Knowledges Interchange
Recognizing the plurality of our knowledges, and anticipating the positive outcomes from the interchangeArchive for June, 2007
Learning in Hawaii
I am in Hawaii, and time and time again I have seen and heard evidence of the different ways of knowing and the multiplicity of knowledges.
I’m on my way to Sydney, Australia, for the ISSOTL conference. I stopped here, because the journey from my home in Vancouver to Sydney is way longer than I want to spend in the air. As it happens, there is no penalty for stopping the airline journey mid-point, and I have never been to Hawaii, so it’s a good idea all round.
Having never been to Hawaii before, I had a lot to learn. The Polynesian culture is deeply rooted in traditions that I will never understand. I was embarrassingly ignorant of the different knowledges of the triangle of islands that makes up Polynesia, which include Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Tahiti, the place westerners call Easter Island, and New Zealand. NZ was the biggest surprise to me, because I”m embarrassed to say that I thought that it shared its cultural heritage with Australia. Now I know better, and I will investigate further when I’m there on my way back from Sydney.
In addition to these discoveries about the people of Polynesia, I have discovered more about Americans, since I’ve talked to visitors from just about every state in the Union. After encountering a range of opinions on just about everything under the sun, I’m left wondering about whether one nation can be described as having particular knowledge.
This isn’t a new question of course, but, for example, sitting here at the gates of the Pearl Harbour Memorial, there is some evidence that Americans all feel the same way about the sinking of the Arizona, the lives lost that day, and the need to remember it. I sat under a palm tree and talked to an 80 year old veteran who was visiting the site with his son and grandson. There seems to be a collective American point of view on the importance of this.
But is that knowledge exactly? Do high school classes in American history provide knowledge? Do the history classes of other countries provide knowledge?
Is that one of the problems in the world? By teaching what I’ll call a knowledge set with an inevitable bias, and suggesting to the young (and old) that what they are hearing is knowledge, which they will be rewarded for memorizing, are we denying other knowledges, other versions of the so-called truth. Wouldn’t it be better to change the school system so that learners are explosed to various knowledge sets, and grow up recognizing that what we are taught is not the one and only truth, and respecting the knowledges of others?
It is very difficult to put forward a new paradigm of education in a world which has been operating under an established paradigm for hundreds of years. Whenever I suggest to people (and believe me I suggest it daily at every opportunity) I see a little light bulb go on. Most thinking people recognize immediately that knowledges in the plural makes good sense. In this world of so-called globalization, of travel and of cultural awareness, it is obvious that referring to one knowledge is not only unenlightened but incorrect. This blog will bring references to authorities as well as day-to-day wisdom to support this position.
However, even after people agree that knowledges should be used (and spelled) in the plural, there are very few people who will change their frame of reference. The chance of them changing their spelling is even more remote! It reminds me of my reluctance to leave the “o” out of colour, or pronounce Zed as Zee. What do I mean reluctance? I’m just not going to change thos things, no matter what:-)
So if it’s difficult to gain acceptance for one concept and its related useage, imagine how difficult it is to get support for the proposition that knowledges should be exchanged. Our whole society is built around credentialism. Perelman has a lot to say about that. Perhaps he had as much difficulty getting his ideas across as I?
The fourth, but probably not final principle
At this point in the evolution of this concept, I’ve identified four principles. That doesn’t mean to say there are only four in total – it’s just that I’m confident about these four, but I sincerely hope that there are more just waiting to be found. I’ve explained three in earlier blog entries, and the fourth in the draft framework is:
· In an education system that embraces Knowledges Exchange, the learners are evaluated on how effectively they facilitate the exchange with others, not on personal achievement.
This came to me as an epiphany — perhaps not on the scale of James Joyce — but definitely an “ah-hah!” moment. I knew that there would be a lot of skepticism if I proposed that a formal education system could be built around people simply telling each other what they know, without any evaluation of the quality and quantity of the exchanges. I was happy to think of a solution.
The prevailing paradigm is to judge how much an individual has learned and retained, and is able to regurgitate on demand. I suddenly realized that if we started rewarding people, not for what they learn, but for what they teach, it might lead to a revolution in the so-called traditional schooling system.Imagine a world where recognition is giving to those who give, not just receive, who teach what they have learned, and who want to expand their ways of exchanging knowledges.
When employers are looking for new people to hire, they would ask for evidence that they are able to share ideas. Outputting would be more valued than inputting. Contributing to the Common Good would earn the highest grades. What a wonderful world that would be.
Some Comments on Principle 3
I’m making these preliminary comments on the draft framework just to explain my initial thoughts, and now I’ll continue to the third principle which suggests:
- The process of Knowledges Exchange is based on mutual respect.
It seems obvious doesn’t it? What teacher doesn’t know the importance of respect? However, I have in mind the kind of “unconditional positive regard” that Carl Rogers spoke about. And that means both ways, between teacher and learner in an exchange of knowledges.
Some will argue that more respect is due to the teacher because it’s assumed that an adult has a greater amount of knowledge. However, the theory here is that there are different kinds of knowledge and if we accept that, quantity may not have a lot to do with it. What children know must be valued for what it is: precious, ever-changing, fundamental. It is a joy to exchange ideas with a toddler who is discovering the world for the first time because our adult knowledge can be re-discovered and appreciated as though it were new.
Why is it that a Nobel prize winner is respected more than a toddler? Isn’t it because we have concluded that the Nobel laureate has greater knowledge? But doesn’t the knowledge of the children deserve our respect too, especially if they are open to sharing everything?
In what I’m calling the “traditional” model of teaching, people are rewarded for gathering and retaining their own knowledge, and we give prizes on the basis of that. However, Principle 4 which I discuss next, suggests a different approach.
Considering Pinciple 2 of the Framework
The second principle of the draft framework I’m considering is:
- Knowledges Exchange is an alternative approach to the Industrial Age model of teaching and learning.
What do I mean by Industrial Age model? I refer, of course, to the mass education system that was introduced in the west around the 18th century, to teach workers what they needed to know to run machinery in factories. The called it the “Three Rs” – reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic.
Schools were like those factories they were built to serve. ”Pupils” moved through the mostly rote lessons they were supposed to learn. They were like objects on a conveyor belt, and if they failed to keep up they were discarded into a heap of defective products. Pink Floyd has a lovely depiction of it in the video of The Wall.
Even though the Industrial Age is supposed to be behind us, I’ll argue that the Three Rs are still the pillars of our school system in the year 2007. I’ll say more about this model as the blog evolves. And I’ll add many references by leading authorities on education who agree with me that this is an outdated model that desperately needs to be replaced.
What’s the alternative? Well…Knowledges Exchange, of course.
Considering Pinciple 1 of the Framework
The first principle that I began to consider some time ago is the that knowledge is not a singular entity. During my many years in the s0-called traditional education system, I used to speak confidently about the need to ensure that learning experiences addressed the development of Skills (in the plural) and Attitudes (in the plural) and Knowledge (in the singular!).
I didn’t think about the imbalance until I began to be more vocal in my criticism of the Industrial Age model of schooling, and to question out loud the use of the word pedagogy to describe all kinds of processes. I’ll get back to the “p” word another time. But for now I’d like to problematize the word knowledge in the singular.
In this millenium, all thoughtful people recognize the pluralism in our society. I have referenced the work of Worsley, and as this blog evolves I will refer to other authorities who raise the issue of multiple knowledges. Yet, even though we acknowledge our many ways of knowing in daily dealings, the word knowledge is invariably used in the singular. For example, if you search for knowledge in Wikipedia, we discover that many meanings are provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge ). On the other hand, if you search for knowledges with an “s” you’ll be told that nothing exists — but you’re welcome to create a new entry. It’s on my To Do list.
An Emerging Model
In the early posts in this blog, I gave some examples of environments in which knowledges could be more easily exchanged. I described the Open Space activities and argued that a recent session at Simon Fraser was a good example of Knowledges Exchange (KE).
However, it’s important for me to work on developing a conceptual framework for KE, rather than simply providing examples of KE in action. Unless I can present a theoretical model, it’s unlikely that I will be able to gain support for adopting KE as a new educational paradigm. My goal is show that individual learners and society as a whole will benefit by a system which is not based on students demonstrating that they are successful products of the existing factory school system. Instead, I will seek to demonstrate that processes and procedures which emphasise collaboration, and reward learners who can facilitate exchanges.
In a new page on this blog homepage I have listed four principles of the emerging model:
http://knowledgesexchange.wordpress.com/the-draft-framework/
Let the games begin!
More on Open Space
The Open Space exchanges I spoke of in my last entry actually lasted 24 hours. We started at 3 pm on Tuesday, June 5th and the space was closed by 3pm on Wednesday, June 6th. The actual Open Space was convened on Wednesday morning, and followed the approach advocated by Harrison Owen. Issues were identified, groups formed and re-formed and the walls gradually filled with flip chart paper.
The focus of the intense conversations was Radical Teaching. Many will assume that radical means revolutionary, but the first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is basic and fundamental. Our discussions focused on the essence of teaching, and all the issues that affect it.
On that second day, too, the Open Space proved ideal for knowledges exchange. Although there was considerable anxiety over the fact that an Open Space begins with no agenda, and the participants must create the agenda for themselves, the ideas soon started flowing, and the topics they identified were diverse and thought-provoking. As this blog continues, I would like to connect theory with the practice of knowledges exchange, in situations such as the Open Space. For those who are curious, here are two more links on Open Space, or Open Space Technology, as it was originally named:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology
http://www.chriscorrigan.com/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.OpenSpaceTechnology
Open Space Exchanges
This week, I convened the first day of an Open Space experience at Simon Fraser University. Our topic was Radical Teaching and we continue tomorrow for a second day. Open Space is an ideal forum for Knowledges Exchange. Open Space makes possible an environment in which participants can build trust, exchange knowledges, surface questions that are important to them, and own the process for exploring what inspires them. Four principles and one law were established by Harrison Owen, who is credited with launching Open Space: Whoever comes is the right people; Whatever happens is the only thing that could have; When it starts is the right time; When it’s over it’s over. The Law of Two Feet invites people to move to a new conversation if they have stopped contributing or learning. For further information on Open Space, check out: http://www.openspaceworld.org/
The gathering attracted many faculty members who self-selected to participate. Many of them had an interest in experiencing Open Space, others were more interested in exploring the nature of Radical Teaching. In addition to faculty, there were a few administrators, a librarian and even a student!
For the first activity, participants were invited to divide themselves into groups of three, and join a table where a facilitator would start the conversation about teaching. For almost 90 minutes, there was animated dialogue. Although everyone had been invited to take advantage of the Law of Two Feet, hardly anyone moved from the first group chosen. There were very evident and audible exchanges. What a joy to see groups learning eagerly from each other.
Introducing Worsley on Knowledges
Of course, I’m not the only person who thinks of knowledges in the plural. Peter Worsley’s 1997 publication is entitled simply Knowledges. I will be referring to comments in this book over time, but I wanted to introduce it here as a useful reference for people who share my interest. The full title of the work is Knowledges: Culture, counterculture, subculture, and that is a strong hint that Worsley’s area of study is anthropology. His work is based on a comparison of various characteristics of Australian Aboriginal culture with those same characteristics in various other cultures. For example, he compares forms of healing in different countries and traditions. He concludes, as do I that: “Knowledge, then, is necessarily plural: there are knowledges, not simply Knowledge with a capital K (p.10).”
