Subject: 5th and final summary of the current discussion
From: Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Date: Sat 15 Apr 2000 - 06:17:16 MEST
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:17:16 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: 5th and final summary of the current discussion
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth and final summary of the IFETS discussion on the topic "Knowledge
transfer, and education: toward a complete learning environment
Background:
The focus of the most recent postings has been on the notion of knowledge,
its source and the ways of its (re)production.
Our discussions
Crispin Weston (13, April) turns our attention back to the philosophical
questions which deal with the issue of truth. He writes: "Descartes argued
that the "I" was *not* entirely subjective, but had objective existence.
"I think therefore I am" is only the first stage in the journey from
subjectivity to objectivity: hence the importance of "I" in that
proposition. The world as it *appears* is certainly the product of our
mind (the world itself has no colour, no sound, no hardness, no taste);
but this does not prevent us from understanding the probable nature of the
reality which lies behind the appearance."
If indeed "The world as it *appears* is certainly the product of our
mind", and if one accepts that indeed we do take different positions to
the reality as it is (e.g. as a woman, as individuals, as social agents,
as organisms with a body and nervous system as it is and as it also
develops differently for all of us, etc.), then maybe objectivity does not
derive from the world which confirms or negates our beliefs. Maybe it
derives from an interaction between our belief systems (influenced by our
positions) and the specificity of the contexts (i.e. as we define them) in
which we apply these beliefs. Objectivity therefore appears to derive from
a specific method of inquiry adopted within the terms accepted. Different
positions and different ways of looking at the context will influence the
conditions of objectivity, or?
The conflict re reading of Descartes between Crispin Weston and Ania Lian
seem to have boiled down to the reference source for objectivity in
Descartes. Crispin Weston maintains correctly that for Descartes his
method was one of searching for objectivity. Ania Lian, in turn, focuses
on another aspect of the same problem and argues that, for Descartes it is
individual's experience that forms the sole yardstick by which to measure
the veracity of beliefs, and by which to determine the objectivity of
knowledge. Objectivity is therefore assumed to be present if only because
Descartes does not seem to have a method for questioning (and hence
exploring) his own condition or the conditions of his own presence.
Descartes exists, no doubt. As Bourdieu would say, in such a perspective,
"the things of logic are taken as the logic of things". The downfall of
such a method is that, in its insistence on objective reality, it is not a
method for exploration of the doubt but more like for suppressing a doubt.
Danger is that in such a perspective we continually look for the ways of
closing a "doubt" rather than for the ways of its generating. In turn, the
discourse of education becomes one of explanation rather than one of
focusing on generating questions.
Crispin Weston sees the value of Descartes exactly in his goal to reveal,
to use Bourdieu, "the logic of things" rather than "the things of logic".
Crispin Weston writes: "A rather more straightforward argument for the
existence of objective truth is the extraordinary consistency that the
world appears to exhibit and which allows experts of all kinds to make
predictions about how it will behave.[] I have argued the point
exhaustively on this list, without receiving coherent answers to my
questions from the post-modernists."
Crispin Weston (13 April), in response to Corrie Bergeron, writes in
support of technology in education: "To argue against technology per se is
to argue in favour of ends but against the means necessary to achieve
those ends: a facile position." If, Crispin Weston argues in his previous
postings, we need to prevent teacher's tyranny, it may seem necessary to
re-examine the mechanisms by which this tyranny is enforced. If technology
is a way to counteract such acts of tyranny, it seems that this says yet
little about our concerns. Therefore, a more elaborate case needs to be
made regarding the forms of tyranny exercised and the ways for their
counteracting.
Dennis Nelson (13, April) re: the purpose of education writes: "If there
is an interim step or problem, its getting more people consciously engaged
in/on the journey: and that's done by getting back to our role - modeling,
which the Net lets us do to a larger audience." Dennis Nelson seems to
extrapolate two aspects of educational purpose: i.e. engagement and
modeling. I often wondered whether these two are not in fact in a
conflicting relationship.
Scott Overmyer (13, April) comments on the concept of the "School-based
learning paradox" and the possible solutions which education may offer
which would aim to "enable us to better detect learners' needs (cf. Yannis
Karaliotas). Scott Overmyer agrees with the concern of the paradox ("It
seems to me that when individuals are required to learn things in primary
and secondary school, the relevance of which has not been revealed to them
"). He then puts into question the solution proposed by Yannis Karaliotas
and wonders whether the task of negotiation truly is to " bring these
individual mental models closer together, and hopefully closer to the
"correct" physical model of reality. Is that it?"
On the issue of the possible means for estimating individuals' learning
needs, he writes: "It may be possible, however, to develop an assessment
instrument through which, given a constrained set of possible "next"
states of knowledge, we determine the appropriate order of subjects, given
the internal motivation of a particular student. I suspect that
instructors at small private schools already do this heuristically,
although I have no evidence to support my assertion. In the large,
however, it seems, that the set of motivators consists of an infinite
combination of mental states, suggesting that by the time we discover what
motivates one student, she will have graduated."
Barry Kort (13 April), in reply to the question of 'How can a meaningful
learning be facilitated", writes: "One of the intriguing aspect of online
learning communities is that the participants can explore alternatives to
school-based education." While on-line discussions etc do provide a
different mode of exchange, we may need a stronger principle for
structuring our learning spaces. Barry Kort suggests such a principle:
"The first is structuring the learning as a Socratic Dialogue -- a joint
inquiry process. The second is paying attention to the emotions that
arise -- especially confusion, frustration, anxiety and bewilderment,
which indicate areas where learning is blocked, and curiosity,
fascination, and intrigue -- where learning is naturally motivated.
Emotions are powerful clues as to what one is most ready to learn next in
life. It would be worthwhile to reflect on how such a dialogic process
could be made possible without the dialogue itself functioning as a
discourse of closure.
Bill Ellis, (14, April) writes on the issue of empowerment and curiosity:
"as Paulo Friere so well articulated the goal of education would be to
remove our cultural blinders and instill a sense of being part of, and a
force in, a continuing evolving culture. I would call that reduction of
the power over us, and an amplification of our sense of "belonging"."
Our cultural blinders are surely a problem which reveals itself at the
level of institutional interests or personal biases. A positive sense of
belonging seems possible to develop in individuals only if they are given
the power to act on the environments of which they are a part. You are
indeed a rightful member of a community if you have the right to act as
its rightful member. The sense of empowerment that I talked about was a
sense which emerges from a realisation that one is able to do things. To
disempower people is to remove from them the right to act and to evaluate
the acts of others. The problem I tried to raise is that of an educational
framework that would build on such an empowerment. I tried to suggest that
our technological innovations can only do this if they enable learners to
build and assess the power behind their products (reasoning etc).
Bill Ellis raises the very question of what knowledge is and what would it
mean to know that one knows: "But is it the knowledge per se that provides
a sense of 'belonging" or value?" and "Learning just to learn is not only
unfulfilling, it is impossible. One has to first have the feeling that
comes from that walk in the forest, or of solving a problem, or of
understanding one's own cosmos.-- the curiosity and the sense that the
knowledge will help you "belong"."
If we accept that knowledge per se does not exist, only an ability to do
things, then we can conclude that a sense of belonging, or a sense of
confidence, does not come from abstract contexts, reified systems which
aim to define knowledge. Knowledge would emerge from learners'
opportunities to act and from their evaluating of the power (value) of
their knowledge in the specific contexts in which the demand for their
expertise (or further learning) arose. We may call that knowledge a
product of learning but this need not be a learning for the sake of
learning. I would strongly support environments where one learns for the
sake of feeling that one is a part of other things. Question now is what
it means to belong. I would suggest that to enable individuals to mobilise
knowledge, and to assess one's own abilities seem like a part of the
answer.
I realise that the way I speak about learning, it makes my model seem to
lack a spirit, or something like that. What I do try to achieve though is
a systematic way to talk about learning, one that would enable us to
critically inquire as to exactly what it is that we want to achieve and
why. It may then be easier to examine the actual purposes which guide the
structure and the means of our learning environments.
The attributes which Bill Ellis gives to technology are: "The strength of
cyberlearning is not that it is a technology, but is that it provides a
tool for nonlinear learning. We can now let our curiosity, and desire to
belong, lead us through the ideosphere to wherever we want to go. We do
not need to be confined in schools in which KNOWLEDGE chosen by someone
else is crammed into our heads at the choosing of time, place and method
made without regard to our unique and individual minds."
My own concern is that I cannot see that technology offers anything other
than what we make it offer. In other words, that "We can now let our
curiosity, and desire to belong, lead us" is not a function of the
Internet just like having money does not equate with eating well or living
well. This is why I see a need for systematisation of our thinking about
technology. I believe that just letting people read books is more than
preventing them from it. I also believe that giving people a yet another
opportunity for contact may also be better than not. However, a new medium
does not mean a new freedom. Just like there is a lot to say about
belonging, curiosity or empowerment, there is lot to say what that freedom
in education would constitute and how can it be made possible. I think
that this discussion has been generated largely by the concern that an
attempt of such a systematisation, even if attempted by some, still needs
a greater attention to subject our ideas to further criticism and
evaluation.
Summary and conclusion of the debate
The debate began with questions which hoped to instill a realisation of a
discursive gap between what technology does and what technology does not
do. A challenged has been issued to the list to examine the value of this
proposition and to work out a model which would be capable of creating
conditions where learners engage in a truly explorative, creative and
critical learning. The discussion which developed tackled questions like
what it means to be know, what knowledge is, what does it mean t be
creative, critical, what is motivation and how can we create motivating
environments. The notion of flexibility has been raised, questions
regarding what power is and what it would mean to empower learners.
Qualities like curiosity were focused upon, one sense of belonging,
freedom, reference platforms against which we are to make our judgments
whether we do know or not. The points discussed provided a platform for
the discussants to reflect upon and to complexify our beliefs about the
goal of education and the means that would make this goal possible.
If we were now to return to the title of the discussion and were to
examine questions like whether knowledge transfer has a place in education
and whether a complete learning environment is a function of a critical
design or a function of the technologies made available, I would suggest
the following points as summarising the debate:
(a) As mentioned before (cf. Summary #4), if we accept that knowledge does
not have an existence independent of its producers, then to learn is to
engage in the task of creating knowledge.
(b) As a result, a belief that knowledge transfer is possible is
erroneous. Even in the extreme case like learning a second language,
nobody learns to speak like THE native but people learn how to
reapproriate systems of logics. In other words, individuals do not learn
how things are but how to do things. We may never be able to enumerate all
sets of conditions in order to know how things are, but we may still be
able to build planes, invent new things, develop a fountain of youth,
prevent diseases etc.,
(c) The power of our knowledge is not judged in terms of some descriptive
systems of what constitutes knowledge but in terms of performativity: i.e.
what the heck can we do with what we have put together.
(d) If performativity is the aim, then a model directed at knowledge
transfer disables this goal by imposing on learners the logic of the
system which it hopes to transfer. If the goal is to manipulate and
control (and curiosity and its satisfaction can be thought in the same
terms) than this goal can only be achieved by building into the learning
environment a capacity for learners to move, build, evaluate, follow up
etc.
(e) A complete learning environment thus to be complete requires a close
elaboration and critical reflection upon the kinds of conditions which
would enable learning based on such qualities.
(f) Last but not least education must find ways for conquering the
distance (cf Agre, 1999) between its own world of discourses and the world
of discourses beyond its walls. I hope that the reflections in this debate
help us to think about the ways for achieving this very goal.
I would like to thank all people who have been involved in this debate for
participation, for lurking, for sending postings to the list and to me
privately. I would like to thank Kinshuk for giving me the opportunity to
share my concerns with the list at an extensive length. I do hope that the
debate had been illuminating for many; it certainly has been for me.
Thanks to all,
With best wishes,
Ania Lian
ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mlal2
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 : Sat 15 Apr 2000 - 06:51:08 MEST