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 j9PNDDG27829; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <BAY107-F36718CE66D7E0D3086032CF760@phx.gbl> 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: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:2332] moderation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 6747 Lines: 153 AALPD-ers: Monitoring and sometimes censorship of NIFL lists and websites, as well as other publicly-funded sites and discussions, have been recurring themes under the administration of George W. Bush. I think I saw this first in 2002-2003 during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq when some messages were removed from the lists. I have seen "re-organization" and closing of information sources such as ERIC and their replacement with ideologically-approved information sources such as the What Works Clearinghouse. In the intervening time, I have noticed that list participants have come to self-censor to the point that there are few really thought-provoking comments or discussions anymore (some, but few), and some of the most interesting subscribers of a few years ago seem to have left the list. The trend isn't limited to NIFL or education. My work has also brought me into contact with the USDA and other federal agencies and the same trends occur there; the unwillingness of federal employees to speak openly is clear and worrisome. Not only is this counter to the principles upon which this country was founded and to which we should endeavor to live up; it is also counter to the pragmatic aim of fostering professional development. Political or not, messages that integrate disparate topics can provoke new ways of thinking about a topic, and can trigger new insights, teaching techniques, research questions, and generally, learning that moves our field or individuals forward. I have the greatest respect for Jackie and the other moderators, but to put the burden of moderating and directing the dialogue is to place another barrier to learning in the face of practitioners. I think it was Burns and Vollmeyer (2002) who found that unconstrained exploration of a "problem space" contributed to mastery of a domain. Artificially defining the boundaries of the professional development "problem space" will likely interfere with development of expertise. Though some list subscribers no doubt delete anything I write without reading it, I've gotten off-list comments from others that some of my messages bringing in information and ideas from outside the field, or unconventional perspectives on the field, contribute to their learning. What is so dangerous about ideas that we need to have them filtered for us? Or what is so dangerous about thinking for ourselves that we shouldn't have an unfiltered exchange of ideas? By the way, I believe everything I say is protected by the First Amendment. Thanks, Janet and Katrina. I wouldn't even have read this innocuously-named thread unless I saw the names of people I think speak freely! Eileen >From: "Katrina Hinson" <khinson@future-gate.com> >Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov >To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> >Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:2331] Re: New format for the Institute Lists >Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:31:27 -0400 (EDT) > >I have questions too after seeing the email earlier today. > >1) What criteria is being used to determine what is an "acceptable" post or >not? >2) What is going to be done to prevent delay/ lag in someone posting or >responding to a discussion and then having to wait for it to be "approved" >? > >Those two questions are very big. I enjoy the discussions I read and >participate in over the forums but find it curious that all of sudden >they're being moderated. > >Regards >Katrina Hinson > > >>> Janet_Isserlis@brown.edu 10/25/05 3:16 PM >>> > >Mime-version: 1.0 >X-future-gate-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more >information >X-future-gate-MailScanner: Found to be clean >X-MailScanner-From: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov > >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 > > >We could learn a lot from crayons: some are sharp, some are >pretty, some are dull, some have weird names, and all are >different colors...but they all have to learn to live in >the same box. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:40 EST