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

[KathleenBombach@aol.com]

Dear Catherine:
I must learn to become a better writer.  I was not advocating for throwing 
the theory out with the bathwater.  I was trying to make the point that 
educational research is often presented as a demonstration of fact and a 
claim is made that it is research based on the application of standard 
scientific methods.  Upon closer examination, one finds that the researcher 
misapplied scientific and statistical techniques to come to his or her 
conclusions.  

For example: I once went to a week long seminar on teaching literacy and ESL 
at a major university.  The researchers presented a list of conclusions from 
their research on assessment and literacy student outcomes.  Their 
conclusions were based on correlations of .2 and .3, which is to say 
relationships that had very weak, meaningless, correlations.  Basically, 
their research results could produce no conclusions, which is not acceptable 
after one has spent months gathering and crunching data.  Their conclusions 
were presented as proven by the scientific method (until I questioned them). 

The issues you brought up are the larger issues, and very relevant.  How do 
we know that we have posed a meaningful question?  How do we tease apart 
complicated phenomena?  How do we deal with the changeability of human 
beings?  How do the mind and body interact?  How do people learn? All valid 
questions usually not addressed in education research.

A major goal of research is predictability.  "If I teach 100 hours of 
ESL/literacy using the xyz method, students will improve one level, but if I 
teach 100 hours of ESL/literacy using the abc method, students will improve 
two levels.  Therefore I will make all the programs in our state teach using 
the abc method".  In a scientific context, we could be referring to a new 
drug--in education we could be referring to whole language and phonics.

When I hear claims that certain methods are 'scientifically' proven as better 
than all other approaches, I remember how much fun we had in grad school 
picking apart bad research.  So if anyone makes these claims, I want to see 
their research, and not be told that "We know, based on scientific research, 
that this is the best way to teach reading" (and BTW, your funding is tied to 
your adopting our methods).

Then we get to other questions--if I can teach a four year old to read, 
should I? Does it matter? (I did not learn to read until the last few months 
of second grade.  I was seven, closer to eight.  It didn't hurt me any, but 
it sure upset the teachers).  I believe I have brought up research that was 
done at our local university.  A professor taught toddlers to 'read' by 
hanging big signs on everything.  Soon, the little ones could recognize 
simple words like egg, go, dog, chair, boy, girl, etc.  He boasted that his 
daughter could read at age three.  I knew his daughter, a reasonably 
intelligent women, but it was unclear that she had derived any benefit from 
her early reading instruction, just as I have not suffered any disadvantages 
because I learned to read so late.  Shall we hang big signs on everything so 
our one to three year olds can learn to read a few words?  Should we value 
teaching five year olds to read?  What is their brains are not ready until 
they are seven, going on eight?  What damage might we be doing to them? 

As I think you would say, even if  'scientifically based research' says it is 
possible, is it the right thing to do? What is the blowback (to use a newly 
popular phrase).  So a lot more goes into the discussion than of what 
research demonstrates, even if we could get past the bad science. 

So Catherine, you can say you disagree with me, but I don't think you do!
Kathleen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020510/964a3705/attachment.htm