Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i0TIwXI24145; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:58:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:58:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <s0191060.028@mail.jsi.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Quann" <steve_quann@worlded.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9820] Re: NIFL and research X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.1 Status: O Content-Length: 2332 Lines: 55 Janet, After reading what you wrote, I for some reason had a flashback to a trip to the old Soviet Union. I had a conversation with a man who asked me why we have so many different kinds of toothpaste in the United States. He wondered why we just didn't do research and then, for the good of the people, just sell the one that is the best. It now could have relevance to this discussion of research. I think most will agree that research is necessary; however, I don't think that focusing only this approach in the field of education will encourage the free flow of ideas that can meet the varied needs of the consumers (read learners) unless there is huge and varied funding. And like the toothpaste, once established as the best product (read practice), it does not guarantee that there will be competition (read exchange of ideas) for a new improved model once established. In a democracy, the back and forth flow of ideas, in this case between teachers and researchers is crucial. If not, the "leaders" won't be able to listen to their constituency. I want the scientifically-based research, but I'd hate to see the back and forth discussion of research and practice (such as on this discussion list) truncated. Steve Quann NELRC / World Education 44 Farnsworth Street Boston, MA 617.482.9485 >>> Janet_Isserlis@brown.edu 1/28/2004 12:36:47 PM >>> Dear all, (with apologies for cross-posting, but with keen interest in responses from as broad a group of educators as possible) There are many reasons for us to continue to support the critically important work of NIFL, including its focus on adult learning. 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 havestudies showing that what you do works, and you don't just go doing whatever you want to do'." What do you think about that? If NIFL were to change, to provid resources only on scientifically-based reading research practices, how would that impact adult literacy and basic education?What does this mean to you? Do you see that as posing a problem? What are the implications in terms of our work of all of the above? Janet Isserlis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:35 EST