Going through old documents to decide what to store or discard revealed some lost treasures. This morning, I found notes from a January mentoring conversation with The Hand about Crossroads, the essence of which was attempting to capture the impact of this endeavor. One obvious category is to inquire about the publications that have emerged as a consequence of Crossroads and while refereed publications would be an important type, so too would be the letters to newspaper editors, drafts of grant proposals, and contributions to district and state policy documents. But there are other possible influences we could assess that are tangible even though less concrete than an article.
One important notion was to ask attendees how they operate within their professional lives once they returned home. The pragmatic philosopher in me is drawn to this because it goes beyond asking how people think and feel as a result of Crossroads. Instead, rather than rely upon self-reports of confidence and centeredness, they are asked to provide testimonials about their actions. However, this is not just about what a person does but it also could access the rationales they apply when they move through their work. Such questions get at the activity of individuals rather than their mental or transcendent states of being (cerebro-spiritual?). Rather than rely upon claims of the impact, the emphasis is upon changed practices attibutable to Crossroads.
But the suggestion I liked the most was a clever reversal of this type of question. In many ways, it gets at the same need to capture impacts. It does so in a fashion that has great potential for revealing perspectives that might otherwise pass unnoticed:
The idea of growth and development and advancement too often emphasizes accumulation. Children grow bigger, institutions develop in complexity, and civilizations advance by acquiring wealth. But this ignores the associated process of discarding unneeded materials. Conceptual change theory is a great example wherein a learner endorses a new explanation, such as why it gets cold in the winter, even as they discard a previous explanatory mechanism. As an instructor, I develop new ways of thinking and doing my work but also dispose of old materials that are no longer of use. For example, I do a much better job of specifying my expectations in graduate courses and, as a result, know that if students meet those expectations then there are no worries about justifying the granting of A's to an entire group.
Now I'm increasingly intrigued by the development of expertise and craftsmanship in relation to disposing of strategies and supports that are no longer needed. What indeed might be uncovered by asking people, not what they do differently, but target what they do less of as a result of their experiences? How are you different because of what you chose to leave behind? Now I'm going to need to search for my copy of Tim O'Brien's "The Things They Carried" to see whether there are hints about what might be revealed by what the US soldiers in Viet Nam opted to not carry. Perhaps as a result, I can better understand how this sort of question might be applied in a variety of contexts.
One important notion was to ask attendees how they operate within their professional lives once they returned home. The pragmatic philosopher in me is drawn to this because it goes beyond asking how people think and feel as a result of Crossroads. Instead, rather than rely upon self-reports of confidence and centeredness, they are asked to provide testimonials about their actions. However, this is not just about what a person does but it also could access the rationales they apply when they move through their work. Such questions get at the activity of individuals rather than their mental or transcendent states of being (cerebro-spiritual?). Rather than rely upon claims of the impact, the emphasis is upon changed practices attibutable to Crossroads.
But the suggestion I liked the most was a clever reversal of this type of question. In many ways, it gets at the same need to capture impacts. It does so in a fashion that has great potential for revealing perspectives that might otherwise pass unnoticed:
WHAT DO YOU DO LESS OF AS A CONSEQUENCE OF CROSSROADS?
Now I'm increasingly intrigued by the development of expertise and craftsmanship in relation to disposing of strategies and supports that are no longer needed. What indeed might be uncovered by asking people, not what they do differently, but target what they do less of as a result of their experiences? How are you different because of what you chose to leave behind? Now I'm going to need to search for my copy of Tim O'Brien's "The Things They Carried" to see whether there are hints about what might be revealed by what the US soldiers in Viet Nam opted to not carry. Perhaps as a result, I can better understand how this sort of question might be applied in a variety of contexts.
No comments:
Post a Comment