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 j3GLMlG22127; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <006301c542ca$25e8d4d0$3002a8c0@ben2ut66kkx7o3> 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: "Amy R. Trawick" <atrawick@charter.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2979] Re: Shared Priorities? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 3051 Lines: 72 Here's my take re: EFF as a model of norms. EFF is first and foremost a *standards-based* initiative. Developing standards is all about developing *consensus* about what learners need to know and be able to do. I suppose in a way a consensus could be related to a "norm", but to me a "norm" connotes either an assumed model of behavior or an average model of behavior based on some numerical exercise. A consensus, on the other hand, connotes to me a negotiation of values, a give and take, that results (in this case anyway) in a set of standards that folks have verbalized, considered, re-considered, and agreed make sense. A consensus is explicit; a norm is (often) implicit. And here's the caveat--if the set of standards don't represent what a group values, then they aren't standards for that group--and the group shouldn't use them:). Amy Amy R. Trawick North Wilkesboro, NC atrawick@charter.net ----- Original Message ----- From: <AWilder106@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 1:00 PM Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2977] Re: Shared Priorities? > Hmmm. > > A pattern that is norm free. Well, a norm is an average, or a model. A > model is by definition normative. I think social norms are kind of > agreements that enable us to get along. I certainly don't disapprove of > teaching norms, they are very useful. How they intersect with other > patterns of living is what I am getting at. These other patterns are what > I call "ordinary," and they take in a huge range of behaviors. > > I think it is possible to think deeply and come up with some basic > principles to live by, and also to work out and refine hypotheses in > daily life. Test out assumptions. A good theorist--this may be a > sidetrack--is always looking for disconfirming evidence to chip away at > the theory. This strengthens the theory (where it doesn't demolish it all > together). > > You imply, I think, that my single voice can be drowned out by the voices > of dozens, hundreds, of people who have collaborated to construct the > norms of EFF. And because they are many, and I am one,their opinions are > more valid. > > Let's think about those many people whose opinions were condensed into > EFF. They did not all have the same opinions, their opinions were all > over the place, I am fairly sure. The people who put EFF finally together > chose the central tendencies of all those opinions. There were some > people probably who were far away from the central tendency, they were > outliers, I am one of those. > > I raised questions about EFF as it exists on paper, only. I thought I > was clear, but maybe I wasn't, that I think the most powerful way of > understanding EFF must be experiential. In fact, you, Meta, and I am sure > dozens of others, know about this side of EFF while I do not. You and > others are speaking from the words AND the experience. What I need is to > find out about the experiential side. > > Andrea >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:21 EST