[NLA] Re: Reading Instruction and Policy Advocacy (way too long!)

[Eileen Eckert]

I'm not arguing against any of the methods people support with research. But 
some on the list are making leaps I can't follow, and I am asking them to 
make the link (just as Art is challenging me to fill in the gaps in my 
arguments). I don't think we always make the distinction between statements 
that can be supported and those that rely on "prevailing wisdom," as in 
"everybody knows the sun goes around the earth!" When we're so sure we're 
right that we're willing to impose that position on <everyone> else in the 
form of a mandate, I think it's a good idea to ask for a convincing case. So 
let me use parts of Andrea's message as an example: you talk about methods 
that work, training, and credentialing. This doesn't get to the mandate 
question, but I 'll bring it in anyway (This is a note I write as I 
proofread the post--I'm often using "you"  generically to address the 
unnamed powers-that-be who make policy and govern teachers' work--don't take 
the diatribe personally, anyone, OK?)

As I understand it, Andrea's saying that:
<If> teachers, one or many, use a method successfully (my editorial note: 
that is, there's convincing evidence students learned what was taught), 
<then> there is support for the statement that the method works (at least 
with students like the ones who first learned from it, and with teachers who 
understand and use it correctly). The more the method works, with the more 
students, the more believable it is to claim it's worth using in other 
settings.

However, Andrea said below that "Teachers really need training,
what I have described is not going to be obvious to people in the field
without this education (for it is more than training, actually)." I think 
this statement rests on at least the following proposition (and maybe other 
assumptions I haven't noticed): <If> a method works, <then> training 
teachers to use that method will lead to their using that method (i.e. 
training works).

There is a body of research and theoretical literature that undermines that 
proposition; that is, there is not a direct, proportional relationship 
between training and its "transfer" or application. Lots of 
factors--individual, environmental, and interacting--influence whether 
something that is "delivered" in training is learned, and if so, whether and 
how it is applied. Self-determination (see Edward Deci and colleagues' 
research on self-determination theory) and perceived relevance are two of 
the individual factors; time for practice and institutional and collegial 
challenges and supports are some of the environmental factors. From my lit. 
review and research, I'd emphasize congruence with the "mental model" of the 
learner (whether it's the teacher being trained or the student) for a method 
to work.

Here's an example:
If my "mental model" of teaching reading (and my experience teaching reading 
is generally with ABE level 3 to GED level students) centers on 
comprehension and critical thinking rather than phonemic awareness, then in 
order to get me to be able to use phonemic awareness in instruction you have 
to 1. convince me (not just tell me) that it would benefit the students, and 
2. show me how to do it with my students--not in the abstract "here's what 
you would do" that we get in workshops, but right there with me and the 
students, coaching, and debriefing afterwards, addressing my concerns, not 
the trainer's agenda. Just saying "do it, it's required"  isn't going to get 
me there. Training, where I go to a 4-hour workshop away from my classroom 
and get all the information and none of the other stuff mentioned above, 
then I go back to the classroom and I'm on my own, is not going to be 
sufficient. First, you're not going to supplant my mental model--I developed 
it through meaningful experience and it's pretty resilient; second, you're 
not going to teach me enough for me to develop a base of understanding and 
skills from which to further develop; and third, if I'm on my own with it in 
the classroom with just the requirement to do it and a 4-hour training, I'd 
probably end up distorting PA beyond recognition (well, not really, but I 
bet I wouldn't be effective).

If you really want to help me use PA effectively, skip the mandate (that 
requires money for bureacracy to set it up, implement it, enforce it, etc, 
and by the time it's done there's little left for teacher learning). 
Instead, spend the money on getting a coach into my classroom to work with 
me, making time available for me to meet with colleagues and discuss/refine 
new approaches, getting a sub so I can observe a teacher who's expert, 
paying that expert to come into my classroom so I can see with my own 
students how it's done and meet with him or her after the class to talk 
about what was important and why. Help me incorporate it into my repertoire 
of knowledge and skills; don't shove it down my throat (and then tell me you 
don't have the money for professional development to teach me how to do it).

Next issue: credentialing. Andrea says she really believes in 
credentialing--why? Is there evidence for the role of credentialing in 
student learning and success?
I have not yet found support for the proposition that credentialing or 
certification leads to better outcomes for students. I've done several 
keyword searches in ERIC so far; most of the literature pertains to the 
relationship between certification or credentialing and professionalization, 
with better outcomes for students <perceived> to be indirectly related to 
credentialing via the mediating variable of professionalization. There is no 
evidence that I can find to support any of these proposed relationships, but 
then again, there's really no research. Arkansas claims to have all the data 
just waiting for a researcher to make the connection, but no one's taken 
them up on it so far (that's from the 2000 NIFL Policy Report) and they 
don't seem to have it in the budget.

Sorry for the repeated lapses into edu-babble; hope the meaning's clear from 
the context.








_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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