INQUIRY 98

Thomas H. Brillat Washington County Adult Learning Center

The initial plan for the 1998 inquiry project was to use the information gathered during the 1997­inquiry project to accomplish three things:

1) to gain local moral and public commitment for the benefits and necessity of adult education;

2) to increase awareness of the Learning Center among local elected officials; and

3) to gain financial assistance from the communities WCALC serves.

Unfortunately, these ideas did not adapt well as an inquiry project. However, still wanting to find a way to use the information collected last year, the data was redistributed to the WCALC faculty with a new purpose.

It took time, but the meaning and significance of conducting a useful inquiry project finally took­shape in the form of a viable question. The inquiry question for 1998 became: How can administrative data be incorporated into diverse program classes in order to obtain learner feedback for program improvement?

Answering this question would combine important administrative data with classroom instruction and learner input. More importantly, answering this question would also require the participation of the WCALC faculty. In prior years faculty involvement in inquiry projects had been difficult to achieve. However, asking them as a group - each one realizing his/her colleagues would also be doing something, proved very effective. Each teacher was given a packet of information and instructions. The project is described below.

1. Review packet of information gained from Inquiry 97

Packet contents:
A) cover letter sent to public officials 

B) copy of survey sent to public officials

C) compilation of data received from people who did survey; and

D) final report submitted to RIDE

2. Devise and implement a lesson plan or plans for your class or classes that incorporates some or all of the information from the packet. The expectation is that every Reading, ESL, ABE and GED class that WCALC offers will utilize the data in some way as part of at least one class.

3. Gather student feedback on the lesson and/or the data from the survey.

4. Submit a copy of your lesson plan, student feedback information, and a personal comment from you about the lesson, student insights, etc.

Project Results

Teachers were given nine weeks to complete the project. 10 teachers received the assignment.

2 GED

2 ABE

1 ABE & GED

1 Reading

4 ESL (1 Beginner, 2 Intermediates, 1 Advanced)

9 submitted a report. 5 were submitted on time.

1 GED

2 ABE 1 ABE & GED

1 Reading

4 ESL (1 Beginner, 2 Intermediates, 1 Advanced)

7 wrote traditional lesson plans (one teacher wrote two, one teacher used the same plan in twodifferent classes) - 2 others made general comments

6 provided edited or complete data from the Inquiry 97 to their students 2 used the Inquiry 97 data as the basis for math and grammar assignments without discussing or involving the content of the data packet.

1 used the survey format of the Inquiry 97 questionnaire as the basis for teaching interviewing techniques. 6 received feedback from the students.

2 on the lesson/assignment itself

2 on the Inquiry 97 data 2 on both the lesson and the data

3 had no comments from students

8 submitted personal comments

5 focused on strengths and weaknesses of the lesson in class - a "self-assessment"

2 discussed the lesson and the Inquiry 97 data. Including a "self-assessment"

1 discussed the reactions of the students toward each other vis a vis the survey but did not provide a "personal" opinion about the outcome or value of doing the lesson.

Project Analysis

After reading and rereading the lesson plans, comments and suggestions received from teachers and learners, I am convinced this was a worthwhile exercise for all participants. The benefits are listed below.

1. Teachers were moved into creating and conducting new lessons. They did this in a variety of ways. Some used the data as material for working on math or grammar problems. Some used it for writing exercises, others practiced interviewing skills, and many generated group discussions and interest in other areas of education. ­

2.Those students that were asked to respond to and/or analyze the data, became better informed about the full range of activities and services provided by the Adult Learning Center. Some ofÏthem also realized the significance and necessity of effective advocacy programs forÏorganizations like WCALC. This knowledge was passed on to friends and family.

3. Teachers were able to easily incorporate the content of the Inquiry 97 project into their instruction. There was a degree of trepidation at first by several members of the staff about how they would use the information. There was also some concern about the relevancy ofÏdoing it, particularly by the ESL instructors. However, they overcame these issues and implemented good, productive lessons. Lesson objectives included: improving spelling and grammar skills; writing an essay; collecting information to 'fuel' a Public Relations campaign by WCALC; retrieving facts and interpreting them from readings; increasing vocabulary andÏconversational skills; increasing awareness of WCALC; etc. Every teacher indicated success in accomplishing their objectives.

4. Ideas, suggestions and recommendations for the Center were generated by staff and their students. Students wanted better/more integration of computers in classes; better advertising; more photos and articles in local papers; vary ads by type of course; put show on cable tv; adults providing testimony, staff interviews, learner interviews, show class activities; better cross referenced phone numbers in telephone book; start a WEB page; have clergy make announcements during religious services; make sure private psychologist and counselors knowÏof WCALC services; ad "mini" fliers to company paychecks, utility bills; create an "eye-catching" poster, etc. Faculty and students gave themselves time to reflect on how to theÏCenter could/should be spreading the word about WCALC services to residents of southernÏRI, particularly local elected officials and and decision-makers. 

5. But was the inquiry question answered? Yes - item 3 above describes some of the means by which the data was used by teachers and item 4 describes some of the ways the program may be improved.

Of course, not every project is perfect and there were a few shortcomings with this effort. The instructions provided to the teachers generated too many questions. In my view, therefore, they were not clear or concise enough. But, the real problem with the instructions, even when given my personal attention as I explained them again and again to individual teachers, was that they were too broad and did not focus entirely on the information that I was really hoping to get from every teacher and learner. This, in part, was due to the earlier lack of interest/time by faculty to do their own inquiry projects. I was fearful that if I made the desired outcomes of every lesson plan to specific, then teachers might find a convenient excuse not to participate. As it was, six of the nine responses did what I was hoping they would do - get learner insight and feedback about the Inquiry 97 data. The feedback was weak in some cases, but very detailed in others. I was looking for detail - this could have been made clearer in the instructions. Another weakness was not giving teachers a timeline for submittal of certain aspects of the project. Most of the teachers waited until the last week or two, prior to the nine week deadline, to put their plan together and use it in class. A timeline requiring updates would have spread out their workload, as well as given staff and students more time to assess the impacts of the lesson. I enjoyed this approach to the inquiry project. It brought together my staff and learners around an issue of importance to the Center and yielded ideas for growth and improvement.