Complexity Science V Ecology

Davis quotes Maturana as saying "everything said is said by an observer"; he goes on to say, "an act of observation entails more than something that is observed; there must also be something observing" (p. 145).   Therefore, there is no observation without an observer; nothing acted on without an actor; nothing perceived without a perceiver.  As we look at the relationship between each of these, Davis presents two ways of viewing interobjectivity, through complexity science and ecology. 

Complexity Science is a new way of studying knowing and knowledge as it looks to “better understand self-organization mainly through close observations of complex systems and computer modeling” (p. 152).    Matters of knowledge, learning, and teaching are influenced by the belief that humans are both biological and cultural beings.   Two key qualities that Davis presents for complexity research is that it is adaptive and self-organizing.   What is your understanding of these two qualities?

For education purposes, complexity science is interested in the relationship between the individual and society.  Davis introduces the term coupling as a way to describe this relationship.  Coupling is the “intimate entangling of one’s attentions and activities with another’s” (p. 166).  The act of coupling demonstrates that humans are biologically and culturally destined to be teachers.  How does the idea of coupling transfer to the classroom?

Moving away from the practical know-how (complexity science) and onto the ethical know-how, ecology asserts, “that life in all forms is inherently valuable” and “the role of humanity is” understood as “mindfulness and ethical action” (p. 156).   Ecologists look at knowledge as more than a strictly human phenomenon.  They’re concerned with questions of morality, values and conduct.  They believe in taking action now.  How would you describe ethical action?

From this view of the world, teaching is described as conversing, caring, pedagogical thoughtfulness, eco-justice or hermeneutic listening.  Davis expands on the idea of conversing.  He stated, “when engaged in conversations, our working memories are vastly larger than they are on our own” (p. 177).  Although the research found this idea to be true, I don’t totally agree that when conversing we “recall more detail” or “maintain better focus than when alone” (p. 177).  For me, I tend to work better, have better focus, and recall more detail when working alone.  What about you, do you agree with the research?

Week 5 team!!! Now we are starting to venture into, what I feel may be, more recognizable territory. Structuralism and Post-structuralism.

Chapter 11 does a good job of laying the groundwork and showing that both structuralism and post-structuralism, even though they are a branching on our family tree, are actually pretty closely related and are complements to each other. He notes "their departures from one another tend to be around matters of emphasis, not conceptual commitment."

It is here in S and PS that the idea that knowledge is created and not just found, as in early chapters, begins to take root. Giambattista Vico started this branch according to Davis and we start to see structuralism form into existentialism, phenomenology, pragmatism, and so on. What is important is that all of these have a structure, that they are all look into the relationship between different concepts within their own frameworks. In a sense, are of these structures somehow mirror nature in that it can be both "caused and accidental." What is important is that there is a relationship and those relationships can be examined.

Chapter 12, is Structuralism: Teaching as Facilitation. We are now breaking away from knowledge as an outside phenomenon and start seeing it as an individual creation. Here we start seeing another break, implicit and explicit knowledge and the idea of understanding, not just "knowing." Davis begins to really help define some key ideas for us in this chapter. Mainly, constructivists and constructivism, see knowledge as individual and a closed system. They look at individual potential. Constructionist and constructionism deals with the frameworks through which knowledge is created and has a much more social element than the "vism." Do you think I have this distinction hashed out? Or does anyone have anything to add?

Chapter 13, Poststructuralism: Teaching as Empowering. Postructuralism is concerned with "how individuals own identities are shaped." I think this is one of the branches of the tree we are both familiar with as modern day educators. This make it very difficult to talk about because it may be difficult to remove our ideas and biases from what we think we know about poststructualism, which in itself is a type of poststructualist thought I suppose. Yet, we have "to make the familiar strange." I am going to cut it off here for now. There is lots to talk about. I am sure most of discussions will center here, so I am going to leave this wide open.

Week 4 Episteme

It seems to me that rationalism and empiricism are evolutions, rather than departures, from gnosis. Initially, I think I would have characterized them as departures because they seem to look at things very differently. However, in Chapter 9 Davis says, "The idea that humans move along a steady and stable developmental trajectory from birth to adulthood is an ancient one that was originally associated with the mystical assumption that humans must engage in a continuous project of gaining a lost perfection" which also goes along with the "rational impulse to impose a logical order on all areas of knowledge". p86 Also the idea of nativism, that our brains are fixed, which Davis calls, "an idea that is little more than a modernized restatement of the mystics-religious beliefs that souls are pre-given and unchanging". p 87 In this same paragraph he discusses the idea that personality types, learning styles and multiple intelligences are all theories that are flawed. I guess I never thought about these theories as pigeon hole-ing someone. I always thought about them as ways to have more insight about ones self or a learner so that things can be more fun, more engaging, more intune to your preferences. Not as the ways things are or have to be. Probably because so much of our schooling system is patterned off of sequential, in step, "mathified" procedures that "parse and linearize" (p 86) subjects like art, and put students in grades based on their age and cut subjects off from other subjects (hence the new use of the word discipline in this chapter) and have preservice teachers develop lesson plans in absence of the consideration of the learners. Does this also have a connection to the ideas on page 81 about devoting so much time to teaching/learning long division when we don't even do that anymore and, my favorite, "necessary knowledge -even if that knowledge is necessary only for success in school"? However, there is a distinct departure from gnosis when Davis discusses the empiricist belief that, "one's personality and role in life were suddenly and completely understood as matter's of one's experiences." p89. But how can these ideas, both branches of episteme, be one evolution and one departure?

I can see how rationalism and inductive reasoning are part of the metaphysical, because it is using your mind and your logic. But, "Bacon prescribed that all claims to truth must be verifiable through demonstration- which is to say measurable." p 69 So, if empiricism and deductive reasoning is gathering evidence which is measurable and observable, I am still struggling with that as a metaphysical construct. Am I missing a piece here, or just not interpreting it correctly?

Both of these ideas posit that you must question things. Rationalism by doubting everything until it can be proven; empiricism, observing and measuring until it can be proven. I think the view of reality for these metaphors is that you can't trust anything without investigating instead of taking any idea based on what you've been told or what you might even "think" is right. "Both Descartes and Bacon, rationalist and empiricist, agreed that one's inner representation is doomed to be flawed." p 73 So you have to use doubt and logical argument to figure it out, which Descartes deemed as the first and second principles of learning. So we get cognition, which is what is happening in your brain, and behaviorism which is what you can see (but its still metaphysical...?). So many times I have had to write objectives that were measurable (both as a teacher and as a teacher trainer), so behaviorism is deeply engrained in me. We have to prove that something happened to prove learning occurred. But as Davis points out at the end of Chapter 9, behaviorism is less and less useful as learnings become more complex. Perhaps we are keeping these types of standards, and mathifying the curriculum for a reason. We say we want education for everyone, but maybe we mean just enough schooling to make them the most efficient cog in the wheel they can be. See Davis' comment about the wealthier classes on page 79. My only question about that sentence is why he uses past tense.

Week 3-School Cults or Teacher Cults

I think our blog posts, and our discussions on Tuesday night were beginning to lean in this particular direction. Namely, that schools are somehow based on a spiritual model. I have to say, this concept makes complete sense to me. I instantly began to see parallels between the way schools and school governments are structured to that of intra-religion governments.

So are religion and schools in someway synonymous terms? Perhaps, I think it is safe to say that religion has played a major part in modern formal education, even though that point is yet, or may not ever, posited by Davis. Here I begin thinking of monasteries as some of the first educational institutions.

However, to delve into the reading. This branch of the Davis educational tree deals with the history of Mysticism v. Religion. He begins chapter 4 with a quote from Joseph Conrad that alludes to the idea that we are no longer one with God or the eternal and that God or the eternal is away from us and we search to reclaim that oneness. An obvious parallel to knowledge. Which, in biblical terms is the idea of Adam and Even eating from the tree of knowledge in search of that oneness and being banned from the garden. Hearkening back to last weeks readings that once we define knowledge we change the definition of knowledge so it becomes and ever elusive search.

The Mysticism v. Religion dichotomy that Davis is drawing on in chapter 4 is that of the individual v. the collective. Here I think mysticism is the ideal, religion is the actual. Regarding mysticism, "The task of the know is to divine--through intuitive, supernatural, or other means---these truths." 40. I feel that is what would happen in an idea educational environment. Students would be schooled in such a way as to become self aware and self educated. He continues this idea in chapter 5 that a persons fate or destiny, or realizing ones potential, is tied to personal motivation. "For the most part, success in such learnings is seen as a matter of self-discipline..." 54. The teachers role in this relationship is seen in the verbs used to describe teaching, such as nurturing, fostering, and tutoring. 54.

On the Religious side, knowledge comes down from On High. Davis points out in chapter 6 the idea and labels of master and doctor are forms of this knowledge transfer. That knowledge is an object (61) that can be bestowed upon others and the idea of the student as an open vessel waiting to be filled is part of this model. To be honest, in my reflection this week I was okay with the idea of knowledge as an object because it is an easy concept to grasp. Now, I feel I am leaning  to more of mystic. The idea that teaching is the affect to the learner and not the effort to affect the learner. 51. In my interpretation knowledge is a path of self discovery, not a search for the divine. Teachers may feel this way, but I still think they work within the established religious system.

Feel free to add, modify, or outright disagree with any and all of this. These are only my initial impressions and I really learn more from everyone else's input and insights.