[AAACE-NLA] complex relationship between learningtoread&learningto learn

[AWilder106@aol.com]

Colleagues:

I have really offended Nancy and I am sorry.

Numbers don't have to be about testing or the TABE.  The TABE is one test that some have found useful as a measure of learning, and for some states it is mandated.  Nancy doesn't use it because it isn't suitable for her population.  Because of this she looses some funding.

Numbers, and the comparisons they make, can be used in other ways.  One example, and I am dredging  this up, is from the study I worked on for NCSALL which used both qualitative methods and quantitative methods combined in several ways.  The increases in learning, which were ultimately determined with numbers, were based on qualitative measures transformed into numbers.  Why numbers?  Because then it could be shown that the changes in learning between two methods was significant--one teaching/curriculum method was better than another.

I don't know how the anecdotes in this NCSALL study were chosen.  One per program? To illustrate specific points? I have no idea as I wasn't part of that procedure.

The problem I alluded to is in two parts--1) The integration of anecdotes and what information they are supposed to convey into a study design,  
2)  The use of numbers to document change. 

I think these two problems have been consuming a lot of energy on the list.  I think forward progress can be made  when it is understood that numbers and letters are not necessarily either/or research choices.

Suppose teachers want to convey the meaning that learning to read has for their students, as both Nancy and George do, how is that best to be done within a single program?  The NCSALL study did it.  How do list members think this should be done?

I used to be a teacher, my interest is the development of skilled readers as rapidly as possible.

Andrea