[NLA] Evidence-based practice in Adult Literacy Education]

Mon Apr 8 11:11:15 EDT 2002

Dear colleagues:

I have found this discussion on evidence-based practice fascinating and am
heartened to see lists of studies that providence evidence of what we know
works in adult literacy education.  At the same time, I don't know if it is
my own cynicism or naiveté that makes me believe that the push for
“evidence-based practice” is not an an objective agenda, but one driven by
political, social and corporate interests.  Regardless of what we “know” and
have proven to work, there are studies out there that use the same methods to
“prove” exactly the opposite.   In the March 27 Report on Literacy Programs,
Michael Castle, one of the proponents of the bill to overhaul OERI, cited
that he wants to “put an end to education fads that masquerade as sound
science.”  For example, hasn’t the other shoe dropped and now it is allegedly
“proven” that whole language instruction doesn’t work?  What happened to the
plethora of case studies, research studies, and other evidence that indicates
just the opposite?

At times evidence that supports a certain methodology or program design is
found using quantitative research designs ("sound science" as stated above),
yet if the results grun contrary to the political agenda, they are hotly
contested and often shot down while the study itself and its methodological
design are harshly criticized.  One example of this comes from K-12.  The
Department funded an 8-year longitudinal study of different bilingual program
designs.  David Ramirez’ longitudinal study basically provides evidence that
academic performance is enhanced through the use of language minority
students’ primary languages in instruction.  (If you are interested, you can
see the Exec Summary  as well as critiques and discussions of this study at
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/nabe/brj/v16/).  When the report was
released, it was highly criticized and hotly contested by the Department
itself.  What do we have now, ten years later?  A powerful, highly
politicized anti-bilingual education movement, and programs all over the
country that explicitly prohibit the use of students’ primary languages.  And
the generally accepted wisdom that “bilingual education is bad,” with
so-called  “evidence” that supports that claim.

I do not mean to appear cynical.  Rather than giving up on doing research
(and scrambling and struggling to obtain research dollars), I believe that we
should instead continue to provide evidence, in all forms, for the exemplary
practices that we believe and know to promote adult learning.  At the same
time, it would seem that we must also be engaged in advocacy work that can
impact the political agenda driving the changes in our work.  This may also
mean that we have to figure out how to be realistic about corporate and
political interests behind changes in the direction of educational
programming and we must work collectively to counteract those.

Marguerite Lukes

"George E. Demetrion" wrote:

> Andrea:
>
> My jogging routine calls, so let me be brief now, maybe more later.
>
> There are a number of impact studies readily available, though they don't
> look closely or precisely at the relationship between reading and
> application.  Still, these studies (below) have merit, they are
> research-based, contain empirical evidence, and are based on certain
> intellectual assumptions.  The two I mention most are:
>
> Merrifield et al Life at the Margins (1997), an ethnographic study of 12
> adults
>
> Fingeret and Drennon (1997) Literacy for life, which looks at the impact
> of literacy on 5 students.  The initial study by Fingeret and Danin
> (1991), They Really Put a Hurtin on My Brains, involves many more
> students and looks at a wide array of  interrelationships within what
> might be viewed as the reading/learning process.
>
> Then there is the Canadian study, Learning to Learn:  Impacts of the
> Adult Basic Education Experience on the Lives of Participants which
> studies 45 students.  More recently there is the work by Sherry Royce and
> Richard Gacka (2001), Learning for Life:  A Longitudinal Study of
> Pennsylvania's Adult Education Success Stories' recipients.
>
> In the late 80s-early 90s Beder and Valentine looked at impact among ABE
> students in Iowa.  In a recent article, Motivation and the Adult New
> Reader (2001), I provide a longitudinal case study of three
> students--only three, so no generalizability is assumed, but the research
> is detailed in attempting to tease out impact and correlation of other
> factors.
>
> There is other research of this ethnographic nature,which far from tells
> the whole story, but discloses something,which should not be lightly
> ignored.
>
> A couple closing points:
>
> a) Reading is important, but is still a subset of learning.  Rather than
> reading as an end in itself, I'm more interested in the relationship
> between reading progress at varying levels, its application impacts in a
> broad array of contexts and both the symbolic, meaning making
> significance of such learning as well as its more concrete
> manifestations.
>
> b)  I'm also interested in the questions/issues that frame any research
> project. What are the operative assumptions, epistemological/political
> contexts that frame this or that study?  How is it being used, by whom?
> What is being illuminated, what is being ignored or marginalized, etc.
>
> Got to run.
>
> George Demetrion
>
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:30:17 EDT AWilder106 at aol.com writes:
> >George,
> >
> >I never  thought I'd be on the side of the Bush agenda, but here we
> >go:  I
> >think they (who ever they are) and we--I think I know that--are trying
> >to
> >find out WHAT WORKS.
> >
> >What methods work best to teach adults to read and write better?
> >
> >How is this measured?
> >
> >I think people in the field should be able to dredge up, or demand,
> >info on
> >these questions.  It should not be all that onerous, but for busy
> >teachers
> >this may be pretty far down the line of priorities.  I tossed in
> >Victoria
> >Purcell-Gates because her material is most easily accessible to me.
> >Her work
> >is an example of WHAT WORKS.  The measurement issue in her NCSALL
> >research
> >project she solved by looking at changes in literacy practices
> >(reading and
> >writing) in the home.
> >
> >There are more NCSALL examples.
> >
> >I know we have all (those who have spoken out here) been shocked by
> >the
> >emphasis on treatment/control group studies, but this isn't invalid!
> >If we
> >feel we know what works in the classroom, and we have studies to back
> >it up,
> >we can make our own case.
> >
> >But I'm not sure who I'm suggesting to do this case making, as there
> >is a gap
> >between what we talk about on the list and who actually does the heavy
> >
> >lifting for adult literacy.
> >
> >Andrea
> >_______________________________________________
> >NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> >http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> >LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> >http://literacytent.org
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
> _______________________________________________
> NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org

--
Marguerite Lukes
Director of Instructional Technology
Literacy Assistance Center
32 Broadway, 10th floor
New York, NY 10004
tel: 212.803.3322
fax: 212.785.3685
mlukes at lacnyc.org
http://www.lacnyc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020408/0bf70eba/attachment.htm