Beverley Roser and Kevin Roach broser@aut.ac.nz kevin.roach@aut.ac.nz

1. Testing adult ESOL learners’ literacy using the National Literacy Assessment ToolAdult Literacy Practitioners Association Annual ConferenceJune 30-July 1Auckland University of Technology Beverley Roser and Kevin Roach broser@aut.ac.nz kevin.roach@aut.ac.nz

2. Overview • Framing the topic • The “lived experience” of one practitioner in one setting -Administration -Student behaviour -Student response to assessment • Open discussion: Practitioners’ lived experiences

3. An essential ingredient in Indian cooking or a metaphor for understanding layered and textured assumptions about the relationships among external forces, policies and practice?

4. Three lenses for examining the role of the National Assessment Tool

5. Practice based accounts • The “lived experience” of practitioners • “the ways in which [adult LLN practitioners] interact with, make meaning from, and shape policy” [Belzer & St Clair 2007] • In this case: A “narrative of practice” constructed through a personal journal • “teachers’ narratives … locate personal experiences within broader contexts and shed light on what influences thinking” [Goodson 1992]

6. Two concerns • What effect does the National Assessment Tool have on teaching and learning? 2. How does the National Assessment Tool impact on learners?

7. Using the Assessment Tool in an Adult ESOL context • Presenter background • The institutional context and funding arrangements • Issues

8. Administration issues “I wonder how the on-line assessments could have been done. ….. not at all suitable for ESOL students at this level. Logistically really tricky for me too. I’ll have to do it with a class before the end of the year so I’ve got some sort of grip on it all. Just working through the accreditation stuff and student enrolment for reporting purposes has been a big load so far. Guess it can only get easier.”

9. “At the community centre there was a privately operated computer room. I shied off after meeting with the operator – • not enough computers some not in operation • no fixed data show for demonstration • no obvious technical support if things went wrong This on top of language teaching …………….too much.”

10. “ The computer intro for the students is still such a stressful time. Log in/registering – is really frenetic. Even with two of us teachers it was full on for this introduction and even then we didn’t get finished. ……..”

11. “Feeling slightly calmer about the TEC diagnostics. Have a better handle on how to do the online preparation/admin stuff. Still not that straightforward for students. They do need a lot of overseeing and reassurance.”

12. Student behaviour “…..whenever supervising students for an on-line assessment, they constantly seek ‘assistance’ – clarification or assurance.”

13. “Hey man, this is just too hard. There are too many words here I’ve not even seen. And there’s no clues.”

14. “But if I don’t know a word, I need to look up what it means.”

15. Student response to assessment

16. The voices of others

17. References Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2005). Literacy, reification and the dynamics of social interaction. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (eds), Beyond communities of practice : language, power, and social context, pp. 14-35. Cambridge, England: CUP Belzer, A., & St. Clair (2007),. The world touches the classroom: Using "anthropolicy" to understand political, economic, and social effects on adult literacy education. In B. J. Guzzetti (ed), Literacy for the new millennium: Vol 4: Adult Literacy. pp17-35. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Black, S. (2010) Working the interstices: Adult basic education teachers respond to the audit culture. Literacy and Numeracy Studies 18, 2, 6-25 Campbell, P. (2007). Introduction. In P. Campbell (ed). Measures of success: Assessment and accountability in Adult Basic Education, pp. 1-11. Edmonton, Alberta: Grass Roots Press Darville, R (2011). Unfolding the adult literacy regime. Paper presented at ADULTERC Conference. www.adulterc.org/Proceedings/2011/papers/darville.pdf Goodson, I. (1992). Studying teachers’ lives: An emergent field of inquiry. In I. Goodson (ed.), Studying teachers’ lives (pp1-17). New York: Teachers College Press Grieve, K. (2007). Assessment for whom and for what?: Stepping back to ask important questions about assessment. In P. Campbell (ed). Measures of success: Assessment and accountability in Adult Basic Education, pp. 123-158. Edmonton, Alberta: Grass Roots Press. Jackson, N. (2005) Adult literacy policy: Mind the gap. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood and D. Livingstone (eds.) International Handbook of Educational Policy (pp. 763-778). Springer Link Merrifield, J. (1998) Contested ground: Performance accountability in Adult Basic Education. NSALL Report #1. National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy: Harvard Graduate School of Education St Clair, R. (2009). The dilemmas of accountability: Exploring the issues of accountability in adult literacy through three case studies. From http://www.nald.ca/library/research/abc/dilemmas/dilemmas.pdf St Clair, R., & Belzer, A. (2007). The challenges of consistency: National systems for assessment and accountability in adult literacy education. In P. Campbell (ed). Measures of success: Assessment and accountability in Adult Basic Education, pp. 159-206. Edmonton, Alberta: Grass Roots Press. TEC (2010). Getting Results in Adult Literacy and Numeracy. From: http://literacyandnumeracyforadults.com/New-Zealand-Overview/Getting-Results-in-Literacy-and-Numeracy