Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id iA6MqwM00986; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:52:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:52:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <003c01c4c452$e6412d50$3002a8c0@ben2ut66kkx7o3> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Amy R. Trawick" <atrawick@charter.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1710] Re: FW: critical literacy (it's a vision thing) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: RO Content-Length: 7679 Lines: 146 I think this discussion about critical literacy/pedagogy relates to PD in important ways. For one, it reminds us that there is a school of thought out there that pushes us to consider the purposes of adult literacy/education. It is a call to evaluate the vision we have, personally and organizationally, for our work in literacy. Leaders (whether they be in at the state, program, or classroom level) ought, I believe, to articulate clearly the vision of their literacy organization, and PD should support that vision. NOTE: Meeting NRS goals is a requirement, not a vision, and yet some states/programs treat it as if it were. As many have said on this list and others, one can give "the feds" what they need and still fulfill larger goals. What these larger goals might be can be informed by the theory and research-base in adult literacy. The purpose of PD is not just to teach instructional skills to practitioners. A principal purpose of PD is to support leaders and practitioners in having a vision about what adult education is about--and to enhance their ability to awaken/crystalize in their students a vision of what adult education can mean to them personally. So, as professional developers, how do we do this? One approach might be a stand-alone. Soon after I entered the adult literacy field as a classroom teacher, I worked with Beth Bingman (Center for Literacy Studies, UT) and Marie Martin in Virginia to develop a PD module around "bringing the community into the classroom" (and vice-versa). We used Susan Lytle's literacy as skills/task/practices/critical reflection as presented in Hannah Fingeret and Cassie Drennon's book *Literacy for Life*. That was a perspective-changing experience for me personally and, I think, for many folks who participated in the training. However, it took up to 8 hours of very limited PD time--right as the NRS expectations were coming about and programs and states started mobilizing for showing gains, improving retention, etc. It seems like the first several years after the NRS was developed, states/programs focused on structural issues to support these goals (how to assess, how to structure classes, how to collect and report data). Now that many of these structural issues have been addressed, attention is turning to instructional issues, especially related to teaching reading, math, and writing (since these are reportable). Instead of a stand-alone on the purpose of adult literacy/education, perhaps the challenge for professional developers is to address these instructional issues *within an understanding of the vision for adult literacy/education promoted by the organization*. This is made much easier, of course, if the organization has thought through the vision thing. If they have, then professional developers within the system can align their services; the vision provides direction which can be addressed no matter what the skill-content of the workshop. Each workshop deepens participants' understanding of the organization's goals and purposes. If the organization doesn't have a clear vision, however, there may be a breadth of offerings, but these do not build the system *as a system*. If a clear vision is lacking, I think it is incumbent upon the organization's professional developers to raise the issue with the system's leader(s). The same is true if there *is* a vision but it is devoid of an understanding of the adult literacy literature (research and theory). Professional developers outside the organization need to know the program's vision so they can support participants in making those connections during their own offerings, or even to decide if what they have to offer is compatible with the ultimate goals of the program. A personal example: In working with different states and programs in providing staff development around the EFF Standard Read With Understanding, I am intrigued by the different approaches systems take. Some want "research-based reading instruction" because that's what the administration's focus is, or they want to improve their gains in reading. They are willing to put up with the "EFF stuff" because there aren't that many training opportunities available (yet) for adult reading instruction. Others have quite intentionally sought out the EFF training because the training supports what they *already* believe about adult education--that skills should be contextualized within the participants' goals and purposes and should build upon the familiar and the immediate with an eye toward the unexpected and long-term. They are interested in how one can teach "research-based reading" in ways that are congruent with *other research in adult learning* and powerful adult learning theory. My role as a professional developer is different in each case. In the first, I have to frontload a discussion about what EFF is and how it draws from adult learning research and theory and determine with the customer how (and/or if) such is compatible with their expressed or assumed vision. [What I am *not* willing to do is compromise my own vision for adult literacy/education.] In the second case, I have to frontload discussion about how they've addressed contextualized and/or standards-based learning in the past and how we might build upon this foundation. In both, I need to know what the participants have encountered related to reading instruction training. Ultimately, the training will look and be experienced differently in each case. In essence, I think professional developers in whatever field should be familiar with the literature of that field--that's part of professionalizing the field. They also need to be able to draw from that literature in providing guidance to their organizations. I find it helpful to have people like George who can stay attuned to the vast amount of literature out there and draw upon it in relevant situations. (As a doctoral student, I find his references immensely helpful!) We need people like Andrea who attempt to translate key messages into language that is understood by those who aren't as steeped in the literature and, thus, not as fluent with the vocabulary, nuances, and implications. However, we need state leaders and professional developers to shape what this means for practice. Amy R. Trawick Equipped for the Future National Facilitator/Consultant EFF National Center, Center for Literacy Studies, UTK atrawick@charter.net ----- Original Message ----- From: <AWilder106@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 2:41 PM Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1708] Re: FW: critical literacy (Giroux) working definition > Thanks, George. > > > OK, here is an example of the use of critical literacy for the adult > classroom. > > Take this quote from George Bush's news conference yesterday (p.17, > NYTimes). > > "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I am going > to spend it." > > I'd put this together with a clip from the news conference, which would > add imemdiate context and tone of voice, setting. > > The sentence is short, I think it would not be hard to read. > > It has Latin roots (head, people) and Middle English words (earn, spend) > some sight words. I think I recall that "spend" has a sexual meaning. > > > Looks simple, isn't. In a couple of senses it is readable--technically, > and in its literal meaning. > > I'd say it would take about 4 years to understand the meaning of this > sentence. > > I think this would make a dandy series of lessons. > > Andrea >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:59 EST