Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i4D22lm19161; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:02:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 22:02:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20040512.215942.6382.0.socrates555@juno.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George E. Demetrion" <socrates555@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:550] on validity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 3958 Lines: 68 In our group tutoring session this morning we were working on a biographical profile of turn of the 20th century African American journalist Ida Wells-Tarbell. It was about an hour into the two-hour session. We had completed the narrative and were in the midst of working on the questions when one of the regular students entered the class. I gave her the handout as she was ready simply to pick up wherever we were and join the group. I sensed that would be pointless since, as she hadn't read the story she would have no basis for even understanding the questions. One of other student's boyfriend (the student was not in the group that I am describing here) was working on the internet, so I asked him to work one-on- one with the student who came in late to help her catch up. The student decided to work alone. She was at a doctor's appointment and thought that it was better to be late than not to come at all. If we were still doing the reading, I would have had her join the group. As I would not have easily been able to integrate her into the group at the time she did come in, I thought it was best for her to study the assignment with someone else while the group continued with its work. At the end of the class session the student asked me why I wouldn't let her join the group. I explained my reasoning which she seemed to have understood, though my sense was that she would have preferred to have joined the group even if she were unable to follow the lesson from that point very well. That is, my sense is that more important than the academic learning was the social conviviality of our group sessions--that it would have been okay with her if she hadn't picked up that much from the lesson, but participated in the process in the way that she and her friends had been used to. Obviously, I had seen the situation differently, and as a group we had gotten into the topic matter in some depth. Being focused on the content, I made an on the spot decision, viewing the group tutoring setting primarily as a learning environment (learning in the typical sense of the word) and judging that we were too engrossed in the learning to have her come in at that time. But then what is valid? There is not only her and my perspective, but the dynamics of the underlying learning and organizational cultures that gives shape to what emerges as legitimacy. My colleague Catherine King has referred to "social facilitation" as a vital dimension of adult education, a viewpoint to which, of course, I share. At the same time our programs are formal learning institutions and it was learning of this type that was the main focus of our group this morning. Underlying these issues are at least two types of dynamics: a) The on-site relationship between students, instructors and staff. b) The more formalized institutional cultures emerging out of the ethos of core values through which programs define themselves In an environment that has a very strong pull toward the social facilitation edge, the valid thing to do in this situation would have been to allow the student to pick up in the middle of the lesson and join the group. In an environment with a very strong educational edge, perhaps the approach I took would have been the more logical course. I'm not sure to what extent I'm able to bring home what I'm trying to say here, which is more than the admonition to be flexible. It is, rather, what we do, what we prioritize, and what we refer to as legitimate is very powerfully normed based. However scientifically one can define the term, the definition of validity itself in application is a culturally-based product in which knowledge construction is intimately linked to the ways in which institutional and social power are constructed. This is not to deny the importance of standards, but it is to situation them as a social and cultural product and to keep such "regimes of truth" in mind. George Demetrion
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:16 EST