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 f9NFmY024169; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <57.8ce411.2906eae3@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:1866] Re: What does a transparent approach mean? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Status: O Content-Length: 2913 Lines: 38 The problem as I see it, is that there are two types of practitioners. One group includes those that have devoted extensive time to the field, have studied, have practiced, and have pedagogical expertise. The other group are those who are new to the field and don't come from a background in adult ed. Maybe they got a teaching job by chance, most likely part-time and have little time for professional development. The first group consists of teachers who essentially know how to teach effectively incorporating family, vocation, education and community issues into the class. They may also have an understanding of philosophical and ideological issues that inform about pedagogy. Many in this group do not need EFF. In fact they may find EFF constraining and both philosophically and ideologically objectionable. I find a few elements of EFF ideologically objectionable, but more than that I find attempts to impose something on everyone, even more ideologically objectionable. The second group constitutes a very broad spectrum of our field. I believe that the EFF approach was developed in response to the limitations of this group. It intends to be "transparent", I guess so that anyone can use it effectively and with ease (I wonder if this is still the case after some decided to deconstruct transparent). However, it may be confusing to many teachers with lack of experience and lack of time. Moreover, I don't see EFF as the solution to part-time teachers with no background and little time for professional development. Andres In a message dated Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:05:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Bonnie Fortini <bfortini@acad.umm.maine.edu> writes: > And herein resides the rub! While we can deal with the transparency of > technology by mastering the tool- from fountain pen or mechanical pencil > to computer (personally, I am still working on the electric pencil > sharpener in our office that seems bent upon eating my pencils), EFF asks > to be noticed. Watching students (and practitioners) find themselves in > the framework or roles has been an instructive experience for me. So many > of the students in our program have, for so many reasons, never "had a > clue" about becoming an effective individual. The tools in EFF are often > the first glimmer of goals and plans for some of them. And the fact that > EFF began in and continues to return to the field to be refined and > informed predisposes the process to some level of resonance with our > students. > > If the approach needs to be transparent, then perhaps it should be "second > nature" for practitioners who should become "fluent" in the application > of the EFF tools. The struggle to understand and implement EFF is part of > the tool kit, and if that isn't "taking responsibility for learning," > "reflect and evaluate," and all the communication skills at least, then I > don't know what is. > > Bonnie F.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 13:30:23 EDT