[NLA] Practitioner-based research long

[Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council]

*** Tried to stay brief - didn't succeed - it turned out long ***

To George Demetrion, Andrea Wilder and others interested in research :

George shed light on some very interesting thoughts regarding research! (G
Demetrion final word:  06/27/2002 5:51:50 AM) Allow me to comment, George.
First, that email was easy to read.  You rephrased and wrote other points in
simple terms.  Thank you for writing in plain English!  (you will see WHY
later in this email!)  I agree with (quoting you):

<< a) "That, logically, there may be many good reasons why an individual or
a group may choose not to take on a research project." >>
<< b) "That research needs to be relevant at some level, though different
people will define relevancy in various ways.">>

Point (a) Research for the sake of uncovering important facts about adult
literacy programs truly is a descent reason for a research project, but when
a practitioner says they cannot participate, that viewpoint has to be
accepted at face value not be an arguing point.  The underlying question for
me is still money and time and it may be for others, too.

Point (b):  Relevancy needs, in my view, to apply to the *majority* at the
very least - whether they agree or disagree with the data. It still needs to
exist or there will be nobody interested in the project results.  Why bother
then?

Andrea, you addressed "respect" on this same NLA listserv thread (Sunday,
June 23, 2002 3:56 PM). It felt like the other end of the shoestring to me.
It  reads as follows:

<< ". I am feeling . [in Nancy] a DISTRUST of research, a wish to protect
her learners, and yet a desire for them to participate in research.  These
seem to me to be ordinary, not misplaced, fears .. >>

Andrea, all of your points are true.  There is a fine line I walk.  Adult
literacy providers offer a "confidential program".  It is our job to protect
that principle, for one thing.  I do realize there are learners who feel
differently.  I actually HAVE several!  Some have strength and self-esteem
that will allow them to be advocates and help with the field's outreach.
But not all.

Andrea also wrote:
<<"It must be clear from what I have said that professional researchers need
PARTNERS at the grass roots.  Insider's knowledge is used ALL THE TIME on
the NLA.">>

George also made comment regarding partnerships.  A "partner" or a
"collaborator" is much likely to happen than it's expected practitions be
the instigator of a time-consuming and costly research project.

<< Good research does not maul its subjects, it respects them.  Researchers
are usually profoundly grateful that people will agree to talk with them!
Research takes an immense amount of time, tremendous effort and usually a
lot of money.>>

Let's hope the majority of researchers are the people described. I do almost
anything for those who show gratitude.  But how does the practitioner know
that before beginning a project?

Comments about George's "points for clarification and/or possible
disagreement".  I agree with the thoughts in the closing paragraphs, George,
so let's start there:

<<. This focus ["linking this type of inquiry with ethnography and various
qualitative research traditions"] isn't going to come from USDoE, NICHD, or
OVAE, but can only come from the rich intellectual and practitioner-rich
resources of the field itself and the research bases which support and
ground it.  Where are the Quigley's Lytle's Fingeret's and Merrifield's of
the 21st century? >>

<< If not from the three national adult literacy agencies where will the
basis for an independent adult literacy research sector arise?  For
research, there will be and when linked to politics plays a powerful role in
defining the parameters of legitimacy.>>

Don't know where today's exceptional researchers are, George.  You do raise
a troublesome inquiry here. A little program isn't going to legitimize such
a big effort. If the "little guys/gals" can't do it alone, how do
practitioners get the results of "an independent adult literacy research
sector"?  Where are they?

Also, there are many teaching styles for programs written to teach adults to
read.  For me what it boils down to is this:
 1) What may work for Massachusetts students may not work for South Dakota
students.  Are individual programs flexible and ever improving?  Is student
evaluation considered?

2) One very obvious difference between yours and my programs will be our
core literacy materials. To me this doesn't mean that one is *more* or
*less* effective than the other.  I use a core of Laubach-designed methods
and materials. I sense LVA-designed method and materials are used in your
program, George.  They both teach the basics.  They both have validity in
their effectiveness.  Our differences should not be considered weaknesses.
Another place for cooperation.

3) We have different names --  In S.D. the literacy agencies are all listed
as Councils.  There's Read/San Diego.  How many other monikers are there?
Does "a name" diminish the impact of our literacy education or enhance it?
Do adult literacy students find it easy or difficult to find and access
programs by various names?  Or doesn't it not matter?  One of my learners is
moving NEXT WEEK to Portland, OR, and there are *several* names different
from ours!  I fear she's going to find that confusing.

I agree that the "three national adult literacy agencies" have a base of
data.  The merger of LVA and LLA into one worldwide literacy organization
may be a good time to discuss the importance of data gathering and research
reporting as an advocacy tool.  But - does this organization feel it
can/should be done at that level or do they want more localized research?
Will they respond?  Are our national literacy organizations ready to "step
up to the plate" or will we "strike out" trying?

George stated and I agree:
<< " . we are engaged in practitioner-based research just by who we are as a
result of participating in this public and highly communicative network" >>

And it's HELPful to ME -- to *many*, perhaps!  Does someone sort the
information in the NLA archives? Who has time???I'm glad, George, that you
weren't saying *this* writer!  I don't view my writing *one* answer to
several emails, George, as anything other than to validate there are
commonalties and differences between 'the eight listservers' who wrote here.
Thanks for the comment about being motivated, but I was merely using a
technique I used in my former life as a newspaper investigative reporter to
validate my comments.  (Not your typical adult ed credentials granted, but
it works for me personally.)

You added this which should be discussed more in depth, *I* think:
<< ""Here is also opportunity for further development - to transform the
immediacy of our daily messages into more comprehensive, usable documents
organized around key topics that be can be utilized for a variety of
purposes - at the level of instruction, training, staff and board
development, policy, additional research, whatever. >>

It raises these QUESTIONS:
* **Is** this a good idea -- commonality -- or is it a BAD idea to disagree
upon?
* Do subscribers write personal opinions or an over-all evaluation made by
learners and decision-maker volunteers about threads on this listserv?
* How do we accomplish this and still impact policies as the main purpose of
this listserv, our moderator keeps telling us?
* Are subscribers telling enough about what their jobs are to validate
who-wrote-what as an opinion?
* Big programs / Small programs /  State level without learner contact /
Researchers - what's the backgrounds represented?

The answers will make a difference in the data gathering.

George wrote:
<< ".knowledge is not static, but dynamic and subject to on-going
investigation that may require increased levels of intricacy to get a really
good handle on such topics as what, how, why, and under what circumstances
do beginning level adult readers learn.  Certainly information is out there,
as you say, though what is at issue is how definitive it is."  >>

Agreed.  Another way change occurs is when learners' needs change so do
program materials, training, volunteer recruitment and, yes, knowledge also
has to change.

As mentioned, there's the "how do beginning level adult learners read"
topic.  Effective programs don't stay static.  The investigation of  "how,
why, and under what circumstances" of programmatic changes is something I'm
interested in.  How about lurkers and writers of this listserv:
* How have your total programs changed over time?
* Why did that happen?
* Under which circumstances did the change begin?  And also
* What training, materials, and policies changed with the program needs?

Two personal stories (related to this thread and to finding out the what,
how, why and circumstances of learners in literacy programs learn) -- first,
an email that speaks to why we must write in plain English  and the other
being "input" that "just walked in" with a "How do adults learn" example.

First, the email sent to me off-line -- his permission was requested to post
here.  Former adult learner "Harry I." wrote that he had the following
testing experience.  He placed an official request with his program board of
directors.  NLA subscribers, do *you* have answers for him?  I didn't.  I
found my questions were:

1) It's that old irking testing to meet the criteria of "being accountable!
For GED students, they are given what is called "accommodations".  Do
literacy students deserve any less attention? What is it called for them?
2) If a student wants to measure their progress, how do they get that done
in other literacy programs?

In his words - a portion of (Friday, June 28, 2002 8:07 AM):
<< Dear Nancy,
<< . Relating to the topics that were posted [on the NLA listserv], just
recently I was tested with the standard test and I was incapable of taking
this test.  So I was given the standard LVA test and I did much better.  But
I felt that I was able to do the standard test.  I asked for these tools and
some of the revisions would be:
* allowing more time for students to take the test
* giving students a "pre-test" to familiarize them with the test.
* use of a dictionary or electronic dictionary to look up the meaning of
unfamiliar words
* allowing the student to use a portable electronic dictionary with voice
recognition.
* allowing the students to use the computer with voice recognition and
online dictionary.

<<Their answer was they were not trained to administer this type of test
that would be needed.  I was totally disappointed of the responses of this
board.  So that's why I ask you for help.  There must be a way to advocate
for this type of testing to be developed and allowed to be used for LD
students to build up their self-esteem and self confidence in their lives.>>

Harry uses technology to learn, to use as a resource, to provide support
systems and is now teaching others.  He also continues learning  with a
tutor who is teaching him spelling and grammar, he wrote.  He dictated this
email using an auditory device. The difference, as *I* see it, between Harry
and most other literacy level students, is his access and understanding of
technology.  Here he is - with the knowledge of what is available in the
field and his board wouldn't allow it -- blamed it on "insufficient
training".

Where is such "training" for testing with accommodations ?  How many other
adult learners like Harry are there?  Can you help? Opinion please. He's
"listening" to your NLA listserv answer, thanks to his talking computer.

Next example related to "how adults read".
[Before I begin, a Director's note:  Our Council uses colored paper and
overlays for those LD adults who find these help.  He's one of them who has
used them.]

Learner "Chris M." walked into the council on his way home from work in
Sioux Falls on Thurs. afternoon.  He was thrilled to tell me about something
new he had never found before.

He and the family went shopping on Wed. night at the local Barnes & Noble.
He was looking for a devotional book and thrilled to find one written in
simple vocabulary.  *Plus* he found the words were printed in blue colored
*ink* which personally helped increase his ability to read that book!

"It made the words pop *out* at me!" he said.  He was so-ooo excited that he
just had to hurry out to the car to get the book, still in its bag, so I
could see and hear him read it. OK, knowledgeable ones:  Who can answer the
"why" of this situation?  Why did that blue ink impact this diagnosed
dyslectic reader's capabilities?  Also, Chris feels I should tell publishers
that Blue Ink Helps Learning Disabled Adults Read Better!  Do we go that
far?

George, I also agree in these areas:
1) The criteria of "ABE light" being more than a little worrisome
2) Continuums between programs are the best approach
3) The importance of the three national literacy agencies' establishment of
what George wrote as "a research base for the field within their own houses,
so that adult literacy could become an independent sector" and thrive.

I think the most distressing part of this post was the WIA/NRS definition of
literacy programs.  George wrote the criteria is:
a) learning gains based on levels
b) GED/high school equivalency
c) Employment

He also wrote that this criteria "(s)ounds more like the ABE programs at the
local high school rather than the volunteer and/or community-based literacy
programs with which [George is] familiar."

Amen George!  I am appalled.  This is definitely not the adult literacy
program that *I* administer!  Not even CLOSE to the same definition!  It's
no wonder that decision-makers don't understand literacy programs nor do
they have literacy level learner statistics in the reported data. The
"substantial differences" between the ABE and literacy programs definitely
are not being documented, are they!  Another possiblity for a research
topic!  You mentioned MANY GREAT topics!!

Ending with a final George quote:
<< Either the field of literacy will define itself or it will be defined by
sources external to it.  In short, research is not an add-on, but an
essential force in the legitimacy and viability of any field. >>

Forbid the above thought!  But ... Research *is* feeling like a very
*expensive* "add-on" to me - when it shouldn't *be*.  George and Andrea, you
both have convinced me that research is important.  Being able to carry that
off, still feels overwhelming!  Can't help it.  Even though, in thought, I
support doing an internal research of adult literacy programs.  That is
obviously needed so at least change of the criteria for WIA/NRS can be
influenced. If someone knows how to rub the proverbial two nickels together
to get a dime for funding, adult literacy program people should be giving
such input to the right sources in an organized manner.  And who are they
exactly?

Out of curiousity, subscribers, how do *you* define your adult literacy
programs?  And LLA/LVA, do you have compilated data that gives a portrait of
the criteria in the literacy programs under your umbrella?  Guess I'm
challenging the voices at LLA and LVA to speak out.  I'd like to hear from
someone at the NIFL also.  What do we have here?  Some sort of "trust level"
thing?  The silence is *deafening*!!  None of these three have spoken.  It
would be helpful if you could.

Here for the dairy cows coming home,
Nancy Hansen
sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net
Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council

----- Original Message -----
From: "George E. Demetrion" <sophocles5 at juno.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: [NLA] Practitioner-based research


> Nancy and others:
>
> This discussion on practitioner-based research is so rich and complex
> that it's only feasible (at least for me) to respond to one aspect of the
> discussion at a time.
>
> Here I'd like to respond to Nancy's critical probing.
>
> Nancy says the following(I think I did some splicing of texts here)
>
> " I sense there are still too many questions regarding just exactly how
> this research project is really going to *change* anything - to say
> *nothing* of "meeting these standards" as Eileen wrote above!
>
> SHOW me I am *wrong*.  Give me solid examples of policy makers
> **listening* to
> practitioners' input.  Give us *all* a feel of how learner and/or
> practitioner input affected a policy - one single policy.
>
> "The point for me is this:  As an administrator and practitioner, and in
> my individual view only, before I do the time-consuming task of gathering
> yet another particle of documentation or bring into the fray a group of
> learners whose reasons for learning and their feelings about their
> educational program are going to be included in the inquiry, *I* need to
> know that the policy makers give a rip about what we are giving them as
> input.
>
> If the policy-makers come back and say, "Well, this just *isn't* data we
> can
> use for the specific purpose of increasing funding to literacy programs,"
> I have wasted my time in a very busy workweek.  If they come back and
> say, "Guess ya learned by doing." I would *have* to tell them that I have
> plenty of other ways "to learn by doing" that would positively make this
> program more effective than a research project with no benefits at the
> end of the long road.
>
> I believe this is called realism and prioritizing.  Or is it called my
> being selfish with my over-burdened schedule?  I will "go the extra mile"
> for a *lot* of projects within this program - ask our learners.  But
> practitioner research wreaks of having too many questions with too few
> answers."
> ________________________________________________________________
> Yes, Nancy, this is a profound tension in the field and there are many
> good reasons not to engage in any formal-based practitioners-inquiry
> project.
>
> Let me do some parsing here of what were referring to as research.
>
> First, there is practitioner-based research which is research by, for and
> with teachers for the primary purpose of raising critical issues within
> practice that effect our daily work.  The motivation for this type of
> research comes from the issues and dilemmas we experience at the ground.
> If we look at the NLA as a playing field for a national
> practitioner-inquiry (teacher-research) project, then you are one of the
> prime participants in this endeavor.  Notice what you did with your last
> substantive post.  You  synthesized 8 (!) messages on this thread and
> raised critical issues that are important from the place where you stand
> and you put the issues out there for the rest of us to confront.  This is
> exactly what is meant by practitioner-based inquiry, which needs to be
> seen as a continuum rather than a great divide with that of critical
> practice.  Add to that Cochran-Smith and Lytle's emphasis on "systematic
> intentional inquiry," then you might see how practitioner-based inquiry
> can be highly germane to where you stand.
>
> At the level of practitioner-to-practitioner, there needs to be no higher
> systematicity and/or generalizability or applicability beyond where you
> and others choose to take in pursuing the thread of any inquiry, though
> what's important here is not so much the quality of reflection as an
> end-in-itself, but the role of reflection combined with critical action
> as a tool or heuristic in progressively moving from problems identified
> to problems resolved, however incompletely so.  Based on this assumption,
> both data and ideas serve as tools, or in a formal sense, what John Dewey
> refers to as propositions.
>
> As a formal school of educational research, practitioner-based inquiry
> has roots in Dewey's philosophical pragmatism as well as in the research
> of social scientist Kurt Lewin who penned the aphorism "there is nothing
> more practical than a good theory," practical in Dewey''s sense in moving
> inquiry toward problem identification and resolution forward.
>
> Carr and Kemmis wrote an important book on action research in the 1980s,
> titled, "Becoming Critical."
>
> The chief guru (guress?) for our field is Susan L. Lytle, whose book
> co-authored with Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Inside/Outside:  Teacher Research
> and Knowledge (1993, Teachers College Press) is the most important source
> for getting a good handle on this slippery topic of practitioner-based
> research.  That book contains several essays by Cochran-Smith and Lytle
> where they chart out the broad conceptual framework of this emerging
> field, but there is also a major section on teacher research projects
> that illustrate the kind of work that practitioners might conduct to get
> a better handle on their work.  If you have time this summer, for one
> serious book on this topic and if, and only if, this topic is important
> to you, I recommend that you give Inside/Outside a very thorough study,
> and in the process, push(the collective)  us to put up the goods.
>
> In terms of practitioner-to practitioner inquiry, there is no need to
> take teacher research further. Its value will be proved or not in terms
> of its efficacy of your own immediate practice.  Better yet, shape any
> teacher research project to meet the needs of your own practice.  You are
> in control, not the research paradigm.
>
> However, for the field of practitioner-based inquiry to achieve any
> enduring legitimacy (maybe your concern, maybe not), the development of
> this field cannot rest simply on practitioner-to-practitioner
> communication.  Cochran-Smith and Lytle are good on addressing this; it
> needs to attain a certain institutional threshold both in terms of formal
> networks of participants engaging in this work and publicizing and
> documenting it in some visible way, and also, in a more formal
> institutional sense, where particularly the major adult literacy
> agencies, NCSALL, ProLiteracy Worldwide, NIFL make substantial room for
> this type of research within the context of their organizational
> cultures.  That's one important level.
>
> The other level of seeking greater legitimacy for practitioner-based
> inquiry is formally linking it with others schools of educational
> research.  The closest link is with ethnographic literature based in the
> discipline of cultural anthropology.  In this school, the researcher,
> typically a university scholar, like Victoria Purcell-Gates, is a
> participant-observer, who seeks to critically grasp the multiple meaning
> of what is observed from the perspective of the participants, but also
> adds a broader framework to the interpretative work than typically
> available to the participant, but stemming as an extension or some type
> of amplification of practitioner perception.  The tension that the
> ethnographer experiences is the temptation of empathy, on the one hand
> (going native in the extreme sense) with the need for critical, scholarly
> distance on the other hand.  Good ethnographers are able to mediate this
> tension.  This type of scholarship has more broad-based legitimacy than
> practitioner-based research as it is more formally embedded within an
> academic discipline and there is a body of work which establishes the
> canonical basis for the field.
>
> Here's an opportunity for some incredible linkages.  Let's assume
> research is a collaborative enterprise.  Take your program, take another
> program, but your program in particular.  It's one thing for Nancy,
> alone, to take on a research project that very well may bury her in work
> and take her away from what is really pressing.  It would be another
> thing all together if a first rate ethnographer from the University of
> South Dakota and Nancy linked up and together they developed a research
> project and together, along with key others carried it out.
>
> In this scenario, both Nancy and the ethnography are equal partners, both
> bringing their own intelligence and experience to the table and allowing
> the research problems or issues to surface as a result of their
> interaction.  Given the electronic medium, others throughout the country
> could be brought into the research project from time-to-time.  Also LLA
> specialists could be brought in to help craft and support the project.
> Such research, in turn, could be valuable for the field, which could be
> publicized through LLA or ProLiteracy Worldwide as the merger between LLA
> and LVA becomes formalized.  That, in turn, could serve as a model for
> other research projects.  This could happen, but the envelope for it
> would have to be pushed in various quarters.  AND WHY NOT??
>
> A lot of good could come from these field-based projects to the extent
> that they:
>
> a)  provide valuable information to the field
> b)  gain scholarly credibility by linking practitioner-based inquiry to
> other types of educational research
> c)  gain institutional credibility in our major adult literacy
> institutions, only through which broader legitimization can come..
>
> But for the latter to happen,  the community-based  adult literacy sector
> needs to define itself and not be defined by the dominant ABE sector as
> ABE light.
>
> One final comment.  The research that has gone into the EFF project since
> 1994 or 95 is a major nation-wide teacher research project.  That is
> important in itself to highlight, not simply the various outcomes of that
> research, but the rich dynamic of its iterative process,  through the
> various years among the many practitioners who have taken part in the
> work.
>
> Okay, now back to the book.
>
> George Demetrion
>
>
>
> That would be doable and could gain a lot of visibility
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

_______________________________________________
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