Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3HLhbU22707; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <Sea2-F5265IvSLdKcdK00000e5b@hotmail.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:226] Re: FWD: Search for scientific, evidence-ba X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 21963 Lines: 496 A few thoughts on "scientific evidence" and research on the effects of PD: Even in the natural sciences, there is discourse about research paradigms and "evidence." Some of the controversies concern ownership of the process and products of research, while others concern broader issues like those discussed here. The New England Complex Systems Institute website (http://www.necsi.org) explains another way of looking at the natural sciences. Even in the natural sciences positivism does not reign unchallenged. Second, someone made the point about professional development responding to practitioners' needs vs. dictating. One question about PD is "Who decides?" Who decides what's needed, who decides what will happen, how it will happen, how it should be evaluated? This is the same question that comes up with teachers/programs and learners. If an outsider is evaluating the extent to which teachers adopt content of PD that they didn't ask for or want in the first place, s/he is likely to find it ineffective no matter the research methodology. Third, is professional development limited to the formal activities offered/delievered by "experts" to teachers? What about teachers', administrators', and others' self-directed formal and informal activities in pusuit of learning and/or improvement? If we can learn from PD and other educational improvement activities in K-12 settings (and I am pretty confident that adult educators can pull out the relevant lessons and discard the irrelevant), then there is some research about effects of PD. Off the top of my head (summarizing results of a lit review I don't have with me), I'd say PD with the following qualities has greater effects on teachers' practice than PD without these qualities: the PD is responding to a need of the participant, the content is congruent with the participants' worldview/perspective/mental model of teaching and learning, there are opportunities for practice and follow-up (i.e., not a one-shot deal), and participants get meaningful and supportive feedback. Another important factor in the adoption of the content of PD is the work environment--the cultural and structural supports for using the content of the PD. This doesn't explicitly address types of PD--i.e., practitioner inquiry, workshops, conferences, etc., but it certainly has implications for them. I may evaluate research differently than Tom Sticht, but I do appreciate the question: does PD make a difference? As "professional developers" (and doesn't that imply that you "develop" others--how can that be?), how do you know what you do makes a difference? Disagreement or controversy over what constitutes evidence shouldn't be an excuse to avoid the question of what difference PD makes in teachers' knowledge and practice, and more importantly, in students' lives. Eileen From: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king@verizon.net> Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:217] Re: FWD: Search for scientific, evidence-ba Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Andres: I can only say: "Well-said." I might add that I teach mostly teachers who have been in K-12 for many years. Most (if not all) have embedded in their language that "science" means the positivist model and that human science is an oxymoron. As such, they tacitly endorse the removal of educational theory, and themselves as <knowledgeable> leaders, from any notion of being critical or "hard" at all. And as such, they give the field over to the "experts" who maintain their "critical" edge as "scientists" and the policy makers who may now, with our own endorsement, think of us as pawns for both themselves and the "real" scientists--hence the demand for "scientific, evidence-based data and research." On the broader ranges of what we are doing as educators we have allot to do to disinfect common discourse even among our own. Thank you for clarifying. Catherine ----- Original Message ----- From: <AndresMuro@aol.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 9:17 AM Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:215] Re: FWD: Search for scientific, evidence-ba > Katherine: > > I agree with you. I was referring to the positivistic model of scientific research as the one in question. I felt it redundant to repeat the term throughout the whole message. > > When I refer to positivistic, for clarification purposes, I mean that research that claims to be able to objectify the topic of study and observe it from a "neutral, objective" perspective. What determines the objectivity of the observer? How can the observer be neutral if he/she is a subject? Of course, ultimately she cannot, so she needs a protocol to conduct the observations that would guarantee his/her objectivity. Assuming that the protocol will ensure the absolute neutrality of the observer, which of course it never does, what guarantees the neutrality of the one who created the protocol to establish the rules for objectivity? > > In essence, what we need is not just positivistic science to conduct an observation, but also, as Bourdieu suggest, a science that observes the objectivity of the observer who is doing the research, and another one of the objectivity of the protocol that was established for the observer, and one for observing how those who created the protocol, created it in the first place. Ultimately what you will arrive to is that a group of people agreed to establish a paradigm, because they all felt that this was the best method to arrive at evidence in a given situation. There is nothing wrong with this, and in fact I support this. However, this is merely pragmatism, something that I also, support, as you know. In other words, a group of people gets together and decides through dialogue to find a way to resolve a particular problem and agree to this, hence building a community. > > Of course, the thing that legitimates a given group's method to arrive a truth is simply power. So this is something that needs to be questioned. What chaps my posterior is that, when in power, people begin to claim that theirs, is the only valid way to arrive at truth. Neither rationally, nor empirically they can make that claim, unless, of course, they are philosopher kings :-) > > Andres > > > > > In a message dated 4/17/2003 9:22:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Catherine B. King" <cb.king@verizon.net> writes: > > >Hello Andres: > > > >I appreciate what you say about scientific research and do > >not want to sound pedantic here, and hope I don't. However, > >as educators, I wonder if I may bring up the "power as > >knowledge" and "how we even use the language" theme > >to focus for a moment on how we use the term "scientific"? > > > >The point that I would like to make is that "scientific" has > >even been wrongly co-opted in our common usage to refer > >to only the "natural sciences"? when really "science," in fact, > >means "theory" and "theoretical explorations," and refers only > >to the <kinds of questions> we bring to ANY data, natural or > >human. Those questions are general, they seek the universal, > >they seek an explanation of relationships between things, > >general principles and laws that govern; and theoretical > >expressions are developed around clear, defined and > >precise terminology. There is nothing in human concerns > >that requires we not use critical research and theory. > > > >So when you say: "It is possible that those that unquestionably > >support scientific research are aware of this, yet, they have either > >an economic or cultural investment in subscribing to such a model. > >On the other hand, it is also possible that they may not be aware > >of the inadequacies of scientific research," > > > >there is much truth in what you say. However, though I have > >critiqued what we mean by "scientific research" by pointing to the > >difference in the data, I do not think we have to throw out the > >scientific-critical project in order to do authentic research in our > >field. > > > >So I "unquestionably support scientific research." And I think we all > >should? Here's the point: Because we commonly think of "science" > >as only applied to the natural sciences, we tend to pit "science" > >against "human concerns" in a false polemic, as if we cannot ask > >theoretical questions about human concerns. <Positivist> science > >is inadequate, however, <critical science>--that takes account of the > >range of orders in the data, is quite adequate to do its work in > >the human fields. And the "positivist camp" would just love it if we just > >said: "our field is critically incapacitated." "You big-guy scientists > >just have to tell us what to do because we have no critical science > >capacities." > > > >The problem is not "science" or doing "critical research" when the > >data is human, but rather in (positivism) failing to allow the > >differences in the data to determine (1) how we develop the > >preliminaries of our study (2) how we understand ourselves in > >relation to the data (political-ethical), (3) how our questions are > >formed, (3) how the data-to-results is developed (4) what our > >methods and models are and, most importantly, (4) what we > >expect to learn and do from the research, e.g., the aim or complete > >predictability and its relationship to theoretical development must > >come under critical review--it's good for determining the properties > >of gravity, but is a false expectation in the human sciences. > > > >But if we maintain the polemic between "critical science" and > >human concerns in our language, however subtle that is, we tacitly > >accept the underpinnings of the positivist argument while, at the > >same time, arguing against it? We need to keep "science" and > >critical theoretical research for education and the human sciences, > >but only take charge of it and change it <according to the data>? > > > >Regards, > > > >Catherine > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: <AndresMuro@aol.com> > >To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> > >Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 1:46 PM > >Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:209] Re: FWD: Search for scientific, evidence-ba > > > > > >> As Katherine suggests scientific research is as valid as the paradigm that > >supports it, and the $$$$$ and ideology that backs a particular paradigm. > >> > >> It is still amazing that with all the evidence against the validity of > >positivistic scientific community's claim to be the only means to arrive at > >evidence, some people keep on embracing it as the only means possible to > >reach valid claims. > >> > >> It is possible that those that unquestionably support scientific research > >are aware of this, yet, they have either an economic or cultural investment > >in subscribing to such a model. On the other hand, it is also possible that > >they may not be aware of the inadequacies of scientific research. > >> > >> I would suggest that if the second is the case, they take a look at some > >of the existing criticisms of their research. People can start with the > >brief response by Catherine, or go deeper by looking at Kuhn, Bourdieu, > >Rorty, and other social critics. I would be interested in knowing how Tom > >would respond to the above mentioned critics, since I have not heard valid > >arguments from the positivistic scientific community against them. Rather, > >the strategy of the scientific community has been to simply ignore or > >demonize criticism. > >> > >> Andres > >> > >> > >> In a message dated 4/16/2003 1:49:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, Melissa > >Monti <melissa_monti@iu13.org> writes: > >> > >> > Reply to: RE: [NIFL-AALPD:199] Re: FWD: Search for scientific, evidence > >> >And thanks, btw, Catherine for such a well-stated email. I am studying > >and thinking a lot about exactly that which you have written below. Your > >clarity around the nature of "data", scientific methodolgy and assumptions, > >policy, and potentially viable alternatives has evolved my understanding. > >This is a perfect example of a case where I started out only half-heartedly > >attending to the listserv conversation and in the process of scanning your > >email, realized I wanted to know more. I then went back, reread and read > >more critically, and tonight will inevitably mull over this a bit more. > >Unfortunately, I have no question for you now but will have a way to contact > >you or make a posting, should I need further clarity. Thanks for posting > >that to all subscribed. > >> > > >> >Melissa Monti > >> >Professional Developer > >> >IU-13/SEPDC > >> >Instructional Services Dept. > >> >1110 Enterprise Road > >> >East Petersburg, PA 17520 > >> >tele. (717)519-1012 > >> >fax (717)560-6150 > >> >email: melissa_monti@iu13.org > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Catherine B. King wrote: > >> >>Hello All: > >> >> > >> >>I have corresponded with Tom Sticht before on the "old" NLA list > >> >>about the issue of evidenced-based results, etc. in adult education. > >> >> > >> >>While I appreciate greatly Tom's experience, expertise and > >> >>contributions about adult education; the strain of his arguments, > >> >>I argue, reveal a problem with his, and many others' (including > >> >>our policy makers), overall understanding of the data under > >> >>review. > >> >> > >> >>That is, the expectations of just what constitutes evidence and > >> >>"hard" results in the human sciences and education is naively > >> >>drawn from the order and expectations of the natural sciences. > >> >> > >> >>To put it another way, the expectations and results (including > >> >>attempts to predict) are drawn from the paradigm of non-conscious > >> >>rather than conscious and dialogical data. > >> >> > >> >>Working with either paradigm enormous ethical and political > >> >>overtones. However, in the earlier view, neither (1) the data under > >> >>review (teachers in this case) nor (2) the researchers' or policy > >> >>makers ethical or political dimensions are taken into account as > >> >>having any effect or import on the development of the data > >> >>whatsoever--and egregious methodological oversight when > >> >>working with human beings and, again, an extremely naive > >> >>presupposition built into the very order of the research; nor > >> >> > >> >>(3) is the research set up to value or "catch" any of the > >> >>dynamism that always goes forward in any dialogic and human > >> >>exchange and that points not to calcified data but to real hope for > >> >>future possibilities. These possibilities cannot be nailed to a > >> >>post, so they are not considered methodologically sound. > >> >> > >> >>Fortunately, the data continues to resist such "square-peg to round- > >> >>hole" attempts--a point that continually dismays Mr. Stitcht and > >> >>renders our policy-makers hand-wringing program-slashers. The > >> >>bigger problem is that, when our policy makers are "infected" with > >> >>such assumptions and expectations, it secures a view of our > >> >>profession as a "failure" because we cannot (and should not) > >> >>produce the kind of evidence that would only be "successful" in a > >> >>laboratory where non-conscious data are under review or worse, > >> >>in a factory setting. That's our assumed goal under the current > >> >>view, and nothing short of it will be considered "successful." > >> >> > >> >>Mr. Stitcht will remember the famous "Hawthorne effect," where the > >> >>people in a factory were being "observed" to see how the light > >> >>effected their work; and, to the dismay of the researchers, the > >> >>people's work was effected more by the attention of the researchers > >> >>than it was by the light. This should have been our first clue that > >> >>there is something wrong about our expectations and "results" for > >> >>research on human data. Instead, we denigrate the human > >> >>sciences and research in education because it doesn't "measure > >> >>up" to our naive and ultimately false expectations. Instead of > >> >>looking at the dialogue and what, in fact, happens between the > >> >>researcher and the researchee, we look at the situation as > >> >>somehow soiled. > >> >> > >> >>And, instead of looking at the difference in the data and adjusting > >> >>our expectations of evidence according to it, we operate under the > >> >>tacit charge of "pseudo science" where we ourselves accept the > >> >>false assumptions of those who carry a false view of our field. > >> >> > >> >>The point is, the human sciences and education CAN claim > >> >>scientific method. It is just that scientific method must take account > >> >>of the differences in the data. That needs to be worked out, but > >> >>hasn't been so far, though EFF has moved in that direction. In this > >> >>way, human orders of consciousness, dialogue, creativity, and the > >> >>dynamism of change in several arenas that are directed related > >> >>to education can be also taken into account without making us > >> >>look like we are only dealing with "fuzziness" or sentiment, or > >> >>that we are somehow "unscientific." > >> >> > >> >>Positivism is an old problem, but it keeps rearing it's ugly head. > >> >>And that's the name of applying the paradigm of natural, non- > >> >>conscious data to human, conscious and dialogal data in > >> >>research. > >> >> > >> >>Regards, > >> >> > >> >>Catherine King > >> >>Adjunct Instructor > >> >>Department of Education > >> >>National University > >> >>San Diego, CA > >> >>natural science data. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>, > >> >>----- Original Message ----- > >> >>From: jataylor <jataylor@utk.edu> > >> >>To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> > >> >>Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 5:26 PM > >> >>Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:191] FWD: Search for scientific, evidence-based > >ALPD > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> (Thomas Sticht requested I post this from him to the list, please read > >on! > >> >>> Jackie) > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> In a recent posting on the AALPD list Cristine Smith stated that > >> >>> > >> >>> Quote: "This year at COABE, there is a regular conference session > >> >>> sponsored by AALPD. The title is "The Role of Professional Development > >in > >> >>> Evidence-based Practice in Adult Education", and it is scheduled for > >> >>> Tuesday, April 29 from 11:00 a.m. to noon. Beth Bingman, Susan Joyner > >> >>> and I will be facilitating that session."End Quote > >> >>> > >> >>> I have been looking for reports in which it has been demonstrated in a > >> >>> "scientific, evidence-based" manner that adult literacy professional > >> >>> development has produced actual improvements in some aspects of adult > >> >>> literacy education. Will this session have such information? > >> >>> > >> >>> For instance, has some one demonstrated that professional development > >lead > >> >>> to more enrollments, or perhaps better retention, or maybe greater > >> >>> learning, or increased gains on standardized tests, more people > >reporting > >> >>> they reached personal goals, or so forth. Maybe those implementing the > >> >>> Equipped For the Future standards will have some information about > >this. > >> >>> > >> >>> Perhaps if you post this to the AALPD list some of the AALPD list > >members > >> >>> can provide some references to evidence for the efficacy of some > >> >>> professional development activities. > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks for your help! > >> >>> > >> >>> Tom Sticht > >> >>> tsticht@aznet.net > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>RFC822 header > >> >>----------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> > >> >> Received: from relay.iu13.org ([unix socket]) > >> >> by mail.iu13.org (Cyrus v2.1.11-Lancaster-Lebanon-IU13-Mail-Services) > >>with LMTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:24:43 -0400 > >> >> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 > >> >> Received: from literacy.nifl.gov (unknown [192.188.111.2]) > >> >> by relay.iu13.org (Postfix) with ESMTP > >> >> id B441647003D; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:24:42 -0400 (EDT) > >> >> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > >> >> by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3GGOAU18948; > >> >> Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:24:10 -0400 (EDT) > >> >> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:24:10 -0400 (EDT) > >> >> Message-Id: <007301c30436$0ccccf80$7a07f843@preferreduser> > >> >> Errors-To: listowner@nifl.gov > >> >> Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov > >> >> Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov > >> >> Sender: nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov > >> >> Precedence: bulk > >> >> From: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king@verizon.net> > >> >> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> > >> >> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:199] Re: FWD: Search for scientific, > >evidence-based ALPD > >> >> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas > >> >> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 > >> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; > >> >> MIME-Version: 1.0 > >> >> > >> >Melissa Monti > >> >Professional Developer > >> >IU-13/SEPDC > >> >Instructional Services Dept. > >> >1110 Enterprise Road > >> >East Petersburg, PA 17520 > >> >tele. (717)519-1012 > >> >fax (717)560-6150 > >> > > >> >"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html > >> > > > > > > > -- > go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html > _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:15:05 EST