This discussion now seems to tie into a discussion recently on the Assessment Listserv re: informal assessments as compared to standardized assessments.  I would guess that the main reason we are talking about standardized tests is the NRS or other accountability system that we have to report to. Now, they have as their raison d'être the ability to compare learners across programs - not instruction of individual learners. But, of course, as instructors we want that information and don't really have comparing our learners as a priority. So, why do we agonize about what these tests don't do?

The best solution, I believe, is to use what information they provide, and imbed it into the learning. That way, you will see improvement on these tests when the time comes, but you won't be teaching to the test or expecting to build a curriculum around it. Tom Woods' suggestions about informal assessments as the real work-horse for assessing learning is the right way to go. And there will be published assessments that you will find match your instructional style and your adults learning styles, and that will be great for you.  Years ago I stumbled onto K. Patricia's Cross' "Classroom Assessment Techniques", and I knew I had found a kindred spirit and guide. Keep looking, and you'll find yours, too.

Let the standardized assessment do what it is intended to do, and don't worry that it won't do what you want. Let it be connected to the learning, but not the focal point of learners' knowing that they have learned. We find here that as long as our learners understand what the assessment is about, see it's relevance to their learning and the program's success, then there aren't issues about taking them or interpreting the results. Of course, if you find no points of correlation between the standardized assessment you use and your instruction, then one of them has to change! To keep them disconnected, and just say to the learners "Because we have to, to get the money!" is a solution unworthy of both us as practitioners and our learners.

Howard D.

-----Original Message-----
From: focusonbasics-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:focusonbasics-bounces at nifl.gov] 
At 10:16 PM 2/20/2007, you wrote:

>I don't know how much latitude you are given in your choice of a test,

>but this seems like a perfect opportunity create your own instrument

>that is criterion referenced, which would be so much more informative

>and useful in guiding instruction than a norm referenced test like TABE.

>

>Let me guess and say that basically you want to know how much each

>student progresses as a result of instruction. You need to define the

>areas where you want to see progress. Hopefully they will be the same

>things you'll be working on during instruction. Maybe you will want to

>measure things like word identification, reading fluency, comprehension,

>and maybe grade level. You might choose to ask students to read a graded

>list of words before instruction and after instruction to see if they

>improved their word i.d. skills. You could time their reading of a

>passage to measure fluency. You could ask them questions about the

>passage to gauge their comprehension. For determining grade level, you

>might use an accepted method, such as the Fry Readability Table, to

>determine the grade level of a passage. Then you would ask the student

>to read the passage while you check for accuracy and comprehension. To

>measure progress, you could determine the highest level passage at which

>the reader is proficient, both before and after instruction.

>Alternatively, you could give the student a higher level passage and

>determine his or her proficiency with it. Often, proficiency is gauged

>as Independent, Instructional, or Frustrational. At the beginning of

>instruction your testing might say, "reads 4th grade material at the

>frustrational level." After instruction, your testing might say, "Reads

>4th grade material at the instructional level."

>

>The problem with standardized tests used for this purpose is that they

>really are not able to show how a person progresses. They are designed

>to show how a person's performance compares to others in the same peer

>group. These tests don't answer the question, what can the student do,

>what does the student know? They are only a comparison (i.e. the student

>knows more than some percentage of his or her peers).

>

>Creating your own test might be somewhat more work than the effort you

>place in choosing a standardized test. It is worth the investment,

>however, because you can target your measurements precisely at the

>things you teach your students. You will be more likely to show student

>gains because you're measuring exactly what you're teaching and what

>your students are learning. With a standardized test, it is the

>publisher who chooses what shall be measured, and you will need to

>target your instruction to the same material if you want to be able to

>show gains. If you're doing the teaching, then you should be the ones

>who have control over how you measure what is learned.

>

>Tom Woods

>Community High School of Vermont

>

>

>

>PHCSJean.34425698 at bloglines.com wrote:

>

> >Hi all.

> >Does anyone out there have a test that can be used to measure improvement

> >in the lowest literacy learners? I'm looking at a grant that wants to see

> >learners move from one EFL (educational functioning level) to another in the

> >course of a year. I'm working with pre-literate adult immigrants and I'm not

> >sure that we'll be able to get from Beginning ABE Literacy (no reading) to

> >Beginning Basic Education which is defined as "Individual can read simple

> >material on familiar subjects and comprehend simple and compound sentences

> >in single or linked paragraphs containing a familiar vocabulary; can write

> >simple notes and messages on familiar situations but lacks clarity 

> and focus."

> >

> >

> >When I inquired about it, I was told that I should look to document grwoth

> >with another assessment. TABE is below 367 at this level, CASAS is 200 and

> >below and ABLE at 523. Are any of these granular enough to measure 

> a difference

> >at this level? I'm not super familiar with them.

> >

> >Is there anything else

> >folks have used with pre-literate students to measure success objectively,

> >yet not have the student "fail" 3/4 of the test to measure growth?

> >Thanks!

> >

> >Jean Marrapodi

> >Providence Assembly of God Learning Center

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

> >National Institute for Literacy

> >Focus on Basics mailing list

> >FocusOnBasics at nifl.gov

> >To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/focusonbasics

> >Message sent to WOODSNH at isp.com.

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

>National Institute for Literacy

>Focus on Basics mailing list

>FocusOnBasics at nifl.gov

>To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

>http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/focusonbasics

>Message sent to belzera at rci.rutgers.edu.





Alisa Belzer
Associate Professor
Rutgers University
Graduate School of Education
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ  08901
(732) 932-7496 ext. 8234

----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Focus on Basics mailing list
FocusOnBasics at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/focusonbasics
Message sent to HDOOLEY at riral.org.