[NLA] Research in adult literacy education

Mon Nov 18 11:10:03 EST 2002

By supportive, I meant an evaluator who would 
1. work with the program to identify and articulate the program's specific goals 
2. work collaboratively with the program director, staff, teachers, and/or learners to determine the extent to which the program is meetings its own goals and objectives
3. help the program meet its own goals and objectives more effectively. 

This approach is rigourous, systematic and objective.  The evaluator is not bringing in his/her own bias about how things should be done, what things are important, etc. The evalautor is not being arbitray or capricious in his/her work.   By the way, this method is used at the CDC, NSF, and the Kellog Foundation, to name just a few. 

Sheryl Gowen, Associate Professor
Research, Measurement and Statistics
Department of Educational Policy Studies
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303-3083
sgowen at gsu.edu
404.651.1152
fax 404.651.1009
>>> dwyoho at earthlink.net 11/17/02 18:49 PM >>>
"  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