<html>
Nancy Hansen responded to my reactions to her earlier comments regarding
the limitations of research in the field. 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. 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, in
particular, their views on how their research is/can/might contribute
to/inform policy and practice in ABE. <br>
<br>
Nancy wrote:<br>
<br>
<i>"Are the "latest findings" going to reveal <br>
anything *further* regarding new and improved data if not thoroughly
<br>
researched via broad culturally and regionally diverse bases of
questioning? <br>
Maybe it's My Area. We're pretty isolated here on the prairie. Is THAT
why <br>
you wrote: "I guess I'm glad you're in South Dakota"??? It felt
like you <br>
were saying: "Keep that dumb-broad aWAY from anywhere ELSE!"
"<br>
<br>
</i>Well, there is a trade off between focusing on relatively narrow
isolated problems/questions and focusing on broader, more diverse
(regionally, ethnically, culturally) concerns. Narrow problems lend
themselves to experimentation (e.g., group comparisons studies that
determine if a given method of instruction results in superior student
performance over a different method), while broad concerns are more
amenable to description and ethnographic work (e.g., how is
"meaningfulness" and "relevance" negotiated in ABE
classrooms?). Both approaches have value, lead to different insights, but
which hopefully together lead to greater understanding of "what
works" and what doesn't. But, any kind of research is limited in
that it is only possible to study a few (more or less isolated) variables
at any time. <br>
<br>
So, for example, I might examine the role of working memory in adult
learners' vocabulary acquisition. I randomly assign students to one of
two groups that differ in regards to the type of vocabulary learning
tasks they are given, and I look to see how working memory processes
function under each of these task conditions. These students are drawn
from those that I reasonably have access to (given the limits of my
budget)--ie, the local community college program. They vary in age,
gender, race, ethnicity, motivation, reading ability, and I factor those
differences into my analyses of the outcomes of the experiment. Does it
really make any difference that I've found these folks in Illinois and
not in South Dakota, or California, or New York? I'd argue, tentatively,
that it does not. My experiment can be replicated (or not) among samples
similarly drawn in SD, CA, and NY--and anywhere else--thereby confirming
the "generalizeability" of my results. "Culture,"
"region," "diversity" are merely noise in this
instance. This does not mean, however, that culture and diversity are
wholely irrelevant.<br>
<br>
I hope Nancy will forgive my attempt at regional humor. We all know the
risks of trying to be funny, ironic, or cute in this two-dimensional
environment. I teach in a college of education. Most of my students and
colleagues are women. I don't do "dumb broad" humor. Enough
said.<br>
<br>
Nancy further writes that:<br>
<br>
<i>Many of their </i>[researchers] <i>researched comments are narrow in
<br>
scope and reveal only a narrow and marginally accurate evaluative comment
<br>
about the *real* Big Picture.</i> <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Nancy also says:<br>
<br>
<i>I am glad you could validate the project in Oregon was taken seriously
by the <br>
grad students who conducted the research. I just would like to see the
folks <br>
with more hands-on experience doing the research rather than those who
just <br>
do not have the background to ask the right interview questions.<br>
<br>
</i>How do you know these grad students don't have first-hand experience
in ABE classrooms? Several of them do. Others have significant teaching
experience in K-12 classrooms, or have worked with low-education adults
in other capacities (e.g., Vista, Peace Corps, counseling). Yes, some of
them are young and lacking real-world experience, but are tremendously
eager to learn. "Graduate student" is not synonymous with
"uninformed," "out-of-touch," or "lacking the
background to ask the right questions." <br>
<br>
Finally, Nancy says, in response to my comment that statistics are social
constructions:<br>
<br>
<i>I quess may it's my concern <br>
that there is a reality in those constructions. If we truly want to
"serve <br>
social needs", we have to know what in the eyes of the needy people
those <br>
REAL needs are. <br>
<br>
</i>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 "real" 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 their 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.<br>
<br>
Cecil Smith<br>
<br>
M Cecil Smith, Ph.D.<br>
Professor of Educational Psychology<br>
Northern Illinois University<br>
DeKalb, IL 60115<br>
(815) 753-8448<br>
(815) 753-8750 (fax)<br>
mcsmith@niu.edu<br>
<a href="http://www.cedu.niu.edu/" eudora="autourl">www.cedu.niu.edu/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</html>
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA@lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org