Colleagues,
New Models for Distance Classes in Adult Education, by Jerome (Jere) Johnston, Sheryl Hart, Destiny Long and Jenifer Vanek, is a new professional development resource for adult educators from Project IDEAL (Improving Distance Education for Adult Learners).
From the introduction:
In recent years there has been a growing recognition that ABE students who want to be college and career ready need many more skills than those required to pass the GED....Some distance teachers have responded by adjusting their assignments, reducing the time students spend on the core curriculum product and adding assignments designed to build college and career readiness skills in their students. An approach that uses a variety of technologies actually helps with language and content learning needs by creating more constructivist learning experiences – rather than the behavioral models evident in the proprietary curricula. This guide describes the classes of a number of these teachers with the hope that they can inspire others to examine their distance teaching practices and offer a richer experience for their students.
This resource is divided into two parts. The first consists of a collection of short vignettes describing the "classes" of a number of these teachers. In most of the vignettesteachers have used one or more electronic tools to enable them to offer the richer experience. The second part of the guide describes the tools in a bit more detail, providing an easy way for teachers to learn about the tools that they might use in their own classes.
The vignettes include:
1. Creating an ESL Classroom Online
2. Developing Independent Learning Skills in a GED Prep Class
3. Preparing for College: Mindquest Academy
4. Independent Learning Skills For ESL Students
5. Broadening the Academic Horizon for GED Students
6. Expanding the Writing Curriculum Beyond GED Prep
7. Technology-‐Rich Writing Instruction for ESL Students
8. Vocational Education in an ESL Class
This is a useful resource for teachers, program managers and professional developers who want to see how teachers are using online learning, and it reflects in authentic examples from the field how distance learning has broadened, and is now often found as blended/hybrid/integrated face-to-face and online learning.
It would be great to hear your thoughts about this resource. What do you find especially interesting or useful? How could this be used well in professional development for adult education teachers or program managers?
David J. Rosen
Technology and Learning and Program Management CoPs Moderator
djrosen123@gmail.com
Comments
David thank you for sharing this resource. There are many programs that will find this resource useful to help them formulate option, plans and tools that may be adopted. Likewise, states developing their distance ed policies will find the short narratives food for thought as policy continues to take shape in many states.
The range of technology tools available is expanding almost daily. No one snapshot in time will be able to offer a current list of "best" tools for a given purpose. Still, the discussion of tools used in this resource is very effective in getting programs to explore different options and to get a glimpse of what could be done. It is important that programs and teachers do not simply look at a list of tools. The narratives do try to highlight how the tools were used together to help learners in a distance environment, but I worry that some in the field may just take the list of tools and throw them at learners thinking good education will happen. As with any real tool in life, like a hammer for instance, there is a difference between someone just picking one up and making holes in the wall vs a master craftsman expertly driving a 10 penny nail in in one hit, in a difficult corner, in the rain. Readers need to remember that these are snapshots of general frameworks and not prescriptions. There are many many resources that have to go with each of these tools and connections need to be made as to how those experiences connect for learners. I attended a Project Ideal seminar this last year and got to meet many of the authors. I know those people and programs had many hours plugged in designing and creating those background materials that really are the glue that make all those cool tools fit together well. Simply plugging a learner into each tool in a particular order is ineffective.
With that in mind, I find this resource to be a great idea generator and a wonderful sharing of practice. People excited about the ideas shared in this resource really should contact the authors to talk about what background pieces they have in place to help create the flows described in the narratives. One good set of questions might be centered around how assessments are done (formative and/or evaluative).
Hi Ed,
Good point: technology literally means tools. Even great tools can be used poorly by those who don't understand how they best can be used, and teaching like carpentry, is a craft as well as (or perhaps more than) a science. Its always best if teachers and program administrators have a clear idea of their purposes, goals or objectives in mind and then look for the tools that could best accomplish them.
At least two of the authors of this publication, Destiny Long and Jen Vanek, are members of the Technology and Learning CoP, so if you -- and others -- have questions for them, please ask. It looks like you have some questions about assessments. Could you explain what these are?
Thanks,
David J. Rosen
Technology and Learning CoP Moderator
djrosen123@gmail.com
Teachers in general have many outlines of how grades are generated and in our grade fetish world the focus from many teachers is on justifying any given grade with very nice, percentage based formulas. The reporting almost never shares what was successful and what still skills still need work. In working with hundreds of teachers and asking about their assessment practice, I compiled some numbers and found that a large portion (often over 50%) of their grading percentages centered around behavioral compliance (homework, notebook, participation, effort...). In many cases, a student need only have success on 20-30% of the academic goals to pass in an average classroom. Factor in that Adult Ed has many teachers come into our important work without many formal education classes and the subjectivity of evaluation and grading seems to expand a bit.
My concern with assessment is that, as we open doors to new ideas and share great new practice, I think it is vital for the field to see options of how things are being evaluated, both formative and summative. With the push for standards based, we are only increasing the need for very clear, student centered activities with accurate descriptions that indicate different levels of learner successes. If I claim that David has met this set of standards, the proof of this will very much depend on how that evidence was evaluated so others can best understand the learner's abilities, creativity, and personal styles of presentation. In today's society (outside of schools) we need specifics on "What can you do and how?" rather than "What have others labeled your success rate at?". For that transition to happen, we need to be mindful to include really good examples of how formative and summative assessments are fitting into these great ideas that are being discussed. With out those inclusions, we run the risk of two problems. The first is that a novice can pick up a wonderful activity, try it out and have much less successes (and maybe even setbacks) because of ignorance of how to effectively use formative check ins that the original authors probably had in place, but were not shared along with the activities. The second problem is that the exclusion of assessment examples in our public discussions weakens the communities' efforts to share ideas, collaborate, and develop best practices. We can find so many discussions nationally that are great on classroom management, text anxiety, curriculum design, standards, and even some on teacher stress, but assessment is often like the transmission of a car. Most know a transmission is necessary and it helps take the power of the engine and get it to the wheels, but almost none know how that really happens or what the difference between the transmission types (front wheel, rear wheel, 4 wheel, all wheel ...) are. When evaluating new cars, however, those types of transmissions are used to sell features and yet most can not really understand those descriptions of what makes a given car go. This is very much like a future instructor or employer trying to figure out what that 76 subjective grade means in terms of the applicant's abilities to find success.
As you pointed out, many of the authors, and most any teacher that posts on discussions like this, will gladly share specific practice when asked. My comment about the assessment was simply reminding the field that there are many out there in need of seeing good examples and the inclusion of assessment practices gives all of us great food for dialog so we can learn from each other and grow our craft. Does LINCS have a discussion thread centered on assessment research and practice? If so, then I just need to get myself over there :) It is an important aspect of our work. I just want to make sure we are not neglecting such a vital sharing of information.
Ed, and others,
LINCS has an Assessment Community of Practice, whose members discuss formative and summative assessments. The assessment concerns that you raised here are certainly important to raise there, but are also welcome in the Program Management CoP.
I would like to pick up on your concerns about assessment practices, especially in the context of what you describe as "the push for standards." Now that most states have adopted the College and Career Ready (CCR) standards we have a common framework for adult education content across the country. This is new, possibly an advancement for our field, but as I believe you would agree, not complete. If we want adult basic education programs and learners to reach those standards, we need a system in place in which program curriculum and instruction is aligned to them. I know that your state of Maine and several other states are working together on that issue, and that you are part of that effort. Others here, however, might be interested to learn more about what this OCTAE-sponsored national project is attempting to do, where you are in the process, and what you hope to have accomplished at the end of the multi-year process.
If we want an aligned system I believe we also need NRS levels and standardized assessments that align with the CCR standards and, as you pointed out, teachers and administrators who understand how to (design and) use formative assessments well. If we add to that mix of hefty challenges a growing interest by employers, some higher education institutions, and adult educators in competency-based curriculum and assessments, and stackable micro-credentials that could add up to industry-recognized work-related credentials, we have a changing environment in which teachers and program managers will need to know a great deal more about formative (and summative) assessment practices. Ed and others here, would you agree?
As a fully aligned system develops, if it does, I would like to see more professional development in the assessment area: webinars, online and blended learning courses, and adult basic education assessment guides to help practitioners design and use formative assessments, micro-credentials (digital badges), and performance-based assessments.
I would love to hear program managers (and others here) weigh in on these issues. From state administrator and program level practitioner perspectives, what would a well-designed, aligned system of standards, curriculum, instruction and assessment need to include in order to work well in your state, for you, your organization and your students?
David J. Rosen
Program Management CoP Moderator
djrosen123@gmail.com
Hi Ed. Thanks for your thoughtful response to the report. I completely agree with your observations about the issue of use of technology tools without adequate reflection on context and instructional goals.
In the study, one of the things we noticed was that the participating teachers made careful selection of technology tools based on specific goals. Their practice reminds me of a theoretical framework called TPACK (technology, pedagogy and content knowledge). You can explore it at www.tpack.org. It's a framework created by Matthew J. Koehler and Punya Mishra that characterizes what is involved in choosing learning technologies. Essentially, one hopes that choices about technology, or any other instructional material, are based on the content being taught and the pedagogical approach required for that specific content. These things should drive tech choice . I think this is even more true in online DL than it is in classroom instruction. I hope you find the link useful.
Jen
It is interesting to hear from those who have been working with both the TPACK and SMAR models to effectively integrate technology for a sound instructional experience. I think it's a good reminder that it's about good teaching practices- rather than starting with the tool.
http://www.edtechcoaching.org/2013/11/ed-tech-frameworks-why-i-dont-use-tpack.html
Great article, Nancy! To me it shows how there are a number of ways to go about integrating technology depending on a variety of factors. Years ago I came across a site that advocated how those who are thinking about what tools to use for social media should make decisions. The P.O.S.T method is in a nutshell: First consider the People, then Objectives and Strategies (in our case teaching) and only then the Technology. To me it brought together in a really clear way what many instructional designers had been doing for years with models such as ADDIE and ASSURE, etc.
When I shared the link to POST Method in our LINCs Listserve (I think in 2008), I said then, much like Moroder did in her article, and that probably the ideal way for teachers to think about integrating technology. I whole heartedly agree with when she says, “you’re trying to do Y- and here’s how X can make you more efficient or effective (through increased access, better organization, more automation, etc.). That way, the focus for professional development starts with good teaching practices- rather than starting with the tool.”
However, I said in my original post, and continue to believe from experience, that it does not always happen that way. Sometimes it is an organic process in that we come upon a technology that seems to hold great educational promise and we start there. But then we circle back to the audience needs and objectives keeping good teaching practice paramount.
What do you all think? What has been your experience as teachers or professional developers helping others in this process?
Steve Quann
Director, Educational Technology Center
World Education, Inc
steve_quann@worlded.org
Thank you for sharing that resource Nancy. It is always useful to see two models side by side to compare the strengths and uses of each. I completely agree with your assertion that "...it's about good teaching practices...". This brought to mind a wonderful resource I used as an eMINTS trainer a few years back.
For those of you who have never heard of eMINTS (link to their site here), it is a research-based program out of the University of Missouri that started up in 1999 that aims to mentor teachers into increasing educational opportunities through technology integration. Their entire program centers around what good teaching looks like and how technology can enhance that.
They developed a self assessment to use with teaching staff that I have found very valuable. Many assessments imply good vs bad or competent vs incompetent and no one wants to mark themselves as being bad or incompetent. This self assessment offers a wonderful reflection and tracking of progress over time. No matter where individuals score themselves at, the focus is all on what our next steps may look like for every assessed skill. Please notice that out of the 25 criteria, only two really hit on the technology end of things, because it really is all about the teaching and learning. In using this tool with hundreds of teachers, I have heard many positives from teachers regarding how the assessment not only helped stimulate thoughtful reflection, it offered specific targets or "next steps" that a teacher could clearly articulate when working with professional development specialist or with managers. Administrators liked the tool because the data generated gave the administrator another lens to look at his or her team to best choose resources and training that could benefit the team.
If you have not seen this resource, the link is here. If you have used this or seen this, please offer your thoughts or experiences. I personally feel it is one of the most useful teaching self assessment tools I have been exposed to.