"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he sits in a boat drinking beer all day long." A classic statement of the fact that whatever we think we are teaching, students will learn what matters to them far more readily than they learn what matters to us.
Liz Thackray blogs on troublesome learning and flow. Flow as a description of the feeling of being absorbed in what one is doing (Chen et al), and troublesome learning, linked to stuckness and disjunction, a point at which knowledge becomes troublesome - in other words a perception emerges that what one knows now does not sit well with what one already knows. Savin-Baden suggests transitional learning spaces as a metaphor for the mental places where these transitional moments occur. (Only transitional, of course, if one actually transits through them. One might equally look at the scary world beyond and decide to backtrack.)
It occurred to me that this whole description of the issue of learning that becomes challenging maps neatly on to Vygotsky's idea of the zone of proximal development. The idea is that wherever you are in your learning, that is a ZPD which encompasses what you can realistically move on to next. My impression is that the idea is most useful for teachers in determining how to pace lessons and activities. The idea is also closely related to scaffolding, in which teachers allegedly make scaffolding on which students can take their next hesitant or not so hesitant steps. I say allegedly because I've never been completely convinced by scaffolding, although I'm not able to say why coherently. It's something to do with the fact that learning is different from teaching, and learners will always take their learning in a different direction to that which the teacher anticipated. So there is a need for some sort of mapping, but it seems to be there's not much point in scaffolding up Tower Bridge if the student chooses to scale Buckingham Palace. Perhaps my view of scaffolding as being restrictive is not the right idea. Anyway, that is a digression. Back to the ZPD. (I know that many people link the ZPD to the idea of scaffolding, and Vygotsky did himself by assuming that the ZPD was primarily activated in the presence of teachers or more able students, under whose influence the subject is able to stretch his or her knowledge. But I think that is too mechanistic a view of the learning process. The ZPD exists, and can be just as big when the student is physically isolated - because even when physically isolated, the student is not socially isolated. But I digress even further.)
My initial image was of disjunction and flow being opposed to each other, and my metaphorical overlay was of the point of disjunction being at or near the edge of the zone of proximal development. But another bout of thinking suggests to me that neither of these is the case. First of all, learning itself, I think, *is* a flow activity. When one is learning properly all of Chen's nine characteristics can come into play. And this includes the troublesome experiences. My primary evidence is anecdotal - at the age of 24 I was preparing to write an assignment about education. I spent day after day and night after night in my room (my housemates dubbed me "the hermit" after this experience) reading one Penguin paperback after another, and literally sweating day after day, night after night, because of the implications of what I was reading for me. It turned into one of the pivotal experiences of my life, wrecking my previously held assumptions about my schooling, my family and ultimately myself. It was quintessentially troublesome learning, and I was also in the flow - I lost self-consciousness much of the time, I lost a sense of time, the experience became autotelic, and there is no way I would have put those books down, despite all the arguments with my parents which they subsequently caused. The key point here is that the learning being troublesome in fact made it a flow experience. So my answer to Liz's question, "does disjunction which leads to understanding involve a flow process?" is an unequivocal yes.
For me this locates the experience of troublesome learning as part and parcel of learning, usually located well within the zone of proximal development. I wonder then how much the notion of troublesome learning as to do with its cognitive siting in a place where it conflicts with already acquired knowledge, and how much it is to do with whether or not that fact causes me problems.
To move to the focus of Liz's work, Second Life, this is something I haven't yet got into properly, though I want to. To me this is something much more like what I would call a troublesome learning situation, but not because it conflicts with anything that I know already. It is because it will take time and concentration that I don't currently have to spare, and simply because it will involve a lot of new stuff. This may be what Liz is referring to when she discusses "Being presented with the stress of being asked to create within Second Life" - this may be not an experience which causes contradictions, just a new environment, the learning of which is quite demanding - which is why I've avoided it so far.
Early in the nineteenth century some more enlightened business owners started funding teaching for their workers. They realised that workers were more productive if they understood what they were doing. This was the beginning of things like the Mechanics' Institutes, and the knowledge that men learned there - maths, physics, engineering - was called "useful knowledge". It had to be "useful" of course or there was no reason to pay for it.
Later in the nineteenth century the workers began to demand a different kind of learning. They wanted to know about why it was that businesses worked the way they did. They wanted to know about their place in the world. They wanted to know about their relations to other peoples and about the human condition. They wanted politics, economics, philosophy. This was the birthplace of organisations like the Workers' Educational Association, which still carries on that philosophy today, both nationally and internationally. And ultimately they were ancestors of the Open University and its open admissions policy.
To distinguish this knowledge from the knowledge they learned on their bosses' behalf, they called it "really useful knowledge".
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. They are completely wrong. We all have only a little knowledge. The dangerous thing is being satisfied with that.
I am now retired after teaching online with the OU since 2000. I now have more time for useful things like sorting my stamp collection. I do bits and pieces of work for the Liberal Democrats. I still mourn the loss of Lewes's best ever MP, Norman Baker. I am usually online for about ten hours a day, living in my airing cupboard much of the time. Despite this I have a healthy skin colour and do not lack for company.