Knowledges Interchange
Recognizing the plurality of our knowledges, and anticipating the positive outcomes from the interchangeArchive for Developing a Framework
Reviewing my Framework of Knowledges Interchange
Sometimes people ask me why I’m writing this blog, and what my message is. As we begin another school year, I’d like to review my framework, both for myself and for anyone who is intrigued by the concept of Knowledges Interchange.
First, to answer the WHY question. It’s not really complicated. I have ideas that I don’t see reflected elsewhere in the popular or scholarly literature. If you Google “Knowledges Interchange” this site is just about the only listing you’ll get. This blog allows me to share ideas with anyone who might be interested. It also serves as a kind of journal for me, so that my thoughts don’t disappear somewhere and fade away. Through this blog I have been in touch with some people who share my perspective, or have related thoughts. Yes, it’s a self-publishing exercise, but I hope it will inform the publishing of others, and perhaps lead to some transformations.
So WHAT is my message. Above all things, it emphasizes the plurality of the collective knowledges of every species that inhabits the earth. Our education system persists in referring to Knowledges in the singular, in the sense that “IT” must be acquired as evidence of intelligence. Let me point to the concept of Multiple Intelligences which, like my theory, argues for understanding of the many ways in which we own and demonstrate our intelligence.
I also argue that a key way of moving forward with solving the worlds problems is to find ways of achieving interchanges of what we know. I have made some comments about the concept of Knowledge Management, and will continue to blog about my proposition that Knowledges Interchange is a strategy which should be adopted by educators, business people, diplomats and all people who want to facilitate solutions to the terrifying mess we are in.
In the Educational Framework tab of this blog, I have provided some principles in the emerging framework:
I stress that is emerging because my exploration of this concept is only beginning.
Knowledges Interchange
I am pleased that Kwantlen invited me to follow up my presentation at their one-day conference by publishing a paper in their online journal. The presentation itself was unusually well attended, and I think I managed to raise a few eyebrows. Alice McPherson is the heart and spirit behind the journal editorial team, and I appreciate her willingness to give voice to non-conformist ideologies.
I don’t consider the paper to be truly scholarly. I have called it an essay, because it is a personal piece written for a public audience. It expresses quite well my current views. I would like to get feedback, so it will be interesting to see if anyone responds. The essay is entitled Knowledges Exchange as a Framework for a Transformational Education System, and is attached here. It can also be seen online, along with other articles, at the website of the Transformative Dialogues journal. It’s my hope that publishing my work will help me to develop the framework a little further.
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!
