Thanks for the very interesting discussion.

 

I'd like to give some feedback about fonts which may or may not be
relevant to the discussion of language development among low literate
learners. I find Ariel font to be extremely hard to read on the screen
and on paper. Perhaps it's a function of my (early) baby boomer eyes; I
have read that there has been research showing that eyes respond better
to the serif fonts although I can't quote you the source.

 

Thanks.

 

Donna Weitz

Manager, Community Adult Learning Program

Community Programs

Advanced Education and Technology

8th floor, Commerce Place

10155 102 Street NW

Edmonton, AB  T5J 4L5

780-427-7514

Fax: 780-422-1297

 

"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire."
-- William Butler Yeats

________________________________

From: focusonbasics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:focusonbasics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of
robinschwarz1 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:55 PM
To: focusonbasics at nifl.gov
Subject: [FocusOnBasics 1097] More on language of low literate learners

 

I just wanted to share some thoughts of a couple of researchers who have
worked aggressively to reduce the bias against ELLS in testing
situations in K-12.  These researchers examine the many ways that
language gets in the way of reliable and accurate testing of learners on
standardized tests, and they also object strongly to the practice of
first language proficiency testing for ELLS suspected of having LD or RD
( reading disability).  I  think the following quotes apply very
strongly to attitudes towards the language of non- or low literate ADULT
learners as well as young ones-- attitudes reflected in statements such
as "teaching correct English" or "low oral proficiency":   

"...language of the less educated, whether first or additional, may be
seen as deficient when "...the language of the educated classes...[is
seen as] inherently more complex and richer and ...[as] plac[ing]
greater demand on cognitive resources,"(McSwan & Rolstad, 2006, p.
2310).  When this happens, there is an assumption that school language
is somehow "an improved version of the language of other contexts, a
claim that is not adequately supported" by research or other evidence,
(p.2310).  Language proficiency measures, even in monolinguals, reflect
this bias: "...CALP and Bloom's Taxonomy are usually defined to reflect
language used in academic contexts so that the language of the educated
classes is again privileged as developmentally superior," (McSwan &
Rolstad, 2006, p.2321).  The significant lesson here is that in thinking
about how  learners  with limited education are different from educated
learners, we must acknowledge that the oral English proficiency skills
of the two groups will necessarily be different, especially as the oral
skills emerge, and skills of the two groups should not be compared nor
should the skills of the less educated learners be compared to standards
of monolingual speakers, " ( Schwarz, in progress) 

Robin  

________________________________

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003> !


This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/focusonbasics/attachments/20080221/ce68c8a0/attachment.html