Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j86LA7G10995; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1126040965.2772287599.28314.sendItem@bloglines.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: PHCSJean.2164047@bloglines.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:1483] RE: Expertise in Low Literacy Learners X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="utf-8" Status: O Content-Length: 964 Lines: 29 Thanks for your insights Barb. Yes, my professor's concern is twofold. Part is the learner's reaction to the term, and part is her issue with the concept of expertise from an academic standpoint as mentioned in another post. I like your suggestion of using testing protocol with and without the word to see if it makes a difference. Nancy mentioned using similar terminology of things they are good at. Jean --- nifl-fobasics@nifl.gov wrote: I agree with the view that our students are certainly experts in many areas > and your area of research is interesting. > > Is the concern learner's reaction to the term "expert" in an interview > protocol? I assume you'll test the protocol before you use, so test the use > of the term. You might want to do a test with two groups, testing two > different ways to ask the same thing and see if you get markedly different > responses. That will tell you which way to ask the questions. > > Barb Garner > Editor, FOB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:34 EST