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 j9QKJHG26360; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:19:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:19:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <43745D34@webmail.utk.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: jataylor <jataylor@utk.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:2334] Re: moderation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Infinite Mobile Delivery (Hydra) SMTP v3.62.01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Status: O Content-Length: 7843 Lines: 236 Hello everyone, I appreciate the messages that have been posted on this list regarding NIFL's change towards moderated lists. To make sure that Tanya and Jo have seen your messages, I have forwarded them a copy of them and have asked them to reply to the concerns your posts have expressed. I look forward to their response. In the meantime, I hope you know that your views, questions, and concerns are important to me, and diverse perspectives are welcomed on NIFL-AALPD. Best, Jackie Jackie Taylor List Moderator, AALPD jataylor@utk.edu >===== Original Message From nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov ===== >I want to thank Eileen for her thoughtful explanation of why it is >important to have an open forum for discussion. I do hope that her >reasoned arguments will be taken into account as these decisions are >made. I really appreciate the time that you took in making it. Thank >you. > >>> eileeneckert@hotmail.com 10/25 7:13 PM >>> >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 - 09:48:41 EST