19. February 5, 2012 Relativism/Procedural Knowledge (Rapaport, 2011)
20.
21. February 5, 2012 (Furman University, 2012; Goodreads, 2012) “ It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment.” “ The search for truth is more precious than its possession.” Karl Friedrich Gauss, Letter to Bolyai Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions
William Perry – head of counseling, Harvard, 1950s • Discovered 9 “positions” from which students viewed knowledge & learning • Has been replicated & adjusted (and criticized)
Dualism: There only right & wrong answers Teacher’s job is to teach them right answers, and the student’s job is to recall them from memory Multiplicity: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion There are right ways and wrong ways to find answers; it’s the student’s job is to support opinions Contextual Relativism: Answers are relative to a background context; Most study different contexts, see things from different perspectives and come to a reasoned decision about answers.
Students’ Assumptions about Teachers • Basic Dualism: – This teacher knows the answers to my questions. • Full Dualism: – Good teachers know the answers; bad ones don’t. This particular teacher may or may not be that knowledgeable.
• Early Multiplism: – Discipline X may or may not be advanced enough to answer my questions. I’m going to this teacher to find out if X knows enough. S/he will tell me the answers, or give me the procedure (ritual) to work it out on my own. • Late Multiplism: – There are no answers to my questions; what I think is as valid as what the teacher thinks.
• Contextual Relativism: – There are a number of answers to my question, depending on how you look at it; maybe this teacher can help me see the alternatives more clearly. • Pre-Commitment: – There are a number of answers to my question, depending on how I look at it; maybe this teacher can help me decide what I should believ
One criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values. As a consequence of this, it may not adequately address the arguments of people who value other moral aspects of actions (Evans et al, 1998 )