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 i53JJL918694; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:19:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:19:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <004801c4499e$a522d3c0$0302a8c0@albyny.adelphia.net> 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: "Bonnie Odiorne" <bonniesophia@adelphia.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1471] RE: : What causes us to change? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 6631 Lines: 132 I can only add my personal take and benefit from the wonderful comments that have gone before. I'm interested in the difference between developmental and transformative change, and also that between critical openness and relativism. I think that so very often what causes us to change is so locked up in our own personal/emotionaal/spiritual development, thus the "metaphysical" question, which I take to be metacognitive, of at what point does self-reflection lead to action. I'm less inclined to George's model of idea formation through experimentation. I do believe that some kind of "cognitive dissonance" leads most of us to change, since for most of us, change doesn't come easy, or quickly. Nor is it often transformative. For me the "press of circumstances" that initially led me to want to broaden my horizons was a discontent with the seemingly limited perspectives of a particular situation, and there I was simply casting about, trying out different things, to see if anything "worked" sufficiently to have it adopted in the co-practitioner program development model. I have benefited from a great deal of collegial feedback, but very little in the sense of formal collaboration within a program: I've had rather too much automomy, perhaps. I also believe that in the course of the above personal/emotional/spiritual development, there might come that timely spark that causes a "click." I know a spiritual practitioner who suggests that what comes into our practice associatively is passing, but if one experiencess a "click", an experiential "owning" of the stimulus (idea, pd event, whatever) then the transformative change will occur; it would seem to me that without that, the "developmental" change might not stick. On a happier note, I have also experienced transformative change from developing a new program "from scratch": there the "press of circumstance" was the necessity of putting something together that was viable and could solidify a lot of the change that had gone before. There the press of circumstance was evaluation from within and without the program. Finally, the "press of circumstance" can come from learner lack of response and/or discontent, i.e. when it's clear something's not working. It's there that I have to remember all my participatory training, and my conviction that my learners and I are engaged in a transformative experience that might be painful for them and for me: it's unsettling for learners in their desperation to find that the one who's supposed to give them "answers" doesn't "know it all," not does she want or pretend to. I was interested how learners (and ourselves, I'd suspect) might progress from dogmatism straight to relativism, without the critical openness, emphasis on the word critical. In other words, without doing the self-reflection or testing out of ideas that would contribute to systematic, integrative change. A question of "talking the talk" but not "walking the walk?" Warmest Regards, Bonnie Odiorne Ph.D ESL Instructor, Teikyo Post University -----Original Message----- From: nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of jataylor Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 9:37 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1459] RE: : What causes us to change? Hello everyone! Eileen asked about exploring the causes change while we examine the research, and several of us noted the complex interactions of factors influencing change. From your own experiences, what other factors are involved in leading to lasting change? George, regarding the causes of change, you write, "In terms of pd, it was a combination of evolution, discovery, paying attention to a hunch that beckoned me, but wouldn't have gone too far unless I acted upon it, active experimentation, reading, and discussion with others." I hear you saying that thinking change does not go too far unless it is acted upon. Is this correct? If so, what do you and others think it is about taking action that seems to facilitate lasting change? Bonnie, you write, "I'm perhaps more likely to experience transforming change through the press of circumstances than any one "technique": in other words, if I need it, I adopt it. This includes ease with technology, different attitudes toward the role of the teacher, and (I wish I did this more) rubrics and other tools for documenting performative progress and benchmarks." Will you tell us more about the press of circumstances and also what you mean by different attitudes toward the role of teacher? What do you or others think how attitudes toward the role of teacher may affect change? Thanks, Jackie >===== Original Message From nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov ===== >In conjunction with looking at changes that result from pd (or don't), >maybe we should reflect on what does cause us to change, as Bonnie did. >Can we somehow weave the two together? > >Eileen > >Yes, that seems to be the core question. The short answer is many >things. > >For me, it's more of an assimilation of many resources, plus some new >conception that has a bearing of truth to it and then the living it out >through active experimentation in actual situations. > >I think of my shift (gradual) from a very strong advocate of whole >language to that of advocating balanced reading theory. Victoria >Purcell-Gates' FOB 97 article was very influential, but it was because >what she said (and what I drew from it) resonated with something I had >been grappling with, which then clicked. What particularly stood out for >me was the way she described balanced reading theory in a manner that >could appeal both to the phonemic and whole language folks, indicating >the pluralism and tension inherent within the concept that gave it its >dynamism. That left room for a lot of flexibility in application of the >model, while providing a conceptual tool to think through how learning to >read takes place. While I continue to gravitate to the whole language >continuum of balanced theory, this new concept better enabled me to >integrate basic skill application in my teaching in which I freely go >back and forth from isolated skill work to integrated texts. The goal in >all of this for me, is to help learners make valid inferences as they're >trying to figure out how to read a text and to provide an opportunity for >sustained practice with relatively small amounts of material. > >In terms of pd, it was a combination of evolution, discovery, paying >attention to a hunch that beckoned me, but wouldn't have gone too far >unless I acted upon it, active experimentation, reading, and discussi on >with others. > >George Demetrion
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:51 EST