Subject: Commenting on Dr. Freeman's Respons
From: Farhad Saba, Ph. D. (saba@cts.com)
Date: Tue 09 Nov 1999 - 19:46:46 MET
From: "Farhad Saba, Ph. D." <saba@cts.com> Subject: Commenting on Dr. Freeman's Respons Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:46:46 -0800
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Molly:
First, there is no reason to apologize. You gave me an opportunity to slip
in information about a love story that is several hundred years old in an
IEEE forum!
Second, I agree the we have chosen different modes of inquiry on a tactical
level. Your perspective has enriched this thread. I participated in a
similar discussion in the Distance Education Online Symposium (DEOS)and
acknowledge that systems science will only give us a probabilistic view of
reality, at best. Even at that, it will be only part of the story.
This is what I wrote on DEOS
["Ultimately, mathematical methods can only inform us of probabilities; as
such, leaving plenty of room for open ended human will, and
non-deterministic independent learning. So, I don't think I agree with the
statement that mathematics necessitates reductionism, at least not as long
as humans are in charge!
Therefore, such methods only reveal half of the story, at best; and should
be augmented with analytical, and critical methods of philosophical inquiry.
Whether we have access to the ultimate and "sacred" knowledge remains to be
seen, but by using precise methods of mathematical inquiry in a system
dynamics environment, where "time" is essential; augmented by illuminative
and hermeneutic methods of discourse and non-discursive communications, we
will be a lot more prepared to deal with reality of our existence, when the
phase transition occurs and leads us to the "radical transformation" of our
concept of education."]
On a more technical and tactical issue, you wrote:
>Again, I want to share the following lines from Bakhtin on polyphony
> because
> I think they go to the heart of what makes me uncomfortable with
> transactional
> distance theory and with the way it seems to have appropriated complex
> systems theory:
>
> Polyphony challenges the model of truth that conveys there is only one
> truth [and] that
> this truth stands objectively separate from the one who thinks it or
> voices it. (Morson & Emerson)
I also agree with the notion of polyphony, and as difficult as it is, my
graduate assistants put a lot of time and effort to keep our research
project continue by using "single subjects." This is very time consuming,
but we collect data on one subject at a time. Furthermore, the results show
only similar general PATTERNS of behavior among subjects. That is, data
points for each subject are very different; but when plots of system
simulations are overlapped, they show a consistent pattern among the
subjects of an inverse relationship between transactional distance and
dialogue.
This changes our view of "instructional design," which has been largely
developed based on the Newtonian science of cause and effect. In dynamic
instructional/learning systems, the act of design is part of the process of
teaching and learning, and the process unfolds with unforeseen results. To
which of the seemingly infinite "parallel universes" the conversation
between a teacher, and a student leads is their choice. Transactional theory
has nothing to say about the end results. Such end results could be
objectivist, or constructivist learning, or the seemingly infinite range in
between the two extremes. The similar pattern of interplay among dialogue,
structure, and transactional distance, however, is subject of interest in
this theoretical inquiry concerning transactional distance. That is not to
say structure or pre-instructional design are frivolous acts; one hopes that
in the first grade math all students learn the same procedure for adding two
numbers, or as I remind my students, if I ever needed brain surgery, I would
like my surgeon to be from an objectivist school of surgery, and not a
constructivist, or exploratory school! The idea here is achieving the
optimal level of transaction by the learner and the teacher at each moment
of instruction.
Thanks for your thought provoking dialogue.
Farhad Saba, Ph. D.
Editor
Distance Education Report
---------------------------------------------------------
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 09 Nov 1999 - 21:10:48 MET