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 iBGG7BU03129; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:07:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:07:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <002a01c4e387$e48db9c0$0302a8c0@albyny.adelphia.net> 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: "Bonnie Odiorne" <bonniesophia@adelphia.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1816] RE: research and pd X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 3470 Lines: 67 Eileen, Great "note", and one that's pertinent to many fields besides ours: the paradigm shift between a "mechanistic" versus a "chaos systems" (very shorthand here) method; and certainly there are evolving math, science and behaviors to adapt situations to complex systems frameworks. What interests me, tangentially, is the oppositions between "social" and "natural" science: I can remember passionate debates as an undergraduate as to whether history should be considered a "social science" or part of the "humanities." And when we talk of the "human" results, we're talking about of a kind of analysis, perhaps, that might be, if not more "literary", certainly more "liberal arts." And, false etymologies aside, isn't this where "literacy" studies should be situated? I don't have the academic expertise to back up these speculations so I'll leave it to the experts. Warmest Regards, Bonnie Odiorne Ph.D English Language Institute, Post University Waterbury, CT -----Original Message----- From: nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Eileen Eckert Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:17 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1812] research and pd I hope this will be a quick note on some of the discussion about evidence for the effectiveness of professional development. Catherine talked about the nature of methods in the natural sciences vs. social sciences (or research involving conscious, changing human beings). I don't think that discussion in terms of a split between the natural and social sciences is the most productive or effective. Even in the natural sciences, where experimental research has reigned supreme, there is growing awareness of the nature of complex systems and the need to go beyond, or move away from, or extend the boundaries of accepted research methods, to recognize the interactivity of systems and their parts. You can see this, for example, in the global warming debate. The strict experimentalists (I think I just made up that word) would say that we don't have enough data, or controlled experiments, to establish a causal link between human activity, greenhouse gas production, and global warming (and therefore we shouldn't take action, just do more research). The more complex-systems-oriented would say something like, "Given the number of variables, their interactions, and our inability to hold all other things constant while we study one variable, we are not going to establish a causal relationship using controlled experiments. We're in a complex system; we need research that describes the relationships and interactions of the parts--in other words, how the whole system works--and we need to take action now." In my opinion, we should not cast our debate in terms of natural vs. social or human sciences, we should cast it in terms of the experimental dinosaurs vs. the evolving complex systems thinkers. In terms of this discussion, we shouldn't stop doing pd until we've established a causal link between pd and student outcomes through controlled experiments, although controlled experiments may contribute to our understanding, the dinosaur part is in thinking the are the only acceptable method. We should be looking at how, what kinds, and to what extent pd affects teaching and student learning, and we should use what we learn to improve pd and to improve the research. It's a complex system too. OK, I wanted this to be quick, so I'll stop there. Eileen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:01 EST