Fund Programs of Sufficient Intensity and Duration for Participants to Achieve Substantial Learning Gains

Date: August 3, 2010

. . . recognizing that programs providing individual instruction may provide fewer hours than programs employing group instruction.

—An NCL WIA Reauthorization Priority

Article by Jeff Carter, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, ProLiteracy

Everyone wants adult learners to move as quickly as possible to achieve their educational and career goals. The problem is that many adult learners have multiple demands on their time due to work and family circumstances—making highly intensive, uninterrupted participation in instruction unrealistic. This is why the potential benefits of higher intensity and duration of instruction should be balanced with the recognition that adult learners face such challenges.

The other problem with rigidly trying to define “sufficient intensity” is that there is no one-size-fits all answer as to what constitutes sufficient intensity for the different modes of instruction practiced in adult education. Programs providing individual one-to-one instruction, for example, may provide a student with fewer hours per week of instruction than programs employing classroom instruction. But the focused, individualized attention that a student may receive in a one-on-one instructional setting may be more beneficial to that student than a few extra hours per week in a classroom, where that student may not receive the same kind of attention. So we ask that the law recognize not only intensity and duration, but also different modes of instruction, such as one-to-one instruction.

Intensity and duration of instruction are important factors in helping students progress. But the bottom line is that student success ultimately depends on many different factors. What do you think?

» Why the NCL Priorities for Reauthorizing WIA Are Important: Views From the Field

» Tips for Using Blog Discussions to Advance WIA Reauthorization Issues

» What are YOUR Priorities for Reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act?

» Use A Consistent Definition of Adult Education and Allowable Local Adult Education Activities

Tags: group instruction, individual instruction, intensity and duration, reauthorization, WIA

Comments RSS TrackBack 4 comments

Kevin Smith

in August 3rd, 2010 @ 11:09

Jeff,

This is a very important issue not only in assuring that all learners have access to the instructional services that best attend to their learning needs and goals but also to how the WIA reauthorization supports the growth and development of the adult education system.

Your comments speak to the concern for learner access. Every teacher can speak to the frustration of having students sit in her class knowing that they are either behind or ahead of where the instruction is focused. So is it better to have this student sit for more hours in this situation or fewer hours receiving instruction attending to their specific learning needs? The current interpretation of intensity and duration would side with the latter. Worse, funding of programs may be based on the capacity to deliver hours of instruction rather any attention or analysis of either the efficacy of instruction nor the actual number of hours of learner attendance.

Very simply put, this is about, as Jeff has said, attending to the learning needs and goals of the learner. If the learner shows literacy or language NRS gain as a result of 50 hours of tutorial instruction or 100 of classroom instruction, each of these services should be treated as successful and worthy of WIA funding under the current law.

Developing the capacity of the system is another aspect of this issue that also need to be considered. Rather than isolate and favor types of programs which offer more hours of instruction because of their approach (group vs. one-to-one), why not research and develop ways to integrate these approaches to deliver the best combination of services needed by the leaner and thereby the most efficient and effective “intensity and duration”?

Again very simply put, the system cannot afford to have an adult receiving tutorial instruction two hours a week if that adult can attend and benefit by more hours in a group setting. Nor can the system afford to have an adult sit in a classroom for 100 hours if they are unable to benefit because the instruction is either beyond or below their ability.

Rather we should be considering statute which encourages using the nominal WIA Title II resources to engage and employ all the existing assets available and combine them in ways that best meet learners needs an goals. It makes little sense to recognize that some 20% of adults in classrooms might benefit by having a tutor working with them in concert with the teacher or using electronic tools like Leaner Web to provide the appropriate “intensity and duration” of instruction, and not give full access to WIA funding to these essential assets because they aren’t offering the same number of hours.

Again and again, if we consider the learners needs rather than the programs needs I think we with come to a different and better conclusion and result.

[Reply]
Rick Burgin

in August 3rd, 2010 @ 17:43

First of all, thank you for allowing us to have these discussions through this format…it’s interesting to see how other centers operate, and how they perceive things.

I am writing to voice my concerns over the required minimum number of instructional hours a student must put in before being allowed to posttest. We use the TABE, therefore our students are required to put in 60 hours.

Many of our students are in situations where obtaining a GED is a priority, and to hold them back just so they can obtain the number of hours required by the federal government is ludicrous. Consider a few of the examples of students we are currently serving at our ABE/GED Center:
● Unemployed, seeking a job which requires a GED
● Homeless
● Court-ordered
● Entering military

Our students don’t all fit into the square box that the folks who are making these rules would like to put them. There are reasons why students left school to begin with; replicating a situation they were previously in (i.e., traditional high schools where they failed in the first place) does no good for anyone. Requiring someone to put in seat time does no good for anyone.

Educational gain has little to do with the number of hours a student spends in a program. Students should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they are ready to posttest. Instructors who have worked with students know when their students are ready. Our own ABE/GED Center instructors have a combined total of 92 years of teaching experience in ABE. Teacher-made tests and chapter reviews, not seat time, tell instructors when a student has mastered the material and is ready to move on and posttest.

Many factors determine student progression rates: one-to-one or small groups vs. classroom instruction; quality and intensity of instruction; intellectual capability – some students learn more quickly than others; and motivation, just to name a few.

Some students can move from one Educational Functioning Level (EFL) to the next in 15 hours, while others might take 1,500 hours. A student who pretests with the TABE at an NRS Low Adult Secondary Education level (NRS Level 5) with a scaled score of 594 in math (10.9 grade equivalent using the TABE) only needs to increase their scaled score by 1 point in order to be in the next level (595 = 11.0 grade equivalent). Do we really need to hold this student back for 60 hours before we posttest him? Chances are pretty good that he can increase his score to a 12.9 (much less an 11.0 grade equivalent) in much less than 60 hours. A student who pretests (TABE) at an NRS Beginning Basic Education level with a scaled score of 368 in reading could take hundreds of hours to bump to the next level. In my experience, students with difficulties in math can progress very quickly from one level to the next. Students with difficulties in reading tend to take much longer. The policy of 60 instructional hours before being allowed to posttest takes none of these factors into consideration.

What curriculum is used to determine that 60 (or 50 or 30) hours is the number at which students can move from one NRS level to the next? We would like to see the research that proves a student must have 60 hours of instruction before showing educational gains; our center’s federal tables on educational gain show otherwise! We have been operating for years with no minimum hours required between a pre- and a posttest. We also exceed the state’s federal Negotiated Performance Levels for both ABE and Adult Secondary Education (ASE).

A research article, “Federal Accountability System Fuels the Decline of the Adult Education & Literacy System of the United States” written in 2003 by Thomas G. Sticht, an International Consultant in Adult Education, compares attendance and progress of Wyoming ABE programs with Florida ABE programs. After reading the article, we certainly question why OVAE would mandate all students to put in the same number of instructional hours before being allowed to post-test

Some centers offer very limited hours of instruction during a program year. Many centers are unable to offer 60 hours of classroom instruction, even during a full program year. As you may know, Wyoming is a very rural state; many, if not most, sites instruct on a part-time basis. ABE/GED instruction is offered at detention and treatment centers, again on a very part-time basis. How will students be able to access 60 hours of instruction when it isn’t even available to them during a year’s time?

Every center in Wyoming has experienced federal and state budget cuts this year. How can we offer any more instruction while we are already understaffed? Our facilities are bursting at the seams with students. Where are we supposed to put students who need to attend all those extra hours?

OVAE states that centers must follow test publisher guidelines. CTB McGraw-Hill, the publisher of TABE, states on its website (under Frequently Asked Questions on the TABE): “There is no recommended minimum number of hours of instruction that must occur if a different form or different level of the TABE pre-test is administered as a post-test.” We have operated under these guidelines for years, and have yet to see a revised TABE publisher’s manual that states post-testing should occur only after 60 hours. OVAE, however, insists that CTB McGraw-Hill requires 60 hours before students be allowed to posttest.

It should be noted that Wyoming’s assessment policy allows for a limited number of students to posttest before 60 hours of instruction; however, these exceptions are only allowable for 20% of the students whose pretest places them at one of the 2 highest Educational Functioning Levels (i.e., ASE Low and ASE High). ABE students (EFL levels 1 – 4) are never allowed to posttest before 60 hours (according to the policy).

Our ABE/GED Center compared statistics for Table 4b (which tallies educational gain for students who have been both pre-and post-tested), on students who had more than 12 hours of attendance with students who had more than 60 hours of attendance. Students who were in the program for 60 or more hours made less educational gain than students who had less than 60 hours. Generally, students who spend more than 60 hours in the program are the students who take longer to progress (i.e., students with learning disabilities, slower learners, students with ADHD, etc.). In 2008-2009, our center had 328 ABE/GED students who were both pre- and post-tested. There were only 33 students who had greater than 60 hours. A total of 173 of our ABE/GED students earned their GED in 2008-2009. Of the 173 GED graduates: 165 (95%) earned a GED with under 60 hours of instruction; only 8 (5%) earned a GED with 60 or more hours of instruction.

We set high standards for our students, but there are times when it is not realistic for students to spend 60 hours in a program. Seat time does not put food on the table! The policy requiring all students to put in the same number of hours before being post-tested needs to be eliminated.

Thanks again for listening.

[Reply]
Art Ellison

in August 6th, 2010 @ 12:33

Jeff’s comments about the demands on student’s time is universal in our field, it does not apply just to students in volunteer based programs. Students in classroom based programs face the same barriers to successful participation.

Likewise the issue of quality of instruction is unversal as well. They are good adult education teachers, mediocre teachers and hopefully not many bad ones, just as there are good tutors, mediocre tutors and hopefuuly only a few bad ones.

Here in New Hampshire we have a unique perspective from which to engage on the duration and instensity debate. We have both classrom based and volunteer based programs operating in almost all of our larger adult education centers.

For the most part students in classroom based programs get more hours of instruction than those in volunteer programs and progress at a faster rate on the NRS. We also have more low level students in our classroom based programs than in our volunteer programs, they also progress at a faster rate in the classroom based programs than in the volunteer programs.

We support our volunteer programs with federal and state adult education funding, a system that has been in place for over 30 years. Those programs will continue to play an important role in the adult education delivery system in New
Hampshire however I am a big believer in the concept that the longer that students can focus on their learning with highly competent teachers and tutors the faster they will progress to meet their goals. Unlike kevin, I are sure that duration and intensity of instrction does make a difference.

Rick’s comments about the frustration with recommended timeframes for post testing in WIA Title II programs are shared by the adult education field, not just the volunteer based community. Over the past year most states have been able to secure approval from the Office of Adult and Vocational Education to put in place some waivers to the 60 hour rule which recognize the unique circumstances of some programs and students allow for more frequent post testing

[Reply]
Heidi Silver-Pacuilla Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
I totally agree that duration and intensity are important to learning.
I also want to bring in a point about self-study. Steve Reder’s longitudinal study showed clearly that students ARE engaging in self-study in periods when they are not in formal education programs or even instead of ever attending. I think teachers could all point to successful learners who attended class but really studied on their own to accelerate their progress.
If we could figure out how to fairly calculate and document time in self-study, then the pre-post test requirement and reporting may be applied less arbitrarily.
Having high quality study and supplemental materials available to students in books, online, on CDs, video or cell phone apps would help intensify their learning. The research on blended learning (facilitated/class plus independent) is very positive. It is clearly a viable approach to intensifying instruction.
This isn’t easy and there are a host of questions, but moving in this direction to rethink “seat time” is fully in line with the policy suggested in the draft National Ed Tech Plan, too.

National Coalition for Literacy

Get Alerts and Updates

Polls

Facebook

Categories

Links

Meta

Fund Programs of Sufficient Intensity and Duration for Participants to Achieve Substantial Learning Gains

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 4 comments

Kevin Smith

Rick Burgin

Art Ellison