Relflections on Reflecting

Can a person reflect too much? Or is this question a misunderstanding of what reflection is? Will reflection always aid action or can it be a hindrance?

A thought I had after last night's class: the learning process for an individual occurs in a cyclic rebounding back and forth between inner reflection (a self awareness of thought processing) with a receptivity to the information received from the world via the senses.

As I know it, my learning reality goes something like this: when I'm having a conversation with someone (or reading someone) I listen to them, I seek to understand their language and through it their ideas (reception), then I attempt to reconfigure what I've understood in relation to what I already understand (reflection). This process rebounds back and forth several times sometimes very quickly. The pace seems to depend on how complex the received information is. The more complex the information the more necessary it becomes to slow down the pace to make sure that enough information has been received to make ensuing reflection meaningful.

Maybe this process is a bit like the "binary oppositions" mentioned in the Frankfurt School article. The act of reflecting in opposition to the act of receiving? Or perhaps the act of reflecting in opposition to action?

As I understand Curtis' (our Professor) explanation, each idea has its opposite, the negative of that idea. They synthesize, resulting in a new idea, which in turn synthesizes with its opposite. This process drives progress, it becomes inevitable, and so: capitalism will "ultimately...create conditions which would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself" (A Benjamin quote in the Frankfurt School article).

Yesterday's class covered a lot of material and Curtis introduced us to a lot of ideas that were new to me. I enjoyed it a lot. A lot of names were mentioned: Bob Dylan, Karl Marx, Hegel, Andy Warhol, Ardono and Benjamin to name most of them. Some of these names are familiar to me but most of their ideas are not. Something that occurred to me was how much reading I need to do to become more informed within the field of critical theory.

The quantity of potential material seems a little intimidating. Looking up Hegel online (dubious Wikipedia) led me to Plato and Aristotle's 'Ontology' which in turn led me to 'Realism Vs. Nominalism' which in turn...

I believe Curtis mentioned that the focus of the class was meant to be 'Critical Practice' and not 'Critical Theory', but surely one informs the other. How much reflection will be too much? This is an important question because I am a teacher and it is my responsibility to take action within a class room so that my students take action with their learning.

Simpsons - No Education

I've chosen two Simpsons clips as examples of "Popular Culture". The first clip juxtaposes Pink Floyd's "We Don't Need No Education" with the Simpsons. A sort of anti establishment/anti government/anti society song with the iconic American sitcom. The Simpsons is popular culture, but not without subversive or counter culture aspects. I think its humor often expresses a self reflective critique of the American mainstream culture it represents.

The second clip "Electronic Voting" interests me mostly because of Homer's line: "This doesn't happen in America, maybe Ohio, but not America". On one hand this is an American hegemonic assumption: the democratic process is only subverted in other countries, never the homeland of democracy itself; On the other, the fact that it is happening to Homer introduces elements of farce, cultural critique and societal admonition.

"Do Nothing Teaching" Reflections

I enjoyed reading through Kevin Giddens' "Do Nothing Teaching" blog last night.

http://kevingiddens.posterous.com/

His article "Reflection: Rigorous Practice or Joyful Play' resonated with me particularly. I found myself questioning the extent to which I have allowed or enabled 'joyful play' in my classes. I've been working at the same University for a second year now and I suspect I have settled into an unfavorable routine. I think my teaching methods haven't changed enough and I'm recycling many of the same materials and lessons.

I'm worried that a lot of my students would simply prefer me to stick to the text book provided and the teacher manual instructions for each lesson. One of the more senior professors in my department advised it because the students "just feel more comfortable with that". If students expect me to be the lecturer it's a challenge to not fulfill that expectation. To keep my job, I need good evaluations. It seems logical that I'm more likely to get these if students enjoy my classes and feel like they're learning. To do that I need to take classes out of their comfort zone. The more motivated and involved students seem receptive to self directed activities but they are a minority in many of my classes.

I want to make my lessons more playful for my students and I want them to construct their own learning practices more but is this really possible? How much divergence from a traditional class room can I get away with? How can I reconcile what is effective and enjoyable with the expectations of the students and the administration I work for? How can I reconcile the conflicting expectations of my students?