M.C. Escher Sphere Spirals, 1958 www.mcescher.com
Chapter Five John Dewey's preface to his masterful, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (1916), opens with this sentence, "The following pages embody an endeavor to detect and state the ideas implied in a democratic society and to apply these ideas to the problems of the enterprise of education" (p. iii). My study has been an attempt to continue Dewey's endeavor by extending its purview to the integration of technology into the curriculum. In short, in this study, I have attempted "to detect and state the ideas implied in a democratic society and to apply these ideas to the problems of the enterprise" of technology integration in education. For the use to which any known fact is put depends upon its connections. The knowledge of dynamite of a safecracker may be identical in verbal form with that of a chemist; in fact, it is different, for it is knit into connection with different aims and habits, and thus has a different import. (Dewey, 1916, p. 356) Science begins with a close examination of what appears to be magical. The social science of educational technology research has yet to seriously consider the relationship-magic inherent in successful teaching/learning experiences. What Shotter referred to as the "interfittedness of things" (1971), those amazing moments that are also realizations, those events that occur between people in the course of a successful teaching/learning experience, educational technology has not reproduced. The interpersonal in education will remain magical to us until relevant grounded theories emerge through conversations and from qualitative investigations that will allow us to examine ourselves and our interactions with less prejudice and more compassion. Living Systems: A sensitive dependence on initial conditions This study reinforced through experience, the knowledge I had acquired through reading, of the embeddedness of living systems within a complexity of relational, communicative interaction. I found that the inevitable process of change-over-time could be manipulated by a researcher, myself, using interpersonal trust and collaborative achievement as motivators. Systems theory describes systems as internally consistent, in continuous interaction with other systems, self-regulatory, and self-actualizing. Bertalanffy (1975), a biologist, developed the theory of open systems and general systems theory (Davidson, 1983). Bertalanffy, and later Lorenz (1993), asserted that a small alteration in the pattern of a systems process could lead to enormous alterations in that system's pattern. This "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," was a guiding premise that justified the experimental use, throughout this study, of small, caring, relational, discursive activities to bring about significant change. And, indeed, subtle changes in interpersonal dynamics, in relation to technology use, such as an increase in mutual respect, did affect the functioning of the system as a whole. Paulo Freire (1970a, 1970b, 1973, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1998), Maxine Greene (1978, 1988, 1995, 2001; Pinar, 1998), and Lisa Goldstein (1997) have illustrated many levels of potential and poignancy in the relationship between teachers and students, repeatedly pointing out how interactions between people determined what kind of learning resulted. Freire also emphasized the role that teachers can play, modeling interactive transformation. Freire stated that, "In the culture of silence the masses are "mute," that is, they are prohibited from creatively taking part in the transformations of their society and therefore prohibited from being they do not know that their action upon the world is also transforming" (1970, p. 213). During the course of this research study, I tried to remain aware that each communication that I participated in, whether face-to-face or text-based, on the telephone or online, was affecting the course of the action and the meaning-making process of our change effort. This study validated conversational reality theory: I found that conversation was the ground from which the co-creation of our reality emerged. In Chapter Four, I outlined three types of polarity thinking that affected participant-teachers relationships to technology innovation. I asserted that it was possible to find a unity underlying the three sets of polarities using two particular theoretical perspectives, conversational reality theory and Ricoeurian hermeneutics. Conversational reality, as previously stated, defines conversation as the ground from which ongoing social re-creation emerges. Ricoeurian hermeneutics is a specific orientation to textual analysis, a creative analytic whose purpose is a synthesis of meaning not a polarization of conceptual frameworks nor a dichotomization of prior unities. Mink (1993c, 1994, 1998, 2000), applying systems theory to human resource development, found that, in order to support the development of a higher level of interaction within a system, a change agent must be able to perceive the existant functioning from outside the system under examination. In other words, to mix fractal terms with human resource development terms, a change agent must introduce a strange attractor from another level of interaction (engendering a different pattern or dynamic interaction). Using systems theory as a means of analysis, this study found that a researcher (myself), wishing to raise the level of interaction from competition to collaboration, did so by identifying, communicating, and sharing elements of unity underlying polarity thinking. Conversational reality theory provided a framework for perceiving individuals in specific conversations as co-creating the world as they were living in it. Each participant in a conversation brings all they have been and all they hope to be. As people reach out from their prior experience to participate in a conversation, a meaning-making moment is creating ground for a future. Note that, within this theoretical framework, the future is a collaborative creation. In this framework, a competitive conversation is a collaboration in competition, an agreement to compete. A researcher can widen her lens to view a conversational interaction not as a battle of wills, nor as a conflict of interest, nor as a clash of titans, but as an exchange between two individuated elements of a unified system whose life is sustained through (and judged by the level of) the health of its participants (Rose, 2000). This study confirmed for me that we are embedded in interaffecting, living systems and that the course of collaborative, democratic futures cannot be predetermined. We all have the ability, through our lived connectivity, to affect change. The way we affect change is not only through lesson plans (though I do not want to minimize the importance of lesson plans) but also through subtle alterations in the interactions taking place between persons. Having studied computer models of weather patterns, Lorenz (1993) claimed that, when a butterfly flapped its wings on one side the earth, some time later, in another part of our earth, a storm would emerge as a result. Lorenzs famous statement-metaphor added a further poetic dimension to Bertalanffys assertion that "a sensitive dependence on initial conditions" is a principle that applies to all living, interaffecting, systems. My study showed me that human beings are no less susceptible than other natural phenomena to subtle changes in the (interactional, relational) atmosphere. This study confirmed that delicate actions, small alterations, even as seemingly unimportant as a tone of voice, during a conversation, could act as powerfully on a system as a flap of a butterflys wing. I have confirmed for myself, through my own experience in this study, that an educational system made up of human participants is affected, not just superficially, but radically, at its root, on ontological, definitive levels, by every conversation that takes place within it. In the following, I will re-examine the three polarities, I and Thou, creative and critical thinking, and justice and care, from the point of view of conversational reality and Ricoeurian hermeneutics. Although I cannot demonstrate the co-creation of conversational reality in a narrative, Appendix F provides an example of a text-based a conversation that took place online during this study. However, I can demonstrate a version of Ricoeurian textual hermeneutic in the last of the next few sections on interpretive schema: justice and care. And, I can try to capture in narrative form a type of text-based, interpretive conversational reality as I proceed to integrate perspectives from this study. A final, preliminary note: the theories I have used to achieve a theoretical unity for myself do not exhaust the available schemata for perceiving unity in dichotomies. Further research is needed in cognitive-unifying processes that support collaborative, democratic practice. I and Thou: Appreciating the Other In 1931, John Dewey wrote an article for the inaugural issue of The Harvard Teachers Record (later, The Harvard Educational Review) entitled, "Appreciation and Cultivation." In this article, Dewey defined personal participation as emotional participation. "To care," was to be "emotionally stirred," with "a sensitiveness to shades of meaning" (no pagination). I quote at length from this article because I find Dewey's appreciation of the value of care and emotional connectedness vital and vitally apt in describing the method of interpersonal relatedness I used to engage the participants in the co-creation of conversational reality. Appreciating the other was a fundament to Third Force psychologists and, in the following quote, we see that this appreciation for the other has had a very respectable history in educational theory as well. I think one could go through the defects and mistakes of teaching and learning generally and find that they are associated with failure to secure emotional participation Appreciation, in short, is more than immediate and transient emotional stir and turmoil. It shapes things that come home to us, that we deeply realize have possibilities, entail consequences. To appreciate is to trace mentally these outleadings, to place the possibilities before the mind so that they have felt significance and value. There is no fact and no idea or principle that is not pregnant, that does not lead out into other things. The greatest and commonest defect in teaching lies in presenting material in such a fashion that it does not arouse a sense of these leadings and a desire to follow them. There is then no appreciation, no personally experienced value, because what is presented is presented as if it had its meaning complete in itself, as if it were closed and shut. Think over the teachers who made you aware of possibilities in the things which they taught and who bred in you a desire to realize those possibilities for yourself. I can give no better exemplification of the true nature of appreciation nor of its capacity to attend all subjects of instruction. (Dewey, 1931, no pagination) When I read Dewey's description of the power of appreciation, I felt that I understood the resistance that instructional technologists encountered when they tried to introduce technological innovation in schools (Hodas, 1993; MacPherson, 2000; Saba, 1999; Slowinski, 2000; Solmon, 2000). In none of these studies was there a sense of teacher appreciation. How can we expect teachers to appreciate what technologists have to offer if we do not respect and appreciate what teachers have to offer technology? This study found that making it clear to participants/teachers that their input and their very being was respected, appreciated, and necessary to the change effort, transformed resistance into mutual appreciation and collaborative effort, focused on the goal of improving the educational environment. Buber (1958, 1977), Maslow (1968a, 1971), and Rogers (1962, 1967, 1977, 1980) all expressed an awareness of the importance of interpersonal appreciation, similar to that expressed by Dewey in 1931. According to these theorists and clinicians, appreciating others was the challenge from which a specific process-dynamic, the magic of interpersonal growth and change, emerged. Conversational reality theory (Shotter, 1993a) stood the materialist position on its head by privileging people, and especially people engaged in process. over objects. And Buber (1958) had made the same distinction years before when he claimed that the I/Thou relationship was the basis for a humane civility, whereas the I/It relationship was the basis for interpersonal antagonism. Freedom in the United States is guaranteed by the constitution but laws alone cannot guarantee freedom because laws cannot make people free. We give freedom to one another by appreciating each other. Mutual appreciation, as a mode of relating, is fundamental to democratic process. Dewey understood that teachers have an extraordinary opportunity to offer experiences of freedom to their students. Certainly, in the fields of adult education, teacher education, and human resource development, democratic educators owe themselves and their students appreciation and freedom. Bruner has always supported intellectual freedom in education, defined as a situational, constructivist, guiding that is respectful of an individuals need to prove for themselves the truth of epistemological assertions. In his article, Learning and Thinking (1959), he stated, "Let us not judge our students simply on what they know. That is the philosophy of the quiz program. Rather, let them be judged on what they can generate from what they know how well they can leap the barrier from learning to thinking" (p. 192). Bruner's implication here is that thinking generates action. The necessity of proving for oneself, thinking for oneself, is a fundamental praxis of both scientific rationalism and artistic creativity. Also, more generally, thinking for oneself is a fundamental requirement for democratic (participatory and interpersonally negotiated) citizenship and therefore must be valued and included in learning experiences paid for by citizens of a democracy. Changing our minds. Most of us have experienced speaking from a point of view that we can feel is changing even as we speak. We often continue explicating from our original point of view because otherwise the conversation loses its shape. Kuhn (1992) and the structure of our higher education system, have asserted, the first in content, the second in formal, curricular organization, that argument is the highest form of thinking. Deborah Tanner (1998) asserted that our culture thrives on argument. Often, even though we know we will change our minds later, we continue "to play the devils advocate," not because we are being devilish but, quite the contrary, because we are being socially acceptable, keeping the conversation going, or attempting to clarify the other person's point of view, or simply re-creating an antagonistic conversational reality that has become what Dewey might have called a habit. In any case, argument often brings forth information quicly (though whether or not it is the information we are seeking was discussed previously in Chapter Two in the section on Carol Gilligans work). The presence of conflicting opinions is not necessarily a sign of difficulty. Conflicting opinions do not necessarily have to generate antagonistic conversational realities. An environment that supports different opinions is beneficial for creative activity. In this study, I found that I did not need to agree with participants in order to show interest and care. I found that I was most effective when I gave equal credence to all points of view, including my own. The interpersonal energy source for meaning-making is challenge. More research is needed on what sorts of conversational (cognitive and emotional) challenges are most conducive to democratic meaning-making: At what point does creative conflict become antagonistic polarization? At any given moment, a researcher cannot know for certain whether or not a conversational partner is changing her point of view. During the conversation itself, the partners may appear to retain their original points of view when, in actuality, a great deal of adaptation is occurring. Practicing conversational reality theory or Ricoeurian hermeneutics, requires perceiving beyond expressed polarities to underlying, dynamic unities. In the context of democratic education, the most important underlying dynamic in a conversation is, quite simply, the participants commitment to participating in the conversation. In other words, both conversational reality theory and Ricoeurian hermeneutics have proposed that participants who are communicating are making an effort, are enmeshed in a process of mutuality. In this study, I found that, if a participant, in active communication with a researcher (myself) expressed an opinion that seemed contrary, nevertheless, that participant was taking part in the unity of collaborative worldmaking and, over the course of time, exhibited signs of having been affected by our conversation/collaboration. During the group technology meeting with Archer - weeks after Gold had expressed to me intensely negative feelings and opinions regarding teachers and technology integration - Gold used exact words and phrases that I had used during our conversation in the hall to describe his own position on technology integration. I am aware of the research on men and women's conversational patterns and the propensity men have of taking official credit for ideas that women have introduced (Alic, 1986; Barber, 1994; Coates, 1986, 1988; Holmes, 1995; Kramarae, 1980; Spender, 1980, 1982a, 1982b; Tanner, 1986, 1990, 1994b, 2001; Waithe, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1995). However, for the purposes of this study, the most important conversational reality that was taking place at that moment was not a type of intellectual theft but rather the momentous collaborative achievement of interpersonal exchange: Gold had adopted my theory-in-use as his espoused theory. If I had insisted on taking credit for the views that Gold was publicly espousing in Archers presence (my views), very little systemic change would have been accomplished. I would have only succeeded in embarrassing both Gold and myself. Instead, allowing Gold to adopt my theories as his own, my espoused theories created an impression in the participants that a more teacher-friendly technology policy was more likely (than previously) to occur. This created hope, a a generally beneficial addition to a change effort. My goal as an action researcher was not the same as a feminists or a critical pedagogist's. My goal was to initiate change in such a way that it could sustain itself after I had left the system. If my goals had been feminist or critical, I would have felt obliged to challenge Golds taking credit for my ideas. More research is needed comparing the effects of various conversational approaches on systemic change. Ideally, I would be able to spend more time in the environment and find ways to express many interpretive levels, complicating and deepening the conversation; but more often than not, the change agent has only a limited time in the environment and more research would help us make decisions as to which type of analytic is best to express under which circumstances. My choice, as an action researcher, to openly share information with someone who was openly in conflict with me, had the result of bringing that information into the system from more than one source. Then, because my opinion (that the goal of information technology initiatives should be student use, not teacher competency) was offered by two participants known to be at odds and then echoed by Archer, the information became widely accepted. I consider this the most surprising achievement of the action research and it was brought about through practicing conversational reality during a single, very challenging conversation between Gold and myself. Creative and Critical Intelligence My favorite educative conversations are a combination of creative and critical thinking. My favorite teachers have captured my imagination and influenced my methods of ratiocination by engaging me in conversations that are rich in this powerful combination. For me, critical thought is like the spine of a creature, every bone has to be connected in a certain way, or the creature cannot move. Creative thinking is best likened to the coordination of the organs, the rhythm of the body's myriad activities, purposeful, continuously adjusting to circumstances by means of combinations of communicative and generative activities. Sable's invitation to practice research with a group of art teachers was particularly enticing to me because I anticipated an opportunity to bring two parts of my life and thought into closer alignment in an educational experience that would unite artistic praxis (creative methods and products) with critical thought (analysis, synthesis, and thematic self-reflection). I was not disappointed. This section describes some intricacies of the weave of creative and critical thinking/action. Vygotsky on the psychology of art. Vygotsky graduated from Moscow University in 1917, the year that marks the success of the Russian revolution. He was in Moscow studying during the years that led up to this momentous alteration of Russian society. While Vygotsky was studying psychology at the official Moscow University, he was also studying art and philosophy at the Moscow free university (Wertsch, 1984). Vygotsky's theories regarding the origins of thought were influenced by his understanding of the artistic process. In his earliest book, The Psychology of Art (1925/1971), Vygotsky stated that, "Thus, the psyche of social man is viewed as the general substratum common to all the ideologies of a given era, including art. And we also recognize that art is determined and conditioned by the psyche of social man." (Vygotsky quotes in this section lack pagination, as they were taken from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1925/art1.htm) Later, Vygotsky would theorize the social foundation of psychology. Vygotsky's view that art reflected and affected the social psyche prefigured the later work of art therapists such as Alida Gersie (1997), an expert in guiding people as they re-story their personal narratives. According to Harrison (1911, 1962, 1973), art was originally used to extend religious ontological explorations, making the world a less terrifying and more habitable place, psychologically. According to Vygotsky, seemingly in agreement with both Harrison's perception and Dewey's (1934) and Dissanayakes (1988) that art praxis is fundamental to the functioning of social realities, "art arises originally as a powerful tool in the struggle for existence; the idea of reducing its role to a communication of feeling with no power or control over that feeling, is inadmissible." And further: If the only purpose of a tragic poem were to infect us with the author's sorrow, this would be a very sad situation indeed for art. The miracle of art reminds us much more of another miracle in the Gospel, the trans- formation of water into wine. Indeed, art's true nature is that of transubstantiation, something that transcends ordinary feelings; for the fear, pain, or excitement caused by art includes something above and beyond its normal, conventional content. This "something" overcomes feelings of fear and pain, changes water into wine, and thus fulfills the most important purpose of art. One of the great thinkers said once that art relates to life as wine relates to the grape. With this he meant to say that art takes its material from life, but gives in return something which its material did not contain. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1925/art1.htm)
It is my view, from long experience, that art is transcendant to the degree that its praxis is collaborative (interpersonally and/or kinesthetic-materially). Even the cliché image of the lonely painter or poet in the garret includes the paints and canvas in the case of the painter or the pen, paper, and candle in the case of the poet. In alignment with the biblical maxim that when two or more individuals come together, the substantiality of spirituality is increased, is the Vygotskian view that when two or more individuals come together, opportunities for socio-constructivism increase. Negotiated meaning-making. I heartily approve of teacher resistance to any simplistic representation of an archetypal human relationship such as the relationship between teacher and student. In this study, I found that teacher resistance to simplistic representations of the magic (as yet lacking substantive, critical description and analysis) of teaching/learning moments was a sign of the health of a beleaguered educational system owing to the courage of individuals working steadfastly within its not-so-temperate zone. Failing a Pinarian reconceptualization (1975) of the process of education, the least instructional technologists ought to be able to acknowledge is the superior complexity of any teacher's mind (and heart) to the capabilities of any machine or pre-designed instructional system. Unfortunately, affording teachers respect on the basis of the complexity of their humanity, rather than reifying computer efficiency and Gagne-influenced (1977) educational designs, is rare in the present educational atmosphere (Papanek, 1992). Conversational reality theory holds that negotiated meaning-making is the central (shared) activity that takes place during a conversation and further, that negotiated meaning-making emphasizes relationship, shared activity, and the ongoing process of co-worldmaking over winning and losing objects, status, or power. It pains me to see or read about living, breathing, participating teachers made subservient to machine logic and any kind of systemized thought. In this study we found that, within a humanitarian approach that values all kinds of knowledge, we could integrate technology and art into the curriculum. The core participants had no desire to privilege themselves or anyone nor did they follow any ideology. The teachers and administrators who worked with me during the course of this study were hardworking and able. They accepted any knowledge of computers and technology that would help them in their work with students and peers. The participants in my study were often at the mercy of intra- and interpersonal crises resulting from an inability to integrate creative and critical thinking well enough to envision an educational purpose broader than efficiency, for technology into the curriculum. Art/articulation made it possible for some of us to state our problems while simultaneously participating in their resolution. Unless as change agents we wish to restrict ourselves to using extrinsic, aggressive motivators such as various forms of economic force and material or social threats, we must learn more about the interpersonal, meaning-making dynamics that take place in conversations so that we can participate more fully, with increased awareness and sensitivity to the (shades of) meaning the other person is trying to convey. A critical/creative articulation. What follows is a prose-poem, an example of a creative/critical response to the challenge of integrating art and technology in an educational environment |
A cRiTicAlcReaTive ARTiculation
You and me: I and Thou; and we are all together. |
Who is art?
Who are you? |
Arendt, 1954, 1977; Berman, 1982; |
What we need it to be. |
What is art? What are you? |
Sesonske, 1965; Tolstoy, 1898 |
Whenever/Now: Is, was and always will be: Working skillfully. |
When is art? When are you? |
Dissanayake, 1988; Eisner, 1999; |
Here, there and everywhere but especially in the Briar Patch with the other refugees from the war of wor(l)ds |
Where is art? Where are you? |
Blandy, 1987; Efland, 1990; |
It makes us feel better (or worse) it makes us feel more- human. |
Why is art? Why are you? |
Carey, 1988; Efland, 1996; |
Ecstatic/ExtremelyFine/ |
How is art?
|
Dissanayake, 1992; Eisner, 1985a; |
home* chapter one* chapter two* chapter three* chapter four* chapter five* table of contents*