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 j3GEj3G18620; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <s260ec40.015@mail.jsi.com> 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: "Andy Nash" <andy_nash@worlded.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2975] Re: Shared Priorities? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.1 Status: O Content-Length: 1847 Lines: 19 >>> I think EFF asks a lot of its teachers, it also makes assumptions about the values teachers have about what to do and how to solve problems, in a variety of ways that involve reading, writing, speech employed to certain ends, the fulfillment of certain roles. Example: would EFF back lying as an appropriate skill? Probably not. Yet lying can be a very useful, sometimes essential tool when in a tight spot. EFF is a publicly funded program (mostly, I guess) so this skill would not be supported. EFF exists then within a certain frame of desired, normative behavior. Andrea, EFF says nothing either way about lying. The standard "Solve Problems and Make Decisions," says this: * Anticipate or identify problems. * Use information from diverse sources to arrive at a clearer understanding of the problem and its root causes. * Generate alternative solutions. * Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of alternatives, including potential risks and benefits, and short- and long-term consequences. * Select alternative that is most appropriate to goal, context, and available resources. * Establish criteria for evaluating effectiveness of solution or decision. I know of several instances where lying as a possible solution to a problem has been raised and discussed in classrooms, along with the possible intended and unintended consequences of that choice. But if your point is that EFF reflects norms, I can only say that it carries the norms of all the voices that have gone into its creation and application * the norms of the thousands who built the role maps, those who distilled the key generative skills that underlie those maps, and those who implement (interpret) EFF in their classes every day. Are you suggesting that it's possible to have a model that is norm-free? What would that look like? Andy Nash NELRC/World Education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:21 EST