Hello Tom:

Your argument proves that, in many cases, we overlook the term, and speak to 
the underlying meaning that we are trying to purvey with the term.  I can 
see how an economist might pick up this term, understand what it points to, 
but without thinking about the implications of the term's actual meaning 
with regard to the real and remarkable differences we are speaking 
about--about the complex layers of human meaning and development that we 
teach to and can assess (as you say your research shows in ABE and that is 
ignored in funding circles).

But shouldn't we as professional educators pay close attention to the 
technical terms we use?  And cannot/should not we bring these issues to the 
attention of those in and out of our profession who use them?  (Is this an 
"everyone's doing it" argument, or:  It's a Nobel Prize Winner, so 
everything he says must be right?)

It doesn't make sense because:  For instance, certainly, we (and all 
teachers) are trying to develop our understanding and influence on 
motivation, conscientiousness, etc., etc. --all of those remote human 
developmental issues that are foundational to human learning.  (My K-12 
teachers are always looking at these issues and what the fields are up to in 
their theoretical development of them; and EFF is centered around many of 
these issues.)  The general assumption is that we can influence these 
skills, attitudes, etc.

However, even without the other reasons why not to use this term, on its 
surface, it doesn't make sense to

(1) attempt to TEACH to motivational factors or consciensciousness, etc., or 
to ASSESS them with an aim to change/improve them

(2) while purveying that these skills, etc., are non-cognitive.

If they are non-cognitive, do we have any hope of having an influence on 
them?   Or is the end-run aim to just throw out people who have "low 
non-cognitive skills" from our programs--"it's hopeless, these skills are 
non-cognitive"?

Or perhaps in all of the literature that is out there, we are mistaken to 
think that "cognitive" has nothing to do with "learning"?

Regards,

Catherine King
Adjunct Instructor
Department of Education
National University
San Diego, CA



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <tsticht at znet.com>
To: <assessment at nifl.gov>
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 2:13 PM
Subject: [Assessment 2197] Re: ROI and Non-Cognitive Measures of Outcomes in 
ABE


Catherine King: You said  "My argument is that using that term is not going
to bolster the argument for (rightly) focusing on such content. Rather, it
will only help solidify the sense (in the minds of policy-makers) that this
content is not worthwhile pursuing--it's fuzzy and "touchy-feely," and if
its non-cognitive, how can we **know** it or influence it in
education--which is about learning?"


But this is exactly the opposite of what has happened. In my earlier
messages on the Assessment list I reported that James Heckman, the Nobel
prize-winning economist was advising the Obama administration regarding the
ROI on early childhood education and he and his collaborators have been the
primary instigators of the now widely used term "non-cognitive" in
reference to education.


Then later I reported that the President's Council of Economic Advisors in a
2009 report, speaking about the ABE system, stated, "Although "interactive"
skills, such as effective communication and the ability to work well with
others, have not traditionally been studied, nor perhaps valued, by
educators, there is growing awareness of their importance for adult
success. Researchers have highlighted the growing importance of
"non-cognitive" skills in the labor market and argue that a range of
behaviors that reflect "greater student self-awareness, self-monitoring,
and self-control" are key indicators that students are able to effectively
learn and succeed in a modern post-secondary environment." (p. 10)


So it appears that economists who advise the Obama administration regarding
policy for education at both the early childhood and adult education levels
are already using the term "non-cognitive" and in fact they appear to be
advising educators to value these "skills" more.


It is within this policy and research context that I discuss cognitive and
non-cognitive factors in the education of adults and children. I use Leo
Lionni's books, not only because they are examples of beautiful art for
children, but because they bring up important values that illustrate what
the economic researchers and policy advisors to the President are now
emphasing as important in education.


I am finding all this quite interesting!


Tom Sticht



-------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Assessment mailing list
Assessment at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment
Email delivered to cb.king at verizon.net