Little is known about the range and variation of adult learning in and out of literacy programs.
Question #1:
Why have you chosen to adopt a framework that was intended for studying adult literacy development in literacy programs outside of post-secondary contexts for the study of literacy development among adults enrolled in a program of post-secondary study?
While Lytle’s conceptual framework was designed to investigate the “range and variation of adult learning in and out of literacy programs,” it remains useful for studying adult literacy development in other contexts such as post-secondary settings due to its grounding in sociocultural conceptualizations of literacy which focus on the ways in which literate practices are appropriated by individuals in social contexts. Like the adult learners Lytle studied in literacy programs, adults who enroll in formal programs of post-secondary study also participate in “diverse social and cultural contexts involving a range of literacy practices” (383) and so there is a need to better understand the role that such practices play in their lives.
Lytle’s framework is useful here for another reason. At the time when she proposed it, Lytle sought to remedy what she saw as “the current public image of adult learners as incompetent individuals needing remediation in a set of predetermined technical skills” (383). While the public image of adult students has likely changed a good deal since the early 1990s when Lytle proposed her conceptual framework, the notion that adult students need remediation still exists and is codified by many programs of post-secondary study aimed at adult students in the form of compulsory composition courses. Lytle argues that sociocultural theories of literacy development raise “concerns about how literacy learning is constructed in different programs” and force “designers of literacy programs” to reconsider what counts as learning in such programs (383). Similarly, I would argue, an examination of the literate experiences of adult students participating in formal programs of post-secondary study that is informed by a sociocultural framework should prompt a reconsideration of the role of literacy instruction in such settings, a question to which I return at the end of this article. Suffice it to say that the adoption by many such programs of a compulsory composition requirement may fail to acknowledge the complex role that literacy activities already play in the lives of many adult students and may fail to account for the felt needs and desires such students bring to literacy instruction.
Lytle’s framework was designed to facilitate collection and analysis of data from adults participating in programs…
The range and variation of each dimension is described and their interconnections explored (386)
When possible information is gathered about literacy activities outside programs as well, although observations are mostly limited to what occurs in or around sessions or classes. (386)
Question #2:
Lytle proposes her conceptual framework of literacy development in adulthood as a means for conducting “systematic inquiry into adults’ experiences with written language in their daily lives” (385) The framework is intended to help researchers investigate four dimensions of literacy in the lives of adult students: beliefs, practices, processes, and plans. Lytle proposes that investigations be conducted in collaboration with adult students while they are participating in literacy programs and goes on to suggests ways of documenting changes in the four dimensions over time. Given this, how do you justify your decision to adapt just three of the four dimensions? Additionally, how do you explain your lack of interest in the follow-up—that is, in documenting changes in participants’ beliefs, practices, processes, plans?
No matter how much time was actually spent in school, adult learners bring with them powerful images of schooling from the common culture; often these appear to function as scripts or plans, infusing learners’ attitudes and expectations about what counts as learning in adult literacy programs. Alternatively, these beliefs can themselves become the subject of inquiry and examination in literacy programs. (388)
Beliefs
Adult learners bring to literacy programs beliefs about language and learning that inform and sometimes constrain their own development. (387)
Understanding adults’ belief systems also requires paying attention, initially and over time, to where these beliefs have originated, as adults recount and reinterpret their past experiences with language and learning by describing attitudes, expectations, and self-attributions acquired during previous schooling. (388)
Self-sponsored learning, outside the context of school, is also an important source of beliefs… (389)
Documenting changes in beliefs is complicated by “the difficulty many adults experience in articulating their underlying assumptions about reading, writing, teaching, and learning” (390)
Lytle proposes her conceptual framework of literacy development in adulthood as a means for conducting “systematic inquiry into adults’ experiences with written language in their daily lives” (385) The framework is intended to help researchers investigate four dimensions of literacy in the lives of adult students: beliefs, practices, processes, and plans. Lytle proposes that investigations be conducted in collaboration with adult students while they are participating in literacy programs and goes on to suggests ways of documenting changes in the four dimensions over time. Given this, how do you justify your decision to adapt just three of the four dimensions? Additionally, how do you explain your lack of interest in the follow-up—that is, in documenting changes in participants’ beliefs, practices, processes, plans?
No matter how much time was actually spent in school, adult learners bring with them powerful images of schooling from the common culture; often these appear to function as scripts or plans, infusing learners’ attitudes and expectations about what counts as learning in adult literacy programs. Alternatively, these beliefs can themselves become the subject of inquiry and examination in literacy programs. (388)
Beliefs
Adult learners bring to literacy programs beliefs about language and learning that inform and sometimes constrain their own development. (387)
Understanding adults’ belief systems also requires paying attention, initially and over time, to where these beliefs have originated, as adults recount and reinterpret their past experiences with language and learning by describing attitudes, expectations, and self-attributions acquired during previous schooling. (388)
Self-sponsored learning, outside the context of school, is also an important source of beliefs… (389)
Documenting changes in beliefs is complicated by “the difficulty many adults experience in articulating their underlying assumptions about reading, writing, teaching, and learning” (390)
Texts to get to help frame this section:
Writing as social action ("The Ecology of Writing")--Marilyn Cooper, PE1404.C636 1989
A sociocognitive perspective on literacy (J. Langer) in Language, Literacy, and Culture (requested from PC via HELIN on 3/16)
KEY POINT/PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Lytle’s framework could, itself, form an interesting kind of curriculum for a first-year writing course for adult students (and it’s not all that dissimilar from the WAW curriculum):
No matter how much time was actually spent in school, adult learners bring with them powerful images of schooling from the common culture; often these appear to function as scripts or plans, infusing learners’ attitudes and expectations about what counts as learning in adult literacy programs. Alternatively, these beliefs can themselves become the subject of inquiry and examination in literacy programs. (388)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.