Philosophy of Children

Since our topic this week was philosophy for children, I thought it would be relevant to go over the philosophy of children. The philosophy of children (SEP) first attempts to define what children are. In our reading this week, Piaget's theories were used as one of the arguments against philosophy in the elementary classroom. Yet, Piaget classifies children as what they are not able to do rather than what they are capable of doing. This negative outlook and classification of "deficit conception" puts up a barrier of what they may be capable of. The second way to examine the philosophy of children is to understand their cognitive development. Theories clash from famous developmental psychologists like Chomsky, Skinner, and Vygotsky when it comes to the development of language. Chomsky feels that we have a "LAD" (Language acquisition device) or seed language because children all over the world learn language in the same steps and at the same ages. Skinner believes that we learn language from the reinforcement we receive from others. And Vygotsky agrues that social interaction as well as culture plays a role. Yet the formation of concepts for the most part do not follow skinners theory, the use of "prototypes" as a tool for concepts has been shown as a way to form concepts (SEP). In neuroscience it has been shown that children actually have more neural pathways than adults do. This suggests that they are more able to form concepts. The third aspect that is examined is the theory of moral development. Rousseau and Kolberg have differing moral stages of development which could aid the argument for philosophy in the pre-college classroom. Rousseau suggests that there are five stages of moral development: 1. infancy (birth-2); 2. the age of sensation (3 to 12); 3. the age of ideas(13 to puberty); 4.The age of sentiment (puberty to 20) and 5. The age of marriage and social responsibility (21 and on) (SEP). According to Rousseau's theory children do not fully understand morals until they are 13. Kolberg has a different approach to determine one's moral stage. He believes that there are six stages yet most adults do not reach the sixth or sometimes even the fifth stage. In my high school psychology class we used this model to determine everyone's moral level. The scenario was that your wife (or husband) has cancer and you can not afford the drug to save their life, what do you do? It was not whether you decided to steal the drug or not that determined your moral level, but your reasoning for why. This model can be used in children's classrooms to determine each child's initial level of moral development. When children are young they do not fully understand right from wrong (and that is why they are not treated as adults, government wise). Yet, instead of them figuring it out as they go along why not have philosophical conversations in the classroom about what is right and wrong and why things are wrong and right. Having philosophical conversations of this nature may even lower crime rate. This article went into five other aspects of the philosophy of children concerning: children's rights, childhood agency, the goods of children and more. To wrap it all up, understanding how children learn helps adults understand how to explain things to their level of understanding. Of course children are not going to understand lots of big words and college level writting, but anything even philosophical concepts can be understood by children. We first need to grasp where they are initially, and then explain the concepts simply, starting with the easiest to understand. Using a protype helps, the children must hear an example or senerio of the concept and where it is used to fully understand. Question: How else does understanding the philosophy of childhood and psychological development help teachers?

Re: Brittany 4/14/11

Brittany asked, "Should philosophy be required for all educators?"

I personally think that education classes should be required not only for educators but for everyone. Yet, educators should take these courses especially, because it allows one to see things in a completly different way. Learning logic helps you become a better arguer, and evaluate things you read in every day life. In addition, it teaches you to reevaluate opinions of yours and others and determine if they are sound or not sound. Philosophy in general questions the things that otherwise people just accept, like unfair treatment to people of different races, gender inequality, and many other cultural norms. If it wasn't for people questioning the ethicacy of many problems the world would be in a detrimental state. I may not think that math and science teachers need philosophy but history and English teachers should definitely take philosophy courses. History teachers should be well informed on the "history of ideas" portion of philosophy because well that has a great impact on history. English teachers should be informed in the realm of philosophy because of it's creative and literature based nature is almost inseparable from philosophy.

Question: What can philosophy teach us?

Traits to Success

In the article by Bowles and Gintis they also talk about the traits that are "correlated" with success in school and the work place. The traits they mention that are penalized in the classroom are: Creativity, independence, and aggressiveness. The traits that are disapproved in the work place are creativity and independence.

The traits that are rewarded in the classroom are: perseverant, dependable, consistent, identifies with school, empathizes with others, punctual, defers gratification, externally motivated, predictable, and tactful. The traits that are approved of in the work place are all of these in addition to temperamental.

It makes sense that always trying, being reliable, and being on time is rewarded and approved. Yet, some of these seem a little contradictory to me. If one defers gratification that means that they turn down praise and award, yet that is behavior is said to be rewarded. If one is externally motivated that would mean that they would be always striving towards gratification or some external motivator. Which would mean that they would not necessarily be enjoying what they were doing, because if they enjoyed it then they would be internally motivated.

Question: Do you think that those who enjoy their jobs and school work do better than those who do not?

economics, education, and the self

In the Bowles and Gintis article they discuss the relationship between economics and self-perceptions. Individual needs and self concepts are shaped by social and economic systems. The way the works force is structured guides people’s perceptions and involvement in aspects and activities outside of these systems. When people are younger and developing these self-concepts, consciousness, and personality the family and educational system play a large role. Economics shape how well educated someone is by the town they live in, those who live in a less funded area will not have as good of an education. It also effects students self-perceptions by giving them an idea of where they should lie on the socio-economic spectrum. The types of jobs their parents have, they should too. Yet, with a good education, their predispositions are challenged by the concept of hard work and reassured by knowledge of governmental aid for further education.

Question: what other factors besides economic standing and education contribute to one’s self perceptions?