I might have an idea, but it depends on what Josie is looking for and  
how she wants to use it.  I don't know of a program that will teach  
reading.  I have seen something simple for learning colors which is  
good for students who would like to use the computer.  However, it  
may not be the best use of limited class time.  Will of the students  
be using a computer at the same time?

SB
On Jan 16, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Miriam Burt wrote:


> 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

>

> 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 (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%20final%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

>

> From: 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] 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!

> ----------------------------------------------------

> 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 bishopsl at cc.usu.edu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/englishlanguage/attachments/20080116/32322744/attachment.html