Thanks, Artur for the feedback. It's always good to get direct and honest
feedback with the underlining reasoning ("I disagree because..." as
opposed to "I disagree just because I do"), which by the way is something
teachers often do when they feel threatened by diverging opinions.
At 21:27 3/21/2002 +0000, Artur F. Silva wrote:
>As others, I went back to your site and I think that your "list of
>differences"
>could be a very good suggestion of sub-threats to discuss in the list.
>
>Let me first repeat here your list of differences that can be found at
>http://www.kmol.online.pt/especial/univlo/index_e.html
>
>As At, I tried to see the list of "differences" and I think it is really a
>pity that
>the clickable texts are so often only in Portuguese. With how many people
>can you discuss them if they are in Portuguese only?
Just give me some time, will you? :-)
>And it is also a pity that in some cases your texts seem (to a reader) to
>have
>their foundations more on theory than in your own practice and in a
>reflection
>on that practice - even if I know that you are grounded on reflection on
>your own experiences, that doesn't always show up. Isn't that in
>contradiction with your "difference" on
>Learning through theory vs Learning through practice ?
I wouldn't say the texts are based more in theory than in practice. Maybe
the one I shared with this list is, but when you have the chance to read
the others you will see that's not the case. In fact, those texts are
based on what I've experienced in University (both the bads and the goods
when compared to other Universities are departments in the same
institution), what I've been told from other institutions, what I read
from universities outside Portugal, and the theory and good practices of
learning organisations.
>>"One of the main characteristics of a learning organisation is the
>>information sharing between all members of staff. For this to happen there
>>must be trust, sharing spirit, and collaboration spirit.
>>
>>This is another version of the egg and chicken problem. What came first?:
>>the trust or the information sharing environment? On one side it is
>>necessary to trust people before sharing with them. On the other side,
>>sharing gives proof of a trustworthy person. Besides, sharing environments
>>improve individuals' self-confidence. None of these aspects comes alone
>>and all seem to prove the importance of trust: both trust on each other
>>and confidence on one self.
>
>I never understood the egg-chicken problem ;-) But I understand yours. But it
>seems to me that again you are "creating theory" more than reflecting on
>your experiences. In your experience of (something similar to a) LO, what
>came first? I have my opinion about that, but I would really like to know
>yours.
>
>In my opinion, it was sharing. Indeed in Universities, Professors - even the
>best ones - generally, don't share the ideas they want to present on papers,
>or anything they think is important - they share "elementary concept"
>that will maintain the barrier Prof.-student. Neither do they encourage
>students
>to share their ideas with other students and with the Professor,
>especially when
>they disagree with the Professor. Neither do they encourage other teachers
>or professional to participate in their relations with their students
>(including
>mailing lists). So, the first thing that is needed is to create a sharing
>environment.
>And then the encouraging way that the "facilitator" will use to answer to the
>students, and the role model he constitutes to the communication between
>the students themselves will progressively create trust? Do you agree with
>that?
Yes, I do. (The sharing aspect is covered on some of the other topics on
the chart.)
>>- the teacher has more power than the student: the student goes to the
>>university to get a degree and has to be assessed. The teacher is
>>responsible for this. It is better not to contradict the teacher not to be
>>penalised on the assessment;
>
>It depends - from my student's experience (many, many years ago), in a less
>democratic time, I recall that a student can always contradict the teacher,
>and still have good grades, if he his prepared to study MUCH MORE.
:-)
Which is not what I would call a great incentive, is it? Specially taking
into account that most of the theory you have to study is not really useful
once you have your degree. Sometimes I think universities teach too much
theory because they are training... new teachers.
>>- students have to be better than their peers: traditionally
>>organisations prefer graduates with better grades (although this is slowly
>>changing).
>
>IMO, that is NOT true. Many companies prefer working capabilities rather
>than higher grades. Let me be clear, Ana, that is a lye some teachers told
>you. Probably the same ones that tried to convince you to continue for a
>master where you would wrote papers for/with them. As, by that time, you
>had never been out of the Univ. you believed in them. And as they also have
>rarely lived in real work environments out of the UNIV they can eventually
>believe that they were telling you the truth. But now that you have working
>experiences, can you confirm, that school grades are important for entering
>in a company and, more important, for promotions and raise of salary? Your
>colleagues with worse grades are unemployed? Are they underpaid?
Now you are treating me as naif :-)
I know what I was told and I know what I've experienced outside. I also
know what colleagues of mine experienced. Although I did not have any
problem finding a job and none of my colleagues had, we belong to a
privileged group of people: we had a computer science degree. This means
that there were more jobs than graduates and that the employers are more
open-minded and subject to more external influences than others.
If you look at other courses (say Physics) and if you try to find a
technical job at one of those small factories you will be filtered by the
number of lines of your CV and by the grades achieved at university.
Besides, and considering any graduate applying to a teaching position, I
guarantee that none of them will be interviewed, none of them will have the
possibility of proving that his/her grades are not a reflection of his/her
capabilities and teaching skills. These are the same people that will than
keep the competition feeling alive when teachers.
And one more thing: before you get to the university you are selected based
on your grades (when there are more candidates than vacancies). Nobody
assesses you in any other way. You start competing when you are 15, at
least in Portugal!
>>A cultural change is needed. It is necessary to rethink the evaluation
>>system and show the marketplace that a graduate cannot be labelled just by
>>his grades. This would be a very important step towards trust on academic
>>environments."
>
>No, Ana, I think it is easier than that. The marketplace is not so silly
>as you
>believe it is.
The market place is not silly: people are and they are the marketplace.
But, as I said before, things are getting much, much better.
Ana Neves
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
portal KMOL
Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning
URL: http://www.kmol.online.pt
E-mail: editor@kmol.online.pt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Portal KMOL <editor@kmol.online.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.