I know people are still getting signed up and ready to go, but I thought I’d go ahead and get the conversation started here with Dave Cormier’s piece.
Dave Cormier’s “Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum”(PDF) isn’t about rhetoric (though the stuff he has to say about knowledge is something that will keep coming up for sure), but I thought it was a good place to begin because of what it has to say about education and the metaphor of the rhizome. That idea that there is “no center” and that knowledge kind of spreads around like weeds in a garden makes sense to me, and it’s applicable to this class in at least two important ways.
First, part of the problem of this class is that its “mission,” which is to cover and learn about the canon of rhetoric, especially as it ties to technology. Basically, this isn’t possible to do. I mean, our readings span literally 2500 years of time and we aren’t even scratching the scratch on the surface of the “key readings” in the field– as if we could decide what they were. Coverage is always a problem, but I guess what I’m saying is it’s even a bigger problem in a class like this. However, if we think of the study of rhetoric and technology in rhizomatic terms– a “metaphor which represents a critical leap with the loss of a cannon against which to compare, judge, and value knowledge”– then I think it’s clear that “covering” any “canon” is pretty much impossible. And in my view, once I realize that the class can’t be THE rhetoric of science and technology, then that gives us the freedom to skip around, dip into some detail in some parts of the canon, ignore completely other parts, etc.
Second, it seems to me that this organic idea of knowledge and learning being constructed and negotiated collaboratively with teachers and students working together is pretty much the way that online classes work. Or at least it’s the way a class like this has to work. I couldn’t just stand there and tell you what these various theoretical readings “mean” even if I wanted to. This isn’t a format that allows for the kind of immediate “give and take” of a face to face classroom, and making you all sit there and watch a bunch of YouTube vids of me talking about Gorgias or Plato or whoever would be cruel.
So, given that, what we all have to do is “buy in” to the idea that this isn’t a class where I am just delivering knowledge to you; rather, this is a class where we are constructing a class through our comments and exchanges.
Well, I’ve said more than enough. So jump in here: what do you all think?
Oh, PS: I know that I originally said we were going to do wordpress stuff, but don’t worry about that– I don’t think that’s going to be in the cards this term.
I hope you folks don’t mind me jumping in, but google alerts told me you were discussion the paper, and I hate missing a discussion
The admission of the emptiness of THE canon fundamentally alters the social contract between professor and student… it can be more exciting if the students engage, it can be disappointing for those students who were hoping to get the ‘secret knowledge’ in a graduate course, and, I’ve seen others still, that somehow think that it is only ‘this’ professor who doesn’t know THE canon. I’d be interested in your thoughts…
Also I find the application of rhetoric particularly interesting as it has a profound impact on what it means to communicate effectively. What is a ‘good’ argument? What is the goal of a discussion if it isn’t to come up with THE answer to the problem posited in the beginning?
To comment on your comment…
People who go to grad school and expect to be lectured at are… I don’t know. What I do know is that I don’t ever hope to gain a ‘secret knowledge’ from an instructor. What I hope is to gain knowledge– from the instructor, the students, the materials, etc. And, let me just say that I HATE the Socratic method. Sometimes, you simply want a person to give you a straightforward answer and when they don’t (and instead lead you in circles) it can be very frustrating. But, I do like the idea of a teacher engaging in conversation with students and not becoming the dictator of the classroom. It gives worth to what the students know and requires them to think and form opinions and realize that their opinions count. And, canons are great, but they shouldn’t be the alpha and omega. So, obviously, I am all about this new (secretly old) method of knowledge -sharing.
As to the goal of discussion, I think it is this. Not necessarily to always be one-hundred percent right and precise, but to get your ideas out and bounce things off one another. Just like those wonderful Greeks always strove for, it is to be able to articulate your thoughts clearly so as to leave an impression and, perhaps, persuade people to think as you do or, in the least, to THINK.
Thanks, Dave– I appreciate the comment, and feel free to stop back, too!
I came to graduate school in English studies in the US during the 90s in the so-called “canon wars,” so it is definitely something that is in the back of my mind in putting a class like this together. But one of the things that’s kind of freeing about a class like this (from my point of view, at least) is the impossibility to cover “THE” canon means we can dip in and out as we go.
I definitely appreciated the rhizome metaphor in this article because the whole current negotiative properties of knowledge lends itself to a (seemingly) boundry-free environment for education. As something grows so quickly, it is hard to truly grasp it and define it before it grows more and changes characteristics. This can apply to more than just knowledge in today’s world– it can also be attributed to literacy, let’s say. What makes a person literate? Think outside the box and go beyond, “They can read and write.” If you start considering being literate in technology and forms of mass communication, you’d have to adjust what it means to be literate daily!
As pointed out, the sharing of knowledge today is this crazy thing that the majority of people are adjusting to and participating in. And, quite frankly, I love it. It’s almost as if the competitive nature of knowledge has been taken away and people are sharing to inform and help others. It’s opening up dialogue and taking us beyond the limits that curriculum was constrained to in the past and requires that people are more … hands-on? proactive?… in their gaining of knowledge. Having focused on the educational side of rhetoric in my program, I thought it was interesting that Cormier points out that the “static” curriculum of the past is not necessarily disappearing, but is being redefined along with knowledge, learning, etc. He says that the “community acts as the curriculum” which is completely true when you think about it.
I also just wanted to say that I liked how, in conclusion, we are reminded that by going forward to this community-led method of education, we are actually going backward. Hopefully this is a plus? Any thoughts on that and on whether this rhizomatic model is actually good/bad?
Ashlee, I think going back to a community-led method of education will be a good thing. As teachers we need the community to help educate our students, we want them involved so they can help outside of the classroom. I agree with you in the aspect of taking us (students and teachers) beyond the restrictions of curriculum.
Overall with this piece, it was the word “knowledge” that really stuck out to me. “Knowledge is changed to the extent that reality also moves and changes. . . . It’s not something stabilized, immobilized” and “Information is knowledge.” Knowledge is never stabilized and I loved that Cormier discussed that, especially with the idea of technology. There is mountains of information on the internet right now about any given topic, and any person can gain knowledge about a subject through research and also going through the information that is out there. The way I see it is you need information to have knowledge, and that is why “information is knowledge.”
A response to Krause, I totally agree and see what you are talking about when trying to fit the mission of this class or “rhetoric” and “technology” into one semester. I except to skip around and read a lot from all over the board in the umbrella of “trying” to gain some knowledge about these topics and mission. Maybe it is just that I am use to the way Master’s courses are going but I am use to skipping around and not being able to “cover” everything that the professor wants or that can be read/research about the topics of class. Information out there is endless and so is the resources, so how can we except to “cover” that in a semester, I do not think you can.
Also in response to how this course works with relation to Cormier’s article; one of the great things about online courses, that I like, is the ability I am given to control my education. “What I put in, is what I get out of it,” applies to online courses in my experience.
“In the rhizomatic model of learning, curriculum is not driven by predefined inputs from experts; it is constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the learning process,” I feel is a great quote to describe the essay and what an online course is.
I do also agree with knowledge being like a garden and it grows like weeds. We as the learners are trying “for once” get bigger weeds.
For David Cormier, I think it is great that you get to be involved in the discussion, another great aspect to online courses and Web 2.0, the author of texts can contribute to the discussion about them and their piece. As for your questions, I do not really know if I can word correctly “what a ‘good’ argument” is, but for the other question. I see to have a discussion about a problem posted in the beginning as a way to see what others have to say, being open to other point of views and also to have a discussion to share common ideas. At least that is what I see a goal of discussion to be.
That sentence– “Information is the foundation of knowledge”– really struck me when I was reading. (Thanks for adding that to your comment, Adam!) You are going through the beginning and reading how you cannot define knowledge, but then there you go! That simple statement can be applied to knowledge of any and all kinds and, in effect, acts as the foundation of the definition. How you then further define it is all about talking about what you mean by information– information about what? Things will just get complicated after that, but I appreciated that little grounding after the more theoretical (?) approach that knowledge cannot be defined in today’s chaotic educational environment.
Ashlee, I think it is safe to say after you are giving a definition of a word like “knowledge” what comes after that definition gets a little gray. What is information, or what is valued information? Like Brian discussed, thanks to the internet and newer technology information is getting thrown at us every which way and we have to decide what is valuable.
I very much agree with the sentiment that you get out of an online class what you put into it. That’s true with all classes of course, but I think it’s even more important to be an active and self-motivated learner in an online class. And I have to say that not all students in my various online classes over the years have worked from that assumption. Anyway, the point for me is the class really is about the exchange here, and that only works if all of you are willing to jump into it.
I found this article to be very interesting. I’ve never thought to question knowledge or it’s origin. It’s just always been something that is there and it is gained by a person over time and experience.
I liked that they introduced this plant, rhizome. It was a good metaphor that helped me see and understand what they were trying to explain. The line, “… capable of growing and spreading on its own, bounded only by the limits of its habitat.” really helped me picture it more clearly. I think every person has some kind of limit to continue learning.
I also really liked the quote about how knowledge is that act of understanding history and how today won’t be the same as yesterday or tomorrow.
I thought about the idea of the internet (online access) to information. I do agree that this is a good way to share/gather information and there is far much more information versus a textbook. However, I do see how there can be issues. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve looked up a health issue and discovered so much more than I wanted. One time I looked up something simple and the web site said I had symptoms of a brain tumor. Most of the time, the information isn’t as serious, but I do feel like their can be a thing as too much information. And with the abilities for anyone to share information (Wikipedia) I find it hard to believe half the things I read online.
You’re right, Nicole, about being wary of the information we find online. I think that is why Cormier says that, “Knowledge becomes a negotiation.” You have all these sources at your fingertips, but you have to decide which ones you’re going to accept and hold on to. I wonder, however, whether this is making us a more skeptical people? We’re taught to question everything– so then are we questioning too much and being too critical? I suppose that is a yes and a no answer…
When I first came across the phrase “knowledge becomes a negotiation,” I couldn’t help but be reminded of Prof. Benninghoff. His stance was that knowledge isn’t just recitation of facts; rather, it is building a bridge between what you already know and something new. However, I found the definition in this article much closer to my own as something “independently verifiable.”
While it is amazing to live in a time when one has access to so many primary documents at the click of a mouse, it can almost be overwhelming at times. Trying to stay current on a variety of blogs, wikis and forums are a great way to keep tabs on changing knowledge, but at what point do we make any sort of benchmarking to understand how we reached this point? The phrase “create snapshots of the knowledge of a particular field as it is seen at a given time” stood out to me, as while we can’t slow down the frantic pace of “new” knowledge, it is important to try to have a defined time when something is considered “current.”
That being said, the rhizome is the perfect analogy for a discussion threat in a class like this. We can begin with one starting place, and as people contribute, it evolves into localized discussion topics that take on a life of their own (hooray for nested comments!). I know Steve has taught this class several times before, and no two threads on any topic would be remotely similar to any others prior. And even as participants of this discussion, we all will have a different understanding and appreciation of the knowledge generated.
As for Steve’s original questions, I think there is an understanding that we can never expect any class to definitively cover the entire concept of rhetoric. Narrowing the scope to science and technology certainly helps, and this allows us to focus on the more relevant articles, which will be more meaningful and applicable to us. Secondly, I have never held the notion that the only learning on a collegiate level comes directly from a professor lecturing. Some of the most insightful discussions and comments were made by other students in a discussion section, which has helped drive home key concepts. Although the venue is different, the same notion of collaborative learning still applies.
Brian, I agree with you about the frantic pace of “new” knowledge and also how can one person stay “current” when there is so much information getting thrown at us. The other thing to consider is the value of knowledge from the source that you are gaining that information from. With so many blogs, wikis, and social networks out there, is a citizen journalist really a valued source? This many be a question for another time, but that is what popped in my head when you discuss blogs, wikis etc.
Thinking about the definition of “knowledge” is a complex and interesting topic. I think it is great as we learn that knowledge is an ongoing process that is continuously changing in today’s society. In response to Ashlee and Adam’s discussion, I think community-based education will be a good thing. With so much new information popping up daily, we need to be educated by a variety of sources in order to actually gain knowledge. I see the idea of community-based education meeting a lot of resistance, though. It certainly does not seem as “easy” to obtain (even if more accurate) and, in the education world, makes assessment or verification difficult.
I also agree with Brian and Nicole – having access to so many sources so easily can be not only overwhelming, but also difficult to navigate. It puts the responsibility on individuals to assess the information before determining if it is accurate knowledge. That responsibility to assess information and not simply accept what we are told as truth is a good thing. By not allowing us to always rely completely on the information we are given encourages us to increase our own knowledge and analyzing skills.
I am excited for the class to continue with discussion and interaction rather than simple lecture. Lectures make it too easy to sit back and not become an active participant in learning. This is my first grad class, but I hope to find others (including face-to-face) set up this way.
With so many online sources for information, the notion of “accurate knowledge” becomes hazy. I agree that we have to be more vigilant about online sources and question the validity of any new information we come across. Perhaps we are moving towards a point where we need to make a case that a fact is correct!
I agree with you Brian, but I am also a little hesitant to define “accurate knowledge” because unless there is tested, confirmed, and viable fact to support something, then it is not 100% “the only answer”. Granted that historical events and such are fact because there is usually no outstanding way to refute them, most things that people know are ideals and opinions that one person had that were adopted by others until the connection was strong enough to make it “true.” This is just one of the many interesting takes on knowledge that is out there, but it is particularly fascinating to see how others feel about this topic.
I got a reader’s high feeling while reading this. What a great way to start the class. Love that feeling where you feel like the piece is taking you to a space you haven’t explored yet. But then in that new space, I looked for what might be missing just so I could add to the discussion. But, how does one know that something is missing without going back through what they’ve already learned. Traces of the traditional canon can be found in the new learning process. I don’t know if that’s productive or what. But I don’t think group learning is trying to change the traditional canon, but act as postconstructivists. Or maybe another group I am unaware of.
But my first thought about Cormier’s piece is that it tags the effect of an ever-changing canon and knowledge that’s debatable and fluid. Why am I so excited to read this? I think it makes room for more people to learn. It identifies a Literacy as Ashlee said that was not identified before.
Anyway, I would have liked to read the differences between individuals and groups. I think it’s very important to address the individual vs.. group learning especially in this context of trying to allow knowledge do what it does does, instead of tackling what it is. How can an individual participate or rather ADD to a discussion when it seems that everything has already been discussed. Rhizome makes space for this kind of thought. It seems that knowledge is so wide, intensely filling up space and even discovering new space that causes an overwhelming feeling. “How do I tackle this next space?”. The discussion is incredibly important as it identifies that we have learned something… and then it is there for us to go back through and learn more about what we have learned already in circular motions. But Before all of that happens, the person and group has to know and be aware that they can add to the discussion. They can add their unique knowledge to a widespread social learning space. All people are empowered by a changing canon and social learning groups.
I hope it’s ok for a curious bystander to jump in on this discussion as well. (Oh, the power of the internet and of continuous adult learning!)
Brian: The concept of vigilance with regard to sources, questioning the validity of new information isn’t new or related to technology at all, really. Knowledge & information have always represented power, and the communication of misinformation has been used for centuries as a tactic to confuse the gullible. (For example, back in the 1770′s during the US war for independence, generals would send out false orders they suspected might be intercepted by spies – and I’m sure such tactics were in use long before that even!). The technology is simply a tool for collecting and analyzing MORE information (accurate and inaccurate alike) more quickly, so the concept of “accurate” is a more swiftly moving target than in the past.
Verifying the validity of “new” knowledge for oneself has always been important, but never more important than now, when we need to learn from a young age how to QUICKLY sort through the knowledge we gain and apply it to new situations, as I blogged about here 3 years ago: http://12amusings.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/baby-you-can-drive-my-car/.
I think Ashlee has a critical point when she talks about the need to decide which sources to accept. It’s what many are calling “21st century literacy.” Although such skills – of questioning sources, comparing multiple versions of “truth” to arrive at one’s own level of comfort with facts – used to be taught at the college level, these are skills which now need to be taught at an elementary level. My husband (a teacher by training, no a technology coordinator for a local school district) made some interesting points along those lies on his blog here http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/archives/2006/07/25/considering-the-source/ and here http://staff.bbhcsd.org/schinkerj/archives/2010/08/08/says-who/.
I think this was an excellent piece to begin our class discussions. The concept of knowledge as a living, breathing, community-based process is somewhat of an abrupt departure from the undergraduate and (in some unfortunate cases) graduate educations that most of us received. As Steve mentioned in his initial post, this online discussion-based class of ours is not only illuminating this point for us, but also acting as an interactive example for all of us. The rhizome example was a great way to clearly illustrate the concept of a living, breathing knowledge (or education) process.
After reading all of your comments, I have to say that it seems that we are all in relative agreement that community-based education, and the process of sifting through information together to determine what is pertinent and “accurate” is a constructive and positive process which adds to one’s overall understanding. Yes, there are literally millions of sources out there, and one must be careful when sifting through it all, but this active participation and reciprocal support allows the participants to benefit from 360 degrees of input and opinion and so on. We are lucky to live in a time when technology permits us access to places and people we would’ve never thought possible just 20 years ago. I also think that participating in this process helps to keep you sharp. As mentioned in the article, with so many hoops to jump through, it’s not uncommon for a knowledge cycle to end up outdated upon it’s completion. It’s our responsibility to recognize these limits of a seemingly unlimited reservoir of information. Instead of just mindlessly soaking up everything we hear/read, it’s our duty to question it, analyze it, and update it if necessary.
This is far removed from sitting in a lecture hall and listening to a professor drone on and on during an endless powerpoint presentation. I must admit that I’m far more excited for this class than I thought I would be — the chance to take part in these evolving discussions is a relatively new academic experience for me and I’m intrigued at the thought of where our discussions will take us!
Ok, I am just going to admit it, I love metaphors. I think metaphors help the reader picture and understand better. And while I also appreciate the rhizome metaphor Cormier points out in his article, at this point, I have a couple of concerns about knowledge and learning in the rhizomatic fashion.
I definitely agree with the fact that information should not be spewed to students just to have them regurgitate it back. I also really like the idea of a community based education, but in a true rhizomatic form, I worry that the learning and knowledge might become chaotic. The “definitive beginning and end goal determined by a curriculum” is obviously a sort of road map to help guide towards a distinct goal. In other words, everyone end up in the same place. With the rhizomatic metaphor, that road map turns just into a starting point with no definitive end. This can lead us off on tangents and we may never reach “the point” of the learning. But if the point is that there is no “point” then I guess we’ve reached our goal. It seems as though this sort of “uncontrolled” way could easily get confusing and can lead the reader / students to easily go off topic, and in worst case scenario, not create any new knowledge about the topic at all because we winded up someplace completely different.
Oh, and by the way, I am going to create my gravatar this weekend – my little blank man is depressing!
Becky, I can see your concern, but I took to mean that with the rhizomatic metaphor we will always be learning on the road map of life, even if we get of track. Also look at any given semester, some where along the way in learning about what the professor or what we set our “goals” to be, we get off track somewhere. We will get back on track somewhere. Also it is on those “side roads” that students and professors can learn even more about themselves or the subject at hand, in a different way.
Just to build a little off many of these good comments about knowledge, the rhizome metaphor, and what Becky said about the possible chaos of all this. I wouldn’t want to take this so far as to say that it’s all relative. To say that “knowledge” and “truth” are changing, evolving, living, etc.. Is not to say they don’t exist at all. It’s just these things have proven to not eternal or absolute.
And of course, not all truths/facts are negotiable. There is nothing I can do with rhetoric or any other language tool to make myself younger, taller, and thinner, and I can’t cure a disease with a good point. As I’m sure you can for see, what counts as an indisputable fact and what is negotiated is a major topic in science studies and in considering the rhetoric of science and technology.
The ‘relativist’ argument is very compelling on the surface. It presumes a foundational, accepted canon of knowledge from which all the others things we know and believe grow out from. That belief in foundational knowledge is enticing but it belies of a variety of other foundational concepts that underlie our culture.
1. The scientific method is founded on the idea that hypothesis and thesis are constantly evolving, to be tested and referred to. Knowledge exists in a web of what you could either call ‘best guesses’ or ‘best possible version given long testing’, depending on how cynical you were feeling on a given day. The history of science is a long education in things firmly held as true suddenly being revealed as metaphor.
2. The process of academic citation is the rhizome metaphor writ large. Years of people, thinking hard, doing research and connecting their research, via citation, to the large web of same done by their peers. Is it correct at any given point? Who knows, but the wider web, the snapshot of what is happening in academic research at any time is the connective tissue of what we ‘know’ as a culture.
I just want to reiterate very quickly how interesting and different the perspective of this article has proven to be. Granted that I have never just sat down and thought about the different ideas of “knowledge”, this article describes it in a way that is not exactly mainstream. The idea that knowledge can be more than just what one person knows, but rather a constantly evolving convergence of the human population is very intriguing.
And I think what you’re getting at here Jeff– that knowledge is more than just what one person knows and it evolves– is very much in fitting with what Dave said about the way the scientific method works, too. So while knowledge (“Truth”) is not transcendent and eternal, it also isn’t completely relative, either.
Now, what we will run into in the course of these readings/discussions are some discussions about the rhetoric of how science is presented shapes that science– we’ll see this with the initial readings about DNA– and also with how deciding what is “science” and “true” runs into rhetoric. At least some of the time. This is one of those ways in which scientists often are at odds with rhetoricians because while scientists don’t tend to believe in transcendent truths either (which is why so many things are really the “theory” of instead of the “law” of), they do on a day-to-day basis see facts as definitive and observable phenomenon in a way that is quite a bit more definitive than we’ve been talking about here. In other words, my guess is that most medical researchers would not consider the effectiveness of various treatments of cancer to be determined in a social/mediated realm.
As I read this essay, I thought about the knowledge that I have attained or what I thought knowledge to be. During elementary and secondary education, we learned from books (history, math, science etc.). During college (at least when I attended), the internet was new and not widely uses as it is now. Students searched for information through tangible items located in the library. Even in the classes I am currently taking (including this one), the idea of merging education and technology through wikis, blogs and all other online components promotes a very different way (for me) for the quest for information in a non traditional way. I am excited to look at information and knowledge in this manner. We all have different experiences, opinions, outlooks that help shape us as individuals and help us contribute information. The collaborative way of learning is something to be valued. It makes me question canon, how we place value in experts and what qualifies “them” as experts.