Committee on Performance Levels for Adult Literacy Letter Report (2003) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Letter Report
Letter Report
Pages 1-9
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
Our information-gathering efforts to ciate have informed us about the various enhancements the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) plans to implement in conjunction with the 2003 assessment, inclucling Spanish translations of several of the assessment components, the Aclult Literacy Supplemental Assessment (ADS A)
|
From page 2... ...
Classification Result NAAL Correctly Classified 31 Incorrectly Classified 4 Total 315 ALSA ~2 Because of the policy importance of identifying individuals with the most limited levels of literacy and understanding the nature of their skills, the estimate of the proportion of the adult population who would be routed to ALSA will be a natural focal point for discussions about assessment results. It is important to understand that the design of the 2003 assessment, with this separation into two instruments, essentially establishes a breakpoint that cannot be ignored when reporting the results or when determining performance levels, which is the primary charge of the committee.
|
From page 3... ...
The sample should be large enough to provide reliable information about classification accuracy, especially near the decision point for routing individuals to NEAL or ALSO, and it should be designed to yield information about ciassifcation errors in both directions. Incarcerated Indivicluals The second issue of concern to the committee pertains to assessment of the literacy skills of incarcerated inclividuals.
|
From page 4... ...
Moreover, for some age ranges of black males, the rate of incarceration ant! increases in incarceration rates over the past decacle are several times larger.
|
From page 5... ...
Since procedures are aireacly in place and data collection is about to begin, it may not be practical to alter or modify the soon-to-be-operational assessment. However, it should be possible to conduct a follow-up study of nonrespondents to evaluate population coverage, particularly as it relates to language issues, to estimate nonresponse bias, anct to gather information about needs for the next adult literacy assessments.
|
From page 6... ...
A sensitive nonresponse study could tease out additional information about reasons for cropping out or refusing to participate, about the nature and extent of language problems that prevent NAAL participation, and about the competency in English of those who could not participate. It is quite likely that the reasons for cropping out of the NAAL assessment are related to literacy proficiency or lack of English proficiency regardless of the stated reasons.
|
From page 7... ...
focus on reasons for not participating and should probe further into language issues by ascertaining information about command of English and the likely [eve! of literacy skills in the native language.
|
From page 8... ...
(2001~. Technical Report and Data Fzle User's manualfor the 1992 National Aclult Literacy Survey (NCES 2001-457)
|
From page 9... ...
MAYNARD, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania LORRAINE MCDONNELL, Department of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara LARRY MIKULECKY, Language Eclucation Department, Tncliana University ROBERT J MISLEVY, Department of Measurement, Statistics, and Evaluation, University of Maryland NORMAN G
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.