Subject: Re: Knowledge transfer article
From: Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Date: Mon 10 Apr 2000 - 07:17:02 MEST
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:17:02 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: Knowledge transfer article
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000 KCStarguy@aol.com wrote:
> Dr. Eric Flescher, (KCStarguy@aol.com)- Educational Technology
> Consultant-Multimedia- Adjunct Faculty, Lesley College-Technology Magic and
> Worlds to Explore-20 plus ways for using the internet for teaching, learning
> and education model http://ada.lesley.edu/faculty/flescher/team1.htm
> I was looking forward to reading an article that deal with "transfer." What I
> found was an article
> (1) that was too wrapped in speaking in educational language type terms
:-( professional hazard, as they say. I wonder though wther we could think
of some language for wriing about educational isues which could be
considered neutral, generally available for its perception and hence
transfer?
> (2) did not really address the issue of knowledge transfer even adaquately
this is what this discussion is for. It is a stimulus for a critical
reflection and not necessarily a thorough explanation of everything that
I have ever thought about. So, how would you relate together the issue of
knowledge transfer, technology and, possibly, the things that I said and
did not say in the discussion paper?
> (3) did touch on one or two good points related to interdisciplinary learning
> but "essentially missed the boat"
I have in my references turned readers to my IFETS-site where under
the Academia point, I problematise further the issue of interdisciplinary
learning. But missing the boat is something that we all do if only because
the hardest thing in life is to identify the boat in the first place. Can
you help?
> (4) did not sketch out a framework for thinking about technology and
> education as proposed
I thought I did. But, again, a model for me, may not be a model for others
to see. The boat seems to be an illusionary object of desire. We wish it
was there for us to board, but the boat escapes us possibly to a greater
extent the harder we look for it. So maybe, as in my paper, we need not to
draw teh path to the boat: just as I thought my model did, allow others to
find their own boats?
> (5) said things as in "facilitate a model of education where learners have a
> right to a point of view" without really backing up what was really trying to
> be said
hmm. I am sure I did, but nevertheless teh point of this discussion place
is to see how others would approach this statement.I think it is for our
discussion to struggle with the concepts and come up with things that are
meaningful for those who made an effort to clarify things for themselves.
> (6) talked about assessment but in terms of "This difficulty to
> articulate the bridge between the goals and the means of learning becomes
> particularly apparent in the context of assessment" did not really discuss
> the main difficulties with assessment , in regards to higher level thinking,
> project based learning, interdisciplinary learning or technology use
I do not know what is higher vs lower thinking etc. therefore I do not see
why I have to borrow concepts that themselves may be problematic. In any
case, what do you think is that I suggested as aproblem in assessment and
what do you think it is?
> (7) Said the following 'It the light of these remarks it appears that the
> relationship between the goals of teaching and the assessment criteria is not
> a straightforward matter for all involved." but failed to discuss the main
> issues about this with concrete examples, solutions or related points
The paper was not about assessment but about showing that the meanings we
apply to things like assessment criteria or course objectives are not
without problems. Question is not how to resolve the problem of meaning
but how can we help so that learning will become meaningful without us
reducing this goal to our expectations.
> (8) failed to include quotes from other sources that actually backed up major
> points but tended to diffuse the topic of discussion even further instead of
> clarifying ("The difficulty of linking teaching and assessment on the basis
> of principles of inclusion rather than exclusion is the subject of the
> critique presented by ..." )
teaching and assessment are about processes applied to meaning management.
When in that specific quote Freebody, Luke and gilbert talk about
"efficient information processing", for example, don't you think that we
have a problem here re what is it that we should teach, how and hence
assess? Should we assess efficient information processing? What would that
be?
> (9) Made ambigous statements such as "The danger with this approach is that
> the teaching objectives established and the assessment criteria applied will
> function more as limits of knowledge than as a springboard for all involved
> to seek out innovation and new perspectives" which once again tended not to
> clarify the information but "muddy the water even further."
It took me some time to think it out: I thought it was an excellent remark
re tecahing and assessment both objectives and means.
> (10) Said the following "It becomes evident that when the diversity of
> discursive resources on which learners build is ignored, education makes
> learners' passive compliance itsgoal (cf. Luke, 1995: 27).- why not use plain
> language and actually say something meaningful instead of covering up the
> major point and discussing what really should be done
I do not know what is plain language or plain English even. There is an
article written by G. Kress re: plain English. Now G Kress is famous
(relatively) and I am not, so why not see what makes plain English plain?
> (11) Just when a point is trying to made that has promise- the sentence is
> turned back on itself instead of raising issues related to solutions - gets
> too caught up in the language to say anything meaningful
> " In other words, knowledge is not a function of the ability to retrieve its
> "powerful" units but a function of the ability to show the power behind the
> systems of knowledge formulated. In this approach, it is not knowledge as
> such that should be sought after but the ability to build powerful
> (critically informed) systems of organisation. "
This specific quote was pretty good, so I thought. If you do not like
it, please talk about what knowledge is and what therefore should be
taught in terms that you understand and we will all do our best.
> (12) States obvious statements that are really old issues
> " The issue of how to help learners learn therefore develops into a question
> regarding the kinds of things that we want learners to do." This does not
> delve into anything that is a "deep issue" and is not carried any further in
> way you really can understand. Using words like " will feed on the power
> derived from the process of imposition or negotiation. " does not discuss
> anything meaningful and cloaks any real discussion about what is trying to be
> said.
well, in my recent discussion summary I raised the question of
empowerement. How would you approach this issue? I think the discussion so
far said little about it?
> (12) says statements that really say the opposite of what the title admits
> may be discussed in the article
> "proper ends, we may want to thinkabout education as a place where
> educational goals (or ends) function"
you mean, I said: "rather than to think of education as a means toward
some proper ends, we may want to think about education as a place where
educational goals (or ends) function as challenges against which learners
negotiate their paths in ways that enable them to build further."
Great paragraph, I think. Now how does it relate to the title? Well, maybe
in fact it does satisfy the anxiety expresssed by Bobbie Turniansky (2,
April) and in fact says that knowledge trasfer is a thing which is neither
sociohistorically nor neuroscientifically possible. There are no proper
ends, just ways which enable things and ways that do not. We need
therefore to look for alternatives to the objective of knowledge
transfer.
> (13) this was good but should haev been at the beginning of the article with
> others parts reaching into these questions.
> "The same concerns Internet-based explorations. Whose questions direct
> these explorations? What means are made available to learners to
> ensure that these explorations will respond truly to learners' (and
> not teachers') assumptions about the subject matter? Who determines
> the subject matter and in reference to what legitimation structures?
> Are these explorations genuine? Do we therefore create genuine knowers
> or just good boys and girls whose only lesson will be that education
> is a yet another place where truth is more a matter submitting to
> dogmas rather than being true to yourself? "
It kind of was in the begining of the paper (the first paragraph) and was
expressed as:
"Education as a field where social relations are played out immediately
raises concerns regarding the sources of power which regulate the ways in
which knowledge is introduced and managed. Questions thus arise regarding
the criteria by which decisions are made regarding the teaching/learning
objectives and the means for their achievement. Which understandings, or
reference contexts, are mobilised in order to justify the decision process
put in place? How is it ensured that learners are not excluded from the
process of formulation of the learning objectives? In other words, how is
it ensured that learners would understand the interests which generate
these objectives? Furthermore, how can it be shown that the new
technological applications truly serve learners' needs rather than the
interests of the invisible but omnipresent spirit of true 'Competence'?"
> (14) states simple solutions that are out of line.
> "we provide flexible conditions for exploratory learning in a way that in a
> way that does not discriminate between good and bad knowledge per se. "
> this leads me to believe that there is no knowledge about exploratory
> learning .
the quote you refer to is: "We may think that through the use of
computers, the Internet, discussion forums, we provide flexible conditions
for exploratory learning in a way that does not discriminate between good
and bad knowledge per se. However, these conditions will never be flexible
until they will be experienced as flexible by individual learners."
Now, the whole point of this paper was to stimulate discussion re
flexibility, its meaning and the reference contexts in relation to which
we judge what makes our learning spaces flexible. Please contribute.
> (15) Makes another statement about "Flexibility is a function of the
> adaptability of the teaching environment to the demands that
> learnersexperience in the process of exploration of the power of their
> own beliefs/understandings." which is true but does not discuss the
> main problem that teachers let students go on the internet or use
> software without much structure or guidance - they give them too much
> flexibility- but that is not even discussed
That's what this forum is about, not my paper. I do not understand what
you mean by too much flexibility. I would claim that the spaces which you
see as too much flexible are in fact highly under-flexible. Because again,
what is flexibility of which you can have too much?
> (16) makes improper statements like " Rather, it seems that the first
> step toward creating a critical learner is to create a culture which
> appreciates criticism" it is not a matter of criticism- it is about
> openess to new ideas information and evaluation by the teacher,
> students and others. The critical learner is one who can become one to
> make judgments and see with a fine eye what needs to be changed and
> improved either by discussion, suggestions or more.
Criticism also is not about negating: it is about assessing. In the same
line we talk about the task of "critical theory" which is not to negate
everything in the world but to evaluate and bring to perspective the
mechanisms behind social actions. If better evaluation is a function of a
greater perspective, then the language or the reference contexts on whcih
such critical learners will draw will not be common and plain. The very
function of being critical is to go beyond the common. We may find
out that understanding our students will require on teh part of all
involved to increase their reference contexts.
> (17) makes a good point about " for learners to make bridges" but fails to
> establish the many ways to do this
If you look at my paper and any other presented to thiis forum, mine was
about, on average, 10 pages longer than others. I was affraid that it will
exhaust the discussion but I am glad to see that there are points that we
can all elaborate upon. So, what would you suggest these ways would be?
> (18) finally concludes "that technology will not liberate education:" which
> in sense makes much of the text already written a wasteland as it does not
> touch upon meaningful ideas related to technology and transfer and does not
> touch upon the main intent of the title.
So do you think that technology is liberating per se?
Ania Lian
---------------------------------------------------------
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 : Tue 11 Apr 2000 - 00:07:46 MEST