Shout outs:

1. Todd Williamson: Audio response. (Visit Todd at http://thetechnorateteacher.wordpress.com )
2. Dr. Debra Franciosi:

From the Twitterverse:

* cthumphreys these make me laugh as a huge grammar geek-Humorous Grammar Rules: http://ow.ly/iM8X (via @barbsaka @carolrainbow ) (via @dianadell)
* liteNup http://twitpic.com/cdt3m - This is the 4th one in 5 days! This one right in my back yard. Almost got struck by lightning looking 4 the rainbow.
* leolaporte We launch a new TWiT show @ 3p today: TWig - This Week in google - with Jeff Jarvis and Gina Trapani. Google… [pic] http://ff.im/-61IaM
* web20classroom RT @jgvanides: What is “eLearning”? How I explain variations in online learning http://bit.ly/mJ1u1 #edtech #eLearning #highered #edu
* annemareemoore RT @heyjudeonline: great introduction video for students in science getting into blogging. http://bit.ly/16Dwxq
* russeltarr Audioboo: Using IPhones as an audio blogging tool with students (e.g. poetry?): http://tinyurl.com/o6ooux

FeedBack:

I came across this podcast for the first time today, and while significant time has passed, I cannot let this go without comment. While some parts of your program were interesting, I was disappointed in your lack of critical analysis of the reading research. (Yes, I am in a biased position on this, being employed by one of the study treatment companies, but my doctoral work in ed and research came before my latest venture with CRISS, and there is injustice in this!) You (along with an Ed Week reporter, etc) shared that “none of them [treatments] are effective”. The fact is, a null effect or no positive effect in statistical research does NOT mean a treatment is ineffective. It means they didn’t find results — and that can be for a variety of reasons, including faulty research design. Having read the research report and talked to teachers and trainers (for CRISS), I know that the design was flawed, as was the way the researchers grouped the info. CRISS is the only one of the treatments that is a professional development program, NOT a canned curriculum. All four were treated as the same thing. Even if the design wasn’t flawed, the researchers themselves stated that the study demonstrates likely outcomes in a “typical” implementation. In the case of many of the sites CRISS worked with, teachers had NO input into their participation and therefore NO BUY-IN. Some teachers did not show up for the trainings, but the test data was kept in the mix anyway. It makes no sense.
Before I started working for CRISS last September, I taught middle school for 9 years and was the 6-12 Literacy Specialist for 3. We implemented CRISS at the high school and the teachers that participated loved it and used what they learned — and saw positive results. But it takes time (3 years to get teachers fully implementing, with regular support); changing pedagogy isn’t easy.
That said, gentlemen, I ask that you revisit adolescent literacy again — maybe after looking at the report that came out last spring(Ed Week March or April?)that noted that random control/treatment studies done by the IES are consistently coming out with null effects. It appears that education does not fit into that paradigm of research design. Kids aren’t widgets, and you can’t control for all the chaos that human subjects bring to public schools. There ARE concrete things educators can do to improve students’ literacy. No canned program (or professional development, for that matter) required.
Thanks!
Dr. Debra Franciosi
California should fund Music:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/30/EDQ01910HK.DTL