Aaron--

All i want to do is bury myself in my reading, guess I shouldn't do 
that.

The three role maps--activities of adults:  community, work, family.  I 
think these were given from the beginning.

  i am a proponent of grounded research, I use it everyday like most 
people, By Geertz it is called something like "Common  Sense as a 
Cultural System."  The common sense approach got kicked up   to 
ethnographic status and  inductive learning was added, and it became  
rationalized by people who wanted some way to understand those who 
seemed different from themselves--e.g.,--anthropoloigy.came into its 
own. I' ll get back to this a  bit alter.

Thanks, Aaron.  Back to the printing press.

Andrea


On Apr 4, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Aaron Kohring wrote:


> Andrea,

>

> Thanks for your thought-provoking questions.  I wanted to make some

> clarification on a couple of your points below before others jump into 

> the

> discussion.

>

> 1) "i am aware that this list serves teachers, administrators, who use 

> EFF

> and maybe helped make EFF."

> --  To clarify, this list serves a broader audience than those just 

> using 

> EFF Standards. The intent is to include all efforts involved with using

> Content Standards in an adult education setting.  Some states, as you

> mention, are using EFF standards, some are using a subset of those

> standards, and others are using other standards which may be compiled 

> from

> multiple sources.  So this discussion list hopes to encourage the 

> sharing

> of what is happening within that larger audience.

>

> And this discussion list continues to have a goal to be inclusive of 

> the

> system at all levels- we hope to continue the current discussion of

> standards work at the State level, but also have future discussions

> regarding the use/impact of standards with

> programs/administrators/teachers/learners.

>

> 2) "As i recall, Tom Sticht  mentioned after reading George D.'s  book 

> that

> EFF wasn't striclty speaking a fully  grounded approach to data

> gathering--the categories were  givens, did not emerge."

> -- In regards to the categories that were 'named' during the EFF 

> research, 

> if this refers to the 'Purposes' learners attend adult education, 'Role

> Maps', 'Common Activities', 'Standards', 'Performance Continua', etc.--

> then this was very much data driven.  Qualitative research methods were

> used with data collected from the field (from learners, teachers, 

> program &

> state administrators) in an iterative process in order to name each of

> these categories.

>

> Andrea, I might need more information from you to know if this answers 

> or

> clarifies your points above.

>

> Sincerely,

> Aaron

>

>

> At 11:00 AM 4/1/2006 -0500, you wrote:

>> Dear David, Aaron,

>>

>> Nothing like a top of the head response to engender controversy and

>> maybe dismay, but  here goes.

>>

>> The story of the early printing press is all about adult literacy, in

>> two volumes with very small print, i don't think a "school" has been

>> mentioned yet.  Instead I find out how all sorts of adults used the

>> press--churchmen, nascent scientists, guild members, small 

>> shopkeepers,

>> the list is very long.  A "gutter press" emerged.The printing press

>> organized knowledge and essentailly broke the guild system, as

>> knowledge could now be  gotten through a book, not a person.  Without

>> the printing press we would have been either dead or Catholic.

>>

>> I remember seeing a draft of a paper by Sondra Stein in maybe  1997 

>> and

>>   having two reactions:  1)  wish somebody had given me role maps, 

>> they

>> sure would have helped,  plus 2)        life cannot be  reduced to 

>> role maps

>> which by their structure and  assumptions are narrow and ethnocentric

>> (which I have been charged with being, myself).

>>

>> Being a qualititative researcher, I always ask:  can I find myself in

>> here?

>>

>> What I think the EFF standards are is  an updated guild system, with

>> the teacher the master and the adult learner the novice.

>>

>> Maybe the EFF standards are an answer to the problem of 

>> attendance--EFF

>> carries the student over  irregular attendance.  Maybe EFF is an 

>> answer

>> to the dilemma of what to teach and a common vocabulary for students

>> and teachers.  So what I call "narrow" is maybe a way of organizing

>> chaos.  EFF is CERTAINLY a tool for acculaturation into  American

>> norms.

>>

>> I understand that Sondra  had many years of teaching adults, so much

>> of  EFF is guided by  her experience.  i can't argue with that, don't

>> want to.  EFF is a phenomenal effort.

>>

>> Do you play Mah Jongg?  That's how i think of David's idea of 

>> thousands

>> of modules--a universe of little tiles (modules) floating out in

>> (cyber)space.  By themselves the tiles break free of roles, you don't

>> have to fit the tiles into an EFF framework, though it would be useful

>> to have an overarching system, like the "curriculum standards" we as

>> teachers invented when i was a school teacher.

>>

>> I don't want to offend anyone, and i am aware that this list  serves

>> teachers, administrators, who  use EFF and maybe helped make EFF.  But

>> I will just continue--the "Equipped for the Future Content Standards"

>> is really hard to get through.  i guess it must have been written for

>> multiple audiences.  if I were thinking of using EFF I would want a

>> three-holed punched explanation of EFF with a one page executive

>> summary, maybe, or description of how it was built, then at  most  5

>> pages (maybe 3) of narrative about how to" do"  EFF.

>>

>> So...any "selling"  or "explication" of EFF should focus  first on  

>> the

>> problems it seeks  to solve.

>>

>> What i would really like is feedback  on EFF--from people who use

>> it--on my points:

>>

>> 1)      ethnocentric (fitting into American culture)

>> 2)      normative ( idealized American values, e.g., "respect for 

>> diversity)

>> 2)      narrow (no mention of basic survival skills)

>>

>> As i recall, Tom Sticht  mentioned after reading George D.'s  book 

>> that

>> EFF wasn't striclty speaking a fully  grounded approach to data

>> gathering--the categories were  givens, did not emerge.

>>

>> So please correct me  on any  of the points above;  skewering is

>> painful, so leave off the sword play,  I  think.

>>

>> Ready to be educated.

>>

>> Andrea

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On Mar 31, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Aaron Kohring wrote:

>>

>>> Yes, David- I agree with your interpretation.  And I'm also glad you

>>> mentioned other areas where the term Content Standards could apply.  

>>> In

>>> fact, there has recently been some discussion on the Technology list

>>> about

>>> Standards for using Technology.

>>>

>>> Andrea, as regards to print, do you think standards for Reading &

>>> Writing

>>> would apply?  And what about certain applications of print- 

>>> advocating

>>> for

>>> a point of view if seen through an EFF lens could also bring in the

>>> standard "Advocate and Influence".  What do you think?

>>>

>>> Aaron

>>>

>>> At 04:28 PM 3/31/2006 -0500, you wrote:

>>>> Andrea,

>>>>

>>>> My interpretation of "Content Standards" is this: this discussion

>>>> list used to be called "NIFL-4EFF", and used to be about Equipped 

>>>> For

>>>> the Future curriculum standards.  "Content standards" is a broader

>>>> name which includes, but is not necessarily limited to,  EFF

>>>> curriculum standards.  The discussion now includes state-developed

>>>> curriculum frameworks and standards, and presumably curriculum

>>>> frameworks and standards used in other countries.  It could also

>>>> include industry-specific skills standards, as they might be used in

>>>> developing workplace literacy or workplace basic skills curricula,

>>>> although I think no one has brought this up yet.

>>>>

>>>> Aaron, is this interpretation correct?

>>>>

>>>> David J. Rosen

>>>> newsomeassociates.com

>>>> djrosen at comcast.net

>>>>

>>>> On Mar 31, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Andrea Wilder wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Well, hello, everyone!

>>>>>

>>>>> i am putting together a long written piece on adult literacy, a lot

>>>>> of

>>>>> work, but there are revelations, too.  The printing press was an

>>>>> agent

>>>>> for standardization in chronology and in data, a general unifier of

>>>>> many manuscripts (by hand!)  that enabled writers to really

>>>>> communicate

>>>>> with each other.  With printing:  the idea that progress, poaitive

>>>>> change, could be made, as technological changes  expanded the known

>>>>> world.

>>>>>

>>>>> I am very interested in content standards, a way of measuring I 

>>>>> guess

>>>>> the attainment of certain skills and knowledge  through print.  In

>>>>> the

>>>>> world of the early printing press that would have been impossible:,

>>>>> "knowledge" was just being assembled.  The idea of "content

>>>>> standards"

>>>>> seems very narrow, circumscribed.  first one must agree on the

>>>>> content,

>>>>> ;  how does that happen?  CASAS?  EFF?  A bit of a puzzle.

>>>>>

>>>>> Andrea Wilder

>>>>>

>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------

>>>>> National Institute for Literacy

>>>>> Adult Education Content Standards mailing list

>>>>> ContentStandards at nifl.gov

>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>>>>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/contentstandards

>>>>

>>>> ----------------------------------------------------

>>>> National Institute for Literacy

>>>> Adult Education Content Standards mailing list

>>>> ContentStandards at nifl.gov

>>>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>>>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/contentstandards

>>>

>>> Aaron Kohring

>>> Coordinator, LINCS Literacy & Learning Disabilities Special 

>>> Collection

>>> (http://ldlink.coe.utk.edu/)

>>> Moderator, National Institute for Literacy's Content Standards

>>> Discussion

>>> List (http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/Contentstandards)

>>> Coordinator, Equipped for the Future Websites 

>>> (http://eff.cls.utk.edu/)

>>>

>>> Center for Literacy Studies, University of Tennessee

>>> EFF Center for Training and Technical Assistance

>>> Phone:(865) 974-4109 main

>>>            (865) 974-4258 direct

>>> Fax:   (865) 974-3857

>>> e-mail: akohring at utk.edu

>>>

>>> ----------------------------------------------------

>>> National Institute for Literacy

>>> Adult Education Content Standards mailing list

>>> ContentStandards at nifl.gov

>>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/contentstandards

>>>

>>

>> ----------------------------------------------------

>> National Institute for Literacy

>> Adult Education Content Standards mailing list

>> ContentStandards at nifl.gov

>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/contentstandards

>

> Aaron Kohring

> Coordinator, LINCS Literacy & Learning Disabilities Special Collection

> (http://ldlink.coe.utk.edu/)

> Moderator, National Institute for Literacy's Content Standards 

> Discussion

> List (http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/Contentstandards)

> Coordinator, Equipped for the Future Websites (http://eff.cls.utk.edu/)

>

> Center for Literacy Studies, University of Tennessee

> EFF Center for Training and Technical Assistance

> Phone:(865) 974-4109 main

>            (865) 974-4258 direct

> Fax:   (865) 974-3857

> e-mail: akohring at utk.edu

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Adult Education Content Standards mailing list

> ContentStandards at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/contentstandards

>