Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id hA3GVxV23410; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:32:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:32:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <Sea2-F16QfelvAbUTuU00020e9d@hotmail.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:797] Re: PD and statewide curriculum change X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 4041 Lines: 66 I don't know if you're still on the list, Dennis, now that the guest week's over, but this is when I had time to write more, so this is to everyone: A theme that stands out for me in curriculum and professional development is that of imposing change from without or generating change from within. The advantage of being forced to consider something outside the current mental model is that it can stimulate self-reflection and improvement by one's own evaluation, as was the case with Dennis in the statement: "On a personal level, because I also teach, my change process has evolved. Primarily I tried, at first, to see how the new curriculum guidelines would fit into what I was already doing (and thought was working pretty well). After that I started to modify other lessons, activities, and gradually shift to things that better aligned with the guidelines. One thing I found is that while I was evolving I had a need to better explain to students what the value was of our daily activities. This has made me be more reflective about the value of certain things to the consumer of my teaching. Indeed I'd say that I moved from teaching for learning to more of asking what do I need to do to achieve the learning desired on the part of the learner. This requires not only official assessment feedback but oral and written information. I find myself asking, at the end of nearly every class or workship, so what did you get out of this lesson? How can you apply this in your life? What didn't make sense? I get constant and direct feedback that allows for adjustments both large and small." The disadvantage with choosing a framework or set of standards is that it might not be an improvement for everyone. Whether it is or not, if they don't see it that way, resistance is likely to win out. When in 1999-2000 my program got an outcomes assessment grant to incorporate EFF and outcomes assessments into our curriculum, several teachers figuratively crossed their arms, sat back, and decided to just wait it out. They'd seen other initiatives come and go. And sure enough, the next year the college administration decided they didn't want to allocate the funding to follow up on the great work of the teachers who had chosen to participate. It had nothing to do with the level of participation; it was the result of the "turn-taking" approach to outcomes funding. We'd had our turn, and it was over. I know at least one teacher, besides me, who found the work valuable enough to incorporate and further develop it, but I think the curriculum development was mostly an exercise in paperwork--was that a good use of funding? If we weren't going to make the investment to really see the changes through, should we have just not started in the first place? As Dennis said, "getting teacher buy-in and having these changes reach the actual classroom is even more demanding. Simply saying we now have outcome based guidelines and have everyone just do it won't work without associated professional development." Since our efforts were not sustained, teachers who sat it out kept doing things the way they always had, and any changes in curricula were not uniformly implemented. Anyone else feel some conflict about the value of improvements that are forced, even in the most benevolent of dictatorial fashions, rather than brought about in a way that respects and values the perspectives of teachers and learners more? Or about the value of "improvements" that are supported in the beginning, but then not carried through? As I read back, I think I'm mixing up some issues here. I'm going to go ahead an post the message anyway, as I think learning often comes from confronting "ill-structured problems" and this is one of those! Anyone want to help clarify? Eileen _________________________________________________________________ Cheer a special someone with a fun Halloween eCard from American Greetings! Go to http://www.msn.americangreetings.com/index_msn.pd?source=msne134
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:15:23 EST