This is another post on my views on the EdTechTalk discussion (audio here and transcript here) recently between Stephen Downes and George Seimens about (among other things) views on objective and subjective knowledge and its impact on teaching (transfer of knowledge vs. connective learning). See this post for many more details and transcripts etc.

This discussion also asked the question: “What is the role/goal of education”? I agree that this is fundamentally important question, because we cannot hope to achieve this goal if we are not clear what the goal is. While I will not comment on what the role/goal of education is now, I would like to ‘remind’ people what the role of education was in the past – in the industrial age.

I have heard it said that the two goals of education in the industrial age were essentially:

1. to get children away from their parents so that the parents could be productive factory workers, and
2. to make the children ready to be effective factory workers.

This is particularly important because the current education system as we know it was actually instigated during the industrial age, supposedly to achieve the two goals outlined above. As we are still bound by this industrial age educational system, we should be aware of this, and aware of the goals it had in mind. We should seriously ask ourselves if they are the same goals that we have today, and if not, can the current educational system achieve our new goals?

The alternative is not a pretty picture. If we continue to use an education system designed to make human robots, what happens when these human robots become obsolete in favour of Chinese human robots and eventually, true blue robot robots?

This is another post on my views on the EdTechTalk discussion (audio here and transcript here) recently between Stephen Downes and George Seimens about (among other things) views on objective and subjective knowledge and its impact on teaching (transfer of knowledge vs. connective learning). See this post for many more details and transcripts etc.

To continue my critique of Stephen’s view that there is no objective knowledge, I believe that objective knowledge does exist in some situations, but that often the domain of what is considered objective knowledge is extended too widely and encompasses too many things. It can, like many things, be misused and abused. For example, it is easier for a teacher to portray something as objective and not have to research or explain caveats or varying opinions. And of course, many politicians who care more about themselves than the good of their constituency would far prefer their views to be regarded as objective facts.

I believe it is an inescapable fact that 1+1=2 is objective and that sure, later on, students can learn about other perspectives like base 2, base 8 and non-Euclidian geometry etc, but these perspectives do not make 1+1 subjective, they are simply more detailed levels of knowledge that the student will be taught later, after they have grasped the fundamentals. Initially, there is a lot of value in a student understanding, becoming proficient with, and building upon simple, reliable concepts. There is value in them being easy to understand, easier to become proficient, and possibly most importantly, increased confidence in their knowledge and abilities.

This is essentially the foundation of Direct Instruction (DI) – a structured transmission, clarification, verification and practice of knowledge. The aim is to make students very proficient at the fundamentals so that their confidence is boosted, they stay excited about learning and that when they can focus on new, complex concepts, without getting distracted by slow, unsure fundamentals. A relative of mine has studied DI in great depth and compared it to a wide variety of other techniques. He has found that many solid studies show that students using DI far outperform students for pretty much any other technique and can help struggling students advance 2 to 3 year levels in a single year. What I found most interesting was that this technique does not continue exclusively – eventually the student proceeds to open, inquiry based learning, where a healthy view on subjectivism becomes important.

So it would seem that a healthy combination of structured transfer of knowledge (related to objective knowledge) and demonstration/interaction/inquiry (related to subjective knowledge) is not only possible, but highly effective. So while Stephen makes a simple, elegant case that objective knowledge does not exist, and that considering any knowledge to be objective creates bad teaching practices, I would suggest that objective knowledge does exist, and that if handled responsibly, it can have powerful positive impacts, and possibly even contribute to connective learning.

This post is the first of my views on the EdTechTalk discussion (audio here and transcript here) recently between Stephen Downes and George Seimens about (among other things) views on objective and subjective knowledge and its impact on teaching (transfer of knowledge vs. connective learning). See my previous post for many more details and transcripts etc.

The initial focus of the discussion was on objective vs subjective knowledge – Stephen arguing that all knowledge is subjective and George maintaining that some knowledge is objective. The example of a red apple was used – George thought that the colour of the apple was objective, while Stephen asked “what if the apple is in the dark?, what if you ask a colour-blind person?”.

I guess I am biased by coming from a science background, but I would tend to agree with George – I think some knowledge is objective – may be not as much knowledge as many people may think, but some. I think the fundamental factor is details – the same reason that some of the debate became circular and struggled to advance in places. I’ll advance the apple example used in the discussion: the question “is the apple red?” is too vague, and therefore can be argued both ways without really advancing the body of knowledge or coming to a conclusion. It also cannot be considered objective. However, breaking this down into a number of more detailed questions can resolve these problems: “Does the surface of the apple contain red pigments? Does light that bounces off the apple become more red? Does the observer in question perceive of this light as being red?”. Often, one of these more detailed questions is the one that was really being asked in the more general question, although sometimes you will find that one person was focusing on one of the more detailed questions, while the other person was focusing more on another. Also note that this layer of detail may still not be sufficient – both the second and third detailed questions need more detail, for example, “Does light that bounces off the apple become more red?” needs to address the colour and brightness of the originating light. So it is very constructive if you can drill down and down until all parties agree on the detailed questions, and then slowly work your way back up towards the general question, noting your assumptions as you go, and finding where people start to disagree.

This is also a very useful technique for effective communication and conflict resolution in general, and the same discussion offered another relevant example. They debated whether a unicorn is objective or subjective. I think the extra detail that would have been relevant here would have been to isolate abstract vs. concrete, and objective vs. subjective, and then discuss whether abstract concepts can be objective, drilling deeper where necessary. While I am not expert enough in this area to answer this question, I think it may have helped clarify and advance the discussion.

In his summary, Stephen mentioned that “Objectivism is inherently false and cannot be made true by artificially creating smaller domains of discourse”, so he may in fact be disagreeing with everything I have just proposed above. If that is the case, I don’t recall it being discussed directly in the show, so I would like to know why, because it sure seems to me that it would have helped the discussion.

In fact, in his summary, Stephen says “meaning is an emergent phenomenon arising from connections between underlying entities”. I could almost take that to be a reference to drilling down to deeper levels of detail (as I have proposed above) and making connections between these details as you rise back up to a more general concept. So is Stephen and myself looking at two sides of the same apple of connective learning? – Stephen looking at it from the perspective of connective learning requiring objective knowledge to be false, and myself looking at it from the perspective that responsible deconstruction of objective learning may in fact lead to connective learning.

I was listening to a very interesting EdTechTalk discussion (audio here and transcript here) recently between Stephen Downes and George Seimens about (among other things) views on objective and subjective knowledge and its impact on teaching (transfer of knowledge vs. connective learning). Stephen Has written an article on this, which spurred George to write this response.

I encourage you to take a look at these, but I will summarise them here and in subsequent posts, discuss them.

Stephen Downes’ original article was An Introduction to Connective Knowledge, available as both audio and text here.

George Seimens response included the following summary of the original article:

In this article, Stephen tackles many broad themes: knowledge, meaning, truth, learning, and networks. Instead of casting the discussion in quantitative or qualitative terms, he opts for a third path (rightly so, in my eyes): connectivity.

George’s proposal to make this an EdTechTalk conversation was taken up for EdTechTalk Episode 34 here and a Transcript of the entire conversation can be found here. The initial focus was on objective vs. subjective knowledge – Stephen arguing that all knowledge is subjective and George maintaining that some knowledge is objective. The conversation then progressed into the impact of objective knowledge on teaching and education, and the impact and role of education in and on society. This vibrant discussion was summarised by each speaker as follows:

George Siemens:

I think I’ll start by answering the last question which is, has this conversation helped. I think it certainly helped to the degree the original article that Stephen wrote that we didn’t spend enough time on really. How that article helped as well. And when I first posted on it, I said much of it reflects on what I believe in terms of a connectivist sense. Which is that knowledge itself is the process or learning is the process of network formation. Meaning and emergence and shared meaning and all of those things are a function to a large degree of the types of networks that we create and the manner in which we choose elements within our network. So on many levels I’m saying Stephen is right.

On some elements I’m saying too varying degrees because, like I said, the subjectivity notion that Stephen has expressed today, I’ve held as I said in my original post, I agree with that on certain levels. I disagree on certain levels because I do believe that there is an objective element and an objective reality that exists. And sometimes our learning structures have to align with that objective reality in order for us to do a service to our learners. In answering that first, yes it was an enjoyable discussion from that end and certainly any time you can get together with a group of people who share similar interests, there is always a learning experience.

I think that’s what Stephen talks about when he uses the term emergence and association to refer to the process of learning. I don’t have the quote handy here but he had a really good quote in there about how the point of association basically moves us towards that level of shared understanding. Meaning here is one of many ways. But meaning is an emergent phenomenon arising from connections between underlying entities. So the meaning that I derive comes as a result of extending the nodes in my network. So what is my main point though. My main point is that we are constrained in our philosophy and in our ideologies by the society in which we live. Part of education should be to alter the very constructs of our society. A part of education should create people who are better thinkers. It should create people who are willing to challenge the injustices that exist. It should allow equal access and equal opportunity to every learner regardless of disability, regardless of limitations. There are aspects to the educational process that do that. Those things unfortunately take a long long time. Often they can take decades, many decades in some instances for the constructs that inhibit effective leaning to be altered. However, while we are there we need to still serve those people who are entering that existing marketplace. We can begin to provide a basis for that philosophy and we can provide a basis for that theory in the manner that we provide education to our learners. We can inject critical thinking into it so that they are prepared in the future to tackle the bigger issues of their field or their domain. To right the injustices, to correct the wrongs of the world.

There are in my eyes though objective elements that exist and there ways sometimes that even though, especially in a connectiveness sense, my shift from the constructive viewpoints of life to the connectivist perspective resulted in realizing that there is an objective network that is created as I form and as I add knowledge to my own sense of continual learning. Through that process I’m actually creating an objective network that said something and hopefully aligns with the reality that exists outside there. Parts of those that network will be subjective, it will be filtered and interpreted using the perceptions, the notions that Stephen uses in his paper. Parts of it will be of that nature. Other parts will be sort of the emergent phenomenon of the network and some parts will be very objective and how it relates to the world that exists around it. Anyway, that’s just a very quick overview of my perspective and my value from the discussion.

Stephen Downes:

Actually my position can be stated very simply:

1. Objectivism is inherently false and cannot be made true by artificially creating smaller domains of discourse.
2. If that is the case, claims to have objective knowledge are in effect the imposition of one set of values over another – it creates an instance of schooling becoming ‘us doing something to them’, or to draw a little bit from what Geogre said, it makes it ok to say that we are constrained in ‘such and such’ a way.
3. Society functions better – it is smarter and more humane when values are not imposed.

Consequently, this leads to my conclusion about the nature of objectivism. We should not be making claims to have objective knowledge. What does that mean in learning? What that means is that we are not taking what we know and putting it into student’s heads. Learning is not a transfer of knowledge – it is a demonstration, an interaction. But the ultimate decision about what and even how something is learned is up to the learner. The best thing we can do is models what is believed and if we go beyond that, my view is that we are not only not teaching well, we are actually damaging the student, and as a consequence we are damaging society as a whole.

The thing that comes out most clearly in this discussion is that our understanding of how society works and our understanding of how learning works are inextricably conjoined – you can’t talk about one without talking about the other. That is an important thing to be thinking about when we are talking about theories of learning. Theories of learning that are simply accept that society is such a way are incomplete theories of learning because they don’t presuppose, as learning should, that we can be any better than we are.

Finally, Dave Cormier (a host on EdTechTalk) says:

go out and blog about this, talk to people about it, and give your positions out. This is the only way that these discussions are really valuable as they move towards action.

So I guess I am taking up that challenge, and I have started this blog to record my views on this topic and others. I will post a variety of my views on this discussion in a number of following posts.