[AAACE-NLA] "Over what period of time..."

[David Rosen]

Hello Debbie,

As tempting as it is to look for a deeper, more complex meaning of  
"intensity", in this case the simple definition of number of hours of  
learning per week (along with  "duration",  the number of weeks  
enrolled) serves us well.  A big problem in our field is that some  
learners in some programs get too few hours of instruction per week  
and too few weeks of instruction to make significant progress.  Diane  
Glass put her finger on it in her message of October 12th.

Some programs offer sufficient intensity; some don't.  Although  
"sufficient" will depend on the level and kind of education services,  
our current federal standard for sufficient intensity (minimum of 12  
hours -- not per week, but in total, for all WIA Title II programs)  
is way too low. My guess is that more than 15 hours a week might be  
unnecessarily high for some levels and kinds of learning, and that  
the right standard is probably between 5 -12 hours/week, for a  
minimum of 20 weeks, with the possible exception of GED "brush-up"  
students and students who have a very specific short-term goal like  
preparing for a driving test.

Other factors, of course, do come into play: quality of instruction,  
fit between instructional model and the learner's best ways of  
learning, availability of support services, events in the learner's  
life that may affect learning, and so on.  However, one of the big  
factors, that all programs must pay attention to, is this simple  
notion of intensity.  As Diane put it so clearly, and based on data  
from her state, "intensity of instruction is a critical factor in  
achieving learning gains."

If we want to see significant learning gains, then we need to change  
this federal standard.  Of course, this will also have cost  
implications.  If a program doubles the intensity of instruction, its  
cost per student may double, too.  Improving quality usually costs more.

Do we have data from other states besides Kansas which would support  
raising the national standard, and if so, evidence of what that  
standard should be?

What do we know about intensity and duration of adult literacy  
education instruction from research?

In _An Evidence-based Adult Education Program Model Appropriate for  
Research_
http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/op_comings4.pdf  
Comings, Soricone and Santos suggest as a minimum standard for  
intensity and duration: "This principle [" Intensity and duration of  
instruction should be sufficient for the particular learning needs of  
adult students and the learning task they are attempting" ] could be  
verified by calculating average rates of intensity and duration.  
However, no specific number of hours of intensity or weeks of  
duration has been tested for efficacy. For the purposes of this  
document, the authors have chosen 100 hours of instruction, which  
must be delivered at a minimum of 4 hours per week."

Is that the right minimum standard for intensity and duration?

David J. Rosen
djrosen at comcast.net


On Oct 17, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Debbie Yoho wrote:

> Maria wrote:
>
> "everyone:  are there ways to think about “intensity of  
> instruction” and
> “number of hours” differently?  For example, does intensity equal
> hours/timeframe, or could it be that intensity can mean that in  
> addition to
> hours of instruction and over what period of time (3 months vs. 9  
> months,
> etc), other factors come into play in order to help people achieve  
> their
> goals?..."
>
> Maria, I think the issue of "intensity" is another ball of wax.
>
> Years ago, K-12 education went through a fad called "Time on  
> Task".  This
> was based on the idea that quality is much more important that  
> quantity
> (certainly not a new concept, and one most of us would embrace) and  
> built
> on some research that suggested that "direct instruction" (read  
> that as
> teacher-to-learner instruction, as opposed to cooperative learning,
> discussion groups, etc.)  is the most effective pedagogy. For a time
> teachers were evaluated literally using a stopwatch to add up  
> exactly what
> percentage of a teaching hour was spent "on task". This practice also
> coincided with the advent of the Basic Skills movement and programmed
> instruction chopped into small steps with constant drill and practice.
>
> I notice that many of our learners tire (or begin to squirm, rub their
> eyes, etc.)  much more quickly when taught one-on-one than when  
> taught in a
> group.  I think the reason is the eyeball to eyeball communication  
> of one
> on one is more "intense" because there are fewer oportunities to  
> drift off
> to other thoughts, and the learner is engaged a greater percentage  
> of the
> time. Whether or not such intensity is good or bad I think could be  
> argued
> either way.
>
> The point is of course there is much more to "intensity of  
> instruction"
> than the number of hours.
>
> Also, the "Time on Task" practices failed to take into account another
> variable:  the level of "intensity" should also be related to the  
> nature of
> the content.  Skill and drill practice requires intense attention for
> maximum repetition.  Introducing broad new concepts requires a  
> chance for
> the learner to reflect on the relationship of new content to content
> already mastered, and application often requires trial and error.
>
> Adult education content is so varied I wonder how we can ever  
> grapple with
> "intensity".
>
> "Turning Pages into Possibilities",  Debbie
>
> Deborah W. Yoho
> Director, Turning Pages
>     a community service of Volunteers of America Carolinas
>    formerly the Greater Columbia Literacy Council
> 2728 Devine Street,  Columbia, SC  29205
> 803-765-2555   Fax  803-799-8417   dwyoho at earthlink.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org