June 4…Biesta and Burbules (Knowledge and Experience)
What does this chapter suggest about the nature of knowledge?
What are some implications for educational research?
June 6…Biesta and Burbules (On Inquiry)
Discuss whether the authors’ depiction of inquiry jibes with your understandings of how social science research works.
The use of the term “transaction” throughout the chapter (and as mentioned in class from this past Wednesday) suggests that the nature of knowledge, while fluid and everchanging, continues to exist as a commodity in some form. Knowledge continues to find relevance and applicability in value-based exchanges with each interaction holding a variety of purposes, some strictly functional and others more ethereal. The implications of these notions for educational research stands in determining the role, position, and need for both perfunctory and assiduous capacities.
ReplyDeleteDewey’s version of Pragmatism situates knowledge as “intimately and necessarily connected” with action. That in order to “get knowledge” we need action tempered with meaningful reflection. It is how we coordinate our transactions with our environment (experience) that knowledge “happens” and we become conscious of our knowing. Of particular note is Dewey’s insistence on the temporality of experience and reality. That our knowing itself is qualified by the nature of reality as subjective, dynamic, and ever-evolving. “The world as we experience it is the real world” indicates that there must be many “reals”. I’m very much interested in how the implications of Dewey’s philosophy, and its central position in educational research, intersect with our (relatively new) consideration of identity politics in education. In other words, how does educational research adapt its practice to a community of educators and learners that is so diverse in terms of experience, (experience which through Dewey’s lens culminates in myriad forms of knowledge and being)?
ReplyDeleteThe question seems to be deeply connected to our class discussions regarding methodologies (qualitative vs. quantitative), generalizable vs. non-generalizable research outcomes, and the broader purpose of Schools of Education in general. Dewey posited that the relationship between the individual and his or her environment has to be based on a kind of mutual transaction (the environment changes us, just as we change it). And his commitment to a “democratic” philosophy indicates that he sought an outcome that was socially equitable. But our environment isn’t simply Nature writ large, it is an environment governed by social, political, and economic structures. In what ways are we able to reconcile these complexities as we pursue research that is inclusive, purposeful, useful, but also mindful of the disparities inherent in the structures that impact educational experiences?
Dewey challenges the classical dualistic take on knowing as the sense-making process of the internal mind on the external world. He redefined knowing as an inseparable, ongoing and never-ending transaction between mind and nature. Knowledge is therefore not simply generated from a discrete one-way world-to-mind causation, but is an ever-evolving coordination of our mind and environment that mutually influence and change each other continuously.
ReplyDeleteConsidering knowledge as a dynamic and circular relationship between our actions and the consequences of our actions, Dewey contends that knowledge does not concern immutable realities. Therefore, from his point of view, an educational research should steer away from the pure pursuit of an ultimate truth, as such goal is unrealistic and unattainable. For instance, a research aiming to determine the best practice in teaching, will never find the correct answer it seeks for. Instead, an educational research should uphold pragmatic purposes, as knowledge is fundamentally involved with the consequences of our actions.
As far as the nature of knowledge is concerned, I was drawn to the Dewey’s idea that “knowing is one mode of experience” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 29). To be frank, I’m not positive I completely understand this line of thinking. I believe it implies that other modes of experience may not materialize in knowledge. I’d love to hear what you all think.
ReplyDeleteThe authors go on to express that Dewey’s theory solidifies knowledge as having “to do with the relationship between our actions and their consequences” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 30). This seems a more accessible concept for me. Knowing what causes may result from particular actions seems clear enough. Furthermore, this idea of applying “continuous readjustment” seems in line with the idea of constantly learning/adapting to particular outcomes as they materialize (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 32).
As it relates to educational research, one important aspect of Dewey’s notion of habit has to do with the idea that “the same environmental conditions will not necessarily evoke the same ‘response’ in different organisms” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 36). This directly connects to issues of generalizability. If, according to Dewey, different organisms may react differently, this reveals that any conclusions regarding particular interventions must carefully consider how different organisms may or may not react in a particular manner. Interventions that work in one classroom may fail with different students. I think what Dewey acknowledges through this claim is that educational research is precarious because interventions rarely occur in static, stable environments. If we attempt to remain too rigid or too broad with our claims, educational research misses the mark.
I was particularly inspired by Dewey’s ideas regarding the purpose of inquiry: that the efforts “result in more diverse ways of action, reflection, and understanding” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 38). This implies that there is not a singular solution, and that rarely will a solution be long-lasting; instead, Dewey encourages various approaches, a trial and error that allows for mistakes and encourages adaptability.
Hi, Christy! I echo your thoughts on the multidimensional living of experiences that manifests beyond the category of knowledge. It leads me to consider that Dewey's statement may refer to how experience and knowledge possess a risk to remain static for some rather than inciting tangential, interlaced, or deepened growth and understanding. Perhaps knowledge as a singular experience hints at the monoculture and limitations of what we bring forth as evidence and results in research findings, which references your notable emphasis on adaptability and error within inquiry.
DeleteAt one point in my undergraduate career, I lived in a house with musicians, poets, artists and the ever-so-unpopular Immanuel Kant scholar. His way of getting out of cleaning was to offer that what our senses offered was not a true understanding of reality, and therefore we were unable to understand the reality of the house. I hated him on a weekly basis for this...and now he returns. I feel that my older self should go back and offer that Kant is not recognizing the duality of knowledge and that the interaction with the house would offer additional knowledge of the house, leading to a deeper connection with our shared reality. Our having a common experience of cleaning will shape our perception of what “clean” is, or might/might not be, amongst our group (read society), and will allow us to intelligently direct our actions in the future. Or at least I think that is what I might say.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a question for Dewey, as related to educational research, is why do we still maintain separate, subject-based learning environments? I could go into a discussion of project-based learning research v. practice, but that seems too obvious. I am wondering if Dewey would also be interested in how much attention is paid to pre-service teachers learning more about action based research that is authentic to their future daily work lives. Would the next step be to that schools carry through this thought line to offer extensive professional development on reflecting on the actual data collected with their actual students. But key to this is to not attempt to generalize to other schools. Actually, would he like today's educational research at all, with all its access-fee journals, membership-based conferences, and emphasis on generalizing data?
Wait...as I read that last sentence, I would say he would like educational research because of its effort to reflect on lived experiences. I think he might take issue with the last on the list, and potentially the mechanisms for creating barriers to access.
DeleteIn the chapter “From Experience to Knowledge,” the authors (Biesta & Burbules, 2003) talk about Dewey’s approach to knowledge is centered around the ideas of “transaction” and “naturalism” (p. 511). Dewey has a philosophy of action. From his perspective, humans are seen as “living organisms” (p. 527) that interact with their environment, and based on their actions they suffer some consequences. The authors highlight that what make humans different from other living organisms, is that humans are influenced by culture and “intercommunication” (p. 546) and most importantly language.
ReplyDeleteI connect Dewey’s argument about reality being “dynamic and self-evolving” (p. 999) with doing educational research that takes into account the moving parts of reality. It is not static. It is a “process of inquiry that should shape our concept of being, and not vice versa” (p. 1028). This approach acknowledges the different experiences of different humans. When I think about other perspectives, I have to also wonder how close is constructivism to pragmatism?
- Vivian
Submitted by Jacqueline
ReplyDeleteKnowledge according to Dewey connected with action. Actions lead to discovery of the conditions and consequences which become experiences. Experience is the transaction between living organisms and their environment. These transactions connect the organism or human to reality. Human experience unlike that of other organisms is link to culture the basis of which is language which consists of rituals, ceremonies, monuments, art, and technology. Five modes of experience: practical, ethical, aesthetic, religious, knowing (supports action; relationship between action and consequences), and cognitive (used for research). A shift from observation of the aesthetic to control of one’s world by introducing changes to alter events leads to learning.
Dewey explanation of knowledge indicates that the mind is not separate and is intimately involved in experiencing the environment. Each experience create foundations for the next experience. From these interactions knowledge is gained. Since no one can have the exact same interactions, knowledge attainment is different for each individual.
Because knowledge is constructed through a human organism’s action with his or her environment, the same “thing” may be experienced and incorporated as knowledge in a different way when experienced by different individuals, there is no one way to conduct scientific research in the field of education. Educational research will always require the need to be adaptive to situations because of the vast experiences brought to the classroom by students who have experienced ways of knowing through their actions in the own varied environments. For each student numbered in the classroom, their experience of the concept of “cat” are all different. Scientific research usually leads to or supports one way of experiencing and knowing therefore this one prescription can not adequately of effectively be applied to all the children in the class. The use of pure science in educational research becomes limited in its ability to be generalized to any classroom. The best response to this limitation is not to do away with scientific research but to train teachers in the scientific method so they are able to conducted research meaningful to their specific students and setting. Seemingly, the best approach to educational research is action research and participatory research.
PART I (from Jen)
ReplyDeleteI realize that my frustration yesterday was from my wrestling with Dewey because it was in conflict with what I had previously learned about his ideas. I could not draw a line between the prior knowledge and last night, and therefore thought I was completely in a fog during the discussion yesterday. I awoke around 2AM and figured Dewey would put me back to sleep. I returned to Chapter 2 and having had a new life experience, I read the chapter anew. Here is what I offer:
Last night, my daughter (almost 4 years old) took out a plastic, child-sized chair to stand on to turn on a light in her room. I immediately rushed over to get her down and explained that she could fall. She retorted that she didn't fall and the chair didn't break. In the moment, my reflex was to reiterate the issue of not using it as a step stool and then removed it from her room. A little later, she asked for a snack which she knows is in an upper cabinet of the kitchen. I told her no and she then walked out of the kitchen in dismay. Less than 5 minutes later, she had hauled in a foam chair to step onto to get to the cabinet. Frustrated that we had just discussed not using chairs as step stools, I removed that one as well. She continued to explain that she didn't fall and the chair didn't break.
At 2AM, I realized that this situation had a deeper layer in connection with Dewey. Not too long ago, the plastic chair was something that existed without "meaning" for her, as it was not something she interacted with (because she was unable to do anything beyond bump into it while crawling). At that time, it was a surface. Later, she began walking and realized she could move it. The chair was then stabilizer as she walked with it, and it could be positioned by her. As she moved into a room with tables and chairs at daycare, it transitioned to mean a place to sit, but was connected to a table (and food). She then would push her plastic chair into her plastic table at home, sitting at it for snack only. She also saw that we sat at bigger chairs and wanted a place at the big table too. She did not want a highchair, but was okay with a booster in the big chair. Moving to the next room at daycare, she could use puzzles and toys at the table sitting in a chair, and could ALSO move the chair to the carpet for reading time (when granted permission by the teacher). At home, this same idea was mirrored. Last night, and thinking through Chapter 2, she must have considered an alternative use for the chair in her mind and imagined the chair "symbol". Acting on this imagined possibility, she stood on it and was able to reach the light switch as she imagined...until interrupted by me. My intervention with my own set of experiences about chairs (breaking my arm falling from one I used as a stool) caused me to react swiftly. She had no context for my assertions, as SHE had not fallen, nor did the chair break. This was why she tried at again in the kitchen, but with a different type of chair. Her experience with my reaction was connected to the plastic-chair, not the foam one. This stimulus-response in my mind was different than in hers, as well as the meaning of chair. Moreover, my experiences had formed habits - a standing aversion. Additionally, she did not have this habit because she had not fallen, I had. Her argument that she and the chair were unhurt solidified her reality of how the chair could be used to stand on. Finally, my impulse to react was not a maternal instinct, but rather the result of my habits having become my knowing of the chair's possible meanings (that of functional furniture and as an unstable surface).
PART II (from Jen)
ReplyDeleteOur realities were at odds and our communication broke down because we could not perceive each other's understanding of the chair in relation to the possibilities of its meanings for each of us.
Today, and based on my inferences of the experience, I am purchasing a step stool. My choice is based on what I hope is an intelligent reaction to the stimulus of seeing her do this. BUT, it is also formed because of Chapter 2, my having broke my arm, and my discussion with Jacqueline about kids and ovens. My hope is to provide her with the information that will inform her future choices when she wants to elevate herself; to have her predict and then choose which would be better to stand on by way of testing them (safely) with me. I also realize that this will not stop her from perceiving other surfaces as step stools (which is constant), but the knowledge gained from this experiment will serve as the action to move her toward intelligent action/habits.
I am also highly aware that she may not fall off the chair and may continue to "know" that the chair can be stood on without falling. She is correct. That stimulus has not occurred for her, so the fear is not present. Her meaning is not the same as my own. BUT, my ability now to see not only the temporal nature of her (our) "knowing", which can shift because of new stimulus and does not occur without action nor in a lockstep sequence with a potential start or end point, helped me draw back the scope and apply Dewey differently.
I know this was long, but I needed to test this with our group to see what you think.