12.12.2012 Views

Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Providing a Warrant for Constructivist Practice 481<br />

<strong>and</strong> other vehicles of conveyance. Meaning is referred to as contained in words or sentences. We<br />

admonish our students not to read too much into test items, etc.<br />

One of the implications of the transmission model is that the sender is responsible for the<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the receiver. If he crafts his message correctly it will not be misunderstood. If<br />

we extend this to instruction we can see how it is that teachers are considered to be responsible<br />

for learning in their students. If instruction is the transmission of knowledge (<strong>and</strong>/or information)<br />

then the teacher (as sender) is the responsible party. This is something that has not escaped the<br />

notice of students who often describe learning as something that someone does to them rather<br />

than as something for which they are responsible.<br />

An implication of the container metaphor is that information <strong>and</strong> knowledge can be contained in<br />

words, books, tools, <strong>and</strong> other devices. Within the enactive framework knowledge is effective action<br />

within a domain. It cannot be contained. It is better to think of such material as indices of the intelligent<br />

activity of their creators. Anything that might be considered input, like presentational material,<br />

has only the potential to function as a perturbation, a trigger for neuronal activity, that results<br />

in a change of state determined by the structure of any individual that interacts with such material.<br />

The transmission model can function only in a representational environment, where the world<br />

outside is pre-given, where information <strong>and</strong> even knowledge are pre-given. In an environment<br />

where interaction brings forth both the knower <strong>and</strong> the world to be known, we cannot speak of<br />

transmission, we must speak of structural coupling, of bringing forth through interaction.<br />

Information Is a Construction<br />

Many constructivists, generally those who refer to themselves as moderate constructivists,<br />

consider knowledge a construction, while considering information an entity with independent<br />

existence. To take the position that knowledge (or meaning) is constructed from information that<br />

is picked up or transferred from the environment is to consider the cognitive system simultaneously<br />

allonomous <strong>and</strong> autonomous. From an enactive st<strong>and</strong>point, this is illogical. Information is what<br />

Varela has referred to as in-formation: an interpretation, a construction. Information cannot be<br />

picked up from the environment; rather it emerges as regularities within our cognitive activity.<br />

We interpret these regularities as facts.<br />

Intelligence Is an Ability to Join or Create Shared Worlds of Meaning<br />

Within the representational framework intelligence is equated with problem solving. Within<br />

the enactive framework, intelligence is measured by the ability to join <strong>and</strong> the ability to create<br />

shared worlds of underst<strong>and</strong>ing. Sharing in this context does not denote isomorphic or identical<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing; rather it means that a conversation can be conducted on a given topic without<br />

breakdown. As we carry on the conversation we may assume we have the same underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong><br />

we may behave as if there is one. The longer we can carry on this conversation, the greater our<br />

confidence may become in this isomorphism. Such interaction allows us to coordinate behavior<br />

with others. We generally become aware that underst<strong>and</strong>ing is not isomorphic only when the<br />

conversation breaks down. To st<strong>and</strong> Bateson’s definition of distinction on its head, a successful<br />

conversation is one in which the differences make no difference.<br />

Becoming a member of any preexisting community <strong>and</strong> taking on the values <strong>and</strong> commitments<br />

of its members is the prototypical example of joining a shared world of underst<strong>and</strong>ing.<br />

Examples include our family, local community, schools, professions, etc. Creating new worlds<br />

of underst<strong>and</strong>ing may seem more remote, the activity of scientists, explorers, artists, <strong>and</strong> even<br />

politicians who push the frontiers of knowledge. I suggest, however, that this activity is not really<br />

so remote. It seems to be a natural part of the adolescent journey into adulthood. Hip-hop culture

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!