Monthly Archives: August 2014

Tools and how we think and communicate

Relationships with tools, the media and, the way we communicate and interact with the world, are changing at a pace that is almost unreachable. The same is happening with the plethora of “intellectual technologies”(Bell, 1974) available to create a variety of artefacts weather to learn, to teach or maybe just to express ourselves. According to Carr (2010) “it is our intellectual technologies that have the greatest and most lasting power over what and how we think. They are our most intimate tools, the ones we use for self-expression, for shaping personal and public identity, and for cultivating relations with others. (p.45)”

Although these technologies are part of young peoples’ daily lives it is not the case that they are an integral part of education (Peer 21). There are not embedded in the teachers’ daily strategies, as is the case of the blackboard or smart-boards, notebook, textbooks and lectures among others. There has always been an important gap between what the technological world has to offer in connections with new ways of processing information and transforming it in knowledge and what schools and teachers decide to use and integrate into their strategies. The affordances technological tools offer to education. Bureaucracy consumes much of their time!

It is indeed difficult to keep up with technology innovations and their affordances. Not only a new scale is introduced, as McLuhan said, but also a new approach to express us. Multimodality is a new construct introduced by Jewit (2008). It refers to communication using more than one mode (image, action, sound, writing, music and a bricolage [1] of all). Consequently, new forms to relate with knowledge come to the fore and with it, new forms of learning and teaching. Jewit (Op cit.) argues that the way knowledge is represented is a crucial aspect of knowledge construction, making the form of representation integral to meaning.

Adding to the latter, Carr (2010) made a noteworthy comment in his book: “At fist I’d figure that the problem was a symptom of middle-age mind rod. But my brain, I realized, wasn’t just drifting. It was hungry. It was demanding to be fed the way the Net fed it –and the more it was fed, the hungrier it became […] I wanted to be connected” (p.16)
[Here an interesting article related to this idea]This personal feeling expressed by the author is supported with empirical data from neuroscience throughout the book, making it clear, that indeed our way of thinking and feeding our mind has had change with the ubiquity of ICT –‘Intellectual tools’ in our lives. Much more is the case for the digital natives (Prensky, 2011) or also called millenials (Oblinger, 2003) that where born under this new way of perceiving the world.

How knowledge is understood, defined, conceived, produced and, shared has changed throughout time. Moreover, knowledge is shaped by the agents of its time; i.e. “The technology of the map advanced the evolution of abstract thinking throughout society. […] It gave to man a new and more comprehending mind, better able to understand the unseen forces that shape his surroundings and his existence” (Carr, 2010. p. 41).

The invention of writing is another example; it had important effects on mental processes, being Plato’s philosophically analytical thought a materialization of one of those new mental processes (Ong, cited by Carr, 2010).

Knowledge has and is always evolving. Understanding it in a particular realm of time is critical to align our spaces and structures with the nature of it. Space, in a broader sense, is a social production (Lefebvre, 1991). From natural spaces, considered as absolute to more complex spaces whose significance is socially produced. Lefebvre argues that the production of space throughout time is a three-part dialectic between everyday life and perception (and that is shaped by actual social values), the representation or theory of space, and the spatial imaginary of the time. Therefore I advocate for a creative imaginary that belongs to an open and networked society.

It is in this endeavour of creative imaginary and the search of new utopias for education where I want to explore and research. This idea of complex spaces socially produced, where teaching and learning can take place in an innovative way is fascinating. I see a powerful means for the teaching and learning in general and for the learning of mathematics in particular, for young generation of students that feel disengaged and disaffected with their education process.

There are several questions that I ask to myself: How to construct this space? Who will: the teacher, the students, or both? Is it open, free, interoperable? Will it need guidance and scaffolding, and if, who’s guidance? What would be the role of the student in the process of designing this learning space; designers of such a learning space? Will students guide the teacher in the process of building the space? Or maybe there can be pre-constructed scaffolding used by every one? How is teaching and learning taking place in such a space?

My particular vision of this space responds to the conception of education as complex phenomena; a complex system. Complex systems are based on nonlinear relationships and are self-organised. Where emergence and self organisation are fundamental properties to look at, how and what emerges from the space, how they can self-organise? It is a network where components are interconnected and it is in constant evolution.

[1]French term meaning the construction or creation of a work from a diverse range of things that happen to be available, or a work created by such a process.


Connected minds. OECD report

Some interesting comments on the OECD report on connected minds

A bit deeper thinking about technology

I am writing some random ideas about my reading which is not complete yet but I will dare to write my thoughts while the reading is taking place:

The question concerning technology. (Heidegger, M., 1977)

Heideger approaches technology with the idea that in questioning concerning technology we shall like to build a free relationship to it. The relationship will be free if it opens our humans existence to the essence of technology, hence the goal for me is to understand the essence of technology. Moreover to question what the essence shall be in order to accomplish what I have thought it will.

One interpretation is that technology makes us free in that technology is revelation. It is about what or maybe how a thing becomes a thing. What makes a thing what it is and not something else. Looking at the essence of a thing.  His arguments go back to the Greeks and their idea of the 4 ways to be responsible for a thing, 4 ways of ocassioning something. And with “ocassioning” he means to go from the concealed to the un concealed and in this transition the thing is present, it is there brought to the front, it is revealed.

Technology derives from Technikon→ which belongs to techne→activities and skills of the craftsman + the arts of mind and fine arts. It belongs to poeiesis to bringing-forth. Techne and episteme are linked since Plato→ knowing in the widest sense. A knowing that provides an opening up and as that it is revealing. Techne→ reveals what ever does not bring itself to the fore and does not yet lie before us. It plays a key role in revealing. We should put our attention into what technology is revealing to us!
Until here I have read.

This idea of ‘revealing’ is very interesting.  Technology will allow us to see hidden things. Technology are means that help humans to see beyond their natural capacity. Like the telescope that had revealed a whole world that was there but unavailable to our senses. The telescope in a sense is an extension of our eyes and it reveals a world that has been unseen for us thus unanalysed and not included as causes for maybe natural phenomena that we could not explain with what was revealed to us through our natural senses. Technology plays a role in showing us but if technology is made by a craftsman, the question that arises in me would be, how does Galileo (the craftsman) came to build a telescope? Did he realised that there was more to see? Did he thought about possible explanations and he started to think about what the evidence could be and therefore he started to discover the need to see more or more faraway? What ever the reasons are to craft a technology, a means that will allow us to reveal the hidden, to bring-forth a thing that is on the backstage, it is worth to reflect on what this hidden is that we are willing to uncover through our technology.

I am the craftswomen in my research, I am crafting a learning space that, after reading a paper that talks about space and place, will transform into a place, a dynamic place to be in and do things with. But the key aspect for me is finding out what is that, that I want to reveal, to bring to the forth with the RME-DynamicSpace. Some ideas pup up in my mind. One of the things I want to help with is the way teachers work with students. The possibilities they include in the learning/teaching experience, the range of possible tools, conceptual artefacts, ways of re-presenting the knowledge gained during the learning experience that students produce. I wish to support teachers in the process of crafting their own learning-space, to develop empathy with young people that speak in a digital and very multimodal language nowadays. With students that express themselves with the tools of their times and in doing so they reassure their own social identity that is what they need in order to become “individuals”, to become their selves and in doing so they will strengthen their selves and build independent minds.

It would be interesting to think about the 4 ways of existing, of being of the RME-DynamicSpace. The matter, the shape-the aspect, the function, what it can accomplish so it becomes clear what will circumscribe the thing, it will put the boundaries and define it more sharply and the craftswomen (me) who is responsible to bring all those three ways together and capture the meaning and in doing so capture its essence in the object to be created. What the craftsman will do is bring together THE THING and reveal its essence. There lies the talent of a craftsman. So me as a craftswomen I have to think deeply about those 4 ways of existing and bring them together in one beautiful and appealing THING. This reflection is not complete…just starting to think and write 🙂

More readings here

Heidegger’s Critique of Modern Technology: On “The Question Concerning Technology”

Thinking on technology more deeply…

Be Late.

Heidegger understands the question concerning technology as essentially linked to the question of being.  Technology, he argues, points to something essential about the constitution of our ontology, our way of being-in-the-world (see also my posts on Heidegger’sBeing and Timeand “Letter on Humanism”).  What compelled him to write on technology lies in his observation that “everywhere [in Europe], [man] remain[s] unfree and chained to technology,” (QT, 287) a situation in which the more technology advances itself the more it “threatens to slip from human control” (QT, 289).  Hence, a questioning of technology became necessary and urgent for Heidegger because modern technology brought with it a new way of ordering the world, which he saw as contaminating man’s authentic sense of being, thus signaling a certain crisis at bay in European industrial modernity.  Although Heidegger’s essay is a text of philosophy, we can say it is also a work…

View original post 3,022 more words

Mathematics makes the invisible visible