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 j3EFLMG20135; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:21:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:21:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1113491916.425e89cc38e5a@mail.msln.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: Bonnie Fortini <bfortini@mmhs.u102.k12.me.us>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2958] Re: Conflicting Paradigms in Adult Literacy Education
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Status: O
Content-Length: 4806
Lines: 89
Hi Andrea,
It can get overwhelming, can't it?! It might make it easier to think about a
student and how s/he might interact with the components. Let me offer a sample
"case study" to illustrate.
A student comes to my ABE program wanting a GED but has skill levels in reading,
writing, and math that are at an Educational Functioning Level too low to
indicate success without some study before attempting the test. Though it will
be a long haul, we begin to set some goals that have the GED as a kind of
intermediate step.
Why does the student want to get a GED? Does this goal connect in any way to
the student as a family member, worker, or citizen/community member? Probably
there is a connection that the student can articulate, or articulate with more
clarity if the appropriat role map is looked at (rewriting the goal maps with
students at different EFLs can, overtime, provide a program with a set of
personalized interpretations that speak more directly to other students at
those levels or with similar backgrounds/interests).
In looking at the Maps, the BARs help define the role more clearly as well as
demonstrate the interconnections among the roles as some share BARs. The KAs
take this process to a more detailed level. Through all of this process, ties
back to the Generative Skills (the 16 piece wheel) can be made as the
responsibilities and activities all require the communication, interpersonal,
lifelong learning, and decision-making skills on the wheel. In fact, the
process the student and I are going through also requires those skills, in
varying intensity and at different times.
At some point the student could be encouraged to identify specific skills they
feel they are good at. Looking at the COPs of those skills provides a
"checklist" of thinking points for the student to consider when assessing
his/her performance of these skills in terms of standards of performance. The
Common Activities matrix in the back of the EFF Blue Book is another tool that
helps students clarify the roles, activities, and standards as they apply among
the roles.
So, what does one do with all this great information? If the student can be
enrolled into a GED prep program (one that is really an ABE skills program that
keeps the intermediate goal in mind for the sake of morale) the literacy skill
building that needs to be done can be structured around the standards (knowing
what it means to read with understanding can begin to make an emerging reader
more purposeful and gain control over parts of the process quite early on, for
example), in the context of the requirements of a role (or two). It is also
advisable to write specific goal plans using the COPs as activity steps or to
have their presence be evident in the activity plan that is developed.
And while not much formal work has been done with the EFF identified Knowledge
Domains, at least as far as I know, from work I have been doing with our
state's learning results (k-12 standards of education), the KDs are one of the
best cross-curricular organizations of core content that I have run across. I
keep them in mind when crafting curricula ("How Systems Work" in terms of cell
processes, circulation, government, business plans, college application... the
similarities are amazing, and the differences are instructive!) so that the
student's experience draws from a variety of sources. This seems to help build
that foundational knowledge and experience more securely, providing
opportunities to forge connections among the content areas and disciplines.
Key and Common activities are great inspirations and entry point for
project-based learning, too.
I hope this example has been of some help. I caution you that it is not the
only way to use these tools. They are adaptable for every student in terms of
if they are used, to what extent, at what point in the student's experience,
and so on. Some practitioners have found that looking for their own personal
experience in the EFF tools has led to a better understanding of what EFF is
all about. The fact that it can be applied in so many ways does make it more
difficult to grasp as a whole, but grasping parts of it in a personalized way
and realizing that that experience is share-able by all adults, students,
teachers, administrators, and people who are not even involved in adult
education does make it apprehendable and comprehendable.
Bonnie
Quoting AWilder106@aol.com:
> Meta, George, anyone who is EFF savvy: I would appreciate some discussion
> around EFF, the BAR, KA, Generative Skills, Knowledge Domains, and
> Standards. I can't even begin to visualize these things and how they relate
> to each other. I am really interested in a deep understanding of EFF.
>
> Please help me along, here.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrea
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:21 EST