Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g4THLhO28140; Wed, 29 May 2002 13:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <42.27d756d3.2a2667cb@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: PDRNRI@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2159] Re: working within the big picture X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 28 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: RO Content-Length: 1978 Lines: 35 I'm jumping into the middle of a broader discussion here, so forgive me if my response to Eileen's post is missing the mark. Ken Wilber likes to borrow the term "Holon" (from Arthur Koestler) to refer to anything which can be considered a whole in one context but a part of a larger whole in another. Wilber suggests that all processes which we view as distinct, separate events through our tendency to categorize/concentrate attention are in fact processes within larger processes. Thus the student/teacher interaction may be viewed as a whole, or viewed as part of the larger whole of classroom interaction. Classroom interaction may be viewed within the context of program process, program process within ABE field, and so on outward in an infinite progression. I think that as a rule, its always good to stretch our analysis classroom work to include forces at work in larger contexts, because our work exists as elements of those larger processes. The "ecologies" Sheckley and Keeton identify exist within larger ecologies, and as such are defined in part by forces at work outside of our areas of concentrated attention. While there may indeed be teachers doing great work with EFF without program support (in part, no doubt, because they receive support from other points in the field, such as this listserv) we can be certain that their work would be affected by changes in the way the program addresses EFF. I would assume that a supportive program would only strengthen the teacher's effort. Given that forces in and beyond the field throw up so many barriers to the kind of collaborative work Smith et. al. call for, a strategic effort to bypass unwilling programs, state administrators, etc., and interact directly with teachers may be a useful initial strategy. But it would be a mistake to stop there. Broadening our own areas of attention, and encouraging teachers and learners to do the same, is critical. David Hayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:45:29 EST