In education, evidence-based practice is a partnership between researchers 
and practitioners. Researchers contribute empirical evidence and 
practitioners contribute professional wisdom. Empirical evidence generated 
by researchers through studies leads to research-based practices generated 
by practitioners who use that evidence in their programs.  The next step in 
this process is for researchers to test the efficacy of the practices 
developed by practitioners.

Terri DeVito just described an interesting example of how research-based 
evidence becomes useful through its adaptation by practitioners. The 
result, as outlined here, is the professional wisdom part of the 
partnership.

Unfortunately, our field does not have funding to do the third step, the 
testing to see if these practices work and if they do are they 
cost-effective.

Over the last 10 years, NCSALL has been pursuing these first two steps in 
the process of developing evidence-based practice. A few years ago, we 
began the testing phase on a couple of topics, one in ESOL and one in ABE, 
and we believe we now have enough knowledge about doing rigorous testing of 
practices in our field to be successful at it.

NCSALL doesn't have to do this next phase, any qualified research 
organization could take it on, but the Institute of Education Sciences 
(IES), the agency in the Dept of Education that funds this type of 
research, has decided not to fund a comprehensive adult education research 
center.  They do have some funds available for specific research topics, 
but adult education researchers must compete against K-12 researchers for 
those funds. Also, I doubt that IES would ever put out a request for 
proposals for a test of interventions meant to increase persistence of 
adults in adult education programs, because they have no adult education 
experts on their staff.

We should ask the Dept of Education to set aside funds for research in our 
field so that we will have more advice for programs that is based on the 
best available evidence. While waiting (and then waiting some more), 
practitioners should continue to adapt research findings to the needs of 
their programs and students and, if possible, they should also evaluate 
these practices to see if they work.  If they work, they should share these 
practices with other practitioners.

--On Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:21 AM -0400 Terri DeVito 
<night-school at usa.net> wrote:


> To John and All:  I had participated in the Persistence Study Circle that

> was held in Massachusetts this spring and the description of the five

> pathways rang so true when we thought of our students and has changed the

> way we think about our students and the systems with which we address

> their needs.  We are changing the role of our counselor beginning in

> September so that she will spend far more time with each incoming student

> prior to entering class and will conduct interviews, learning style

> inventories, discuss barriers and barrier removal, and lay the ground

> work for goal setting which will then be completed by the classroom

> teacher.  She will help students develop a plan if they are not ready to

> enter classes yet and will stay in touch with those students who do not

> enter immediately or "stop out" within the first 3 weeks.  After a

> student has completed a 3 week (21 hour) orientation class and has been

> enrolled in a class, it will then become the teacher's responsibility to

> follow through and report back as to the status of a student.  We also

> immediately began thinking about our mandated students very differently.

> I actually consider most immediate high school drop outs as mandated

> students because I am pretty sure someone else is insisting that they get

> their GED at once.  Of course, the court and agency mandated student

> falls clearly into this category.  Our approach to these young students

> is far more parental while still using youth development techniques and

> showing these students an adult respect and level of expectation.  We're

> hoping that our awareness of these pathways and our systems changes will

> settle the population from the beginning and will be placing our most

> serious students in class.

>

> ------ Original Message ------

> Received: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:50:14 PM EDT

> From: John Comings <comingjo at gse.harvard.edu>

> To: specialtopics at nifl.gov

> Subject: [SpecialTopics 126] Re: Persistence Discussion questions

>

>> In the final report of the second phase of our study, we developed a

>> typology of "persistence pathways". We chose to describe these as

>> pathways  rather than as types of students because we saw evidence that

>> people moved  from one type to the other over the course of their lives.

>>

>> One pathway was "try-out". People on this pathway were motivated to

>> learn  (demonstrated by showing up to enroll in a program) but had too

>> many  barriers to persistence and were destined to drop out early. We

>> suggested  that a good approach for people on this pathway was for

>> programs to counsel

>

>> them out of joining a class (why should they experience another failure

>> in  education?)but help them develop a plan to both do some self-study

>> (possibly coming in to the program to talk with a tutor once a month)

>> and  develop a plan that would lead them into a class after they had

>> addressed  the barriers to persistence in their life.

>>

>> However, this positive "outcome" is not listed on the NRS. This is one

>> of  the new forms of success our programs should help students achieve

>> (in fact

>

>> some programs do this informally) and should be able to report on the

>> NRS.

>>

>> --On Tuesday, July 11, 2006 2:10 PM -0400 MWPotts2001 at aol.com wrote:

>>

>> >

>> >

>> > In a message dated 7/11/2006 11:23:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

>> > comingjo at gse.harvard.edu writes:

>> >

>> > As far as persistence is concerned, what other context or personal

>> > factors

>> > do people think might be important? That is, that the impact of

>> > supports to

>> > persistence might be affected by these factors.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > John and All,

>> >

>> > You have hit here on my question: What is the difference between

>> > program supports to persistence and the nature of student persistence?

>> > I see them as two different things, and most of the posts have been

>> > dealt with supports.  If we can identify the nature of persistence, we

>> > might be able to recruit to the point.  This may not be a popular

>> > stance, but given the drop out rate and even the stop out rate,

>> > perhaps we should give it a try.

>> >

>> > Meta Potts

>> > FOCUS on Literacy

>> > Glen Allen, Virginia

>>

>>

>>

>> John Comings, Director

>> National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy

>> Harvard Graduate School of Education

>> 7 Appian Way

>> Cambridge MA 02138

>> (617) 496-0516, voice

>> (617) 495-4811, fax

>> (617) 335-9839, mobile

>> john_comings at harvard.edu

>> http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu

>>

>> -------------------------------

>> National Institute for Literacy

>> Special Topics mailing list

>> SpecialTopics at nifl.gov

>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics

>>

>

>

>

> -------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Special Topics mailing list

> SpecialTopics at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics




John Comings, Director
National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy
Harvard Graduate School of Education
7 Appian Way
Cambridge MA 02138
(617) 496-0516, voice
(617) 495-4811, fax
(617) 335-9839, mobile
john_comings at harvard.edu
http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu