There has long been a general idea that computer skills cannot be taught in state/federally funded adult education programs. As computer-based testing begins to affect the process of test preparation (to say nothing about computer skills as life skills and critical thinking skills) we need some clarification about the conditions of funding with regard to tech skills. Currently, in some parts of the country there is a hesitancy on the part of adult education leadership at the state, regional and local levels to address digital and information literacy during HSE classes, or even as a separate supplement.
I would argue that increasing our students technology fluency is crucial to their performance on computer-based tests and technology-rich workplaces, higher ed, and every day life. How can we get this issue resolved?
Comments
Thanks for posting this! I think this issue is fascinating. First, I want to say that I think given the transition to online GED testing and the focus of messaging in print and at the last COABE conference, OVAE is supportive of programs building digital skills of ABE learners. However, I think that different state-level policies/staff interpret WIA II very differently and that this impacts how and what amount of instruction they allow programs to provide.
The relevant language in WIA is:
SEC. 202. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this title to create a partnership among the Federal Government, States, and localities to provide, on a voluntary basis, adult education and literacy services, in order to— (1) assist adults to become literate and obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for employment and self-sufficiency; (2) assist adults who are parents to obtain the educational skills necessary to become full partners in the educational development of their children; (3) assist adults in the completion of a secondary school education. (Workforce Investment act, 1998)
Interpretation of what is meant by "knowledge and skills necessary for employment and self-sufficiency" is most relevant. I just completed a study of how three different states interpret WIA II to determine how to provide guidance for digital literacy instruction. I found a few interesting things:
1- Interpretation of state officials on what is allowed ranged from explicitly disallowing direct instruction in classroom (unless strongly embedded in allowed literacy/academic instruction) to actually requiring some sort of digital literacy skill instruction.
2- Teachers are finding ways to work in direct digital literacy skill building even in the state where there was explicit restriction.
3- There was general agreement in all three states that embedded digital literacy skill building within broader academic/literacy instruction is preferred because it gives learners the opportunity to learn and then apply the skills in immediately relevant contexts.
I've seen some language in WIA reauthorization bills that would resolve this ambiguity and bring the Act into the 21st Century. I hope it happens!
Jen
Those are strong arguments, Jen. I think local programs have more flexibility here than they may think. When a fee is charged for adult ed services, those program funds can be used for digital literacy instruction/software. Many programs I'm working with are incorporating computer skills instruction direction into their GED classes at about 1/4 or 1/3 of class time.
But those are the pro-active programs. The field of adult education has such a complicated relationship with computers and information technology. Our hardware is often out of date, restrictive firewalls and antiquated networks tie our hands, technophobic teachers and staff sometimes project thier attitudes on the students and program planning, instructional software are often K12 hand-me-downs, states only approve the use of certain software for distance ed (and those lists aren't updated often enough)... and the list goes on (I blogged about these issues that hold us back right here and still want input). It's no wonder we're mired in the technology issue. The last thing the field needs is a federal policy that gives states and local programs an excuse to continue on the same path.
What is the specific language around AEFLA funding that prohibits computer skill instruction?
Jason Guard
Essential Education
There is no langauge prohibiting digital literacy instruction. It's in the interpretation of that policy that limitations emerge. My limited survey involved three states. The state-level staff I interviewed in one of the states (A) felt that direct instruction on computer skills was not allowed because it was not specifically articulated as allowable in WIA II. In another (state B), direct instruction done in lab/workshop environments were considered allowable/fundable as long as the learners had an additional literacy skill need.
Jen
Jason,
Thank you so much for following up on my suggestion that you start a discussion on this important topic. It seems to me it is incumbent on OVAE to provide clear written direction regarding its policy on digital literacy instruction. The status quo seems to encourage fifty different state directors to arive at fifty different interpretations.
If I am not mistaken, the state I work in is the one that Jen describes in item 1 in her post, and my program is trying to do what Jen descrivbes in her item 2.
On a side note regarding the language from WIA Title II that Jen put in her post, this past legislative session, the Texas legislature passed a bill that mandates adult education move from the Texas Education Agency to the Texas Workforce Commissiion. Early versions of that bill had no language about assisting adults who are parents to develop the skills to become full partners in their children's education. We found it useful to show policy makers the very same language from WIA and ultimately similar language made it into the legislation that authorized the mover to the texas Workforce commission that will happen on septmember 1st.
Jon
As a former state adult education staff person, WIA Title II language does not prevent or bar computer literacy instruction. What it does prevent is enrolling students ONLY for computer skills instruction. My understanding is that similar to the Citizenship Instruction legislation, a student must be primarily enrolled for literacy skills or English language instruction, because AEFLA is at its core an education program--all other content/competencies are add-ons or content that provides a context for the core instruction-basic literacy. In Kansas, we used a curriculum called Teknimedia that was embedded into the adult literacy and ESL instruction.
Agreed! Well put, "...add-ons or content that provides a context for the core instruction-basic literacy." Students in two the states studied could be given computer skill instruction if they were enrolled in specific vocational programming and/or if they were enrolled in academic/literacy classess.
I'd like to suggest that viewing computer skills as "add -ons" needs to change given the ubiquity of computer information technology in nearly every aspect of life in the U.S. Maybe it's ok to acknowedge that computer skills are now part of basic education because they are so necessary for success in school and work?
Jen
Jen,
Your comment "I'd like to suggest that viewing computer skills as "add -ons" needs to change given the ubiquity of computer information technology in nearly every aspect of life in the U.S. Maybe it's ok to acknowedge that computer skills are now part of basic education because they are so necessary for success in school and work?" is so right on.
Pre-K-12 students come to class with computer skills and what they do no know they learn from teachers/friends/parents, especially in the middle- and high-end socio-economic level. For future lower-end students, it will be easier for workforce integration if they are fully trained in computer skills which should be part of their learning, I suggest that it should be mandatory to integrate these skills into everyday teaching, at all levels -- Pre-K thru Adult Ed. Only then will we have students of equality.
Regards,
Harry
Now we're getting somewhere! Thank you, Michelle. I can't tell you how many managers and administrators have told me adamantly that they can't offer any computer instruction to their learners. They are certainly trying to find ways around the restrictions they perceive, but it sounds like there's probably a lot more freedom and flexibility here than many adult educators may realize. How can we spread the word about this? How about an Adult Educator's Bill of Rights? Or better yet, an Adult Learner's Bill of Rights?
I'm glad you mentioned using online programs and software as a supplement for ABE/GED/ESOL students needing to improve their technology fluency, because that's one of the reasons this issue has come up for me repeatedly across several states (I cover most of the mid-Atlantic for Essential Education). I'm promoting our new Computer Essentials Online program as a digital literacy solution and making the argument in this video that we MUST address technology fluency as a core skill in adult education. And that's when objections sometimes arise.
I think we should be using these kinds of programs to gauge computer literacy, and we should be requiring completion to qualify for testing vouchers (if available). And adult ed students who earn certificates of completion using programs like Computer Essentials or Teknimedia (equal time ;o) will be in a better position to prove their college and career readiness than if they only earned their high school equivalency credential.
Jason Guard
Essential Education
Jason, Jen, Michele and others,
Excellent observations. Now it's time to hear directly from OVAE. It would be enormously helpful to have that response right here on the OVAE-sponsored LINCS technology CoP.
I would like to suggest a rationale for new WIA policy to explicily encourage digital literacy skills.The set of skills needed for computer and Internet competence and comfort in the 21st century is a set of basic skills that schools -- and adult basic education programs -- should be required to teach. Most schools do this already but, because of outmoded federal policy, and state interpretations of it, adult basic education programs do not.
Adult learners need digital literacy skills:
There are many other compelling reasons, but these should be sufficient to update a policy that was developed in an era when digital literacy was a nice add-on, but not essential. Times have changed. Digital literacy skills are essential basic skills now.
David J. Rosen
djrosen123@gmail.com
David and all -
I wish there were a "like" button!
Jen
Hello David, all,
I'm so enjoying every minute I find to read up and reflect on these discussions. Thank you!
~ ~ ~
I'd add:
Holly (Dilatush)
Charlottesville, VA, USA
I think the overarching mission of digital literacy is just what Holly mentions here.
We're not talking about just a few discreet skills for a test or a job or success in college courses. We're cultivating better partners in the educational process, empowering thieir self-directed learning, supporting their independent exploration, and hopefully/evenually facilitating their self-sufficiency. Not to mention that mproving retention and expanding the reach of adult education programs' are important programmatic by-products.
Although the learners' outcomes are great long and short-term goals, making technology fluency part of every learner's agenda strengthen's learners ability to carry their own weight as they cross the finish line, whatever it may be. And, of course, the end is just the beginning of their lifelong learning.
So, rather than pin-pointing what needs to be taught (a moving target, for sure), I just hope that the field quickly comes to consensus (perhaps through a federal directive) about the direction and purpose in tackling digital literacy and the fact that it's imperative that we get started.
Holly, Jason and others,
Of course I agree that lifelong learning is an (perhaps the most) important reason for digital literacy. I didn't included it because my list (economic competetiveness, workforce development, preparation for post-secondary education, and parents' ability to help and monitor their children with their use of the Internet) was designed to speak to policy makers, not practitioners. Unfortunately Congressional and state policy-makers, from my experience, are not interested in adult lifelong learning per se. When they _are_ interested in adult education this list appears to be what gets their attention.
I do hope someone from OVAE will clarify soon in this CoP what OVAE policy is on digital literacy skills.
David J. Rosen
djrosen123@gmail.com
Thank you for asking us to weigh in. The below represents an OVAE consensus reply.
The issue of digital literacy is an important one for adult education programs, and a critical issue for adult learners. AEFLA defines adult education as “services or instruction below the postsecondary level” and literacy as “an individuals’ ability to read, write, and speak in English, compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency to function on the job, in the family of the individual and in society.” AEFLA does explicitly require states to consider whether an applicant for AEFLA funds “effectively employ advances in technology, as appropriate, including the use of computers” as a consideration for funding.
The Department recognizes the growing need for student use of technology to improve student learning and growth in and out of the classroom, and continues to support the use of technology through various investments that can improve adult education instruction. For instance, the recent draft report, Connected Teaching and Personalized Learning, discusses the implications of the National Education Technology Plan on the adult education field, as well as a number of platforms that can be used to improve instruction. Our national activities contracts and LINCS Regional Professional Development Centers also provide a significant amount of professional development to adult education teachers on the effective use of technology in instruction and, increasingly, do so via distance and blended approaches.
Given that computers can be used instructionally for a vast number of purposes, it follows that some applications of computer based instruction are allowable and appropriate under AEFLA, and others are not. A state is responsible for determining if its grantees are using federal funds in a manner that is allowable under AEFLA, including if a specific use of technology supports the purposes of AEFLA. OVAE routinely provides technical assistance to states on this issue and monitors whether federal funds are being used appropriately in the state.
OVAE appreciates the opportunity to participate in discussions in the LINCS Community and we are following this discussion with great interest. However, please understand that this is not a forum by which OVAE issues policy guidance. Hopefully this posting will assist you in directing more specific questions to your state offices.
Keep the discussion going! Best, Heidi
Hello Heidi,
Thanks to you and your colleagues at OVAE for your thoughts about appropriate uses of AEFLA for digital literacy. My interpretation of this is that at least some kinds of digital literacy – those for educational purposes, and probably not including job skills training, are allowable and applicable with AEFLA funding. If this is correct, does OVAE have a set of guidelines or examples for states that would help them better understand what is allowable and applicable? The concern -- mine and others -- is that states are interpreting AEFLA in different ways, sometimes too narrowly, and are excluding opportunities to fund digital literacy. In my view that does not serve adult learners well.
David J. Rosen
Djrosen123@gmail.com
Thanks everyone, for an important discussion as we move towards complying with new mandates. For ESL students it is imperative that we teach them the language as well as the skills of technology--scroll, navigate, search engine, CPU, monitor, right click. The basics of technology for ESL begin with the vocabulary. We are referring, after all, to digital literacy, I cannot fathom how anyone would think it does not belong in our curricula. Every job requires technology skills whether it is applying online, working a cash register, or running diagnostics on a car. This really is a no-brainer. Glad to hear people are making sure the powers that be realize it.