Touche. My spelling (or eyesight) skills obviously leave something to be desired, but if one used context clues, one could have deciphered my meaning, or gone back to that website that was cited a while ago. 
Thanks for the alert correction of a possible misperception. My apologies.
Bonnie Odiorne, Ph.D., Director, Writing Center, Professor
Post University



----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Kaufmann <steve at thelinguist.com>
To: The Adult Literacy Professional Development Discussion List <professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:52:02 PM
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 2303] Re: On dialogue and critical thinking

Is hegomony the same as hegemony, or is it a new term? I have never seen this term before.


On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Bonnie Odiorne <bonniesophia at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I don't understand from what perspective Steve is coming. I don't deny that there is without doubt a subtext of both hegomony and power in these discussions, as Brookfield would put it. Hegomony, i.e. what we "believe to be so" without consciously questioining it, and power, the unspoken presence of institutions, employers, funders, regulatory agencies. So are we reduced to saying that this listerve and all like it is a sham, a pretense of dialogue, of true inquiry? My believe is that it is not. I, being aware of these forces, do try to navigate among them when they might impact my self interest, but other that that, and perhaps that's bigger than I'd like to acknowledge, I think I sincerely play with ideas, think out loud, take input from others and file it for future use,or use it immediately in my professional practice. I believe that many of the results of these dialogues might not be seen on the screen, but in our classrooms, offices: where, as PDs
 so often bemoan, we try to put our learning into practice. Of course we find common ground: isn't that what "best practices" is all about? Of course we disagree: don't we have our own particular perspectives, backgrounds, assumptions? But we do, and must, on a moderated listserve, maintain a degree of collegiality that is the essence of professional discourse, and if we attempt, as Jackie says, to "suspend our assumption," and be open to being convinced of a contrary point of view, or perhaps, find that that "contrary" really isn't..... This is how we all, students or instructors, learn and grow in critical thinking. And, btw, I believe that low-level language learners are practicing critical thinking with every language decision they make. And, as linguistics know, each language decision in a given sentence limits the choices of what can follow, and so decisions cannot be made lightly.
Best,
Bonnie Odiorne, Ph.D. Professor, Writing Center, Post University
----- Original Message ----
From: "Taylor, Jackie" <jataylor at utk.edu>

To: The Adult Literacy Professional Development Discussion List <professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov>

Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 7:29:42 PM
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 2275] On dialogue and critical thinking


Hi Steve, (All)
 
You wrote:
 
"Unfortunately, the recent trend in educational circles seems to favour "dialoguing", whereby we pretend to agree with whatever is said, and look for points that we have in common, and should avoid trying to persuade anyone of one's point of view. This leads to a sterile discussion. It only works if everyone actually does agree, or if contrary views can be suppressed.."
 
I disagree with how you are characterizing dialogue. Do you mean to equate dialogue with some type of cooperation or consensus, or group think..? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) 
 
I believe dialogue is about presenting one's point of view, but then looking for meaning, suspending assumptions (i.e. suspend as in to hold out assumptions and examine them), being open to changing one's position… Dialogue and the knowledge constructed as a result are greater than the sum of its parts and what is constructed is only as rich as the diverse perspectives brought to the table. It depends on seeking authentic meaning and a 'safe space' so that individuals feel comfortable expressing their views (thus eliciting more diverse perspectives). It does include finding common ground, but I see it as being more about constructing new knowledge, attitudes, and the group dynamics needed for that construction. 
 
And what does this have to do with critical thinking and student involvement?
 
One uses critical thinking in dialogue. What does "the other" mean by what she said? How is what I'm saying reflected in the other's position? How is it not? How might I understand the other better? What are the "right questions" I need to ask in order to do that? All too often I think we are afraid to "ask back" for fear of appearing somehow "less than" or as if one might "not know" what the other means.
 
It also levels the playing field and the instructor or facilitator is not perceived as "the expert" with all the answers; both students and instructors have expertise to contribute. It would be interesting, I think, to explore strategies for facilitating dialogue vs. debate.
 
As always, I welcome others' thoughts.
 
Best, Jackie
 
Jackie Taylor
jataylor at utk.edu 
 
----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Adult Literacy Professional Development mailing list
professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov

To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/professionaldevelopment

Professional Development section of the Adult Literacy Education Wiki
http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Adult_Literacy_Professional_Development



-- 
Steve Kaufmann
www.lingq.com
1-604-922-8514
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/professionaldevelopment/attachments/20080715/4f470e3e/attachment-0001.html