Bringing Learners into Goal-Setting

by Anne Burke, Linda Gosselin, Jane Shea
Quinsigamond Community College
Worcester, MA

Quinsigamond Community College has several adult education programs, one on campus at night and several during the morning at off-campus sites in Worcester and Southbridge. Our program holds classes in the morning at St. Paul's School. We offer ASE, ABE, and ESL.

Our adult ESL students represent a cross-section of the immigrant community in Worcester. The largest segment of our student population is Spanishspeaking, with the majority from Puerto Rico and the rest from various Central and South American countries. They make up 60-70% of our student enrollment. The remainder of the students are from a variety of countries in Asia, the Mideast, and Eastern Europe and Russia. Our day students are predominantly female (80%). Some are employed or are on public assistance. Many are housewives. Some are single parents; others are single and never married. Many of the male students work at night and seem evenly divided between being married or single. Ages range from 18 to 70.

The program seeks to serve the needs of our students, whether they are seeking better employment, hoping to pursue higher education, or just coming to enrich their own language skills. The program is an open-enrollment/open-ended one. Each of the three classes must maintain a class enrollment of 13 students. As students reach their goals or withdraw early from the program, new students are accepted into the program from a waiting list.

Working in the Community

Our community-based program serves adults with limited English proficiency who desire to maintain and improve their quality of life in American society. Our goal is to enable adult learners to actively formulate their own educational goals.

This goal is attained through a variety of ways. When students join a class, they complete an IEP (individual education plan), identifying for instructors and themselves the learners' education goals. At the start of each curriculum unit of study, students and their instructor decide on which particular areas they want to work, via a needs assessment/ interest profile. Together they adapt the curriculum to class needs.

The structure of our ESL program is based on the MELT (Mainstream English Language Training) student performance levels, adapted to our own three proficiency levels. Level 1 includes SPL 0-2; Level 2 consists of SPL 3 and 4; Level 3 embraces SPL 5 and 6. Students may move to higher levels as they complete their goals and are assessed to be ready.

Students meet nine hours a week for 38 weeks each year. They can continue in the program until they complete all three levels.

This tri-level program design was created in 1991. Before that, each instructor worked independently, covering life skills and grammar randomly. This program weakness often led to repetition of some life skill materials and omission of others. It was difficult to assess the readiness of a student to progress to the next level. To improve our program and to better meet the needs of our students, we decided a more formal curriculum was needed.

In 1991, we three ESL instructors won approval to use program development funds to create a curriculum that would provide better consistency of skill development from one level to the next. Working together throughout the summer of 1991, we designed guidelines for life skill competencies, grammar, and vocabulary appropriate to each level, flexible enough to meet our instructional needs and the individual educational plans of our students.

Assessment Development

After utilizing the curriculum for one year, we determined that we needed a more formal instrument for assessing a student's progress and readiness to move on to the next level.

Our initial means of assessing student progress within this curriculum was very subjective. Every ten weeks the teacher would write a narrative concerning each student's general progress in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. This means of assessment did not really provide us the information we needed. It didn't inform us enough as to a student's progress in specific life skills in class nor which skills were required to review or to further study in class. Therefore, in the summer of 1992, again with program development funds, we collaborated on improving the assessment system. We started by examining various articles from Adventures in Assessment to see what other programs were using to evaluate student progress.

In particular, we found "Three by Three by Four: Ongoing Assessment at the Community Learning Center," by Karen Ebbitt, Priscilla Lee, Pam Nelson, and Joann Wheeler in Volume 2 of Adventures in Assessment helpful. Using it as a guide we decided that our assessment would not include a listing of assumed topics to be covered, but would be a form that would allow the instructor and the learners to review and list the skills and materials presented in class.

Our decision was based on our philosophy of encouraging our learners to fully participate in their own assessment. Because it was important to have some way of evaluating progress from the teacher's, as well as the student's, point of view, we developed two forms: a Student Self-Evaluation Form and a Teacher Assessment Form (see Forms A and B at end of article).

On the Student Self-Evaluation Form we wanted to use vocabulary that could be easily understood by most students. We decided to have students assess how they felt about their progress on competencies worked on in class. We thought it would be easier for lower level students to check-off how they felt about their progress, rather than writing about what specific progress they might have made. For more advanced students, we provided space so they could write about their progress in specific skill areas.

Assessment Format

The Student Self-Evaluation Form is completed through a brainstorming session in which students verbalize, with or without the teacher's help, the skills and materials covered over a particular period of time. Brainstorming offers the opportunity to review and recognize what was accomplished in class. The list of skills generated is written on the board and copied by the students on to their forms. For example, if we had worked on health and medicine the list of skills generated might be:

1. Review of parts of the body.

2. Review of simple illnesses.

3. Other common illnesses.

4. Describing one's symptoms.

5. Calling to make a doctor's appointment.

6. Filling out a medical history form.

7. Understanding medicine labels.

8. Common medical tests and procedures.

While the students assess their own progress in these competencies, the teacher records the same skills on a Teacher Assessment Form for each student as a separate assessment. As soon as possible after completion of both forms, student/teacher conferences are scheduled during class time to discuss and compare evaluations. The students and teacher use the forms to identify those items that have been mastered and those that require further study.

The conference allows discussion of any other difficulties with the unit or other factors affecting the student's learning that may not have come to light previously. The conference is important so that the instructor and learner have a mutual understanding of progress made and obstacles to learning. If there is a discrepancy between what progress the teacher and student think has been made, discussion follows. More often than not, the gaps occur because the student is not very confident in his/her ability. It is then the task of the teacher to remind the student of the successes he/she had in the classroom and what the student could do at the beginning and what the student can do better now.

This can be accomplished through telling the student what the teacher has observed or by showing the student samples of classwork done that demonstrate progress.

Top of Page

Reflections

Preparing for this article has encouraged us to formally evaluate our use of this ongoing assessment and come up with the following list of strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths

1. The format is flexible enough to be used at any point in the program. Because students are only assessed or the materials covered from the time they enter the program, forms better serve our open-entry, open-exit program than standardized instruments. Standardized tests may test students on materials not covered in class. They would not give us the information we need in order to assess student progress and readiness to advance to the next level.

2. Student involvement in reflecting on skills and materials covered leads to their recognition that learning has taken place.

3. A blank assessment form allows for teacher flexibility in adapting the curriculum to the needs of a particular group of students at each class level. This is important because what is covered in a particular unit of study can vary from year to year.

4. Use of a student form and a teacher form provides a balanced record to support the determination that a student is ready to move on to a new level. The higher level teacher can see the units covered, as well as the student's strengths and weaknesses. Because evaluation includes a self-assessment, the teacher also gains a sense of the student's own awareness of competency.

5. Instructors can use the instrument to identify areas that need further review or instruction. For example, if the majority of students respond "not good" to completing a job application, the instructor knows that further work in that area is necessary.

Weaknesses

1. Often two or more class days are required in order to complete the assessments and follow-up conferences. This time must be seen as necessary and a learning experience of its own value for the students.

2. Students tend to want to evaluate their ability, not their progress. In the theme of 'health," for example, the students may have worked on calling to make a doctor's appointment. When it comes time to evaluate their ability to do this, students may tend to want to evaluate themselves as compared to a sample conversation used in class. It can be difficult to get them to evaluate themselves or their progress from the time they started and what they can now communicate.

Changes

Our ongoing assessment tools are an effective means of assisting learners to evaluate their own progress and providing teachers with the documentation needed to determine a student's readiness to progress through the levels. However, we have seen a need to make some changes in order for our on-going assessment to better meet our program needs:

1. Frequency of Use
   The forms were originally intended to be administered every ten weeks, according to DOE guidelines. However, we found it more logical for assessment to take place after major units of study. This schedule is still in compliance with DOE expectations, while more in line with our own program and learner needs. The length of time between evaluations can vary according to how long it takes to cover a theme for a particular group of students.

2. Form Changes
   A. Student Self-Assessment Form
   We plan to add a section to the form for students to assess their attendance and participation.
   B. Teacher Assessment Form
   We have deleted the evaluation of attitude and effort as they are already reflected in attendance and participation. Also, trying to evaluate these factors separately can be very subjective. At times there can be personality clashes between a student and teacher. When it is time to evaluate a student's attitude and effort, these negatives may unconsciously influence a teacher's perception of these factors. A student's attendance can be quantified. If there are no factors influencing attendance, good attendance reflects good attitude toward learning. Observations of a student's active participation in class activities is evidence of effort to make progress.

Conclusion

Writing this article gave us the opportunity to reflect on our ongoing assessment, identify its strengths and weaknesses, and decide what changes should be made to improve our assessment process. Overall, we are pleased with the ongoing assessment tools we use. They have served our needs well since we began designing them in 1991. With the changes we are making in our ongoing assessment tools, we are confident that they will continue to serve the needs of our program into the future.

Originally published in Adventures in Assessment, Volume 8 (Winter 1995),
SABES/World Education, Boston, MA, Copyright 1997.

Funding support for the publication of this document on the Web provided in part by the Ohio State Literacy Resource Center as part of the LINCS Assessment Special Collection.