[NIFL-4EFF:1490] EFF/NRS Connections

From: gdemetrion (gdemetrion@email.msn.com)
Date: Mon Apr 16 2001 - 18:11:50 EDT


Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f3GMBog18144; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:11:50 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:11:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <000701c0c6c1$f9171080$19aa2a3f@computer>
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: "gdemetrion" <gdemetrion@email.msn.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1490] EFF/NRS Connections
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 3325
Lines: 73

Colleagues:

I'm sure many of you have received the latest thought provoking issue of EFF
Voice that focuses on efforts to link EFF with the National reporting System
(NRS).

A couple things stand out.  Most fundamentally at least to me is the
challenge of linking the highly constructivist EFF standards with the
behaviorist assumptions that ground NRS "levels--a concept that Tom Sticht
and others have critiqued on the assumption (that of levels) that do not
adequately or accurately reflect the rich experience of learning.
Nonethelss, the challenge is out there to:

a) to focus on the next generation of the NRS and thereby help to
"complexify" them so that they more appropriately emulate the constructivist
standards inherent with the EFF generative skills upon which the EFF
standards ar based

b)  To draw upon an "empiricist" framework, particularly "rubrics," which
preserve the quantitative meptaphor and therefore, the perception of
"standardization," "uniformity," and "measurability" that intellectually
grounds the NRS framework of levels within a positivistic philosophy and
behaviorist psychology.

Whether or not the paradigms are *inherently* incompatible or whether a
convergence is possible on the grounds of *intellectual* coherence is a
matter to be seen and a worthy experiment.

Much is at stake here and the EFF-NRS experiement needs both wide girth, but
also critical assessment both from within and outside the camp of the
literacy mainstream which is seeking consensus on this emerging framework.

I don't have much to say about this at this time, just to point out what I
believe to be some of the important and underlying issues.  Obviously there
are others perspectives.

On a more technical note (pp. 4-5), the following appears:

"Our goal is to assure that, in the next generation of the NRS, adult
learning programs and states will be able to report learning progress from
level to level on all 16 Standards and to report achievement of measurable
learner outcomes related to the roles of parent/family member,
citizen/community member and worker."

Question:

Will the framework for the emerging model of measurement be based upon the
process-oriented Standards, which stress, in effect, learning how to learn
in varying manifestations, and are highly constructivist, or, or will the
focus of measurement be based on the contextual role maps which are more
easily discernable through behaviorist paradigms of of instrumentality and
measurement?

I raise this technical issue because I feel it, too, speaks to the tension
(which may or may not be creative) *between* the paradigms of constructivism
and behaviorism, between the more "open social universe of intutitive and
emerging learning where beliefs, attitudes, and behavior are subtly joined,
or the more sharply defined social universe of direct outcomes.

I recognize the difficulty of the issue and I'm not trying to take cheap
shots over matters which the field has mightily struggled with for a long
time.  I seek, though, to extend the discussion and to raise a set of issues
that may be slightly outside the emerging consensual framework, but which is
hovering closely around its periphery.

The discussion is a worthy one.

George Demetrion
Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford
Gdemetruion@msn.com
Gdemetrion@lvgh.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 13:29:51 EDT