<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The latest edition of TCRecord contains a reprint of
an article by Alisa Belzer and Ralf St. Clair entitled:
<H1><FONT size=3>Back to the Future: Implications of the Neopositivist Research
Agenda for Adult Basic Education</FONT></H1></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><A
href="http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=11915">http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=11915</A>.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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 <EM>system</EM>. 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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, <FONT face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><FONT face=Arial size=3>
"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:).</FONT></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Arial size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p>Thank you to everyone on the
committee. I think this is quite a meaty document, and I so appreciate
your work on it!</o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Arial size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p>Amy</o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p>Amy R.
Trawick</o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p>North Wilkesboro,
NC</o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><A
href="mailto:atrawick@charter.net">atrawick@charter.net</A></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>