Hi Virginia,
 
Thank you so much for your thoughts on this.
 
Regarding the GED issue - if you track the students via data match, then
I believe a program can get credit for that achievement even if the
student has left your program - up to 12 months upon exiting your
program.  That's the way it's done here in Massachusetts.  Others?  What
are you thoughts on this?  Do others use data match for some of the
goals achievement?
 
Also, I'm a bit surprised by your comment that you see no need to change
policy - but you note that "Time is an arbitrary introduced due to
funding cycle." Wouldn't it be a good thing if we did change this issue
of time so that it addressed the learning process instead of the funding
cycle?
 
Marie Cora
Assessment Discussion List Moderator
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov]
On Behalf Of Virginia Tardaewether
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:16 PM
To: The Assessment Discussion List
Subject: [Assessment 527] Re: Measuring Education Gains in Adult
Literacy
 
Do you think that the present system of testing annually is effective or
not?  Why?
I think testing should be done on a more project based model.  I
wouldn't assess my field workers, on stream monitoring team once a year;
I'd assess them on their project and it would be daily, weekly, monthly
or every 6 weeks.  Assessment should be linked to the reason for it.  If
one is assessing to build a program for a student, it should be tried
out for a bit then checked to see if it is working.  Twice a year
doesn't seem to be enough, but many of our classes meet only 2 hours a
week or 4, so common sense has to come into play also.  One doesn't want
to spend what little class time one has doing assessments.  Students are
only interested in assessment if it tells them something useful:
instructors should listen to students in this matter.  We need to figure
out how to use assessments to inform instruction instead of running two
side by side systems. If I assessed my water monitoring crew once a
year, an entire year of data would be invalid and all that time would be
wasted.  I think instructors need to have their fingers on the heartbeat
of learning and assessment need to be the fuel for that learning.
 
What are some of the consequences of an annual assessment cycle? 
Too little too late
What do you think would be a good timeframe for measuring learning gains
of adult students?  Why?
A systematic way to capture student learning gains.  Time is not the
important factor here.  Time is an arbitrary introduced due to funding
cycle.
 
Do you think a timeframe for measuring learning gains is affected by the
level (beginning, intermediate, advanced, etc) of the adult student?  Is
it affected by the subject matter or content - for example, reading,
math, writing, etc?
It makes sense to assess based upon the subject matter covered,
discussed, etc.
 
If our system were based on multi-year funding, how would that affect
other parts of the system like follow-up?  What would be some
suggestions for managing this?
Our students ebb and flow in their lives; they often complete their GED
in times when they are not in our classes.  This means that, while we
have been the instructional inspiration, we often get no credit for
their completion.  This means that an accountability system that was
larger than a year would be useful: 1) for graduation rates and 2) for
tracking students who take longer than a year to complete or to make
gains.
 
What are some of your suggestions for changing our present policy of
testing on an annual basis?
Do you believe that we could change policy on this issue?  How could we
do that?
Institutions have ways to track students through time even if the system
or policy does not address this.  I see no particular need to change the
policy.
 
 
  _____  

From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov]
On Behalf Of Marie Cora
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:07 PM
To: Assessment at nifl.gov
Subject: [Assessment 525] Measuring Education Gains in Adult Literacy
 
Dear Subscribers,
 
I hope this email finds you well. 
 
There has been an interesting discussion regarding this subject taking
place over the past week on the NLA Discussion List.
(http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla/)
 
I have compiled the discussion in user-friendly format and I attach it
here for your convenience - and for your comments, questions, and
suggestions.  I believe that when to test, how often, and what type of
testing is one of our greatest concerns in Adult Literacy in terms of
policy and practice.  What do you think?
 
I would like to hear your thoughts.
 
Please take a little time to read through the discussion, and post here
your ideas.  
 
Here are some questions related to the discussion to spark your
interest:
 
Do you think that the present system of testing annually is effective or
not?  Why?
What are some of the consequences of an annual assessment cycle?
What do you think would be a good timeframe for measuring learning gains
of adult students?  Why?
Do you think a timeframe for measuring learning gains is affected by the
level (beginning, intermediate, advanced, etc) of the adult student?  Is
it affected by the subject matter or content - for example, reading,
math, writing, etc?
If our system were based on multi-year funding, how would that affect
other parts of the system like follow-up?  What would be some
suggestions for managing this?
What are some of your suggestions for changing our present policy of
testing on an annual basis?
Do you believe that we could change policy on this issue?  How could we
do that?
 
Thanks, and I'm very much looking forward to your replies.
 
Marie Cora
Assessment Discussion List Moderator
 
 
 
 
Marie Cora
 <mailto:marie.cora at hotspurpartners.com> marie.cora at hotspurpartners.com
NIFL Assessment Discussion List Moderator
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment
Coordinator, LINCS Assessment Special Collection
http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/assessment/
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20061019/0c74807b/attachment.html