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 iBD5bFU15307; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:37:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:37:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <004401c4e0d5$9f1536c0$92d7c043@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:1808] Re: Is all pd "good" pd? 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: 2608 Lines: 71 Hello Andrea: I have no problem endorsing scientific evidenced-based study, or in thinking that such study is critical, productive, publicly presentable and reasonable. What I do not endorse is a misconstrual of science on the model of its data rather than on its method. That is, science does not mean only "natural science." It means critical method applied to all kinds of data. The problem with the claims to many "scientific evidence-based" notions is the confusion above--the only data that is admitted as evidence is that data that most resembles natural or statistical, rather than the other myriad aspects of human data. Also, there is nothing wrong with stastical method or its data, or natural science and its data. What is wrong is the oversight of many researchers in education of the <very> different, historical, conscious, and complex tenets of human data. Such data can be and often is approached with critical scientific method firmly in hand. The difference is that, as any good scientist knows, the method must take account of the differences in the data--and that is what many in our field so often overlook. Because of this oversight, we end up with two basic approaches to education studies: First, those who account for human data, but are oh-so-willing to abandon scientific method, or to participate in the denigration of their own fields as "uncritical" or "unscientific"; or, second, those who stay with natural and-or statistical data, as if that is all there is to human studies, while systematically eliminating all that is human because they cannot fit it into their narrow view of science as data rather than as method and, thus, failed to account for the complexity of human data. Regards, Catherine King ----- Original Message ----- From: <AWilder106@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 7:12 PM Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1805] Re: Is all pd "good" pd? > Catherine, > > My memory is getting a bit dim, now, but I think Tom was saying that there > is not a demonstrated--measured--link between PD and improvement in > student performance. NOT that PD is "pretty much worthless," but that it's > worth has not been measured. That's the lacuna I noticed. > > That set me off into a fantasy of how a "scientific evidence-based" study > would be constructed. If you think about it, it would be pretty hard! > Science without the quotes is what we are about here, not "science" as it > is being referenced, which is a kind of parody of real science, as I know > you agree. > > Andrea >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:01 EST