Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id OAA06450; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:03:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:03:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <389095A3.9CF12BAE@nr.infi.net>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "amy r. trawick" <atrawick@nr.infi.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:813] Re: Whatever happened to student-directed learning?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
Status: RO
Content-Length: 8117
Lines: 133
Jeanette Baldridge raised some excellent issues in a posting several weeks
ago. I have recently moved to North Carolina and am no longer with New River
Community College, but I’d like to share my thoughts about her concerns and
offer a bit about how NRCC is addressing these issues.
Jeanette wrote:
“EFF standards provide a framework that is convenient for the system, but I am
not convinced of the benefit for students, especially those who want their GED
or to brush up on a particular skill because they are on their way to a job or
college…”
First of all, the EFF framework was built around what learners said they
needed to know and do in order to fulfill their responsibilities as family
members, community members, and workers. The benefit to the students, I think,
is that the framework provides one way of seeing the big picture of adult
education, of structuring their goals and learning, and of discerning how well
they are achieving their goals. EFF gets learners and teachers thinking about
what it is the learners want and need from their learning experiences and
validates what it is they already do well.
The challenge is creating the opportunity for learners to reflect on their
purposes for furthering their education, to pose questions that hadn’t occurred
to them about these purposes, and allow learners, armed with this information,
to really take control of their learning. For instance, individuals who enter a
class wanting to prepare for the GED would be encouraged to consider what they
hope the GED will do for them (help get a job, prepare for college, etc.) and
then to ponder what else they might need for that larger goal, in addition to
reading, writing, and math. EFF, then, would not be something that is imposed
on a learner but would be a tool to help the learner "get at" what is really
important to them.
All this takes time. At NRCC, we changed our program from an
open-enrollment system (which often resulted in quick-n-dirty, mostly
ineffective goal-setting) to a modified open-enrollment with a lengthy
goal-setting period structured to enable learners to take the time they need to
explore and revise their goals. In the summer a goal-setting task team of
practitioners created a loose format for all practitioners to try in the fall,
feedback from practitioners was solicited during the fall, and a revised format
was employed this January. (Note: Only a few teachers in the fall were
actually using the EFF framework for the goal-setting. It is my understanding
that NRCC is attempting to create the infrastructure needed to support more
widespread use of EFF. An effective *process* is being devised; the EFF
language will come later.)
Jeanette wrote:
“I am also concerned that most information we receive on implementing EFF
guidelines deals with classroom-based projects. In rural Maine, our focus is on
learning-centered instruction where each student receives individual attention.
Projects are difficult and some students are not really interested, especially
when working on a project prevents them from completing the goals they have set
for themselves. Whatever happened to student-directed learning?
Based on recent research siting the effectiveness of community-centered
instruction (one of the reasons EFF trainers advocate for classroom projects),
teachers at NRCC were encouraged to create more opportunities for small group
and class activities/discussion. The idea was that when learners are engaged
with each other in their learning, they:
1. Talk more. When learner talk, teachers are better able to discern what they
already know, which enables them to “hook” new learning in meaningful ways to
existing knowledge.
2. Learn from each other. Acting as both “teacher” and “learner” during group
activities, learners have varying opportunities to refine their learning.
3. Form relationships with each other. Creating these bonds heighten students’
desire to come to class and also creates real situations in which to work on the
interpersonal skills so important in other roles as well.
4. Engage different modes of learning. Research indicates that many, if not
most, learners who drop out of high school seem to be social, concrete
learners. The abstract isolation of bookwork, then, is probably not the most
effective learning situation for adult basic education classrooms. Group
activities “hit” the learning styles of many literacy students.
We decided that "learner-centered" and "individualized", words we used to
describe our program, did not necessarily mean "solo". Most of the classes at
NRCC had operated much like a lab, with learners working in books toward their
own (rather vague) goals. Because of the apparent value of collaborative
learning, we wanted to see if learners could still pursue individual goals
through group activities. The program still needs much work in this area, and
this is a focus (I think) of practitioners this spring. I'm sure Sue, Kathy, and
Jenny will keep us informed!
One of the reasons for changing the goal-setting structure at NRCC was the
hypothesis that, if learners really “bought in” to their own meaningful and
personalized goals, they would be more likely to remain in the program. Indeed,
retention increased dramatically in the fall as did the educational gains the
program is required to report for the state performance indicators. I suspect
the more intentional use of group learning also contributed to these program
successes.
RE: projects... Not all collaborative learning activities are project-based,
but I do think group projects lend themselves to the development and application
of several skills at once in ways that encourage transfer to other real-life
situations. To preserve "student-directedness," it makes sense that projects
should enable learners to work toward their goals and should revolve around
issues that are LEARNER-GENERATED. Learners in 1-on-1 situations or those who,
for whatever reason, do not want to participate in a group project can, as Jenny
Bolte suggested, find projects that are meaningful TO THEM. I hear Jeanette's
concern that teacher-imposed projects can interfere with learners' own
understanding of what they need. How projects are introduced and implemented
determines how student-directed they will be. I will say that I do think the
teacher has a role to play as problem-poser, guide, and instructor. If learners
were completely able to be student-directed, they wouldn't be in our programs!
Because they are, we can assume they need some direction. My role as the
teacher is to determine how much direction is needed and to help them learn the
skills required to further direct themselves.
I realize I've written way too much, so let me just that, as far as I can
see, when EFF is used to guide the learner in formulating educational goals in
the context of the “big picture” of what learning has to offer to the learner’s
life purposes--and when used to help the learner achieve these goals, EFF is
very learner-centered and aids the learner in directing his/her own education.
On a side note, I would propose that, indeed, EFF is NOT "convenient for the
system"! It opens up a whole new set of skills to be included in our use of the
term “literacy,” it raises serious assessment/accountability issues, and it
requires for many adult educators an entirely new way of viewing adult literacy
education. Rather than being convenient, EFF is upsetting the applecart.
Considering the abysmal retention rates of adult education programs nationally
and our inability thus far to say with consensus what it is adult education has
to offer our customers (both learners and funders), this applecart probably
needs upsetting.
Thanks, Jeanette, for your questions. As a field, we will need to grapple
with how EFF affects basic tenets of adult edcuation, like learner-centeredness
and learner-directedness. These are just my thoughts; I'd be interested to hear
what others are thinking about this...
Amy Trawick
High Point, NC
atrawick@nr.infi.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:04 EST