Ditto!  I am an observer.  I did not participate in the "lurker"
conversation because it is a very bad use of the word in our context.  I
am a very happy and satisfied observer.

 

Kay Combs

Program Coordinator-GED/ESL

Center for Lifelong Learning

332 Champion Way

Georgetown, KY  40324

502-570-8984

kay.combs at scott.kyschools.us

http://tinyurl.com/2lfnhw

 

The Scott County Center for Lifelong Learning is committed to providing
educational opportunities for individuals and families to achieve
success and build a strong community.

 

________________________________

From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov]
On Behalf Of Ted Klein
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:17 PM
To: The Assessment Discussion List
Subject: [Assessment 2019] Re: Variations on lurking

 

The problem, of course, is always semantic. The original implication of
the word "lurker" is an evil looking old man with a trench coat hiding
behind the bushes. 

I first heard the term in modern context in the 1990's on the old
Prodigy Classic Bulletin Boards, in which I was an active participant on
the languages, cultures and genealogy subject areas. We had "lurkers"
then. Nobody worried about it. Today I googled "lurker" and found a
number of references to it in the e-context, going back to the 1980's. I
suggest that we change the term on this Discussion List to "OBSERVERS."
Observers are considered harmless persons, perhaps shy or busy, simply
acquiring information. That will shed the ancient images! By the time
these long-term "observers" emerge, they may be quite enlightened.

 

Ted Klein

www.tedklein-ESL.com  

 

 

 

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Maureen Smith <mailto:maursmith2003 at yahoo.com>  

	To: The Assessment Discussion List <mailto:assessment at nifl.gov>


	Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:01 AM

	Subject: [Assessment 2008] Re: Variations on lurking

	 

I, too, have been a lurker, an avid reader of these discussions who

has not contributed. I agree with Bryan in that I want to add to the

discussion, not just repeat what others have said. I find the
transcripts

very helpful as I can read them anytime and they are put together

well. I have learned a lot from the research and have sought out other

resources to help me to be a better teacher, counselor, and all the

other hats many of us wear.

 

Maureen Smith

ABE Dept.

North Shore Community Action Programs (NSCAP)

Peabody, MA



--- On Tue, 7/14/09, Bryan Woerner <bwoerner at cal.org> wrote:

	
	From: Bryan Woerner <bwoerner at cal.org>
	Subject: [Assessment 2006] Re: Variations on lurking
	To: "The Assessment Discussion List" <assessment at nifl.gov>
	Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:57 AM

	Maria, all,

	 

	As a longtime reader and longtime lurker, I find that most of
the time it isn't necessary for me to respond to a post. Either because
someone has already raised an issue by the time I am able to reply or I
have nothing more substantive than "I agree". When I do respond, I want
to be sure that I add something to the discussion. I do find the NIFL
discussions and posts to be interesting and useful. I hope it continues
to be that way in the future. 

	  

	Bryan Woerner 

	Center for Applied Linguistics 

	  

	From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Marie Cora
	Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:25 AM
	To: 'The Assessment Discussion List'
	Subject: [Assessment 2001] Re: Variations on lurking

	  

	Hi Bonnie, Jackie and everyone, 

	  

	I'm not sure I fully would agree that it's impossible to lurk in
different situations and still not get the same thing out of the event.
I completely agree that the ideal is in fact to 'close the circle of
learning' by getting feedback in some form from the user; being an
assessment and evaluation person, it sort of makes me crazy that the
online discussion list is the most difficult venue to receive this type
of feedback.  But in fact, this is the reality of this learning forum
and I have become more comfortable with this piece being unknown.  And
of course right at the moment, I'm beyond thrilled because that feedback
is being received. 

	  

	I think that different learning styles and habits can play a big
part in what a person gets out of a situation.  I hardly spoke twice
during my graduate seminar on Don Quixote de la Mancha (in Spanish), but
it didn't stop me from devouring the book and contemplating the
interpretations of others in the class.  I just was not confident with
my own interpretations, and then in Spanish to boot.  Not only did I
come to know a great piece of writing, but I greatly improved my Spanish
by listening to (mostly) native speakers.  I also know that one of my
strongest learning styles is listening.  

	  

	One of the really great things about this venue though, is that
the options for 'doing something' with the material are pretty infinite
- as opposed to what might be expected of a student in a face-to-face
class or an online course.  And this is also where the rubber hits the
road:  there ARE expectations when you attend a particular class or
online course and so it's much easier to gauge results.  But we have
just read a number of the ways that subscribers use the material that's
presented here, and I'm sure there are more ways as well.  So this fact
makes this learning environment much richer in ways than other types of
forums, but at the same time, closing that circle of learning is thus
more elusive. 

	  

	And now:  enough from me!!  What do others think? 

	  

	marie 

	  

	-----Original Message-----
	From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Bonnie Odiorne
	Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:14 PM
	To: The Assessment Discussion List
	Subject: [Assessment 1993] Re: Participation Inequality 

	  

	Jackie, and all,

	I agree that there are f2f lurkers in class, who may or may not
"get away" with it for long (remember, I teach first year college
students). In an online list serve I lurk all the time; if I repled to
every post I'd have no tine to do what I'm "supposed" to be doing, but
you better believe I'm filing resources for future reference (assuming I
ever have time to get back to them :-). I do consider list serves my
continuing education. So I'm improving my practice even when lurking. In
an online class, however, it's impossible to lurk: in a discussion board
that's graded, non-participants get graded down very quickly, and one
can keep track of how often they view and/or post. If they're "absent"
for very long they get an e-mail from me. Analogously , I've heard from
colleagues that while companies have found group work f2f to be not as
productive, for the same reasons students often don't like it, because
some do all the work, and some lurk, even f2f, or don't show up with a
crucial piece of the group's work. Online group work, on the contrary,
because it's monitored, is more purpose-driven, and more productive,
because participants know that higher-ups (the teacher, in the
classroom) can tell the level of participation. Not that we can't f2f,
but often it might involve peer evaluation of the group process to
really get a good picture. A list serve, obviously, is not the same as a
working group with a task and purpose that will be evaluated in some
way. Volunteers post the same way they post to the ALE Wiki for example,
because they want to; they're kinesthetic learners and need to be doing
something.

	    As for what brought us to the term "lurker" to begin with
(I, too, like "peripheral productive user") is because numbers of
participants is never a valid measure of a group's effecftiveness, not
without a lot of scaffolding, surveys, and he like. A non-participant
can send a post or a link anywhere, and its impact can be immense. As
for Mr. Sticht's implicit claim that "the field"'s interest is not
aligned with those dictated by government policy, so what? I've worked
both in workplace and family literacy, both of which are very hands on
and very context-dependent, programs varying according to the needs of
the particular participants. How one does that may be crucial and
material for discussion; doing it is not that difficult, and again, is
very resource driven and not that much, perhaps, open to debate.
Content-based education is precisely that, building necessary skills and
competencies needed to function in a given environment for very specific
goals and tasks. Any "meta" embedded (and it's my feeling it must be) is
practitioner dependent, not program dependent. Enough from me. This
would not fit in a tweet...

	Best,

	 

	Bonnie Odiorne, Ph.D. Director, Writing Center Adjunct Professor
of English, French, First Year Transitions, Day Division and ADP
	Post University, Waterbury, CT 

	 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Jackie A. Taylor <jackie at jataylor.net>
	To: assessment at nifl.gov
	Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:22:29 PM
	Subject: [Assessment 1992] Re: Participation Inequality

	Hi Phyllis and all,

	  

	Phyllis, I totally agree; I don't like the term "lurker" either.
I think of myself as a "peripheral participant" in most communities. In
fact, this is probably the most I've said on this list! ;-) I believe
Etienne Wenger, the guru of online communities of practice
<http://www.ewenger.com/> calls lurking "legitimate peripheral
participation." 

	  

	Once, the Professional Development List got into a huge
spontaneous discussion about the term lurker; at the end of the
discussion they officially abolished the term on that list! People learn
and participate differently, and that's OK to me. 

	  

	Jackie Coelho asked, "And aren't there some 'lurkers' in a face
to face class? What is the connection if any?" 

	  

	Great question. I think one difference is that in a face-to-face
class, you can gauge participation through observation: does the learner
appear engaged, or disconnected? Does she appear to have a question but
may be afraid to ask? Is she taking what she's hearing /seeing / reading
and using it in a way that's meaningful for her? 

	  

	These types of things are much harder to know online, on a
discussion list where we cannot see one another. The only way we'll know
whether others have questions is if they voice (post) them. We can't
know if others are reticent about posting; we can only hope that
everyone feels comfortable enough to post a question when they have one.


	  

	In a face-to-face class, how long might students go without
asking questions? Can we take advantage of down time here on the list
(in between guest discussions) for asking questions that may lead to
more spontaneous discussions? 

	  

	What else helps? (Here's my 2 cents, what do you think?) 

	  

	*         Hearing how you use the information you receive, any
subsequent questions, issues, or challenges that raises for you 

	*         Sharing back with the list what others in your program
have been discussing about assessment issues 

	*         Hearing how our discussions here are informing policy
and research 

	  

	(I do not think that "ditto" types of responses help.) 

	  

	So I find myself wondering, we're resources for each other right
now; are we sure that we're making the most of it? (and maybe we are!) 

	  

	Enough from me. I want to know what you think. 

	  

	Sincerely, 

	  

	Jackie Taylor 

	  

	
	-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

	-------------------------------
	National Institute for Literacy
	Assessment mailing list
	Assessment at nifl.gov
<http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Assessment@nifl.gov> 
	To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go
to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment
<http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment> 
	Email delivered to maursmith2003 at yahoo.com
<http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=maursmith2003@yahoo.com> 

	 

	
________________________________


	-------------------------------
	National Institute for Literacy
	Assessment mailing list
	Assessment at nifl.gov
	To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go
to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment
	Email delivered to taklein at austin.rr.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20090716/3ec9d01a/attachment.html