According to Dewey’s theory, through knowledge, we can conceptualize and grasp reality. In addition, he asserted that when experiences are systematically developed in a logical way, they form into knowledge. Although, Dewey appeared to be more concerned with cognitive experiences and the meaning one gives to situations that influenced thought patterns to construct knowledge. In addition, he believed that action was not an adequate inception of knowledge and it starts with combining both reflection (thinking) and action. Using Dewey’s theory of knowledge for research could be used to help researchers produce meaningful forms of knowledge by avoiding trial and error means of discovery. Dewey conveyed that knowledge, “represents a shift from a concern with things as they are to a concern with the history to which a given thing belongs.” Therefore, researcher can learn to fully understand what they constitute as knowledge by examining the events which led up to the nature of the problems they intend to solve. Next, Dewey’s theory can assist with making meaning from a perspective that considers the situation or context in which inquiry is being made. For example, last class we discussed Ruby Payne and were able to acknowledge that her success derived from a need for her audience of white educators to attribute their disconnect with their students to poverty. Lastly, reflection and action creates knowledge that can help researchers to develop research that provides discourse which eventually leads to action.
According to Dewey, knowing (or knowledge) is just “one mode of experience” (p.29). Dewey saw knowledge as emerging from the action and experience of an organism with its environment. When an organism experiences something in its environment, it thinks about the environment, reviews the options available, then reacts - re-action could happen in different ways that could either change the environment or change the organism. Actions could result in errors/mistakes which may be corrected; all these affect the experience of the organism. According to Dewey, all these interactions/experiences make for knowing/knowledge: which is about relations between actions and consequences (p.45).
With regards to educational research, there are no simple rules or solutions. The student is influenced by different factors that are affecting her/his experiences. This alludes to the fact that for each student, there is a different ‘truth’. Educational research that seeks to determine one truth stands the risk of not being useful to many as there is constant interaction taking place and a high likelihood that situations will differ in different contexts and also change. This raises a question on generalizability of educational research. I believe there should be a way that research findings in one context can be applied to another context but I am still thinking about this.
I think Dewey’s transactional approach also points out that educational research is a continuous process. There is no ‘eureka!’ moment for educational researchers. Today’s research findings should birth tomorrow’s research questions. What works now, may not work tomorrow especially as students, teachers and environments are constantly in interaction and changing. A question this raises for me is: how did Dewey see the link between the purpose of education and educational research?
Chapter 2 reflects distinct transactions between experience, action, and knowledge. The term “transactions” to reflect Deweys’ progression in his exploration of nature as his writings progressed. His earlier writings used the term “interactions.” However, his later writings transitioned to the term “transactions” because the term interaction “suggests the existence of independent entities that interact” (Biesta & Burbles, 2003, p. 26). Dewey identifies various modes of experience that are kinds of knowing. These modes of experience have implications for educational research as they are the method through which knowledge is acquired. In particular, knowing as a mode of experience identifies the connection between actions and consequences.
The authors then examine how learning takes place through inquiry and research as learning that lead to various ways of understanding a phenomenon. Through experimental transaction with the environment, action leads to a differentiated and meaningful world. The experimental transaction is practice that leads to more specific habits. These practices are infused with meaning that result in learning. This theory of action considers the assumption that “it is possible to transform habits into intelligent habits, and action into intelligent action” (Biesta & Burbles, 2003, p.38). The goal of educational research is to provide information that supports the existence of or creates new theories. Repetitive patterns that can be identified in educational research align with the idea of experimental transactions in which learning occurs. To this end, the purpose and process of educational research is proposed.
Dewey suggests that knowledge is obtained through a series of active adaptations of the organism with and not merely “to” its environment. He contends that learning is not just a stimulus response situation and that organisms are continuously searching for stimuli. He views the process as dynamic. It is more than simply exposing an organism to something new.
In terms of educational research this would change the view of education as something we do “to” students into something that we “invite” them into. I hold that this also should influence the nature of the relationship between researchers and practitioners. Educational research should be seen as a dynamic and fluid collaboration between the two groups. This framework should also consider the student as a continuous source of influence by which to consider “lines of actions.” There are many components to the nature of knowledge and they should be considered within the cultural and societal lenses through which they are born.
Dewey's theory of knowledge is complex and composed of several elements, experience, reflection, habits, history, and time. His theory is created and established through his belief in naturalistic transactionalism, which discusses the relationship and processes between the organism and its environment. Dewey continues on to describe experiences as the transitions of living organisms and their environment (Biesta & Burbules, 2013). He introduces the act of knowing as a mode of experience, which support action. Therefore, the two main building blocks in Dewey's theory of knowledge include experience and action. First, It is imperative to understand that Dewey does not believe the only through knowledge can we obtain a hold on reality (Biesta and Burbules, 2013). Furthermore, everyone's experience qualify as real. For example, each individual due to their differences in their history, standpoints, background, purposes and intentions lead to a difference experience with the same object. For example, a runner will experience a pair of sneakers differently than a soccer player, football player, walker, etc. and it should be noted that each of these experiences is qualified as real. Thus, in order for a person to obtain knowledge they must have the happening of an experience, action. Thus, knowledge is established through conditions and consequences. For example, we conduct an action and a consequence occurs, humans then reflect and apply change , which is where the process of knowing occurs. We may be told something, for example, given a name to an object, but knowing will not occur until we experience and act on the object.
With Dewey's theory of knowledge stems numerous implications to education research. Dewey discusses how each of us experience objects and events differently and that all of these experiences is truth and a reality. However, educational research seeks for one solution for all students. For example, if a student demonstrates inappropriate behaviors we apply the following three strategies. According to Dewey, this is not going to be beneficial because we all experience events and objects differently. Therefore, the way in which we act on the object or event is going to be different and furthermore cause our knowledge to be different. Educational research is searching for that one generalizing solution and according to Dewey this is not in accordance with the transaction process and relationship of an organism and their environment.
From my foundations of education classes (many years ago now) what I remember learning about Dewey was that learning is doing. While that is very simplistic, it does capture the essence of what I see as one of the main tenets of Dewey’s pragmatism. Knowledge is not passive, something to be treated as a noun such as a teacher “imparts knowledge”. On page 33, the authors convey how in Dewey’s critique of the reflex arc model he argued that “the organism is always already active; the organism is always already maintaining a dynamic balance with its environment.” Through my understanding, Dewey also sees knowledge as based on individual perceptions, so that reality can be different for different people based on how they experience something. Something I find very relevant to educational research is Dewey’s emphasis on retrospective reflection on the stimulus and response theory. The notion that we cannot necessarily deem which thing is the stimulus and which the response until after the transaction has occurred is interesting. To me, this implies that we should closely examine our educational research after it is conducted, from a critical stance, before making inferences. Also going back to the view that “the organism is always already active” has implications for educational research because this is always the nature of education. Students are not just sitting around waiting for some stimulus. They are always engaged in something. Inserting a new stimulus to see how the student reacts isn’t suddenly engaging the student from a state of stupor, but instead re-directing or re-positioning the focus of their learning. On page 43, the assertions that “everyone’s experience is equally real” and that we have a collection of “different reals of experience” are very relevant for educational research because it gets at the heart of what practitioners and researchers all know; that the backgrounds and experiences that students bring with them greatly impact their perception of reality.
I agree with your point that the backgrounds and experiences that students bring impact their perception of reality. I believe this is also an issue for educators and researchers, as well. A positive example of this would be experience helping shape an educator into a more effective practitioner; a negative aspect would be bias or validity issues in research.
John Marshall: As I try to understand Dewey’s view of knowledge, I am reading and re-reading the text (action) and contemplating its meaning (thinking) and this combination of experience and contemplation seem in keeping with Dewey’s belief that both are meaningful ways to know reality.
It seems that knowledge is inextricably linked with experience and that that humans, while interacting with their environment through action, are coming to know reality from their individual point of view, and this view of reality is the nature of knowledge. That knowledge is linked to the context of the individual actor, and therefore different (yet equally real) for each separate person based on the context of the action. Biesa and Burbules provide the example of the jockey and the zoologist having different realities when viewing a horse to illustrate this point. Each depends on the action.
The prevailing point regarding knowledge and reality, it seems, are the link between the knowing world and the physical world. The sounds of words were a particularly illustrative example for me. Sound waves are physical events, yet we have tied them securely to meanings in the “knowing” mode.
Some of these perspectives on knowledge have implications in educational research. The pragmatist views knowledge entirely within the context of the action that is taking place.
Therefore, it would seem that providing context and background, in great detail, are critical for educational research, according to a pragmatist. If knowledge depends on the actions that produced it, then knowing the precise conditions and actions of an experiment or qualitative research project becomes even more important. Carefully revealing a study’s purpose, background, sampling, methodology, and other aspects can help provide the reader with the action that produced the knowledge. A pragmatist would have little use for a study that did not thoroughly do so.
According to Dewey, knowledge is about reflection and action, and the transactional experiences of organisms with their environment. He further postulates that what is experienced by each individual is, in fact, real and is not subjective (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p.43). I do not agree with this position as the experiences of one individual differ from those experienced by others and consequently, their perceptions and interpretations of those experiences. What is perceived as a hot day for one individual may be perceived as a perfectly pleasant day by another- does this mean that this particularly day in question is hot and not at the same time? This loss in objectivity and facts makes me uncomfortable.
To further explain this point of view in light of educational research and the potential implications, I would like to bring attention to the controversial and highly debated claimed efficacy of utilizing "therapeutic" hold in the classrooms as a crisis intervention or behavior management tool. There are differing opinions among the various stakeholders in the field of education about the effectiveness and necessity of using reactive and punitive strategies to manage "misbehavior". When research shows objective evidence about the ill-effects of using these strategies, how does one still believe it is the most appropriate approach? Many teachers offer explanations in terms of safety of other children and themselves and although that is a legitimate concern, and by no means am I trying to negate that feeling of loss of safety, I do not understand how the experience of these teachers are considered the absolute reality and not subjective. What about the experiences of teachers who have successfully been able to employ more proactive and positive behavioral interventions? Are their experiences not real? Is there no subjectivity of experiences and perceptions in these differing opinions and instances? After all, if experiences differ, so should the notion of reality and its subjective understanding.
The transactional approach seems to suggest that rather than knowledge being a nature vs. environment issue (which creates a lot of complications), we should focus instead on the transaction itself. Our experiences, our connection with our environment are mediated by the culture that surrounds us. This is a fascinating for me because although Dewey is a well-regarded pragmatist, this concept of knowledge and truth is contextual, constructed and relative.
Furthermore, examining actions and consequences or using knowledge as a way to get control of our actions relates to the idea that we do not sit passively and receive knowledge. The stimulus/reaction model does not fit; instead, we are always in the process of interaction, knowledge construction, and revising what we already know. Dewey’s theory of action supports this idea – that knowledge and knowledge construction are dynamic.
This ties into Dewey’s views on knowledge. Knowledge is not the only way we define or construct reality. Because of our dynamic experiences, if we feel something is scary – it is scary – regardless of what objectively takes place. In plain words, knowledge is not a static, definitive entity. Our experiences, perceptions, and interactions all help create knowledge, and in turn, our reality.
I appreciate the metaphor of knowledge construction as Galilean, Newtonian and Einsteinian. The idea that our understanding of knowledge is evolving is an important one. This demonstrates that for educational researchers, our understanding of knowledge is still in development and is still evolving. Students are all going to have unique experiences and histories that will directly impact their knowledge construction. Researchers, educators and students all are individually dynamic, and the field itself is dynamic, as well.
According to Biesta and Burbules (2003), “Dewey’s view of knowledge is about reflection and action, and about the reflective transformation of experience understood as transactional.” (p. 42). Dewey places value on the realness of what people experience. Additionally, Dewey focused on the ever changing nature of what it means to know something. The example of how people cross the street really stuck with me. When we cross the street we do not look both ways, close our eyes, walk across the street, and hope we do not get pummeled by an oncoming car. Crossing the street requires constant evaluation and reevaluation of the situation. As situations and environments change what we know and interpret also changes. I believe this way of looking at education and educational research is very important. When Dewey was experiencing life, the world around him was in dramatic and constant change. This is still happening today, especially with the increased development in technology. The experiences of our students in their life outside of school today, are not the same as they were 50 years ago. Education and educational research needs to reflect this changing landscape of education.
According to Dewey, knowledge is constructed through a transactional relationship between an organism and its environment. In this context, “transaction” refers to a natural process Dewey called “experience.” The chapter suggests that knowing and knowledge are interpreted differently through language because human experiences are mediated by culture. As a result, diverse cultures could have different interpretations of research findings and their implications for practice. When considering current and future education research, these diverse interpretations must be taken in account in order to uphold ethical standards and generalize our findings to their appropriate populations.
The chapter also suggests that knowledge does not imply reality because not all experiences involve the mode of knowing. In education research, for example, our knowledge may be different from the reality on what is deemed “effective practice.” From my perspective, it seems there is a trend in education research for pinpointing “effective practices;” however, the effectiveness of these practices is not the reality for every individual or population. Therefore, when conducting research, education professionals must take into account research validity, reliability, and the various personal factors related to culture in order to appropriately generalize their findings to the right persons in the most suitable contexts. Katie
In Biesta Chapter 2, the nature of knowledge (aka epistemology) is focused on three components of Dewey’s thinking and theory. It is crucial to consider the experiences, actions, and knowledge of an organism (person.) Experiences are transactional, and while two people may attend the same professional development, they may not have the same experience; however, they both had some type of experience that they will carry with them. They might act on these experiences, creating some difference or change in their process based on the professional development. The outcome is the knowledge gained from the action that was transacted through the experience. A practical application of this thinking is to consider lesson planning. When working with student teachers, I help them choose curriculum and develop the experiences for students based on what students need to know. These experiences are taught (action) during the lesson delivery, and then reflected on by looking at the knowledge gained by students through formative and summative assessments. This is also knowledge gained by the student teacher, which with reflection will guide their planning on subsequent lessons. Experience, action and knowledge are all part of the theoretical background for conducting and understanding educational research. Knowledge can be derived through inquiry. In the lesson planning example above, the student teacher can use the knowledge gained from the lesson delivery and students to make further changes. This inquiry process could lead to real action research in the classroom. I wrote about this last time, but feel it’s really important to again make this connection. I think Dewey’s transactional approach makes research opportunities accessible to all teachers who are willing to learn side by side with students.
According to Dewey, knowledge is built through experience but also through the meaning given to different things or actions through experiences. Knowledge cannot only be gained through action, but rather through analysis of actions and reactions of the world around us. Truth or falsity is gained through “the relationship between our experience….and our possible actions or responses” (p. 50). Through our actions we can discover if the meaning we attribute to an object is real. He uses the example of seeing paper as “something to write on.” We can only know if our perception of paper is correct if we act on it and write on the paper. Additionally, paper is not only something to write on. It can have many different meanings depending on what the organism is going to need/use it for. This leads to to concept of different truths or realities based on the organisms experiences or needs. If I need the paper to write on then based on my needs paper is “something to write on,” but if I need the paper to start a fire, then paper can also be “something to start a fire.” Additionally, knowledge must be gained through careful analysis and action in a situation. If no act is performed then we cannot validate that our initial assumptions were true or false. Educational research then must require a serious consideration of the subjects needs and realities. We must consider how they formed their knowledge and truth and how that can change their current cognition. We cannot assume one student’s truth about a subject or object is the same as another student’s. This can lead to difficulties with generalizing data collected from research. It also poses a question about how we should be approaching education and knowledge as a whole as teachers and researchers. How can we guide students to find their own knowledge and truth when so often we are told there is only one definition of knowledge and truth?
What are some implications for educational research?
According to Dewey, knowledge is a tool that helps us to access or getting closer to reality. There are many ways or modes to obtain knowledge, such as learning, seeing, thinking, and even through actions. In Dewey's opinion, action is not just about how we respond or react to a call, but it also includes activities that have already been going on prior to the change of action.
Some implications for educational research: our research can always be improved in some ways and it will never be perfect. What I mean by this is that no matter how big our data set is, we can only capture a part of the reality. Knowledge is static not permanent, nothing holds true forever, which Dewey referred it as transactional. Dewey's work attempts to warn us to stay away from dichotomous world that some people created, it is not either or, there is also something else to it. I think as doc student in the Research and Eval, I think if Dewey is still alive today, he would not approve the statistical inference of p-value (statistically significant / not). Rather, he would be pushing researchers to dig deeper to understand our educational issues by asking What is the true story embedded in these numbers that we overlooked.
When it comes to the nature of the knowledge, I appreciate that Dewey described nature as “a moving whole of interacting parts (page 26). But he thought transaction makes more sense in the terms of the process as the first place. Dewey’s naturalism point of view also suggested that the framework of his theory of knowledge. The transaction of knowledge is related with connections but not the reality. “When experience is “cognitional,” it means that we perceive something as meaning-something-else-that-we-will- experience-when-we-act-in-a-specific-way”. An experience, as a knowledge, secures that we are “in touch” with nature, it is the experience itself is, not knowledge. Also, when we have the desire of the nature of knowledge, the knowledge itself has domain of value. And with the purpose of pursuing the domain of values, it was over to the domain of factual knowledge about nature. It’s vital to distinct the dualistic worldview of the material and the spiritual, and the assumption that the material constitutes “outer” nature, while the spiritual is the realm of “inner” mind. This implies that educators should treat schooling and students as a process of transaction. Depending on the value of knowledge nature, researchers need to be cautious about the purpose and results of the educational researches as experience could be divergent in different situations.
You are so correct Fa. It is a concern that researchers may be so removed from students that they are not fully aware of many of the factors and nuances that influence their daily lives. It is all well and good to conduct research but much of the important information will need to be teased out qualitatively. Even then the presence of the researcher and the nature of research itself will influence the student. Collaboration between researchers and teachers is necessary to get a rich picture of today's questions in education.
June 5, 2018 Chapter 2 – “From Experience to Knowledge” Let’s start with a citation, and then let’s go from there: “Dewey’s view of knowledge is about reflection and action, and about the reflective transformation of experience understood as transactional” (p. 42). Dewey’s approach to defining knowledge, which eventually led to the “transactional approach,” as he described it, appears to reject absolute “truths” in favor of a dynamic description of knowledge that is defined by individual experience and is constantly evolving and changing. I find his emphasis on dynamic interaction with the world as a foundation for intelligence, not simply stimulus and response between or among individuals and objects, to be fascinating and intriguing. I believe that this concept of a constant state of movement in relation to every other individual and object in the same space and the almost dialogue-like interaction between and among individuals and objects to be a much more accurate depiction of a shared reality. It also re-centers the individual from a less egotistical position and places the individual in a network of relationships, which are constantly shifting, growing, changing, evolving, etc. independently of the actor/observer as well as influenced by the actor/observer. Perception also appears to join this dynamic dance as a thread in the entire process, happening simultaneously with movement, which only makes sense, because of the constantly – and often rapidly – changing nature of reality, which is not divided into discrete stages like turns in a board game. Perception and movement are simultaneously occurring activities and interact with each other as they interact with the perceived reality. Habits arise from these dynamic perception-action interactions with reality and eventually evolve into intelligent habits as action evolves into intelligent action, all of which is guided by thinking. Thinking ultimately appears to be a dynamic assessment of possible outcomes and interactions with reality, driven by habits, impulse, and perception. Interaction with others plays its role as individuals communicate shared realities described through mutually agreed-upon symbology as well as possible interactions with that shared reality. The penultimate step in the process connects experience to knowledge through action, “because it is only through action that we can get an understanding of the conditions of the happening of an experience” (p. 51). But the final step – creating “conscious knowledge” – only occurs when reflection becomes part of the “transformation of transaction” (p. 51) and leads to the realization that the “old conception of knowledge as a (static) picture of a (static) reality that simply has to go” (p. 51).
According to Dewey’s theory, through knowledge, we can conceptualize and grasp reality. In addition, he asserted that when experiences are systematically developed in a logical way, they form into knowledge. Although, Dewey appeared to be more concerned with cognitive experiences and the meaning one gives to situations that influenced thought patterns to construct knowledge. In addition, he believed that action was not an adequate inception of knowledge and it starts with combining both reflection (thinking) and action.
ReplyDeleteUsing Dewey’s theory of knowledge for research could be used to help researchers produce meaningful forms of knowledge by avoiding trial and error means of discovery. Dewey conveyed that knowledge, “represents a shift from a concern with things as they are to a concern with the history to which a given thing belongs.” Therefore, researcher can learn to fully understand what they constitute as knowledge by examining the events which led up to the nature of the problems they intend to solve. Next, Dewey’s theory can assist with making meaning from a perspective that considers the situation or context in which inquiry is being made. For example, last class we discussed Ruby Payne and were able to acknowledge that her success derived from a need for her audience of white educators to attribute their disconnect with their students to poverty. Lastly, reflection and action creates knowledge that can help researchers to develop research that provides discourse which eventually leads to action.
According to Dewey, knowing (or knowledge) is just “one mode of experience” (p.29). Dewey saw knowledge as emerging from the action and experience of an organism with its environment. When an organism experiences something in its environment, it thinks about the environment, reviews the options available, then reacts - re-action could happen in different ways that could either change the environment or change the organism. Actions could result in errors/mistakes which may be corrected; all these affect the experience of the organism. According to Dewey, all these interactions/experiences make for knowing/knowledge: which is about relations between actions and consequences (p.45).
ReplyDeleteWith regards to educational research, there are no simple rules or solutions. The student is influenced by different factors that are affecting her/his experiences. This alludes to the fact that for each student, there is a different ‘truth’. Educational research that seeks to determine one truth stands the risk of not being useful to many as there is constant interaction taking place and a high likelihood that situations will differ in different contexts and also change. This raises a question on generalizability of educational research. I believe there should be a way that research findings in one context can be applied to another context but I am still thinking about this.
I think Dewey’s transactional approach also points out that educational research is a continuous process. There is no ‘eureka!’ moment for educational researchers. Today’s research findings should birth tomorrow’s research questions. What works now, may not work tomorrow especially as students, teachers and environments are constantly in interaction and changing. A question this raises for me is: how did Dewey see the link between the purpose of education and educational research?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChapter 2 reflects distinct transactions between experience, action, and knowledge. The term “transactions” to reflect Deweys’ progression in his exploration of nature as his writings progressed. His earlier writings used the term “interactions.” However, his later writings transitioned to the term “transactions” because the term interaction “suggests the existence of independent entities that interact” (Biesta & Burbles, 2003, p. 26). Dewey identifies various modes of experience that are kinds of knowing. These modes of experience have implications for educational research as they are the method through which knowledge is acquired. In particular, knowing as a mode of experience identifies the connection between actions and consequences.
ReplyDeleteThe authors then examine how learning takes place through inquiry and research as learning that lead to various ways of understanding a phenomenon. Through experimental transaction with the environment, action leads to a differentiated and meaningful world. The experimental transaction is practice that leads to more specific habits. These practices are infused with meaning that result in learning. This theory of action considers the assumption that “it is possible to transform habits into intelligent habits, and action into intelligent action” (Biesta & Burbles, 2003, p.38). The goal of educational research is to provide information that supports the existence of or creates new theories. Repetitive patterns that can be identified in educational research align with the idea of experimental transactions in which learning occurs. To this end, the purpose and process of educational research is proposed.
Dewey suggests that knowledge is obtained through a series of active adaptations of the organism with and not merely “to” its environment. He contends that learning is not just a stimulus response situation and that organisms are continuously searching for stimuli. He views the process as dynamic. It is more than simply exposing an organism to something new.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of educational research this would change the view of education as something we do “to” students into something that we “invite” them into. I hold that this also should influence the nature of the relationship between researchers and practitioners. Educational research should be seen as a dynamic and fluid collaboration between the two groups. This framework should also consider the student as a continuous source of influence by which to consider “lines of actions.” There are many components to the nature of knowledge and they should be considered within the cultural and societal lenses through which they are born.
Dewey's theory of knowledge is complex and composed of several elements, experience, reflection, habits, history, and time. His theory is created and established through his belief in naturalistic transactionalism, which discusses the relationship and processes between the organism and its environment. Dewey continues on to describe experiences as the transitions of living organisms and their environment (Biesta & Burbules, 2013). He introduces the act of knowing as a mode of experience, which support action. Therefore, the two main building blocks in Dewey's theory of knowledge include experience and action. First, It is imperative to understand that Dewey does not believe the only through knowledge can we obtain a hold on reality (Biesta and Burbules, 2013). Furthermore, everyone's experience qualify as real. For example, each individual due to their differences in their history, standpoints, background, purposes and intentions lead to a difference experience with the same object. For example, a runner will experience a pair of sneakers differently than a soccer player, football player, walker, etc. and it should be noted that each of these experiences is qualified as real. Thus, in order for a person to obtain knowledge they must have the happening of an experience, action. Thus, knowledge is established through conditions and consequences. For example, we conduct an action and a consequence occurs, humans then reflect and apply change , which is where the process of knowing occurs. We may be told something, for example, given a name to an object, but knowing will not occur until we experience and act on the object.
ReplyDeleteWith Dewey's theory of knowledge stems numerous implications to education research. Dewey discusses how each of us experience objects and events differently and that all of these experiences is truth and a reality. However, educational research seeks for one solution for all students. For example, if a student demonstrates inappropriate behaviors we apply the following three strategies. According to Dewey, this is not going to be beneficial because we all experience events and objects differently. Therefore, the way in which we act on the object or event is going to be different and furthermore cause our knowledge to be different. Educational research is searching for that one generalizing solution and according to Dewey this is not in accordance with the transaction process and relationship of an organism and their environment.
From my foundations of education classes (many years ago now) what I remember learning about Dewey was that learning is doing. While that is very simplistic, it does capture the essence of what I see as one of the main tenets of Dewey’s pragmatism. Knowledge is not passive, something to be treated as a noun such as a teacher “imparts knowledge”. On page 33, the authors convey how in Dewey’s critique of the reflex arc model he argued that “the organism is always already active; the organism is always already maintaining a dynamic balance with its environment.” Through my understanding, Dewey also sees knowledge as based on individual perceptions, so that reality can be different for different people based on how they experience something.
ReplyDeleteSomething I find very relevant to educational research is Dewey’s emphasis on retrospective reflection on the stimulus and response theory. The notion that we cannot necessarily deem which thing is the stimulus and which the response until after the transaction has occurred is interesting. To me, this implies that we should closely examine our educational research after it is conducted, from a critical stance, before making inferences. Also going back to the view that “the organism is always already active” has implications for educational research because this is always the nature of education. Students are not just sitting around waiting for some stimulus. They are always engaged in something. Inserting a new stimulus to see how the student reacts isn’t suddenly engaging the student from a state of stupor, but instead re-directing or re-positioning the focus of their learning. On page 43, the assertions that “everyone’s experience is equally real” and that we have a collection of “different reals of experience” are very relevant for educational research because it gets at the heart of what practitioners and researchers all know; that the backgrounds and experiences that students bring with them greatly impact their perception of reality.
I agree with your point that the backgrounds and experiences that students bring impact their perception of reality. I believe this is also an issue for educators and researchers, as well. A positive example of this would be experience helping shape an educator into a more effective practitioner; a negative aspect would be bias or validity issues in research.
DeleteJohn Marshall:
ReplyDeleteAs I try to understand Dewey’s view of knowledge, I am reading and re-reading the text (action) and contemplating its meaning (thinking) and this combination of experience and contemplation seem in keeping with Dewey’s belief that both are meaningful ways to know reality.
It seems that knowledge is inextricably linked with experience and that that humans, while interacting with their environment through action, are coming to know reality from their individual point of view, and this view of reality is the nature of knowledge. That knowledge is linked to the context of the individual actor, and therefore different (yet equally real) for each separate person based on the context of the action. Biesa and Burbules provide the example of the jockey and the zoologist having different realities when viewing a horse to illustrate this point. Each depends on the action.
The prevailing point regarding knowledge and reality, it seems, are the link between the knowing world and the physical world. The sounds of words were a particularly illustrative example for me. Sound waves are physical events, yet we have tied them securely to meanings in the “knowing” mode.
Some of these perspectives on knowledge have implications in educational research. The pragmatist views knowledge entirely within the context of the action that is taking place.
Therefore, it would seem that providing context and background, in great detail, are critical for educational research, according to a pragmatist. If knowledge depends on the actions that produced it, then knowing the precise conditions and actions of an experiment or qualitative research project becomes even more important. Carefully revealing a study’s purpose, background, sampling, methodology, and other aspects can help provide the reader with the action that produced the knowledge. A pragmatist would have little use for a study that did not thoroughly do so.
According to Dewey, knowledge is about reflection and action, and the transactional experiences of organisms with their environment. He further postulates that what is experienced by each individual is, in fact, real and is not subjective (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p.43). I do not agree with this position as the experiences of one individual differ from those experienced by others and consequently, their perceptions and interpretations of those experiences. What is perceived as a hot day for one individual may be perceived as a perfectly pleasant day by another- does this mean that this particularly day in question is hot and not at the same time? This loss in objectivity and facts makes me uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteTo further explain this point of view in light of educational research and the potential implications, I would like to bring attention to the controversial and highly debated claimed efficacy of utilizing "therapeutic" hold in the classrooms as a crisis intervention or behavior management tool. There are differing opinions among the various stakeholders in the field of education about the effectiveness and necessity of using reactive and punitive strategies to manage "misbehavior". When research shows objective evidence about the ill-effects of using these strategies, how does one still believe it is the most appropriate approach? Many teachers offer explanations in terms of safety of other children and themselves and although that is a legitimate concern, and by no means am I trying to negate that feeling of loss of safety, I do not understand how the experience of these teachers are considered the absolute reality and not subjective. What about the experiences of teachers who have successfully been able to employ more proactive and positive behavioral interventions? Are their experiences not real? Is there no subjectivity of experiences and perceptions in these differing opinions and instances? After all, if experiences differ, so should the notion of reality and its subjective understanding.
Toshna Pandey
The transactional approach seems to suggest that rather than knowledge being a nature vs. environment issue (which creates a lot of complications), we should focus instead on the transaction itself. Our experiences, our connection with our environment are mediated by the culture that surrounds us. This is a fascinating for me because although Dewey is a well-regarded pragmatist, this concept of knowledge and truth is contextual, constructed and relative.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, examining actions and consequences or using knowledge as a way to get control of our actions relates to the idea that we do not sit passively and receive knowledge. The stimulus/reaction model does not fit; instead, we are always in the process of interaction, knowledge construction, and revising what we already know. Dewey’s theory of action supports this idea – that knowledge and knowledge construction are dynamic.
This ties into Dewey’s views on knowledge. Knowledge is not the only way we define or construct reality. Because of our dynamic experiences, if we feel something is scary – it is scary – regardless of what objectively takes place. In plain words, knowledge is not a static, definitive entity. Our experiences, perceptions, and interactions all help create knowledge, and in turn, our reality.
I appreciate the metaphor of knowledge construction as Galilean, Newtonian and Einsteinian. The idea that our understanding of knowledge is evolving is an important one. This demonstrates that for educational researchers, our understanding of knowledge is still in development and is still evolving. Students are all going to have unique experiences and histories that will directly impact their knowledge construction. Researchers, educators and students all are individually dynamic, and the field itself is dynamic, as well.
According to Biesta and Burbules (2003), “Dewey’s view of knowledge is about reflection and action, and about the reflective transformation of experience understood as transactional.” (p. 42). Dewey places value on the realness of what people experience. Additionally, Dewey focused on the ever changing nature of what it means to know something. The example of how people cross the street really stuck with me. When we cross the street we do not look both ways, close our eyes, walk across the street, and hope we do not get pummeled by an oncoming car. Crossing the street requires constant evaluation and reevaluation of the situation. As situations and environments change what we know and interpret also changes. I believe this way of looking at education and educational research is very important. When Dewey was experiencing life, the world around him was in dramatic and constant change. This is still happening today, especially with the increased development in technology. The experiences of our students in their life outside of school today, are not the same as they were 50 years ago. Education and educational research needs to reflect this changing landscape of education.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAccording to Dewey, knowledge is constructed through a transactional relationship between an organism and its environment. In this context, “transaction” refers to a natural process Dewey called “experience.” The chapter suggests that knowing and knowledge are interpreted differently through language because human experiences are mediated by culture. As a result, diverse cultures could have different interpretations of research findings and their implications for practice. When considering current and future education research, these diverse interpretations must be taken in account in order to uphold ethical standards and generalize our findings to their appropriate populations.
The chapter also suggests that knowledge does not imply reality because not all experiences involve the mode of knowing. In education research, for example, our knowledge may be different from the reality on what is deemed “effective practice.” From my perspective, it seems there is a trend in education research for pinpointing “effective practices;” however, the effectiveness of these practices is not the reality for every individual or population. Therefore, when conducting research, education professionals must take into account research validity, reliability, and the various personal factors related to culture in order to appropriately generalize their findings to the right persons in the most suitable contexts.
Katie
In Biesta Chapter 2, the nature of knowledge (aka epistemology) is focused on three components of Dewey’s thinking and theory. It is crucial to consider the experiences, actions, and knowledge of an organism (person.) Experiences are transactional, and while two people may attend the same professional development, they may not have the same experience; however, they both had some type of experience that they will carry with them. They might act on these experiences, creating some difference or change in their process based on the professional development. The outcome is the knowledge gained from the action that was transacted through the experience. A practical application of this thinking is to consider lesson planning. When working with student teachers, I help them choose curriculum and develop the experiences for students based on what students need to know. These experiences are taught (action) during the lesson delivery, and then reflected on by looking at the knowledge gained by students through formative and summative assessments. This is also knowledge gained by the student teacher, which with reflection will guide their planning on subsequent lessons.
ReplyDeleteExperience, action and knowledge are all part of the theoretical background for conducting and understanding educational research. Knowledge can be derived through inquiry. In the lesson planning example above, the student teacher can use the knowledge gained from the lesson delivery and students to make further changes. This inquiry process could lead to real action research in the classroom. I wrote about this last time, but feel it’s really important to again make this connection. I think Dewey’s transactional approach makes research opportunities accessible to all teachers who are willing to learn side by side with students.
According to Dewey, knowledge is built through experience but also through the meaning given to different things or actions through experiences. Knowledge cannot only be gained through action, but rather through analysis of actions and reactions of the world around us. Truth or falsity is gained through “the relationship between our experience….and our possible actions or responses” (p. 50). Through our actions we can discover if the meaning we attribute to an object is real. He uses the example of seeing paper as “something to write on.” We can only know if our perception of paper is correct if we act on it and write on the paper. Additionally, paper is not only something to write on. It can have many different meanings depending on what the organism is going to need/use it for. This leads to to concept of different truths or realities based on the organisms experiences or needs. If I need the paper to write on then based on my needs paper is “something to write on,” but if I need the paper to start a fire, then paper can also be “something to start a fire.” Additionally, knowledge must be gained through careful analysis and action in a situation. If no act is performed then we cannot validate that our initial assumptions were true or false. Educational research then must require a serious consideration of the subjects needs and realities. We must consider how they formed their knowledge and truth and how that can change their current cognition. We cannot assume one student’s truth about a subject or object is the same as another student’s. This can lead to difficulties with generalizing data collected from research. It also poses a question about how we should be approaching education and knowledge as a whole as teachers and researchers. How can we guide students to find their own knowledge and truth when so often we are told there is only one definition of knowledge and truth?
ReplyDeleteWhat are some implications for educational research?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Dewey, knowledge is a tool that helps us to access or getting closer to reality. There are many ways or modes to obtain knowledge, such as learning, seeing, thinking, and even through actions. In Dewey's opinion, action is not just about how we respond or react to a call, but it also includes activities that have already been going on prior to the change of action.
Some implications for educational research:
our research can always be improved in some ways and it will never be perfect. What I mean by this is that no matter how big our data set is, we can only capture a part of the reality. Knowledge is static not permanent, nothing holds true forever, which Dewey referred it as transactional. Dewey's work attempts to warn us to stay away from dichotomous world that some people created, it is not either or, there is also something else to it. I think as doc student in the Research and Eval, I think if Dewey is still alive today, he would not approve the statistical inference of p-value (statistically significant / not). Rather, he would be pushing researchers to dig deeper to understand our educational issues by asking What is the true story embedded in these numbers that we overlooked.
When it comes to the nature of the knowledge, I appreciate that Dewey described nature as “a moving whole of interacting parts (page 26). But he thought transaction makes more sense in the terms of the process as the first place. Dewey’s naturalism point of view also suggested that the framework of his theory of knowledge. The transaction of knowledge is related with connections but not the reality. “When experience is “cognitional,” it means that we perceive something as meaning-something-else-that-we-will- experience-when-we-act-in-a-specific-way”. An experience, as a knowledge, secures that we are “in touch” with nature, it is the experience itself is, not knowledge. Also, when we have the desire of the nature of knowledge, the knowledge itself has domain of value. And with the purpose of pursuing the domain of values, it was over to the domain of factual knowledge about nature. It’s vital to distinct the dualistic worldview of the material and the spiritual, and the assumption that the material constitutes “outer” nature, while the spiritual is the realm of “inner” mind. This implies that educators should treat schooling and students as a process of transaction. Depending on the value of knowledge nature, researchers need to be cautious about the purpose and results of the educational researches as experience could be divergent in different situations.
ReplyDeleteYou are so correct Fa. It is a concern that researchers may be so removed from students that they are not fully aware of many of the factors and nuances that influence their daily lives. It is all well and good to conduct research but much of the important information will need to be teased out qualitatively. Even then the presence of the researcher and the nature of research itself will influence the student. Collaboration between researchers and teachers is necessary to get a rich picture of today's questions in education.
DeleteJune 5, 2018
ReplyDeleteChapter 2 – “From Experience to Knowledge”
Let’s start with a citation, and then let’s go from there: “Dewey’s view of knowledge is about reflection and action, and about the reflective transformation of experience understood as transactional” (p. 42).
Dewey’s approach to defining knowledge, which eventually led to the “transactional approach,” as he described it, appears to reject absolute “truths” in favor of a dynamic description of knowledge that is defined by individual experience and is constantly evolving and changing. I find his emphasis on dynamic interaction with the world as a foundation for intelligence, not simply stimulus and response between or among individuals and objects, to be fascinating and intriguing. I believe that this concept of a constant state of movement in relation to every other individual and object in the same space and the almost dialogue-like interaction between and among individuals and objects to be a much more accurate depiction of a shared reality. It also re-centers the individual from a less egotistical position and places the individual in a network of relationships, which are constantly shifting, growing, changing, evolving, etc. independently of the actor/observer as well as influenced by the actor/observer. Perception also appears to join this dynamic dance as a thread in the entire process, happening simultaneously with movement, which only makes sense, because of the constantly – and often rapidly – changing nature of reality, which is not divided into discrete stages like turns in a board game. Perception and movement are simultaneously occurring activities and interact with each other as they interact with the perceived reality. Habits arise from these dynamic perception-action interactions with reality and eventually evolve into intelligent habits as action evolves into intelligent action, all of which is guided by thinking. Thinking ultimately appears to be a dynamic assessment of possible outcomes and interactions with reality, driven by habits, impulse, and perception. Interaction with others plays its role as individuals communicate shared realities described through mutually agreed-upon symbology as well as possible interactions with that shared reality.
The penultimate step in the process connects experience to knowledge through action, “because it is only through action that we can get an understanding of the conditions of the happening of an experience” (p. 51). But the final step – creating “conscious knowledge” – only occurs when reflection becomes part of the “transformation of transaction” (p. 51) and leads to the realization that the “old conception of knowledge as a (static) picture of a (static) reality that simply has to go” (p. 51).
Pete Willis