Maja Maksimovic

In the following essay I tried to elaborate on the idea of a body as a thinker by explaining the philosophical underpinnings of the movement practice as a way of knowing/making/becoming. By accepting the feminist critique of the epistemological foundations of mainstream education that erase body from the process of knowing, my attempt was to make a movement laboratory to primary school teachers in Portugal, during the meeting of the APECV (Associação de Professores de Expressão e Comunicação Visual). The laboratory focused on the exploration of how movement can be felt before it actualizes (Manning, 2014), how autistic perception that is an inherent characteristic of artful process can be facilitated, and how an expression can emerge in between conciseness and unconsciousness not as an act of free will, but as a continuation of a process of “thinking-with” body (Manning, 2014). In doing so I offered a rational of the background idea of the movement laboratory buy explaining the framework, which is to a great extent influenced by thinking of Erin Manning, but also referring to a poetry as a way of thinking, knowing and relating, and finally offering to a reader direct access to images created by the participants during the lab. I believe that multiplicity can reveal the variety of experience, looking at it through kaleidoscope.

This article focuses on the social dimension of well‐being, based on a critical analysis of the way it is conceptualised in late capitalism: As the dimensions of individual state of mind and body, something that evolves in the individual realm, stressing personal responsibility and achievement of well‐being as a solitary act. Then, the contemporary conceptualisation and approaches to policy making for well‐being are compared with the policy of adult and youth education and learning. The perspective of a strong individual orientation, detachment from the social, community and collective aspects and efforts seem to be a common denominator. Agency is considered not only as a possibility for individuals to create and change the environment, but also as a process of active co‐construction of social reality. This includes (re)connection with a community, very often through new ways of community learning, civic actions and civic activities. An analysis of how these perspectives converge in civic interventions in urban areas of Belgrade places togetherness at the core of the broader approach to well‐being and learning. This article presents several examples of civic activities in urban spaces whose learning character is interpreted within the concept of public pedagogy. The examples presented prevail in the post‐Communist countries because public spaces as zones of civic interventions can oppose the controlling authority and through the fight for human and civil rights represent the bottom line of togetherness and collective agency. Learning through collective civic actions thus provides new ways of understanding well‐being.

Most educational activities are organised around the transmission of information and theories, either in traditional classrooms or through interactive learning methods. The curriculum is predominantly based on abstract thinking about a world which is separated from the self and the community (Dillon, Bayliss, Stolpe and Bayliss, 2008). With a focus on rigorous educational outcomes, the space for mistakes is often reduced to a minimum. Therefore, previous educational experience of adult learners considerably influences their self-esteem and determines their further participation in adult education, thereby making it far from equal.

As an educationalist and practitioner, I am often confronted with the following question: how can we create educational activities that support learners’ self-confidence, which is built through relationships and creative practices? In that sense, a learner would become a maker instead of a knower. This question involves a paradigmatic shift to knowledge that emerges in-between and through building relationships and invention of new spaces and possibilities. A person is engaged holistically – not solely as Brain, but through body and imagination.  This requires being open towards a fundamental rethinking of educational theory and practice.

How can we, as adult educators, support co-creation, complexity and collaborative, creative actions as a framework for development and learning? What can adult education learn from art practices? An example of the educational activity based on art will be briefly presented.

n this paper, I would like to argue for the application of drama in adult education that goes beyond popular role play games and to invite adult educators to re-think drama not as a method, but as an approach to education with epistemological and ontological thinking behind learning methodology. I am particularly interested in this question since I witnessed a misuse of the drama in adult education, which I believe was the consequence of focusing on the activity and “overdoing drama”, but neglecting learning process, inner of learners and group dynamic.

Rad je pokušaj ulaska u neznanje. Nastajao je kroz dijaloški proces dve autorke: naučnice sa dugogodišnjim iskustvom i studentkinje doktorantkinje. Analizirale smo istraživački proces kroz prizmu koncepcije transformativnog učenja. Korišćeni su i koncepti dubinske psihologije koja se zasniva na jungijanskoj filozofiji. Dubinska psihologija je omogućila da ne ostanemo u dominaciji kognitivnog diskursa i kreirala je prostor za ulazak duševnog i telesnog u naučni poduhvat. Unutrašnjosti istraživačkog procesa je pristupljeno pisanjem autoetnografskog narativa u kome su iskazane sumnje i dileme koje su nastajale i prevazilazile se tokom istraživačkog procesa. Verujemo da je izrada doktorske teze transformativan proces i da formulisanje istraživačkog pitanja predstavlja ulazak u limanalnu fazu. Izlaganje nevidljivih aspekata naučnog rada omogućava dublje razumevanje tog procesa, ali i postavlja nova pitanja o samoj poziciji istraživača i nauke.

The paper analyzes the approach of international organizations (World Bank, OECD, UNESCO and the European Union), to the concept of quality of adult education through an analysis of current documents that are directly or indirectly related to quality issues. By using critical discourse analysis and focusing on language and terminology of the texts, we came to the conclusion
that the current concept of adult education quality was developed within the economic narrative where the purpose of education was seen in the growth of productivity through skills development. This paper provides a possible answer to the question: does the rhetoric of international documents is an indication of the final capitulation of educational paradigm, or it is just adjustment to the ongoing global crisis?

Abstract: Learning theories create discourses through which power relations might be reproduced and maintained in educational activities. Including answers to the questions
“what is knowledge” and “who owns it”, they can preserve authoritarianism in education and determine an approach to teaching and learning. The previous two questions are the
criteria for the comparison of the two widely accepted learning theories, transformative learning theory and conception of metacognition and self-regulation. A deeper analysis of the research question has been done by exploring the ideas of feminist epistemology and Foucault’s perspective of power relations. The main objective of this paper is not to provide a new conception, but to illustrate the importance of analysis and deconstruction of “truth” that is implicit in the explored theories. The possible contribution of this work is to draw attention to the ideologies that these theories are based on and to understand
power relations and the ways they have being reproduced through language.

Key words: power relations, learning theories, epistemological assumptions, adult education.

The paper represents authors’ struggle to comprehend the process of transformative learning and it is written in a form of dialog between three authors who express their ideas, experiences, personal narratives and doubts. This way of writing is in accordance with main assumption that transformation
in its core is relational. Therefore, authors’ ideas and stories were provoked, challenged, and co-created

Apstrakt: U ovom radu želimo da razmotrimo temeljne pretpostavke na kojima se istraživački rad u oblasti obrazovanja i učenja odraslih zasniva: naša uverenja o stvarnosti (ontologija) i naša uverenja o saznavanju unutar te stvarnosti (epistemologija). Ova uverenja neminovno oblikuju čovekove odluke koje usmeravaju njegove aktivnosti i uopšte angažovanje u svetu koji ga okružuje, pa tako i u samom planiranju i realizaciji naučnog  istraživanja. U tom kontekstu, razumevanje bar nekih od tih uverenja, postavlja se kao ključno za efektivnu kritiku i primenu rezultata istraživanja, a sve u cilju poboljšanja obrazovne prakse, kao i teorijskom razmatranju njene opravdanosti.

Rad predstavlja pokušaj da se ukaže na savremene probleme koji postoje na relaciji kvaliteta i praticipacije u obrazovanju, kao i u odnosu aktivnog učenja i participacije u obrazovanju. Pokušali
smo da postavimo relevantna pitanja i rasvetlimo deo postojeće nesjedinjenosti u odnosima koji postoje između navedenih ključnih komponenti procesa obrazovanja i učenja. Neki od
pojedinih ,,sivih tačaka“ obrazovanja jesu nedovoljna konceptualna utemeljenost kvaliteta obrazovanja,
kao i njegova nerazgraničenost u odnosu na problematiku pristupa aktivnog učenja i participacije. Takođe, u postojećoj obrazovnoj politici i praksi postoji ozbiljna prepreka uspostavljanja veze između navedenih pojmova, tim pre, što se neki uobičajeno mere kvantitativno dok se drugi ocenjuju kvalitativno. Nije retkost da kreatori obrazovnih politika definišući participaciju misle i na kvalitet, ocenjujući pri tome uspešnost politike samo na osnovu numeričkih podataka o broju osoba koje su završile proces obrazovanja bez ulaska u problematiku kvaliteta dostignutog obrazovanja, ali i samog procesa učenja. Smatramo da i uzimanje u obzir kvaliteta obrazovanja usmerenog samo na ishode obrazovanja može ugroziti napore za uspostavljanjem aktivnih procesa učenja koji kreiraju tanane i statistički nemerljive potencijale za buduće učenje.
Svedenost na ,,obrazovne minimume“ redukuje politike obrazovanja koje posledično redukuju procese u kojima se ličnost svodi na vidljivo i objektivizirajuće. Naša je želja da ukažemo na opasnost da kreirajući takve standarde u obrazovanju možemo upasti u zamku proizvodnje minimuma,
ostavljajući tako nezadovoljene različite obrazovne potrebe ali i negativne stavove o obrazovanju za sobom, koje ostavljaju tragove na daljem razvoju ličnosti i društva.

The aim of the paper is to outline basic postulates of critical discourse analysis, as well as to clarify important concepts and their multiple meanings – language, ideology, and discourse. Some current dilemmas surrounding critical discourse analysis are presented, and an example of the application of this research methodology on the example of
lifelong learning will be given. The concept of lifelong learning has been analyzed in the context of power relations on a global level and benefits of this dominant political discourse to adult education profession are questioned. Critical discourse analysis has been applied in order to identify naturalised assumptions, and the research methodology is
enriched with historical approach in order to offer a better understanding of the dominant ideologies that shaped development of lifelong learning and to map the influence of the concept on current educational policies.

In his seminal 1984 examination of the postmodern condition and the nature of knowledge in what was seen as a (Western) society entering a post-industrial era, Lyotard noted that knowledge had become valorized, a currency that enabled the individual to become an economic subject and enter into a social contract – an observation that constructs an individual at the turn of the century as encapsulating the interlinking spheres of educational, economic, and political. Another important
point concerned the function of knowledge in a system (society, state) realised through the means of its legitimation: the legitimacy of knowledge had now become underlined by a technological, rather than a normative rationality. In other words, the running of a societal eco-system was now not driven by questions of what is right, just, or moral, but of how to achieve optimal levels of performativity and efficiency.
Travel some 20 years into the future, and authors such as Novoa (2007) bemoan the discourse of the “obvious” in European (adult) education policy, based around topoi of efficiency, rigor, accountability, and benchmarking, steering competitiveness (in performance) among nation states and equating citizenship with employability for their denizens, a discourse created by a diffuse body of “neutral” experts, the latter ensuring its legitimacy and authority. This is the discourse intended to create a 21st century European: a “learning” European, ever since the 2000 Lisbon Agenda recognised (adult) education as a key resource for
the (economic) development of European Union and its member states.
The focus of this paper will not be a critical examination of the contemporary European adult education policy, which has been done profusely and persuasively by various colleagues in recent years (see, e.g. Jarvis, 2014; Mohorčič Špolar et al., 2014; Popović, 2014; Popović & Maksimović, 2012), but rather its effects on policy (learning1) in contexts which have a significant tradition of constructing an alternative adult education discourse. We will discuss here the assumptions
underlying the current transfer of educational discourse (Silova, 2004; SteinerKhamsi, 2004) in adult education policy in Serbia, an EU candidate country, following a disruption and (dis)continuation of an earlier narrative, in the country’s efforts to shed the epithet of the Other, and finally become European.

Dominant paradigms in academic research, theory and history of adult
education are not explored enough in the current European academic discourse. Postmodern and feminist orientated researchers have questioned heteronormative tradition of knowing, but adult education theories still do not sufficiently tackle gender constructed concepts and approaches. Adult education research suffered from slighting gender and women in three basic ways: deletion of women (as individual
subjects and as a notion) from the history of research and philosophy of adult education, domination of androcentrism in epistemology and misunderstanding of gender perspective and overemphasizing heteronormative differences (placing females in opposition to men) in research methodology and data interpretation, which reproduces
dualism and binary positions while underestimating social dimension of
gender identities.