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 j9PJH9G24067; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:17:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:17:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <BF83FAD1.5994%Janet_Isserlis@brown.edu> 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: Janet Isserlis <Janet_Isserlis@brown.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:2330] Re: New format for the Institute Lists X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2719 Lines: 56 Tanya and all I know I'll be seeing this message on many lists this afternoon, but am choosing this one to ask you, if you would, to talk about the decision that was made to 'fully' moderate lists. From here, it feels a bit like someone has decided that all messages need some sort of screening. As professional developers, I believe this degree of moderation is of interest to all of us - where are the places that dissent occurs, and how does that dissent move intellectual and learning activity forward? - what is the rationale behind asking a moderator to read through and evaluate messages? Why do lists need this kind of oversight? What is there to be learned by those of us facilitating similar lists on the state or local level? Janet Isserlis > From: <tshuy@nifl.gov> > Reply-To: <nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov> > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:04:26 -0400 (EDT) > To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> > Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:2329] New format for the Institute Lists > > Dear Discussion List Participants, > > The National Institute for Literacy sponsors electronic discussion lists to > facilitate dialogue about the latest literacy research and its applications to > instructional practice; promising policies and practices; and to promote the > exchange of ideas, resources, and experience. Our goal is to enhance > professional development for educators and practitioners through ongoing > opportunities to learn, discuss, and reflect on critical literacy issues. > Presently, the Institute is moving the discussion lists to a new format. > Beginning next month - November 2005, the discussion lists will switch over to > a fully moderated list. Each discussion list addresses a specific topic and > is moderated by a practitioner with expertise who is responsible for > facilitating the discussion. > > We encourage discussion list participants to focus contributions to the lists > on the specific lists' subject areas and goals. Comments, suggestions, > references, and ideas posted to the discussion lists should serve as resources > for enhancing the field's capacity and knowledge base. We encourage open > discourse and an exchange of information, ideas, and practices among all list > subscribers. Differences in perspectives and ideas are welcome, especially > when they are voiced in the spirit of inquiry, curiosity, and mutual respect. > While the lists are specifically designed to meet the needs of educators and > practitioners, we encourage all who have an interest in adult literacy to join > the discussions. > > We invite your continued participation on the discussion lists. > > Sincerely, > Tanya Shuy and Mary Jo Maralit > National Institute for Literacy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:40 EST