
allowed them to objectively see the implications of what they were teaching and the
cultural assumptions implicit in their curriculum - teaching and learning might reach the
same level as Hollin’s culturally mediated cognition across cultures – without
necessitating both teacher and student having intimate knowledge of a shared culture. It
would of course involve a certain amount of navigation or focused time to connect, but
consciousness of the magnitude of cultures implications would allow for the possibility of
that kind of understanding – maybe?