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 e81KmF827667; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <416C351C579FD211B2B200062B001FF0056407A2@wdcfb6exc01.ed.gov> Errors-To: rgspacone@aol.com Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Stein, Sondra" <Sondra_Stein@nifl.gov> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1176] RE: Open Letter from RI study circle X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Status: O Content-Length: 12732 Lines: 249 I want to thank the Rhode Island Study Circle for engaging with EFF as they work to develop standards for RI. I want to respond to two points in their summary. One has to do with standards and system reform. The other with testing. Let me start with the testing piece first because it misstates what is in EFF. I'll quote a section from their summary: inally, we fear the possibility that the holistic, learner centered vision of EFF may be reduced to yet another standardized test which doesn't relate to the experience of the learners. On pages 62 and 63 of the Content Standards book, much is made of the need to design "highly standardized tools" and "a new type of test". We fear that such an aim may reflect a narrowing of the principles EFF seems to embrace. We recognize that creating an efficient evaluation system/tool is a major challenge. As practitioners, we tend to view standardized tests as something we do not because it contributes to learning, but because it is required by someone other than the learner. While we are accustomed to working with standardized tests, and understand their purpose, we do not consider them to be especially learner-centered. Pages 56-64 of Equipped for the Future Content Standards: What Adults Need to Know and Be Able to Do in the 21st Century focuses on "Using the Standards to Assess Performance." This section begins with a statement of 8 Guiding principles. The first two of these focus on "multiple purposes for assessment," including assessment for diagnostic purposes, that is to guide the teaching and learning process; asessment for accountability purposes; and assessment for credentialing purposes. This is the context for the discussion on pp. 62-63 about "Identifying Tools and Approaches to Document and Assess Performance." In this section we talk about developing agreement on a set of design criteria for valid and reliables tools to support teaching and learning. And we talk about (in the next sentence) exploring how these design criteria may need to be modified to produce tools for accountability purposes. We state that tools for accountability purposes need to be MORE HIGHLY STANDARDIZED than tools for teaching and learning purposes. I think it is pretty widely accepted these days that we need different kinds of assessment tools for different assessment purposes. Assessments that are used only to guide the teaching-learning process don't have to meet as stringent standards for reliability as assessments that are intended for accountability purposes. In both cases, however, they need to meet standards of technical quality such as those laid out in Sri Ananda's publication HOW INSTRUCTORS CAN SUPPORT ADULT LEARNERS THROUGH PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT. As that publication makes clear, we believe that performance-based assessments are more congruent with EFF than are multiple choice tests because they focus on real world performance and require learners to construct their own response rather than selecting from a range of responses. As a result, performance based assessments are assessments which are also learning activities -- in constructing a response you engage with the materials more than in selecting a response, and you may have the opprotunity to draw on higher-order cognitive strategies in the process. Right now, however, performance-based assessments aren't generally used for high stakes accountablity purposes because they are expensive and time consuming. There is broad discussion about this throughout the education community, because most education leaders recognize that what we test is not what we really want to know. Researchers like Sri Ananda at WestED and Eva Baker and her team at CRESST are experimenting with ways to create performance-based assessments that are easier to administer and evaluate, and we are looking forward to the results of their work. What we call for is better alignment of assessment tools across purposes so that all assessment tools [as much as possible] focus on not only what learners know but what they can do with what they know. This issue of alignment brings me to the issue of system reform. In the early years of the EFF development process, practitioners in the audience would often respond to the EFF Skills Wheel (before we had fully defined the Standards) by saying: we can't teach all this in the few hours we have, in the short amount of time we have for preparation, etc. And I said then what I will say now in response to your concerns about teachers not having enough time to work with challenging material: that's why EFF is a standards-based SYSTEM REFORM initIative. We had to first build consensus on the goals of our system (The four pruposes, the role maps). Then we had to define what adults need to know and be able to do in order to meet those goals -- those are the EFF Content Standards. Now -- as programs and states begin to implement EFF -- we are in a position to say what it takes to assure that adults have access to programs that HAVE THE RESOURCES (fulltime staff, with time for and access to good resaerch-based professional development, good tools for assessment, etc, etc.) to help them develop the knowledge and skills they need to meet their goals and purposes. In his excellent article about standards-based reform in Focus on Bascis Regie Stites talks about the importance of such "opportunity-to-learn" standards in any standards-based reform initiative. We all know our system is woefully underfunded -- for accomplishing just about any purpose. If states, employers, and other investors in the adult education system care about achieving the goals described in Eqiupped for the Future (adults who have the skills and knowledge to compete in a global economy, exercise the rights and responsibiliteis of citizenship, and help their children succeed in school) they need to invest sufficient resources for us to deliver those results. Then they have the right to hold us accountable for achieving those results. That's standards-based system reform. And that's what EFF is aiming for: an adult education system that gives every adult maximum opportunity [and assistance ] to gain the skills and knowledge they need to access information, express their own ideas and opinoins, take independent action, and keep up with a changing world. Let's work for this together. Sondra Sondra G. Stein Senior Research Associate and National Director,EFF National Institute for Literacy 1775 I St NW Suite 730 Washington, DC 20006 202-233-2041 -----Original Message----- From: PDRNRI@aol.com [mailto:PDRNRI@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 5:17 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1175] Open Letter from RI study circle Everyone: The following open letter was written as a product of the NCSALL - sponsored study circle linking EFF to the development of State Standards in Rhode Island. The hope of participants is that this letter will contribute to the ongoing dialogue on moving EFF into practice. A final report summarizing the circle's work will be available very soon. An Open Letter to the Developers of Equipped for the Future and to Practitioners Interested in Standards -Based Reform: We are group of Rhode Island Practitioners who have recently participated in NCSALL- sponsored study circle aimed at learning about EFF and drawing connections between EFF and our own state standards development process. As part of our work, we studied and discussed several EFF related articles and publications, including NIFL's Equipped for the Future Content Standards: What Adults Need to Know and Be Able to Do in the 21st Century. We would like to call your attention to several points which surfaced during our discussions. Please feel free to post responses to our thoughts on this listserv. There is much to admire in the EFF development effort, especially regarding the need for such an effort to remain learner centered. EFF's focus on Lifelong Learning, Decision-making and Interpersonal Skills reflects its efforts to give practice defined ways beyond traditional literacy standards and assessments. EFF recognizes that we as a field are accountable to our learners; learners have been central to each step of the development process. As practitioners who have speaks to our need to be accountable to other stakeholders. EFF's efforts to develop a useful assessment system which keeps what learners need to know and do at the center of the process is commendable. Some of us who are working on developing standards for Rhode island have been especially grateful for two elements of EFF that have helped us directly in our own work. The recently developed performance framework, which compels us to look at performance in terms of factors such as frequency and degree of independence has helped us understand how to frame our own performance standards as we develop them. Similarly, the 16 standards, while themselves broad (see below), enable us to frame or organize our own, more specific content standards. While we admire the effort and look forward to following the process of EFF's development, we share a great deal of concern over the practicality and applicability of EFF. We recognize that the process of developing performance measures and means of assessment are still being developed, and we are curious to see where the process goes. Still, right now it seems difficult to imagine using the standards effectively. In our study circle several concerns were raised and discussed, among them the ideas that concerns the standards are not specific enough to be easily brought into practice, that some standards would be very difficult to measure, and that some seem very difficult to apply at the basic level. Our principal concern in this area, though, is with the utility of the Content Standards publication. We feel it is wordy, visually confusing, and difficult to bring into practice. It is especially important to practitioners that the gap between research and practice be bridged by research-based materials which are readily applicable to the classroom. The Content Standards book does not do this. As practitioners, we are very concerned with not having adequate time to learn how to use the book and how to bring the standards into practice. Our system does not support this kind of work. Most of us are part-time, not paid much for planning time and paid little or nothing for professional development time. While we understand that EFF is not to blame for this reality, we must emphasize that any set of tools for measuring standards must be easy to use. Most of us don't have the time to devote to understanding the whole EFF system. We might like to, but we can't. We recommend, therefore, that as the process of developing EFF continues, it be done with an eye on creating products that are readily adapted for classroom use. Finally, we fear the possibility that the holistic, learner centered vision of EFF may be reduced to a set of overly general standards and yet another standardized test which doesn't relate to the experience of the learners. On pages 62 and 63 of the Content Standards book, much is made of the need to design "highly standardized tools" and "a new type of test". We fear that such an aim may reflect a narrowing of the principles EFF seems to embrace. We recognize that creating an efficient evaluation system/tool is a major challenge. As practitioners, we tend to view standardized tests as something we do not because it contributes to learning, but because it is required by someone other than the learner. While we are accustomed to working with standardized tests, and understand their purpose, we do not consider them to be especially learner-centered. We feel, as we have stated earlier, that EFF does much to maintain the broader support for holistic, content-based, learner centered instruction which engaging the learners in knowledge acquisition that builds on their strengths and has a clear connection to their lives. We only hope that as the development of a performance measurement system continues, this focus is not narrowed. In closing, we would like to extend our thanks to the practitioners, researchers, and other who are part of the EFF development process for its extensive efforts to remain open to as many stakeholders as possible. We hope that the concerns raised in this letter, our past notes to your list, and our official study circle report will be of value. Respectfully, NCSALL EFF/Rhode Island Standards Study Circle Participants
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:46:22 EST