I mean, i'm more than a little lost - more than usual and more than a little. In fact I'm a little more lost than usual. I've been reading everyone's forum posts about reflection and reflective approaches and the general positivism makes me feel completely inept - and wrong. I stopped for awhile. Partly because I'm drowning in the madness of beauracracy at work and partly because I just needed to stop and do something that felt like me.
When I came back I read Jon's post with interest:
I like writing. I like its discipline, I like its ability to transform the imaginary into something more real. In fact, writing, for me, makes things real, concrete.
The trouble is that I am at that point in my life where I can't even say what I like any more. The truth is that right now there is nothing I like - except nothingness and even then I'm not exactly sure I 'like' it. I'm not even sure what 'like' means anymore.
I do write things down and make lists to help me remember and I do try to organise to help me to externalise what I'm feeling and thinking - to test what I feel through interaction with the 'outside' world. But I don't like writing. I'm not even sure that I find it helpful. My head buzzes and then stops. It buzzes and then stops. Continuously. When it buzzes I can't write, speak or type fast enough to keep up (like now). When it stops, there is nothing and that which was buzzing is gone. Its maddening.
I guess Karl might say that a straight jacket of fatalism has descended upon me. Like Jon and everyone else I am exposed to all manner of ideas, thoughts, narratives and opinions about Multimedia (and everything else) but I don't find that anything now seems to dislodge my views (and I don't really think that they are 'my' views anyway). Its not that I believe that I have it all sussed (at least I hope not or we are all in trouble) but that for me nothing ever changes, nothing is ever different, nothing ever gets better.
So, I write, and when I do, stuff floating around in my brain is suddenly forced into a kind of order. I have to transform free-form thought processes and abstract notions into words, put them into order, give them structure.
This, for me, is the importance of writing in a learning situation. Writing is a transformational activity - by forcing yourself to turn your jumbled thoughts into a form that someone else will (hopefully) comprehend, you transform your own understanding, see things that you didn't know were there, and express things that, before, you could only 'feel'.
I have a real problem nowadays expressing what I feel in a such a way. Usually it comes across as closed minded, narrow, cynical, pessimistic, perhaps even uninformed. I have a horrible feeling that the language I need to interface with those around me doesn't exist.
And yet I wasn't always this way (apparently). When I look at the odd bits of stuff that people who knew me (old teachers, 'friends', acquaintances) many years ago have written, its like reading about someone else. I get that Holden Caulfield detached look and can't believe they (and me) ever got taken in by such a phony.
I'm back online now and have been going thru the links that Jon posted and have tried to get a grip on the theories listed. I end up with a mash-up that seems to lack coherence. Here's just a sample of things that stood out and my immediate reactions - see if you can spot a pattern developing:
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:
"Extraverts often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverts prefer more substantial interaction"
This used to be true for me - I craved deeper, philosophical debate, understanding, meaningful multiway way interaction (its what attracted me to school, to hypercard, to art, to the web) - but now I prefer 'no' interaction
"Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved."
I'm with this up until the words "considering the needs. . .". Yet there was a time when this might have summed me up
"Skeptics criticize the terminology of the MBTI as being so "vague and general" as to allow any kind of behavior to fit any personality type. "
Isn't this 'true' of just about everything?
Kolb and Experiential Learning:
If I had to draw the Kolb Learning cycle from my own experiences it would look something like this:
"the learner must be willing to be actively involved in the experience"
In my experience this tends to mean that you MUST accept what you are being told, you MUST interact in a set way and you MUST never question the reasons behind the experience.
"the learner must be able to reflect on the experience"
I get submerged in self pity and doubt
"the learner must possess and use analytical skills to conceptualize the experience"
I'm told that I can do this fine
"the learner must possess decision making and problem solving skills in order to use the new ideas gained from the experience"
I have a problem with the implication (and insistence) that every experience presents you with skills, ideas etc that you can employ. IOW no matter what you are doing and whether you enjoy it or hate it the implication is that somehow you are 'gaining' from it. Nothing is ever seen as potentially damaging or harmful - or if it is then its your fault for seeing it that way!
Carl Rogers:
"All individuals (organisms) exist in a continually changing world of experience (phenomenal field) of which they are the centre."
My world of experiences doesn't seem to be a continually changing one. Is that because of my own fear of action, change and subsequent inactivity? Or is it that it really doesn't change?
"Any experience which is inconsistent with the organization of the structure of the self may be perceived as a threat, and the more of these perceptions there are, the more rigidly the self structure is organized to maintain itself.
Under certain conditions, involving primarily complete absence of threat to the self structure, experiences which are inconsistent with it may be perceived and examined, and the structure of self revised to assimilate and include such experiences."
Some people would say that the above two sums me up. I would argue that the world I exist in and observe is summed up by the above two. IOW everyone and everything seem to have the above two in common. In my own work, anything I've tried to initiate over the past couple of decades has always been rejected - only to be subsequently made safe and introduced years later by someone else! To give an example from today we are about to go with electronic registers next year and yet I have a copy of presentation in the attic I made to both my current employer (and a former employer) in 1995 suggesting a model for electronic registers - complete with tech breakdown of how to impliment it. I reckon by 2099 we might buy a couple of used second hand ipads. Don't get me talking about the current drive for differentiation, active learning etc
"The Fully Functioning Person . . they move away from defensiveness and have no need for subception "
Again the implication that defensiveness (or rather the definition of defensiveness as any unwillingness to conform) is a sin.
" . . .living each moment fully – not distorting the moment to fit personality or self concept but allowing personality and self concept to emanate from the experience. This results in excitement, daring, adaptability, tolerance, spontaneity, and a lack of rigidity and suggests a foundation of trust. "
Am I distoting the moment to fit my personality or is my personality under pressure to distort to fit the 'moment' - as if the moment was somehow deterministic. The moments we have experience of don't seem to be our choice.
" . . . they trust their own judgment and their ability to choose behaviour that is appropriate for each moment. They do not rely on existing codes and social norms but trust that as they are open to experiences they will be able to trust their own sense of right and wrong"
I can't say that I've ever been able to do this for long. I have undergone in my life periods of immense activity, fluidity, confidence and trust in myself but I always end up having this ended
" . . . not being shackled by the restrictions that influence an incongruent individual, they are able to make a wider range of choices more fluently. They believe that they play a role in determining their own behaviour and so feel responsible for their own behaviour."
I haven't felt like I had choices or any sense of determination in my life for a very long time.
" . . .Creativity – it follows that they will feel more free to be creative. They will also be more creative in the way they adapt to their own circumstances without feeling a need to conform"
I can feel creative. when I'm with students or doing my own stuff I can feel totally immersed and driven by it. But I can't say that I feel more free to 'be' creative anymore.
" . . .Reliability and constructiveness – they can be trusted to act constructively"
Again a preset definition of 'constructively'. Like pointing out that a particular process that is being discussed will result in massive waste, enormous cost and no benefits is now not being constructive - even when you suggest a viable alternative!
" . . . he describes the life of the fully functioning individual as rich, full and exciting and suggests that they experience joy and pain, love and heartbreak, fear and courage more intensely"
Do people who feel pain, heartbreak and fear only lead a full rich life? BTW Indians in the same family never refer to themselves by their names. We are always known by nicknames given to us when we are young. So no-one in my family ever refer to me as Raj or Rajinder. My nickname is hard to spell using our alphabet but it means something like "Courageous One". Apparently, my parents said that they gave me this name after talking to the extended family because growing up I was insatiably curious, hungry, fearless and driven - always keen to learn something new, always keen to try to shape my world.
Donald Schon:
I used to be fully able to deal with both reflection in and on practice. This 'was' me. Now my reflection 'in' is clouded by my reflection 'on' which basically amounts to "See? I knew it!"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.