Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
Hello Mike, I am not sure I understand what you mean. If you mean a computer by itself won't increase literacy, just as a pen by itself won't increase writing, I agree If you mean either a computer or a pen will increase literacy because these are tools that people use when they are learning by doing, that is more complicated. I agree that constructivist (project-based) and contextualized learning are valuable approaches, and that in many instances they are the way that adults (especially) learn best. However, we are talking about basic literacy, that is adults who cannot decode, who cannot get meaning from text. They need instruction. While some computer-assisted instruction for adults may be valuable together with direct instruction by a teacher or tutor, I am unaware of any research that shows that adults learn to read, that is -- using the language of the NAAL -- move from below basic to a basic level without the help of a trained teacher or tutor. I am also unaware of any argument that adults who cannot read at all will learn to read simply because they have access to computers. This was the point of my question. Has this argument been made, the argument that adult literacy -- that is, basic literacy -- could be achieved simply by increasing access to computers? Apparently not. Perhaps you meant something else. Steve Eskow may be getting at the need for human teaching or tutoring when he writes It may be that other agencies, or even self- instruction, can teach the young to operate the radio, television set, the cell phone, and the computer, while we need schools to teach the far more difficult technologies of deep reading and writing. I would extend this observation to adults who cannot read, that they need trained tutors or teachers. I would add that most adults need to learn how to use computers, too. And I would add that they can learn basic literacy and how to use computers at the same time, as Toni Stone demonstrated so well in her book _Keystrokes to Literacy_ and Steve Quann and Diana Satin demonstrate in their book about immigrants learning English literacy, _Learning Computers, Speaking English_ ( see http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/ AleTechnologyESOLComputerIntro for discussion about these books. ) David J. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 4, 2006, at 9:53 AM, Executive Director wrote: but I don't follow why one would think that access to computers and the Internet would by itself result in increased basic literacy. No more or less than one would think that reading books and writing papers with a Bic word processor would improve basic literacy. Require that you subscribe to the theory that people learn by doing. Mike * Michael F. Pitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Rosen Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:14 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
Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
One also has to learn critical thinking skills, problem solving, working in teams, and on-going learning habits, if one is to have a well-paying job in the 21st century. Learning to read and write are building blocks to learning to learn. Computers enable us to do work faster, at lower costs, and in more ways. The Internet connects us with a wider variety of opportunities to learn, network, innovate and solve problems than what has ever been available before. I think both of these concepts need to be integrated into any learning strategy. An interesting book on this subject is the 2010 Meltdown, written by Dr. Ed Gordon. You can preview the book at http://www.imperialcorp.com/publication.html#2010 Dan Bassill http://tutormentor.blogspot.com on 12/31/05 4:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/30/2005 11:01:44 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One still has to get an education. As one who uses computers in the classroom, I heartily agree. However, I also maintain that in order to become literate in a 21st-century sense one must include the use of computers. It's just a matter of incorporating the latest tools in the process. Learning to read and write are important prior steps; computer-aided communication doesn't replace that. It simply adds another step in the developmental process. Jim Flick [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
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. To believe that these results transfer, you need to believe that educational and employment are connected to basic literacy. HOW CAN ICT IMPROVE OUTCOMES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN IMPORTANT AREAS OF THEIR LIVES? Our review of existing research on the impacts of ICT on youth outcomes revealed its potential to produce important and measurable impacts in four areas that matter to children: First, Improved Health: Second, Educational Achievement: Third, Economic Opportunity: Fourth, Community and Civic Participation This report is available online at www.contentbank.org/DOMS. Mike * Michael F. Pitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:31 PM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious,ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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
Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
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
Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
In response to David Rosen; Computers offer opportunities to increase literacy. By themselves, they can't solve literacy problems, no more than a book left sitting on a shelf solves the problem. The key is teaching. Computers are tools that offer increased opportunities, but they are only tools. Jim Flick [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
If you mean either a computer or a pen will increase literacy because these are tools that people use when they are learning by doing, that is more complicated. David, I think that starting from the point that a lack of basic literacy means that people cannot read and write at all is a false assumption. We can't start at zero here, because functional illiteracy does not mean zero in my view. More than likely we are talking about second or third grade levels, with the possible exception of the ESL category. So what we are really talking about is building on something that exists, and self paced, and adaptive software can do this. The Jumpstart series is very effective for children. It can also be done thru exposure to reading and writing, albeit at a slower pace. So in the end do I believe, and does my experience teach me, that providing a computer and Internet access even absent direct instruction can improve literacy? Absolutely! Mike Michael F. Pitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Rosen Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:54 PM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious,ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S. Hello Mike, I am not sure I understand what you mean. If you mean a computer by itself won't increase literacy, just as a pen by itself won't increase writing, I agree If you mean either a computer or a pen will increase literacy because these are tools that people use when they are learning by doing, that is more complicated. I agree that constructivist (project-based) and contextualized learning are valuable approaches, and that in many instances they are the way that adults (especially) learn best. However, we are talking about basic literacy, that is adults who cannot decode, who cannot get meaning from text. They need instruction. While some computer-assisted instruction for adults may be valuable together with direct instruction by a teacher or tutor, I am unaware of any research that shows that adults learn to read, that is -- using the language of the NAAL -- move from below basic to a basic level without the help of a trained teacher or tutor. I am also unaware of any argument that adults who cannot read at all will learn to read simply because they have access to computers. This was the point of my question. Has this argument been made, the argument that adult literacy -- that is, basic literacy -- could be achieved simply by increasing access to computers? Apparently not. Perhaps you meant something else. Steve Eskow may be getting at the need for human teaching or tutoring when he writes It may be that other agencies, or even self- instruction, can teach the young to operate the radio, television set, the cell phone, and the computer, while we need schools to teach the far more difficult technologies of deep reading and writing. I would extend this observation to adults who cannot read, that they need trained tutors or teachers. I would add that most adults need to learn how to use computers, too. And I would add that they can learn basic literacy and how to use computers at the same time, as Toni Stone demonstrated so well in her book _Keystrokes to Literacy_ and Steve Quann and Diana Satin demonstrate in their book about immigrants learning English literacy, _Learning Computers, Speaking English_ ( see http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/ AleTechnologyESOLComputerIntro for discussion about these books. ) David J. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 4, 2006, at 9:53 AM, Executive Director wrote: but I don't follow why one would think that access to computers and the Internet would by itself result in increased basic literacy. No more or less than one would think that reading books and writing papers with a Bic word processor would improve basic literacy. Require that you subscribe to the theory that people learn by doing. Mike * Michael F. Pitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
However, often these results are achieved in conjunction with other educational elements, such as highly trained teachers, and therefore it is difficult to measure the specific impact of the technology itself. This simple statement ignores that fact that highly trained teachers using instructional technology are the exception and not the rule, and completely disregards the student use of computers at home, where they typically get far more exposure than at school. Again, just because we can't or won't correctly measure it, does not mean that is doesn't exist. Mike * Michael F. Pitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:51 AM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious,ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S. Michael Pitsch points us to the recent report issued by the Children's Partnership as evidence of the positive impact of technology on education. It is important to note that the Partnership conducted no research of its own: the report is a summary of the research findings of other, say the authors of the report. Here is their summary of the impact of technology on education: Second, Educational Achievement: Various studies have documented that appropriate use of technology in an educational context can help students achieve better grades, increase scores on standardized tests, increase school attendance, and improve school behavior. However, often these results are achieved in conjunction with other educational elements, such as highly trained teachers, and therefore it is difficult to measure the specific impact of the technology itself. There is also early evidence that technology can have a particularly significant impact on improved academic performance among students with lower grades or from low-income or rural backgrounds. So: No original research, but a summary of the work of others. And, as always, an acknowledgment that improvement seems usually associated with other matters, such as highly trained teachers, and therefore it is difficult to measure the specific impact of the technology itself. Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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
Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
In a message dated 12/30/2005 11:01:44 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One still has to get an education. As one who uses computers in the classroom, I heartily agree. However, I also maintain that in order to become literate in a 21st-century sense one must include the use of computers. It's just a matter of incorporating the latest tools in the process. Learning to read and write are important prior steps; computer-aided communication doesn't replace that. It simply adds another step in the developmental process. Jim Flick [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
but I don't follow why one would think that access to computers and the Internet would by itself result in increased basic literacy. No more or less than one would think that reading books and writing papers with a Bic word processor would improve basic literacy. Require that you subscribe to the theory that people learn by doing. Mike * Michael F. Pitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Rosen Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:14 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] ___ 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.
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
RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
I don't think the Increase Use of Computers = Improved Literacy. Bridging the digital divide is not equal to improving literacy. It just means that more people are using the computer for their daily activities. One still has to get an education. Or am I wrong? Sam Young CIO La Sierra University -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 9:56 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
Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
Hello all, ...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? No. There is no such thing as coincidence when it comes to the dissemination of information on the part of government agencies, and this administration in particular. Public relations to manage public opinion is both a science and an art form in our society at this point. What is truly sad is the ratio of heated rhetoric to action. Somehow the notion that our elected officials are a part of an organization that is tasked to allocate resources to help deal with real problems within the nation is lost on them and too many of our citizens. After ten such digital-divide-narrowing years, the ability of students to read prose and documents has dropped slightly for all levels of education. The desire to learn is at the core of the development of the skills required to acquire knowledge. In an age where passive intake through television and active participation in (relatively) limited scenarios through video gaming rule the roost, it seems literacy is not as highly valued as we would like to think. The flood of data available to people via the Internet or the 800+ channels of TV programming all require processing to become useful information. This processing all must take place between the ears of individual human beings. If all other things are equal (not at all the case) it is the willingness to broaden one's personal horizon that drives literacy levels. Technology can only help people who want to use it. The seemingly inexorable drive towards mass ignorance can only be slowed one mind at a time. Paul Mondesire [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
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
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.
Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
Hello Andrew, On Dec 27, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Andrew Pleasant wrote: 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. You are right that the Bush Administration proposed drastic cuts to the major adult literacy line item for FY 2006, but fortunately adult learners, practitioners, volunteers and friends of adult literacy rose up in large numbers and persuaded Congress to defeat these cuts. Quite a remarkable feat. The appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies has now been sent to the President for his signature. It contains $579.5 million for adult education, 1% less than that FY 05 figures due to a 1% across the board cut to discretionary programs contained in the final appropriations package. The big loss to adult education was the Even Start family literacy program, funded at $99 million, a major reduction from the FY 05 figure of $225 million. Although we must wait to see the the Administration budget proposal for FY 07, given the phenomenal response to the proposed '06 budget cuts, and given that the NAAL results show that we still have a national problem of enormous proportions, we will probably not see proposed administration cuts of this scope again to adult literacy. And I doubt that we will see proposed increases either. I don't think the postponements in the release of the NAAL are connected to the FY06 budget. And the NAAL may even help to dissuade administration cuts to the FY07 budget. We'll soon see. All the best, David J. Rosen ___ 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.
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.
Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
. Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Rosen Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 2:46 PM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: Re: [DDN] NAAL points to serious,ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S. Hello Steve, On Dec 19, 2005, at 12:17 PM, Dr. Steve Eskow wrote: The finding that you underline-the large scale illiteracy in the United States-is a problem that has been with us for a long time. Perhaps the main point of the NAAL study differs for different interests. The main point for a group such as DDN, devoted as it is to expanding the use of the new communication technologies, is that in a decade in which the use of computer technology in our schools and colleges, and in the culture at large, has expanded significantly. . . the general level of literacy has declined. Actually, Steve, that isn't what the NAAL study found. According to the study, there has been no significant overall change in prose and document literacy in the decade since the last national assessment of adult literacy, the NALS. And there has been an increase in quantitative literacy. Further: there are suggestions by the officials connected with the study that new communication media-tv and the internet-are responsible for the decline. One group, Hispanics, as a group shows a score decline. Spokespeople, Grover (Russ) Whitehurst, Director of the Institute for Education Sciences, and Mark Schneider, Commissioner, of NCES, which commissioned the study, both agreed that this was because of the influx of adult immigrants with low English language skills and (in some cases) other basic skills. Some other groups, African Americans and Asian Americans for example, show score gains since the NALS. Perhaps however, you are using the term literacy in a different way from how it was used in the study. In the study it is defined as Using printed and written information to function in society to achieve one's goals and to develop one's knowledge and potential. Perhaps you are referring to the extent to which Americans do (or don't) read (books and newspapers, for example), what some have referred to as aliteracy. David J. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Rosen Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 6:54 AM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: [DDN] NAAL points to serious,ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S. Colleagues, The main point of the NAAL study (and the NALS study a decade earlier) , obscured in much of the discussion here so far, is that 13% of American adults (30 million people) are at a Below Basic literacy level, and another 29% (an additional 63 million people) are at a Basic level. In a changing economy, with global competitiveness, family self-sufficiency for millions of Americans is at risk. With current public resources, the U.S. Department of Education says we can reach under 10% (perhaps as low as 3%) of those in need. We have a serious adult literacy and basic skills divide. What can technology offer to help solve this problem? David J. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to digitaldivide- [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 digitaldivide- [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 digitaldivide- [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 digitaldivide- [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.
RE: [DDN] NAAL points to serious, ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S.
David, The finding that you underline-the large scale illiteracy in the United States-is a problem that has been with us for a long time. Perhaps the main point of the NAAL study differs for different interests. The main point for a group such as DDN, devoted as it is to expanding the use of the new communication technologies, is that in a decade in which the use of computer technology in our schools and colleges, and in the culture at large, has expanded significantly. . . the general level of literacy has declined. Further: there are suggestions by the officials connected with the study that new communication media-tv and the internet-are responsible for the decline. Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Rosen Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 6:54 AM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: [DDN] NAAL points to serious,ongoing adult basic skills problem in U.S. Colleagues, The main point of the NAAL study (and the NALS study a decade earlier) , obscured in much of the discussion here so far, is that 13% of American adults (30 million people) are at a Below Basic literacy level, and another 29% (an additional 63 million people) are at a Basic level. In a changing economy, with global competitiveness, family self-sufficiency for millions of Americans is at risk. With current public resources, the U.S. Department of Education says we can reach under 10% (perhaps as low as 3%) of those in need. We have a serious adult literacy and basic skills divide. What can technology offer to help solve this problem? David J. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
