[NLA] Evidence-based practice in Adult Literacy Education

[AWilder106@aol.com]

Colleagues,

I want to comment on Tom Sticht's post of April 6, 2002.

First, it gives contextual/functional literacy a good name.  Other writers 
have said that functional literacy is ineffective, but I could never 
understand this, because it seems so obvious--teach people what they need to 
know, and teach words whose meanings and concepts are related to each other.  
The first criteria supplies motivation and immediacy.  The second ties into 
associative learning, how our brains really work--by networks linked by WORD 
MEANING, or indexical (like a dictionary) reference.  A book I found useful 
on this topic a couple of years ago when I was still teaching, is "Reading 
Comprehension," by John D. McNeil, HarperCollins, 1992.  If anyone wants the 
science on that, try Terrence Deacon, "The Symbolic Species, the Co-evolution 
of  Language and the Brain," WWNorton & Co., Inc, 1997.  

I, too, once used the SRA booklets--a waste of time, I believe, I never saw 
carry over in class.

Next, Tom mentions carry over into general reading, that is generalization of 
the learning beyond the immediate context.   Knowledge of the structure and 
meaning of words would have to carry over--it is not as though we read 
following different rules in different contexts.  It is desirable to have a 
familiar context, of course, the opera passage Tom cites is an example of 
test makers' absurdity.

I don't want to go on because I don't need to go on. What Tom did was text 
book classic.  I am sorry I didn't read Tom's post sooner.  The social 
contextual factors--time available, medical care, housing, etc., the issues 
which programs struggle with today, have to be "negotiated" with students, 
and must influence the amount and quality of the learning.  

Andrea