Print

Print


Catalina wrote: 
<BUT THERE ARE MANY WHO HARDLY
HAVE SPENT MORE THAN A YEAR IN FRONT OF A CLASS OR ALONG SIDE STUDENTS, AND
THOSE ARE THE ONES WHO GET PAID TO DO RESEARCH WHICH WILL AFFECT OUR WORK
-BECAUSE OUR ADMINISTRATORS WILL READ THE LATEST ARTICLES PUBLISHED BUT NOT
OUR POSITION PAPERS AND/OR REPORTS!> 

At least 95% of the research in the field is done by practitioners who are
getting their PHD's, researchers
aren't  funded for reseachin ourarea.  However, very few of these studies
are read by anyone much less administrators.  The funded research are
general surveys like EXXON or the USOE SURVEYS (like Adelman's), but most
decisions about rem. dev. ed. are made reluctantly after much protest that
"they shouldn't be in college"  based on the opinions of those making them 

Would that administrators would read research once in awhile -  then we
wouldn't be using speeded tests like the Nelson-Denny that encourage
superficieal reading and guessing  on archaic vocabulary and convoluted
prose ostensibly covering literature and/or  the classics--content that's
not appropriate for freshmen much less to determine the fate of
develomental students -( well, the ND is cheap, easy to administer and
reflects change -  the latter is easy, ... all you have to do is ask your
students to read faster, they'll get higher scores !)

As Gene Kerstiens writes  "Ironically, the popularity of th Nelson-Denny
and other speeded  reading comprehension tests continues to be inversely
proportional to the negative comments of critics.".
The more negative results are published, the more tests are sold. 

Nor would administrators continue to insist onr "stand-alone" developmental
reading classes  that are never evaluated.   Nor would they permit
developmental/remedial courses proliferate  - it's easier to solve problems
by giving a test and requiring someone else to teach another course than to
look at the real problems and what truly works. 

Martha Maxwell