David, Some of our differences are based on a misunderstanding-always possible in dialogue of this kind.
I, for one, did not understand that you were relating the NAAL studies narrowly: as commentary on teaching illiterate adults to read and write. I am not sure that the NAAL study touches on this matter. I, for one, have no doubt that the computer can play a useful role in such instruction. For example: the computer can provide drill-and-practice opportunities for the new reader . The findings of the NAAL studies are wider and deeper. They show that after a decade of insertion of computers by the millions into our schools and colleges those who leave or graduate from those institutions are less able to deal with the meanings of complex materials. That is: the "adults" with graduate degrees, or undergraduate degrees, or several years of college, or high school graduation now are less able to cope with complexity than their peers of ten years ago. And this holds true for those with every level of education. One would have hoped for some evidence of improvement, however slight.. This suggests, to me at least, that we have to get beyond the mantras and explanations now current and find new ways to realize the educational promise of the new technologies. Or not look to them for "21st century" education. And not expect much to happen educationally for those now on the wrong side of the digital divide. Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Rosen Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:39 PM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious,ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S. 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
