[AAACE-NLA] [Assessment 2198] Moderator's request

Sat Oct 10 10:31:47 EDT 2009

Good morning all,

For those who have been on these lists this is an old story, but I'm not sure what the growth in our collective awareness has been.

As one who was censored by NIFL in the day of the Bush administration in their effort to control as many public forums as they could, I know quite well what Debbie was referring to.  However, the current issue on cognitive/non-cognitive learning is nothing of that nature.  It is simply a deep pedagogical issue which merits as much exploration on its own terms as participants choose to engage in.  In terms of Krista's concern, I think it's important here to be very clear on the distinctions between an online forum and a print-based journal or magazine especially in the sense that the latter is limited by how many pages can be included in a particular issue. The asynchronistic nature of the listserv posting fundamentally transforms that issue in which in principle as much space is needed to address whatever issues come to the fore.  To be sure, the issue of information overload can be an issue for individual readers, even the majority on any given issue.  So be it. Please feel free to use your delete button to yiour heart's content.  As an avid delete terminator I meant that with all due respect.  While I remain connected to many of the NIFL lisstervs I liberally the time, not because the issues addressed are not interesting or important in many ways, but b because I am either too busy to deal with them or I am just interested in pursuing something else at a given time.  Such regular deleting takes a very short time in which, in any event, my lack of interest or fatigue in a given topic should not be a factor in allowing others to freely discuss it in the online modality as there is nothing forcing me to listen in.

On the specific issue of making a tight causal relationship to that of assessment, I agree with Michael and others in the sense that assessment issues have been raised in relation to this issue in which it may be more relevant to engage in thick pedagogical and philosophical probing without artificially linking every post to assessment in order to gain greater clarity on what the more fundamental issues on the relationship between these terms (cognitive vs non-cognitive learning).  This may be essential, in fact, before assessment issues at the level at which they need to be addressed can be tackled.

On this one of the issues that I have found interesting is that often in this discussion when core definitional issues have been raised about these terms some of the discussion protagonists have jumped too quickly, in my view, to the problem of addressing "non-cognitive learning," the latter topic itself which I view as an oxymoron unless one is going to define learning through a simple stimulus-response phenomenon.  On that, that's why I've argued that the polarized terminology of cognitive vs non-cognitive learning seems to have a rooting in behaviorist psychology and positivist philosophy through the root metaphor of informational processing.  Other metaphors of learning would be premised on other learning theories in which the basic terminology of learning comes out very differently.  One thinks, for example, of Howard Gardner's "multi-intelligences," Belinsky et al., "women's way of learning," constructivist learning theory or Dewey's concept of growth.  From these latter perspectives, the cognitive/non-cognitive polarity is a construct itself that requires deconstruction and reconstruction.  

The very notion of paradigmatic thinking itself is a fundamental philosophical issues that merits much critical reflective thinking by adult literacy scholars and critical practitioners in its own right.  In our field, this is addressed in Juliet Merrifield's important "Contested Grounds:  Performance Accountability in Adult Basic Education http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/abepds/contested_ground-performance_accountability_in_abe-reports_no_1.pdf

BTW, I hear Tom Sticht's pragmatic argument that the cognitive/non-cognitive distinction is a frame of reference that policy makers in principle can get which may have near term practicality.  The danger is when that particular metaphor takes on a life of its own in the field in which an ROI rationale the foundational value system in which practitioners themselves begin to internalize as "self-evident."

George Demetrion

From: KKANDERSON at burnsville.k12.mn.us
To: aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org; marie.cora at hotspurpartners.com
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 23:47:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] [Assessment 2198] Moderator's request

I, for one, would like to thank the moderator, for I think the ongoing discussion of this topic has grown tedious.  I am almost to the point of figuring out how to block certain members - something I never thought I would even think of doing on a teaching listserve.

Krista Anderson

From: aaace-nla-bounces at lists.literacytent.org [aaace-nla-bounces at lists.literacytent.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gyori [tesolmichael at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 12:13 PM
To: Marie Cora
Cc: The AAACE-NLA Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] [Assessment 2198] Moderator's request

Hi Marie,

I waited one day before deciding whether to respond to your message below.  I now feel obliged to do so, and am copying the AAACE-NLA list with the hope that perhaps it will trigger some needed and uncensored discussion.

Frankly, I find your (?) words quite disturbing. The messages you are alluding to, both posted and not posted ones, are voices from a very large subscribing audience most of whom are ultimately paying for NIFL with taxpayer monies.

What disturbs me even more is that the messages in question very much pertain to foundational principles of assessment. If that is not apparent to some, the reasons should articulated in a manner that satisfies the intelligence and inquisitiveness of the subscribers. The discussion list topic areas are "conceptual boxes," and as life would have it, not all contributions fit neatly into one or another. 

NIFL (or, in the end, the USDOE) has made numerous unilateral decisions over the years with respect to the boundaries of what is admissible.  As I have repeatedly stated or implied, making policy decisions about the discussion lists without involving their lifeblood - the subscribers themselves - has the makings of an undue exercise of power.

I will repeat my suggestion that NIFL at least create an overarching discussion list (the name educational foundations discussion list comes to mind), which could provide an open forum for the discussion of matters that do not neatly or transparently fit into a particular discussion list topic areas.  Contributions to it might fit in the "other" category, or involve syntheses of some posts that have been made across the current and previous discussion list. Standards of behavior, professionalism, and decency, to be sure, would need to be upheld.

Finally, I would say that "duly noting" suggestions does not involve actively listening to, validating, mirroring, and then adding new thoughts to them (cf. EFF itself).

Thank you for taking the time to read this, Marie.

Michael

Michael A. Gyori 

Maui International Language School 

www.mauilanguage.com

From: Marie Cora <marie.cora at hotspurpartners.com>
To: Assessment at nifl.gov
Sent: Thu, October 8, 2009 11:57:20 AM
Subject: [Assessment 2198] Moderator's request

Hi everyone,

I very much appreciate the discussion that has stemmed from last week.  I have to request once again that folks stay on the topic of assessment.  It’s perfectly fine with me to carry on the discussion of ROI and noncognitive assessment, but I must insist that your post tie in to the topic of this List.  I will not be able to approve posts from now on that do not.

Thank you,

Marie Cora
Assessment Discussion List Moderator

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/aaace-nla/attachments/20091010/cf717b5f/attachment.html>