Hello Roger and all - Through a dialogue we seem to have expressed one
of the most ignored faces of "the adventure". That is the adventure of
the dialectic. Roger seems to express this although with no need of
using this term.
The dialectic ( good old Hegel?) does not lose "a" or "b" but it moves
as movement itself with a "c".
This is one clear tradition of experiential education ( Freire as just
one example).
I have just checked out the references and the indexes for the recent
Priest and Gass book ( 1997) and no mention of this ( or such an
adventure) is even hinted at.
This is one of my main points.
The motivating vocabularies of "adventure programming" just cannot/will
not invite and/or allow their readers to participate in this adventure.
One reason that i write here is connected with this. I wish for my
students to find an educational atmosphere and a freedom in the way that
this dialogue, for example, has been able to struggle to critically
dis-connect and yet still struggle to unite and connect again. That is
one face of "the adventure of the dialectic".
All we need now is to DO IT.
best wishes
steve bowles
Roger Greenaway wrote:
> Robert asks where we are going. Jo values opening up a new layer
> of possibility. Steve reassures us that if a de-constructive
> position is entered then no destructive scene emerges because one
> or another sense of freedom and creativity emerges.
>
> So it seems we have shifted from an old dialogue of A vs. B
> (process vs. outcome) to a win-win position in which As and Bs
> get together and celebrate C - the new layer of possibility,
> freedom and creativity.
>
> James suggests we chuck black and white (A and B, process and
> outcome) in the trash can in our struggle to understand the
> phenomenon of learning.
>
> To answer Robert, I think we happen (just now) to be exploring
> what C might be - which might conveniently stand for Creative
> approaches to doing research in this field. Maybe there are good
> examples we can already refer to? Maybe there are good examples
> in other fields of research where enquiry has moved out of A vs.
> B?
>
> I like what C promises, but it seems very much like leaving your
> troubles behind while heading off on an escapist adventure. I
> think C might be more fulfilling and rewarding if we keep A and B
> in the frame. Understanding history can help us move on. Without
> such understanding we will simply have As and Bs all dressing up
> as Cs with little change except the clothes.
>
> I enjoyed the C-thinking in your message James:
> ''Process evaporates at every instant into outcome - but what is
> outcome? It is dead unless it lives on into the next instant as
> part of new process. Process and outcome are married partners,
> snakes on the head of Medusa, push-me-pull-mes from Dr. DoLittle,
> a defining tension, or a simplistic human construction as we
> struggle to understand the phenomenon of learning.''
>
> But if we are trying to ''understand the phenomenon of learning''
> this seems to call for phenomenological enquiry which I have
> (until now, at least) associated with qualitative research about
> processes. I admit that I have a lot of unsticking to do before I
> can enter the inviting world of C that promises to be creative
> and constructive.
>
> James, you ask: ''We go on an OE trip, plug ourselves into some
> experience, and come back. What has happened?'' 'Plug' is not a
> metaphor I would choose. I don't see experience as something 'out
> there' that comes in through a plug and a wire. Human minds are
> NOT small and simple. Our minds are active players in what we
> experience. I associate the plug metaphor with the traditional
> didactic education image of the jug filling the mug with facts.
> The plug metaphor seems to be about filling the mug with
> experience.
>
> But we do all seem to be heading in a new and interesting
> direction, even if we are leaving a bit of a mess in our wake.
>
> Roger Greenaway
> Reviewing Skills Training
> [log in to unmask]
> http://reviewing.co.uk
|