(1) Intersubjectivity:
Because we are already in the a world context, we share the meaning of the world with others. "Intersubjectivity is a primordial quality of the human world. To be human and in a world means being-with others...even our moment of solitude are affected by others, by their absence...We are alone because someone else's is not here" (Dalhberg, Dalhberg & Nyström, 2008, p.56-57). Dalhberg, Dalhberg & Nyström (2008) also suggested the way to understand others, ourselves, and intersubjectivity: Understanding others through indirect appresentation (here focus on the importance of "empathy" and Husserl's "sphere of otherness), understanding live relations with others (how we move consciousness of self and consciousness with others).
(2) Lifeworld:
Husserl (1970b) was the first to describe the lifeworld {Ger. Lebenswelt) as a central theme of phenomenology. Gadamer (1995) looked lifeworld is tacit. "It is the world in the which we are immersed in the natural attitude that never becomes an object as such for us, but that represents the pregiven basis of all experience" (pp. 246-247). The lifeworld theory was elucidated by Merleau-Ponty's "being to the world" (fr. être-au-monde). "The expression of understanding human existence as an understanding of how we are to the world signifies how humans relate to and interact with the world" (Dalhberg, Dalhberg & Nyström, 2008, p.37). Merleau-Ponty (1968) also notions "the flesh of the world". "Understanding the lifeworld as 'flesh' means understanding an ontological connectedness and mutuality" (Dalhberg, Dalhberg & Nyström, 2008, p.39). "The concept of flesh designated the invisible and mute fabric of meaning and the background against which humans, the world, all phenomena and their meanings have the possibility of standing out as gestalt" (Dalhberg, Dalhberg & Nyström, 2008, p.40). In my own word, the lifeworld is the world we live. It is tacit because we usually live with our natural attitude and take everything for granted. To reveal the hidden meaning and understand more of the phenomenon, we need to pay attention to the interaction and connection between ourselves and the surroundings.
2. Bridling:
How do I know students are engaged when they are in an online environment?
I recently got my feedback from students' course evaluation of the first course I teach on the US. Happily to say, all of the qualitative feedbacks are very positive. The good results remind me to think of a question that I never have time to think when I was busily preparing for the course during the teaching time: Were my students engaged in their learning experience? How do I know they were engaged?
When I was a middle school teacher in Taiwan, these questions were often solved immediately. I could certainly observed my students' facial expressions and their immediate reflections when I taught them face to face. Every nod, every smile, every gaze...all and all told me the moment that students were engaged. If I found something "wrong" or "unengaged," I could immediately change the way I teach.
It is definitely in different situation when I taught online. The class was asynchronous with 21 students who I never met real life. I was hardly to catch the moment of engagement because they all did their coursework separately in different time of the week. I sent them weekly updates through email to help them keep in track in this course. Email is the only way I could communicate with my students. Normally student won't reply my mail if they have no question. Typically the students with proactive and responsive learning attitude won't send me any mail because they could handle everything well. To teach online sometimes is in a solitude state, we never sure how students look at us or how they perceive this course. It's like you are throwing hundreds of balls to your students but seldom get the balls back.
There were some clues that helped me know my students were happy: I could look at their interaction during their discussion and sensed if they were engaged or not. This is the only way for me to grasp the moment of engagement. Some students send me feedback after I send them constructive feedbacks of their projects. They might say: "This (activity) is super fun," "I appreciate your communication in this class,"or "I really like the way you structure this class. I learn a lot from this course." I was flattered and encouraged when I received these kind of feedbacks. However, I wonder if these messages could represent the state of engagement when they learned.
What I can certain is that engagement must be related to some emotions. When students are engaged, they could be excited, happy, fulfilled. Also, they could be perplexed and challenged. Nonetheless they are very "into" the activity when they are engaged. I wonder if there is a flow of emotions and action when one get engaged to something.
No comments:
Post a Comment