[AAACE-NLA] complex relationship between learning toread&learningto learn

[Catherine B. King]

Hi George and Andrea:

George's note was right-on--but I also agree that those
who need it most are probably not reading---sigh.

The old metaphor about "If it can't be counted, it 
doesn't count," can be expanded:  "If you can't count it 
already, then you cannot act on it either."  Under this
umbrella of thought, we are frozen in place with regard 
to any new movements (funding)--and there goes 
experimental design, evaluative and formative research, 
and unfortunately much of what is important in 
education--at least in a democracy.  That is, new
questions and creative movements of mind in 
students, teachers, programs, etc.  

Again, it's not that the numbers are not indicators of
the reality that is adult education; it's that they cannot
portray the whole--in principle.

A philosophical point from George's note:

The thing about numbers as constructs and notions of
reality is that the numbers are, indeed, an aspect of
the real as they draw out intelligible aspects of reality
from concrete things and occurrences.  

The problem is more that under the current stream of 
thought (from what I can see, still positivist in origin 
and shape, with some historical "dents") many seem 
to take the numbers as the <only> aspect of reality, 
and everything else is, as you say, relegated to the
"merely subjective," the biased, the sentimental, 
the "anecdotal," the psychological, etc.   

And there lies the distortion for the social sciences
and for education.  And art, ethics, history, philosophy 
are ruled out of court altogether.  When we analyze 
and <create> (construct? and fund?) our new life-
world in the ethical-political domain out of analysis 
based on mere numbers--what emerges is a 
desiccated real.   We leave the rest of the richness 
of persons, communities, and education, behind, 
and we end up with a declining rather than a creative 
culture.  

We can do that--but it is not a good foundation for
the continued development of a democracy. 
Eventually, our studies are in fact applied to the 
ethical-historical-political domain, and that domain 
is better served by several kinds of study, including 
critical, evaluative, philosophical, statistical, 
formative, experimental, etc., than it is by mere 
numbers alone.

There are apparently movements going in the other
direction; however, it's a tough road to hoe against
a power "wall" that is informed by mid-century
thought and-or suspect and undemocratic political 
agendas.

A happy new year to all,

Catherine King

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: George demetrion 
  To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 6:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] complex relationship between learning toread&learningto learn


  Hi Andrea,

  You raise some important issues that merit additional analysis.  In terms of your second sentence, "If higher numbers/grade levels matter in achieving life transforming experiences, then we should focus on how to raise the numbers," the "if" is the critical word.  Or perhaps it's "when, how, to what extent, and the degree to which the two are not directly correlated.  The numbers, after all, are a construct.  There's nothing wrong with constructs, we can't live without them. Problems come in when we mistake the construct for the reality, in which the numbers are viewed as "objective" data and the narratives are viewed as "subjective" data with all the incumbent dilemmas of "response bias."

  I state this not to deny the significance of what you say in the first sentence, "The numbers matter, maybe not to  the student, but certainly to the funders."  One wonders, though, why that is so?  Certainly, the quantitative metaphor is taken axiomatically in some circles as the surest path, if not to the truth, to the closest approximation to it that can be achieved by fallible humans.  Certainly, that assumption can be challenged, notwithstanding the value of a quantitative metaphor when there is a tight alignment between that which is measured (adult literacy learning, however variously it is defined) and the instrumentalities of analysis.  I suggest that there is also a darker side to what might be referred to as the idolatry of the quantitative metaphor; namely that the illusion of exactitude serves as a cover to a political process that does not in fact want to unearth the complexities and richness of adult literacy education because at the public/policy level the value system is not in place to support what such learning would imply.  

  On this interpretation the marginalization of the rich narrative data combined with a thoughtful analysis of such data based on a qualitative comparative framework may be viewed as a signpost of the marginality of the values as well as many of the accomplishments and life transformations that students attain in the process of engaging adult literacy education at whatever level of reading and writing progress achieved by particular students. Only stating this, of course, is merely a faith-based assertion.  Evidence is clearly wanting.  At the same time there is a good deal of evidence already available, which perhaps needs greater sifting and comparative, critical analysis, which then could ground the research, in a field that in many respects is still emerging, on a sounder basis.  

  Any such work, however, requires a methodological pluralism which focuses on a quest for the desired knowledge as defined through a cogent problem definition rather than ruling out certain modalities of information gathering and analysis as appropriate or illegitimate from the get go. This requires a repudiation of what may be the greatest sacrilege to a sound scientific approach which can account for the complexity of human culture, namely identifying experimental design (as currently defined) as the gold standard of scientific research.  The phrase, "get behind thee Satan," would not be too strong if the goal is to establish competent theories and designs of research.  If any field should be probing these matters with depth, it should be that connected to the study of literacy--a field that links the technology of reading and writing with that of meaning making and knowledge acquisition, however the two are complexly entwined in their variable complexity.

  But of course my words are merely those of a clanging cymbal.  I know not of what I speak.

  George Demetrion

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: AWilder106 at aol.com
    Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:12 PM
    To: aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org
    Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] complex relationship between learning toread&learning to learn

    Nancy will probably chew my head off on this.

    The numbers matter, maybe not to  the student, but certainly to the funders.  If higher numbers/grade levels matter in achieving life transforming experiences, then we should focus on how to raise the numbers.  If we can't agree on the numbers themselves, then we have to work on that problem, too.  

    Andrea


    _______________________________________________
    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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/aaace-nla/attachments/20050104/ef67d72d/attachment.htm