Re: Workshop abusers- anoth
Brian Drayton (Brian_Drayton@terc.edu <Brian_Drayton@terc.edu>)
6 May 1996 23:04:20 U
_______________________________________________________________________
TEECH "LEAVING A LEGACY: Sustaining a Project After the Funding Ends"
Sent by: "Brian Drayton" <Brian_Drayton@TERC.EDU <Brian_Drayton@TERC.EDU>>
_______________________________________________________________________
Reply to: RE>>Workshop abusers- anothe
Well, having produced my little taxonomy of abusers, I mostly wonder about
causes. Is there something about pilot projects that lends itself to such
problems? Is there some better way to screen, or to allow people to
self-select for our projects more effectively (from their point of view and
ours)?
--Brian Drayton (brian_drayton@terc.edu <brian_drayton@terc.edu>)
--------------------------------------
Date: 5/6/96 5:24 PM
To: Brian Drayton
From: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
Brian,
Why not add on those who holler and scream and beg to be part of a
multi-year workshop and then quit after one year? These "abusers" take up
space which could have been used by a more responsible person. My experience
is that even having them sign a contract witnessed by their principal and
superintendent does not deter them from quitting. How can one screen for
this
abuse?
John Luedeman
--------------------------------------
Date: 5/6/96 4:17 PM
To: John Luedeman
From: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
When I think about my experience with "workshop abusers" over the years,
the following thoughts arise.
1. It's a dependable phenomenon, but not common.
2. The causes are what is of interest to me. As with students, motivation is
critical. I have seen the following, which are hard to winnow out in any
selection or screening process:
-- people who didn't read the advance materials, so they come expecting us to
accomplish their agenda;
-- people who want to take part of what we are offering, and reject other
parts;
-- people who are there for the wrong reasons. In the past, the most
difficult of these are not the people who are just seeking professional
development points, or who are just workshop junkies. The most uneasy are
people who are sent by their departments or superintendents, and have no
personal reason to be there.
-- Brian Drayton (brian_drayton@terc.edu <brian_drayton@terc.edu>)
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by quickmail.clemson.edu with SMTP;6 May 1996 16:08:33 -0500
Received: (daemon@localhost) by hub.terc.edu (8.6.9/8.6.4) id PAA19601 for
teech-workshop-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:57:17 -0400
Received: from is.TERC.EDU (is.terc.edu [140.245.194.20]) by hub.terc.edu
(8.6.9/8.6.4) with SMTP id PAA19595 for <teech-workshop@hub>; Mon, 6 May 1996
15:57:14 -0400
Received: from qm.terc.edu by is.TERC.EDU (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA02972; Mon, 6 May 1996 16:02:23 -0400
Message-Id: <n1380723698.45488@qm.terc.edu>
Date: 6 May 1996 16:06:25 U
From: "Brian Drayton" <Brian_Drayton@hub.terc.edu <Brian_Drayton@hub.terc.edu>>
Subject: Workshop abusers- another a
To: "TEECH workshop" <teech-workshop@hub.TERC.EDU <teech-workshop@hub.TERC.EDU>>
X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.1 GM
Sender: Owner-TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <Owner-TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
X-listname: teech-workshop@hub.terc.edu <teech-workshop@hub.terc.edu>
Workshop abusers: another angle
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by qm.terc.edu with SMTP;6 May 1996 17:22:29 U
Received: (daemon@localhost) by hub.terc.edu (8.6.9/8.6.4) id RAA20758 for
teech-workshop-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 1996 17:02:38 -0400
Received: from CLEMSON.EDU (mail.clemson.edu [130.127.28.14]) by hub.terc.edu
(8.6.9/8.6.4) with ESMTP id RAA20752 for <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>>; Mon,
6 May 1996 17:02:35 -0400
Received: from quickmail.clemson.edu (quickmail.clemson.edu [130.127.8.57])
by CLEMSON.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA20701 for
<TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>>; Mon, 6 May 1996 17:09:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <n1380719866.29233@quickmail.clemson.edu <n1380719866.29233@quickmail.clemson.edu>>
Date: 6 May 1996 16:48:35 -0500
From: "John Luedeman" <John_Luedeman@quickmail.clemson.edu <John_Luedeman@quickmail.clemson.edu>>
Subject: Re: Workshop abusers- anothe
To: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2
Sender: Owner-TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <Owner-TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
X-listname: teech-workshop@hub.terc.edu <teech-workshop@hub.terc.edu>
Reply to: RE>Workshop abusers- another a