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 f5C4eVf18728; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <B74AEB0D.46F7%kappra@earthlink.net> 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: Rick Kappra <kappra@earthlink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1674] Re: "Terry Kinzel" <horsecp@televar.com>: RE: X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: O Content-Length: 12364 Lines: 226 George, Thank you so much for so eloquently describing what I have been feeling since my very recent EFF training. As one who came to EFF independently - and got very excited regarding the potential of the framework, I was really looking forward to the training. However, after two days of training, I found that I was more frustrated and much of my original excitement was gone. I still can't really say where my frustration is coming from and won't know until I attempt to integrate EFF into my own classroom, in my own way...and this, I think, is part of the problem. I didn't get the feeling that my own way would be good enough. I really felt after the training that allowing instructors to find the best way for themselves and their learners was not a part of the plan, rather, there was as you stated, one and only one path towards student-centered instruction and success. I now understand much of the frustration I have been encountering on this list from those who have attended EFF trainings - an understanding which I didn't have as long as I was educating myself. I think that perhaps the way that EFF is being presented is as a package which has to be used as is, rather than experimented with and implemented according to the needs of students, instructors and programs. Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, I would say that many on this list as well as many of my colleagues in our recent training also misunderstood. Thank you for stating so clearly some of the conflicts I (and I assume others) feel. Rick Kappra on 6/11/01 3:41 PM, gdemetrion at gdemetrion@msn.com wrote: > Terry: > > Thanks so much for your thoughtful message. > > I think I agree with everything you say. I presume the stimulation is both > with instructors and with students, perhaps in opening up the pathways of > learning that neither instructors nor students might have pursued > independently. > > I would agree that EFF can provide what you say. I take no issue with that. > So can other approaches, which I don't think too many folks would take issue > with, though as I am more than quick to acknowledge, EFF is particularly > comprehensive and potentially very fruitful as an instructional resource. > Still, for a wide array of reasons, many discussed on this list, EFF may or > may not be the most efficacious pathway to student learning in any given > teaching situation. And people may be using other models which also > facilitate student-centered instruction that may be working equally well, > while other yet, may draw on EFF in a highly partial way in response to > various teaching moments. None of this is meant to minimize one whit what > instructors *may* and obviously *do* accomplish through EFF. It is only to > assert that various paths lead to Rome. Again, from an instructional point > of view, I would argue that this is a relatively noncontroversial statement, > though perhaps some very good comparative studies of different instructional > approaches may yield some good clarity on what is good instruction. > > In any event, I only get leery when and if EFF is promoted as *the* path or > even the best path to facilitate student-centered instruction. I would > rather say, it is one path and a mighty good one, though the impact may be > as much on the thinking that it stimulates in instructors as much as if not > more than a literal application of the specific dimensions of EFF within > instruction, but I'm not taking a tight stand on that, either way. > > The policy issue comes to the fore when we look at the Standards. From both > a policy perspective and the perspective of performance-based > accountability, student efficacy is determined by the extent to which the > student masters the specific Standards. Yet from the perspective of > heuristics (that which stimulates learning), what is most salient is not > necessarily mastery of the Standards, but student growth--getting to the > next step, or through a series of steps or stages, which leads to further > growth, *as defined by the student, regardless of the external Standard.* > > In stating this, I do not deny the value of the Standard, but for analytical > purposes, I want to separate out the heuristic and evaluative purposes of > the framework. This becomes particularly important for those not using EFF > in a systematic manner, but as a tool in enhancing the efficacy of the > teaching moment. From this perspective, I seek to maximize the full > potential of the teaching moment (realizing that I can never realize "full" > or "maximum," but stressing "potential") as that which is most important > within the dynamic of the teaching moment, regardless as to whether the > student has achieved mastery of a particular standard. > > One of the core tensions within EFF as well as in the Standards movement, > generally, is what is sometimes experienced as the gap between student > learning (an internal function) and the standard (an external measurement). > Clearly, good education facilitates interactivity between the self and the > social environment, but the critical issue remains whether the evaluative > standard stems from the self or from an external source. On what basis is > "good enough" determined, who decides, and why? And what is the purpose of > teaching--stimulating student growth or progressive mastery of the standard? > In the ideal world, we might say both. That ideal is not very often > realized. Moreover, for analytical purposes, I think it's sometimes useful > to look closely at the individual pieces of a synthesis (EFF) to get a more > precise handle on how the parts fit or perhaps do not fit. What is at > issue, I believe, is whether the student is the ultimate arbiter of what is > viewed as valid learning, while recognizing that students obviously have > "external" goals for learning, linked, say to the Role Maps and other worthy > areas. Or whether the standards become the ultimate arbiter of what is > deemed as legitimate, to which the educational purpose will be to seek ways > to link the standards to student-centered purposes. The EFF developers have > worked valiantly to bring the two together and to establish a national > consensus on the purposes of adult literacy/ABE. There is more than a > little value that has come out of that process. Yet, I believe the tension > for which I am seeking words to describe is also ever present and a tension > that has more than a little significance when it comes to discerning the > subtle relationships between learning/instruction and policy. Obviously, I > think this needs a close look. > > Make no mistake about it, I am a friend of EFF, even if one a little > distanced. I am more than a little fascinated and absorbed with its > heuristic potential, whether as a thought process or as a set of > instructional tools that can be more literally applied. Yet, I have also > been a long advocate of student-centered instruction well before EFF was > created and am also firmly of the belief that many roads lead to Rome. > Though, and this is in favor of EFF, I have an awesome respect for the > degree of comprehensiveness that has gone into this excellent work, which I > believe, represents one important pole in adult education theory and > practice--that is the pole toward comprehensiveness and structure. The > other pole, equally valid, and I believe Elsa Aurbach gets at it when she > writes about the "emergent curriculum," is the dynamic improvisational and > spontaneous learning that so many of us have so often experienced, where > often, the very best learning takes place. In that realm, no system, no > structure can enter and anything which impedes that is a detriment to sound > teaching and learning. I believe we need to continuously wrestle with both > of these poles in the ongoing quest to assist students in achieving very > substantial levels of highly significant learning, both through the dynamism > of the ideoiosyncratic teaching movement and through the more stable > experience of a learning history. > > Because this is long enough, I do not want to substantially address the > issue of policy here, but if I had time and space, there would be more than > a little to say. Though what is stated here is obviously long and a bit > abstract, I worked deliberately on this message to frame it in a > non-academic language. My understanding of the issues stems both from > practice and theory, which I believe need to be perpetually conjoined in our > field. > > George Demetrion > Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford > Gdemetrion@msn.com > Gdemetrion@lvgh.org > >> --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Terry Kinzel" <horsecp@televar.com> >> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> >> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1668] RE: How is EFF being used in adult literacy? >> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:29:53 -0400 (EDT) >> Message-ID: <000b01c0f074$932dd1a0$1cc108d0@televar.com> >> >> Your eloquence as usual is quite welcome. I am not sure tht EFF >> "stimulates >> learning" in students, rather it stimulates instruction that responds to >> the >> student. It puts the student at the center instead of isolating the >> delivery of instruction to meet the instructors definition. EFF provides >> context and common understanding between learners, programs, and >> ultimately >> employers. It is responsive to learners and involves a multi-level >> approach >> to instruction that more closely resembles how we learn. I am not sure >> how >> one can separate instruction and policy. It seems the goal should be the >> same and should relate to measurable, meaningful outcomes for learners. >> >> Terry Kinzel >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: gdemetrion <gdemetrion@msn.com> >> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> >> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 1:32 PM >> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1666] RE: How is EFF being used in adult literacy? >> >> >>>> The trick is convincing them that EFF will help their learner. >>> >>> I would only add that *perhaps* EFF will help the learner, though then >>> again, not *necessarily* so in all situations. That is, from an >>> instructional perspective, if one views EFF as a means rather than an >> end, >>> similar to multiple intelligences, for example, then drawing on both of >>> these frameworks may be viewed as highly fruitful means to stimulate >> quality >>> instruction, but not necessarily the only, or even the most *fruitful* >> path >>> toward student learning in any given situation. In stating this I take >> away >>> not one whit what people have said about the efficacy of EFF stemming >> from >>> their experience. >>> >>> I would agree with others who have identified EFF as fruitful. I can >> see >>> why that is so. Moreover, I believe it is useful to have a framework >>> fleshed out in the thorough manner of the EFF framework. It is only >> when >>> and if folks begin to view EFF as the only, or even the best way to >>> stimulate student learning and linking it to the significant areas of >> their >>> lives, that I have reservations. >>> >>> That's why I've previously made the argument that the educational and >> system >>> building purposes of EFF need to be sharply distinguished for analytical >>> purposes in order to really get a handle on EFF as an instructional set >> of >>> tools (or more formally, a heuristic). In arguing thusly, I do not >> minimize >>> the system building and policy purposes of EFF and accept that these, >> along >>> with the educational contributions of EFF, are highly significant and >>> ultimately part of a common framework. However, in doing so, I may draw >>> different inferences from the EFF developers, though I can't say that >> for >>> sure, since I don't really know. In any event, I argue, the divergent >>> purposes of EFF as they apply to instruction and policy need to be >> sharply >>> delineated in order to get a better handle on the importance of both. >>> >>> George Demetrion >>> >>> >> >> --------- End forwarded message ---------- >> >> ________________________________________________________________ >> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! >> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! >> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: >> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 13:30:05 EDT