September 26…Biesta and Burbules (Knowledge and Experience)
What does this chapter suggest about the nature of knowledge?
What are some implications for educational research?
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hi, everyone. Cat here. As I understand it – in transactionalism, there is no absolute knowledge. Knowledge has a temporal, rather than static quality that comes from its relationship to action. While I don't want to equate “action” with “happening” – because I think they are used differently here – there is dynamism in the word “happening” that gives “knowledge” a little of its temporal flavor.
Regarding the implications for research - - well, the very idea of knowledge as “not absolute” should surely humble the researcher. But more importantly, the idea that theory does not occupy a privileged status means there is a freeing up of the tension between theory and practice that is well suited for educational research. (I feel like I’m repeating myself from last week - - sorry about that.) If the researcher accepts the idea that theory and research inform one another, this may engender an equally "co-dependent" relationship between subject and object. (For some reason I’m reminded of the comment another first-year doc student said a few weeks ago: “I’m not interested in doing research on people. I prefer to do research with people” – or something that effect). The very moment we develop a line of inquiry (“The Effect of Blah on Blah Blah”) we have already begun to name the reality we’re professing to investigate, at least in some measure.
Apologies for the short-ish post this week. I wanted to say something about Niels Bohr (don’t we all?), and I just loved the bit about the Zölner lines (see p. 42) because it reminded me of something I heard an NCTM conference last year: “There are no misconceptions. Just conceptions.” What do you think of that?!!
Knowledge requires action and is temporally-located. It is constructed in transactions between the person and objects in a multidirectional fashion. Reality can look different to different people and still be their reality, depending on what habits or history the person brings to that particular moment and environment. Knowledge can also come in multiple modes, so it is not just mental operations or labeling objects in reality. It also does not have to be conscious; it can build in our muscles.
I was really intrigued by the implications of knowledge as being both action and communally built. This reminds me of participatory action research, in which researchers join with community groups to identify what needs they have and conduct research together to serve the community best. I also wonder if qualitative research lends itself more to a pragmatic viewpoint as it is literally a co-construction of knowledge in which both parties are changed through the process and what the participants identify as “real” is taken as real. For educational research I feel like pragmatism lends itself to social contexts where there is a lot of “transactions” or activity between the environment (say like building blocks or history books) and the people (say classmates and teachers). Pragmatist approaches would probably especially strive to perceive the context and dynamics that make up a learning environment. I also feel like including modes of knowing is important when viewing education as growth and self-actualization, which occurs in domains outside of the traditional classroom.
Dana Brookover- The nature of knowledge is a mode of experience that supports actions and consequences. Knowledge is about reflection and action. The difference between experience and knowledge is in happening. Knowledge is not concerned with the "as is" of experience, but is concerned with conditions and consequences; so, it IS concerned with relations, NOT with reality "as such". Knowing is a process of inquiry that should shape our concept of being, not vice versa.
For educational research, the most important mode is the cognitive mode. We need systematic inspection of the situation. We should I.D. and state the problem, and find meaning of the situation. It is the combination of reflection and action that leads to knowledge. This leads to a need for empirical research in educational research. If knowledge has to do with inference, there is a possibility of a mistake, which leads to truth and falsity. But, this is if you look for "meaning" of an experience- instead if you take immediate experience simply as what it is, then you don't bother with truth. This point is very interesting to me. I think I need more explanation/discussion of it in class. Is there some common ground between experiencing things as they are and deriving meaning? I like Rachel's explanation of qualitative research as showcasing the ideas of both parties being changed in the process/ impacting the process and what the participants saying. I also like Cat's sentiment on doing research "with" people, not "on" people. It is definitely helpful to read my classmate's responses to the blog posts.
"Dewey put an end to the idea that it is only through knowledge that we can obtain a hold on reality"(p. 43). This is perhaps a very important point for the educational researcher. If we try to empirically study the reality of whatever research question or group, without accounting for experience, our research is meaningless. What that research suggests about the educational experience of the individuals studied may contradict other experienced realities, but nevertheless it remains the reality for those individuals. Regardless of how far that experience varies from the 'truth' or how illusory the experience is, the experience is always real. Only through action does the experience move toward knowledge, and this knowledge is always dynamic and temporal. "In that case it is our old conceptions of knowledge as a (static) picture of a (static) reality that simply has to go" (p. 53).
Yingying Dewey’s view on knowledge builds in the frame of his naturalistic transnationalism, which he again emphasized on “process” and “transaction between organism and environment”. It is quite interesting to think about his idea of knowing as one mode of experience supports action. I was wondering if that’s the reason not all experience is a kind of knowing since “action” and “consequences” are not the way of knowing? As Dewey’s view of knowledge is about reflection and action, it is very important for educational researchers to account “practice/action” into researches. And educational practitioner to “control” (as the ability to direct action) the knowledge to reflex back to researches, which goes back to what I discussed about last week- “that knowledge emerges from an action and feeds back into action”. It is also interesting to apply his idea into real classrooms. Interaction with a textbook or one instructor is clearly not the best way of “transaction”, after all, education (schooling) is something we want to show different paths, possibilities for students.
The different modes of experience in this chapter were exceptionally interesting. I do not think I had realized the different possible ways to classify experiences of mine, or taken note of the different kinds of knowledge those experiences provided me as a result.
I may not be the only one who feels society overemphasizes certain modes of experience over others; the field of education, understandably, seems to heavily emphasize the mode of knowledge (p. 29). It is this mode of experience that helps determine possible courses of action, so by no means do I intend to diminish its importance. There is a huge emphasis on testing - formative assessments, standardized tests, entrance exams - and huge implications for both students and educators when these are being assessed and analyzed. I wonder if future educational research will continue this trend - almost obsession - with testing and knowledge. The practical, ethical, aesthetic, and religious modes seem just as interesting, and just as informative in providing information about how we experience and understand the world (p. 29). It would be nice to see other modes of experience explored more deeply through research, though actionable information concerning knowledge may always triumph over the others.
Andrea Moreau Dewey’s theory of knowledge is based on “reflection and action, and about the reflective transformation of experience understood as transactional” (pg 42). Dewey stressed that knowledge has to do with inference, also known as a reaction to something that is distant and not front and center (pg 47). When applying Dewey’s theory of knowledge in educational research, I think it is important to remember that experiences are different for every student. When we look at the U.S. as a whole, the collective experiences of our students are so different. Some have experiences of privilege and security. Other students have experiences tied to trauma, unstable living situations, and a whole host of other adverse childhood experiences. Based on Dewey’s theory, students exposure to different experiences will directly impact their knowledge base. Not that this comes as any of a surprise to any of us in this classroom, we are all well versed on the effects of negative childhood experiences on the ability to learn. Relating this back to educational research, how do we as practitioners take into consideration our student’s experiences and its implications for knowledge when constructing educational research? I certainly don’t have the answer to this question, and I wonder if anyone really does. My struggle with pragmatism and Dewey is how do we capture knowledge or research on the population we are investigating when every student has different life experiences and experiences contribute to knowledge. How can we every measure educational knowledge?
Brad here... Dewey speaks on learning as a natural process. As opposed to a replicable science, learning is experiential in nature. The learning experience is transaction dependent. I think there is something profound to this idea that each person is of a different mind with a different set of unique experiences that make up their individual being, that in turn, no two learning experience can be completely alike. They can be similar, especially in the hard/applied categories of learning but, like a fingerprint, they have a touch of uniqueness to them because of the human nature/human mind.
We can try to replicate frameworks of learning, with dependent variables, such as textbooks or tests but the way in which the learning was experience for the learner is a unique experience of transaction. In research, some implications come to mind. Designing curriculum as a standardized method of delivery for material that each individual learner will comprehend IS, in fact, based on the nature of the experience (i.e. quality of instructional delivery, quality of content, mindset of the individual, etc.) I think this resonates with how each person who reads a fiction novel constructs and experiences the words on the page in a different manner. With a lot of similarities, written words can be interpreted but arguably they mean different things to different readers based on how the material was experienced. When conducting research, this is something to keep in mind in trying to study educational research as an exact science (or even a close-science). It's difficult to base future predictions off of research that has so many human/changing variables. Human behavior in general might be habitual and comfortable in nature at times (as we are a normative society) but it's difficult to predict all future behavior based on past behavior. However, we can make educated projections of possible outcomes of experience. Even then, we still don't/can't plan for the exact future. So, back to the question, what does this really mean to educational research? Since educational (not just "schooling") is experiential as Dewey puts it and it's transaction dependent, research should always keep in mind that just because something works for the majority or norm, doesn't mean it is effective or even the right approach to education. Education, in my opinion, needs to be framed but flexible, concrete but adaptable, disciplined but with room for experiment (and even failure). In my experience, the most profound learning experiences have come from these loose-framework models that provided outcome objectives but with flexibility in content and delivery to get to that point.
Education (and research) isn't a straight-line (most-efficient) path of least resistance from Point A (content) instruction to Point B (understanding) user that can lead to the ultimate perfect method of learning. It is more of a "here is Point A" and the goal is to "get to Point B" so let's try some different paths to get you there. In this context, if the deliverer of the message is qualified and motivated, the material is clear and understandable, and the recipient is engaged and willing... then learning occurs. I hope that rambling made sense, a little off topic but on-topic at the same time.
Hi!Preeti here, • This chapter is titled as “From experience to knowledge” and it explains the main components of Dewey’s ‘Theory of Knowledge’. In terms of the nature of knowledge, it suggests that: • The concept of experience remained as the central notion of Dewey’s philosophy. • Dewey as the pioneer of ‘Transactional approach’ characterized knowing as the mode of experience that supports action. • He also emphasized on the prominence of the relationship between our actions and their consequences with reference to the dimension of time. This suggests that the concept of knowledge is temporal. • According to him, knowing consists of operations that give experienced objects a form in which relations, upon which the onward course of events depends, are securely experienced. • He also claimed that it is the combination of reflection and action that leads to knowledge. • As he stated, “In knowledge causes become means and effects become consequences and thereby things having meaning” • Thus, in other words, knowledge is dynamic in nature as it is characterized by its temporal development. It is a result of a reflective transformation of experience. Our action takes the form of a transformation and it is a crucial constituent of knowledge. For educational research, this implies that: • Since knowing or acquisition of knowledge is a dynamic form of action, combined with the reflection of previous experience related to the dynamic and self-evolving reality, it highlights the need to take in to account the change and the evolution that takes place over a period of time. • Thus, researchers has to navigate their educational research in such a way that would consider the dynamic nature of knowledge and along with it, would further incorporate ‘experiential components’ as an essential part in their research.
10 comments:
Hi, everyone. Cat here. As I understand it – in transactionalism, there is no absolute knowledge. Knowledge has a temporal, rather than static quality that comes from its relationship to action. While I don't want to equate “action” with “happening” – because I think they are used differently here – there is dynamism in the word “happening” that gives “knowledge” a little of its temporal flavor.
Regarding the implications for research - - well, the very idea of knowledge as “not absolute” should surely humble the researcher. But more importantly, the idea that theory does not occupy a privileged status means there is a freeing up of the tension between theory and practice that is well suited for educational research. (I feel like I’m repeating myself from last week - - sorry about that.) If the researcher accepts the idea that theory and research inform one another, this may engender an equally "co-dependent" relationship between subject and object. (For some reason I’m reminded of the comment another first-year doc student said a few weeks ago: “I’m not interested in doing research on people. I prefer to do research with people” – or something that effect). The very moment we develop a line of inquiry (“The Effect of Blah on Blah Blah”) we have already begun to name the reality we’re professing to investigate, at least in some measure.
Apologies for the short-ish post this week. I wanted to say something about Niels Bohr (don’t we all?), and I just loved the bit about the Zölner lines (see p. 42) because it reminded me of something I heard an NCTM conference last year: “There are no misconceptions. Just conceptions.” What do you think of that?!!
Rachel Regal
Knowledge requires action and is temporally-located. It is constructed in transactions between the person and objects in a multidirectional fashion. Reality can look different to different people and still be their reality, depending on what habits or history the person brings to that particular moment and environment. Knowledge can also come in multiple modes, so it is not just mental operations or labeling objects in reality. It also does not have to be conscious; it can build in our muscles.
I was really intrigued by the implications of knowledge as being both action and communally built. This reminds me of participatory action research, in which researchers join with community groups to identify what needs they have and conduct research together to serve the community best. I also wonder if qualitative research lends itself more to a pragmatic viewpoint as it is literally a co-construction of knowledge in which both parties are changed through the process and what the participants identify as “real” is taken as real. For educational research I feel like pragmatism lends itself to social contexts where there is a lot of “transactions” or activity between the environment (say like building blocks or history books) and the people (say classmates and teachers). Pragmatist approaches would probably especially strive to perceive the context and dynamics that make up a learning environment. I also feel like including modes of knowing is important when viewing education as growth and self-actualization, which occurs in domains outside of the traditional classroom.
Dana Brookover- The nature of knowledge is a mode of experience that supports actions and consequences. Knowledge is about reflection and action. The difference between experience and knowledge is in happening. Knowledge is not concerned with the "as is" of experience, but is concerned with conditions and consequences; so, it IS concerned with relations, NOT with reality "as such". Knowing is a process of inquiry that should shape our concept of being, not vice versa.
For educational research, the most important mode is the cognitive mode. We need systematic inspection of the situation. We should I.D. and state the problem, and find meaning of the situation. It is the combination of reflection and action that leads to knowledge. This leads to a need for empirical research in educational research.
If knowledge has to do with inference, there is a possibility of a mistake, which leads to truth and falsity. But, this is if you look for "meaning" of an experience- instead if you take immediate experience simply as what it is, then you don't bother with truth. This point is very interesting to me. I think I need more explanation/discussion of it in class. Is there some common ground between experiencing things as they are and deriving meaning?
I like Rachel's explanation of qualitative research as showcasing the ideas of both parties being changed in the process/ impacting the process and what the participants saying. I also like Cat's sentiment on doing research "with" people, not "on" people. It is definitely helpful to read my classmate's responses to the blog posts.
"Dewey put an end to the idea that it is only through knowledge that we can obtain a hold on reality"(p. 43). This is perhaps a very important point for the educational researcher. If we try to empirically study the reality of whatever research question or group, without accounting for experience, our research is meaningless. What that research suggests about the educational experience of the individuals studied may contradict other experienced realities, but nevertheless it remains the reality for those individuals. Regardless of how far that experience varies from the 'truth' or how illusory the experience is, the experience is always real. Only through action does the experience move toward knowledge, and this knowledge is always dynamic and temporal. "In that case it is our old conceptions of knowledge as a (static) picture of a (static) reality that simply has to go" (p. 53).
Yingying
Dewey’s view on knowledge builds in the frame of his naturalistic transnationalism, which he again emphasized on “process” and “transaction between organism and environment”. It is quite interesting to think about his idea of knowing as one mode of experience supports action. I was wondering if that’s the reason not all experience is a kind of knowing since “action” and “consequences” are not the way of knowing?
As Dewey’s view of knowledge is about reflection and action, it is very important for educational researchers to account “practice/action” into researches. And educational practitioner to “control” (as the ability to direct action) the knowledge to reflex back to researches, which goes back to what I discussed about last week- “that knowledge emerges from an action and feeds back into action”.
It is also interesting to apply his idea into real classrooms. Interaction with a textbook or one instructor is clearly not the best way of “transaction”, after all, education (schooling) is something we want to show different paths, possibilities for students.
Yingying
typo at the end of the first paragraph
...not the only way of knowing.
Erin Hanley
The different modes of experience in this chapter were exceptionally interesting. I do not think I had realized the different possible ways to classify experiences of mine, or taken note of the different kinds of knowledge those experiences provided me as a result.
I may not be the only one who feels society overemphasizes certain modes of experience over others; the field of education, understandably, seems to heavily emphasize the mode of knowledge (p. 29). It is this mode of experience that helps determine possible courses of action, so by no means do I intend to diminish its importance. There is a huge emphasis on testing - formative assessments, standardized tests, entrance exams - and huge implications for both students and educators when these are being assessed and analyzed. I wonder if future educational research will continue this trend - almost obsession - with testing and knowledge. The practical, ethical, aesthetic, and religious modes seem just as interesting, and just as informative in providing information about how we experience and understand the world (p. 29). It would be nice to see other modes of experience explored more deeply through research, though actionable information concerning knowledge may always triumph over the others.
Andrea Moreau
Dewey’s theory of knowledge is based on “reflection and action, and about the reflective transformation of experience understood as transactional” (pg 42). Dewey stressed that knowledge has to do with inference, also known as a reaction to something that is distant and not front and center (pg 47). When applying Dewey’s theory of knowledge in educational research, I think it is important to remember that experiences are different for every student. When we look at the U.S. as a whole, the collective experiences of our students are so different. Some have experiences of privilege and security. Other students have experiences tied to trauma, unstable living situations, and a whole host of other adverse childhood experiences. Based on Dewey’s theory, students exposure to different experiences will directly impact their knowledge base. Not that this comes as any of a surprise to any of us in this classroom, we are all well versed on the effects of negative childhood experiences on the ability to learn. Relating this back to educational research, how do we as practitioners take into consideration our student’s experiences and its implications for knowledge when constructing educational research?
I certainly don’t have the answer to this question, and I wonder if anyone really does. My struggle with pragmatism and Dewey is how do we capture knowledge or research on the population we are investigating when every student has different life experiences and experiences contribute to knowledge. How can we every measure educational knowledge?
Brad here... Dewey speaks on learning as a natural process. As opposed to a replicable science, learning is experiential in nature. The learning experience is transaction dependent. I think there is something profound to this idea that each person is of a different mind with a different set of unique experiences that make up their individual being, that in turn, no two learning experience can be completely alike. They can be similar, especially in the hard/applied categories of learning but, like a fingerprint, they have a touch of uniqueness to them because of the human nature/human mind.
We can try to replicate frameworks of learning, with dependent variables, such as textbooks or tests but the way in which the learning was experience for the learner is a unique experience of transaction. In research, some implications come to mind. Designing curriculum as a standardized method of delivery for material that each individual learner will comprehend IS, in fact, based on the nature of the experience (i.e. quality of instructional delivery, quality of content, mindset of the individual, etc.) I think this resonates with how each person who reads a fiction novel constructs and experiences the words on the page in a different manner. With a lot of similarities, written words can be interpreted but arguably they mean different things to different readers based on how the material was experienced. When conducting research, this is something to keep in mind in trying to study educational research as an exact science (or even a close-science). It's difficult to base future predictions off of research that has so many human/changing variables. Human behavior in general might be habitual and comfortable in nature at times (as we are a normative society) but it's difficult to predict all future behavior based on past behavior. However, we can make educated projections of possible outcomes of experience. Even then, we still don't/can't plan for the exact future. So, back to the question, what does this really mean to educational research? Since educational (not just "schooling") is experiential as Dewey puts it and it's transaction dependent, research should always keep in mind that just because something works for the majority or norm, doesn't mean it is effective or even the right approach to education. Education, in my opinion, needs to be framed but flexible, concrete but adaptable, disciplined but with room for experiment (and even failure). In my experience, the most profound learning experiences have come from these loose-framework models that provided outcome objectives but with flexibility in content and delivery to get to that point.
Education (and research) isn't a straight-line (most-efficient) path of least resistance from Point A (content) instruction to Point B (understanding) user that can lead to the ultimate perfect method of learning. It is more of a "here is Point A" and the goal is to "get to Point B" so let's try some different paths to get you there. In this context, if the deliverer of the message is qualified and motivated, the material is clear and understandable, and the recipient is engaged and willing... then learning occurs. I hope that rambling made sense, a little off topic but on-topic at the same time.
Hi!Preeti here,
• This chapter is titled as “From experience to knowledge” and it explains the main components of Dewey’s ‘Theory of Knowledge’. In terms of the nature of knowledge, it suggests that:
• The concept of experience remained as the central notion of Dewey’s philosophy.
• Dewey as the pioneer of ‘Transactional approach’ characterized knowing as the mode of experience that supports action.
• He also emphasized on the prominence of the relationship between our actions and their consequences with reference to the dimension of time. This suggests that the concept of knowledge is temporal.
• According to him, knowing consists of operations that give experienced objects a form in which relations, upon which the onward course of events depends, are securely experienced.
• He also claimed that it is the combination of reflection and action that leads to knowledge.
• As he stated, “In knowledge causes become means and effects become consequences and thereby things having meaning”
• Thus, in other words, knowledge is dynamic in nature as it is characterized by its temporal development. It is a result of a reflective transformation of experience. Our action takes the form of a transformation and it is a crucial constituent of knowledge.
For educational research, this implies that:
• Since knowing or acquisition of knowledge is a dynamic form of action, combined with the reflection of previous experience related to the dynamic and self-evolving reality, it highlights the need to take in to account the change and the evolution that takes place over a period of time.
• Thus, researchers has to navigate their educational research in such a way that would consider the dynamic nature of knowledge and along with it, would further incorporate ‘experiential components’ as an essential part in their research.
Post a Comment