Ah ha, Ross Gittins has had something useful to say from his reading again …
Ah ha, Ross Gittins has had something useful to say from his reading again …
When I taught science (1966, 1968-1972, 1973) it was my evaluation that I needed to help these students in two ways: (1) teach them the vocabulary of science – so at the end of my time at Kiama High School, I was starting to plaster the science lab walls with visuals: text/terms/vocabulary, and pictures of what these terms related to; (2) give them enough opportunity with the science gear to begin to build manual facility with the technical gear.
I am not sure what would be my number 2, now, but I fail to see what might dislodge my number one.
Whetten and Cameron have this to say about vocabulary: (p.64, 4th ed)
Individuals who have a high tolerance of ambiguity also tend to be cognitively complex. They tedn to pay attention to more information, interpret more cues, and possess more sense-making categories [vocabulary] than less complex individuals do.
Schon has this to say: The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on educational practice. (p. 349), speaking of appropriate rigor inthe study of practice
With respect to the first condition, the ontology, or fundamental categories, of an underlying story determines the kinds of observations that must be made in order to disconfirm an explanation derived from that story.
And now to notice how long it has been since I last posted here (October 2011) and when I intended, but did not do any work on summarising! (May 2009).
Summarising is so tough.
My recent resolve to work weekly on a haiku poem requires me to do some of that summary overview thinking … so we will see if discipline in that area proves to be productive for 2013.
I am coming back to ask about literature use and literature use in my own experience, and writing a journal article, and getting stuck when I try to draft from the top – stuck when I get diverted by the literature …
Interesting article on the art of persuading by John Dickson. This has connections for me, concerning my incapacity to persuade, which was particularly apparent during 1968-1972.
It also has links to recent contributions to ‘popular misconceptions’ .. an aspect of Mezirow’s ‘Distorted Assumptions and Toulmin’s Fallacies .. and my collection and analytical tool of Faulty thinking.
Fascinating take on this issue from David Brooks of the New York Times
Interesting comment about writing styles for different processes: the essay for the conscious; the narrative for the unconscious …
When I was a senior school student of English Literature (circa 1961/2), one insight stood out for me – irony, in Shelley’s Ozymandias.
As far as I can remember, that was the first time my perception of learning, in Eng Lit, went beyond ‘learning the facts’.
Yes, I had learnt that ‘metaphor’ is a form of speech, and is when one thing is claimed to be another, as in ‘The moon was a ghostly galleon …’; compared with simile which used ‘as’ or ‘like’ to preface the claim.
I have met up again with ‘metaphor’, and now much later. Jack Mezirow speaks of metaphor being an indicator of the kind of reflective work/thinking that conveys the potential to move a person’s meaning perspective (what he calls ‘transformative’), or provides evidence of such a shift (p.219).
Now I am understanding metaphor, and that kind of thinking, to be related to abduction, as distinct from deduction and induction.
The process of comparison, so vital to ‘research’ and working with ‘findings’, to manage lots of data, is part of this older understanding of how an educated person can use language, and so and more ‘creatively’.
In my thesis (1999-2005) I worked some more with Gregory Bateson’s idea of the meta- … meta-cognition, meta-communication, the second-level process of thinking about thinking, communicating about communication etc.
So what is the meta-4? (as per punning) … to help us think and to communicate our thinking …
How important is it? It seems to me that irony, paradox, truth hidden in the meaning of words, is something that will be with me all my life. Whether I can make something more of this understanding is another matter; let alone considering how I make something more of this …
Before I grow much older, I want to try and capture where my thinking is at.
I am engaging with Werner Ulrich’s JRP article from 2006, again, and from the present turn in my hermeneutical spiral.
And Stephen Downes’ inputs about PLEs is paying off here too.
As I read Werner’s comments about the ‘discursive turn’, I am noting
it tends to divert the attention of researchers away from the need to develop new skills of critical argumentation beyond those of quantitative analysis and, at the same time, to revise their notion of professional competence accordingly[dla1] .
[dla1]Connects with my experience of ‘analysis’ eg from Dunn’s policy analysis experience – analysis is not the only way to address the complex; creative synthesis, eg via metaphor, is another (and if my understanding, of all language being metaphoric, holds water, then language is /has always been our next most primary tool for /of inquiry, ie before counting, which involves ‘naming’ quantities!); so I am agreeing with Ulrich on the discursive critique approach, amongst consenting and informed and competent peers, but also going another step to a meta- metaphor – the metaphor of metaphor.
I have also made abductive connections with the reference to Don Quixote and tilting at windmills.
Another point of connection is with
Popper’s empiricist framework of science theory [dla1] apparently did not allow him to consider–and take seriously–sources of critique other than those of experimental science.
[dla1]This is where I understand myself to be still at, as a first default …
I need to remember: no grand theories; and Model II and Model I can be held by the one person, and perhaps held in tension like most living paradoxes.
Is the next grand theory that of paradox?
And earlier still, I noted, and here is the Downes process coming into play,:
Popper agreed with Neurath that there is no such thing as a direct access to empirical phenomena that would not be mediated through theoretical expectations and interpretations[DLA1] .
[DLA1]Any word in language is a theoretical expectation and interpretation .. the map is not the territory.
Hence critique of ‘naming’.
Where did I read about that recently? About a teacher of observation and students and fish .. and making them keep on observing … Not in the apologetics item.
Perhaps one of the Google Reader ones … no apparently
Perhaps one of Giorgio’s links … drawn a blank there too???
In bed I thought that perhaps checking my internet behaviour might point to a recent web page where this might be. Today 21/2 I cannot check that because the desktop is ‘down’. The during the night dreaming was involving staff at UoW FoE, both Sue’s, and confusion about my role there. Now with the desktop down, and other responsibilities of documentation having first priority, the working on that dreaming idea has escaped me.
Found it this morning 21/2 by being patient with Anecdote from Reader. The reference is http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2010/02/keeping_richnes.html.
As I draft, and mobilise my knowledge to build an argument, I need to refresh my memory of the written work of others, to effectively cite. I have an impression that so-and-so said such-and-such, but don’t quite know exactly where (ie committing verbatim text and chapter-and-verse to memory is not something well developed in my childhood, excepting by the accompaniment of music). But I do have this memory-remnant, and in regularly revisited reading (eg of the three synoptic gospels, or of Paul’s letters to the churches) I have a greater remembrance of basic context, so I can scan relatively quickly for it, and with concordances or electronic search engines these days I can use ‘key words’ to search efficiently and find.
But not all of the documents I have accessed are in a digital form, yet, and my processing of my reading includes integrating the material into my frame, with its selective attentivenesses, and involves some synthesising re-expression, so that when I go ‘back to the literature’ I cannot always find a sentence, or form of words, that captures the remnant memory impression of how I want to speak of the idea I want to reference.
Going back to the literature, however, and searching again, by reading afresh the detail that has been forgotten, can have its own rewards: sometimes, as today, while re-reading Bateson’s Steps to an Ecology of Mind, I see things in detail that I don’t remember having seen before. The hermeneutical spiral and iterative process, that is ongoing for me, has prepared me so that I can read and understand the same words read before, in a different way now.
The process of developing a habit of capturing reflective thinking as I work with my practice issue has now built a large repository of similar data. The task of drafting, and redrafting to be more concise, has given me some polished resources that can be revisited and sometimes it is there that the precise reference, including a page number, is found.
The process of slowing down my reading, of theoretical and technical writing, by transcribing the material that first caught my attention, which I have used since undergraduate days (1963-6) to assist my memory and understanding has been enhanced recently. Since 1996, I have captured the transcribed material digitally, and since 1998 I have been consciously capturing my contemporaneous reflective thinking about that first read and transcribe, so that now I have another resource of digitised data to search via simple ‘find’ commands (or someday soon, when I have tidied up my archived files of redundant duplication, I might invoke Google to search my desktop).
So, today, while mining the archives, I have found:
To what extent I need to explore disciplines like semantics, linguistics, psychology, xxx, to be able to deal with the issues that arise in my practice, is open, and may depend on whether I can find a group of cooperative inquirers where these disciplinary resources are available, and I can engage with cooperative inquiry with them (May 2004 draft of thesis conclusion)
Ha! I knew it! add to “semantics and linguistics”, ‘syntax’, and maybe even ‘TESOL’, and you have some of the issues that my current practice is throwing up … prepositions, vocabulary and categories and possible ontologies, developing abstractions, literacy, the context of writing, etc