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 hA5HC9V23583; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 12:12:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 12:12:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <001a01c3a3bc$b986bc60$130101c8@workstation1> 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: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2601] Re: Inquiry from New Zealand X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 4429 Lines: 98 Meta, Allison and others, This is a really important question. What I'd like to add to the query is some feedback on the contexts in which EFF has worked well and has not worked so well. Obviously, professional development and broad program or agency embrace have been important factors. What about other factors? program or agency culture is obviously an important factor. In our program, at least as currently situated, our dominant pedagogical culture is shaped by the imagery of the good school. Within that context anything can be introduced if it is done through texts that students and tutors can directly use. At least historically, our program has been shaped by a materials-driven rather than a goals-driven curriculum, and without changing the culture, a heavily-goals driven approach is generally not conducive to what students and tutors have come to expect. With heavy prompting and sustained support, generally through a grant, we have been able to institute a specific curricula focus--a recent (successful) health curriculum comes to mind for about a 6 week period. That took major commitment and time on my part given a somewhat eclectic materials approach, focused broadly on such areas as culture, human interest, family themes, news stories, personal interest, and of course, reading. In this approach tutors have recommended materials to work with. They draw on a broad range of these topics, but generally have not followed a strong and consistent thematic base. Many tutors work with 2-3 texts as their main fare. It's conceivable that another orientation could work within our context, though it would push a lot against the current grain and there would need to be some very strong forces operative to counteract the more enduring patterns. For us, then (and I'm still speculating here) an implementation of EFF would need to be materials driven (at least at first) and >perhaps< a more goals-driven focus could be implemented by some of the students. However, we focus on actual outcomes rather than pre-determined goals for the most part in that so much of what students want emerges as they learn and goals and aspirations often change, assuming they're clearly articulated in the first place. So I remain leery about a too-sharp focus on "goals" with some experience upon which to base that apprehension. The short of it, then, is that with the right pieces of print materials (which I'm working on) directly appropriated in the tutor sessions, it's feasible say, that the students would understand the Content Standards and Components of Performance and think through the lessons with them as they work with a variety of themes. That would be an evolutionary incorporation that plausibly could work and bring a certain value to the program. I'm thinking here of program piloting rather than total incorporation with a key group of those tutors who might be most receptive. Even here the proof of such an endeavor would be in the pudding. In short, I feel the experiment has enough value to continue pursuing, whivch will depend >in part< on how effectively I can work with it. The extent to which EFF has >innate< value is another matter, though as the project is the most extensive national experiment to date (that includes considerable field testing and appropriation), that, in itself something as to its merit. Obviously, my local experience would be different than others. I recommend an exploratory experimental approach rather than inherent skepticism or uncritical embrace. The capacity to commit the needed time to work the experiment through is obviously an important matter. George Demetrion Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford ----- Original Message ----- From: <MWPotts2001@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:13 AM Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2600] Inquiry from New Zealand > Colleagues, > > Allison Sutton, a colleague in New Zealand writes to ask us: > > *How much has EFF has actually changed practice and what was practice like > > before hand? * > > Practitioners and Administrators, please help with this one. Adult Educators > in NZ are just beginning to explore EFF, and the benefits of your experience > will help them greatly. > > Thank you for offering your insight here. > > Meta Potts, Moderator 4-EFF list > FOCUS on Literacy > Glen Allen, VA > mwpotts2001@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:14:47 EST