My last sentence of my last posting was stupid. Of course witch doctors
pretend to be what they aren't. What I meant is that a rational person could
not mistake what they do as 'scientifically objective' , which is what the
public believes educational testing to be.
Phillip Capper
WEB Research
PO Box 2855
(Level 9, 142 Featherston Street)
Wellington
New Zealand
Ph: (64) 4 499 8140
Fx: (64) 4 499 8395
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Capper [mailto:phillip.capper@webresearch.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2001 08:36
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: theory/practice
Eric,
The measures you wish to use:
ARE NOT FAIR - because they only measure the variables of a complex system
that the measurer has determined to be important:
ARE NOT OBJECTIVE - (a) because the instrument is always created with a
particular cultural (and therefore political) bias; and
(b) because assessment instruments
(educational or health) are never used consistently from one assessor to
another or from one assessment event to another.
ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC - because norming is always a cultural, gender, etc.
nightmare.
The claim of fairness and objectivity is spurious. You also seem to argue
that 'at least' they are better than reliance on the judgement of
professionals. This modern view is an understandable and a to some extent
justified response to professional abuses in many parts of the world.
The trouble with this shift from professional judgement to 'statistical
objectivity' is that all it has done is changed the locus of abuse and
created the illusion that it does not happen.
I believe that we will not get this anywhere near right (we will never get
it totally right) until we move to a balance. The proper role of normed
assessment instruments (in both education and health) is as a tool to assist
in the making of informed professional judgements. Professional mysticism
and secrecy was the main cause of the backlash through public policy. The
professional teacher and health worker must learn to operate in an
environment where the processes they use for making professional judgements
are open to scrutiny every time they use them, and that those processes must
engage with every person who has a stake in the decision.
But if I could only choose between continued professional magical witch
doctoring and the assessment methods you propose, then I'm afraid I'd choose
witch doctors. At least they don't pretend to be what they aren't.
Phillip Capper
WEB Research
PO Box 2855
(Level 9, 142 Featherston Street)
Wellington
New Zealand
Ph: (64) 4 499 8140
Fx: (64) 4 499 8395
-----Original Message-----
From: MnFamilyMan@aol.com [mailto:MnFamilyMan@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 August 2001 15:18
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: theory/practice
I feel it is important at this time to make a distinction between the
subject
being studied and the methodology used. When I refer to the Natural
Sciences
it is indeed in the positivist attitude of using an empirical method;
it is
not that the study of human psychology compares to the study of chemical
reactions. Human behavior can be understood from a positivist paradigm,
however the timeframe for study is years and decades, not day to day.
Gary,
I have read your 1998 article concerning abduction reasoning and
certainly
appreciate your attempt to construct a method of studying daily
thinnking.
Personally I would love for there to be a mechanism to utilize your
construct
in a valid fashion. Just because you are studying a subject that is not
empirical in nature ( abductive reasoning) does not mean it cannot be
studied
in a scientific manner. A thought on a method to use for this study
would be
the Kinderman & Valsiner Person/Context Relationship paradigm. This
paradigm
does not ignore measurable differences and seeks to explain how
person/context relationships help or hinder a person's development.
Further thoughts on using normed reference tools for diagnostic
purposes:
let us say we are wondering why a 5th grader is struggling in school.
In
order to provide help we as educators need to decide if his
circumstances
qualify that 5th grader for assistance. Other then the scientifically
normed
tools currently available I don't know of any other method of FAIRLY
deciding
that one student qualifies and another doesn't. Performance often drops
as a
result of situational changes (divorce, death in family), there is
pretty
good evidence that intellectual ability is not as dependent upon such
situations. I am convinced there needs to be some empirically
scientific
method used in order to make this determination. Now, before someone
suggests that we just go ahead and offer the help without the assesment
I
remind you that providing special education services is a restriction
upon
the student's educational rights. If one is to make a case for
restricting a
person's rights there better be sound evidence. Now, if someone were to
suggest a different method for providing assistance to those who have
diagnosed disabilities then call your representative and let them know
that,
IDEA 97 is due to be addressed in the 2002 session.
Just thinking out loud,
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:02:20 PDT