Episteme/Phronesis

It seems as if the rest of you had SIMILAR problems, trying to distinguish/pronounce/spell/etc. episteme and phronesis. After reading the Flyvbjerg article, I found my way over to what seems to be his personal website which discusses his research of "Phronetic Planning" and "Phronetic Social Science". After reading this over, I slowly began to formulate answers to our discussion.

In my response to Dr. Muth, I attempted to compare the two approaches to our lecture last week with Dr. Susan Clair. Phronesis would be best used to answer the question of “Who gains and who loses from the GED restructuring and by which mechanisms of power? Is it desirable to base federal funding for ABE based on population? Which direction do we, as a nation, want to go with ABE? Of course, I'm not even sure if this makes total sense, but I felt that those were all questions that we could use phronetic science to answer...how many forms of this word can I use?

Episteme seemed a little easier to define. It literally translates to science. It's analytic information gained from controlled experiments. The major difference here is that it does not involve judgement, values, or interest. This is where phronesis goes BEYOND episteme. Phronesis involves social interaction/discussion vs strict observation, which seems to be at the core of episteme.

How Do You Say Episteme and Phronesis? Gesundheit? Thank you!

Synthesized Knowledge: Episteme and Phronesis...are the intertwined faculties...

I’ve been thinking for a few days (subconsciously) about what to write about for my first blog post for our TEDU 681 class. Mostly, I’ve been thinking about our first assignment, the DG on episteme and phronetic ways of learning. Wondering if I got it right in my answers and then wondering:  Why am I wondering? I believe I understand the terms and I believe that how we learn as students (adult learners) and the steps in how we teach, as educators have been illustrated in the article provided by Dr. M (a.k.a “Bill”).

If I understood what I read, then episteme describes the study of learning (research methods) for better understanding and phronetic is the application of that gained insight, understanding, or knowledge to facilitate the lesson or learning.

(I agree with Lisa – my spell- checker, does not like these terms – “phronetic” especially -  and causes me to wonder, if I am using it correctly. If I am not, then does that mean I don’t understand the term and what it represents?  It’s a vicious circle of doubt every time that red line appears. It’s almost as though Word knows, that I am not 100% in my argument, before I even begin.)

In our class, I feel that we are about to begin a journey of learning, guided with a slight hand by Dr. M on the best way to create a study of understanding (episteme) so that we can implement a plan of phronetic study to arrive at a finished body of work with our projects.  *See I’ve used the terms

and I think I got it right, yet they are so unfamiliar that I am uncomfortable and immediately begin to use mental examples of what I mean to reassure myself. I do feel that these two practices of achieving increased proficiency in adult literacy with language learners are interconnected.  Can one exist without the other? I feel that an argument can be made for yes they can. But why is it necessary to have one system of belief or practice that takes precedence over the other? Why not embrace the duality of the two when used together to achieve higher reading/literacy proficiency with your learner?

An example of this can be found in John Strucker’s article, What Silent Reading Tests Alone Can’t Tell You. In Strucker’s article, the utilization of diagnostic assessments to improve how instructors taught and how students learned was a composite of episteme study and phronetic practice to facilitate the end result.

For the adult learner that wants to improve their literacy, how they get there is as important as achieving their goals. For the instructor the methodology used to bring their student(s) along, should showcase the same commitment and care to facilitate their learner(s) needs.   How they get there with their learner(s), should be, by any means necessary.

Diary of a struggle

WEDNESDAY:  Erased my entire 500-word post and started over.

THURSDAY: This week’s topic on "Two Perspectives in Adult Literacy Research" (2Ps) has sparked my interest. I was all over the place with ideas until I read Lisa's post about resisting the spell checker on the word phronesis. That statement made me smile and gave me a completely different way to think about the essence of our discussion--knowledge.

One of the things I love about our collaborative blog is the way it challenges my ideas.  I relish the opportunity to dialogue with you in this shared space.  I find this public, social-learning to be very appealing.  In a way, it's a phronetic practice.  Right before our eyes, we can see the learning.  Physics envy?  I don't think so.  Social science rules!  Or, maybe not...

FRIDAY: Stuck at a dead end.

SATURDAY:  Just read Bill's comment on Lisa's post.  I'm on the wrong track, again.  This is the second time I've erased a long post and sit, staring at the blank screen.  I' struggling with these concepts and I don't know why.  I was going to write about knowing when to stand your ground, trust what you know, and  resist doing exactly what I'm doing now.  Apparently, there is a disconnect between what I wrote and what I'm doing.  Lisa - I'm caving-in to the 'spell-checker' and changing my answer.  Ugh.

The clock is ticking.

I had it all arranged in my head that episteme and phronesis were different parts of a 'whole' epistemology.  I thought of them as being complementary.  Different epistemologies and different ways of knowing?  I'm stuck.

'Ways of knowing' takes me back to the beginning of this program. There,  I was focused on learning about these ideas, but not yet able to look so critically in the mirror at myself.  Now we're discussing ways of studying ways of knowing.  If I were to look in the mirror now, I would describe myself as being more comfortable with episteme.  I seek discrete facts and ways to connect them.  I'm trying to do that right now!

I want to be a person who take a phronetic approach to studying literacy.  I want to think of myself as someone who doesn't judge and is able to see something for more than the sum of its discrete parts.    However, I apparently have a need to connect, categorize, and generalize.  How does this cloud what I want to do?

In one of the previous versions of this post  I wrote that social scientists are the research machines in their fields.  We are the -scopes and -graphs and tools that gather data.  As such,  we must be transparent about our perspectives and biases because they affect what we see and how we interpret it.  It is not possible to not have a way of knowing that is present in our work.  A way of knowing is part of our identity and part of our work.  There I go making connections again.  I'm hitting the publish button.













  

Adult ed resource

In case anyone is interested in this new resource for their seminar project, here's the link to the new Handbook for Sustaining Standards-Based Education in Adult Education that Kristin told us about.

Episteme and Phronesis

       I love books.  I read books for pleasure and for knowledge.  When I need to understand something I tend to rely on book knowledge.  I think this was the way I was originally taught to learn – episteme.  To me the “new to me” term, episteme, means I have gained knowledge from the act of learning; tonight this learning came from reading an assigned article.  I think reading is one arena where I am really comfortable learning.  Another would be a classroom.  These are structured environments.  Teaching primarily math (as I do), like science, is a model of epistemology (I just googled this to determine if I have made up a new word – and I learned that I might have even used it appropriately).   In math, there is the right answer and many wrong answers.   I like this way of thinking.  It is analytical.  It’s where I am comfortable.

      Today I think education is leaning toward my other newly learned term, phronesis.   This term causes me to think harder as my Microsoft product underlines it with a red squiggle.  Am I spelling it wrong?  I have to now combine my book knowledge with some real life experience.  Although I might have my book knowledge, I now have to construct meaning from my personal experiences - Microsoft isn't always correct.  I have to apply my understanding as I resist letting Microsoft turn my new word into “prognosis”.  This is what we are asking students to do in education when we ask them to practice phronesis – essentially we are asking them to trust what they know and not let spell check change their experiences.  I think this is a good thing, “learning by doing” is the way I’m simplifying it for my analytical mind.  Perhaps we are combining our book smarts with our common sense and equating it to the best of both worlds.

Murdering Murderers...

Http://wtvr.com/2014/04/29/oklahoma-stops-execution-after-botching-drug-delivery-inmate-dies/

I just saw this posted on Facebook and thought I'd share given our conversation on unitive v punitive justice.

Basically, a death row inmate died in a painful way because the state used an untested drug cocktail.

From CNN: He convulsed and writhed on the gurney. Managing to raise his head, he got out the words "Man," "I'm not," and "something's wrong," reporter Courtney Francisco of KFOR said.

Oklahoma had to create a new drug mix because the European suppliers have stopped selling theirs to the US (all European countries except Belarus and Kazakhstan have outlawed the death penalty).

If you look at the comments at the bottom of the article, you can see what type of justice the commenters are seeking (the 500+ comments on Facebook are worse!).

Some samples:
" Just shoot them. One bullet to the head is a hell of a lot cheaper!!"

"How was it botched ? IS he dead? What happened to the good old days when we shot or hanged the scum bags? Hey we could fry them 2 i would give an extra dollar on the power bill for it !"

ADLT 650 final reflection

This class pushed me to challenge myself, my ideas.  Sometimes I forced myself to read with the text (Kirsch//Perfect Storm), sometimes I questioned my ability to read against the text (Janks). I struggled mightily with the 123 project, because it seemed to want to be everything at once, while being incredibly constrained by 10 minute presentation times and a five page conclusion. I got emotional listening to Dr. Michaelson tell us that sometimes the best you can do is be a compassionate human. I learned more about my ideas about social justice, deepened my understanding of what literacy means, and how it fits into a broader perspective of diversity.  There was enough course material in this one class for an entire PhD program, and I could see that sometimes in Dr. Muth's face when he'd writhe in agony, hands on his face, trying to use puny and insufficient language to explain how we could fit something so enormous into a one-semester class, or a ten-minute presentation, or a brief summary final paper.

Sylvia Clute gave me some hope last night that starting small with social justice initiatives is the only possibility.  She gave me the hope that maybe there are solutions to poverty, imprisonment, and a punitive-based capitalist society.  I guess for the first time I felt like maybe it's possible to fight the good fight, after all.

Finally, as always, I made new friendships with classmates, and learned so much from listening to all of us work things out in group discussion.  Social constructivist learning has impacted me greatly, especially once I knew what to call it.  Learning with one another, seeing things from a different perspective, hearing things through the lens of a surgeon or an ESL teacher or a civil engineer... I will always remember those moments when we're all so caught up in the subject that we're stumbling over one another, fighting to get our ideas out, struggling to fit what we thought we knew into a larger schema that keeps growing and changing and evolving.  That's what I'll take away with me from this class.

Great wrap up for the year!

Great wrap up for the year!

As I read Sylvia Clute’s literature I automatically think of all of the themes we have visited in class. I noticed the following themes we have seen previously:
• Question the system
• Knowledge of the cultural aspects of the workplace unveiled the “common sense”
• Multiple definitions for one concept and how the definition impacts the consumer
• Utilization of the “common sense” to enhance current processes

I am sure there are many more themes. Although I tend be analyzing and finding themes in everything I read, I feel “empowered” by my new knowledge. I am privileged to have participated with you all in this class. Thank you!

Shannon

1-2-3 Project Summary - Action Processing System

 ​


In this paper, I attempted to theorize the findings from and conclusions to my 1-2-3 Project mini-case study that investigated the literacy process called the Action Processing System (APS). The APS is a computerized business process and content management system.  The conceptual framework was the social practice view of literacy. This framework was utilized to understand the complex, interwoven view of which literacies are practiced, how they are lived and why (Belfiore, et al., 2004, p. 4).  The analytical lenses utilized to evaluate the fieldwork findings in the study where Discourse analysis and the concept “meanings-in-use.”

There were three major findings for this 1-2-3 Project.  The first is the existence of a “clash of cultures” between two Discourses.  For the workforce education community, this type of finding could have a tremendous impact on the design and delivery of their education and training programs and their teaching strategy if they realize they are instructing two distinct Discourses using the same computerized business process system.

Finding two revealed a disconnect between the ideal system operation and the actual workplace operation.  Workplace educators should be sensitive to this type of situation whenever they are assessing workplace literacy requirements associated with a computerized business process to preclude the misdiagnosing of the reason(s) why the target user population does not utilize the system properly.

Finally, the study revealed the power of the concept of “meanings-in-use” to discern “why” workers don’t comply with a literacy practice as intended by management. In this case it helped explain why workers chose to accomplish staff actions working outside the APS.

 In the case of all of the findings, they would probably have been missed if the focus of the study had not considered intervening social factors by utilizing the “social-cultural” view of literacy or literacy as a social practice as a framework for analysis.

Portraits of Reconciliation- Rwanda

A few weeks ago, I saw this feature in the New York Times about a reconciliation project between the Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda, which I think is a great example of the concept of restorative justice:

Portraits of Reconciliation

Through this program, which is run by a non-profit organization, victims and perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide participate in counseling sessions.  At the end of the program, the perpetrator formally requests forgiveness from the survivor and if forgiveness is granted, then they hold a community celebration.

It is a very interesting and touching article.  Please read it if you have time. :-)