Class Reflection 5 Oscar Newman

What new ideas are you taking from these readings or discussions in class?

I was pleasantly surprised by how relevant the Bang article was to work here in the SOP. I
was surprised at the critique of Vygotsky – not because I disagreed with it – but that the only
thing I can recall of his work is the Zone of Proximal Development. He was writing in the
1960s about primitive thought in reprehensible ways – though I would argue: so were a lot of
anthropologists.

How do these ideas interact with those in your philosophy of education statement?
Do they align with your current thoughts?

I am not clear on the need for any major changes. There are some changes to discussions or
activities in terms of thinking more intentionally about the use of the term nature (but I already
push back on this hard with the distinction between natural versus urban, which I find
obscures more than it reveals, or rather, gives more insight into a speaker than into an
argument) as well as the ways that human interactions with the natural world are presented.

Do they change your thinking? Can you push against/ challenge them?

They change the ways that I might present content. For example, discussing natural divisions
of a state without mentioning that there were people here is problematic. I do teach students
about this, but it is not a deeply considered part of the curriculum.

After our discussion today, how are you thinking about incorporating intersectional identities
and positionality into your philosophy of education?

I have lots of ideas about this, but I am uncertain how they will ultimately manifest themselves
into the final product. Of late, I have been conducting personal research into the creation of
national mythologies of mestizaje and the implications for my own positionality as well as
many of my students. [Basically, evolving national mythologies of “There are no Indians here”
to “We are all mixed with Indians” in Latin America, especially in Central America.] I have a lot
to consider before I think about how I may incorporate it (or not) into the statement.