EbaeGroupSelection
From LiteracyTentWiki
Selection of Groups to be Studied
• “In one classroom, the range of student needs, academic levels, etc. is often quite broad, resulting in a less than ideal instructional delivery model. How would this impact the selection of 'groups'.” [Message 8, Part One]
From John Comings: • “The EBAE paper suggests a way to move forward before that consensus is reached and the instruments are developed. That is, start with one or two populations that have goals and needs that are well defined and outcome measures that may not be perfect for accountability but are acceptable for research purposes….” [Message 23, Part One]
From John Comings: • “So, are there subgroups of students for whom we already have a consensus on outcomes and good measures of those outcomes?” NCSALL research indicates that a significant number of our students (maybe up to 30%) come to our programs seeking a GED or its equivalent and have reading skills sufficient to pass the test or meet the requirements of their ASE program. These students need help preparing for the GED or meeting the requirements of their ASE program, help making the transition to postsecondary education or training, and instruction that builds their "academic vocabulary" (the reading skills that are particular to the academic environment). I believe we have the tools needed to identify these students, know how to serve them well, and have good outcome measures to judge program success. Why not start our research with this group? Are there other groups that are ready for model evaluation?” [Message 23, Part One]
• Include some ESL, the largest group of enrolled students (PY 01 data: ABE – 37%, Secondary – 21%, English Literacy – 42%)
• “focusing on adult high school diploma (groups) does complicate matters because of varying state and local standards for diploma acquisition.” [Message 33, Part One]
• “If we choose this group [GED students] to begin with, how sure can we be that what we learn about program development and evaluation design will be useful in future development of program models/evaluations where the student group is not so neatly defined by a credential? How well will our learning "transfer" as we begin to address the rich variety of learner goals and needs in our definitions of adult achievement? Or is it even important for what we learn from one model to inform development of others? Can we say the process "works" or "doesn't work", independent of/distinct from any particular student group, defined by any set of needs and goals, that we choose as its focus?” [Message 35, Part One]
• “If we go looking for another group, I'd suggest we have a lot of good work waiting for us for those adults who score below RGE 3. While the group is fairly definable by extreme low scores on existing standardized tests, several good research opportunities await (in no particular order): 1) instructional models to support emerging literacy 2) assessment measures to capture literacy growth (nothing we are using now is sensitive in this range) 3) professional development needs for instructors to teach the models 4) personal development/transformational goals and experiences of adults learning literacy 5) some psychoeducational testing for all to get a sense of the cognitive profile, how many of these "reading disabled" students are truly learning disabled and how their learning disablities profile/s are similar or different from what we know in the adults with LD research (I proposed this part as a grant to NICHD but was turned down, darn it, still seems like a good idea!)” [Message 39, Part One]
• In choosing groups, for example ESL groups, take into account: cultural, employment and geographical (urban, suburban, rural) demographics as well as performance on a test. Regarding culture, learner attitudes toward education vary across cultures and must be taken into account. [Message 41, Part One]
• “I worry about starting with high functioning GED students for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, the question that begs to be asked of our learners is GED for what? At the local level, we spend a lot of time talking with learners about the GED not being the silver bullet of future success. Starting with GED students reinforces the GED as destination approach to our work. Secondly, as a practitioner, I would say that high-functioning GED students are the population I need the least help in serving. I’m certainly not saying there isn’t a great deal to be learned, but I am suggesting my need is much greater in other areas (such as ESL for the workplace). If research to practice is going to work, it has to be research practitioners want and need. Finally, I would like the research coming out of these lab sites to strengthen our position in the workforce investment system. Yes, ESL students seeking family-sustaining employment is a much harder group to work with than good readers who want a GED, but it makes much more sense, from my perspective.” [Message 53, Part One]
• “Ideally, I'd start by identifying broad learner subgroups that practitioners deal with every day such as job seekers (at a local one-stop) or English language learners (at a cultural or community center) or 1st level learners (at a literacy council) or GED students (in a high school program). In my experience, there is often a correlation between setting and subgroup (which in and of itself suggests some interesting areas for investigation). This is the raw customer base that practitioners have to work with on a daily basis so it only makes sense to me that this is where implementation (and investigation) begins. If, for example, you start with job seekers at a local one-stop center, it would be very interesting to look at learning gains, goal attainment, and customer satisfaction with learners grouped according to career clusters versus learners grouped according to academic levels. Or, if you start with a school-based GED program, it might be interesting to look at learning gains, goal attainment, and customer satisfaction with learners grouped according to variables such as academic level (the old standard); age (our 16-21 year old students talk about this often); comfort with, and access to, technology in the home that can be used for extended learning; interest in post-secondary education.” [Message 6, Part Two]
• Start a group with goals in this order of priority: learning English, filling out government forms, applications to vote, bank statements, resumes etc. work related skills, math skills etc. participation in cultural or community events [Message 8, Part Two]
• “I think the better way to think about group type is not about the student per se, but about WHY the student comes to a program. It's the conversation with the student about what they need from us that helps me think about a structure ('model?') for them. It's not enough to know that a person "wants to improve their English" - it's not helpful, not specific enough, too broad” [Message 9, part Two]
• “I understand that we need some parameters with which to start collecting data. However, I would be hesitant to use the goals and/or needs that learners state as they come into programs as a parameter. Education is largely about learning what there is to learn and finding out what you are interested in and eligible for. A very big part of the learning that happens in ABLE is that people grow in their goals, their understanding of needs and rights, and their worldview. We talk about this type of learning regularly, as Andres did in his post, but it is very difficult to capture in quantitative research. I'd much rather see baseline data reflect things like: a) literacy skills and habits (use V. Purcell-Gates's NCSALL work) b) self perception/self efficacy c) knowledge of and use of community resources for which a person is eligible (we could at least start with health resources, there is plenty of literacy/health research to draw from) d) ways of knowing/ways of learning (Robert Kegan's NCSALL work) These parameters obviously will take more time to elicit and establish than a checklist of goals, but those incoming goals are often way off base to what the true growth is in the educational endeavor. “ [Message 12, Part Two]
• “…we need to ask, ‘What do we know about how we are serving certain sub-groups of students?’ but we may not be able to get this information from NRS data.”…. states find it difficult, if not impossible, to disaggregate the math scores from the reading scores for each Educational Functioning Level. *And*, many programs don't even report reading scores for students--they either enter the lowest score only, usually math, or the score that will show growth the most easily (also math)….. Once we know which groups of students we are serving well/not so well, I would want to consider, ‘Do we want to focus on our strengths or our gaps, as a system…. a powerful alternative to the paper’s plan to develop baseline models would be to somehow identify programs/states that have consistently had success with a particular subgroup and do a grounded study of what aspects of these programs contribute to the high achievement. A baseline model would then be built around the findings.” [Message 13, Part Two]
• “We are working on a design for a literacy model for the Bureau of Prisons that will satisfy Congress’ mandate to provide inmates with literacy instruction leading to a GED and to help them prepare for reentering society. I do not see these two fundamental purposes as comprehensive, and I see the need to accommodate learner-centered purposes as critical. Sara’s comment “after the goals of the sponsor are met, the specific needs of the population are integrated” was helpful. We make grouping decisions about literacy learners in our system based on three broad criteria: (1) Does the learner speak sufficient English to function in an English-based literacy class, or does he/she need to be placed in ESOL or the Spanish literacy program? (2) How does he/she perform on component tests of literacy and language? (We plan on applying Strucker & Davidson’s Adult Reading Components findings to this project in the near future.) (3) How much time does the inmate have left to serve, and which re-entry needs (e.g., housing, health literacy, finances, employment, transportation, family-related concerns, parenting support, survival reading, drug treatment...) are most pressing. We probably will not group inmates based on their learner-centered goals. Rather, I see these deeply personal (and powerful) goals integrated into the program they way Sara described earlier.” [Message 16, Part Two]
• “…isn't it part of Comings et al finding that program persistence is related to students' ability to work on their own goals? And Purcell-Gates' finding that increase in literacy practices is related to students' use of materials contextualized from their own lives? This points to clustering student sub-groups by goals they wish to achieve., with a greater likelihood that they will achieve these goals through persistence.” [Message 18, Part Two]
• “ Students By Grouping Within My Lab [all of whom come seeking a GED]: Advanced Short Timers (Those student soon to get their GED) (and no, I do not run a prison based system although some of the teenage students might disagree) Elderly Post ESOL Students Working students whose job mandates a GED Learning Impaired Students Teenagers Court and Welfare Mandated Students Pre-literate Students The above groups are listed by most able to sustain attendance, as well as most able to participate with an active mind” [Message 10, Part Three]
