Academically it was a challenging course, not only because it consisted of mind stretching activities but also because the work requirements included 6 books, assorted articles, 10 reflective papers based on the readings, one analytical paper, a research paper and a project/presentation. 

           In this course we stretched out minds to discover ways of knowing which we had rejected or had never even thought of.  We were challenged to use these new ways, to try them out and to see how they would aid us as we discovered more about our universe and about ourselves.

           Our first assignment entailed watching Looking for Richard and The Name of the Rose.  We had to write on our understanding of the words knowledge, understanding, meaning, knowing and learning.  It was a way to get us thinking before we discussed the terms and the movies. (Reflection 1)

          But then we started into different ways of knowing.  C.P. Snow's book, Two Cultures challenged us to see the world's knowldege base divided into the scientific and the artful.  In the reflection for that week I struggled with definitions of rationalism, empiricism and positivism.  The exercise was worth it in the amount of research I did to tap a multitude of  Philosophy resources on these definitions.  It also provided a lively email exchange with my son, the Philosophy major as I ran my ideas by him.  (Reflection 3)  The result was a paper which reflected my confusion and my struggle but was rewarded by Dr. Norton's comment that the value of the exercise was in wrestling with the terms. 

           As I reflect on the next assignment which was an analysis of a quantitative research article in my field, I believe that I looked at it in a very naive way.  Now that I am taking a research course I see that I didn't know how to analyze research.   In the fourth reflection, I took an article and critiqued it on the basis of the surface information rather than on the methodology and on the standards of adequacy for quantitative research design. With regret, I submit Reflection 4.  If I were to do it again, I would be more analytical and less judgmental.

           While we were studying C.P. Snow and seeing the world in terms of two cultures, we had to take a concept or an idea in our field and represent it "artfully".  Then we had to write about the process.  I chose to present an artful series of collages representing a non-English speaking child going through the language acquisition process.  Reflection 5 tells about the posters and the process.  Since this class, I have used these posters to illustrate second language acquisition and will do so in the next workshop I give in January.  Doing the posters helped me   to  analyze what I wanted to portray and how to artistically do it. 

            After C.P. Snow's Two Cultures we read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution.  The title scared me since I am not known for reading science books in my free time.  But it fascinated me.  Some of the illustrations of scientific points went over my head but the explanations didn't.  I enjoyed the book and have referred to it a number of times since the course.  What struck me most was Kuhn's concept of paradigms.  Our next assignment was to reflect on paradigms and answer whether there were any in our lives.  Reflection 6 is the result of that soul searching.

           We moved on to Bruner's  narrative mode in his book  Actual Minds, Possible Worlds.  We studied the elements of a good short story and we talked how narratives entered into our work in education.  As teachers we tend to use stories to relate a point or to provide the context in a situation.  As an ESL teacher, I find that I use narratives to describe the background of what I will be talking about and what I want my students to be able to tell. 
           Bruner tells how Vygotsky provided the inspiration for many of his writings.  He uses Vygotsky's  Zone of Proximal  Development to illustrate how children need scaffolding to progress in language development.    Bruner relates how Vygotsky saw language as a stream of culturally bound thought.  Language development is like a stream of thought mixing and flowing with a stream of language, carrying the cultural history of that language. 
At the time I was reading Bruner, I was also researching Vygotsky for my final paper.  Bruner helped me to understand Vygotsky and to give context to his theories. (Vygotsky)

           In order to demonstrate our understanding of the narrative in our discipline,  that week's  assignment  was to write a short story.  The short story had to illustrate a concept in our field.  I chose to utilize my background knowledge of the visa process and of the Mexican culture to describe the cultural ideas which are reflected in a young man's quest to come to the US. (Short Story)  This is my first attempt at  short story writing.  I found that it was the easiest assignment and that I was able to finish it in under an hour.  The ease of writing this story made me want to write more of this genre as you can see in my final reflection. (Biography)

           When the course was over I wished there was EDUC 800 Part Two.  But then I guess that I am in part two, the continuation of the learning process.  Through this process I am beginning to see the connections between the courses and the readings in the courses.  I can see that James March is very Cartesian in his approach to decision making.  March would not be a fan of McLuhan or of the Chaos theory described in James Gleick's book Chaos.  But I can see that Max DePree writes in Bruner's narrative mode. 

           The connections are there.  This course helps me to see them.  And, I am starting to see my own 'way of knowing'.

          I did not know what I was getting into when I started Ways of Knowing with Dr. Norton.  Little did I know that before the semester would be over that I would be writing Burma Shave jingles and Letterman-style top ten lists.  And I wouldn't have believed it if someone had told me that I would be able to understand Chaos Theory by watching a line-dance performed by a colleague.  What kind of class is this?

           I went into this class with trepidation.  I had heard that it was a demanding course.  Looking at the course syllabus confirmed my worst fears.  Every class had an assignment.  That meant that every weekend would be spent writing a paper... when I wasn't reading.  There were also six full sized books required.  I had doubts whether I could keep up with the work.

          Instead of fighting it, I settled into a rhythm and wrote the papers in the evenings and read on the weekends.  The books were fascinating.  My son, the philosophy student, was impressed when I mentioned that Thomas Kuhn and Descartes were on my reading list.  All the books introduced ways of knowing which answered  old questions.  Is science linear?  Why are no snowflakes alike?  Without this course I would never have picked up a book on chaos theory!

           In addition to the books, this course introduced me to Vygotsky.  We had to do a paper on a 'way of knowing' which was new to us.  I knew that I wanted to do something in the field of language acquisition.  I tossed around a few ideas but nothing jelled.  When I went to Priscilla for advice on a topic I was thinking about she stopped me and asked if I was familiar with Vygotsky.  Vygotsky?  That became the topic of my paper.  Now I wonder how I had gotten so far in language study without knowing or even hearing of Vygotsky.

           Another reason I am thankful for this course is in following Bruner's way of knowing, I wrote my first short story.  I found that short story writing is  a very easy way for me to get a point across.  As a result of the success I felt in this kind of writing, I am trying to convince my daughter, who is an excellent and accomplished writer, to write a mother-daughter short story book. 

           Great course!  I can see why it is part of the curriculum.  It is valuable in the program but also in life.