[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

[Fwd: Re: Does It Work?]

FYI, ARNers wrt to me EMERGENCY POST of yesterday regarding this Dr. Hake's call for
*scientific* research...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Does It Work?
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:48:36 -0500
From: Rick Parkany <rparkany@BORG.COM>
Reply-To: American Evaluation Association Discussion List
Organization: Prometheus Educational Services
References: <p05010402b9fecf7519d2@[]>

ThanQ, Dr. Hake, or anyone else subscribing to his enthusiasm for the Federal Legislation
enabling testing of 100% of all PUBLICly schooled pupils (not the private, parochial,
charter, NOR home-schooled, BTW--a rich source of CONTROL GROUPS INDEED! No?) for setting
off the adjective, *scientific*, while noting the call for *research* from the NCLB Title
I *call for research*.

As you must know, NOTHING is added to the word *research* by describing it as *scientific*
other than a cynical cant that alludes to the notion that SOME research is politically
acceptable, and some is not. Otherwise, what in the world is gained in this community by
calling for one type of research rather than another unless there is a bias aforerthought
in the call and solicitation?

While we're on the subject, because I consider you to be an expert on *quasi-designs,
experimental* (pre-post, gain score research), tell me, please:

(a) what are your opinions concerning the fact that IF we are concerned w/evaluating
programs in education, why are we *sampling* 100% of the population, when the hallmark of
the framework you advocate only calls for a small sampling of the total population for
reliablity in the analysis; and

(b) what do you think concerning the ASA (amStatisticalAssoc), APA (AmPsychAssoc), AERA,
NCTE, ATE & AEA ethical statements concerning high-stakes (or any other) testing
concerning the confounding of tests and analyses used for purposes other than those
intended by design (in this case, we are using tests to measure individual achievement as
well as staff, building, distrinct, state, and national benchmarks and measures of
performance, see note below from the AERA, a site presently NOT listed on the USDoEdn

I patiently and eagerly await your reply and DO appreciate your input, though it is
provocative to my better understanding of the issues! ;-} rap.

>From the AERA position paper:
Validation for Each Separate Intended Use

Tests valid for one use may be invalid for another. Each separate use of a high-stakes
test, for individual certification, for school evaluation, for curricular improvement, for
increasing student motivation, or for other uses requires a separate evaluation of the
strengths and limitations of both the testing program and the test itself.

Full Disclosure of Likely Negative Consequences of High-Stakes Testing Programs
Where credible scientific evidence suggests that a given type of testing program is likely
to have negative side effects, test developers and users should make a serious effort to
explain these possible effects to policy makers.

American Evaluation Association Position Statement on HIGH STAKES TESTING In PreK-12

Links to Testing Standards, Ethics, & Professional Position Papers:

Richard Hake wrote:

> It has occurred to me that some subscribers might know of
> "scientific" research studies that should be considered for inclusion
> in the "What Works Clearing House." If so, the first step might be to
> contact the American Institutes for Research (AIR) at
> <http://www.air-dc.org/contact_us/contact_us-set.htm>.
> Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
> 24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
> <rrhake@earthlink.net>
> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>

"Dein Wachstum sei feste und lache vor Lust!
Deines Herzens Trefflichkeit
Hat dir selbst das Feld bereit',
Auf dem du bluehen musst." JS Bach: Bauern Kantata
Richard A. Parkany: SUNY@Albany
Prometheus Educational Services
Upper Hudson & Mohawk Valleys; New York State, USA

EVALTALK - American Evaluation Association (AEA) Discussion List. See also
the website: http://www.eval.org
To unsubscribe from EVALTALK, send e-mail to listserv@bama.ua.edu
with only the following in the body: UNSUBSCRIBE EVALTALK
To get a summary of commands, send e-mail to listserv@bama.ua.edu
with only the following in the body: INFO REFCARD
To use the archives, go to this web site: http://bama.ua.edu/archives/evaltalk.html
For other problems, contact the list owner at kbolland@sw.ua.edu

To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L