I stood by the Clyde today looking at its gently rippling surface:
tiny pools of murky greyness
merging with splashes of sunny reflections
to separate an instant later
in a constant pulsating movement
Water, as Bayne (2004: 303) clarifies in her description of Deleuze and Guattari’s smooth and striated cultural spaces, represents smoothness per excellence, here, in my context, of course simultaneously striated by the river man-made embankments.
What I like about Bayne’s argumentation is the way she emphasises how the two spaces penetrate each other and emerge from each other (2004: 305) in a process of sometimes peaceful, sometimes conflictual co-existence and co-operation, echoed by Cousin (2005:123) who describes technology and pedagogy as ‘overlapping, complementary, conflictual, dynamic’ in their relationship . Neither of the domains is given primacy, neither of them is better – it’s ‘and ... and ... and’, which leaves room for the surprising and the unexpected (Cousin, 2005:124), rather than ‘either ... or’. Bayne (2004) and Cousin (2005) suggest parity and equity epitomised in collaboration instead of subordination within hierarchical structures. That is the first step towards blurring the boundaries in the papers about the uncanny discussed in earlier posts as well as Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto.
However, the methodologies used in HE seem to be mostly based on the latter paradigms, i.e. ‘centralising practices of teaching, assessment and supervision’ (Cousin, 2005:121), which could explain why the web (that part that is surfed not cruised – Bayne 2004: 304) gets subjected to striation, e.g. illustrated by the use of virtual learning environments (Bayne, 2004:312-313 and Cousin, 2005:120-123). Apart from the problems related to the institutions themselves, smoothness cannot be idealised or romanticised as the panacea for the weaknesses of the current educational system: Cousin (2005) warns us against losing oneself in the promiscuous web and going ultra fanciful post-modern. Bayne also stresses that smooth spaces should not be perceived as a saviour bringing liberation from the constraints of the hierarchy (2004: 304). Nevertheless, she suggests that smoothness is explored more deeply and attempts are made to unleash its potential in HE so that the imbalance between the modernist (hierarchical, structured) and postmodern approaches is redressed.
It is paradoxical how smoothness/rhizome oriented strategies might often end up supporting the structure and hierarchy (an example of blurring the boundaries?) - while discussing the education in cyberspace, the human need or more probably academic practice gains the foreground in which things have to be named, categorised neatly into genealogies and as a result both academics introduce binary dichotomies: Cousin introduces ‘arboreal’ and ‘rhizome’ while Bayne discusses ‘smooth’ and striated’, followed by lists of opposing characteristics. Instead of the table illustrating these oppositions, I have opted for a wordle that successfully blurs them
In her paper, Bayne makes use of different metaphors as after Nunes she believes they ‘function as performative speech acts’ (2004: 304). Inspired by this I would like to point out another thing that could perhaps help advance the necessary blurring is a slight adjustment in the terminology – I’m proposing this very tentatively though, aware of my lack of expertise. When reading the papers about use of digital technologies in higher education what strikes me is the constant use of the word ‘pedagogy’ although university students, especially on post-grad courses, are adults. Of course, the term is most probably used in a broad sense of the study of being a teacher or the process of teaching and besides the term ‘andragogy’ has been critiqued extensively; however, the root of the word pedagogy ‘pais’ meaning ‘child’ has made me think that it could implicitly exacerbate the situation within HE and inhibit the shift that the papers are calling for.
When you think of the child, the situational context that springs to mind is that of a family and the relationship with the parent which, taking the physical, emotional and intellectual aspects, can be traced along the vertical, traditionally expressing a degree of control and dependency, in other words hierarchy which is also typical of the university and the students, as well as the teacher and the student (at least in the modernist understanding). No wonder that when on the educational arena another player turns up, that is digital technologies, it’s straightaway fitted (subordinated) into that structure too! - Cousin describes that in much more detail and with greater eloquence. That could be why virtual learning environments are willingly adopted as they lend themselves to the vertical structure very well – unidirectionality, the hierarchy of users and their privileges (course designer/admin, teacher, student), closedness (you can get in only via special secure gateways), tracking and monitoring facilities, sometimes even the interface itself (for example in moodle, the way the weekly modules can be made visible and how they unfold top-down on the page) – a little digression here which I can’t resist – some time ago I attended two webinars on m-learning and it seems to me that the apps approach could be likened to VLEs as it could be subsumed as dishing out knowledge in form of digestible and discrete packages of knowledge – flashcards, quizzes, etc
I thought, on a very superficial level, that swapping ‘ped’ with ‘andro’ (or using an altogether different term) could affect how education is perceived. The relationship between two adults is more of a partnership so mapping it out would proceed on a horizontal plain. In education terms it could translate into peer-to-peer or even expert-to-expert relationship between the teacher and the – to my delight I have discovered Prof Mayes talking about horizontal learning in his paper Groundhog Day again? And I think as a learner I could say that I have experienced this type of learning here on the course!
Lastly, such a viewpoint could perhaps facilitate understanding that digital technologies are not merely enhancement tools, separated, inert and thus a medium that serves educational purposes but they are a serious and equally important player on the educational arena.
Keywords: andragogy, horizontal learning, IDEL11, rhizome, smoothness, striation
Comments
I like your use of wordle to blur the categories. :)
I see your point about the implications of pedagogy – though I think the main issue in the educational arena when digital technologies show up is around teasing out how the arena is re-shaped, re-thinking processes of engagement. I wonder if I see technologies as another player, so much as a way of re-shaping the geography of the arena?
I see the point also about horizontal learning (it puts me in mind of Harry Collins and Rob Evans work on types of expertise). I wonder though if the idea of horizontality is some ways hides the power relationship that does ultimately exist in formal education? There is expertise students bring, and learning educators do, but there is also, in a very final sense, someone who is assessed and someone who is doing that assessing.
This has all given me food for thought, thanks, Ania!
But you have been in this business for some time, Clara so you see techs as something if not positive then at least something worthwhile, you are aware of their benefits and drawbacks and perhaps because of your experience you know how to avoid certain traps? therefore, you see techs as another player, which I can see or start to see as well ... But people used to trad methods of teaching and learning, I don't mean only teachers and institutions but also learners themselves as they are faulty of ignorance too, to some extent at least ... not all learners want to be autonomous (and is 100% autonomy a really desired state? maybe it's too alienating? maybe it could prevent us from collaboration, maybe it's too focused on individualistic habits, preferences, etc and no man is an island after all!)
I look up these two names you mentioned in connection with types of expertise. Yes, you're right about the assessment although I must admit for most of the part I didn't remember that the blog was to be assessed. I got immersed so much into it that I simply forgot. It's only now that I feel trepidation. And part of me asks why you should care but the other part panics and tells me to do more, maybe even fabricate, make up one or two polished things ... Funny thing reflective writing, isn't it? It's sort of polarised with academic writing: emotion vs logic, personal experience vs academic truth, circularity vs linearity, evocation vs explicitness, open-endedness vs closing down of meanings, uncertainty vs certainty, informality vs formality, collaboration vs competitiveness (based on Lillis 2001). It's a bit fuzzy the whole thing, Donald Schon's 'swampy lowlands' as opposed 'high, hard ground' (1983), marshes, where earth blurs with water, and there is confusion, messiness, insolubility (like in a liminal space) ... how can my feelings, my confusion, what I don't know yet be assessed? That really defies the logic, sense and purpose of learning, doesn't it? It challenges the assessment ... is there a solution?
In one of her papers, probably the one on striation and smoothness, Bayne says that any attempt to introduce the smoothness might end up as an attempt to striate it ... as you can't pin down the flight of the thought, its fluttering, you cannot embrace the unknowable, the unnamed without naming it and learning about it ... makes me think of wild horses galloping across the steppe ... beautiful and powerful, if you want to get to know the beauty deeply, you need to catch the horse and tame it .. but by that time it probably loses its beauty as this is inevitably linked to its wildness, freedom and independence ...
Get rid of the assessment? This is end-of-the-week and tired student thining aloud ...