Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

GMC Forum _ CHILL OUT _ Coursework Help (critique)

Posted by: muntahunta Jun 26 2008, 12:54 PM

its been a very long time since ive been on here thanks to moving into a house with no phone line.
I finally got hold of a copy of the internet though

Unfortunatly more coursework is in the way. I remembered how helpful everybody was last time i needed help with my coursework so i thought i'd try my luck again

I hate paperwork and as a result im VERY bad at critiqing and anything to do with paperwork really.

im looking for some pointers or help of any kind as i have to critique this article...

paper_mirror_2_.pdf ( 670.18K ) : 10972

cheers in advance for your help dudes and dudettes

Posted by: muntahunta Jun 26 2008, 02:59 PM

well, its taken me 3 hours to read the first 2 pages as i still dont understand what i have to do

Posted by: jacmoe Jun 26 2008, 03:09 PM

Interesting paper!

What do you mean by critique?

Do you have to find flaws in the argumentation?

Or do you have to find cons/pros to reflective journaling?

I am confused.

Posted by: tonymiro Jun 26 2008, 11:21 PM

Also further from jacmoe's Qs - what's the course and the level, as question like these help position and set the remit for your paper?

Some quick ideas based on a critique of the ideas in the paper rather than the academic quality of the paper:

1) The extent to which there is a congruent match between Kolb and much of the 'experiential school' and also Piaget - there is a lot of argument here that the paper glosses. Indeed the paper tends to gloss over a lot of the differences.

2) The conflation between understanding, experience, knowledge in the paper.

3) The extent to which one may demonstrate satisfactorily any connection between 'evidence' of experiential learning and actual cognitive behaviour.

4) Experientialism often presumes a coherent subject - from Post-structuralism and also psychoanlytic theory may we make such a simplification? cf in philosophy etc Bataille, Derrida, Gasche, Lacan, Kristeva... If there is no coherence - particularly given the subconscious/unconscious mind then there understanding itself founders.

5) The extent to which experience and knowledge can be reduced to words - cf Piaget and later Polanyi (within education theory) and arguably in more depth Gadamer, Derrida, de Certeau, Blanchot... Indeed surely some experiences remain outside understanding - ie love, I know I love my wife and daughter but I CANNOT understand or explain why - cf Augustine, Bataille, Aquinas. Knowledge as such is partial at best ( and contra Hegel) and never completable. Yet here there seems to be an undercurrent of Hegelian Idealism of consciousness's return to itself in completion.

6) The extent to which language STRUCTURES understanding (and not the other way around - that seems more the case in this) - Derrida, Cixous (we are born into language, it structures us, our world and our understanding), Clement. Cf also Gadamer (and before him Husserl) argumentation on hermeneutics and the ability to apercieve the world.

6) The way that some experiences remain unknowable, unexplainable - St Augustine, Bataille, Derrida, Marion...

7) Time - To what extent should any hard won 'understanding' or belief structure' take a long time to both surface and alter, yet experiential learning here is relatively short termist and thus may only demonstrate surface rather than real affective learning - cf Bourdieu and his long duree.

8) What is the outcome sought here - 'knowledge' or the process of acquiring it? There is a conflation.

9) Isn't there a potential misunderstanding of dialectics - both Hegelian and Marxian - that underlies this 'experientialist' argumentation? Allied to this there is also, to me, a miss match of idealism and epistemolgy-positivism.

Just some ideas - there are more.

Cheers,
Tony

Posted by: muntahunta Jun 27 2008, 12:35 PM

ooooo cheers

its an honours degree in information technology education

as for critique, im confused on that myself, im guessing its pro's and cons in a non-biased way.

Posted by: tonymiro Jun 27 2008, 02:40 PM

If it help's Chris here's a dictionary definition:

'Cri`tique´ Pronunciation: krĭ`tēk´
n. 1.
1. The art of criticism.
2. A critical examination or estimate of a work of literature or art; a critical dissertation or essay; a careful and thorough analysis of any subject; a criticism; as, Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason."
I should as soon expect to see a critique on the poesy of a ring as on the inscription of a medal.
- Addison.
3. A critic; one who criticises.
A question among critiques in the ages to come.
- Bp. Lincoln.
v. t. 1. To criticise or pass judgment upon.' (Webster's Dictionary)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical reading involves assessing the extent to which an author has provided adequate justification for the claims they make. And similarly, self-critical writing involves convincing your reader to accept your claims. What you look for in critique often includes:

Evidence provided by the account - is there any and how good is it?

Is the author's reasoning logical and does it lead to the conclusion?

Are there explicit and/or implicit indications of the author's values and assumptions (there always is but how obvious are they) - ie is the author 'objective'?

Match between the author's claims and those of other theorists.

Match between author's claims and your experience/knowledge/research evidence.

Thoroughness of the author's reading of important research/theories/texts in and surrounding the subject.

Cheers,
Tony