Understanding Self-Knowledge and Evaluating Understanding xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Grand Canyon University
July 14, 2007

Understanding Self-Knowledge and Evaluating Understanding The purpose of this paper is to identify, describe, and critique personal views on the place of understanding self-knowledge from the point of view of both the teacher and the student. The paper will also provide an evaluation of the sequence and organization of instruction that was used during at least two teaching assignments (units). The focus of this evaluation will be toward the effectiveness of the sequence and organization in accomplishing the desired understanding expected from students. To allay the purpose of the paper, criteria from Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe’s (2005) “backward design” will serve as a background for much of the information included in the paper. According to Wiggins and McTighe (2005), self-knowledge is “the wisdom to know one’s ignorance and how one’s patterns of thought and action inform as well as prejudice understanding” (p. 100). In consideration of today’s teaching milieu, it is possible that there are far too many instructors who are not familiar with the positive academic gains that they could bestow upon their students by paying attention to criteria that warns against instruction is devoid of any understanding, appreciation or acknowledgement of students’ self-knowledge. One of the greatest teachers and philosophers of Western thought, Socrates (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p.101) “is the patron saint of understanding. He knew he was ignorant, whereas most people did not realize they were.” In other words, Socrates knew that he did not know anything and/but that was more than what anyone else knew. No, it is not recommended that it is academically advantageous that students become obsessed with their ignorance, but the cause for an personal affirmation of ignorance here involves a more subtle and intrinsic purpose. This affirmation of ignorance that is an essential facet of self-knowledge will be made more explicit in the proceeding paragraphs. How can self-knowledge be beneficial to student achievement and learning? Why is ignorance vital in the process of acquiring self-knowledge? In an attempt to answer both questions, reference to the definition listed above for self-knowledge is recommended. What does Wiggins and McTighe (2005) mean by the fragment “as well as prejudice understanding?” Wiggins and McTighe (2005) write: “A naïve student, no matter how bright and learned, lacks self-knowledge to know when an idea is ‘out there’ or a projection; to know when an idea seems objectively true but really only fits the student’s beliefs…” (p. 101). Consider the last phrase of the above quote: “…to know when an idea seems objectively true but really only fits the student’s beliefs …” The line “… as well as prejudice understanding” is analogous to the line “… to know when an idea seems objectively true but really only fits the student’s beliefs…” in the sense that a prejudice of understanding is the same condition as an individual’s subjective insistence that their habitual perspectives are true without reflection, inquiry, or investigation. Once the student has realized that self-deception can thwart understanding, then he or she will have opened themselves to a treasure trove of knowledge possibilities. Therefore self-knowledge can be beneficial to student achievement and learning by a subtle declaration and acceptance of ignorance while knowing that this acceptance will trigger the dissolution of all false assumptions about life. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (http://www.brainyquote.com/...) once said, “Many a man fails to become an original thinker for the sole reason that his memory is to good.” From the point of view of the teacher and the student, this is invaluable advice in consideration of the true meaning and effectiveness of self-knowledge. Nietzsche is implying that memories are like the prejudice listed earlier in the paper. For students to become the original thinker, they must dispose the memories to invite new ideas for new knowledge. In today’s schools, many teachers feel that students are making academic progress when factual material is memorized. Some of this factual material comes in the form of components. Teachers must realize that students must not only (Marzano, Pickering & Pollack, 2001, p. 143) have mastery over the component skills, but must be able to control the interactions of these elements. The authors state further that this mastery is “commonly referred to as “metacognitive control” (p. 143 and qtd. in Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1958). From the point of view of the teacher and the student, metacognition is an extremely essential term in respect to self-discovery and understanding. According to Orlich, Harder, Callahan, Trevisan & Brown (2004, p.G-4), “metacognition means “conscious awareness of one’s own thinking and learning process.” Wiggins and McTighe (2005, p.101) contends that “metacognition refers to self-knowledge about how we think and why, and the relation between our preferred methods of learning and our understanding (or lack of it).” If teachers wish for success with Wiggins and McTighe’s backward design (defined on p. 338) which is the framework for all of the information listed above, they must consider using metacognitive approaches to material during daily instruction. Teachers should make sure that students understand the meaning of metacognition. Considering the scope of Wiggins and McTighe’s three-stage backward design, the notion and strategy of self-knowledge is only one spoke in the wheel. Self-knowledge represents one of the six facets in the authors’ “six-facets of understanding.” A few of the other five facets which include explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, and empathy will be discussed in the next section of the paper. Teachers and can benefit immensely if they incorporate the three-stage backward design into their daily regime and also with a clear understanding and frequent implementation of self-knowledge strategies. Self-knowledge (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p.102) is a key facet of understanding due to its demands that they self-consciously question their ways of seeing the world if they are to become more understanding – better able to see beyond themselves. During a few of my teach sessions, I have incorporated a few of the methods espoused by Wiggins and McTighe. At Fort Dodge High School, Iowa, I teach two Essential Shakespearean units and two Greek Mythology units. At the onset of the Shakespearean Unit, I pose the question: “Why do we study Shakespearean literature today?” “Why are his work and his name so pervasive in our society?” “Why does our daily language consists of thousands of words and phrases that he is credited for inventing?” “What is your opinion of Shakespeare (most of them have only had Romeo and Juliet)?” These questions trigger immense thought (and a few awkward answers). Students strive to make connections with the world of Shakespeare and their own. They think about, “Why is there a shop in the local mall named Shakespearean Stitch?” or later in the unit, “Why is Bruce Willis reciting phrases from Richard III to another character who counters with a phrase from Henry V?” Again strive for connections. To the question, “Why is Shakespeare still very popular today?” I answer, “Because every element of the human condition can be found in his works.” This raises several eyebrows and opens many minds; now they are ready for the first play, Julius Caesar. With this play and all of the plays, I emphasize the big ideas to foster deep and extensive thought. Big ideas (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p.69) are defined as, broad and abstract, represented by one or two words, universal in application, timeless – carry through ages, and represented by different examples that share common attributes. (qtd. in Erikson, 2001, p.35). Immediately, I list three major themes of the play and throughout the study of the play I am always questioning how certain episodes relate to any one of the themes. At the end of the unit, most students understand Shakespearean literature and tell me that they really enjoyed the adventure. We do a total of six plays. I can make this successful because I teach connections that yields understanding of the whole of Shakespearean literature. I use a different approach in the Greek mythology unit. Still, I incorporate the big ideas and transference. Some questions are, “Why did the Greeks allow their gods and goddesses to have human qualities” or “Why did the Greeks allow their gods and goddesses to sin? Then I introduce this phrase by Nietzsche: “The falseness of a moral judgment is not necessarily an objection to it. For there are many moralities and societies usually choose the ones that are more life-preserving and self-sustaining” (from my thoughts). I ask them to tell me the meaning of this as applied to Greek Mythology. Very seldom do I get many correct answers, but then, I am not looking for correct answers. I am looking for questions that trigger thought. The questions cause many questions during open discussion and sets the stage for the unit. At the beginning of this unit I feel that I must also incorporate some memorization work. Over the years, I have found that I must emphasize and make sure that students know the names of the major gods and goddesses (Greek and Roman names) and also have the ability to recall what they represent. This has to be done in order for them to make connections, discern analogies, and use transference to allay understanding. Transferability or transference (Wiggins & McTihle, 2005, p.352) is the ability to use knowledge appropriately and fruitfully in a new or different context from that in which it was initially learned. As stated earlier, I do use a few of Wiggins and McTihle’s “six facets of understanding” in my instruction. During the Shakespearean unit I incorporate perspective and empathy. I try to get students to view certain episodes from a different perspective and I also ask them to put themselves in some of the highly dramatic situations. During the Greek Mythology I use perspective and empathy in the same manner. I also use application strategies in this unit as we study Homer’s Odyssey. All of these methods have resulted in greater understanding of the unit’s material. This has been an attempt to identify, describe, and critique views on self-knowledge and understanding in teachers and students in general and in personal instruction. Many elements of Wiggins and McTihle’s backward design have been discussed and defined. The evidence of this paper shows that self-knowledge and understanding are invaluable facets that will increase the effectiveness of learning.

References
Marzono, R., Pickering D., Pollock J., (2001) Classroom instruction that works: Reasearch-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Orlich, D., Harder R., Callahan R., Trevisan M., Brown A. (2004) Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.