I'm so dizzy

I was asked today to define Hermeneutic Phenomenology but not much came out of my mouth. There is much to consider before one begins such a thing. Like...where do you sit in the universe? Anyway here it goes, I'll do my best. As I know it in this moment of time, it is an extraordinary study of the ordinary from the inside. Which is partly why it is difficult to pin down. It is the study of things and happenings as they appear to us in our consciousness. We live in the world so it really is impossible to pretend we can remove ourselves from it to study something. I believe it is not really a method of generating knowledge but a way of thinking about knowledge. It is an art and a different way to classify meaning. It is often applied to the interpretation of human actions, utterances, products, and institutions. A hermeneutic interpretation requires the individual to understand and sympathize with another's point of view without ignoring your own.
A couple of key points:

• The world is rich and complex with many causes and effects
  
• Truth is a personal experience not universal
  
• Knowledge does not have a subject-object relationship
• Understanding and interpreting are essentially the same thing
• Interpretation is a task
  
• Language is the medium of all understanding
• Language is not a tool but an activity between the speaker and the listener in order to play with understanding
• Knowledge lives in the learner
• Verification comes from dialogue not repetition
• Dialogue leads to a shared understanding of personal experiences

So... a phenomenological inquiry may give me an opportunity to give voice to that which may not be easily heard over the sometimes overpowering drone of traditional research methods. Have we really listened to what teachers are saying is happening in their classrooms in the 21st Century?
Understanding comes by being in the world together. By creating forums in which people can join one another as co-participants to shape something new. It requires a connection in culture through language.
My experience with teachers is that they have such busy lives. If we are not careful we will reduce teaching to the 101 things I have to do every day to please all the people I really don’t like so much kind of job. Teachers do not need someone from outside telling them they have to change their practice, yet I do see a need for change. One day they may be trusted enough to be asked what they think and involve them in the process of change.

Taking a step outside your door...

Those of you who know me know my connection to "Lord of the Rings". There is a line in the Fellowship that the character Bilbo Baggins says that I am often fond of saying. "It's a dangerous business, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no telling where you might be swept off to."
I think that is just what Bilbo was after...not the dangerous business but the adventure of what you could not see from the couch.
So I wonder is that what draws us to research, the adventure part not the danger. I think it could be exciting ending up where I did not intend to be.

The First Day of School

Today was my first day of school. Well not the first First day that was a while ago, but a first none the less. Today I began my doctoral seminar for ed Tech at UofC. This is the beginning of the end for me. I can now change my profile from a first year doctoral student to a second year. It is the last class I take before I get all my...stuff together before I approach candidacy. The first day of school and I got to bring all the colours in my crayon box to use and a whole new lot of brilliant people to play with. I am thrilled! I have gotten over the scared silly part (for the most part). In this class I get to design my own path.
I have been asked to think about a definition for an Educational Technologist. For me it is all about learning and living in a connected world. In order to do this well I will need to be good at a few things like; taking charge of my own learning(personalized learning), develop good friendships that will support this learning (Quality Networks), find ways to organize what I learn so that I and my friends can find it again(Structure), and find ways make all this fun. It just has to be fun.
What I keep in my mind all the time is that knowledge does not stand still. At one point in my recent reading I came across the term "living knowledge". For me that means a playful approach to learning. But please do not confuse play with a childish activity, I am very serious with the notion of play. It is this understanding that shapes the kind of questions I ask and the place where I look for answers.

The first day of school

Today was my first day of school. Well not the first First day that was a while ago, but a first none the less. Today I began my doctoral seminar for ed Tech at UofC. This is the beginning of the end for me. I can now change my profile from a first year doctoral student to a second year. It is the last class I take before I get all my...stuff together before I approach candidacy. The first day of school and I got to bring all the colours in my crayon box to use and a whole new lot of brilliant people to play with. I am thrilled! I have gotten over the scared silly part (for the most part). In this class I get to design my own path. Soon I will give a whole room full of grade two students a first day of school and I plan to let them also design their own path.

I want to go to "Tinkering School"

Watch this and imagine. What if schools were really interested in need driven learning and not higher test scores. This kind of learning is deep and wide. The school focused on "doing better" is only interested in being right or wrong. Pleasing the people above and controlling those below. That seems more long and thin thinking to me. We hear a lot of talk from the people in control of education about "personalized learning" but everyone is so afraid to be wrong and make a mistake, perhaps look weak. Nothing personal is able to emerge in this environment.

I am thinking that what may be at the heart of this is the modern notion of technocracy and efficiency. In schools we still suffer from one way communication, from this only silence is able to grow. We do however see an interesting shift developing as more teachers are engaging in dialogue outside of their blocked school rooms. One example is classroom 2.0 . More voices connected to each other grows a harmony of voices. No one is as smart as everyone. This sort of communication becomes collective action within a technical sphere. Andrew Feenberg calls it democratic rationality(p. 108). We are gradually tinkering with the communication system and that challenges the power structure rooted in this notion of being efficient and a universal truth that is tied to subjugated knowledge.

It is difficult to keep this simple but I will try. I now have a new notion of truth and with that a new notion of knowledge. My notion is nebulous like the universe, not thin like a ladder. I want to go to Tinkering school because only when I am in charge and struggle with what I need to know when I need to know it will I learn what I need to learn. Technology is not the servant of my seeking it is the place I play in.

Technology and Democracy

I have made it known that I have an emerging understanding of philosophy, because of this I have been unhurriedly reading through Gadamer’s “Truth and Method” as well as Andrew Feenberg’s “Questioning Technology”. I have found myself taking many side trips in order to give myself a more knowledgeable position to take all of this in. One thing I do understand well now is that we live in the world not as independently as we might think. The voices of those who came before us hum quietly almost unheard to many. We call this tradition and if we are not mindful we are in danger of just singing the same song through time with no thought of the consequence. Feenberg points out a rather pessimistic tradition of technology (p. 75). The thinking that humans have simply become cogs in their own machinery. He highlights for me the term, Technocracy. A social system viewing technology as a neutral instrument outside of our control, leaving no room for democracy or social interaction.
I have recently spent time exploring the 20th century’s use of technology as a read only culture in the early days of my blogging (mind map ). Yes it is complicated as you can see.

Feenberg brings to light Max Weber and the theory of rationalization, a process whereby social actions and interactions became concerned with efficiency and how it can be measured quantifiably rather than how effects us as people or how we feel about it emotionally. It seems to me that in the modern world of the 20th century people with this thinking lost the connection we had to each other as humans. Gadamer also reminds us that as humans we need to find gaps in our speaking in order to listen to each other. I have spent time thinking about this last fall. You can find this work on my webpage. For me that is the notion of a read-write culture, a culture in dialogue with each other. As Feenberg puts it we need to replace this notion with a, “Democratic” rationalization. In the read only culture that Max Weber was describing we put our faith in progress. Technology is only considered social through the purpose is serves and this would depend on ones personal perception of the purpose. This deterministic view holds that if need be we adjust ourselves to the structure of technology not the other way around (p. 77). Ouch I feel the pinch!

Constructivism argues a different point. We have a choice here; we can look differently at efficiency. When we look at the toys that technology has provided for us rather than saying how can I adapt to this toy and make it work for me? Another way is to look upon this more democratically as a choice between alternatives. To look for a fit between devices and the personal interests and needs a user may have and we as users do definitely shape the design process (p.79). Look at the “I’m a Mac”, “I’m a PC” thing. Cute advertising yes but it demonstrates this point. Two different devices with different design histories shaped by different needs. Good designers respond the feedback of the users. Feenberg tells us that technological determinism ignores this social complexity by focusing in on a cross-section of objects in our life. Gadamer may say this sort of clarity is not enough for living knowledge.
This sort of view has led us to look at dilemmas in a rather simplistic dualistic manner in the form of trade offs. It’s the red vs. blue situation. If we have more of red then we have less of blue.

One altered notion is Connectivism. George Siemens describes it as: "the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing" In our connected world we now have opportunities to think in a more nebulous way.
Feenberg’s writing fills me with hope. He suggests that technology can be more than a means to an end; we can look upon it as a variety of possibilities linked together. We do have choices.

Endings make new beginnings

So I find myself on another edge. My job of Learning Leader for the Calgary Board of Education has come to an end. I was surplussed. It makes me sad. My job was going to schools and working with elementary school teachers in their classrooms on projects that involved technology. It was called the 21st Century Learning Project. Most teachers did not think they needed to shift the way they work...but some where so keen and eager, that is what made the job fun. Those of you that know me know that fun is the name of the game. Any way the job is over and it is just too soon. All I did was get into a few classrooms and show a few teachers a few little tricks. I did not get to explain the whole deep and wide of connected learning and how to create learning environments that are flexible for more ways to learn. That would take more time and more trust. I could go on but I can not see the point with the sky being so beautiful this morning and the air so fresh and clean (I'm in the mountains). The point is I feel a sense of loss with work undone. I also feel a betrayal of sorts in that the work that I did do was not widely recognized. The only feedback I received was that "it is important to build effective communication patterns to support the building of strong relationships." Since the teachers I worked with only communicated supportive messages can I assume that I do not toot the horn loud enough? That I think would be true. I carry the shy gene but I also believe deeply in the notion of dialogue. I struggle with telling people what to do or think. Communication should be a lived experience.
So that is over now what will I do with this new opportunity that has been placed before me? I need to adjust my thinking, move on and accept my new position. They have placed me in a grade two classroom at a brand new school with all the new toys to play with. It should be fun. I do not doubt that I will have fun. I just am still struggling with this sense of loss and what was wrong with me attitude. I guess I just better get out and enjoy this day that has been given to me.