Return-Path: <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9BJ5Z925746; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <D55F08E5DD33D411A655009027543211314EC4@cotr1.cotr.bc.ca> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Bennett, Gina" <BENNETT@cotr.bc.ca> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WORKPLACE:3790] RE: Evaluation and Standardized testing 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: 3653 Lines: 74 Larry, I think that you are "right on" with your analysis of what happens, what doesn't happen, and what is not going to happen in workplace literacy programs. A couple of years ago, I was involved in a workplace literacy project in the urban (Halifax-Dartmouth) area of Nova Scotia. I was, technically, assigned to prepare employees in health care facilities to pass the GED. In one particular workplace, I had a class of 15 students with highly-varied backgrounds. THis was the third group of a three-chance program, so I had the "last" possible applicants -- the ones who had either failed to qualify before or were too scared to sign up for either of the two previous GED offerings. One woman had only a Grade 6 academic background, and had been out of school for almost 50 years! My students were an absolutely WONDERFUL group. During our ten weeks (40 hours) the students changed from being fearful, reluctant or dependant learners, to working 2 hours outside class for every hour spent in class -- and asking for more! Supervisors reported increased confidence levels, increased independant thinking, and greatly increased inter-departmental communication. Nevertheless, over half my class failed the GED and I felt devastated. When I re-frame the experience using your criteria, I can see that we really accomplished a great deal. THanks for the insight. Gina Bennett College of the Rockies -----Original Message----- From: Mikulecky, Larry J. [mailto:mikuleck@indiana.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:16 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-WORKPLACE:3785] RE: Evaluation and Standardized testing Heidi: The face-to-face contact time in workplace literacy programs, indeed in most adult literacy programs, is usually less than 50 hours. This, all by itself, isn't sufficient practice time to make much impact on general literacy standardized tests. If a general literacy standardized test is the ONLY measure of success, there is a problem. The evaluators aren't measuring enough to capture all that a program is doing. I think part of the solution is recognizing that learner literacy practice must also occur and increase outside the literacy classroom (at home and on the job). This means that one aspect of program success is the degree to which the learner's goals have been engaged and the degree to which habits have been changed to include literacy away from the classroom. A person with changed habits and goals is likely to continue with literacy growth and this is an important program goal. These things can be assessed and I think ought to be. In addition, a good deal of research has documented that gains with the sorts of literacy one has been practicing with occur long before transfer to broad, general literacy occurs. For this reason, part of program and learner assessment in workplace literacy programs should also include measures of increased comprehension and mastery with the specialized materials which have been integrated into the workplace literacy program. I don't think the problem is that general standardized tests are being used. A fifty contact hour program which has also gotten students to practice a couple of hours outside of class for each hour inside may have impact on general literacy. I think the problem is that in some programs ONLY standardized tests are being used and other program goals (eg. improved ability with workplace literacy, changed goals and behaviors, improved literacy strategies, improved productivity, increased confidence and willingness to take futher training, etc.) are not also being assessed and taken into account. Larry Mikulecky
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:42:44 EST