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 i55F5P914769; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 11:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 11:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20040605.110153.6398.0.socrates555@juno.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: "George E. Demetrion" <socrates555@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1478] <gdemetrion@msn.com>: re: what causes us to change X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 5598 Lines: 96 >From Bonnie Ordionne 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. Hi Bonnie, I agree with much of what you're saying here. Where I make the distinction is in the press of circumstances and cognitive dissonance being that which often kicks in that which becomes ultimately an articulately stated problem, which then requires some type of progressive of proximate resolution. Though typically more so in formal research than in practice, it is in the working out of the problem that the experimentation, data analysis, and emergent hypothesis formation takes on a functional role, though even here, the press of the problem (along with felt perceptions of emergent resolution or, for that mater, the relative endurance of the problematic situation) remains central. Thus, in working with and through the concept of balance reading theory, I may experience a variety of incongruities. These might include persisting problems students may have in being able to pronounce certain words or syllables that we have gone over numerous times. Or in the difficulty they may be having in their placing what may have been learned in one lesson into their long-term memory. Or in the relative effectiveness of the assisted reading approach as a way of helping students to deal with connected text. Or in the importance of context, or the centrality of the scaffolding framework in enabling students to sustain fluent effort. Or whether the central pedagogical goal is to work primarily through the scaffold rather than pushing hard on having students focus on what they know and can do in a more purely independent way. Or, in a given lesson, I may be grappling with whether to focus more on basic reading skill development work, including the mastery of fluent reading, or whether to concentrate more on comprehension and meaning. All of these various options come into play in my teaching, which I sift through not only in terms of how students are reacting, or based on my history with them, though that teaching/learning work is part of the ongoing experiment itself. What also comes into play is what I have been reading or thinking about, whether or not that is related to reading theory or literacy. And, even on the balanced theory of reading, Purcell-Gates is more pluralistic in defining the parameters of the theory than Michael Pressley seems to be in his very strong bias toward the value of systematic phonemic work. Then I process even that observation with the knowledge that Pressley worked closely with Marilyn Adams in a recent research project, which may have influenced his tilting toward the phonemic pole of balanced reading theory whereas Purcell-Gates sees it as a continuum in which neither the phonemic or the whole language pole has foundational legitimacy. That then taps into my reading of Dewey who places a strong emphasis on inference making as the underlying pedagogical principle undergirding learning, when such inference making is grounded in an effective control design. All this is playing out while I'm teaching and while I'm listening to what others have to say about reading. So, at least as I see it, whether we are speaking of research, professional development, teaching, or learning, several things seem to be at play. Certainly as you have it, and I also, some type of problem, cognitive dissonance, or whatever, acts as a stimulus that evokes the search for some reasonable type of resolution. We speculate by forming tentative ideas, we look at the data which has some bearing on the problem, we experiment or play around with both the data and the emergent ideas. We think about it some more during and after the experience. We talk to others, we read some, we experiment again, we get a bit more understanding, which then gives better shape to our experientially-based, data rich theory formation. We then reflect back on the formal literature on what Presley, Pearson, Purcell-Gates and others say about balanced reading theory. Perhaps we associate our views with one of the writers more than another. Perhaps we take a little bit from each and add our own, or perhaps we make a breakthrough and say something novel which may either build on the theory or raise very perplexing issues about it. Then we go back to work on Monday and start all over again, where, because of the press of life itself, the problematic remains embedded in the experimental-theoretical postulates formed. This may seem perpetually recursive, which in a sense it is. Still, tentative stabilities in our thinking and practice emerge from time to time that allow for some reasonable constructions to take place both on how adults read and also on the definition of literacy, as well as something on the relationship between reading and literacy, which are not the same thing, unless reading is defined as reading the world from the get go. Thus, that brings us to the issue that Elsa raised about the role of ideology in shaping that which we even define as a problem. George Demetrion
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:51 EST