[NLA] research traditions

[George E. Demetrion]

(a bit long I'm afraid)

Colleagues:

I downloaded an article from the National Institute of Child and Human
Development (NICHD) that was recently referenced on the NLA.  It's
titled, "Adult and Family Literacy:  Current Research and Future
Directions--A Workshop Summary."  It's 12 pages and quite readable.  It
can be accessed at (I hope I copy this right):

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/crmc/cdb/AFL_workshop.htm

There are aspects about this article that I find valuable, but remained
troubled by much of its operative assumptions and what it leaves out. 
I'll comment on both of these as I proceed.

The article starts out by mentioning "[a] panel of experts from various
disciplines [that] was  convened to assess the current state of knowledge
about effective approaches to improving the literacy skills of
low-literate adults and about the role of family literacy services" in
helping parents "support their children's literacy as well as their own"
(p. 1).  Briefly, four  things stand out in this opening sentence:

1.The panel of experts are not mentioned, which makes this an
anonymous-like text, though written by experts.

2. Representing "various disciplines," but we don't learn in the article
what those disciplines are and what might be left out, but rest assured,
the study is grounded in multi-disciplinary analysis.

3. Literacy is strongly linked with "skills" rather than say,
knowledge--throughout the article there is an emphatic definition of
literacy as reading and writing (more commentary later).

4. The strong linkage of adult literacy and family literacy

The panel focused on five questions:

1)  "What do we know about instructional effectiveness"

2)  "What do we know about the timing and mode of delivery of treading
instruction"

3)  "What special measurement and assessment issues must be addressed?"

4). " What are the professional development needs in the field"

5)  What are the specific needs that must be met in order for rigorous
high quality research to be done in these fields?"

I take no issue with any of this per se, except as it may be defining the
universe of adult literacy within some quite narrow parameters.  I do
take issue with some of the intellectual presuppositions upon which this
article is based (below).

One of the major presuppositions is the tight association of "literacy"
with reading and writing.  Thus in the document, the writer(s) allude to
the "large body of rigorous research on effective instructional methods
for early reading by schoolchildren...[yet] there has been far less
scientific study of literacy interventions with adult learners...who are
at risk for difficulties in learning to read when they enter school" (p.
2).

Note the language, how "value free" is it?

* Scientific"--is not literacy a manifestation and product of culture and
broadly socially-defined at least as much if not more than a product of
highly specific cognitive processes--or rather, do not the three
intersect in highly intricate, complex, and divergent ways, an analysis
of which may require admittedly interpretative analysis as much if not
more than "rigorous" "scientific" research?  Why does one want to
privilege "science" over that of cultural studies when grappling with
something so complex and human as adult literacy?  What are the
epistemological, disciplinary, and political assumptions grounding this
focus on "rigorous science?"  This is not a small matter, but the query
is beyond the boundaries set out by the article.  That's interesting in
itself.

*  The term "literacy interventions," an antiseptic term that creates
"objective" distance between the observed and the observer, between the
subject and the intervener.  It also reinforces an aura of precision that
accompanies scientific and mathematical analysis at least symbiotically
when it comes to applying these disciplines to the human sciences.  Such
precision acts to mineralize contentious human diverse interpretation,
particularly if they extend beyond the methodologies deemed legitimate.

Because more "rigorous" analysis and "causal relationships" between
instruction and literacy exist in studies about the school age
population, the panel agreed to draw on those studies as providing an
important angle of vision as might be applied to "adult learners" with
literacy again being defined primarily as reading and writing with some
slight qualification on p. 2.  I suggest that this is already a defining
of the world and a defining out of many aspects of what might go into a
coherent and comprehensive program of adult literacy scholarship.

Stemming from  this K-12 framework, adult literacy research should focus
primarily on "reading  processes...such as the degree of automaticity
required to function as a reader and the nature of the interaction
between reading rate and accuracy" (p. 3). 

Later on (p. 7) the writer(s) identify possible areas for further studies
such as:

*  The role of phonemic awareness in adult literacy instruction,
including variations "with different groups of learners.

* Optimal instructional methods to increase vocabulary.

* Whether vocabulary gains in specific areas transfer to other areas

*Differences between comprehension strategy between adults and children

 I do not dispute the importance of any of  this, as I find these
questions on their face, relevant and important.    Nonetheless, the
association of adult literacy with the mastery of reading skills is a
little bit like putting the horse before the cart, particularly in terms
of what is not being attended to such as "reading the word in order to
read the world"  or the learning to learn emphasis of EFF--literacy not
merely as reading skills, but as a manifestation of meaningful knowledge.
 

On this scenario, reading would be viewed as a subset of literacy and
literacy defined as in the terminology of EFF as meaningful knowledge and
capacity to do important things in the world, which would include the
development of reading skills.  Thus, even for those whose reading
"skills" may only progress just a bit, participating in literacy programs
can still play an important role in broader knowledge acquisition and
skill development.  I could say more on this, but will refrain, except to
argue that this is no small matter.

There are aspects of this study that I'm leaving out, but let me continue
to focus on the epistemological, hence methodological connections.  Let's
state that in other terms.  The methodologies that one views as
legitimate are shaped by one's broader beliefs of what constitutes
knowledge.  Pushing this a bit further, what constitutes legitimate
knowledge is intricately related to culture, politics, and socialization.
 Neither literacy nor research about literacy can be thoroughly grasped
without taking these matters into account in a substantial way.  What I
am particularly concerned about is the notion of "science" and "rigorous
research" tightly defined as a symbol system which indicates a level of
control, precision and uniformity that extends well beyond the actual
"data," if you will.

The article makes an important call for high quality comparative studies,
which on its face, I certainly endorse.  Where I have trouble is where it
defines the range of "legitimate" methodologies of "well-controlled"
studies, particularly with the privileging of "experimental or
quasi-experimental design" which is already defining the intellectual
universe of adult literacy studies.  To be sure, there is acknowledgement
of the need for "convergent evidence" and "cross-discipline collaborative
research efforts that bring to bear the best scientific methods, that are
informed by practitioners..." (p. 12).  However the positivistic research
tradition focusing on quantification and exacting-like "scientific"
precision, causal like analysis is clearly privileged and viewed as more
legitimate than other modes of scholarship, particularly for the purposes
of comparative study.  Donald Polkinghorne (1984) in Methodology for the
Human Sciences:  Systems of Inquiry characterizes the positivistic
research tradition in the following manner:

"The positivistic tradition might also be called a single-method
tradition.  It's primary themes can be summed up in three statements: 
(1)  All metaphysics should be rejected and knowledge confined to what
has been experienced or can be experienced.  Thus science should restrict
itself to discovering viable correlations within experience. (2)  The
adequacy of knowledge increases as it approximates the forms of
explanation which have been achieved by the most advanced sciences. (3) 
Scientific explanation is limited to only functional and directional
laws...or to only mathematically functional laws" (pp. 18-19).

In short, the positivistic tradition is reflective of a world view and
should be identified as such and not be equated with the most "rigorous"
of human knowledge--the word "rigor" itself having a sort of symbolic
meaning in social science and popular discourse equated with expertise
and precision, control of the data.  Such terminology, rather, should be
subjected to rigorous literacy studies and the fields of literary
analysis, historical, cultural. ethnic, and gender studie.  These, along
with cognitive psychology and more rigorous empirical-like research might
be viewed as legitimate intellectual partners in the flourishing of a
renaissance of adult literacy studies that has not yet seen its day.  Are
we up as a culture for such a flourishing?  For we have resources for it,
but as a culture, perhaps not the desire.  

Instead of the term "research," particularly with its current
neo-conservative connotations, I would prefer the term "scholarship" as
defining the legitimate intellectual sphere of adult literacy studies. 
Theory plays an important role in naming the world which otherwise would
go unnamed.  Such naming is at the very heart of adult literacy as in
Freire, as in EFF, as in Auerbach, as in Fingeret, as in Dewey, as in
Vygotsky, as in Scribner, as in Lytle, as in Quigley, as in Sticht, as in
Meziow, as in Habermas, as in constructivism, as in feminism, as in
Afro-centricism, as in philosophical pragmatism, as in phenomenology, as
in ethnography, as in postmodernism.  

Do we really want to sacrifice this rich heritage as suggested by these
names and intellectual traditions for the allure of "rigorous scientific
research" particularly as applied to the realm of human studies?  There
are substantial issues related to the manner in which legitimate research
on adult literacy is being defined.  Those issues are not far from the
politics of literacy.  I suggest they require a close look.

This is clearly long enough!

George Demetrion
Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford
sophocles5 at juno.com



I believe this requires a very close look


On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:16:28 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) John Comings
<John_Comings at harvard.edu> writes:

>I'm sure that "evidence-based education" will be part of the plan, 
>and our grant monitor did share the overheads from a speech given by 
>Russ Whitehurst, the Assistant Secretary of OERI, that defined EBE as:
>
>"the integration of professional wisdom with the best available 
>empirical evidence in making decisions about how to deliver 
>instruction."
>
>"Professional wisdom" is defined as "the judgment that individuals 
>acquire through experience and the increased professional wisdom that 
>is reflected in numerous ways, including the effective identification 
>and incorporation of local circumstances into instruction."
>
>"Empirical evidence" is defined in terms of both "quality" and 
>"relevance"
>
>Quality is defined both as coming from well-executed research but 
>prioritizes methodologies in this order
>
>1. Randomized trial
>2. quasi-experimental, including before and after
>3. Correlational study with statistical controls
>4. Correlational study without statistical controls
>5. Case Studies.
>
>"Relevance" is defined as the intervention, outcome measures, 
>and study subjects were similar to those in the real practice setting 
>and that the number of study subjects were sufficient to justify a 
>generalization to all of the population involved in the real practice 
>setting.

________________________________________________________________
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