Steve,
On Dec 31, 2005, at 3:30 PM, you wrote:
David,
You ask me, and presumably others, to point you to evidence
connecting the
use of computers in education to higher levels of adult literacy: the
implication of this request is that there is none.
I was asking something different. I was asking if there was an
argument that narrowing the digital divide (providing greater access
to computers and the Internet) would increase adult literacy (would
help adults who cannot read to read). I was not aware of that
argument, and I thought that when you wrote "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" that you
were referring to a particular argument that the spread of the new
communication technologies would transform adults' literacy.
Perhaps that's not what you meant.
In an earlier post you cited a 1991 "meta-study" (why 1991,
David?) that
purportedly demonstrated the educational improvements attributable to
"CAI"-a term still widely used in 1991.
I was not arguing in favor of computer-assisted instruction or
against it, just pointing out that there was some research -- and a
meta study which compiled it -- that showed that it had some positive
effect. I would be interested in learning more about this. Are
there more recent (better?) studies -- and meta studies -- that show
the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in schools? And
since this term, CAI, is now out of date, what's the new term for this?
Here are some lines from the introduction to that study:
<<The effects of computer use on a large number of outcome areas were
examined, including academic achievement in general (30), in
mathematics
(13), in language arts (8), in reading (3), in science (2), in
problem-solving skills (2), and in health and social studies (1
each).>>
Most of us, you'll agree, assume that "language arts" and "reading"
and
"problem-solving skills"-indeed, all of these areas of concern are
what we
mean when we talk about "literacy."
The term "Adult literacy" is often defined differently. 1)
Sometimes it means adults who cannot read at all learning to read
(and write), NAAL "below basic". 2) Sometimes it means that and also
includes adults who can read (and write) but not well, NAAL "basic".
3) Sometimes it means that and also adults who lack the basic
(reading, writing, numeracy and other) skills we now expect of a high
school graduate, and 4) occasionally it means adults who are highly
literate (or who should be, but aren't.) I have been using the first
definition of the term.
Those students studied in 1991 are now 15 years older, with 15 more
years of
using computers in school, and college.
And adult literacy has declined.
Perhaps -- or as the NAAL concludes -- on the whole hasn't improved.
But in ten years would we really see much impact from what the
schools are doing on adult literacy? Only a small percentage of the
children who were affected would be in the sample. I am not saying
that the schools have improved or declined, only that the NAAL isn't
a very good measure of whether or not they have, particularly when
there were a significant number of people included in the sample who
did not attend U.S. schools at all and who apparently as a group have
a lower literacy level.
But let us grant your point, David: no one promised us that students
literate with computers would be more literate adults. The decline
in adult
literacy may be just another one of those "unintended consequences."
But it has happened. And the question becomes, is there a tradeoff
between
injecting computers into the schools and the consequences of that
educational choice on the adults that are produced?
Megabillions will be spent on narrowing the digital divide, and
many of
those billions will go to such programs as the Negroponte initiative.
If we cannot learn to do more and better educating with them, the
results
will be as disappointing tomorrow as they have been up to this
point, and
that would be a human tragedy.
Steve, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this last point, that we
need to use computers better, and I would be interested to hear your
ideas on how we should be using them -- with children and with
adults. What should we be doing with computers and the Internet that
would lead to significantly increased literacy and other kinds of
learning?
David J. Rosen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Eskow
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
Rosen
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 8:14 AM
To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group
Subject: Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious,ongoing adult basic
skills problem
in U.S.
Steve,
Forgive me if all this has been discussed on DDN before, and if so
please just point me to the archived messages. If not, however,
could you give some background on the argument that narrowing the
digital divide would increase adult literacy. Who made this argument?
When? As someone who has followed adult literacy and technology for
the last decade, somehow I have managed to miss it.
I don't think narrowing the digital divide in itself will necessarily
improve adult literacy in the U.S. or anywhere. Adult literacy --
literally adults who cannot read well working to improve their basic
reading skills -- will increase if more adults are effectively taught
to read. There may be some methods which use computers (and the
Internet) which may be useful in this process, but I don't follow why
one would think that access to computers and the Internet would by
itself result in increased basic literacy. With access to a computer
and the Internet those who were already literate could improve their
reading comprehension and fluency by reading more and more
challenging materials. But that might happen with access to a
library or bookstore, too.
David J. Rosen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Dec 29, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Dr. Steve Eskow wrote:
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.
