One Step of Inquiry

Documenting the Voices

Lindy Whiton
Western Mass. SABES

The objective of this paper is to describe the effect documenting inquiry has on practitioners who write for Adventures in Assessment. This is a journal dedicated to writings on alternative, learner-centered assessment and published by Massachusetts’ System for Adult Basic Education Support (SABES).

The purpose of this research came from wanting to know if the process of writing for the journal was useful staff development. It has developed since then to also ask if the product itself provides opportunities for staff development, and whether it increases the field’s knowledge base.

Many questions come into play when people talk about documentation. It is my belief that a place that allows practitioners to document their work also encourages them to continue to do research. It is also my belief that the act of doing so is part of the process of inquiry and not just the product of the research, that the act of documenting encourages teachers to look more closely at what they have done and to reflect on their process.

HOW THIS INQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED: METHODOLOGY
As originally published in the Introduction to Adventures in Assessment, Volume I, the journal’s creators hoped it would become a “resource by and for practitioners from which to select and adapt tools for their own contexts.” (McGrail 1991). The development of this resource depends upon programs-based practitioners’ research, the results of which will help develop the field of adult education (Lytle & Wolfe 1989). It was felt that giving practitioners a place to publish would not only encourage teacher-research, but be a place where their work could be validated and shared with their colleagues. According to Lytle & Wolfe (1989) and Auerbach (1992), many researchers believe it is imperative that practitioners begin to document their inquiry, to record their objections and to engage in dialogues with one another informing their colleagues and adding to the body of qualitative research in education.

First, it was assumed that writing for this journal would be good staff development. Good staff development is defined as the process of building, reinforcing, and maintaining effective teaching practices. Ultimately, staff development acts as an antidote to burnout. Second, the actual process of writing would be important to develop-ment of the field (Gillespie 1991). I felt that the actual steps in revision that authors would take were important to their personal development and that the act of publishing would be validating. Third, the journal would increase the knowledge and understanding of alternative assessment; and fourth, this is important to practitioners. The journal offers a stage for the voices of teachers to be heard. It is a place where other teachers can listen not only to the “tale of the tools,” but to the narrative, the story of “Who,” “What,” “Why,” and

“How come?”
In the past several months, an attempt has been made to collect data on the effect of the journal, to discover what both authors and readers thought about Adventures in Assessment and was it doing what we assumed it would do? When an article was published, did it validate a practitioner’s work? Did it actually help to spark inquiry in other programs? It is this data that I would like to share with others.

All 21 people who contributed articles to the journal were sent letters and surveys. Only eleven people returned the surveys. The other ten authors were contacted, but their input never was completed.

Five hundred copies of the Readers’ Survey were sent out. The actual survey form was developed by McGrail, two staff members of SABES’ Central Resource Center, and myself (see Appendix 2). There was no attempt to concentrate on specific groups (e.g. the SABES’ coordinators mailing list versus regular journal readers). The objective of the Readers’ Survey was to discover whether practitioners were using their colleagues’ writings to further their staff development or as encouragement or inspiration to do their own plunge into alternative assessment. Only twenty-three of the five hundred questionnaires mailed were returned, less than 5%.

ANALYSIS

Readers’ Surveys
It should be noted that not only was the mailing list inappropriate for this survey, but the turn-around-time on the survey was much too short. In approximately a one-week period, twenty-three responded. Out of that group, sixteen stated they had never heard of the journal. Several conclusions can be drawn from this data. First, respondents find it easier to simply check the box and mail the forms rather than spend time reflecting and answering questions. Therefore, those who could just check “No” on the “Have you ever read this journal?” question had the easiest task and were most apt to send it back. Second, unfortunately, practitioners were inundated by surveys last fall and this was just one of many. It should be noted that while attending the annual state conference, practitioners did approach me and apologize for their absent-mindedness in not responding to the survey. Third, the mailing lists were deemed inappropriate. The decision was made to ask each SABES coordinator for the names of ten practitioners to whom they had personally handed the journal. Surveys will ultimately be sent to those people, supported by telephone interviews. In the interim, copies of the journal were sent to those individuals who had responded they were unfa- miliar with the Adventures in Assessment.
The seven responses that were most informative for this research emphasized using the tools and peoples’ reflections as models to adapt in their own classrooms, which is a major objective of the journal.

Authors’ Surveys
The author’s answers were considered in reference to the assumptions listed above. I examined whether our assumptions were repeated in their answers. I also wanted to know if the journal was useful in ways other than initially predicted. What was most interesting in this process was that, while we attempted to show that the journal was a product of teacher-research, which served a very important role, it was actually just a snapshot which helped us to look at the process of inquiry at a specific moment. Authors referred to the journal as “a useful tool.”

Many of the authors did speak of their process with Loren McGrail, editor of Adventures in Assessment, as important elements in the writing of the article. Loren’s behavior was reflective of her theoretical beliefs of writing instruction for all. She treats teachers and learners the same. These comments made it quite apparent to me that Loren’s input and her inclusion as co-researcher was necessary to the project. She brought to the paper an entire body of data she has compiled from her perspective as the editor and from her close association with the authors (see Introduction).

CONCLUSION
Adventures in Assessment is perceived by contributors and readers alike as good staff development. It provides practitioners with a process that builds, reinforces and maintains effective teaching practices. It is also a successful vehicle for helping teachers to write and declare their voice. “The journal helped me to believe in me.” “I have a voice and it, too, is worth listening to.” “It reinforced my beliefs.” These comments are representative of the types of responses I received. For ten of the eleven respondents, the act of writing for the journal was a successful staff development activity. It should also be noted that, of the respondents familiar with Adventures in Assessment, the majority used the journal regularly. Thus, we believe the journal fits the definition of “good staff development.”

The actual process of writing is an important one. Publishing is valuable in validating educators’ voices.Most of the respondents in both categories talked about sharing. They spoke about the importance of sharing in the field and the place the journal played in that. They spoke about it being a place in the process, not the product at the end of the process. In his responses, Paul Trunnell suggested we allow more dialogue to happen in the journal itself. “I would like to encourage the journal and the field towards dialogue-based on dialogue-intended work. Particularly now that such a range of tools and procedures has been discussed.”

According to Janet Isserlis, the journal is not necessarily a vehicle for closure; it is a way to lead to more questions.

The journal does create a public space for teacher writings. This public space is an important step for teachers to now take (Cochran and Lytle ’93, Gillespie ’90). These authors never spoke directly about the publishing as being validating, however. They were much more aware of the sharing with others as being validating in and of itself and spoke of the act of writing as helping to “clarify”, “review”, or be more “succinct.” “I was inspired by the work done by Janet Kelley. I was reminded of the value of sharing tools, frustrations, and solutions and thought that writing an article was the easiest way to share with a larger group.” “I also thought that other practitioners might think of improvements, and I would learn from them.” The effect would “be that they might get some ideas about reflecting on their own work in ways that would ultimately be helpful to them and to their learners.” They spoke of the journal as a useful tool.

The journal increases ones knowledge base. This is evident in how many adult education classes are now using Adventures in Assessment as a classroom reading. Continued compilation of data from readers will clarify just how their knowledge base is being increased.
In regards to the authors’ voices, some saw their article as an addition to the field; others did not.

There is a genuine interest in the journal. “Thanks for the encouragement. . .” was a comment frequently noted. Other comments indicated bona fide enthusiasm and support for the journal. The following comments repeatedly surfaced during our research: “Let’s get more people involved.” “dialogue” “people should try. . .” “I appreciate its presence.”
This research did not reveal anything startling. It basically confirmed by hypothesis about the process. The only surprise for me was that practitioners did not feel that the actual article was an ending point, nor a concrete validation of their work. Instead, they focused on what part the articles played in the process of inquiry; they were a part of the process, one point along the trail. Although that finding was surprising to me, it was also exciting and reaffirming. It was a stronger indication that the journal was a stimulus for further thought and conversation.

This research has not come to an end; it is not complete. The readers’ surveys are a very important piece of the work, and I am planning to continue this research. I believe that this information will not only support the publishing of the journal, but will also support inquiry-based staff development. Not all the authors who responded to my questionnaire were involved in actual inquiry projects, however, most were involved in their own questioning process. I hope that further research will not only support the claims that inquiry-based staff development is successful, but it will also indicate more clearly why. Listening to the readers’ responses should shed light on some of the answers, or at least help us to form new questions. The authors of “The Tale of the Tools,” Volume 5, were not interviewed. Their responses will be enlightening because many of those articles came straight from either the assessment or math inquiry projects. Their perspectives may be slightly different. I hope to keep the research on-going and to provide an update later on.

It is still important to look at the changes in classroom practices, changes in methodology, and learners’ success in which the journal may be inspirational. Possibly more important, however, is that it continues to provide a place where linkages can be made, where teachers and eventually learners can write about practices in assessment and curricula that model the most effective programs. Adventures in Assessment models writing those practices in its various steps towards publication. The collaborative efforts of the editor, assistant editor, and author need to continue to model the type of writing process work that we subscribe to. This, in turn, models our understanding of good assessment practices as well. Thus, for me, the data echoes what “these voices” have said, that Adventures in Assessment is good staff development.

POSTSCRIPT
Now that I have completed this part of the research, taught a mini-course on alternative assessment, and used the journal as text, I would like to state that staff development is just that — Development. People are at different places with different needs. There were nine regular participants in my class. At the end, only three were comfortable enough to take a stab at writing for the sixth edition. I thought in the beginning there would be more. However, all group members had read all five issues and found pieces to respond to, whether verbally or in their process of developing assessment for their classrooms.

Another example of the outcome of inquiry-based staff development is the “Mentor Project” that the Component #3 practitioners have now developed and begun. They are finding different programs are at different points of the process. They need to fit what they are doing to the individual program needs. Adventures in Assessment will be appropriate to use for many points of this process. The journal will always play different roles at different times for different teachers. But most importantly, it provides great linkages and begins to end the massive problem of isolation across all members of the adult education community.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Auerbach, Elsa. Making Meaning, Making Change; (ERIC CAL) Delta Systems, Inc., McHenry, Il. 1992.

Gillespie, Marilyn. Becoming Authors: The Social Context of Writing and Local Publishing By Adult Beginning Readers. a dissertation presented to Center for International Education, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, MA. Feb. ’91.

Lytle, Susan, and Marilyn Cochran-Smith. “Learning from Teacher Research: A Working Topology” Teachers College Record, Vol. 92, No. 1, Fall 1990.

Lytle, Susan and Marcie Wolfe. “Adult Literacy Education: Program Evaluation and Learner Assessment.” (Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education). 1989.

Lytle, Susan. “From the Inside Out: Reinventing Assessment,” Adventures in Assessment, Vol. 2, No., Boston:World Education) 1988.

Top of page

This article was published in Adventures in Assessment, Volume 6 (Spring 1994), SABES/World Education, Boston, MA, Copyright 1994.

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.