[Technology 1016] Upcoming NIFL discussions

Archived Content Disclaimer

This page contains archived content from a LINCS email discussion list that closed in 2012. This content is not updated as part of LINCS’ ongoing website maintenance, and hyperlinks may be broken.

Mariann Fedele MariannF at lacnyc.org
Thu May 17 15:51:08 EDT 2007


Dear Tech list Colleagues:

Below please find descriptions of 2 discussions of interest being held
next week. The first is focused on implementing ESL content standards
and it will be held on the Adult English Language Learners Discussion
List (http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/Englishlanguage
<http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/Englishlanguage> ). The second
discussion will be held on the Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy
Discussion List (http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
<http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen> ) and will focus
on the results of the NAAL and Gender, Race, and Socioeconomic Status
(SES). Please read below for further details and a listing of resources
for each discussion.



Regards,

Mariann





****************************************





To subscribe to the Adult English Language Learners discussion list, go
to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/Englishlanguage
<http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/Englishlanguage> and click on
Subscribe



Please join us for an upcoming discussion on implementing adult ESL
content standards from May 21-25. The discussion will be facilitated by
Kirsten Schaetzel and Sarah Young of the Center for Adult English
Language Acquisition (CAELA). Kirsten and Sarah will be joined by adult
ESL practitioners using standards in the field, including Dr. Lesley
Tomaszewski of the Texas Center for the Advancement of Literacy and
Learning (TCALL) and Karen Gianninoto of the Maryland State Department
of Education.

Before beginning the discussion, we would like to provide some
background information about standards-based instruction based on two
recent CAELA briefs: "Understanding Adult ESL Content Standards"
(September 2006,
http://www.cal.org/CAELA/esl_resources/briefs/contentstandards.html
<https://mail.cal.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.cal.org/CAELA
/esl_resources/briefs/contentstandards.html> ) and
"Using Adult ESL Content Standards" (March 2007,
http://www.cal.org/CAELA/esl_resources/briefs/usingcontstandards.html
<https://mail.cal.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.cal.org/CAELA
/esl_resources/briefs/usingcontstandards.html> ).
Content standards are broadly defined as what learners should know and
be able to do in a certain subject or practical domain. They describe
the knowledge and skills that students will have upon successful
completion of an instructional program. Although standards are the
foundation for designing curricula, instruction, and assessment, they do
not stipulate the types of lesson plans, activities, or teaching
methodologies that should be used. Content standards, curriculum
frameworks, and resource guides that states have developed can provide
guidance to local programs and practitioners in developing effective
curriculum and instruction.

Standards-based education has been a part of K-12 instruction and
assessment for quite some time now, but it is a relatively new addition
to the adult basic education and adult ESL fields. There are many adult
ESL standards-based initiatives currently in development or in use, such
as the Adult Education Content Standards Warehouse
(http://www.adultedcontentstandards.ed.gov
<https://mail.cal.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.adultedconten
tstandards.ed.gov> ) where sets of adult ESL
content standards from ten states, CASAS, and Equipped for the Future
(EFF) are available for download. The Adult Literacy Education (ALE)
Wiki Web site on Standards
(http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Standards
<https://mail.cal.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://wiki.literacytent
.org/index.php/Standards> ) provides a list of
existing and in-development adult education standards, curriculum
frameworks, and resource guides from over 20 states, as well as links to
standards from four other English-speaking countries. The
Standards-In-Action project, funded by the Office of Vocational and
Adult Education, is working with six pilot states to develop
professional development and resources for implementing standards in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

As we prepare to begin our discussion on what adult ESL content
standards are and how they are used to improve instruction and learning,
please consider the following questions. We look forward to hearing your
responses and examining additional questions focused on implementing
standards in adult ESL.

How are English language acquisition and skills development approached
in content standards, and how does this differ from previous methods of
ESL instruction?

Many people on this list have children in standards-based K-12 programs
or who have taught in a K-12 setting. How do adult standards compare to
K-12 standards? What can we learn or apply from K-12 standards-based
education, in terms of research on instructional methods, activities,
and materials, assessment, and professional development?

What professional development and supplementary materials are needed to
facilitate adult ESL standards implementation?

How can we know if adult ESL standards-based instruction and assessment
are beneficial for students, teachers, and programs?

We will be posting some preliminary thoughts about these questions next
week, and look forward to hearing from practitioners and administrators
in the field who have experience with adult ESL content standards or who
are interested in learning more.

Sincerely,
Sarah Young & Kirsten Schaetzel
Center for Adult English Language Acquisition
www.cal.org/caela









Title of Discussion:

Gender, Race, SES and Adult Literacy: What does the National Assessment
of Adult Literacy (NAAL) tell us?



When:

May 21-May 29, 2007



Where:

Poverty, Race, Women, and Literacy List. To subscribe (and later
unsubscribe if you wish) go to:

http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen



Guest Discussant:

Elizabeth Greenberg



Guest Bio:

Elizabeth Greenberg, is a principal research analyst at the American
Institutes for Research (AIR), and is AIR's Project Director for the
2008 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) Special Studies
contract. She was also AIR's Deputy Project Director for the 2003 NAAL
Design, Analysis, and Reporting contract. In her role as Deputy Project
Director for the 2003 NAAL, she led the development of the NAAL
background questionnaire and assessment items. She is a lead author or
co-author of several reports based on the 2003 NAAL, including A First
Look at the Literacy of America's Adults in the 21st Century, The Health
Literacy of America's Adults, Literacy in Everyday Life, Literacy Behind
Bars, and the 2003 NAAL Public-Use Data File User's Guide. Elizabeth is
also an author or co-author of several reports and articles based upon
the 1992 adult literacy data, including English Literacy and Language

Minorities in the United States.





Resources for Discussion:

Literacy in Everyday Life
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007480



A First Look at the Literacy of America's Adults in the 21st Century
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006470



The Health Literacy of America's Adults
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006483



Literacy Behind Bars
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007473







Key Points from NAAL 2003 related to Literacy, Gender, Race, and SES:



Gender



* Between 1992 and 2003, women's average document and

quantitative

literacy scores increased. During the same time period, men's average
document literacy score decreased and there was no statistically
significant change in average quantitative literacy for men.



* Between 1992 and 2003, women's average prose literacy score

stayed the same, while men's average prose literacy score decreased.





* In 2003, women had higher average prose and document literacy

than men, and men had higher average quantitative literacy than women.



In 1992, there was no statistically significant difference between men
and women in their average prose literacy, but men had higher average
document and quantitative literacy than women.



Race



* Between 1992 and 2003, average prose, document, and

quantitative

literacy increased for Black adults.



* Between 1992 and 2003, average prose and document literacy

decreased for Hispanic adults. Average quantitative literacy did not
change for Hispanic adults. The percentage of the adult population (age
16 and older) that identified themselves as Hispanic increased from 8
percent in 1992 to 12 percent in 2003.



* Between 1992 and 2003, average prose literacy increased for

Asian/Pacific Islander adults and there was no statistically significant
change in average document and quantitative literacy for this group.



* Between 1992 and 2003, there was no statistically significant

change in average prose and document literacy for white adults, but
there was an increase in quantitative literacy.



SES



* Among adults with Below Basic prose literacy, 26 percent
lived

in households with average incomes of less than $10,000 and only 7
percent lived i n households with average incomes of $60,000 or greater.





Among adults with Proficient prose literacy, 2 percent lived in
households with average incomes of less than $10,000 and 65 percent
lived in households with average incomes of $60,000 or greater.



* Higher percentages of adults with higher literacy levels than

adults with lower literacy levels were employed full-time, and lower
percentages were out of the labor force. Sixty-four percent of adults
with Proficient prose literacy were employed full-time, compared with 29
percent of adults with Below Basic prose literacy. Eighteen percent of
adults with Proficient prose literacy were not in the labor force,
compared with 57 percent of adults with Below Basic prose literacy.



* The occupational groups with the highest average prose,

document, and quantitative literacy scores were Professional and related
and Management, Business, and Financial. The occupational groups with
the lowest average prose document and quantitative literacy scores were
Service; Farming, Fishing, and Forestry; Transportation and Material
Moving; Production; and Construction and Extraction.



Daphne Greenberg

Assistant Professor

Educational Psych. & Special Ed.

Georgia State University

P.O. Box 3979

Atlanta, Georgia 30302-3979

phone: 404-651-0127

fax:404-651-4901

dgreenberg at gsu.edu









Mariann Fedele

Director,

NYC Regional Adult Education Network

Literacy Assistance Center

Moderator,
NIFL Technology and Literacy Discussion List
32 Broadway 10th Floor
New York, New York 10004
212-803-3325
mariannf at lacnyc.org
www.lacnyc.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lincs.ed.gov/pipermail/technology/attachments/20070517/7eb3aa49/attachment.html