EbaePractitionersLimitations

From LiteracyTentWiki

Practitioners’ Limitations

“Any participatory research study should acknowledge the stake and expertise of practitioners, but also the limits of those practitioners' capacity to take on a big project. Setting up the research partnership so it works on the operational/partner level is crucial. A couple of priorities I see are:

1. Finding funding to provide "release time" to participating practitioners to ensure they can be fully involved.
2. Taking an asset-based approach that builds on best practices already in place (not just those proposed in theory). Thus the purpose of the literature review would be to create benchmarks for literacy outcomes or correlates of those outcomes (average number of hours of instruction logged/student; average standardized test gains; certifications gained (GED, vocational test, driver's license, citizenship, etc...); self-reported learner/teacher satisfaction levels.
3. Inviting programs to self-nominate based on good outcome data or an investment in improving outcomes.
4. Involving researchers as outside consultants who help practitioners structure research questions, gather and analyze data, and then provide the umbrella function of seeing and communicating the common themes emerging from the well-grounded, practitioner led study teams.
5. Envisioning the development of assessment tools that complement (rather than supplant) standardized assessments. If we want federal dollars, we can't whine about all standardized testing being unfair - or expect that a system for evidence gathering become too idiosyncratic or time-consuming. A good example of such an assessment tool is the competency checklist. REEP in Arlington, Virginia conducted a small study in which they documented that the evaluations of teachers using checklists produced results confirmed by standardized tests. In so doing, they made a case for using a more nuanced form of student assessment that offered more to their students and teachers, while also passing muster in terms of reliability and validity.

I would also caution against too ambitious a scope for the initiative. With limited budgets, the return on investment when it comes to following up with students who have left the program seems relatively small.” [Message 30, Part One]