At,
Thanks for your remarkable post; I am always amazed by the fact that you
are able to start with a small subject ( or "pretext") to create a so
vivid, rich and enlightening post. Even if you were not answering to my
"portuguese experience", I think that you have commented on it and
enriched it, with your own experience and theoretical perspective.
In your own "experience" you have described and commented to us, two
points were quite impressive to me : first, the way you have created the
preconditions for the "emergence" ("metanoia") of learning; second, the
fact that the "old system" managed to stop the experiment. It is a pity
that so often old interests are able to stop experiences based on a new
paradigma. But, as you have told, Max Plank has already commented on
that...
Also very interesting was the concept of the "Problem Of Disillusioned
First Year Students (PODFYS)". I need to think more on that subject.
Let me make some comments on issues that are not central to your post.
At 17:44 19-10-1998 +0200, At wrote:
>I had to snip your examples. But I wish to draw your attention to the
>fact that they all were examples of "Team Learning", one of the five
>disciplines which Peter Senge identified to get a hold on Learning
>Organisations. Thus I am not sure what "disciplines" you refer to -
>are they the disciplines of an academical subject or are they the five
>disciplines of LOs?
I was refering to Senge's "5 disciplines". I would not call them "the five
disciplines of LOs", but "the 5 disciplines that Senge recognizes in a
LO". I do not know for sure if there are 5, 6 or 7 characteristics in a
LO, and if these five are the most relevant. I also have noticed that
Arie the Gues never talks about "disciplines" neither in is seminal HBR
article "Planing as Learning", neither in the most recent book "The Living
Company"...
In fact, I do not like the word "discipline" in the context of LOs (that
is the reason why I used "disciplines" and not disciplines :-) For me,
"discipline" has a connection with "order" and to create an "emergence", a
"metanoia", one has to create a "human energy" that is able to bypass the
dominant "order", I think.
Comparing "The fifth discipline" with "The fifth discipline - Fieldbook"
I find interesting the fact that the "metanoia" concept almost disapeared,
and the ideia that "maybe in the future one will need a sixth or seventh
discipline" ( or change the first five...) also disapeared. It seems to
me, that the ideia of "metanoia" has been replaced by "more discipline" in
the "teaching" of the five "disciplines".
>You also answered the following questions of Stephanie
>
>>>Lastly, as I learn about LOs, it seems that if a true LO were
>>>to exist, the amount of time spent on dialoguing, learning etc.,
>>>might be quite considerable. How does one balance this with
>>>their "job description?"
>
>by writing
>
>>After one has created ( even only the first elements of) "a
>>passion for learning", dialogue and fruitfull sharing does not
>>take longer than the current discussions and tensions.
>>Taking part in the discussions of some "mailing lists" does not
>>use more time than "playing games", or doing nothing.
>>
>>Is the paradigm on "how to be in the organization" that you
>>have to gently change; all the other things, I think, will come
>>in due time.
>
>
>Artur, in the context of what I have reported above, I smiled gently
>at your words
> "... paradigm ... you have to change gently...".
>My friend, a paradigm do not change gently.
Yes, you are right, At : "a paradigm do not change gently". BUT, one can
act *gently* when helping others to change their own paradigm. After all
that is what you have done with the tutors and the first year students and
again with Prof. Boehmen, isn't it ?
Best Regards
Artur
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@individual.eunet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>