This is a two parter. The first is a vent; the second is a short commentary on an intriguing role identification mentioned by the author.
Part 1 - As described by Vella on the first page, dialogue literally means "the word between us." While I love her book, and plan to read it again, there is a word that stands between me and this talented author. The word is quantum. She loves it. Me? Not so much. I associate it with physical science or chemistry, and not at all with literature or grammar. That means I have a virtual wall that flies up in protest, preventing me from hearing anything that comes after that word. Quantum. It appears a total of 24 times in the Preface and Chapter 1 combined.
You're thinking, what in the name of all that's elucidating does this have to do with a book review? I'll tell you.
The point of Learning to Listen is dialogue--an exchange of information. If your learner is constructing a firewall (aka extraneous cognitive load), how much of a two-way street is that going to be? Perhaps the words that bother me are not the ones that bother you. That's the point.
In fairness, Vella is more educated than I will ever be, and her vocabulary is, very likely, more expansive. She has taught in 25 countries, and consequently has interacted with more cultures than I can ever hope to encounter.
Part 1 - As described by Vella on the first page, dialogue literally means "the word between us." While I love her book, and plan to read it again, there is a word that stands between me and this talented author. The word is quantum. She loves it. Me? Not so much. I associate it with physical science or chemistry, and not at all with literature or grammar. That means I have a virtual wall that flies up in protest, preventing me from hearing anything that comes after that word. Quantum. It appears a total of 24 times in the Preface and Chapter 1 combined.
You're thinking, what in the name of all that's elucidating does this have to do with a book review? I'll tell you.
The point of Learning to Listen is dialogue--an exchange of information. If your learner is constructing a firewall (aka extraneous cognitive load), how much of a two-way street is that going to be? Perhaps the words that bother me are not the ones that bother you. That's the point.
In fairness, Vella is more educated than I will ever be, and her vocabulary is, very likely, more expansive. She has taught in 25 countries, and consequently has interacted with more cultures than I can ever hope to encounter.
Clearly Vella makes an effort to effectively assess learner's needs, to identify their themes--perhaps due to Freire's influence, who suggested thematic analysis - "listening to themes of a group" (p. 6). If this is indeed a Best Practice, and I have no reason to doubt it, we need to speak the learner's language in not only in an English/Spanish/Korean/West African/Portuguese way, but also in a vernacular that is common to at least most individuals, if not all.
This is where I turn the pointed finger toward myself. Each industry has a surplus of acronyms, and even within the same company, one employee may not understand the slang of another department. I need to use more care when choosing my words to avoid unintentionally intimidating those I'm attempting to help. Do you? Perhaps we need to listen to ourselves as closely as we do to our learners. Teacher-speak is appropriate among peers; it has no place in the classroom.
Part 2 - Vella contends that the learner has two voices. One is a consultative voice (suggesting) and the other is deliberative (decision-making). As we all know, adults need to be able to control their own learning, as much as is practicable. When they can be allowed the deliberative voice, they should be allowed it. The teacher should never do for learners what they can do for themselves, nor make decisions they can make.
She takes this one step further--and I love this--when she proposes offering up the session as a sacrificial lamb and asking the group to take a few minutes to provide ideas for making the class time more effective, efficient and relevant. Obviously, no one would have the time or desire to do this every time, but turning the tables occasionally might result in suggestions the instructor might not think of, absent a third party's observation.
In an adult learning environment, this should promote heightened engagement and learning transfer, as learners are being invited to reflect and consider improvements, which means they are reflecting on content as well.
But all this is your call. You're in charge, right? When you open your mouth, what do you hear? And should someone else be talking?
This is where I turn the pointed finger toward myself. Each industry has a surplus of acronyms, and even within the same company, one employee may not understand the slang of another department. I need to use more care when choosing my words to avoid unintentionally intimidating those I'm attempting to help. Do you? Perhaps we need to listen to ourselves as closely as we do to our learners. Teacher-speak is appropriate among peers; it has no place in the classroom.
Part 2 - Vella contends that the learner has two voices. One is a consultative voice (suggesting) and the other is deliberative (decision-making). As we all know, adults need to be able to control their own learning, as much as is practicable. When they can be allowed the deliberative voice, they should be allowed it. The teacher should never do for learners what they can do for themselves, nor make decisions they can make.
She takes this one step further--and I love this--when she proposes offering up the session as a sacrificial lamb and asking the group to take a few minutes to provide ideas for making the class time more effective, efficient and relevant. Obviously, no one would have the time or desire to do this every time, but turning the tables occasionally might result in suggestions the instructor might not think of, absent a third party's observation.
In an adult learning environment, this should promote heightened engagement and learning transfer, as learners are being invited to reflect and consider improvements, which means they are reflecting on content as well.
But all this is your call. You're in charge, right? When you open your mouth, what do you hear? And should someone else be talking?