So Habermas still remains difficult to understand, but I think that will improve after time and digging deeper. Bernstien is definitely becoming clearer to me, especially after we discussed the Ed Tech trend articles in class. Many times the point was made that our ability to process information has not changed much despite all of the upgrades in technology. A nicer screen on an Apple product does not make us learn more. Although, I doubt that was the goal to begin with – they probably had artists in mind. But if the theory and concepts behind learning and educational phycology are not really changing that much (despite what the digital native narrative tries to tell us), where will we be if the Marc Prenskys of the world get their way? Scary thought.

I have always looked at a solid foundation in theory and research as a good idea, but never something that I had to constantly develop. I thought I had learned the basics and knew enough to get by. Habermas and Bernstein both showed me that there are entirely new levels that I have not even scratched yet. I probably assumed that these levels existed, but that I knew enough to wing it when going there. Now I know that it is time to dig in and make that exploration a regular part of my academic life for the remainder of my career. I would say the rest of my life, but the way the economy is going the end of our life will be the only time my generation gets to retire.

Much of what I learned was about critique. I have always feared critique to some degree because it seems to me that so many people try to be mean and condescending with their critique. I see that true critique is not about the personal attacks and arguments that you see all too often. It’s not about right and wrong, true or false, but supported or unsupported.