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 f3PGgff19286; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:42:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:42:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3AE6F827.368BD4DD@swt.edu> 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 Normand <an10@swt.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1525] Re: a question for facilitators X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; x-mac-creator=4D4F5353; x-mac-type=54455854; X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Status: O Content-Length: 5060 Lines: 48 Mary, Two years ago I had these same concerns. With the funding from a special PD grant, I offered a series of four workshops for master teachers in my co-op and two other co-ops in our area. We had a total of 20 participants the first time. We met every four weeks, with assignments created by the teachers to be carried out in their classrooms, practicing EFF in their classrooms during the month. We gave them the experience of EFF in four stages, let them digest each in an experiential way in their own classroom, and come back with questions and concerns. When we came together, first we reviewed the previous workshop, then the experiences they had in implementing the assignments, and then went on to the next stage of learning EFF. We only lost five of the original group through the process. It was a wonderful experience, and to my knowledge all of these instructors are using EFF effectively in their classrooms today. Amy Normand Project VITAL Volunteers in Training for Adult Literacy Center for Initiatives in Education Southwest Texas State University Mary Siedow wrote: > For the past several months, whenever I've done an EFF teaching and learning workshop, I've noticed something that worries me. Participants are interested in everything that happens, they do their best with the activities, but they don't seem to "get it" and they certainly don't seem ready to implement EFF at the end of the workshop. Have any other trainers had this experience? What thoughts do you have about how we can address it? > > In the rest of this lengthy message, I've recounted what happens in workshops, and proposed ideas of my own. I'd certainly like to engage in a discussion with others about any aspects of the issue. > > What happens: > Each time I've done the workshop I've worked with other EFF trainers. We've worked through the sample learning activity from Vermont Adult Learning and then moved to the planning activity based on a scenario. > > Participants are impressed by the VAL example. I've heard people say that they've used similar projects with their students and other people note the accomplishment of the VAL teachers who sustained learning through all of the activities described. These responses tell me that participants are seeing EFF learning as substantial; and that - whether they can articulate it or not at this point - they recognize the purposeful, contextual, and constructive elements of EFF learning activities. > > The scenario based planing activity is where the difficulty starts. Participants struggle to figure out what to do with it. They try to come up with great content ideas, they worry over whether they're attending to each of the COPs for the standard they've chosen. They ask lots of questions about the planning form, and they have trouble connecting everything into purposeful, contextual, and constructive learning. During the sharing time we hear really interesting ideas along with ideas that sound like "business as usual." Still, everyone tells us that they are ready to go home and use EFF with their students. > > My concern: > What I'm just not sure about is this last bit of the workshop. Somehow, as I reflect back, I am faced with this nagging concern that teachers really are not ready to go home and use EFF. We've asked participants to make a large number of "stretches" in the workshop, and their first efforts to construct learning activities do not suggest to me that they've made all of them. > > My questions and thoughts: > Time: I don't think that merely extending workshop time would help. Participants have had about all they can handle in the hours we have with them. > > Content: I can't imagine leaving out any of the content. People need the overview of standards, role maps, common activities, history - whether this is a first or later encounter with EFF. They need a good example to guide them. They need a clear planning activity to get them started. > > Expectations: Could it be that our expectations are off the mark? Can we really assume that people are ready to implement EFF after just a few hours? If not, what else should we do to assist them? > > So, I'm left with trying to build other scenarios that might work. What might happen, for example, if we offered a two or three day institute style workshop? I think it might be better than two workshops separated in time (where the attrition rate would enter into the mix). Could we get teachers to sign up? Could we get program managers to buy in? > > I think we're at a critical place with EFF staff development. We can't provide every program in the country with the kinds of support offered to field development sites. Yet, unless we provide necessary support we are likely to lose people who try it for awhile and then move back to earlier practices. > > Mary > > Mary Dunn Siedow, Ed.D. > Director, NC Literacy Resource Center > 5025 Mail Service Center > Raleigh, NC 27699-5025 > 919-733-7051, ext 502 > 800-553-9759 (NC only) > http://www.state.nc.us/NCLRC/home
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 13:29:54 EDT