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 f5CKnif21916; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <F311A53ZpEVmkWFBXZG000016e6@hotmail.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: "Susan Rowley" <susanrowley@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1683] Re: "Terry Kinzel" <horsecp@televar.com>: RE: X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 13651 Lines: 312 Terry, Your postings and those of your staff have been inspirational, useful, practical, helpful...I can't say enough in appreciation. Big Bend has done an amazing job and we are lucky to have your input on this list. Selfishly, I'm proud that you all are in Washington. Thank you. And cheers to all. Susan Rowley Tacoma Community College srowley@tcc.tacoma.ctc.edu >From: Rick Kappra <kappra@earthlink.net> >Reply-To: nifl-4eff@nifl.gov >To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> >Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1674] Re: "Terry Kinzel" <horsecp@televar.com>: RE: >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:39:26 -0400 (EDT) > >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. > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 13:30:06 EDT