[NLA] Research in adult literacy education

[Nashansen@aol.com]

Sorry.  This is long.

Cecil Smith wrote on 11/8/02 in response to my (Nancy Hansen) email:
<<… My comments then and now are given in the spirit of trying to inject some 
perspective on policy issues from those who conduct basic research in ABE. It 
seems to me, as an NLA subscriber over the past 4-5 years, that this point of 
view is sometimes missing …>>

Dear Cecil and other researchers:

I appreciate your "interjection", first of all, Cecil.  Also I usually "don't 
do humor" and as you read in my prior message, I didn't do well with THAT 
humor most of all.  Perhaps that was why I took your comment more seriously 
than was intended.  'Nuf said about THAT one.  I apologize for taking your 
comment more seriously than you meant it to be.  :-)

Now … on to the above phrase: "…perspective on policy issues from those who 
conduct basic research in ABE".  The point that *I* was attempting to make 
is: Researchers should include documentation about where the data was 
collected in order to validate its truthfulness - broad OR narrow.  What is 
true of learners in Massachusetts is not necessarily going to apply to those 
in South Dakota.  I disagree with you as to whether it matters.  Exploring a 
totally different issue with a learner from New York State revealed to me 
that truth.  There are far more options for resolution of the issue I was 
trying to get input about.  But ... Onward.  

Your example below about Chicago adult learners is an example of my concern, 
I feel.  You wrote:

<< … If research finds that 78% of ABE students in Chicago-area community 
college ABE programs cite "lack of public transportation"; as a barrier to 
their attending ABE classes, is that not evidence of a perceived need? (Yes, 
of course, we'd want to know more about how the data were gathered, what the 
response rate is, etc., but let's assume a "high-quality" valid survey for 
the sake of argument). This means that slightly more than 3 of 4 
randomly-selected ABE students said that they could not get to class because 
there was no bus to the campus from their neighborhood(s). Shouldn't that 
information be used then to advocate on behalf of these folks--or for them to 
advocate for themselves? Doesn't this single piece of information--this 
statistic--have some real-world value? If a reseacher makes a best effort to 
ask "needy people" what their REAL needs are and then we ignore what they've 
told us simply because that information has been communicated in the form of 
some simple descriptive statistics, then the problem isn't the statisticians, 
it's us. >>

I agree that the data has "real-world value" (as long as the points made in 
parenthesis are included in the report that's written).  Now, are *you* 
willing to accept that in a smaller community the above issue of 
transportation needs may **not* be the burning concern of "78% of (literacy) 
students" everywhere in America?  In the program I administer the learners 
attend sessions specifically planned for neighborhood sites so they don't 
HAVE to ride a bus or take a cab.  I think our program is typical of other 
one-to-one, volunteer-driven literacy programs, but I'm not sure.

I realize that a researcher located in the bigger cities of our country 
probably cannot picture this.  My program's solution to meeting 
transportation needs is different than theirs because Chicago and other city 
ABE programs are offering sessions to large groups of people in classroom 
settings.  My example should tell you, though, that one-to-one instruction 
allows me to provide neighborhood settings via partnerships within the 
community for almost all of the learners meeting with a literacy instructor.  
Our literacy program may be in the minority, but programs like ours should 
not be excluded *totally* from the data-gathering process and subsequent 
report, just because they have different "social needs".

I was trying to make this first point:  Researchers need to try to gather 
data from more of a majority representative of specific needs throughout the 
U.S.  The second point I was trying to make is this:  Researchers who gather 
such data as above, if they are reporting it "as is", must footnote their 
data with "gathered in Chicago-area community college at such-n'-such date".

You see, Cecil and other researchers, your research papers reach 
policy-makers who not only establish policy but funding.  Without that 
"footnote" they may jump to a conclusion that your example is true of all 
programs and "throw funding at transportation" as an ultimate for *all* 
programs.  While they are at it, they will establish strict regulations 
meaning none of the programs like mine, who don't need a bus route, will be 
able to access those dollars.  

No.  I do not feel that this type of data should be "ignored" as you wrote 
above.  But I believe that there's a whole lot of weight placed on the words 
of well-known researchers who don't document the "who, what, where and when" 
their statistics were gathered.  
  
You wrote:
<< … I can think of at least a half-dozen people who are doing cutting-edge, 
informative research in the field--John Sabatini, Judy Alamprese, Cris Smith, 
Hal Beder, Steve Reder, Daphne Greenberg (among several others)--it would be 
great to hear from them in this forum …>

Me too!  What do these "cutting-edge" researchers feel about these points?  
How about the literacy programs like mine?  What do you feel about the above 
example?

Point #3:  I'm troubled by the fact that today's decision-makers take some 
researchers' words as the word of God, not to be questioned - contrary to 
what you feel, I know.  The consequences are the federal funding set by 
federal policy appears to go to "the greatest need area", but the greatest 
need areas are not necessarily all encompassing.  

Cecil wrote:
<< … Yes, sometimes research is pretty narrow. I don't think that means that 
researchers don't have a sense of the "big picture"; But, you can't really 
understand the big picture without having a good sense of the parts of the 
picture, and how those parts come together to make a whole. Another point, if 
you look at the best research in K-12 classrooms, the researchers who have 
produced that scholarship have taken great pains to learn from the people who 
lead those classrooms--the teachers. They don't come into a school, impose 
their research project on the teachers, gather their data and leave. Of 
course, there are other researchers who don't think that practitioners have 
anything of value to say. My experience is that these folks are in the 
minority. >>

Here we have a commonality.  I agree with the above regarding "the best 
research" includes gathering data from practitioners.  But is it real for the 
AELS?  (Your example is K-12.)  There appears to be all this lip service 
about bringing literacy programs into the AELS fold, but I don't see the 
research data including them - point #4.  Has a literacy program seen the 
eyes of a researcher "taking great pains to learn from the people" etc.?  
Instead, Cecil, I feel as though the researchers *are* imposing their 
research on those of us in literacy-focused projects, as stated above, 
resulting in a great deal of anger on the part of those trying to survive 
unreasonable standards and requirements.  

Maybe I'm only reading data from the minority of researchers whom you 
mentioned above.  Or … I'll admit it.  Maybe it's MY program experience 
that's false.  Maybe our program is such a very small minority example and 
not worthy of documentation of our social needs.  You see our ABE programs 
are separate entities in Sioux Falls, SD.  Our funding is separated, as are 
our office sites.  Does that mean our literacy students' equal rights to 
equal funding matters less than ABE students' programs' funding matters or 
not?  Does it mean the life skills learned in our program matter as MUCH or 
less than GED preparation gains?  Am I alone in this whole errors-of-omission?

You wrote extensively about ways data is gathered regarding methodology and 
instruction, Cecil.  I don't disagree with knowing more about appropriate 
methods that are effective as long as the research includes flexibility in 
delivery systems.  Literacy providers want the best of the instruction models 
for our adult learners also.  But we aren't going to re-create our total 
programs when funding is not available to veer to the left with a totally 
different model of instruction provided in a classroom mode.  Are literacy 
programs truly included in the big picture?  I still question that.

There's an old saying:  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  Hmm-mmm.  Maybe 
that's a cultural, regional expression, now that I write it.  But I believe 
it holds truth -- at least for my local Council.  When our one-to-one program 
is proven by our learners to be an ineffective instructional model, perhaps 
my mind will change.  But for now, I'll stay with the methodology and 
materials we have available.  It's working for the people we serve -- at 
least for now.  I'll admit it - I would love to have more technologically 
based reinforcement activities to offer as a tactile approach.  It would be 
great to see more materials written about teaching writing skills.  Yes.  We 
are still interested in *improving* our program -- as long as there's funding 
to back that up.

Thank you for your insights, Cecil.  Some very good points were made.  Yes.  
I also hope this thread stimulates some conversation - from both sides of our 
picket fence.  Discussion is a means of learning new information and views.  
I wasn't saying that your views were wrong.  I was just expressing my own 
opinions from the grassroots, community-based program level about your 
comments.  In fact, it appears, I may be the *only* one who feels this 
strongly.

Nancy Hansen
Executive Director 
of a small-town program, by comparison
Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council
Sioux Falls, SD
NEW:  <sfallsliteracy at yahoo.com> or
<Nashansen at aol.com>
_______________________________________________
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