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 i3DFuTm20465; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20040413155434.M6983@c4k.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: "bodiorne" <bodiorne@c4k.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:506] RE: good practice/CASAS question X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 Status: O Content-Length: 994 Lines: 17 There are two CASAS sets of instruments: one geared for everyday life, and one geared for the workplace (as opposed to the Workforce; CT has developed an assessment tool specifically for use in workforce programs). These detail exhaustively many basic competencies and the skills sets that underly them. The problem is in the analysis of the results: while the competencies are extensively classified in terms of curriculum matrices, the skills sets are not. It isn't clear why a student may have missed a test item; which skill might have been the factor? An other problem is that students (especially ESL from other cultures) may have the skills sets, but the context of the competency might be unfamiliar, so little progress is registered given this particular set of competencies chosen for the text, while in a completely different range of activities the student could show visible progress. Bonnie Odiorne, Ph.D. Program Facilitator ABE/ESL Instructor Employment, Technology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:15 EST