So, without class this week there was not a huge revelation of any kind based on class discussion. I was left with my own ponderings and the rabbit trails that they led me down. This week I have been mainly pondering the Kozma/Clark articles. I still find it odd that Clark would just suggest to stop researching a particular topic. Maybe he thought that they were at the peak of new media. Or maybe this article was a product of the times and people were anti-research to some degree. We certainly see that from time to time in public attitudes. As much as the field changes, I just don’t see how we can stop researching any angle. I think time has proven that many did not heed that suggestion, and I think our field is richer in knowledge because of that. Sure, there is plenty of bad research out there, and much that ended up supporting Clark’s views – but many did turn up some angles and figures that have helped the field in general.

or maybe I am being too much of an optimist.

I have also been pondering the ethical-political connections that Bernstien was exploring, of how to lead a good life and be a good citizen. I have to wonder how Bernstein and others would approach these concepts in the age of Facebook. Everyone seems to have widely differing views of what “good citizens” should do. Those that live a good life could be seen as mass consumers that create their good life on the backs of the less fortunate, thus meaning they are not good citizens. These are probably issues that Bernstein will explore in future chapters. But I wonder if it will all come down to the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. Ethics and politics just sometimes seem to be so rooted in diametrically opposed directions that I don’t know how they can be balanced at times. Maybe Bernstein will unpack those issues further on in the book. Or maybe he will just come out and say that anyone reading the book is too stupid to understand any of it. Although, that would seem to be more true of most people reading Habermas for the first time.

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.