[NLA] Research in adult literacy education

Tue Nov 19 10:30:40 EST 2002

Sheryl: Actually, we see eye to eye about how to evaluate program
effectiveness, but I disagree that the call for "rigor" incorporates the
valuable qualities you have listed. The "science-based" people I have
talked to define "rigor" to include researchers as blind to process as
possible, looking only at results, and they expect those results to be
"replicable" under circumstances that can be "duplicated". In other words,
conclusions offered as "true" must always be "true". I am not advocating
for this in any way; I'm uncomfortable with it. But I am seriously
considering this point of view to see what parts of this approach might be
relevant to teaching adults. I am not ready to reject this view out of
hand. A case in point is our program's current struggle to understand
learner needs in light of more and more scientific research on learning
disabilities and brain function. 

The policy implications come when research becomes almost folk wisdom, and
research results, sometimes incomplete or tentative results, find their way
into legislation and accountability mechanisms. For example, when research
on infant brain development finally made it to the cover of Time magazine,
it wasn't long before my state rushed to mandate "parenting" programs in
every school district, and millions of dollars have been poured into early
childhood programs, even as middle class parents started playing Mozart for
the enjoyment of their unborn children. Meanwhile the state has cut my
budget three times in the last two years, the total nearing 20%. 

Not that the early childhood programs, especially in a state like SC,
aren't needed. But now we find that NIFL is in danger of being highjacked
by the zealots who think that a young child can be inocoluated against
failure in school if we only get to them early enough. (I admit to
oversimplifying and exaggerating to make the point.)

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

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: Debbie Yoho <dwyoho at earthlink.net>
> To: Sheryl Gowen <epssag at langate.gsu.edu>
> Date: 11/19/2002 10:29:12 AM
> Subject: Re:  [NLA] Research in adult literacy education
>
> Sheryl:  Actually, we see eye to eye about how to evaluate program
effectiveness, but I disagree that the call for "rigor" incorporates the
valuable qualities you have listed.  The "science-based" people I have
talked to define "rigor" to include researchers as blind to process as
possible, looking only at results, and they expect those results to be
"replicable" under circumstances that can be "duplicated". In other words,
conclusions offered as "true" must always be "true".  I am not advocating
for this in any way; I'm uncomfortable with it.  But I am seriously
considering this point of view to see what parts of this approach might be
relevant to teaching adults.  I am not ready to reject this view out of
hand. A case in point is our program's current struggle to understand
learner needs in light of more and more scientific research on learning
disabilities and brain function.  
>
> The policy implications come when research becomes almost folk wisdom,
and research results, sometimes incomplete or tentative results, find their
way into legislation and accountability mechanisms.  For example, when
research on infant brain development finally made it to the cover of Time
magazine, it wasn't long before my state rushed to mandate "parenting"
programs in every school district, and millions of dollars have been poured
into early childhood programs, even as middle class parents started playing
Mozart for the enjoyment of their unborn children.   Meanwhile the state
has cut my budget three times in the last two years, the total nearing 20%. 
>
> Not that the early childhood programs, especially in a state like SC,
aren't needed.  But now we find that NIFL is in danger of being highjacked
by the zealots who think that a young child can be inocoluated against
failure in school if we only get to them early enough.  (I admit to
oversimplifying and exaggerating to make the point.)
>
> 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: Sheryl Gowen <epssag at langate.gsu.edu>
> > To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> > Date: 11/18/2002 5:19:14 PM
> > Subject: Re:  [NLA] Research in adult literacy education
> >
> > By supportive, I meant an evaluator who would=20
> > 1. work with the program to identify and articulate the program's
specific =
> > goals=20
> > 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.=20
> >
> > 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.=20
> >
> >
> > 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=20
> > 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".) =20
> >
> > 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.=20=
> >
> > Of this I am also unsure. =20
> >
> > 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?=20
> >
> > 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? =20
> >
> > 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=20
> > > mean that evaluators should know nothing about a program's goals,
> > objectives=20
> > > or methods.  Personally, I would want an evaluator who would know =
> > plenty=20
> > > about methods and goals and with wide experience--I would call that
> > rigorous.=20
> > > =20
> > >
> > > To dive right in, let's take phonemic awareness, which has been pushed
> > down=20
> > > people's throats for some months, now.  It's fine with me, I think =
> > every=20
> > > teacher should know what this is, how to teach it, how it fits in =
> > turning=20
> > > speech into print, and so on.  I have a friend now in college who
> > couldn't do=20
> > > phonemic awareness, a learning disability.  She learned globally, by =
> > what=20
> > > many (gasp!) still call whole language.  Evaluators would have to know
> > about=20
> > > language and about learning disabilities and diagnosis.  I know I'm
> > fooling=20
> > > around with language, myself, here, but I have never seen why there
> > shouldn't=20
> > > be multiple ways of reaching a goal like literacy--multiple rigorous =
> > ways
> > of=20
> > > becoming literate.   Rigorous needn't mean rigid.
> > >
> > > Given how little time adult learners have to spend in class, I think
it
> > would=20
> > > be great to use the time as effectively as possible, to make that an
> > upfront=20
> > > goal,--takes knowledgeable teachers, constant teaching upgrades,
> > evaluators=20
> > > 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

_______________________________________________
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