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 RAA05391; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 17:26:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 17:26:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3904BA96.C38DE23D@erols.com>
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: Bonnie Odiorne <bodiorne@erols.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:979] Re:Using EFF to teach English
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win95; I)
Status: RO
Content-Length: 9116
Lines: 156
--------------A63F38A1FC10312C1B1253CF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I would like to speak to this issue as well. At an intake interview, I've
developed basic questions such as education history, any significant gaps,
education in own language and previous jobs, education in this country, recent
jobs and barriers, family issues, how the student feels about education and the
kind of skills he/she wants to learn. Clearly the language level of the questions
vary. I'm also developing a set of simplified questions extracted from the
purposes, role maps, skills, standards and knowledge domains. Since I work with a
volunteer-based literacy organization, I would then give these to matched tutors
and students so they can begin to develop a "profile". I admit that my first
impression of EFF was that there was no way that basic level literacy or ESOL
students (or perhaps even some volunteer tutors) could have access to the kind of
language used in the framework. I still feel that some of the material could be
made more accessible, but it's also clear that to assume that low language level
(communication) equals low critical thinking, problem solving or interpersonal
skills, especially with a student with at least a high school education in
his/her country, is to demean both students and instructor. I have yet to test
this out systematically. But such a profile could give an indicator of the kinds
of "higher level" thinking skills that can be used in the learning of English in
a real-life context, and the language structures needing to be taught, just as we
would for any situational context.
As for the issue of English-not English in lessons: there are many ways to
bridge the language gap, as most of us can surmise. I'm in favor of using them
all (visuals, context clues, gestures, acting out, real life materials etc.)
before using L1. I try to discourage students using their own language with each
other with tact and humor, and with the understanding that their cultural
heritage is not an issue. But if they come to us to learn English in a life
skills context, that's what we should teach, and the use of the EFF framework
should be rather a support or a scaffolding than an explicitly stated "content
area" of its own. I think I'm stating the obvious, but I still feel new at this.
And having only a limited opportunity currently to apply this to direct
instruction (other than tutor trainings) is unfortunate. I've developed something
like a prototype "Family Literacy" (I really hate that name; I'd rather talk
about Family Learning) curriculum that would focus on students' eliciting their
strengths from past experience and their roles, needs, interests and goals now. I
would rather ask a parent what he/she already does, as an "expert", rather than
assume little knowledge. The English knowledge may not be there to allow a parent
or student to articulate a thought or feeling, but I think that many cultures
value family and the transmission of cultural heritage perhaps a bit more, or
differently, than we do. Then the new things we teach, be it technology,
language skills, or even some parenting as it relates to this culture's medical
care network or the school system or the conflict between jobs and family, can be
placed in this already existing context. They do not come to us tabula rasa.
Rather more like a palimpsest, a parchment with many layers of writing and
overwriting. We should not assume that the teaching we do is necessarily the
superior "layer".
Bonnie Odiorne, Program Director
LVA-Greater Waterbury, CT
bodiorne@erols.com
Swr629@aol.com wrote:
> I'm really pleased that the discussion about EFF and ESL is getting off the
> ground. Great food for thought. In response to the posting by Joan Benz
> about EFF being a framework and not a content area, I'd like to share that
> the framework contains Content Standards and the Four Purposes that become
> "content" for us at St. James. The Standards describe what adults need to be
> able to do to be equipped for the future and the Four Purposes provide a
> context for the Standards in relation to the Role Mapping we do at intake and
> when measurable objectives have been achieved.
>
> I agree and can never hear it expressed enough that assumptions about
> learner's skills and levels should not be made.
>
> Susan Rowley
> St. James ESL Program
> Seattle, WA
> Swr629@aol.com
--------------A63F38A1FC10312C1B1253CF
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I would like to speak to this issue as well. At an intake interview, I've
developed basic questions such as education history, any significant gaps,
education in own language and previous jobs, education in this country,
recent jobs and barriers, family issues, how the student feels about education
and the kind of skills he/she wants to learn. Clearly the language level
of the questions vary. I'm also developing a set of simplified questions
extracted from the purposes, role maps, skills, standards and knowledge
domains. Since I work with a volunteer-based literacy organization, I would
then give these to matched tutors and students so they can begin to develop
a "profile". I admit that my first impression of EFF was that there was
no way that basic level literacy or ESOL students (or perhaps even some
volunteer tutors) could have access to the kind of language used in the
framework. I still feel that some of the material could be made more accessible,
but it's also clear that to assume that low language level (communication)
equals low critical thinking, problem solving or interpersonal skills,
especially with a student with at least a high school education in his/her
country, is to demean both students and instructor. I have yet to test
this out systematically. But such a profile could give an indicator of
the kinds of "higher level" thinking skills that can be used in the learning
of English in a real-life context, and the language structures needing
to be taught, just as we would for any situational context.
<br> As for the issue of English-not English in lessons:
there are many ways to bridge the language gap, as most of us can surmise.
I'm in favor of using them all (visuals, context clues, gestures, acting
out, real life materials etc.) <i>before</i> using L1. I try to discourage
students using their own language with each other with tact and humor,
and with the understanding that their cultural heritage is not an issue.
But if they come to us to learn English in a life skills context, that's
what we should teach, and the use of the EFF framework should be rather
a support or a scaffolding than an explicitly stated "content area" of
its own. I think I'm stating the obvious, but I still feel new at this.
And having only a limited opportunity currently to apply this to direct
instruction (other than tutor trainings) is unfortunate. I've developed
something like a prototype "Family Literacy" (I really hate that name;
I'd rather talk about Family Learning) curriculum that would focus on students'
eliciting their strengths from past experience and their roles, needs,
interests and goals now. I would rather ask a parent what he/she already
does, as an "expert", rather than assume little knowledge. The English
knowledge may not be there to allow a parent or student to articulate a
thought or feeling, but I think that many cultures value family and the
transmission of cultural heritage perhaps a bit more, or differently,
than we do. Then the new things we teach, be it technology, language skills,
or even some parenting as it relates to this culture's medical care network
or the school system or the conflict between jobs and family, can be placed
in this already existing context. They do not come to us tabula rasa. Rather
more like a palimpsest, a parchment with many layers of writing and overwriting.
We should not assume that the teaching we do is necessarily the superior
"layer".
<br>Bonnie Odiorne, Program Director
<br>LVA-Greater Waterbury, CT
<br>bodiorne@erols.com
<p>Swr629@aol.com wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I'm really pleased that the discussion about EFF
and ESL is getting off the
<br>ground. Great food for thought. In response to the posting
by Joan Benz
<br>about EFF being a framework and not a content area, I'd like to share
that
<br>the framework contains Content Standards and the Four Purposes that
become
<br>"content" for us at St. James. The Standards describe what adults
need to be
<br>able to do to be equipped for the future and the Four Purposes provide
a
<br>context for the Standards in relation to the Role Mapping we do at
intake and
<br>when measurable objectives have been achieved.
<p>I agree and can never hear it expressed enough that assumptions about
<br>learner's skills and levels should not be made.
<p>Susan Rowley
<br>St. James ESL Program
<br>Seattle, WA
<br>Swr629@aol.com</blockquote>
</html>
--------------A63F38A1FC10312C1B1253CF--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:10 EST