Subject: IFETS-Discuss 2nd summary (a complete learning environment)
From: Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Date: Sun 09 Apr 2000 - 08:23:13 MEST
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:23:13 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: IFETS-Discuss 2nd summary (a complete learning environment)
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second summary of the IFETS discussion on the topic "Knowledge transfer,
and education: toward a complete learning environment
Background
The second part of our discussions seems to have returned us to the ver
burning question as to where do the truths come from. In my reply to
Crispin Weston (3 April) and Muhammad Betz (3 April), I have tried to
contextualise notions like subversion, creativity and value. While
opposing my framework of thinking against philosophers like Kant or
Descartes, I suggested that there is a third way of doing things: i.e. a
way which enables us to see truths without necessarily:
(a) reducing these truths to phenomena of individual subjective experience
(something that Descartes would do in his inability to propose a link
between the physical and the mental world other than the sense of his own
subjectivity; Cartesian doubt emerges from this dichotomy through which he
asserts the sense of his subjectivity as certain), or
(b) locating the source of these truths in conditions which seemingly
guarantee their certainty (Kantian objectivity which allows us to
distinguish between the subjective and the objective).
The third way needs to reconcile the relativity of experience (the
subjective) with the certainty of the act of experiencing (the objective).
Or, in other words, it needs to reconcile the gap between perception and
the conditions that enable us to perceive. To follow with Descartes, we
may say we need to reconcile the gap between things and thoughts.
In relation to education, the method of this reconciliation will direct
the ways in which we will proceed regarding the things that are certain
and the ways in which this certainty is perceivable. If we were to follow
Descartes, it seems that his extreme subjectivity prevents us from ever
stating anything as true unless we call upon sources of legitimation which
are beyond their testing like God, or Nature. If we were to follow Kant,
it would seem that his notion of necessity, again, takes us back to
questions which raise the problem of the sources of the final judgment
(i.e. the necessity factor). How do we know or come to know things? And,
most of all, what makes these things things as we know them and hence
worth knowing? These questions, although answered later on by many, seem
to pose a challenge to education. However, as long as we find ourselves
unable to articulate the grounds on which these questions are a challenge,
issues regarding technology will remain not only trivial but also those
who work with technology will be, as they systematically are, reduced to a
function of a fancy technician. Is technology a frill or a necessity
because of the very role that education MUST play in our society?
Our discussions:
Crispin Weston (5, April), returns to the problem of subjectivity and
objectivity. He points out that Descartes' methodological doubt did not
come, as Ania Lian suggests, from "the inevitable subjectivity of all our
statements" which seems to be the starting point of Descartes but from a
belief that "by a process of doubting everything, we can indeed obtain
objectivity - what he referred to as 'clear and distinct ideas". The
problem may well be resolved if we agree that:
(a) in Descartes: all things exist but all these things are a product of
our mind
(b) doubt is nothing else but a method for verification of the truth-value
of one's own beliefs that can be true or false.
(c) thinking itself is the only proof that things do exists (or at least
that the "I" does exist). It is his "I think therefore I am" that gives
Descartes the comfort o some certainty to be out there.
(d) the reference basis for our truth-evaluation will nevertheless be the
"I" and hence the subjectivity of the I to which Descartes may give the
objectifying function. In the end, the world, the way it is, is a product
of our mind
(e) Kant comes along and says, to hell, if I exists so does the world!
Therefore we need not doubt the world, just the basis in reference to
which we describe it.
Would we agree with the points above which still leave Descartes in the
realm of subjectivity?
The second part of Crispin Weston's mail deals more directly with the
issue of knowledge and knowing. He writes: "I believe that all knowledge
is provisional; that all we can do is *claim* to know; that we can never
*know* that we know; that we can and should pursue
objectivity without any prospect of attaining it completely." Regarding
teaching, he writes: " In consequence, both teachers and designers should
remain open to correction and improvement from whatever quarter that may
come (students included)."
The issues of the provisional nature of knowledge, openness to correction
and improvement together bring with them another aspect of the debate:
that of legitimation. In other words, who and what grounds and how this
process can be facilitated is given the right and opportunity to correct,
improve and, move forward the things that constitute the knowledge?
Tom Abeles (5, April) takes on the discussion in the direction motivated
by C. Sagan's memoirs (in a quote provided by Ania Lian) regarding his own
education. His metaphor to a sculpture illustrates his belief that what
technology and education are is more a product of the bits and pieces that
we collectively give to them rather than a product of some specific
understanding that drives the ways in which we (re)purpose education. In
short, understanding lies in practice and not in a policy constrained by a
multiplicity of other laws and policies. He writes: Yes, Ania asks the
"hard question". What is more dangerous, the release of the atom via
nuclear science or playing with the future of humans with educational
"technology". Can we say "Its not my job?"
We may ask further: How can we ensure that the responsibility for the
direction we take is not a matter of a single opinion? How can we preserve
the sculpture metaphor without turning the sculpture to a product of a
single text/command? How can we make room for many in ways that benefit
many (all?)?
Dennis Nelson (6, April) follows up the discussion about Sagan and
education and certainly argues that rethinking about what we do is our
job. Re: the goal of making room for subversion/creativity (differences),
Dennis Nelson warns that, as he writes, "education reflects the concepts
of what we think should be: consider also that it may reflect our
collective abdication of the requirement to truly think through and
resource what education should be." When talking about the task of
education, it seems that Dennis Nelson summarises it in the following
paragraph that he writes: "We all can win over time if we all work
together. Not working together, most of us are losing most of the time."
We would all agree with this statement. The trick now is how can we
translate it into practice?
Arun-Kumar Tripath (5, April) continues with the issue of technology and
educational change. Questions that he poses demand reflection upon the
methodological and sociopolitical grounds of this change.
Dennis Nelson (6, April) take on this problem and suggests a method of
inquiry which is based strongly in what is called "best practices". He
writes: ID those who best use the high-tech seminars and have them sponsor
free on-line seminars to get the free publicity and support for teacher
attendance." or " Create an on-line directory of the best resources
identified and ranked by internationally renowned and peer renowned high
tech teachers."
Interestingly, like in medicine or possibly all industries, being best is
not solely a function of an unbiased assessment. Sometimes the best may
mean exactly what Dennis writes: "peer renowned". Your peers need not be
the best evaluators. Maybe one way to escape difficulties caused by
self-interests etc may be to resort to evaluations from outside the field?
There may be 1001 ways of so doing.
Muhammad Betz (6, April), on the question of "Why we do what we do" brings
in a a quote from Edmund Husserl's "Logical Investigations": "It was Kant
who uttered the famous special words on logic which we here make our own:
'We do not augment, but rather subvert the sciences, if we allow their
boundaries to run together.' p. 55 of the above work, published by
Routledge & Kegan Paul and Humanities Press. 1982.
Questions is: what does it mean to let the "boundaries run together" and
when isn't this the case? In other words, are the boundaries natural? What
are the boundaries or the categories by which we can establish: what is
science, what knowledge is not science and where the boundaries lie? Is
any solution to new challenges a subversion or augmentation? One may (I
would) claim that room for subversion need not necessarily mean a demand
for a paradigm shift. Rather it means a necessity to allow for what comes
naturally to all of us, seeing things differently.
Tom Abeles (6, April) picks up the points made by Muhammad Betz and
problematises the quote regarding the very meaning of the borders. He
writes: "As a chemist I have seen a simple division of inorganic, organic
and physical chemistry grow to a myriad of hybrids, including
biogeochemistry and even crosses into the realm of psychopharmacological
chemistry. Thus, rather than a reduction into distinct areas we are
seeing, perhaps, a reintegration and then a recasting of knowledge into
new units. But, I am not certain that is what you are trying to point
out." []Husserl is indeed a good place to start to understand that we can
not separate technology from humans whether that technology for education
is a campus of bricks and mortar or of bits and bytes."
Barry Kort (7, April), on the question of the goal of education writes: "
I believe an important purpose is to empower people to become lifelong
learners, lifelong discoverers, lifelong problem solvers." Barry Kort
brings into the discussion a term of autodidactic learners when he writes:
"Autodidactic learners and creative problem solvers have not always fared
well in our culture. Geeks and nerds are often outcasts, although that may
be changing as more and more high-tech geniuses become wealthy and
famous." I often wondered about the dichotomy between learners who can
learn by themselves and those who are considered by teachers as liking the
knowledge being given to them. I wonder whether the problem of education
is about:
(a) facilitating conditions for both the types, or
(b) whether it is about blurring the distinction simply because nobody
ever is autodidactic and learning is not about giving it back to the
teacher what the teacher gave us.
The problem that I would like to raise is whether autonomy was about
autonomous learning or whether it was about responding to specificity of
questions that varied learning contexts may bring about. Is there a
difference?
Overall, it seems that all postings deal with the questions of power,
legitimation, power and the beliefs in growth being a function of thinking
rather than the opposite. When taking about technology, questions need to
be raised regarding its place and value. Is technology capable of
assisting our students to think, gain power, feel empowered etc.? How do
we achieve this or how can we enable these things to happen. Is on-line
learning the solution to the problem of learning? Or is on-line learning a
better translator of our positive intentions toward students? How could we
build up a case against my criticism of the beliefs that technology is
enabling which then, in turn, motivates everyone to do on-line learning,
on-line discussions, on-line assessment. We fall short of making on-line
everything humanly possible. But is this what technology in education is
about? If as barry kort writes, we should think about "empowering
learners" or "We need to empower
learners how to discover better solutions, rather than teaching them to
blindly xerox timeworn ideas that have run their course": what does it
mean to empower learners and how can we make it possible? And where does
here technology come in?
Ania Lian
ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mlal2
please, check my IFETS-site:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mlal2/lists/ifets/ifets.htm
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun 09 Apr 2000 - 08:29:42 MEST