Government language study released (fwd)

[MiaKalish@LFP]

The response to this report reminds me of a response I saw in one of my
classes when I referred to a book that talked about a longitudinal study
that was able to count the number of words children had heard (total volume,
not unique words) and showed that the more words children had heard, the
better they were able to learn. Based on cognitive research that shows that
the more connections you can make when assimilating new information, this
makes total sense.

Because the writers were supposed to identify their participants, they found
themselves in the unfortunate position of having to say that people in
different SES groups spoke different volumes and different forms to their
children.

So my professor Totally Ignored the Good Information about neuron density,
activation of prior knowledge, clues to how learning happened, and referred
to a listserv where people where having similar responses to that shared
with us by Taiaiake Alfred. Certainly he can take that position.

However.

My research shows that people In General don't learn well in black and white
if they have no prior knowledge. Lit reviews show that people don't know how
to teach language. And finally, other cognitive research shows that people
respond best to things about themselves and their friends. So, if you show
the colors of the vegetation around the Colorado river, especially in
winter, to the people who live there, they will respond more positively to
it than to black and white. Why? Because it is deeply familiar to them. Does
it matter if they are Tribal? Nooooo, not really. Unless of course the
colors you choose just happen to be the Tribal colors. So, quiz: In this
case, will the Tribal people respond more? Or less? Than people who don't
have deep cultural significance for the colors?

It's really too bad that the results of these studies are published in terms
of the People INSTEAD of the Materials.

Guess I was on a soapbox, but this sort of thing really irritates me. I-Mia
don't learn well in black and white. I take the time to build visual models
in my head, in full color, and I dream the same way. If someone discovered
that about me, I would say, Gee, does that mean you will be building
materials that facilitate learning for me? Instead of going around howling
that it is racist against Irish-Jewish women with green eyes who tend to get
cranky.

!
Mia

----- Original Message -----
From: "phil cash cash" <cashcash at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU>
To: <ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 10:33 AM
Subject: Government language study released (fwd)


> December 12, 2004
>
> Government language study released
> By BRUCE CHEADLE
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/12/12/779599-cp.html
>
> OTTAWA (CP) - A government study on language training in the federal
> public service says natives can't learn in black and white.
>
> The draft document, part of a $700,000 report completed in 2001 and
> obtained under an Access to Information Act request, points to
> particular difficulties in teaching French to employment equity groups.
>
> "Furthermore, black and white presentation materials carry no meaning to
> aboriginals," says the study, commissioned by the Public Service
> Commission and Treasury Board Secretariat.
>
> "Earth tones and aboriginal designs will immediately attract their
> attention."
>
> The description was panned as "extremely racist" by Taiaiake Alfred, a
> Mohawk author, scholar and activist who teaches at the University of
> Victoria.
>
> "What are we, monkeys?" Alfred said after an incredulous hoot of
> laughter.
>
> "I could probably write a whole dissertation on how racist that is. It's
> the worst sort of pandering to romantic notions of what it is to be
> indigenous.
>
> "Earth tones? Where does that come from, (the movie) Dances with Wolves?
> What it's saying, obviously, is that we can't read, that we need
> pictures."
>
> The paragraph was flagged as potentially offensive by a Treasury Board
> official in a July 2001 memo.
>
> "There are some rank generalizations about aboriginal learners that I
> find questionable and may be inappropriate," Sharon Smith wrote in a
> critique of the draft report.
>
> But a further draft in October 2001 maintained the offensive paragraph
> verbatim and added more:
>
> - On group training and role-playing: "Impersonal story-telling would be
> more appropriate. Furthermore, aboriginals tend to be introverted,
> making adaptation to the learning environment and testing methods all
> the more difficult."
>
> - On language aptitude testing: "Aboriginals are visual thinkers and
> learners, therefore the auditory nature of this test is a problem for
> them."
>
> Finally, in a copy of the report that included hand-written editing
> notes dated December 2001, the sentence referring to earth tones and
> aboriginal learners was scratched out without comment, although an
> attached annex repeated the entire paragraph.
>
> The "permanent draft" placed on file as a departmental reference
> document later that month made no mention of aboriginal learning
> problems.
>