GED and Creativity 2
From LiteracyTentWiki
Katrina, I wanted to reply briefly to your message because I think you bring up some important points. It's certainly true that not only administrators but students as well tend to be very focused on the test. I've been teaching for ten years and invariably the students who enter my pre-GED class ask when they can take the test on the very first day of class. When I look at their reading and writing, I know that they have a road to travel, yet they just want to "get it over with."
My feeling about this is that when students have such a long road to travel to reach their goal, they are going to have to learn to like learning, to embrace it somehow, or they're just not going to get there. This is where I feel what we're calling "creativity" is important. Students deserve the chance to have good educational experiences--to enjoy talking about a book that they've read with a fellow student; to look at pictures from a particular historical era and imagine life in that time. This is a second chance for them to become, as you put it, lifelong learners.
I also think you made a good point about thematic education. I think it is very difficult to use a thematic approach if you have constant turnover in your classes and a wide range of levels. One of the decisions made at CUNY (City University of New York), where I teach, was not to let students into a class past a certain point in the semester. I really think that's an essential decision to make if you want to teach content, because when you are learning content, it's necessary for new information to build upon previously learned. I do think that "creativity" has to be supported by a program or it will have to be limited. Even within limits, it's possible to do some "creative" things. For instance, I think, when teaching a particular content area--let's say photosynthesis-- it's possible to go out and look for other texts besides those in the GED book. Students need to review information more than once to really "get" it--also reading multiple texts helps students get a sense of what's most important about a topic and gives them additional reading practice. It's a lot of work to do this in the beginning, but you can re-use texts once you've found good ones. There are many other ways to draw students in by doing something that is more active than traditional learning. I like to use these methods to "trick" students in to liking school.
Kate Brandt
City University of New York
Hi, colleagues,
In response to David Rosen's questions, I think I'll respond to number four. Because I work at an institution where theme-based teaching in GED classrooms is policy, I think I'm in a good position to speak to this one.
The City University of New York has taken a theme-based approach to instruction, particularly GED instruction, for at least a decade now. There are eleven campuses throughout New York City where GED classes are offered. The administrators and teachers who work at these sites are overseen by CUNY's Central Office and so there is a community of sorts between CUNY adult literacy teachers and administrators across the campuses. While theme-based teaching, when it was introduced, encountered some resistance from teachers, there was also a lot of enthusiasm for it. Having a community allowed teachers who were trying out this new approach to share materials and experiences, both at their campus programs and across programs.
In addition to supporting each other, teachers were--and are--supported by a team of staff developers who work with them in a number of ways: team-teaching, periodic campus meetings, seminars, conferences, online fora, and more. One of the seminars that is run regularly is a curriculum development seminar in which teachers are paid to work with staff developers, first in a group setting, and then one-on-one, to produce curricula that they can use in their own teaching and which are also available to other CUNY teachers in "ready to use" form.
I do think this approach to teaching is challenging and that institutional support makes a world of difference. In our curriculum development seminars teachers have the chance to plan instruction carefully, thinking about the broad concepts they want to get across, the texts and other materials they will use, the learning goals they have for students, and the way that the many threads that must be included in GED instruction can be "braided" together. While it's challenging, I also think planning in this way forces teachers to think about teaching in a deep and detailed way. They must really think through each class--what students will learn; which activities they will engage in; which texts will be used and why.
As a staff developer, I work with teachers who vary widely in terms of their approaches to teaching. Some of the teachers I work with would be considered "traditional," while others favor "student-centered" learning and still others mix a variety of styles. It can be hard to get teachers who have never tried an activity like student role play to take the risk. As part of a group of teachers taking part in a seminar, though, that teacher is more likely to try it out.
So I do think theme-based teaching is a challenge, but well worth it. And my experience has shown me that institutional support makes all the difference.
Kate Brandt
Assessment Colleagues,
I have some assessment questions below, but first please look at the following two examples of creative, theme-based and project-based GED teaching:
1. The Fabric of History curriculum -- designed for young adults who are not usually excited about learning American History, but who are interested in clothes and fashion, a whole American history curriculum built on this theme:
http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Fabric_of_History
2. A Virtual Visit to a Lowell, Massachusetts Mill museum -- a Web site designed by and for young adults in a GED preparation program that features a visit to a 19th century mill and readings, writings and discussion about the period.
http://tech.worlded.org/docs/lowell/home.htm
My Overall Question: How should we assess learning in creative GED programs? Consider the examples above, the theme-based CUNY GED program that Kate Brandt has written about here, and other examples from this discussion and elsewhere:
How should we do summative assessment for a creative GED program? How should we do formative assessment?
1) Summative Assessment
Are scores on the GED test all we need? Or do we also need to know, for example:
a. College as a Goal. How many/what percent of GED program participants hold the goal of going to college, and how has that changed from the beginning to the end of the program? b. College Preparation. For those who hold this goal, how many/what percent are prepared for college? For example, how many have been admitted to college, and how many/what percent have been admitted as regular, not developmental studies, students? How many have high GED scores as one indication of preparation for college level work? How many, particularly "first generation" college students, have learned about the culture of higher education and how to navigate it successfully? c. Success in college. How many of the GED program graduates complete the first year of college? How many complete a two-year degree? A four-year degree? d. What else should be assessed at the end of the program or later to determine impact or effect of the GED program?
2) Formative Assessment
Formative assessment is systematic measuring of learning progress or learning about how-to-learn strategies for the students themselves and for their teacher or tutor.
What formative assessment tools are/could be effective in creative GED programs, for example in programs that use themes or learning projects: Dialogue journals? (Online or hold-in-the-hand) portfolios? Videotaped demonstrations of application of skills, knowledge or understanding? Assessments of attitude changes? Something else?
David J. Rosen
djrosen@comcast.net
Hi folks:
I was catching up on the posts last night and wanted to make some observations related to providing more than just test prep in GED programs. Many of you have identified very salient points and are doing great things it sounds like.
I'll just toss out some ideas in an email or two to keep the conversation churning.
The first one is on program retention. Adult education struggles with persistence and retention issues, sometimes mightily. I have seen the research that speaks to the outside reasons (family, work, illness) that students leave, but one that is not written about as much is that students sometimes just get bored.
If we consider just one large and growing population in adult education, recent public school leavers (AKA drop outs), consider that one of the main reasons they identify as for dropping out is that they were bored. A Gates Foundation report last year (The Silent Epidemic) found that:
"nearly half (47 percent) said a major reason for dropping out was that classes were not interesting. These young people reported being bored and disengaged from high school. Almost as many (42 percent) spent time with people who were not interested in school. These were among the top reasons selected by those with high GPAs and by those who said they were motivated to work hard."
The report found that 88% of high school leavers had passing grades; 70% were confident they could have graduated; and 81% understood that graduating was vital to their success.
This being said, how can programs aim to provide anything BUT programs that are engaging, relevant and have a future focus --on higher education and work?
As the respondents on this list have identified (I'm preaching to the choir) there are multiple instructional reasons for providing a "creative" GED class. As to the notion of performance, consider that if students stay in class (because they are challenged and not bored), performance should benefit. I'm some ways, providing GED "test prep" tracks in programs only really seems to reinforce a message that the program is delivering at 'just the minimum" ----prep for a test. It seems that, at least for out of school youth, they are looking for much more.
Saying that, I always thought there was great benefit in viewing students as our customers (we are providing a service after all). Some will come and are on a fast track to get somewhere, they really just want to "take the test." They have their mind set on another goal and that is what we want. Fine. Make sure we provide them with that option. Others are looking for more and are undecided as to what direction they want to go, to training or to a better job for example. Programs need to provide both customers with these options. Doing so will position us toward better outcomes and better retention.
So that is my first observation.
Anson Green
I am familiar with these statistics on bored students. Left out of the research is "What does 'bored' mean?". People are most often bored when they put little effort into what they are supposed to learn. If someone is making zero effort he/she gets more and more bored. Many "Let's make the GED exciting" classes just keep the students from doing the work. In order to pass the test, students must make a big personal effort. They have to bring their reading comprehension way up, get used to the type of test, bring up their math and their grammar and writing. A class where the teacher is spending most of the time talking will not work, though, because students must grapple with the GED material, and sometimes the most interesting teachers make the worst GED teachers because they keep the students from doing what needs to be done to pass the test. Encouraging students, calling them when they don't come, keeping track of their progress, and making that personal connection -- being persistent is what makes a good GED teacher. Students are not bored when they are succeeding and they succeed when the teacher takes an interest in their progress. Also, individualizing instruction is important in getting students through the GED. Computer labs with programs such as Plato and Contemporary's PreGED are great. A GED teacher must be fixated on the progress of each student and the best way to do that is to keep a notebook where student progress is recorded. Then phone calls to absent students are easier to make because the teacher can discuss the next step more easily with the student: "Oh, you need to come in for your Social Studies Pretest", etc.
Mary Lynn Simons
Good morning colleagues,
This has been a great discussion this week! Great questions have been raised here and great ideas have been shared. I will prepare this discussion in UFF (User Friendly Format!) once is has completed and post it for your convenience and use.
Today is our last day of the discussion with guests! Please share your thoughts, experiences, and ideas now.
I would particularly like to hear people respond to David's set of questions focused on formative and summative assessment. While I'm anxious to hear about both, I'm really interested in what subscribers have to say about David's questions regarding the summative piece: how can we determine the effect/impact of earning a GED in more creative ways than what we do now, which is mostly done through examining the scores. We could track some of the data that David suggests - does anyone do it? Would you now consider it? Do you feel that tracking other pieces of the puzzle would be beneficial to you, your program and students? In what ways?
Thanks and looking forward to reading more from you today!
Marie Cora
Assessment Discussion List Moderator
David, these are fabulous projects. I have to admit, as a fan of 19th century culture, I was completely sucked into the "fashion" unit. Great pictures! Minus the corset, I would love to have worn those clothes (but not in the heat, in which case I would do the Jo March thing and wear only pantaloons, much to the chagrin of my neighbors).
I have put off responding to the assessment question because I have not used this kind of tool in my teaching other than when I have assigned projects to undergrads. When I did so, I used a check sheet that covered first, the parts of the project requirements (i.e. did they complete all the parts and what was the grade for each part); second, separate grading for each part of the project. Students would receive a copy of this so they knew exactly how they did on each part.
So the grading "matrix" (I guess that's what you would call it) looked something like this:
WRITTEN RESEARCH PAPER Completed? yes/no Grade____
__Content
__Clarity
__Mechanics
__Organization
__Documentation
VISUAL AIDS Completed? yes/no Grade____
__Creativity
__Relationship to Project
__Representation of topic (i.e. did it add anything to our understanding of the topic?)
ORAL PRESENTATION Completed? yes/no Grade____
__Organization
__Presentation of Content
__Clarity
__Preparedness
__Delivery
Final Grade for Project (all pieces averages together) _________
Katherine Mercurio Gotthardt
Hi everyone,
We found one model that worked really well for retention and creativity: organizing a class of GED students who were interested in health careers. Arizona's Adult Education program is piloting Allied Health GED classes this year. We ran a morning and evening Allied Health class this summer during July and August for 6 weeks. The students came for health-related education on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for 3 hours each day, and on Tuesdays and Thursdays they received a more traditional GED class, but even here we tried to focus the reading and writing parts especially on materials pertinent to health careers.
Our educational gains were at 60% and almost all of the students finished. Why was it successful? Perhaps the answer is intensity, or perhaps the answer is the short term of the class. Perhaps the students felt more engaged because they knew everything they were learning was directed for their particular career future. After watching this first successful pilot, I am really eager to see how the November/December class fares. I am also interested in our program diving in to see if we can find another occupational area where we could run another specialized GED class like this one.
Tina Luffman
Hello all,
I weigh in on the side of creativity! My class created the virtual visit that David Rosen mentions, and I can tell you that the experience allowed students to enter history in a way I can't imagine anything else would have. It allowed them to see what could have been a dry subject (GED Social Studies materials, for example) as something that affected real humans, that real people participated in. It gave them a new framework for all of the history and social studies we were studying, as well as a real and shared experience to write about.
Had it occurred early in the year, I'm sure my students would have objected. But by then I had perfected my answer to the perennial question, "Will it be on the test?" Now I simply say, "Yes." You'd be amazed at how seldom I have been called upon to justify the answer! But it's not hard -- history is a subject, critical thinking is required, and so on.
Finally another possible way to reduce at least student pressure for a test-driven curriculum is to give homework out of the Steck-Vaughn skills books. They are cheap (maybe $2 apiece or so) and they keep students happy, along with giving you material for discussing test-taking skills -- which, after all, is a form of critical thinking.
Having said all of that, I have also struggled with theme-based learning. The same issues of open enrollment and spotty attendance plague me. I'm trying it again this year, though, with lower-level students (GLE about 3-6) who generally tend to have better attendance than higher levels. I'm keeping my fingers crossed!
Wendy Quinones
