Joining In…

I am going to be posting a little more regularly, I would assume, as I have joined up with some folks online to read through N&N together. If you would like to jump on the wagon, it can be found here:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/normsandnobility/

Some rules for engagement with Hicks

As I get back into this book, I am more convinced than ever that it is an important work for educators today, particularly me.  Given its importance, I am going to follow the following set of engagement actions:

1. As I read the text, marking it like a good little reader should, I will be finding portions that stand alone as important quotes.  These will be put here using the “quotation” feature, without comment other than page citation.
2. As I think about these quotes, I will be commenting on them in a separate post, typically repeating the quote as needed.  If I believe it worthy, I will cross post these comments over on my teaching blog: HowdoUteach.
3. As a “page” to this blog, I will begin working on an outline of the text as well.

It is my hope that these “rules” will allow folks who wish to follow this an order to follow in my sporadic posting.  Again, at this moment my life mainly consists of trying desperately to keep my family fed and housed.  I must balance my time or this could take it over completely. 🙂

Another Blog on Hicks

Folks:

Thought you all might like to read a small section of another blog that is given to discussion of Norms & Nobility.

http://thearc.wordpress.com/tag/news-reviews/hicks-norms-nobility/

Ontologically Axiomatic Aesthetics

Our newest member (Mike Bosse) has sent us a recent email that is very helpful in our discussions of Hicks. Without his permission, so be ready for the lawsuits, gang, I quote it below:

Educational philosophy is traditionally divided into five distinct yet interacting domains. Each of the five areas asks and answers one or more specific questions: Ontology asks “What is True?”; Metaphysics asks “What is Real?”; Epistemology asks “What is Knowledge?” and “How Do People Learn?”; Axiology asks “What is Good and Best?”; and Pedagogy asks “How Do We Teach?” (These fields of inquiry provide a minimalist educational philosophy. Often added to these discussions are the fields of Ethics, asking “What is Right?”, and Aesthetics, asking “What is Beauty and/or Pleasurable?”). Answers to each of these questions are necessary for a complete educational philosophy. The interconnectedness of these questions and answers are paramount to developing the internal consistency required within a cohesive educational philosophy. Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the components of educational philosophy. (Sorry, the figure won’t go to blog)

Axiology, more specifically, is a field of philosophical investigation which considers the question: What is good or best for a person or a culture? Within the realm of educational philosophy, this question takes on a more specific form: What should be learned, by whom, and for what end? Axiological inquiry has foundational implications for curricula, educational goals, and objectives. Axiological concerns are usually predetermined by a theorist’s metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological positions. Any scholarly decisions concerning curricular content and educational goals must be supported by ontological and metaphysical definitions of “truth” and “reality” and an epistemological understanding of how people “learn.”

Now, my monkey in the wrench works here would be, “What is the basis for making Aesthetics and Ontology ‘optional’ to one’s Philosophy of Education?” I have been a champion of the notion that Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are central to education, does this argue against the notion that two of these three are optional in our PoE? Just trying to get folks stirred up…

Guidelines for Hicks Discussion

1. Be sure to be specific in the nature of your comments. Please refer to particular passages of either Hicks, or a fellow committee members.
2. Make an effort to support your opinions with evidence from the text or your experiences.
3. Be on the lookout for places where you may disagree with the author’s conclusions. If he’s made a hasty generalization or overstretched his analogy, feel free to call him on it. But by all means, explain your reservations.
4. As you comment about propositions which you’ll either agree with, modify, or diverge, please keep it civil. There’s a temptation to really “let it rip” sometimes when we aren’t face to face. Let’s keep in mind the dignity of our calling.
5. More guidelines are sure to arise in the future.