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 iBBI1LU19308; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:01:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:01:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <002f01c4dfaa$cc595f20$a0d7c043@ReflectionPool> 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: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king@verizon.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1796] Re: Evidence for professional development? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 8708 Lines: 199 Hello Roberta McKnight: I appreciate your thoughtful note. And I agree with you that assessments are (and should be) an important part of the picture in any professional community--and education is no exception to this. My own comments about Tom Stitcht's earlier note rest in the question about, first, whether, because there are few studies about the positive effects of PD in the classroom and in our students, we should assume that there are no positive effects going forward. (This is a common oversight in K-12 education.) Second, there is the dubious suggestion that the qualification (or even justification) of PD should come from some twice-removed, specific and pre-determined form administered at the student-assessments level. The suggestion is not altogether wrong--bad suggestions are rarely altogether wrong. However, as stated, the complaint introduces a factory-model air about our expectations of what assessments can actually assess in education, and a telescoping and reduction of the comprehensive and long-term effects of education to the ovals of a Scantron. On the first point above, perhaps I have misunderstood Tom's request; however, at this reading (and the one a couple of years back), it seems to me that there is also in that request an endorsement of the movement to change the locus of judgment about such PD from the local program level to a more remote location--or system. This movement is causing havoc in K-12 as it continually diminishes the life and center of the educational experience--the autonomy and good judgment of the teacher (and those at the site) and the teacher's relationship with the individual student. Correct me if I am wrong about adult education programs, but in my own venue of working with K-12 schools, the need for PD emerges first, from the specific needs of the site and its teachers, and second, from the site's connection with new movements in education where PD serves to keep educators aware and connected with the dynamism of their profession. (How do we "measure" this important kind of PD in specific student outcome?) So a change in the locus of judgment about the needs and effects of PD diminishes the right relationship of PD to emergent situations on sites and the local judgments about those situations--in our case, in a program director. This, coupled with a reduced and telescoped criteria for making those judgments of justification for PD (only in specified student outcomes) makes for a potential corruption rather than a correction of education. The related point is that the field of assessments is itself going through massive change, as is education in general. As George D., myself, and others here suggest, aside from the questionable locus of judgment and telescoped criteria for making those judgments, there is the present concern about the foundations of movements in the field of assessments. So how and what assessments, who has input about those assessments, and how comprehensive they are and can be, are still open to question. Again, correct me if I am wrong; however, from reading Tom Stitcht's note, it seems to me that he has already made assumptions about both PD and assessments that have rightly come under question. And it's not so critical or scientific to go forward with such expectations in a field of study when there are so many questions still outstanding. Regards, Catherine King Adjunct Instructor Department of Teacher Education National University San Diego, CA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberta McKnight" <rkmcknight@comcast.net> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:33 PM Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1795] Evidence for professional development? > Greetings all, > > Evidence of benefit from pedagogical principles and professional > development can be found in many fields, especially in instructional > design. An example can be found in Helen Osborne's work on Health Literacy > at http://www.healthliteracy.com It provides "hard" evidence for > improvement in healthcare that is grounded in professional development. > > This evidence manifests in the form of health behavior changes, based on > understanding of disease processes, nutrition, and the informed use of > pharmaceuticals. By attending to literacy, communication is more > effective, and people are able to realize improvements in health. Hence, > professional development is the foundation of effective communication and > human interaction. > > Experience informs our ability to teach more effectively by showing us > what teaching strategies are most useful. Similar evidence can be found > for general life skills such as document literacy (filling out job > applications, using maps), reading food labels, or reading to children. > These forms of evidence are the most profound and life altering. > > While the NRS uses only a handful of standardized assessments, we must ask > how additional forms of assessment can be added to their inventory. What > is the approval process? If the NRS is the gatekeeper for approving > measurement tools, what process is described to expand and improve > literacy assessment? > > Accountability requires that we ask the right questions to protect the > public trust - that we insist that assessment is constantly improving, and > not limited to existing measures. Validity is at the heart of this issue - > are we measuring what we want and need to measure? Such questions are a > vital part of professional development. > > My best to all, > Roberta McKnight > Healthcare Multimedia Design > http://www.hcmmdesign.net > > Catherine B. King wrote: > >>Tom: >> >>Are you questioning that teachers learn by going to school (or other kinds >>of PD); that learning is understanding, and that teachers who understand >>more are better teachers; and that, further, better teachers equate to >>better classrooms; and that better classrooms make for better instruction >>for students who are in those classrooms? >> >>Perhaps you cannot find such "hard" evidence (besides what happens in >>classrooms most or all of the time) because most of us rightly assume that >>better educated teachers are better teachers and that our students benefit >>from betterment? >> >>I remember you question from before; and I still am mystified at it. >> >>Catherine King >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "jataylor" <jataylor@utk.edu> >>To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> >>Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:47 PM >>Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1792] From Tom, Any scientific evidence for >>professional development? >> >>>[The following inquiry is from Tom Sticht, please read on ~ Jackie] >>> >>>On April 15, 2003, following a strand of messages about "evidence-based" >>>instruction and how AALPD members had gone about providing professional >>>development to encourage "evidence-based" teaching, I asked Jackie to >>>post a message for me in which I noted that 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 >>>somehwere. >>> >>>For instance, has some one demonstrated with "hard" evidence 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, and so forth. >>> >>>Some 20 months later I am still looking for some researcher, professional >>>developer, or other adult literacy expert who has documented in a >>>"scientific, evidence-based" manner that they have gone to an existing >>>adult literacy/ABE program somewhere and improved its functioning in some >>>way. >>> >>>I have followed the various NIFL discussion lists for several years, I >>>have read numerous books and journal articles from national and state >>>literacy research and development centers, and I have tracked federal >>>government web sites. I still cannot find any reports in which the >>>researchers, professional developers, or other adult literacy experts >>>actually went to an existing program and made it better providing >>>scientifically acceptable evidence of their accomplishments. >>> >>>Has any professional developer who has posted messages on the AALPD list, >>>or any researcher that reads the AALPD list accomplished any demonstrable >>>improvements in an existing program anywhere that they can share >>>information about? >>> >>>Thanks for your help! >>> >>>Tom Sticht >>>tsticht@aznet.net >>> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:00 EST