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 TAA25213; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20000609.193715.9574.0.GDEMETRION@juno.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: "GEORGE E. DEMETRION" <gdemetrion@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1063] Jane Meyer <meyer_j@ccsdistrict.org>: Re: X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 6004 Lines: 133 Colleagues: This question of what distinguishes an EFF lesson is interesting on a number of counts. The list that Jane provides offers some useful points for discussion. #'s 2-9, 11 and 13 are not exclusive to EFF. Applying #1 Using EFF standards as the basis for planning, instruction, and evaluation & #10 EFF is integrated into all classroom aspects, not just adding some EFF lessons, would cetainly count. I find the following question quite interesting # 12: EFF ideology is integrated into all program components Some explicit discussion of EFF ideology at a somewhat depth level may illuminate important aspects of this national reform-based ideology. For the purposes of this post I'm more interested in the question of what counts as an EFF driven lesson, along with the related question of for what purpose? A fundamental question is who defines whether a classroom activity is EFF distinguished--the system designers ot the users? That is, where does the authority reside for making this determination and on what basis? For example, if I am using the four purposes to structure context based lessons that are not necessarily drawn upon through a formal probing of the role maps and I do not also formally draw on the standards, does that negate my lesson as EFF based? The various commentary on this listserv over the years indicates that folks are drawing on EFF in many different ways and few, very few, are drawing on it in the systematic way that perhaps system designers intended (or perhaps they did not intend EFF to be used in a full and systematic manner?) Perhaps for some (or many) EFF is a tool (even a set of tools, or even perhaps a loose framework) that facilitates important learning with and for students. If so and to the extent that that is true, more power to the system. The more fundamental issue is, what is the learning that truly matters for whom, and how is that determined? I certainly can agree that EFF *can* provide a way of entering into valuable learning, but it ain't necessarily so that it represents the *only* legitmate entry point for significant learning. Some, perhaps many may find the system overly cumbersome or perhaps that it evades as much as it perhaps facilitates in the construction of the learning that really matters as determined by students themselves. Others may draw on EFF selectively, in combination with other formats or incorporate certain aspects of EFF into other frameworks which they may privilege *over* EFF. Would these not be legitimate usages of EFF, particularly if the source of authority reside with the students (does it?) rather than the system builders. I'm more interested in keeping the probe on exploring and identifying the learning that matters and looking at the ways that EFF as well as other frameworks and "ideologies" faciltate that, than whether or not I am utilzing EFF in a purist sense. Moreover, I don't think even the project developers have exhaustively defined the paramters of acceptable EFF practice as much as they have laid out the set of tools and frameworks upon which the system is constructed. The developers, rather, seem to take an experimental and iterative approach to the building of the framework. However, the politics of literacy in the increasing "accountable" climate of our times, may be exerting pressure on the EFF developers and users to take a more "system" approach, even though there is much experimtation and respect of the grass roots and the individual learner in the EFF ideology, which defy any easy notion of a "system". What impact the National Reporting System will have on the "constructivist" standards of the EFF is another matter, but the issue will not be resolved through a reliance of aggregated, quantitaive rubrics. Rather, a different methodology and ideology of assessment is required that moves in the ethnographic vein and draws on the value of sampling. George Demetrion Literacy Volunteers fo Greater Hartford GDemetrion@juno.com __________________________________________________________________ > How does an EFF, a customer driven or learner generated classroom or program > look differently than a regular old student centered one? We've been grappling with that in Ohio too so we tried an idea that worked before. When we wanted to evaluate parent involvement at school in our Even Start program our evaluator asked us "what would good parent involvement look like? That is what could you actually see with your eyes or hear with your ears ?" We were able to come up with a list of characteristics that we could then observe. We tried the same with EFF and came up with the following list of what EFF looks like: 1. Using EFF standards as the basis for planning, instruction, and evaluation 2. Teaching skills in context 3. Projects provide a context in which students can apply their skills 4. Use of authentic learning materials 5. Lessons based on student identified goals and lessons 6. Learning activities are student centered 7. Assessment matches instruction objectives 8. Students can articulate what they have learned and how they can use it 9. Students take responsibility for their own learning 10. EFF is integrated into all classroom aspects, not just adding some EFF lessons 11. Authentic documented evaluation system 12. EFF ideology is integrated into all program components 13. Approaching adult learning in a holistic manner This list is rough and can use some refining (I wonder if some of them are concrete enough), but may provide a starting point for discussion. At a recent Ohio EFF statewide training we posted these items on chart paper on the walls (one statement per paper) and asked participants to define or explain what each means and also to add examples. Our intent is to type these up and use them as a basis of statewide EFF discussion and also use them to get a sense of how well we Ohioans are understanding and using EFF. Jane Meyer Canton ABLE
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:12 EST