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 i54DgW925927; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <002901c44a38$fd087370$96d7c043@ReflectionPool> 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: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king@verizon.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1477] RE: : What causes us to change? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 13704 Lines: 288 Hello Bonnie: This is long, however, I am answering your questions you developed in your note: You say: "I'm interested in the difference between developmental and transformative change, and also that between critical openness and relativism." And you ask about the movement from dogmatism to relativism. Perhaps someone who studies Mezirow's work on transformative change can develop his theoretical distinctions here. However, drawing from the philosopher Bernard Lonergan's work, as well as Emil Piscitelli and my own, transformation is a part of development. That is, in this set of terms, development accounts for the normative movement of, say, an acorn to an oak tree, or a child to an adult; and transformation refers to the dynamism of distinct moments in the developmental processes. For seeds, it would be the transformation that occurs as rather regular growth happens under the right conditions, which can be seen in the physical processes of humans also. But for humans, development also refers to consciousness, and conscious transformation depends on having insights--learning. Such transformative processes are conditional, highly contingent, and refer to various degrees of import. Thus we can have an insight about where we lost our keys, and we can have an insight that turns us upside down in our entire existence and widens our horizons so that we can "see" what we couldn't see before; and many degrees of insights in-between. Also, you ask about the different between critical openness and relativism, and both (and dogmatism) have to do with our attitude towards knowing. As such, these refer to our philosophical foundations and, as such, "feed" all of our learning processes before we get to the subject matter. They also refer to our attitude towards belief. At the very least, a person who has critical openness clearly distinguishes between what they believe, between reasonable beliefs, and what they can claim to know--via having reasonable evidence and being able to enter the dialogue with a full account of what we claim as known. Certainly teachers, who live in the world of knowledge, should all be critically open and critical knowers in this sense, which means to be able to give the argument, but also be open to new meaning about such arguments as the dialogue continues. It also means to know when we do not know, and to be content to wait for evidence--not claiming to know if we, in fact, do not. On the other hand, relativism and dogmatism "key" off of critical openness. Dogmatism confuses "what I believe" with true knowledge and, further, confuses making judgments with having adequate meaning to fill in those judgments. In our dogmatism, we love to say "I know," but we fail to really understand the meaning behind those judgments. In our dogmatism, we are "closed minded," and our hard judgments preclude the raising of any questions that would break the hard-shell of our thinking, even in our own selves--so we are at odds with ourselves even in our own spirits. In fact, in the very dogmatic person, raising new questions against our dogmatic judgments is anathema to our very being. And we often "kill the messenger" who raises such questions with our ire, because if we entertain such questions, we might have to break the shell of our judgments and find that we really do not understand anything at all and cannot enter the argument towards understanding as the critically open person looks forward to doing--on principle. And here the answer to your other question about how dogmatism moves to relativism becomes clear. This movement occurs when the dogmatic person's judgments are challenged (like in a classroom where we cannot run away and are forced to face our own ignorance). Here, we find that our un-thought-out judgments do not hold water and we experience a deflating of spirit. In these crucial moments, we <could> move from dogmatism to critical openness--because the "critical" part of this attitude needs our willingness to make judgments that the dogmatism in us is so willing to do. However, we often move to relativism instead. That is, the thinking goes like this: If my judgments don't hold up, and if I experience such deflation when I make judgments, and someone counters them with a good argument, or asks me to (God forbid) explain (meaning) why I hold such judgments, then I just won't make any judgments at all. And no one will accept "because I said so" as an answer. In the relativist stance, instead of having <no> meaning as the dogmatist does, we think we can never get <enough> meaning to make a judgment. Our judgments, if we do make them, are riddled with "fear of being wrong." And so our language moves from certainty, to "But what if . . . " and, "Who's to say?" and ultimately, there is no truth and knowledge is a purely "relative" thing. Of course, like the needed judgments of dogmatism, so relativism has a need--an exploration of meaning. The problem with the dogmatist, then, is that we have judgment with no meaning; and the problem with the relativist is that we have endless meaning, but no judgment/truth/ knowledge. The critically open person has what is right about both dogmatism (a willingness to make judgments based on reasonable evidence) and relativism (a willingness to explore and wait for meaning before making such judgments). On the other hand, the critically open person refuses to make too-quick judgments just because it feels so good to know (or to give the impression of knowing) or judgments based on ill-conceived belief, and refuses to <fail to make and claim judgments> when enough evidence is available to do so. I hope this is clear; and I do think there is a place for such a philosophical dialogue among teachers who, of all people, are involved with knowing. Also, I did not mean "meta-cognitive," when I spoke of "metaphysical." Though there is an aspect of the cognitive involved with the realities of the classroom. In this sense, I was speaking of the actual objectivity of the relationship that exists between teachers and students. That is, there is no fixed data, and the teacher must mediate theory into the details of the classroom and the student in each and every case. But of course, if we cannot make judgments about truth and reality in principle, then everything is merely "meta-cognitive." We won't fix the philosophical problems of the entire field of education here; however, the problems do come clear with the form and assumptions of your questions? Regards, Catherine B. King ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bonnie Odiorne" <bonniesophia@adelphia.net> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:19 PM Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1471] RE: : What causes us to change? > 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