![]() |
![]() |
[Assessment] EFF Discussion Begins Today!Regie Stites regie.stites at sri.comMon Jan 9 18:50:15 EST 2006
Marie and all, Thanks for invitation to participate in this discussion. I have some initial thoughts in response to your question about the complexity of EFF in comparison to competencies. I want to ponder a bit more before responding to the second part your question about how EFF is different from other standards? (Thanks to my EFF colleagues Aaron Kohring and Peggy McGuire for comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this. I'm sure they will have more of their own thoughts to add as the discussion continues). The EFF Standards are grounded in different conceptualizations of adult performance and adult learning than competency-based education (CBE). EFF is based on an understanding of expertise (high-level human performance) that comes out of cognitive science research and theory developed in the late 1970s and elaborated in the 1980s and 1990s. CBE is based on a somewhat different (and earlier) model of human performance that stems from cognitive psychology and industrial/organizational psychology research and theory from the 1960s. The CBE model is fairly simple. It assumes that human performance can be understood as the ability to accomplish tasks. It is basically focused on the question "What should people be able to do?" Researchers studied human performance in various contexts and analyzed the tasks that people performed in those contexts. Through large-scale surveys (such as the Adult Performance Level study - APL) tasks were identified and through task analysis tasks were placed in a hierarchy from simple to complex. This is the basis for the scaled lists of CASAS competencies that are the foundation for CASAS tests. Items on CASAS tests are designed to simulate as closely as possible, the tasks that people perform in work and life. Through careful design of test items and analysis of test results (using Item Response Theory - IRT), CASAS has been able to provide a clear picture of the relative difficulty of each item (test question) used in the CASAS tests. EFF's model of human performance goes several steps beyond this analysis of the relative difficulty of tasks. EFF focuses on the question "What should people know and be able to do?" To address this question EFF researchers developed descriptions of the underlying knowledge, skills, and strategies, as well as levels of fluency (ease) and independence that adults use as they apply each EFF Standard (each Standard defined as a purposeful application of an integrate skill process) in performing increasingly more challenging tasks. Looking at more of the cognitively complexity involved in using skills like Reading With Understanding and Conveying Ideas in Writing is what makes the EFF model appear more complicated than CBE and CASAS competencies model. This complexity has the advantage of providing more detailed guidance for learning, instruction, and assessment. In a competency-based approach, the question of how someone is able to accomplish a task is left open. The manner in which knowledge, skills, and abilities are applied to accomplishing a task is not addressed directly. By contrast, cognitive science approaches (such as that guiding EFF) let us lift the lid of the black box of human performance to better understand (and teach and assess) the knowledge, skills, and strategies that adult learners need to be successful in performing a wide range of tasks in a wide range of contexts. Regie Stites SRI International Marie Cora wrote: >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 >Assessment at nifl.gov >To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20060109/39f56726/attachment.html
More information about the Assessment mailing list |