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 i2VHItm26014; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:19:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:19:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <000101c41740$a22b29a0$130101c8@workstation1> 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: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1271] Re: listservs and learning X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 1588 Lines: 28 One of the values of the listservs also, are the archives. Thus, even as many of the posts seem improvisational and off the cuff (and yet, many are not), and even as there may be 3-4 threads going at a time (not typically though on most lists), perhaps the coherency can be found through the pursuit of specific themes drawn from the primary resources of the archives (the historical record of the field speaking to itself, in real-like time). Even still, I agree, that often it has proven difficult to maintain a consistent line of discussion over a significant period of time, which, however, may be partially meliorated by building on various chains of postings in the archives on the key topics. Where I do think more work could take place is in the piecing together and even elaboration of thematic topics that could then get website, that might serve a variety of purposes. There has been some of that on the lists, but I believe more could be done with the rich archival qualitative data base that the field has created in its various real time discourse across geography, programs, positions, and points of view. Of course, other modes of on-line discourse are also valuable. Perhaps it's a matter of both/and (looking at the strengths of the various communication channels for what they offer) rather than either/or. Not that anyone is suggesting either/or. Even still, I want to keep a sharp focus on what the various channels have to offer; one that includes an honored place for off-the cuff improvisation as well as for more deliberative discourse. George Demetrion
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:45 EST