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 iAL0CN123752; Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:12:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:12:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <003001c4cf5e$663e4950$3002a8c0@ben2ut66kkx7o3> 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: "Amy R. Trawick" <atrawick@charter.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:734] Re: more on reading & literacy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 6825 Lines: 108 Karen and George (and others), I have been following your quite interesting discussion about language and literacy and wanted to just throw in my two cents since I have been working with EFF's Content Standard Read With Understanding for several years. I was rather intrigued by Karen's comment that reading and writing seemed to be "very marginal" within the EFF framework. Read With Understanding (RWU)and Convey Ideas in Writing were identified as two of the generative skills that adults draw from in their primary adult roles, and none of the 16 skills were weighted as being more or less important than the others. Now, in adult literacy programs, reading, writing, and math tend to get the majority of the attention, so perhaps it takes us aback a little to see these skills as part of a full array of skills. I think, though, that it is important to remember that the identification of the 16 skills was largely descriptive-that is, from research on the key activities in the adult roles, these skills surfaced as ones that cut across mutliple contexts and supported adult performance in all roles. The skills are ones ALL adults draw from, not just "those" who are in adult literacy programs. We all have strengths and weaknesses among that set of 16, contexts within which we are and are not comfortable with our performance. The way this descriptive framework, then, might be used in any educational setting (adult literacy or otherwise) is due in large part to the philosophy and vision of the program, the adult learners, and the teacher/tutors. I would say it is largely up to adult learner and his/her teacher/tutor to determine which skills are relevant to that individual's needs and goals, within the program's identified mission. Also, since the Read With Understanding standard was the standard around which EFF developed its assessment prototype, and the first standard around which a fully-funded professional development module was developed, field-tested and evaluated, this standard has certainly not been marginalized in operation, however it might at first appear when viewed within the complete EFF framework itself. I thought George gave a clear and succinct summary of the how the standards support and were derived from the role maps, but I would like to add a bit about EFF's approach to reading and whole language theory. Although EFF strongly advocates the role of context in facilitating learning and transfer, it has never assumed that simply involving students in project-based learning/real-life situations will magically cause learning to happen. Rather, the purpose in articulating the integrated skill processes captured by the components of each EFF Standard is, in fact, to facilitate these being *explicitly* taught and learned. Of course, because each process *is* integrated these components are rarely, in reality, separated. But pulling out key components of the process allows teachers and learners to talk about them and develop transferable strategies for them. In our work with reading, I would definitely say we are balanced, fully recognizing both the importance of explicit instruction in relevant knowledge, skills, and strategies AND the role that performance in context plays in supporting the learner in negotiating the culturally-embedded and integrated processes inherent in any life-based reading activity. Thus, the RWU Performance Continuum (http://eff.cls.utk.edu/assessment/assessment_tools.htm) provides indicators for the range of key sets of knowledge, skills, and stratgies that adult readers draw from to read with understanding at a particular level of expertise *and* the types of texts, purposes, and settings they might be expected to negotiate with these sets of tools. It also provides life-based, purposeful examples of performance of the standard at that level. Used together, these indicators and examples can contribute to the development of curriculum frameworks which will honor both skill development and contextualized learning. Re: Karen's comment about EFF being mainly an assessment framework: EFF began as a grounded attempt to ascertain why adults enter adult basic education and literacy programs and what they need to know/be able to do in order to accomplish these purposes, and then (here's the hard part) to facilitate the alignment of the adult education and literacy field with these purposes in ways that also support the purposes of funders (and vice-versa). This alignment requires accountability, to both adult learners and funders. There are few assessments "out there" that have the theoretical and research-base of the EFF standards, thus the development of ways to assess many of these standards may be required in order for them to be included within and shape our field in meaningful ways. The development of assessments, then, is a means to the end of contributing to the field of adult literacy *as a field distinct from the K-12 field,* predicated upon the voices of adult learners themselves. To this end, EFF has developed an assessment prototype and performance continua for the standards, but it is not a test publishing company. It can only work with partners who share a common vision to develop valid and reliable assessments that, to this point are focused in nature (as with the RWU prototype assessment tasks http://eff.cls.utk.edu/assessment/assessment_tools.htm and the Workforce Readiness Credential http://eff.cls.utk.edu/work_readiness/default.htm). However, EFF also continues to support other aspects of the adult literacy system, developing tools for professional development, program development, and the teaching/learning setting http://eff.cls.utk.edu/default.htm. Karen: Teaching learners something of the truth about language would also, I think, help some of them understand some of its > difficulties. Amy: I couldn't agree more! Language use assumes (at least!) context, purpose, symbols--and sets of underlying knowledge, skills, and strategies to negotiate these. Providing transparency with students about the role each of these plays in any communication activity, explicitness in how to develop and when to use the tools they might find helpful (though these may be idiosyncratic to a certain degree), and intentionality in facilitating contextualized development--and assessment--of these in the educational setting supports adult learners seeking to participate in new, or to alter their participation in existing, sociocultural contexts. Thanks much. I look forward to hearing others' perspectives! Amy Trawick Coordinator, EFF Reading Project (2001-2003) EFF National Facilitator/Consultant: Teaching Adults to Read With Understanding atrawick@charter.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:23 EST