[NLA] Searching for adult litercy experts

[Thomas Sticht]

Are there any "adult literacy experts" out there?
Tom Sticht

On the NLA list for 1 Apr 2002 I posted a message about  "Some thoughts
upon reading comments about the OERI and reduced enrollments to improve
quality of AELS services." In the message I said, " Regarding David
Rosen's, John Coming's, and George Demetrion's comments regarding
changes at OERI. Perhaps NCAL and NCSALL could put together a report
that presents evidence showing that their research has improved services
for adult learners somewhere in some way. The evidence should be of a
nature that the R & D centers think the policy makers considering
changing OERI would find convincing. George might demonstrate how those
people he listed ( Dewey, Mezirow, Freire, et al) showed that they could
design, develop, and implement an adult education program teaching
literacy or other important subject matter, that was more effective in
some ways than an existing program." 

No messages have been posted up to now indicating that any NCAL, NCSALL,
or other researchers or people on George’s list had improved an existing
adult literacy program somewhere, though there have been many postings
about the philosophy of science, advise on how to do really good
research, and related comments.  

On 4 Apr 2002 David Rosen posted a message saying: " In a conversation
today I was asked what research in adult literacy  education one might
turn to in order to meet the expectations of the U.  S. Department of
Education (USDOE) for practices based on evidence.  My  colleague asked:
"What curricula meet the USDOE standard? What learning  and teaching
practices meet this standard? What teaching practices which 
use technology meet this standard?" I answered that as USDOE defined
"evidence based" (scientific evidence)  I wasn't aware of much." David
went on to say: "But let's discuss this question on the NLA list  so we
can all learn  from each other.  Does our field have a literature of
recommended  practice based on "scientific evidence"?  If you think so,
please cite  some examples." 

Since April 4th, I am the only researcher (or practitioner) who has
posted a message reporting a scientifically sound, evidence-based
program of R & D that improved the effectiveness of an existing adult
literacy program that was already in place. On  6 Apr 2002 I posted a
message giving an account of how the team I directed during the Vietnam
war went about developing the Functional Literacy program which, because
of its scientific, evidence-based outcomes,  was subsequently used to
replace all adult literacy education programs at all U. S. Army training
camps in the U.S. I noted in summary that our R & D included a number
of  significant aspects that made it consistent with the scientific,
evidence-based emphasis that is now facing the adult literacy education
field: 
(1) we took the context into account in determining how to teach
reading, 
(2) we used a treatment/comparison group method in developing our
experimental curriculum, 
(3) we developed assessment instruments that measured whether students
were learning what we were teaching, that is, the job-related reading
task tests, 
(4) we used the same general literacy tests that the adult educators
were using to measure generalization beyond job-related literacy in the
form of gains in general literacy, 
(5) there was an external, independent evaluation of the program, and 
(6) we replicated the program five times in other military camps in the
U. S. using different teachers to demonstrate that it was the curriculum
and not the R & D team that made the improvements in job-related reading
occur. 

Importantly, I noted that this R &D took place within a context in which
students did not have many external worries to distract them. They had
transportation, food, housing, medical care, dental care, clothing, and
supervision for time management. By holding all these factors constant,
the impact of the curriculum was better demonstrated.  I also noted that
these contextual factors are not so easily controlled in most civilian
adult literacy programs. 

Later, I sent an email message to a number of adult literacy
researchers  in government funded national research centers, in the
federal government and elsewhere asking if they knew of any R & D
showing that they or some other researchers had demonstrated in a
scientifically sound, evidence-based manner that they had actually
improved an existing adult literacy program somewhere. To this date I
have received only a few replies and none of those who replied could
think of any other research beyond that I had cited that had a
scientific, evidence-based basis for making its claims to improved
effectiveness. 

This raises the issue of just who should be considered an "adult
literacy expert." Should we consider as an "expert" someone who has
started up and successfully run an adult literacy program for 15 or 20
years even if they have no scientifically sound, evidence-based
information to support their claims of success? Should researchers who
have read widely, and published scholarly papers in refereed journals,
books and reports be considered "experts" even if they have never
demonstrated in a scientifically sound, evidence-based manner that they
can improve an existing adult literacy program in some context
somewhere? Should state or federal government workers employed as adult
literacy policy "experts", or program "reformers" or "directors" be
considered as "experts" even if they have never demonstrated in a
scientifically sound, evidence-based manner that they can improve an
existing adult literacy program somewhere?

If "adult literacy experts" are to be called upon to advise policy
makers about the need for and the ways in which hundreds of millions of
dollars of adult literacy education money should be spent, how should
these policy makers decide upon just who is an "expert" and who is
simply a person with a vested interest in getting funding for the field?
>From the point of view of an elected official, there are no doubt many
more voters among the latter than the former, and this includes the
millions of adults who have been and are enrolled as students in the
Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States.  

Given the apparent paucity of "adult literacy experts, " defined as
someone who has demonstrated in a scientifically sound, evidence-based
manner that he or she has actually improved an existing adult literacy
program somewhere, policy makers who are elected officials will probably
be much more receptive to and influenced by the voices of the millions
of non-expert, former students who are also taxpayers and voters. 

That is why adult literacy advocates should strengthen their efforts on
behalf of VALUE and other student-based organizations.  They should
leave the search for scientifically sound, evidence-based improvements
in adult literacy education to the much smaller and generally less
politically effective handful of adult literacy researchers who use the
small amounts of adult literacy research money on overhead costs for
large universities, underpayment of graduate students, most of whom are
unprepared as scientists in any field, and the publication of numerous,
largely unread, reports and journal articles. 

Unfortunately, too many researchers publish work in which they try to
show how their research results can lead to the improvement of adult
literacy education everywhere, without showing in any scientifically
sound, evidence-based manner that they have actually improved adult
literacy education somewhere.  Perhaps the new focus on scientific,
evidence-based research will change all this. Perhaps not.

Meanwhile, the NLA list can continue seraching for adult literacy
experts. Are there any out there?
_______________________________________________
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