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 i6UIAu119229; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <681A95205B5ACB4AAD697401486AE71201ED96@hal9000.lvgh.prv> 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: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2793] Re: Public understanding of literacy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 4410 Lines: 118 Ideally one would like to concentrate on reading development and learning for meaning and significance. We mostly do both in varying degrees, though there may be more emphasis toward one over the other with specific students. If literacy is viewed as a metaphor for learning, with the progressive mastery of the technology of reading and writing as among its components, then that leaves broad scope for what counts as success in any learning situation. For many of the students who can make sustainable progress on reading and writing, moving toward fluency in these areas, helping students expand those capacities seems, in my view, an essential thing to take on even while engaging in significant content areas that students deem important to their lives. Yet there are many also who, while not necessarily moving much toward the continuum of becoming independent readers and writers, nonetheless gain a lot out of our programs through some combination of the social interaction that the process facilitates, confidence building and self-efficacy (i.e, motivation) and the content areas mastered through intellectual engagement of the of whatever topics encountered in the instructional setting. >From an educational perspective, all of this has value. Difficulties arise in concretely accounting for the more ineffable dimensions of learning, which can be discerned through time-consuming thick ethnographic description, and in the determination of what the broader society deems valuable and willing to pay for. EFF becomes a way of identifying those "other" aspects of adult literacy education which may be deemed legitimate even if the gains in reading achievement remain minimal. Even better, obviously, when learning for life can be combined with the progressive development of reading and writing ability toward the pathway of independent mastery. Still, the reality remains that far from all students make sustainable progress in both, which is far from saying they don't benefit by participating in adult literacy programs. Obviously, this is an enormous issue the field is struggling with. George Demetrion -----Original Message----- From: nifl-4eff@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-4eff@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of PHCSJean.2156541@bloglines.com Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 1:34 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2792] Re: Public understanding of literacy I guess I missed that post on the AAACE list (or I'm not subscribed!) I wanted to comment about this info though: Regie says, "NCSALL research that is still in progress is providing some tentative findings that indicate that: for some of our students our programs can help them increase their literacy skills as measured by standardized tests but for others we can help them expand and broaden their reading practices. That is, we can help them use their existing skills to more effectively, or even begin to, accomplish literacy tasks that are important to them." I've been reading an older book by Ruth Garner (Metacognition and Reading Comprehension, 1987, ISBN 0893913987 riduculously expensive but worth it!) and she discusses the developmental processes of children and reading specific tasks they don't understand such as going back and re-reading text for information; ability to create summaries of passages, determine what is important and not important. A critical discovery she reports is that not only are their developmental differences by age, there are major differences between the good readers and the poor readers at the same age in these things that distinguish the good readers. As classroom teachers, we assume that the children and our adult students "know" to do these types of things. We don't teach them. Perhaps we should be. I'm not sure if Reggie meant decoding skills when he talked about these types of skills or content related skills. If the tenets of EFF are to prepare the students, then we must be careful to teach both, especially since the standardized tests measure things that require these specific things. Jean Marrapodi Providence Assembly of God Learning Center Providence, RI --- nifl-4eff@nifl.gov wrote: Colleagues, > > This is a cross-posting from the AAACE list. The discussion has been focused > on the public understanding of literacy. Regie Stites is the author of this > post. > > All the Best, > Meta Potts, Moderator 4-EFF List > Glen Allen, VA > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:26 EST