[NLA] "breaking news"

Wed Jun 19 00:18:15 EDT 2002

Complete or incomplete research: the beauty of doing research in programs, 
whether for EFF or not, is that you use what you learn as you go along AND 
you keep building on it--unless, of course, some cataclysmic event changes 
the program from the outside, like doing fantastic, useful program-based 
research into authentic assessment and suddenly learning everyone has to use 
CASAS to get funding starting next fiscal year. Shirley Wright's article in 
the June 1999 Focus on Basics, "Learners First," sticks with me as an 
example of program-based research (on accountability, too!) The article 
reported on a long-term program effort to become "accountable," including 
figuring out what accountability meant in that particular program. I don't 
know if she called it research, but I think it was.

Who will be the first to volunteer? Sandy Strunk (sorry if I misspelled it) 
mentioned her program's research into program effectiveness and learner 
achievements in an earlier message. George Demetrion has published articles 
based on program-based research in Connecticut. I think Pennsylvania, 
Massachusetts, Viriginia, and a few others take program-based and 
practitioner research seriously enough to have made it the cornerstone of 
staff development. I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong on that! 
Maybe people from states that use practitioner inquiry can comment on 
whether their findings ever affect policy.

About confidentiality:
1. The results and their trustworthiness don't depend on revealing names or 
other confidential information. When I transcribe interview tapes, I use 
initials. When I keep a reflexive journal, I also use initials. I enter into 
an agreement with respondents I interview that while the findings will be 
disseminated, "the names will be changed to protect the innocent." It's not 
perfect, but neither is large-scale research by academics. 2. Granted, it is 
a risk for an administrator or anyone else to be open about mistakes, 
doubts, and great efforts that just didn't work out. BUT, there are people 
who are willing to share their experiences and what they've learned from 
them. And the more we believe we have to back off from honest dialogue to 
protect ourselves and our programs or to not offend others, the more 
enmeshed we become in a defensive culture where honesty is dangerous and 
therefore honesty on anyone's part is threatening because it exposes 
everyone else's silence.

I know you don't believe that there's a "perfect example of a well-run 
program" that should be a national model (Who would market the "toolkit"? 
Sounds like a job for LFF--sarcasm intended) I do think that by providing 
research descriptions and results, we can learn more from each other, even 
if what we learn is why the strategy that works so well in one program 
doesn't work in another, but maybe some detail gives someone an idea of how 
to adapt it to their program... How the findings are used should always be 
up to those involved: learners and their teachers and administrators.

A tale of why it's important to do research: A couple of years ago, I got 
funding from the community college outcomes assessment fund to do a project 
with any of the teachers in our ABE/GED/ESL program who were interested. It 
was about a six-month effort, on top of two years of smaller projects, and 
it was intended to result in the revision of our curricula to incorporate 
the new state competencies, the college's outcomes assessment framework, and 
EFF--yikes. In the ABE/GED group, we started our work together with an 
adaptation of EFF role mapping, creating a role map for an effective 
teacher. What we found that very first day was that our role was different 
than we had ever articulated it. David said in an earlier post that the 
students who remain are those who need what we have to offer: basic academic 
skills improvement. Well, we all thought that's what we were offering, too. 
Doing the role map made clear that in order to get to the academic part, an 
effective teacher needs to help students with all the background stuff, from 
getting to class on time (which can be as simple a matter as setting the 
alarm clock, but rarely is that simple) to understanding the link between 
participation and learning, to either hooking up with the resources needed 
to resolve issues that are barriers to participation and learning (domestic 
violence, substance abuse in the family, homelessness, and more) or learning 
about them in class, or setting them aside for the hour or two that class 
meets. An effective teacher needs to do her own diagnosis of learning needs, 
but she also needs to listen to the student's self-evaluation and perceived 
needs. It goes on. Most of what made teachers effective was stuff they 
thought was taking time away from teaching. Articulating the legitimacy of 
attending to learners' needs as whole human beings (not only the student 
part) was a revelation. Okay, some of the work was boring too. But even 
expert teachers were surprised by how much they learned, and many stayed 
involved and did more than they were paid for because it was useful to them 
(research--the route to painless exploitation--just kidding). We got a lot 
done and created outcomes and assessments we wanted to try out. I applied 
for the funding again for the next year--and didn't get it. The 
administrator in charge of the funding wanted to break up the money into 
smaller mini-grants, even though no one had yet expressed an interest in 
them. My mistake: I did not treat our work as research and document the 
benefits other than the curriculum results, so even though I--and all the 
faculty in our program--KNEW that our project was worth ten times the 
funding we were asking for, I didn't have the documentation. We learned a 
lot; how much more might we have learned, and how might we have used what we 
learned, if we'd been deliberate and purposeful about it as is the case with 
research? We'd still have been doing the same basic work; we'd just have 
been doing more metacognitive stuff on top of it as we went along.

>From: Nashansen at aol.com
>Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>Subject: Re: [NLA] "breaking news"
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:26:52 EDT
>
>In a message dated 06/17/2002 8:34:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
>eileeneckert at hotmail.com writes:
>
><< Who would do the research, Eileen?" Practitioners. Practitioners.
>  Practitioners. After reading some of the responses to my posts, I thought
>  maybe an evil twin was using my name to write anti-teacher hate mail to 
>the
>  list. I re-read what I've written, and it says, I'm advocating for
>  program-based research done by practitioners. Nothing I've written says 
>that
>  someone else should set or carry out the research agenda. The EFF field
>  research is a great example of connections between practitioners and
>  researchers to produce "sound" research ..... >>
>
>So -- I misread your message, too, Eileen.  The "connection" you detected 
>in
>the EFF is exactly what I meant by referring to "it" as a research tool.  
>No
>evil twin there, but I could have *sworn* ....
>
><< .... I have spoken with some of the people doing EFF
>field research--those I've talked to consider it great professional
>development as well as practical problem solving and a chance to have a
>positive impact on the whole field. Is it complete? Even if it is, or if 
>the
>LVA research is complete, there is research to be done anytime a
>practitioner has an unresolved question. Many teachers are already doing a
>huge part of the work of a researcher; they try things out, keep journals,
>talk to others in the field. Is being more deliberate about it and
>disseminating results such a gigantic and unrealistic step? I'm not
>suggesting it be mandatory! >>
>
>Regarding complete or incomplete:  The EFF is something we can utilize in 
>the
>Here and Now is the whole point.  I just really question whether a 
>"long-term
>research project" is going to validate anything more than what has begun.
>The EFF is a system upon which data can be built.
>
>As far as teacher/volunteers already keeping journals and doing personal
>observations of learner progress is concerned?  When the feds "get over it"
>about allowing this type "research" to Have Impact on funding requirements,
>perhaps *then* I shall be convinced it's "an option".
>
>RE "I'm not suggesting it be mandatory":  If so, who will be the first
>administrator to "volunteer" to be a Perfect Example of a Well-Run Literacy
>Program which will set an example for *all* programs nationwide and provide
>their volunteer/teachers' journals revealing the confidential records of
>their learners?  In the first place, *is* there a Perfect Program, as 
>Deborah
>Yoho questioned in one of her posts?
>
>Nancy Hansen
>Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council
>sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net and
>_______________________________________________
>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

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx