Page 62 - Igor Ž. Žagar in Ana Mlekuž, ur. ▪︎ Raziskovanje v vzgoji in izobraževanju. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut, 2019. Digitalna knjižnica, Dissertationes 37
P. 62
r aziskovanje v vzgoji in izobr aževanju
er structure of the representations. Nevertheless, both approaches presup-
pose that representations were necessary for cognition (and thus occupy
the “representational” branch). In contrast to this, the enactive approach
(Varela et al., 1991) rejects representational account and thus takes anoth-
er branch. It also rejects some other presuppositions of both classical and
connectionist approaches, so in fact if transferred to the tree-metaphor, it
provides a nice example that one has to go several junctions further down
to seek what all three approaches have in common and where the branch-
ing takes place.
The tree-metaphor as model for a particular debate is constructed in
relation to the posed questions and is in this way always contextualized. We
can also interpret it in a kind of Kuhninan way (Kuhn, 1962), seeing inves-
tigations that include small branches and leafs as “normal science”, while
“revolutionary science” happens when we have to design new big branch or
construct a new tree (and conversely we can use it to explain Kuhn’s theo-
ry). In this way it provides a visualization of the main turning points in the
history of research of particular subject.
Although we find the tree metaphor very helpful one has to be careful
not to take it too dogmatic. Namely, taking all the efforts to determine the
branching may constrain new unorthodox ideas. Another difficulty is to
visualize a situation in which branches and leaves overlap and form a kind
of roof on the one or on various trees, if we use them to represent different
disciplinary approaches in an interdisciplinary study. For these situations,
computer visualization that form clouds and may allow us to see patterns
in a larger context, would be useful.
Conclusion
This paper theoretically developed why writing the state-of-the-art section
poses a problem to many novice academic writers. One of the developmen-
tal tasks in learning academic writing is the development of one’s voice in
order to be able to develop and argue a position while acquiring deperso-
nalized academic language. This, together with the common positivist me-
taphor of “finding the gap in the research landscape” for defining resear-
ch question and state-of-the-art lead pose a problem for many students.
We therefore suggested replacing the old metaphor and use two others
for teaching, firstly the “space-metaphor” with the aim of making the stu-
dents understand that the research landscape must be iteratively constru-
cted with the development of the research question. Both are not objecti-
62
er structure of the representations. Nevertheless, both approaches presup-
pose that representations were necessary for cognition (and thus occupy
the “representational” branch). In contrast to this, the enactive approach
(Varela et al., 1991) rejects representational account and thus takes anoth-
er branch. It also rejects some other presuppositions of both classical and
connectionist approaches, so in fact if transferred to the tree-metaphor, it
provides a nice example that one has to go several junctions further down
to seek what all three approaches have in common and where the branch-
ing takes place.
The tree-metaphor as model for a particular debate is constructed in
relation to the posed questions and is in this way always contextualized. We
can also interpret it in a kind of Kuhninan way (Kuhn, 1962), seeing inves-
tigations that include small branches and leafs as “normal science”, while
“revolutionary science” happens when we have to design new big branch or
construct a new tree (and conversely we can use it to explain Kuhn’s theo-
ry). In this way it provides a visualization of the main turning points in the
history of research of particular subject.
Although we find the tree metaphor very helpful one has to be careful
not to take it too dogmatic. Namely, taking all the efforts to determine the
branching may constrain new unorthodox ideas. Another difficulty is to
visualize a situation in which branches and leaves overlap and form a kind
of roof on the one or on various trees, if we use them to represent different
disciplinary approaches in an interdisciplinary study. For these situations,
computer visualization that form clouds and may allow us to see patterns
in a larger context, would be useful.
Conclusion
This paper theoretically developed why writing the state-of-the-art section
poses a problem to many novice academic writers. One of the developmen-
tal tasks in learning academic writing is the development of one’s voice in
order to be able to develop and argue a position while acquiring deperso-
nalized academic language. This, together with the common positivist me-
taphor of “finding the gap in the research landscape” for defining resear-
ch question and state-of-the-art lead pose a problem for many students.
We therefore suggested replacing the old metaphor and use two others
for teaching, firstly the “space-metaphor” with the aim of making the stu-
dents understand that the research landscape must be iteratively constru-
cted with the development of the research question. Both are not objecti-
62
