|
Weak literacy skills can mean the difference
between holding a job and being unemployed, can limit career
choices, and can prevent people from participating in the
civic life of their community. Research shows that meaningful
improvements in adult literacy require a “threshold”
level of participation in an adult literacy program; sporadic
participation may well make little difference in literacy.
Unfortunately, however, in a one-year period, most adult literacy
students spend fewer than 70 hours engaged in organized literacy
instruction. Given their low initial literacy levels, many
would need more hours of instruction to make progress and
several years of study to accomplish their literacy goals.
Many public libraries in the United States
provide literacy services, and some provide direct instruction
through individual tutoring, classes or small groups, and
computer-assisted learning — often to students who have
no other education options because of their low literacy skills.
Concerns about low levels of student persistence have become
a major policy and program issue for library literacy programs
and other providers of adult education, especially as more
federal funding has become contingent on showing student progress.
With a goal of addressing problems of student
persistence, the Wallace–Reader’s Digest Funds launched
the Literacy in Libraries Across America (LILAA) initiative
in 1996 and contracted with the Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation and the National Center for the Study of Adult
Learning and Literacy to study the effort. Of the fifteen
libraries participating in the initiative, five are the focus
of the LILAA persistence study. Each of these five libraries
and their nine branch programs (described in Table ES.1) developed
plans to improve student persistence, and they received funding
from the Wallace–Reader’s Digest Funds to implement
service enhancements in 2000. This report describes the adult
learners who are served by the programs, analyzes initial
patterns of learner persistence (in terms of both length and
intensity) prior to the full implementation of program enhancements,
and documents the early progress of these programs in implementing
innovations to increase participation. Because this is the
first study of its kind, the findings break new ground in
many respects.
Key Findings
The Adult Learners and Their Initial Patterns
of Participation
- Overall, the literacy levels of students in the LILAA
programs were low, and native English speakers, on average,
achieved at lower levels than those who were learning English.
At the start of this study, 250 students
took literacy tests, and a follow-up test was scheduled for
one year later. Average initial scores ranged from near the
third-grade level on assessments of reading, phonetic decoding,
and comprehension to the fifth-grade level on a test of vocabulary.
Average scores for students who were learning English exceeded
average scores for native English speakers who were participating
in adult basic education (ABE) programs, by one to three grade
levels, depending on the test used. This difference may have
arisen in part because the students learning English may have
had stronger literacy skills in their native language. In
any case, these low initial levels of literacy suggest that
students need to participate in many hours of instruction
over an extended period in order to achieve their literacy
goals.
- Adults participating in the LILAA programs all share
one thing in common — a desire to improve their literacy
skills — but in some other ways they are a diverse
group, reflecting the variety of the communities served.
The clientele of library literacy programs
very much reflect the characteristics of their communities
as well as local perceptions of the library programs and their
services. The adult learners in these programs were almost
entirely people of color (less than 5 percent were white),
with each site drawing half or more of its students from a
single racial or ethnic group. All the programs attracted
students of a broad age range. Slightly more than one-third
of students (36 percent) were between ages 21 and 35, and
slightly more than one-third (36 percent) were between ages
36 and 50. Eight percent were younger than 21, and a full
20 percent were older than 50.
- Prior to the implementation of program innovations, the
length and intensity of students’ participation in
services fell short of the amount needed to improve literacy
levels substantially.
Prior to the full implementation of innovations
to support student persistence, only two-thirds of the adults
entering the programs participated at any level in the third
month of follow-up. After this rapid early drop-off in participation,
the participation rate continued to decline, gradually dropping
to 28 percent in the twelfth month of follow-up and to 15
percent in the eighteenth month. Entrants averaged 57 hours
of participation over 18 months, though in months when students
were active, they averaged 7 hours of participation per month,
or less than 2 hours per week.
There do not seem to be major systematic
differences among learners by gender, but students over 36
years of age and those employed full time at entry tended
to participate more. There are some differences across racial
and ethnic groups, but these are intertwined with differences
related to local program characteristics and communities,
because groups tend to be clustered in specific sites. There
are major differences in participation according to learners’
primary mode of instruction; those primarily working with
an individual tutor participated the most, and those studying
primarily in classroom settings participated the least. However,
this effect could also be driven by local program differences
(sites tended to emphasize a particular mode of instruction)
or by differences in the characteristics of participants in
each mode (because different students were attracted to different
modes of learning).
- Movements in and out of the program were frequent.
Many students who stopped participating
did so abruptly (without a gradual decline in hours), and
about one-third of those who stopped participating for a month
returned to the program in some later month. Maintaining contact
with a program’s currently inactive learners could be
an important support to student persistence.
- Students in these library literacy programs used the
services in four different ways during the early phase of
the LILAA initiative, suggesting that a range of programmatic
responses may be needed to address low participation.
Some adult literacy students are intermittent
participants who join and leave a program several times.
Breaks in participation are often caused by a personal crisis,
and students return when the problem has passed. Programs
should help these students maintain a connection during periods
of inactivity and should welcome them back when they are able
to resume participation. Short-term students participate
intensely but briefly to accomplish a specific goal, such
as admission to a training program or preparation for a citizenship
test. Programs should help such learners identify long-term
goals and other programs that they can use. Long-term students
are active in programs for an extended period, often participating
in computer-assisted instruction or self-study activities
as well as tutoring and classes. For some, specific, realistic
literacy goals can be developed, but others participate because
it provides social interaction and a sense of community. Mandatory
participants are required to attend a program as a condition
of receiving some type of aid or to comply with conditions
of parole. If these learners can identify goals of their own
— related to but separate from the agency that referred
them — this could help motivate them to participate more
substantially.
- Many adult learners face serious difficulties in other
aspects of their lives, and these often hinder their efforts
to participate steadily and intensely in literacy services.
The adult learners in library literacy programs
are almost entirely from low-income households, and a substantial
minority may have undiagnosed learning disabilities that hamper
their progress in the literacy program and in other aspects
of their lives. They may also have health problems or histories
of substance abuse that have prevented them from achieving
steady employment. Those who are learning English may be relatively
new to the United States, socially isolated, and struggling
to acclimate themselves to a new culture. Some have been in
abusive family relationships and have not received emotional
support in their efforts to improve their literacy skills.
These patterns of participation illustrate
the importance of the LILAA initiative and the need to create
broad-based interventions that extend and deepen engagement
in program literacy activities. Given most adult learners’
low levels of literacy, they will make only slow progress
in meeting their literacy goals with the amount of participation
that was reported in the early stages of the LILAA initiative.
Early Implementation of Persistence Innovations
The LILAA persistence study involves a focus
on student persistence and the implementation of specific
innovations in four categories: information gathering
to learn more about students and developments in the adult
literacy field, instructional improvements to make
instructional techniques more engaging and useful, operational
changes to reform program procedures and make the services
more accessible, and support services to help students
overcome personal and social barriers to persistence.
- In the initial implementation phase, the LILAA initiative’s
continued focus on improving student persistence shaped
local programs’ behavior, and the resulting search
for ways to achieve this goal had more significance than
many of the specific innovations that were originally planned.
During the initial implementation phase,
from January 2000 to June 2001, some planned interventions
were dropped or delayed, while others moved ahead and new
ones emerged. The constant during this period was the emphasis
within the LILAA project on increased student persistence,
both as a goal to be sought and as an operational indicator
of student progress to be tracked.
- Information that the programs collected at the start
of the initiative concerning students’ needs and perspectives
and alternative program approaches did not lead to major
changes in local plans for reform; most sites focused on
their existing plans for innovations.
As part of the LILAA persistence study,
programs were expected to collect information from participants
about their needs, the barriers they faced to more intensive
participation, and their ideas about how to improve program
services. The findings from this data collection effort —
following the model of action research — were to be used
in the design of subsequent interventions. In most cases,
the information gathering was done more slowly than originally
envisioned. Programs typically began to move forward with
new interventions before completing efforts to fully document
and formally analyze the participants’ perspectives on
possible improvements, though, in some cases, information
was used to justify changes already under way or to refine
and add new strategies.
- Throughout the initial implementation period, the literacy
programs focused mostly on improving instruction and changing
operational procedures.
Instructional innovations included improved
student orientations and tutor training, new ways to build
more effectively on learners’ goals, new methods of delivering
literacy services (for example, through enhanced computer
labs or new methods of group instruction), and clearer standards
for instruction to ensure that each student received services
meeting a minimum threshold of adequacy. Operational strategies
involved changing and expanding program hours. These enhancements
aimed to improve the direct services in library literacy programs.
- Support services were the most difficult innovation for
the library literacy programs to implement.
Some adult learners arrived at the literacy
program needing multiple support services. Because library
literacy programs could not directly offer all the needed
supports (such as child care, counseling, health services,
transportation assistance) even if they wished to, efforts
to enhance such offerings were dependent on the cooperation
of other agencies, many of which were already hard-pressed
to meet the demand for their services. In addition, some libraries
were hesitant to take on the responsibility of addressing
the support needs of adult learners, out of concern that this
could be a “slippery slope” pulling them into the
role of a social service provider and diverting them from
the core mission of improving literacy. Their reluctance was
also connected to the long-term costs of such services and
to worries about not being able to continue services to students
in need. Finally, some library staff members were concerned
about the equity of providing special support services to
learners in literacy programs when other library patrons might
have as great a need for such assistance.
- Data collection and reporting on students’ characteristics
and participation improved over time, though the problems
encountered may herald difficulties to be faced as federal
reporting requirements increase.
At the outset of the persistence study,
the library literacy programs had varied experiences in data
collection; some were able to meet the project’s requirements
with only modest adjustments, while others needed substantial
help in making changes. As part of the initial implementation
phase, the programs built new data collection systems or enhanced
existing ones and were able to provide information about learners’
background characteristics and hours of participation. However,
these improvements required new commitments of staff time
for data collection and reporting, which in this case were
supported by special project funding. In addition, the data
collection effort raised concerns about confidentiality, because
some staff saw it as contrary to traditional library values,
which hold that patrons can use services as they wish, without
fear that anyone is monitoring their activities.
- As the program innovations begin to take hold, there
are some signs of an encouraging trend in the intensity
of participation among students who are active in the programs.
It is premature to judge whether the program
interventions will increase learner persistence, but there
are early suggestions of encouraging trends in the intensity
of participation among active students. Those who entered
a library literacy program in 2001 participated for more hours
while active than their counterparts who entered in 2000.
However, the percentage of students who remained active over
time did not increase. Further analysis of these trends will
be a focus of the final report.
Early Implementation Lessons
At this early stage in program implementation,
the lessons from the LILAA persistence study center on key
challenges in developing a strong initial connection with
adult learners and on promising approaches that are suggested
by the initial year’s experience.
- Adult learners expressed two types of goals, and literacy
programs need to find ways to acknowledge and build on each
of these.
Many literacy students may have specific
goals, such as passing the General Educational Development
(GED) examination or an occupational test, reading job-related
material more quickly and accurately, or reading stories to
a young child. Such instrumental goals can motivate
many adult learners to participate in a literacy program.
But some students may also express broader goals that may
initially strike program staff as unfocused or unrealistic.
Underlying these transformational goals may be a profound
desire to improve the conditions of one’s life, to expand
one’s repertoire of skills, or to change one’s social
identity. Aspirations like these can also be a motivator of
long-term participation in a program, especially if they can
be linked to intermediate objectives. Literacy programs should
seek ways to tap into such aspirations, and initial efforts
at goal-setting should not be restricted in ways that might
exclude or devalue these more nebulous but still-important
student goals.
- Learners benefited from different types of sponsors —
individuals who provided continuing encouragement and support.
Literacy programs could help students identify people who
can play these roles and could support sponsors’ efforts.
Because
most adult learners face many challenges outside the literacy
program, problems may interrupt participation, and disappointments
may undermine motivation. Early experience in the persistence
study suggests that students can benefit from different types
of sponsors. Personal sponsors are often family members
or close friends who have a long-term relationship with a
student and can provide continuing emotional, literacy, and
informational support. Intermediate sponsors typically
play a supportive role through a student’s participation
in a religious, social, self-help, or educational institution.
Official sponsors are professionals such as social
workers, welfare case managers, literacy staff members, or
parole officers who are providing intermittent, targeted institutional
support to students. Library literacy programs can assist
students in identifying individuals and organizations to serve
in sponsoring roles and can aid sponsors in their efforts.
- Learners see library literacy programs as caring and
respectful and, hence, as different from other educational
or social service organizations with which they are involved.
Library literacy programs need to preserve this personalized
atmosphere while simultaneously emphasizing more intensive
participation.
Directors of the LILAA programs reported
that many students were demoralized by the feeling that schools
or other program providers did not treat them with respect
or strive to meet their needs. In response, and noting that
many students are members of minority groups, directors have
attempted to create a climate that — unlike mainstream
institutions — reflects students’ cultural experiences
and values. Many students report that libraries feel different,
offering them a caring and respectful setting in which to
improve their literacy skills and express themselves. At the
same time, the LILAA initiative and the early experience in
the first program year support the need to strengthen instruction,
provide cultural diversity training to tutors, and build a
community that is open and communicative. Libraries should
be careful to preserve their existing atmosphere as they work
to strengthen these aspects of literacy programs.
Implications of the Findings for the Project
This initial research has also highlighted
several key themes that cut across the literacy programs in
the LILAA persistence study. At times in this report, findings
challenge both the stereotypical views of what “all”
literacy programs and students look like and the contention
that all programs are different because of unique local circumstances.
Future research will continue to explore both the diversity
of programs and people and the patterns of circumstances and
behavior. In addition, the research will continue to explore
whether and how library literacy programs have come to understand
the attractions of participation for students and the barriers
they face and have crafted effective strategies to increase
the benefits and reduce the costs of participation.
The findings of this interim report set
the stage for further analysis to be presented in a final
report scheduled for the fall of 2003. That report will focus
on five questions:
- What are the key factors supporting and inhibiting
participation in adult literacy programs? What are the
implications of these factors for the design of strategies
to improve learner persistence?
- Over time, how did the sites in the persistence study
change their operations to support student persistence more
effectively? What innovations were strengthened or put
in place during the second and third year of the initiative?
What operational lessons emerged as programs worked to support
improved persistence?
- As the reforms took effect, did student persistence
improve over time? Did learners who entered the LILAA
programs during this later period persist longer or participate
more intensely? Were there differences among types of students?
Were there differences across the sites?
- Are there types of innovations that appear to be especially
promising as ways to improve student persistence? What
efforts and resources were needed to put these innovations
in place? What are the implications for future program design
and operations?
- What is the relationship between participation in
library literacy services and improved literacy skills?
What were the gains in literacy achievement test scores
between the initial testing of students and a follow-up
test? Did students who participated more in services show
greater gains? Were there types of students who showed especially
strong gains? Who showed little or no gains? What are the
implications for program design?
The upcoming research will also explore
how library literacy programs fit within the broader adult
education system.
Each of these questions breaks new ground
for program operations and research on adult literacy. The
answers will help program operators and funders more effectively
serve adults who face serious barriers to full participation
in the nation’s economy and civic life.
|
