NIFL

Professional Development for Adult
Education Instructors

State Policy Update

 

 

Developed by Michelle Tolbert

A contractor funded by the National Institute for Literacy through Contract No. ED01P00319.

The contract award included all costs associated with the performance of the contractor.

December 2001

This State Policy Update was produced by the National Institute for Literacy, an independent federal organization that is leading the effort toward a fully literate America. By fostering collaboration and innovation, the Institute helps build and strengthen state, regional, and national literacy infrastructures, with the goal of ensuring that all Americans with literacy needs receive the high quality education and basic skills services necessary to achieve success in the workplace, family, and community. h

Contents

    Acknowledgements v

    Overview 1

    Background 2

    Survey Methods 4

    Characteristics of State Professional Development Systems 6

    Professional Development Providers and Delivery Formats 6
    Professional Development Agenda 8
    Instructor Experience and Pre-Service Training 9
    Certification 11
    Instructor Competencies 12
    Additional Incentives 13
    Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Professional Development 14
    Professional Development Challenges 15
    Professional Development Needs 16 Accomplishments in Professional Development 17

    Federally-Funded Resources Available to States 19

    National Center for the Study of Adult
    Learning and Literacy (NCSALL) 19

    PRO-NET 20

    Professional Development Kit (PDK) 21

    National Center for ESL Literacy Education (NCLE) 21

    National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) 22

    Conclusion 23

    References 25

    Recommended Resources 27

    Appendix 31

    Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank those states that responded to the NIFL survey
on professional development. Thanks also to the following individuals who were interviewed about their states’ specific professional development initiatives:

Kristen Kulongoski
Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development

Hope Lancaster
Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce, Office of Adult Education

Jane Martel
Kentucky Department of Adult Education and Literacy

Linda Headley-Walker
New York State Education Department, Office of Workforce Preparation and Continuing Education

 

Special thanks to the members of NIFL’s State Policy Advisory Group on professional development:

Lennox McLendon
National Adult Education Professional Development Consortium, Inc.

Jim Parker
Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education

Renee Sherman
The Pelavin Research Institute, American Institutes for Research

Cristine Smith
National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy

 

Thanks also to the National Institute for Literacy staff and the following individuals for generously sharing their time and expertise: John Fleischman, Outreach and Technical Assistance Network; Susan Joyner, Virginia Adult Learning Resource Center; Kelly Limuel, National Center on Adult Literacy; Dale Lipshultz, Office of Literacy and Outreach Services, American Library Association; Mary Lovell, Office of Vocational
and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education; Marsha Tait, Literacy Volunteers
of America, Inc.; Lynda Terrill, National Center for ESL Literacy; Linda West, Outreach
and Technical Assistance Network.

Project manager and author

Michelle Tolbert
State Policy Analyst (Contractor), National Institute for Literacy

Overview

Professional development systems for adult educators vary from state to state in areas such as delivery formats, state contributions, training requirements, and evaluation methods. According to an August 2001 National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) survey of state professional development systems, 22 states require instructors to be certified in K–12, secondary, or adult education.1 Fifteen states use sets of instructor competencies. Only ten states do not provide funding for professional development in addition to the federal contribution. Using different methods, all states encourage instructors to participate in professional development activities.

With the ultimate goal of improving adult learner achievement, states and researchers are exploring new ways to improve professional development and the quality of instruction in programs. Ensuring high quality programs and services is particularly important now, with states facing limited and undependable resources, as well as new standards and reporting requirements at the federal, state, and local levels.

This State Policy Update provides background on professional development in adult education, summarizes the funding sources for professional development, and reviews data collected from the NIFL survey of state professional development systems. In addition, the report highlights professional development activities in four states—Kentucky, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee—and describes current and upcoming federally-funded professional development initiatives and research projects.

Background

Since the passage of the Adult Education Act (AEA) (P.L. 88–452) in 1964, the professional development of adult education instructors has been viewed as integral to the success of adult education programs (Rose, 1991). This view continues today, despite the need for research in adult education demonstrating that professional development leads to improved teacher quality and learner outcomes. Research in elementary and secondary education has, however, documented a positive relationship between teacher training and student achievement (Belzer, Drennon, & Smith, 2001; Shanahan, Meehan, & Mogge, 1994).

 

Although professional development continues to be viewed as integral to adult education programs, the type of training provided to adult education instructors, as well as the infrastructure of professional development, has changed considerably since the AEA of 1964. Originally, the federal government sponsored a series of two- to three-week summer institutes (Leahy, 1986). While popular in the field (Rose, 1991), the institutes were criticized for being expensive, one-dimensional, and lacking in evaluation procedures (Leahy, 1986). Beginning in the late 1960’s, a federally-supported regional approach to professional development replaced the summer institutes and led to the creation of ten regional Adult Staff Development Projects (Leahy, 1986). It was not until the 1970’s that states were given more authority to determine how professional development funds were used, signifying a shift from federal to state control of professional development (Leahy, 1986; Rose, 1991; Tibbetts, Kutner, Hemphill, & Jones, 1991). In 1978, the AEA was amended to require states to spend at least 10 percent of their federal adult education grant funds on professional development and research. This funding requirement remained the same for over a decade.

 

States finally saw an increase in their professional development funding allowance with the passage of the National Literacy Act (NLA) of 1991
(P.L. 102–73), mandating states to allocate a minimum of 15 percent of their federal adult education grant funds to professional development and research. Two-thirds of that funding was to be dedicated to professional development. With this increased funding, states were able to set long-range goals and begin to build more comprehensive statewide professional development systems (Belzer, Drennon, & Smith, 2001). In addition, the NLA established staff development as a primary indicator for states to consider when evaluating their adult education programs (Sherman & Kutner, 1998). The NLA also provided technical support to states with the creation of State Literacy Resource Centers (SLRCs) (Sherman & Kutner, 1998), which were charged with helping state and local organizations improve the capacity and coordination of literacy services. Another creation of the NLA was NIFL—the first federal agency dedicated solely to literacy. NIFL was created to ensure that all Americans with literacy needs receive the high-quality education and basic skills services necessary to achieve success in the workplace, family, and community. By fostering communication, collaboration, and innovation, NIFL works to build and strengthen national, regional, and state literacy infrastructures.

 

Today the federal funding requirement for professional development is lower than under the NLA. Since the passage of the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (AEFLA) of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998
(P.L. 105–220), states are allowed to spend a maximum of 12.5 percent of their federal adult education grant funds on professional development and other state leadership activities, such as technical assistance, program evaluation, and curriculum development. Many in the field have been concerned that professional development would suffer as a result of this change in the law. As noted by Belzer, Drennon, and Smith (2001, p.155), “This cut in spending and the elimination of a specific spending mandate can be construed as a devaluation of the importance of professional development systems, which had earlier been encouraged to grow and develop.” Moreover, while professional development has become “integral to the work of many states” (Belzer, Drennon, and Smith, 2001, p. 5), the lower funding allowance has left states struggling to maintain and improve their professional development systems. In fact, numerous states indicated on the NIFL survey that funding constraints were one of the most significant challenges their state professional development systems have faced in the last five years.

 

In addition to federal support, states contribute money at varying levels
to their professional development systems. As documented by the NIFL survey, 40 of the 50 respondents reported that they receive money from their states on top of the federal allotment that can be used for professional development. Twenty-one respondents indicated that their states contribute over $100,000 annually.

Survey Methods

To document how states have funded and designed their professional development systems, NIFL sent out a survey consisting of 21 close-ended questions to state adult education offices via the National Adult Education Professional Development Consortium’s (NAEPDC) electronic newsletter (see Appendix). Fifty states and territories, including the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, responded to the NIFL survey. Responses were not received from Arizona, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, and other territories and outlying areas. The survey questioned the states about the following:

    Adult education professional development providers

    Professional development delivery formats

    How states set their professional development agendas

    The percentage of full-time, part-time, and volunteer instructors

    Pre-service training requirements

    Certification requirements

    Instructor competencies

    Incentives for instructors to participate in professional development activities

    Strategies for evaluating the effect of professional development on instructors

    Most significant professional development challenges and
    accomplishments

What states need in order to improve the quality and delivery of
their professional development systems

 

In addition to the NIFL survey, adult education professional development coordinators and consultants in Kentucky, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee were interviewed by phone in order to learn more about their specific professional development initiatives. These states were selected because of their initiatives in the areas of technology, collaboration, certification, competencies, and volunteers. Geographical distribution was also a factor.

 

As the survey responses were analyzed, several inconsistencies were noted in the way data were reported by the states. First, it is not clear whether states are fully informed about professional development decisions made at the local level. According to the survey, at least 30 percent of the states allow local programs to determine one or more of the following: funding levels for professional development, pre-service training requirements, certification requirements, incentives provided to instructors to participate in professional development, and methods used to evaluate the impact of professional development on instructors. While some state responses described in detail the decisions local programs have made, others did not. Second, variations in state definitions of full-time instructors and instructor competencies may have led to inconsistencies in survey responses. For example, although the survey question that asked states to provide percentages of full-time, part-time, and volunteer instructors included a definition of full-time instructors (instructors who teach 35 hours per week or more in adult education), some state responses seemed to indicate that they were using state figures that did not conform to the definition. Moreover, the percentages provided by six states did not add up to 100 percent, and three states did not answer the question. With regard to instructor competencies, the survey did not provide a definition. As a result, the 15 states that reported using instructor competencies may have been using different definitions of competencies.

 

Notwithstanding these inconsistencies, the survey data provide a general understanding of how states have designed their professional development
systems. Moreover, the inconsistencies highlight areas that warrant further research, such as the role of local programs in state professional development systems. More research is clearly needed to clarify what professional development decisions local programs make, what guidelines states provide local programs with regard to these decisions, and how states monitor and record local program decisions. Another area warranting further exploration is instructor competencies. How do states define instructor competencies? What do their instructor competencies entail, and how are they used?

Characteristics of State Professional Development Systems

According to research, a comprehensive professional development system provides full-time, part-time, and volunteer instructors, as well as program managers, with a wide range of professional development activities, services, and approaches that are logically related to state and federal reforms, other activities and services, and the needs of the population (Belzer et al, 2000; Kutner and Tibbetts, 1997). Supported by an intergovernmental infrastructure, a professional development system should also provide activities at convenient times and locations (Belzer et al., 2000) and should be based “upon systematically determined needs of both instructors and programs” (Kutner and Tibbetts, 1997, p. 1). In addition, research has identified ongoing evaluation of professional development activities as an essential component to a comprehensive professional development system (Kutner and Tibbetts, 1997).

 

The majority of state professional development systems, as noted by the NIFL survey, possess some, but not all, of the aspects researchers have identified to constitute a comprehensive professional development system. The following is a detailed description of these and other characteristics recorded by the NIFL survey and interviews with individual states.

Professional Development Providers
and Delivery Formats

Over half of the state professional development systems work with four-year colleges or universities, state or regionally sponsored resource centers, local agencies, and professional development organizations as providers of professional development. Roughly one-third of the respondents also reported using literacy councils as providers, and a small number reported employing consultants. While the survey responses did not indicate the predominance of one professional development provider, they did show that most states appear to offer professional development to instructors at the state, regional, and local levels. As noted by Belzer et al. (2000, p. 174), “Bringing professional development as close as possible to the practitioner (rather than centralizing the offerings in one location) is a practical and common strategy that cuts down on travel expenses and the time spent away from classrooms and programs.” The authors state further that “…a regional structure has the advantage of making professional development more accessible than centrally implemented activities and provides a potential for cross-program fertilization and exchange of ideas” (Belzer et al., 2000, p. 174).

 

The providers typically use a combination of the following professional
development delivery formats (Kutner, 1992; Sherman & Kutner, 1998;
Tibbetts et al., 1991):

    Single-session workshops

    Conferences

    Workshop series (multi-session workshops)

    Institutes

    University coursework

    Peer coaching/observation

    Teleconference/video

    Mentoring

    Action research (practitioner research or teacher inquiry)

    Study circles or sharing groups

    Web-based learning

    Technical assistance

 

According to survey responses, the most common professional development delivery formats are workshops and conferences. A majority of survey respondents also reported using teleconferences and/or videos. In addition, over half of the respondents indicated that they offer activities requiring active involvement on the part of the instructor, which is an important component of effective staff development (Kutner, 1992). These activities include peer coaching/observation, mentoring, and action research. Over one-third of the states also report using each of the following activities: university coursework, study circles or sharing groups, and Web-based learning.

Tennessee’s Job Task Analysis Workshop is one example of how states are actively involving instructors in professional development. In an effort to provide adult learners with a workplace-customized curriculum, Tennessee has developed a three-day workshop, with a two-day follow-up session, to train instructors to analyze the tasks and basic skills involved in specific jobs. Participants in the workshop are required to “shadow” an employee from a local business, where adult learners may be interested in seeking employment, and to collect information about that job. The workshop then teaches the instructors how to use their observations to construct job-specific basic education activities to use in the classroom. According to Tennessee, “participants’ responses to the Job Task Analysis Workshops have been positive. They feel more comfortable when approaching business leaders and are better able to articulate the benefits of adult education to the employer. As a result of this training, many programs are forming new, viable partnerships with industry” (Lancaster, 2001).

Professional Development Agenda

As noted earlier, a comprehensive professional development agenda incorporates instructor interests and needs, learner needs and goals, and administrative priorities such as new standards or the use of technology (Sherman et al., 2000). Deciding whom to include in the development of the agenda and how much authority to give each contributor is an important first step in this process. The NIFL survey showed that a majority of states consult a combination of state, regional, and local organizations when determining the agenda. Eleven states report using committees composed of state and local staff to set their professional development agenda. For example, New York has developed a system in which half of the professional development agenda is set by the State Office of Adult Education, and half is jointly set by the regional directors of the New York State Staff Development Consortium (NYSSDC) and an advisory board composed of instructors and experts in the field. The state also surveys instructors and collects information after professional development activities to identify instructor needs. As a result, the professional development agenda in New York is influenced by a combination of state and regional priorities, and instructor needs and interests. Moreover, New York has found that instructors and local administrators are more likely to “buy in” to their professional development if included in the decision-making process.

Massachusetts has taken a similar approach to New York’s. That approach was described in the survey response as follows:

Massachusetts’s professional development agenda is influenced by several factors and developed collaboratively among the state, its professional development providers and the field. Forums for collaborative development of the professional development agenda include field-based advisory committees and task forces, joint working groups, negotiation of annual work plans with state-funded professional development providers, and a process at the program level for integrating individual professional development with program goals. Influencing factors include meeting the challenges of state and federal legislation and of state and national reform movements (e.g. curriculum and assessment, coordination of services, accountability and reporting requirements) as well as meeting the expressed needs of programs and practitioners (e.g. GED 2002, ESOL, learning disabilities, staff supervision and evaluation).

Instructor Experience and Pre-Service Training

A major constraint on state professional development systems is the fact that adult education largely consists of a part-time workforce, made up of instructors who generally do not have previous adult education experience. The NIFL survey confirmed that over two-thirds of the state adult education systems predominantly employ part-time instructors. Moreover, a needs assessment questionnaire developed by Professional Development Kit (PDK), a project headed by the National Center on Adult Literacy (NCAL) and funded by the Department Education (see p. 21), found that most adult education instructors who spend the majority of their paid time teaching adults had at least five years of previous teaching experience, but only 20 percent of those instructors had experience in adult education (Sabatini et al., 2000).2 Volunteers also typically do not have adult education experience. However, even though instructors and volunteers lack experience, a majority of states reported on the NIFL survey that they do not require pre-service training of full-time, part-time, or volunteer instructors. Only nine states require adult education instructors to participate in 10-20 hours of pre-service training, and only four states require instructors to complete a professional development plan. Fewer than 20 percent of the states require pre-service training of volunteers. In addition, the survey showed that the decision to provide pre-service training to new staff, although encouraged by the state, is generally left up to local programs, as demonstrated by the following description of Florida’s approach:

We do not have an administrative rule that requires pre-service training. Nevertheless, Florida requires each district school board (local boards of trustees for community colleges) to establish minimal qualifications for employment of teachers, i.e. adult education. Therefore, a pre-service requirement is under the provision of local control/local-level decision-making and may vary between school districts and community college programs. The volunteers, as they are prepared for tutoring assignments, are provided pre-service training according to the standards required by Laubach, Literacy Volunteers of America, and the Florida Literacy Coalition organizations/agencies.

Unlike most states, Oregon has a pre-service training requirement for volunteers, which was established in 1990. In order to become a state-certified basic skills tutor of adult learners in Oregon, volunteers must have a high school diploma and complete 18 hours of TELT (Training Effective Literacy Tutors) training. The training sessions, which are held at different locations throughout the state at various times of the year, teach tutoring and lesson planning techniques. Volunteers also learn how to assess and evaluate student progress and create student work portfolios. In addition, the training covers adult learner characteristics, cultural differences, learning and teaching styles, assessment and goal setting, and techniques for ESOL, literacy, and math instruction (TELT Tutoring Manual, 1998). The TELT training program has been well received by volunteers in Oregon and has been used as a prototype in a number of other states. Volunteers report that the comprehensive content and resources of the TELT training made them feel better equipped to begin working with adult learners. In addition, Oregon states that TELT training “acts as a springboard in preparing volunteers for additional professional growth” (Kulungoski, 2001).

 

For those states that do not currently have pre-service programs, the solution may not be to redirect funding or other resources to establish such programs. Rather, findings from PDK’s questionnaire of adult education instructors suggest that, given the diversity and special needs of the adult learner population, it may be more effective for states to build up and improve in-service training and post-graduate work (Sabatini et al., 2000). Moreover, the PDK questionnaire found that the majority of instructors surveyed were dedicated to adult education and eager to learn new techniques. As stated by Sabatini et al. (2000, p. 20), “Despite arriving at adult literacy education through a pathway of other educational experiences, 88 percent of [PDK questionnaire’s] respondents chose to say, ‘I know I made the right decision to become an adult education teacher/volunteer/tutor.’” Furthermore, before dedicating already strained resources to pre-service training, more research is needed to link the entry qualifications of instructors in adult education to program impacts (Lytle, Belzer, and Reymann, 1992).

Certification

As part of a decade-long movement to professionalize the adult education field, almost half of the states have established a certification process for instructors. Certification is viewed as a means to provide instructors with a clear set of expectations (Sabatini, Ginsburg, and Russell, in press), as well as an incentive to participate in professional development activities (Reiff, 1995; Tibbetts et al., 1991). States also use certification as a quality assurance tool to assist in monitoring the competency levels of those entering and teaching in the field (Sabitini, Ginsburg, Russell, in press).

 

According to the NIFL survey, 22 states require certification and 18 of these states require it as a prerequisite to instruction. One state requires full-time, part-time, and volunteer Adult Secondary Education (ASE) instructors to be certified in K–12 or secondary education. The survey results are similar to a 2000 NAEPDC survey, which found that 25 states require certification (four of the states that reported requiring certification on the NAEPDC survey did not respond to the NIFL survey) (Parke, 2000). The NIFL survey also determined that certification is generally required of only full- and part-time instructors, although five states indicated that they also require volunteers to be certified.

 

Tennessee, like many other states, requires instructors to be K–12 certified, but it is also currently instituting a new program that documents the knowledge and skills of instructors and program supervisors. The Professional Development Framework and Tracking System, which began in program year 2000–2001, requires each instructor, in collaboration with the program supervisor, to complete a professional development plan and keep a record of participation in professional development activities. The state assigns each professional development activity a number of points that add up over the course of several years to the following professional development levels:

    Level 1: Interest (100 points plus an observation)

    Level 2: Commitment (200 points plus observation and portfolio)

    Level 3: Achievement (300 points plus observation and portfolio)

    There are similar levels for program supervisors. These levels are:

    Level 1: Interest (200 points plus an observation)

    Level 2: Commitment (300 points plus observation and portfolio)

    Level 3: Achievement (400 points plus observation and portfolio)

 

The incentives for instructors and supervisors to work toward the professional development levels may include a monetary bonus corresponding to each level, depending on funding availability, and a certificate noting the level attained. A professional development transcript will also be provided to the instructors and supervisors at the end of each program year. In addition, Tennessee plans to formally recognize instructors and supervisors at a statewide professional development event, in a Tennessee adult education newsletter, and on the state Web site. Instructors working toward the top levels may also be offered the opportunity to travel to national professional development events (Tennessee Office of Adult Education, 2001). To date, instructors have reacted positively to the Professional Development Framework and Tracking System; they view it as a major step toward professionalizing the adult education field.

Instructor Competencies

Like certification, instructor competencies are part of the professionalization movement in adult education. Used as a framework for instructor self-evaluation and peer and administrator evaluations of instructor performance (Sherman et al., 2000), instructor competencies may provide an answer to the criticism that “seat-time” in conferences and workshops is a weak measure of the knowledge and skills of instructors. The NIFL survey showed that 15 states use sets of instructor competencies. Kentucky, for example, developed a Competency Profile of an Adult Basic Skills Instructor in 1993. The profile includes more than 60 tasks expected of teachers in areas such as instruction, counseling, and administration (Kutner and Tibbetts, 1997). The competencies were formalized in 1996 and the state encourages program managers to use them for hiring, internal staff development, and evaluation. The instructor competencies include the following six standards (Standards, 1997):

    Demonstrates Knowledge of Content

    Designs/Plans Instruction

    Assesses and Monitors Learning

    Utilizes Community Resources

    Demonstrates Professionalism

    Manages Operations

 

Kentucky is in the process of updating the instructor competencies to include new aspects of professional development, such as technology. In addition, Kentucky formalized a set of workplace instructor competencies in 1999 and is in the early stages of developing administrative practitioner competencies. Well received by instructors, Kentucky’s instructor competencies have provided a starting place to build effective training and a structure on which to base orientations for new adult educators.

 

Instructor competencies and related performance indicators have also been developed by PRO-NET, a federally funded professional development project administered by the Pelavin Research Institute, American Institutes for Research (see p. 20), to enhance the quality of instruction across programs. Developed through research and a field-based process that included over 300 instructors, program administrators, and adult learners, the competencies incorporate research literature in adult learning, competencies developed by individual states, the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) research,3 and NIFL’s Equipped for the Future (EFF) (see p. 22). The competencies and their corresponding indicators are organized into the following six categories (Sherman et al., 1999):

    Maintains Knowledge and Pursues Professional Development

    Organizes and Delivers Instruction

    Manages Instruction Resources

    Continually Assesses and Monitors Learning

    Manages Program Responsibility and Enhances Program Organization

    Provides Learner Guidance and Referral

 

To learn more about these instructor competencies and related performance indicators, as well as management competencies developed by PRO-NET, visit PRO-NET’s Web site at http://www.pro-net2000.org.

Additional Incentives

While both certification requirements and competencies are believed to promote participation in professional development, states also use other incentives to encourage instructors to participate in professional development activities. As noted by Tibbetts et al. (1991), K–12 research has demonstrated that effective staff development includes creating a positive environment for instructors to learn. “Teachers and volunteers who engage in staff development need to be rewarded (monetarily, release time, advancement)—they need recognition and respect, and they need time and reinforcement to pursue new learning and to experiment in their classrooms” (Tibbetts et al., 1991, p. 32). Incentives used in adult education include: paid release time, career advancement, reimbursement of travel expenses and workshop fees, and funds for substitutes to cover the instructors’ classes. Generally determined at the local level, but recommended by the states, the most common incentives used by local programs, according to the NIFL survey, are paid release time, reimbursement of travel expenses and workshop fees, and funds for substitutes to cover the instructors’ classes.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Professional Development

An essential component of an effective professional development system is evaluation (Kutner et al., 1997). According to the survey, states encourage but do not require local programs to evaluate the knowledge and skills gained by instructors from professional development activities. States report that the most common form of evaluation used by local programs is the surveying of professional development participants. One-third of the states also report that adult learner achievement is used to determine the impact of professional development on instructors. Learner achievement is typically assessed by states by monitoring numerical indicators and gains in state programs. Another method used by several states is peer review. New York, for example, uses a peer review process to determine if instructors have learned the new state standards from professional development activities and are successfully incorporating the standards into classroom instruction. Instructors who participate in the peer review process are asked to attend an annual statewide conference, where they are expected to present a lesson that incorporates the state standards, as well as to review and comment on other instructors’ lesson plans. The best lesson plans presented at the conference are then promoted as models for other instructors. This initiative, according to New York, “has received wide praise from the teachers, the New York State United Teachers Union, school administration, and is now being coordinated across all statewide professional development networks K-adult” (Headley-Walker, 2001).

 

While states are evaluating the impact of professional development on instructors at certain stages of the professional development process, more should be done throughout the entire process. Kutner et al. (1997, p. 1) point out that “with growing concerns about the effectiveness of adult education and literacy services, and increasing competition for resources, evaluations of professional development are needed to assess changes in instructors’ knowledge, skill levels, and behavior, as well as to document changes in program practices and student outcomes.” They go on to state that “the adult field no longer has the luxury of supporting unexamined professional development and must begin to incorporate evaluation into all components of professional development services” (Kutner et al., 1997, p. 2). Considered both program- and cost-effective, evaluating the effects of professional development promotes continuous program improvement and ensures program accountability (Kutner et al., 1997). To adddress this need PRO-NET has developed a framework for evaluation that can be used by states as part of an ongoing professional development process (see graph).

Professional Development Challenges

The most significant professional development challenges that states have faced in the last five years, according to the NIFL survey, are the following:

    Insufficient funding

    Meeting accountability requirements of the National Reporting
    System (NRS)4

    Providing teachers with GED 2002, EFF, and learning disability
    professional development

    Incorporating technology in the classroom

    Meeting the demand of a growing ESOL adult learner population

 

Tennessee, like many other states, has experienced a large growth in its ESOL adult learner population. To address this challenge, Tennessee has created an ESOL Peer Support Network, where eight experienced ESOL teachers across the state provide ESOL professional development and support to local programs. In addition, Tennessee has developed a 358–page resource book, including a field-tested curriculum framework for ESOL that relates to the NRS levels, as well as learning activities associated with EFF skills. The resource book, and a future video, will be used as the basis for regional ESOL professional development activities. In addition, more learning activities will be added to the resource book this year.

 

Like other states, New York is searching for ways to incorporate technology into the classroom. One step New York has taken is to contract with the Hudson River Center on Program Development to develop CyberLiteracy, a user-friendly, interactive, research-rich Web site. A major goal of CyberLiteracy is to make instructors feel more comfortable using the Internet in the classroom by familiarizing them with the Internet and its many adult education resources. With that goal in mind, CyberLiteracy provides users with resources such as a teachers’ forum, an administrators’ forum, information on the New York State Staff Development Consortia, and information on family literacy and distance learning. The Web site also serves as a clearinghouse for instructional and professional development tools, such as audio and videotapes, curricula, instructional guides, literature reviews, presentation packets, and student and teacher workbooks (CyberLiteracy Web Site, 2001). According to CyberLiteracy’s “hits” and download record, the site has proven to be popular with instructors, particularly items such as the instructor forum after GED training sessions, instructional guides, and training materials.

Professional Development Needs

According to the NIFL survey, states need the following assistance to help
them improve the quality and delivery of professional development:

    Increased funding for professional development

    Models to use for professional development and instruction

    Evaluation strategies

    Information about what other state professional development
    systems are doing

    More time to train staff

 

The following is a sample of the states’ responses to this survey question:

Alabama: Communicating with professional developers in other states to see what they are doing for professional development.

 

Connecticut: A change in the WIA legislation that would increase the professional development percentage. We are a state that uses more than the allowable for professional development had been under the prior legislation. We have had to scale back on many endeavors.

 

Indiana: Additional funding, i.e., state discretion for percentage of grant to be used for leadership. Sharing of models/resources for administrator training. Additional funding would allow for development of technology and distance learning opportunities and expansion of training opportunities offered to volunteer and partner programs.

 

Maine: Time, money, and less geography.

 

New Mexico: A resource focal point to assist in the development and identification of national trends in professional development for ABE in general as well as specific to all levels of staff.

 

West Virginia: We would benefit from a reliable follow-up process (short and concise) for determining the impact of professional development upon the format, content, and delivery of instruction once the teacher returns to the classroom.

 

Northern Mariana Islands: Use of release time; break training; a list of experts on various adult education subjects – pool of resources ready for reference in time of need.

 

While Oregon’s needs are similar to other states, the state’s professional development system has benefited from a regional collaboration—the Northwest Regional Literacy Resource Center (NWRLRC). Created in 1993, the Center provides participating states (Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, and Alaska) with leadership in staff development, policy development, and resource services for adult basic education. For example, in partnership with Oregon and Washington, the NWRLRC created a series of professional development workshops for basic skills providers. The Center also offers resources, information, referrals, and technical assistance to instructors in the participating states, as well as an instructor-written guide to software for adult basic education programs. A full professional development library of adult education materials available for loan is also maintained by NWRLRC. In addition, NWRLRC facilitates discussion with the Board of Governors, the interagency body that governs NWRLRC, on policy topics that may improve the quality of services provided to adult learners (NWRLRC Web Site). According to Oregon,

The NWRLC is a wonderful example of regional collaboration. The discussions and brainstorming across regional perspectives enhance the quality of our work. The partnership continually pushes us to think beyond our individual states for ways to develop collaborative strategies for professional development and technical assistance. We have found that the integrated participation of instructors, program directors, and state administration in professional development activities strengthens involvement in the planning process at the local and state levels (Kulungoski, 2001).

Accomplishments in Professional Development

When asked to describe their most significant accomplishment in terms of professional development in the last five years, states’ answers varied, from building an online communication system for instructors to establishing an adult education graduate certificate program to developing a state resource center. Additional responses were as follows:

 

Delaware: We have utilized administrators and teachers to develop and implement a performance accountability system and its process including instituting performance measures into the state and within local programs, revising and aligning the state’s Basic Skills Certification System with the NRS requirements, revising the computerized data system, and training the staff to make the system and process flow smoothly. This was an enormous undertaking that required hours of teacher/administrator time in development and training phases. Staff was wonderful in coming together to make the changes.

 

Kansas: Full implementation of an adult education credentialing process that provides adult educators a process for documenting a variety of professional development activities directed at improving services to adult learners. During the last two years, programs have been required to not only keep records of staff members’ professional development activities but to also ensure that each “paid” staff member has a professional development plan that is directly related to program’s improvement plan. Programs report yearly on program improvement efforts including the impact of professional development activities on the overall program improvement efforts.

 

Maryland: Creating a full-time instructional specialist position in every local program to lead local professional development and to observe, coach, and mentor teachers.

 

New Jersey: We have provided interactive training sessions that have been very well received by GED teachers to prepare them for the 2002 test.

 

Oklahoma: Developing and providing intensive training in the areas of learning disabilities, work-based education, family literacy, reading, and ESL.

 

Washington: Anecdotally, some of our most effective professional development efforts have been realized by the TANF-funded Families That Work (FTW) programs. These programs were the first target of intensive EFF training and were afforded ongoing opportunities for individual peer exchange and mentoring, in addition to statewide quarterly retreats. The results seem to point to how much can be accomplished when resources are adequate, and professional development opportunities are based on a common framework (EFF), are ongoing and varied according to need, and address both the instructional and the administrative components of programs.

Federally-Funded Resources Available to States

While states have improved their professional development systems over the years, they continue to enlist the help of researchers and adult education organizations to explore new ways of strengthening programs and services for adult learners through professional development. Resources available to states include U.S. Department of Education-funded projects that are examining the impact of professional development on instructors and programs, developing professional development guides and materials, facilitating online discussions among those in the field, and providing reporting frameworks and competency modules to instructors and programs. NIFL also provides support to state professional development systems. In addition, adult education organizations representing and/or serving segments of the field provide professional development support to states, other adult education programs, and staff. A description of these organizations can be found under Recommended Resources at the end of this report.

National Center for the Study of Adult
Learning and Literacy (NCSALL)

One of the research projects funded by the U.S. Department of Education through its Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI) is NCSALL. A collaborative project between the Harvard Graduate School of Education and World Education, NCSALL’s mission is to “conduct the research, development, evaluation, and dissemination needed to build effective, cost-efficient adult learning and literacy programs” (NCSALL, 2001). NCSALL’s research includes a Staff Development Study that is examining how teachers change as a result of participating in different models of staff development. As part of this four-year study, NCSALL used questionnaires and in-depth interviews to learn more about the factors affecting instructors’ ability to do their jobs well. The data collected from questionnaires and interviews indicated that, in order for instructors to succeed in their jobs, they need:

    Access to resources that affect how teachers do their jobs, including classroom and program facilities and access to materials and technology;

    Access to professional development information, including access to written and electronic material that helps them better understand their classrooms, their programs, and their field;

    Access to colleagues and program directors, allowing teachers to meet with, talk to, and get feedback from those within their program, their state, and in the larger field of adult basic education;

    Access to decision making that allows teachers to participate in helping to improve the quality of services that learners receive, particularly through program policies and practices; and

    Access to a “real” job, including sufficient working hours to complete all of the teaching, program, and other tasks required of teachers; paid preparation and professional development time; stability; and benefits (Smith, Hofer, & Gillespie, 2001, p. 1).

 

Findings from this study and other NCSALL research projects and initiatives are included in its quarterly publication, annual review of commissioned articles, reports, and occasional papers. To learn more about these publications and NCSALL’s work, visit its Web site at http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu.

PRO-NET

Another resource available to state professional development systems is PRO-NET, a three-year project funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), to improve professional development services that result in more effective instruction for adults and ultimately enhance learner outcomes. PRO-NET is a national project that seeks to promote statewide infrastructures to support professional development. It has developed instructor, management, and professional development coordinator competencies. These competencies, as well as issues such as evaluating professional development, mentoring, and needs assessment, are the focus of various PRO-NET publications. PRO-NET has also developed a series of multi-session “train-the-trainer” modules (i.e. The Adult Learner, Team Learning, Planning for Instructions, SCANS Related Project-Based Learning in Adult Education) and professional development guides for adult educators. In addition to its publications, PRO-NET disseminates information via national and regional conferences targeted to professional development staff at the local, regional, and national levels, and through its Web site. For more information on PRO-NET resources and activities, visit PRO-NET’s Web site at http://www.pro-net2000.org.

Professional Development Kit (PDK)

OVAE also funds PDK, which offers an array of resources to state professional development systems, including online teacher portfolio activities, discussion groups, needs assessment activities, data collection suggestions, action plan infrastructures, reporting frameworks, and a searchable database of professional development resources. In addition, PDK has developed eight CD-ROMs that contain video case studies focusing on common instructional challenges. These videos engage instructors in an inquiry process, building instructors’ awareness of education theory and practice, structured problem-solving, and their own classroom practices. In addition to PDK, NCAL, which administers PDK, also collaborates with other adult education organizations to provide additional professional development resources, such as:

    LitTeacher: a technology-based virtual continuing education resource center

    ESL/CivicsLink: online ESL professional development

    Captured Wisdom: Stories of Integrating Technology in Adult Literacy Instruction: a series of videos on best practices in technology

    International Literacy Explorer: a multimedia teacher training tool

 

To learn more about the PDK and other NCAL products, visit NCAL’s Web site at http://ncal.literacy.upenn.edu/pdk.

National Center for ESL Literacy Education (NCLE)

Another OVAE-funded project is NCLE at the Center for Applied Linguistics. Focusing on the needs of the ESOL adult learner population, NCLE supports providers of language and literacy education for adults and out-of-school youth learning English. NCLE provides instructors and tutors, program directors, researchers, and policymakers with resources such as: overviews of research and practice; reviews of major ESOL issues and research needs; an email discussion forum; newsletters about resources, news, and policy; books and issue papers; and resource compilations. In addition, NCLE offers instructor training workshops and other professional development presentations, provides information and training on the Basic English Skills Test (BEST), develops ESOL instructional materials, facilitates curriculum development for programs, and conducts program evaluations. Additional information about NCLE can be found on the NCLE Web site at http://www.cal.org/ncle.

National Institute for Literacy (NIFL)

NIFL provides support to professional development systems through its various projects, including EFF, Bridges to Practice, and LINCS. EFF is a standards-based system reform initiative aimed at improving the quality, outcomes, and accountability of the adult education and family literacy system by developing standards that enable literacy programs to align instruction, assessment, and reporting with learner goals. The EFF National Center at the University of Maine in Orono provides training and technical assistance to states that are integrating EFF into their adult education delivery system. In addition, the
EFF Assessment Consortium has been providing training to practitioners and researchers in research-based approaches to assessment.

 

Bridges to Practice is a comprehensive research-based guide that provides information about the social, educational, and legal issues related to serving adults with learning disabilities, as well as instructional approaches that have been demonstrated to improve the outcomes of literacy instruction. NIFL
has supported the creation of four Learning Disability and Training Dissemination Hubs across the country, whose staff train other educators and human resource staff in the use of Bridges to Practice at the state and local level. NIFL is currently in the process of certifying a network of master trainers that will increase NIFL’s ability to reach more instructors.

 

NIFL also has developed LINCS—an Internet-based information retrieval and communication system—that connects the literacy field at the local, state, and national levels. Discussions and information exchanges among practitioners, researchers, and others in the field are fostered by LINCS’s online discussion lists and Special Collection sites on issues such as assessment, EFF, ESL, family literacy, health and literacy, learning disabilities, technology and literacy, and workplace literacy. In addition, NIFL funds five LINCS Regional Technology Centers (RTC) focused on providing technology training, including integrating technology and LINCS resources with teaching and learning, developing web-based resources, establishing local discussion lists for practitioners, and providing technical assistance to programs and practitioners in every U.S. state and territory. The LINCS RTCs are: Western/Pacific, Midwestern, Southern, Northwest, and Eastern. To learn more about LINCS and NIFL’s other resources and projects, visit the NIFL Web site at http://www.nifl.gov.

Conclusion

While more research is needed to further document and understand the effects of professional development on adult educators, as well as the components of a comprehensive professional development system, research has identified the following positive findings:

    Professional development is made more accessible to instructors
    if offered at the state, regional, and local levels.

    Instructors will more likely “buy in” to professional development
    if actively involved.

    A key component to a comprehensive professional development agenda is incorporating instructor interests and needs, learner needs and goals, and administrative priorities.

    Providing incentives to instructors to participate in professional development activities helps create a positive environment for instructors to learn.

    Evaluating the effects of professional development throughout the professional development process promotes continual program improvement and ensures accountability.

 

Instructor certification and competencies are also believed to benefit professional development and have played a significant role in the movement to professionalize the field of adult education.

 

Building on what have already been identified as positive findings, research should further examine:

Ways to document and monitor instructor quality;

How professional development impacts classroom instruction and learner achievement;

The professional development decisions made at the local level and
how they are monitored and recorded by states;

How states are balancing the needs of instructors and programs with federal and state requirements (Smith, 2001); and

Reasons for instructor turnover and how to prevent it (Smith, 2001).

 

While certification and competencies are believed to be useful tools in documenting and monitoring instructor quality, more information is needed. How should certification apply to different types of instructors (i.e. full-time instructors, part-time instructors, and volunteers) (Sherman, 2001)? How have competencies been identified, defined, and used? How should they be identified, defined, and used? What competencies should program managers, professional development providers, and specialized instructors (i.e. workplace and ESOL instructors) be expected to have (Sherman, 2001)? More research is also needed to understand the effects of professional development on instructors and learners. Is there a direct link between professional development and the quality of instruction? How do instructors apply what they have learned from professional development activities to the classroom? Can instructor turnover be directly linked to low salaries, or lack of benefits or incentives? If a link is found, what can programs and states do to decrease turnover rates (Smith, 2001)?

 

In addition to research, the needs of the adult learner population will also influence the future direction of professional development. For example, more and more of the adult learner population is composed of English language learners, raising the demand for ESOL classes and impacting how limited professional development funds are used. Similarly, gaining an understanding of technology has become increasingly important to adult learners, given the role of technology in today’s workforce. Professional development, therefore, needs to train more instructors on computers and show instructors how to incorporate technology in the classroom. Moreover, technology has the potential to make adult education, as well as professional development, more accessible and affordable through distance learning (Parker, 2001).

 

How state professional development systems incorporate research into classroom practice and address the needs of a changing adult learner population will depend on the reauthorization of Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 2003. With the support of the adult education field, as is evidenced in the National Literacy Summit 2000’s From the Margins to the Mainstream,5 there is hope that states will see an increase in their federal allotment for professional development. In the meantime, states should work to improve their professional development systems using the resources already available to them—federally funded projects, adult education organizations, and other states.

 

 

1 The term “state” will be used throughout the document to refer to states, territories, insular areas, and freely associated states.

2 PDK’s sampling strategy was not intended to provide a nationally representative sample of adult educators. Rather, the focus of their strategy was instructors who spend all or most of their paid time teaching adults. State directors were asked by PDK to identify instructors who fit this sampling design. In addition, the majority of responses were received from teachers in small cities and urban-based programs. Twenty percent of the responses came from instructors in rural areas, and only 13 percent came from instructors
in small towns and suburban areas (Sabatini et al., 2000).

3 The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) acknowledged the skills and competencies expected of adults in the workplace. The SCANS skills identified and defined five workplace competencies—resources, interpersonal, information, systems, and technology—and three sets of foundation skills—basic skills, thinking skills, and personal qualities.

4 The National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS) is an outcome-based reporting system for the state-administered, federally funded adult education program. Title II of the Workforce Investment Act requires states to measure and document learner outcomes from adult education thorough the NRS. Data collected by the states will be aggregated into a national database describing outcomes of adult education.

5 The National Literacy Summit 2000’s From the Margin to the Mainstream stressed the importance of professional development as an indicator of high quality education. For example, the Action Agenda called for states to “establish a certification process for instructional staff based on standards that value both academic knowledge and life experience, and include alternative assessment methods such as portfolios.” The Action Agenda also states that a minimum number of hours per year of paid professional development should be required for all instructional staff and that salary and benefits should also be linked to participation in professional development.

References

Belzer, A., Drennon, C., & Smith, C. (2001). Building professional development systems in adult basic education: Lessons learned. In National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, The Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Vol. 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

CyberLiteracy (2001). http://www.nyadulted.org

 

Headley-Walker, L., Statewide Coordinator of Adult Education Staff Development and Distance Learning, Office of Workforce Preparation and Continuing Education, New York State Education Department, personal communication, October 2001.

 

Kulungoski, K., Curriculum/Staff Development Coordinator, Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development, personal communication, October 2001.

 

Kutner, M. (1992). Staff development for ABE and ESL teachers and Volunteers. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on Literacy Education. (ED No. 353 862).

 

Kutner, M., Sherman, R., Tibbetts, J., & Condelli, L. (1997). Evaluating professional development: A framework for adult education. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute.

 

Kutner, M., & Tibbetts, J. (1997). Looking to the future: Components of a comprehensive professional development system for adult educators. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute.

 

Lancaster, H., Program Manger, Office of Adult Education, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce, personal communication, October 2001.

 

Leahy, M. (1986). Recommendation for expanding and enhancing adult education staff development in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education, Bureau of Adult Basic and Literacy Education. (ERIC Document No. 352 852).

 

Lytle, S., Belzer, A., & Reumann, R. (1992). Developing the professional development workforce for adult literacy education. Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy.

 

National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL) (2001). http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall/

 

Northwest Regional Literacy Resource Center (NWRLRC) (2001). http://www.literacynet.org/nwrlrc

 

Parke, M. (2000). The professionalization of adult education: Can state certification of adult educators contribute to a more professional workforce? State Policy Update. Washington, DC: The National Institute for Literacy.

 

Parker, J., Coordinator of Leadership and Professional Development, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, personal communication, October 2001.

 

Professional Development Tool Kit. (2001). Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development.

Reiff, T. (1995). Adult basic and literacy education staff competencies: A literature review and recommendations for developing a competency-based staff development program in Pennsylvania. Lancaster, PA: New Educational Projects, Inc.

 

Rose, A. (1991). Ends or means: An overview of the history of the Adult Education Act (Information Series No. 346). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for Employment.

 

Sabatini, J., Daniels, M. Ginsburg, L., Limuel, K., Russell, M., & Stites, R. (2000). Teacher perspectives on adult education profession: National survey findings about an emerging profession. Philadelphia, PA: Phildelphia, PA: National Center for Adult Literacy. (Technical Report TR00–02).

 

Sabitini, J., Ginsburg, L., & Russell, M. (in press). Professionalization certification for teachers in adult basic education. In the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, The Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Vol. 3. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

 

Shanahan, T., Meehan, M., & Mogge, S. (1994). The professionalization of the teacher in adult literacy education. Philadelphia, PA: National Center for Adult Literacy. (Technical Report TR94–11).

 

Sherman, R., Principal Research Analyst, Pelavin Research Institute, personal communication, October 2001.

 

Sherman, R., & Kutner, M. (1998). Professional development resource guide for adult educators. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute.

 

Sherman, R., Kutner, M., Tibbetts, J., & Weidler, D. (2000). Professional development resources supplement: Improving instruction, organization, and learner outcomes through professional development. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute.

 

Sherman, R., Tibbetts, J., Woodruff, D., & Weidler, D. (1999). Instructor competencies and performance indicators for the improvement of adult education programs. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute.

 

Smith, C., Deputy Director, National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, personal communication, October 2001.

 

Smith, C., Hofer, J., & Gillespie, M. (2001). The working conditions of adult literacy teachers: Preliminary findings from the NCSALL staff development study. Focus on the Basics, Vol. 4, issue D. Boston, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.

 

Standards for Adult Education Instructors (1997). Kentucky: Kentucky Department for Adult Education and Literacy, Cabinet for Workforce Development.

 

Tennessee Office of Adult Education (2001). Introduction to the Tennessee Adult Education Professional Development Framework and Tracking System. Nashville, TN: Author.

 

TELT Tutoring Manual (1998). Salem, OR: Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development, Department of Corrections, Oregon Literacy, Inc.

 

Tibbetts, J., Kutner, M., Hemphill, D., & Jones, E. (1991). Study of ABE/ESL instructor training approaches: The delivery and content of training for adult education teachers and volunteer instructors. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute.

 

Wilson, B., & Corbett, D. (2001). Adult basic education and professional development: Strangers for too long. Focus on the Basics, Vol. 4, issue D. Boston, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.

Recommended Resources

Adult Literacy Media Alliance (ALMA)

(800) 304–1922

http://www.tv411.org

ALMA leverages a range of media including television, the Internet, print, and video—combined with training and a grassroots distribution system—to bring literacy learning to people who need it wherever they are. In addition, ALMA provides training and technical assistance to teachers and education administrators to help them optimize basic skills teaching in schools and community colleges.

 

Association of Adult Literacy Professional Developers (AALPD)

http://wvabe.state.k12.wv.us/aalpd

AALPD is a newly formed national group for professional developers in adult literacy. While still in its infancy, AALPD is aiming to bring together professional developers to work with participants to determine the needs of the field’s professional developers, how to disseminate information to this audience, and how to shape practice as well as germane public policy.

 

Adult Literacy and Technology Network (ALTN)

(916) 228–2582

http://www.altn.org

ALTN is a national effort dedicated to finding solutions for using technology to enhance adult literacy by means of conferences, training, technical assistance, and communication media.

 

Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

(202) 362–0700 or (941) 922–9816

http://www.cal.org

CAL’s mission is to improve communication through a better understanding of language and culture. CAL publishes information on English as a second language, foreign language, and bilingual education. CAL staff conduct pre-service and in-service professional development for instructional and administrative staff in ESOL, foreign language, and bilingual programs.

 

Cyberstep

(510) 644–0437

http://www.cyberstep.org

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Cyberstep is a partnership of four literacy service innovators addressing the challenge of creating and distributing multimedia learning materials for the hardest-to-serve ABE and ESL adult learners. Cyberstep’s resources for instructors include: tools for creating multimedia learning activities, a beginning ESL course using video series, and a literacy course based on TV news stories.

 

ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education

(800) 848–4815 or (614) 292–7069

http://www.ericacve.org

A national education information network that is part of the National Library of Education, U.S. Department of Education, this clearinghouse provides comprehensive information on adult and continuing education, career education, and vocational and technical education including employment and training.

 

Laubach Literacy International (LLI)

(888) LAUBACH (528–2224)

http://www.laubach.org

LLI is a nonprofit educational corporation dedicated to helping adults of all ages improve their lives and their communities by learning reading, writing, math, and problem-solving skills. LLI promotes the role of volunteers in adult literacy programs and has instituted an accreditation program to ensure quality program management at the local level.

 

Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA)

(315) 472–0001

http://www.literacyvolunteers.org

LVA is a national network of locally-based programs, supported by state and national staff. Professionally trained volunteer tutors teach basic literacy and ESL. While tutor training occurs at the local level, programs must meet LVA’s program management quality standards in order to be accredited.

 

National Adult Education Professional Development
Consortium (NAEPDC)

(202) 624–5250

http://www.naepdc.org

The NAEPDC was incorporated to enhance the professional development of state adult education staff. Organized by state directors of adult education, NAEPDC’s purposes are to coordinate, develop, and conduct programs of professional development for state adult education staffs; serve as a catalyst for public policy review and development related to adult education; disseminate information on the field of adult education; and maintain a visible presence for the state adult education program in our nation’s capitol.

 

National Center for Adult Literacy (NCAL)

(215) 898–2100

http://www.ncal.literacy.upenn.edu

NCAL provides research, innovation, and training in youth and adult education in the following areas: research and development; technology and distance learning; staff development and training; curriculum and instruction; improved linkages between research, policy, and practice; and dissemination of the latest findings in applied research and development.

 

National Center for ESL Literacy Education (NCLE)

(202) 362–0700 ext. 200

http://www.cal.org/ncle

NCLE collects and publishes information on adult ESOL literacy education research and practice. The primary users of this information are adult ESOL teachers and tutors, program administrators, researchers, and policymakers interested in the education of refugees, immigrants, and other U.S. residents whose native language is other than English. NCLE staff also provide direct technical assistance to program staff through its Web site, workshops, conference presentations, and symposia, and through direct question answering.

 

National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL)

(502) 584–1133

http://www.famlit.org

NCFL is a nonprofit organization supporting family literacy services for families across the U.S. through programming, training, research, advocacy, and dissemination. Training opportunities offered by NCFL include: comprehensive quality family literacy services, implementing a family literacy program, building services and programs, technical assistance, and specialized trainings.

 

National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL)

(617) 495–4843

http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu

A collaborative project between the Harvard Graduate School of Education and World Education, NCSALL conducts research, on issues such as staff development, and disseminates strategies to improve the quality of practice in educational programs that serve adult learners.

 

National Institute for Literacy (NIFL)

(202) 233–2025

http://www.nifl.gov

NIFL was created to ensure that all Americans with literacy needs receive high-quality education and basic skills services necessary to achieve success in the workplace, family, and community. By fostering communication, collaboration, and innovation, NIFL works to build and strengthen national, regional, and state literacy infrastructures. NIFL provides support to state professional development systems through Equipped for the Future, Bridges to Practice, LINCS, and other resources and projects.

 

Office of Literacy and Outreach Services (OLOS),
American Library Association (ALA)

(800) 545–2433 x4294

http://www.ala.org/olos/

OLOS ensures that training, information resources, and technical assistance are available to help libraries and librarians develop effective literacy and outreach programs and services. OLOS also holds an annual conference, attended by American Library Association members, where many sessions and events focus on adult and family literacy.

 

The Outreach and Technical Assistance Network (OTAN)

(916) 228–2580

http://www.otan.dni.us

Outreach and Technical Assistance Network (OTAN) for Teachers

http://www.adultedteachers.org

A leadership initiative of the Adult Education Office of the California Department of Education, OTAN provides electronic collaboration, access to information, and technical assistance for literacy and adult education providers. OTAN’s For Teachers Web site includes teaching resources such as instructional software, lesson plans, Web site links and reviews.

 

PBS LiteracyLink

(703) 739–8600

http://www.pbs.org/literacy/

Funded by a five-year $15 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education and the Star School Project, LiteracyLink is creating an integrated instructional system of video and online computer technology that will help adult students advance their GED and workplace skills. LiteracyLink also seeks to improve the quality of instruction provided to adult students by offering professional development resources and training to literacy educators.

 

Professional Development Kit (PDK):

Multimedia Resources for Instructional Decision Making

(215) 898–0688 or (650) 859–3768

http://www.literacyonline.org/pdk

PDK provides sustainable teacher improvement for adult basic education, GED, and English as a Second Language educators using multimedia resources as the delivery system. A collaboration between the National Center on Adult Literacy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education and SRI International, the PDK project brings together the latest research and practice on quality professional development.

 

PRO-NET

(202) 944–5327

http://www.pro-net2000.org

A federally funded professional development project administered by the Pelavin Research Institute, American Institutes for Research, PRO-NET seeks to promote statewide infrastructures to support professional development. PRO-NET objectives include developing and disseminating products based on research and practice; facilitating communication and information sharing among adult education service providers; developing and promoting implementation of instructor, management, and professional development competencies; and assisting states in the development and implementation of work-based learner certification systems.

 

State Literacy Resource Centers (SLRCs)

Phone numbers for SLRCs can be found at URL below.

http://www.ed.gov/Programs/bastmp/SLRC.htm

SLRCs works with state and local organizations to improve the capacity and coordination of literacy services. For a complete list of SLRCs, visit the above Web site.

 

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)

(703) 836–0774

http://www.tesol.org

TESOL’s mission is to develop the professional expertise of its members and others involved in the teaching of English to speakers of other languages to help them foster effective communication in diverse settings while respecting individuals’ language rights.

 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and
Adult Education (OVAE)

(202) 205–5451

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/

OVAE supports programs, including professional development activities, that help young people and adults obtain the knowledge and skills they need for successful careers and productive lives. OVAE oversees programs, grants, and events in the following areas: adult education and vocational education; school-to-work; high school reform; community colleges; correctional education; community technology centers; empowerment zones and enterprise communities; and teacher development activities.

Appendix

 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY

Professional Development State Survey

 

The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) is developing a State Policy Update on professional development of adult education instructors. We would like to include a brief description of each states’ professional development system. The Update will be distributed to interested students, practitioners, program administrators, state directors, and policymakers. We will also provide you with a copy, as well as post the Update on the National Institute for Literacy Web site, www.nifl.gov.

 

Please take 15–20 minutes to answer the following questions about your state’s professional development system. Email: (mtolbert@nifl.gov) or fax: (202) 233–2050 your response no later than Monday, August 27, 2001.

 

Name:

 

State:

 

Phone:

 

Email:

 

1. Which of the following adult education professional development providers
does your state use? Please circle all those that apply.

a. Four-year colleges or universities

b. State-sponsored professional development/resource centers

c. Local agencies (including community colleges, community-based
organizations, and school districts)

d. Professional organizations

e. Literacy councils

f. Other (please specify)

 

2. What training delivery formats does your state use? Please circle all those that apply.

a. Single-session workshops

b Conferences

c. Workshop series (multi-session workshops)

d. Institutes

e. University coursework

f. Peer coaching/observation

g. Teleconference/video

h. Mentoring

i. Action research (practitioner research or teacher inquiry)

j. Study circles or sharing groups

k. Web-based learning

l. Technical assistance

m. Other (please specify)

 

3. What is your state’s ANNUAL contribution (in addition to federal funds) to professional development (i.e. staff, travel, activities, special projects, and release time for staff)?

a. None

b. Less than $50,000

c. $50,000–$100,000

d. More than $100,000

4. Is your state’s portion of overall funding for professional development smaller, larger, or equal to the federal portion?

a. Smaller

b. Larger

c. Equal

d. Not applicable (state does not contribute to professional development)

 

5. What structure in your state sets the agenda for professional development?

a. Agenda is set by central (state) agency

b. Agenda is set by regional agency

c. Agenda is set by local ABE programs

d. Other (please specify)

 

6. APPROXIMATELY what percentage of your state’s adult education instructors are full-time, part-time, or volunteer? Please indicate the approximate percentage by each type of instructor.

% Full-time (works 35 hours or more in adult education programs)

% Part-time

% Volunteer

 

7. Does your state require pre-service training for adult education instructors and volunteers?

a. Yes—for full-time, part-time, and volunteer

b. Yes—for full-time and part-time

c. Yes—ONLY for full-time

d. None required

 

8. If your state does require pre-service training, how many hours are required?

a. 9 hours or less

b. 10–20 hours

c. More than 20 hours

d. Completion of a professional development plan

e. Other (please specify)

 

9. Does your state require pre-service training for local program managers?

a. Yes

b. None required

 

10. If your state does require pre-service training for managers, how many hours are required?

a. 9 hours or less

b. 10–20 hours

c. More than 20 hours

d. Completion of a professional development plan

e. Other (please specify)

 

11. Does your state require adult education instructors to be certified?

a. Yes

b. No

 

12. If certification is required, what type of instructors must be certified? Please circle all those that apply.

a. Full-time

b. Part-time

c. Volunteer

 

13. If certification is required, does your state require adult education instructors to be certified prior to engaging in instruction?

a. Yes

b. No

14. If certification is required, what type of certification does your state require?

a. Adult certification

b. K–12 or secondary certification

c. Other (please specify)

 

15. Does your state use a list/set of competencies for adult education instructors?

a. Yes

b. No

 

16. What incentives does your state provide adult education instructors to participate in professional development? Please circle all those that apply.

a. Paid release-time

b. Unpaid release-time

c. Career advancement

d. Certification (CEU’s)

e. Reimbursement of travel expenses and workshop fees

f. Funds for substitutes to cover the instructor’s classes

g. None

h. Other (please specify)

 

17. What methods does your state use to evaluate adult education instructors? Please circle all those that apply.

 

Evaluation by Training Providers:

a. Participant surveys

b. Numerical indicators (number of training sessions or participants)

c. Gains in adult education instructor competencies

d. Gains in state program performance standards

e. Interviews and focus groups

f. None

g. Other (please specify)

 

Evaluation by State:

a. Site visits

b. Review of reports from training providers

c. None

d. Other (please specify)

 

18. APPROXIMATELY what percentage of your students are Adult Basic Education (ABE), English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and Adult Secondary Education (ASE)? Please indicate the approximate percentage by each type of student.

% ABE

% ESOL

% ASE (GED or external diploma)

% Other

 

19. Briefly describe the biggest professional development challenge your state has faced in the last five years.

 

 

 

20. Briefly describe the biggest accomplishment your state has made in terms of professional development in the last five years.

 

 

 

 

21. Briefly describe what would most help you to improve the quality and delivery of professional development in your state?

 

 

 

To order additional copies of this report, please call
toll free (800) 228–8813 or visit the NIFL Web site at http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/policy/development.pdf.

National Institute for Literacy

1775 I Street, NW

Suite 730

Washington, DC 20006–2417

(202) 233–2025

(202) 233–2050 (fax)

www.nifl.gov