Has use of EFF changed the organizational culture or structure of the program?
The teachers at Genesis represent many years of training and experience in adult ESOL education. One teacher, Anna Illingworth, has been teaching ESOL at The Genesis center for 17 years, mostly at the very beginning level. Nancy Fritz, Michele Rajotte and Patricia Clarkin have masters in teaching ESOL. Betsy Meany and Ginny Burke have more than five years adult ESOL experience. Steve Tynan worked for three years with an intergenerational ESOL program at Brown University before joining our staff.
In recent years, The Genesis Center adult ESOL faculty has more clearly defined our own philosophy of learner-centered education with the 'whole person'. Each teacher develops his/her own methods for drawing on the learners needs in each class, at each ESOL level and when possible, to involve learners in curriculum and lesson planning. Through team process and partnering, teachers share ideas and methods. During the past two years we have identified the ways in which our 'whole person' approach compliments many aspects of EFF including the 'role maps' and 'common activities' concepts. Our teachers initially reacted to the EFF vision in ways that Sue Rowley noted - "this isn't new, we already view our practice in this way."
Our 'whole person' educational philosophy has led Genesis to develop a multi-faceted program including on site childcare, intergenerational/family literacy, community health education, leadership development, community service projects, occupational training and more. Our staff supports what we perceive to be the EFF vision, and are now in the process of identifying how the EFF vision can further improve our practice. We are aware that a more part time, less comprehensive program, with isolated classes, may have more challenges in integrating the EFF concepts.
Genesis teachers recommend that experienced teachers be introduced to pieces of EFF in clear stages, beginning with the role maps and standards outline, allowing each teacher to reflect on how it relates to her practice.
Genesis practitioner Betsy expressed her view as follows: "When you are faced with all the parts of it at once, EFF is huge and confusing. Some of it seems to complicate the ideas and process more than is necessaryÉ.But the Role Maps and Content Frameworks are excellent. They provide something teachers can relate to. We can see our own practice in them, and they provide a structure for looking at what we are doing."
Michele also stated, "experienced teachers need to see how something relates to what we do already. EFF reminds me of being in graduate school. When you teach for a long time, and you love it, you remember the ideas and the theories, but you establish your own methods and style, and make a lot of decisions by feeling and instinct. I don't think this contradicts what EFF says. You're not going to throw away what you're doing if it works for you, but the EFF frameworks can help you capture what you are doing."
Ginny clearly identified ways that EFF has helped her address more explicitly the need to support strategies to gain VOICE in decision-making processes. "Usually, I start each day with conversation to identify where each learner is, any part of their lives they want to share, any issue or problem they want to solve. We are working on some issues here in our own childcare, and are working on putting the issues in writing. Our learners often don't believe anyone will listen to them. We are exploring protocols, such as putting it in writing, asking for an answer by a certain date, and developing strategies to get answers. EFF has helped me define this purpose more clearly."
Because of the strength of the EFF vision and it's comprehensive nature, The Genesis teachers recommend that new teachers should be introduced to EFF as part of their training and/or orientation to any adult education site. Within existing programs, Genesis practitioners feel that the staff and learners MUST be introduced in a way that will allow practitioners to OWN the process of integration.
Activities we are using, and responses within our team include the following:
1) We found it useful to consider the Role maps and purposes for learning in terms of our own lives, our own learning process. Genesis teachers wanted to stretch the definitions to be sure we are viewing them in the broadest, most creative and comprehensive possible way, respecting differing adult 'roles' in all cultures.
2) The Genesis practitioners embrace most fully the Four Purposes. Through our discussion each teacher has identified the ways that these definitions are a part of what they already integrate into lesson planning. We have decided to adopt the four purposes as the most explicit curricular piece in all classes. The purposes will be listed on posters in each classroom to provide points of reference, a 'vocabulary to guide the learning process' for both teachers and learners. (Their use in beginning level ESOL will be discussed in a later post).
3) Anna and Michele are both artists, and Betsy has special interest in cultural arts and creative vision. Creative expression is not mentioned explicitly in EFF materials, yet is often a vital and defining element in the learning process. We recognize that 'Culture, Value and Ethics' is one of the knowledge domains, however our practitioners expressed concern that culture and artistic expression appear marginalized in the complex structures of the EFF vision for frameworks and standards. These aspects will be discussed further in answering questions about ESOL application.
PART TWO Topic #1: Introducing EFF and providing support to teachers and learners engaged in learning these content areas and skills:
- How can directors/coordinators become familiar and comfortable with the standards?
- What has been the impact of teachers using EFF on administrators?
- Has the use of EFF changed the organizational structure?
ANSWERS (Sally, reflecting on process with teachers)
The short answer for ways administrators/coordinators can embrace EFF is: "to use them is to know them." As administrator, I did have more contact with the developing EFF process than most of the teachers. But I did not begin to be 'familiar and comfortable with the standards' until I entered into dialogue with our instructional team. At the Genesis Center we are able to employ seven full time teachers for our day program (20 hours) as well as four additional part time instructors for evening and work site classes. We have organized in recent years a system of instructional 'teams', and meet together weekly for planning and dialogue.
Through work with the New England Literacy Resources Center, we began exploring the EFF development process in 1995. Two teachers became part of the pilot process for the Civic Responsibility/ Community Member Role map application. We also continued with our exploration of EFF as a staff during 1998/99 through a state grant, beginning to introduce the frameworks to staff, and encouraging integration with all lesson planning. The state grant provided us with additional staff development time to continue our exploration of EFF for Genesis. In our experience, both administrators/coordinators and teachers can only become 'comfortable and familiar' with the frameworks and standards through planning, critical reflection, application and work with learners, and evaluation dialogue. Just reading and talking isn't enough
EFF impacts staff and learners at Genesis as we evaluate our process in light of EFF frameworks and standards, and decide how and what to integrate in our practice. We are aware that the EFF frameworks (purposes, common activities, skills and knowledge domains) were drawn from work with learners and practitioners in the field. Our experienced teachers have expressed the need to understand and integrate EFF on their own terms. Working through the vision and concepts of EFF has heightened the critical dialogue within our instructional team, as we link EFF standards based curriculum planning to our 'whole person' approach and practice.
EFF hasn't so much changed the organizational structure as it has confirmed our evolving process. I noted above that Genesis has moved towards team-based administration and practice. We do not accept the idea of a 'top down' system, and have distributed decision-making and responsibilities among faculty in various ways. We believe this team management approach is essential for any program implementing EFF ideas. We do not believe EFF can be mandated. As we will discuss in the coming postings, we are struggling with application and integration at the beginning ESOL levels. In our experience, teachers must 'muck around' in the ideas, find what excites and challenges them, and develop ownership on their own terms for successful integration. We are still 'a works in process'.
On choosing to use the EFF Content Standards, how, when and why
Contributing to this dialogue are adult ESOL teachers Nancy Fritz, Michele Rajotte, Anna Illingworth, Ginny Burke, Pat Clarking, Betsy Meany, and Steve Tynan
- What do you think about using the EFF standards as compared to other educational standards that you know about and use? What are those other standards?
(Sally reporting from discussions with staff at Genesis): We are just beginning to thoroughly analyze the EFF standards as a whole, examining their implications and utility for use with ESOL curriculum, lesson planning and evaluation. As I noted in the former posting, we have embraced the purposes and role maps as tools to build a learner centered curriculum.
For ESOL learners at all levels, English fluency is a tool for improving quality of life as family member, worker and community member. For several of our practitioners, the first contact with the many dimensions of Equipped for the Future was confusing and overwhelming. Several found it 'too complicated to be useful', and the components 'over-analyzed'. But as we have begun to work with the standards, teachers have found them useful and challenging. Our staff likes the presentation of the standards - with the purposes, roles, and common activities on the same page, stimulating them to consider the dynamic between various elements
The Genesis center staff has been working most intensively with the Communications Skills standards, as readers may well understand, for our ESOL based programming. Our staff found the content standards themselves to be comprehensive. We like the way they reflect 'communicative' approach to language skills, focusing equally on reading, writing, speaking and listening. We found that the first performance item in each of the five standard categories was a powerful reminder to establish purpose for the communicative activity. (Determine the purpose for reading, writing, speaking, listening, and viewing). The standards are well-grounded in reading, writing and language learning theory and instructional strategies, which have been validated through classroom research.
The State of Rhode Island drafted very general ESOL standards about five years ago, but few programs including The Genesis Center have used them for curriculum or evaluation design. During the last two years we have been looking at other state ESOL standards, as well as those drafted by TESOL. These have been useful in our recent revision of the Genesis Curriculum and Learner Evaluation Guide. But these standards focus on the entire English language instructional environment, including agency structure and planning, recruitment, instructional curriculum content, methodology, assessment, and staff development.
Most of these standards have 'functional' application guidelines, and begin with the more defined focus on the language learning rather than the generic scope of adult learning as outlined in EFF. (See Question #3 responses for more detailed discussion, particularly concerning content/performance standards for ESOL.) Staff comments in this process has included:
"This helps me see the relationship, and gives me ideas for how to connect roles, purposes and content standards in my lesson planning."
"I like them, but the standards are still too complicated and overly analytical: I need to see direct application to lesson planning."
"The standards encourage self-monitoring: They encourage learners to reflect on what they have learned. This can be a difficult concept in ESOL classrooms where learners struggle with language for concepts, for abstracts. I am working on ways to develop this idea in my classes."
On goal setting with learners:
- Do learners set individual goals around the standards, or are group goals created? If it's the latter, do learners help set these goals or do the teachers set these? If goals are not created around the standards, what are they based on?
Genesis teachers and learners are not yet using EFF standards directly in the goal setting process. Each teacher establishes classroom goals, evaluating the needs and individual goals at the beginning of each semester, and developing bench-marks for the kinds of learning outcomes she/he hope to find among learners in the class. Several teachers have piloted use of the role maps as guides to goal setting, to establish goals in various areas of the learner's life, but do not want to limit the possible 'adult roles' or goals.
Teachers report their class 'portraits' to me (Adult Programs Director) along with portfolio design and anecdotal information. I use these as the basis for qualitative/narrative evaluation and reporting for each program/grant source. Note: At Genesis we have an informal placement instrument, and use the BEST test to provide quantitative results for grants and programs requiring these outcomes. We look forward to finding/developing an acceptable assessment/evaluation instrument and/or system, which can give a more comprehensive picture of the adult language learning process.
Teams at each ESOL level at The Genesis Center are working on strategies for goal setting, and for a process evaluation system for learners with their goals. Our formal system for goal setting and attainment is used for programs requiring Case Management and specific outcomes such as employment or further education. We would be interested in how other ESOL programs are using the EFF standards for learner goal setting, self-evaluation and program outcome evaluations.
As far as 'hitting all the standards' - we have not yet moved into working with the decision making and life long learning skills standards for application to our curriculum and assessment system. Our process is as follows: we are reviewing and working with the communications skill standards. We are 'in the process' of aligning our curriculum guide with these standards in so far as they are appropriate at each level (see next posting for discussion of beginning level ESOL). We will be discussing in depth the decision-making, interpersonal and technical skills and standards during 2000.
Sally
On using EFF to design curriculum and implement instruction in an ESOL program
PART ONE
We recognize that a major PURPOSE, which is part of EFF, for adults who are coming to school is to improve skills (language, academic, interpersonal, etc.) in order to be better prepared to support the learning of their children. Genesis has an active intergenerational literacy as well, with a majority of Latino families, but others also including Laotian, Hmong, Haitian, Russian,
Cambodian.
Our family literacy curriculum is built on learner-generated ideas. Our intergenerational programming is based on supporting and sharing cultural family styles and traditions, as well as posing questions and problems together, and providing resources requested by parents.
Among the EFF generative skills are many which parents must draw on, and most have developed in the family context. These include active listening and critical observation between parents and children; decision-making and problem solving (parents constantly exercise these skills, but do not see how they are transferable: how they already apply them in everyday life); and the WHOLE list of interpersonal skills. We are piloting a list for 'life experience' performance, which can be used to validate skills learners have already perfected in the context of family and parenting. This can be a form of 'life credit' that validates the strengths of the learner.
As far as projects are concerned, our program is project based. This year the parents and children developed their own BIG BOOKS, parents created 'baby books' in English for language practice, and to celebrate what they know about their children's development, and parents from each culture taught children's songs, to celebrate music around the world.
One final note: for every activity, the parent is the teacher. If needed, parents read, or practice, or discuss the project first, then carry it out with their children. This includes Making Decisions and Planning in an ongoing way. We will give an EFF Generative Skills certificate to each parent at the end of the year.
As this discussion indicates, much of 'applying EFF' is finding ways that the EFF frameworks and content standards can aid us in analyzing our existing programs, increasing learner participation, and creating opportunities for learner reflection and validation.
As for other resources: we are part of a special project at Laubach Literacy focusing on family literacy. Check the Laubach website for ideas. Also, check the NIFL main page for references. It's great to share these ideas across cyberspace! Sally
PART TWO
ESOL Applications:
- What impact has EFF on learners? Are they better served then they were before EFF?
Response: When practitioners embrace concepts that enable them to become more equipped to see the whole learner, to become more intentional in planning for instruction, and to involve the learner in the teaching learning process, we at Genesis believe that the learners are better served. In these ways, the intense dialogue to implement EFF in ways appropriate for ESOL learners now taking place at The Genesis center will definitely benefit the learners. In turn, we continue to learn from them and their responses to our efforts.
- How does your learner centered participatory approach for ESOL fit into the EFF frameworks?
As I noted in an earlier post, dialogue about EFF frameworks has helped instructors at Genesis to identify more specific support for certain kinds of language and concept development. We have found it important to harness these ideas in ways that are clear for application right here in our families, in our communities. In our estimation, it is not our task to 'fit' our curriculum decision making into EFF frameworks and content standards, but rather to use EFF as a tool for our own analytical and creative process.
In our dialogue about these questions, teachers discussed the difficulty of working with abstract terms when both English language skills and formal educational background are limited. Our teachers expressed the need to ground conceptual information in experiential terms, in ways that are appropriate to the language level of the learner. EFF is useful for us in examining ways to bring more abstract, conceptual content into our ESOL classrooms. For example, we have begun expanding the definitions for the PURPOSES, and appropriate points of discussion at various ESOL levels as follows:
1. What information do you have problems getting for yourself and your family; how can you ACCESS that information right here in our communities in Providence and Rhode Island? (For us as practitioners, the question is: are we able to direct our learners to the resources, to provide support for learning resource systems in our city?)
2. What does 'VOICE' really mean here in your family, our community, in our state, and in the US? (We decided this is a MAJOR responsibility for ESOL teachers, and one that means exploring fears and misconceptions brought from repressive settings, persecution or war.)
3. Define what 'INDEPENDENT' means to you: what would you like to be able to do on your own that now requires you to be dependent on someone else? (The Genesis staff feels strongly that it is important to explore cultural definitions here, as there are many standards in the world that differ from those in the US.) We feel these more grounded definitions are important for our ESOL classrooms, where language definitions and their applications are the ongoing struggle for our learners. As we do this, we can see that we are challenged to bring more holistic and abstract ideas into our classrooms in ways that involve both teacher and learner.
Introduction of EFF at various ESOL levels:
The teachers at The Genesis Center do not introduce the "role maps' to learners in EFF format, but plan monthly/semester lesson plans looking at various 'life roles' of interest to learners in the class. The content themes come from learner dialogue encouraged at every level. In the
ENGLISH LEVEL 1 AND PRE- 1 LITERACY classes, learners most often express interest in very basic issues within the role map themes: (Family Member) food and shopping, health care for the family, (Community Member) transportation and directions in the community, other community resources such as community center, post office, bank; and (Worker) basic information for job applications.
Like many of you out there, our classes have learners from many cultures and language groups, so there is no bilingual/translated instruction. This means content must be built around developing basic vocabulary and phrase structure using speaking, listening, reading and writing, through Total Physical Response, simple dialogue, and lots of visual clueing. The frameworks apply, but on a very basic level.
Once trust is established in a class, photos and pictures that depict real life issues are powerful generators of language experience. Several of our teachers utilize Elsa Aurbach's interpretation of Paolo Freire and exploration of 'CODES', which we feel compliment the EFF system. Each role presents opportunities to explore the 'CODES' of US society such as the grocery store, work place culture and organization, and the school. We encourage our learners to explore conflicts and contradictions between home country/culture 'CODES' and those of their new home. We find, as I'm sure many of our cyber friends do, that drawing, painting, collage, photos, and video are all ways to address 'role maps' and cultural 'codes'
In LEVEL 2 and 2a classes, (Low Intermediate, High Intermediate) the content choices become more complex, but the process is the same. Some of our instructors post the Role Map information in the classrooms, and teachers may refer to it, but it is not a formal part of lesson planning per se.
More on a 'functional' approach to ESOL:
I would call our thematic approach 'centered on learners' lives and life needs' or ' posing issues and solutions' more than 'functional'. In some classes, learner needs have included spiritual and cultural questions. For some, exploration of history or current events is a driving interest for learning.
- Does your program have a set curriculum that is used with all learners in a particular class, or is curricula developed based on goals expressed by learners when they enter the class? Or is some approach used which combines these two?
At Genesis we definitely embrace the learner-centered approach through which our instructors spend significant time at the beginning of a class working with learners to set goals, and to define learning objectives on an individual and a class basis. Our various instructors have differing ways of accomplishing this, and we are in the process of creating a more defined picture of our standards for this process (goal setting, portfolio building, learner self evaluation processes).
As I noted earlier, we have found it useful to organize our suggestions for functional/thematic activities in our own curriculum guide according to EFF role maps. We are wary, however, of limiting our vision of adult ROLES (See Postings #1 & #2). We have correlated the Level suggestions for language skill competencies with our state and the TESOL standards as well. Our guide provides parallel standards for language skills and EFF role map based, functional applications for three ESOL levels. Our curriculum guide is not a catechism, but a resource to stimulate the creativity of our teaching staff.
Summary statement of this e-query experience:
As I have written earlier, the process of addressing these questions has pushed the adult ESOL teacher teams along in our dialogue with the EFF vision, frameworks and standards. We read the pieces of EFF in stages. We met at various times, in various groupings. We have addressed resistance, and feelings that it's "nothing new, we do this already." We have delved further, and recognized EFF as a tool for a critical process, for program development, professional development, and ongoing creative and dynamic instruction. We say it is a good tool. Not the only tool, but one that brings many pieces together into a whole.
As an agency, we are addressing the issues of evaluation and accountability. Like all adult education programs, we are faced with the contradictions of needing to produce quantitative data using standardized instruments as we realize the limited picture of our world such instruments can produce. Can EFF frameworks and standards help us address this issue? Can we come up with methods for producing 'qualitative pictures' of program and progress that will satisfy our funders, including USDOE? We don't have the answer. Yet. But we are willing to face the challenge. Our learners give us no choice but to try.
We hope our critique and ideas will be part of the EFF 'process record' As Dr. Sondra Stein wrote in one posting, the initiative for EFF came from the challenges of Article 6 in the EDUCATION 2000 document issued by Congress. The NIFL crew used a learner/practitioner-based process to build the EFF vision and it's applications. Then it became a PRODUCT. We hope these postings help a little in keeping the PROCESS.
Sally Gabb & The Genesis Center Staff and Learners.
Institute Home