[NLA] Research in adult literacy education

Debbie Yoho dwyoho at earthlink.net
Mon Nov 18 11:15:02 EST 2002 

Yes, David, I am convinced you are right.

For me, I think you have highlighted in plain English the need to draw a
distinction between research (i.e. monitoring, accountabiliaty recording)
that seeks to determine program effectiveness and other types of research
to find answers to questions that can be investigated by what I call the
"science model": strict objectivity, control of all variables, etc.

As a practitioner, my first priority has to be on program effectiveness,
especially since the advent of the NRS.  I've been pushed into this by
legislative fiat.
  
Deborah W. Yoho
Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv
President, SC Adult Literacy Educators
Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
2728 Devine Street,  Columbia, SC  29205
803-765-2555   Fax  803-779-8417   dwyoho at earthlink.net


> [Original Message]
> From: David J. Rosen <DJRosen at theworld.com>
> To: <dwyoho at earthlink.net>
> Date: 11/17/2002 7:56:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [NLA] Research in adult literacy education
>
> Hi Debby,
>
> Typically, education program evaluation (often unlike research) is 
> intended to provide data for program decision-makers to improve a 
> program.  Usually evaluators start from the program's own goals.  So, it 
> is important to have an evaluator that is sympathetic to those goals -- 
> yet impartial in returning to the decision-makers (e.g. program 
> coordinator, and/or funder) data which will be useful in knowing if the 
> program is succeeding in reaching those goals.  Often -- but not always 
> -- evaluators provide recommendations based on the data about how the 
> program might change to improve its performance on its goals.
>
> So, yes, evaluators should be supportive of a program's goals.
>
> All the best,
>
> David
>
> David J. Rosen
>
>
> Deborah W. Yoho wrote:
> > "  From Andrea (as example)  "Evaluators would have to know about 
> > language and about learning disabilities and diagnosis."
> > 
> > I'm not suggesting that evaluators be ignorant of literacy in all its
> > facets.  But Sheryl said "supportive" of a "program's goals"--implying
that
> > it would be good to use evaluators with a bias in favor of a program
> > reaching its goals.  But "rigorous" research requires as much
objectivity
> > in the design and implementation of evaluation strategies as possible,
or
> > does it?  (I am seriously and innocently inquiring; nothing meant to be
> > read into my question, please, even though I am one of those wary of
calls
> > for "rigor".)  
> > 
> > What I'm asking for is a further explanation of what would define
"rigor",
> > and I want to check out the hypothesis that part of the answer includes
> > strictly objective evaluation.  Of course, the next question will be
> > whether or not objectivity is really possible, if it is first
desirable. 
> > Of this I am also unsure.  
> > 
> > I am interested in the question because my program is regularly
"evaluated"
> > by the State Department of Education, who has a vested interest in my
> > success. The evaluators are also considered to have expertise in the
field,
> > and I am glad they understand and support my program.  But should they
be
> > the evaluators?  If not, who should be? 
> > 
> > In a post many weeks ago, I suggested that learners could be the
evaluators
> > of whether or not a program is authentic.  (I still think this is a good
> > idea.)  But as a group learners would be even less objective, even more
> > invested in a program's success, and less knowledgeable of literacy as a
> > discipline than the state department.
> > 
> > So I ask again: If we agree for the sake of discussion that
accountability
> > can be a positive force, who should mind the store?  
> > 
> > Deborah W. Yoho
> > Moderator, NIFL-Health Discussion Group
> > Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
> > 2728 Devine St. Columbia, SC  29205
> > 803-765-2555    dwyoho at earthlink.net
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>[Original Message]
> >>From: <AWilder106 at aol.com>
> >>To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> >>Date: 11/15/2002 10:42:20 PM
> >>Subject: Re:  [NLA] Research in adult literacy education
> >>
> >>Dear Deborah,
> >>
> >>This is a day for teasing out word meanings.  I didn't take Cheryl's
post
> > 
> > to 
> > 
> >>mean that evaluators should know nothing about a program's goals,
> > 
> > objectives 
> > 
> >>or methods.  Personally, I would want an evaluator who would know
plenty 
> >>about methods and goals and with wide experience--I would call that
> > 
> > rigorous. 
> > 
> >> To dive right in, let's take phonemic awareness, which has been pushed
> > 
> > down 
> > 
> >>people's throats for some months, now.  It's fine with me, I think
every 
> >>teacher should know what this is, how to teach it, how it fits in
turning 
> >>speech into print, and so on.  I have a friend now in college who
> > 
> > couldn't do 
> > 
> >>phonemic awareness, a learning disability.  She learned globally, by
what 
> >>many (gasp!) still call whole language.  Evaluators would have to know
> > 
> > about 
> > 
> >>language and about learning disabilities and diagnosis.  I know I'm
> > 
> > fooling 
> > 
> >>around with language, myself, here, but I have never seen why there
> > 
> > shouldn't 
> > 
> >>be multiple ways of reaching a goal like literacy--multiple rigorous
ways
> > 
> > of 
> > 
> >>becoming literate.   Rigorous needn't mean rigid.
> >>
> >>Given how little time adult learners have to spend in class, I think it
> > 
> > would 
> > 
> >>be great to use the time as effectively as possible, to make that an
> > 
> > upfront 
> > 
> >>goal,--takes knowledgeable teachers, constant teaching upgrades,
> > 
> > evaluators 
> > 
> >>who are also coaches, and funding.
> >>
> >>Thanks for the Interesting post
> >>
> >>Andrea
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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
> > 
>



_______________________________________________
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

More information about the Nla-nifl-archive mailing list