![]() |
![]() |
[Assessment 661] STAR Struck for Reading Instructionjames austin jtaustin1 at core.comMon Feb 19 19:03:47 EST 2007
Marie and Tom, Thanks for the post. I work in Ohio which is implementing this STAR program at multiple sites. Thus far I have not seen much on evaluation so I don't have a good sense for how the program's impact will be documented. It would seem to make sense to start with teachers and move on to students. For example, we have provided pilot site programs with a measure of adult reading interest that was created from a well-validated instrument developed by M. Cecil Smith at NIU. But the evaluation of effectiveness might (must?) presume that the intervention has some evidence basis in the first place, either a logic model or a theory-based approach. The folks at ETS seem to be working diligently in the theory area, and John Sabatini is one of their researchers that I have met and understood. One additional point: Does Tom's critique extend more broadly than the area of alphabetics, which appears to be a small component of STAR. I would be interested in the assessment toolkit called Bader. What about the reliability and validity of these instruments? -----Original Message----- From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Marie Cora Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:58 PM To: Assessment at nifl.gov Subject: [Assessment 648] STAR Struck for Reading Instruction Colleagues, The following post is from Tom Sticht. What are people's thoughts on the STAR Project and/or on Tom's comments as well? Marie Cora Assessment Discussion List Moderator ****** February 6, 2007 STAR Struck: The Federal STAR (STudent Achievement in Reading) Project: Why Now? Tom Sticht International Consultant in Adult Education Recently the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL) announced the STAR web site and professional development activity. The web site provides the following information about STAR: Quote:"What is STAR? STAR is a comprehensive toolkit and training package to help Adult Basic Education (ABE) instructors use evidence-based reading instruction in the classroom. For more information, see About STAR. What is the National STAR Training Network? The National STAR Training Network (NSTN) encompasses national and state experts in reading instruction, state and federal policymakers, and practitioners. All are working in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education to use evidence-based reading instruction and the STAR model to improve adult reading. For more information see Contact the Network. Why STAR? STAR delivers the tools and techniques teachers need to help adult learners read and achieve."End Quote In and of itself, the idea of tools and techniques to help adult learners read and achieve is not very notable because there are already numerous tools and techniques , commercial programs, etc. that aim to do the same thing. But repeatedly the STAR web site says it aims at assisting adult educators to use "evidence-based" reading instruction. It describes "evidence-based" and says: Quote:"Evidence-based reading instruction (EBRI) integrates findings from the best available reading research with practitioner wisdom to inform instructional decisions. .With EBRI, teachers use diagnostic assessment procedures to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of each learner and target reading instruction accordingly. .Teachers that use EBRI help learners improve their skills in each of the four components of reading - alphabetics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension - by explaining new concepts, modeling strategies, and providing feedback when learners practice."End Quote However, the STAR web site provides no evidence that following its evidence-based approach will improve adult reading instruction over what is already being done by adult literacy educators. I have searched for scientific research indicating that a focus on alphabetics (code emphasis in Jeanne Chall's terms) with adults with low literacy produced better learning outcomes than some other, perhaps whole language (meaning emphasis in Jeanne Chall's terms) approach. But I have found no such research. No such research is cited on the STAR web site, and the report on principles of adult reading instruction that is mentioned does not include any such research, either. The evidence that the STAR web site mentions also includes "professional wisdom," however no citation of professional wisdom is given. I have looked at historical approaches to teaching adults to read to find professional wisdom in using either code or meaning emphases. Cora Wilson Stewart in 1911 and beyond did not like the alphabetics approach and clearly stated that adults should be taught using the "word' approach. Reports of her work indicate that more than 180,000 adults learned to read following her "whole language" approach. But in World War I, J. Duncan Spaeth took a strong phonics approach to teaching reading to soldiers. Then in World War II, Paul Witty took a strong "word", "whole language" approach, and indeed teachers in Special Training Units got demerits if they emphasized phonics too much. It is reported that over a quarter million soldiers learned to read using this meaning emphasis approach. Septima Poinsette Clark favored a whole language approach in teaching some 10,000 teachers to teach 700,000 adults to read and write to vote in the early civil rights movement. Frank Laubach strongly favored a code emphasis while Ruth Colvin, founder of Literacy Volunteers of America favored a whole language approach (interestingly, Laubach and Colvin have merged into one organization, ProLiteracy Worldwide). This type of variable historical data on professional wisdom, and the lack of any solid research that I have found on the relative effectiveness with adults of the code or meaning emphases leaves me without any good data to help make decisions about the use of these two approaches. I know that Jeanne Chall favored the code approach in her clinical work but her reported gains did not seem to be much better, if at all better, than what other adult literacy programs reported. As I read the STAR web page, it appears that the STAR approach has been developed in large part by former students of Jeanne at Harvard. It seems to me that the evidence base for the effectiveness of the STAR approach to adult literacy education is lacking, in both professional wisdom and scientific research. This suggests that the national dissemination effort funded by the federal government is premature. I think that before such an expensive (over $31,400 for 45 adult educators to learn the STAR approach) national dissemination effort is undertaken there should be research conducted to show that the STAR approach is more effective than other approaches to teaching reading with adults. Too often national efforts by the federal government have been undertaken and millions of dollars have been spent to disseminate the efforts, only to see them fade away with little apparent long-lasting improvement to the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States. Will STAR go this way, too? Whatever happened to the Adult Performance Level (APL) project? Whatever happened to the Equipped for the Future (EFF) project? Are we about to be STAR struck? Thomas G. Sticht International Consultant in Adult Education 2062 Valey View Blvd. El Cajon, CA 92019-2059 Tel/fax: (619) 444-9133 Email: tsticht at aznet.net ------------------------------- National Institute 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
More information about the Assessment mailing list |