[NLA] Can research improve policy or practice?"

[Thomas Sticht]

In a recent post Regie Stite made a couple of comments and asked for
some information from me that I will respond to  here. 

First, Regie’s comments  suggested that I had complained that $5 million
per year in the last 10 years giving about $50 million  in R & D for
adult literacy education was too much. But I did not make that
assertion.  I did not assert that too much was spent on R & D, just that
I could not see that the field had benefited much from the $5 million
per year average that Regie referred to. In trivializing the $5 million
per year he suggested that the money would have just bought some pencils
and notebooks for a few students.  But indeed $5 million in FY 1999
would have covered the entire federal allocation of state grant funds 
to Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, and Guam. In this context,  one wonders whether the benefits of
the $5 million in R & D outweighed its costs in lost services it might
have provided. 

Near the end of his posting, Regie asked for two responses from me. One,
what do I consider "convincing evidence" of the efficacy of some R & D,
and two, would I provide examples of my own R & D that has had some
impact on policy and/or practice. 

First, about convincing evidence. At the outset, I always try to find
out how the research has identified and presented the nature of the
problem(s) to be attacked and solved or at least reduced to some extent.
Then I look to see if the solution(s) that are presented to solve/reduce
the problems seem appropriate. For instance, has the solution been
developed for this particular problem, or has a solution off the shelf
from some other line of research (e.g., multiple intelligences) been
imported to see if it can deal with the problem. Then I look at the way
the solutions are implemented and how the data are collected, analyzed,
interpreted and reported to support any claims that policy makers,
teachers or other researchers should pay much attention to the research
and its findings. In making these judgments, I draw on a large body of
knowledge about behavioral & cognitive science, measurement, assessment
and evaluation, curriculum design and development, practical issues in
working in large organizations, and other types of knowledge about the
adult education field.

For instance, if the report claims that the research will help teachers
teach better, I look for the evidence that supports such claims. I look
to see if there was some evidence that before the research some students
were  having trouble learning something, and then after the research
they or similar students were able to learn the material better. It
helps to make the findings more convincing to me if there has been
replications of the study in different contexts using different teachers
and students, and if some third, independent  party can also produce or
evaluate evidence that the new approach based on the R & D appears to be
more effective. 

I look for different kinds of evidence depending upon what the problem
is that is being defined. As far as influencing policy and practice on a
large scale is concerned, I try to find evidence that other analysts, 
too, have studied the work and been convinced that the R & D is well
done and produces the types of outcomes it says it does. Then I always
ask "Does this make sense to me?" in terms of my own background of
knowledge and experience.  

Regarding my own work.  False modesty keeps me from giving my own
opinions. So I have let others express the usefulness of my work to
policy and practice in a chronology from 1989 to 2000 as they have seen
it with regard to the value of "workplace literacy" and "contextualized
learning" as indicated by the following quotes: 

In 1989 a Department of Labor policy maker reported that, "As Thomas
Sticht...and others have shown, literacy skills can be learned far more
rapidly when they are taught as part of the processes of teaching job
skills....A side benefit of functional context instruction is that there
is no stigma attached to learning job skills as there can be in learning
"literacy" skills. Thus the dignity of the adult learner is
safeguarded." ---Ray Uhalde, Deputy Administrator, Office of Strategic
Planning and Policy Development, (later Assistant Secretary for
Employment and Training Administration), U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C. In: Literacy and the Marketplace.  New York: The
Rockefeller Foundation, June 1989,pp. 37-38.

In 1990 researchers for the SCANS commission, of which I was a member, 
reported research leading the SCANS Commission to recommend that
teaching and learning should follow a "contextualized" approach. The
researchers said, "Individuals learn best when they are taught in a
context of application--in a functional context....Cognitive science
strongly implies that people learn knowledge and skills best when they
are taught in the context of real situations, real activities, and real
problems (Sticht, 1984, 1986, 1987; Resnick, 1987b; Lave, 1988)."
---Michael Kane, Sue Berryman, David Goslin, & Ann Meltzer (September
17, 1990). How to Identify and Describe Necessary Skills Required by
Work. Report prepared for the Secretary's Commission on Achieving 
Necessary Skills, U. S. Department of Labor. Washington, D.C.: Pelavin
Associates, pp. 1,7.

In 1991, Kutner et al surveyed  work of the National Workplace Literacy
Program and said, "The workplace literacy movement evolved directly from
Thomas Sticht's analysis of literacy demands in the military which found
that using job-specific materials improved job performance more than
using general academic materials....In a functional  context-oriented
program, instructional materials are drawn from actual work materials."
---Mark Kutner, Renee Sherman & Lenore Webb (1991, May). A Review of the
National Workplace Literacy Program. Report prepared for the U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, DC: Pelavin Associates, pp. 14,22.

In 1997, after identifying the two most influential studies in adult
literacy education in the last 30 years, the other being Paulo Freire’s
work and its influence on adult literacy education, Shanahan & Neuman
(the present Asst. Sec. For Elem. & Sec. Ed.) said "Another influential
study in adult literacy is Tom Sticht's work on literacy in work
training and job performance....He based his approach on a
functional-context principle--that new knowledge must build on old
knowledge, and that literacy instruction could be made more meaningful
by using real life situations, tasks, and materials....This approach has
been extended conceptually into other functional approaches such as
family literacy and health literacy." --Timothy Shanahan & Susan Neuman
(1997). Literacy research that makes a difference. Reading Research
Quarterly, 32, 202-210. 

In 2000, writing about the framework for the Equipped for the Future
project, Merrifield said, "When Sticht initially proposed the
"functional context" approach to adult education, however, his intention
was to focus on use, not just situation. As EFF developed role maps in
an attempt to identify what adults need to know and be able to do in
their important adult roles, it became clear that application or use,
not possession of skills, was what mattered. Context came to be seen as
the reasons people have for learning, the use they want to make of it.
In this way, a context-based approach became linked with a purposeful
approach to learning." Juliet Merrifield (2000, March). Equipped for the
Future Research Report: Building the Framework, 1993-1997. Washington,
DC: National Institute for Literacy, p. 11.
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org