ResearchOnTech

From LiteracyTentWiki

[Note: other ALE Wiki technology pages which may be of interest include: DistanceAndPersistence, ClassroomPractices and TechGlossary ]

Contents

[edit]

What does research tell us about how low-literate adults use the Internet?

  • Nielsen Findings, 2005 "Summary: Lower-literacy users exhibit very different reading behaviors than higher-literacy users: they plow text rather than scan it, and they miss page elements due to a narrower field of view." Lower-literacy users' approach to web-page reading is radically different from higher-literacy users. This research, conducted by Jakob Nielsen, is sponsored by Pfizer, which is trying to make its consumer health information understood by a broader audience. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050314.html
  • Children's Partnership Studies, 2001, 2003.
The 2001 study includes findings about how adults want to use or do use the Internet and how this differs from how children and youth use it. http://www.childrenspartnership.org/pub/low_income/index.html
The 2003 study "includes research and recommendations to encourage the creation of low-barrier content and the careful evaluation of existing content, to ensure that low-income and underserved individuals find a wide array of the online resources they want most." http://www.contentbank.org/addition_research.asp
  • Zarcadoolas Christina, Mercedes Blanco, and John F. Boyer. "Unweaving the Web: an Exploratory Study of Low-Literate Adults' Navigation Skills on the World Wide Web." Journal of Health Communication, 7 (2002): 309­324. This study is available on the Web, but at a charge, unless you access it through a library service. It is one of the most systematic studies of how low-literate adults use the Web.
  • Rosen, David J. 1995. Adult literacy researcher, David J. Rosen, with a National Institute For Literacy Leadership Fellow grant, studied how adult learners were using -- or wanted to use -- the Internet. http://www.alri.org/pubs/learnerfocusgroups.html
[edit]

What do research and professional wisdom tell us about the value and impact of integrating technology into the classroom?

[edit]

What do research and professional wisdom tell us about the use of Distance Learning (DL)?

[edit]

Project IDEAL

This is a multi-year, USDOE-funded consortium of over twenty states that are using distance learning in adult basic education, adult secondary education and ESL/ESOL http://projectideal.org. Working Papers, Pennsylvania Distance Learning Project Reports, and other publications will be found at http://projectideal.org/publications_resources/research_reports.html

Working Papers include:

Petty, L. I, Shafer, D., & Johnston, J. (2004). Beyond the Classroom: Six States Develop Distance Programs for Adult Learners (Working Paper 6). Download (54 pages, 717k)

Johnston, J. (2004). A Pilot Test of Study Groups: Professional Development for Experienced Distance Teachers (Working Paper 5). Download (33 pages, 1.4mb)

Petty, L. I., Shafer, D., & Johnston, J. (2004). Exploring Policy Issues and Options in Distance Education for Adult Learners (Working Paper 4). Download (25 pages, 314k)

Petty, L. I., (Ed.) (2004). Using Assessment to Guide Instructional Planning for Distance Learners (Working Paper 3). (1) P. Carmen and L. Forlizzi, The Use of Checklists to Assess Adult Learners: Examples from Pennsylvania; (2) K. McCoy and L. Reese, Using Portfolios to Assess Student Progress: Ohio Uniform Standardized Portfolio for Adult Education; and (3) J. Johnston and S. Lonn, Using Online Quizzes to Assess Student Progress. Download (34 pages, 399k)

Johnston, J., (2004). Measuring Seat Time and Educational Progress in Distance Education (Working Paper 2). Download (34 pages, 501k)

Young, S. J., Johnston, J., & Hapgood, S. (2002). Assessment and Accountability Issues in Distance Education for Adult Learners (Working Paper 1). Download (37 pages, 472k); Executive Summary (4 pages, 207k)

Pennsylvania Distance Learning ProjectResearch Reports include:

Petty, L. I., & Johnston, J. (2003). Adult Education in Non-Classroom Settings: A Pilot Test in Pennsylvania. Phase III: October, 2002-June, 2003: Executive Summary. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Download (6 pages, 148k)

Petty, L. I., & Johnston, J. (2002). Adult Education in Non-Classroom Settings: A Pilot Test in Pennsylvania. Phase II: October, 2001-June, 2002. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Download (49 pages, 238k); Executive Summary (4 pages, 254k)

Petty, L. I., & Johnston, J. (2001). Adult Education in Non-Classroom Settings: A Pilot Test in Pennsylvania. Phase I: Jan-June, 2001. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Download (23 pages, 52k); Abstract (1 page, 11k)

Other resources include:

Askov, E., Johnston, J., Petty, L. I., & Young, S. J. (2003). Expanding Access to Adult Literacy with Online Distance Education. Cambridge, MA: NCSALL, Harvard University. Download (109 pages, 672k)

Johnston, J., & Toms Barker, L. (Eds.) (2002). Assessing the Impact of Technology in Teaching and Learning: A Sourcebook for Evaluators. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Download (191 pages, 424k)

Johnston, J. (2001). The Potential of Technology in Adult Basic Education. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Download (4 pages 54k)

Johnston, J., Young, S. J., & Petty, L. I. (2001). National Field Test of Workplace Essential Skills. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Download (74 pages, 147k); Executive Summary (7 pages, 25k); Abstract (2 pages, 16k)

Johnston, J., Petty, L. I., & Young, S. J. (2001). Using TV411 in a Facilitated Group. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Download (72 pages, 147k); Abstract (2 pages, 12k)

Johnston, J., Petty, L. I., & Young, S. J. (2000). Using TV411 at Home: A Pilot Test of Home View and Outreach Models. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Download (87 pages, 786k); Abstract (1 page, 7k)

Johnston, J., & Young, S. J. (1998). LiteracyLink Pilot Test, Fall 1998. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Download (83 pages, 356k)

Johnston, J., Brzezinski, E., & Stites, R. (1996). Executive Summary of the Evaluation of the Pilot Implementation of Crossroads Café. Download (7 pages, 2.31mb)

Johnston, J., Brzezinski, E., & Stites, R. (1995). Crossroads Café: Evaluation of the Fall 1995 Pilot Implementation. Download (41 pages, 1.41mb)

[edit]

TECH21

http://tech21.org/

Tech21 was a three-year, national technology lab research and demonstration project which ended in March, 2005. Some of the research was on distance learning, including professional development for teachers who use distance learning, and professional development delivered through distance learning. For example:

[edit]

Massachusetts Anywhere Anytime ABE DL Project

[edit]

Meeting of the Minds Symposium

December, 2004. Sacramento, CA
[edit]

National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL)

If you have other adult education distance learning research that should be listed here, please add it.

[edit]

What do research and professional wisdom tell us about the use of Distance Learning (DL) in the classroom?

But....isn't this a contradiction? If distance learning has the teacher and learner separated by space and possibly time, what does it mean to have distance learning in the classroom? Here are some examples of how distance learning is used in adult literacy education (including English language learning) classrooms:

  • In the classroom or computer lab, students learn how   to use distance learning, and then they can enroll in distance learning courses when they complete classroom learning, in between classes, or while they are enrolled in class. Students who learn how to use distance learning in the classroom can, if they need to "stop out," stay enrolled in the program using its distance learning option, and then return to class when their schedules and lives can accommodate this.
  • Students take college prep (or regular college) courses online, while they are enrolled in a GED or adult diploma preparation or transition-to-college program. They do this from their program's computer lab, from a computer in their classroom, from home, from work, or in a library or community computing center.
  • An ESOL student who wants supplementary instruction could use videotapes, CD-ROMs or, in some cases, on-line instruction from:

For more information on these and other adult education distance learning products see http://alri.org/litlist/dl.html

[edit]

Is supplemental (blended) DL instruction an effective learning tool?

Note: the emphasis of this question is on classroom or face-to-face tutorial plus  online or video instruction, also known as a blended model. Supplemental, technology-based instruction, could be offered anywhere outside class: in a lab at the same or different site as the class or tutorial; viewed on a cd, dvd, videotape player or on the Web at home, in a library or community computing center, or at work; or anywhere on a portable dvd player, ipod or other portable learning assistant.

Early studies from California and Pennsylvania would suggest that it is effective:

1. A 2003 Sacramento County Office of Education TECH21 study comparing four learning approaches found that those which showed the most learning gains used distance learning materials:

  • Learners studying English For All (EFA) online with an online instructor for several hours per week were second only to a classroom course using supplementary EFA materials that met for 15 hours a week, and
  • A second classroom and computer lab, which did not use EFA materials, were included as control groups. The study concluded that "…adult intermediate level ESL students in all models made better progress using English For All than did the control groups in classroom and lab settings using other curricula.'" Porter, Paul English For All: Comparing Four Models of Delivery Working Paper, Year 1, September, 2003. Sacramento County Office of Education, San Juan Adult Education. TECH21.

2. A 2003 report on the use of California 5% funds by Dennis Porter (no relation to Paul Porter) had similar findings (see below):

“Conclusions. Over the last eight years the California Innovation Program initiative and distance learning have become well accepted parts of adult basic education. The data reported here indicate that the original goal of increasing access to learning opportunities continues to be addressed. The program has increased access to a variety of groups who would have a difficult time attending traditional in classroom courses. The Innovation Program Initiative has offered significant and meaningful alternatives for adults —

  • needing more practice of skills to achieve mastery,
  • having work and family obligations that make attending a regular class time difficult,
  • lacking the full confidence to participate in a large classroom setting in front of other students,
  • wanting the participation, assistance, and support of their families in their learning,
  • learning more effectively from video, audio, and web–based media when moving at their own pace, and
  • other groups who can not access traditional classroom programs.

Comparative looks at classroom data indicate that the Innovation Programs are particularly successful in providing ESL learning opportunities and that the number of ESL learners successfully served in Innovation Programs has increased by over 16,000 in the last year alone where data are available (2001 – 2002).

Video and audio checkout programs were the most common delivery modalities followed by online instruction. Telecourses may serve the largest numbers per class, but only anecdotal data are available on overall numbers.

English as a second language instructional programs represent the bulk of the Innovation Program enrollments (93.3%) in 2001 – 2002. Los Angeles County adult schools dominate the enrollment statistics (75.7%). Women represent two thirds (65.4%) of the basic education participants in the 2001 – 2002 Innovation Programs.

In 2001 – 2002 age group participation was balanced between the 21–30 (30.2%) and the 31–40 (29.6%) age groups. Hispanics accounted for 60.2% of the 2000 – 2001 enrollments with Asians being 21.3% of the enrollments. Spanish accounted for 66.6% of the primary language spoken.

Over 43% of the Innovation Programs participants reported having nine or less years of schooling. Over half (52.9%) of the 2001 – 2002 Innovation Program participants reported having no earned degrees with 24.8% having high school diplomas or GEDs. Over 71.5% of the learners reported that improving basic skills or their English skills were their primary reasons for enrolling in 2001 – 2002.

ESL participant progress was better than adult school classroom programs for the same period. Overall Innovation Program ESL/ESL citizenship programs’ reading mean learning gains and ESL/ESL citizenship listening gains with one scoring range exception were better than the classroom programs. (Emphasis added)

Tested learners in the Innovation Programs’ ESL/ESL–Citizenship programs showed higher mean learning gains for the <180, 181–200, and 211–220 CASAS scoring ranges than the traditional classroom learners.

The Innovation Programs show greater gains in the < 180 and 181–200 scoring ranges in the CASAS pre–post listening tests than classroom based learning. However, the adult school classroom programs show the same mean learning gain (6.7 points) overall.

The Innovation Programs follow the same accountability requirements as class–based apportionment programs. Over the past two years the Innovation Programs have been successful in standardizing their reporting procedures, while still maintaining alternative instructional delivery methods. All Innovation Program students are now in the TOPSPro system, and all programs are using a standardized format for both program applications and annual evaluation. This format makes gathering of data and program monitoring more substantive and meaningful. Pre and post testing is more difficult than in traditional settings.

In our judgment the Innovation Programs continue to meet the three crucial benefit–cost criteria necessary to be accepted by adult education practitioners and the California Department of Education. They are:
1. Effectiveness — CASAS pre – post test data indicate that the Innovation Programs’ ESL program participants, on average, show substantial learning increases in reading and listening. The ABE/ASE participants show learning gains consistent with historical data.
2. Efficiency — Participant and program cost data indicate that the Innovation Programs are cost effective.
3. Equity — Reported years in school, primary language, reading and listening scores on entry, and ethnic data indicate that lower level, often hard–to–serve learners are the primary participants in the Innovation Programs.
This is the third year that these similar summary conclusions have been reached. This indicates the continued success of the initiative.

One major missing piece of information is the extent to which learners are served in distance learning programs only and the extent to which they are enrolled in both classroom and Innovation Programs. We refer to this second option as blended or supplemental learning when combined with classroom instruction. Both interventions are useful and appropriate. However, we would like to draw more informed conclusions about them. Another area for future study might be effective ways to form consortiums or other methods to bring Innovation Programs via distance learning to more remote locations.

In addition to increased access and service to underserved populations, reports from participating adult education sites have also indicated numerous “spin–off” benefits to the continued development and provision of Innovation Programs. These benefits have included:
• Development of an ever increasing number of excellent video programs, particularly for ESL, developed both by private firms and by programs themselves.
• Establishment of an effective practice for some students of enhancing classroom instruction with video check out (termed “blended instruction”) and other distance education methods to supplement their in–class learning.
• Fewer ESL “no–shows” for students enrolling in Innovation Programs (10.1% to 16.6%) than the traditional classroom programs.

Local Innovation Program operators have many stories of how their programs have introduced adult education to people who would not otherwise attend classes, enabled learners to meet the complex demands of family, work and learning, and introduce the possibilities of multi–media learning to classroom teachers.

After eight years these programs can no longer be considered “demonstrations.” It is time to more fully integrate the traditional classroom and the innovative distance learning programs into the overall adult school instructional strategies.”

Porter, Dennis, The California Adult Education 2001-2003 Innovation and Alternative Instructional Delivery Program, A Review Published by the California Distance Learning Project, California State University, Dominguez Hills School of Education June, 2003 Pages 42-44 http://www.otan.us/browse/index.cfm?fuseaction=doc&catid=2687&ref=3493

Also see: Porter, Dennis, California Adult Education 2000 - 2002 Innovation and Alternative Instructional Delivery Program OTAN Doc. Code/Section DE0021 / PT05 Outcomes and Scores Section http://www.otan.us/browse/index.cfm?fuseaction=section&catid=2687&ref=3362&recno=5359

More information on supplemental/distancelearning research from California 5% projects will be found at Innovation and Alternative Instructional Delivery Program http://www.cdlponline.org/fivepercent.htm

Here's a description of what's available:

On July 1, 1993, AB 1943 became law (Education Code 52522), allowing adult education programs, after approval by California Department of Education, to use up to 5% of their block entitlement for innovative techniques and nontraditional instructional methods with new technologies.

Learn more about CDE's Innovation and Alternative Instructional Delivery Program:

3. Computer-Supported ESL Instruction For Adults: A Quasi-Experimental Study Of Usability, Listening Skill Gains And Technological Literacy, a study by Dawn Hannah, Ricardo Diaz, Lynda Ginsburg, and Christine Hollister, NCAL (2004) "was conducted with a group of adult English language learners at the intermediate level (although a 'relatively well-educated sample,' based on years of schooling, who valued independent learning and technological literacy skills), nearly half of whom had never used a computer to learn English before. A quasi-experimental design was used, and though substantial data were collected, the sample size was small enough to limit this to what would be termed an exploratory study."

The findings from the study by Hannah et. al show that those ESOL students who used any of the three listening software programs (whose costs ranged from high-end to free) made greater gains than those who only went to class.

[edit]

What is m-learning, and is this an effective DL and classroom tool?

A May, 2005 article in Public Technology on mobile learning (m-learning) describes how in the U.K. advanced cell phones and pda's are being used by youth for learning basic skills and other skills.

http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2869

The article refers to a report done on this :

Attewell, Jill. Mobile Technologies and Learning: A technology update and m-learning project summary. Technology Enhanced Learning Research Centre. Learning and Skills Development Agency 2005 which can be downloaded in .pdf from http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/pdf/041923RS.pdf

David J. Rosen
May 9, 2005

From: djrosen@comcast.net
Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:3591] Telephone Language Learning Software
Date: May 20, 2005 10:44:15 PM EDT
To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov

NIFL-Technology and NIFL-ESL Colleagues,

I found this article, in the May 20th eMedia Wire, about a toll-free telephone learning system capable of processing student essays by telephone, and returning instant holistic scores, intriguing. The article gives the web site (a moodle application) which has the assignments and the toll free number. If you want to try it, you will be asked for a pin number. I punched in 1234 on my phone and it worked, so you may be able to use this to try out the system. (You will not get the results -- you have to be registered for that.) The phone number of developer, Miami Dade College Professor Stephen Donahue, is given in the article in case you have questions.

Here's a paragraph from the article:

"The telephone learning system consists of 11 activities covering a spectrum of learning: Spelling, Multiplication Tables, Dictation, Tongue Twisters, Background Knowledge ("What is the capital of California?, etc.") and free responses for writing and speech topics. Activities involve both listening and actual voice output. The Web is an integral part of the phone system, and allows students to pre-view assignments, and get post-results, which are then emailed to them. Once the student's audio writing samples are converted to text, they are processed using an automatic essay evaluation program called California Electronic Writer, currently in use in California school districts. "

Free or low-cost internet telephony (by computer) and free evening and weekend minutes on some mobile phone plans means that a technology like this (even if the phone number weren't toll free) might be available for free to students who have cell phones or access to computers at home or work -- or in (some) program computer labs,

I am intrigued by this. I see it as just the beginning of language learning applications by telephone.

Would your students use this? And what do you think of this?


http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/5/emw242815.htm

David J. Rosen
djrosen@comcast.net

[edit]

Where can I find research on the use of technology in adult education?

TechResearchSummaries
Retrieved from "http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/ResearchOnTech"