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 h3GKkaU29230; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <74B760FD.303B03A3.0AB94E44@aol.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: AndresMuro@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:209] Re: FWD: Search for scientific, evidence-ba X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 10018 Lines: 206 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:15:05 EST