Loading...

Defining Literacy Standards

Essays on Assessment, Inclusion, Pedagogy and Civic Engagement

by Ronald A. Sudol (Volume editor) Alice S. Horning (Volume editor)
©2019 Textbook VI, 208 Pages

Summary

As individual institutions of education at all levels respond to the call for greater accountability and assessment, those who teach literacy face the challenging task of choosing what to measure and how to measure it. Both defining literacy clearly and tying that definition to strategies for assessment are two of many challenges faced by educators, theorists, and members of the public who assume responsibility for assessing literacy as well as developing and improving literacy programs. In a pluralistic and democratic society sensitive to multicultural variation, we need to find our way between the competing needs for inclusiveness and for clear and useful standards. Multiple definitions of literacy raise the issue of whether there can be a standard or set of standards and if so, what they are in an environment of multiple literacies. Indeed, the downside of the defeat of older monolithic notions of literacy is the undermining or at least the questioning of well-established methods of literacy assessment. To some extent, the older methods of assessment have been revised in the light of more expansive definitions of literacy. But will this kind of revision be enough? How are the criteria for judgment to be known and applied? Thus, this volume addresses the problems of assessing literacy development in the context of multiple and inclusive definitions. Each section consists of chapters that deal with the issue of definitions per se, with standards in postsecondary settings, with the K-12 situation, and with alternative, non-school environments where literacy is critical to human functioning in a democratic society.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the author
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Table of Contents
  • Introduction (Alice S. Horning / Ronald A. Sudol)
  • Part 1: Literacy Definitions and Assessment
  • Chapter One: How Scoring Helps Teachers Understand Literacy Standards (Karen Sheingold / Joan I. Heller / Sheryl R. Kaskowitz)
  • Chapter Two: How Implementation Modifies Literacy Standards (Ronald A. Sudol)
  • Part 2: Literacy Standards in Postsecondary Settings
  • Chapter Three: Meeting Standards Through Effective Practices for Assessing Revision (Janice Witherspoon Neuleib / Maurice Scharton)
  • Chapter Four: Adventures in Assessment: Definitions and Standards for Critical Literacy Programs (Alice S. Horning)
  • Part 3: Standards in the K–12 Environment
  • Chapter Five: Learning in Different Worlds: Native American Students’ Approaches to Academic Literacies (Sibylle Gruber)
  • Chapter Six: Deconstructing “Dumb Reading Groups”: Rural New England Culture, Basic Writers/Readers, and the Question of Standards (Laura Gray-Rosendale)
  • Part 4: Standards in Alternative Environments
  • Chapter Seven: Literacy Standards at Hull House: Forming a New Citizen in Civic Space (Van E. Hillard)
  • Chapter Eight: Developing Reflective Homo Economics: How to Teach Economic Literacy in a Writing Course (Ken Baake)
  • Afterword: Challenges and Opportunities in the Changing Landscape of Literacy Assessment and Accountability (Diane Kelly-Riley)
  • Contributors
  • Index
  • Series index

← vi | 1 →

  

Introduction

ALICE S. HORNING AND RONALD A. SUDOL

 

As individual institutions of education at all levels respond to the call for greater accountability and assessment, those who teach literacy face the challenging task of choosing what to measure and how to measure it. Both defining literacy clearly and tying that definition to strategies for assessment are two of many challenges faced by educators, theorists, and members of the public who assume responsibility for assessing literacy as well as developing and improving literacy programs. In a pluralistic and democratic society sensitive to multicultural variation, we need to find our way between the competing needs for inclusiveness and for clear and useful standards.

Multiple definitions of literacy raise the issue of whether there can be a standard or set of standards and if so, what they are in an environment of multiple literacies. Indeed, the downside of the defeat of older monolithic notions of literacy is the undermining or at least the questioning of well-established methods of literacy assessment. To some extent, the older methods of assessment have been revised in the light of more expansive definitions of literacy. But will this kind of revision be enough? How are the criteria for judgment to be known and applied? Thus, this volume addresses the problems of assessing literacy development in the context of multiple and inclusive definitions.

Educational and governmental organizations have created and revised over the years a variety of standards and mechanisms by which to measure literacy. ← 1 | 2 → For example, the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), published in 1993, examined prose, document, and quantitative literacy among a sample of 13,600 adults designed to reflect the overall population as described in the 1990 census (Kirsch, Jungleblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993, pp. xiii–xiv). Approximately half of those surveyed in this study performed at the lowest levels of literacy (Kirsch et al., 1993, p. xiv). These individuals were less likely to hold full-time jobs, to be well paid, and to vote and were more likely to live in poverty, to have received some form of public assistance, and to rely on TV or radio for news and information, than more literate citizens in the sample (Kirsch et al., 1993, p. xix). Literacy is no longer just a school issue; it has become fundamental to full participation in our society. And as University of North Carolina historian Molly Worthen has pointed out, approaches to assessment often fail to take into account the “deeper socio-economic reasons that cause many students to struggle with college work” (2018, pp. 1, 6).

A more recent measurement of literacy and numeracy across the whole population was done by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of 35 first-world countries who cooperate on various issues. The most recent results come from testing done in 2012. The findings of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) show that the mean proficiency score in literacy of U.S. participants is significantly below that of participants from all OECD countries, with half of the sample testing at the lower levels. The results also show that 17.5% score at the lowest level of proficiency in literacy and only 11.5% score at the top levels. The definitions used in the testing for both NALS and PIAAC are similar:

Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society. (OECD, 2016)

This definition is but one of many, albeit from a respected international organization.

A different sort of definition is proposed by Mike Rose, a UCLA professor and author of several books on literacy and education. In his autobiography and critique of U.S. public education, Rose (1989) discussed critical literacy, which he defines as “framing an argument or taking someone else’s argument apart, systematically inspecting a document, an issue, or an event, synthesizing different points of view, applying a theory to disparate phenomena, and so on” (p. 188).

This definition is consistent with the highest levels of literacy as used by NALS and PIAAC, a level fewer than half of American adults manage to achieve. Rose (1989) points out that not only are we the first society in history to expect citizens ← 2 | 3 → to be able to perform such tasks, but we are also the first to expect all schools to teach students critical literacy. Given such definitions and expectations, the issue of setting standards and the measurement of their achievement becomes critical.

Standards are being set by schools, by higher education, by state and federal governments, and by professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). Other ideas about standards arise from state-mandated tests and national tests. In public schools, there are classroom tests, program portfolios, and increasing numbers of state tests that examine students’ literacy skills. There are also national tests taken by some students, such as the Advanced Placement examinations in English Literature and Composition and in English Language and Composition offered by the College Board. For many years, a national test called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been given to a representative sample of American public school students at various points in their schooling. For college students, there may be entrance or placement exams such as the ACT or SAT, and many take some measure of their writing at the beginning of a sequence of writing courses and a proficiency test or portfolio measure at the end of the sequence or prior to graduation. For entry to graduate school, there are other measures of writing such as the GMAT essays. Accrediting associations demand measures of different kinds of performance in program assessment, forcing writing programs and/or English departments to look at the nature of students’ literacy ability. What kinds of standards are these and are they useful and appropriate?

Assessment of literacy is tied to whatever definition is set as the standard. In our democratic society, literacy entails not only the ability to read and understand ideas, but also the ability to evaluate, analyze, and synthesize information in order to draw conclusions and perhaps to take action. Assessment must be connected in an integral way to this kind of definition. Assessment is increasing at every level. It is unavoidable if we have any desire to broaden the scope of literacy or to improve the quality of literacy teaching and learning. Yet, coming up with methods of assessment that account for expansive views of literacy presents challenges.

This book offers chapters that take on these challenges, opening up a discussion of what it means to be literate in America and the standards by which such literacy is judged. The chapters are contributed by scholars, researchers, and teachers in response to an open call for submissions. The shape and scope of this book can be seen in greater detail in the following abstracts of the eight chapters, which fall in four related sections. We open the first section on definitions and assessment strategies with Sheingold, Heller, and Kaskowitz’s chapter, which describes how a set of standards can make a real difference in classroom practice. The study reported here shows that teachers who participate in scoring based on standards come to understand those standards more thoroughly and use them to improve their teaching and student learning. The College Board has had a key role in ← 3 | 4 → setting literacy standards. The high school English program described uses standards drawn from NCTE and the International Literacy Association. Ron Sudol’s chapter, “How Implementation Modifies Literacy Standards,” demonstrates how the conceptual framework for new literacy standards erodes through the process of implementation. Every step from concept to classroom application introduces uncertainty and disorder in a kind of entropy. An innovation is no better than the effectiveness of its application. A certain amount of entropy must be tolerated in any complex system, but school bureaucracies, public misperceptions, uneven teacher preparation, professional indifference, and inadequate professional development introduce systemic disorder. Correcting these glitches would improve implementation.

A second section considers literacy standards in postsecondary settings. It includes Janice Neuleib’s chapter discussing NCTE’s standard Number 11, which asks that students be “knowledgeable, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities.” At Illinois State University Neuleib and her colleague, Maurice Scharton, designed and implemented an assessment model that tested this NCTE standard by analyzing writers’ substantive revisions. This assessment system investigated the effects of the university’s writing program which foregrounded instruction in framing good revision questions and planning and implementing thoughtful revisions. The chapter analyzes the improvements in revision skills using data from first-year student pretest and a University Writing Examination. Results indicated that after appropriate instruction, revision ability developed considerably when instructors implemented the practices that followed up on the revision research used to develop the assessments. In “Adventures in Assessment: Definitions and Standards for Critical Literacy Programs,” Alice Horning pursues the issue of assessment in higher education by examining the assessment practices of a first-year writing program. She discusses the various ways in which the program’s approach to assessment developed as a by-product of the requirement imposed by a national accrediting agency. The process set up to address the immediate need quickly became entrenched despite the fact that it provided little useful data about the program’s efficacy and lacked multiple measures, a key requirement of appropriate assessment of student writing ability. Most importantly, the original assessment was not tied to a clear definition of literacy standards. She proposes an explicit definition of literacy standards and shows how assessment follows logically from such a definition.

The next two chapters comprise the third section and explore literacy standards in the K–12 environment. Sibylle Gruber explores the variable nature of literacy standards across cultures, languages, and ethnic groups. Her detailed description of Northern Arizona University’s efforts to improve Navajo student success considers key cross-cultural issues. The program NAU created focuses on literacy development for Native American students in first-year composition and ← 4 | 5 → on support in a writing center. Drawing on her personal experiences in the “dumb” reading group, Gray-Rosendale explores the problem of definitions of literacy. Her school years with students who had a wide array of literacies reveal the narrowness of definitions used in academic contexts that are controlled by corporate or government entities. Broader definitions can lead to realistic standards, opening greater options for student success.

Stepping outside formal education in the fourth section, Hillard looks back to the Progressive era to examine the ways that Hull House, a settlement house on Chicago’s south side, set standards for literacy. Under the leadership of Jane Addams, Hull House offered an assortment of literacy activities and instruction for the immigrant and native-born citizens of the area, in the late 1800s and early 1900s. With a particular focus on critical reading and writing, notwithstanding some possibly inappropriate, idealistic ideas of doing good, Hillard argues that Hull House offers a positive model of a literate citizenry. Finally, blending traditional alphabetic literacy with economic literacy, Baake shows us how literacy standards can be set in courses across the disciplines. The varied iterations of his course show that students move through the development process outlined by Haswell (1993); this process applies equally well to both economic and traditional literacy, leading students to critical as well as economic literacy.

REFERENCES

Haswell, R. H. (1993). Student self-evaluations and developmental change. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 56, 83–89.

Kirsch, I. S., Jungleblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2012). United States Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC, 2012). Retrieved from http://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=USA&treshold=10&topic=AS

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2016). Adult literacy. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/innovation-education/adultliteracy.htm

Rose, M. (1989). Lives on the boundary: A moving account of the struggles and achievements of America’s educational underclass. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Worthen, M. (2018, February 25). No way to measure students. New York Times, pp. 1, 6. ← 5 | 6 →

Details

Pages
VI, 208
Year
2019
ISBN (PDF)
9781433142000
ISBN (ePUB)
9781433142017
ISBN (MOBI)
9781433142024
ISBN (Softcover)
9781433141997
DOI
10.3726/b14582
Language
English
Publication date
2019 (January)
Published
New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Oxford, Wien, 2019. VI, 208 pp., 3 tables

Biographical notes

Ronald A. Sudol (Volume editor) Alice S. Horning (Volume editor)

Ronald A. Sudol is Professor Emeritus of Rhetoric and former dean of arts and sciences at Oakland University. He holds a Ph.D. from Stony Brook University and has had a long career in teaching, publication and consulting on writing and communications. Alice S. Horning is Professor Emerita of Writing & Rhetoric and Linguistics at Oakland University. Her Ph.D. is from Michigan State University where she started her career focusing on the intersection of reading and writing.

Previous

Title: Defining Literacy Standards
book preview page numper 1
book preview page numper 2
book preview page numper 3
book preview page numper 4
book preview page numper 5
book preview page numper 6
book preview page numper 7
book preview page numper 8
book preview page numper 9
book preview page numper 10
book preview page numper 11
book preview page numper 12
book preview page numper 13
book preview page numper 14
book preview page numper 15
book preview page numper 16
book preview page numper 17
book preview page numper 18
book preview page numper 19
book preview page numper 20
book preview page numper 21
book preview page numper 22
book preview page numper 23
book preview page numper 24
book preview page numper 25
book preview page numper 26
book preview page numper 27
book preview page numper 28
book preview page numper 29
book preview page numper 30
book preview page numper 31
book preview page numper 32
book preview page numper 33
book preview page numper 34
book preview page numper 35
book preview page numper 36
book preview page numper 37
book preview page numper 38
book preview page numper 39
book preview page numper 40
216 pages