This week I offered up a trick to the Experiential Learning Community of Practice Study group. We were talking about the active negotiation and navigation of opposites/polarities that are obscured but also resolvable in the schema of experiential learning styles given by the schema of David A. Kolb, et al.
My trick involves deconstructing the simple pairings of the oldest experiential learning schema, FEEL/WATCH/THINK/DO.
What changes from quadrant to quadrant?
What stays the same?
Feel & Watch
Think & Watch
Watch is retained
Feel transforms to Think
The list of ‘markers’ for my questions my trick from my position engages–a kind of note to self
open theoretical questions
where are the philosophically-minded theorists besides David and Alice?
style-based personality-oriented language vs. cognition-oriented dialectical, and conceptually lower order, operational language
folk psychological reification
what are we really saying globally?
what are we really saying locally?
what are we really saying enactively at the individual scale?
fine-grained phenomenological description
are we using same language?
consensus terms shorn of their rootedness in the dynamic, fragile, humanistic
Kolb’s original complex, dialectically anchored, synthesis
instrumentalization and nominalization by way of the efficacy of assessment regimes conquers the modal theory
the normal nominal problem: why is ‘this instant’ described as ‘being’ [A]?
And, does anybody actually need to know ‘why?’ before instantiating the [A]?)
unengaged problem of normativity and nominalism
re-secure the global modal dynamics
IS there an answer to this: what we really agree to signify and mean when we speak of transforming our learning by moving from feeling to thinking, or from reflection to conceptualization, or any such whathaveyou move to another phase
If you could give up
trick and cleverness,
this would be the