Uploaded by huubkoch. - See video of the biggest web video personalities.
As we break down the theory/practice divide it seems inevitable that we also begin to challenge our beliefs about the dichotomies between nature/culture, reality/social construction, and object/subject (Lenz Taguchi, 2010). How do we learn with- rather than just from- the world; in relationship with the materials, spaces, languages and emotions we interact with? At the children’s center where I work, we have begun to think about the Voice of the materials in our classroom and in our daily interactions. We have begun to look at how- when working with clay or paint- the material predisposes us to certain possibilities and invites certain conversations. How do we make space for the often silent voices of materials and the complex conversations that children and educators engage in with materials?
In her book “Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education,” Lenz Taguchi (2010, p.15) questions this division by thinking with Deleuze:
We are all in a state and relationship of inter-dependence and inter-connection with each other as human or non-human performative agents. ‘Existence is not an individual affair’, writes Barad, both human individuals and non-human organisms and matter emerge through and as part of entangled intra-relations (2007: ix). Everything around us affects everything else, which makes everything change and be in a continuous process of becoming- becoming different in itself- rather than being different in relation to another (Deleuze, 1994).
Deleuze points to the layers of meaning that are constructed through our continual encounters with people, objects, space, history and language. As we (re)visit our understandings we are continually becoming or as Arendt (Osberg & Biesta, 2008) suggests- engaging in new beginnings. It is in this way that we can begin to see how our interactions with objects inform our theories about them and vice versa. In this (re)mapping of the classroom- we come to question who and what is implicated in the co-construction of education.
In my last post, I attempted to disrupt the teacher/student dichotomy as I talked about curriculum as meaning that is constructed between the child and the educator. However; I think it is important to go beyond disrupting the division between these two roles and attempt to break some of the barriers that set these roles apart from other educational concepts and the larger world. As I watch the video (Liss, 2006) of the baby and her father, the filmmaker, “tracking back out into the world from [their] small room in New York city” I wonder about the map that could be made of my history and how it follows me into the classroom and participates in my conversations with children. What is left unmapped in our classrooms? Do we map the meaning we make in relationships with materials, policies and space in the same way we might map our experiences with people?
Biesta, G. & Osberg, D. (2008). The emergent curriculum: navigating a complex course between unguided learning and planned enculturation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40 (3), 313-328.
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Liss, D. (Film Maker). (2006, March 8). World maps [online video]. New York: Pouringdown. Retrieved from http://pouringdown.tv/?p=28
I appreciate the level of complexity and ideas you explore in your blog. I am specifically interested in the language within your post where you discuss “re-mapping and “re-visit[ing]” (L.Angus, November 18, 2010). This concept is similar to the article that we discussed “Seeking the Otherwise” by
ReplyDeleteGlenda Mac Naughton. Mac Naughton (2005), draws on the work of Foucault, when she states that “Re-meeting history is to look again at what has been and to see it in new ways that provoke us to act and to see differently in the present” (p. 147). I realize in this examination that this act of re-enacting, re-meeting or 're-visit[ing]' is a theory within itself. This re-meeting or 're-visit[ing]' is valuable to explore as we uncover new conclusions and discoveries through critically reflecting on our thoughts and questions.
This commitment to reflection is not without difficulty. In your subsequent post, Sir Ken Robinson (2006), mentions that “[children] are not frightened of being wrong, and if you're not prepared to be wrong you won't come up with anything original...[adults] have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong” (2006).
We must provoke ourselves into taking risks to face our fears. In acknowledging this we find the courage to change and embrace newness.
References
Angus, L. ( 2010, November 18). (Theory and Practice) [online blog]. Retrieved from: http://eccelucy.blogspot.com/
Mac Naughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies: Applying poststructural ideas. New York: Routledge.
Robinson, K. (Speaker). (2006). Ken Robinson Says Schools Kill Creativity [online video]. New York: Ted Conference LLC. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Thanks for your post Christine,
ReplyDeleteSorry it took so long to show up- it was sent to my spam box for some reason. I think it's very interesting how you speak to this idea of ways of seeing and seeing differently: I think these thoughts can be provoked in interesting ways when we consider film as a medium for research, seeing differently and thinking differently. I think that's one of the reasons a blog has been such an interesting format for interweaving complex ideas and -rather than simply talking about ways of seeing- the clips I have discovered in my internet searching for this blog have integrated new ways of seeing with my thoughts. It is interesting how this medium has enabled me to disrupt some of those hierarchies of language and literacy that tend to privilege spoken and written forms. Jean-Luc Nancy (Kenaan, 2010) speaks about image as something that is distinct- neither as a representation or as a new, separate object- not some(thing) else because it is not thing-like. I think this complex, intangible idea of image makes this medium very interesting for exploring ephemeral concepts like pluralism, praxis, languages and ideas about knowledge.
Reference
Kenaan, H. (2010). What makes and image singular plural? Questions to Jean-Luc Nancy. Journal of Visual Culture, 9(1), 63-76. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. DOI: 10.1177/1470412909354256