Literacy vs. Reading, and TABE
From LiteracyTentWiki
Back to Assessment Information
The following discussion took place on the NIFL-Assessment Listserv between June 22 and June 24, 2005. This was a parallel discussion that occurred during the Guest Discussion on the release of the “Performance Levels for Adults: Interim Report” hosted by staff from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The following discussion focused on literacy versus reading, defining reading as well as other basic education terms, and appropriate tests for assessing reading.
Summary
The discussion began with the position that literacy and reading are separate skills/abilities. The person continues by noting that there are a number of terms in basic education that need (better) definitions including: literacy, reading, adult education, proficiency, and measurement. She then discusses several common tests that purport to measure reading, but notes that they fall short in various areas. Sticht’s work is cited in terms of raising the notion that measuring literacy can be affected depending on the format in which it is presented. For example, Sticht points out that by “merging alphabetics with graphics technology” such as in the examples found in the literacy tasks presented in large scale assessments like YALS, NALS, IALS, ALL and NAAL, the true nature of measuring ability to read is affected.
A very in-depth discussion ensues focused on the TABE, and whether it is a test of reading, or if it tests some other type of literacy skill(s) or ability. Various opinions are cited. It is noted that the reading definition provided in Equipped for the Future (EFF) is much broader in scope than that implied by the TABE, and is therefore more appropriate for designing reading instruction and reading assessments.
Discussion Thread
Date: June 22, 2005
From: Andrea Wilder
One point Tom made some posts ago (or maybe on another web site) was about the technology/format (what you will) of literacy problems and presentation. The difficulty he pointed out was the problem of extracting information when the format was different, for example, a bus schedule. This is a literacy problem, not a reading problem--it is the set-up for completion of a task: understanding, extracting meaning, from a bus schedule. So the format can trip up a naive reader, and if they have trouble reading words, the difficulty is compounded. Anyone who has trouble reading a guide for installing software knows what I mean.
5 terms to define, and we have gone around lots of time on these, I don't know that there is much more to say:
1) literacy
2) reading
3) adult education
4) proficiency
5) measurement
In my mind, there is considerable overlap between literacy and reading--literate has the root of "letter," and also suggests "to be educated." I take this last to mean some skill in understanding a topic through the mastery of terms, concepts, words, associated with that topic (domain). Literate without reading skill? Nope.
Reading I take to mean skill in decoding, that is knowledge of English (or other) spelling patterns and the ability to pronounce and "read" and understand words up to say a 6th grade level. This is where reading and literacy may divide--there are lots of words that the adult may be able to read easily which do not fit into a domain, are in fact scattered all over the place in different domains. And not all words are nouns and verbs--many are "function" words that have to be mastered in the "reading" process.
Proficiency and measurement. If I were judging the proficiency of a person's use of software manuals (an art form), then I would measure that proficiency by seeing the person follow the manual--or maybe translate it into usable English (which would imply proficiency with the words and concepts).
"Reading" implies more general skills, like finding a core idea, knowing vocabulary, writing in full sentences, using quotation marks, etc. I'd toss "inference" in there, too, and other skills associated with skilled reading.
Various kinds of standardized tests could be used to measure just reading. I say that based on Art LaChance's observation on various lists that progressively higher TABE scores correlated well with ability to pass the GED--so these are basic reading skills and schooled skills. I would put in this domain (reading) the Wilson program, and some LVA materials, for example.
"Adult Education" is too mushy a term to be able to define well, though I use it myself as a catch all when I want to avoid more precise definitions.
Tom did interesting work which "translated" grade levels into FCE levels--I hope I've got that right, Tom. Maybe not, time for review?
EFF is kind of a hybrid, tosses in other elements.
Andrea Wilder
AWilder106@aol.com
Date: June 24, 2005
From: Tom Sticht
Andrea has brought up the idea of the distinction between literacy and reading. In a paper entitled Teaching Reading With Adults (www.nald.ca/fulltext/sticht/jan02/cover.htm) I discuss the merging of alphabetics with graphics technology to create graphic displays for reading of the written (graphic) language as a second signaling system for the spoken language.
The use of the three primary properties of graphic displays, ie., their use of light, their ability to be arrayed in space, and their relative permanence, when combined with the unique properties of language make possible the many types of literacy tasks assessed in the YALS/NALS/IALS/ ALL and forthcoming NAAL.
Tom Sticht
International Consultant in Adult Education
2062 Valley View Blvd.
El Cajon, CA 92019-2059
Tel/fax: (619) 444-9133
Email: tsticht@aznet.net
Date: June 23, 2005
From: Marie Cora
Hi Andrea,
I think you are hitting on a number of the issues that the Interim Report also gets at.
First off, the issue of defining literacy. I feel like if this were actually done, so many of the difficulties the field grapples with could be corralled. For example, being able to clearly state who we are, what we do, how we do it, how effective we are, etc. so that EVERYONE could understand us. So information and communication would change dramatically. There are many examples, and I'm sure you don't need a laundry list. But after reading the Report, I feel the need to take a step back from even the list of 5 terms to define that you note below - because I'm not sure if we should be defining literacy as a concept (as noted in the Report) or as a set of skills and abilities. Maybe both? For different purposes or reasons?
High Stakes tests don't really allow for It Takes a Village notion - but if you think about what you do at home and in your daily life, I bet you share your literacy with others (and borrow from others) more often than you don't. And if we think about our classrooms - how many of us purposefully construct group work because we know that this type of scaffolding really enhanced the educational process.
I think it's absolutely good to gauge the individual. I just worry that if all the emphasis lies on the individual, then that is not reflected in our reality of life.
So back to the definitions: so do we need to define literacy in both ways? Again: for different purposes and needs?
Andrea - I need to put on my educational assessment hat now: neither the TABE nor the GED (unless you are specifically talking about the reading portion of the GED) are reading tests. They were not developed that way, constructed that way, and they are not structured that way. The TABE may touch on just what you said: reading skills. But reading skills assessed in discreet ways on a multiple choice test is not at all assessing a person's ability to read. Progressively higher TABE scores correlating with passing the GED does not speak to a person's reading ability at all. It speaks to the person's ability to do well enough on the TABE test so that they can move on to master the GED tests.
marie cora
Moderator, NIFL Assessment Discussion List, and
Coordinator/Developer LINCS Assessment Special Collection at
http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/assessment/
Date: June 23, 2005
From: Andrea Wilder
I agree with Debbie that how on earth the field can become professionalized (people with lots of specialized knowledge) is beyond our scope right now. Multiple reasons.
OK--TABE. I read what Marie said--it is not a reading test--and I thought: of course it isn't! Because you never hear a person reading! Then I rethought that. If it isn't a reading test, what is it? It does seem to meet the criteria I advanced for "reading" as a mostly taught-in-school subject. Some illumination here would be useful.
Literacy. It can include both dimensions--concept and set of skills (these need to be defined somehow), it depends where you look on a vertical continuum. I can imagine looking at a set of skills that I am teaching people, and that are different from straight reading. As I go on looking at this set of skills, it occurs to me that they can be bundled together as a concept, literacy, as I defined it in my earlier post.
I really appreciate the informed minds that are brought together this week on the listserv, and thanks to Marie and respondents for doing this.
Andrea Wilder
AWilder106@aol.com
Date: June 23, 2005
From: Debbie Yoho
Andrea, I'll take a stab at your question about TABE because I have the time right now. However, the main thread on this list right now is on the NALS-NAAL discussion, so I hope we don't go off too far on just TABE. A lot has been written about it here anyway.
The TABE is essentially an achievement test, in my view, although Contemporary makes a stab at setting it up to be "diagnostic". It is available in a Survey version or a longer Full Battery version. It has several subtests, including a Reading Subtest, a Spelling Subtest, and a Language Subtest. In my view, the test questions stress the APPLICATION of some skills, and not even very many skills at that. The reading subtest is primarily a comprehension test, including summarizing, cause and effect, identifying details, identifying opinions as opposed to facts, context skills, and some vocabulary, etc. The test does not check mastery of the many skills that the skill-and-drill people would identify as essential to reading (long/short vowels, blends, diagraphs, etc. although this is arguable.) It also includes questions similar in format to those on the NALS, using "real life" materials such as bus schedules, or a receipt from a store purchase. Other questions are more "story oriented". I feel it places great stress on political correctness for a vastly diverse market.
For example, one passage is about Eskimos and another about a Chinese family. That's not a bad thing, by the way, but my southern Black learners have had no exposure to Chinese or Eskimo names, and are confused when confronted in a test environment with terms and names they've never seen before, hence my pet peeve that I think the TABE is culturally biased because of its attempt not to be culturally biased! But that's another discussion...
I think most practitioners would agree that the TABE is a compromise in the search for an instrument that is useful in the broadest possible sense, and this is why it is so widely used. At least it is designed specifically for adults. And as an achievement test, it is valid and reliable. It just isn't what instructors need to plan customized instruction, it isn't nearly sensitive enough to pick up gradual gains, it doesn't assess mastery, it can be very quirky in its results especially with the lowest level learners, and in my opinion it is culturally biased unless you live in a highly diverse neighborhood. Is it a reading test? Well, not the whole TABE. The reading subtest is an assessment of reading achievement if you define reading as the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act does (!), but not if you include usage and spelling as reading skills.
Deborah W. Yoho
Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv
Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Past President, SC Adult Literacy Educators
2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205
803-765-2555 Fax 803-799-8417 dwyoho@earthlink.net
Date: June 23, 2005
From: Andrea Wilder
Thanks also for your cut on the TABE. Yes, I'd say a reading achievement test, with an assumption that the person knows how to read the words presented.
Andrea Wilder
AWilder106@aol.com
Date: June 24, 2005
From: Marie Cora
Hmmm...I still don't find the TABE to be a test of reading. Even with the thoughtful ideas on it presented by folks. You need to be able to read to do the test, true. So the way I interpret that is to say that one has enough skills to be able to tackle (or master) a selected-response test (multiple choice test).
What do others think?
marie cora
Moderator, NIFL Assessment Discussion List, and
Coordinator/Developer LINCS Assessment Special Collection at
http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/assessment/
Date: June 24, 2005
From: Amy R. Trawick
Marie, earlier you said that the TABE and GED are not reading tests. Specifically, you commented "They were not developed that way, constructed that way, and they are not structured that way." I understand your comment in terms of the GED, but I'm curious why you say this about the TABE Reading test. Are you saying that the TABE developers had no *intention* of measuring reading, or that they failed in the attempt?
Amy R. Trawick
North Wilkesboro, NC
atrawick@charter.net
Date: June 24, 2005
From: Marie Cora
Hi Amy, Thanks for your question.
I cannot speak to what the TABE developers' intentions are or were. I am referring to comments made earlier this week that it can be used to assess reading.
The reading section may indeed capture some of a person's ability to read. I think I noted that some reading skills can be determined. However, what I often hear from folks in the field is that the TABE is the only test that can be used by a state or programs to report on reading levels and reading gains of the students they serve. People just don't seem very satisfied with this. Yes, you need to read, but are you examining the person's ability to take the test, or a person's ability to read? That's really my question here. I don't necessarily have an answer, just opinions.
As for failing in an attempt to make a reading test (just my opinion here) - I don't think so. The TABE was developed to try and capture stuff that is extremely hard to capture. At some point (and others would know the history of TABE much better than I), folks were wise enough to understand that we need to build a coherent system of education for our adult population - which is only a good thing. Do I think that it's time to re-examine our tests and our system so that it better meets our students' and teachers' needs: yes. And I believe that we can do this if we do it together with all the stakeholders that are involved in our field.
marie cora
Moderator, NIFL Assessment Discussion List, and
Coordinator/Developer LINCS Assessment Special Collection at
http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/assessment/
Date: June 24, 2005
From: Amy R. Trawick
Marie, I appreciate the clarification. I thought you were somehow privy to information that the TABE Reading test hadn't been intended to measure reading. I think it would be fair to say that the TABE developers and users, for the most part, consider it a reading test. But you and Andrea and others are raising an important question: how is the TABE defining reading? And, relatedly, is that a useful/meaningful definition of reading?
The "reading" that is assessed on the TABE seems to be implicitly defined as something that one does to written text in order to find or extract meaning (that is "in" the text, if you know how to find it). I think a more useful definition of reading is found in the EFF Content Standard Read With Understanding. I understand the development process of this standard to be somewhat like the "job analysis" that Judy described in her last response. That is, through use of focus groups including adults from various walks of life, consensus was reached about the key responsibilities that adults have in their major roles as workers, family members, and community members. Next the skills required to fulfill these responsibilities were identified and *then* what these skills looked like in application were described to create the content standards. Thus, reading is defined in the Content Standard Read With Understanding
(http://eff.cls.utk.edu/fundamentals/standard_read_with_understanding.htm)
as a problem-solving process that originates from a meaningful purpose and requires the application of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to achieve that purpose.
This definition is much broader than the implied one used in the TABE. If I were using EFF's definition of reading to design instruction, I would want to make sure students knew that we read for different purposes, that we apply different strategies based on those purposes, that figuring out the author's meaning is one part of the process, and that what I already know may help me figure out what the author's meaning is but then I have to figure out what that means to me (related to my purpose). I would structure learning assignments that required them to apply this knowledge for meaningful, often life-based, as opposed to just academic, purposes (though learning how to read "academically" would certainly be a part of instruction. And I would ensure that they encountered/used/read multiple kinds of texts, not just workbooks. If I were using this definition of reading to design assessment, the same would apply. I would want to measure to what degree students are able to identify their own purposes for reading, employ strategies to problem-solve, and construct meaning that addresses their purposes for reading. The TABE just doesn't do this.
So, to your statement:
"Do I think that it's time to re-examine our tests and our system so that it better meets our
students' and teachers' needs: yes. And I believe that we can do this if we do it together
with all the stakeholders that are involved in our field."
I absolutely agree!
Amy R. Trawick
North Wilkesboro, NC
atrawick@charter.net
