Yes,
The analogy of tennis is so helpful.....I hopoe we can
lasso some of the standards/rules/criteria that have
been emerging.
Regards
Brian
--- Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 2007, at 12:42, Alan Rayner wrote:
>
> > Linguistic totalitarianism (preservation of
> favoured codes in the
> > struggle for influence)is potentially stultifying
> (e.g. what I
> > regard as the 'Dalekization' of scientific
> language) as with any
> > other hegemonic practice that produces
> monoculture. Perhaps
> > acceptance of diverse forms of expression, and a
> willingness to
> > work with them in a spirit of creative curiosity,
> enquiry and
> > compassion, is a hallmark of living (evolutionary)
> educational
> > 'standards' and 'practice'.
> >
> > This is not to say that authors should ignore
> their audience and
> > not bother to attune their transmission with their
> potential
> > reception; more that there is a need for more
> qualities of patience
> > and allowance and respect and enjoyment in all
> directions if truly
> > creative, appreciative conversation is to be
> possible. When a
> > totalitarian audience meets a totalitarian
> communicator, the result
> > is dictatorship. Know-what-I-mean?
>
> Dear All - at the plenary of the First World
> Congress on Action
> Learning, Action Research and Process Management in
> 1990, Colin Henry
> made an impressive contribution entitled 'If Action
> Research were
> Tennis'. He argued that if we are playing a game we
> need to know the
> rules that constitute the game. Without
> understanding these rules we
> can't begin to understand what constitutes a world
> class/leading game
> of tennis. I believe that educational research and
> the evaluation of
> the quality of contributions to educational
> knowledge do require some
> criteria/rules/standards so that we can recognise
> which 'game' we are
> playing. It might be helpful to start exploring
> carefully with each
> other how we recognise that we are contributing to a
> forum on
> educational research. For example, Alan suggests
> that an acceptance
> of diverse forms of expression and a willingness to
> work them in a
> spirit of curiosity, enquiry and compassion, is a
> hallmark of living
> (evolutionary) educational 'standards' and
> 'practice'. I agree with
> these qualities as being those that help to
> constitute living
> (evolutionary) educational standards, practice and
> theory. However,
> before I can recognise something as educational, I
> need to see that
> learning has emerged from the expression of
> acceptance, enquiry and
> compassion. So, for me, learning is one of the
> minimum requirements
> in my recognition of something as educational. For
> me to recognise
> something as educational research that is
> contributing to educational
> theory I need to see evidence-based explanations of
> learning. I'm
> curious to hear if you think that learning is a
> minimum requirement
> in your recognition of something as educational? Do
> you have other
> minimum (necessary) requirements in your recognition
> of something as
> educational?
>
> Love Jack.
>
>
>
Brian E. Wakeman
Education adviser
Dunstable
Beds
|