Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f4GMjcf19286; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 18:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <88.697f148.28345b93@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AndresMuro@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:490] Re: [NIFL-4EFF:1587] RE: The K12 School Experiences of High School Dr X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Status: O Content-Length: 11021 Lines: 177 Steve and Clare: Thanks for responding. Also I want to apologize for both the subtle and not so subtle inflammatory elements in both of my posts. I was disappointed in the apparent "traditionally rigid" scientific approach to this study in contrast with the more "ethnographic" type of research that I read from you (Steve) in the past. I was bothered by the study on two grounds. 1. I felt that arguing against resistance is a move against progressive pedagogical approaches that recognize the subjectivity of the participants. 2. The method used to conduct this research appears to be very rigid not allowing for the subjectivities "of resistance" to emerge (I am not sure what qualitative elements it had). A rigid (apparently non-ethnographic), approach was used to report that there isn't any resistance. I think that this is especially significant since resistance is something that may only be observed through ethnographic type of research, especially, since resistance is not something that is readily observable but something that emerges in certain circumstances with certain elements present. I am not a sociologist, and I am sure that your background in sociology and anthropology is far greater than mine. I am sure that you agree with me that questionnaires are certainly not sufficient to arrive to any conclusions regarding resistance. The study could have clearly pointed to the fact that the research elements are not sufficient to arrive to any conclusions, because of the requirements of conducting such a study. You could have argued that by using certain, highly restrictive, methodology, you cannot find resistance. The way the study is being reported is significant. Literacy is a field that is located in a "contested ground". In this contested ground, the voices of standardization, mechanization, technocratization and tracking are way more powerful than those of difference, subjectivities and multiculturalism. Therefore, we don't need any help in giving the former more tools to standardize an already rigid educational system. I am certain that this was not your intent in the least. however, we must "Read the Word and the World". By the same token we must write the word in the world. Andres >>> reders@pdx.edu 05/16/01 02:10PM >>> Andres and others - Thanks for initiating discussion of some initial findings from our research reported in the recent issue of Focus on Basics. We'd like to respond to some of the points you and others have raised. We did not conclude (nor do we believe) that cultures of resistance or alienation are unimportant for adult education. Among the nearly 1,000 adults we interviewed from the study population (all of whom were eligible but only about half of whom had ever participated in adult education), a sizable group evaluated their K-12 experiences and attitudes towards education in terms that are consistent with a profile of resistance and alienation. However, just as many evaluated their K-12 experiences and orientation towards schooling/education in very positive terms. Most were somewhere in between. People drop out of high school - the defining characteristic of our study population -- for a wide variety of reasons, including but not limited to negative school experiences. We don't think this finding is an artifact of our survey methodology (though like any other methodology it certainly has its limitations). In fact, the LSAL project also has a qualitative component that explores these issues in different ways within the same population, though we didn't have space to report on that in the brief FOB piece. Nor did the brief space allow us to present results from the many questions that were asked, as we could only select a few for the FOB piece. The survey data, the qualitative component and other research we noted in the FOB piece all concur that highly negative school experiences are not as widespread in the adult education population as some people believe. Unlike some surveys, the LSAL interviews elicited a relatively rich expression of ideas and much subjectivity, despite the limitations of some individual survey questions. It is reasonable to question as you have whether our survey respondents systematically reported their negative school experiences. There are many internal indications that they did. For example, we asked individuals about other details of their K-12 experiences, such as whether they ever repeated a grade, had special education classes, etc. These tend to be events that are well remembered. And these were reported with a relatively high frequency in our study population. The more of these indicators individuals reported, the more negative their overall school evaluations tended to be, providing internal validation of their overall evaluations of school experiences. Once again, those who have never participated in adult ed and those who have are very similar in terms of these other K-12 experiences. You wrote: >> Quigley also points out that adult students tend not to report having a negative past school experience. They attribute failure to situational barriers rather than disposition. >> We looked at this in our data, examining how dispositional vs. situational reasons given for leaving school relate to reported overall school satisfaction. People reporting negative experiences were equally likely to have given situational vs. dispositional reasons while people reporting positive experiences were much more likely to cite situational reasons for leaving school. Someone wondered whether social desirability might have influenced answers to these questions. We looked closely at this issue and found no reason to believe that social desirability substantially influenced the responses we obtained to these questions. Given the internal checks we performed with the data and the care taken by our skilled interviewers (all of whom were graduate students accustomed to working with our population), we believe our respondents' reports about their previous school experiences have a high degree of validity. Given our methodological controls, this comes down to a matter of believing what people said about their experiences (i.e., respecting the subjects). We were surprised by some of these findings, especially the general similarity of the background and school experiences of those who participate and those who don't participate in adult education. Like many people in our field, we expected negative past school experiences to be a major issue for the target population for adult education. It certainly has received a lot of attention in discussions of outreach and retention. So we were quite surprised to find that negative prior school experiences were no more common among those who never turn up for programs than among those who do turn up. We reasoned that if school resistance were a major issue for most adults who dropped out of high school, there should be an overall difference between the self-reports of those who do participate and those who do not. Wouldn't you expect a difference, too? If you disagree with our interpretation, how would you explain the lack of difference between the two groups? Just asserting that there must be something wrong with the study methodology, that we didn't ask the right questions, that surveys can't be trusted, etc., doesn't really advance understanding here, it just generates heat rather than light on the subject. As far as implications that can be drawn from our interpretation, yours sound much more negative and frightening than the ones we drew. The fact that most adult education students -- and potential adult education students - may not be highly polarized in terms of resistance and alienation need not be bad news for the field. We pointed out that our findings suggest that other kinds of barriers or obstacles to participation should also be considered in broadening program outreach and retention efforts. These findings do not imply - nor do we believe - that the legitimate feelings of resistance or alienation that many adults experience should be discounted or overlooked in the design and implementation of educational programs. Many other questions asked in the first interview and followed up in second and third interviews conducted since that time are exploring these and other questions in greater depth. By following the changing patterns of individuals' everyday life activities, program participation, and learning over time we hope to garner information that will be useful for improving and expanding adult education programs. Some recent findings confirm things we already know, while others we hope will extend our field's knowledge and research base in exciting new ways. We look forward to discussing these emerging findings. Steve Reder & Clare Strawn -----Original Message----- From: nifl-esl@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-esl@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of AndresMuro@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 9:56 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ESL:6009] clarification on yesterday's obscure post, please read I apologize for the message that I posted yesterday that was clearly pedantic and obscure. It was reaction to a message that was published in the latest issue of Focus on Basics. This is the publication of the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. It is supposed to represent the latest and most innovative study in adult literacy. The article was written by Reder and Strawn and is at: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ncsall/fob/2001/reder.html Reder is also a well respected and knowledgeable literacist who has published well researched stuff in the past. In this article the authors argue against the notion that most students drop out of k-12 and ABE as a result of resistance (which was Quigley's argument). This is very reactionary, of course, since it is taking subjectivity away from the students. It is also telling teachers that developing pedagogies to address student subjectivities is, therefore, unnecessary. In fact, if this is true, the only two other possibilities left for student failure is either external (non-dispositional) barriers, or intellectual capacity. In fact this means that once we address external barriers, all we need to do is implement a prescribed curriculum. If students don't succeed it is a reflection of their intellect. The possibility of alienation, due to cultural, social, psychological barriers is tossed out for the equation. The article was poorly researched, not because of what it did, but because of what it did not do. It did not speculate on the fact that the results were due to the questions that the researchers did not ask. It did not speculate that the format may have lead participants to answer the way they did. I am shocked that the people from EFF, Harvard Grad School of Ed., or anyone else is having tantrums about this article. I hope that people read it and participate in this discussion. Andres
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:05 EST