Thank for your question, Josie.
I haven't been in the classroom for a few years, so I don't really know
what's current in software for adult English language learners,
especially for those at the literacy level. Is there software out there
for them? 
 
How about you all on the list? any suggestions for Josie?
 
I can suggest you click on  

http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/SoftwareEvalGuidelines.pdf
<http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/SoftwareEvalGuidelines.pdf> 

for guidelines to evaluate software that is being used or considered for
use.
 
Other thoughts, anyone, on this topic?
 
Miriam
*********
Miriam Burt
Center for Adult English Language Acquisition
Center for Applied Linguistics
4646 40th Street NW
Washington, DC 20016
(202) 362-0700, ext. 556 (phone)
(202) 363-7204 (fax) 
mburt at cal.org <mailto:mburt at cal.org>  (email)


________________________________

	From: englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of
josiekrame at aol.com
	Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:21 PM
	To: englishlanguage at nifl.gov
	Subject: [EnglishLanguage 2066] software suggestions
	Importance: Low
	
	

	Miriam et al,
	
	Please suggest some software for low literacy ESOL students.
ASAP.  Thank you so much!
	
	Josie Kramer
	
	Cleveland, OH
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Miriam Burt <mburt at cal.org>
	To: The Adult English Language Learners Discussion List
<englishlanguage at nifl.gov>
	Sent: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 4:48 pm
	Subject: [EnglishLanguage 2049] Re: New Study on NRS Level Gain
UsingBESTPlus
	
	
	List participants:
	Frank Finamore, from the Center for Applied Linguististics, asks
that I post the message below to the list for him.
	(By the way, if you can't click on the URL given for the policy
guidance [I couldn't] you can get there as I did by copying the URL and
then pasting it in the address bar.) 
	Best,
	Miriam Burt
	 

		Many thanks to all of you who commented on the Center
for Applied Linguistics' digest, "Effects of Instructional Hours and
Intensity of Instruction on NRS Level Gain in Listening and Speaking."
As the digest points out, this was a descriptive study conducted by CAL,
analyzing data from two state partners, Illinois and Massachusetts. The
study was limited, but our intent was to provide the field with some
quantitative data about the relationship between instructional hours,
level of intensity, and NRS level gain. We agree, as the digest and
Larry Condelli point out, that further research is needed. Although this
digest doesn't answer all of our research questions, it is extremely
important for those of us in the field to begin discussing the issues
addressed and identifying future research opportunities. We would
welcome the opportunity to partner with others interested in furthering
the research in this area. 
		Concerning the questions raised regarding CAL's guidance
on hours of instruction and post-testing, it is worth noting that our
recommendation (as defined in the State Assessment Policy Guidance, p.
6, available at
http://www.nrsweb.org/docs/Assessment%20policy%20guidance%20revised%20fi
nal%20May%202006a.doc
<http://www.nrsweb.org/docs/Assessment%20policy%20guidance%20revised%20f
inal%20May%202006a.doc> ) of 60 hours minimum, with 80-100 hours
recommended is in fact a "recommended minimum," as stated in the title
of the column in the policy guidance chart -- Recommended Pre- and
Post-testing Timelines. In the same chart, we've provided further
guidance for programs and states to consider when determining when
post-testing may occur. CAL's Adult ESL Assessments Advisory Committee
will meet in April, and we plan to review and possibly modify these
recommendations. In the interim, these recommended timeframes should be
interpreted as recommendations and not definitive timeframes mandated by
CAL as the test publisher. 
		 

	
	Frank L. Finamore, Jr. 
	Product and Service Lines Director
	(202) 355-1586 
	
	
	Center for Applied Linguistics
	Improving communication through better understanding of language
and culture
	www.cal.org <http://www.cal.org/best> 
	


________________________________

		From: englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov
<mailto:englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov?> ] On Behalf Of Condelli,
Larry
		Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:51 AM
		To: The Adult English Language Learners Discussion List
		Subject: RE: [EnglishLanguage 2044] Re: New Study on NRS
Level Gain UsingBESTPlus
		
		
		Eduardo, Steve and others,
		 
		The connection between classroom hours or attendance
done at a highly aggregated level as in the CAL study is always very
tenuous.  That is, there is generally a weak relationhip between
attendance and learning as measured by standardized tests like the BEST
Plus-- often studies find no relationship.  This is true even in the
K-12 arena.  While this might seem strange at first, if you think of all
the factors that go into instruction, what learners actually do, learner
characteristics, prior background, classroom environment, etc., it
perhaps is less surprising. . 
		Classroom based instruction does not work miracles: the
relative proportion of of time spent in class, especially for 
		adults, is quite small and everyoen, adutls and
children, learn outsideof the classroom. This points to the need of more
detailed look at learning, especially for adults as demonstrated in
recent logitudinal students (Reder and others), as SDteve notes.  But I
do think there is value to such analyses as CAL's in that it points out
possible relationships and raises questions for further study.
		 
		In my own research on literacy level ESL students, we
found that proportion of time attended had a positive impact on (the
old) BEST scores.  That is, students that attended a larger proportion
of available time improved more on the BEST.  So, for example, if the
class met 10 hours per week, students who attended an average of 8 of
those hours (80%) gained more than students who attended an average of 4
hours per week (40%), all else being equal.  This relationship held no
matter how many total hours of attendance a student had.  I think this
relationship was due at least partly to motivation -- more motivated
students attend more regualrly and learn more.
		
		As for the number of students in adult ESL stated in the
CAL report, this  represents the students in the federally funded state
(WIA Title II) program). California has many more adult ESL students in
other, state funded programs and of course there are many other ESL
students in programs funded through other sources.
		 
________________________________

		From: englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of
Eduardo Honold
		Sent: Tue 1/8/2008 6:25 PM
		To: The Adult English Language Learners Discussion List
		Subject: [EnglishLanguage 2044] Re: New Study on NRS
Level Gain UsingBESTPlus
		
		
		Steve and others,
		 
		I was also surprised by the seemingly erratic nature of
the results in Table 6 of the CAL study that related hours of
instruction to educational functional gains.  A clearer picture begins
to appear when you do a simple z-test to determine whether the % of
completions of students who had more than 60 hours of instruction is
statistically significant compared to the baseline.  As it turns out
there are very few significant differences in the table, with the
exception of Beginning Literacy students,  among whom t the difference
in the % of completions is statistically significant in comparison to
the baseline after 80 hours of instruction.  Interestingly, there are no
significant results for Low Beg. ESL, High Intermediate ESL, and
Advanced ESL.  There is a statistically significant difference in
completion rates for High Beginning ESL after 120 hours of instruction
and for Low Intermediate ESL after 140 or more hours.  Seemingly
incomprehensible drops in the level of completions for some of the
groups with more hours of instruction are very small and probably not
statistically significant.
		 
		Some of these results may be an artifact of the study's
sampling strategy.  Beginning Literacy ESL shows the most significant
improvement in hours of instruction, and, not surprisingly, the sample
size for those groups are much larger (e.g. 1720 for Beg. Literacy vs.
252 for Advanced ESL), as a result some of the sub-groups are very
small, and may lead to statistically insignificant results.    For
instance, the sample size for Low Beginning students who received
120-139 hours of instruction is only 37; as a result, the improvement
from 75% to 86% in completions was rendered statistically insignificant.
With a sample size of at least 200 that same result would have been
statistically significant.   Clearly, the study needs to have a much
larger sample for each group. 
		 
		I concur with Steve's observation that level of
completions found in this sample was much higher compared to the
national ESL population (congratulations MA and IL), but it may have
also contributed to the relatively low impact that hours of instruction
had on the completion rates of Low and High Beginning ESL.  Both of
these groups started a very high level of completions (75% and 72%) with
less than 60 hours of instruction.  There just wasn't a lot of room for
improvement there.
		 
		Considering the nature of the study, many of the
findings are inconclusive or "descriptive" as the study calls them, so I
am not quite ready to dismiss the impact of teaching hours on
attainment, and I believe we do have other (better) studies that support
this connection.  I hope CAL will produce a study that actually answers
some of these questions.
		 
		While we are speculating, however, the data in the study
does raise some questions about the requirement that students receive 60
hours of instruction before taking a  post-test with the BEST Plus.
According to CAL's own data there is no statistically significant
difference in the completion rates of students receiving less than 60
hours compared to those in the 60-79 hour range for all functional
levels.  In the meantime many programs across Texas (and across the
country I assume) are no longer able to count completions they would
have obtained from students who leave untested before the 60 hours.  Is
there a clear rationale for this rule?
		 
		 
		 
		Eduardo Honold
		ehonol at sisd.net
		 
		
________________________________

		From: englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov
<mailto:englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov?> ] On Behalf Of Steve Kaufmann
		Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:54 PM
		To: The Adult English Language Learners Discussion List
		Subject: [EnglishLanguage 2042] Re: New Study on NRS
Level Gain Using BESTPlus
		 
		More hours of classroom instruction, and more intense
instruction, should lead to better results, otherwise why bother? The
real question is how much improvement is required to justify the time
and money expended by learners, teachers and tax-payers. 
		
		1.2 million adults are enrolled in federally funded
adult ESL classes in the United States.  36% of these students attained
a measurable  educational level gain after a course of instruction.  In
this survey of 6,599 adults, 60% showed improvement. Obviously being in
a survey has a big impact on improvement results!
		
		Almost half (49%) of the ESL learners in the survey were
at level 0 and 1 on the SPL scale, i.e. "no ability whatsoever' or
"functions minimally if at all in English." Almost 20% were Low and High
Beginner level learners (2 and 3 on the scale). Level 3 is described as
"understands simple learned phrases, spoken slowly with frequent
repetitions". At the other end of the scale 7% of the adults surveyed
were Advanced or level 6 on the  scale, described as " can satisfy most
survival needs and limited social demands." Even the advanced learners
were still at a basic level.
		
		>From the tables in the report,it appears that the
biggest factor affecting grade improvement was not hours of instruction
but the level of the learner. Beginner learners (level 2 and 3 on the
scale) improved the most and were the least affected by the amount of
instruction. Of those Low and High Beginners who had the least amount of
instruction ( between 2 and 60 hours) almost 75% still managed to
improve, whereas this only went up to 84% for those who had between 140
and up to 512 hours of instruction, i.e. probably at least 3 times as
many hours of classroom instruction . We are told in the report that
78%, or almost 4 out of 5 of these Low and High Beginner learners
improved regardless of the number of hours of instruction. 
		
		The largest group, those with essentially no English
skills(49%), as well as the most advanced group (7%), showed the lowest
level of improvement, but seemed to benefit the greatest from
instruction. The report does not explain this nor the fact that the rate
of improvement  sometimes declines with increased instruction.(see
tables) 
		
		Intensity of instruction does not have a great affect on
results. The largest group ( 57%) studied an average of 4.5 hours per
week and 61% of these learners showed measurable improvement on the
scale. However 31% of the survey group had less than 2.8 hours per week
of instruction and yet 56%  still managed to improve. The intense group,
roughly 12% of the learners, studied more than 9.3 hours per week.
Despite more than double the hours of instruction, compared to the
middle group, the percentage of learners with measurable improvement
only increased from 61% to 66%. Again it was the Low and High Beginners
who improved the most, with the least impact from instructional
intensity.
		
		To me the conclusion is that class instruction obviously
does help but not as much as is often assumed. Instead, I suspect that
what really matters is what the learner does outside the classroom. As
the report says, an adult ESL learner has limited time to spend,
"typically 4 and 8 hours per week". Surely we should focus on finding
ways to enable these learners to create more time for learning. In other
words we should find ways to make it easier and more effective for them
to learn outside the classroom, and to encourage them to do so, instead
of trying to justify bringing them to class. Classroom time does not
seem to have  a decisive impact on their improvement.

	----------------------------------------------------
	National Institute for Literacy
	Adult English Language Learners mailing list
	EnglishLanguage at nifl.gov
	To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go
to 
	http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/englishlanguage
	Email delivered to josiekrame at aol.com
	
________________________________

	More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003> !
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/englishlanguage/attachments/20080116/7d60ee32/attachment.html