This appendix describes procedures used to review the research on adult literacy instruction and presents the studies that informed the committee’s deliberations. These reviews were conducted to augment a recent systematic review of adult literacy research (Kruidenier, MacArthur, and Wrigley, 2010). The appendix has five sections. Sections 1 through 4 describe the review procedures and studies gathered that have a focus on adult basic and secondary education and academically underprepared students. Following the introduction to Sections 1-4 are tables providing details of each reviewed study. Section 5 contains the complete reference list of the studies gathered.
Section 1. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction
Section 2. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction with English Language Learners
Section 3. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Qualitative Studies of Literacy Instruction
Section 4. Academically Underprepared College Students: Effectiveness and Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction
A. Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction
B. Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction
C. Effectiveness Studies with English Language Learners
D. Descriptive Studies with English Language Learners
Section 5. References
SECTION 1. ADULT BASIC AND SECONDARY EDUCATION: EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES OF LITERACY INSTRUCTION
The search for literature on literacy instruction for adults included a prior review, sponsored by the National Institute for Literacy (Kruidenier, MacArthur, and Wrigley, 2010), and targeted searches to augment these findings as needed to draw conclusions about the state of the research and needs for development. Electronic searches were conducted using Scopus and ERIC to locate additional studies for the years 1990-2010. Searches were conducted using the following single or crossed search terms: adult literacy, adult literacy instruction, literacy education, adult education, adult basic education, adult students, adults, reading instruction, decoding (reading), reading comprehension, reading processes, writing instruction, intervention, teaching methods, instructional effectiveness, program effectiveness, adult basic skills, adult secondary education, General Educational Development, GED, high school equivalency programs, community-based organizations, community colleges, prison, workplace, correctional, health, housing, English language learners, second language learners, second language learning, English as a Second Language (ESL), and English (Second Language).
Other references were found in the Cited Reference Search in the ISI Web of Science Social Science Citation Index and Google Scholar. To ensure identification of the most recent work, a manual search for the years 2008-2010 was conducted in the journals Adult Basic Education, Adult Education Quarterly, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of Second Language Writing, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, Reading and Writing, Reading Research Quarterly, Remedial and Special Education, and Scientific Studies in Reading. Literature considered for the review consisted of peer-reviewed journal articles and reviewed technical reports from known agencies. To be included in the review, material had to report information on the reading or writing abilities of adults in the United States with low literacy skills.
Studies of literacy instruction with adolescents were selected for the review only if the adolescents were taught alongside adults, or, if not, they received GED preparation. Studies of instruction with solely adolescent samples not preparing for the GED (e.g., Allen-DeBoer, Malmgren, and Glass, 2006; Houchins et al., 2008) were not included in the review. Generally, the term adults refers to individuals ages 18 and older, although in recent years adult literacy programs have also been serving students as young as age 16 (Hayes, 2000; Perin, Flugman, and Spiegel, 2006). Eligibility criteria for federally funded adult education programs specify that individuals must be ages 16 or older. In addition, national adult literacy surveys count individuals ages 16 and older as adults (Kutner et al., 2007). Therefore, for the purpose of this review, the term adults refers to ages 16 and older and thus includes older adolescents.
Studies on instructional effects could employ a variety of design and research methods, but they had to describe the nature of the reading or writing instruction and include direct assessments of outcomes in reading or writing. Studies that investigated literacy outcomes as a function of global instructional variables without a focus on instructional practices for teaching reading and writing (e.g., Fitzgerald and Young, 1997) were not included. Literature reviews (e.g., Rachal, 1984, 1995; Slavin and Cheung, 2003; Torgerson et al., 2005; Torgerson, Porthouse, and Brooks, 2003) and compilations of program descriptions (Beder, 1999; Medina, 1999) served as sources of information but were not included in the review.
To be included, the study must report at least one quantitative reading or writing outcome, using either a published, standardized test or an experimental measure that yielded a numerical score. Studies using student self-reports of reading or writing skills as a dependent measure (e.g., Darkenwald and Valentine, 1985) were excluded. In cases in which both literacy and numeracy were taught, only findings for reading or writing were included. Studies that combined outcomes for reading and math without disaggregating them (e.g., Boudett and Friedlander, 1997; Friedlander and Martinnson, 1996) were not included in the review of instructional outcomes.
If not otherwise stated in the research report, it was assumed that participants in studies of adult basic education or GED instruction spoke enough English so as not to require ESL classes. Among the studies with English language learners, only research reporting measured outcomes on reading or writing (not
oral language) was selected. A total of 248 references were screened for the review (including for English language learners), and 141 were selected for closer examination. Studies were excluded if they targeted only numeracy or other nonliteracy outcomes, focused on adults with reading disabilities who had completed secondary education, and had at least average literacy skills or if they were reporting the same data as another source selected for the review. Altogether, 107 studies were eliminated after screening. Most of the discarded references were assessment or instructional studies with adults with reading disabilities but not low literacy and studies of instruction with adult literacy populations outside the United States. (A parallel review was conducted to identify practices used in literacy programs for low-literate adults in other countries. These results are synthesized in Chapter 3 to provide insights into practices that may warrant further study with adults in the United States.)
SECTION 1. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction
|Reference||Instructional Goals||Practice and Skill Emphasis||Teacher Characteristics and Preparation||Participants||Design, Type of Data||Dependent Variables and Findings||Limitations|
|Alamprese (2009)||(1) Alphabetics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, spelling (emphasis varied), or (2) Assistance in reading real-life text||Discrete skills classrooms: Alphabetics alone or alphabetics plus other component skills, structured.following specific curriculum, or less structured. Meaning-making classrooms: Reading practice but little reading instruction, 24% of time spent in nonreading tasks.||N = 643, reading comprehension < 7th grade, attended 130 classrooms in 35 programs||Longitudinal, pre-post follow- up, nested sample, and correlation. Purposive sample.||6 norm-referenced tests, 5 reading, 1 spelling. Finding: Structured instruction in alphabetics with or without comprehension showed greatest gain, ES 0.370.42.|
|Alessi et al. (1982-1983)||Reading comprehension||Find information in text and paraphrase text. Computer-based instruction, PLATO software. 20 sessions, 2040 minutes x 4 days/week x 2 months.||Pre-GED students, reading grade levels 4-6, prison||Quasi-experimental. N = approx. 13 reading, N = approx. 18 control* (comparison group studied PLATO math). Experimental measures.||Experimental offline multiple-choice measures, alternate forms pretest-posttest: (1) finding information, paraphrasing text, (2) transfer task: find main idea. Finding: Treatment group increased 25%, control 3% (p <.01).||Only total N provided, N = 36, loss of N = 5 reading, specific N's not provided|
|Paraphrasing: Treatment increased 11%, control decreased 10%. Main idea N's for either group (lack of transfer in treatment group).|
|Askov and Brown (1992)**||Vocabulary, comprehension||Computer-assisted instruction based on workplace training manual, 100 hours. No treatment control.||N = 36, ABE students, workplace literacy program||Random assignment, pre-post, treatment control.||Experimenter-designed measures of workplace reading. Finding: Statistically significant gain on one but not the other measure, compared to control.|
|Batchelder and Rachal (2000)||Reading comprehension||Classroom- and computer-assisted instruction, details of instructional process not provided. 3 hours classroom, 1hour computer-based instruction x 4 weeks, 80 hours total.||N = 71, ages 1953, ABE (below 8th grade reading level) and GED students, maximum security prison||Experimental design. N = 71 randomly assigned to treatment or control. Control received only classroom instruction (no computers). Pre-post CASAS reading test (standardized measure).||Finding: Little change in CASAS scores pre to post, no difference pre-post change between treatment and control.||No information on nature of classroom or computer-assisted instruction|
|Berry and Mason (2010)||Written expression||Writing strategy "POW + TREE + COPS" covering pre-writing, organizing ideas, drafting and revising.||N = 4, adults in GED class, scored at least 1 SD below mean on Test of Written Language (TOWL), spontaneous writing subtest||Multiple-probe, multiple-baseline, across-subjects design. Experimental measure: Essay prompt.||Number of essay parts, number of transition words, number of descriptive words, essay length. Essay parts: Introduction, 3 reasons or main points, 2 or more details or explanations, and conclusion. Transfer measures: TOWL story writing probe, GED essay Finding: Essay length and quality improved for all subjects on experimental measure (all DVs). Greatest gain seen for organizing essays (essay parts, transition words). Transfer: 3 students showed high improvement on TOWL measure, 1 decreased; 3 of the 4 students took and passed||Design does not permit generalization about effectiveness. Researcher provided instruction.|
|GED writing test, other student did not take test.|
|Brock (1998)||Sight word recognition||Uses children's picture books beginning with 32-word book, progressing to 196-word book x 6 weeks. 8 x 90-minute individualized tutoring sessions incorporating reading and writing. Works with tutor: (1) previews book to determine subject; (2) generates key words; (3) creates text to accompany each picture; (4) re-reads generated text; (5) mini-lessons on letter-sound relationships, punctuation, and word endings; (6) revises, edits, and publishes (types) generated text.||N = 1, recruited from parent workshop, low-SES mother of 3 children, ages 815, had completed 11th grade, no prior literacy tutoring||Single-subject case study. Experimental measures: Responses from oral reading of children's picture books. Accuracy, self-corrections, repetitions, omissions.||Beginning and ending data with increasing longer texts, Table 3 (6-week period) recalculated to control for word length. Finding: Performance levels with differing texts session 1 and session 6: Accuracy: 93%, 91%. Self-corrections 3%, 4%. Repetitions 3%, 8%. Omissions 1 %, 2%. Qualitative data from video transcript: Subject can retell story from picture book.||No pre-post data. Data only from instructional sessions in which materials varied by session. Data on writing not reported. NOTE: Use of writing to improve reading supported by K-12 analysis (Graham and Hebert, 2010).|
|Cheek and Lindsey (1994)||Sight word recognition, comprehension||Treatment: Language experience and literature-based instruction, based on formal and informal assessment, authentic materials control. Use computers, controlled readers, and commercial workbooks. Both conditions self-paced, individualized.||N = 71, ages 1661, low-SES vocational technical students, 53% high school graduates, reading grade levels 3-5-8.5, mean 6.0||Random assignment pretest- posttest control group design. Comparison of diagnostic-prescriptive (treatment) and programmed instruction (control).||Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, alternate forms pre- and post-phonetic analysis, structural analysis, literal comprehension, inferential comprehension subtests. Finding: Within subject pre-post gain on all measures for diagnostic-prescriptive, none for control. Diagnostic-prescriptive gain superior to control only for inferential comprehension.|
|Diem and Fairweather (1980)**||Reading and vocabulary||Computer-assisted instruction, PLATO program. Control: Same content, delivered by lecture.||N = 30, ABE students in correctional setting||Quasi-experimental, pre-post||ABLE II, reading comprehension and vocabulary. Finding: No difference in treatment and control.|
|Gold and Horn (1982)||Alphabetics, sight word recognition, comprehension||(1) Language experience approach: Tutor records student's dictated material, uses as text for reading instruction. (2) Fernald method: Say and trace, then spell word from memory. (3) Comprehension and recreational reading techniques, not described. Individualized tutoring by volunteers. 90 minutes, 2 x week, 34 hours x 12-15 weeks.||12-hour training in "Directed Listening Language-Experience Approach," Fernald method, whole-word phonics (sic), comprehension techniques, and recreational reading program||N = 76, ages 1660, mean 4th grade reading level, included unspecified number of prison inmates||Experimental treatment and no treatment (waiting list) control. Standardized measures.||Oral vocabulary (antonyms, synonyms), word recognition, reading comprehension, and nonreading measures. Finding: Treatment showed statistically significant improvement on all measures. Control improvement on 5 of the 9 measures. Significantly more gain in treatment than control on 6 of the 9 measures. Treatment gained .5 reading grade level.||Little information on nature of instruction. No treatment control (Hawthorne effect not ruled out).|
|Gold and Johnson (1982)||Sight word recognition, vocabulary, reading comprehension||(1) Language experience approach: Tutor transcribes students' dictated material, uses as text for reading comprehension.||12-hour training in language experience, directed reading techniques, and record-keeping||N = 132, ages 13-71, below 5th grade reading level, included unspecified number of prison inmates||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design||Standardized word-recognition and vocabulary tests, listening comprehension subtest of published informal reading inventory, standardized||No control/comparison group|
|(2) Directed listening: Tutor reads published text aloud, asks questions, discusses. Individualized tutoring by volunteers. 60 minutes instruction, 2 x week, 16 hours||self-esteem scale. Finding: Statistically significant gain on all variables. Gain of 1.6 reading grade levels.|
|Greenberg (1998)||Alphabetics, sight word recognition, written expression||Writes alphabetic letters, phonemic discrimination, rhyme awareness, phoneme-grapheme correspondence s, word-family patterns, language experience (tutor writes from student dictation), sentence writing. Tutor reads aloud highinterest stories. Individualized tutoring. 1 hour, 2 x week, 4.5 months.||N = 1, African American female in her 50s, nonreader at onset of instruction||Single-subject case study, qualitative data, descriptions of student's growing competence, and examples of responses||Finding: By end of 4.5 months of tutoring, student was aware of meaning of "word," could identify 22 printed letters, recite 16 letters from memory, and could use phonemic information in reading and spelling.||Pre-post measures not administered. Author provided the tutoring and collected the data.|
|Greenberg et al. (2002)||Alphabetics, sight word recognition, fluency, vocabulary||Group instruction uses SRA/McGraw Hill Direct Instruction Corrective Reading curriculum, including phonological and orthographic awareness, pronunciation, decoding, word recognition, story reading, fluency, accuracy, vocabulary. 80 hours||Ongoing supervision by university faculty||N = 11, ages 21-71, 1.5-2.5 reading grade levels||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design||Standardized decoding and word-recognition tests, and whether or not moved to next level of program. Finding: 60% moved to next level, no change on standardized measures.||No control group|
|Greenberg et al. (2006)||Sight word recognition, fluency, reading comprehension||Teaches concept of genre, provides silent reading for most of class session, teacher reads in parallel to model silent reading. Teacher reads aloud, students follow silently, for portion of class time.||N = 27, ages 17-63, reading level grades 3-5||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design, standardized reading tests||Woodcock-Johnson subtests, Boston Naming Test, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Finding: Gain in reading fluency and expressive vocabulary. No gain in receptive vocabulary, word identification, decoding, or||No control group|
|books, highinterest, low-readability used. Class size = 5.2 hours x 4 days/week, 13 weeks, 71 hours total.|
|Gretes and Green (1994)**||Vocabulary, comprehension strategy||Self-paced, computer-assisted comprehension instruction with digital audio, use of real-world reading passages. Comparison: Traditional classroom instruction. Up to 44-46 hours x 11 weeks.||N = 487, GED students||Quasi-experimental, pre-post||TABE vocabulary and comprehension combined. Finding: Comparison < treatment. No difference in gain between highand low-reading level groups. Length of instruction related to amount of gain.|
|Lazar et al. (1998)||Reading comprehension, vocabulary, written expression||Reads about job issues, such as infectious diseases, uses visual organizers to compare information and draw conclusions. Document literacy tasks involving forms, charts, lists. Instruction embedded in simulations of||N = 47, ages 2160, health care workers and administrative assistants upgrading for direct care tasks in hospital||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design. Experimental and standardized reading, vocabulary, and writing measures. Standardized measures include TABE. Experimental measures test job reading and writing skills.||Finding: Statistically significant increase on all measures. 87% reached 8th grade level. Mean TABE standard score increased 30 points.||No control group|
|job tasks involving collaborative learning. Group instruction. Target: Reach 8th grade reading level. 4.5 hours/week Ï‡ 12 weeks, 54 hours total.|
|MacArthur and Lembo (2009)||Written expression||Strategy taught: Brainstorm, take a side, get it together—identify reasons, evidence, opposing reasons, rebuttals from brainstorm, rebuttal, compose (using mnemonic IRRC: introduction, reason, rebuttal, conclusion), evaluate, revise. Individualized instruction 2 3 v||N = 3, ages 40-44, 8th grade reading level or above.||Multiple baseline across participants with multiple probes during baseline and posttest phases.||Experimental writing measures (1) Text structure: Introduction, position, reasons, evidence, alternative positions and reasons, rebuttals, conclusion, transition words. (2) Quality, 7-pt holistic scale: Content, organization, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions||Design does not permit generalization about effectiveness.|
|Maclay and Askov (1988)||Sight word recognition, alphabetics, written expression||Individual computer-assisted instruction. 1,000 high-frequency and functional words. Picturable and nonpicturable words, functional words (from job applications), words based on phonograms. Toward end of training, students word process sentences using the words. Speech synthesizer with multiple-choice response options and feedback on accuracy. Pretest before each lesson, criterion 90% accuracy. 20 hours of instruction Ï‡ 3 months.||Treatment: N = 52 No treatment control: N =24, low-income adults below 4th grade reading level||Quasi-experimental. Comparison group were individuals interested in and eligible for services but not able to attend. Pre-post tests.||Standardized silent and oral reading measures. Finding: Statistically significant gain on all measures by treatment group, no change in controls. Example of gain in treatment group: Slosson Oral Reading Test pretest 3.26, posttest 3.93.||No treatment control (Hawthorne effect not ruled out)|
|Massengill (2004)||Alphabetics, sight word recognition||“Guided Reading:” Familiar rereads, word analysis, new read. Uses authentic fiction and nonfiction books, and functional materials. Irregularly spells high-frequency words taught using flash cards. 1 student did not receive decoding or structural analysis instruction. Daily assessment: Reading real and nonwords. Three 1-hour individualized lessons/week, 36 sessions x 3 months.||N = 4 adults, ages 25-52, reading grade levels 1-6, one had completed high school.||Single-subject, multiple baseline across behaviors design, pre-post tests||Standardized oral reading tests (real and nonwords), published informal reading inventory, and experimental word list measure. Finding: All improved on all measures. Oral reading scores increased between 1 and 3 grade levels from pre to post.||Design does not permit generalization about effectiveness. Author provided the tutoring and collected the data.|
|Massengill (2006)||Spelling||“Word Study” method: Students sort words based on common orthographic features. Assess previous||N = 9 adults, ages 23-52, unusual sample: Most employed in professional jobs, some had college or advanced degree, word-||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design||Standardized spelling and oral reading tests, and informal published spelling inventory. Finding: Little change on most||No control group. Standardized reading measure shows ceiling effect.|
|session's words, new word sort; students state generalization or pattern. Individualized instruction by 2 tutors under author's supervision. Two 20-minute sessions/week, 12 sessions total.||recognition scores near maximum on Slosson Oral Reading Test, all were poor spellers.||measures. Within subjects, no statistically significant group differences. Exception: Significant pre-post gain on informal measure of spelling feature knowledge.|
|McKane and Greene (1996)**||Alphabetics, fluency, comprehension||Computer-assisted instruction compared with traditional combination of phonics, workbooks, peer tutoring, and classroom instruction. 40 hours.||Not known||N = 94, ABE and GED students in correctional centers||Random assignment, pre-post, treatment-control. Test of Adult Basic Education, vocabulary and comprehension||Finding: Compared to traditional group, experimental group reading at grade levels 0-3 showed higher comprehension. No difference at higher reading levels.|
|Messemer and Valentine (2004)||Reading: Areas not specified||ABE and GED instruction, process not reported. 32-304 hours of participation, mean 116.||N = 124, most ages 18-25, prison inmates||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design Standardized measure (TABE)||Finding: Statistically significant pre-post gain in both ABE and GED classrooms. 46% gained up to 1.5 grade levels, 24 = 5% gained 1.6-2.5 grade levels. 118 hours needed for 1.0 grade level increase. Correlation between reading gains and time in classroom not statistically significant.|
|Meyer (1982)||Sight word recognition, fluency||Prime-O-Tec method: Adapted from Neurological Impress, multisensory method uses auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic and motor inputs. Learners listen to tapes recorded by teacher, follow along with finger then read aloud||N = 20, mostly unemployed adults attending fulltime adult education facility, grades 5-7 reading levels||Experimental, treatment and no treatment control, pre-post tests||DVs: TABE vocabulary and reading comprehension subtests. Finding: Reading comprehension subtest: treatment group gained 7 months, control group gained 5 months. Vocabulary: Treatment group gained 7 months, control||Author uses term "control group" but does not refer to random assignment, may be quasi-experimental design, not stated how controls selected. Control group pre-score 1 grade level below treatment|
|with tape. Practice with tapes until ready to read article aloud to teacher. If 90% oral reading accuracy, proceed to next level. No treatment controls followed regular curriculum including individualized remediation, reading practice, and vocabulary games. Duration of instruction for treatment and control: 7 hours x 2 or more weeks.||group declined 1 month.||group, pre-score not used as covariate.|
|Mikulecky and Lloyd (1997)||Reading comprehension||Teacher presentation, collaborative learning, much independent practice using 3 types of materials: commercially produced, customized to the job, and personally functional. Groups of 10-15||N = 180, ages 20-60, 10 classes in 6 companies, reading levels upper elementary to beginning college||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design. Test was 20-30 minute structured interview administered before and after training.||Reading comprehension questions during interview, using workplace prose, chart and graphical materials. Participant reads document, describes processes likely to use, then answers content questions||No control group. Questions administered during interview, interviewer may have prompted responses.|
|students, 20-50 hours of training (exception: 1 class was 200 hours).||(factual, inference, application) about material. Content scores standardized to combine data across sites. Finding: Statistically significant gain from pre to post.|
|Perin (1997)||Reading comprehension, vocabulary, writing||Classroom instruction in job-related vocabulary, summarizing written concepts, producing correct sentence structure in writing, reading patient charts, rephrasing information, understanding categories on patient forms, following written directions, formulating questions, and study skills inc. note taking and library skills—all tasks related to mental health care job. 48 lessons, 96 hours.||N = 181, health care aides in 24 classrooms in workplace literacy program in 5 urban psychiatric hospitals. Mean prose-reading score on ETS Test of Applied Literacy (TALS) = 293, within range considered minimum for workforce functioning||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design, standardized and experimental literacy tests||Reading comprehension (generic and job related) and writing (job related). Finding: Statistically significant gains on job-related reading and writing tests but not on generic standardized reading comprehension test.|
|Purcell-Gates (1993)||Spelling, conventions of writing, sight word recognition||Practice with guidance from son's tutor. Participant wrote journal entries on thoughts and feelings, tutor typed them and the responses, participant read, typed, and printed material relating to son's education. Wrote 22 journal entries and 1 letter over 2-year period.||Ethnographic case study. Participant dropped out of school in 7th grade attended adult education for 4 years with little benefit, history of literacy difficulty.||Spelling: Number of words spelled correctly in journal entries, beginning and end of instructional period. Finding: 24% increase in accuracy (pre 57%, post 81%). Punctuation: Appropriate use of periods: 86% increase, pre 8%, post 94%.||Content of writing different pre and post. Author states participant improved reading skills through reading journal entries and responses but no reading measure.|
|Rich and Shepherd (1993)||Reading comprehension||Explicit instruction, questioning and summarizing using modeling, cueing, guidance, and feedback. Questioning: Pose several questions per paragraph, use signal words, e.g., who and what. Summarizes by paraphrasing 2 paragraphs. Daily test using app. of strategy. Groups of 4 or 5, outside||N = 90, ages 1766, adult education students, reading grade levels 3-7||Pretest-posttest control group design. IV: Group—self-questioning and summarizing ("total strategy"); self-questioning alone; summarizing alone, and 2 control conditions. 2 experimental reading tests using passages from published materials. Multiple choice, short answer, free recall.||Finding: Total strategy and question-only group significantly greater gain than both control groups. Total strategy did not gain more than other treatment groups. Also, scores remained low at post, despite statistically significant gain.||No standardized tests used. All instruction provided by author.|
|classroom , 6 sessions x 45 minutes x 18 days. Control conditions: (1) used materials, took daily test, no instruction and (2) no treatment.|
|Roberts, Cheek, and Mumm (1994)**||Word recognition and comprehension (SRA materials)||2 instructional conditions: Skills instruction cooperative learning or community building. Compared to no treatment control. 7 weeks.||N = 150 ABE students in correctional setting||Random assignment. Gates MacGinitie Reading Test, comprehension, vocabulary, and total scores||Finding: Community-building group superior to other 2 groups on comprehension and total score|
|Shaw and Berg (2008)||Spelling||“Word Study” method (see Massengill, 2008, above): Word-sorting exercises. Individualized instruction by 2 tutors supervised by author. Both treatment and comparison received Laubach tutoring involving drills and writing: 2 x 90-minute||N = 10, ages 2265, 5 treatment, 5 no treatment comparison, poor spellers, a few relatively competent readers||Quasi-experimental with pre-post testing. Comparison group (convenience sample) unable to schedule the training. Pre-post spelling test.||Informal published spelling measure with alternate forms, tests various aspects of spelling knowledge including number of words spelled correctly. Finding: Greater pre-post gain for experimental group.||Small group size: N = 5 treatment, N = 5 comparison. Number of sessions varied by participant, not controlled in analysis.|
|sessions/week, cut 15 minutes short for treatment group who received training in Word Study. Treatment group taught spelling only using Word Study, not Laubach. Comparison taught some spelling using Laubach.|
|Shaw and Berg (2009)||Spelling||“Word Study” method (see Massengill, 2008, above): Word- sorting exercises. Quiz on unfamiliar words before word sort each day. Modeling and scaffolding provided. Groups of 3-5 learners. 10 sessions x 2 weeks.||N = 33, ages 2063, jail inmates||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design. Pre-post spelling test||Informal published spelling measure, number of words spelled correctly. Finding: Statistically significant pre-post gain. Differing amounts of gain depending on initial pattern of spelling knowledge.||Tutoring delivered by authors. Brief mention of modeling and scaffolding—not clear to what extent strategy was taught. No control group. Variable attendance, not controlled in analysis.|
|Shippen (2008)||Alphabetics, reading comprehension||Two methods compared: Direct Instruction (Dl) Corrective Reading Decoding and Laubach Literacy. Both explicit instruction in sounds of letters, rules of grammar, comprehension skills. Both scripted. Dl fast-paced, tutor models, leads, and tests. Components: Word attack, story reading, reading checkouts, workbook. Laubach uses examples, fade over time. Peer-tutoring model. Higher skilled inmates serve as tutors. Two 90-minute sessions/week (12 hours per month) for 6 months, total 72 hours.||Training of Dl tutors by author, emphasized holding to script, correcting errors, "firming up" (undefined) and pacing. Laubach director-trained tutors who had to demonstrate mastery of technique. Training in both techniques 6 hours in 1 day.||N = 27, ages 25-64, inmates in medium security prison. N = 14 tutees, N = 13 tutors. Reading grade levels ranged 1.2-16.9 Tutees: Below 5th grade, tutors above 7th grade level||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design. Standardized reading test: Several subtests of Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-R/NU to test word recognition, decoding, comprehension. All participants, both tutors and tutees, took pretests and posttests.||Grade-level equivalent; standardized reading test: Several subtests of Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-R/NU to test word recognition, decoding, comprehension. Finding: Full group (tutors and tutees combined); statistically significant, similar gains for both programs, gain 1.5-2.5 grade levels, effect sizes .23-.30 depending on subtest. Tutor group gained only in word identification (ES .72). Tutees: Significant gain in all but word attack (decoding), ES .36-75.||No control group|
|Sticht et al. (1987)||Reading comprehension||Individual drill and practice, group instruction in background knowledge, dissects, reorganizes and represents information in graphic displays; identifies main idea and supports detail.||Army recruits, 4th grade reading comprehension level||Quasi-experimental. Pre-post with comparison group. 2 participants had completed high schoolâ�”1 was attending community college developmental education.||Grade-level scores on unnamed job-related and general reading tests. Finding: Greater gain for job-related reading instruction.||Little information provided on instruction or measures, no inferential statistics, data in hard-to-obtain military publications.|
|Venezky et al. (1994)||Mostly reading instruction, some writing instruction (details not provided)||ABE and GED instruction. Teacher instruction augmented by computer practice. 360 hours of instruction (day students, 120 hours (evening students).||N = 92, ages 2560, who completed program (study also concerns measurement of gains for dropouts).||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design. Standardized measures: TALS document literacy, TABE vocabulary and comprehension, TABE total reading, experimental oral reading rate, comprehension, and decoding.||Finding: Statistically significant pre-post change in TALS document and experimental oral reading rate. No difference in gain as function of instructional hours (day vs. evening). Inconsistent gain across 3 testing points. 14 of 64 ABE students ready for next level by posttest as indicated by TABE total reading score.||No control group (NOTE: Authors' purpose was not to measure effectiveness but to examine performance on multiple tests.)|
*NOTE: Only reading or writing measures noted although some studies also tested numeracy and other areas.
*Information drawn from Kruidenier, MacArthur, and Wrigley(2010). Adult literacy instruction: A review of the research. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
SECTION 2. ADULT BASIC AND SECONDARY EDUCATION: EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES OF LITERACY INSTRUCTION WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
The studies of literacy instruction with English language learners were obtained using identical criteria as those in Section I.
SECTION 2. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction with English Language Learners*
|Reference||Theoretical Framework||Instructional Goals||Practice and Skill Emphasis||Teacher Characteristics and Preparation||Participants||Type of Data, Design||Dependent Variables and Findings||Limitations|
|Condelli et al. (2009)||Cannot determine||Alphabetics, reading comprehension||Types of classroom: (1) focuses on general literacy development, (2) focuses on English fundamentals, (3) functional literacy, (4) alphabetics and fluency, (5) writing emphasis, (6) speaking and listening. Types of instructional strategy: (1) varied practice and interaction—speaks, reads, writes, interacts; (2) open communication: teacher responds as needed, authentic communication; (3) connects instruction to outside.||N = 263, 38 classrooms in 7 states who took both pretests and posttests, 1st grade reading level, minimal oral language skills.||Pre-experimental: 1 group, growth modeling. Identified predictors of literacy growth (numerous variables, only school variables relevant to current review).||Woodcock-Johnson subtest, Adult Language Assessment Scales Writing Assessment. Finding: Significant predictors among school variables: growth in alphabetics—longer classes, less growth and connecting instruction to outside world. Growth in reading comprehension: rate of growth—students with higher alphabetics skills showed more growth in reading comprehension but took time to appear; low growth in comprehension if entry alphabetics low. Use of native language in class||Lack of information about how reading was taught|
|Teachers used native language or only English in class.||promoted faster reading comprehension.|
|Ekkens and Winke (1999)||Meaning-making (workplace literacy)||Improve job-specific reading and writing (goal was secondary to oral English language improvement).||Literacy instruction focuses on reading workplace signs, instructions, warning labels, and filling out work-related forms. Uses commercially produced workplace literacy workbooks. Classes met 2-3 x week, 60-90 minutes, total 30 hours instruction.||N = 18, ages 2561, employees ages 25-61, in programs in 3 work sites who completed pre-and post-reading tests||Pre-experimental: 1 group pretestposttest design. Standardized, multiple-choice reading test.||Score on CASAS Life and Work Reading subtest. Finding: No statistically significant difference pre to post. 7 of 18 learners showed no gain or decline.||No control group. NOTE: Authors suggest reading test did not relate well to content of instruction.|
*NOTE: Only reading or writing measures are noted, although oral language and other areas were also assessed.
SECTION 3. ADULT BASIC AND SECONDARY EDUCATION: QUALITATIVE STUDIES OF LITERACY INSTRUCTION
The search process included the identification of books, book chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles from the period 1980-2010 that described adult literacy instruction in a range of instructional contexts (e.g., community-based, library, workplace, and family literacy programs, prisons). Searches included the following individual key words and various combinations of cross terms: reading, writing, literacy, adult, instruction, intervention, adult readers, adult reading development, adult literacy instruction, literacy education, adult education, adult basic education, adult secondary education, adult students, decoding, reading comprehension, reading processes, writing instruction, struggling adult reader, teaching methods, instructional effectiveness, program effectiveness, adult basic skills, basic writing (college), General Educational Development, GED, high school equivalency programs, community based organizations, community college, prison, workplace, correctional, health, housing, developmental education, remediation, English-language learners, second-language learners, second language learning, English as a Second Language (ESL), English (Second Language). ERIC and Academic Search Premier databases were searched for peer-reviewed journal articles. Studies reported in books and book chapters were included if they reported original research to implement practices intended to develop reading, writing, and literacy. Unpublished “grey” papers and evaluations appearing on websites without evidence of peer review were not included. Reports of practices in nonpeer-reviewed journals (e.g., the practitioner journal, Focus on Basics, published by the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy) were not searched.
The search process yielded 208 papers in peer-reviewed journals, 33 books, 23 monographs, and 10 edited volumes that potentially met the search criteria. These documents were further examined for consistency with inclusion criteria (focus on instructional practices to develop reading, writing, or literacy), and 95 sources were retained: 10 books, 17 book chapters, and 68 journal articles. Only 5 sources published in the 1980s were identified and used in the review; 27 were published in the 1990s and 63 from 2000-2010. A source was excluded if the research was not qualitative; did not focus on instruction; did not focus on adults with a need to develop their reading, writing, and literacy skills; or did not include a focus on reading, writing, or literacy instruction. All types of research methods and designs were included as long as the methods were qualitative. The most common approach among the sources was descriptive. These descriptions were often written with the intent of explaining how to carry out a particular practice rather than to report on the outcomes of practices. In all, 34 of the sources were categorized as descriptive or how-to type papers. Many of these were written by practitioners and excluded. An additional 11 papers that involved practitioners were identified as teacher research and were included. Making a distinction between these types was difficult, and there was some overlap between them. However, papers were designated as teacher research if they said they were; papers written by teachers about their practice without a specific goal or articulation of a question or problem in practice were not included.
The corpus included interviews, observations, document collection, case studies, ethnographies (as characterized by their authors), participatory/collaborative/action research, and mixed qualitative and quantitative methods. Descriptions of research design and analysis were cursory in most cases. Teacher research generally included no description of research method or design. Most studies (29) were carried out in some kind of “general” or comprehensive adult literacy/basic education program, including library literacy programs and community-based organizations. Workplace, work readiness, and job training programs were the research context for 15 studies. And 15 studies were carried out in college-related programs: transitional, developmental, or remedial classes. A total of 10 studies were cross-program studies in varied contexts; 6 were prison, parole, and offenders programs; 5 were family literacy/Evenstart programs; 3 were GED programs; 2 were ESL literacy; 1 was in a disabilities services program; and 1 was international. Seven studies did not specify a context.
SECTION 3. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Qualitative Studies of Literacy Instruction
|Reference||Methods/Research Type||Context||Sample||Goals/Measures of Success||Practices||Outcomes||Other (PD, Motivation, etc.).|
|Balatti, Black, and Falk ( 2007)||Interviews||Not reported||18 instructors, 57 students||Increase social capital.||Students must be active and appropriate participants, relationship with teacher based on feeling of respect, mutual “authentic engagement.” Teacher facilitates connections in and out of class.||Increased social capital in three networks: in classroom with other students, with teacher and other staff, and with students outside of classroom.||N/A|
|Beaverstock, Bhaskaran, and Brinkley (2009)||Description of initiative. Writer-to-writer challenge and how to get one started||Library literacy program||Not reported||Improve writing, reading, inferential, and critical skills.||Encourages focus on often ignored writing. Students write to author about how the book changed them. Relate reading to life. Competition||Increasing numbers of students are participating.||N/A|
|Beaverstock and McIntyre (2008)||How-to, includes case description||Library literacy program||Students in an addiction recovery program that requires a lot of writing||Use writing to access self-knowledge; able to complete recovery program reading and writing tasks.||Divide up the writing tasks to make less daunting. Writing process and keep-going strategies are taught.||Improved writing. Men in rehab program who participate in READ are 50% more likely to complete program.||N/A|
|Beck (2005)||TR||High-security prison||Not reported||Able to interpret power, social, political and economic issues in text; become active and informed citizens.||Student centered; involve reading and discussing provocative texts. Dialogic, reflect and construct meaning from text.||N/A||Theoretical frame (TF): critical literacy. Provocative texts encourage engagement and connection to learners' lives.|
|Belfiore et al. (2004)||Ethnography||3 workplaces||Not reported||Skill to complete workplace literacy requirements and complex interpretations of who holds power and how that power affects things.||“Read” the workplace to get past surface literacy demands to reveal practices and understandings. Must go beyond literacy tasks to reality of context and literacy. Focused on social practices.||N/A||Social practices lens. Critiques the notion that skill levels are the only factor in workplace literacy tasks.|
|Berne (2004)||TR Follow-up interviews, journals, audio tapes of class doing think alouds||Developmental reading||14 developmental reading students||Able to move up a level in developmental reading or into college level.||Taught think alouds, modeled, practiced; made explicit the idea of questioning the text.||Interpretive comments increased, but comprehension did not improve. Did not work well as instructional tool.||N/A|
|Bourret (2009)||How-to Compared attendance hours||ESL literacy||Not reported||Not reported||Created take-home reading packets, texts, graphic organizers, logs. Created a packet culture in class.||Increased time spent reading, sense of self-efficacy. Better persistence, completion rates, goal attainment. Increased test scores. More positive attitude toward reading.||N/A|
|Boutwell (1989)||Practitioner Descriptive||LVNYC||Not reported||Not reported||Small group instruction (vs one-on-one tutoring). Tutors facilitated, modeled, focused on individual and group strengths, utilized teaching moments as they arose. Read materials of interest and wrote on relevant topics. Focused on meaning.||Passed entry exam for training program, reading more, closer to child.||Acknowledging self as learner leads to more reading, writing, and willingness to share.|
|Bryan (1996)||Teacher description to address challenge in practice||Developmental writing||Not reported||Improve quality of writing groups by building skills as team member, communicator, leader.||3 weeks building community, then established writing groups, each member had specific role; class processed how it went at each class.||Established supportive, comfortable learning environment, more active engagement, greater gains.||N/A|
|Budweg and Schins (1991)||Description||Prison||Young people with long sentences, little writing competency, little exposure to “literate environment”||Motivate to read, develop literate abilities, improve social competence, facilitate access to written culture.||Not reported||N/A||N/A|
|Burgess (2009)||Mixed method, text of chat and discussion boards, interviews, survey, pretest and posttest||Developmental reading||18 students enrolled in course||Motivate to read, comprehensions and critical thinking||Using WebCT-Chat and Discussion Board after reading text. Emphasis on interaction, active learning, feedback, high expectations.||Engagement and critical thinking||Reading what others wrote piqued curiosity, which was motivating. New tools are motivating.|
|Callahan and Chumney (2009)||Comparative case study: CC and university, observations, interviews, student writing, and performance data.||Remedial classes in two settings||Students in the two contexts' classes||Mastery of college-level English course work||University gave students writing assignments, course materials, tutoring and access to faculty that gave them more access to cultural capital.||University students passed and had learned far more about how to succeed in college.||N/A|
|Carter (2006)||Basic writing course||Students enrolled in course||Rhetorical dexterity to negotiate multiple, changing literacies||Students explored and wrote about the role of literacy in various contexts. Wrote 6 college-level essays with peer and mentor feedback.||Develop the ability to do meta-analysis of literacy communities of practice; come to understand that literacy changes depending on context; can write college-level essays.||N/A|
|Case, Ainsworth, and Emerson (2004)||Descriptive, “field-based account”||Workplace literacy program||ESL workplace literacy class||Not reported||Collaborative, student-driven development of program informed by phone survey of current students.||Not reported||Not reported|
|Castleton (2002)||Literature review||Workplace literacy program||Not reported||Flexible, innovative, and high skilled; use technical and interpersonal skills; shifted definition of “good worker”||Pedagogy should be informed by conceptualizing workplace as community of practice; identify and focus on actual culture of the site; give workers self-determination; “authentic pedagogy” with communicative tasks related to roles and identities.||N/A||Functional-context approach to workplace literacy replaced by social practices framework.|
|Cottingham, Metcalf, and Phnuyal (1998)||Not reported||International REFLECT approach||25 countries, 90 programs||Increase analytic skills to develop action plans; gain skills to communicate ideas to broader audience; development of 20-30 maps and matrices documenting analysis of local issues.||Independent writing; facilitated discussion/ analysis of power structures and social stratification. Literacy and numeracy skill development integrated within. Relevant topic and purpose for discussion selected by facilitator and participants, visuals with labels are produced, text copied serves as textbook.||Engagement in practical activities. Changes in attitudes (increased self-confidence), greater participation in family and community, changes in gender division of labor. Increased literacy opens doors and garners increased respect.||Framework: Friere Participatory learning|
|Cotugno (2009)||Program description||GED||Not reported||Increase number of GED students who enter postsecondary education, meet college-level writing expectations, gain comfort with college campus.||Half-day workshop held on campus; followed by writing contest. “Studio” courses bring what they are working on in other classes. Small with a lot of feedback and assistance.||Steady increase in GED students enrolled in university.||N/A|
|Cowles (1997)||Not reported||ABE class in welfare reform program||Not reported||Not reported||Skills are learned best when embedded in content, are active; and technology is used to broaden opportunity to teach in context and actively. Used “electronic field trips” utilizing websites, email, broadcasts, print materials, and electronic discussions.||Dissolves boundaries of classroom walls, eliminates the issues of teaching a multilevel class.||N/A|
|Cukras (2000)||Teacher questionnaires and interviews||Community college||First-generation college goers, economically disadvantaged and/or nonnative speakers||Increase awareness of written and spoken language to facilitate personal growth and awareness/ increase confidence in capability; realize the rewards of reading.||Literary club, informal place to respond to literature outside of classroom. Opportunity to interact with faculty, other students, and authors.||Became more successful learners, more active participants, more comfortable; better essays.||N/A|
|D’Amico and Schnee (1997)||Program description plus two case descriptions of exemplar students||Workplace literacy program (training for displaced workers)||Not reported||Not reported||Job training, study for child care and provide child care; gain experience; collaborative group work to solve a problem and improve community.||Improved on qualitative and quantitative measures; students got jobs. However, successful outcomes may be thwarted by structural barriers. Employment situation may be unchanged but can still improve quality of life.||Students were excited by what they were learning; frustrated by lack of opportunity to use.|
|Demetrion (1999)||Anecdotal; minimal detail about implementation||Not reported||Not reported||Not reported||Switch from one-on-one tutoring to small groups but also shift from teacher centered to facilitative. Tutor scaffolds; learning is interactive; discussion and group activities.||N/A||N/A|
|Diehl (2004)||Description||ESL class||Not reported||Not reported||At request of learners’ presentations by health educators; integrate health literacy with class work.||N/A||N/A|
|Dillon-Black (1998)||Case study||Not reported||Not reported||Transformative learning and reading improvement||Used dialogic pedagogy without systemic change; not liberatory. Then encouraged peer mentoring, collaborative identification of individual strengths, questioning the givens of culture and upbringing. Critical reflection.||Led to correcting distortions in reasoning and attitudes. Student came out of her shell and connected with classmates, but the fundamentals of her life were unchanged.||How transformative is literacy?|
|Earl (1997)||TR||ABE||One class||Not reported||Gave students weekly reading logs to fill in.||Grade-level gain average, 2.2 in 3 months. Changed reading behaviors, reading more, understanding more, reading to children, buying books, reading aloud in church, book borrowing, and book talking. More positive attitude about reading.||Reading log s a reminder to time to read.|
|Elish-Piper (2000)||Mixed methods; questionnaires, interviews, and program documents||Family literacy||100 randomly selected FL programs||Focus on program responsiveness.||Many programs claim to be sociocultural, responsive, and participatory but in actuality it was rare.||N/A||TF: Sociocultural responsive|
|Engstrom (2005)||Mixed methods||Postsecondary||8 struggling readers||Active reading and college-level writing; making better gains than they would have w/o AT.||Every text in 3 remedial classes was digitized with text reader; students also had text-to-speech and organizing software; active reading strategies taught.||Positive outcomes suggest combining strategy instruction with AT is effective.||N/A|
|Fallon (1995)||TR||ABE-community Drop-in||5 students||Experience transformative moments that give compelling reasons to communicate.||Dialogue journal writing—use generative themes, use a text related to them, build student-to-student dialogue. Teacher response modeled writing conventions.||More skilled at recognizing and reading words in context.||Interest in top to better skill attainment. Used comput word process|
|Fingeret (1989)||Not reported||Not reported||Not reported||Not reported||Learners rather than skills should be at center of instruction. Based on notion of capability of adult learners. Should share power and play an active||N/A||N/A|
|Fingeret and Drennon (1997)||Not reported||LVNYC||10 sites, small-group tutoring. Case descriptions of 5 students to illustrate change process||Changes in lives and daily practices||Student leadership development, tutor training, publication of student writing. Immersion in literacy rich environment. Small groups all read, discuss, write, discuss. Tutors are responsive to learners. Authentic texts; emphasis on meaning making. Experience literacy as a social practice; incorporates student knowledge and experience.||Changed notion of what is possible; improve ability to handle the technical aspects of literacy; engage in new literacy practices. Changed relationships, self-definition, confidence. New practices. Literacy becomes a tool to help attain desired quality of life.||Standardized assessment do always reflect change. Chang only be capture depth knowled students’ lives.|
|Fingeret, Tom, Dyer, Morley, et al. (1994)||Collaborative ethnography||2 learner-centered programs||Not reported||Reach goals; develop writer’s voice; use literacy in new ways—changing practices not just skills; build confidence; increase job readiness.||Student’s prior experience, language and culture are central to learning process; collaborative and constructed; writing based using process approach with focus on writing for communication.||Changes in classroom performance, participation in program activities, and practices outside program; improved writing (longer and fewer errors) and reading increasingly complex texts; increased confidence, improved employment situation, more home literacy interactions, students take increasing responsibility||The more stud appreciate the program, the m will take respo for own learnir Learner-center education is fra with tensions, working through tensions are ed|
|Fiore and Elsasser (1987)||TR||College developmental writing||College prep English class; all female and employed students||Use student culture and knowledge in the classroom; master college level writing; able to use writing to shape environment.||Discuss topic (based on generative theme), develop thesis statement and outline, individual drafts developed, shared and discussed, revision. These are fueled by related reading texts which are progressively more difficult. Rhetorical||In their reading and writing, students pass through 3 phases going from personal experiences to connecting with broader social context, to critical analysis. Writing uses more detail, better use of||TF: Freire and Vyg Freire can be to fit this conte|
|over mechanics. Every student passed departmental English exam. Gained understanding that can be transformative.|
|Forell (2006)||Literature review||Developmental reading and writing||Not reported||Incorporate student culture into classroom to improve reading and writing skills; use outside of school literacy practices for critical analysis. Better acculturation into college discourse community.||Students co-construct curriculum based on issues of significance to them; Compare and contrast lyrics as a way to critically analyze language and audience. Journal and other informal writing becomes basis of more formal writing.||Using rap music makes teaching more meaningful and successful; can help students see the constructed nature of knowledge; can build community, ease cultural misunderstanding, resistance, support identity development, build confidence, bridge inside and outside academy; springboard for discussions of dominant discourse; lead to better ability to make persuasive arguments in writing.||N/A|
|Fuller (2009)||TR||GED||Not reported||Prepare for GED and promotion of social activism; increase agency.||Use counter narrative texts to affirm black achievement and cultural relevance; discuss current events; reading aloud for multi-level access to text; “debugging” as prereading; book clubs support dialogue and connections to real life. Mini lessons to whole group/individuals. Writing instruction focus on organizing structure of essay. Feedback and revision.||Helps students see connections between socioeconomic structures and their lives. Critical consciousness about their impact on life. One student cited as making significant improvements in TABE and GED.||Author/teacher has no formal teacher training. Participant in TR group has her ideas and strategies used in the classroom.|
|Gaber-Katz and Watson (1991)||Participatory research; interviews and observations||Community-based, participatory programs||3 community-based literacy programs||Not reported||Learning is centered on interests and life experiences of learner, literacy viewed from a critical perspective, community building learning relationships. Learner-written stories, journals writing found materials and discussions form the basis of learning. Learner interests and goals starting point. Small-group instruction.||Learners stories of achievement are the measure of success re employment, independence, thrill of new skills, etc.||TF: Learner-and participate education|
|Gallo (2004)||How-to guide||Workplace||Not reported||Not reported||Problem posing and critical thinking. Uses learners’ strengths, concerns and interests as starting point; technical reading plus interpreting the power dynamics and culture of the workplace.||Supports better management of literacies in the workplace, negotiate and change the environment, expand opportunities and expertise. Decreases errors and increases safety; higher civic participation, lower crime and unemployment, better able to help with children’s schoolwork.||Learner-centered education Freire|
|Gillis (2004)||Community-based participatory research||5 community-based literacy programs||46 low-level literacy students, 7 focus groups, 64 health professionals working with low-literate adults||Study the links between health and literacy.||Not reported||Identified and prioritized actions to improve practices and policies addressing health literacy needs of the target population.||N/A|
|Gowen (1992)||Ethnography 11 months of field||Workplace literacy program (hospital)||Not reported||Varied depending on stakeholder. Management||Supposed to be based on literacy audit but disagree||Not reported||Workers who insulted by bo|
|help them move up. Educator—critical literacy. Workers want to move out.||lessons—job related, GED, broader curriculum more reflective of reality.||The class is a mixed-up mismatch of goals and assumptions.|
|Gowen and Bartlett (1997)||Teacher research||Workplace literacy||Not reported||Attend and find class helpful, acquire knowledge and enhance skill.||Learner-centered rather than training. Open entry/exit. Emphasis on cooperative learning pragmatic curriculum, connection and caring. Critical literacy discourse.||Teachers learned about the impact of violence on learning.||N/A|
|Grabill (2001)||Case study Interviews with tutors, students, staff, program documents||Well-established/ well-regarded ABE program||3 different kinds of classes: Workplace situated, computer class, regular ABE class||Help students to acquire needed literacy skills, enable further education, employability, productive and responsible citizens. GED||Policy goal shapes instructional practices. When assessment practices are mandated, it shapes instruction.||N/A||Participatory processes are needed to reshape the institutional definition of literacy.|
|Griffin et al. (1993)||Interview||ABE/university Collaboration||2 ABE students||Increase literacy. Intellectual growth.||English professor, literature, collaboration with undergrads. Journal writing.||Become knowers, realize their intellect. More comfortable, expressive writers; confidence.||Theoretical frame WWK|
|Hayes (1997)||Teacher reflection Researcher journal 25 site visits Informal interviews||ABE—portfolios||16 ABE students, 4 ESL. Average reading level was 7.65.||Not reported||Working and summary portfolio development developed collaborative. Students add log work, teachers insert comments. Progress assessed based on review of portfolio. Reflective guide used.||Gives broader sense of ongoing outcomes than standardized assessments can; accrue more data; helps identify learner needs and plan and organize instruction. Makes it more learner centered. More reading and more reflection ensures writing taking place.||Helps teachers become more observant and document more. Requires significant training and support and changed classroom practices.|
|Heller (1997)||Ethnography; 3 years of participatory observation of weekly meetings; interviews with participants and facilitators||Women’s writing group||3 focal participants||Create a space for hope, encouragement to deal with life challenges. Consciousness raising to help challenge oppressive circumstances. Give a public platform to be heard, a voice, self-narration.||Weekly, facilitated writing group meetings; write, share, comment. Lose structure. Gave each other critique and praise. Writing about something that mattered to participants. Worked toward clarity||Shared information and resources; development of intimate relationships through the content of what was shared. Hopefulness. The enactment of group actions to address||Opportunities to share and publish writing was a critical component because it gave them a sense of themselves as writers.|
|problems related to inequality. Learned more about the world through each other’s writing—taking increased action to better their lives.|
|Hofer and Larson (1997)||TR||ABE||Not reported||Not reported||Mixed-group class. Students pool knowledge from reading, writing, and discussion to construction meaning and building new knowledge. Collaborative generate topics and questions. Teachers need to foster mutual respect and cooperation, build group identity by spending time talking and getting to know each other. Work flexibly in small-, whole- group, and individually. When students share a problem with the class, it sparks reading, writing and discussion as well as movement toward collaborative problem solving and action.||Increasingly literate and knowledgeable about the world.||Being around more advanced readers and writers is inspiring and serves as models.|
|Houp (2009)||Case study||Not reported||Not reported||Counter the notion of the productivity imperative in adult literacy that impeded student centeredness.||Student narratives based on life experiences help reoriented and focus on gaining proficiency in process. When lessons are derived from meaningful topics, themes, and writings, the purpose of rules can be understood as serving a purpose to support communication. Connect life experiences with learning. Proposed||Learner-centered curriculum can be integrated with traditional one.||Learner-centered literacy|
|framework for organizing writing instruction around 3 broad questions: Where have you been, where are you now, and where are you going?|
|Iasevoli (2007)||TR—description||Prison, temporary holding facility, participate average of 3 weeks||Young men not required but who want to participate in education.||Not reported||Wanted to apply ideas from You gotta BE the book, especially peer-collaborative writing. They read a book aloud together.||200 out of 1500 received GED||N/A|
|Kallenbach and Viens (2004)||Summative report on 10 TR projects||Varied (unspecified)||Not reported||Not reported||Two broad categories of MI implementation: MI inspired instruction (used at program entry/exit, subject area choices of what and how to learn, building bridges between strengths and challenges and MI reflections (learning about self and how learning works best.||Increased student control, more authentic learning experiences, more meaningful, relevant; reflection helps students embrace nontraditional learning, appreciate personal abilities and useful in identifying learning strategies||N/A|
|Kalman and Losey (1997)||Observation and interview||Union and community college collaboration||One teacher, one class||Learning to learn, job promotion; issues rather than skill focused||Social support and counseling services; completion of tasks plus work on a broad set of skill determined through dialogue and driven by student interest; student centered and participatory. 3 classroom activities described in terms of who initiated, directed and monitored them.||N/A||Focus on the difficulty of moving from espoused theory to actual practice. To changed from traditional to participatory/LC, teacher and students must believe it is better, adequate support and prep time, teaching willing to give up some control.|
|Kramer and Jones (2009)||Practitioner description||ABE-“critical literacy lab”||2 groups of students||Use feminist methodology, critical literacy, liberation theology, popular education, and guided reading.||Theme based using poetry, song lyrics, short stories, etc. Topic designed to be relevant. Lessons based on Freireian approach. Generative word or theme used for discussion, summary sentence written collaboratively and copied, then elaborated on individually. Word wall. Authentic literature, embedded strategy instruction, critical dialogue.||Engagement with text, connections between text and real life, empathy which encouraged action. Significant increases in reading progress.||Team teachir supported by participation i treatment grc<???> focused on is social justice.|
|Langer (2003)||Participant observation, weekly group interviews, weekly dialogue journal with researchers, writing. Individual interviews every 3 months||Residents of housing project||2 cohorts of students||Develop cognitive and social skills need to compete successfully for jobs; assimilation of workplace cultural norms. Assume workplace literacy is needed.||Vocational/job training, mentoring, guidance using reflection with action.||N/A||Practices view literacy. Busi culture affects requirements|
|Lazar, Bean, and Van Horn (1998)||Pretest-posttest interviews with employees and supervisors||Hospital workplace literacy evaluation||47 employees||Impact on job performance, upgrade literacy levels to at least 8th grade.||Contextualized curriculum; content specific to needed skills in workplace. Hands-on activities, role plays, actual documents, case narratives for problem solving.||All project goals were met; changes in performance measures translated to improved job performance; improved attitude and self-esteem.||N/A|
|Mageehon (2003)||Interviews||Women’s prison||7 volunteers recruited for study||Not reported||Self-directed learning. Collaborative support. Self-pace and self-select how and what to work on. Replicate early successful learning experiences, e.g.,||N/A||N/A|
|Mark (2008)||Not reported||Collaboration between university and governmental adult education agencies||Not reported||Create spaces for exploring equality issues.||Use nontext methods (visual arts, etc) to explore equity issues in an adult literacy context. Participatory; safe spaces for discussion.||Educational and social benefits, equality and creativity can be used to develop skills, which can empower them to bring about real change.||Tutors need to understand ho inequality cont low literacy. Assumes literature<???> problem of soc<???> inequality.|
|Martin (2001)||Practitioner documentation, how-to. Many examples of student work that could be, but really are not, used as data||Various (unspecified)||Not reported||Get students to take themselves seriously intellectually. Bring to the surface what is known and deepen. Understand the gap between beliefs and actions (why there isn’t more resistance).||Untangle how it is we come to think the way we do, deconstruct constructed representations and categories; writing product as important as process. Read-aloud writers on writing, reflective dialogue on writing. Loosens up process. Narrative writing can be a way to resee. Many strategies for getting learners to write and revise.||N/A||TF critical liter education|
|McDonald and Jones (2009)||Interviews with students, focus group with tutors, program manager, government official. Content analysis of documents||Not reported||16 learners, 8 tutors, 2 program managers, a government manager||Critical literacy—listening, speaking, reading, writing, numeracy, and critical thinking—interwove with knowledge of social and cultural practices.||Social worker did one-on-one support, leading group work, helping to guide staff, networking, promoting interagency coordination.||Tutors had more time to do instruction, organization functioned more effectively. Most students were referred to social worker, about 85% went. Her work contributed to significant progress—moving from one-to-one to group work, reduced anxiety, increased confidence, motivation, literacy skills, sense of control. Making provision for psychosocial needs of adult literacy||N/A|
|Merrifield (1997)||Surveys of laid-off workers; interviews 20 months after plant closure; response was representative of workforce.||Job training for displaced workers||77 out of 100 workers responded to survey||Placement in jobs||JTPS programs that have clear performance standards||Participation generally did not improve employment, but in the kinds of jobs they got. Not a close correlation between job training and type of job. Longer more intense programs made a bigger impact, but fewer women chose them or qualified for them, or could afford to participate in them, or didn’t believe they could handle it.||Most women had limited vision of what they could do, such as traditional women’s work or other manufacturing job. They felt rushed and uninformed in their decisions as to which JTPA program to participate in.|
|Moni, Jobling and van Kraayenoord (2007)||Tutors documented experiences, collected student writing, and taped weekly feedback sessions.||Disabilities services programs||Young adults with developmental disabilities participating in one of two disabilities services programs||To improve know-how and focus on literacy among staff||Used needs assessment and preexisting curriculum; focus is on developing life stories.||Training, teaching and resource package. Tutors felt prepared; resources met need. Tutors increased confidence over time and clients increased literacy engagement. Tutors gained useful information about their students that helped them plan instruction.||N/A|
|Morgan (2004)||TR Comparison of 2 classes, before and after||Family literacy||18 in class||Raise levels so they can graduate and seek vocational training or college courses. Find a job.||Combine whole-group, teacher-led instruction with personalized teacher-student interaction. In addition to IGI, workbook-driven and self-paced approach, 2 hours of whole-group, direct instruction added each day (1 hour math and 1 hour GED prep). Students selected sequence of material. Begin with review, introduce new material, provide skills practice and feedback.||The more proactively taught, the more students learn. Graduation rates rose, numbers tripled with this change. Involving students in planning and implementing learning activities helps learners to take ownership, promotes teamwork, encourages involvement, emphasizes the value of learning from peers, helps to establish trust and mutual respect, fosters self-esteem.||Students liked learning in group setting. TF: Adult learning theory (but counters this asserting that direction, whole-group instruction is more like K12).|
|Mueller and Kiser (2009)||Computer and writing attitude survey pre- and post-instruction. All sessions observed.||Not reported||14 learners in CBO suspected of LD. Open to computers, negative on writing||Not reported||8 month program, 15 sessions. Writing instruction using software. Self-selected projects, individualized instruction, self-directed with tutor assistance. 11 AT packages available (planning and graphic organizers, word predictors, text readers, speech-to-text converters, etc)||Felt most positive about writing, found a purpose in doing it (self-expression), felt better about themselves. Learning experiences supported by AT can help learners meet writing goals. Decreasing dependence on tutor, increasing independence.||N/A|
|Norton (2001)||Participants interviewed, observed peer tutor meetings, tutorials and other interactions.||Adult literacy program||10 peer tutors||Not reported||Peers tutored one on one, assisted facilitators in classes and worked with small groups. They did a lot of reading together, modeled rather than doing direct instruction.||Outcomes could not be directly attributed to peer tutors because students were getting other services. Peer tutors had enhanced learning, personal development and ability to transform the larger social contexts. Increased confidence and self-esteem, enabled development of personal relationships among students; shift in power relations. Increased reading level, better comprehension and writing.||Peer tutors met weekly; they learned to tutor by being tutored, e.g., participating in writer’s workshop.|
|Osei (2001)||Observation, interview||ABE||4 students||Not reported||Computer used in conjunction with reading assignments; enables self-pacing and self-direction.||Is encouraging and helps students feel up to date, try harder, try repeatedly.||Using the computer is motivating; students feel competitive with the computer, which pushes them to try to succeed.|
|Padak and Baradine (2004)||Open-ended written surveys and individual interviews||ABE||29 reading group members, teacher field testers, teachers who attended PD||Get adult learners to read more.||Developed a list of recommended trade books and correlated instructional activities. Also encourages engaged writing—significant time spent writing, writing conferences and folders, mini-lessons, journals.||Discussions of higher quality, students seem more engaged, more interest in reading, see more connections between knowledge, experience and academics; fosters critical thinking and a love of reading; improved reading skills, vocabulary, comprehensions; self-esteem, confidence.||N/A|
|Pannucci and Walmsley (2007)||Interview and document review||Evenstart program||23 LD Evenstart parents ; 10 successful LD adults||More successful with LD students in Evenstart||Recommended: Connect learning to students’ interests, experiences and goals; have expectations for learning, scaffold teaching, know learners modality strengths and weaknesses, teach mnemonic devices, metacognitive strategies, commit necessary time, use technology to support learning, provide immediate, continuous and substantive feedback, problem-based learning, establish effective organizational strategies.||N/A||N/A|
|Perin and Greenberg (2007)||Case study: Observations, program documents and instructional materials, interviews, student demographic data||ABE||Case study program||Seeing research-based reading instruction in action||Use Orton-Gillingham, scope and sequence chart of skills, objectives, and materials for teaching phonemic awareness, word recognition, and comprehension. Direct,||When the chart is the basis of reading instruction, students show improved skills and improved retention.||Teachers have considerable the and experience observed and feedback, parti internal and e) PD and read|
|Pharness(2001)||Not reported||Workplace||Not reported||Not reported||Employee-identified needs; writing about life, work and hopes, read and shared.||Drew people out; writing used for personal and work literacies is helpful in both places; realizing individual potential; advancing understanding of self, learning, work issues, societal structures.||Participants’ stories being heard throughout the company was meaningful at all levels of the organization.|
|Pinsent-Johnson (2007)||Not reported||Not reported||Not reported||Practice-based performance assessment||Doing/showing new skills and knowledge in use, application. Aligned with actual literacy use in a range of contexts, integrated with and used to shape instruction, active participation of learner, reflects higher order skills.||More growth and progress is evident when progress is viewed as practices rather than skills.||TF: Literacy as practices|
|Rhoder and French (1994)||Not reported||Workplace (hospital)||Not reported||Literacy for survival, empowerment, human development||Holistic, active, experience based. Used work-related texts, problem solving; newsletter for personal writing.||Increased participation in literacy activities; improved skills and feelings, assumed more responsibility for improving productivity and safety, moved to further ed.||Motivation fueled by perception that program could lead to promotion.|
|Rhoder and French (1995)||Not reported||Workplace (hospital)||Not reported||Enable and empower.||Workplace- and participant-generated texts used for instruction.||Think critically, activate and use prior knowledge, organize information, use in meaningful ways. Fueled competence and confidence, independence and control.||N/A|
|Rivera (2008)||Ethnography; interviews, focus groups, participant observation||Adult literacy program in a shelter||50 homeless and formerly homeless women||High school diploma||Nontraditional, learner-centered, built on life experience. Conjoined commitments to social needs and social justice. Popular education methods: Critical analysis and action integrated with skill development. Sense of community is integral to learning. Dialogue about shared issues and challenges to foster critical reflection. Can provide comprehensive social services.||Transformative learning, women’s empowerment and positive social change. GED attainment, but much more: critical thinking, critical consciousness, critical understanding. Activism and advocacy, confidence, more involvement in the program, increased participation in children’s education.||Students are motivated by their children and responsibility for others, desire to get off welfare and have housing, hope of economic advanced; required by welfare.|
|Robertson (2007)||Practitioner description||ABE||Not reported||Not reported||Use evidence-based reading instruction: Individual assessment of 4 reading components. Found students to be esp. low in vocabulary. Rather than try to develop through what students were reading, focused on Tier II words. Used explicit instruction. Teach 6-10 words at a time. Defines, gets everyone to use in a sentence, do activities to practice. Students log when they see or hear the words, words are posted around the room to encourage use.||Students say it improves comprehension, increased vocabulary in other contexts.||N/A|
|Robinson-Geller||Literature review||ABE||19 long-time||Not reported||Individualized Group||No research exists on||IGI is a management|
|independently on individualized assignments. Teacher assigns, corrects, keeps records, and assists as needed. Work is materials driven.||with teachers who are often parttime and may lack appropriate training.|
|Rogers and Kramer (2008)||Case studies; interviews, observations, focus group discussions||ABE||9 teachers nominated as exemplary||Successful at accelerating their students within a critical framework. Flexible, strategic reading.||Instruction is designed to enable progress toward traditional measures of achievement and also preparing them to be responsible change agency and participants in democracies. Teaching reading and writing within critical frameworks. For literacy acceleration: Use text that is good match, teach problem solving to be able to read for meaning, context-based strategies, responsive teaching; explicit skills instruction, flexible grouping, dialogue. For critical literacy teach for social change and activism.||N/A||Standardization runs counter to best practices observed. Teachers respond uniquely to the needs of their learners; standardization tends to veil real conditions and experiences of learners.|
|Sanguinetti, Waternouse, and Maunders (2005)||Participatory action research; journals, observations||Varied||22 practitioners||Engaging learners in the process of learning while fostering their overall personal, intellectual, and social development—also confidence, leadership and emotional intelligence.||Elements of pedagogy: Focus on learners and their needs, continuous learning for work and life, building learning on and within real-life contexts, sharing power-empowering people and communities, for many the road to learning. Dimensions: teacher, teaching, curriculum, context. Teacher is engaged in teaching, reflective, willing and able to||N/A||N/A|
|improvise and take risks, aware of power dimensions, patient and trusting in the learning process.|
|Shor (1987)||Descriptive and how to||Not reported||Not reported||Validating personal experience, restoring self-esteem, transcendent perception regarding work and labor (theme of class). Decentralize authority; enable students to improve without a teacher or textbook.||Experience served as content. Liberatory approach includes writing, editing, dialogue, conceptualizing and reading; moved from background and experiences to critical understanding of the social fabric. Get students writing on provocative themes, prewriting, peer support, make connections between verbal and written language, revision process, self-correction. Reading materials introduced in conjunction with writing tasks, correlated skills are taught—prereading, active questioning during reading.||Amount of writing produced increases, more facile. Students gain perspective on something that is taken for granted (in this case work). Evidence of learning in written work will be less than what has been learned conceptually.||TF: Liberatory|
|Siegel (2007)||Not reported||GED class||Not reported||See self as possessor of knowledge, invested in learning process. Integrate school with life.||Telling Our Stories and Our Year in Review—2 major writing tasks. Vital that students understand how activities will help them meet their goals. Read relevant high-interest narratives as models. Teacher models own writing. Activities encourage students to see that they have something to say. Focus on authentic and relevant activities which||Students eager to share. Activities that contextualize education within the lives of students, while being legitimately academic, engage learners in a way that inauthentic materials cannot.||N/A|
|Silver-Pacuilla (2007)||Participatory action research||Not reported||2 case study students; 10 participated in participatory action research||Not reported||Students used assistive technology as supplement to regular class instruction.||Seeing spoken words appear in text helps to see connections between speech and writing. Student took more responsibility for monitoring writing. Other software increased understanding and eliminated feelings of frustration. Enabled increased, active engagement with print. Phonology and spelling showed most significant growth. Encouraged students to stretch ambitions, increased self-determination, competence and self-efficacy. Greater sense of empowerment.||Eliminating neg feelings (throu helped to mair motivation and increase persis|
|Sink, Parkhill, and Marshall (2005)||Not reported||Family literacy||Not reported||Not reported||Collaboration among community council, school district, literacy council, family resource center. Typical family literacy design with one exception. Staff studies Spanish (students are Spanish speakers). Students and staff come together in informal gatherings to practice language skills. Provides meaningful opportunities to||Growing numbers of participants, sites, and staff. Level completion, GED completion, entrance into postsecondary education (NRS measures). Each school that houses program has become a community center.||N/A|
|Sissel (1996)||Not reported||Not reported||Not reported||Not only to read words but to use text to interpret the world.||Focus on more than teaching skills using one size fits all approach. Take into account learners context, community and culture. Make classroom work collaborative. Instruction must build on life experience, teacher must know about the learner. Setting should promote dialogue and sense of community. Teachers must engage in reflection and inquiry to teach responsively.||N/A||N/A|
|Soifer, Young, and Irwin (1989)||Descriptive||ABE||Not reported||Not reported||Instruction recognizes and builds on learner strengths. Teachers and learners are equal partners. Group work to discuss, read, and write about situations and provocative issues examined from personal and collective perspective. Environment should convey respect, be accessible, and facilitate collaborative group work. Emphasis on authentic tasks, doing rather than learning about. Students are involved in program management and instruction.||Learners view of self gradually but steadily improves. Increased competence in basic skills. Affective changes observable by teacher.||N/A|
|Stefl-Mabry (1998)||Not reported||Developmental reading class||Not reported||To get students to read more||Multicultural text and requirement to read NY||Students developed individualized styles of||N/A|
|(reading, research and writing). Cyberjournal to relate readings to own life/culture. Student recommended websites.||which led to increased critical thinking. Increased attendance/instructional time. Comprehensions scores improved more than in traditional class.|
|Stoehr (2005)||Not reported||Male offenders||Received 6-month remission on sentence if they complete 10-week course.||Keeping repeat offenders out of jail. Reflection on plight as social outcasts, respect the voice of others as well as their own. To think better of himself.||Read provocative text that relates to the problems they face and short related supplements. Writing assignments help to connect text to their lives. Essays are typed and shared.||Recidivism rates are half the average; students find their voice.||N/A|
|Street (2005)||Case study||Community college developmental writing||Most reluctant writer||Not reported||Students write about topics of interest, student centered. Instructor wrote with and modeled what it is to be a writer/sharing himself with students helped build trust. Most of class time spent writing and revising, workshop environment, provide informal one-on-one feedback as writing occurs, specific to what writers needs. Social acts of writing like peer review, collaborative writing, public sharing, etc.||Students began writing with greater interest and skill; began to identify as writers, empowering to write about self, increased confidence.||N/A|
|Taylor (2000)||Interviews||Workplace literacy||11 purposefully selected programs||Transfer of learning||Link content to real examples in learner’s work or home life, new terms and phrases introduced in familiar situation. Base programs on needs and goals of trainee. Implement and practice new skills; use it or lose it. Need to collaboratively plan program||N/A||N/A|
|based on supervisor input, site visit, transfer objectives, observe employees doing their jobs.|
|Taylor, Abasi, Pinsent-Johnson, and Evans (2007)||Interpretive multicase study. Participant observations, video recordings of classroom interactions, interviews with learners, instructors; classroom artifacts, field notes.||Not reported||4 providers||Not reported||Collaborative learning activities to support development of community of practices. Established by instructor, tasks, and groupings. Embed learning in real-world examples. Select problem situation to solve/work on, use real-life materials and activities. In small groups, learners come to know each other. Student role gradually shifts to take on more responsibility, more independence and autonomy. Grouping—purposeful pairing and grouping. Respectful and trusting environment. Knowledge of student backgrounds and needs. Facilitator and orchestrator, social learning practices, teamwork, cognitive apprenticeships. Learning connected to life, overcome prior negative experiences with learning.||Shift from dependence to independence, self-monitoring. Sense of autonomy leads to students managing their own learning, reflecting on learning, and tapping into wider range of resources to achieve goal. Collaborative learning contributes to more positive outlook for themselves, increased confidence, improved self-esteem. Can cause reevaluation of past learning experiences and a belief that there is a better chance of success.||N/A|
|Taylor and McAtee (2003)||Not reported||Prison||Older, incarcerated struggling readers||Build fluency, confidence, and positive attitude toward reading to encourage more reading thus improving reading skills.||Create a psychologically and academically safe environment, provide choices, focus on clear and achievable goals. Students select, practice, and record children’s audio books to be used in local schools. Must||Increased fluency, more positive attitude about reading, builds self-esteem. More than 1,600 children and 56 teachers in 20 schools used the tapes. Mean growth in 1 year was 2.6 but as much||Making the recordings gives real reason to practice, receive feedback, and take explicit instruction.|
|be fluent and expressive. Once comfort level has been achieved, teacher can teach comprehension strategies, vocabulary, phonics.||as 3-4 years. Increased self-confidence. Anecdotal reports—working toward and receiving parole, using children’s books to connect to own children, better letter writing to spouses. Recidivism rate of about 13 vs 43% nationally.|
|Terry (2006)||Official documents, personal documents, one-on-one interviews||Community-based literacy program||2 programs; 37 learners, 13 staff, 7 friends/relatives, 2 voluntary board members, 8 referral agents, 3 funding agents||Not reported||Self-directed learner—giving learners choices over what, how, and when to learn. Self-selection of subject areas, assignment topics, learning pace, and attendance schedules. Choice leads to relevance. The program fits the learner, instead of the opposite. Self-direction mediated by gentle “other direction” to help students meet goals and with regard to assessed skills.||N/A||N/A|
|Tett and Maclachlan (2008)||Mixed-method Interviews||Not reported||613 adult learners; 64% interviewed 1 year later. 50% of these selected randomly to be focus of analysis.||Not reported||One-to-one structure reinforces the idea of hiding, keeping a secret; image of self is not challenged or reconstructed. Group learning capitalizes on social learning and formation of community of practice. Group work predicated on democratic relationship, power sharing.||Students felt more confident to speak up. Generally what change was marked was individualized and without critical consciousness. Personal not connected to political or collective.||Structures and power relationships in most programs militate against individual and social change. Learners begin to recognize their personal worth, power, and potential impact on the wider world only when diversity of literacies and learning are encouraged, acted on, and listened to.|
|Thomas (2009)||Semi-structured survey||TAN programs||165 adults receiving TANF $||Linking literacy skills and computer skills/Internet access to enhance commitment to program, maximize learning gains. Obtain steady employment at living wage. Address literacy-related barriers to employment.||Computer labs with PCs, PLATO software, typing tutorials, Microsoft Office, printers. Face-to-face weekly meetings with teaching coaches. 6-week orientation onsite of programs and how to keep in contact, program expectations, and distance learning. After successful completion, participants receive laptop and dedicated phone line. Attend 3-hour weekly class for job coaching and complete distance assignments. Instructors use email to guide, assign personalized weekly homework, provide feedback. Instructor and job developer work together. Expected to do PLATO 5 hours/week.||Increased autonomy, more informed consumers on the Internet, empowered, motivated, and self-directed.||Having own computer and control over it was important in sustaining interest.|
|Toso et al. (2009)||Participatory research (graduate students, staff, and parents). Scrapbook pages and videotape of PAC activities. Parent interviews or journal entries. Observations||Family literacy||Not reported||Parent leadership influence parents and the program; increase investment in program, and build capacities that can be transferred to personal, educational, and social realms.||Parent advisory council meets monthly during class time, organizes activities. Exercised voice, shaped program, planned events and activities. Chose what topics to study, materials to use, revised a program document and policies that were more reflective of their lives.||More likely to complete the program goals, attended class- and program-sponsored activities more regularly and completed more pretests and posttests. Students lobbied for Evenstart funding. Changed curriculum, attendance, and program standards; better understanding of program requirements and collective political||N/A|
|engagement. More comfortable engaging in children’s school-based activities, enhanced self-esteem and sense of self-worth, increased sense of control. More collaborative, less dependent, more able to help each other. More problem-solving and compromise. More active in community activities. Increased personal and academic investment and achievement.|
|Waterhouse and Deakin (1995)||Not reported||Workplace Pilot programs||Not reported||Multiskilled and adaptable, able to participate in efforts to improve efficiency, productivity, quality and safety; improved communication.||Integrate language and literacy with other workplace training. Collaborative steering committee of diverse stakeholders. Educators immersed in worksite to learn discourse and build curriculum. Peer-group support, active, experiential, enquiry-based learning.||Learned dominant discourses of the workplace, gained knew knowledge and ways of operating in workplace, more comprehensive understanding of site.||N/A|
|Weibel (1994)||Not reported||Workplace (hospital)||Intermediate to advanced new readers||Not reported||Read high-quality literature, discuss, vocabulary development, writing and revision, skill building.||Hones critical thinking.||High-quality writing is more motivating to read and encourage more reading.|
|Weiner (2005)||Not reported||Not reported||Not reported||Not reported||Describes 2 programs that seem to integrate technical and contextual aspects of literacy development. Citizenship Schools-common denominator was respect, shared knowledge, and social-political project that is of consequence to||N/A||Critique of Kruidenier’s Research-Based Principles for Adult Basic Education Reading Instruction on the grounds that it excludes aspects of development and practices that have|
|the learners and teachers. Women’s literacy class in rural El Salvador—significant time and effort put into really getting to know the community and other aspects of the context and then using this knowledge to inform practice. Examples illustrate the pedagogical possibilities of blending principles and insights on critical theory with the practices of critical literacy and whole language.||been found to be vital to literacy development in adults. TF: Critical-feminist-postmodern; social theories of language; relational epistemology|
|Willans and Seary (2007)||Individual and group interviews every 3 weeks through semesters||Transitions to college program||9 students in class of 25||Not reported||Focus on understanding self as learner and others in the world.||Transformation of self-image||TF: adult learning theory, transformational learning.|
|Willans and Seary (2007)||Individual and group interviews, post-program reflective writing||Transitions to college||9 students||Not reported||Draws on past learning experiences while also trying to open up new possibilities for knowledge and self-discovery. Learning experiences center on understanding the self and self as learner in relationship to the wider world. The focus is on both academic skills (emphasis on academic essay) and personal outlook (critical reflection).||Transformation from too stupid, too scared, too old, too hard, to a “can do” view. From narrow, distorted view of self as learner to a more mature and healthy perspective. They cast off the chains that have held them back and discard distorted assumptions that have stifled learning and growth.||TF: Adult learning theory that celebrates strengths and prior experiences. Transformative learning|
|Woodin (2008)||Literature review||Student publishing||Not reported||Use language and literacy competently in self-directed ways, build learner confidence.||Student publishing born from lack of materials and limited funds but also fostered a new approach based on skills and experiences of learners. Contrasted with functional literacy that concentrated on specific skills and tasks.||Helps bridge divide between learning to and actively using \|
|Young (2008)||TR||Community-based program||Not reported||Broaden reading and speaking vocabularies and involve learners in real-life activities.||Delivers instruction in specific areas when requested by at least 3 students. Courses taught by volunteers with specific expertise. This is supplement to regular literacy instruction. Uses reading and writing to increase knowledge about a specific bit of information/content (emphasis on connection to community); learner-centered, hands-on, interactive, project-based.||Real-life activities e learners in practice building worldly knowledge. Has encouraged leaden development and connection to comr Increased confiden reading printed sigr posters. Participatir students had highe percentage of goals attained, instruction hours, changes in g level scores on TA Students practice ri and writing more le to increased abilities|
SECTION 4. ACADEMICALLY UNDERPREPARED COLLEGE STUDENTS: EFFECTIVENESS AND DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES OF LITERACY INSTRUCTION
Literature was identified using electronic databases, the Cited Reference Search in the ISI Web of Science Social Science Citation Index and Google Scholar. The main search was limited to the years 1990-2010 but augmented by a few key sources published earlier. The ERIC, Education Full Text, and ProQuest Digital Dissertations & Theses databases were searched using the following primary and crossed terms: developmental education, developmental studies programs, developmental programs, developmental reading, developmental writing, remedial instruction, basic skills, intervention, teaching methods, career and technical education, technical education, vocational education, vocational training, career preparation, occupational education, remedial reading, remedial writing, literacy, academic skills, reading, reading instruction, reading comprehension, writing, writing instruction, academically underprepared students, remedial students, remedial courses, remedial instruction, college, community college, 2-year college, higher education, young adults, college students, best practices, intervention, learning disabilities, reading disabilities, dyslexia, English language learners, English as a second language, ESL, limited English speaking, English (second language), and second language learning. Furthermore, to ensure identification of the most recent work, a manual search was conducted of issues of journals published within the last 6 months of report preparation, including the Journal of Developmental Education, Community College Review, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Journal of College Reading and Learning, Community College Journal, Teaching English in the Two-Year College, Reading and Writing, Reading Research Quarterly, and the Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Literature considered for this review consisted of peer-reviewed journal articles and technical reports from known agencies. To be selected, participants in the study had to be students with reading or writing skills below the college level who were enrolled in higher education programs leading to degrees or career and technical certificates. For the questions on instruction, the study had to report quantitative or qualitative information on the teaching of reading and/or writing to this population. Research on “success” courses were selected if they included reading or writing instruction. Beyond the scope of this review were studies with individuals who were diagnosed as having a learning disability but were higher skilled and enrolled in college-level courses (Cirino et al., 2005; Coleman et al., 2009; Gregg et al., 2008; Harrison, Larochette, and Nichols, 2007; Mull, Sitlington, and Alper, 2001; Sparks, Philips, and Javorsky, 2003), as well as research with students in college-based adult literacy programs for students who had not completed secondary education.
If participants’ English language proficiency was not mentioned, or if participants were not described as English language learners, it was assumed they were sufficiently fluent not to qualify as English language learners. Studies with Generation 1.5 students were included with those on English language learners. Studies with students in non-English speaking countries who were learning English as a foreign language (e.g., Hayati and Shariatifar, 2009) were not included.
For quantitative studies to be included, they had to report pre-post gain on reading or writing measures and use a control or comparison group. Descriptive studies were included if they provided either quantitative or qualitative information on instructional practices but did not report measurable outcomes in a way that would permit an inference about effectiveness. Studies were excluded if they only described the use of instructional approaches and did not describe outcomes, or they provided only commentary or instructional guidelines (e.g., Elder and Richard, 2002; Grubb and Cox, 2005; Juchniewicz, 2007). Descriptions of professional development to prepare instructors to work with underprepared students (e.g., Johnson et al., 2009) were not included if they did not report both the instructional practices and the outcomes. Quantitative studies that reported outcomes but did not have a control or comparison group were treated as descriptive studies.
SECTION 4. Academically Underprepared College Students: Effectiveness and Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction
A. Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction
|Reference||Theoretical Framework||Instructional Goals||Practice and Skill Emphasis||Participants||Research Design/ Method||Measures||Findings|
|Caverly et al. (2004), Study 2||Strategy development||Teach reading comprehension strategy with focus on understanding of task requirements; aim to increase flexibility, self-regulation and self-efficacy.||Strategic reading, PLAN mnemonic: Preplan, list, activate, and evaluate; use text from history course; teacher models and provides guided practice.||Treatment N = 56, comparison N = 43, 4-yr||Quasi-experimental. Treatment group took developmental education course that taught PLAN, comparison group same reading ability but did not take developmental education.||ACT reading test, grade in reading-intensive course (history or psychology)||Statistically significant differences on both outcome measures: developed strategy group higher. ES for reading test d= 0.5. Note confound (comparison group no developmental education or PLAN strategy).|
|Friend (2001)||Strategy development||Teach reading comprehension via written summarization strategy based on hierarchical structure of text (van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983).||Teacher models and provides guided and independent practice in steps: preview, think, read passage, use strategy to identify thesis and supporting ideas. Two approaches: argument repetition strategy: find repetitions, use ideas repeated the most. Generalization strategy: find general ideas that sum up specific ideas.||N =147 developmental writing, 4-yr.||Experimental. Random assignment to 3 conditions: argument repetition, generalization, self-reflection control; 2 x 90-min. sessions.||Written summaries scored for thesis statement, content inclusion, content exclusion, sentence transformation, and overall summarization.||Overall summarization, content inclusion, and content exclusion better in experimental than control group. Better thesis statements in generalization condition. Controls better at sentence transformation but otherwise both treatments effective, few differences between treatment conditions.|
|Hart and Speece (1998)||Strategy development||Teach reading comprehension emphasizing strategy use, monitoring, and repair.||Reciprocal teaching (Palincsar and Brown, 1984) compared to cooperative learning supplement.||N = 50 developmental reading (N = 25 in each condition), cc||Quasi-experimental. 2 classrooms, assigned to either reciprocal teaching or cooperative group supplement condition|
|Martino et al. (2001)||Discrete skills||Increase fluency and reading comprehension. Teach students to make connections among levels of information: graphophonic, phonemic,lovi||“Communicative Reading Strategies:” individualized tutoring in conjunction with content course (biology). Tutor provides background knowledge and models reading complex sentences. Corrective oral reading for fluency and comprehension. Tutor discusses graphophonic, etc. knowledge with student. When student comprehends literal text,||N = 8 with low reading scores, enrolled in college-level biology course, 4-yr. low scores suggest developmental reading level.||Quasi-experimental, not stated how subjects assigned to groups|
|Scrivener et al. (2008)||Learning community||Prepare for college literacy demands in learning community.||Cohort attends clustered English, content course, and orientation course (78% of English courses were developmental; developmental and college English not disaggregated).||First time, fulltime freshmen. Intervention N= 195, control N = 192, c|
|Snyder (2002)||Strategy instruction||Teach reading comprehension strategies for application to text on philosophy and speech topics assigned in freshman orientation.||Strategies to locate main idea, generate questions, clarify information, predict (specific strategy not described).||Treatment: N = 86 concurrent enrolled in orientation developme reading courses. Compariso N = 66 students in orientation|
B. Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction
|Reference||Theoretical Framework||Instructional Goals||Practice and Skill Emphasis||Participants||Dependent Variai|
|Artis (2008)||Strategy instruction||Improve reading comprehension, metacognition. Self-directed learning and long-term retention of information.||SQ3R: Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review (Robinson, 1946) to read content textbooks||Marketing students, college-credit course, 4-yr||N/A|
|Baker et al. (2009)||Meaning making, learning community||Contextualize reading and writing instruction in meaningful content.||Two approaches described: (1) Incorporate content from service learning experience in developmental English course; themes are community issues and activities in students’ volunteer placements (2) Learn community pairing English instruction and college success courses; theme is African American culture, literature, and experience. English course counts towards associate but not 4-yr degree. English courses in both examples combine reading and writing.||Low- skilled students in developmental and credit English courses, cc||N/A. NOTE: Examples c brief reports on contextu in content areas; did not practices or strategies.|
|Boroch et al. (2007)||Sociocultural, meaning making, strategy development||Improve reading and writing skills.||Reading Apprenticeship: social, personal, cognitive, and knowledge dimensions incorporated into reading instruction using subject-matter text; emphasis on metacognitive strategies.||Developmental English students, cc and 4 yr||N/A. NOTE: Example cc instructional methods fa|
|Burgess (2009)||Meaning making||Supplement classroom learning with synchronous and asynchronous online discussion and||Inferential and critical reading comprehension skills. Online discussion and chat sessions based on assigned readings (short stories and essays on contemporary culture). Students “contemplate collaboratively and critically analyze course material and discussion topics” (p. 15).||N = 28 students in one section of developmental reading, cc||Quantitative: teacher-ma board assessment; tradi (multiple-choice, short a district assessment, give interviews; journal entrie survey, content of online coded for comprehension Improvement shown.|
|comprehension and increased motivation.|
|Butler et al. (2000)||Strategy instruction and meaning making||Improve self-regulation of literacy tasks, focusing on metacognition and self-management for LD students.||Strategic Content Learning program and individualized tutoring using assignments from current CTE courses (Early Childhood Ed., Special Ed. Assistant). Develop goals, analyze reading and writing tasks, evaluate own learning, invent and monitor reading and writing strategies. While also receiving strategy training, “students construct idiosyncratic understandings about learning based on experience” (p. 198).||N = 2 participants with LD enrolled in career certificate programs, cc||Quantitative: (1) Writing samples scored pre and post on 5-point scale, DVs: thematic salience, organization, idea flow, and clarity. (2) Metacognitive questionnaire and strategy interview, DVs: task description, strategy, description, strategy focus, self-monitoring. Self-rating on self-efficacy. Improvement shown.|
|Good (2000)||Meaning making||Teach study skills, reading and writing for academic courses.||Discussion, reading and writing about narrative and expository text; reader response framework (Rosenblatt, 1991); wrote reflections and increasing complex essays. Individual and small group instruction, modified based on data collected over time.||N = 6 developmental reading students (5 were college athletes), 4-yr||Quantitative: Stanford Test of Academic Skills, and ratings on essays and reading responses using products in a portfolio. Single subject design. Graphs of students’ progress show literacy growth over time except for one student who showed ceiling effect.|
|Goode (2000)||Meaning making||Improve reading and writing skills.||CONCUR program: Contextual Curriculum, combines reading and writing. Anchors instruction in meaningful context, uses “reading workshop” model (Attwell, 1987). Students choose topics, read whole books. Activities include silent reading, book talks, vocabulary sharing, instruction in and immediate application of critical reading strategies, literature circles. Work results in publishing for class.||Developmental reading and writing students, cc||N/A|
|Reynolds and Bruch (2002)||Meaning making, critical sociocultural||Improve writing skills.||Focus on social aspects of writing; students write for authentic purposes. Writing instruction: academic essays analyzing information and stating opinions based on reading text on high interest topics; also write reflection logs, e.g., list steps taken to complete assignment. Example of assignment: read autobiography of Frederick Douglass, write about relevance to own lives and “literacy as a means of gaining participatory power” (p. 14).||First-level developmental writing students, 4 yr.||4-question post survey on perceptions of the course. Variation in reactions to dimensions of course; 40% of respondents thought course should emphasize “correctness.”|
|Weiner (2002)||Critical sociocultural||Teach concepts of multiple literacies and social justice.||Teacher introduces students to cultural, ideological, political and pedagogical dimensions of literacy practice. Reading material are brief newspaper and magazine articles on pressing issues. Classes conducted as dialogical seminars, emphasis on class discussion, e.g., of official culture and unofficial culture (racism) of university.||Academically underprepared migrant and seasonal farm workers, developmental education course in College Assistance Migrant program, 4-yr||N/A|
C. Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction with English Language Learners
|Reference||Theoretical Framework||Instructional Goals||Practice and Skill Emphasis||Participants||Research Design/ Method||Me|
|Rochford (2003), Expt. 1||Meaning making||Infuse test preparation with awareness of personal learning style relating to environmental, emotional, sociological and psychological||One-session workshop to prepare students for high-stakes writing test. Experimental condition used materials based on pre-assessed learning styles (self-structured vs. need external structure); visual, auditory, kinesthetic learners. Active learning used throughout. Control: traditional “talk and chalk” test preparation.||Treatment (learning styles), N = 56. Comparison, N = 53 (traditional instruction). All had completed ESL courses,||Quasi-experimental. Two conditions, groups taught by same instructor at different time points||ACT \ Test|
D. Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction with English Language Learners
|Reference||Theoretical Framework||Instructional Goals||Practice and Skill Emphasis||Participants, Setting||Dependent Variables and Findings|
|Bosher (1992)||Meaning making||Teach reading writing for academic purposes: 3 courses.||“Commanding English Program.” Course 1: personal narrative writing based on cultural knowledge to build confidence, emphasis on writing process; Course 2: reading and writing integrated, bridge from personal to academic writing, comprehension and reaction to text; Course 3: content literacy and research.||Generation 1.5, orientation program, 4 yr.||N/A|
|Goldschmidt (2003)||Discrete skills||Improve host of skills including reading and writing.||College-orientation course: instruction in time management, following directions, understanding assignments, and instruction in math, grammar, and writing skills. Course is “designed by students for students” (p. 16). Skills taught by instructors and peer tutors.||Generation 1.5, college-orientation course, 4 yr||Retention in college, GPA. Positive findings for orientation vs non-orientation freshmen over 4-year period.|
|Kaspar (1996)||Meaning making compared with discrete skills||Improve reading comprehension.||“Informal instruction:” students answer questions about the text in a reading log. “Formal instruction:” students taught to write personal narratives, expository-persuasive, and compare-contrast essays based on text, using a prescribed structure.||Students in ESL reading course, cc. Two classrooms received informal and two other classrooms received formal instruction, cc.||Informal end-of-semester reading measures. Essay- writing showed better outcomes than the reading log condition, no statistical comparisons.|
|Tai and Rochford (2007)||Learning community||Simultaneously improve English language, reading, and writing skills.||Learning-community cluster comprises ESL, developmental reading, and developmental writing course. Focus on spoken and written vocabulary, concepts, and syntax; note taking, development of pre-reading and reading comprehension activities to build background knowledge, distinguish fact from opinion, comprehend abstract concepts, identify contrasting points of view, and document analysis, to prepare to write essay.||Developmental reading and writing/ELLs, cc||Rates of passing course and placement test. Two-thirds of participants passed both.|
NOTE: Acronyms: cc = community college; 4 yr = 4-year college; ELLs = English language learners; ESL = English as a Second Language.
SECTION 5. REFERENCES
1. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction
Alamprese, J.A. (2009). Developing learners’ reading skills in adult basic education programs. In S. Reder and J. Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy skills (pp. 107-131). New York: Routledge.
Alessi, S.M., Siegel, M., Silver, D., and Barnes, H. (1982-1983). Effectiveness of a computer based reading comprehension program for adults. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 11(1), 43-57.
Askov, E.N., and Brown, E.J. (1992). R.O.A.D. to success: Evaluation of workplace literacy efforts. Adult Basic Education, 2(3), 167-175.
Batchelder, J. (2000). Effects of a computer-assisted instruction program in a prison setting: An experimental study. Journal of Correctional Education, 51(4), 324-332.
Beder, H. (1999). The outcomes and impacts of adult literacy education in the United States (Information Analysis No. NCSALL-R-6R309B60002). Boston, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
Berry, A.B., and Mason, L.H. (2010). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing of expository essays for adults with written expression difficulties: Preparing for the GED. Remedial and Special Education, June 23. Available: http://sed.sagepub.com/content/41/4/234.full.pdf+html [Jan. 2012].
Brock, M. (1998). The enhancement of literacy development in an adult beginning reader through creating texts to accompany wordless books. In B. Sturtevant, J. Dugan, P. Linder, and W.M. Linek (Eds.), Literacy and community: The twentieth yearbook. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) Document ED443107. Commerce, TX: College Reading Association.
Cheek, E.H., and Lindsey, J.D. (1994). The effects of two methods of reading instruction on urban adults’ word identification and comprehension abilities. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 11(1), 14-19.
Diem, R.A., and Fairweather, P.G. (1980). An evaluation of a computer-assisted education system in an untraditional academic setting—A county jail. AEDS Journal, 13, 204-213.
Gold, P.C., and Horn, P.L. (1982). Achievement in reading, verbal language, listening comprehension, and locus of control of adult illiterates in a volunteer tutorial project. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54(3), 1243-1250.
Gold, P.C., and Johnson, J.A. (1982). Prediction of achievement in reading, self-esteem, auding and verbal language by adult illiterates in a psychoeducational tutorial program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 513-522.
Greenberg, D. (1998). Betsy: Lessons learned from working with an adult nonreader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(4), 252-261.
Greenberg, D., Fredrick, L.D., Hughes, T.A., and Bunting, C.J. (2002). Implementation issues in a reading program for low-reading adults. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(7), 626-632.
Greenberg, D., Rodrigo, V., Berry, A., Brinck, T., and Joseph, H. (2006). Implementation of an extensive reading program with adult learners. Adult Basic Education, 16(2), 17.
Gretes, J.A., and Green, M. (1994). The effect of interactive CD-ROM/digitized audio courseware on reading among low-literate adults. Computers in the Schools, 11(2), 27-42.
Lazar, M.K., Bean, R.M., and Van Horn, B.V. (1998). Linking the success of a basics skills program to workplace practices and productivity. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(5), 352-362.
MacArthur, C.A., and Lembo, L. (2009). Strategy instruction in writing for adult literacy learners. Reading and Writing, 22(9), 1021-1039.
Maclay, C.M., and Askov, E.N. (1988). Computers and adult beginning readers: An intergenerational approach. Lifelong Learning, 11(8), 23-28.
Massengill, D. (2004). The impact of using guided reading to teach low-literate adults. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(7), 588-602.
Massengill, D. (2006). Mission accomplished…. It’s learnable now: Voices of mature challenged spellers using a word study approach. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(5), 420-431.
McKane, P.F., and Greene, B.A. (1996). The use of theory-based computer-assisted instruction in correctional centers to enhance the reading skills of reading-disadvantaged adults. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(4), 331-344.
Messemer, J.E., and Valentine, T. (2004). The learning gains of male inmates participating in a basic skills program. Adult Basic Education, 14(2), 67-89.
Meyer, V. (1982). Prime-O-Tec: A successful strategy for adult disabled readers. Journal of Reading, 25(6), 512-515.
Mikulecky, L., and Lloyd, P. (1996). Evaluation of workplace literacy programs: A profile of effective instructional practices. ERIC Report ED393013. Philadelphia: National Center for Adult Literacy.
Mikulecky, L., and Lloyd, P. (1997). Evaluation of workplace literacy programs: A profile of effective instructional practices. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(4), 555-585.
Perin, D. (1997). Workplace literacy assessment. Dyslexia, 3(3), 190-200.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1993). “I ain’t never read my own words before.” Journal of Reading, 37(3), 210-219.
Rich, R., and Shepherd, M.J. (1993). Teaching text-comprehension strategies to adult poor readers. Reading and Writing, 5(4), 387-402.
Roberts, R.E., Cheek, E.H., and Mumm, R.S. (1994). Group intervention and reading performance in a medium-security prison facility. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20(3/4), 97-116.
Shaw, D.M., and Berg, M.A. (2008). Effects of a word study intervention on spelling accuracy among low-literate adults. Adult Basic Education & Literacy Journal, 2(3), 131-139.
Shaw, D.M., and Berg, M.A. (2009). Jail participants actively study words. Journal of Correctional Education, 60(2), 100-119.
Shippen, M.E. (2008). A pilot study of the efficacy of two adult basic literacy programs for incarcerated males. Journal of Correctional Education, 59(4), 339-347.
Sticht, T.G., Armstrong, W.A., Hickey, D.T., and Caylor, J.S. (1987). Cast-off youth: Policy and training methods from the military experience. New York: Praeger.
Venezky, R.L., Bristow, P.S., and Sabatini, J.P. (1994). Measuring change in adult literacy programs: Enduring issues and a few answers. Educational Assessment, 2(2), 101-131.
2. Adult Basic and Secondary Education:
Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction with English Language Learners
Condelli, L., Wrigley, H., and Yoon, K. (2009). “What works” for adult literacy students of English as a second language. In S. Reder and J. Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy and numeracy skills: Findings from longitudinal research (pp. 132-159). New York: Routledge.
Ekkens, K., and Winke, P. (2009). Evaluating workplace English language programs. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(4), 265-287.
3. Adult Basic and Secondary Education: Qualitative Studies of Literacy Instruction
Balatti, J., Black, S., and Falk, I. (2007). Teaching for social capital outcomes: The case of adult literacy and numeracy courses. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 47(2), 245-263.
Beaverstock, C., and McIntyre, S. (2008). Dividing and conquering: Successful writing processes for adult learners. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 2(2), 104-108.
Beaverstock, C., Bhaskaran, S., and Brinkley, J. (2009). Transforming adult students into authors: The writer to writer challenge. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 3(1), 50-59.
Beck, A. (2005). A place for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(5), 392-400.
Belfiore, M.E., Defoe, T.A., Folinsbee, S., Hunter, J., and Jackson, N.S. (2004). Reading work: Literacies in the new workplace. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berne, J. (2004). Think-aloud protocol and adult learners. Adult Basic Education, 14(3), 153-173.
Bourret, C. (2009). Extending learning: Reading packets for ESL students. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 3(3), 175-179.
Boutwell, M.A. (1989). Partnership for change. In A. Fingeret and P. Jurmo (Eds.), Participatory literacy education (pp. 43-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryan, L. (1996). Cooperative writing groups in community college. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40(3), 188.
Budweg, P., and Schins, M. (1991). Literacy through literature: A reading club with imprisoned youth and young adults. Convergence, 24(4), 63.
Burgess, M. (2009). Using WebCT as a supplemental tool to enhance critical thinking and engagement among developmental reading students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 9-33.
Callahan, M., and Chumney, D. (2009). Write like college: How remedial writing courses at a community college and a research university position “at-risk” students in the field of higher education. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1,619-1,664.
Carter, S. (2006). Redefining literacy as a social practice. Journal of Basic Writing, 25(2), 94-125.
Case, R.E., Ainsworth, J., and Emerson, R. (2004). Building an adult workplace literacy program for Spanish-speaking carpenters. Adult Learning, 15(3/4), 22-27.
Castleton, G. (2002). Workplace literacy as a contested site of educational activity. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(7), 556-566.
Cottingham, S., Metcalf, K., and Phnuyal, B. (1998). The REFLECT approach to literacy and social change: A gender perspective. Gender and Development, 6(2), 27-34.
Cotugno, M. (2009). Encouraging GED students to Write Now!: The studio as bridge. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 3(3), 171-174.
Cowles, S. (1997). Teaching and learning with Internet-based resources. Literacy Leader Fellowship Program Report III(2). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Cukras, G. (2000). Empowering students through literature. Adult Basic Education, 10(1), 21.
D’Amico, D., and Schnee, E. (1997). It changed something inside of me: English language learning, structural barriers to employment and workers’ goals in a workplace literacy program. In G. Hull (Ed.), Changing work, changing workers: Critical perspectives on language, literacy, and skills (pp. 117-140). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Demetrion, G.A. (1999). Scaffolding Paradigm: Small group tutoring at the Bob Steele Reading Center 1990-1995. Adult Basic Education, 9(1), 21-46.
Diehl, S. (2004). Life skills to life saving: Health literacy in adult education. Adult Learning, 15(1/2), 26-29.
Dillon-Black, L. (1998). A rose abused: Literacy as transformation. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42(1), 20-24.
Earl, D. (1997). Learning to love reading. Focus on Basics, 1(1), 3-4.
Elish-Piper, L. (2000). An analysis of social–contextual responsiveness of adult education in urban family literacy programs: Trends, obstacles, and solutions. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(3), 184-200.
Engstrom, E.U. (2005). Reading, writing, and assistive technology: An integrated developmental curriculum for college students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 30-39.
Fallon, D. (1995). Making dialogue dialogic: A dialogic approach to adult literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(2), 138-147.
Fingeret, A. (1989). The social and historical context of participatory literacy education. In A. Fingeret and P. Jurmo (Eds.), Participatory literacy education (pp. 5-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fingeret, H.A., and Drennon, C. (1997). Literacy for life: Adult learners, new practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fingeret, H.A., Tom, A., Dyer, P., Morley, A., Dawson, J., Harper, L., et al. (1994). Lives of Change: An ethnographic evaluation of two learner centred literacy programs. Raleigh, NC: Literacy South.
Fiore, K., and Elsasser, N. (1987). Strangers no more: A liberatory literacy curriculum. In I. Shore (Ed.), Freire for the classroom: A sourcebook for liberatory teaching (pp. 87-103). Portsmouth, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Forell, K. (2006). Ideas in practice: Bringin’ hip-hop to the basics. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 28-33.
Fuller, C. (2009). No disrespect: Literature discussion as social action in the adult education classroom. In R. Rogers, M. Mosley, and M.A. Kramer (Eds.), Designing socially just learning communities (pp. 76-87). New York: Routledge.
Gaber-Katz, E., and Watson, G.M. (1991). The land that we dream...: A participatory study of community-based literacy. Toronto: OISE Press.
Gallo, M.L. (2004). Reading the world of work: A learner-centered approach to workplace literacy and ESL. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Gillis, D. (2004). A community-based approach to health literacy using participatory research. Adult Learning, 15(1/2), 14-17.
Gowen, S. (1992). The politics of workplace literacy: A case study. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gowen, S.G., and Bartlett, C. (1997). Friends in the kitchen: Lessons from survivors. In G. Hull (Ed.), Changing work, changing workers: Critical perspectives on language, literacy, and skills (pp. 141-158). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Grabill, J.T. (2001). Community literacy programs and the politics of change. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Griffin, C., Sarcyk, T., Swarts, T., and Youngkin, B. (1993). ABE women gaining a new voice. Adult Learning, 5(2), 19-22.
Hayes, E. (1997). Portfolio assessment in adult basic education: A pilot study. Adult Basic Education, 7(3), 165.
Heller, C.E. (1997). Until we are strong together: Women writers in the Tenderloin. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hofer, J., and Larson, P. (1997). Building community and skills through multilevel classes. Focus on Basics, 1(C). Available: http://ncsall.net?id=445 [Jan. 2012].
Houp, G.W. (2009). Lana’s story: Re-storying literacy education. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(8), 698-707.
Iasevoli, D. (2007). Behind education: How can you “be the book” behind bars? English Journal, 96(6), 19-23.
Kallenbach, S., and Viens, J. (2004). Open in interpretation: Multiple intelligences theory in adult literacy education. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 58-66.
Kalman, J., and Losey, K.M. (1997). Pedagogical innovation in a workplace literacy program: Theory and practice. In G. Hull (Ed.), Changing work, changing workers: Critical perspectives on language, literacy, and skills (pp. 84-116). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kramer, M.A., and Jones, R. (2009). Designing a critical literacy lab in an adult education center. In R. Rogers, M. Mosley, and M.A. Kramer (Eds.), Designing socially just learning communities: Critical literacy education across the lifespan (pp. 113-124). New York: Routledge.
Langer, A. (2003). Forms of workplace literacy using reflection-with-action methods: A scheme for inner-city adults. Reflective Practice, 4(3), 317-336.
Lazar, M., Bean, R., and Van Horn, B. (1998). Linking the success of a basic skills program to workplace practices and productivity. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41(5), 352.
Mageehon, A. (2003). Incarcerated women’s educational experiences. Journal of Correctional Education, 54(4), 191-199.
Mark, R. (2008). Exploring equality through creative methods of learning in adult literacy: Findings from a peace-funded project. Adult Learner: The Irish Journal of Adult and Community Education, 77-83.
Martin, R. (2001). Listening up: Reinventing ourselves as teachers and students. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
McDonald, L., and Jones, E. (2009). Supporting a holistic adult literacy program: The provision of a clinical social worker. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 3(2), 77-86.
Merrifield, J. (1997). If job training is the answer, what is the question? Research with displaced women textile workers. In G. Hull (Ed.), Changing work, changing workers: Critical perspectives on language, literacy, and skills (pp. 273-294). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Moni, K.B., Jobling, A., and van Kraayenoord, C.C. (2007). They’re a lot cleverer than I thought: Challenging perceptions of disability support staff as they tutor in an adult literacy program. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(4), 439-459.
Morgan, A.M. (2004). Educating low-literacy adults: To teach or not to teach? International Journal of Educational Reform, 13(2), 151-158.
Norton, M. (2001). Getting our own education: Peer tutoring and participatory education in an adult literacy centre. In P. Campbell and B. Burnaby (Eds.), Participatory practices in adult education (pp. 103-120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Osei, M. (2001). Can you do what I do? A case study of computer-assisted instruction for adults participating in an adult education program. Adult Basic Education, 11(3), 150.
Padak, N., and Baradine, B. (2004). Engaging readers and writers in adult education contexts. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 126-137.
Pannucci, L., and Walmsley, S. (2007). Supporting learning-disabled adults in literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(7), 540-546.
Perin, D., and Greenberg, D. (2007). Reserach-based reading instruction in an adult basic education program. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 1(3), 123-132.
Pharness, G. (2001). From where we live, how far can we see? In P. Campbell and B. Burnaby (Eds.), Participatory practices in adult education (pp. 197-218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pinsent-Johnson, C. (2007). Developing practice-based performance assessment. In P. Campbell (Ed.), Measures of success: Assessment and accountability in adult basic education (pp. 15-46). Edmonton, Alberta: Grass Roots Press.
Rhoder, C.A., and French, J.N. (1994). Workplace literacy: From survival to empowerment and human development. Journal of Reading, 38(2), 110-120.
Rhoder, C.A., and French, J.N. (1995). Participant-generated text: A vehicle for workplace literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(2), 110-118.
Rivera, L. (2008). Laboring to learn: Women’s literacy and poverty in the post-welfare era. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Robertson, L. (2007). An adult education teacher’s journey with evidence-based reading instruction. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 1(3), 157-160.
Robinson-Geller, P. (2007). Individualized group instruction: A reality of adult basic education. In J. Coming, B. Garner, and C. Smith (Eds.), Review of adult learning and literacy (vol. 7, pp. 137-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rogers, R., and Kramer, M.A. (2008). Adult education teachers: Designing critical literacy practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sanguinetti, J., Waterhouse, P., and Maunders, D. (2005). Pedagogies on the edge: Researching complex practice in youth and adult community education. Studies in Continuing Education, 27(3), 271-287.
Shor, I. (1987). Monday morning fever: Critical literacy and the generative theme of “work.” In I. Shor (Ed.), Freire for the classroom (pp. 104-121). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Siegel, J. (2007). Keeping it real: Authentic materials in a GED class. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 1(2), 100-102.
Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2007). Assistive technology and adult literacy: Access and benefits. In J. Comings, B. Garner, and C. Smith (Eds.), Review of adult learning and literacy (vol. 7, pp. 93-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sink, D.W., Parkhill, M.A., and Marshall, R. (2005). Learning together: A family-centered literacy program. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(8), 583-590.
Sissel, P.A. (1996). Reflection as vision: Prsopects for future literacy programming. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 70, 97-103.
Soifer, R., Young, D.L., and Irwin, M. (1989). The academy: A learner-centered workplace literacy program. In A. Fingeret and P. Jurmo (Eds.), Participatory literacy education (pp. 65-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stefl-Mabry, J. (1998). Designing a web-based reading course. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41(7), 556.
Stoehr, T. (2005). Is it a crime to be illiterate? Changing lives through literature: Offenders program report. Change, 41(7), 28-35.
Street, C.A. (2005). A reluctant writer’s entry into a community of writers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(8), 636-641.
Taylor, M. (2000). Transfer of learning in workplace literacy programs. Adult Basic Education, 10(1), 3.
Taylor, M., Abasi, A., and Pinsent-Johnson, C. (2009). Collaborative learning in communities of literacy practice. Adult Basic and Literacy Education Journal, 1(1), 4-11.
Taylor, R.T., and McAtee, R. (2003). Turning a new page to life and literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(6), 476-480.
Terry, M. (2006). Self-directed learning by undereducated adults. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(4), 29-39.
Tett, L., and Maclachlan, K. (2008). Learners, tutors, and power in adult literacies research in Scotland. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(6), 659-672.
Thomas, R.L. (2009). Using distance learning to increase literacy among TANF participants. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 27(3), 216-226.
Toso, B.W., Prins, E., Drayton, B., Tnanadass, E., and Gungor, R. (2009). Finding voice: Shared decision making and student leadership in a family literacy program. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 3(3), 151-160.
Waterhouse, P.J., and Deakin, R. (1995). Changing approaches to workplace literacy. Journal of Reading, 38(6), 498-500.
Weibel, M.C. (1994). Literature, whole language, and adult literacy instruction. Adult Learning, 6(2), 9-12.
Weiner, E. (2005). Keeping adults behind: Adult literacy education in the age of official reading regimes. Journal of Adolescent &Adult Literacy, 49(4), 286-301.
Willans, J., and Seary, K. (2007). “I’m not stupid after all”: Changing perceptions of self as a tool for transformation. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 47(3), 433-452.
Woodin, T. (2008). “A beginner reader is not a beginner thinker”: Student publishing in Britain since the 1970s. Paedagogica Historica, 44(1/2), 219-232.
Young, D. (2008). Nontraditional volunteers share expertise through small-group instruction. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 2(1), 44-48.
4. Academically Underprepared College Students
A. Effectiveness Studies of Literacy Instruction
Caverly, D.C., Nicholson, S.A., and Radcliffe, R. (2004). The effectiveness of strategic instruction for college developmental readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35, 25-49.
Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 3-24.
Hart, E.R., and Speece, D.L. (1998). Reciprocal learning goes to college: Effects for postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 670-681.
Martino, N.L., Norris, J., and Hoffman, P. (2001). Reading comprehension instruction: Effects of two types. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(1), 2-10.
Scrivener, S., Bloom, D., LeBlanc, A., Paxson, C., Rouse, C., and Sommo, C. (2008). Opening doors: A good start. Two-year effects of a freshmen learning community program at Kingsborough Community College. New York: MDRC.
Snyder, V. (2002). The effect of course-based reading strategy training on the reading comprehension skills of developmental college students. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 18(2), 37-41.
B. Descriptive Studies of Literacy Instruction
Artis, A.B. (2008). Improving marketing students’ reading comprehension with the SQ3R method. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(2), 130-137.
Baker, E.D., Hope, L., and Karandjeff, K. (2009). Contextualized teaching and learning: A faculty primer. Sacramento: Center for Student Success, Research and Planning Group, and Academic Senate, Chancellor’s Office of California Community Colleges. Available: http://www.careerladdersproject.org/docs/CTL.pdf [Jan. 2012].
Boroch, D., Fillpot, J., Hope, L., Johnstone, R., Mery, P., Serban, A., et al. (2007). Basic skills as a foundation for student success in California community colleges. Sacramento: Center for Student Success, Research and Planning Group, Chancellor’s Office of California Community Colleges. Available: http://www.rpgroup.org/publications/StudentSuccessBook.htm [Feb. 2012].
Burgess, M.L. (2009). Using WebCT as a supplemental tool to enhance critical thinking and engagement among developmental reading students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 9-33.
Butler, D.L., Elaschuk, C.L., and Poole, S. (2000). Promoting strategic writing by postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A report of three case studies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 196-213.
Good, J.M. (2000). Evaluating developmental education programs by measuring literacy growth. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(1), 30-38.
Goode, D. (2000). Creating a context for developmental English. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 27(3), 270-277.
Reynolds, T., and Bruch, P. (2002). Curriculum and affect: A participatory developmental writing approach. Journal of Developmental Education, 26, 12-20.
Weiner, E.J. (2002). Beyond remediation: Ideological literacies of learning in developmental classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46, 150-168.
C. Effectiveness Studies with English Language Learners
Rochford, R.A. (2003). Assessing learning styles to improve the quality of performance of community college students in developmental writing programs: A pilot study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 665-677.
D. Descriptive Studies with English Language Learners
Bosher, S. (1992). Developing a writing curriculum for academically underprepared college ESL students. Education Resources and Information Center, ED352843. Minneapolis: General College, University of Minnesota.
Goldschmidt, M.M., Notzold, N., and Miller, C.Z. (2003). ESL student transition to college: The 30-hour program. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(2), 12-17.
Kaspar, L.F. (1996). Writing to read: Enhancing ESL students’ reading proficiency through written response to text. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 23, 25-33.
Tai, E., and Rochford, R.A. (2007). Getting down to basics in western civilization: It’s about time. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(2), 103-116.