Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Mon, 9 Aug 1999 10:39:23 +1000 (EST)
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 10:39:23 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: re: learning in the 21st Century
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://grouper.ieee.org/ltsc/ifets/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Crispin Weston <crispinw@dircon.co.uk>
>> Ania Lian (4 August) wrote:
>> "Indeed, it has been argued that our experiments prove or disprove what
>> we already know"
> If they disprove what we already know, then we clearly did not know it, as
> the object of knowledge is by definition true.
It is like a game of chess: the logic is predetermined but the strategies
which it generates, possibly, endless. So we have two factors in the game
of thinking (and hence education): logic and the possibilities that it
legitimises.
> Nevertheless, my example was not to do with experiments and the scientific
> method (empirical observation and inference) but with the mathematical
> method, which is abstract, does not rely on experimentation and is
> essentially deductive.
If one were to push this dichotomy further, one would have to conclude
that maths is the sole field of abstract thinking. So I will return to my
understanding of things which says that sciences like maths manipulate
systems of own production and hence systems whose interpretation (or
reading, evluation) will depend on the system of logic thus applied. In
this sense, experiments and their reading, just like maths, deal
with systems which are not natural but which are a product of history (and
context) of human scientific endeavour (and politics).
> I don’t think your mail answered my central question. If you believe that
&there is no such a thing as rationality or logic independent of its
> producers’, then why does Einstein’s supposedly private logic have the power
> to predict the behaviour of the world in the most dramatic and
> counter-intuitive way?
How do we know what is private? As for Einstein's logic it is not private
either since it took Newton and guys before and after Newton for Einstein
to organise the arguments in a way that the it possibly allowed to create
a different game and not, say, a chess anymore although with some
similarities (e.g. Newton's rules are still valid in certain contexts).
As for its truth value: had it been powerful outside the logic on which it
builds and hence all-encompassing, it could tell us why I am wearing today
blue and not green.
> I think that the effect of relativism on education is to undermine our
> confidence in the fact that we have something to teach.
hmm, maybe but we would have to expand on this clause because so far it
still tells us nothing like what do you mean by what you said. On the
other hand, if we do accept what I said above, i.e. that there would have
been no Einstein without Newton and co., then how does the understanding
that our conclusions are context-dependent and hence not revealing how
things are but attempting to grasp the relational organisation of
different forces, prevent us from creating a model of learning where this
condition is respected? Is this not the condition of relativism and,
furthermore, the condition which was brought to our focus by the
mathematician of them all, Einstein (some may call him physicist, just
to show how relative things are) and the philosopher of them all,
Wittgenstein?
> Truth is itself
> abstract: concrete things exist, but they are not ‘true’. If there is no
> such thing as abstract truth then there is no truth at all. In that case we
> are all wasting our time, both as teachers and as participants in this
> discussion group. I see this ideology leading to a kind of obscurantism,
> where all systems of measurement are so suspect as to be virtually useless;
but if you follow my model, then it reveals that allmodels are subject to
revision but cannot be revised without being understood within the
condition of the contexts which produced them. And if we agree that
Einstein's contribution of creating a new game was useful then fit appears
imperative or our students to be given access to learning conditions
which:
(a) allow for understanding in terms which do not obscure the conditions
which declare things valid, and
(b) allow for and value subversion: an informed change whch does not lead
to destruction
> where no-one is allowed to state what the objectives of education are;
I have just outlined them in the points (a) and (b) with no hesitation and
with no inverted commas and with no worry in my mind that I want to impose
on people things which devalue their freedom as citizens or simply people.
> where
> people seem not to be prepared to use the word ‘standards’ without encasing
> it in inverted commas (whoops: done it myself); where any theory goes,
> because one man’s ‘truth’ is as good as another’s.
Constructivism or relativism are not about inverted commas. The inverted
commas are a humann invention but, admitedly, very confusing. To avoid
them it is better to contextualise your argumentin ways that make it clear
what you mean. I think you can read postmodernist philosophers and I bet
you find not a single word with inverted commas.
> I see constructivism and theories of child-cend-centred education as useful
> contributions to a debate on pedagogical technique, but I do not think they
> have much to contribute to a debate on what learning *is*.
I still like my reasoning though:-)
> I construct my
> beliefs, but whether those beliefs constitute knowledge depends on whether
> they correspond to an abstract truth which is external to me.
external to me means: ? whether it corresponds to the arguments as we see
them fit or as they are??? Do you believe that there is female/male
distinction and why? Because it is natural?
> Knowledge is a
> bridge between my beliefs and truth;
or between your belief about what it lets you do? You yourself talked
about prediction and hence STATISTICS rather than anything else.
> If there is absolute and external truth, then the bottom line is
> that education is an essentially transmissive process, even if in the
> child-centred classroom (possibly for very good reasons) it does not appear
> to be such.
but what is transmision? recording???? a nice idea provided that its
propagators have seen acassette player and hence the possibility of
recording which they may now hope has greater applications. I will wait
for knowledgable conclusions as to how we can record knowledge onto
students.
> To speak in a more positive sense, what I am in favour of is clarity about
> our educational objectives and in the measurement of student progress
> towards those objectives (which is not to say that total clarity is
> achievable, but that it is worth working towards).
I agree and I will maintain that my points (a) and (b) were a good start
worth their expansion.
> When I did my teacher
> qualification, we spent an enormous amount of time in rather woolly debate
> about the aims of education. I think it is for the clients of the education
> system (students, parents, employers, government) to specify aims:
hmm, how do we ensure though that the context of these conclusions is not
limited and hence limiting and, in the end, damaging?
> the job
> of teachers is to determine the best means to achieve those objectives.
But how can a teacher grasp the cumulative concerns that these raise? A
great task when we compare it with the impossibility of two people (e.g.
in a marriage situation) to truly know, understand and realise each other
desires. Looks like it that we are back to the statistical avareges: I
just hope that the variables used are correct.
> Different means will suit different ends and a good teacher will surely have
> a wide repertoire. I would like to see more technocrats in education, fewer
> ideologues.
technocracy is idealogy of arrogance and ignorance and i am certain that
on a closer look you would yourself run as far as possible from such a
means:-)
best wishes
Ania Lian
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon 09 Aug 1999 - 07:36:49 MEST