Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i0SMoMI22993; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:50:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:50:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <003d01c3e5f0$34e8f560$0302a8c0@wtrbct.adelphia.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Bonnie Odiorne" <bonniesophia@adelphia.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2662] RE: X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 1088 Lines: 25 Sorry to cross post, but I think this issue's important for all lists. If NIFL is to support adult education practitioners with the field's "best practices", how does this impact our work, especially as it concerns EFF? In a recent conversation with a legislative aide, apractitioner reported that the aide said "that he didn't necessarily see 'researched-based' practice/teaching] as a problem [for adult literacy practitioners], as he put it, 'that means you just have studies showing that what you do works, and you don't just go doing whatever you want to do'." What if "whatever we want to do" involves enhancing reading instruction within the EFF framework: read with understanding; reading for a purpose, and all the life skills and critical thinking issues that are involved in that standard. What direction do you see NIFL taking? Do you see limits to your practices here? Warmest Regards, Bonnie Odiorne Ph.D Program Faciliator Working Smart Computers 4 Kids Silas Bronson Library Information Technology Center Waterbury, CT Integrating Technology, ABE and ESL Instruction
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:23 EST