Toward the Goal of Adult Literacy

Daniel A. Wagner
National Center on Adult Literacy
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA

In 1990, America's governors reached an historic consensus on a set of national educational goals as targets for the year 2000. As part of Goals 2000 (P.L. 103-227, 1994), there is one goal that focuses specifically on the lifelong education of adults. This goal, Goal 6, is defined as follows: "By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship."

Under this definition, the business orientation of the governors that produced these goals tended to push the specific objectives more in the vocational direction. Thus, specific objectives include (a) strengthened connections between education and work, (b) enhanced worker training, (c) improvement in mid-career training, (d) promotion of community colleges, (e) critical thinking skills among college graduates, and (f) increased school-based programs for parents? education. Nonetheless, most observers (including the Goals Panel that produces the annual update), tend to focus on the key target of Goal 6, namely that " . . . every adult American shall be literate." Given this tendency, and that sections on vocational training, worker skills, and higher education would each be a major research topic, this chapter will focus on the core topic of adult literacy.

While Goal 6 was naturally applauded by those who work in the literacy community, much more national attention (and nearly 15 times the budgetary resources) has been devoted to the other goals that focus almost exclusively on improving the formal K-12 school system. Now, with a new Adult Education Act, welfare reform, and renewed debate over Goals 2000 and the reform and restructuring of America?s schools, the question of low literacy in America needs renewed attention. The relative lack of focus on adult literacy needs is even more striking when we consider that the estimated population of adults in need of retraining, up-skilling, or developing even the most basic literacy skills is estimated to be about the same as that of the entire national school-aged population, about 40-50 million persons. This almost startling contrast between resources allocated and population needs is one of the best kept secrets in American education today.

In the 1960s, the United States was widely considered to be one of the most literate countries in the world, with a U.N. listed "literacy rate" of nearly 99%?this in contrast to many developing countries with rates of 50% or lower. Yet in 1993, the first report from the federally funded National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS; Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993), the most comprehensive study of its kind, painted a quite different picture. The so-called good news was that nearly 95% of adult Americans could read at a fourth-grade level or better, showing that illiteracy in its most basic form was relatively low; the bad news was that nearly half of all adult Americans scored in the lowest two levels of literacy, levels that the National Educational Goals Panel has stated are well below what American workers need to be competitive in the global economy.

Although the NALS findings made headlines, research shows that we are making relatively modest progress in achieving a fully literate society. The NALS data, which is often cited in the annual National Educational Goals Report (National Educational Goals Panel, 1995), indicated that nearly 25% of America's adults with an average of 10 years of formal schooling had fourth-grade literacy skills (or lower). Among urban minority groups, fewer than 50% of the children complete tenth grade! Low achievement in schools, early dropout from schools, along with the increased flow of poorly educated immigrants, fill the rolls of low literate American adults at least as fast as adult education programs try to empty them through remediation and retraining. In other words, low literacy must now be seen as a chronic feature of the American educational landscape, with all the well-known statistical relationships with increased children's school failure, lower worker productivity, crime, and welfare. This is not to say that America?s education programs for children and adults do not provide important skills, but rather that the programs available today are not meeting the constantly growing literacy needs.

Working in the only field of education which utilizes substantial numbers of volunteers, and with a funding support base that is only a small fraction of the per capita investment in K-12 schooling, literacy professionals and their agencies often (correctly) perceive their domain as underfunded. This feeling among many professionals comes at the same time when many federal officials, the press, and the public wring their hands at the "literacy problem," which will simply not go away. The discrepancy between the size of the problem and its limited funding base is an important factor in understanding why literacy work is not further advanced in this country.

In spite of such funding difficulties, the last decade has produced important new approaches to understanding literacy, and making inroads into better learning and instruction. Psychologists and other social scientists have played a crucial role in many of these recent efforts.

Ever since the first studies of reading, and the first assessments of school achievement, psychology has been at the heart of the science of literacy learning. However, the field of adult education, whose professionals make up much of the staff of adult literacy programs, has been relatively detached from psychological science. During the last half-century, adult education and adult literacy have been largely dominated by those who have seen literacy not so much as a set of skills to be learned, but rather as a human right, and a mode of communication and empowerment, with less focus on pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment than, say, the field of children?s reading and school-based learning. These are subjective views, of course, but they lend credence to the oft-observed comment that the fields of children's reading and adult literacy have never connected very well.

Thus, while psychological theory and research (it is argued here) have a direct and relevant role to play in promoting literacy in this country and elsewhere (and in most of the other national goal domains where psychologists have been quite active), until recently, relatively few educational (or other) psychologists have sought to enter this field, largely due to the importance placed to date on adult education methods and ideologies. This situation has begun to change, at least in part as a result of the designation of adult literacy as a national educational goal as well as the continued recognition of the link between education and economic productivity.

As in all areas of education, the learner and his/her context are fertile ground for those trained in psychology and its many specialties. Indeed, at first glance, adult literacy is quite similar to children's literacy, in which psychologists have played leading roles for many decades. In the area of children's reading, psychological approaches are seen in the study of word recognition, cognitive models of reading acquisition, individual differences research and measurement, reading disabilities, and so on (see, for example, Barr, Kamil, Mosenthal, & Pearson, 1991).

However, there are certain distinctive features in the field of adult literacy that distinguish it from the psychological approaches to children?s reading. It is first useful to try to examine the demographics of the American population of potential adult literacy learners (that is, those who are in need of adult education, even if they are not in programs). According the 1993 NALS study, such adults are disproportionately from minority and non-native English-speaking households, but the modal low-literate adult is White, has less than a 10th-grade education, is likely to be employed, but is in the lower fourth of the U.S. income scale. More likely than not, this person has had a negative experience with his/her schooling, and dropped out before obtaining a high school diploma. This group of adults is about evenly divided by gender, and a significant fraction of the group reports having experienced ?problems? in learning to read in school. When seen in this context, it is clear that the ?target population? of adult literacy education may be seen as rather different from the population of American children learning to read; in the case of the adult learner, the targeted adult population probably has more in common with the population of disadvantaged children in today?s schools.

In addition to such individual and social differences, there are a number of critical distinctions between adult and children?s (K-12) education in terms of the learning environment. Most importantly, adults in literacy programs almost always participate on a voluntary basis, while children are in school on a compulsory basis (though it is also the case that certain workfare, prison, and welfare programs put a premium on adult education programs, making them nearly compulsory). As ?volunteers? in education, adults can and do exercise the right to leave programs at will, often making their learning experiences sporadic and filled with gaps in which what is learned may well be lost (Wagner, 1994).

This motivational dimension, which contrasts the formal (children's) with the non-formal (adults?) educational programs, can be seen in both positive and negative ways from a perspective of the "desire to learn." While research to date has not focused on a direct comparison of motivational dispositions in these two learning environments, there is substantial research demonstrating the importance of motivation across individuals and programs for adult learning. According to one recent study (Development Associates, 1995), the majority of learners in adult education programs typically stay no longer than six weeks before terminating their program of study, even though this time is almost always insufficient for substantial basic skills learning (and personal goals) to be met. Data also show that many adults re-enroll in programs, in a cycle that tends to prolong low-level and sporadic acquisition over relatively long periods of time (Venezky et al., 1996).

On motivational issues, it may be seen that psychological theory can play an important role. Much of the literature on the psychology of student motivation is crucial to this domain. Just to take one example, metacognition (learners? knowledge about their own learning processes) has been thought to be an important factor in children?s motivational processes and school learning (Flavell, Miller, & Miller, 1993). In the domain of adult learning, Paris and Parecki (1993) were able to show how improved understanding of adults' own understandings (metacognition) of their learning styles can lead to new models for interventions that support adults' ability and desire to learn in adult education settings. Other research suggests that policymakers also control some important keys to supporting the motivation of adult learners, such as through the creation of learning incentives. This has been demonstrated in a number of industrialized nations by altering tax incentives (Hirsch & Wagner, 1994), as well as in the United States in certain businesses, by pay-for-learning schemes (Hart-Landsberg & Reder, 1993).

Overall, recent years have seen a substantial growth in the research base of adult literacy and lifelong learning. Significant examples of this research and development may be seen in the work generated by the federally funded National Center on Adult Literacy (NCAL) at the University of Pennsylvania. While it is not possible to summarize the dozens of research reports and technical papers from NCAL, the following overview of selected findings can give a sense of the nature of the research and the important roles that psychological (and social science) theory has played in reconceptualizing better approaches to achieving the national educational goal of a fully literate America.

A. Literacy Instruction and Measurement

Over the past five years, sufficient data have been collected on adult literacy students to demonstrate that gains in basic skills, particularly reading, are on the average fairly small, and that remarkably little relationship exists between performance change and time spent ("seat time") in class. This latter result is due in part to the limited number of hours that the average adult spends in instruction, sometimes a period of time too short to expect measurable progress (Venezky, 1995). In addition, aggregated data on performance change tend to mask the considerable diversity of goals and abilities that are found in adult literacy programs. For example, some participants in ABE programs are over 60, retired, and primarily interested in the adult learning experience; others are recent high school dropouts, some with learning disabilities; still others have ESL needs (see later section), but many may wish to reach high school graduation or GED levels in reading, writing, and mathematics.

The area of adult mathematical literacy (or numeracy) should be mentioned in this context. This quantitative component of literacy instruction has traditionally received little attention from policymakers and program planners, and only now has become the focus of research attention. A recent national survey on adult mathematical literacy provision indicated that more than 80% of adult students receive math-related instruction, but less than 5% of teachers in programs are certified to teach mathematics, and very few receive preservice training in mathematics instruction (Gal, 1993; Gal & Schuh, 1994). Although a major reform is currently being undertaken in K-12 mathematics education, instructional strategies, teaching methods, and assessment practices in adult numeracy have lagged far behind. The close ties between professional development and the improvement of instruction is an issue to which we shall return later in this paper.

Much of adult literacy instruction today is, by philosophy and design, oriented toward the stated needs and interests of program participants, particularly at the adult basic education (ABE) level. Students enter and exit as they choose, and generally select their own goals and content interests. Whether this approach is effective for either the adult participants or the overall outcomes of adult literacy programs needs further serious inquiry. In addition, most instruction in ABE and adult secondary education (ASE) classes is spread thinly across multiple skill areas, rather than focused on particular skill needs (Venezky, Bristow, & Sabatini, 1993).

A further instructional issue concerns the degree of specificity of instruction. Current programs emphasize general basic skills instruction in reading, writing, and math, with the assumption that these skills will transfer to other contexts. Yet, research has accumulated over many years that shows that relatively little transfer occurs, and that a better balance is needed between functional context learning and basic skills practice (Mikulecky, Albers, & Peers, 1994). Research suggests that the motivation for learning basic skills is enhanced when embedded in the context of work functions, as has been demonstrated especially in the military (Sticht, 1995).

The central issues in literacy skill measurement are related to the identification of outcomes for adult literacy instruction and the design of valid and reliable testing instruments. At present, adult literacy testing is limited by a paucity of appropriate instruments, particularly for writing and mathematical knowledge, and a near total lack of normative data for the age ranges encountered in most programs. Especially problematic is the assessment of adults at the low end of the performance scales. Recent longitudinal research suggests that appropriate early diagnostic assessment may be more effective than the standardized test measures that have been used for decades for both evaluation and diagnostic purposes (Venezky, 1995; Venezky et al., 1993).

From this review, it follows that improved diagnostic and remediation models for adult literacy instruction need to be explored, with a shift of resources to incorporate more extensive diagnostic testing in literacy and basic skills programs. This would mean less standardized testing of the current variety and more emphasis on individualized needs. Further, some programs should be redesigned to emphasize a restricted number of skills at one time, with intensive instruction provided. Within the subject areas taught, an appropriate balance between functional context learning and basic skills practice is needed. Also, individual change in performance needs to be measured by both standardized basic skills tests that have been normed on adults and by applied tasks that are representative of everyday literacy challenges.

Research also suggests that learners should be identified according to instructionally relevant variables, such as (a) English as a second language (ESL) but literate in native language, (b) ESL but not literate in any language, (c) competent writing but poor math skills, (d) learning disabled, and so forth. By contrast most literacy programs presently classify learners according to their grade levels (as measured by standardized tests), even though the meaning of "grade level" for adults has been shown to be of dubious value (Venezky et al., 1993). Overall, the linkages between instruction, assessment, measurement, and professional development need to be given increased attention for the reasons enumerated above, but also because of the increased diversity in both programs and the populations served by them.

B. Workforce Literacy and Competitiveness

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), workplace skills and worker training are now among the major priorities of all industrialized nations (Hirsch & Wagner, 1994). In fact, when seen as a labor and training issue, literacy problems are actually better thought of as a cluster of related problems calling for quite different solutions. Although business, union, and taxpayer resources for workplace literacy education have grown, service is still available to only a fraction of the individuals who need it. Most service is provided through large employers and unions with taxpayers providing a lesser degree of support (Mikulecky, 1995). Workers in small businesses, unemployed, between jobs, or having special difficulties (e.g., ESL or learning disabilities) often have no access to literacy training at all. When service is offered, the most in need are the least likely to take advantage of it. Significant improvement for low-level literates requires hundreds of hours. Typical workplace literacy classes, however, are brief (20-50 hours) and not linked to subsequent opportunities for continued growth (Kutner, Sherman, Webb, & Fisher, 1991).

With limited or even diminishing resources, decisions may need to be made for maximizing returns for individuals and for the economy in general. Should, for example, persons with exceedingly low literacy abilities be placed in GED and workplace skills training programs when we have data suggesting that the likelihood of them making substantial gains is limited? On the one hand, the system should not exclude any individual on the basis of a literacy test or any other single test, nor should it guide that person to a narrow learning track that would lead, at best, to a marginal entry level job. On the other hand, expected learning gains from such individuals are often low. When more skilled and motivated workers are available, should we not ask the question of whether this group should get a higher priority for retraining for more advanced jobs? Naturally, it would be best to have sufficient funds to retrain everyone for well-paying jobs, but such funding is not likely to be available from either public or private sources, and moreover, many individuals who enter workplace training programs have learning disabilities and other barriers to literacy acquisition. How this issue is resolved involves moral and ethical decisions as well as educational ones.

A number of policy recommendations for workplace and workforce literacy education can be drawn from this brief review. First, the amount of service needs to be increased, with reallocation of resources to foster and reward consortia of businesses, unions, educators, and private groups that develop new cooperative ways to provide service to underserved populations. Second, there needs to be increased diversity in delivery systems, so that small to medium-sized businesses have as much relative opportunity to engage in worker education as do large corporations. Third, the overall quality of training programs needs attention; this could include linking literacy program goals and outcomes to quality assurance guidelines, which are now standard in businesses competing in the global economy. Finally, policymakers should consider the balance between individual skills and learning potential, the requirements for job skills, and rewards for learning new skills. A system that can maximize learner gains in light of employment needs is more attainable than has previously been imagined.

C. English as a Second Language

To date, there are no reliable figures on the number of adults in the United States who are in need of ESL services. Estimates based on data from the 1990 census and on the results of the NALS suggest that approximately 12-14 million adults have limited proficiency in the English language. Each year federal, state, and local agencies serve only about 1.8 million ESL adults (nearly half the total participation in adult education programs), and yet the demand for ESL services far exceeds the supply with literacy centers reporting very long waiting lists for ESL students. In fact, the demand for ESL services is so high that in many large urban centers it far exceeds the demand for standard ABE services (Chisman, Wrigley, & Ewen, 1993).

Furthermore, the adults who are enrolling in ESL classes across the nation are by no means a homogeneous group. Their reasons for attending ESL literacy programs are varied (e.g., to seek or maintain employment, to obtain the GED diploma, to assist children with school work, to gain entry into institutions of higher education, or to become licensed in the professions they practiced prior to immigrating to the United States). There is also much variability with respect to factors that potentially affect the manner in which adults learn and develop English literacy, such as experiences with formal schooling, previous exposure to English, and level of native language literacy.

The quality and efficiency of ESL literacy programs have been especially difficult to determine, as empirical research has only recently begun on how poorly educated adults acquire literacy in a second language (Carlo & Skilton Sylvester, 1996). One of the classic debates in this domain is the degree to which acquiring literacy in the native language facilitates adult ESL learners in acquiring literacy in English. Recent research suggests that adult learners from quite contrasting backgrounds (Spanish, Cambodian, and Korean) do benefit from their native language literacy skills (i.e., there was a transfer in basic reading skills from the first to the second literacy, irrespective of the contrasting scripts involved). Interestingly, speaking (oral comprehension) skills in English were less important for English literacy than has been previously thought. ESL adult learners could go directly to beginning English reading without becoming skilled English speakers (Carlo & Skilton Sylvester, 1994). It is only in recent years that the field of adult literacy has begun to realize that, like low literacy itself, the multilingual and ethnic fabric of America is likely to continue well into the future and, therefore, ESL literacy programs will become increasingly important.

In sum, the needs of ESL literacy services are large, indeed about half the current provision for adult literacy education in the United States. Based on current research, ESL will continue to be one of the major areas of literacy work in American adult education. Furthermore, if the thesis concerning the importance of tailoring instructional programs to learner profiles and interests is correct, then much of the English-centered legislation for ESL programs that has been favored over the past decades is likely to be counterproductive. In this context, adult education and K-12 bilingual education policy cannot and should not be equated. Adults will learn only when motivated, and motivation is related to the comfort and interest levels of the learners themselves. For example, recent research on language transfer suggests that there are numerous routes to adult second language literacy proficiency. Thus, determining improved information concerning the need and type of adult ESL services should be a high priority (Skilton Sylvester & Carlo, 1995). Research and development into the literacy learning processes of adult ESL learners, appropriate curricula, and especially the power of technology (see later section) are especially important in this domain.

D. Family Literacy

The number of literacy programs that involve intergenerational literacy activities for families has been steadily increasing during the past 30 years, with the beginning of Head Start in the 1960s, but especially in the last half-decade, with Even Start legislation in 1989-90. There is little consensus as yet on a single definition of family literacy, nor is there any agreed upon set of criteria for effective implementation of family literacy services. Therefore, one set of issues that is at the forefront of all family and intergenerational literacy programs concerns the definitions, philosophy, theoretical frameworks, and empirical bases of support for such programs (Gadsden, 1994).

At present, three programs in the United States have become popular models for family literacy services: the Kenan Trust Family Literacy Project, the Missouri Parents as Teachers Program, and Parents as Partners in Reading. These three programs illustrate key features of popular family literacy services, such as (a) beginning to provide help to families during the children?s infancy; (b) encouraging language development and interactive play as precursors to emergent literacy; (c) providing books, print materials, and lessons that are appropriate for the literacy levels of family members; (d) providing medical, social, and educational services that go beyond literacy learning activities; and (e) building feelings of self-efficacy in children and parents through success in literacy and collaboration with others. Many family literacy programs synthesize these principles with their own philosophical orientations and historical practices, thus creating a variety of eclectic programs. However, with recent changes in funding that favor family literacy, many programs appear to feel the need to label themselves as family literacy providers, without the benefit of either a coherent family instructional program or additional training (DeBruin-Parecki, Paris, & Seidenberg, 1995).

In spite of the growing popularity of and legislative funding increases for family literacy programs, the knowledge base in this area remains rather limited. We know relatively little about the ways that low-literate parents ought to (or even are able to) teach their children to read, to learn math, and how they ought to work with instructors (Thornburg, 1993). The available knowledge base to date stems largely from recent program evaluations, which focus more on cost and effectiveness of specific programs than on the dynamics of intergenerational learning and instruction. The only major evaluation study to date gave generally high marks to Even Start funded family literacy programs. This study showed that (a) family literacy programs may be more attractive than standard ABE programs to many low-income families (partly because they provide more services, such as child care); (b) the rate of GED completion was about twice as high as in regular adult education programs; and (c) perhaps most importantly, parents' expectations for their children's learning increased significantly (U.S. Department of Education, 1994).

In low-income communities where many family literacy programs are targeted for African American and other families of color, family or intergenerational literacy programs may offer some special hope for overcoming long-term socioeconomic problems, especially in terms of enhanced family support mechanisms. The research to date in related areas suggests that fostering change in these families will not, however, come quickly or easily, and that success will be largely dependent on the ability of the communities themselves to make such programs their own, as well as for the programs to link with other support mechanisms designed to help low-income families (see Gadsden & Wagner, 1994).

If the future of adult literacy depends significantly on the motivation of individuals to learn, then the growth and promise of family literacy is considerable. Family literacy programs can offer a fuller range of incentives than most other adult education programs simply because they intersect with more aspects of individuals' lives, especially in the crucial areas of child care and welfare. It would seem that we are at the beginning of what will likely be a decade of experimentation, similar to the early days of Head Start. As with Head Start, family literacy programs need to be properly field-tested and understood. Of particular importance will be the development of specialized training methodologies for family literacy instructors, who need to understand methodologies for teaching young children and adults and the interactional activities that are important for parent-child learning. Research suggests that there needs to be a particular emphasis on the cultural aspects of family literacy programs, since they are especially prevalent in the diverse minority communities (Puchner & Hardman, 1996). At the level of policy, family literacy programs need better coordination within the broader network of family support services.

E. Technology

Electronic technologies -- computers, wireless communications, videotapes, and the like -- are now becoming incorporated into elementary, secondary, business, and college level education. Adult literacy programs, in contrast, lag far behind in using these newer technologies for instruction, as several major reports, including a recent OTA report (U.S. Congress, 1993) and an NCAL (Hopey, Harvey-Morgan, & Rethemeyer, 1996) technology survey, have indicated.

The findings from the NCAL technology survey showed that many adult literacy programs have a foothold in technology, but to date primarily in the use of microcomputers for administrative purposes. Thus, while many adult literacy programs are able to address various administrative needs with technology, most do not have the funds to purchase the hardware and software required for instructional or communication purposes. The level of interest in expanding the use of technology, however, appears quite high among most practitioners?higher than many state and federal policymakers have recognized heretofore. It was also found that different population groups appear to have different degrees of access to computer technology. For example, ESL programs appear to have the least access to computer technology. The 1993 OTA study found that although a significant amount of technology existed in businesses, homes, schools, colleges, and libraries that might be tapped for literacy and learning, most of it was rarely shared or used in partnership with literacy programs.

Since the OTA report, one dramatic change can be seen in the growing number of adult literacy providers who are using on-line communications. Access to on-line resources and to the Internet has become increasingly easy and relatively low cost. A number of bulletin boards and information servers have sprung up, some of which are especially designed to fill the information needs in adult literacy. These technologies hold enormous promise for the future because they can reduce the isolation that many adult literacy providers and students experience, facilitate communication among staff and students within and between programs, increase access to high quality materials and emerging research, streamline administrative and reporting processes, and help to provide the delivery vehicle for innovative instructional and staff development approaches.

Both the OTA study and the NCAL survey found that economic considerations were perceived to be a major impediment to technology implementation in adult literacy programs. The NCAL survey showed that funding topped the list of constraints among service providers. But economics goes even further, by inhibiting the development of the market for adult literacy software. The OTA study found that total spending for adult literacy software in 1993 was only $15 million dollars, a tiny fraction of the resources spent on all educational software development. The market remains small due to a paradox: Few practitioners purchase adult literacy software because most offerings are of low quality or are inappropriate for use with adults, while software developers are reluctant to invest in product development because the market demand is so small (Harvey-Morgan, 1996).

As in other areas of education, technology applications appear to be very promising for the field of adult literacy. Potential technology solutions are well matched with the problems in the field: dispersed and diverse population of adult learners; limited and thinly distributed expertise in learning diagnosis; a need to connect learners and instructors interactively in an asynchronous manner that takes advantage of learners? needs for independence along with their unavailability for formal classroom instruction. There is much that can be done in this area.

According to the 1995 Goals Report, the ?good news? is that participation in adult education is up since 1990, but the ?bad news? is that this increase is almost entirely among those who are seeking postsecondary training, not among the disadvantaged. Not surprisingly, then, the Goals Report suggests that little progress has been made in improving adult literacy levels over the first half-decade since the national educational goals were established.

Furthermore, while each of the social sciences can play a role, psychology and psychologists have considerable expertise in many areas of relevance to adult learning and motivation, and can play a key role in helping improve the literacy situation in America. The relatively small impact of psychologists working on Goal 6 is more disciplinary tradition than it is requisite competencies resident in the field of psychology. Few psychology training programs place researchers or practitioners in adult literacy education settings, and few psychologists participate in professional associations that serve the adult literacy community. This situation can and should change.

As always, policymakers are increasingly faced with difficult choices on how to spend "social dollars." Awareness of adult literacy as a social issue has risen since 1980, and enrollment in programs has increased as well, but efforts to improve adult literacy have not brought the dramatic gains hoped for by policymakers, the literacy community, or the public. America?s literacy problems and needs are growing, not declining. While government investments in adult education climbed in the last decade, current legislative proposals are scheduled to cut back on adult literacy education just when the field is being to reinvigorate itself through innovation. Given its economic and social importance, as well as the impact of parent?s education on children?s learning in schools and in school completion itself (another national educational goal), the time has come to help more adults to read, and to become readers.

Literacy provision and educational efficiency are increasingly important development goals, and are part of this nation's national educational goals. Making better policy decisions is always subject to the limitations imposed by the reliability and validity of the data one can bring to bear on the problem addressed, and often the limitations of the research methodologies of those who collected the data. In the case of literacy, policymakers have been hampered not only by too little data but also by a failure to capture the varying types and levels of literacy extent in each society. Up to the present, the public has often been confused by simplistic and journalistic dichotomies, such as literacy versus illiteracy, which not only suggest inappropriate ways of conceptualizing human resources, but also limit the potential for more effective decision-making. The increased use of social science methodologies?especially those based in psychological theory and practice?can help to address the fundamental problems associated with literacy learning and instruction in this country.

Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Pearson, D. P. (Eds.). (1991). Handbook of reading research. Volume II. New York: Longwood.

Carlo, M. S., & Skilton Sylvester, E. E. (1996). Adult second language reading research: How may it inform assessment and instruction (Technical Report No. TR96-08). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy.

Carlo, M. S., & Skilton Sylvester, E. E. (1994). A longitudinal investigation on the literacy development of Spanish-, Korean-, and Cambodian-speaking adults learning to read English as a second language (Draft NCAL Report). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy.

Chisman, F. P., Wrigley, H. S., & Ewen, D. T. (1993). ESL and the American dream. Washington, DC: Southport Institute for Policy Analysis.

DeBruin-Parecki, A. D., Paris, S. G., & Seidenberg, J. (1995). Characteristics of effective family literacy programs in Michigan (Draft NCAL Report). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy.

Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development (3rd ed). New York: Prentice Hall.

Gadsden, V. L. (1994). Understanding family literacy: Conceptual issues facing the field (Technical Report No. TR94-02). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED347339; CE067320)

Gadsden, V. L., & Wagner, D. A. (Eds.). (1994). Literacy among African-American youth. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Gal, I. (1993). Issues and challenges in adult numeracy (Technical Report No. TR93-15). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED366746, CE065562)

Gal, I., & Schuh, A. (1994). Who counts in adult literacy programs? A national survey of numeracy education. (Technical Report No. TR94-09). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED377382, CE067845)

Hart-Landsberg, S., & Reder, S. (1993). Teamwork and literacy: Learning from a skills-poor position (Technical Report No. TR93-06). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED364747; CE065314)

Harvey-Morgan, J. (1996). Moving forward the software development agenda in adult literacy: A report on the Adult Literacy Software Development Conference (Practice Guide No. PR96-02). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED396151; CE071894)

Hopey, C., Harvey-Morgan, J., & Rethemeyer, R. K. (1996). Technology, and adult literacy: Findings from a survey on technology use in adult literacy programs (Draft NCAL Report). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy.

Hirsch, D., & Wagner, D. A. (Eds.). (1994). What makes workers learn? The role of incentives in workplace education and training. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Kirsch, I. S., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America: A first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Kutner, M., Sherman, R., Webb, L., & Fisher, C. (1991). A review of the national workplace literacy program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation.

Mikulecky, L., Lloyd, P., Horwitz, L., Masker, S., & Siemantel, S. (1996). A review of recent workplace literacy programs and a projection of future challenges (Technical Report No. TR96-04). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393968; CE071244)

Mikulecky, M., Albers, P., & Peers, M. (1994). Literacy transfer: A review of the literature (Technical Report No. TR94-05). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374340; CE067321)

National Center on Adult Literacy. (1995). Adult literacy: The next generation--An NCAL white paper (Technical Report No. TR95-01). Philadelphia, National Center on Adult Literacy, University of Pennsylvania. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. CE071994)

National Educational Goals Panel. (1995). National Educational Goals Report, 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Paris, S. (1993). Metacognitive aspects of adult literacy NCAL (Technical Report No.TR 93-09). Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy, University of Pennsylvania. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363734; CE064962)

Puchner, L. D., & Hardman, J. (1996, Fall). Family literacy in a cultural context: Southeast Asian immigrants in the United States. NCAL Connections, 1-3.

Skilton Sylvester, E., & Carlo, M. S. (1995, September). Survival is not enough: What adult ESL students in Philadelphia say about their literacy goals. NCAL Connections, 1, 6-7, 15.

Sticht, T. (1995). The military experience and workplace literacy: A review and synthesis for policy and practice (Technical Report No. TR94-01). Philadelphia: University of (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED380570; CE068430)

Thornburg, D. G. (1993). Intergenerational literacy learning with bilingual families: A context for the analysis of social mediation of thought. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(3), 323-352.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). National evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Report on effectiveness, analysis of highlights. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1993). Adult literacy and new technologies: Tools for a lifetime (OTA-SET-550). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. (1994). Goals 2000 (P.L. 103-227). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Venezky, R. L. (1995). Literacy assessment in the service of literacy policy (Technical Report No. TR95-02). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED396152; CE071895)

Venezky, R. L., Bristow, P., & Sabatini, J. (1993). When less is more: A comparative analysis for placing students in adult literacy classes (Technical Report No. TR93-08). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED363733; CE064961)

Venezky, R. L., Sabatini, J. P., Brooks, C., & Carino, C. (1996) Policy and practice in adult learning: a case study perspective (Technical Report No. TR96-07). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy.

Wagner, D. A. (1993, September). Myths and misconceptions in adult literacy: A research and development perspective. Adult Learning, 4 (7) 9-11.

Wagner, D. A. (1994). Use it or lose it?: The problem of adult literacy skill retention (Technical Report No. TR94-07). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, National Center on Adult Literacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED371240; CE066785)

Wagner, D. A. (1995, October 25). To read or not to read: The enduring question of low adult literacy in America. Education Week.