May 30…Biesta and Burbules
Ask a question about Dewey/pragmatism. Ask another question that
the chapter provoked related educational research. Comment on someone else’s
question.
June 6…Biesta and Burbules (On Inquiry)
Discuss whether the authors’ depiction of inquiry jibes with your understandings of how social science research works.
Question on Dewey/pragmatism:
ReplyDeleteMy inquiry regarding Dewey’s pragmatism pinpoints the segment that notes, “...this does not mean that reality simply reveals itself to the organism. One of the key ideas of Dewey’s pragmatism (consistent with Peirce’s theory of meaning) is that reality only ‘reveals’ itself as a result of the activities—the ‘doings’—of the organism.” I’m curious what constitutes worthwhile “doings” as indicated here; I wonder at what age or level of experience one’s actions, behaviors, and responses ought to be considered a valid “doing” and why and also what implications must be considered or cannot be quantified or objectively examined. As a teacher, I believe that the respective realities for many of my adolescent and teenage students are simply revealed by the everpresent norms of their lives until emotional maturity and worldly curiosity/exploration nudges them to consider the presence and possibilities of other realities their conscious and intentional choices.
Question that the chapter provoked relating to educational research:
What role does fallibilism hold in not only my dissertation, but in my work as a doctoral student and as a professional? If my goal is to use my dissertation and current studies as a means to contribute to a body of applicable knowledge (and if I’m considered an expert based on time and experience in my field), then where is the line between professional expectations of mastery and transparency in the uncertainty of my work?
This is Qiao, here is my superficial take on what Dewey meant of valid “doings”.
DeleteI think that a valid “doing” is an individualized experience that is not limited by ages or can be quantified by levels. It is unique from one individual to another, and is bounded by time, context and environment. If anything can be generalized about what “doings” are considered valid, it may be that valid “doings” should contribute to the individual’s further development of knowledge. A certain “doing” may yield the construction of knowledge for one person, and therefore is valid, may be completely meaningless to another person, and therefore is invalid.
This is not to say that knowledge can only be generated from experiences, or “doings”. Knowledge can also come from observations, but constructed knowledge through experiences is perhaps more in depth in comparison to that acquired from pure observations.
Taking your example of your students, I looked back to my own teenage years. I too easily believed in realities that were “everpresent norms”. I was more susceptible to believe in realities that were simply presented to me without giving in any personal experience. My “emotional maturity and worldly curiosity/exploration” that came later in life, are results of accumulation of personal experiences, or “doings”, and the alternative realities I came to realize, often convinced me that the believes I had in my younger years were superficial or idealistic. And these cycles of doings and consequences are my life lessons which haven’t given me all the definite answers I seek for, but continue to bring me new perspectives to realities.
The individualized experience that adheres unique values, meanings, and attachments independent of age holds its own worth; I completely agree with your sentiments here. Perhaps I should clarify by noting that my concerns rest in what the general public often validates or dismisses as legitimate or worthwhile contributions due to a mix of variables that seemingly undermines an individual's input. I do very much appreciate and echo your statement about doings being bound by time, context, and environment; I wonder the degree to which these influences affect an individual's ability to shift perspective and maintain objectivity and fluidity in other circumstances. Thanks for your thoughts, Qiao! It extended my considerations on the matter.
DeleteThis is an interesting line of thought. I'm thinking about the concept of "doings" in very broad terms. Reading a short story about Mt. Everest, studying the details of its topography, or actually climbing to base camp are all "doings", but each results in a different or potentially more complex understanding of the mountain. Each of these "doings" contributes to a person's sense of reality, and I don't think one becomes more worthy than the other. In considering it this way, Dewey seems to value the utility of a particular doing. It follows that the aforementioned doings would each be worthwhile depending on context. For the novelist, reading the story might inform future prose. For the air traffic controller, topography might inform evacuation plans. For the photojournalist, the climbing might lead to an award-winning magazine cover (not to mention bragging rights!)
DeleteI also took the "doings" to be entirely unique to the individual, and solely related to the time and context in which they occur; additionally, without finality/closure - each experience begets new information and new knowledge. I also like Christy's example of multiple entry points for doings.
DeleteAs Qiao discussed, some knowledge is taken for granted or gained through misinformation, intended or not. While I can imagine a line being drawn from Dewey’s pragmatism to some of the critical theorists I have recently read, specifically the idea of foregrounding lived experiences which can then challenge entrenched ideas, which is only possible IF the emphasis is placed on transformation through lived experience and not conformity to a predetermined curriculum. This also brings to mind the idea of "undoing,” which is to reflect and replace ‘accepted’ knowledge through an exploration of whose interests are served, how the knowledge is legitimized, whose narrative is positioned (and in what light), as well as questioning what systems of power and privilege are at work. Examining these ideas with students in relation to their lived experiences, both in and out of school, is crucial. In this way, not only is reflection explored, but also resisting passive learning.
I can also imagine that critical theorists would consider the line I drew to be faint, if nonexistent. I am interested in reading more about Dewey in relation to the idea of individual transformation in relation to the larger idea of social justice.
Posted by Jacqueline
ReplyDeleteOn Dewey…
“The interaction…of organism and environment is an active, adaptive, and adjustive process in which the organism seeks to maintain a dynamic balance with its ever-changing environment” (p. 10).
“Through our constant transactions with or environment, through our continuous attempts to maintain a dynamic balance with our environment, we develop patterns of possible action, which Dewey called habits” (p.11)
When I take the above quotes in consideration with “Dewey’s claim that knowledge lives first ‘in the muscles’—and not in the mind” (p. 11), I question how Dewey considered humans to interact with their environments. It seems to describe the human as somewhat passive. Does the human not do more to manipulate the environment than just find balance? Should we not consider the primary muscle involved in the interactions, the brain or “mind”? Are they not one in the same?
On Educational Research…
“…his philosophical account is ultimately motivated by an attempt to restore rationality, agency, and responsibility” (p. 22).
The authors state that the above is “crucial” for education and educational research. Decisions about education are often made apart from those responsible for the administration of education. How will educational research restore rationality in policy formation, return agency to teachers and students, and not just restore responsibility but also demand accountability for structural and institutional failures?
Responding to your last paragraph here, Jacqueline...this is exactly where my thoughts are heading, especially with regards Pragmatism and Dewey. Martha Nussbaum has written much recently on what she calls a "human development paradigm" in contrast to what is essentially an education system dictated by profit.
DeleteYour last questions regarding educational research are THE questions. In Dewey's framework, he seems to think an effort towards change must be a united effort. I find myself wondering if he thinks this would require a group of people to operate from a shared theoretical framework. He seems to validate other approaches in his musings, but I wonder if the post-positivist and the pragmatist could be as effective as the pragmatist working alongside another pragmatist (from Dewey's perspective)?
DeleteIf, as the chapter offers, "the whole point of Dewey's philosophy is to overcome the idea that rationality only has to do with questions about the most effective means for bringing about predetermined ends,’ and that it is “ultimately motivated by an attempt to restore rationality, agency, and responsibility to the sphere of human action and educational research today,” (p. 22), then I have to wonder what Dewey would think of the emphasis placed on standards of learning and standardized testing. How would he view the desire for algorithms to determine student achievement and quality of teaching? What happens to rationality if the research does not support the policy? What happens to agency (teacher or student) if there are predetermined norms? Is this today’s crisis of rationality?
ReplyDeleteMoreover, how would Dewey view the emphasis on technology in the classroom, wherein environmental stimulus is replaced with virtual interpretations? This is not to say that digital tools are villainous, as their potential for experiential learning on a wide range of subjects is recognized. My question focuses on the attention given to these tools as “innovative”, suggesting that a lack of their use is old-fashioned or un-creative. Does it help the student learn to think, or is it merely a means to an end (that being defined by a standard)? These ready-made educational tools, be they standards to outline learning or packaged digital content to meet these needs, are formulaic and unresponsive in the moment.
With regard to teaching reflection, how can we do this if there is a defined scope and sequence for the learning at every grade level. This allows for little flexibility and 'adaptivity' for both teachers and students. While time may be provided to draft new versions of work or correct items on a homework assignment, is it possible that we are not actually teaching students reflective inquiry...or are we teaching them how to get the “good” grade?
I realize I am asking a lot of questions that seem to relate to practice and not theory, but since I understand them to be mirrors of each other, I believe I am then asking the same questions of both. Therefore, is it also possible that within educational research we are looking too hard for generalizable, reliable measurements of unique lived experiences that exist within a specific time and place that do not support reflective practice, but rather reproduction of practice?
Sorry...I just keep asking questions!
~Jen
These are great questions. I focused on this idea of "responsibility" in your response. Standards and tests hoped to hold students more responsible for their learning, but I think they ultimately have caused the opposite. In many ways they have reduced the responsibility to knowing facts and terms in place of knowing how to rationalize, consider, and discern. In our efforts to measure understanding and strengthen accountability, we have actually removed rationality from many of our classrooms.
DeleteJen - These are great points. I think that so much standardized testing in U.S. public schools hurt students in the long-term. They might achieve a good grade in the short-term, but what does that mean for them and their learning process in the long-term?
DeleteI have read other scholars and writers refer to Dewey’s Pragmatist philosophical orientation as a kind of “peacetime doctrine”. Alan Ryan posited that Pragmatism via Dewey was “credible only in a society that was in most respects harmonious, prosperous, and morally at ease with itself”. While Ryan’s statement strikes me as more than a bit reductive, I do question how Dewey’s philosophy of education holds up in a public educational environment that is subject to the currents of neoliberalism, i.e. the increasing privatization of secondary schools, the corporatization of higher ed., and educational policy essentially designed to protect the market.
ReplyDeleteDewey might see the current landscape as one in danger of replicating many of the problems inherent in education before the rise of the progressive era when student learning was almost invariably tied to the requirements of national production. In light of these thoughts, I suppose my question is this: Does Dewey’s foundational philosophy present a viable framework from which to re-visualize educational practice moving forward or, as future practitioners and scholars, should we be more attentive to a philosophical orientation that accounts for the challenges of our time?
Biesta and Birbules’ Deweyian concepts of transactional constructivism and practical intersubjectivity could be taken as Marxian callbacks (see Hegel’s influence on Dewey). I am compelled to wonder why Dewey wasn’t more apt to integrate a kind of Marxian safeguard into his theory in resistance to capitalist sway over educational practices. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Pragmatism’s historical foundation is positioned as so fundamentally American?
- Herb
To answer your question regarding a need to "be more attentive to a philosophical orientation that accounts for the challenges of our time," I think I would say yes and no. On the one hand, I think a more critical framework is necessary to upend many of the outdated structures that remain in place, but I also think that this upending requires the sort of action that pragmatism invites. Instead of just acknowledging a problem, I think there needs to be steps taken towards solving the problems. I think where this gets particularly challenging is for teachers who feel powerless and researchers who are unable to empower those working in classrooms nationwide. I find myself returning to the divide we discussed last week. This makes me think of an article by Malcolm Gladwell (2010), "Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted" where he discusses the weak ties (not to mention low-risk) social media provides that offer a false sense of social progress. We have so many tools that would allow for collaboration and mobilization, but often fear keeps people grinding away at the day to day of education without feeling like a chance for transformative change actually exists.
DeleteReply from Jacqueline
Delete"Dewey’s foundational philosophy present a viable framework from which to re-visualize educational practice moving forward or, as future practitioners and scholars, should we be more attentive to a philosophical orientation that accounts for the challenges of our time?"
I believe this question is difficult to answer because we as a society still grapple with the age old question of what is the goal of education and who receives that education. We have the privatization of public education in the form of unregulated charter schools which act with autonomy. We have strong PTA's that are influential in determining the direction of some schools. We have some schools that are clearly under-educating large populations of children. We have other schools that are highly resourced and providing excellent educational opportunities. We still have education tied to the idea of "requirements of national production" in schools like CodeRVA and the charter movement. We still grapple with the best way to educate and assess special needs children. We have made it the schools' role to deal with poverty. We as a nation and as local communities have not clarified the goals of education for all children nor have we made equitable access to education a reality. The fragmented implementation of education creates challenge for collaboration or a specific orientation moving forward.
Right, I would take your points further and ask “What are the structures in place that render teachers powerless? and “What are the barriers that prevent teachers from empowering themselves?”. Maybe more to the point, what disables teachers and educators from doing the same kind of work to inform pedagogical practice? These are the kinds of questions that I think engage the scope of the issue in a really important way. What are the socio-economic and political structures that prevent a globally-engaged, culturally accountable model for education that is at least as invested in arts, humanities, and social stewardship as it is in workforce development? I agree in part that tools like social media can be complicit in perpetuating a sense of false progress, but only inasmuch as how (and by who) the tool is used. We can point to the current debate over net neutrality as a clear attempt to co-opt digital space to pursue economic ends. I think the current status quo of education exposes the ways in which Dewey's model of Pragmatism is no longer applicable as a response to the sway of neo-liberalism.
DeleteJacqueline - You make good points. I consider that we need to re-visualize education in the U.S. I also consider that as a nation we need think about the big divisions that we continue to create in our communities.
DeleteThe authors claim that Dewey believes “rationality is about intelligent human action and human cooperation” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 22). Do you think action can be separate from cooperation? In our last class, the readings touched on a tendency for researchers to focus on particular issue in isolation. Although they become experts, they potentially stall progress and momentum by avoiding collective research efforts. Within the framework of Dewey’s concept of rationality, then, should all educational research be a cooperative endeavor?
ReplyDeleteThe authors (Biesta & Burbules, 2003) highlight that “Dewey’s approach is different in that he deals with questions of knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge within the framework of a philosophy of action, in fact, as philosophy that takes action as its most basic category.” (p. 205) This text resonates with me because as an educator, I see the need to connect the practical side of education along with the exploratory and research side of education. How do we connect and balance a practical approach in the classroom to function in the present, while also helping our students to embrace a vision of the future and see themselves in a role of building it?
ReplyDelete- Vivian
On Educational Research…
Delete“The fact that pragmatism emerged in the North American context does not mean however, that it was exclusively composed of North American material. The pragmatists were all deeply influenced by European philosophy.” (p. 127) This text makes me think that perhaps as educational researchers, we continue to filter knowledge through certain filters and the same parameters. I wonder, how can we expand our cultural knowledge and “patterns of possible action” or “habits” (p. 254) in our educational research to expand our environment?
- Vivian