 | | |
 | | |
 |  | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
 | | |
STUDENT EXCHANGE
Editor’s Note: This section within the USDLA Journal includes statements - disturbing, funny, profound and evocative - from students exploring their experiences with online and technology based learning. We hope that teachers, administrators, instructional designers and other students will be as intrigued as we were by the contrast and richness of learning experiences.Hyrum's Palette
Hyrum R. TenneyPosted Tues. Jul 10, 2001
Yep, another metaphor. Thanks for reading it. Hyrum.
Bear with me, please. I enjoy metaphors that allow me to speak of the intangibles by using the tangible aspects of our world. Here goes…….
I feel like a painter… I thought I came to this class with an open mind, or in other words a blank painting surface, that I realized was a miscalculation. The surface I brought has been painted on and over and under and through. However this class allowed me to step back and take a look at the painting to see how much of it was mine, what parts I did and did not like. In each lesson I found new ways to look at my painting so far and even, found myself painting over some previous landscapes.
Now, in this assignment, I found that each school of thought has offered a different palette of colors that I could use to paint my picture. Each palette has it own colors and names for colors. The Biographical and Social schools of criticism offers colors of “political-green or red”, “birthplace blue” and the ever-evolving “Darwin evolving Kaleidoscope color”. The Modernists school of interpretation offers the colors of “pure white”, “science white”, and the color, “pure-science grey”. The Formalism school offers “meaningful-emotion-yellow”, and a “form-ruler” attached to the palette for exactness. The school of Archetypal Criticism offers a set of tinsels to paint with. I could go on and on how each school of interpretation offers different tools and colors in which I could paint any certain picture.
When considering the family subject I see how each tool could paint a different picture of what the family has been, is, should be, and will be in the future. In most of my research I see many grasping the School of Social Criticism to paint their picture of the family. The picture they have painted shows great skill in their use of their palette, yet it now seems incomplete. Therefore, other schools of thought may bring about a more complete picture of the family, or may paint over the existing one. Now, as I see all these schools of interpretation adding and taking away from the picture, I can see how confounding or slanted the picture can be at any moment.
Therefore, here is my choice. Instead of allowing each individual School of Interpretation to paint the picture of the family for me I am taking the tools and points of view that they are providing and painting the picture myself. The picture is becoming mine. I can change and revise it. It is my educated response. Watch out Monet and Degas!!!!
About the Author:
Mr. Tenney is an undergraduate student at Northern Arizona University, due to receive his degree this December. He is 24, married with two small children, and lives in Prescott, Arizona. He also teaches Seminary for the Latter Day Saints Church. He took the online class because the format enabled him to meet his family responsibilities. His writing, "Hyrum's Palette", is one post of many from the online class (Summer 2001), exchanged with all other students and with the professor, Dr. Guy Bensusan. Mr. Tenney feels very simply that the class was a blessing.
Internet Interactive
Sarah J WingerMessage no. 3111: Posted Sunday, July 29, 2001
As many of you expressed- where do I start? I guess I will just right in! I am amazed by this class and the ideas that everyone shared. I know that I did not comment on everyone's work as much as I could- just know that in my head I was pondering and complimenting your ideas. I was unsure about this class when I enrolled but I am sure that no aspect of learning was lost due to the format of this class. If anything I focused a lot more on being able to express myself through the keyboard. This class proposed awesome ideas and it wasn't until I was sitting in one of my "traditional" classes and a guest speaker began to talk about a class that she had taken and shared with us the Hexadigm! I was amazed and at the same time relieved. She had taken this class and then turned around and passed on its ideas. If we all do this, change can happen and a new form of learning can take place.
The below is also on my personal web page... enjoy!
To put it simply, after reading the Hexadigm I was speechless. What do you say after reading something that has just made you re-think everything that you have ever been told, learned, read, and studied? The Hexadigm put everything into a new perspective. This new way to study and analyze anything and everything seemed revolutionary. Where has this selfless way of telling the story of history and or culture been? Through six interacting parts, the Hexadigm helps to display a solid story yet allows room for change. The six parts, cultural sequences, mutual influences, regional diversities, modernizing technologies, expanded comprehensions, revised interpretations, embrace each idea that the situation at hand deals with. Each part helps to dissect the situation in order for the reader to gain a well rounded and in depth understanding. This method of learning shines a brand new light on previously learned history and sets a new standard for any subject to be taught in the future.
Reading the Hexadigm made me think about the many ways that I am exposed to History and Culture. The Hexadigm is completely accurate in declaring the traditional approach “isolated and self-centered.” I think back to almost every setting in which I am taught about History and Culture and almost every situation focuses on us, and fails to compare our evolution with the experiences of our many neighbors. I think that this method of learning sub-consciously attributes to the selfishness of our population today. I think that implementing the Hexadigm in “schools, textbooks, movies and media” could influence learning and interpreting and create an overall more culturally aware society.
As I read everyone’s reactions to the Hexadigm, I see a common theme of frustration. Everyone seems to be disturbed by the fact that they were not exposed to the way of learning that the Hexadigm proposes, and disappointed that they missed out on this “culturally aware” and unbiased form of learning. Everyone seems to agree that we should use this method of teaching for future generations. But at what point should we quit blaming the educational system and take responsibility for our own education? Students should be taught to identify a selfish argument and should be encouraged to take that one-sided idea and learn the other side. While the educational system is undoubtedly biased, it is the result of many, many biased historians and has in turn caused many biased attitudes. So what of the generations that has already gone through the educational system? Is there a way to reach past students that have only learned the history of the Anglo male? Is there a way to re-teach history using this unbiased and selfless model?
Designing the Individual Study Applying the Hexadigm:
Hand and Body Gestures
I. Cultural Sequences
A. Gestures in non-verbal communication
1. Positive connotations
2. Negative connotations
B. Gestures to compliment spoken communication
1. Informal communication
2. Formal/Professional communication
II. Mutual Influences
A. How did the use of gestures begin?
1. A specific place?
2. A specific time?
B. Has the purpose of gestures evolved as a result of other cultural influences?
1. How were these cultures exposed to each other?
2. What did each culture take from the other?
III. Regional Diversities
A. How does the same gesture in two different places compare to one another?
B. What caused the difference in gestures across regions?
IV. Modernizing Technologies
A. What in the present has affected the use of gestures?
1. How have gestures evolved with the use of computers?
2. Because the Internet and email have reduced the amount of face-to-face communication, has this spawned a new type of gestures?
a. The use of 'emoiticons' (J, L etc.) as a way of simulating gestures
b. The use of more abbreviations and the writing out of body gestures to show emotions, (LOL, *grin*, *sigh*, etc.)
B. Has the use of gestures changed due to changing personalities today?
1. People are becoming more negative and aggressive; does this influence the use of negative gestures?
2. People are becoming very lazy; does this influence the use of gestures instead of speaking proper language?
V. Expanding Comprehensions
A. Has the underlying meaning of gestures curved the use of them?
1. Are people educated on the meaning and appropriateness of gestures?
2. As people are educated in the use and meanings of gestures, does this affect their use of gestures?
B. How have gestures conformed to the society of which they are used?
VI. Revised Interpretations
A. How has the value of the gesture changed (or has it)?
B. How has the use of the gesture changed (or has it)?
The Bias factor is very correct in stating that we are all biased and probably always will be. But I don't think that this is a bad thing. I think that biased-ness (is that a word?) makes for different opinions. With everyone seeing and thinking the same way the world would be so horribly boring.
For my research on Hand and Body Gestures, I have started research on "proxemics" (body language). I plan on using research articles and a couple videos that the library has. I will also use the web and interview some of friends that are from different parts of the world, to get a more first-hand experience of silent communication.
The Ladder - Hand and Body Gestures
Reactive Response: Responses to hand and body gestures can range from frustration to a complete sense of understanding. The main use for hand and body gestures is communication, although often times they are used to for emphasis or subconscious emotions. During nonverbal conversations, all parties involved can become very frustrated because like any other language there are many differences. These differences can be inspired by anything from culture to geographic location and time period. On the other side, a complete sense of understanding can occur when these differences are kept to a minimum.
Story Components: As hand and body gestures have evolved, so have the stories around them. Currently there are specific websites that one could consult before leaving the country to ensure that specific offensive gestures are avoided. Through different gestures, they can be compared and contrasted to ensure the rules are followed.
Context of Cultures: While communicating with hand gestures, one can give a gesture compliment in one country. At the same time in the same situation in another country this could be a very insulting or even very vulgar gesture. This could happen in neighboring countries, where an imaginary line is the only thing that causes the interpretation to differentiate.
Sources of Information: Each culture has its own form and origination specific gestures. Along with their own set of gestures, a story of where and how they came from is also within the culture.
Awareness of Author: The story of hand and body gestures is not a story that typically gets written down. The gestures themselves are however passed down from generation to generation-through common everyday use. This method of keeping the gestures alive does have its share of faults. As times change, so does communication. As this happens, many gestures are added, removed or changed. Because there is no written form of the gesture, once a change has been made, it will stick until changed again.
Assumption and Intent: Because gestures are not written down, only used gestures get passed down. Those not used are lost and “leaves the picture unpainted and incomplete.”
Schools of Thought: Within each culture is its own way of thinking. Because everyone their own point of view, different gestures were passed down pertaining to different ideas.
Educated Response: Within the schools of thought, a response could be formulated to that school of thought. Like any other way of learning, one could simply take was taught and end there, or take that idea and run with it. That response affects the way that gestures were handed down and eventually effects history.
I think that this is all so neat! It finally feels like everyone is moving along smoothly and able to post and comment easily. When I first started this class I was worried that the discussion part of class would be lost. Boy- was I wrong! Anyway- after reading "Evaluating Our Sources of Information" I know that I will definitely be a lot more aware of what I read. Often times I will be told to research a topic or idea and right away I jump on the Internet. As easy as it is to gather info from the web, it is as easy to post info. Through evaluating the source and/or author, one can better determine the validity of the argument. Another interesting point brought up in the fifth reading was the idea of actually going out and seeing first hand the information. I hate to admit it, but I have never thought of going to museum or gallery for research. This reading has put a new light on not only the way I interpret info but also where I get my info.
After reading the three selections on Schools of Thought, I was amazed to see how many types there are. It is very insightful to interpret ideas through the eyes of others, but in a way it almost seemed ridiculous. Maybe it is just my bad habit of trying to make everything black or white, but it seems that everyone can have their own school of thought by simply adding ism to there name. I think that all of these schools developed from the human habit of trying to categorize everything- a personal form of control. How nice is it when we are able to tie everything up in a nice little package and have a good grip on it? I think that once an idea surface and no one was able to fit it into an existing category, another school was created. I also realize that the times contributed to the creation of different schools of thought, but numerous schools emerged from a single time period.
By comparing each of the European academic schools of thought and applying them to my topic, hand and body gestures, here are my results.
DARWIN: Darwin and his popular ideas of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are apparent in hand and body gestures as a form of communication. Sign language is a form of communication used by the hearing-impaired and was developed so the hearing-impaired could communicate, which in today’s terms equal survive. If one cannot communicate with others, either through sign language or any other form of body language, not necessarily a formal form, one cannot survive. It would be impossible to get food, either through buying it or simply taking it from say, a buffet a line without some form of communication being present. One could not get around town, walking, driving or otherwise without communicating with others on the road. In this sense, hand and body gestures have become a form of survival and allowed the non-verbal communication section of society to be included in the fittest.
MARX: Marx and his capitalistic ideas have become apparent in hand and body gestures as those not able to communicate with words try to survive in an economic society. Marx emphasized social class in conflict based on economic status. Through Marxism, those not able to participate in the manual labor workforce due to communication reasons were able to cash in and earn their piece of the status pie by using an alternate form of communication.
FREUD: Freud’s school of thought proposed that everyone was driven by two unconscious factors: sex and aggression. Everyone was unconsciously driven by sex and aggression and this was evident in what they did. Both sex and aggression can be expressed in a spoken language and is also marked in hand and body gestures. Freud believed that his theory could be applied to all humans, regardless of their ability or inability to verbally communicate with each other.
NIETZSCHE: Nietzsche believed that tradition was based on superstition and that all people need a leadership figure to fallow in an orderly manner. Hand and Body gestures help to communicate this idea and allow non-verbal ways to guide the “inferior herd” or fallow the “superman.” Non-verbal communication is simply another way to “guide in an orderly, modern society based on scientific methods, practical inventions and technological progress.”
I. CULTURAL RELATIVISM: This school proposed that the expressions and customs of culture were different due to the fact that they derived from distinctive settings and traditions. This school helped to minimized cross-cultural comparisons, as it was impossible to compare two things from different cultures or traditions. This school of thought is very apparent in kinesics, or the study of nonlinguistic bodily movements, such as gestures and facial expressions, as a systematic mode of communication. A great example of this is gestures in the East versus the West. In some countries in the East, the simplest movement, such as crossing your legs at your knees instead of at the ankles can be very offensive. Even the hand that you use to eat with can carry offense. Obviously these types of gestures cannot be compared to those of the West, where it only takes one select finger to offend someone. On the opposite side, there are some universal facial expressions that can communicate across every land. The simple smile is a standard way of expressing joy and happiness and can be used anywhere.
II. BIOGRAPHICAL CRITICISM: This school believes that to better understand something, the origin or background of the creator should be known. In applying this to kinesics, is it necessary to know why showing the bottom of your shoes to someone is offensive? Is it necessary to know where the smile came from? Is this something that will effect the use of a certain expression or gesture? At the same time, does the origin or words encourage or discourage use?
III. SOCIAL CRITICISM: This school of thought implies that the motive inspiring the creator is what causes the acceptance of the creation across the population. Social Criticism is also considered a continuation of the school of Biographical Criticism. This theory believes that as the values and styles that inspire the creator go out of style, so will the creation. This does not hold true in the study of hand and body gestures, as values and styles change, the gesture and its meaning remain the same.
IV. FORMALISM: This school can be described as the response to Social Criticism, as it claims, “true and unique essences of arts and culture are being buried in social principles.” This school claims, “The Arts invent human expressions of meaningful emotion.” This thought perfectly describes hand and body gestures, as the point of hand and body gestures is to express meaningful emotion. Because gestures do not change with the times, (this is not to say that new gestures are not created with new times) Formalism is the perfect school of thought to compare kinesics.
V. GEOGRAPHICAL DETERMINISM SCHOOL: This school believed that “geography created culture.” In the formation of hand gestures, this is a very strongly supported idea. Climate, resources and other conditions of location, elevation and weather can be considered the factor of differentiation between cultural non-verbal communications. This idea of an external factor contributing to differences was a response to Freud’s Psychological criticism and is rightly justified in its proposed ideas in hand and body gestures.
VI. SCHOOL OF BEHAVIORISM: This school projected that stimuli, internal and material factors created difference in culture. Just as Pavlov’s dogs were conditioned to salivate after hearing the dinner bell, different cultures were conditioned to respond to different gestures. This type of learning helped to form the many different types of gestures used around the world today.
About the Author:
Sarah Winger is a student at the Northern Arizona University Flagstaff campus and has just completed her freshman year. She is active in school, president of Hillel and sits on the Multicultural Student Committee. She also works in the University Student Union. This material was written as an online post (one of many) for Humanities 382, an undergraduate, online Distance Learning class taken this summer with Dr Guy Bensusan. Ms. Winger is a Psychology major and took the class because of interest in the subject and interest in experiencing this online format. She felt encouraged to "speak out" more online than in a face-to-face classroom. She was able to do the class well and met the class deadlines by pacing herself through her many academic and economic commitments. Ms. Winger is almost 19 years old.
Questions from a Doctoral Student
Philip J. Rossomando(Originally posted on DEOS Listserv, July 24, 2001 in response to an earlier post by Dr. Alfred Bork.)
Do you feel all learners are the same? Could not some students do without teachers on the WEB while others could find them quite useful and even vital? What about for the purpose of adding an emotional aspect to the learning process? Because the Open University has done without teachers, does that mean that it offers the highest quality of education? Could it be that only surface level learning is being provided and little deep and transformative learning is available?
I too believe poor teachers are not needed on the WEB but I also believe that a teacher who can inspire deep life-long learning can never be replaced. Every effort should be made to see to it that the influence of such individuals is allowed to reach the distance learner.
About the Author:
Philip J. Rossomando is a doctoral candidate at Walden University. His deep concern is with androgogical aspects within the Distance Learning area. He may be reached at prossoma@waldenu.edu or rossomandop@acm.org