[NIFL-ESL:5341] NLA Discussion: Plain English vs. Academic Jargon (long)

From: MaryAnn Florez (maryann@cal.org)
Date: Wed Nov 29 2000 - 10:31:23 EST


Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eATFVN918198; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:31:23 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:31:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <B24038C0D3E160419E320030D92C22DE146396@hobbes.cal.org>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "MaryAnn Florez" <maryann@cal.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-ESL:5341] NLA Discussion: Plain English vs. Academic Jargon (long)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 7738
Lines: 161

NIFL-ESL Colleagues:

This cross-posting from the National Literacy Advocacy (NLA) Public
Policy List that gives some particularly thoughtful and well-articulated
comments on issues of research and practice.  For those of you who are
not on the NLA list, I thought it was worth sharing.  (For those of you
who are on the NLA list, my apologies for duplication.)  A word of
warning:  it's slightly lengthy, but well worth the read!
Thanks to George Demetrion for these insights on research, theory, and
practice in adult education.
MaryAnn Florez
NIFL-ESL Moderator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
A More Serious Response:Plain English vs. Academic Jargon

This issue really is related to the split between theory and practice
which extends back at least to the Platonic tradition in Ancient Greece.

The life of the mind and the world of action have their own integrity
within their distinctive spheres and have only at best been mediated  in
the West by quests for practitioner-based research or experiential
knowledge.  Much of Dewey's entire life search was a quest for what he
referred to as the "intellectual organization of experience" and he
spent
much of his enormous talent attempting to heal the theory/action split
through his instrumental logic based on inquiry and an aesthetics based
on the quest for the "consummation" of experience.  At best, he was only
partially successful, though his work might be profitably examined in an
effort to work through these tensions.

In our field, there has been a strong effort to bridge the polarity
between  theoretical and practical knowledge through practitioner-based
inquiry, which Cochran-Smith and Lytle (Inside/Outside:  Teacher
Research
and Knowledge) sought to move from the "fringe" to the "forefront."  
While their work echoed a certain promise, the cumulative impact on the
field has been of little avail* as of yet.* 

While it is true that theorists need to be more focused on the
practicality of their work stemming from their theories for
practitioner-based inquiry to have impact, practitioners (in my
judgment)
need to focus more on theory, but sifted through issues raised in
experience rather than those identified within the academic discipline. 
That is, for the integrity of practitioner-based research, neither
theorists *nor* practitioners should colonize the field.  Rather,
problems need to be identified, ideally by communities of
practitioner/scholars (practitioners and scholars who are
simultaneously
practitioners and scholars), that require multiple lenses for the quest
for really usable knowledge, through and for  the working out of
specific
issues and problems.

Such an approach requires a lot of responsibility on the part of readers
of research, particularly if such texts are viewed less as the seat
where
truth resides than as a tool or heuristic for the purpose of working
through/resolving problems/issues as determined by communities of
practitioner/researchers themselves.  The search, then, is for the
knowledge that clarifies whatever issues a person or a group of persons
may have.  Specifically:

* What are your questions/issues?
* What do you really want to know?  What sources of curiosity consume
you?
* What problems deeply perplex you?
* What sources of information and insight most fully stimulate your
imagination?
* What do you have to resolve even to go on?
* What do you wonder about, perhaps in a more reflective mode that
sparks
your intellectual curiosity?

I suggest that it is questions like these which might stimulate the
quest
for relevant research as well as other information that may provide
clarity for the purpose of resolving or making headway with them. 
Anything else is just information and there's endless streams of that
available.

On a related issue there is a good amount of available information in
our
field that is accessible, though it may take time to find it and it is
the job of the reader and not the writer to ascertain the relevance for
his or her particular purposes.

There is also a lot of good information on the archives of the various
listservs.  I was reviewing some of the recent discussions on the
NIFL-ESL list and found some very valuable insight shared on what is and
what comprises a relevant curriculum for ESL.  The issues raised were
very clear and to me quite relevant.  There's been a lot of other
excellent discussions that are housed in the archives that become
available if we make time to study them.  I also would agree that the
potential of the listservs have not yet seen their day and a much more
concentrated list on issues related to instruction, learning,
curriculum,
materials development, etc., would be extremely worthwhile *if* people
are willing to commit the time and energy to sustain high level
discourse
that truly gets at the learning and knowledge that matters.  

Certainly much of the reports and studies from NCSALL, NCAL, NALD and
ERIC are written at a generally accessible level, though, whether
relevant or not, that's another story.  Monographs, studies, and essays
by Fingeret, Merrifield, Sticht, Quigley, Auerbach, Lytle, Beder, and
Hayes -- among the top writers in our field, are often accessible, but
it
does take work, commitment and a sense of purpose in going to a
particular text in the first place in order to mine the wealth of
knowledge that does not lay statically in the text, but is dynamically
poised in the interactive relationship between the reader and the text
in
quest for specific knowledge, insight, and information.

Other broader knowledge from an array of fields and disciplines *may* be
relevant depending on your background, current interests, and specific
issues with which you are dealing--feminism, critical theory,
Afrocentrism, spirituality, for example, might be viewed as highly
relevant for those who have an interest in such topics and want to
establish some interdisciplinary links with our field.   Still,  one
person may find one text or a particular field of study highly
illuminating while it is a sleeper for another.  In this reader-response
era in which we operate, that cannot be the responsibility of the
author.
It helps if the author is clear, to be sure, but what the author defines
as clarity is sifted between his or her own background, interests, and
set of problems which stimulate the writing process.

In short, I agree with you that there's a lot of stuff out there which
may be neither highly accessible or relevant.  Given the overload in the
informational era, that's inevitable.  At the same time, there is a lot
of good work available, generally accessible to the hard working
practitioner who is able and willing to spend the time to search for it,
with the recognition that it's not so much the text which is going to
bring illumination, but the interaction between the text and the reader.

The writer of such potentially informative materials cannot foresee all
of the many ways that his or her work may be appropriated by others. 
Most likely, what one writes will be of value to some and irrelevant to
others.  The challenge for the reader is to discern what to spend time
on
with no guarantees that the effort will produce the desired payoff.  It
may or may not, or it may open new channels.  Reading, like writing, is
as much a matter of faith as it is a matter of knowledge generation.  As
much as anything, commitment through faith (and experience) to certain
research traditions provides the needed force to sustain the learning
process.

Tonight I gave up academic writing to write this.  This was an exercise
both of faith and commitment.

George Demetrion
Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford
GDemetrion@juno.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:45:14 EST