I would also like to heartily applaud the wisdom and creativity of 
instructors in finding a way to make whatever tools they have work for 
their learners.  I think researchers (and I know because I am one) are 
often far too narrow and dismissive in their attitudes.  Teachers 
experiment and collect evidence of what works on a daily basis and that 
experience and the craft knowledge it builds should never be totally 
discounted. There are a lot of measures by which an instructional 
program can be evaluated.  Gains on reading on math tests are important, 
but so are teachers' opinions about the fit between the teaching content 
and methods and learners' goals. 
In a post early this week, I said I would get back to the question of 
what makes EFF standards different from other standards (then the flu 
slowed down my response time considerably).  The first obvious 
difference is that EFF focuses on a broader range of skills than most 
standards.  EFF is not solely focused on improving scores on 
standardized reading and math tests.  Improving scores on reading and 
math tests is important (and tied to funding now of course), but EFF 
standards (more than most state content standards) promote a broader 
focus on giving adults opportunities to learn what they need to know and 
be able to do to fulfill key adult roles as workers, parents/family 
members, community members/citizens.  For that reason, EFF includes 
standards for decision making, lifelong learning, and interpersonal 
skills as well as communication skills.

Second, EFF supports and encourages learner centered instruction.  EFF 
standards define purposeful applications of 16 skills, but don't dictate 
the specific techniques or context in which those skills should be 
taught or learned.  This allows for relatively more flexibility (and 
requires more creativity) in applying the EFF standards to guide 
curriculum and instruction than is true of state content standards 
(where there is generally a stronger link is made to curriculum 
content/frameworks).   Flexibility (and lack of specificity) is not 
always a good thing, but it is definitely an advantage for programs that 
adopt a learner centered approach.

Third (and related to the first two points), EFF is more "customer 
driven" than most other standards in the sense that the standards were 
developed in direct response to what adult learners said they wanted to 
learn.  This customer driven orientation also extends to the EFF 
approach to assessment which gives priority (particularly in 
instructionally embedded assessment) to clear communications of learning 
goals and evidence of learning progress between learners and 
instructors.  Portfolio assessment is an excellent tool for this purpose 
because it creates opportunities for learners and instructors to talk 
about concrete evidence (and the criteria to evaluate that evidence) of 
progress.

Finally, EFF is a multi-component system (standards, performance 
continua, teaching and learning toolkit, etc.) that can adopted and/or 
adapted in many ways.  Though I agree with Tom Sticht that we 
implementation of EFF (and other standards-based education in adult 
education) has not been sufficiently studied, we should be clear about 
what kinds of applications of EFF we want to evaluate and by what 
measures.  Let's evaluate EFF (and I hope someone with deep pockets 
likes this idea) using a multi-methods design and a broad range of 
outcome measures befitting the scope of the EFF approach (and the 
variety of the ways it can be implemented).   There has been a lot of 
research to support various pieces of what EFF Standards can include 
when implemented.  For example, the Read With Understanding performance 
level descriptions incorporate evidence-based practices in the teaching 
of alphabetics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension 
strategies.  There is no reason to restart the reading wars and make 
everyone choose one of two sides.  The research supporting these 
practices is sound and that is why they are included in the EFF approach 
to reading instruction.  But EFF is not solely an approach to reading 
instruction.  So if we have the opportunity for a large-scale evaluation 
of EFF, let's include measures of growth in teachers' knowledge of 
content area instruction and job satisfaction and retention.  Let's 
include longitudinal measures of goal achievement for learners (such as 
jobs, personal growth, community involvement, etc.).  While we are at 
it, let's also get good pre- and post test data on reading, math, 
writing, English language learning (all 4 skills), lifelong learning, 
decision making, and/or interpersonal skills (as appropriate to the 
content of the instructional program).

Regie Stites
SRI International


Aaron Kohring wrote:


>Sam,

>

>I can certainly see value in using all three means of assessment that you 

>mention.  Each one gives you a snapshot in time of what a learner knows and 

>is able to do and gives you information to inform instruction based on what 

>that particular assessment is designed to assess.  A variety of assessments 

>gives you a bigger picture of what a learner knows and can do.  As 

>instructors, we also use some very informal assessments in addition to 

>these you have mentioned to add to that picture of where learners are and 

>where they need to get to- such as, probing question and answer during a 

>lesson.  Assessments over time give us that picture of progress.

>

>The challenge will be to make sure that all parts of your system are in 

>alignment: the assessment, instruction, and curriculum.  But that does not 

>mean a variety of assessments cannot be used- only that we understand what 

>they are based upon and how we are using them.

>

>Any other suggestions?

>Aaron

>

>At 02:25 PM 1/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:

>  

>

>>content-class: urn:content-classes:message

>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

>>        boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C617C7.0BCF833C"

>>

>>Regie and others,

>>

>>

>>We are in the position of setting new standards and developing new 

>>curriculum.  Because the kinds of students we serve and our program 

>>structure - we would like to use the portfolio method of assessment, 

>>however, we would like to provide our students with the tools to get to 

>>community (etc.) --- we are private non-profit -- my organization (public 

>>schools) use CASAS standards...we would like to be able to tell our 

>>students where they are based on CASAS....a large number of our students 

>>are more suited to EFF (life skills)  as that is where they are and 

>>most-likely will remain....portfolio (shows progression and what the 

>>student is currently capable of) CASAS (shows students what level they are 

>>at...and thereby where they could/should be)...EFF (is a goal for 

>>functional skills (for life)).....

>>

>>I would like to be able to offer students...all three....

>>

>>Sam

>>

>>

>>-----Original Message-----

>>From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov]On 

>>Behalf Of Regie Stites

>>Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:13 PM

>>To: The Assessment Discussion List

>>Subject: Re: [Assessment] EFF Discussion Begins Today!

>>

>>Hi Sam,

>>You are right. This is simple question with a complicated 

>>answer.  Crosswalks between CASAS competencies and EFF Standards and EFF 

>>Performance Levels have been done in various ways for various purposes.  I 

>>don't know if anyone has yet done a crosswalk between CASAS content 

>>standards and EFF, but that certainly is possible.  But rather than 

>>provide you with links to these crosswalks, let me first insert a note of 

>>caution.  Comparing CASAS and EFF is like comparing apples and 

>>oranges.  It's okay if the difference between apples and oranges doesn't 

>>matter to you.  For example, we crosswalked EFF performance levels to NRS 

>>Educationing Function Levels which, in turn, are referenced to CASAS scale 

>>scores.  So for some EFF standards you could make a connection between EFF 

>>levels and CASAS scores that way.  But this really is an apples and 

>>oranges comparison, because CASAS "reading" is not the same thing as EFF 

>>"reading" (see my post about how EFF standards are different from CASAS 

>>competencies).   As long you are happy defining "reading" or "math" etc. 

>>at the "fruit" level (where the differences between apples, oranges, and 

>>grapes don't matter much - that's what NRS does) you can cross-reference 

>>CASAS and EFF.  But in most cases, the difference between apples and 

>>oranges matters (substituting 6 oranges for 6 apples in an apple pie 

>>recipe is not a good idea).   So, my question is how exactly do you plan 

>>to make use of a cross-reference between CASAS and EFF?

>>

>>Regie Stites

>>SRI International

>>

>>Samuel McGraw III wrote:

>>    

>>

>>>Marie et. al.,

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>I have a simple (yet possible complex answer) question.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>Has anyone cross referenced EFF and CASAS standards? And if so. What the 

>>>outcome.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>Sam

>>>

>>>Seattle Goodwill Learning Center

>>>

>>>-----Original Message-----

>>>

>>>From: <mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov>assessment-bounces at nifl.gov 

>>>[mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Marie Cora

>>>

>>>Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 7:10 AM

>>>

>>>To: Assessment Discussion List

>>>

>>>Subject: [Assessment] EFF Discussion Begins Today!

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>Good morning, afternoon, and evening to you all.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>I'm pleased to welcome Peggy, Aaron, Regie, and EFF Center Staff to our 

>>>discussion.  I've been thinking about this over the weekend, and I have a 

>>>couple of questions to start us off:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>For our guests:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>-The EFF Standards are complex in terms of what they try to capture in a 

>>>performance.  Is this was makes them different from competencies?  Or 

>>>perhaps even different from other standards?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>For subscribers:  I found the "thought-provokers" really helped me to 

>>>focus on a piece of this big picture so I could get a handle on it.  Did 

>>>anyone try #1 below?  Or perhaps if there are EFF users on the List, you 

>>>might comment on this activity.  As for #2 below - I found this question 

>>>helpful because it did make me consider how often and in what ways I 

>>>would look for achievement over time, and it also made me think that I 

>>>would necessarily look for such incremental gains via classroom 

>>>assessment rather than with a high stakes test.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>1.  Pick any EFF standard, read its definition, and imagine what it would 

>>>look like if you were actually assessing the application of the 

>>>integrated skill process described in the standard's definition.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>2.  How often do you feel a need to look for evidence that learning has 

>>>happened?  How does the nature of the evidence you are looking for change 

>>>as you look for learning within the space of one class session, one week, 

>>>one month, one course, one year, and so on.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>Anyway, that's what I was thinking about.  How about you?  Please post 

>>>your questions and comments!

>>>

>>>Thanks,

>>>

>>>marie

>>>

>>>Assessment Discussion List Moderator

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

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

>>>

>>>National Insitute for Literacy

>>>

>>>Assessment mailing list

>>>

>>><mailto:Assessment at nifl.gov>Assessment at nifl.gov

>>>

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

>>><http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment>http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment

>>>

>>>

>>>      

>>>

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

>>National Insitute for Literacy

>>Assessment mailing list

>>Assessment at nifl.gov

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

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

>>    

>>

>

>Aaron Kohring

>Coordinator, LINCS Literacy & Learning Disabilities Special Collection 

>(http://ldlink.coe.utk.edu/)

>Moderator, National Institute for Literacy's Content Standards Discussion 

>List (http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/Contentstandards)

>Coordinator, Equipped for the Future Websites (http://eff.cls.utk.edu/)

>

>Center for Literacy Studies, University of Tennessee

>EFF Center for Training and Technical Assistance

>Phone:(865) 974-4109 main

>           (865) 974-4258 direct

>Fax:   (865) 974-3857

>e-mail: akohring at utk.edu

>

>

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

>National Insitute for Literacy

>Assessment mailing list

>Assessment at nifl.gov

>To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment

>  

>





-- 
Regie Stites, Ph.D.
Program Manager, Literacy and Lifelong Learning
Center for Education Policy
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA  94025-3493
Direct: 650.859.3768
Fax: 650.859.3375
regie.stites at sri.com
www.sri.com/policy/cep

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20060113/33ed260c/attachment.html