Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eBJMi1911678; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:44:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:44:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001219164546.00a43de0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net.>
Errors-To: rgspacone@worldnet.att.net
Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: Bonnie Odiorne <bodiorne@erols.com> (by way of "Ronna G. Spacone" <rgspacone@worldnet.att.net>)
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1311] Second Posting: EFF Reading Group
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
Status: O
Content-Length: 9080
Lines: 56
NIFL-4EFFers: If you've joined our list in the last week or so, please go to the archives: http://www.nifl.gov/nifl-4eff/2000/ and read messages 1287 and 1288. These will introduce you to the EFF Reading Group and their current discussion of pages 56-64 in the EFF Content Standards. The first response in this series, including the discussion/focus questions, is at the bottom of Bonnie's message. Ronna Spacone, List Moderator .................................................................................................................
Hello Everyone,
Ronna has asked me to go next, and I'm happy to do so, although, for me, "reading with understanding" never seems to end. There's always that "next thing" that's going to pull it all together: in this case, really looking at Sri Ananda's piece on assessment. But, here goes...
I've been following with interest the discussions on what kind of program seems to do best with EFF, and that it might most easily fit with a curriculum emphasizing life applications. I agree. I start with the role maps as a kind of hands-on overview which students can readily relate to, then proceed to tease out the "common activities" on which we want to focus: in our case, those having to do with access and use of information for decision making and problem solving regarding job searches and family resources, and communication skills for interpersonal relations and social skills related both to employability, team work, and family and school communication. As we also have a heavy emphasis on technology, we always try to integrate technology activities into educational goals.
I have also been very concerned, on a programmatic rather than an instructional level, with the issue of assessment as it impacts PIPs under the Workforce Investment Act, which our Program is, under the Family Literacy and Adult Education section. The core indicators under that legislation measure only increase in reading and math skills: in CT through administration of the ECS Appraisal (for our program; CCS for others) and ECS Pre- and Post-Tests in reading and math. This means essentially that the family literacy, technology and employability/employment skills have little valid means of measurement, hence my personal interest in EFF as a complement to CASAS competencies in further individualizing instruction and measuring students' progress toward personal goals. We have been using the Workplace Essential Skills (KET/PBS) curriculum which is very good at emphasizing the "soft" skills involved in employment and retention as well as how basic skills relate to real-life appli
cation. I have also been involved in testing the CASAS Writing Assessments, as well as working on a "CT version" of a CASAS Workplace Assessment instrument.
All of which raises the issue of which instruments EFF will use to cross correlate its assessment levels, benchmarks, and continuum. CASAS has the merit of relating skills sets to real-life situations and to some extent is "performative": can the student do the task required in order to answer the question? But the assessments (with the possible exception of the writing assessment) do not capture the "four dimensions" of performance: organization of knowledge, fluency, the "big picture", and automaticity. I feel that project learning would definitely be the direction to take to most effectively implement the "spirit" of EFF, as well as its ultimate assessment value. Within a structured rubric or matrix of a project outcome, it would be relatively easy to track these dimensions, the ranges of improvement, and the skills sets as well as standards and common activities which are activated in a more "holistic" learning which would of necessity engage differing learning styles and
modalities.
I am far from coming up with specific projects, let alone the necessary matrices for assessment, and would be grateful for suggestions about web sites or personal experiences such as those described in the Standards book. And would also welcome comments from those familiar with CASAS competencies to discuss their relationship with EFF frameworks.
All for now.
Bonnie Odiorne, Ph.D.
Program Facilitator and Family Educator
Families Forward Through Technology, a Program Improvement Program of
Computers 4 Kids
150 East Aurora Street
Waterbury, CT 06708
203/591-1714
bodiorne@erols.com
.......................................................................................................................................................................
Date: Dec 14, 2000
From: Debbie Tuler
Re: EFF Reading Group Response
Ronna wrote: "Since I asked you to read using the EFF Standard "Read With Understanding", let's start by discussing your reading process. What was it like? Did this reading activity require you to carry out each one of the components? In general, how did the process of using the components of skill performance work for you? What was it like to use the standard to focus on what your own performance looks like?"
For me, the reading process felt very conscious, as if I had greater awareness of what I was doing, than when I often read. I wouldn't say that the reading activity "required" me to use all components, but I made a conscious effort to try to use all components because I was using the standard to guide my reading. The activity involved more forethought, at least on a conscious level. It's hard to explain, but in a way I felt like I was slowing down a process that might often happen faster and more automatically, in order to "see" what I was doing while I read. That also made the reading a bit harder (conscious thinking is hard to do), especially the first component of the reading standard (identify purpose) as I don't always articulate a purpose for reading, even tho I have one. The last two components (analyze, reflect, and integrate) - again, I'm not sure if it's because I don't do them well, or because it was hard to slow down and observe a process that for me has become "fluent
".
I also noticed that the components of performance do not include coherently discussing and/or articulating our analysis, reflection, etc. (communication >standard, I suppose), even tho this is how we would judge whether someone has done these things (analyze, reflect.)
And then Ronna wrote: "Next, I would be interested in knowing what you think about the four key dimensions of performance. These are the heart of the EFF assessment framework, and they define the continuum of performance for each of the 16 standards. Please think about using the components of performance and the dimensions of performance together in order to align and focus planning, teaching, and assessment (that is, to facilitate instructional activities that address all components of an EFF standard and include opportunities for students to build knowledge, fluency, independence and range). How might this affect what you teach and how you teach? How might the four key dimensions and the critical components of performance affect the way you think about teaching?"
Trying to hold the pieces together and use them together was also a challenge...I think I would have done better to cut up the book so I could have the components and dimensions easily in front of me at the same time! But a few things stand out for me:
* In terms of teaching, the components and dimensions together lead me to holistic perspective - rather than teaching components of reading sequentially, I see them all happening at the same time; development (progress) is in terms of the dimensions of performance (and the level of difficulty of the reading passage) rather than in terms of components.
* In my program now we are working on the question of when and how to transition students from one class (level) to another - how do I know that someone is ready to move up, and how can I articulate that to the teacher whose class I want to move the student in to. For assessment, the dimensions of performance provides key language for articulating this. This is critical for us now, because even though we have identified different grammar and language competencies for the different levels, a large part of what distinguishes a student in one level from a student in another level is not what tenses or what vocabulary they know, but the range, independence,and fluency of performance. These dimensions provide the structure for what to look for and what to express both to students and other teachers. They move us away from a content focus (grammar, vocabulary) to a performance focus - the grammar and vocabulary (content, structure of the language) is the means to an end (expressing idea
s, opinions, etc.), not the end itself.
* Finally, the dimensions of performance, along with the components, will, I think, make it easier or clearer to think about/plan classroom activities - structuring what we do in the class to move students through these dimensions of performance.
Debbie
Debbie Tuler
djt9u@virginia.edu
Charlottesville, VA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:21 EST