[AAACE-NLA] (no subject)

[George E. Demetrion]

George:  "The functional context theory is highly specific linked to
the articulation of very precise goals in which at least ideally, there
is
a one-to one correspondence between goals and instructional focus.
Generally, these are "real-world" goals."
 
Tom:  Clearly,  FCE theory and principles go well beyond "functional
context
theory" as George has characterized it.

Commentary:

Yes, that is correct, as is evident in you're your thorough description
in highlighting the developmental, social, and cultural dimensions of
functional context education (FCE).  With you I believe it's important to
bring out these nuances of FCE in order to illuminate someth ing of the
full texture of the theory.  I think it's particularly  important
because, except for those who have closely studied your work, there is a
general perception that your research is synonymous with a somewhat
simplistic understanding of functional literacy.  The inadequacy here is
the failure to grasp the development of functional literacy as an
emergent concept in the more sophisticated sense as described by Lytle
and Wolfe (1989) in Adult Literacy Education: Program Evaluation and
Learner Assessment, as well as in the highlighting of the subtle nuances
of culture and developmental psychology that informs your work.   I
sought to address these issues, in part in a recent article, "Discerning
the Contexts of Adult Literacy Education:  Theoretical Reflections and
Practical Applications", published in the Canadian Journal of Adult
Education, Vol. 15, No 2, November 2001, pp. 104-127).   
In that article, I identified FCE as one of three important contextual
theories of adult literacy education, along with the New Literacy Studies
and Participatory Literacy Education.  My objective there was to draw out
comparisons and distinctions and to draw selectively on your work as well
as that of Elsa Auerbach's as a way of enhancing the Literacy for Life
thesis identified in Fingeret and Drennon's text of that same title. 
That portrayal, too, of FCE is a limited one, though I did make the
effort to draw out the developmental and socio-cultural dimensions of the
theory as part of a broader objective in connecting you, Auerbach, and
Fingeret to the neo-Vygotskian school of contextual literacy, sharing a
common roo (though with significantly different implications) in the
research of Silvia Scribner.  I sought to illuminate some of those
connections and differences in the essay.
 
In terms of the specific NLA post to which you refer, my objective was
not to present FCE in any comprehensive way, but to highlight one aspect
of it in comparison with other perspectives, in highlighting divergent
viewpoints of context-based adult literacy education.  Thus, the major
point that I was highlighting, is that "functional context theory is
highly specific linked to the articulation of very precise goals in which
at least ideally, there is a one-to one correspondence between goals and
instructional focus.  Generally, these are 'real-world' goals." A few
points:
 
a)  I was referring to the actual intent of instruction (the outcomes)
not the means of getting there. 
b) Secondly, I was not suggesting anything pejorative about that (See my
recent NIFL-AAAPLD message)

c) I view such correspondence between what is taught and what is learned
as a great strength of FCE, when goals are sharply defined, realizable,
and within the context of programs to facilitate
 
At the same time, I do not view all learning as taking place in that
manner, and highlight, especially in the article (and a bit in the NLA
post) how learning takes place differently in the divergent schools of
adult literacy education.

One contrast will suffice, as articulated by Fingeret and Drennon, that:

 "Students don't necessarily have a concrete goal in mind [though they
 might!], an instrumental view of literacy tied to some specific task or
 aspiration.  More than anything, they want to feel there are
 possibilities for the future, that there are choices and potential for
 change" (p. 45).
 
Now, perhaps that one-to one relationship (even as an ideal) between the
focus of instruction and desired learning outcomes is not, in fact, an
aspect of FCE, and if not, I think that needs to be very clearly
clarified. I get that notion from your informational-processing model of
learning,  and in the quote on p.4 of Functional Context Education (1997)
in which you point to  the importance of  "making explicit the
relationship between what students want to learn, what is being taught
and its application in the contexts that the person will be functioning
in after the educational program.
 
If in fact, FCE subsumes both what Fingeret and Drennon said and what you
said in the quote, then I believe that needs to be clarified.  Moreover,
if the definition applies to both, then the danger of being so broad,
then the definition loses specific meaning comes to the fore at least as
a serious concern.   Moreover, the functional as well as contextual
aspect of your term in FCE needs to be addressed, in order to determine
in what sense  functionality as you are defining here, applies to the
realms of the aesthetic and philosophical, which are also aspects of
adult literacy learning.  If your definition does, in fact, those link to
thgese realms, then perhaps the term, "functional" needs to be rethought.
 
While your early work focused on military and workplace areas
(traditional areas of functional literacy), I'm well aware that in recent
years you have broadened the context in which FCE applies.  I applaud
that.  At the same time, the singular point that I had made in the NLA
post that "functional context theory is highly specific linked to the
articulation of very precise goals in which at least ideally, there is a
one-to one correspondence between goals and instructional focus," is
something that I believe is important to address, so that we can better
discern differences as well as similarities in various critical theories
of adult literacy education.
 
George Demetrion


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!