Hi Lynne 
 
I don't usually promote commercial products on the listserv but it is
great to see teachers in the US promoting Protea software which we have
used for years and have in our library. We think the software  is really
great and we are not even Australians!!!!
There are a range of other products that Protea distribute which are
useful too including Issues in English and their new product Spelling
Fusion 
 
If anyone is interested in finding out more I have cced Heather Kaufman
from Protea into this post so people can contact her directly 
 
I have found Heather to be really approachable and helpful over the many
years we have worked with her 
 

Regards


 

Susan Reid

Manager, Learning and Development 

 

Workbase: The New Zealand Centre for Workforce Literacy Development 

2 Vermont Street, Ponsonby - PO Box 56571, Dominion Road, Auckland 1446
Phone: 09 361 3800 - Fax: 09 376 3700           
Website: www.workbase.org.nz <http://www.workbase.org.nz/>  - Email:
sreid at workbase.org.nz 
 
Caution - This email and its contents contain privileged information
that is intended solely for the recipient.  If you are not the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this email is prohibited.  If you have
received this email in error please notify admin at workbase.org.nz
<mailto:admin at workbase.org.nz>  immediately.  Any views expressed in
this email are of the sender and may not necessarily reflect the views
of Workbase: The New Zealand Centre for Workforce Literacy Development.


________________________________

From: englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Lynne Weintraub
Sent: Friday, 18 January 2008 5:02 a.m.
To: The Adult English Language Learners Discussion List
Subject: [EnglishLanguage 2076] Re: software suggestions


Try Protea Software's "The Alphabet" and "Interactive Picture
Dictionary."
 
You can find them here: http://www.englishsoftware.com.au/esl/pr_esl.htm

Lynne Weintraub
Amherst MA




________________________________

	Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:38:32 -0500
	From: mburt at cal.org
	To: englishlanguage at nifl.gov
	Subject: [EnglishLanguage 2067] Re: software suggestions
	
	
	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/20080118/8d0a1385/attachment.html