I find Knight-Abowitz and Stitzlein's article vastly important to thinking through how to prepare educators in teacher education programs. Maybe even more important than content knowledge and teaching skills, I think this type of work is important to actually committing to diversity, multiculturalism, and community building more than these buzzwords may typically connote (a post-feminist, post-racist kind of hollow capitalist targeted demographic). For instance, Knight-Abowitz and Stitzlein's blog pushes me to questions how the privatization of schooling could lead to a kind of culture industry, perpetuating and reinforcing certain ideals that could go unquestioned if not for concerns about audience, epistemology, and the genesis of some ideas. It fascinates how knowledge is made and affirmed, and if we do have a stake in contributing to a communal good, it is important to make sure we actually have a real investment in community rather than playing into a biopolitic.
I can also see a potential tie-in with Biesta and Burbules outlining Dewey’s understanding of experience informing the creation of knowledge with the article above when thinking along the lines of a culture industry concern when interrogating the roots and epistemology of knowledge. We tend to equate “experience” with the subjective, that which is a connoted with softer option that move us further away from a factual universal truth; this may explain why Dewey defines experience specifically as a way of digging deeper to the true capital-N nature, though I see a kind of “sign::signifier” post-structural problem. I still think Dewey’s notion of knowledge is a little too neat to encapsulate the true nature of the world, which I think can be argued, is not a singular knowledge at all. So then, in terms of educational research, if knowledge is subject to bias how do we decide what is important to teach? What traits should we instill in students in interest of the public good mentioned above?
Elizabeth Severson-Irby: Dewey states that we gain knowledge by coordinated action with our environment. However, he goes on to state that it is not just by action alone that we gain knowledge but that we must think about our environment and the problems that arise in the environment. Through this thinking we develop possible solutions, but it is not until we act based on these solutions that we actually gain knowledge. He is essentially taking larger themes from both external and internal epistemologies and saying that each alone is not sufficient but rather a combination of both.
He also states that through our transaction with the environment, we are constantly modifying our environment, which in turns gives rise to the need for us to adapt. When thinking about research, this is a very important conundrum. If our environment is constantly changing, and if we are constantly adapting to our environment, how can we ever truly expect research to generalize to future situations? If each situation is inherently different, is there ever really a repeatable scenario?
This is not to say that research is futile; in fact, research is the epitome of the pragmatic view of gaining knowledge. Research allows us to think about past actions in a given situation and formulate possible solutions for the future. By acting based on the possible solutions, we gain knowledge of that unique situation. This does not put a final stamp on that situation, but opens up the door to start thinking about future situations.
Another implication for research is that of Truths, truths, laws, and theories. The pragmatic view is that truths are based in context, but science is out to find Truths (or maybe just truths). This goes back to an earlier point about our transaction with the environment: if we modify our environment and our environment causes us to adapt, can there ever be a Truth?
Amy Jefferson: The nature of knowledge stems from one’s interaction with the world. So, in turn the knowledge each person acquires is unique to that individual.
If knowledge is not a fixed entity but is always evolving, then educational research must explore cognition and how identical information is processed differently between learners during different points of their knowledge acquisition.
Dewey stated that human experiences- past, present, and future- influence the capacity to learn and one’s knowledge base. Therefore, knowing is the mode of experiences that support actions. Prior knowledge helps us to better control our actions so that we do not solely live by consistent trial and error. Furthermore, knowledge is realization. Knowledge is required to increase more intellectual approaches in all other areas of experience. Knowledge has to do with inferences which I understand as prior experience plus environmental factors. This involves uncertainty and risk because inferences are not 100% certain. Therefore, Dewey’s temporal theory of knowledge leaves me to believe that educational research makes inferences which are risky and uncertain. These inferences may potentially become a knowledge base only if there is a positive transaction.
Catina The interactionist, pragmatic perspective espoused by Dewey, which indicates the individual as a learner acts on his/her environment as the environment acts on the individual leaves questions about whether educational research, with its focus on processes and methods to source “truths” actually benefits the field at large. Specifically, methods in educational research based on observation, case study and others similarly situated, would seem to suffer two huge fundamental flaws from Dewey’s perspective. First those research findings from those methods are hampered by the fact that the researcher as observer, the learner of learning, is impacting the research environment. That change to the research environment impacts the research findings. Second, the research might not even be necessary because even if multiple researchers were consistent in their perspective, the Dewey belief in the uniqueness of each individual learner makes the research applicable to only the students observed.
Dewey may believe that educational research, in its quest for generalizability may undermine its own efforts to actually educate individuals by focusing on the universal education truths. Earlier in the semester we discussed the chasm between education research and education reality, which Dewey might believe is based on the limited shelf life and applicability of the research gathered. If that is the case, perhaps he may be more keen on the teacher-researcher than Labaree because the teacher-researcher would use the information gathered for the students and situations immediately before them. Those extremely localized, acute truths would support the teacher-researcher’s own learning and therefore their capacity to be more responsive to their students-NOT all students.
Mitchell Waters - Dewey posits that experience puts us “in touch” with nature but experience is not quite knowledge (p. 51). In order to bridge the gap between experience and knowledge, we need action. This is what makes Dewey’s philosophy a transactional approach. We have experience, we engage with experience through action and this leads to knowledge. Because knowledge is derived from a transactional relationship with experience, the knowledge obtained runs the risk of being overly individualistic.
If we go back to the famous Indian fable of the blind men touching a different part of an elephant and concluding that an elephant is like the piece they touched (tree stump, snake, rope, spear, etc.), we might see how subjective this form of knowledge might be. “Subjective” does not inherently mean that the experience lacks value or purpose, it just means that there might be some potential problems when generalizing. We might have this same problem when it comes to educational research. The world is constantly changing and, thus, education is constantly changing. If experience changes then the knowledge to be found is also changing. This change presents a problem in educational research and we have to ask the question about generalizability in educational research. Even if educational knowledge can generalize to some degree, will it stay that way? I would presume not. If these are the confines within which we are working, our option appears to be to gain knowledge where we can and within a certain context, acknowledge its limitations and do our best to make some generalized remarks within a certain context.
I really enjoyed Dewey's stance on knowledge and reality as being understood as temporal terms. This reminded me a lot of Thomas Jefferson's (and other founding fathers) beliefs that the constitution should be rewritten every so often to more accurately reflect the times in which it is serving. Much like Jefferson, Dewey posits that knowledge is only as powerful and relevant to the time context in which it was discovered and the action which is taken with said knowledge. In the context of educational research, pragmatism's stance on knowledge seems more like a call to action to keep our research methods and questions pertinent to the individuals we are studying and to quickly adapt and evolve with the conclusions that are made from current research. In Dewey's point of view, good research leads to more refined and topical research questions, which continue on in a positive feedback loop. In this loop, experience informs knowledge and vice versa. This is a concept that I think educational research prescribes fairly well in that we are able to research past actions to help inform our future experiences. Specifically in the counseling realm, it seems like adopting a view of pragmatism could be helpful in propelling research (especially around multiculturalism) forward past its relatively stagnant state.
Lauren: Dewey suggests the nature of knowledge is contextual and personal. An individual must set a focus or goal, have experiences interacting with the topic set, and build their knowledge base from that. It means the process is highly subjective to the person, culture, climate, community, etc.
This means that educational research, which is the building of new knowledge about getting others to build new knowledge, needs to have those same characteristics. The research should be highly interactive with the subject matter. It should try to account for as much context present in the educational situation. Now obviously that highlights the messiness of education and education research, but it is where the meatiest work can get done. Education does not happen in a vacuum, so neither can its research.
Kori: Dewey's theory of knowledge says knowledge is created through thinking and then action. Knowledge is not possible without action because if we do not act we do not know the consequence. We cannot be certain that because we know something about one experience that the experience will happen with the same consequence thus knowledge is always changing. Educational research is reflect of this. When we do research on one group we cannot be sure the findings will generalize to other groups. Even if the group is similar to what we studied we cannot be sure the outcome or consequence will be the same as what we found before.
Alison Dossick: Dewey’s theory of knowledge as being transactional, shows a relationship between things in the real world. The relationship that is created by these experiences sheds light on how one should frame educational research. When conducting research, one must be careful not to influence the research by interacting with it. Researchers must also understand how learners frame their knowledge. It will be created by the learners’ experiences with it. The notion that stimulus and response are too simplistic also speaks to this. If you implement a new teaching technique and track the results to research whether it is a good technique, one must consider more than the technique as the stimulus. One must consider all the experiences the learners are bringing when constructing their new knowledge using the researched technique. For example, I am interested in what learning experiences lend themselves to more minorities and girls pursuing science in higher education. This has proven to be a very complicated topic as each student will be bringing experiences that nudge them towards or away from higher education in general and possibly towards science or math. Their knowledge as they construct it will be a series of transactions. While Dewey says understanding these transactions gives one a sense of control over ones’ life when actions can be seen to connect to consequences, the researcher will feel completely out of control because the students’ real world is not the same as the researchers.
Jonathan Staylor: Dewey is able to frame the acquisition of knowledge as a resolution construction based off of transactional interactions with the environment. Within educational research, knowledge can be ascertained through Dewey's framework. There is a multitude of transactional interactions within education. As a researcher, it is important to be aware of these transactions within the discipline when acquiring knowledge. The researcher needs to be as specific as possible with the knowledge that is being attained so that environmental factors can be considered. This entails that the researcher be aware of biases they may have and also of potential cognitive dissonance within the context of the environment. As a student in counselor education, I feel that positive professional dispositions can lead to growth within the counseling relationship and this will lead to knowledge within education.
Amy Taloma: From reading chapter 2, I gleaned that, for Dewey, knowledge is experience, transaction between environment and organism, supported by action. This creates a consequence that should stir reflection within the "transformation of the transaction.” It is the “combination of reflection and action that leads to knowledge (pp. 46).” I also pulled out how this knowledge would be different, but equal, based on the perception, or role, of the organism. We can also try to control variables in order to get the preferred or anticipated consequences. Lastly, Dewey believed that knowledge was not static and there is no end to knowledge. This relates to educational research within methodology, it indicates a kind of mixed-methods approach in using many modes, senses, and perspectives to get to the way of knowing. It also indicates that these are all valid. It makes the position statement of the researcher and also strictly outlining methods that were used important components. A researcher with a different role or perception could come to a different conclusion, even if they have followed the methods closely.
Waleed Sami: I thoroughly enjoyed reading this chapter, and learning about Dewey's thoughts on pragmatism and how one attains knowledge, mostly through action and experience. I believe this has an important impact on educational theory and research. One, for example, can we shift our pedagogy from formal evaluation into a progressive form of evaluation? To be more concrete, let's say we are training teachers and therapist to go out in the field. Instead of formally evaluating them on a set of facts through a test, we can follow evaluation through a Dewey lense. That would mean that this teacher and therapist, would only attain actionable knowledge through consistent interaction with their environment, i.e., being involved in the "stuff" of the profession. For sure, there would be helpful mentorship and guidance, along with a space for formal theory, but Dewey may not appreciate a teacher's readiness to teach simply based on a test. He would say that the knowledge is incomplete, since the teacher needs to interact more with class in order to gain real, foundational knowledge through action. This type of progressive way of learning knowledge would be fascinating to research, specifically comparing it tests vs. field experience, and seeing which one helps therapists or teachers more in the inculcation of knowledge.
Martinique: In accordance with the philosophy of John Dewey, “knowing is a process that occurs outside of nature”, with nature being defined as “a moving whole of interacting parts” (Biesta, 26). Dewey suggests that the double relationship between organisms and their environment, as he terms experience, is the span of human possibilities. He explains knowledge as one mode amongst many, in terms of experience. Dewey suggests that “we do not have to go to knowledge to obtain an exclusive hold on reality [because] the world as we experience it is the real world” (Biesta, 29). To me this means that all we can ever possibly know, is anything that we have personally experienced. I think this can be tricky in today’s world because of the influence of media and the ability to watch or know more experiences than even before Dewey’s time. Dewey suggests that nature is the purest entity in and of itself. Wether we experience an aspect of nature in order to “know” it is an essential component to him, but it is not the only perspective of the natural world. It is simply the human perspective. Biesta and Burbles write that in “educational research, the most important mode is the cognitive mode of experience, although it is clearly related to the others” (Biesta, 30). This is because Dewey believed that knowing causes actions. Educational research is aimed to discover generalizations that can be applied to the most individuals within a population. Dewey would probably suggest that this could never completely occur. However, knowledge is still a very complex and important aspect of life and therefor it is beneficial to study life and find as many connections as possible in order to continue to benefit nature and natural processes.
Jia From Dewey’s perspective, knowledge is acquired through action and experience. This statement offers profound implications for teachers. Instead of pouring knowledge into students’ heads, or teaching students how to pass the test, teachers should provide more opportunities for students to experience the knowledge. For example, teachers can try to do role-play, flipped classroom and some other interactive activities in the classroom to ensure the students acquire knowledge through their personal experience. Educational research based on observing students’ learning experience in the classroom activity may produce more practical and reflective knowledge for students’ better future experience.
Robyn Lyn: Chapter two suggests that knowledge comes from action, that it is dynamic, and measures reality by “change, and not immutability” (page 52).
A short story: If there are three people looking at a person. One person sees green eyes, one person sees brown eyes, and one person doesn’t see any color… what color are that person’s eyes? We could say that the first person sees green when looking. The second person is color blind. The third person is totally blind. Which reality is true? What knowledge have we gained from actively looking at the person? What if that person’s eyes weren’t green or brown, but blue? Would all of their realities be false? Or would each of their realities be true?
Understanding that we all live in different realities is critical for educational research. Human beings have a multitude of individual experiences that impact their world view. We must approach all research by critically reflecting upon how we set up our research projects, how we ask questions of, what questions we formulate to ask, how we interpret our results, and we must understand that our findings come from the actions we choose to take and decisions we make within our projects.
Everything is connected but there is no single solution to educational issues. There is no one reality and as our worlds intersect, reality changes with our interactions. We must question our perspectives when interpreting our findings. We must understand that our reality impacts our findings. We must look beyond the lens we use from our own experiences and question our research reflexively, understanding that the knowledge we create could become obsolete with the next research project from another researcher’s findings. We must be willing to accept change as part of the life of a researcher, question constantly, and value the knowledge others bring to the conversation as valid for discussion and criticism. We must also accept the same for ourselves. I am reminded of the saying, “Don’t take it personally.” Create knowledge but be willing to be humble and accept the possibility your reality could be rejected by those who have a different reality. It may not be wrong, just different. Then again, it could be wrong… accept that if it becomes true.
Dewey's thoughts on knowledge being gained through action and experince resonated with me in the reading. In regards to educational research, it causes me to shift my thinking to wonder if the way assessments, content and best practices are executed are effective or necessary. As a school counselor currently working in the school system, our students were required to take reading and math assessments prior to the end of the second week of school. I've witnessed teachers being so focused on SOL's or assessments that their teaching is centered around their students memorizing facts to answer questions on a standardized test. This form of education leaves little room for knowledge to be gained through experience or action. I wonder what a a school system would look like that focuses on knowledge gained from experience and action, to include character building and socioemotional learning. I would to see educational research transforming to support this approach.
Dewey acknowledges that experience refers to the transaction of an organism and its environment. Knowledge isn't gained just through experience. The link between experience and knowledge is action. He said that only through action can we get an understanding of conditions of the happening of an experience. He also discusses how knowledge and reality are dynamic and evolving. As far as researched is concerned, I would say that this could mean that we have to be careful with generalizing research. Not everyone's experience is the same so the action to gain knowledge cannot necessarily be generalized to everyone. I also feel like this would be applicable in research in that the researcher interacts with the subject matter.
The concept of experience being a transaction between an organism and the world is interesting to me I think just in the way he refers to what a transaction is. I think of a transaction as something that is pretty one-sided, or an action by someone or something TO or FOR another. When I think of an experience, I see that as something that involves action on both sides, and something that we must totally immerse ourselves in to get the full effect or gain all the knowledge we possibly can from that experience.
This chapter really made me think about my Theory and Appraisal of College Student Development course in my master’s program. The entire semester focused on student development theories and we spent a lot of time on the application of those theories in our work. I suspect Dewey might have had something to do with the format of that course. It definitely worked for me, especially since I tend to lean towards knowing by doing.
Robyn Lyn: I found the concept that theories, propositions, and hypothesis (page 65) are not true or false according to Dewey. He likens them to a tool (hammer). They simply exist. My question becomes: who created them if they simply exist? Was that person correct in their determination of the theory? If theories are simply "conceptual operations," how do we know if the concept is correct? This confuses me. Let's take pragmatism. If pragmatism is simply a theory, without any "[T]ruth-falsity" as the book claims, what's to say that it can then frame any research with any accuracy? If we are implementing theory into our research and claiming it to be a way to validate our research, are we to assume since the actual theory is not true or false then our findings cannot be validated as right or wrong? Is the only benefit "restoring coordinated action" and, if so, does it make that action invalid? Does it make the process of inquiry invalid as well? I wonder if we could then assume our research only means what we say it means and it doesn't really matter who critiques it since there is no truth or falseness in the framework of the operations. Even math has truth in its operations, otherwise we end up with an incorrect answer. Perhaps research for the social sciences has too many possibilities for error to ever be true for everyone. The variable of humanity makes it impossible to be an exact science.
Tosha Yingling:
ReplyDeleteI find Knight-Abowitz and Stitzlein's article vastly important to thinking through how to prepare educators in teacher education programs. Maybe even more important than content knowledge and teaching skills, I think this type of work is important to actually committing to diversity, multiculturalism, and community building more than these buzzwords may typically connote (a post-feminist, post-racist kind of hollow capitalist targeted demographic). For instance, Knight-Abowitz and Stitzlein's blog pushes me to questions how the privatization of schooling could lead to a kind of culture industry, perpetuating and reinforcing certain ideals that could go unquestioned if not for concerns about audience, epistemology, and the genesis of some ideas. It fascinates how knowledge is made and affirmed, and if we do have a stake in contributing to a communal good, it is important to make sure we actually have a real investment in community rather than playing into a biopolitic.
I can also see a potential tie-in with Biesta and Burbules outlining Dewey’s understanding of experience informing the creation of knowledge with the article above when thinking along the lines of a culture industry concern when interrogating the roots and epistemology of knowledge. We tend to equate “experience” with the subjective, that which is a connoted with softer option that move us further away from a factual universal truth; this may explain why Dewey defines experience specifically as a way of digging deeper to the true capital-N nature, though I see a kind of “sign::signifier” post-structural problem. I still think Dewey’s notion of knowledge is a little too neat to encapsulate the true nature of the world, which I think can be argued, is not a singular knowledge at all. So then, in terms of educational research, if knowledge is subject to bias how do we decide what is important to teach? What traits should we instill in students in interest of the public good mentioned above?
Elizabeth Severson-Irby:
ReplyDeleteDewey states that we gain knowledge by coordinated action with our environment. However, he goes on to state that it is not just by action alone that we gain knowledge but that we must think about our environment and the problems that arise in the environment. Through this thinking we develop possible solutions, but it is not until we act based on these solutions that we actually gain knowledge. He is essentially taking larger themes from both external and internal epistemologies and saying that each alone is not sufficient but rather a combination of both.
He also states that through our transaction with the environment, we are constantly modifying our environment, which in turns gives rise to the need for us to adapt. When thinking about research, this is a very important conundrum. If our environment is constantly changing, and if we are constantly adapting to our environment, how can we ever truly expect research to generalize to future situations? If each situation is inherently different, is there ever really a repeatable scenario?
This is not to say that research is futile; in fact, research is the epitome of the pragmatic view of gaining knowledge. Research allows us to think about past actions in a given situation and formulate possible solutions for the future. By acting based on the possible solutions, we gain knowledge of that unique situation. This does not put a final stamp on that situation, but opens up the door to start thinking about future situations.
Another implication for research is that of Truths, truths, laws, and theories. The pragmatic view is that truths are based in context, but science is out to find Truths (or maybe just truths). This goes back to an earlier point about our transaction with the environment: if we modify our environment and our environment causes us to adapt, can there ever be a Truth?
Amy Jefferson: The nature of knowledge stems from one’s interaction with the world. So, in turn the knowledge each person acquires is unique to that individual.
ReplyDeleteIf knowledge is not a fixed entity but is always evolving, then educational research must explore cognition and how identical information is processed differently between learners during different points of their knowledge acquisition.
Dewey stated that human experiences- past, present, and future- influence the capacity to learn and one’s knowledge base. Therefore, knowing is the mode of experiences that support actions. Prior knowledge helps us to better control our actions so that we do not solely live by consistent trial and error. Furthermore, knowledge is realization. Knowledge is required to increase more intellectual approaches in all other areas of experience. Knowledge has to do with inferences which I understand as prior experience plus environmental factors. This involves uncertainty and risk because inferences are not 100% certain. Therefore, Dewey’s temporal theory of knowledge leaves me to believe that educational research makes inferences which are risky and uncertain. These inferences may potentially become a knowledge base only if there is a positive transaction.
ReplyDeleteCatina
ReplyDeleteThe interactionist, pragmatic perspective espoused by Dewey, which indicates the individual as a learner acts on his/her environment as the environment acts on the individual leaves questions about whether educational research, with its focus on processes and methods to source “truths” actually benefits the field at large. Specifically, methods in educational research based on observation, case study and others similarly situated, would seem to suffer two huge fundamental flaws from Dewey’s perspective. First those research findings from those methods are hampered by the fact that the researcher as observer, the learner of learning, is impacting the research environment. That change to the research environment impacts the research findings. Second, the research might not even be necessary because even if multiple researchers were consistent in their perspective, the Dewey belief in the uniqueness of each individual learner makes the research applicable to only the students observed.
Dewey may believe that educational research, in its quest for generalizability may undermine its own efforts to actually educate individuals by focusing on the universal education truths. Earlier in the semester we discussed the chasm between education research and education reality, which Dewey might believe is based on the limited shelf life and applicability of the research gathered. If that is the case, perhaps he may be more keen on the teacher-researcher than Labaree because the teacher-researcher would use the information gathered for the students and situations immediately before them. Those extremely localized, acute truths would support the teacher-researcher’s own learning and therefore their capacity to be more responsive to their students-NOT all students.
Mitchell Waters - Dewey posits that experience puts us “in touch” with nature but experience is not quite knowledge (p. 51). In order to bridge the gap between experience and knowledge, we need action. This is what makes Dewey’s philosophy a transactional approach. We have experience, we engage with experience through action and this leads to knowledge. Because knowledge is derived from a transactional relationship with experience, the knowledge obtained runs the risk of being overly individualistic.
ReplyDeleteIf we go back to the famous Indian fable of the blind men touching a different part of an elephant and concluding that an elephant is like the piece they touched (tree stump, snake, rope, spear, etc.), we might see how subjective this form of knowledge might be. “Subjective” does not inherently mean that the experience lacks value or purpose, it just means that there might be some potential problems when generalizing. We might have this same problem when it comes to educational research. The world is constantly changing and, thus, education is constantly changing. If experience changes then the knowledge to be found is also changing. This change presents a problem in educational research and we have to ask the question about generalizability in educational research. Even if educational knowledge can generalize to some degree, will it stay that way? I would presume not. If these are the confines within which we are working, our option appears to be to gain knowledge where we can and within a certain context, acknowledge its limitations and do our best to make some generalized remarks within a certain context.
Kristian Robinson
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Dewey's stance on knowledge and reality as being understood as temporal terms. This reminded me a lot of Thomas Jefferson's (and other founding fathers) beliefs that the constitution should be rewritten every so often to more accurately reflect the times in which it is serving. Much like Jefferson, Dewey posits that knowledge is only as powerful and relevant to the time context in which it was discovered and the action which is taken with said knowledge. In the context of educational research, pragmatism's stance on knowledge seems more like a call to action to keep our research methods and questions pertinent to the individuals we are studying and to quickly adapt and evolve with the conclusions that are made from current research. In Dewey's point of view, good research leads to more refined and topical research questions, which continue on in a positive feedback loop. In this loop, experience informs knowledge and vice versa. This is a concept that I think educational research prescribes fairly well in that we are able to research past actions to help inform our future experiences. Specifically in the counseling realm, it seems like adopting a view of pragmatism could be helpful in propelling research (especially around multiculturalism) forward past its relatively stagnant state.
Lauren:
ReplyDeleteDewey suggests the nature of knowledge is contextual and personal. An individual must set a focus or goal, have experiences interacting with the topic set, and build their knowledge base from that. It means the process is highly subjective to the person, culture, climate, community, etc.
This means that educational research, which is the building of new knowledge about getting others to build new knowledge, needs to have those same characteristics. The research should be highly interactive with the subject matter. It should try to account for as much context present in the educational situation. Now obviously that highlights the messiness of education and education research, but it is where the meatiest work can get done. Education does not happen in a vacuum, so neither can its research.
Kori: Dewey's theory of knowledge says knowledge is created through thinking and then action. Knowledge is not possible without action because if we do not act we do not know the consequence. We cannot be certain that because we know something about one experience that the experience will happen with the same consequence thus knowledge is always changing.
ReplyDeleteEducational research is reflect of this. When we do research on one group we cannot be sure the findings will generalize to other groups. Even if the group is similar to what we studied we cannot be sure the outcome or consequence will be the same as what we found before.
Alison Dossick:
ReplyDeleteDewey’s theory of knowledge as being transactional, shows a relationship between things in the real world. The relationship that is created by these experiences sheds light on how one should frame educational research. When conducting research, one must be careful not to influence the research by interacting with it. Researchers must also understand how learners frame their knowledge. It will be created by the learners’ experiences with it.
The notion that stimulus and response are too simplistic also speaks to this. If you implement a new teaching technique and track the results to research whether it is a good technique, one must consider more than the technique as the stimulus. One must consider all the experiences the learners are bringing when constructing their new knowledge using the researched technique.
For example, I am interested in what learning experiences lend themselves to more minorities and girls pursuing science in higher education. This has proven to be a very complicated topic as each student will be bringing experiences that nudge them towards or away from higher education in general and possibly towards science or math. Their knowledge as they construct it will be a series of transactions. While Dewey says understanding these transactions gives one a sense of control over ones’ life when actions can be seen to connect to consequences, the researcher will feel completely out of control because the students’ real world is not the same as the researchers.
Jonathan Staylor: Dewey is able to frame the acquisition of knowledge as a resolution construction based off of transactional interactions with the environment. Within educational research, knowledge can be ascertained through Dewey's framework. There is a multitude of transactional interactions within education. As a researcher, it is important to be aware of these transactions within the discipline when acquiring knowledge. The researcher needs to be as specific as possible with the knowledge that is being attained so that environmental factors can be considered. This entails that the researcher be aware of biases they may have and also of potential cognitive dissonance within the context of the environment. As a student in counselor education, I feel that positive professional dispositions can lead to growth within the counseling relationship and this will lead to knowledge within education.
ReplyDeleteAmy Taloma: From reading chapter 2, I gleaned that, for Dewey, knowledge is experience, transaction between environment and organism, supported by action. This creates a consequence that should stir reflection within the "transformation of the transaction.” It is the “combination of reflection and action that leads to knowledge (pp. 46).” I also pulled out how this knowledge would be different, but equal, based on the perception, or role, of the organism. We can also try to control variables in order to get the preferred or anticipated consequences. Lastly, Dewey believed that knowledge was not static and there is no end to knowledge. This relates to educational research within methodology, it indicates a kind of mixed-methods approach in using many modes, senses, and perspectives to get to the way of knowing. It also indicates that these are all valid. It makes the position statement of the researcher and also strictly outlining methods that were used important components. A researcher with a different role or perception could come to a different conclusion, even if they have followed the methods closely.
ReplyDeleteWaleed Sami:
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed reading this chapter, and learning about Dewey's thoughts on pragmatism and how one attains knowledge, mostly through action and experience. I believe this has an important impact on educational theory and research. One, for example, can we shift our pedagogy from formal evaluation into a progressive form of evaluation? To be more concrete, let's say we are training teachers and therapist to go out in the field. Instead of formally evaluating them on a set of facts through a test, we can follow evaluation through a Dewey lense. That would mean that this teacher and therapist, would only attain actionable knowledge through consistent interaction with their environment, i.e., being involved in the "stuff" of the profession. For sure, there would be helpful mentorship and guidance, along with a space for formal theory, but Dewey may not appreciate a teacher's readiness to teach simply based on a test. He would say that the knowledge is incomplete, since the teacher needs to interact more with class in order to gain real, foundational knowledge through action. This type of progressive way of learning knowledge would be fascinating to research, specifically comparing it tests vs. field experience, and seeing which one helps therapists or teachers more in the inculcation of knowledge.
Martinique:
ReplyDeleteIn accordance with the philosophy of John Dewey, “knowing is a process that occurs outside of nature”, with nature being defined as “a moving whole of interacting parts” (Biesta, 26). Dewey suggests that the double relationship between organisms and their environment, as he terms experience, is the span of human possibilities. He explains knowledge as one mode amongst many, in terms of experience. Dewey suggests that “we do not have to go to knowledge to obtain an exclusive hold on reality [because] the world as we experience it is the real world” (Biesta, 29). To me this means that all we can ever possibly know, is anything that we have personally experienced. I think this can be tricky in today’s world because of the influence of media and the ability to watch or know more experiences than even before Dewey’s time. Dewey suggests that nature is the purest entity in and of itself. Wether we experience an aspect of nature in order to “know” it is an essential component to him, but it is not the only perspective of the natural world. It is simply the human perspective.
Biesta and Burbles write that in “educational research, the most important mode is the cognitive mode of experience, although it is clearly related to the others” (Biesta, 30). This is because Dewey believed that knowing causes actions. Educational research is aimed to discover generalizations that can be applied to the most individuals within a population. Dewey would probably suggest that this could never completely occur. However, knowledge is still a very complex and important aspect of life and therefor it is beneficial to study life and find as many connections as possible in order to continue to benefit nature and natural processes.
Jia
ReplyDeleteFrom Dewey’s perspective, knowledge is acquired through action and experience. This statement offers profound implications for teachers. Instead of pouring knowledge into students’ heads, or teaching students how to pass the test, teachers should provide more opportunities for students to experience the knowledge. For example, teachers can try to do role-play, flipped classroom and some other interactive activities in the classroom to ensure the students acquire knowledge through their personal experience. Educational research based on observing students’ learning experience in the classroom activity may produce more practical and reflective knowledge for students’ better future experience.
Robyn Lyn: Chapter two suggests that knowledge comes from action, that it is dynamic, and measures reality by “change, and not immutability” (page 52).
ReplyDeleteA short story: If there are three people looking at a person. One person sees green eyes, one person sees brown eyes, and one person doesn’t see any color… what color are that person’s eyes? We could say that the first person sees green when looking. The second person is color blind. The third person is totally blind. Which reality is true? What knowledge have we gained from actively looking at the person? What if that person’s eyes weren’t green or brown, but blue? Would all of their realities be false? Or would each of their realities be true?
Understanding that we all live in different realities is critical for educational research. Human beings have a multitude of individual experiences that impact their world view. We must approach all research by critically reflecting upon how we set up our research projects, how we ask questions of, what questions we formulate to ask, how we interpret our results, and we must understand that our findings come from the actions we choose to take and decisions we make within our projects.
Everything is connected but there is no single solution to educational issues. There is no one reality and as our worlds intersect, reality changes with our interactions. We must question our perspectives when interpreting our findings. We must understand that our reality impacts our findings. We must look beyond the lens we use from our own experiences and question our research reflexively, understanding that the knowledge we create could become obsolete with the next research project from another researcher’s findings. We must be willing to accept change as part of the life of a researcher, question constantly, and value the knowledge others bring to the conversation as valid for discussion and criticism. We must also accept the same for ourselves. I am reminded of the saying, “Don’t take it personally.” Create knowledge but be willing to be humble and accept the possibility your reality could be rejected by those who have a different reality. It may not be wrong, just different. Then again, it could be wrong… accept that if it becomes true.
ReplyDeleteDewey's thoughts on knowledge being gained through action and experince resonated with me in the reading. In regards to educational research, it causes me to shift my thinking to wonder if the way assessments, content and best practices are executed are effective or necessary. As a school counselor currently working in the school system, our students were required to take reading and math assessments prior to the end of the second week of school. I've witnessed teachers being so focused on SOL's or assessments that their teaching is centered around their students memorizing facts to answer questions on a standardized test. This form of education leaves little room for knowledge to be gained through experience or action. I wonder what a a school system would look like that focuses on knowledge gained from experience and action, to include character building and socioemotional learning. I would to see educational research transforming to support this approach.
Dewey acknowledges that experience refers to the transaction of an organism and its environment. Knowledge isn't gained just through experience. The link between experience and knowledge is action. He said that only through action can we get an understanding of conditions of the happening of an experience. He also discusses how knowledge and reality are dynamic and evolving.
ReplyDeleteAs far as researched is concerned, I would say that this could mean that we have to be careful with generalizing research. Not everyone's experience is the same so the action to gain knowledge cannot necessarily be generalized to everyone. I also feel like this would be applicable in research in that the researcher interacts with the subject matter.
Jaime Williams:
ReplyDeleteThe concept of experience being a transaction between an organism and the world is interesting to me I think just in the way he refers to what a transaction is. I think of a transaction as something that is pretty one-sided, or an action by someone or something TO or FOR another. When I think of an experience, I see that as something that involves action on both sides, and something that we must totally immerse ourselves in to get the full effect or gain all the knowledge we possibly can from that experience.
This chapter really made me think about my Theory and Appraisal of College Student Development course in my master’s program. The entire semester focused on student development theories and we spent a lot of time on the application of those theories in our work. I suspect Dewey might have had something to do with the format of that course. It definitely worked for me, especially since I tend to lean towards knowing by doing.
Robyn Lyn: I found the concept that theories, propositions, and hypothesis (page 65) are not true or false according to Dewey. He likens them to a tool (hammer). They simply exist. My question becomes: who created them if they simply exist? Was that person correct in their determination of the theory? If theories are simply "conceptual operations," how do we know if the concept is correct? This confuses me. Let's take pragmatism. If pragmatism is simply a theory, without any "[T]ruth-falsity" as the book claims, what's to say that it can then frame any research with any accuracy? If we are implementing theory into our research and claiming it to be a way to validate our research, are we to assume since the actual theory is not true or false then our findings cannot be validated as right or wrong? Is the only benefit "restoring coordinated action" and, if so, does it make that action invalid? Does it make the process of inquiry invalid as well? I wonder if we could then assume our research only means what we say it means and it doesn't really matter who critiques it since there is no truth or falseness in the framework of the operations. Even math has truth in its operations, otherwise we end up with an incorrect answer. Perhaps research for the social sciences has too many possibilities for error to ever be true for everyone. The variable of humanity makes it impossible to be an exact science.
ReplyDelete