In reading this weeks’ posts by David Cormier at the University of PEI, I found myself saying but … but … but …
It then occurred to me that we were approaching education from a very different worldview. This is one of those times where I am exceedingly thankful that one of the required courses in my PhD program was an exploration of different epistemologies – as educational research has a lot of variants, and educational researchers can value very different things in their research. I read his articles on Learning in a Time of Abundance and another on Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum, and I found myself reflecting on how I just don’t get post-structuralism. I found myself asking questions – challenging what I was reading – and realized that my challenges were all related to my pragmatic worldview. My notes go something like:
- Ya but, can rhizomatic education work for notices who don’t know what they don’t know?
- Ya but, where does scaffolding fit into this type of learning environment?
- Ya but, how could you possibly do this in a scalable manner? And if it doesn’t scale, is it practical?
- Ya but, doesn’t is just look like disorganization, rather than looking like flexibility?
- Ya but, what about learners who need/want structure?
Of course I realize that in part I find myself falling into a trap that I often criticize – that of trying to make one pedagogy fit all. The reality is that this rhizomatic education does not need to work for all to be a valid pedagogy. It just needs to work for some – and although I don’t necessary get post-structuralist thinking, I find it rather ironic that this type of pedagogy does work for me!