Hi Everyone
I can't remember whether I have mentioned this quote before on this list but
I'll repeat it anyway (as I like it) :-)
It is Dewey, in Experience and Nature (2nd edition pages 62-63) when he is
speaking about structure (here equivalent to a notion of theory or model).
The message (I think) is that when looking to understand experience one must
remain within experience, not seek an understanding that somehow stands
outside of experience. Another message is that "structure" is not always a
dirty word. It depends on what you mean by structure (or theory, or model,
etc.).
Dewey:
The fact is that all structure is structure of something; anything defined
as structure is a character of events, not something intrinsic and per se. A
set of traits is called structure, because of its limiting function in
relation to other traits of events. A house has structure; in comparison
with the disintegration and collapse that would occur without its presence,
this structure is fixed. Yet it is not something external to which the
changes involved in building and using the house have to submit. It is
rather an arrangement of changing events such that properties which change
slowly, limit and direct a series of quick changes and give them an order
which they do not otherwise posses. Structure is constancy of means, of
things used for consequences, not things taken by themselves or absolutely.
Structure is what makes construction possible and cannot be discovered or
defined except in some realized construction, construction being, of course,
an evident order of changes. The isolation of structure from the changes
whose stable ordering it is, renders it mysterious something that is
metaphysical in the popular sense of the word, a kind of ghostly queerness.
Cheers
John Quay
On 6/9/10 8:13 AM, "Robyn Zink" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi to Everyone
> I'm very much enjoying the sorts of things people are touching on in
> this discussion.
> There are lots of different sorts of learning expereinces to be had in
> outdoor and experiential education. I like Tara Fenwick's (2001)
> summary that generally we presume learners to be independent and
> cognitively reflect on concrete experience to construct new
> understanding (certainly a model that fits easily into the neo-liberal
> complex of producing 'rational' economic decisions makers involved in
> an entreprenuial project of the autonomous consumer).
> Any model - linear, holistic, or maze like, harbours assumptions about
> learners and the way in which learning occurs. Maybe one of the
> questions we need to ask is around how we construct learners and
> learning in outdoor and experiential education - given that the
> learning expereinces are so varied and for a whole range of different
> purposes I would think that we would think about learners in a range
> of ways. The learning that occurs when we teach a specific skill like
> navigation might / or might not be quite different from the learning
> that occurs when the focus is on community building, for example.
> I like Roger's comment about what happens beyond the individual - how
> do the relationships with others (both human and non-human) shape our
> learning expereinces and our understanding of ourselves and of those
> others. I think much of our research focus has been on the independent
> learner and on what we (as researchers and educators) deem as to be
> the learning points (e.g. the activities - or the bits we think we
> influence in the programme) - in talking to students about what they
> think will stay with them from their experiences it often seems to be
> the bits inbetween - the sorts of relationships they develop with each
> other and with staff and where they can shape the 'culture' of the
> group.
>
> I'm not ready to give up on models - they can be a useful place to
> begin to think about what is going on - even if they can only do this
> in a very shadowy form - but as Jason argues so clearly in his work -
> we need to know the history of models we use to understand the problem
> they were initailly deployed to think about - as Foucault reminds us -
> once a model or theory becomes disconnected from the original problem
> is when it can become dogmatic and a discplinary or normalising
> process rather than a useful tool to understand or think differently.
> Likewise with theory - my favourite definition of theory is "thinking
> hard about something" (Bennington) - I don't find theory that gives me
> an 'answer' very useful - good theory should prompt us to ask new or
> different questions (Elizabeth Grosz) - and as Dewey says 'thinking is
> an expereince'
>
> Robyn Zink
>
> Quoting "Bill Krouwel" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Hello Outres
>>
>> My halfpenn'orth...
>>
>> Sam's comments strike a chord with me - and reminds me a little of
>> Gary Thomas's ideas. Thomas makes a powerful case against theory,
>> characterising it (or at least its use in the educational world of
>> which, I guess, outdoor educators are a part) as being something of
>> a straitjacket, constricting our learning to that which fits theory,
>> and making, for example, masters' students subordinate their
>> reflection to a clearly stated theoretical basis - thus forcing
>> their often strikingly original thought processes into prescribed
>> theoretical paths.
>>
>> In the same way, perhaps models are like that, too - constricting
>> rather than explaining. In my experience they don't work very well
>> if we try to force the round pegs of people's actual experience into
>> the possibly-quite-square holes of the models. I agree with Karel -
>> models are helpful if they chime with the lived experience of
>> participants. If not, best leave alone...
>>
>> ... I note Chris' raising of the issue of narrative, and note that,
>> as time goes by, I find Bruner's thoughts on narrative to be rather
>> more helpful in considering peoples' unique learning journeys than
>> most models, no matter how holistic or non-linear they may be...
>>
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Bill Krouwel
>> -----
>> From: Roger Greenaway
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 4:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: the future of linear process models in outdoor learning
>>
>>
>> Hi outres,
>>
>> Thanks for some thought provoking replies - that make me even more
>> interested in pursuing this line of questioning.
>>
>> It is not really about creating a new model - although it is
>> arguable that criticising a model is a creative act (much like the
>> demolition company with the strapline 'creating new horizons' - that
>> made me smile on a long motorway journey).
>>
>> On trying to find more about the maze model here was an
>> interesting find that makes a link between the maze and learning:
>> Moving through the maze is nothing more than learning (feeding
>> from the Tree of Knowledge, hunting for the Grail), which has its
>> share of dead ends, suffering, cul-de-sacs, etc. At the center of
>> the maze, then, is the Tree of Life (divine wisdom) but only if the
>> initiate asks the right question. Otherwise the suffering reaches a
>> crisis point that slays the participant.
>> http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0091.html
>> It may not be the kind of maze you had in mind Patrick, but I am
>> sure there is scope (especially in outdoor education) for using a
>> model that draws attention to what is outside the learner as the
>> learner makes a journey through an environment. Despite the
>> complexity of a good maze, the puzzle or mission is usually quite
>> simple - with route choice being right or wrong with nothing in
>> between. So a maze seems like a fitting model for some very
>> specialised kinds of learning journey, but I can't see how it would
>> have a general application.
>>
>> Thanks Jayson for reminding me of Tara Fenwick's work. I was lucky
>> enough to attend a lecture of hers a couple of years ago. I remember
>> being very impressed and clapping loudly, but I did not follow Tony
>> Buzan's advice of revisiting my notes at specific intervals, and
>> there are very few details left in my long term memory. (I will take
>> an overdue look!)
>>
>> If people create a visual model to go with their ideas I find they
>> tend to stick a bit better. James' slide presentation, for example,
>> includes Kolb's cycle, Colin Beard's colourful combination lock,
>> Andy Martin's colourful dramaturgy wave. On noticing that several
>> PhD theses involved the creation of a model, I asked my research
>> supervisor if model-making was obligatory for a PhD and I was
>> reassured it wasn't - so I didn't make one.
>>
>> I wonder if there is more wisdom in messy
>> 'difficult-to-model-easy-to-forget' processes than there is in
>> processes that are easy to model and difficult to forget?
>>
>> Perhaps it is because linear processes are so easy to model that
>> they seem to have a habit of outliving their usefulness and of being
>> given more credibility and usage than they actually deserve.
>> Longevity of ideas seems to depend more on whether they can be
>> conveniently packaged into a simple formula, than on whether the
>> package is a credible representation of the process it claims to
>> describe.
>>
>> So, Jay, I am not trying to create another imperfect model. My
>> thoughts are closer to Sam's comment 'Throw it away' if it doesn't
>> work
>>
>> So is it time to throw away linear process models in outdoor
>> learning - and throw away a few well-used slides and handouts?
>>
>> Roger
>>
>> Roger Greenaway
>> Reviewing Skills Training
>> < http://reviewing.co.uk>
>>
--
John Quay
Lecturer
Melbourne Graduate School of Education
The University of Melbourne
VIC, 3010, Australia
T: +61 3 8344 8533 / M: 0438 048 955 / F: +61 3 8344 8515
E: [log in to unmask]
http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/profile/John.Quay
www.education.unimelb.edu.au
CRICO Provider code 00116K
|
