From: lynne_devitt@ndsu.nodak.edu
Date: Tues, 17 Oct 2000
Subject: Fwd: Chapter 9

sorry if you are getting this twice! I am not sure whether or not it went the first time.

Hey all!

Maybe I wrote down the wrong directions, but were we supposed to read Johnson-Eilola's "Living on the Surface..." (Chapter 9)? Well, I did, so here goes...

Johndan Johnson-Eilola presents a fascinating discussion on the differences between time vs. space; modernism vs. postmodernism; and instrumentalist vs. substantives. Time is history and modernism. As it mentions, modernists rely on history, dutifully making sure that mistakes will not be repeated and knowing how to succeed by looking at past example. Space, on the other hand, is "a place shere things happen on the surface in a state of continuous stimulation" (185).

I must admit, that after these first distinctions were made, I was in the camp of time. In fact, upon reading this quote: "Although we think we are helping our students and our children learn mature, complex thinking processes, in many cases we are also trying to tie them to a way of seeing the world, a way that is no longer feasible; in more ways that one, we hold them back" (186), I was offended. I didn't quite see the connection... yet. After reading the short exchange between Carolyn and Johndan, I saw the value of exploration. Just as we say that if you don't know history, you are bound to repeat it, we also tell our children to learn from their mistakes.

Of course, this space idea is given the name of postmodernism, and I have yet to understand that term fully. I certainly like this definition! They discuss a postmodernist approach as one that pursues "navigation, constructive problem-solving, [and] dynamic goal construcion" (188). Maybe I am not a relativist!

I think this discussion can also be linked back to Kress and his distinctions between critique and discovery (I don't have my book in front of my, is that correct?). Will we simply study the past, or "live in the now" and explore the current world, and in the case of this essay, technology? It also brings me back to "Petals on a wet..." (however painful that may be) and the mention of channel surfing as positive, because people are learning to live in an ever-changing society, able to focus on many things. I would never tell my husband that channel surfing is a positive thing, though:)

How this can affect education and children, though, is even more compelling. As stated: "Children learn here to deal tactically with contingency, multiplicity, and uncertainty. Where modernists are compelled to understand the rules before playing a game...postmodernists are capable of working such chaotic environments from within, momemt by moment" (195).

I am beginning to think that a discussion as to whether or not techology belongs in the classroom is mute. Even the discussion of access loses merit, because we must provide as many children and students with the experience. This leads quite nicely to this next quote.

Dayna, You'll love this: "Reaching these understandings requires something of an epistemological trick: the ability to occupy a position while remaining critical of it" (206).

This is me!!!! I am not sure of my relativism anymore. I do know that I base a lot of my decisions and my life on the "epistemological trick."

Anyway... Any thought???

Lynne

Next-->