Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g9PFE8X15803; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <26583D62A957714EAD30C4979B93598266C944@mccmail.fpsnet.org> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Kevin O'Connor" <koconnor@framingham.k12.ma.us> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:223] RE: BEST revision X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 4036 Lines: 47 Hello Carol, Thanks for your thoughtful and hope-giving reply to my message. You are right, we should definitely that the US and State-level DOE for any support they have provided towards developing the BEST Plus. It is easy to look cynically at "The Feds" and ascribe them the worst motives. I definitely appreciate their dedication to getting it right; they want valid data as much as we want to give truly valid data. There is nothing to be learned from data derived from tests that were not designed for the purpose of reporting Oral SPL gains, according to the NRS Descriptors, in a high-stakes environment of accountability for the USDOE, MA DOE, programs, teachers and even students. That's why this revision is needed, and why both the US DOE and those of us out here in the field are pinning a lot of hope on the revision. As I hope I made clear in my message, I respect the work of the original BEST developers. As I said, the test has grown beyond its intended use, and the fact that it is so widely used is testimony to their good work. So Carol, to you and the rest of the BEST Plus test developers, thanks for listening and thanks for the work you are doing in building a more valid and reliable test. I look forward to seeing the new test, and I was really happy to hear that there will be a paper-based version for those programs that may not have much in the way of computer resources. Kevin O'Connor ESL Teacher and Assessment Specialist Framingham Adult ESL 508-626-4282 koconnor@framingham.k12.ma.us -----Original Message----- From: Carol Van Duzer [mailto:carol@cal.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:40 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:222] BEST revision Dear Kevin, It is true that the BEST was developed for a different purpose than for what many programs are using today. That is why the Center for Applied Linguistics is in the process of revising it. The revised version will be appropriate for use in the "high-stakes" environment in which the field finds itself, as well as provide useful information to program staff and the learners. As in the development of the original test, this revision has involved professional language test developers, ESOL practitioners, administrators, and learners from across the United States (including your state of Massachusetts). They serve as members of our Technical Working Advisory Board, item writers, field testers, and participants in the reliability and validity studies. Our language testing experts have ensured that the revisions are in line with the current standards for education and psychological testing of the AERA, APA, and NCME. Thus, we think the field will find that the revisions take into account many of things you mentioned in your posting as well as others that we felt could be improved upon. For example, the revision focuses on assessing oral English proficiency as opposed to curricular competencies. Thus, many of your concerns referring to specific test items in the original BEST are no longer applicable to the revision. Furthermore, the new items and the! scoring rubric incorporate developments in language acquisition and proficiency assessment that have emerged over the past 20 years since the original BEST was developed. Again, we believe the revision to the BEST addresses your main concerns. We are working hard to make it available by the spring of next year. We sincerely hope that, once the test becomes available in both a computer-based and paper-based versions next spring, you will take a good look at it in light of these concerns. You can find additional information about the revised BEST on our website www.cal.org/BEST/compBEST.htm I'll be happy to answer any other questions that you (or others) may have about the BEST or BEST Plus. Please write to the email address below. Carol Carol H. Van Duzer National Center for ESL Literacy Education Center for Applied Linguistics 202-362-0700 carol@cal.org visit our website at www.cal.org/ncle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:46:26 EST