The latest edition of TCRecord contains a reprint of an article by Alisa Belzer and Ralf St. Clair entitled: 
Back to the Future: Implications of the Neopositivist Research Agenda for Adult Basic Education
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=11915.  

It struck me as relevant to the current discussion about the AAPLD standards because of standards #1 and #5, which address the use of research in professional development.  I think the whole notion of providing pd in "research-based" instructional approaches is a complex one, considering 1) the scant research that exits; 2) the types of research that "count," and 3) how we as professional developers tend to talk (or not talk) about research.  Thus, I especially like standard #5 and think it would be a great contribution to the field.  I do wonder if there is an implied right answer involved in some of the indicators.  For instance, 5c reads "Practitioners are encouraged to examine research critically."  In some systems, this could mean checking to see if the research is experimental or quasi-experimental with random sampling.  If it isn't, it doesn't count (or not as much).  In other systems, it could mean realizing the strengths and contributions of various kinds of research, recognizing characteristics of quality for each, and making judgments accordingly.  Is it the intent to leave the interpretation of research open by the system? 

This issue of specificity gets at one that the committee is interested in getting feedback on--so just a few thoughts on that.  To me, the standards don't really read as standards to reference in terms of a specific training/pd opportunity but in reference to building/enhancing a PD system. I envision the AAPLD standards being used much like many sets of "national" standards (e.g., EFF; IRA/NCTE; NCTM)--as a go-to document that systems use in developing their own standards.  I would not expect nor encourage a system to just "adopt" the standards in whatever form AAPLD ultimately provides.  Instead, I would expect and encourage systems to use them to inform their thinking when developing their own PD system.  Thus, I tend to think it is a good idea to go a little broad--because wrestling internally with how the system interprets certain standards/indicators fosters ownership and customization to the local context. And, because I see the standards as being useful for the whole system, I see #11 as being relevant (someone else had pointed out that this is a management issue), although I would turn each lower-case Roman numeral into its own indicator.

In general, I think the document does a good job of remaining flexible, but sometimes, as someone else pointed out, it gets very specific.  For example, 1d specifically states,   "Prepares instructors to address new content through varied teaching strategies, including a problem-solving approach."  The last part seems more specific than the indicators usually are.  Why is a problem-solving approach mentioned specifically, as opposed to a participatory approach or a contextualized approach or some other?  I also wonder about the use of the term "universal design", specifically.  It may be okay, especially if there's a glossary as a supplement, but it also dates the document (it's a "hot" term/approach right now but could be replaced with something similar down the road).  11.a.iv. is very specific with "monthly staff meeting"--maybe "regular staff meetings" would be better.  And all of THIS ties to the question of are these "standards" or "guidelines."  You might even add "recommendations" to that question.  If there is a desire to forward a certain approach to teaching and research--in addition to pd--the document could be accompanied by another "Recommendations" document.  Wouldn't that be fun to write:).

Thank you to everyone on the committee.  I think this is quite a meaty document, and I so appreciate your work on it!

Amy

Amy R. Trawick
North Wilkesboro, NC
atrawick at charter.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/professionaldevelopment/attachments/20071130/9cb1587d/attachment.html