Dear Philippa, Linda, and Terence and everyone else,
Thanks for your contributions yesterday.
I'll try and respond as best as I can, although I feel with Terence's
post that I might get into deep water.
Anyway...
Philippa you wrote 18 feb 2003: ( the full post is at the end of this
mail, as I don't think it has been on the Ph.D-Design list)
In this debate so far, no one has mentioned the role of theory
or conceptualisation in the transforming process. The transformation of
experience into theory/knowledge is a major feature of the experiential
learning cycle. David Kolb springs to mind here...
"'The simple perception of experience is not sufficient for learning;
something must be done with it. Similarly, transformation alone cannot
represent learning, there must be something to be transformed, some
state or experience which is being acted upon."
(Kolb 1984:42)
... Clearly, transformative learning can not just be about experience
and
trial and error, but involves reflection and importantly, understanding
something and constructing and using theory.
-----------------
And Linda you wrote 18 feb 2003
...This is also known as a constitutional perspective or even
relational research. So, from this
perpective, transformative learning is not a chain of causal processes,
or
even an 'aha' moment, but an analysis of individuals' awareness of the
learning in which they are engaged. Essentially then, transformative
learning is an element of the learner's awareness, there is change in
the
learner's way of seeing, experiencing, handling and understanding of
aspects
of the world...
-----------------
Initially when I first read your mail Philippa, I couldn't help but
feel that the notion of the transformation of experience into knowledge
is not necessarily the core issue of what transformative learning is
about.
I think maybe the conscious generation of concepts and knowledge comes
after the event as it were. Not necessarily as an "aha" moment, but as
you rightly point out in the process of reflection as to what has taken
place.
I can see that we could very quickly get into the reflection in action
/ reflection on action proposal of Donald Schön. (Schön 1987). But yes
knowledge is both generated and realigned. One tackles the unknown with
the known, which seems to then produce new knowledge and realign the
existing. But I think it is the psychological and emotional
transformation within the individual that comes first, and this then
allows for the generation of new knowledge and the realigning of the
existing cognitive network. see the quote from Demasio below.
I find Linda's description of "a change in the learner's way of seeing,
experiencing ... etc" a little easier to get hold of, because my
understanding of the students that I have been in contact with, seems
to confirm this.
I can't help feeling that there is some kind of realignment of their
knowledge and appreciation of how to tackle a design task, or the small
piece that they are dealing with at the moment.
For me, knowledge is intimately linked to experience in the world and
of the world and in particular the context that the students are in,
both physical and personal. They have their own "community of practice"
(Wenger 1998) and own understanding of what design learning entails.
This understanding of knowledge, experience, learning, context and
sense of self, has to sometimes and somehow be shifted into another
dimension, when either of these factors proves to be inadequate.
Philippa, you mention "apprehension which is almost unconscious and
involves our sensations and feelings - kind of 'what happens if I try
this' - experimentation without insight, trial and error etc".
This doesn't, I think, really account for the trepidation or more
mildly, apprehension, that the students experience when faced with a
task that is very focused and where they are also going to experiment
with the new insight that they have achieved after a transformative
leap. "Can I do this again"? " What am I going to feel"? Can I deal
with the changes in myself"?
On the reverse side of the coin, it is a strange fact that
psychologically, the role of negative identity is a powerful factor in
inhibiting people's wish to allow themselves to change. It seems,
almost perversely, easier for some, to live with the negative and
unproductive effects of a way of living or dealing with one's life,
rather than assimilate a new appreciation of oneself, both in relation
to oneself and those around one.
One aspect of this question regarding transformative learning is that
of meaning or of working with meaning. And linked to that, the question
of motivation or to be more precise intrinsic motivation. A key feature
of experience, is that of meaning and the meaning of experience depends
on the interpretation process. Understanding this process, brings in
the self. Who are we when looking at "experience".
Design tasks are characterised by the interplay of extrinsic demands
and intrinsic motivation, on the part of those involved. I find that
once the students understand this interplay and do not have to feel
that they are "selling out" on their creativity or sense of innovation,
they are then able to find a way into a design task, can identify with
it and find meaning in that task. Their ability to then act, reflect
and act again, does give them this changed sense of self and their
resultant appreciation of the world around them.
I often present the students with idea of a design task as a process of
negotiation of meaning. That whatever they do plays a significant part
in changing this understanding and that the artifacts they produce
reflect this understanding.
Either for themselves or for those others involved in a collaborative
design process.
---------------
Terence you noted in your post that I asked the "how" of transformative
learning. I honestly don't know if one can describe exactly "how" this
happens. I know I asked this question, but I didn't expect to find a
"nuts and bolts" answer. More I suppose inspiration that would at least
give me a richer understanding and ultimately enable me to tackle the
students in a more enlightened way. So that I could have the feeling of
not relying solely on my intuition.
I was really interested to read your post though and your explanation
of the two different research approaches. However there were a few
other points that caught my attention.
Thanks for your literature tips. I do know Demasio's first book and
would like to quote from Descartes Error
( Demasio 1994) p. xiii
"At their best, feelings point us in the proper direction take us to
the appropriate place in a decision making process, where we may put
the instrument of logic to good use...
Emotion and feeling, along with the covert physiological machinery
underlying them, assist us with the daunting task of predicting an
uncertain future and planning our actions accordingly".
Your post indicated through your explanation of the causal or
correlation based aspects of research, that your preference was to an
understanding of the "how" of transformative learning that could almost
be context free or predictable in some way or another.
You also indicate that the correlation based writing of amongst others
Schön and Dewey "offer little in building sound explanatory theory". I
couldn't help feel that on the other hand they have been very important
in inspiring a way of thinking and an attitude of mind, that has been
of inestimable importance to education.
The reason I like Demasio is because he explains very well that
feelings are a significant part of any decision making process. He
made, for me, a legitimate case for the inclusion of subjectivity and
emotion in the design making process. Something that I have always felt
strongly about, but which is provocative for those with a more
rationalist approach to design. He went a long way in indicating many
of the details of the way our bodies interact with emotion and decision
making. But I never got the feeling that he came up with the ultimate,
predictive answer.
You wrote:
"The limits of the correlatory approach to theory making are that it
doesn't have reliable predictive power except very close to situation
about which one has data."
In this respect I can't help but relate to my own experience with user
oriented design tasks and action research.
The question always arises, as to how many users are enough, in order
to get a clear picture of the task and working context etc. This
question often comes from marketing. The answer is that there is no
answer. It's dependent on the context and the task.
One is also listening to stories about the ways of others. Going out to
the users (and all types, not just the end users) isn't just about
getting local data. It is as much a question of allowing oneself to
listen to another's account of their working practice, whilst at the
same time, realigning the story of one's own, regarding the design
task, and the possible action one could take. Gadamer's "fusion of
horizons" springs to mind.
Designers are in general very good at strategy acquisition and strategy
transfer. They have to be used to re-using their experience from one
domain or task in the realm of another. The notion of having a fixed or
predictable way of dealing with a given design task, would I think
throw many a designer off balance. In other words, one has to be good
at gleaning data from one situation and then transforming that
understanding when in another situation.
Thank you all again for your input to my question.
Best regards,
Chris.
---------------
Philippa AShton wrote 18 02 03, originally to [log in to unmask]
Hi All,
In this debate so far, no one has mentioned the role of theory
or conceptualisation in the transforming process. The transformation of
experience into theory/knowledge is a major feature of the experiential
learning cycle. David Kolb springs to mind here, but I am not
necessarily a real fan of his, most of what he said in this respect is
based on his reading of Piaget. But try Kolb,D (1984) Experiential
Learning - Experience as a source of learning and development. Prentice
Hall. Bearing in mind that design learning is invariably
experiential.......
he said...
"'The simple perception of experience is not sufficient for learning;
something must be done with it. Similarly, transformation alone cannot
represent learning, there must be something to be transformed, some
state or experience which is being acted upon.
(Kolb 1984:42)
Following very much a cognitivist approach, Kolb describes how
experience can be transformed either by intention - intellectual and
introverted investigation - this requires reflection, or extension -
active, extroverted experimentation.
For transformation by extension, Kolb believes that there are two
different ways that experience can be grasped or made sense of. Firstly,
there is apprehension which is almost unconscious and involves our
sensations and feelings - kind of 'what happens if I try this' -
experimentation without insight, trial and error etc. Apprehended
experience is transient and cannot be communicated to others and it is
therefore not learning let alone transformative!
Secondly, there is our comprehension - the 'ah ha!' kind of feeling -
which is informed by an understanding of the experience and could be
described as a constructed theory or concept. Comprehended experience
can be communicated and is the basis of further experience - in other
words something has changed (transformed) which leads to new action
which would not have been possible without the new 'knowledge' which has
been created.
Clearly, transformative learning can not just be about experience and
trial and error, but involves reflection and importantly, understanding
something and constructing and using theory.
Philippa Ashton
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University
UK
-------------
from:
Chris Heape
Senior Researcher - Design Didactics / Design Practice
Mads Clausen Institute
University of Southern Denmark
Sønderborg
Denmark
http://www.mci.sdu.dk
Work:
tel: +45 6550 1671
e.mail: chris @mci.sdu.dk
|
