Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i0SHcYI10737; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:38:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:38:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <p0510030abc3d98c700d4@[128.148.147.35]> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Janet Isserlis <Janet_Isserlis@brown.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9814] NIFL and research X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Status: RO Content-Length: 968 Lines: 23 Dear all, (with apologies for cross-posting, but with keen interest in responses from as broad a group of educators as possible) There are many reasons for us to continue to support the critically important work of NIFL, including its focus on adult learning. In a recent conversation with a legislative aide, apractitioner reported that the aide said "that he didn't necessarily see 'researched-based' [practice/teaching] as a problem [for adult literacy practitioners], as he put it, 'that means you just havestudies showing that what you do works, and you don't just go doing whatever you want to do'." What do you think about that? If NIFL were to change, to provid resources only on scientifically-based reading research practices, how would that impact adult literacy and basic education?What does this mean to you? Do you see that as posing a problem? What are the implications in terms of our work of all of the above? Janet Isserlis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:35 EST