Dr. Larry Mikulecky Response to Questions from the Workplace Discussion ListOctober 2000Moderator: Hello Subscribers, I am happy to announce that on October 9, 2000 we will have a distinguished guest speaker joining us to discuss workplace education. During this week, we will look at some topics to discuss and begin formulating questions for our speaker. I am honored to have had Dr. Larry Mikulecky accept this opportunity to speak with us. Below is some information about Dr. Mikulecky so that we can begin to get know him. Larry Mikulecky works for the School of Education at Indiana University.
Dr. Mikulecky is Professor of Education at Indiana University-Bloomington. His research examines the literacy requirements for success in business, the military, universities and secondary schools. He currently teaches a course in Young Adult Literature to teachers all over the world through an Internet based graduate course. His most recent research examines literacy and technology-- especially in School-to-Work transition programs. He has served as principal investigator on over twenty research projects funded by the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor as well as foundation and corporate sponsorship. Dr. Mikulecky has published over 100 journal articles, textbook chapters, and textbooks. Dr. Mikulecky is lead author on Simon & Schuster series Strategic Skill Builders for Banking as well as the basic skills series On the Job, published by Cambridge Publications. He has also been Project Director for nearly a dozen computer assisted instruction study skills programs designed for college students with funding from the federal government and corporate sponsors. Dr. Mikulecky has also served as an international training, evaluation, and document design consultant in Australia, Canada, and the United States. He has worked on or directed projects for the U.S. Military, the U.S. Departments of Labor and Education, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, the Ontario Ministry of Skills Development, the Queensland Board of Teacher Registry, the American Bankers Association, United Auto Workers/Ford, the Business Council for Effective Literacy, several Fortune 500 corporations, and over 100 school districts and corporations. Some publications from the past few years include: Mikulecky, L., & Kirkley, J. (1998). Changing workplaces, changing classes: The new role of technology in workplace literacy. In Reinking, D., McKenna, M., Labbo, L., & Kieffer, R. (eds.) The handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. pp. 303-320. Mikulecky, L. (1998). Adjusting school writing curricula to reflect expanded workplace writing. In Garay, M. & Bernhardt, S. (eds.) Expanding literacies: English teaching and the new workplace. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 201-224. Mikulecky, L. (1997). Too little time and too many goals: Suggested remedies from research on workplace literacy. Focus on Basics. vol. 1, Issue D (December, 1997), pp. 10-13. Mikulecky, L. & Lloyd, P. (1997). Evaluation of workplace literacy programs: A profile of effective instructional practices. Journal of Literacy Research , Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 555-585. Mikulecky, L., Lloyd, P., Siemantel P. & Masker, S. (1997). Transfer beyond workplace literacy classes: Twelve case studies and a model. Reading Psychology , Vol.18, no. 4. pp. 352-368. Mikulecky, L. (1996) School-to-work transitions for middle school students. In Lapp, D. and Flood, J (eds) Spotlight on the Middle School . New York: Macmillan/McGraw Hill. Mikulecky, L. Lloyd, P. Kirkley, J. & Oelker, J. (1996). Developing and Evaluating Workplace Literacy Programs: A Handbook for Practitioners and Trainers. Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy. Mikulecky, L., Lloyd, P., Horwitz, L., Masker, S. & Siemantel, P. (1996) A Review of Recent Workplace Literacy Programs and a Projection for Future Changes . Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy. Mikulecky, L., Lloyd P., & Kirkley, J. (1996). Assessment Approaches and Impact Results in Workplace Literacy Programs . Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy. Mikulecky, L., & Lloyd, P. (1996) Effective Workplace Literacy Programs: A Guide for Policymakers . Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy. Mikulecky, L. (1996) Family literacy: Parent and child interactions. In L. A. Benjamin and J. Lord (eds.) Family Literacy: Directions in Research and Implications for Practice . Washington D.C. U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Moderator: NIFL-Workplace subscribers, I asked our guest speaker what possible topics within workplace education he might be interested in discussing. This was his answer. Maybe we can come up with some statements he could speak to beginning next week. 1) What role does workplace literacy play in adult literacy education and what role ought it to play? 2) Problems and solutions when developing and delivering workplace literacy instruction. 3) How are workplace literacy demands changing in light of new technologies and new ways of operating in the workplace? Speaker: I appreciate Heidi Watson's invitation to respond to questions and join in discussion of workplace literacy issues on the Listserv over the next two weeks. My name is Larry Mikulecky and I am a professor of education at Indiana University. Over the years, I've been involved in several workplace literacy research and development projects. My most recent work has examined the impact of technology on workplace literacy demands. Many of the questions forwarded to me and posted recently on the listserv have related to evaluating workplace literacy programs. Among these were questions from: Ajit Gopalakrishnan asking about how one determines if programs make a difference for organizations and learners; Walter Wallace asking seven different questions related to-- well just about everything; and from J. Salembier about evaluation of programs. I guess we should start there. Subscriber: Please tell us about some models of evaluation and samples of surveys that can be used? Speaker: I recommended some models developed by Nickie Askov, and I think these are very good. I've also published a program model and a handbook for program development and evaluation which can be downloaded for free from the University of Pennsylvania Online Literacy site at: http://ncal.literacy.upenn.edu/pubs.html Click on the "search our site" button on the top of the page, then "detailed search" and type in Mikulecky or anything else you wish. Typing Mikulecky will get you to a list including the evaluation publications. These publications include my ideas about choices and limitations for evaluating workplace literacy programs and how to best match evaluations to both program and learner goals. In addition to more traditional discussions of evaluation, I do present a method for monitoring important changes in learners: § Beliefs about literacy (Do they expand and become more sophisticated?)
Most workplace literacy programs do not have sufficient time with learners to make much impact on standardized tests. The programs can, however, positively influence fundamental learner literacy beliefs, practices, and strategies, which can lay the groundwork for continued improvement at home, on the job, and in the future. It is important to note these positive changes and to give credit to teachers and programs for making them. The workplace evaluation models also include some ways for assessing impact on productivity and ways to customize assessment to match workplace related reading. Moderator: (Quoting the Speaker) "Most workplace literacy programs do not have sufficient time with learners to make much impact on standardized tests.*snip* It is important to note these positive changes and to give credit to teachers and programs for making them." Larry, Are we giving the credit to administrators/teachers of programs or the student? Whether we have enough time with students or not we are often required to give standardized assessments anyway. From these scores the quality of our programs are judged. I believe this creates a real struggle for many workplace education programs. Speaker: The face-to-face contact time in workplace literacy programs, indeed in most adult literacy programs, is usually less than 50 hours. This, all by itself, isn't sufficient practice time to make much impact on general literacy standardized tests. If a general literacy standardized test is the ONLY measure of success, there is a problem. The evaluators aren't measuring enough to capture all that a program is doing. I think part of the solution is recognizing that learner literacy practice must also occur and increase outside the literacy classroom (at home and on the job). This means that one aspect of program success is the degree to which the learner's goals have been engaged and the degree to which habits have been changed to include literacy away from the classroom. A person with changed habits and goals is likely to continue with literacy growth and this is an important program goal. These things can be assessed and I think ought to be. In addition, a good deal of research has documented that gains with the sorts of literacy one has been practicing with occur long before transfer to broad, general literacy occurs. For this reason, part of program and learner assessment in workplace literacy programs should also include measures of increased comprehension and mastery with the specialized materials which have been integrated into the workplace literacy program. I don't think the problem is that general standardized tests are being used. A fifty contact hour program which has also gotten students to practice a couple of hours outside of class for each hour inside may have impact on general literacy. I think the problem is that in some programs ONLY standardized tests are being used and other program goals (e.g., Improved ability with workplace literacy, changed goals and behaviors, improved literacy strategies, improved productivity, increased confidence and willingness to take further training, etc.) are not being assessed and taken into account. Subscriber: "Most workplace literacy programs do not have sufficient time with learners to make much impact on standardized tests.” This is true whether one is using standardized tests or some form of portfolio or authentic assessment. And, too, whether one is working with basic education or professional adult learners. One of the real challenges I face in developing and delivering non-clinical workplace curriculum with residents in a teaching hospital is the matter of time. Residents are on a three to five year program booking between 60 to 80 hour work weeks during their training. Much of their training must focus on clinical practice. Yet there is also the need to integrate non-clinical workplace skills into their rotations: communication, ethics, practice management, negotiation, risk management, critical thinking, systems thinking, etc. Non-clinical workplace training for residents is not a frill nor only an add-on in those teaching hospitals who deem it necessary to integrate quality-oriented programming in rotation cycles. The national accrediting organization for graduate medical education (the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, or ACGME) requires each specialty to have non-clinical workplace training as an integral part of residency programs. This is a relatively new requirement. As individual programs are reviewed for re-accreditation, a lack of non-clinical courses, seminars, workshops, conferences, or Grand Rounds will now jeopardize a program's accreditation no matter how world-class and cutting edge the clinical curriculum. Similarly, continuing medical education requirements for doctors already in practice (and who have 50 to 80 hour work weeks) will soon require similar non-clinical workplace skill training and assessment through the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education outcome guidelines. There is some real shoe leather that can be applied to ensure the implementation of non-clinical workplace training. In either case, without accreditation the hospitals or individual practices are ineligible for Medicare or Medicaid funding. And if they are ineligible, they generally become ineligible for any third-party billing from other sources. The problem is clear: where do we find the time to provide meaningful non-clinical workplace training opportunity? How do we assess skill development and attainment? How do we benchmark outcomes? How do we design and implement feedback loops to tie identified outcomes with training improvement? Speaker: In the health care situation you describe, I agree that: "The
problem is clear: Where do we find the time to provide meaningful non-clinical
workplace training opportunity? How do we assess skill development and
attainment? How do we benchmark outcomes? How do we design and implement
feedback loops to tie identified outcomes with training improvement?"
At the secondary school level, reading specialists sometimes work with science teachers, math teachers, and social studies teachers on modeling the skills and thought processes needed to successfully comprehend and use literacy material in those classes. Though it may somewhat violate the concept of "non-clinical class," a literacy teacher in a health care clinical program could try to work with other instructors as well as learners to support the special literacy challenges learners will and do face in the clinical training. Assessment, benchmarks, and feedback end up being a direct outgrowth of what you and the other instructors want to happen. (What changes in literacy related behaviors, attitudes, habits and accomplishments do you want to occur?) If it is higher success with the literacy demands in one of the clinical programs, you can either compare the clinical performance of previous classes on these tasks to performances of students who've received the special support. If more rigorous documentation is required, pre and post performance on a literacy related class assignment can be gathered. If increased practice with personal materials which parallel the demands of workplace materials is a goal, having students keep track of this practice in journals can be used. If journals don't work, weekly in-class writing assignments can serve a similar purpose. Subscriber: (Comment) I would add that the program evaluation should demonstrate that the requisite transfer skills were included in the curriculum. It is unjust, I think, to assume that the participant will figure out how to make the transfer by him- herself given that the workplace behavioral norms frequently support literacy. Speaker: I agree. The key to transfer is in the head of the learner. The skills/activities need to be in the curriculum AND the connection between the class activities and challenges real to the learner must be highlighted on a regular basis. Subscriber: I think that you are "right on" with your analysis of what happens, what doesn't happen, and what is not going to happen in workplace literacy programs. A couple of years ago, I was involved in a workplace literacy project in the urban (Halifax-Dartmouth) area of Nova Scotia. I was, technically, assigned to prepare employees in health care facilities to pass the GED. In one particular workplace, I had a class of 15 students with highly-varied backgrounds. This was the third group of a three-chance program, so I had the "last" possible applicants -- the ones who had either failed to qualify before or were too scared to sign up for either of the two previous GED offerings. One woman had only a Grade 6 academic background, and had been out of school for almost 50 years! My students were an absolutely WONDERFUL group. During our ten weeks (40 hours) the students changed from being fearful, reluctant or dependant learners, to working 2 hours outside class for every hour spent in class -- and asking for more! Supervisors reported increased confidence levels, increased independent thinking, and greatly increased inter-departmental communication. Nevertheless, over half my class failed the GED and I felt devastated. When I re-frame the experience using your criteria, I can see that we really accomplished a great deal. Thanks for the insight. Speaker: Thanks. In addition to the behavioral and attitudinal gains you report for your student, I am willing to bet that she also made literacy gains. About a decade ago, I did a literature review for the U.S. federal government. One of the things examined was program data for adult literacy programs. On standardized tests, most programs reported 100-120 hours of practice time in programs per grade level gain in reading. This is pretty fuzzy data, but does indicate that literacy gain usually takes a long time and lots of practice. Your student probably read more than she ever had before during your 10 week program (i.e., maybe as much as 100+ hours). Still, if she began at a 6th grade level it is probably unreasonable to expect she would show literacy gains much above a 7th-8th grade level on a standardized general reading test. This gain is important and a good deal to accomplish in 10 weeks. It is not enough, however, to meet the higher criterion of the GED test. I think part of our job is to educate both learners and program funders about how much effort it takes to accomplish different goals. Even though this may be daunting to some adult learners, I think we owe it to them to treat them like adults and let them know what it will take while at the same time suggesting some intermediate goals. For funders-- especially business people-- I think we can help them reframe the problem. Many business people tend to think of literacy like more typical human resource classes-- you should get it done quickly. I've found it helps to remind them that it probably took them and their children 180 school DAYS to make a one year gain in literacy ability. Adults can do better than this (i.e., 100 hours), but it is unreasonable to expect 4-5 years of growth in 40 hours. Subscriber: There are some powerful learning programs that are partnerships of union and management (Harley-Davidson, Saturn, UAW-Chrysler, etc.). What advice do you have for getting folks from the "opposing camps" to begin this collaboration? --Particularly post-strike when the union leadership sees collaboration as caving in or comprising to their position? Do you know of documented case studies that might shed some light on this? Speaker: The ERIC system has some program descriptions of successful collaborative union/management programs. The steelworkers Management/Union collaboration has a great program operating in northern Indiana. There is a menu of classes of personal interest to learners on everything from taxidermy to home repair. Skills in the classes overlap with job skills-- they are carefully designed to do this. My favorite class involves workers refurbishing a house for a women's shelter. I'd try the ERIC system and put in search descriptors like "steel and basic skills" or "automotive and basic skills." I think the key to talking with union and management is the same in any negotiation. Are there areas where both can win? Classes that are a mix of learner goals and management goals is one way. Classes that address learner topics of interest and incorporate skills also called for on the job is another way. Moderator: Tell us about your work with workplace literacy and technology Speaker: In 1998, the Peabody Journal of Education published several pieces on Literacy Education in the 21st Century. Jamie Kirkley and I did a piece that examined this issue in relation to workplace literacy instruction. Below are some scenarios of workplace literacy/technology demands, which I believe have significantly changed during the past decade. What Literacy Demands Look Like in the New Workplace
New Demands on the Factory Floor: Using Statistical Process and
Quality Control in Manufacturing
Several times an hour, the machine operator takes samples of length of planking and measures the length of each unit. This involves using and reading a digital printout. The data are then recorded by keying results into a data management program. This is done each quarter hour, and then data from several trials are tracked. The machine operator uses a computer with menu choices to calculate means and the range of the sample values. This information is graphed, and the worker must interpret the graphs in terms of how much measurements exceed acceptable parameters for quality. The worker needs to decide whether production is sufficiently within pre-set parameters and, if not, by how much to adjust the settings on the machine. Too small an adjustment will not solve the problem, and too great a change will turn under-weight into over-weight, producing a new production problem. Keep in mind that the machine is still in production while all this is happening, and the worker's speed in dealing with the sample and making the decision will avoid costly wastage of materials and production time. Because of the rapid speed of machinery, a thirty-minute delay can mean the waste of several thousand dollars of product. Toward the end of the day, the worker will use a word-processing program to type a brief end-of-shift report describing decisions, anticipated problems, downtime, and reaction times if help was requested from another department to perform minor repairs upon a machine. These reports are sometimes e-mailed to a central site where patterns of machine problems are examined and decisions made about replacement and major repair. New Demands: Managing Production in Quality Control
Teams
Six hourly workers representing activities at various stages of production meet once or twice weekly in what are called "quality assurance teams.” The purposes of such teams are to identify problems, jointly set new productivity goals, and discuss the results of monitoring productivity at various stages of production (i.e., where are the mistakes or slow-downs happening and what can be done about it?). A typical team problem is too much inventory (i.e., skids loaded with parts or finished product) on the floor. A major productivity goal is "just in time" production so material is ready for the next stage of production or for the customer exactly when it is needed. This reduces inventory stored on the floor, saving warehouse space and reducing spoilage, breakage, and pilfering. To solve problems like this, team members may call up inventory graphs on the computer and either print them directly or use desk-top publishing programs to arrange them in meaningful handouts. These are often line graphs, which record the amount of inventory in various locations at various points in time (i.e., by the hour, day, week, or month). Synthesizing information from these graphs can allow the team to determine when build-ups of excess inventory (i.e., parts or finished product) are occurring. Team members will offer problem-solving suggestions on why the build-ups are occurring. Additional information is then gathered on suggested possibilities. For example, what would happen if a worker at stage 3 went to help at stage 4 every other hour? This can involve computations using simple calculators. In some cases, custom-designed data management programs do calculations and plot graphs. Alternative computations of output might involve computing half-day splits of time or two hour splits of time. Speculations about machine breakdowns might involve checking when the machine was last overhauled and re calibrated, looking up projected times between maintenance, and computing time to go. Pulling up machine records of the questionable machine during a comparable time during the last maintenance cycle would provide information to justify a call for early maintenance. New and old work orders would be scanned to see how many parts are called for to complete a special order which took a machine off line. Based on performance so far, computations and estimates would be made for how long it would remain off line. The culmination of all this brainstorming and quantitative information gathering would be a provisional plan which would be typed into the word processor for distribution to workers not at the meeting, but involved with various stages of production. This agreed upon plan would identify which workers and machines would do what tasks during which times. It would involve setting goals, counting and making measurements at regular intervals, and recording data to monitor the various stages of production. After 5 days time, the quality assurance team would meet again briefly to determine how well goals had been met and how well problems had been solved. New Demands for Solving Problems in Customer
Service
A customer service representative (CSR) handling billing inquiries
receives a telephone request for late payment. After asking for the customer's
name, the CSR can pull up the whole of that customer's record on a computer
screen and check on the payment history. Rapid screen reading of print
organized in blocks of information is required. At this point, there is
an initial decision to be made: How reliable is this customer? Can any
extension of time be given? Written policy guidelines may be accessed via
a hyper-text help screen to guide the CSR. If an extension seems to be
in order, the CSR then keys another hyper-text screen to consult a set
of rules concerning the length of such an extension and whether some percentage
of the bill must be paid immediately. After calculating the effect of the
rules (in this case using another function of the computer), the CSR tells
the customer the result-and probably generates a discussion on the possibility
of the customer paying as required. If the CSR is unable to answer the
questions during the brief time the customer is on the phone, a letter
will need to be sent. A word-processing program with several dozen form
letters will be called up on the screen. The CSR will be expected to select
an appropriate form letter from menus, modify the address and body of the
form letter appropriately, and print a letter and envelope to be mailed
to the customer.
Her next task is to prepare charts for a team presentation to be made later today. She reads instructions from an e-mail sent by a team member requesting her to make a chart that shows the fluctuating prices of oil over the past two years and then create a graph that will show the patterns of prices over the past 12 years. She opens her computer's spreadsheet software, which consists of small boxes or cells that enable her to create tables and graphs and store the information. This is a complex, multi-step process which requires her to use hyper-text help screens several times to clarify questions she has. The day will continue with requests for information, documents to be designed, meetings to be scheduled, and two or three emergencies arriving via fax, e-mail, and telephone call. The secretary's day will be a stream of information to be understood, processed and communicated. Patterns Across Jobs
In health care, for example, some of the monitoring tasks formerly performed by nurses are now performed by Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) or Patient Care Technicians (PNT's) who use technology to gather information, directly enter data into bedside computers for central storage and examination, and make some decisions based upon information gathered. Patient charts are no longer at the end of the patient's bed. Down-sized staffs of doctors and nurses examine records on-screen from a centralized location. Nursing assistants with new responsibilities are the most immediate point of contact with patients since nurses and doctors see patients less often. In addition to monitoring and entering information into data-bases, nursing assistants must be able to process information and make decisions in emergency situations. Nursing assistants provide some therapies, answer some patient questions, and have increased responsibilities for patient care. They also participate in team meetings where they are expected to provide information, take notes, and help make decisions based upon information from a variety of sources. Laboratory work in many health-care facilities has also changed with technology making it possible for a few professionals and a cadre of lesser trained technicians with technological support to perform analysis work previously done by many professionals. Though rules for decision-making are still evolving, the pattern in health-care is similar to patterns in manufacturing and other service industries. Cost-containment has led to downsizing and job restructuring. Fewer highly trained individuals process more information, which is gathered by others. These others are not trained to a professional level, but are required to have broader skills and training than previously required. Technology has increased the job demands of lower skilled workers who are expected (with technological support) to perform some tasks previously performed by professionals. The lowest skilled, who are the first point of contact in many service occupations, must perform an expanded set of job tasks, participate in decision-making teams, and even perform some professional level tasks while being paid relatively low wages. Subscriber: This is in response to an earlier remark you made about the need to educate the people who hold our purse strings about the amount of time that is needed for adults in literacy programs (in our case in an ESL literacy program) to make progress. Yes, absolutely, but how do we do this? As you know well, the move is all towards holding us accountable ( i.e., performance -based funding) for having students reach the stated goals in as short a period of time as possible. Increasingly I find vocational training programs are "creaming" and taking only those students who they are sure will be successful in the short period of time. It's quite disheartening. Moderator: In the October issue of Forbes Magazine an article was published
called "The Crisis That Isn't." This article claims that the rates of functional
literacy are untrue. Here is the link to the article on line http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/1002/6609086a.html.
Subscriber: Thank you for pointing out this article. My comments:
In short, I propose that we recognize that (a) if you're subscribed to this list, then (b) you probably agree that something can be done to address literacy deficit issues, thus (c) we do not need to explain to each other why we disagree with the author on this point. 2. The author correctly points out that "literacy" is a less-than-ideal appellation to apply to the diverse skills classified by the NALS. I agree with him wholeheartedly on this point. Whenever I am speaking to anyone outside of the adult education field, I have to use other terms such as basic skills, etc. (This of course is a topic that long-time subscribers to this list will note has been discussed numerous times.) My personal perspective is that professionals in this field (as well as NIFL) run the risk of marginalizing themselves by constantly referring to "literacy problems" as opposed to some other name. The key, of course, is coming up with an alternative that is better than "literacy.” I personally prefer "basic skills." 3. The issue of how much government can do to help those with low literacy/basic skills is an open one. While there are many anecdotal success stories from the adult education field, the lack of systematic evidence provides a daunting challenge to those in the adult education field who would like to argue for more (or even sustained) resources. I have seen enough anecdotal and/or incomplete evidence to believe that interventions can and do work. But until there is more systematic scientific evidence available, adult education professionals will have a difficult time defending themselves against attacks such as this author's. (For a review of the research, I encourage everyone to take a look at Hal Beder's report for NCSALL: "The Outcomes and Impacts of Adult Literacy Education in the United States" NCSALL Report #6, Jan 1999. This is available for downloading at: http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall/research/reports.htm Speaker: I am going to try to rise to Alec's challenge that we not respond to all of the barbs and implicit assumptions in Dan Seligman's piece in Forbes. It is difficult since the piece is written as a heavy opinion piece designed to elicit those very reactions. I doubt that even Seligman wishes to dispense with all prison education because we do not really want qualified bank robbers. He does touch on a rhetorical vulnerability of literacy educators and policy advocates. We have used figures from the National Adult Literacy Survey as a fairly simplistic call to action. This survey, as well as similar surveys in Canada, Australia, and England all show about the same general distribution of low, middle, and high performance. For years, Tom Sticht has commented on this and the same pattern in previous surveys. He wants us to recognize that general intelligence is partly at play, here. It is also true that those in the lowest SES groups of each country are more heavily among those performing at the bottom. This suggests opportunity may have something to do with it, too. We educators have argued and will continue to argue about how much performance on such tests is the result of innate abilities and how much the result of real educational opportunities in schools and homes. My judgment is that it is a mix and pretty close to 50/50. We do know that individuals can improve and that it sometimes takes a significant amount of effort beyond the average. Without that effort, the normal curve is not tilted very much. Seligman also chastises the NALS survey for going beyond a simple definition of literacy. I have a colleague who claims that "pure" literacy is simply recognizing sound/letter correspondences and how to make out the meaning of simple sentences. The rest beyond that is learning to think, draw inferences, and having access to increasing large knowledge and vocabulary bases. I will not argue. It seems to me that the point is we expect people in developed societies to make critical sense of these more complex things and that many cannot. It also seems pretty clear to me that many people can't due to lack of opportunity or because they were never taught how to use specific skills or master specific knowledge bases. (Some people can teach these things to themselves and others clearly need additional help). As a taxpayer, I'm very interested in monitoring who can do what and much less interested in holding to a simple definition of literacy for aesthetics’ sake. We search and scout for athletic talent in all sorts of places and provide substantial support to develop that talent-- mostly for our own entertainment. Given the fact that innate ability is partly at play in being able to perform complex literacy tasks, I agree with Seligman that we will probably never bring everyone to the highest levels. It is also true, that unless we want social splits in developed nations to widen to very dangerous levels, we need to help as many people as possible to perform at levels high enough to increase their life choices. Education is part of this mix. Technological supports to help people gather information and make decisions are probably also likely to be part of this mix. So, too, is a recognition that as things change ALL of us need to continue learning. The sub-text of Seligman's message-- ain't no problem here and even if there were it couldn't be fixed is in my judgment dead wrong. Subscriber: Is there a national listing of potential funding for workplace literacy issues? Where do workplace literacy programs go for funding? Speaker: I know of no single national funding list and funding has tended to move from the national to the state level. In addition, funding in most states is often found in several different areas (i.e., Departments of Education through Adult Education, Departments of Commerce through special training program funds, and in some states special set-aside funds for workplace literacy support). On top of this, some funding comes from employer and union sources. A majority of workplace literacy (basic skills) programs draw funding from more than one source. Since funding tends to have strings and requirements attached (i.e., equipment or materials can sometimes only be used by learners accepted by a funders criteria), program providers with multiple funding sometimes have to be very flexible and creative. Subscriber: I am looking for workplace education professional development programs. Do you have any recommendations for interesting models or certification systems? Subscriber: There is a model program in Illinois administered by The Center, which provides 40 hours of training resulting in a Workplace Basic Skills Instructor certificate. The program director and developer is Linda Mrowicki, who can be reached at 847/803-3535. Indiana University has a series of distance education courses, which focus upon adult literacy, workplace literacy, and family literacy. I believe Penn State has a similar adult literacy oriented program. Speaker: I don't know of programs which focus purely on workplace education professional development. Indiana University has a series of distance education courses which focus upon adult literacy, workplace literacy, and family literacy. I believe Penn State has a similar adult literacy oriented program. Moderator: I would like to thank Larry for being our guest speaker.
His participation has been very interesting and helpful. I hope subscribers
enjoyed his time with us; and we will continue to look for additional guest
speakers.
|
|
Institute Home