Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id iB1BPrF19241; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 06:25:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 06:25:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <004b01c4d799$862bc4c0$0502a8c0@frodo>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Marie Cora" <marie.cora@hotspurpartners.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:793] RE: Plateaus and grade levels
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 6911
Lines: 143
Hi to Bruce and everyone,
Thanks for these posts. I'd like to second all of what Virginia cited
as possible hurdles and reasons, and I have a couple things to add:
This discussion has focused pretty entirely on literacy as TEXT. When I
worked in literacy and ESOL literacy programs, we began with text sure,
but we also begin with anything that held particular meaning for the
students. So we collected on paper or in the classroom, all of the
items that people used to understand and know in their worlds. You can
guess the images: stop signs and particular gas station logos (for
drivers), labels on cans and boxes (for homemakers/shoppers); labels on
packaging and colors of signs (for workers in workplaces). Anyway, I
just wanted to throw this in there because in my mind, literacy goes WAY
beyond interpreting text when discussing the actual skill of gleaning
info.
I have to disagree with Bruce when he says that ABE workers don't ask
why particular adults might not have learned - or rather I guess we have
very different experiences here. In programs that I ran in the 90s, and
in most of the programs I was familiar with in RI and now in Mass.,
that's where people pretty much started out when conducting in-take and
registration, and then through the process of building the curriculum
with the students. Perhaps we weren't researchers delving into a
person's background, but we did all we could to get that person to tell
us what he experienced, when, why, and for what reasons that seemed not
to work for him. Whether or not this actually gives you science as your
answer I can't say, but in my experience, the more you ask of students
(and volunteers too, I have a lot of experience working with
volunteers), the more they want to give, and this includes them
expressing themselves as best they can to secure the services that they
know you have for them.
Finally, I do believe that the "decoding versus meaning" syndrome is
huge. It's even worse in writing ("writing is grammar"). So it takes a
lot of skill, sustained effort, encouragement, and sometimes cracking
whips to get people to not worry about every word, or need to spell
everything correctly. In my experience, how uptight people were about
the whole "know it all, be perfectly correct" made a big difference in
who could get past it and who could not.
Anyway, I guess that was more than 2 cents, but thanks!
marie
marie.cora@hotspurpartners.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nifl-assessment@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-assessment@nifl.gov] On
Behalf Of Virginia Tardaewether
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 4:20 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:791] RE: Plateaus and grade levels
There are some similarities in the adult non-readers that I have known.
1) their families did not read at home
2) they were expected to learn to read like everyone else in elementary
school so if that method of choice at that time didn't work for them,
there were no options available
3) they sat in the back of the class and could not hear what the teacher
said sometimes this was due to poor hearing, loud school noises, being
of "other" races or "classes", having clothes that smelled, etc.
4) they were allowed to leave school by age 9 to 12 (3rd or 5th grade).
Somehow the system didn't track them down or wonder where they were.
Noone noticed they were no longer in school, or at least didn't get them
enrolled.
5)They all joined the work force at young ages.
6) They had someone who supported/hide their literacy as an adult (read
things and filled out forms for them, signed their name)
7)Their families moved and didn't enroll them in the new neighborhood
school
va
-----Original Message-----
From: nifl-assessment@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-assessment@nifl.gov]On
Behalf Of David Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:04 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:790] Plateaus and grade levels
Posted for Bruce Carmel:
Thanks to all for your thoughts on plateaus and grade level. I think
the original question prompted an interesting discussion about
assigning grade level to adults in literacy programs. Grade levels are
usually determined by a standardized test, so there's yet another
discussion. Good discussions to keep having, I say.
But back to the original question, paraphrased and elaborated on by
me...
"How well can an adult non-reader ever learn to read?" I mean real
non-readers. That's not people who test at the 3rd grade level. In my
experience this means people are of normal intelligence who can usually
write their name and some or most of the alphabet, and cannot read
simple words in context. For example, in my doctoral research,
I interviewed at a man who could not read "cold drinks" on a sign under
a picture of a glass of Pepsi. He guessed that it said "big cup."
The research I have seen, and I don't think there is much, looks at
progess among people who can already read. Didn't NCSALL do some
studies of people who tested at the 3rd grade level or something like
that? I didn't do an exhaustive re-search so I am not citing anything,
but I think I remember that they did not look at real non-readers.
When I did my dissertation research, I looked at this question: "Why
did adult non-readers not learn to read?" I don't hear that question
asked much at all in our field. If I do, the answer is cursory: lack
of opportunity or learning disabilities. What's the basis of such an
answer?
I think we operate as if the adults in literacy programs can learn if
they are given the opportunity. Is this so? What is the reason they
did not learn in the first place? If it's because they didn't get the
chance, then our programs might be effective. But what if there is
another reason that they didn't learn to read? What would that reason
be? I hear a lot of vague talk about learning disabilities. But many
people with learning disabilities learn to read.
There is more....Seligman's "learned helplessness" seems like a fit to
me. Some people may come to believe that they are not capable of
learning to read. I think there is something about constructs of
reading held by nonreaders. Adult non-readers to whom I spoke
definitely define reading as decoding the letters, not about
understanding the meaning of a text. Is that part of their problem?
And then there is that whole window of opportunity thing. It's
possible that some adults who cannot read could have learned as
children, but did not have the opportunity. Have they now missed a
window where literacy development is possible or at least much easier?
How well can an adult who really cannot read learn to read? I would be
very interested in hearing what the field thinks--based on experience
or any research of which you know.
Thanks from Bruce Carmel
ich you know.
Thanks from Bruce Carmel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:25 EST