Return-Path: <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7FKQK829545; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000801c006f6$d4979800$0100a8c0@bc.hsia.telus.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Anita Rathje" <skillplan@telus.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WORKPLACE:3674] Re: Tom's Reply X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2078 Lines: 35 My name is Lynda Fownes. I'm a Workplace Educator and was also involved in an extensive research project here in Canada for several years called the Essential Skills Research Project. I like many readers in this group tend to be awed by references to scholarly research. Tom cites Krahn and Lowe in support of his literacy "surplus" argument. I read the paper he refers to, 'Literacy Utilization in Canadian Workplaces" and at the time was troubled by the conclusion that job requirements are mismatched with workers' literacy skills. My experience as a workplace educator simply didn't buy the argument. A closer look at this particular research piece suggests some questionable assumptions. The first is about reading practices. IALS only includes 6 types of reading which encompass "daily life" including the workplace. This list may and probably does miss some very common workplace applications. Any errors on this score could greatly impact their statistics. There is no argument presented by the authors that this is a representative or exhaustive list of tasks. My experience is that workplace reading is significantly different than "school" and "society" reading. We now have an argument based on a "flawed" list. Next, the research is build on typical uses of reading. The Essential Research Project (3000 interviews of 200 entry level jobs) revealed the importance of critical (less frequent but still considered part of the job) reading. For example, a worker may not need to look at an MSDS sheet, policy manual, procedures, new product label etc.often, however, the reading skills needed for these tasks are critical for that job. This aspect of reading is not captured in Krahn and Lowe. To go on....Statistical analysis is not my strength, but I see an item in the quantitative index with a reliability below .5 on at least one table. I wonder how much faith we can put in Krahn/Lowe's conclusions on this section or on the whole question of "surplus" skills. Lynda Fownes Executive Director BC Construction Industry Skills Improvement Council (SkillPlan)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:42:41 EST