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 iBHJncs04707; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:49:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:49:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <003201c4e470$48470320$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:1820] RE: research and pd 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: 5147 Lines: 92 Hi, Eileen, I really had to reflect on that question. In fact, my allusion to "expert" referred to those of you whose field in which you have advanced degrees is education (or adult education, or ESL, or whatever). I often feel that, coming through the Humanities, I've come in through some kind of "back door," and I've felt very un-at-home with things education specialists have through their training come to take for granted: lesson plans, rubrics, quantifiable assessments (bulletin boards!). I feel very un-scientific when I teach. My training in the humanities has taught me how to observe, yes, but very often not quantifiably, or measurably. I'm taught how to break texts down for analysis (and most recently I've been learning how to teach writing skills by breaking those down into component parts in a composition/rhetoric framework). So I do lesson plans, have goals and objectives and skills acquired, and methodologies, and, yes, even assessments: competencies, tasks, embedded skills, and perhaps even rubrics. But in terms of determining "what works" I feel very much at a loss. I'm trained also to look at nuance, ambiguity, contradiction, how the political/economic/social networks might inform a text, its vocabulary, its grammar, intrinsic values. I'm trained to go with a student when he/she gets involved, to respond to his/her needs, goals, and interests, as well as to look for some "intrinsic" learning. some kind of 'why we're doing this' kind of question: what touches the deepest parts of ourselves? What makes us grow, even when it's uncomfortable, or counter-intuitive? What causes us to stay in our comfort zone? what restlessness keeps us going ever deeper? I tend to look holistically, and not analytically, at a teaching/learning situation. And lest these tendencies incur the charge "unscientific," I would ask, "what kind of science?" The kind of hypothesis, experiment, verification (or not), new hypothesis ad infinitum, or the kind of paradigm shift, Newton/Einstein, the kind where the presence of the observer influences what is observed, where a butterfly in Beijing affects a hurricane in the US, the kind where time and space are interdependent, where cosmology meets astrophysics meets fractals meets spirituality. Yes, I feel we must challenge ourselves, thoughtfully, deliberately. And when I recalled a humanities/social science debate, I remember also how useless and ultimately meaningless it seemed, and yet passions ran high. I don't propose assigning what we do a discipline or field: I believe it is, and must be, cross-disciplinary. We position ourselves at those intersections where, as we so often say, people fall through the gaps. Where social and economic systems, education systems and methodologies, and even value systems, seem not to be working. Where we see what we do as inadequate or too little too late, and WE DO IT ANYWAY, because in some sense we're called to do it by a restlessness that doesn't accept wherever we are, but wants to go further, probe deeper, move on. We don't see our students as undereducated or even underserved, but that their potential, their latent "capital" as someone put it, is underutilized. And yet if it were to be exploited, if students were to find a place to thrive and grow, would they then continue to be exploited? And we can pose the same question to ourselves, as professionals, in whatever fields we care to identify. Not quite a note, sorry. Warmest Regards, Bonnie Odiorne Ph.D English Language Institute, Writing Center Post University, Waterbury, CT -----Original Message----- From: nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Eileen Eckert Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 12:51 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1819] RE: research and pd Hi Bonnie, In keeping with the idea of literacy studies, and literacy practices, and literacy education as complex systems, maybe we should just describe how different disciplinary frameworks can be useful to understanding them, and not have the goal of assigning them one particular academic/research "home." I'm not familiar with the humanities to talk about that; I'd be interested in hearing more. By the way, what "experts" would you leave this to? That's kind of a facetious question, but seriously, it seems to me that in order to have adult literacy reflect and respond to the needs of its participants, teachers, students, and front line administrators need to be more deliberate and reflective about just what it is we believe and how we know whether and why it works. I don't think we can leave it to outside experts. To clarify, I also don't think we need to come to consensus. As long as we challenge and support each other to think critically and rigorously in whatever tradition, I think we should be as open and inclusive as possible. That doesn't mean embracing whatever fad is next to come along; it means not excluding rigorous and critical thinking because "that's not how we do things." Could you talk about how your academic and research background in the humanities informs your understanding and practice? Thanks, Eileen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:01 EST