On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, diane celia hodges wrote:
> It's not how we say we communicate, but how we communicate ...
Yes, diane, agreed, and I've found all of your postings of
interest - laughed out loud sometimes -
so, give yourself some slack - your posting on disfunctional
wasn't disfunctional.
And hey still yet, the 'how we communicate' is so culturally
grounded (I wriggle to state the obvious) yet it's not the 'how'
of communication, but the 'perception' of communication.
it's my perceptions that mess me up
For those who responded - yes, research has been helpful. I
benefit greatly from research.
but I'm really not in a job where time spent studying research and
practicing how to implement it - learning from the errors as it was put
-
there are also systems that emphasize particular types of
measureable activity -
well, in truth, it seems as if what is taught in american schools
is of such a narrow band, so meagerly defined and provided for, that only
those students whose home culture/learning/activities are closely meshed
with the dominant culture/learning/activities are the ones who escape
school with the least amount of pain
teachers aren't very much supported when they seek to lessen the
weight of the grindingly narrow, and open up learning into more broadly
defined visions.
phillip