Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f4HFqjf22670; Thu, 17 May 2001 11:52:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 11:52:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <005c01c0dee8$b07dfe80$23bffea9@hppav>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Mary Ann Corley" <macorley1@earthlink.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:492] Response from Allan Quigley to Recent Postings on Resistance
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
Content-Length: 4482
Lines: 82
Allan Quigley has asked that I post this for him in response to the recent
discussion on resistance.
-Mary Ann Corley
*************************
Hi, Mary Ann Corley has sent me some of the discussion items from the
Listserv and thought I might just add how encouraging it is that issues of
barriers and non-participation are being examined so carefully and
thoughtfully. It has bothered me for years that we have a rather large body
of research on mainstream adult participation--typically based on
participation patterns in
institutions of higher education (I'm thinking of the work by Boshier,
Rubenson, Courtney, etc.). Most of it was done in the 70's and 80's. I
remember when Gary Darkenwald argued that the field of literacy would be
much better off if adult literacy researchers would just use these models
(and he included Hogheim's research model as well at that time).
I have never thought that early school leavers could be considered the
"same" population for purposes of participation research--and major research
work by Cervero and Fitzpatrick, among others, seems to have supported this.
It's for this reason, mainly, I thought we needed to
consider "non-participation" as the issue and to take a much harder look at
why such a low percentage of the so-called "target population" chooses not
to attend our (traditional)
ABE programs--a mere 7% or so. Since then, I have been interested to see in
the IALS study that the early school leavers in Sweden, Netherlands, Poland,
Canada (and the U.S.), have much the same response, very low participation.
Even more interesting, perhaps, one on hand, asked how often they read
books--those with lower secondary school or less (N=14,683) only 35% said
they never read a book, asked how
often they "Used a public library" in those same countries (N=14,708), a
full 76% said "Never." So they access information and learn but do it in
their own self-directed way, mainly, and do not choose to use the structured
systems provided very much. Surely this points to dispositional
barriers.........Those with less than lower secondary in the international
IALS study are accessing information (meaning use of newspapers, magazines,
radio, family members/friends
and esp. television for "getting information about current events, public
affairs, and the government) at a total number of hours at almost the same
levels as those with a secondary education (see Quigley & Tuijnman, 1997).
Apparently, there is an aversion to the public adult basic education systems
of those countries, as well as the public library institutions in those
countries. If nothing else, this is not the "same" population as mainstream
adults, despite the early exhortations of Darkenwald and the
implicit assumptions of mainstream adult educators. I am just so glad that
work on these important issues is leading us to a better understanding of
non-participation.
With respect to the work noted in my own book, referred to in the Listserv a
few times, I tried to say that the samples we were working with were small
and further work needed to be conducted to explore some of he early
findings. This is being done, and it's great to see. However, we did learn
there is a real value in using in-depth interviews with those who have
chosen not to participate in ABE/literacy. It did seem to be consistent
that situational barriers would be named first for not attending programs
but, when the links to past schooling were made and more time passed in
the interviews, it was quite clear that there was often a deeper level of
emotion involved with
non-participation--ranging from guilt to anger to unabashed love for the
handful of teachers they fondly remembered. What ever one choose to
conclude, I believe once again we are not talking about the same mainstream
group of adults that the 1970's-80's researchers were sometimes assuming
should fit the mainstream models.
All this to say I couldn't be more pleased that our field is developing a
systematic body of research on these issues. I'll just close by adding that
ABC Canada (Ellen Long, researcher) has recently completed a national study
of non-participation in Canada and the results will be out in
October. Once again, schooling is a factor--how large will probably remain
an issue for years to come. But its good to see that we are raising what I
believe are the right questions.
All the best, Allan
--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
--Albert Einstein
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:05 EST