[AAACE-NLA] NIFL and Scientific Based Evaluation

[AndresMuro@aol.com]

Tom: I'll be brief, cause I have to go and do not feel like getting too deep into this discussion. However, the field of adult education has been considerably limited by several factors beyond NIFL. 
significanly large measurable increases have not been documented in the field, as far as I know, because of many obstacles to a systematic growth of adult literacy practice as a field. 
This is true regardless of what NIFL does. So then, Has NIFL contributed to the overall field that is suppossed to serve the 90 mill. adults as indicated by NALS (I know your views on NALS and on the 90 mill and I am not trying to debate this. In fact, I agree with many of your points on this)? Most likely not, from a traditional scientific perspective. Have the practitioners that have chosen to participate in NIFL groups benefited from the groups and in turn improved their practice. I would say, yes, and I would think that this could possibly be meassured quantitatively. However, it would be tough and $$$$ to do a study to determine the extent that the practitioners have been benefited and in turn this has benefited students. Why can't the practitioners who have benefited from NIFL help improve the field as a whole in a scientifically measurable way? I would say, because of large and systematic barriers outside of our control.

Andres   

In a message dated 12/2/2003 3:39:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, Thomas Sticht <tsticht at znet.com> writes:

>I’ve been struck by the two lines of discussion about the value of the
>NIFL and the role of scientific-based evidence for making educational
>policy and instructional decisions. The discussions seem to me to have a
>close relationship.
>
>For instance, recently David Rosen commented on the NIFL and said,
>"As one who remembers the years before the The National Institute for
>Literacy, I can say without hesitation that the NIFL has added enormous
>value to the field." He then four activities of the NIFL that he believes
>added "enormous value" to the field. These included:
>
>"1) LINCS and its many services: special collections, electronic lists,
>regional activities including trainings and teacher professional
>development grants, LINCS Search of databases, Websites and electronic
>forums, among others;
>2) Equipped for the Future, the field's leading curriculum standards
>initiative
>3) Literacy Leader fellowship studies
>4) Bridges to Practice"
>
>David goes on to say, "I am particularly concerned that NIFL should
>continue to fully support  LINCS, EFF, and Bridges to Practice training. 
>The loss of NIFL's adult  education focus would be a huge loss for the
>field, and I personally  would feel the loss as I use LINCS services
>daily."
>
>Given the discussion about scientific-based evidence for adult literacy
>education, I wonder what kinds of scientific evidence could be mustered to
>support David’s and others’ beliefs about the value of NIFL activities to
>the field.
>
>Some critics of NIFL might contend that the NIFL activities have not
>brought any demonstrable improvement to the adult literacy field, no
>matter how they might be valued by those  who read the aaace-nla
>discussion list. How has the field of adult literacy education actually
>been helped? Any evidence? Are more learners enrolling in courses due to
>NIFL activities? Any evidence? Are learners staying in programs longer?
>Evidence? Are adult learners learning better? Are they learning more? Are
>they learning more useful knowledge and/or skills? Are they using literacy
>skills more and/or better outside the classroom? Any evidence for skeptics
>about the claims of how the NIFL has increased the value of the field for
>adult learners?
>
>All this raises for me the question of just how the value of NIFL’s
>activities can be evaluated and documented to provide convincing evidence
>of its value to the field to change the minds of skeptics. While
>testimonials from aaace-nla or other LINC lists may be necessary are they
>sufficient to convince skeptics that the NIFL should continue to exist?
>
>But this may not be necessary since the NIFL has now changed to focus not
>on adult literacy but on literacy development across the life span and
>there is a lot of interest in the present administration to promote
>scientific-based reading instruction for children. So there may be no need
>to argue for the continued existence of the NIFL. But the adult literacy
>field may have to adjust to the new NIFL as an agency that promotes
>literacy at all ages – with an emphasis upon childhood literacy
>development as a strategy to reduce adult literacy problems. Is this a
>poor strategy for meeting the nation’s need for more literate adults?
>
>Tom Sticht
>Tsticht at aznet.net
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
>http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
>LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
>http://literacytent.org
>


-- 
go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html