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 iAFNgE019881; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:42:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:42:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <681A95205B5ACB4AAD697401486AE7120470F3@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:2877] FW: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:711] RE: EFF in CT? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 4728 Lines: 121 crosspost -----Original Message----- From: nifl-assessment@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-assessment@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of George demetrion Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 5:50 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:711] RE: EFF in CT? Hi Andy, The quasi-faceteous answer would be "exhaustion." The more serious, but short answer is that a) We're already doing CASAS, DAR and Wilson Reading System level assessments b) We are not actually implementing EFF as an instructional program in our volunteer tutor based literacy program that has its own unique historical evoluation in which various pedagogies and schools of thought have been informally blended over the years. c) My primary task this year is to manage the organizational-pedagogical culture including making changes which I believe are feasible in a given year (and some notable ones have been made). I do think a culture that has EFF as its instructional centerpiece could and should logically draw on EFF assessment processes. That's not us. For me the EFF framework serves as a thinking tool, and, noting that it has as much to do with me as the "system," I don't sense the climate is ripe to make a major shift, at least at this time, in grounding the program via an EFF paradigm. As he says quasi-faceteously, the very thought of it evokes exhaustion. Perhaps the situation is not that disimilar to that of Multiple Intelligences. I can be appreciative of Gardner's work, and perhaps draw very selectively from it without necessarily going beyond that. Moreover, our eclectic (what the postmodernists might refer to as "bricolage") learning environment functions reasonably well based upon the multiplicity of intelligences our tutors (and students) bring to it. Additional learning is always desirable, and I've been providing weekly one page reflections on instruction to tutors as part of my contribution. Even still, sometimes breakthrough conceptual change is desirable. I am sensitive to its plausibility. But as I read our local culture, and as I grapple with the reality of what I bring and don't bring to the table, I believe the evolving path we are on is more or less reasonable, while subject to improvements and modifications in a manner that fits in reasonably with our given context. Notwithstanding all this, someone with a different set of skill sets than I would be able to accomplish certain things within the program that very well may be beyond me. So, while there's a certain provisionality in what I have noted, there are also certain stabilities in place that are not easily shifted, perhaps for good reason, but not necessarily always so. In short, growth is always possible, the pathways of which I seek in the manner that I can best discern. On EFF, perhaps it's best to say is that I am an outside friend who appreciates its value. Best, George Demetrion From: "Andy Nash" <andy_nash@worlded.org> Reply-To: nifl-assessment@nifl.gov To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:710] RE: EFF in CT? Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:21:09 -0500 (EST) Hello George, While I share your appreciation for EFF's attention to teaching/learning as a process, I think you're missing an opportunity to gather useful evidence by not using the assessment tools it offers (in addition to the CASAS tests you use for reporting). EFF does have a "product" aspect as well - the product is a performance that demonstrates a student's ability to actually apply a skill to a real-life task (or competency). If you assess student performance against the EFF level descriptors, you get a great deal of information about not only whether or not the student can accomplish the task, but about where her strengths and weaknesses lie. If a student is ineffective in carrying out a speaking task, is it because she has not taken into account her audience and purpose? Needs to work on her pronunciation skills? Isn't clear, herself, about what she wants to say? Isn't paying attention to the listener's signs of confusion? The contribution that EFF makes to assessment is that it helps you identify what part of the applied skill process has broken down. So I guess I'm wondering, given your recognition that many kinds of tools can shed light on different aspects of learning, why you don't seem to be taking advantage of EFF assessment tools when they are so consistent with your approach to teaching/learning? And I'd love to hear from others who have, perhaps, used EFF to informally assess how well their students are able to use their skills in a growing range of purposeful situations. Andy Nash NELRC/World Education Anash@worlded.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:29 EST