Learner-Friendly Assessment: A Workplace Model

Joyce Jackson and Ruth Schwendeman

In late spring of 1991, a central Massachusetts manufacturing company and Worcester's Quinsigamond Community College (QCC) began to plan a workplace education program that would serve a large population of limited English speakers, many of whom had been at the company ten years or more. The company wanted a program that would not only serve a training need but would also be seen as one of the many benefits available to its employees. It was paramount that the classes be offered in a non-threatening way-that these valued workers would understand there was absolutely no risk of loss of jobs attached to their participation.

In designing the assessment and placement process, we sought to maintain and expand this goal. We believed that learner input from the inception of the program was essential for building a climate of openness and trust desired by the company. We felt that standardized tests would not, with any validity , address either the academic or affective skills of the population. As in the alternative assessment work of Elsa Auerbach and Susan Lytle, we sought to develop an intake process that would be participant friendly and which would yield information about learner abilities, interests, and uses of literacy in day-to-day life.

Climate Building

Two pre-assessment activities helped to set the stage for the individual assessment process. A task force made up of instructional staff and respected non-supervisory workers (limited English speakers as well as native English speakers) was briefed on the proposed new classes. As a means of recruitment, members of the task force were asked to share this information with their co-workers. Interested parties could then respond by signing up for the second activity , an informational group meeting where more details about the program would be presented. We expected around 50 workers to respond, but nearly 90 people signed up!
Fifteen group meetings of approximately six employees and a QCC representative were conducted, each lasting 30 minutes. At these meetings, we explained the company's involvement with QCC and outlined the remaining interview and planning steps. We asked each group what they wanted to learn and what they thought their educational needs were. It was our intention to create a relaxed environment and to alleviate any fears or reservations employees may have had. We reassured groups that this educational program was entirely voluntary , was an additional benefit being offered by the company, and would not have an impact on jobs in any negative way. General infom1ation about the nature of the classes was given and sign-up forms were made available for individual assessment interviews. The schematic above was used in large form as a visual during the meetings, and was reduced and given as a handout so that the employees could think privately about the process and make a decision about participation. (see Fig. 1)

FIGURE 1

Though the one-on-one meeting was to be the major assessment activity ) along the way in the task force and group meetings we were able to informally assess the population. What was especially useful from the meetings was the input we gained from the employees about their language goals and the kinds of language skills required by their jobs and home lives. Also. we began to get to know each other ) which was helpful once the interviews got underway. Interviewees were relaxed because they saw a familiar face across the table.

The Interview

The interview followed a specified format, and used standardized intake forms (see Fig. 2 ). We made certain, however, that the workers understood what we planned to ask and how the information would be used. We tried to write as little as possible, attempting instead to make the event more of a conversation, with the participants identifying their own instead to make the event more of a conversation, with the participants identifying their own goals for language improvement. Questions focused on the employees' educational background, as well as on their current literacy activities at home and at work.

To assess reading skills, we offered a selection of materials, allowing readers to choose any piece they felt most comfortable reading silently or aloud. We followed with a brief discussion to check comprehension. If the participants so chose, a second selection could be made. (The readability levels of the selections had been pre- established, though no such identification appeared on the selections.)

To assess writing skills the workers were first asked to fill in a simple form requiring name, address, and other basic information. A second writing task asked the workers to compose a brief paragraph in response to a variety of possible writing topics, i.e., a note to their child's teacher, a phone message, etc. If the writers felt unable to complete this task, they were not required to attempt it. To maintain the non-threatening atmosphere and to preserve the learners' self esteem, occasionally the interviewers dictated a simple sentence if the learners were unable to generate one alone. In some cases, it was helpful for the interviewers to leave the room briefly while the interviewees wrote, making the writers feel less conscious about being "watched" while composing.

A final but essential step was to discuss the worker's placement in a class. Given the possibility of three ESL levels, the learners were asked where they would feel most comfortable. This interchange allowed the learners to be part of their own assessment, to take stock of their own skills. The interviewers also offered input on the subject, but made sure the final determination reflected the judgement of both panies. Once the interview was complete, we again advised learners of when the program would begin and answered any questions that arose. Using the guideline, "listen now and write later," the interviewers determined 1) the skills students already had, 2) target areas for skills improvement, 3) problem areas, 4) student-identified objectives, and 5) a mutually agreed upon class level.

Results

We shared all the interview information with teachers in the program, and their curriculum planning mirrored the ability levels determined in the interviews.

FIGURE 2

This assessment procedure met our goals of and tools have since been used at two other sites, and we are working to replicate the process throughout Quinsigamond's Workplace Education program. At one location, a large high-tech company, the procedure was employed under somewhat different circumstances. We used the alternative assessment format to supplement standardized placement test information previously gathered. In doing so, we were able to expand our picture of learner abilities and needs and to involve learners in self-assessment and the goal setting process.

At another site, a medium-sized tool manufacturing company, the format was used to determine the skills of a multi-leveled, native and non-native English speaking population. Infonnation gained from the assessment process was then used to develop the pilot workplace education class at the company. In this instance, the assessment process provided a good generic tool for assessing a wide range of learner needs and abilities both ESL and ABE. Participants at this company came into the interview with a fair amount of anxiety about "going to school," but appeared to leave the assessment in a more relaxed state and with a positive attitude toward the program.

At the original location, we were fortunate to have many activities where learner input could be elicited and where informal assessment could take place. We learned that providing several opportunities for learner "buy-in," strengthened the participant's commitment to the program from inception to completion. Given the constraints of individual companies to allow for generous allocation of employee release time to attend several meetings, we realize that is not always possible. Even without such substantial initial release time, we did find that this basic alternative assessment format proved to be useful and adaptable. We do not say that it offers hard, quantitative data. That was not our goal. We felt that affective needs as well as academic skills should be addressed and that this procedure allowed us to include those elements in an initial evaluation process.

The assessment is learner friendly. It relieves much of the anxiety learners feel when they hear the word "assessment."We are still fine-tuning the process. We'd like to get beyond the stage where all ESL learners say, "I need to learn to spell," to a situation where they/we can better identify their strengths and needs. We want also to begin work on interim progress assessment tools that bear the same characteristics as the initial assessment format, helping learners to clearly articulate what they have learned, and what still needs work. The alternative assessment process is preparation for the learner-centered, cooperative learning and self- assessment model of instruction currently in use at QCC.

Bibliography
Auerbach, E. (1990) Making Meaning, Making Change (Boston: University of Massachusetts).

Lytle, S. (1991) .Dimensions of Adult Literacy: Toward Reconceptualizing Assessment,- in Living Literacy: Rethinking DefltJopment in Adulthood (NJ: Ablex)

Originally published in Adventures in Assessment, Volume 3 (April 1992),
SABES/World Education, Boston, MA, Copyright 2003.

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.