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 j01K8jV25359; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:08:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:08:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <000c01c4f03c$51575b40$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:1843] Re: education and learning 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: 7130 Lines: 138 Hi, Eileen, Terrence, Andrea, others, I want to put some kind of closure on my part in this thread, which started out being perhaps too speculative for some, and has turned out to be too negative for others, or not 'certain' enough (I "suspect" things precisely because I don't know), and certainly not scientific (no, not all research is scientific: a respectable academic paper can be theoretical, or speculative, or philosophical, or opinionated, or...). My goal wasn't to examine the value (or not) of graduate education: just like pd, it's difficult to find those cause/effect correlations, just as it's difficult to find one definition of "quality", because the variables, not to mention the definitions of terms, are too great. And in this kind of science the "observer" plays a part as participant, subject, designer and implementer of the experiment/case study, whatever. I was simply trying to suggest that folks in the humanities or other fields of speculation or critical thinking might not view science, and education, and learning, the same way as education specialists. In fact, while I agree that adult education is "primarily" about the level of functioning raised by improving skills/strategies of reading/writing/speaking, and that many pedagogical methods do represent a great deal of scientific research, that not all learners have the aame styles, or the aame needs, goals, interests, and so measures of success, quality, would vary. And that independent functioning depends not just on raising a certain level on a skills set, but the means of implementing that set in a "critical thinking", decision making, and interpersonal communicative modality. Nor can we nor should we define the goals/needs/interests of the learners for them. I might suggest that good teachers, and good program developers, know this, no matter what graduate education they may have received or how they've developed their expertise: a holistic thinking that goes beyond any one experiment or theory. The unkind remarks about how our programs purport to serve our learners' every need (including spiritual) and can employ any method they desire is beheath the individual who made them, and a condescending attitude to those who are very simply working from the heart, as well as from the intellect, and not from big-bucks-funded major research grants (would that it were so, though perhaps not, given how current situations seem to favor censorship of science). That's all from me. Happy New Year, everyone. And, as Andrea says, "for the cause." 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: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:04 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1833] Re: education and learning Andrea, Thanks for the response, there is lots of food for thought there, and as with Bonnie's ideas it will take some time to process them. One brief (I hope) point on your statement: "It seems to me you may be asking a much narrower question, how do you develop expertise in teaching, and can graduate education help that?" I'm going to answer with a question, more about probing assumptions than really asking you to answer me: Why might one think that a message about the connection or lack thereof between graduate education and "learning" or "facilitating learning" is a "much narrower question" of improving teaching? The whole field, with all the components you listed--"The field is very broad and covers administration, statistics, policy, finance, and many other areas"--can be evaluated by the extent to which each part is organized around and works with the others to support learning as a process and as a goal. I've had opportunities to work in different areas of the field, and in some cases to take on the role of trying to put learning at the center of the process, and it's been my experience that it produces radically different processes and outcomes than does the usual way of working in education. I wish that I could describe it; it's part of the subtext you noticed running through my message, but a lot of it is my own tacit knowledge developed through my own experience and only accessible when something triggers it. I appreciate Emily Goff's message and I'll check out the report she mentioned, and I hope others will join in --if there's anyone else reading this week. Eileen From: AWilder106@aol.com Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1831] Re: education and learning Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:23:53 -0500 (EST) Eileen, Probably most of graduate education in education is not about developing skill as an educator, a teacher. The field is very broad and covers administration, statistics, policy, finance, and many other areas. Many graduates use the degree as a spring board to continue to develop their own professional competence. It seems to me you may be asking a much narrower question, how do you develop expertise in teaching, and can graduate education help that? Of course it can--meaning, of course it is possible. An example: if a teacher knows how to "decode" a student spelling sample, lessons can be directed to the students' strengths while weaknesses are remediated. I learned this when I got my masters, and have seen the lesson applied many times by other teachers to good effect. One can learn to be a better teacher in many ways--everything is grist to the teacher's mill--and graduate education is one way. I finally caught on myself to the utility of credentials, and whenever I got more education I made sure I got credentials to go with the education. Does the same credential mean that all holders have equally valuable and useful educations? Even if all institutions were the same, which they are not, all learners are not the same. As to research, I don't think there is one end point at which all questions are resolved. Teachers have to continue their own learning and education. An example: it used to be thought that you got your full compliment of brain cells when you were born, turns out this is not true, brain cells can regenerate in the hippocampus. The hippocampus is where episodic memories are formed. What does this new understanding have to do with "recovery" from PTSD? Does it affect recovery? Why should an educator want to know? Because PTSD affects the ability to learn. If you are talking about empathy as a learning tool, and you may be, as I think Bonnie is, this can also be trained, both in formal education and through life experience. How in graduate school? By setting up experiences and work that requires its development. I am guessing that many people on the nifl lists have developed empathy through their own life experiences,and this may make them better teachers. I read your last post with interest. I think there is a subtext which goes beyond my simple minded responses to your questions, but I am not sure what it is. Andrea
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:27 EST