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 fA6NBd008198; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:11:39 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:11:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <002c01c16718$07caece0$50a22a3f@computer>
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: "gdemetrion" <gdemetrion@msn.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1909] RE: State Plans
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 2608
Lines: 60
Virginia and others:
The issue on this in my mind is whether a constructivist circle (rich EFF
standards) can be squared with a behaviorist peg (NRS levels) without their
reduction into rubrics.
If as a result of the EFF/NRS discussions, the second generation of NRS
becomes substantially changed, not just in terms of content, but in terms of
form--say the elimination of what Tom Sticht refers to as the "levels
metaphor," this could be quite interesting. If, on the other hand, EFF will
need to become a square peg through some form of quantitative reductionism,
that's another matter.
Big issues are at stake in this discussion, which point to how knowledge is
defined through the exercise of political power. Are we willing to engage
in a paradigm shift in terms of what (and by what methodologies and theories
of knowledge) is to be determined as valid knowledge. At stake, I argue, is
the viability of the constructivist epistemology (theory of knowing) upon
which EFF is grounded. Also at risk is the ethnographic viability of what
Merrifield refers to as the New Literacy Studies in terms of legitimizing
the indirect variables of literacy practices, which she and others believe
is at the basis of how literacy is assimilated within a contextual
framework. These indirect variables or literacy practices, where language
development and context are complexly intertwined, cannot be sharply
delineated through levels, reduced to a quantitative metaphor that ranges
from 1-6.
Who or what gets to decide which paradigm prevails plays the most
fundamental role in the public determination of legitimized knowledge. At
the least, I believe, such discussions between NIFL and DEAL on the second
generation of NRS should be publicly documented, updated on a regular basis,
and on-going field commentary encouraged. Otherwise the field will be faced
with a fait accompli by what some may view as a washington elite.
That's a tough statement on my part, but I think it needs to be looked at.
It's about legitimacy and the social construction of knowledge all the way
down.
George Demetrion,
reporting in from the hinterland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Virginia Tardaewether" <tarv@exchange.chemeketa.edu>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:07 PM
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1902] RE: State Plans
> I would think that as EFF drives changes that make sense into the NRS, we
> will see changes across states.
> Va
>
> Virginia Tardaewether
>
> Chemeketa {Place of Peace}
> Outreach Instructor
> Dallas, OR 97338
> 503-316-3242
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 13:30:25 EDT