Thanks for the reply and very well thought out ... but here is my answer ..
teachers and professionals can help design projects that they themselves do
not participate in.  So you can help lots of ways with the researchers ...
in designing the research model, etc ... but then it should be used in
places where you have no contact and you have no relationships ...   So yes
there is a major role for teachers and practitioners in designing ... but
you can not both design and then participate nor evaluate ... you especially
can not evaluate a study you do.
 
Now ... you said that you raised the possibility of a third response in you
field  ... which you could do by raising it  ... your "study" or observation
proved only that there were more then two options ... the one that you
showed was possible was again "tainted" by your participation and such and
your effort called for  new and better research -- and you also saw what
happens with outcomes that are based on bad research designs and you called
them on it .. very good ... but your research does not really prove that
what you are seeing is real or replica table --- only your students
responding to you ... 
 
I am very sorry to say this ... but I must ... the scientific approach to
research in education which I have laid out and you say is restricted ...
(which it is not) ... is, and continues to be, sorely lacking in the
education field ... When the US Dept of Ed decided to use these standards
for research in education, it conducted an extensive review of educational
research and found that almost none existed that came anywhere near these
standards (Except for the Shaywitz studies) and they could not move forward
for years in setting up their website with "good educational research"
because almost none existed.  Some now are underway and you need to look at
them
 
So ... while teachers, administrators etc in education have accepted faulty
and poorly designed research that has mainly be used to sell products or
make teachers feel that their "system" is great ... the acceptance of this
type of research has lead the field from one disaster to the next ... we
need to stop this and insist on real research based in real research methods

 
By the way --- almost any study that comes out of England concerning
dyslexics often is really tainted with all kinds of bias and design problems
and should be really taken with a huge grain of salt since in most studies
they look at only dyslexics who speak English without any accent --- that
includes local Cornish or Yorkish accents ... that is why researchers in
England found only 4% of prisoners were dyslexic ... because the eliminated
almost 95% of prisoners based on accent issues ---- This study lead to the
almost complete defunding of all adult dyslexic programs ... Bad research
and bad research designs had disastrous impacts ... 
 
Glenn Young
530 Auburn Ave.
Buffalo, New York 14222
Ph. and Fax 716-882-2842
Cell 703-864-3755
e-mail gyoungxlt at adelphia.net

  _____  

From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Bonnita Solberg
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:02 PM
To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 870] Re: Priorities for Research inthe
LDField


Glen:  I read with interest your explanation below and agree with this
analysis from a "pure" researcher's point of view.  However, I would like to
raise the bar to practitioner research and ask where in your scheme of
research does it fit.  Teachers can design research, as has been
demonstrated by the Research to Practice Knowledge Institute in Adult
Literacy (NCSALL); additionally, teachers can either "make or break"
research by applying the results to a real classroom situation to ascertain
if the results fit.  For example, as a participant in the Northwest Research
to Practice Institute in Eugene Oregon, I disputed the results of a research
project that stated when a teacher approaches a small learning group of ESL
students, one of two things invariably happens:  Either the students revert
to the easiest part of the assigned task, or one of the members asks a
question of the teacher.  As a practitioner with 30 years experience in the
field, I knew this observation was too narrow.  As a participant in the
Institute, I chose to test the results and was able to show that students
also continue with the assigned task as a third behavior by observing what
happened when I approached a small learning group.  I was a researcher in my
own classroom.  Admittedly my observations did not meet your criteria, but I
was able to show to the satisfaction of the researchers that other
possibilities exist than those stated by the study.

I understand the Hawthorne effect and understand that a group of  factory
assembly line workers reacted in the manner in which you report; I am
familiar with that study. However, I believe that you have over generalized
to a population that is not on an assembly line and sees the process of
research in a very different manner than did the Hawthorne workers.   

Double blind, control groups, experiemental groups, random assignment--all
are basic to a specific kind of reseach.  Now I wonder if there is a place
for those of us who are involved in the field and have a stake in finding
better ways of meeting our students' educational needs.  How can we
intelligently and professionally participate in research without being
branded as too interested in the outcome to perform reliable and valid
research.  It can be done, but perhaps it steps on the toes of researchers
who would control the research market by restricting who does the research.

Bonnita Solberg, Ph.D.
Oakland Unified School District
Teacher on Special Assignment


Glenn Young <gyoungxlt at comcast.net> wrote: 

Jennifer --- thanks for raising the questions  ... your questions and
approach shows clearly why teachers should not be the ones designing or
determining the impact of approaches ... 
 
 but first of all the idea of "universal design" - something geared towards
everyone's needs ... seems to be a good one and I should not discourage you
from trying it ... 
 
its just that "research" and proving anything by research is a very tricky
thing and needs to be designed by persons who are technically dis-interested
in the issues per say ... they know how to control for bias etc ... and they
understand statistics ... and they are technically disinterested in what the
results show - good bad or indifferent - they are only interested in what
the results show .... by your school doing the evaluation you have a vested
interest in showing success ... this leads to all kinds of bias in the study
outcomes and greatly lessens the credulity of the outcomes ...
 
So you and a group of your friends and colleagues are simple the wrong
people to design a research project for determining if your approach works
... even it if does ... there is so many factors to control for (students,
etc) and also it may just be that you and friends are great teacher ... and
the real factor in the success is you as a great teacher and not the system
being used ... so you can't clone yourself -- and therefore the system may
be no more effective then any other ... I  hope your following what I am
saying ... and you can't expect honest evaluations from friends ... just is
not right ... 
 
Also --  as much as possible the students and the teachers involved need to
be kept in the dark that they are doing anything as part of a research
project ... just people knowing that they are involved often "taints" the
results .. can't make a big fanfare about the introduction of new methods
and expect to get a real evaluation of the impact ... that works against
human nature ... .
 
The most famous example is what is called "the Hawthorne effect" in which
workers at a factory (Hawthorne) were told that they were being tested to
determining what changes impacted their productivity ... The question
involved was if the lighting was increase would the productivity go up
...and when the lighting was increase the productivity did go up ... and
then the researchers claimed success ... but when the lighting was put back
to the first levels ... productivity went up again ... 
 
Hence the term Hawthorne effect --- all changes brought about productivity
were based in expectations -  since the workers knew they were being tested
... and they would sense the change and work harder --- because they knew
about it ... and the long term impact of the changes could not be
effectively determined.
 
So ... this is where the idea of the "double blind" comes in --- there are
the experimental groups and the control groups  - hopefully more then just
one of each ... and know one knows which is which ... and if possible ...
there is the "Goldilocks" approach ... some have nothing some have a lot and
some have the projected amount of interventions ... etc.  (once again know
one knowing except the researchers and they are not telling, and they don't
care if it works or not)
 
Plus there is the whole concept of random assignment - so there is no
possibility of just the good students and teachers getting to use the
interventions ... etc.
 
SO ... to avoid a very long answer -- though this appears to be too late 
 
While your efforts to bring new and successful reading interventions to your
school may be wonderful and may prove successful for your school .. and that
is wonderful, it may be of no value in terms of "research" ... and may not
be replicated in the same way as it works in your school ... 
 
Now if you wanted to really test the interventions 
 
You would take the concept you want to use ... work with several schools in
your area --- say, for example,  there are 12 fourth grade class rooms in
your district ... 4 would have teachers using the new system with training
on it ... four would be using the system with no training and 4 would be
using the same model as currently used ... and none of them would be told
that there is a research effort under way ... and none of the students would
know anything about it ... no fanfare, no nothing except telling the 8
teachers to change the curriculum on reading ... and four getting some
training on it  ... 
 
and with lots of other controls put in place ... you may be able to say ...
at the end of the evaluation, using several years of cohorts of students
... that students did better under the enhances --- or not, based on a valid
standard evaluation conducted by a neutral dis-interested testing group  ...
and then, you have the basis for continuing the effort by asking the -
question remains  ... how long does the impact last ... etc ... and by
following the students over several years ... you can help to see if the
impact had any lasting value ... and for whom
 
SO ... as I said in the beginning and as you pointed out ... the role of the
teacher is not to be the researcher and a teacher thinking as a teacher can
not design the protocols for the research  --- if the research is to have
much validity,  and to be taken seriously outside of other teachers who
don't know how to design research, it needs to be done over several years
with different cohorts of students and with no word of the research ever
getting out ...
 
Other then that you'll have a great story to tell and some of your students
will read better but in the end it would be anecdotal stories at best
....(or what is called "qualitative research" - which has dominate education
with myths and falsehoods for generations) 
 
Hope that this is clear without being insulting ....
 

Glenn Young
530 Auburn Ave.
Buffalo, New York 14222
Ph. and Fax 716-882-2842
Cell 703-864-3755
e-mail gyoungxlt at adelphia.net
 

 
  _____  

From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Clancy, Jennifer
C
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 7:49 PM
To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List; The Learning Disabilities
Discussion List
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 864] Re: Priorities for Research inthe
LDField


Dear Glen,
My approach to research into LD is coloured by my position as teacher of
students - some diagnosed as LD, some not, but suspected and others
seemingly with more mild LD. 
For a teacher, there is not only the question of diagnosing LD and choosing
appropriate teaching models, but also the fact that the class is in front of
you and you have to do something. Hence teachers do "grab and try" hopeful
ideas.
This year I will work on an action research project - the team will consist
of the Literacy teachers at my school, a few university education students
doing their pre-service teaching practicum and a university teacher as
criical friend. 
As mentioned in my earlier posting, this year my school will put in place a
model of teaching Literacy that we hope will meet the learning needs of all
students. If we are successful, our LD students - officially diagnosed or
not - will bebefit. 
Our reasearch project will be a study of this model in operation and the
learning outcomes achieved by the students.
Would like opinions on the usefulness of such a study.
 
Regards,
Jennifer Clancy
Literacy teacher, coordinator
Hoppers Crossing Secondary College
Melbourne, Australia

  _____  

From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Glenn Young
Sent: Tue 16/01/2007 1:07 AM
To: 'The Learning Disabilities Discussion List'
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 863] Re: Priorities for Research inthe
LDField


I would suggest that any university level book on what is needed in human
research and how to control for all the various factors involved in doing
research would be helpful for anyone concerned with the field to look and
consider

However ... As I have read and seen ... Almost all works on LD are based in
gender, race and class  myths ... However some works have been developed
through the Hampton Institute years ago on how to better evaluate African
American students ...

This jumping to the article about noise and having almost no one reply to my
posting to me once again shows that this list serve seems to be driven by
emotions and hope rather then logic and solid research ...

Until this fields stop chasing the latest fade based in bad research ... The
field will continue to fail themselves and all the students they are looking
to help

-----Original Message-----
From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Andrea Wilder
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 3:41 PM
To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 859] Re: Priorities for Research inthe
LDField

Hi Glenn,

Sorry to be so late in replying to this.

i wonder if there are articles, books, that you have found particularly
good?  As a person with LD, your knowledge of the field can be very useful
to us.,

Andrea


On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Glenn Young wrote:


> To the List

>

> All the points raised in the discussion of research are valid and

> needed --- however there are clearly things that need to be addressed

> in research that is not being mentioned in this discussion so far ---

> so while all the points are needed .. And I agree with them -- we need

> to look at bigger picture stuff first.

>

> The basic reason for looking at the bigger piece first is that unless

> we do, we will continue the "selection bias" that is inherent in

> almost all research on LD ... And this selection bias is based on

> myths about LD that continue to persist and therefore taint the

> selection and assignment pools into any research project ... In

> addition using the current systems of LD identification (which the US

> Dept of ED no longer supports) continues the myth that schools are

> appropriately identifying the LD population and that we can rely on

> their selections for the follow up research ... The Shaywitz and other

> studies have proven that we can not rely on the schools for proper or

> complete LD identification ... Which is often based more on money than

> anything else, and historically has miss extensive numbers of persons

> who are LD and who are females, poor, ELL (English Language Learners)

> and persons of color ....

>

> Therefore -- in order to know what works for persons with LD ... We

> need to properly identify those with LD - All those with LD, not based

> on school identifications  ...  And include them in the research pools

> (as NICHD did in their studies). We simple must stop having studies

> that say  ... We looked at 47 white middle class boys and 4 girls ...

> And say that the findings of the study have any validity for anything

> more then 47 white middle class boys ....

>

> And we can not properly identify those with LD based on the out of

> date, racist and sexist "expectation models" nor on the racist and

> sexist "discrepancy model" which has historically failed to identify

> so many females with LD and also would classify a person of color with

> the same profile as a white person as being MR and the white LD ...

>

> So --- in other words --- the first thing we really need to do is

> develop LD identification tools that eliminate racist sexist, classist

> and language issues from the process (MIR's for ALL would be great)

> but there are other ways ... At least we need to develop means that

> lessen the racist, sexist and classist determinations by using such

> tools as regression scales

> -- but

> the main point is that first piece of research that we really need is

> to develop ways and means of properly identifying all those with LD

> and to make sure that all those with LD are included in selection

> pools for testing of theories ....

>

> As a real starting point in research we need to test what we think we

> know based on the old models and what we think we know from more

> current research of the past decades.  What we think we now know from

> the more current research is that those with LD fall into 9 general

> categories, with subsections for each and also a 10th subsection of

> "outliers" who don't fit into the general categories.

>

> These broad categories are:

>

> 1) Those with LD identified in schools and get proper and successful

> services and go on to achieve a productive academic and vocational

> life

> 2) Those with LD identified in schools and get moderately successful

> services and go on to achieve a moderately successful academic and

> vocational life

> 3) Those with LD who interventions in school are unsuccessful and they

> go to a relatively unsuccessful academic and vocational success

> 4) Those with LD not identified in schools, nor later in life, and

> receive no services for LD and go on to achieve a highly productive

> academic and vocational life

> 5) Those with LD not identified in schools, nor later in life, and go

> on to achieve a moderately successful academic and vocational life

> 6) Those with LD not identified in school, nor later in life, who go

> to a relatively unsuccessful academic and vocational success

> 7) Those with LD not identified in schools, and receive no services

> for LD and go on to achieve a highly productive academic and

> vocational life, and identified with LD later in life.

> 8) Those with LD not identified in schools, and receive no services

> for LD and go on to achieve a moderately successful academic and

> vocational life and identified later in life.

> 9) Those with LD not identified in school, and receive no services for

> LD who go to a relatively unsuccessful academic and vocational success

> and are identified later in life.

> 10) Outliers from each of the groups and others who don't fit into any

> of the profiles

>

> In addition, in section 7, 8 and 9 there would be subsets for each in

> which late life LD identification has little, moderate and extensive

> impact on the person's academic and vocational life.

>

>       Also -- the exogenous factor of co-morbidity with other disabilities

> needs to be incorporated into each of the     groups (ADHD, OCD, etc)

>

>       Also - the exogenous factor of family structure and support, and

> family wealth need to be incorporated for each        group

>

> Based on the conflicts that currently exist in LD identification and

> the need for programs such as schools to protect themselves there

> would be great controversy on what percent of the LD population fits

> into each of these categories.

>

> However, from what we can tell from the existing research when looked

> at in total, - not just following those identified in schools, but

> looking at the total population of LD, including those found in

> welfare programs, adult literacy, etc who have never been identified, 

> ... It would appear (and this is best guess - not solid)

>

>       That the vast minority of those with LD fall into categories 1 and 4



> ...

>

>               It appears the most likely upwards of 90% of those with LD

> fall into the moderately successful or those not              achieving

> success categories ...

>               And upwards of 66% falling into the categories dealing with

those

> never 4-6 - never identified ....

>

> This is a best guess --- so the key research that really needs to be

> done it to test this concept that under the current system of support

> the overwhelming persons with LD are not being successful - or to

> prove the opposite ...

>

> If the findings show that the projection is true (most persons with LD

> are not doing well) the question needs to be asked

>

>       What is the economic impact of this "LD failure" -  This question is

> actually far more paramount then all others -         since if we can show

> extensive economic impact, then resource will be forth coming ... If

> we can

> not show economic     impact there would be no reason to increase support

> for efforts.

>

> Then if we can show economic impact then we need to ask -- what can we

> do differently to increase outcomes? So the next research questions

> needs to

> be:

>

>       What are the interventions, at what age and under what conditions,

> that can increase success for all persons with        LD, and how do the

> factors

> of race, gender, age, class, language and other factors (family

> support,

> informed      consumer, etc)impact various approaches

>

> Then, only then, can we start to ask the questions being asked in the

> other responses to this research questions ... So ... The research

> agenda must deal with the "Macro" first  --- who pays for this? ...

> Well you didn't ask that question, just what was needed ....

>

> As a final plea, we need to change the paradigm, filled with racism,

> sexism and such, that has got us into this mess.  Unless we do, we

> will only waste money on research that will continue to re-enforce

> myths about LD.

>

> OK --- enough .. Look forward to response ...

>

>

> Glenn Young

> 530 Auburn Ave.

> Buffalo, New York 14222

> Ph. and Fax 716-882-2842

> Cell 703-864-3755

> e-mail gyoungxlt at adelphia.net

>

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

> From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov

> [mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Susan

> Jones

> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:31 AM

> To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List

> Subject: [LearningDisabilities 838] Re: Priorities for Research in the

> LDField

>

> Personally I think public and professional awareness is lagging behind

> the research... so I'd love some research about that just to shed more

> light on whether I"m right or not :)

>

>

> Susan Jones

> Academic Development Specialist

> Academic Development Center

> Parkland College

> Champaign, IL  61821

> sujones at parkland.edu

> Webmastress,

> http://www.resourceroom.net <http://www.resourceroom.net/> 

> http://bicyclecu.blogspot.com <http://bicyclecu.blogspot.com/> 

>

>

>>>> Andrea Wilder <andreawilder at comcast.net> 1/4/2007 8:14 PM >>>

> Rochelle--

>

> This would be a subheading under a purpose of , say, "Increasing

> literacy."

>

> You are being kind--I'm trying to think this through.  What would we

> say about learning disabilities?  First would be something like: 

> "test

>

> and diagnose any learning disabilities."  This might be good to start

> with.

>

> Now, on the research part--actually, we should compile what we DO

> know,

>

> so we know what we don't  have, what questions still need to be

> researched.

>

> (Maybe i should go to bed.)

>

> Thanks for asking this, an excellent exercise.

>

> OK--literacy--do we need to define this?

>

> Andrea

>

> On Jan 4, 2007, at 8:38 PM, RKenyon721 at aol.com wrote:

>

>>

>> Andrea,

>>

>> Why don't we look at Literacy and Learning Disabilities, the topic of

>

>> our Discussion List.  That will narrow the "field" considerably.

>>

>> What do you think?

>>

>> Rochelle

>>

>>

>>

>> Hi Rochelle

>>

>> This is a great question.  First, it seems to me, we need to define

>> the scope of the field, its purpose, then we will be able to figure

>> out research questions.

>>

>> Andrea

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Rochelle Kenyon, Ed.D., Project Trainer LD Academies Project

>> 6315 Capstan Court

>> Rockledge, Florida 32955-5765

>> Telephone: 321.637.1319

>> Fax: 321.637.1920

>> Email: RKenyon721 at aol.com

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

>> National Institute for Literacy

>> Learning Disabilities mailing list

>> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

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

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

>> Message sent to andreawilder at comcast.net.

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

> National Institute for Literacy

> Learning Disabilities mailing list

> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

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

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

> Message sent to GYOUNGXLT at comcast.net.

>

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

> National Institute for Literacy

> Learning Disabilities mailing list

> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

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

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

> Message sent to andreawilder at comcast.net.

>


----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Learning Disabilities mailing list
LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
Message sent to GYOUNGXLT at comcast.net.

----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Learning Disabilities mailing list
LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
Message sent to clancy.jennifer.c at edumail.vic.gov.au.

Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received
in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using
attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss,
damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or
not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our
liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any
representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender,
and not necessarily those of the Department of Education.
----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Learning Disabilities mailing list
LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
Message sent to bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20070117/7a2dc521/attachment.html