Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i0TFQ5I16185; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:26:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:26:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <9B2BC230-526E-11D8-9F5A-0030656A26C8@worlded.org> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Jeff Carter <jcarter@worlded.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:3140] Re: Cross post: scientifically-based reading research X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 3082 Lines: 71 > On Wednesday, January 28, 2004, at 05:48 PM, Bonnie Odiorne wrote: > >> Sorry to cross post, but I think this issue's important for all lists. >> If >> NIFL is to support adult education practitioners with the field's >> "best >> practices", how does this impact our work, especially as it concerns >> technology? In a recent conversation with a legislative aide, >> apractitioner >> reported that the aide said "that he didn't necessarily see >> 'researched-based' [practice/teaching] as a problem [for adult >> literacy >> practitioners], as he put it, 'that means you just have studies >> showing that >> what you do works, and you don't just go doing whatever you want to >> do'." >> What if "whatever we want to do" involves enhancing reading >> instruction with >> technology training, as in my program? There has been a thread of >> conversation about reading and the Internet. What direction do you see >> NIFL >> taking? Do you see limits to your practices here? >> I'd be interested in teacher's comments on Bonnie's point. I'm not in the classroom, so I don't know to what extent teachers feel their actual day-to-day practice is limited by the 'evidence-based' bandwagon. David's right -- he follows this stuff as closely as anyone -- there isn't enough research available on the use of technology to develop policies based on scientifically-based research alone. So, in my opinion, in addition to calling for more research, I would like to see us support teachers and programs by clearly and strongly acknowledging this fact, first of all, instead of creating additional anxiety in what is already an increasingly pressurized field. It bothers me that people teaching in this field should have to explain this to policy-makers, however, especially as you move up the policy-making food chain. I don't understand how you can be involved in setting policy and not have a grasp of this fact, even if you have only been on the job for a week. I don't think that relieves programs from the burden of evaluating their practices, though -- if, for example, you have data that supports the notion that in _your_ program, technology training is enhancing your reading instruction, then I would hope that you would be encouraged to continue whatever it is you are doing, instead of waiting for the research that may never come... One of the reasons I like working with teachers on doing projects in the classroom with technology -- like building Web pages -- is that I like the idea of adult education programs encouraging people to understand and *take control* of all the information technology we are increasingly surrounded with, and doing something with it for themselves, or their families, or their community. Whatever the research says, I think I would question supporting policies that interfere with those efforts. Jeff ----------------------- Jeff Carter World Education jcarter@worlded.org ----------------------- www.worlded.org www.literacytech.org www.literacytech.org/blog.html www.brilliantbeast.com -----------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:48:01 EST