Report
| www . ICEVI - Europe . org Report |
|
[ Previous: Introduction ] [ Table of Contents ] [ Next: Opening Reception ]
NB: v.i. = visually impaired; i.t. = itinerant teacher
Explanation: the role of the itinerant teacher is not primarily to teach children, but also to transfer knowledge and know-how to others involved in the education of the visually impaired child, such as classroom teacher, school team, other professionals, parents etc. What is important is the way and level of communication and the efficiency.
Questions to discuss:
Explanation: Important is the organisational structure in which mainstreaming and itinerant teaching take place.
Questions to discuss:
Explanation: teaching in a classroom including a v.i. child supposes certain qualities in the classroom teacher which are essential to meeting the special needs of the v.i. child. The "FLUSS-project" focuses on these aspects.
Questions to discuss:
Explanation: in the (former) special schools many different professionals are (were) employed; not only teachers but also experts in the field of ADL, O&M, Low Vision, subjects like mathematics, geography etc. These special professionals are not always available for v.i. children in mainstream schools.
Questions to discuss:
Information and Communication Technology can play an important role in the realisation and improvement of mainstream education of v.i. children. The "ISaR-project" is a good example. The required information, knowledge and know-how has to be available for all people who need it, also the teacher who has a v.i. child in his/her classroom.
Web-based studies, services, on-line counselling and communication.
Questions to discuss:
NB 1: For a short description of the FLUSS-project and the ISaR-project: see page 6 and 7 of the December 2001 issue of the European Newsletter of ICEVI. More information will be given during the workshop.
NB 2: The elaboration of the themes are based on contributions of Chris Arter (UK) and Emmy Csocsan (Germany). For this I express my heartfelt thanks.
Herman Gresnigt
Literature as sent to the participants prior to the workshop:
N.B: Mr Frans Meyer, the Netherlands, wrote the following paper for the second workshop (Report 2nd Workshop, Bratialava 1999, page 33-34). His paper was also used in this workshop.
Most conferences emphasise the distribution of information. The 1999 Bratislava conference aims at going beyond this level. All information, needed for the best results of the participation will be sent to all participants in advance. They should read all this material carefully before leaving for Bratislava. There will be no lectures.
The conference texts will be prepared by several conference facilitators, experts in their fields, who have an overall view of the key issues addressed by the conference.
During the conference, the content of these texts will be challenged by the explicit and implicit knowledge that the participants contribute to the workshops. In doing so, we hope to share and create new knowledge. The results of this confrontation will be summarised and made available to the participants and to a larger audience. For that reason, all workshops will have a workshop reporter who will write down the proceedings. Furthermore, all workshops will be supervised by a chairperson, who - in close co-operation with the workshop facilitator, will lead the exchange of views of the participants. Both facilitators and chairpersons will receive a short training in the conference working methods, prior to the conference.
For the benefit of these persons the following list of suggested working methods is given:
The facilitator prepares a set of relevant questions and presents them to the participants. Participants, in their turn, have prepared their own questions. This ensures as much involvement as possible.
The facilitator presents a case to the participants which allows them to use the information from the conference text. The case should preferably concern a real life situation, stimulate the thought process and allow for differing opinions. The use of photographs, slides or a video is encouraged.
This is the working method suggested when parts of the information, provided by either the facilitator or the participants, require elaboration and problem- solving. Discussions could be led through the phases of:
analysis of the problem
formation of a judgement
decision-making
Two couples of discussants confront each other on two sides of a table. They represent two opposite views of the problem (not necessarily their own). They are allowed an opening statement and then the discussion starts. Other participants can only join in by providing these couples with written ideas and suggestions. If these participants agree with the opinion expressed by one of the couples, they show this by picking up their chair and sitting behind these discussants. After a while it is clear where all participants stand in this matter.
The facilitator introduces a problem and composes a forum of 3 to 4 persons. First, forum members are given the opportunity to state their views on the matter and then they start a mutual discussion. At the discretion of the chairperson the other participants are asked to join in.
To start the discussion a participant or the facilitator can introduce a problem from his or her own practice. The other participants are allowed to ask for more information, but refrain from opinions or judgements. In the next phase all participants give their analysis of the problem. The third phase consists of the suggestions or possible solutions the participants have in mind. It is recommended to use the information from the conference text during this activity. In the last phase the person who introduced the problem states what he or she has learned and what will be done with this information.
A problem from someone's practice is introduced. All participants are invited to associate thoughts or ideas which will be written down on a blackboard. The group is urged to try and come up with comments and ideas at a certain speed. No judgements are expressed in this phase. When no more new ideas can be thought of, the group tries to evaluate the ideas on the blackboard and to find connections between the statements.
Guided, individual study of literature provided by the facilitator. The comments made during this exercise can be discussed plenary.
Exchange of experiences of participants.
Participants interrogate each other in twosomes or foursomes with the help of questions, prepared by the facilitator.
Chairpersons and facilitators can use these working methods at their discretion. We especially suggest the use of methods 1, 2 and 3.
NB: Our host, the Academy of Special Education in Warsaw, celebrates its 80th Anniversary in 2002. They like to make our workshop one of the special activities of this anniversary year.
Therefore, the Academy will invite a number of special guests for the Opening Reception on Wednesday and the Opening Session on Thursday.
During the opening session there will be simultaneous translation in Polish.