Hi everyone,
 
The following post if from Peggy McGuire, who apologizes for the
lateness of her post - to which I say:  "let no post remain unread!".
marie cora
Assessment Discussion List Moderator
 
*************
 
Hello Susan.
I have spent some (certainly not exhaustive) time looking at the NZ
documents and thinking about the questions that Susan has raised with
regard to standards-based vs. competency-based approaches to teaching. I
have a few thoughts:
 
First, I'm not surprised that practitioners, in the absence of
widely-accepted literacy standards, have used the outcomes statements
from the National Qualifications Framework unit standards to guide
curriculum and assessment despite the Qualification Authority's caution
that they were not intended for that purpose. A lot of folks here in the
U.S. have been using the National Reporting System's Educational
Functioning Levels in much the same way, despite the same kinds of
cautions (Practitioners need and want guidance about what's most
important to teach in order to best serve adult learners. They also know
that they have to report student outcomes in terms that are acceptable
to external audiences, particularly the NRS). That's one major reason
why there has been a push over the last couple years for states to
develop content standards - and why there is increasing interest in
adopting or adapting the Equipped for the Future standards and
developing aligned curriculum frameworks at the state level.
 
Next, I completely agree with Regie that it is equally important for
practitioners to be exposed to both the conceptual and operational
differences between competency-based and standards-based approaches. I
think Regie has done a nice job of describing the conceptual
differences. And as I read the introduction in the document discussing
NZ's draft Descriptive Standards, it occurred to me that another key to
understanding the concept might be to elaborate on the goals for
introducing descriptive standards articulated in that introduction - to
help teachers promote students' fluency, independence and ability to use
key skills in a range of authentic contexts for a range of real-life
purposes. This seems a wonderful opportunity to discriminate between
teaching a student how to competently perform a particular task, and
teaching knowledge, skills and strategies in authentic contexts of use
so that a student can competently perform a particular task as well as a
range of tasks as needed. The approach to planning, teaching and
assessment suggested by the latter is all about developing expertise in
skills through purposeful, contextual and constructivist learning and
practice. This in turn promotes transfer, and the fluency and
independence in the use of the skills that the authors of NZ's
Descriptive Standards advocate. It is all about preparing students to be
lifelong learners.
 
As for helping teachers and students to a functional understanding of
the differences between this standards-based model and a
competency-based model, it seems to me that there are a couple of key
tools needed to support the Descriptive Standards before that can be
done. According to Susan's post, one of those tools is currently in
development - the "progressions" for the five draft standards that, I
assume, will articulate in greater detail the knowledge, skills and
strategies that need to be taught, learned and assessed at each
developmental level (from novice toward expert) of each standard. This
is a critical step in guidance for teachers, as it will give them the
basis for assessing particular learning needs and selecting appropriate
targets for direct instruction, depending on the purpose for and context
in which the skill(s) will be used.
 
But my experience with EFF suggests that giving teachers tools to figure
out what to teach/assess at a particular level in a standards-based
system is not enough. Teachers also need and value a comprehensive and
common-sense model of what it looks like in a standards-based system to
1) surface students' purposes and goals for learning, 2) identify the
knowledge and skills that they will need to meet those purposes/goals,
3) develop instructional activities that allow students to learn and
practice needed skills in meaningful contexts related to their
purposes/goals, and 4) monitor and gather evidence of learning, both for
reporting purposes and to inform further instructional planning.
Further, teachers need quality, ongoing professional development to help
them understand and utilize such a model. 
 
In the case of the EFF Standards and Performance Continua (our version
of "progressions"), we have tried to meet this need by developing, with
close collaboration of teachers, an 8-step "Teaching and Learning Cycle"
along with its companion "Teaching and Learning Toolkit", both of which
utilize the EFF standards and Continua to align teaching and assessment.
And then we offer implementation training and technical assistance to
states and other organizations who are trying to "put this all
together", through the EFF Center for Training and Implementation at the
Center for Literacy Studies, University of Tennessee. The EFF Center is
also providing expertise and support to those states who are ready to
develop curriculum frameworks based on Content Standards. 
 
It occurs to me that, whatever models and training protocols get
developed to support the NZ Descriptive Standards, this might be an
excellent opportunity to increase the level of teacher (and perhaps even
student) consultation in the overall process of moving toward a more
standards-based system. And as I believe Regie rightly pointed out, the
teachers who become engaged in the development process may well be your
best, most informed translators to other teachers of the differences
between standards-based and competency-based practice.
 
Thanks so much for the opportunity to learn about the news from New
Zealand and to think about the questions that your experience is
raising. I wish you all the best in your efforts!
 
 
Peggy McGuire, M.A.
Senior Research Associate and Equipped for the Future National
Consultant
Center for Literacy Studies
The University of Tennessee
111 5th Street, PO Box 16
Mt. Gretna, PA 17064
717-964-1341 (p/f)
215-888-6507 (cell)
mcguirep555 at aol.com
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20060126/ef25a8d8/attachment.html