John Locke

Locke uses the thought experiment of the ‘severed finger’ to prove how the consciousness is separate from the physical body. When the finger is part of the physical whole, it is connected to the consciousness because the consciousness of aware of it. Thus if we were to prick our finger we would feel pain because we are conscious of the finger, if the finger becomes separated completely and we feel nothing of it, it no longer becomes part of our conscious self. Thus the conscious self and the physical self are not the same thing. The thing that connects one entity in the past with one entity in the future is a connected consciousness, and this connected consciousness comes through memory. Thus is the severed finger retains the conscious thoughts and memory of the ‘whole body’ person then the finger becomes the person even thought the majority of physical body is elsewhere.

By talking about an identity of consciousness Locke is suggesting that it is consciousness itself which defines someones identity and consciousness alone! This consciousness is linked to memory, not bodily substances, or souls etc. Thus if you have someone else’s soul inside you, yet you are not aware of him, then you are not in fact the same person because you have none of his memories. Locke uses the Major of Quinborough and Socrates to emphasis this point. If however Socrates soul was in the Major of Quinborough’s and the memories were merged this would make the same person.

Locke is talking about morals and forensics in his essay, he is not talking 'fluffy' metaphysics, he is precisely interested in what someone can be morally accountable for or not. He is suggesting you are responsible for what you are conscious of doing, because your consciousness is you. Therefore if you truly forget something you are not responsible for it.

Locke predicates his potential detractors. Their objection that someone who committed their crime could well easily forget yet still be responsible is overturned because the physical man is not the same as the consciousness. While the man in the same, the consciousness has changed. Thus the present consciousness should not be blamed for the past if the past is not remembered even though it occurred in the same physical man. In fact we can see this in common language ‘He wasn’t himself today’ etc. Getting punished for something you have truly forgot is similar to a sane man being convicted of his crimes when he was mad (now-a-days this would be over-turned on account of the sane man have diminished responsibility when he was mad.

However, Locke suggests that human courts are right to convict someone who claims to not remember a past sin because there is no way of knowing that the person is lying or not. And anyway in the day of judgement the convicted man who truly didn’t remember would be acquitted before the eyes of his lord.

P47.

In the Audio, Paul Snowden decribes the context in which Locke was writing. The 17th Century was one of massive change. There was religious turmoil as the fallout of the reformation was leading to political disruption across Europe. Eg the English Civil War. Also people were becoming more analytical- the 17th century saw the beginning of science as we know it. Locke was particular interested in the 'self' in terms of what this would mean at the Resurrection and the afterlife...

It is important to define the terms Locke uses. The main point of his essay is that there is a fundamental difference between the person and the man. He also uses the term substance. In this he means 'stuff' which is split into 3 categories, material stuff you can feel and touch, immaterial stuff such as the soul and the consciousness, and divine stuff which is what god is made of.

Snowden argues that is only the immaterial consciousness which defines the person, not the soul of the man body. This leads to a very interesting conundrum. If a soul can occupy two separate men, but because these men do not consciously know of each other and as therefore two separate 'persons' just who will be judged at the resurrection. Will a soul be judged multiple times because it has occupied many discrete persons?

Locke is interested in forensics. This is different from what we would think the modern terms mean (such as the TV show CSI). He means by forensics actions you are responsible for and can be judged for. This is linked to this theory that a person is a conscious thinking thing connected to his past self only by memory. This complex consciousness is what separates man from unthinking beast.

Snowden also explains how Thomas Reids theory undermines Locke. If your consciousness is only linked to memory does this mean that you are different person to the one your were when a boy. (see above). Memory is not transitive Reid suggest. However Locke champions suggest that memory could be 'overlapping' rather than being fully transitive. So long as you at some point in your life you remembered the younger boy person, then that person in still you even though you do not remember you as a boy.

The idea of a transitive memory ia one of the contraditions of Lockes text. Because he is looking to the future at the resurrection he is assuming that we will remember the now. This defeats his modern champions somewhat (somehow?)

Week 23: Meaning-making and metaphors

This week I look at the meaning of words in association with the application of digital technology in education. This is important as words and discourses have numerous connotations. This is more than just the proverbial 'is the glass half empty or is the glass half full'; there is an argument that a whole new vocabulary is needed, especially since the technology is new and rapidly changing. It is important to aware of 'spin doctoring' academically as well. No words are not completely neutral and may eschew debate.

'It matters because the language you use carries with it connotations and hidden assumptions'.
http://learn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=502707

Making sense of complexity
Stepping over the edge (Conole, 2011).

There Conole looks at some of the limitations that current metaphors have in the context of technology. The main problem stems from use of 'common place' metaphors to describe the new phenomenon of the web 2.0 applications. Eg a desktop and a filing system from the traditional office setting is used as a term for an application on the windows operation system. This is no longer suitable suitable for the complexity of the computer desktop and filing system

She proposes 5 new types of metaphors which are more suitable for providing a holistic view of technology, viewing web 2.0 in terms of a 'brain', an 'organism' (eg ecosystem), a 'political entity', 'machines' and 'cultures'. With metaphors based on these headings we can find a proper and better meaning of what is happening in the Web 2.0, rather than be limited by old fashioned metaphors based on old technologies.

In the Ariadne article by Conole, ‘New schemas for mapping pedagogies and technologies’; she lists further examples of how Web 2.0 is different than the disciplines you might expect in education. Wn 2.0 means information is arrived at 'fast', but education is about reflection. Commenting and using peoples work is considered plagarism in the world of education, but this is commonplace in the use of wikis etc.

Week 21, 22 Implications of future trends A1: Impact of technologies on organisations

A1: Impact of technologies on organisations

I have often worked in organisations which has led to a change in work practices. When I was young I worked in a electronics factory which introduced machinery which replaced the need to manual labour. This changed my job role significantly from assembly line worker to machinist (and subsequently led to significant reductions in the work force).

Yet most changes have been subtle; an 'evolution not a revolution'. New databases, new telephones etc have all increased efficiencies at my workplace- even the introduction of an updated operating system has led to changes.

Changes in technology are slower in education because everything has to go through committees, etc. Curriculum is slowly incorporated.

Week 18. Activity 2: The researchers perspective

Activity 2: The researchers perspective

From TLRP-TEL 2008 Report, Education 2.0? Designing the Web for Teaching and Learning,

‘What are web 2.0 technologies and why do they matter?’ by charles cook

Web 2.0 technologies are those which provide the tools for colloboration and sharing over the internet; leading to not just a change in technology use but a fundamental shift in perspectives. It is broadly speaking user generated. It has become a prominent and possible aspect of the internet due to the massive increase in internet users, the increase in hardware storage space and broadband width and the minutiarisation of compatible devices and wifi (meaning the internet is always on); and has resulted in many sites (such as Wikipedia) being in 'perpetual beta'. In point of fact students expect the products to be constantly upgradeable (which would be impossible if students received hardcopy books, etc. The increases in hardware capabilities coupled with the increase in users has led to the virtualisation of communication.

Cook suggests web 2.0 matters because they reflect pre-existing human dispositions in a virtual way: the playful, the expressive, the reflective and the exploratory. He suggest Web. 2.0 strengthen fundamental aspect of learning (incidently referring to traditional modes of learning: Collobration, Publication, Literacies, and Inquiry).

Educational Hopes and Fears for Web 2.0 Neil Selwyn

This articale strikes a balance between the pessimistic and the optimistic views of the impact of Web 2.0 technologies. Some of the critics of Web 2.0 is that they distract rather than orgment students learning experience. Eg checking friends Facebook updates instead of listening to lecturers; as well as more general fears about alienation, disengagement and the detrimental effect on traditional literacies. I would have to agree with this. It certainly distracts me when i am trying to study and is especially difficult since most of my study is online now.

yet on the one hand

'There are strong links between web 2.0 and socio-cultural theories of learning, which see active and authentic learning taking place best where knowledge can be constructed actively by learners who are supported in communal social settings'.p10

but on the other

One popular contention is that schools, colleges and universities are unable to deal with the challenges posed by web 2.0 technologies for a number of structural reasons. These include the many formal and informal systems of regulation and control that characterise the organisation of education institutions, as well as the continued reliance on ‘broadcast’ pedagogies and linear hierarchical relationships to facilitate access to knowledge and learning.

Learning and Virtual World by Diane Carr

Second life could be used to overcome the lonliness of Web 2.0 technologies. By creating an avatar and an online persona this would allow virtual interactions which mirror human interactions and help learners feel part of a community,

.

 

Week 18 Activity a1: The challenge for educational institutions

The challenge for educational institutions

Weller (2009) ‘Using learning environments as a metaphor for educational change’, in On the Horizon

In this article Weller suggests that the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) is an old fashioned way to use very new technology. The uptake of new technologies is organic and built on the perceptions of old techniques- thus LMS are built which represent standard formal red brick university structures. With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies this is a fundamental problem. Web 2.0 technologies mean the way information is generated is fundamentally different from these traditional approache, it has become more democratic, participatory and user driven (bottom up). One way of overcoming this is for universities to provide only the tools for participation, but allow students to control the outcomes. The Open University iniative Social Learn http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/sociallearn/ was used as an example of a new paragidm shift in pedogogy where the students are in control of their own learning outcomes and learn in an undirected way throuhg collobration with their peers. BUT how can students who learn in this way prove they have the knowlegde if they are applying for a job, etc?. And where is the accountability?

In this course H800 the use of meta-blogs and wikis has been one way in which information and learning has been sourced from the bottom up. However because this has been directed by the course content, even these tools are not really bottom-up iniatives. Students feel inclined to use the meta-blogs and the wikis because they are directed to do so. Perhaps a better example is the H800 cafe forums which are to a large extent self regulated by the students (unlike the tutor group forums which are regulated by the tutor.

But even this is not really bottom-up learning as the fundamental theme of H800 is that of participation. You must participate. This is the fundamental problem of Wellers article, the asumption that students want to participate and are confident to do so. I would argue this is not the case- some students would just prefer to read a book on their own. By making the assumption that it is preferable to participate it could lead to the situation where students have to participate...

Key quotes

'The conclusion from this analysis is that there is a conflict between the centralised learning management system (LMS) and the requirements of online pedagogy. The traditional LMS can be seen as embodying the wrong metaphor, that of the traditional classroom.'

'It has often been noted that when a new technology arrives we tend to use it in old ways (eg Twigg 2001), before we begin to understand what it really offers'

This true of Facebok for instance which started out just as a 'fun' website for university networking. Another example would also be twitter. These were grown from 'below' in the sense that the increase in each media's users, meant the media became more important. Only much later corporations would use this social media as a tool to promote their products. You can also see many instances in history where this has occurred; for instance the mplications of the printing press was not realised until the Guttenburg bible- some may say it has not been fully realised yet. Also some cultures do not see the potential of new technology. China invented gun powder but used it for only fireworks.  Weller also uses the example of the TV intially being considered the 'radio with pictures'. 'This is a sensible way to proceed, since the uptake of technology is rarely a revolution, and more of an evolutionary approach'.


Yet the process is not always so natural a process.

Heppell (2001) argues that “we continually make the error of subjugating technology to our present practice rather than allowing it to free us from the tyranny of past mistakes".

In elearning terms, current LMSs can be seen as the embodiment in code of the

physical structures of learning'."

So if the new technologies are used in an old fashioned way based on principles set in physicalk school environments this means the potential full spectrum  uses of this technology is not realised. These include:

Increase of curriculum. Traditional red-brick educational institutions have overheads to pay and are confined to a geographical location. Therefore, they have a bums on seats policy which means they cannot introduce niche subjects for fear of there unpopularity. Funnily enough the Open University, which has over 200,000 students does not introduce niche subjects!

Personalisation of in the choices of tools you use to learn. Still students follow age old techniques as universities seek enculturation of students into their higher education community,

Meeting changing demands: for instance an e-skills report for the European Union (COM 2007) suggests that conventional higher education is failing to meet the needs of the workforce

Availability of informal learning.

week 18

can Web 2.0 be brought over into formal education. Part of the essence of Web 2.0 is that it is learner-led. So if it is learner-led, what role, if any, does this leave for the teacher, trainer or instructor? And can Web 2.0 be accommodated within a VLE or Learning Management System (LMS), or is it fundamentally at odds with the ethos of a centralised institutional system?

There are different views on the approach that formal education should take when responding to the challenges of Web 2.0. Some highlight the need for a more decentralised approach, others the need to reconfigure the role of the teacher, educational institutions, forms of assessment and the curriculum

Week 17 Administering Knowledge

Week 17 Administering Knowledge

 ‘Internet teaching and the administration of knowledge’, is by Tara Brabazon 2001

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/867/776

In this article Brabazon laments the 'bullet point' culture of learning which changes to the educational system seem to be leading to. Writing in Australia during a conservative led premiership, higher education was promoted as a commodity and a cure to all the countries economic and political woes where the emphasis is placed on productivity and competition. Universities were to be changed under commericialized auspices with the student as their customers.

This lead to Brabazon's first issue. This commodification of education is problematic in that it means students are treated as customers- yet customer satisfaction is not in the remit of academic discipline which requires hard work and dedication (hmmmm not sure I agree with this- here she is camparing student to consumers of cars, a more suitable analogy would be to compare with students with Karate students, etc).

Another change in corrolary to this is a shift towards student centred education. Yet as Brabazon states the tutor and the student are an unequal partnership and has diminished the role of the tutor. A dictomy occurs- tutors expect students to help themselves in there study and on the other hand student (as customers) blame their tutors if they fail their courses.

'I would be far more open to student–centred learning if there was an acknowledgment that teachers — at the very least — are rapporteurs, rather than facilitators. Ironically at the moment when student–centred learning has become the cliche of the age, students are (overtly) evaluating teacher’s abilities [16]. While staff may state that students must be responsible for their own learning, students are blaming staff for their results.'

Brabazon states 'technology is framed as a cheaper, more efficient replacement for university teachers.' She points to the fact that technology has led to an increased workload for tutors, who have increased management administration to undertake. However I can think of numerous cases whereby learning can benefit. Why should a lecturer repeat over and over the same story when he can just do it once and record it for future students?

A final point Brabazon considers is that technology has made students intellectually lazy and well as curtailing the opportunities for individually inspiration by tutors. Any 'Radical ideas and expansive research are crushed into modules, criteria and bullet points, being rendered consistent and predictable'. Students only have to remember the key points and do not have to critical think about her lecture (eg the Powerpoint presentation). This shift has meant tutors only job is to administer marking criteria, rather than promote life long learning.