[NLA] Research in Adult Education & Literacy, serious research, validatio...

[KathleenBombach@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/8/2002 6:18:04 PM Mountain Daylight Time, 
AndresM.RGCAMPUS.EPCCRG at epcc.edu writes:


> Tom started the discussion, as I remember, by asking about scientific 
> evidence that validated literacy work, making reference to the work of 
> Freire, Dewey and others sometimes referred to by George. Kathleen 
> responded that scientific research in our field was not taken seriously 
> since literacy is not considered a hard science. She noted the distinction 
> about hard vs soft sciences and the lack of respect that soft sciences 
> received for lacking serious and rigorous research that would validate a 
> study. The implication from both posts seemed to be that in order for 
> something to be valid it had to be validated through hard science. 
> 
Andres:
I think you missed my point, probably because I did not state it very 
clearly.  My point was that:
1.  Educational research often attempts to use the methods of the hard 
sciences and fails miserably;
2.  Educational researchers cover up these failures by bending and breaking  
the rules of what is considered a valid scientific result, as well as by 
failures of analysis and testing;
3.  I have seen examples of this in literacy research, although most of this 
goes on in general education research;
4.  The Department of Education and others connected to the Bush 
administration keep talking about 'scientifically-based methods to teach 
reading' without showing us the 'science' that supports these methods;
5.  Educational research does not use scientific research methods, it just 
pretends to, so where is the 'scientific research' to which we are all 
supposed to kowtow?
The distinction between hard and soft science carries many meanings.  One is 
that the hard sciences dear with real physical phenomena, and the soft 
sciences deal with behaviors, attitudes, aptitudes, etc., all things that 
cannot be placed in a Petri dish or examined under a microscope.  More 
accurately, many scientists believe that it is impossible to set up true 
experimental conditions to test theories in the soft sciences.  A less 
flattering definition refers to the way researchers in the soft sciences ape 
the methods of the hard sciences so poorly, and hence should not even call 
their fields sciences.  At the university where I attended graduate school, 
the Government department refused to change its name to 'Political Science' 
when it was the fad to do so.
I listed specific examples of practices used in education research to make it 
look like the scientific method is followed and that the results reflect 
reality or have meaning, predictive power, etc. 
Most of what I have seen described as the 'scientific' approach to teaching 
reading is what most teachers would say--which is perfectly okay.  But to 
dress it up as scientifically derived knowledge is just the latest fad.
My comments were not a reflection on what Tom had to say--good program 
administrators, just like good teachers, will put a lot of thought into what 
works in their programs/classes and when and with whom and for what purpose. 
And looking at numbers is very useful in that process. 
Kathleen Bombach
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020509/7d7afcc8/attachment.htm