Consensus Of Truth In Postmodernism People example essay topic

A Critical Analysis of Three Worldviews and Their Implications on Curriculum " Abstract"This paper discusses three worldviews: Modernism, Postmodernism, and Faith. It explores several different aspects of these world views such as their epistemologies and philosophies. Then it discusses how these foundations impact curriculum. Finally it attempts to make an analysis of which worldview is truly curriculum wisdom.

A Critical Analysis of Three Worldviews and Their Implications on Curriculum The purpose of this paper is to look at 3 different worldviews and their implications on educational curriculum. I have chosen to explore modernism, postmodernism, and faith. In this paper faith will generally refer to Christianity; however, it is hoped that the reader can make broader generalizations to the concept of faith. There maybe many worldviews that I have missed, but I believe that these three are the most prevalent in our culture. This is important because many people are operating out of these different frames of mind and do not even realize it. Then when they come in contact with a person who is operating from a different worldview they cannot find common ground and misunderstandings occur.

The primary purpose of this paper is to inform people of these different perspectives and how they impact society especially with regards to curriculum. A secondary purpose it to critique these three worldviews from a wisdom paradigm. Robert Kegan has a hierarchal way of knowing that maintains similar labels as the ones used to describe the worldviews in this paper. Out of his five orders of consciousness his latter three seem to parallel the worldviews from a superficial perspective. Although there are similarities between the orders of consciousness and the worldviews, there are some fundamental foundational differences. Although there is some overlapping between the worldviews they are for the most part separate and distinct from one another.

It does not necessarily concern itself with the way we know, but rather the idea that our worldview impacts what we chose to believe. It is possible to stand outside of our own worldview and critique that of another. In contrast the order of consciousness is hierarchal; each order is dependant on the previous order. Kegan's orders also come from some presuppositions about the way we know.

He states, "The general idea of 'ways of knowing' derives from the tradition of constructivism". (Kegan, 1994,199) From this paper's perspective that statement places him in the postmodern framework, which does not allow him to stand outside of his views as a postmodern knower. Although he himself states that he is not a postmodern knower, what he really means is that he subscribes to the postmodern philosophy, but that he is not fully mature in his developmental process within that framework. Modernism Modernism got its start in the Renaissance period and came into maturation through the Enlightenment.

The idea of Humanism is a current that underlies modernism. Coming out of the medieval structure of government, philosophy, religion, science, and art the Renaissance occurred. Then in 1517 a young monk named Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation which took the Scriptures out of the Catholic Church's hands and placed them into the hands of the individual. (Glydenvand, 1981) This was the beginning of the emphasis on the individual in place of the institution. With time the individual was divorced from God and from society. Human beings were seen as autonomous without regard to society as a whole.

From here the Enlightenment in Western Europe was occurring along side of the Scientific Revolution. As Copernicus challenged the belief that the sun is the center of the universe with The Revolution in 1543, Galileo and Newton made new amazing scientific discoveries that discredited the Roman Catholic Church even more. People were no longer accepting the dogma that they were taught. Instead people started relying on natural law and reason to discover the universe. Rene Descartes instituted the idea of rationality, and John Locke, "father of modern empiricism", developed the idea of natural law. Rene Descartes was a mathematician who searched for certainty.

In his Discourse he searched for primary truths that one could build upon. He went as far as proving his own existence with his famous quote "I think, therefore I am". This promoted the idea of rationality which was that mankind can discover the truth based on reason alone. (Sproul, 2000) Unlike Descartes, Locke challenges the idea of rationality. He thought that the mind is a tabula rasa or a blank slate; everything is learned by experience. The idea of empiricism is only that which can be perceived by our senses exists.

He also ascribes to the correspondence theory of truth which is the idea that there is a truth that corresponds to reality. His idea of natural law also has implications on modernity especially in our democratic nations. Civil law is enacted by a combination of natural law and the law of opinion. Whether or not civil law is virtuous depends upon natural law which rests on the Law of God which can be known through natural reason.

To be noted the Law of God does not necessarily correlate with the Christian perspective on God. This idea that a natural law should impact civil law has implications against a pure democracy, for a virtuous law is one that rests upon natural law; therefore a republic is preferable to a democracy. (Sproul, 2000) In the late 1800's Darwin revolutionized the world of science with his books The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. (Gelb, 2002) These books dealt with natural selection and the concept of survival of the fittest.

Although these books dealt mainly with evolution in the scientific realm, many people used these concepts to promote Social Darwinism. The idea was that people were progressing or evolving into better people or a better race. This thought coupled with the idea of the survival of the fittest had devastating consequences in Nazi Germany, for the strongest had the evolutionary right to succumb the weak. Modernism views human natures as material machines. We live in a physical world and have evolved from lower life forms.

We are evolving in a positive direction not only physically but also as a society by the use of science and reason. Truth can be discovered by rationality and by perception through our senses. In modernism autonomy is stressed and institutions are looked upon as corrupt. This is highlighted in American society as the three branches of government were put into place in order to check and balance. Therefore each individual has the right to govern themselves.

These ideas are also expressed in the idea of Secular Humanism which many people interchange for modernism. They both rely on the idea that the individual will be able to progress and solve their own problems although there are some minor differences. The "Humanist Manifesto" is the official document of this perspective. There are fifteen affirmations that this document promotes. In the "Humanist Manifesto II" it discusses the overarching principles of reason "Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses", and the individualism "The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value", and progress "Technology is a vital key to human progress and development". It also touches on the world community, but never places it above the individual.

Overall its purpose is to replace humanistic ideals with religion for it states it as its primary purpose; it was the final separation of modernism and faith. For the new faith was actually a faith in people. Postmodernism People started critiquing the philosophy of modernism. After World War II it was evident that people were not progressing. Although we were rich in technology; it could be used to destroy as well as benefit society. Many of the "truths" we have come to know and have been used to rationalize our actions have been proven false.

This was especially true in our ideas of race and gender in addition to philosophies such as Manifest Destiny. This led to a disillusionment of what people perceived as truth. Individualism did not seem to account for everything as we had supposed, for many people seemed to have a need for community, and that community seemed to influence their sense of self. As people became disillusioned with Modernism a new worldview emerged which we will call Postmodernism. Postmodernism views human beings not as individuals that affect society, but rather as individuals that were created by society. Each person is a product of their culture and / or environment, and everything a person thinks is merely a social construct.

Whereas modernity stressed autonomy and free will, post-modernism states that autonomy and free will are merely illusions that our culture has created. In reality, everything that we do and think is due to the influence of our culture and its language system. These systems we cannot overcome, because there is no way to step outside of them. Therefore we can never truly be objective.

"Derrida [a leading post-modern literary philosopher] claims that philosophers are never able, either by reflection or by self-reflection, to rise above their limited points of view to see the world or themselves as God might". (Vanhoozer, 1998, 20) If philosophers who deal with the idea of metaphysics can never truly see reality, then no one can. Since we can never truly be objective, the idea of rationality is merely a social construct. As we come into contact with other cultures, we realize that our concepts of truth differ from their concepts of truth. Since we can never step outside of our own culture to objectively view another's culture, we have to come to the conclusion that all cultural truths are equally valid. This leads to the idea that the reason some "truths" are more dominant than others is because of power.

This grappling for power makes everything a political struggle. This even transcends into literary theory, "From the perspective of literary theory, we may no longer limit interpretation to the practical task of getting meaning out of texts, but must include the political task of situating the interpreter". (Vanhoozer, 1998, 19) This also shows that the modernism perspective on progress is also an issue of politics. We are imposing our Western ideals onto other cultures. Progress is not necessarily good, but just a value that Western's esteem. Language is one of our primary social constructs.

We cannot escape the language of our culture which has influenced us during our formative years. An example would be the Sapir-Who rf hypothesis. These two anthropologists noticed that the Hopi Indians had no words to differentiate between the past, present, and future. Their conclusion is that the restrictions on one's own language influences how one perceives the world. Although, it was later proven the this hypothesis was incorrect and the Hopi Indians do in fact have tenses to distinguish these ideas, the idea that language influences our culture and not the reverse has a great impact on postmodernism. (Hens lin, 1998, 43, ) This of course runs contrary to Socrates idea "That language is imitative sound.

Words resemble things". (Vanhoozer, 1998, 18) Also, "Plato is inclined to say that when we name things, we are also defining their natures. The business of a name is to describe its nature". (Vanhoozer, 1998, 17) In postmodernism not only does language influence our thinking, it also is continually changing.

Also, since language creates our reality, our reality is also continually changing. "Many postmodern thinkers believe (perhaps inconsistently) that the first truth about language and reality is that they are both in flux... The issue is whether there is an abiding 'truth' about things to which our interpretations might correspond". (Vanhoozer, 1998, 18) Postmodernism aligns with the idea that everything is an interpretation or a construction. Therefore, there is no "truth" to anything; there is no actual way to know anything. As Kegan states, "The general idea of 'ways of knowing' derives from the tradition of constructivism.

It implies that we are active in our apprehension of reality. We do not just passively 'copy' or 'absorb' already organized reality; instead, we ourselves actively five shape and coherence to our experience". (Kegan, 1994,199) Reality is relative to the knower; no two people can have the same reality. Kegan describes two types of postmodernism: deconstructive and reconstructive. Although he cites Burbles and Rice for three features that are common to all postmodern writing:" First is the rejection of absolutes. Postmodernists usually insist that there can be no single rationality, no single morality, and no ruling theoretical framework for the analysis of social and political events.

The conventional language here, deriving from Jean-Francois Leotard, is that there are no 'meta narratives' that are not themselves the partial expressions of a particular point of view... Second is the perceived saturation of all social and political discourse with power or dominance. Any meta narrative is taken to be synonymous with the hegemony of a social and political order... A third idea that recurs in the Postmodern literature is the celebration of 'difference. ' Rather than attempting to judge or prioritize the explanatory or political significance of given elements in a social situation, the Postmodern trend is to argue that, because all signifies are mere constructions, there is no clear reason to grant any one special significance or value over others". (Kegan, 1994,325) The first type of Postmodernism is deconstructive postmodernism also known as skeptical postmodernism or anti-modern postmodernism.

These postmodernists look to deconstruct other people's truth claims. They are continually looking for hidden agendas to create invalidity in the truth of others. It is a reaction against modernism and all that it stands for, instead of an outgrowth of modernism. Kegan along with Burbles and Rice understand that this brand of postmodernism presents some problems. "The problem with this position is that, although it makes clear where one should not stand, it has no place where it can stand in order to promote the values implied in its differentiation". (Kegan, 1994,327) Vanhoozer also recognizes this.

When one deconstructs an author as Derrida recommends there is nothing left, and one can only resort to Nihilism. "Nihilism-the denial of meaning, authority, and truth-must not only be accepted, but affirmed. Only by affirming the death of the author can we be rid of the 'Platonism of meaning' that prevents us from exploring our own creativity as readers". (Vanhoozer, 1998, 73) The second type is reconstructive postmodernism or affirmative postmodernism. As Kegan states, "The difference between deconstructive and reconstructive postmodernism introduces the possibility that not every 'theory,' 'stand,' or 'way' is necessarily absolutistic or ideological. Not every 'differencing,' normalizing, or is necessarily a hidden and arbitrary privileging of a special interest.

Not every kind of judging or prioritizing is impermissible modernist domination". (Kegan, 1994,329) The idea is that a person can take create a "theory,"stand", or "way" as one realizes that it is incomplete thereby looking for contradictions in order to continually reconstruct it. Whereas deconstructive postmodernism led to nihilism reconstructive postmodernism leads to relativism. People that operate within this mind frame are able to hold contradictory positions simultaneously. "They argue that self-contradiction isn't a problem once we remove the modernist burden of rational consistency". (McCallum, 1996, 48) As they construct reality they substitute power for truth.

Once we come to the realization that "truth" cannot be know, "truth" becomes a tool to be used as any individual or group presupposes (correct word? ). Faith In this paper the faith that is being referred to is the Christian faith from a protestant prospective. There are many variations within that perspective, but the underlying foundations are the same.

It is also acknowledged that there are many other faiths that exist in this world outside of the Christian framework. These faiths in many respects are also opposed to the Modern and Postmodern paradigms. Therefore it is the hope that those of other faiths will be able to apply the framework of this paper to that of their own. This enabling them to draw their own conclusions about matters of faith compared to the perspectives of the world. It is also hoped that each person looks carefully within their faith to determine (if there is) the truth. Is this too wish washy?

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him". (John 14: 6, 7 NIV) The foundation of Christianity lies upon the man known as Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be fully God and fully man.

He claimed that he was equal to the Father, which is one of the ways the Jewish people referred to Yahweh (Jehovah). He also claimed that there was a truth and that He was it. He claimed that the only way for salvation was to believe in Him. "No one has ever gone into heave except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For God did not send his Son into the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son". (John 3: 13-18 NIV) Christianity lies upon the Jewish tradition of original sin. That is the idea that we were originally created in the image of God.

"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them both male and female". (Genesis 1: 27 NAS) Mankind was originally made perfect. They are not only physical beings, but spiritual as well. They did not have the capacity to know good and evil except for the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. "Then the Lord God said, 'Behold the man has become like Us, knowing good and evil". (Genesis 3: 22 NAS) Once mankind knew the difference from good and evil, they could not abstain from doing evil.

As the Israelite King David writes in the Psalms, "Against you, you only have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place". (Psalm 51: 4-6 NIV) Apart from God we can not obtain truth or become good. This contrasts with the modernism idea of progress, where we are evolving in a positive direction.

It also contrasts with postmodernism that makes very little distinction about good and evil apart from merely a cultural construct. In Postmodernism just as there is no ultimate truth there is also no ultimate goodness. Since mankind was condemned because of our sin, Jesus came from heaven to die for our sins. He paid the penalty to God for our sin by dying on the cross as he predicted to his disciples. "And he said to them, 'The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day raised to life". (Luke 9: 22 NIV) Whereas the cross was the penalty the resurrection showed that Jesus was God and did in fact have power over death.

The belief in the resurrection of Christ is what assures salvation. "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?' 'Yes, Lord,' she told him, 'I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God who was to come into the world". (John 11: 25-27 NIV) The cornerstone beliefs of Christianity lie upon Jesus Christ. Jesus was a human who claimed to be fully God.

He was perfect. He states, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?" (John 8: 46 NIV), and it is written in the Epistles, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God". (2 Corinthians 5: 21 NIV) He was crucified for our sins, and on the third day he rose from the dead.

This belief is what defines Christianity, other religions acknowledge that Jesus lived on Earth, but these are the claims that Christianity rests upon. Christianity claims an absolute truth. Its truth is that God the Father who is in heaven sent his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. It claims that God is the only truth, and the only way to know the truth is through Jesus.

It claims as one of its truths that humans are sinful. "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim that we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives". (1 John 1: 8-10 NIV).

It claims that truth can be known through Scripture and the Holy Spirit. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". (2 Timothy 3: 16 NIV) It is written with regards to the Holy Spirit", "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come". (John 16: 13 NIV) Christianity claims these truths.

Not only does it claim them, but it claims these truths exclusively. This means a Christian according to the Scriptures cannot make the ecumenical claim that all worldviews are valid. It must be noted that Christianity lies upon these truths and although sometimes associated with it does not necessarily embrace the truth claims of Western thought. It is very important to distinguish between the truth as the Scriptures claim, and the presuppositions that sometimes underlie within the Western Christian. Christianity also takes a moderate viewpoint on the view of the individual and society. The individual alone can stand before God, and God cares us for us as individuals even to the minute details.

"Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows". (Luke 12: 7 NIV) However, Christians also operate in the context of a community, and what one person does in the community affects the others within that community. Paul refers to the Christian community as one whole body where each person is a different part such as a hand or foot. "Its parts should have equal concern for each other.

If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices in it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it". (I Corinthians 12: 25 b-27 NIV) The individual has the ability to act independently of the community, but its actions affect the community. The community's actions also affect the individual in the context of the Christian body. Modernism's implication on Curriculum Modernism has a very diverse perspective on education. Although sometimes modernistic education theories are called traditional, there are too many traditions within this framework in order to classify them as such.

Many of the ideas of modernism stem from its view upon knowledge. These perspectives incorporate Descartes, Locke, Bacon, and Darwin among others. Modernism asserts that there is truth and knowledge and it is possible to attain. Descartes philosophy aligns with this.

However he distrusts the senses, for he thinks they deceive us and relies on pure reason. "Descartes' method involves a relentless pursuit of fundamental truth that everything else can be tested against it". (Sproul, 2000, 86) Descartes conclusion rests on Aristotle's conclusions:" It must be noted that this first principle ('I think, therefore I am. ' ) embraces at least two unspoken assumptions. The first is the law of non contradiction.

Part of the self-evident truth of Descartes maxim is that one cannot think and not think at the same time and in the same relationship. The formal truth underlies the certainty of one's self-conscious existence. The second assumption is the law of causality. This formal truth yields the conclusion that thought requires a thinker". (Sproul, 2000, 87) Again his idea of rationality is based upon the idea that truth can be known. However, he was limited upon what knowledge was tainted by the senses.

Descartes viewed mathematics as pure knowledge, and it is his philosophy that led to a formalist modernistic view of knowledge. "The formalist position regards mathematical knowledge as independent of human experience". (Walker, 2003,137) This idea is foundational to the concept of objectivity. Locke also thinks knowledge is possible to attain, but he is an empiricist that relies on his senses or experiences. His idea of knowing is founded on his idea of the tabula rasa. Gardener describes this process in his afterword "The Tale of Two Barns:"Most observers readily embrace the notions that infants were born with a mental space-a mind-brain, the tabula rasa, that resembles an empty barn.

According to the EMPiricist view, there is little if any furniture in that barn initially (EMP-0). The barn gradually accumulates information, chiefly in terms of facts, definitions, and certain procedures. These bits of information are not coded in any particular way and are, so to speak, interchangeable with one another. Over the course of years (EMP 1-3), the barn gradually gets filled up with a plethora of facts and figures until it is quite stocked-in Hirsch's phrase, it now harbors 'cultural literacy.

' " (Gardner, 2000,254) Unlike Descartes, the empiricist relies on the senses or experience to discover knowledge and / or truth. His idea is more aligned with a realist modernistic view of knowledge. "In contrasts, a realist conception treats mathematics as mental constructs created by actual people to cope with certain aspects of their life experience such as measurement and construction". (Walker, 2003,137) Although this is not completely an thought, it does key on the idea that we learn from experience. Although these perspectives differ from one another, they are both modernist. They both approach learning the same way.

"Traditional beliefs about learning assume that the world is objective and knowable. According to both formalist and realist conceptions of learning, individuals acquire knowledge of the objective world by thought, in one case, and by experiences in the other". (Walker, 2003,137) The idea of a knowable truth underlies the practices of modernist education. This is the underlying presumption of standards based reform. "The state developed curriculum frameworks that specified what students should learn in each grade and subject.

The state then developed several strategies to induce local districts to align their programs with the state frameworks. Most important among these were standardized tests the state developed to test students' learning of the content goals included in the frameworks". (Walker, 2003, 48) This very idea that someone can chose and prioritize what a student should know is a modernist idea. The truth can be known and what is to be learned are the building blocks that are needed to arrive at the truth. This correlates with the modernist's view of knowledge and that the learner is initially a blank slate.

This leads them to evaluation processes that are more objective in nature such as standardized tests. Behaviorism as was introduced by B.F. Skinner is also a component in modernism that is seen in education. Although behaviorism is contrary to the individualistic nature of modernism, it still classified within the framework of modernism. Goldin states it this way, "The exclusive focus of the radical behaviorists on stimuli, on responses, and on empirically verifiable laws governing the relationships between them derived quite explicitly from the fact that stimulus situations and behavioral responses are directly observable and measurable, while presumed cognitive processes (or any other mental processes) are not. Thus, it was argued the latter should be excluded a priori from psychology on epistemological grounds". (Goldin, 1990, 36) His statement which is a description of logical positivism shows how behaviorism can be modern, for logical positivism is empirical in nature.

Behaviorists believe that one can modify behavior through reinforcement and shaping. (Gleitman, 1996) Gardner explains it in his book The Disciplined Mind:" The epitome of this way of thinking is represented by the teaching machine. Without the need for human intervention (except, of course, to program the machine), the student sits at a terminal, emits behaviors, and is continually shaped through positive (or negative) reinforcement until the correct stream of action emerges. Nowadays, when the machine is likely to be a computer, some have dubbed such programs 'drill-and-kill " Even extreme behaviorists recognized that some youngsters would learn more readily than others.

But the behaviorists emphasized discipline and effort (though they might not have been able to give satisfactory definitions of these concepts). They took their lead from the founding behaviorist, J.B. Watson, who famously declared that he could make any child into any kind of adult, if he were simply given 'my own specified world. ' According to Archimedean attitude, anything was possible so long as one had leverage: time, patience, and the proper arsenal of rewards and punishments. Lest one think behaviorist ideas are dead, consider such current practices as standardized national tests and outcome based education". (Gardner, 2000, 64) Thus standardized testing is not only in place because of modernist viewpoint on truth.

It is also existent because through behaviorist theory the outcome is more important than the process. The "Back to Basics" curriculum in its most simplistic form stems off the idea of behaviorism. It builds on the concepts that a student can be conditioned to learn by memorizing certain facts. "The curricular vision of "Back to Basics" stresses the acquisition and mastery of a generic set of cognitive skills that will equip the learner for later life tasks, and an ever-increasing fund of knowledge about the culture, past and present, in which he or she lives. In caricatured (by those who are critical of this vision) form 'Back to Basics is an attention to rote learning, memorization, and the uncritical inculcation of the culture's historical values". (Kegan, 48) From this perspective the "Back to Basics" philosophy is taking away from children the ability to think; however Kegan also admits that there are different forms of "Back to Basics."It is possible however, to hold the vision in a more sophisticated form that orients to the realization of an increasingly set of cognitive skills, including the capacity for complex and critical thought".

(Kegan, 48) People that look upon "Back to Basics" from this perspective are not necessarily operating from a behavioristic mind frame, instead they are hoping for a solid education foundation for the student. Although, it must be noted that behaviorism is just one small aspect of modernism. Plato, who is also considered the founder of Western thought, used a method of questioning that is emphasized in constructivism which is a post-modern principle. The modernist principle of abstract thought is due to Plato's plan out lined in The Republic. "Plato's advocacy of abstract theoretical knowledge as the highest aim of educator's has powerfully influenced Western education and still shines today's ideal of academic excellence". (Walker, 2003, 61) Unlike the behaviorists, "Plato suggested games and play could lay a foundation for later study of subjects such as arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy".

(Walker, 2003, 60) This idea is present in our primary grades, as children oftentimes learn through the use of games. Goldin also advocates in his article that there are other styles of learning outside of behaviorism in empirical thought. "To paraphrase this conclusion, one does not have to be a radical constructivist [postmodern] in order to advocate discovery learning, divergent thinking, and open-ended problem solving in mathematics education (Goldin, 1990, 42) Modernists tend to have a teacher centered classroom. The reason this is in place is because of their view of knowledge. The teacher who has studied more and who has more experience has a greater understanding of truth or at the very least more knowledge.

Since students are a blank slate, it is up to the teacher to fill their minds. The concept of Natural Law is an underlying theme of modernists. Natural Law accounts for many of modernism's humanistic principles that are taught in education. Natural law is the idea of a prescribed morality.

This is a morality that cannot be denied. The stresses modernity places on individualism and progress could be claims to Natural Law. If those are truly Natural Laws are debatable, but Western society can mistake them for Natural Laws. Any Natural Law that a people subscribe to will foster itself in its educational curriculum. The Humanist Manifesto I explains how education is vital to perpetuating their ideas. "Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of knowledge of their naturalness and probability.

Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking". (Humanist Manifesto I) These are the values a modernist curriculum will espouse. This leaves little room for the diversity of people who aspire to other values that are outside of this constraint. It also places little value on the individual who cannot attain the intelligence level of his / her peer. Postmodernism's Implications on Curriculum The implications that Postmodernism has on curriculum is directly related to its view of knowledge.

The constructivist perspective is that knowledge is an active process on the part of the learner. Although behaviorists might disagree with this statement, not all modernists would. In his book The Disciplined Mind, Gardner describes the postmodern way of knowing labeled constructivism. In it he uses a metaphor of a barn. The barn is our mind, and it is already stocked with some information and some ways of knowing. The learner takes this information and makes connections with what is already there and it begins to take structure.

This idea is a part of Piaget's theories. Von Glasersfeld summarized Piaget's work which is what constructivists provide as their foundation:" 1. Knowledge is not passively received either through the senses or by way of communication. Knowledge is actively built up by the cognizing subject. 2. a.

The function of cognition is adaptive, in the biological sense of the term, tending toward fit or viability 2. b. Cognition serves the subject's organization of the experiential world, not in the discovery of an objective ontological reality". (von Glasersfeld, 1990, 23) There are serious implications if one holds to this way of knowing. If it is claims that this is how people know then everything that was thought to be known changes. Von Glasersfeld himself states the following: "One cannot adopt these principles casually. If taken seriously, they are incompatible with the traditional notions of knowledge, truth, and objectively, and they require a radical reconstruction of one's concept of reality. Instead of an inaccessible realm beyond perception and cognition, it now becomes the experiential world we actually live in.

This world is not an unchanging independent structure, but the result of distinctions that generate a physical and a social environment to which, in turn, we adapt as best we can". (von Glasersfeld, 1990, 23) Whereas modernism views knowledge as something objective that is to be known, postmodernism views knowledge as a construct of society. As von Glasersfeld puts it, "Though no truths about a 'real world' could be derived from experience, experience nevertheless supplied a great deal of useful knowledge". (von Glasersfeld, 1990, 21) Knowledge is not an absolute; it is not even necessarily true. Knowledge is something that we as a society decided to call "true", because it is useful. As constructivism leaves the world of objectivity it enters the world of subjectivity. Since all knowledge is constructive all learning takes place in a constructive process. Therefore since no two individuals have the same experience, no two learners can have the same knowledge.

This being so, there is no possible communication, for one person constructs something entirely different than another given the exact same situation. If a person assumes that they are communicating with another, they are in error, because the recipient of the communicator must construct something entirely different than what the communicator intended. "In addition, radical constructivism maintains that each person's world of experience is context dependent-unique to that individual, and by its very nature inaccessible to others. Thus, each individual's constructed knowledge is necessarily unique and contextually dependent.

Again, these are no empirically based conclusions, but a priori epistemological necessities". (Goldin, 1990, 38) The postmodern curriculum is essentially centered on the student instead of the teacher. In one respect since knowledge is constructed by experience instead of transmitted, it is the teacher's role to provide contexts for this to occur. A teacher can provide situations for perturbations to occur, so the student can change the way he / she has constructed reality. "This produces a perturbation, and the perturbation may lead either to a modification of the pattern that was abstracted as the 'triggering situation' or to a modification of the action. All this I want to emphasize, concerns the experiential world of the acting organism, not any 'external' reality". (von Glasersfeld, 1990, 24) Also as there is no true knowledge, the teacher's knowledge is no better than the students.

Therefore it would be presumptuous of the teacher to think that his / her knowing was better or more complex than the student's knowing, for the student has experiences and knowledge that the teacher does not have. In addition, since no communication is possible, the teacher has no way to every be completely sure that what he / she was trying to communicate was in fact perceived by the student. Since there are no truths that can be universalized, all truths are equal. This extends into the values that are taught in the classroom. Whereas modernism stressed individualism and progress, postmodernism promotes diversity and acceptance.

"Difference and otherness have replaced rationality and universality in the postmodern pantheon". (Vanhoozer, 1998,198) Since everyone's truth claims are equal all must be respected, and all must accept others truths as true in addition to their own truths. This promotes a new definition of tolerance. In its traditional context tolerance meant a fair and permissive attitude towards those whose opinions and practices differ from one's own, it is now replaced with the idea that one must accept those opinions and practices that are different from one's own as true. Although this promotes cultural diversity and sensitivity, it will inevitably any type of critical thinking about issues and / or ideas. Whereas in modernism people would debate different perspectives to come to some consensus of truth, in postmodernism people just dialogue or discuss.

"For whereas debate assumes a good deal of common ground, dialogue need not. In dialogue, we might not even agree about what the crucial questions or issues are". (Vanhoozer, 1998,199) This hinders the process of deliberation, for there is no way to truly know whether one has constructed the problem in the same way. People are also social constructs of their society. This is one of the paradoxes that postmodernism so readily embraces.

Although one's knowing is individualized to such a degree that no two people can even hope to communicate what they know, the way one knows is inescapably influenced by the culture one lives in. As language and one's culture creates the individual, the postmodern curriculum embraces learning through social situations. Students learn by interacting with one another, so the structure of the classroom has an emphasis on cooperative learning groups and collaborations. Faith's implications on curriculum It is nearly impossible to have a public school system that is Christian in nature due to the diversity in our culture. It is definitely impossible to have a Christian government.

This might not be true of other religions, but it is true from a Christian perspective. The New Testament is ultimately against any kind of Theocracy. "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place". (John 8: 36 NIV) Christ did not come to establish a kingdom here on Earth, so people who claim that America is God's chosen nation are in error.

America could be a Christian nation that has underlying Judeo-Christian values, but Christ did not come to set up a political kingdom at this time. Christ also clearly calls for a separation of Christianity and politics when he was asked whether or not people should pay taxes. "Then he said to them, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's". (Matthew 22: 21 NIV) This is not to say that one's beliefs should not influence politics, but rather one should not say that their politics is Christian in nature.

Since it is nearly impossible to have public Christian schools, there are two different ways that faith impacts curriculum. The first is the idea of Christian principles should be taught in a public school setting. Those who advocate for this stance promote the use of the ten commandments for morality. They also desire the Bible to be used whether it is primarily or along with other texts.

Prayer is also an issue. "Presently, though, the influence of religion is mainly felt on a few controversial issues, namely whether prayer or other religious observances will be allowed in public schools, whether the religious aspect of creation can be taught alongside scientific ones, and whether school histories give adequate attention to the role of religious life". (Walker, 2003, 59) Although these aspects of faith can influence the curriculum in public schools, the curriculum can never truly be Christian. Since Christianity is exclusive with the respect of truths that it will accept, the curriculum will only be Christian if it revolves around what the Bible conveys. The second way faith impacts curriculum is to separate itself from the public school system. A Christian curriculum has to stand on the truth claims of the Bible.

This could be done with a parochial school or with home schooling. However it must be realized that a Christian school is not the Church. The Church refers to not a building, but it refers to the body of believers. "And he is the head of the body, which is the church". (Colossians 1: 18 a NIV) The church is not something that one can be forced into, but one must enter it by choice. "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved". (Romans 10: 9, 10 NIV) Although, one can force a confession, one can never force a belief. Therefore an individual must chose to believe and enter the church. A school is not necessarily a church, for a child is under the authority of a parent or legal guardian who chooses for him / her where he / she shall attend school. Because a child attends a Christian school, it does not necessarily constitute that he / she is a Christian. The Christian school is not a Traditional Community as Kegan defines it:" This continuous uninterrupted provision of fourth order support in the Traditional Community is ordinarily less a matter of how other people are actually telling us how to set limits or preserve boundaries than of observable figure on the ground of our living (although such persons, to whom we are bound and loyal, would certainly be available.

More often such 'information' communicates itself into the very fabric or ground of living. We see how we are supposed to handle this or that situation, and how we are 'supposed to' is how we suppose we should as well. Handling this or that situation in the supposed ways is not merely the solving of this or that problem, but the very expression of our atonement or in-tune-men with that community". (Kegan, 1994,104) The ideals of a Christian school are not to produce conformity to certain rules, but they are evangelistic in nature.

Their goal is to present the Bible as truth, but it is left up to the individual whether or not they chose to accept it. Of course, there are some students who respond to the environment in a Traditional way of knowing, but that is not the goal of the curriculum. Once the student does accept the Bible as truth, they are open to a whole new set of freedoms. "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, the, and do not let yourselves be burdened by the yoke of slavery". (Galatians 5: 1 NIV) One of the central themes behind Christianity is that no one can ever keep the Law, so Christ came to stand in our place, and he kept it perfectly.

Once someone becomes a Christian, they become free from the law. (Someone who is under the law would be a Traditional knower.) "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law". (Galatians 3: 25) This is the idea of grace that was stressed through the Protestant Reformation. For now, "Everything is permissible'-but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible'-but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others".

(I Corinthians 1: 23, 24 NIV) With grace in place it gives the believer more autonomy. They are not held to strict rules but instead an overarching goodness to edify others. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Lover you neighbor as yourself.

All the Law and the Prophets hang together on these two commandments". (Matthew 22: 37-40 NIV) The underlying principle of a Christian school education is that truth is known as it is revealed by God through the Bible. Therefore the curriculum rests on this. The themes of the Bible that are essential to being taught are the ideas of original sin, God's plan of Salvation through Jesus Christ, and that we love one another. There individual is stressed apart and within the community, and both are valued within the context of one another and God.

It is also holistic in its approach. The Christian school shows the student how their faith impacts all areas of life. Their faith cannot just be departmentalized, but it has to be a way of life. Although it distinguishes itself from outside ideas, it does not necessarily reject all outside ideas. It does not reject the outside world, for God made everything, but it does reject the ideas that do not correspond with the truth. It does not force anyone to agree with their ideas, but it presents them to the world, and it rejoices when someone comes to believe as they do.

The purpose of the Christian school is not to produce conformity, but to present the truths they hold so dear. Curriculum Wisdom "This is important, because all curriculum decisions are at their heart, moral decisions. They touch the core of what it means to be human, to live in a community with others, to find meaning and purpose, and to create a more just and peaceful world". (Henderson & Keeson, 2004, 6) Three worldviews have been introduced with their implications on curriculum. The wisest curriculum decision to implement of the three according to Henderson & Keeson would be the one that that implements moralistic principles. Although modernism has many benefits, there are times when it falls short.

Modernism in many aspects defines what it means to be human from a purely biological standpoint. As it places emphasis on the physical and rational processes it often neglects the other parts of the human experience such as emotions. "Curriculum workers who operate from a modern frame of reference may also lose sight of the envisioning side of their decisions, but in a different way. Because our European heritage of modern rationality is based on the separation of church and state and the primacy of precise rational methods (Borgman n, 1992), educators who work from this perspective may unnecessarily separate their reasoning from their intuition, imagination, and emotion (Thayer-Bacon, 2000). As a consequence of becoming too easily encapsulated by a particular rational system, their envisioning may be limited or nonexistent". (Henderson & Keeson, 7) The impact that modernism sometimes has on the curriculum is that many times a school can forget that a child is whole being and not just merely an intellectual one.

Modernism also relies on the concept of Natural Law to create a just and more peaceful world. The only difficulty with that is that Natural Law rests upon Divine Law. "The virtue of civil law is measured against the standard of natural law, which in turn rests on the law of God". (Sproul, 100) It was this concept that underlies our democratic society. It is evident in The Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". (Goldfield, A-1) This idea of Natural Law although rational cannot necessarily be proven which leads modernists to a perplexing predicament, for they find that "It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behavior, and yet quite definitely real-a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us". (Lewis, 30) Democratic Goodness can be viewed as something to influence curriculum wisdom. "Democracy is typically understood as a way of government. To approach democracy as a way of life-or as Dewey puts it 'a moral standard for personal conduct'-is to extend a democratic outlook to one's daily living. Democracy no becomes a moral referent for good living".

(Henderson and Keeson, 9) The idea of democracy of a way of life depends upon the foundation of Natural Law, that there is some type of goodness, although ill defined, beyond ourselves. This idea of goodness allows for a variety of different schools within its framework. "I claimed that that all four were 'good' because, even though their practices differed, students became literate, parents endorsed the schools, and each in its own way worked to create adults who sought both the common good and personal success. I ended the lecture by children market-inspired reformers for their quasi-religious fervor in creating a one-best-kind of school and in doing so, overwhelming the historic and core purpose for public schooling in a democracy: building literate, civic minded, morally responsible citizens who appreciate useful work". (Cuban, 40) Initially Cuban's rhetoric sounds as if it is post-modern, but it is truly modern for it endorses certain true ideals with democratic principles.

It does not align with the behaviorist principles of modernism, but it does align with the concepts of Natural Law found within modernism. It holds the schools to some sort of universal standard of goodness. The idea of progress and Western superiority is also a problem that underlies the modernistic curriculum. Progress is not always beneficial. "Though we have sent travelers into space, we have not solved the problems of human conflict, poverty, and hunger. The notion of progress seems, at its root, problematic, and scientific problem solving an important but limited approach to modern society".

(Henderson & Keeson, 30) Not only is progress not necessarily a solution, but it is also the cause of some of our problems. "The problem becomes especially significant if we consider the possibility raised in the first criticism that particular ways of knowing (specifically scientific problem solving) have actually created some of our modern problems, including the environmental crisis". (Henderson & Keeson, 31) The stress of Western thought is important in curriculum, for it gives a foundation to understand why the world is the way that it is. However, it is necessary to admit its limitations in order to think critically about the world's problems. Sometimes philosophies that Westerns take as fact are really just speculations that time has proven to be false. In essence sometimes human thinking is fallible.

"Simply stated, curriculum wisdom is cultivated ignorance. It requires what Cherry holmes (1999) characterizes as the disposition of fallibility". (Henderson & Keeson, 14) Postmodernist curriculum has its own when it comes to curriculum wisdom. The most fundamental fallibility is the denial of truth. They are not content to say that some of the truths that modernists have accepted are false. Instead deconstructive postmodernists take the stance that there are no truths; whereas reconstructive postmodernists take the stance that everything is true.

Both of these stance lead to meaninglessness. In the Pre-Socratic age this was a stance that the Sophists took. Plato writes, "And we need to use every argument that we can to fight against anyone who does away with knowledge, understanding, and intelligence but at the same time asserts anything at all about anything". (Plato, 41) As are able to deconstruct everything until they are left with nothing. Once that happens, there is no reason to find any meaning in anything, for there is nothing that we can communicate.

"To dissociate each thing from everything is to destroy totally everything there is to say. The weaving together of forms is what makes speech possible for us". (Plato, 54) Re constructivists take the stand that everything is true. Plato also has a criticism of that stance.

"If it doesn't blend with them that everything has to be true. But if it does then there will be false belief and false speech, since falsity in thinking and speaking amount to believing and saying those that are not". (Plato, 55) In the Sophist he goes on to argue that falsity is deception, and later that "Well, then isn't it clear by now that true and false thought and belief and appearance occur in our souls?" (Plato, 59) The idea is that once one affirms that there can be something false, one has to reject the idea of everything being true. For one cannot be and not be at the same time. He argues that which is cannot be that which is not. All of this of course rests on Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction.

The principle states that B is not non-B. If one is to deny the law of contradiction serious consequences occur. McDowell (604) in his work cites Sullivan's dissertation "An Example of First Principles in Thought and Being in the Light of Aristotle and Aquinas". from Catholic University of America in 1939: 1. To deny the necessity and validity of the Principle of Contradiction would be to deprive words of their fixed meaning and render speech useless. 2. Reality of essences must be abandoned; there would be becoming without anything that becomes; flying without a bird; accidents without subjects in which to inhere. 3.

There would be no distinction between things. All would be one. Ship, wall, man would all be the same thing. 4. It would mean the destruction of truth, for truth and falsity would be the same thing. 5.

It would destroy all thought, even opinion, for its affirmation would be its negation. 6. Desire and preference would be useless, for there would be no difference between good and evil; there would be no reason to go home, for to go home would not be different from staying where one is. 7. Everything would be equally true and false at the same time, so that no opinion would be more wrong than any other even in degree.

8. It would make impossible all becoming, change, and motion. For all this implies a transition from one state of being to another; but if the Principle of Contradiction is false, all state of being are the same. (Sullivan EF PTB 121-22) "Although some think that the law of non-contradiction is a Western construct that is simply not the case.

In Ravi Zacharias work, Can Man Live Without God is quoted by McDowell (607): "The whole method of teaching of the greatest Hindu philosopher Shankar u was quite Socratic's he debated ideas not in dialectical mode (both / and ) but in a non contradictory mode (either / or ). He would challenge his antagonists to prove him wrong, and if not, to surrender to his view. The point, then, is not whether we use an Eastern logic or a Western logic. We use the logic that best reflects reality, and the law of non contradiction is implicitly or explicitly implied in both the East and the West". If a curriculum embraces postmodernism, it is left meaningless. There would be no purpose to its even existence.

The idea of Natural Law although it is not able to be proved by Modernism is denounced by Postmodernism. Since postmodernism embraces all truths or no truths depending on the variety, any idea of a universal law must be rejected. Some claim that a universal law has to be rejected because different people have or have had different moralities. Lewis disagrees with this:" I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or descent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean.

Think of a country where people were admired for running way in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people that had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only you own family, or you fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed you must not put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether or not you should have one wife or four.

But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking on to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you could say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one.

But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong-in other words, if there is no Law of Nature-what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever else they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else. It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a really Right and Wrong. People many be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste of opinion any more than the multiplication table... These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.

Secondly that they do not in fact behave that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking". (Lewis, 19-21) Therefore, since people have a universal sense of right or wrong, postmodernism philosophies must be in error. If they accept such a concept that would be an absolute, and the absolute that postmodernists make claim to is that there are no absolutes. Since they reject any moral absolute, they cannot make wise curriculum decisions, for curriculum decisions are moral.

Postmodernism in its essence rejects morality, so it cannot have curriculum wisdom. Modernism does not necessarily reject morality, but many of the morality codes it embraces are false. This leads one to look for a third solution. The solution that this paper comes to is that of the worldview of faith. Since it would be impossible in the scope of this paper to look at all faiths, Christianity is offered as the solution. The Bible makes a distinction between three terms: knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

Knowledge would be the accumulation of facts. This is important as those who advocate for standardized tests would attest to. Understanding is emphasized in the constructivist curriculum. Students can understand the underlying concepts of a curriculum, but oftentimes they lack the knowledge to make them efficient. This inefficiency hinders a student's learning process. Therefore a curriculum needs both understanding and knowledge.

It also needs wisdom. "Wisdom is a lofty yet worldly term denoting a soulful and holistic practical artistry directed toward a personal and social good". (Henderson & Keeson, 4) The Bible declares, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise". (Psalm 111: 10 NIV) The Bible is the ultimate "soulful and holistic practical artistry directed toward a personal and social good".

(Henderson & Keeson, 4) It promotes loving God and loving one's neighbors. The Sermon on the Mount is the foundation of ethics. Therefore a Christian Curriculum that promotes this idea is acting out of Curricular wisdom. It presents a middle ground between modernism and postmodernism's idea of truth. It aligns with modernism in the idea that there is a truth, but it also admits in accordance with postmodernism that many of are truth claims are false. The reason that this is true is that people are sinful.

The Bible declares that this happens. "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen". (Romans 1: 25 NIV) The Bible also relates towards the good of the individual and of the social community. It stresses that God loves and cares about each individual person, and that He is able to transform the individual's life.

It also relates the individual back to the community. It is not enough to have faith and not serve the community. "Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish yo.