Re: [DDN] Intel: Poor Want 'Real' Computers (fwd)
I wonder if someone could summarize what we know about the OLCP M.I.T. Media Lab $100 laptop: I heard there were five Asian companies bidding to produce it. Has one been selected? Has an actual production timeline been announced? Have any of the identified countries committed the money for the million laptops and training? Is there an actual _working_ model? Thanks. David David J. Rosen On Dec 12, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Ken Callaghan wrote: I agree! Sometimes the desire to have something is because someone else has it. If everyone had a laptop then they would become as desirable as a ball point pen. And if there is a new skateboarding craze there might be a good number of these laptops fitted with wheels coupled with a demand for $10 safety helmets. Ok so I'm being a bit facetious - put it down to Irish humour! The point remains - some things are only valuable because of their purpose, and this wonderful laptop may not fulfil that purpose because to do so would depend on a desire of the individuals using them. It still remains a fact that perceived value will be paramount. If it will help to relieve poverty, improve the quality of life and provide a means to personal betterment then great. However there are those who don't want things to be different. They are happy with the status quo because change frightens them or they believe it not to be for them. As I said before, one of the problems we have here is not getting access to equipment. We have put hundreds of thousands of euros into centres (including $1000 laptops!) and we have worked with groups who have said in the past We never get anything or We don't have access to computers! or Nobody invests in our area! Yet when investment arrives and when agencies offer FREE training on FREE computers these same people disappear into the mist because they have no excuse left, or realize that their bluff has been called and the reality is that they never really WANTED to use the facility, but it was something to bang a drum over! Don't get me wrong. There are those that are grateful for the investment and will make great use of it. But these people are not motivated solely by the availability of the equipment. They are motivated to learn! Forget the $100 laptop for all. Certainly make them available to those who need them, not just those who want them without working out why they want them. Remember, not only can you bring a horse to water, you can even shove its nose in it and it still won't drink if it doesn't want to!! Ken Callaghan Digital Communities Project Manager c/o Belfast Education Library Board 40 Academy Street Belfast BT1 2NQ Tel 028 9056 4263 (Direct line) Mobile 078 66 55 77 83 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and spam by SurfControl RiskFilter - E-mail. ___ 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] Literacy level falls for US college graduates (fwd)
Hello Sam, Actually the assessment covered a representative sample of the adult U.S. population, 16 years and up, some of whom were not able to ready anything in English, and ranging up through those with graduate level education. So it did include lots of Joes off the street. The explanation from NCES Director, Grover J (Russ) Whitehurst, for why college level literacy is so low included, first, surprise at the significant decline in the literacy levels among those who have a college degree, and then speculation that college level standards are lower than they should be because higher education has become democratized, and more and more students are attending colleges, and perhaps getting a paper diploma. He suggested that higher education needs to look at this. (from the archived webcast of the report release. http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/webcasts/20051215/webcast12-15.html) David J. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Dec 16, 2005, at 7:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, The test was administered to College Graduates, not high school or just our Joe off the street. I find it shocking that college graduates of any race or group would score this low. Sam Young CIO La Sierra University Andy and others, Thanks for posting this. It is important to note that the interpretation that NCES -- which released the study -- gives to the decline in literacy for Hispanics is increased immigration by Hispanic adults who may not speak English or who may have had little schooling in their country of origin. There are some other findings worth noting: 1) Overall : No significant increases in U.S. adult literacy from 1992-2003. 2) Quantitative literacy skills are higher. 3) The results show a strong correlation between literacy and education level attainment 4) As literacy increases so does the % of the population which is fully employed (Of course this would also depend on the economy.) 5) Median weekly earnings also go up with higher literacy levels. David J. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Andy Carvin wrote: From the NY Times... -andy Literacy level falls for US college graduates The average American college graduate's literacy in English declined significantly over the past decade, according to results of a nationwide test released yesterday. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy, given in 2003 by the Department of Education, is the nation's most important test of how well adult Americans can read. The test also found steep declines in the English literacy of Hispanics in the United States, and significant increases among blacks and Asians. When the test was last administered, in 1992, 40 percent of the nation's college graduates scored at the proficient level, meaning that they were able to read lengthy, complex English texts and draw complicated inferences. But on the 2003 test, only 31 percent of the graduates demonstrated those high-level skills. There were 26.4 million college graduates. snip Among blacks and Asians, English literacy increased from 1992 to 2003. About 29 percent of blacks scored at either the intermediate or proficient levels in 1992, but in 2003, those rose to 33 percent. The percentage of blacks demonstrating below basic literacy declined to 24 percent from 30 percent. Asians scoring at either the intermediate or proficient levels rose to 54 percent from 45 percent in 1992. The same period saw big declines in Hispanics' English reading skills. In 1992, 35 percent of Hispanics demonstrated below basic English literacy, but by 2003 that segment had swelled to 44 percent. And at the higher-performing end of the literacy scale, the proportion of Hispanics demonstrating intermediate or proficient English skills dropped to 27 percent from 33 percent in 1992. snip http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/education/16literacy.html -- --- Andy Carvin Program Director EDC Center for Media Community acarvin @ edc . org http://www.digitaldivide.net http://katrina05.blogspot.com Blog: http://www.andycarvin.com --- ___ 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.
[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.
[DDN] Fwd: [AAACE-NLA] NAAAA..L This Can't Be Right
DDN Colleagues, I am forwarding this critique of the NAAL, posted on the adult literacy list, AAACE-NLA, by Dr. Thomas Sticht, a notable adult education researcher and consultant. I thought it might be of interest. David J. Rosen Begin forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: December 19, 2005 4:26:18 PM EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [AAACE-NLA] N..L This Can't Be Right Reply-To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE aaace- [EMAIL PROTECTED] December 18, 2005 N….L, This Can’t Be right? Tom Sticht International Consultant in Adult Education You studied hard in the primary, middle, and secondary grades of our nation’s K-12 school system, graduated with a high school diploma, applied for and passed tests to get into college, spent four more years studying and finally graduated with a college undergraduate degree. Then, perhaps, you went on to graduate school, took and passed some graduate level courses and even went on and obtained an advanced degree. Then the results of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) were released in December of 2005 and the federal government indicated that there was a 60 to 75 percent probability that you, -you with a high school diploma, 4- year college degree and perhaps even an MD, JD, or Ph.D - are not Proficient in literacy. What do you say? Na…, that can’t be right! Yet that is what the developers of the NAAL have decided and reported. Among our nation’s most highly educated adults, those with graduate study and advanced degrees, only some 31 percent performed at the Proficient level on the Document literacy scale, meaning that some 70 percent of the most highly educated adults in the nation are not Proficient in Document literacy. Sixty-four percent are not Proficient in Quantitative literacy and some 60 percent are not proficient in Prose literacy. Can this be right? Suppose, on the other hand, instead of having gotten through elementary, middle and secondary school you had goofed off, decided to drop out in the 11th grade and then, after a few years, re-thought the benefits of education a little deeper and went to an adult education program. You studied hard and finally passed the high school diploma equivalency exam, got your General Educational Development (GED) certificate and enrolled in a local community college. After three years of working at a job and going to college part time you finally get your Associate of Arts degree. With that degree, the chances are 80 to 85 out of hundred that you would be declared to be less than Proficient in literacy on the federal government’s NAAL tests of Prose, document, and Quantitative literacy. Can this be right? It seems to me that these kinds of findings should raise questions about the validity of the NAAL for accurately characterizing the literacy abilities of adults. Is it reasonable to conclude that 60, 70 or even 85 percent of two- or four-year college graduates lack Proficiency in literacy, no matter how it is assessed? How can unemployment for those in the labor force be less than 6 percent if 70 to 80 percent of the workforce lacks Proficiency in literacy? How can the United States have one of the highest rates of productivity in the world if 70 or 80 percent of adults lack Proficiency in literacy? How can the United States’ economy be the envy of the world, with foreign investment in the U. S. surpassing such investment in each of the other nations of the world, if 70 to 80 percent of adults lack Proficiency in literacy? Wouldn’t this cause investors to bolt to nations with more capable workforces? Earlier in 2005 the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the international Adult Literacy and Life Skills (ALL) report. This report used methods for assessing the extent to which adults aged 16 to 65 worked in jobs for which their literacy skills matched, exceeded, or were below the skills needed for their jobs. They reported that some 60 percent of adults possessed literacy skills that matched the literacy required for their jobs, while an additional 20 percent had literacy skills that actually surpassed the demands for such skills in their jobs. Only 20 percent were thought to be working in jobs for which their skills were actually deficient. In other words, some 80 percent of U.S. adults were proficient in the literacy abilities needed for their jobs. Once again, these data raise questions about the validity of the NAAL when it represents 70 to 80 percent of adults as below the Proficient level of literacy. Setting aside for the moment the 5 percent of adults in the NAAL who could not take part in the testing, the NAAL report acknowledges that all adults in the four levels had some non-zero probability of performing literacy tasks above the level they were defined into. This means that it is not appropriate to refer to the
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
[DDN] College graduates not falling behind in literacy
New Study shows current college graduates are not falling behind in terms of literacy when compared to graduates from earlier generations but Some are Graduating with Only Basic Skills While the results of this new PEW Charitable Trusts-supported American Institutes for Research study are not encouraging, they also do not support the belief that American college students' literacy and numeracy skills are lower now than they were. So, technology appears -- at least on the surface -- to not have made much difference to the literacy and numeracy skills of college students. Of course, there may be subgroups where it has, and that would be interesting to look at if the data can be separated this way. You will find a short description of the study at: http://tinyurl.com/bkhz9 Links to the full study and a fact sheet will also be found there. 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.
[DDN] Access to Internet2
DDN Colleagues, I have two questions regarding Internet2: 1) Do you think it would be worthwhile for adult literacy/basic education programs (in cbo's, public schools, libraries, community colleges, etc.) to seek Internet2 access?* Internet2 might be used for teacher access to professional development courses (some from universities), student access to online learning resources or courses, and possibly in other ways. 2) If so, what would be good steps to take to work toward this access? David J. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] * (Internet 2 is a network that allows more than 220 universities — and a few research-related companies and government organizations — to use advanced online services ... at speeds 100 times faster than normal connections.) [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10944795/ ] ___ 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] New Initiative in The Phillipines - Ayala Foundation- Gilas.org
Rene and others, Thanks for these observations. When I saw this, I thought GILAS could be very helpful to students in-school and wondered if the same equipment -- or additional equipment -- could be used by the large number of youth who leave school. Can the Philippines nonformal (out- of school youth and adult literacy) education system benefit from this too? I wonder if anyone has raised this question with the Ayala Foundation. I also think the same question needs to be asked of school-based technology initiatives in the U.S. How can the hardware used in schools during the day also be available to out-of-school youth and adults at other times. David J. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mar 18, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Rene G. Abad wrote: hi all comments below excuse caps used, aid in following thread not shouting best regards rene abad e-d, y3k foundation -- Original Message -- To: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Subject: [DDN] New Initiative in The Phillipines - Ayala Foundation- Gilas.org Date: 3/17/2006 7:24:09p GILAS is an acronym for Gearing-up Internet Literacy and Access for Students. It is a project initiated by a group of private companies, and aimed at providing an Internet lab for each of the 5,443 public high schools in the Philippines. GOOD INITIATIVE The Philippines spends approximately $64 per student per annum on secondary education; quite low compared to approximately $7,500 that the US spends, and $5,000 for Singapore. The Philippines ' huge budget deficit and the country's myriad of needs make it difficult for the government to increase its education spending. The lack of spending manifests itself in the lack of classrooms and teachers, poorly trained teachers, underdeveloped curricula and practically non-existent libraries. RELATIVELY GOOD FIGURE VIS-A-VIS GDP PER CAPITA As a result, the quality of graduates from the public school system has been rapidly declining. As it is, only a few students are able to graduate: out of every 100 Filipino children who enter first grade, only 3 will finish college and 45 will finish secondary school. This under-education has severely handicapped the new participants in the national and global workforce. LOW INCOME OF FAMILIES MAIN CAUSE OF NOT FINISHING SCHOOL NOT LOW BUDGET SUPPORT FILIPINOS ARE COMPETITIVE ABROAD IN AREAS WHERE WE CAN COMPETE HIGH SCHOOL GRADS IN ITALY SENDING HOME $1000/MONTH TO THEIR FAMILIES OVERSEAS FILIPINOS SEND MORE THAN $10 BILLION/YEAR TO HOME SLOWLY WE WILL GO UP THE VALUE CHAIN With the Internet, we have found a powerful and efficient tool to address the education gap among the country's youth. Access to the Internet democratizes information-giving students free access to electronic encyclopedias that aid in research, math, science, and languages. YOU CAN PROVIDE MORE ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE WITH SAME MONEY BY 1. HARDISK AND CD BASED DATA 2. SURPLUS HARDWARE 3. FLOSS 4. TRAINING 5. MAINTENANCE JOBS Libraries in the public school system are in poor condition and in need of basic books. Internet access provides a partial immediate solution to this problem. Computer labs in schools provide the tools for computer training, which prepares high-school student for jobs in the fast- growing business process outsourcing industry and other fields requiring basic computer skills. BPO COMPANIES WILL NOT HIRE EVEN THE MOST COMPUTER LITERATE HIGH SCHOOL GRAD Computers and Internet access facilitate networking among schools and promote the sharing of teaching modules, the standardization of material, and teacher training. Currently, 6% of the country's public high schools have Internet labs. TEACHING MODULES CAN BE HARDISK OR CD BASED In 2000, the Ayala Foundation launched its Youth Tech program to provide Internet connectivity packages to schools that had received computers from a Japanese government grant. In 2001, a group of 28 private corporations and foundations called ConnectEd.ph was organized by the Makati Business Club to join the Ayala Foundation's effort. The group managed to wire 323 public high schools by end-2004. The success of these projects and the daunting task of reaching out to all of the country's public high schools prompted groups in the private sector to band together and work towards a common goal. In GILAS is the hope of making a tangible contribution to the youth of the Philippines. http://www.gilas.org/index.htm MORE STUDENTS WOULD HAVE BENEFITED BY USING LOWER PER SCHOOL COST MODELS WHOLE PHILIPPINES MIGHT HAVE BEEN COVERED BY NOW BUT STILL A GOOD INITIATIVE COVERING A GOOD AREA SOLUTIONS NOW NEEDED FOR AREAS NOT COVERED ___ 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
[DDN] Computer lease-purchase arrangements
Colleagues, As the price of a new desktop has dropped, as wireless becomes free or much less expensive in some cities and states (New Orleans, San Francisco, Rhode Island, et. al.) and as more low-income families want the web at home, I wonder if a computer lease/purchase arrangement would help some low-income families to get access. If so, do you have any recommendations? David Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] David 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.
[DDN] Wikipedia as a tool to introduce research to schoolchildren
Carolyn and others, There are many things to think about, when using the Wikipedia with schoolchildren and with adult learners 1. In some countries Wikipedia is the _only_ encyclopedia written in the first language. It may be flawed or uneven -- especially in the first years of its development -- but the prospect of having an encyclopedia which a schoolchild has at school and home is revolutionary and exciting. 2. As in developed countries, teachers can explain to students that not all sources are equally reliable, complete or objective. We want children and adults to understand how to evaluate all sources of oral, written and visual information, don't we? Want them to internalize the evaluative criteria so that whether they are reading an article in the Wikipedia, or seeing an American, Indian, Australian, or locally-made movie or TV show, they are looking for evidence of propaganda, bias, point of view, and for whether there is a hidden agenda. There are many books and videos in my local public library which have lower standards than many articles in the Wikipedia. It's my job as a library user, and it's our jobs as teachers to help children -- and adult learners -- to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. 3. The Wikipedia has some interesting features which help the reader in determining the quality of an article: a. ) the Discussion tab shows you what the discussion/debate/ controversy has been in developing the article to date. You can see how many authors there are, how many people have been paying attention to the page. What a great way to show students that writing is often controversial, challenged, and sometimes collaborative. they can also see what the issues are : accuracy, representation of points of view, evidence, etc. b) the History tab shows every version of the article. There may be a few versions, or hundreds. A teacher selecting versions can show students how accurate, complete, well-written articles don't usually just appear as an inspiration but are often hard work done in many drafts over time. 4. There will be some changes in the Wikipedia in the months to come. Among them will be stable articles, those which are reviewed, are essentially finished (complete, accurate, well written...) and are then locked and labled as stable. Teachers who are concerned about research citation can have more confidence in these, presumably and when other Wikipedia articles are cited can require evidence that they are sound. The Wikipedia may be one of the best tools we have to teach critical reading and research. David J. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:04:45 -0700 From: Riddle, Carolyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DDN] Wikipedia on low-costs PCs must be live! To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I have been following the discussion concerning Wikipedia for a while now. I enjoy browsing through it myself and find the information there to be mostly accurate. However, I have a problem with using it as a tool for introducing school children to research. It is not an acceptable citation for college level work, because it is not actually a verifiable resource. Once these children enter college they will have to abandon it and will be taught in library bibliographic instruction classes that it does not pass muster in terms of higher education website evaluation. How do you verify the veracity of authors and information from a site onto which anyone may post information? So I can see the value of Wikipedia in learning how to evaluate websites, but not in gleaning authoritative information for research. Am I way off the mark here? Does anyone know of universities whose faculty accept Wikipedia citations on student research papers? Peace, Carolyn Carolyn Riddle Big Bend Community College Library 7662 Chanute Street Moses Lake, Wa 98837 509-793-2356 509-762-2402 FAX ___ 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.
[DDN] Mobile learning in hospitals and nursing homes
DDN Colleagues, I am looking for good examples (ideally web pages) of mobile learning (M-learning) delivered through web-accessible PDAs or mobile phones, ideally basic skills or English language learning, in hospitals or long-term care facilities. I know that doctors, and in some cases nurses, use web-accessible PDAs for getting information and entering data. If you have examples of doctors or nurses taking online courses using PDAs, using them for just-in-time learning. or, better still, of entry-level staff doing M-learning, please let me know. I am working on a project which will provide web-based basic skills instruction to entry level hospital and nursing home employees, and we are thinking of designing it so it is also accessible from PDAs. Your comments on that concept would also be welcome. Thanks. David Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] newsomeassociates.com ___ 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.
