Insights from ecological psychology and dynamical systems theory can underpin a philosophy of coaching

The aim of this paper is to show how principles of ecological psychology and dynamical systems theory can underpin a philosophy of coaching practice in a nonlinear pedagogy. Nonlinear pedagogy is based on a view of the human movement system as a nonlinear dynamical system. We demonstrate how this perspective of the human movement system can aid understanding of skill acquisition processes and underpin practice for sports coaches. We provide a description of nonlinear pedagogy followed by a consideration of some of the fundamental principles of ecological psychology and dynamical systems theory that underpin it as a coaching philosophy. We illustrate how each principle impacts on nonlinear pedagogical coaching practice, demonstrating how each principle can substantiate a framework for the coaching process.

Combining Cartesian and polar coordinates in IBVS

Image-based visual servo (IBVS) is a simple, efficient and robust technique for vision-based control. Although technically a local method in practice it demonstrates almost global convergence. However IBVS performs very poorly for cases that involve large rotations about the optical axis. It is well known that re-parameterizing the problem by using polar, instead of Cartesian coordinates, of feature points overcomes this limitation. First, simulation and experimental results are presented to show the complementarity of these two parameter-izations. We then describe a new hybrid visual servo strategy based on combining polar and Cartesian image Jacobians. © 2009 IEEE.

Theory-of-Mind Continuum Model: Why Mind Matters in Philosophy, Psychology and Education

Theory-of-Mind has been defined as the ability to explain and predict human behaviour by imputing mental states, such as attention, intention, desire, emotion, perception and belief, to the self and others (Astington & Barriault, 2001). Theory-of-Mind study began with Piaget and continued through a tradition of meta-cognitive research projects (Flavell, 2004). A study by Baron-Cohen, Leslie and Frith (1985) of Theory-of-Mind abilities in atypically developing children reported major difficulties experienced by children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in imputing mental states to others. Since then, a wide range of follow-up research has been conducted to confirm these results. Traditional Theory-of-Mind research on ASD has been based on an either-or assumption that Theory-of-Mind is something one either possesses or does not. However, this approach fails to take account of how the ASD population themselves experience Theory-of-Mind. This paper suggests an alternative approach, Theory-of-Mind continuum model, to understand the Theory-of-Mind experience of people with ASD. The Theory-of-Mind continuum model will be developed through a comparison of subjective and objective aspects of mind, and phenomenal and psychological concepts of mind. This paper will demonstrate the importance of balancing qualitative and quantitative research methods in investigating the minds of people with ASD. It will enrich our theoretical understanding of Theory-of-Mind, as well as contain methodological implications for further studies in Theory-of-Mind

Embedding 'philosophy in the classroom' in pre-service teacher education

The holistic conception of the troika, as described in the first chapter, centres on the relationship between the implicit and explicit teaching of values the nurturing of the specific dimensions of quality teaching and the opportunity to ‘walk the talk’ of the values education program through aspects such as practical citizenship (Lovat, Toomey, Clement, Crotty & Nielsen, 2009). It is proposed in this chapter that the conception can be realized through the embedding of Philosophy in the Classroom within pre-service teaching programs. The troika, a Russian sleigh with three horses, only function well when there is complete synergy and balance between all Classroom is a scaffold for ensuring that all three elements of the troika, namely, quality teaching, values education and service learning in the form of education for citizenship, exist within the classroom to achieve an optimal learning, growth and wellbeing for all students. For this to be more widely accomplished Philosophy in the Classroom and discusses how it constitutes a successful synergy and balance of the troika for effective teaching. It then proposes how it might be embedded into pre-service teacher education.

Embracing Philosophy and Raising the Standard of Pre-service Teacher Education Programs

In this chapter, a rationale is developed for incorporating philosophy into teacher training programs as a means of both preparing quality teachers for the 21st century and meeting the expectations detailed in the professional standards established by the statutory authority that regulates the profession in Queensland, the Queensland College of Teaching is presented. Furthermore, in-service teachers from Buranda State School, a Brisbane primary school that has been successfully teaching philosophy to its students for over 10 years, shares their experiences of teaching philosophy and how it has enhanced student learning and the quality of teaching and professionalism of the teachers. Finally, the implications of embedding philosophy into teacher training programs are explored in terms of developing the personal integrity of beginning teachers.

Philosophy, behaviour disorders, and the school

The recent exponential rise in the number of behaviour disorders has been the focus of a wide range of commentaries, ranging from the pedagogic and the administrative, to the sociological, and even the legal. This book will be the first to apply, in a systematic and thorough manner, the ideas of the foundational discipline of philosophy. A number of philosophical tools are applied here, tools arising through the medium of the traditional philosophical debates, such as those concerning governance, truth, logic, ethics, free-will, law and language. Each forms a separate chapter, but together they constitute a comprehensive, rigorous and original insight into what is now an important set of concerns for all those interested in the governance of children. The intention is threefold: first, to demonstrate the utility, accessibility and effectiveness of philosophical ideas within this important academic area. Philosophy does not have to be regarded an arcane and esoteric discipline, with only limited contemporary application, far from it. Second, the book offers a new set of approaches and ideas for both researchers and practitioners within education, a field is in danger of continually using the same ideas, to endlessly repeat the same conclusions. Third, the book offers a viable alternative to the dominant psychological model which increasingly employs pathology as its central rationale for conduct. The book would not only be of interest to mainstream educators, and to those students and academics interested in philosophy, and more specifically, the application of philosophical ideas to educational issues, it would also be an appropriate text for courses on education and difference, and due to the breadth of the philosophical issues addressed, courses on applied philosophy.

The philosophy and practice of water sensitive urban design : is it consistent with a whole system approach

This paper provides a critique of the Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) paradigm by discussing its congruence with an established sustainable design principle called 'whole system design'. It was found that WSUD is congruent with the whole system design approach as a philosophy, but not in practice. Future improvement of WSUD practice may depend on the adoption of a front-loaded, teamwork-based design and planning process that is embedded in the principle of whole system design.

"Are there any right or wrong answers in teaching philosophy": ethics, epistemology, and philosophy in the classroom

This article assesses undergraduate teaching students’ assertion that there are no right and wrong answers in teaching philosophy. When asked questions about their experiences of philosophy in the classroom for primary children, their unanimous declaration that teaching philosophy has ‘no right and wrong answers’ is critically examined across the three sub-disciplinary areas to which they were generally referring, namely, pedagogy, ethics, and epistemology. From a pedagogical point of view, it is argued that some teaching approaches may indeed be more effective than others, and some pupils’ opinions less defensible, but pedagogically, in terms of managing the power relations in the classroom, it is counter-productive to continually insist on notions of truth and falsity at every point. From an ethical point of view, it is contended that anti-realist approaches to meta-ethics may represent a viable intellectual position, but from the point of view of normative ethics, notions of right and wrong still retain significant currency. From an epistemological point of view, it is argued using Karl Poppers’ work that while it may be difficult to determine what constitutes a right answer, determining a wrong one is far more straightforward. In conclusion, it is clear that prospective teachers engaging in philosophy in the classroom, and also future teachers in general, require a far more nuanced philosophical understanding of the notions of right and wrong and truth and falsity. In view of this situation, it we wish to promote the effective teaching of philosophical thinking to children, or produce educators who can understand the conceptual limits of the claims they make and their very real and often serious practical and social consequences, it is recommended that philosophy be reinstated to a fundamental, foundational place within the pre-service teaching curriculum.

Trial by jury in civil proceedings : “convenience” and the philosophy of the UCPR

In Syddall v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited [2008] QSC 101 Daubney J ordered the action be tried without a jury. His judgment considered the circumstances in which a trial involves any technical, scientific or other issue that can not be “conveniently” considered and resolved by a jury as provided in r 474 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.

An Interview with Sylvère Lotringer, Jean Baudrillard Chair at the European Graduate School and Professor Emeritus of French Literature and Philosophy at Columbia University, on the Architectural Contribution to Semiotext(e), Schizoculture, and the Early Deleuze and Guattari Scene at Columbia University

An Interview with Sylvère Lotringer, Jean Baudrillard Chair at the European Graduate School and Professor Emeritus of French Literature and Philosophy at Columbia University, on the Architectural Contribution to Semiotext(e), Schizoculture, and the Early Deleuze and Guattari Scene at Columbia University, which took place at the Department of French, Columbia University, New York City, July 2003. This interview exists as an audio cassette tape recording.