Federal educational policy, funding, and legislation are currently forwarding a research agenda described by the current administration as “scientifically based.” We characterize this agenda, described in multiple official documents as “the gold standard, “ as neopositivist. We consider the ways in which this research paradigm and the methods that accompany it (i.e., randomized field trials) are particularly problematic for knowledge generation in adult basic education, an important subfield of adult education. We focus on three areas of concern that exemplify in significant ways the limitations of scientifically based research: the contexts of adult basic education, the ways in which practitioners use research, and the state of the knowledge base.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AuerbachE. R. (1995). Which way for family literacy: Intervention or empowerment? In and and MorrowL.M. (Ed.), Family literacy connections in schools and communities (pp. 11—28). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
BartonD., HamiltonM., and IvanicR. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. New York: Routledge.
4.
BerlinerD. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18—20.
5.
Cochran-SmithM. (2002). What a difference a definition makes: Highly qualified teachers, scientific research, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 187—189.
6.
CunninghamJ. W. (2001). The National Reading Panel Report. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 326—335.
7.
Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–279, 116 Stat. 1940 (2002).
8.
EricksonF., and GutierrezK. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21—24.
9.
FeuerM. J., TowneL., and ShavelsonR. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4—14.
10.
FingeretA. (1983). Social network: A new perspective on independence and illiterate adults. Adult Education Quarterly, 33, 133—146.
11.
GillespieM. (2000). Research in writing: Implications for adult literacy education. In ComingsJ., GarnerB., and SmithC. (Eds.), Annual review of adult learning and literacy, (Vol. 2, pp. 63—110). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
GowenS. (1992). The politics of workplace literacy: A case study. New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
GreenbergD., EhriL. C., and PerrinD. (1997). Are word-reading processes the same or different in adult literacy students and third-fifth graders matched for reading level?Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 262—275.
14.
GreenbergD., EhriL. C., and PerrinD. (2002). Do adult literacy students make the same word-reading and spelling errors as children matched for word-reading age?Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(3), 221—243.
15.
HammersleyM. (2002). Educational research, policymaking, and practice. London: Chapman.
16.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HouleC. O. (1964). The emergence of graduate study in adult education. In JensenG., LiverightA.A., and HallenbeckW. (Eds.), Adult education: Outlines of an emerging field of university study (pp. 69—83). Washington, DC: Adult Education Association of the United States.
18.
International Reading Association. (2002). What is evidence-based reading instruction? [Brochure]. Newark, DE: Author.
19.
JensenG., LiverightA. A., and HallenbeckW. (Eds.). (1964). Adult education: Outlines of an emerging field of university study. Washington, DC: Adult Education Association of the United States.
20.
KnowlesM. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
LabovW. (1969). The logic of non-standard English. In and and AlacisJ.E. (Ed.), Report of the Twentieth Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, (Vol. 22, pp. 1—29). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
23.
LaveJ., and WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
LeinickeW. (2000). An examination of the use of part-time instructors in adult basic education and GED programs in Illinois. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
25.
LincolnY. S., and GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
LytleS., BelzerA., and ReumannR. (1992). Invitations to inquiry: Rethinking staff development in adult education. Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy.
27.
MayerR. E. (2000). What is the place of science in educational research?Educational Researcher, 29(6), 38—39.
28.
MerriamS. B., and BrockettR. G. (1997). The profession and practice of adult education: An introduction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
National Council for the Teaching of Mathematics Advisory Committee. (2003). Educational research in the No Child Left Behind environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, (34)3, 185—190.
30.
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
31.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
32.
PolanyiM. (1962). The republic of science. Minerva, 1, 54—73.
33.
Practitioner Dissemination and Research Network. (1998). Practitioners speak: Contributing to a research agenda for adult basic education (NCSALL Report No. 4). Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
RederS. (1987). Comparative aspects of functional literacy development: Three ethnic American communities. In and and WagnerD. (Ed.), The future of literacy in a changing world (pp. 250—270). New York: Pergamon.
36.
SabatiniJ. P., DanielsM., GinsburgL., LimeulK., RussellM., and StitesR. (2000). Teacher perspectives on the adult education profession: National survey findings about an emerging profession (NCALTR00-02). Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy.
37.
ShavelsonRichard J., and LisaTowne (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Committee on Scientific Principles in Education.
38.
SilverE. A. (2003). Improving education research: Ideology or science?Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 106—109.
39.
SmithC., and HoferJ. (2002). Pathways to change: A summary of findings from NCSALL's staff development study. Focus on Basics, 5D, 1, 3—8.
40.
SmithC., HoferJ., and GillespieM. (2001). The working conditions of adult literacy teachers: Preliminary findings from the NCSALL staff development study. Focus on Basics4D, 1—7.
41.
StraussS. L. (2001). An open letter to Reid Lyon. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 26—33.
42.
St. ClairR., ChenC. Y., and TaylorL. (2003). Abstract to action: How adult literacy and ESL educators make use of research. Perspectives: The New York Journal of Adult Learning, 2(1), 49—61.
43.
TettL., and St. ClairR. (1997). Family literacy in the educational marketplace: A cultural perspective. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 16(2), 109—120.
44.
ToutD., and SchmittJ. J. (2002). The inclusion of numeracy in adult basic education. In ComingsJ., GarnerB., and SmithC. (Eds.), Annual review of adult learning and literacy, (Vol. 3, pp. 152—202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In ColeM., John-SteinerV., ScribnerS., and SoubermanE. (Eds.), Mind in society (pp. 79—91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
WeissC. H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(3), 381—404.
47.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
