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 iAN9VNQ23099; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:31:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:31:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <51726133.234911D8.0004C68E@aol.com> 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: HthKar@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:752] Re: The problem situation (reading X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 2699 Lines: 5 However, though it may look from our standards as if solutions have been found to squaring all sorts of circles, I do not think that in practice this is the case. A number of assessment 'instruments' has been devised based on the standards OR curriculum (it is important to realise that these are not the same, having been written by different sets of people for different agencies) and I think that there is room to doubt whether the results of assessments based upon these tools would correlate. For example, it could be that a person who has passed a summative test which operationalises the standards in one way would come out as being at a lower level when assessed using the 'screening instrument'. Further, I think that much of the final 'curriculum' is, and this is not intended as a criticism of the work of those who completed it, no doubt under severe pressures of time etc, format driven. I personally question for example a progression ladder that says that learners should be PREVENTED from writing complex sentences till they have mastered compound ones on the grounds that all sorts of things which native speakers would naturally say are much harder to say if not impossible without subordinating conjunctions. Example I had something to eat because I was hungry. You would have to make sure that they said I was hungry and I had something to eat, leaving the 'causation' bit to be implied. Further, how do you explain to a learner who is deemed by virtue of being at a certain level incapable of grasping the nature of a complex sentence that they are not supposed tobe attempting them. ALso, the thing is underpinned by as far as I can see 'mastery' expectations, ie only one or two minor errors are allowed. We are expected to teach something small and precise till it is learned, and this fits in with the idea of small steps for learners who find things difficult, but there is a risk of wholly distorting the nature ofthe subject. I should also point out that the same standards (though not the same curriculum) are used both for native speakers of ENglish as a first language and for what we call 'ESOL' speakers. I am not sure that the same basic progression ladders are appropriate for these learners. In fact I very much doubt it, but if I went for more training in teaching ESOL in an attempt to find out I would be on a hiding to nothing since all the training now is in terms of applying the framework not asking what the empirical or theoretical basis of it is. You get trained to map bits of language to the curriculum for audit purposes, basically. Some tools are used both with native speakers and with ESOL learners and this too I would question.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:24 EST