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 f3RG9Tf04991; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:09:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:09:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3AF72922@webmail.utk.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: akohring <akohring@utk.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1540] for facilitators and for ESL
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07
Status: O
Content-Length: 3161
Lines: 52
In light of some of the great discussions generated by Mary Siedow’s email, I
thought I would share some observations from a recent EFF presentation at the
COABE 2001 conference in Memphis. Olga Ebert and myself (Aaron Kohring) from
the Center for Literacy Studies (CLS) in Knoxville, TN presented a short
session on EFF. I have personally been involved with the data collection
process of EFF at CLS for the past 2 years.
In this COABE session, we did a brief introduction to the history of EFF,
worked through an example of developing an EFF friendly lesson, and showed a
small selection of classroom examples of tasks being used in the current field
research sites. In developing a lesson, we talked about ways in which the
four purposes, the three roles, or common activities could be used as possible
starting points for creating a lesson. Using a worksheet, we asked
participants to choose a specific group of learners, think about the needs of
those learners, and pick a common activity as a focus. Then participants
listed the standards that were necessary to perform that activity. From that
list of standards, an EFF lesson could be developed with a particular standard
as a focal point.
Following this worksheet activity, we looked at some examples of lessons
being used in the current research sites. Examples were drawn from ABE, ASE,
ESL, Family Literacy, and Workplace programs. At a future time, we hope to
have some examples of such lessons available online.
This session raised some of the same issues being discussed on this
forum: the initial feeling of being overwhelmed by the volume of information
that comes with EFF and whether (and how) can EFF-friendly lessons be used
with a variety of learners [in this session, it was specific to very beginning
ESL learners].
It does take time to learn about the detailed aspects of EFF. For
myself, it helped to step back and realize that EFF is a part of my teaching
philosophy. The framework becomes integrated with what I do as an instructor
and a facilitator over time. It was not necessary for me to fully understand
everything at once. I adopted the stance that it was okay to start where I
was, attend additional workshops, try out ideas, ask questions, and later come
to a deeper understanding of EFF. How I understood EFF has evolved over the
past two years. I viewed it not as a cure-all, but as a valuable perspective
on the process of teaching and learning and as a framework from which I could
build upon.
Working with some beginning ESL adults recently, I found that instruction
of some very basic skills (perhaps learning pronunciation of the basic sounds
in English) became pre-activities that led up to EFF learning activities that
covered more holistic tasks based on an EFF standard. ESL learners discovered
that “survival skills” encompassed more than just the communication standards.
Regards,
Aaron
Aaron Kohring
Graduate Research Assistant
University of Tennessee,
Educational Psychology Dept., Adult Education
Center for Literacy Studies:(865)974-4109
Fax:(865)974-3857
e-mail: akohring@utk.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 13:29:55 EDT