From: Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: BERA Practitioner-Researcher
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What are living standards of
judgement?
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:18:38 +1100
Excuse me while I raise my head above the poppies to let a
wild butterfly float through my mind – we found in our inquiry project that
silence and stillness were also powerful entities in which to swim, float, sink
and rise to new awareness of the invisible holds of objectivity and mechanism,
not only in overt approaches to knowing and doing, also as reflected in our
languaging, but also in our tacit patterns of thought. We found buried beneath
the fearful grip of ridicule, self interest and competitive territory that
instrumentalism (rooted in objectivity) legitimises, a love for each other and
an openness to be softly in the world, that we had forgotten, of felt to have
no place in the public world. We brought it back and with it came poetry,
companionship and a willingness to risk new ways of knowing in the presence of
each other. I completely see that language is used as a mechanism, but had
failed to see that so can epistemology, - as a tool for knowing. But
epistemology can also be a felt sense, a pattern, a relationship with knowing
in certain and distinct ways. As with your observations about language as
ontology we also saw that epistemology could also be ontology, which worried us
a bit given the rather grandiose nature of such a claim. But could it be that
the separation of epistemology from ontology is only valid if there is a hidden
root metaphore of objectivity? Knowing inalienable from being. As I know so, my
felt sense of consciously knowing “what is” becomes of me, and myself of “it”.
Energies flow, and anxiety lessens. The difficulty is to return to this sense
increasingly and in the midst of alienation and complex inter-relationships,
that we allow to trigger ourselves back to habituated/segregated behaviours and
ways of thinking. How I need practice.
Susie
On 1/11/06 3:48 PM, "sayyedmohsen fatemi"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The responses and the feedback by Jack, Alan and Susie have been so
inspiring!! Thank you!
I thought adding the
following remarks need to be established with regard to the previous preamble.
The question can be
boiled down to a more fundamental question of how we understand language. Is
language understood as an instrument, a means of delivery or, in Heidegger‚s
words, a way of being? If it is an instrument, its promotion will do nothing
but give rise to a utilitarian instrumentalisation where language is to be
reduced to, according to Ricoeur (1991), „communication at the lowest level‰ or
is used to manipulate things and people. If, on the other hand, language is a
way of being, it is a demonstration of one‚s character in that it presents
certain ways of existence, and especially ways of being in the world. The
unveiling of that with which we live is permitted by language (Heidegger).
Language education, in this case, dramatically differs from the consideration
of language as a tool since, in this sense, language education introduces new
ways of being in the world. Changes in language education, therefore, can bring
about changes in ways of being and modes of living. Language cannot be separated from the
person in whom language is crystallized. Language turns outs to be a way that
human beings encounter the world. Our being is experienced in language.
Language allows us to reveal what we live with. Thus language education, in
this sense, can offer new ways of encountering the world, and new ways of being
in the world.
Questions
that can be followed here for further reflection would be: How can
language educators allow learners to find language as a way of being and not
just as a means for communication? How can language educators allow learners to
reflectively language their immediate consciousness and experience the
creativity of their thought? How can language and languaging help the learners
explore oneself and shape their lives?
I wish you a repose
in the wild meadows of reflective imagination,
Mohsen
Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi, Ph.D.
Lecturer in Language Education, Psychology and Communication
The University of
British Columbia
Tel: 604 2224495
Emails: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
From: Susan Goff <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: BERA
Practitioner-Researcher <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What are living
standards of judgement?
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:27:18
+1100
I resonate very strongly with what Mohsen is saying here ˆ without an
understanding of ontology and epistemology we risk seeing judgements, and the
means by which we make them, incoherent with our practices, and I I discovered
in my own practice, without even knowing so.
While I respect instrumental approaches to the idea of judgement, via the use
of criteria, I also fear them for their assumptions of power over and
manipulation of, for their ability to hide and over simplify that which
constitutes such power. I am so encouraged by Mohsen‚s invitation to sense what
we do through other forms of distinction making, such as mystical forms, which
may be less about judgement and more about ripening my powers of attunement,
for example, so I can be more appreciative of that which I am experiencing
ˆ giving me greater complexity to work with, deepening my humility and
extending the depth of its origins. I also strongly agree with Mohsen‚s stance
that any orthodoxy needs to include within it a power to self interrogate, a
paradoxical heart to orthodoxy that can avoid fundamentalism of any kind,
depending on the nature of the questions, how and of whom they are asked.
Perhaps we need to always operate from an open systems frame ˆ I am
wondering is such a frame „always‰ applicable or are there times or
circumstances when we need bounded systems and static markers such as criteria
to know what we are doing?
In participatory evaluation environments I work with participants to develop
their own criteria regarding their progress with say, environmental education
projects, and it always seems that those criteria that they thought so
essential at the outset become less so as the project unfolds. They are useful
to remind people of what was thought and where things are shifting, but often
people seem to feel a bit annoyed that their progress is being weighed down by
such thoughts, they seem almost alienated from them. Much more enthusiasm is
generated when I invite people to notice their learning or shifts step by step,
creating new criteria if they need them, and if there are connections or
otherwise with the original measures, then that is something to be noted but no
more applauded than gains in an altogether unforeseen area of learning.
Susie
On 31/10/06 8:49 PM, "sayyedmohsen fatemi"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hello, all,
I very much enjoy observing the presence of a dialogical relationship that is happening
here.
I think the issue at hand can be boiled down to a question in epistemology and
a question in ontology. In other words, we need to address two significant
issues here: what ways of knowing make sense to us and what ways are
excluded?What forms of existence are we prescribing within our pedagogical
practices and what ways are we proscribing?
I give two examples to cast light on what I am propounding: Modern
Western Philosophy that has deep rooted implications for our psychological
perspectives, has since its inception, been compelled to exclude certain claims
of awareness from the domain of human knowledge, and to brand them as mere
expressions of fervor or as leaps of imagination. This was done lest the flow
of philosophical logic be disrupted and force the disintegration of primary
awareness. For instance, given that mystical experiences are characterized by a
noetic quality in the sense that they make a certain claim of awareness of the
world of reality, philosophical inquiry is compelled to ascertain the truth or
falsehood of these experiences as a possible alternate dimension of the human
intellect.
Another example
within our research and practices within language education: The question,
here, in the realm of language education is: how can language educators
introduce various modes of expression and diversified discourses if they are
already contained only in some recognized ways of presentation? How can
language educators enrich the discourse of education if they are not creatively
questioning the existing discourses? How can language educators produce and
generate numerous ways of looking at things and thinking about things if their
own mode of thinking cannot go beyond the mundane ways of looking embedded in
ordinary discourses? If the reservoir of language educators be replete with
strictly determined ways of articulation, how can their discourses be brim with
exteriorization of creative epitomes outside those deterministic ways? How can
discourse of creativity be offered if the examples and reflection of discourse
have already been entrapped by the passive tone of obedience to only prescribed
ways of saying as formulated in a certain educational system?
Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi, Ph.D.
Lecturer in Language Education, Psychology and Communication
The University of
British Columbia
Tel: 604 2224495
Emails: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
From: "Wood, Lesley (Dr) (Summerstrand Campus South)"
<[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: BERA
Practitioner-Researcher <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What are living
standards of judgement?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:42:56
+0200
>Hello all
>
>Hi all,
>
>I have been following the postings with interest from South Africa
and
>it is with some trepidation that I attempt to add my piece to your
>learned conversation! To give you some of the context, we are
>attempting to focus on values based action research in our Faculty of
>Education as a way of helping to transform our teaching and learning and
>bring it more into line with our accepted educational values. Because
>of our history, values such as democracy and social justice are somewhat
>lacking in our schools and other institutions of learning - although the
>constitution and our national curricula that are based on our
>constitution uphold the values of fairness, equality, social justice,
>non discrimination etc. in actual practice our education system is still
>unfair, with evident inequalities in terms of resource allocation and
>quality of teaching and learning delivered. Poverty and HIV and AIDS
>are taking their toll on an already embattled system, with the result
>that schools are not functioning and children are being deprived of a
>decent education (or any education at all).
>
>Even in our formerly advantaged and privileged institutions of higher
>education inequalities still exist and more importantly, in Education as
>least, curricula are still designed to prepare students for a world that
>actually no longer exists. The reality of life for most of our learners
>is that they will struggle to obtain the financial, emotional, physical
>support they need from their parents and life will be a daily struggle
>just to survive. The HIV and AIDS pandemic means that schools will have
>to reinvent themselves to become centres of support and caring, so that
>children will have a chance to have their basic needs met and then be in
>a position to engage in the learning experience.
>
>So, within such a context, we as a Faculty are trying to interrogate our
>own practices and we are using the values that the university has
>identified as a means of validating what we do. These values are:
>Transformation for Equity and Fairness:
>People-centredness
>Student Access
>Engagement
>Excellence
>Innovation
>Integrity
>
>Until we began holding up these values (and others) as living standards,
>we thought we were doing a reasonable job, but in fact there are many
>contradictions that surfaced. This exercise is a valuable staff
>development tool, but also contributes to the body of educational
>knowledge as we are creating new theory which can help to transform the
>curriculum to make it more appropriate for the transformed society we
>are hoping to create in this country.
>
>For myself, another way that I judge the quality of my work is to ask
>"Have I helped to make a difference in the practice of the teachers I
>work with". Since I work mostly with in service teachers on post
>graduate programmes, I need to know that what they are learning is
>really making a practical difference and helping them to deal with the
>challenges they face every day. My work is mostly in the area of HIV
>and AIDS in teaching. I am striving to help the teachers to "change
>their eyes" (Polanyi) so that they can perceive themselves as capable
>and able to solve their own educational problems, rather than wait for
>the DoE or their principal to do something - the evidence to support
>this is feedback from their principals that something positive is
>happening in the school, that these teachers are encouraging colleagues,
>parents and learners to work together, and that the school is starting
>to question their own values and what they want to achieve. Our
>teachers have been conditioned by their cultures to think in a certain
>way, to behave in a certain way, and it is difficult for them to break
>these cultural taboos in their prevention education for HIV, eg.
>Including sexuality education in their teaching; promoting abstinence,
>faithfulness or condom use, especially when they themselves turn a blind
>eye to their own husbands having girlfriends and refusing to wear
>condoms. If I can help them to question their cultural practices and
>beliefs and start to challenge those which promote gender inequality and
>foster the spread of HIV, then I can judge my work as being worthwhile
>and valuable.
>
>I must add that we have been tremendously encouraged by Jean McNiff in
>our work and consider ourselves to be living examples of her educational
>influence! We will continue to try and validate our work - this form of
>action research is still viewed by most academics here as not being
>"real" research, but since perseverance is one of our values, we
will
>continue and hopefully our educational influenced and our research
>outputs will speak for themselves.
>
>Kind regards to all
>
>Lesley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: BERA Practitioner-Researcher
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Sarah
>Fletcher
>Sent: 31 October 2006 12:19 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: What are living standards of judgement?
>
>Hello Jean (and Everyone),
>
>I really like the way you weigh up the value of the day in terms of
>independent thinking and 'good'.
>The standards that I aspire to seem fairly close in nature. I must
>admit I don't wake thinking Good
>I am still alive but I wake thinking Good, I can still hear. I can still
>move around and communicate!
>What can I do with this day to nurture courage to Be? How can I help
>others' and my own learning?
>
>Perhaps it's because I have been disabled since my 30s and now Meniere's
>may annihilate hearing
>in both ears before too long but there is a sense of urgency and
>pressing need not to waste time.
>Yours are clearly different criteria from those Brian has invited us to
>consider in terms of the RAE.
>Mine are too. Do you use the kind of criteria the RAE 2008 is
>constructed around in your practice?
>
>Tomorrow, I am going to spend the day with some student researchers and
>their teacher. Great!
>Will I judge the standard of our work against its 'international
>significance'? I very much doubt it.
>although in time I want to consider how I can assist in bringing it to a
>world audience and we will
>be using KEEP Toolkit templates to explore our individual ideas about
>what is this, this 'creativity'
>we recognise in 'good' teaching? By using web-based technology (we'll
>take videos and stills) we
>are preparing for sharing and inviting engagement. My criterion would be
>What good is this here?
>
>In December, I am hoping to return to Japan to work with nurse educators
>and teacher educators.
>When I think back to the presentation that Je Kan and I made in Kobe
>University's Medical
School
>the Standard of Judgement I remember vividly was How can we enable these
>nurses, doctors and
>nurse educators to create knowledge together that may bring about
>healing? Each of the groups
>of nurses, doctors and nurse educators discussed what their priorities
>were and it seemed to me
>they were astonished how similar their priorities were yet they were not
>accustomed to engaging
>in dialogue with one another. I guess that priorities could equate to
>Standards of Judgement too?
>I think this on-line discussion is crucial to growing joint
>understandings about Standards we use.
>
>While I was off-line I was undergoing several days of tests to determine
>the damage caused by the
>Meniere's. One particularly difficult test for me was when electrodes
>were glued to my eardrums.
>Left ear testing was excruciating as we hit a pain receptor and by the
>time we got to my right ear
>shall we say I felt a certain reticence?! How did I judge the practice
>of the nurse and the specialist?
>Technically the specialist was world class. His clinic in Harley Street
>is a centre of world excellence
>and I greatly appreciated his expertise. But was it the nurse who had
>researched how to heal me?
>
>While the specialist decided I was one of 20% of patients whose pain
>receptors get hit by electrode
>in this test the nurse put her hand on mine and my distress level melted
>away at her caring touch.
>Both had researched what to do with the 20% group but the fact remained
>that without her touch
>the test would not have taken place. My initial distress reaction when
>the probe was attached was
>so great that the machine didn't function. The electrical charge from my
>brain simply 'jammed' it.
>However as soon as I felt the nurse's hand on mine I relaxed and the
>specialist commented that he
>did not understand how the electrical impulse suddenly fell so
>dramatically and he could continue.
>
>Ontologically I think I can sense when I encounter standards of
>excellence in a medical encounter
>but epistemologically can I (can we?) draw out standards of judgement
>from the experience I had?
>In a debrief after tests the specialist's knowledge was
>epistemologically stronger than the nurse's.
>He could explain what the brain is doing when it generates such loud
>tinnitus it drowns hearing.
>She couldn't. He could explain the various options open to patients when
>Meniere's destroys the
>inner ear function. She couldn't. His knowledge was certainly original,
>world class and excellent.
>But in terms of practical assistance her knowledge was the 'enabler' for
>his knowledge wasn't it?
>
>How far are the Standards of Judgement for the RAE in 2008 appropriate
>for practitioner research?
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Sarah
>
>RAE 2008:
>
>4* Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance
>and rigour.
>
>3* Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality,
>significance and rigour but which
>nontheless falls short of the highest standards of excellence.
>
>2* Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality,
>significance and rigour.
>
>1* Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality,
>significance and rigour.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>NOTICE: Please note that this eMail, and the contents thereof,
>is subject to the standard NMMU eMail disclaimer which may be found at:
><http://www.nmmu.ac.za/disclaimer/email.htm>>
>
>
>
Experience Live Search <http://g.msn.com/8HMAENCA/2728??PS=47575>
from your PC or mobile device today.
Not only does Windows Live˙ OneCare˙ provide all-in-one PC
care to keep your computer protected and well-maintained, but it also makes
creating backup files a breeze. Try it today! <http://g.msn.com/8HMAENCA/2731??PS=47575>