The reconstruction of boundaries is prevalent when one is making sense of a more difficult subject.  Some of these areas are:

a) the comparison of the nonhuman with human subjects in Gough and other writers in the same continuum:

Essentially Gough’s rhizomANTic is example of anthropomorphism, where humans try to project their own perspective onto non-human things. We want to believe that there is something that connects us to each other, as part of a higher-order collective, and if ants can be seen this way, maybe human’s could, too.

As evidence of this claim of anthropomorphism, it is worth noting that most writers assume we can transfer observations from the ant world to the human world, without devoting any exploration to why such transferance doesn’t make sense. For example, ants do not have a written language. They transfer information through the exchange of chemical signals, and much behaviour is simply inherent in their genetics. An ant doesn’t have an education program to become an ant. An ant simply functions as an ant from birth.

In contrast, tragic examples from human history show that babies and children, must be extensively educated to gain language, and many critical life skills such as reading, writing and science. The wolf-boy of France who was found living in the wild did not have an innate ability to function in human society after growing up for so many years outside of it. Ants don’t face this learning investment, and so this is just one of many differences between the two types of societies which make comparisons and conclusions very limited.

In the last part of the essay, the author suddenly invokes the perspective of a student self-directed examination of the connections of things in ordinary life with distant sources and peoples as some how related to the concept of an ant colony. This is only possible if we believe that people function like ants, or that ant colonies represent some complex human interactions as an educational construct. Unfortunately, there is no investigation or explanation of such connections.

As a pedagogy, the self-directed exploration of connections is not stand-alone. It would never work unless students had already received extensive training in science, history, geography, biology and so-on previously – and we must agree that those skills would have been gained by traditional methods: demonstration of technique, discussion of theory, opportunity to practice and perfect new skills with coaching and assessment.

From a more charitable perspective, the suggested cyborg pedagogy is an example of putting in practice the integration of many skills and experiences. For example, the previous study of economics and supply chains (Angus et al, 2001) can be practically mixed with studies of ecology, sociology and environment. Ergo, following the commercial acquisition of coffee granules informs the study of the agricultural and social practices that provided it in context with the environmental impact and/or benefits. From this analysis, we can assert that cyborg pedagogy is more about finding connections between diverse studies, than it is about finding connections about the things themselves. Cyborg pedagogy does not operate on its own. At best, it is more like an imaginative creative writing course than a learning environment.

b) the decentring of the human or human factor seem to make sense at one level where the power of construction and reconstruction is given to the student rather than the teacher dictating the boundaries, however, is it suggesting that education that reflects this model should replace traditional methods?   Angus et al (2001) has demonstrated the process and the result of the experiment where the students make the connections between things, and see the relationships differently. Does the encouragement of this kind of exploration set students up for challenging the body of knowledge to the extent of revising history for example or question the existence of the self or the notion of right and wrong?  How does posthumanist view facts?

Reference:

Haraway, D. (2000). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th Century. in D Bell and A Kennedy, The Cybercultures Reader. Routledge.

Hayles, N.K. (1999). Toward embodied virtuality, chapter 1 of How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. pp1-25

Edwards, R. (2010). The end of lifelong learning: A post-human condition? Studies in the Education of Adults, vol 42, no 1, 5-17.

Pedersen, H. (2010). Is the posthuman educable? On the convergence of educational philosophy, animal studies, and posthumanist theory. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol 31, no 2, 237-250.

Angus, T, Cook, I, Evans, J et al (2001) A Manifesto for Cyborg Pedagogy? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, vol 10, no 2, pp.195-201.

Gough, N. (2004). RhizomANTically becoming-cyborg: performing posthuman pedagogies. Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol 36, no 3, 253-265

In Penderson, it is the reference of “instabilities of humanist traditions/ideals of education and “institutionalised production, mediation, and development of knowledge”. (Penderson, 2010; 241)

Instability conjures for me a sense that the foundations of the humanist traditions have some cracks and are slowly breaking up.  The position that Penderson takes is that it permeates in the production, mediation and development of knowledge.  Hence, a radically new way of looking at knowledge is called for.

The dualism that is under scrutiny is the one that frames most of humanist education- the divide between human and non-human.

Interpretation of posthumanism in education varies.  Some are more sympathetic to the humanist traditions, others see this as a paradigm shift.

The former  is reflected in Stables and Scott’s (2001) vision of posthumanist environmental education curricular which to Penderson is still rooted in the humanist regimes:
“…reworking of a humanist assumptions with greater valorisation of non-human….increasingly recognising non-human life as necessary and not just as desirable and self-renewing resource (pp277-278)

The latter proposes that human, nonhuman including machines should be placed on the same continuum rather than as separate poles, one which Penderson describes as anti-speciest approaches.   Drawing on Pickering (2005)  “…mutual becoming’ of the human and the nonhuman requires a shift in the unit of analysis…where he sees posthumanism as a tool to transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries…a dialectic that produces a new kind of posthuman object, or assemblage, with a certain kind of inner unity.”

Citing Gough (2004), he  imagines teaching and learning as

“material-semiotic assemblages of sociotechnical relations embedded in and performed by shifting connections and interactions among a variety of organic, technical, ‘natural’ and textual materials.” (2004:2)
Interestingly, this has resonance with the dystopic views which also indicates that it is philosophy couched in the less positive view against commodifying (Capitalist agenda), or privileging the privileged, exclusionary politics.

So where does this leave the educator of the present and the future?  What can I draw from this as a curriculum designer, or a teacher for example? Do we need to untangle or choreograph the pedagogies from the different mix and mashed up influences and relationships with interspecies assemblages and dominant agendas?

Reference:

Pedersen, H. (2010). Is the posthuman educable? On the convergence of educational philosophy, animal studies, and posthumanist theory. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol 31, no 2, 237-250.

My only struggle at the moment is the continuum of human and non-human paradigm. I would like to read more about this to ensure I understand what the implications are for education, and also a way of life for many.

Reference:

Angus, T, Cook, I, Evans, J et al (2001) A Manifesto for Cyborg Pedagogy? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, vol 10, no 2, pp.195-201.

Edwards provided a number of binaries that illustrate the epistemological-ontological separation.(Edwards, 2010: 8)

epistemology – ontology
meaning – matter
significance – substance
subject – object
theory – practice
knowing – becoming
apparent- real
reflecting – intervening
thinking – doing
representing – experimenting

This sums up his description of a post-human education which I would like to consider further this week:

“Here a post-human condition could position responsible experimentation as a gathering of the human and non-human to establish matters of concern…it is not the human subject who learns through experimenting rather than representing, but the thing that is gathered which is an enactment of human and non-human elements.There is a decentring of the knowing/learning human subject within educational practices.”(Edwards, 2010: 13)

Reference:

Edwards, R. (2010). The end of lifelong learning: A post-human condition? Studies in the Education of Adults, vol 42, no 1, 5-17.

Reference:

Bell, David (2001) Community and cyberculture, chapter 5 of An introduction to cybercultures. Abingdon: Routledge. pp92-112

From reading Hine (2000), some of the following points stood out
a) the difference between a physical immersive experience, the online study will be one of reflexivity where the ethnographer’s own experience of arriving at the filed site and collection of data becomes part of the ethnographic material
b) the relationship between the ethnographer, the reader and the researched subjects – how the ethnographer arrive as an authority on the subject, what he can gain access to and the analytical position he is in, and the question of multiple or partial identity assumed by online subjects and how to allow the subject to judge what is authentic
d) the question of triangulation in online ethnography, as this might threaten the experiential authenticity of understanding the world of the informants
e) text analysis is an important part of the study, and it should be looked at within the context of the author – “a situated author producing text within a cultural context and a situated audience interpreting text from within other cultural contexts” (p52)
f) question of applying discourse analysis on online text and interactions: how to make the invisible visible
g) Writing ethnography is a constructive act rather than a reflection of reality (Denzin, 1997) (p56)
h) “The field site of ethnography could become a field flow, which is organized around tracing connections rather than about location in a singular bounded site” (p61)
i) “Online ethnographies despatialize notions of community, and focus on cultural process rather than physical place.” (p61)
j) Connective ethnography turns the attention from ‘being there’ to ‘getting there’ (p62) – “connection could as well be the juxtaposition of elements in a narrative, the array of pages thrown up by a search engine, or a set of hyperlinks on a webpage as an instance of communication between two people”

This view of ethnography presents a whole new way of approaching my study on the Street Arts community.

Reference:

Hine, C (2000) The virtual objects of ethnography, chapter 3 of Virtual ethnography. London: Sage. pp41-66

This is another piece of work, while taking stock of the few weeks into the EDEC course.  I started out unsure what culture was, and then the plethora of images and sounds from edcMooc and edec colleagues on eLearning and Digital Cultures presented each day helped build the picture.  Reading the core materials over the weeks, I am being sensitised to many terminologies, concepts.  As part of the detox, I am looking at cultures from a different lense.

This is a result of a visit to the Autoworld Museum in Brussels. It certainly has helped me streamline my thoughts on eLearning and Digital cultures.  There is more to consider especially the impact on schooling and education but this will have to come later.  All picture copyright belongs to T.Meckenstock.

Below are some of the feedback received which provide some engagement, though I failed to create an artefact which removes the reader as a passive spectator, as discussed by Rose. If I had been brave enough to allow people to add links to it, the effect might have been different. I need to consider how thinglink might satisfy the ‘design culture’ criteria.

“This is more meaningful and accessible to me than other types of expression that are pure image. You show how I have been moving through the course myself, using bookmarks and diigo to collect the bits that are more important to me. What I like about your artefact is you have added a layer that shows the pathway of movement outward, connecting and hopping in ways that are both organized and random, leading to unexpected points. This is a quick way to see the overview and to trace forward and backward. Kudos!” Martell Linsdell

“I really liked the use of lines and intersections–rather rhizome-ish! It struck me as a very good example of curatorship–obviously much more than being a ‘digital librarian’.” Candance Nolan Grant

“This image really begins highlight the possibilities of DATA mapping – what is hiding in learner activity? What knowledge will be uncovered when data is visualised big scale?” Phil Devine

On the whole, I think this is too much of an exhibit. If I were to do it again, some of the following questions I would like to ask myself:
a) how would my audience see this? Would they be able to interact with the material, change it, own it? Can this image be de-territorialised (Deleuze, 1972)?
b) can this image change the relationship of a spectator to something else? Does it flatten the hierarchies of class, ‘race’, gender, sexuality, able-bodiedness and so on? (Haraway, 1991)
c) Which would be the most appropriate technology for the particular purpose?
d) What would be the compositionality for the purpose of the image creation? (Rose, 2007:13)
e) Does the artefact act as a frame for cultural thought?

Should you like to add to this or comment, please do so using the comment facility provided by Voicethread.

Rose, Gillian, (2007) “Researching visual materials: towards a critical visual methodology” from Rose, Gillian, Visual methodologies : an introduction to the interpretation of visual materials pp.1-27, London: Sage

a) The different disciplines involved in the creation of Digital Visual Literacy such as Vision Science, Computer and Graphics Visualization and Art and Design.

b) Critical viewing is underdeveloped compared to critical reading (p95)

c) Intuitive, creative thinking associated with visual art and design becomes at least as valued in the market place as the sequential left-brained-style analysis that had dominated in previous centuries (p97)

d) Historical suspicion of images can be allayed by better understanding of how visual materials are made and interpreted. (p98)

Reference:

Spalter, A M and van Dam, A (2008) Digital visual literacy, Theory into practice, 47, 93-101.