Iowa
State Staff Development
Practitioner Research Reports
1997-1998

How Students Perceive the Services of the GED Class

Practitioner Research Project
Spring 1998

For nearly twenty years I have been working with the ABE/GED Classes at Southeastern Community College, Area XVI: first as an assistant instructor, then as an instructor with my own class. Over the years, I gained knowledge from having worked with a variety of students in open classes, JTPA/PJ classes, correctional facility classes and contracted industry classes. The students and my colleagues have taught me much. That is why I knew I could count on them both to help me with my survey.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks go to the students and GED instructors who willingly gave of their time and opened their classes to me for interviewing. A special thanks goes to the instructors and tutors who took time to distribute the surveys in their classes and return them to me.

Also, I owe much to Donna Norris, Margot Fetrow, Miriam Temple, Dr. John Wilson and Dr. Noel Koranda for their guidance, support, and suggestions for improving the composition of this paper. And, of course, a big thanks goes to Peg McCreight who did the typing of many drafts as well as the final paper. And last, but not least, I owe a big thanks to my husband, Larry, for his support of me through all my agonizing hours spent on tabulating the results.

How Students Perceive the Services of the GED Class

Background and Prior Planning

For the last two years, the enrollment and attendance in my GED classes at SCC--North Campus have been quite heavy (15-25 students), especially the first few months of each quarter. And, because the students can enroll at any time throughout the quarter, pre-GED testing was consuming more of my time with students than I liked. I did not seem to have much time for instruction. In discussing this problem area with my supervisor, I began to question what the students thought the purpose of the class was -- just for pretesting or for instruction. And, although having several tutors assigned to my class helped to relieve the immediate stress, I still wondered if, perhaps, we could better meet the students' needs if we knew more about how they perceived the classes as serving them. My supervisor suggested I do some "Practitioner Research". So I read several booklets on this topic and decided a survey might help me answer my question.

With this much decided, I still had to formulate the main question in a precise manner so all who read it would know its meaning. This was harder to do than I thought. It took several discussions with colleagues before I had it well formulated.

Then I had to compose a survey designed to collect data related to the question. I decided on open- ended questions rather than the rating-scale type because I felt it would solicit more of the students' own ideas although it would be harder to tabulate and analyze. One other advantage pointed out to me later by Dr. John Wilson was that I would be able to glean some concept of the students' writing ability by requiring short answers. On comparing my survey questions to my main research question, I discovered I needed to reword my research question to better convey the purpose of my survey.

Now I was ready to distribute the survey. But I needed to decide what population I would cover. At first I thought I'd do only Burlington GED open classes. However, I finally settled on distributing it to all open classes in Area XVI so as to have a wider sampling of students. I decided to color code the surveys as to class location as it would help with the analysis later. These were sent to eleven different class locations in five different communities.

A cover letter to the instructors of the classes and one to the students accompanied the survey itself. These gave a brief background and/or purpose of the survey and asked for their cooperation in completing and returning it to me no later than May 31, 1998. The students were to fill it out in class and the instructors would collect them and return them to me. The students were not required to sign the survey but were asked to state their age range and sex. Also, they were asked to mark what classes they had attended if they had been in more than one class.

It was also suggested to me by the review committee that I do some oral interviews with the students as well. I am glad I did this because it really gave me a better insight into the students' backgrounds and concerns. Also, because I used focus interviewing -- not using a fixed set of questions -- I received a somewhat different set of data than from the written survey. But this allowed me to get a broader profile of the student population.

Process of Analysis

Eight class locations from five different communities responded to the survey. As each set of class surveys came in, I tabulated the results per age and sex categories and wrote a brief summary for each category, as well as one for the entire class. Then, when all surveys were in, I tabulated results per question for the whole area and wrote a summary for the whole area from this tabulation. This is the process that took the most time.

Results of Survey

Most of the sixteen to eighteen year olds thought GED classes would be more like regular school with group instruction, discussion, and teachers to see that they got their work done. But most liked the one-on-one instruction and working at their own pace. A few from this category said it was harder than they expected and wondered if it could be made easier. Most valued being able to ask all the questions they needed in order to understand, the teacher's ability to explain in ways they understood, working at their own pace, and the GED pre-testing to prepare them for the actual test. Most said all parts of the classes were helpful. A few mentioned that classmates were too noisy at times or a particular subject as being not helpful. Changes suggested were quieter, shorter, work easier, and more discussion. But these were single suggestions from one person, not multiple suggestions from the group as a whole. Nearly all thought GED pre-testing should be done first, and in class, to let them and the instructor know where they stood. However, some did emphasize quietness was needed. Almost all preferred individualized instruction over group instruction and said they learned best that way. There was very little variation from class site to class site.

The nineteen to twenty-four year olds also expected large classes and group instruction and testing. But they liked the helpfulness of teachers/tutors. Many said teachers and instructions in the books were more helpful than they had experienced in the past. They wanted to keep individualized instruction and GED pre-testing as it was.

In the twenty-five to forty-four age group, some knew that classes had individualized instruction but others said that this was a pleasant and welcomed surprise to them. They could relax and learn at their own rate. Practically all said teachers/tutors were very helpful. They suggested more tutor help was needed, and larger rooms so students could spread out was valued. All preferred the GED pre- test to be first as it was very helpful in assessing their needs. Most did not think group instruction would be better.

The forty-five to fifty-nine and sixty-plus age categories were very similar. Most didn't know what to expect, but were delighted with individualized instruction.

There wasn't too much difference in the female and male responses overall and just a few minor differences within class locations. Most in both categories were surprised but pleased with the one-on- one instruction given and the helpfulness of the teachers/tutors. Both groups expected some testing. They thought that taking the GED pre-test first, in class, enabled them to know what to study and thus not waste time. In one location the female population seemed to know more about how the classes functioned before coming to class than the males did. But this situation was reversed in another location. I believe this was due to them having known others who had previously been in GED classes.

In the Area as a whole, the survey revealed most people knew there might be testing but envisioned a more structured class rather than working individually on what they needed to at their own pace. However, this one-on-one attention, quietness to study in, and the ability of teachers to explain questions and make them feel comfortable was a big plus that all mentioned. They also liked being able to take books home and the videos one class used.

Many wanted more tutors to help so they could have more one-on-one instruction. Other suggestions included updated books, clock in classroom, and less noise from classmates. One respondent wanted a radio. Several mentioned the time of class was not good for them but most appreciated the variety of times classes were offered. A few wanted class periods to be longer or the number of days per week to be more.

A few didn't like so much testing but wanted increased time to go over what was missed. Most said pre-testing should be done in the classroom first thing but in a quiet spot. The advantage they thought was to be already there and ready to study on what they missed. Large classrooms where students could spread out were valued. A few said it was harder than they expected and wanted to know if it could be made easier.

The following is a tabulation of replies question by question for the total Area XVI, with quantitative conclusions at the end of each question tabulation.

GED Survey Summary
Total Area XVI = 122

• 27%, or a little over 1/4, of students expected testing
• 34%, or approximately one third, expected help studying for GED
• 12%, or nearly 1/8, didn't know what to expect
• 14%, or nearly 1/7, expected a learning, challenging atmosphere with lots of help
• The rest had varied opinions or no response.

• 45%, or a little more than 4/9, said it was like they expected
• 14%, or 1/7, said it was almost like they expected
• 33%, or nearly 1/3, said it was not as they expected
• 8% had other responses

• 48%, or almost 1/2, thought teachers helpful
• 18%, or almost 1/5, said all
• 20%, or 1/5, said subjects or materials
• 8%, or 1/12, said pre-testing
• 6%, or less than 1/12, had no response or stated "none" Some students listed more than 1 helpful thing. Second items included quiet (2), books (8), time of class (4), studying time (3), price of class (1), videos (1)

• 59%, or almost 3/5, said none
• 21%, or a little more than 1/5, had no response
• 20%, or 1/5, had varying replies (noise, various subjects, more tutors needed, or not liking substitute or regular teacher)

• 60%, or 3/5, would not change anything. One added the helpfulness of teachers was great and they let us figure things out by ourselves.
• 16%, or a little less than 1/6, dealt with wanting more time in class or more teacher time available per student
• 5%, or 1/20, asked for less noise and more room for students to spread out in.
• 4%, or less than 1/2O, had concerns about testing. But, we need to look at our approach to testing to make sure it does not overwhelm the student.

• 81%, or a little more than 4/5, wanted to keep GED pre-testing in their first class sessions because it helped them to know what to study

• 66%, or almost 2/3, did not think GED pre-testing was scary
• 20%, or 1/5, thought it might be scary for some but it wouldn't keep them away if they really wanted to get GED

• 66%, or almost 2/3, want GED pre-testing first
• 11%, or almost 1/9, said students should have a choice
• 15%, or a little more than 1/7, did not reply

• 57%, or not quite 3/5. said keep GED testing in class
• 15%, or a little more than 1/7, said move it to a separate time and place
• 22%, or a little over 1/5, gave no response

• 82%, or a little more than 4/5, liked individualized instruction because they can go their own pace and learn better

• 68%, or almost 7/10, do not want group instruction because everyone works at a different pace and all are not in the same material
• 16%, not quite 1/6, thought some group instruction at times would be beneficial

• 54%, or a little over ½, suggested no change
• 36%, or not quite 3/8, gave no response
• 10%, or 1/10, suggested changes. These varied widely but included more tutors needed and giving some group instruction.

Recommendations for Survey Composition

In the process of going over the returned surveys, I discovered several things about the formatting that I would change to facilitate the tabulation of results. First, I would use two pages for the survey, rather than one front-and-back page. This would allow for cutting the questions apart for sorting for question- by-question tabulation. Also, similarly, I would make sure all parts of a multiple-part question were on one page.

However, not having multiple-part questions is the second change I would make. I would try to avoid them if possible since they seem to confuse/overpower the student. Many students circled one of the parts for their response rather than answering all parts. So I would recommend that if multiple parts are needed to secure information, that one write each part as a separate question.

GED Survey - Oral Interviews

I did the interviews after most of the surveys were back. I interviewed students in four different classes -- two in Burlington and one each in Mt. Pleasant and Ft. Madison. Three of these classes had participated in the survey; the other had not. Even though surveys had been sent, the students chose not to fill them out. A total of 17 students were interviewed.

I asked them what had caused them to drop out of school, to compare their high school experience to GED class, what did they like most about class, and what would they add to or change about class to improve it.

The ages of the students interviewed ranged from late teens to early sixties. I didn't have a set of questions that I asked everyone. But I began each interview by asking how they got started coming to a GED class and let their response lead to the next question.

Most of the students in the teen to thirties age bracket cited some kind of difficulty at school that caused them to drop out, such as: things went too fast for them to keep up, peers teased them, they were made to feel dumb, teachers taught over their heads, they were afraid to ask questions, and conflicts with school personnel stemming from their inability to cope with regular school scheduling. Many in this age group said a friend, fiancee, or grandparent had urged them to finish their education, and the GED program was the only option open to them. Others said after having children they knew they needed more education to help their children and to keep their children in school. Some said they realized that in order to get better employment they needed more education. But all agreed that once in GED they felt it was the place for them because of the relaxed atmosphere, being able to work at their own pace, feeling free to ask as many questions as they needed in order to understand, being able to set their own goals, and feeling they were more in control of their education and learning. Also, they said they found teachers who cared about them as individuals and were willing to listen and help.

The students in the older age brackets mentioned needing to work to help out their parents or siblings as the reason for quitting school. Their reasons for coming back to school were either to obtain a better job or for personal satisfaction.

As far as comparing GED class to high school, some felt it would have been easier to stay in school and have completed when they were younger. But most felt that the kind of environment and type of instruction that they needed in order to learn was provided by the GED class and not in the regular high school setting. They mentioned their short attention span, being able to take breaks when thinking "blurred", and needing a class that fit their work scheduling as being factors in their lives that were addressed in the GED classes but not in high school.

The one common thread that ran through all the interviews was how much they valued the relaxed atmosphere, availability of classes, being able to access classes as much or as little as their schedules allowed, and the teachers' ability to relate to their needs and explain things well.

Some wanted the classes to be offered more days per week or for longer hours at a time. They felt they needed to be away from home in a quiet place to study and make progress. Too many situations came up at home to distract them from their goal. Another suggestion offered by them was to have two teachers and two rooms in the same building to accommodate small group instruction -- groups of four or five in math and four or five in the "reading" subjects such as social studies and science. This would make it easier for the teacher to answer all questions, they said, and the students could see demonstrations on the board. One said it was hard being on your own teaching yourself but she was learning a lot.

Doing these oral interviews gave me more insight into the unique personalities of our GED students. They might be thought of as a hidden treasure hard to unearth but well worth the effort of the "dig".

Recommendations for Survey Composition

In the process of going over the returned surveys, I discovered several things about the formatting that I would change to facilitate the tabulation of results.

First, I would use two pages for the survey, rather than one front-and-back page. This would allow for cutting the questions apart for sorting for question-by-question tabulation. Also, similarly, I would make sure all parts of a multiple-part question were on one page.

However, not having multiple-part questions is the second change I would make. I would try to avoid them if possible since they seem to confuse/overpower the student. Many students circled one of the parts for their response rather than answering all parts. So I would recommend that if multiple parts are needed to secure information, that one write each part as a separate question.

Implications for Local Programming

My conclusion is that we need to continue offering individualized instruction, a relaxed atmosphere, and flexible scheduling. A learning center with several teachers/tutors would be ideal. Also, in our promotion of classes we need to emphasize that we offer individualized instruction and a more relaxed atmosphere for learning but that this does not in any way lower our academic standards. GED pre- testing the first night seems to be expected by most students now and is valued by them as a tool for letting them, as well as their teachers, know where they stand.

We just need to staff the classroom adequately enough with teachers and volunteers to handle this volume of testing and instruction demand. This would imply training more volunteer tutors who are willing to help in the classroom. Also, the individual teachers would benefit by a study of their classes' responses as some suggestions for change applied to that locale only.

Doing a "Practitioner's Research" project was more work than I expected. But it has proven to be a valuable experience because I feel more "in tune" with my students' needs now.

APPENDIX

To: All GED Instructors of Open Classes

From: Eva Lou Meyers, GED Instructor SCC-N

Re:Enclosed Questionnaire

I am participating in the state staff development practitioner research project. Because of certain developments in my class, I decided to try to find an answer to the question: How does the GED population perceive the services of the GED class? Also I wanted to solicit from the students their ideas of how we might be able to improve our GED classes.

So I am asking you to help me reach your students by passing out this questionnaire in your classes. Ask the students to fill it out before they leave class that day and to leave it with you to return to me at SCC-N Continuing Education Office. I would like to have responses from any GED-ABE student attending your classes between March 1998 and the end of May 1998. You could wait until the end of May to return them to me or send them in more frequently whichever is more convenient for you. One way might be to send them in with your monthly reports.

Thank you.

Eva Lou Meyers

We are in the process of evaluating our GED classes in order to improve them.

Please, help us by filling out this questionnaire and turning it in at the end of the period.

GED Class Questionnaire

1. When you first came, what did you expect from the GED class?

2. Was the actual class anything like you expected? What was different from what you expected? What was the same as you expected?

3. What parts of the class were helpful to you?

4. What parts of the class were not helpful to you?

5. How would you change the class?

6. In regard to the pre-GED testing done in class:
   1. Was it helpful to you? If so, how?
   2. Was it a scary experience? Might it make some persons decide not to come back to class? Why?
   3. Should it be done only after you have been in class studying for several weeks? If so, how could the teacher find out what you needed to study on and what you already knew?
   4. Should there be a separate time and place for pre-GED testing with only those needed review being sent to a class?

7. In regard to instruction:
   1. Do you like the individual instruction now offered? Why or why not?
   2. Would you prefer group instruction with everyone on the same subject? Why or why not?
   3. What changes in instruction would you suggest?

Please put "N" beside any classes you are now attending and "P" beside any classes you have attended in the past.

BURLINGTON CLASSES
_____Trinity, 9 am - 11 am	_____SCC,4pm-6pm
Trinity, 12 noon - 2 pm	_____SCC, 6:30 - 8:30 pm
FORT MADISON CLASSES
_____Climb Learning Center	_____Library
KEOKUK CLASSES
_____St. John's	_____SCC - South Campus
_____Head Start
MT. PLEASANT CLASSES
_____Iowa Wesleyan College	_____IRTC
WAPELLO CLASSES
_____First United Methodist Church

posted February 8, 1999