I do not think it is helpful to view play through the limiting eyes of subjectivity. Gadamer (2004) frees play from traditional subjective understandings. Play is more than an entity of itself and not just a state of mind or an orientation of the one playing. It has a spirit of its own. “Play itself contains its own, even sacred, seriousness…Play fulfills its purpose only if the player loses himself in the play” (p.102). In this seriousness of play, we suspend our daily connections with world. As players, we know we are playing, but the only goal other than to just play is for the player to be “played” by the game itself. This kind of focus is required in order to make play wholly play. “Someone who doesn’t take the game seriously is a spoilsport” (p.103). In this sort of manner of play, we must not look upon the word play as if it were an object. It becomes an event. Dewey might call it the action of play. Without action, there can be no experience, and it is what gives this very ordinary everyday activity its ultimate constructive power.
(Biesta & Burbules, 2003) describe that Dewey used the word experience to refer to the transaction between living organisms and their environment. It is the very way we are connected to reality and knowledge (p. 28). “Knowledge is therefore found in the happenings of experience” (p. 44). I cannot see how one could consider them selves knowledgeable without being engaged in the playful act of learning. Gadamer speaks of two different kinds of experience. An immediate experience you might have with a tool or instrument (Erlebnis) and a different deeper or more cognitive experience you undergo the result of participating in an action (Erfahrung). While I see great value the first experience, it is the playful experience of a lived experience that I am interested in with my research. I must be present but also active in my research.
Biesta, J., & Burbules, N. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Toronto: Roman and Littlefield.
Gadamer, H., Weinsheimer, J., & Marshall, D. G. (2004). Truth and method (Vol. 2). London ; New York: Continuum.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
More on Playful Knowledge
I am an educational technologist. The AECT Defines educational technology as, “The study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski, A., Molenda, M., 2008 p.1) What that means to me is that as an elementary classroom teacher I have been able to embed my teaching and learning inside a technological framework. At times I do use technology as a tool to support instruction but I also view technology as a place for student centred exploration and construction. As the teacher I believe it is my responsibility to create and then facilitate a learning environment that my students can be interactive in. I also believe that for meaningful learning to occur they need to use technology to make connections to each other and the information that drives their curiosity. I can also say quite confidently that I now see this work through the lens of an interpretive researcher. By that I mean I view teaching and learning as deeply linked. Deep learning is personal yet socially constructed. As learners we need opportunity to dialogue with each other and what we understand as knowledge. Play is an action. We must poke, push and pull at our understanding. Interpretive work is playful work. Play is not subjective or objective but a constructed pursuit. Play is what we must do in order to make knowledge our own and not someone else’s. Interpretive research looks for culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-world (Crotty p.67). I do not wish to explain how teachers are using technology in the 21st century as much as I wish to understand it. There has already been much fine research in educational technology that explains the barriers that teachers face when trying to utilize technology in their classrooms. Yet much of this comes from a scientific tradition and has been accomplished through a natural science method focused on causality and empirical validation. While this research pool is rich with useful and interesting data, I believe it is missing something vital to help us understand the life-world of teachers today. Little is said about the complexities of today’s classroom and little is heard from the voice of the teachers who live in this complexity. For me explanations are ineffectual without being surrounded with understanding.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research : meaning and perspective in the research process. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications.
Januszewski, A., M. Molenda, et al. (2008). Educational technology : a definition with commentary. New York, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research : meaning and perspective in the research process. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications.
Januszewski, A., M. Molenda, et al. (2008). Educational technology : a definition with commentary. New York, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
It feels wrong
It all feels wrong to me. I wonder why do I feel so uncomfortable when my staff is talking about gaps in our students skills? We need to identify gaps in order to build a school development plan. This should be a good thing shouldn't it? If we want to support our students to be confident participants in the world we need to know what they are doing well and what is missing from their skill set. However I was shocked when what was written on the white board was there needs to be a balance between play and academics in kindergarten. A balance? When did it become a dichotomy? Play vs School? How can we possibly pull the playfulness out of learning as if it where something unrelated? Is "play" a thing now? How can we use an Inquiry approach without playful exploration?
In this blog I have made my view of knowledge well known. I do not think that play is a form of disengaged, disinterested activity of subjectivity. Play is a very serious path to understanding. I think my discomfort indicates that my philosophical beliefs are clashing with the dominate view of the school. While I find myself almost angry my curiosity is taking over. What is the philosophical beliefs of the school? What are the roots of this thinking? How are teachers like me coping with this disconnection? My plan is to now approach this phenomenologically. Why so much emphasis on behaviour? Why so much time spent on testing that will sort our students into leveled learning? How can a scientific model of quantifiable data support inquiry? What does inquiry mean to a behaviourist? What good is inquiry if we have not invested in creating collaborative environment where curiosity and exploration are valued as a way of being in the world?
In this blog I have made my view of knowledge well known. I do not think that play is a form of disengaged, disinterested activity of subjectivity. Play is a very serious path to understanding. I think my discomfort indicates that my philosophical beliefs are clashing with the dominate view of the school. While I find myself almost angry my curiosity is taking over. What is the philosophical beliefs of the school? What are the roots of this thinking? How are teachers like me coping with this disconnection? My plan is to now approach this phenomenologically. Why so much emphasis on behaviour? Why so much time spent on testing that will sort our students into leveled learning? How can a scientific model of quantifiable data support inquiry? What does inquiry mean to a behaviourist? What good is inquiry if we have not invested in creating collaborative environment where curiosity and exploration are valued as a way of being in the world?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Back in the classroom
My dilemma - another rant:
So I now find myself back in the classroom after 3 years of busying my brain with doctoral thoughts. I have beliefs about the way we learn. I also have deep beliefs about the kind of schools I think we need to be in the 21st Century.
They go something like this:
How ever I now have found myself back in the world of...
Do I know what I need to know to do what I want to do?
Well do I? As a researcher in Educational Technology I know the world the teachers live in. You can not expect a teacher to have much time to think about teaching and learning in a digital age when in fact they also live in the world of... 101 things.
So I now find myself back in the classroom after 3 years of busying my brain with doctoral thoughts. I have beliefs about the way we learn. I also have deep beliefs about the kind of schools I think we need to be in the 21st Century.
They go something like this:
"We need to stop thinking that the job of schools is to create the 21st century workforce, it's not. The job of our schools is nothing less than to help co-create the 21st-century citizen. We want our kids to be active, engaged citizens of the world. They'll be workers if they are that, too... that part will take care of itself. We want them to be able to engage in the world around them and to make it better. Nothing less than that is our task as educators."- Chris Lehman
How ever I now have found myself back in the world of...
"the one hundred and one things I have to do every day and who do I need to please now?"I feel the pressure to make the grade. To measure and to sort learners into little boxes. How can we expect students to be participants of a connected world if we look at them and their abilities as disconnected little packages of stuff? Schools today are a product of the past. If schools are to become the kind of schools we need... they really need to look hard at disconnecting from the scientific approach of sorting and classifying based on cause and effect testing and reconnect to the more nebulous approach of personal need driven exploratory learning. The only assessment worth doing is self assessment for personal learning within a community of learners.
Do I know what I need to know to do what I want to do?
Well do I? As a researcher in Educational Technology I know the world the teachers live in. You can not expect a teacher to have much time to think about teaching and learning in a digital age when in fact they also live in the world of... 101 things.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Technology using teacher characteristics:
It is hoped that the work I do towards my doctorate will be a “little something” in the great and wonderful pool of work that has gone before me. It has occurred to me many times that this historical knowledge is the foundation and the firmness upon which I stand with strength. However if all of us do not take a moment to think about why we think what we think we get nowhere in our understanding about what we bring to the table of life. The world is rich and our understanding of our place on this planet is complicated by our experience with it. We need to take moments to ponder and question historical thinking.
That being said I wonder today just when did we think that a tool such as we call technology could change the way people work and think? What philosophy of technology is at the root of this thinking? Has technology become not just a tool for us to work with but also a place we live inside of?
I have noticed many school leaders and policy makers acting as if technology as a tool could be a catalyst for change in teacher practice. This action suggests that putting expensive technology in classrooms will shift the role of teachers and their students. That somehow the technology in the room will cause teachers to act more as facilitators by helping students access information, process it, and communicate their understanding. As a learning leader in the 21st century learning project that was not my experience. Placing technology at their doorstep even with professional support became more of a source for frustration for many teachers in their busy professional lives.
Literature for Technology as a catalyst for change:
Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 28-36.
Means, B., Olson, K., & Singh, R. (1995). Beyond the classroom: Restructuring schools with technology. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 69-72.
Mehlinger, H. (1996). School reform in the information age. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 400-407.
Newman, D. (1992). Technology as support for school structure and school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 308-315.
Sheingold, K. (1991). Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential for synergy. Phi Delta Kappan, 73,17 –27.
I have seen much money, time and energy being spent on technology and professional development that seems to have adopted the philosophy, ‘build it and they will come”. So I am left to wonder when historically has a tool been a catalyst for change? As well to complicate this conversation not all teachers view technology only as a tool, and some teachers’ eagerly welcome technology into their classrooms.
I do not wish to approach my work looking at this problem dualistically but rather a succession or a non-linear continuum that I would like to think of as a field. The research on technology-using teachers characterizes different ways teachers use technology in their classrooms. Data that I have encountered so far suggest that technology-using teachers range along a continuum of instructional styles from instruction to construction.
On this continuum we find teachers who use technology only to instruct and then teachers who use technology to construct knowledge. As with continuums we find many teachers at different points employing vastly different philosophies of technology.
Instructional Classroom:
In instruction, the research tells us that teachers conduct class in a teacher-centered way. They impart facts and procedural skills to students and integrate technology as a complement to this style. They use technology mainly for drill and practice. Technology is a means to an end. I believe historically this type of teaching comes from the notion that information and knowledge is limited, sorted and easily found by a “hide-an-seek” method of presenting the curriculum. Embedded within this notion is the philosophy that the technology should make us more efficient and more productive.
Constructional Classroom:
Research also tells us that in construction or student-centered classrooms, teachers are encouraging students to use software and information technologies to make personal connections in active ways. The technology supports the active learning; it becomes a tool with which the students may construct or grow knowledge. Technology can become a place for exploration and the means and ends are endlessly connected. I believe this type of teaching comes from the notion that information and knowledge is vast and complex, that we also need to learn strategies to navigate through it. Embedded within this notion is the philosophy that technology will connect us democratically. It is these constructivist characteristics we find in the 21st century classroom.
Literature for Technology using teacher characteristics:
Becker, H.J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 291-321.
Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalties and distinctive patterns in teachers’ integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261-315.
Honey, M., & Moeller, B. (1990). Teacher’s beliefs and technology integration: Different values, different understandings. CTE Technical Report Issue No. 6. [Online ] available: http://www.edc.org/CCT/ccthome/reports/tr6.html
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology's role in education reform: Findings from a national study of innovating schools. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. [Online] available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTech/
Wiske, M. S., Zodhiates, P., Wilson, B., Gordon, M., Harvey, W., Krensky, L., Lord, B., Watt, M. & Williams, K. (1988). How technology affects teaching. Cambridge, MA: Educational Technology Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 296 706)
My final question at the end of this conversation today is this: If the goal is for teachers to use technology with their students in a constructionist or democratic manner should we not first explore this issue with them in the same manner? What if we used a constructivist model rather than a scientific one as has often been done for this exploration. What if we began thinking of teachers as learners and then began a dialogue? Dialogues can provide important opportunities for constructing knowledge in collaboration because they may open opportunities for professional discourse to expose scrutinize and contest deeply ingrained assumptions and philosophies about the way they use technology.
The constructivist model emphasizes that new understanding occurs when a learner seeks, acquires and organizes new information to share with others. This new learning shapes and is shaped by prior knowledge. Prior knowledge is thus shaped by the experiences and beliefs of the learner in addition to the place in which learner constructed this understanding. The literature on the constructivist model of learning along with the literature on teacher professional development and dialogue all suggests that classroom teachers, over time, construct knowledge about which instructional approaches produce the effects they want with their students.
While I call myself a constructivist I do recognize that there are many occasions in a regular teaching day that I would use technology as a stand and deliver tool. It is because of this complexity that I would call the instruction-construction continuum a field of play rather than a succession.
It is my desire to take much of this sort of historical knowledge with me in my interpretive inquiry on how teachers use technology in a 21st century classroom. The goal of this work is to come to a deeper understanding by accessing the experience of teachers. It is my hope that this understanding will provide valuable insight for those responsible for supporting the shifting of teacher practice. I recognize that this topic is temporal and that my task is interpretive but also my interpretation is connected to my own experience as a classroom teacher as I embark on the exploration of the life-world of teachers in the emergent 21st century classroom.
Literature for constructivist model in teacher professional learning:
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Dexter, S., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers' views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 221-239.
Eisner, E. W. (2002). The kind of schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan 83(8): 576-583.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism, theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M.G. (1992). Successful school improvement. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Fullan, M.G., & Steigelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.
Literature for philosophy of technology:
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London ; New York, Routledge.
Feenberg, A. (2003). What is Philosophy of Technology? Retrieved February 18, 2009, from http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/komaba.htm
Feenberg, A. (2008). From essentialism to constructivism: philosophy of technology at the crossroads. Retrieved Febrary 21, 2008, from http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/talk4.html
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York: Garland.
McLuhan, M. and Q. Fiore (1967). The medium is the massage. New York, Bantam Books.
Postman, N. (1992). Deus Machina. Technos Quarterly, 1(4).
Price, Y. (2008). In a mother's voice: on transformation and graduate education. Unpublished Thesis M Sc --University of Calgary 2008, University of Calgary Division of Applied Psychology, Calgary.
Seimans, G. (December 12, 2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Literature on dialogue in professional development and Hermeneutics:
Freeman, M. (2006). Nurturing dialogic hermeneutics and the deliberative capacities of communities in focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(1), 81-95.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1999). Truth and method (2nd ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall,Trans.). New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1975)
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.
Jourard, S. M. (1978). Education as dialogue. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18(1), 47.
Kalliola, S., Nakari, R., & Pesonen, I. (2006). Learning to Make Changes: Democratic Dialogue in Action. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18, 464-477.
Orland-Barak, Lily. (2008). Convergent, divergent and parallel dialogues: Knowledge construction in professional conversations. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(Feb 2006), 13-31.
Penlington, C. (2008). Dialogue as a catalyst for teacher change: A conceptual analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1304-1316.
That being said I wonder today just when did we think that a tool such as we call technology could change the way people work and think? What philosophy of technology is at the root of this thinking? Has technology become not just a tool for us to work with but also a place we live inside of?
I have noticed many school leaders and policy makers acting as if technology as a tool could be a catalyst for change in teacher practice. This action suggests that putting expensive technology in classrooms will shift the role of teachers and their students. That somehow the technology in the room will cause teachers to act more as facilitators by helping students access information, process it, and communicate their understanding. As a learning leader in the 21st century learning project that was not my experience. Placing technology at their doorstep even with professional support became more of a source for frustration for many teachers in their busy professional lives.
Literature for Technology as a catalyst for change:
Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 28-36.
Means, B., Olson, K., & Singh, R. (1995). Beyond the classroom: Restructuring schools with technology. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 69-72.
Mehlinger, H. (1996). School reform in the information age. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 400-407.
Newman, D. (1992). Technology as support for school structure and school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 308-315.
Sheingold, K. (1991). Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential for synergy. Phi Delta Kappan, 73,17 –27.
I have seen much money, time and energy being spent on technology and professional development that seems to have adopted the philosophy, ‘build it and they will come”. So I am left to wonder when historically has a tool been a catalyst for change? As well to complicate this conversation not all teachers view technology only as a tool, and some teachers’ eagerly welcome technology into their classrooms.
I do not wish to approach my work looking at this problem dualistically but rather a succession or a non-linear continuum that I would like to think of as a field. The research on technology-using teachers characterizes different ways teachers use technology in their classrooms. Data that I have encountered so far suggest that technology-using teachers range along a continuum of instructional styles from instruction to construction.
On this continuum we find teachers who use technology only to instruct and then teachers who use technology to construct knowledge. As with continuums we find many teachers at different points employing vastly different philosophies of technology.
Instructional Classroom:
In instruction, the research tells us that teachers conduct class in a teacher-centered way. They impart facts and procedural skills to students and integrate technology as a complement to this style. They use technology mainly for drill and practice. Technology is a means to an end. I believe historically this type of teaching comes from the notion that information and knowledge is limited, sorted and easily found by a “hide-an-seek” method of presenting the curriculum. Embedded within this notion is the philosophy that the technology should make us more efficient and more productive.
Constructional Classroom:
Research also tells us that in construction or student-centered classrooms, teachers are encouraging students to use software and information technologies to make personal connections in active ways. The technology supports the active learning; it becomes a tool with which the students may construct or grow knowledge. Technology can become a place for exploration and the means and ends are endlessly connected. I believe this type of teaching comes from the notion that information and knowledge is vast and complex, that we also need to learn strategies to navigate through it. Embedded within this notion is the philosophy that technology will connect us democratically. It is these constructivist characteristics we find in the 21st century classroom.
Literature for Technology using teacher characteristics:
Becker, H.J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 291-321.
Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalties and distinctive patterns in teachers’ integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261-315.
Honey, M., & Moeller, B. (1990). Teacher’s beliefs and technology integration: Different values, different understandings. CTE Technical Report Issue No. 6. [Online ] available: http://www.edc.org/CCT/ccthome/reports/tr6.html
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology's role in education reform: Findings from a national study of innovating schools. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. [Online] available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTech/
Wiske, M. S., Zodhiates, P., Wilson, B., Gordon, M., Harvey, W., Krensky, L., Lord, B., Watt, M. & Williams, K. (1988). How technology affects teaching. Cambridge, MA: Educational Technology Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 296 706)
My final question at the end of this conversation today is this: If the goal is for teachers to use technology with their students in a constructionist or democratic manner should we not first explore this issue with them in the same manner? What if we used a constructivist model rather than a scientific one as has often been done for this exploration. What if we began thinking of teachers as learners and then began a dialogue? Dialogues can provide important opportunities for constructing knowledge in collaboration because they may open opportunities for professional discourse to expose scrutinize and contest deeply ingrained assumptions and philosophies about the way they use technology.
The constructivist model emphasizes that new understanding occurs when a learner seeks, acquires and organizes new information to share with others. This new learning shapes and is shaped by prior knowledge. Prior knowledge is thus shaped by the experiences and beliefs of the learner in addition to the place in which learner constructed this understanding. The literature on the constructivist model of learning along with the literature on teacher professional development and dialogue all suggests that classroom teachers, over time, construct knowledge about which instructional approaches produce the effects they want with their students.
While I call myself a constructivist I do recognize that there are many occasions in a regular teaching day that I would use technology as a stand and deliver tool. It is because of this complexity that I would call the instruction-construction continuum a field of play rather than a succession.
It is my desire to take much of this sort of historical knowledge with me in my interpretive inquiry on how teachers use technology in a 21st century classroom. The goal of this work is to come to a deeper understanding by accessing the experience of teachers. It is my hope that this understanding will provide valuable insight for those responsible for supporting the shifting of teacher practice. I recognize that this topic is temporal and that my task is interpretive but also my interpretation is connected to my own experience as a classroom teacher as I embark on the exploration of the life-world of teachers in the emergent 21st century classroom.
Literature for constructivist model in teacher professional learning:
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Dexter, S., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers' views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 221-239.
Eisner, E. W. (2002). The kind of schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan 83(8): 576-583.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism, theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M.G. (1992). Successful school improvement. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Fullan, M.G., & Steigelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.
Literature for philosophy of technology:
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London ; New York, Routledge.
Feenberg, A. (2003). What is Philosophy of Technology? Retrieved February 18, 2009, from http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/komaba.htm
Feenberg, A. (2008). From essentialism to constructivism: philosophy of technology at the crossroads. Retrieved Febrary 21, 2008, from http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/talk4.html
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York: Garland.
McLuhan, M. and Q. Fiore (1967). The medium is the massage. New York, Bantam Books.
Postman, N. (1992). Deus Machina. Technos Quarterly, 1(4).
Price, Y. (2008). In a mother's voice: on transformation and graduate education. Unpublished Thesis M Sc --University of Calgary 2008, University of Calgary Division of Applied Psychology, Calgary.
Seimans, G. (December 12, 2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Literature on dialogue in professional development and Hermeneutics:
Freeman, M. (2006). Nurturing dialogic hermeneutics and the deliberative capacities of communities in focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(1), 81-95.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1999). Truth and method (2nd ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall,Trans.). New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1975)
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.
Jourard, S. M. (1978). Education as dialogue. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18(1), 47.
Kalliola, S., Nakari, R., & Pesonen, I. (2006). Learning to Make Changes: Democratic Dialogue in Action. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18, 464-477.
Orland-Barak, Lily. (2008). Convergent, divergent and parallel dialogues: Knowledge construction in professional conversations. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(Feb 2006), 13-31.
Penlington, C. (2008). Dialogue as a catalyst for teacher change: A conceptual analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1304-1316.
Friday, August 21, 2009
The love of story
As I have said before, I feel I carry with me as I walk in the world a backpack. Within it I pack a certain view of the world I find myself in. The fabric is weaved with both my own experience and the tradition of those who came before me. The contents contain the notion that our nature of reality is fluid and socially constructed.
I also carry with me the assumption that as people we are born into the world with a need to understand our place in it. As well, to truly understand this place, we must participate democratically with in it. As a researcher I believe that I will be the primary agent for data collection and its analysis, yet if I am to truly come to an understanding I must work in collaboration with my participants to construct the data I will use. I believe that technology lends it’s self to exploration and democracy but not unless they are first valued. But why is this? I think I sit in the world this way as a result to of the mixing of the ingredients I was born with and the experiences I traveled through. As I child in the 60’s I struggled to learn to read. My parents hired a tutor to help me cope in school. The Tutor introduced me to “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe” by C.S. Lewis (1950). I identified with Lucy she was about my age and no one seemed to believe in her. She was overlooked. (If you have not read The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe it is time you did.) We can learn from Lucy that people are much more capable than what others may think at first glance. With courage we can tell our stories. She can also teach us that there is a power in community when we join together we may produce a power capable of actually moving mountains. I have since read the story many times and shared it with my children when they where young. It of course was different through adult eyes but I am still reminded to never go out my front door with out some sense of the mystery that awaits me with the possibilities of each step.
I have discovered the transformative power in telling and listening to each other’s stories. The power lies in the possibility of growth, for both the teller and the listener. School did not come easy to me but I believe my real education in life has had nothing to do with explanations of what I know or my marks on a test. It has been more about wanting to know and diving in to find out. When I learned to read it was a Dick and Jane world. As a young child I had no love of story. It was just something we had to learn to do in order to live in the world. That tutor that introduced me to “The Lion Witch and the Wardrobe” encouraged me to crawl inside a story. To see it, smell it, and touch my way through the pages. I will never forget the magic she revealed to me by reading, drawing and talking about each character. This struggle gave to me a gift. It is the gift of story. I believe this is why I feel a need to approach my research as a listener and interpreter of story.
I also carry with me the assumption that as people we are born into the world with a need to understand our place in it. As well, to truly understand this place, we must participate democratically with in it. As a researcher I believe that I will be the primary agent for data collection and its analysis, yet if I am to truly come to an understanding I must work in collaboration with my participants to construct the data I will use. I believe that technology lends it’s self to exploration and democracy but not unless they are first valued. But why is this? I think I sit in the world this way as a result to of the mixing of the ingredients I was born with and the experiences I traveled through. As I child in the 60’s I struggled to learn to read. My parents hired a tutor to help me cope in school. The Tutor introduced me to “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe” by C.S. Lewis (1950). I identified with Lucy she was about my age and no one seemed to believe in her. She was overlooked. (If you have not read The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe it is time you did.) We can learn from Lucy that people are much more capable than what others may think at first glance. With courage we can tell our stories. She can also teach us that there is a power in community when we join together we may produce a power capable of actually moving mountains. I have since read the story many times and shared it with my children when they where young. It of course was different through adult eyes but I am still reminded to never go out my front door with out some sense of the mystery that awaits me with the possibilities of each step.
I have discovered the transformative power in telling and listening to each other’s stories. The power lies in the possibility of growth, for both the teller and the listener. School did not come easy to me but I believe my real education in life has had nothing to do with explanations of what I know or my marks on a test. It has been more about wanting to know and diving in to find out. When I learned to read it was a Dick and Jane world. As a young child I had no love of story. It was just something we had to learn to do in order to live in the world. That tutor that introduced me to “The Lion Witch and the Wardrobe” encouraged me to crawl inside a story. To see it, smell it, and touch my way through the pages. I will never forget the magic she revealed to me by reading, drawing and talking about each character. This struggle gave to me a gift. It is the gift of story. I believe this is why I feel a need to approach my research as a listener and interpreter of story.
Monday, August 3, 2009
What do you bring to the table?
I was reminded today that we all have gifts to bring to the table. It does not matter what you bring, it is sufficient. It does not matter how much to take, what is on the table is sufficient. It also does not matter what you leave behind. What matters is that you are there. All is well... it is all good. There will be days when life's burdens will feel heavy and perhaps what you put on the table will be less than yesterday, we will adjust. The giving and the taking is a dance and often can be a joyful one. What matters is that we talk and listen to each other and that we live well together.
Happy Holiday.
Happy Holiday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)