" After ten such digital-divide-narrowing years, the ability of students to read prose and documents has dropped slightly for all levels of education."
I am not an academic researcher nor a PhD, but I am a teacher. I know that to teach writing effectively, students need to write and to teach reading, students need to read. The use of the web and email accomplishes this for populations who have a computer and the Internet available to them. Beyond this, there is also a link between this computer literacy and to educational and employment attainment. To me it simply defies logic as well as educational philosophy, that reading and writing literacy has not improved for the divide population. The personal computer and the Internet are the most significant developments in communication and educational tools in the history of our civilization. Because we don't appear to be smart enough to be able to measure this to this point, does not change this simple fact. Mike ************************* Michael F. Pitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 11:56 AM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious,ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S. Andrew and all, Perhaps the point I am hoping to get discussed is obscured somewhat when the issue becomes whether David Rosen or I reads the NAAL correctly.. We are concerned here with narrowing or eliminating the digital divide. Between 1993 and 2003 the digital divide in the US was narrowed dramatically. Many millions, billions, spent on hardware and software, in homes and schools and offices. A vast literature published on the transformations in education that computers will accomplish. The results to date of all this money, all this experimentation, all this hope? All who want to look at the results unblinkingly need to reckon with this conclusion: After ten such digital-divide-narrowing years, the ability of students to read prose and documents has dropped slightly for all levels of education. Or depending on how you read the numbers, or want to read the numbers searching for hope, literacy has remain unchanged. Either way, there is no basis here for arguing that the spread of the new communication technologies has accomplished that transformation. An honest appraisal of the results to date is badly needed, and new directions uncovered if the promise of the new technologies is genuine. Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Pleasant Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:53 PM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious,ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S. HI all, I believe both David Rosen and Steve Eskow are correct, just looking at the same data through different filters. When looking at literacy scores by level of education, literacy levels have either dropped or remain unchanged. (See my earlier posting under the other thread on the NAAL.) The overall rise is explained by there being more people with a higher level of education now as compared to the 1993 NALS. Education and literacy are highly (but definitely not entirely) correlated. The result, more people with more education pushed the overall average scores up. However, prose literacy declined for all education groups. Document literacy declined by education level for all those with education including or above 'some college'. Quantitative literacy remained unchanged (i.e. no statistically significant changes) by all education levels. (See page 14 of the NAAL report at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006470). What is most intriguing is that Kuttner's response to the question (at least what David Rosen kindly forwarded) leaves out that part of this first data release from the NAAL. I don't take it as a very positive indicator that the education system has awarded bachelor and graduate degress to more, but less well prepared, people. The entire discussion, of course, assumes that the NAAL methodology is valid and reliable - I seem to recall the developers did not allow anyone 'outside' to look at the methodology during its development. There are many very valid criticisms of the 1993 NALS methodology - even though it remained the best available data for a decade - and the same may well come true of the NAAL. A quick, but not complete, perusal of the NAAL website seems to indicate they have released 'sample' questions but not the complete methodology nor the method of assessing the results to develop the scores nor the method of adjusting the NALS data to make it 'comparable'. So those parts of the story remain untold. Finally, after the repeated postponements, is it a coincidence that the first look at the NAAL data was released only after cuts in adult basic education and literacy funding were approved? According to the Dept. of Education, the 2006 budget cuts funding for Adult Basic Education and Literacy state grants from over $500 million in 2005 to $200 million in 2006. Best wishes, Andrew Pleasant _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
