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 f4FGomf09220; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:50:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:50:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <43.15291b98.2832b7c0@aol.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: AndresMuro@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1581] clarification on yesterday's obscure post, please read X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Status: O Content-Length: 1957 Lines: 35 I apologize for the message that I posted yesterday that was clearly pedantic and obscure. It was reaction to a message that was published in the latest issue of Focus on Basics. This is the publication of the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. It is supposed to represent the latest and most innovative study in adult literacy. The article was written by Reder and Strawn and is at: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ncsall/fob/2001/reder.html Reder is also a well respected and knowledgeable literacist who has published well researched stuff in the past. In this article the authors argue against the notion that most students drop out of k-12 and ABE as a result of resistance (which was Quigley’s argument). This is very reactionary, of course, since it is taking subjectivity away from the students. It is also telling teachers that developing pedagogies to address student subjectivities is, therefore, unnecessary. In fact, if this is true, the only two other possibilities left for student failure is either external (non-dispositional) barriers, or intellectual capacity. In fact this means that once we address external barriers, all we need to do is implement a prescribed curriculum. If students don’t succeed it is a reflection of their intellect. The possibility of alienation, due to cultural, social, psychological barriers is tossed out for the equation. The article was poorly researched, not because of what it did, but because of what it did not do. It did not speculate on the fact that the results were due to the questions that the researchers did not ask. It did not speculate that the format may have lead participants to answer the way they did. I am shocked that the people from EFF, Harvard Grad School of Ed., or anyone else is having tantrums about this article. I hope that people read it and participate in this discussion. Andres
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 13:29:57 EDT