Wiley handbook of adult literacy perin download pdf by Education Libraries

Wiley Handbooks in Education

The Wiley Handbooks in Education offer a capacious and comprehensive overview of higher education in a global context. These state‐of‐the‐art volumes offer a magisterial overview of every sector, sub‐field and facet of the discipline‐from reform and foundations to K‐12 learning and literacy. The Handbooks also engage with topics and themes dominating today’s educational agenda‐mentoring, technology, adult and continuing education, college access, race and educational attainment. Showcasing the very best scholarship that the discipline has to offer, The Wiley Handbooks in Education will set the intellectual agenda for scholars, students, researchers for years to come.

The Wiley Handbook of Adult Literacy by Dolores Perin (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Paulo Freire by Carlos Torres (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Vocational Education and Training by David Guile (Editor) and Lorna Unwin (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Family, School, and Community Relationships in Education by Steven B. Sheldon (Editor) and Tammy A. Turner-Vorbeck (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Educational Supervision by Sally J. Zepeda (Editor) and Judith A. Ponticell (Editor)

The Wiley International Handbook of Educational Foundations by Alan S. Canestrari (Editor) and Bruce A. Marlowe (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Educational Policy By Rosemary Papa (Editor) and Shadow W. J. Armfield (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Global Workplace Learning by Vanessa Hammler Kenon (Editor) and Sunay Vasant Palsole (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Action Research in Education by Craig A. Mertler (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Mentoring by Beverly J. Irby (Editor), Fran Kochan (Editor), Linda Searby (Editor), Jennifer Boswell (Editor), and Ruben Garza (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Problem‐Based Learning by Mahnaz Moallem (Editor), Woei Hung (Editor) and Nada Dabbagh (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Early Childhood Care and Education by Christopher Brown (Editor), Mary Benson McMullen (Editor) and Nancy File (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Teaching and Learning by Gene E. Hall (Editor), Donna M. Gollnick (Editor) and Linda F. Quinn (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Violence in Education: Forms, Factors, and Preventions by Harvey Shapiro (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Global Educational Reform by Kenneth J. Saltman (Editor) and Alexander Means (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education by Dennis Beach (Editor), Carl Bagley(Editor) and Sofia Marques da Silva (Editor)

The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning by Scott Alan Metzger (Editor) and Lauren McArthur Harris (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Christianity and Education by William Jeynes (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Diversity in Special Education by Marie Tejero Hughes (Editor) and Elizabeth Talbott (Editor)

The Wiley International Handbook of Educational Leadership by Duncan Waite (Editor) and Ira Bogotch (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Social Studies Research by Meghan McGlinn Manfra (Editor) and Cheryl Mason Bolick (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of School Choice by Robert A. Fox (Editor) and Nina K. Buchanan (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Home Education by Milton Gaither (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Cognition and Assessment: Frameworks, Methodologies, and Applications by Andre A. Rupp (Editor) and Jacqueline P. Leighton (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology by Nick Rushby (Editor) and Dan Surry (Editor)

The Wiley International Handbook of Service-Learning for Social Justice by Darren E. Lund (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Adult Literacy

Edited by Dolores Perin

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Dolores Perin to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

Editorial Office

111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names: Perin, Dolores, editor.

Title: The Wiley handbook of adult literacy / [edited by] Dolores Perin, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Other titles: Handbook of adult literacy

Description: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. |

Identifiers: LCCN 2019001147 (print) | LCCN 2019016820 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119261384 (Adobe PDF) | ISBN 9781119261391 (ePub) | ISBN 9781119261377 (hardcover)

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019001147

Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Image: © Daniel Grill/Getty Images

Set in 10/12pt Warnock by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India

Contents

List of Contributors ix

Section Editors and Reviewers xi

Acknowledgments xiii

Conceptual Framework and Overview of the Handbook 1

Dolores Perin

Sec tion I Cognitive, Affective and Motivational Factors Underlying Adult Literacy 15

1 Cognitive Processing Challenges Associated with Low Literacy in Adults 17

John Sabatini, Tenaha O’Reilly, Kelsey Dreier, and Zuowei Wang

2 Phonological Abilities in Fully Illiterate Adults 41

José Morais and Régine Kolinsky

3 Gender Differences in the Reading Motivation of Adults with Low Literacy Skills 63

Jan C. Frijters, Emily Brown, and Daphne Greenberg

4 Integrating Component Skills in a Reading Comprehension Framework for Struggling Adult Readers 89

Elizabeth L. Tighe

5 Writing Challenges for Postsecondary English Learners with Low Levels of First Language Literacy 107

Stephen M. Doolan

6 From “Degisned” and “Dezine” to “Design”: Comparing Adults’ and Children’s Spelling Errors Across Tasks 131

Katherine S. Binder, Amani Talwar , Nora K . Bond, and Nicole Gilbert Cote

7 Literacy Skills, Academic Self‐Efficacy, and Participation in Prison Education 151

Lise Ø. Jones and Terje Manger

8 Readiness to Learn Among Adults with Low Skills 171

M Cecil Smith, Thomas J. Smith, Amy D. Rose, and Jovita M. Ross‐Gordon

9 Cognitive Profile of Students with Dyslexia Entering Postsecondary Education 193

Maaike Callens and Marc Brysbaert

10 A Cognitive Framework for Tracing the Roots of Reading Disabilities Among University Students 215

George K. Georgiou and J. P. Das

11 Reading, Writing, and Self‐Efficacy of Low‐Skilled Postsecondary Students 237

Dolores Perin

Section II Contexts of Literacy for Adults with Low Skills 261

12 Cognitive and Sociocultural Dimensions of Adult Literacy and Integrating Technology in Adult Education 263

Aydin Y. Durgunoğlu, Hilal Gençay, Meltem Cantűrk, and G. Hilal Kuşçul

13 I Will Survive: Sociocultural and Educational Factors Underlying Child Mortality in Rural Ghana 283

Niels‐Hugo Blunch

14 Literacy and Social Change in South Asia 299

Cristine Smith and Konda R. Chavva

15 Literacy, Numeracy, and Self‐Rated Health among U.S. Adults 317

Esther Prins and Shannon Monnat

16 Adults with Low Skills and Learning Disabilities 337

Margaret Becker Patterson

17 Par ticipation in Literacy Programs for Adults with Low Skills in Southeastern Europe 361

George K. Zarifis

18 Making the Most of Learning Contexts: A Literature Review on Family and Workplace Literacy Programs 381

Hendrickje C. Windisch

Section III Education of Adults with Low Literacy Skills 407

19 How to Teach Fully Illiterate Adults to Read 409

Régine Kolinsky, Cristina Carvalho, Isabel Leite, Ana Franco, and José Morais

20 Developmental Trajectories of Adult Education Students: Implications for Policy, Research, and Practice 429

Stephen Reder

21 Academic Literacy as Developmental Pedagogy: The Learning and Growth of Adult English Language Learners 451

Jennifer Ouellette‐Schramm

22 Educational Technologies that Support Reading Comprehension for Adults Who Have Low Literacy Skills 471

Arthur C. Graesser, Daphne Greenberg, Andrew Olney , and Maureen W. Lovett

23 Writing Strategy Instruction for Low‐Skilled Postsecondary Students 495

Zoi A. Traga Philippakos and Charles A. MacArthur

24 Transitioning Adult Literacy Students to Postsecondary Education 517

Elizabeth Zachry Rutschow

25 Research on Developmental Education Instruction for Adult Literacy Learners 541

Maria Cormier and Susan Bickerstaff

Index 563

List of Contributors

Susan Bickerstaff, Teachers College, Columbia University

Katherine S. Binder, Mount Holyoke College, USA

Niels‐Hugo Blunch, Washington and Lee University, USA

Nora K. Bond, Mount Holyoke College, USA

Emily Brown, Brock University, Canada

Marc Brysbaert, Ghent University, Belgium

Maaike Callens, Artevelde University College, Belgium

Meltem Cantűrk, Mother Child Education Foundation, Turkey

Cristina Carvalho, Independent Researcher, Portugal

Konda R. Chavva, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, India

Maria Cormier, Teachers College, Columbia University

Nicole Gilbert Cote, Mount Holyoke College, USA

J. P. Das, University of Alberta, Canada

Stephen M. Doolan, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, USA

Kelsey Dreier, Educational Testing Service, USA

Aydin Y. Durgunoğlu, University of Minnesota Duluth, USA

Ana Franco, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Jan C. Frijters, Brock University, Canada

Hilal Gençay, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Turkey

George K. Georgiou, University of Alberta, Canada

Arthur C. Graesser, University of Memphis, USA

Daphne Greenberg, Georgia State University, USA

Lise Ø. Jones, University of Bergen, Norway

Régine Kolinsky, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium and Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique-FNRS

G. Hilal Kuşçul, University of Connecticut, USA

Isabel Leite, Universidade de Evora, Portugal

List of Contributors

Maureen W. Lovett, University of Toronto, Canada

Charles A. MacArthur, University of Delaware, USA

Terje Manger, University of Bergen, Norway

Shannon Monnat, Syracuse University, USA

José Morais, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Andrew Olney, University of Memphis, USA

Tenaha O’Reilly, Educational Testing Service, USA

Jennifer Ouellette‐Schramm, Riverland Community College, USA

Margaret Becker Patterson, Research Allies for Lifelong Learning, USA

Dolores Perin, Teachers College, Columbia University, USA

Zoi A. Traga Philippakos, University of Tennessee, USA

Esther Prins, Pennsylvania State University, USA

Stephen Reder, Portland State University, USA

Amy D. Rose, Northern Illinois University, USA

Jovita M. Ross‐Gordon, Texas State University, USA

Elizabeth Zachry Rutschow, MDRC, USA

John Sabatini, Educational Testing Service, USA

Cristine Smith, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

M Cecil Smith, West Virginia University, USA

Thomas J. Smith, Northern Illinois University, USA

Amani Talwar, Georgia State University, USA

Elizabeth L. Tighe, Georgia State University, USA

Zuowei Wang, Educational Testing Service, USA

Hendrickje C. Windisch, University of Oxford, UK

George K. Zarifis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Section Editors and Reviewers

Section Editors

Maaike Callens, Artevelde University College, Belgium

Aydın Yűcesan Durgunoğlu, University of Minnesota Duluth, USA

Charles A. MacArthur, University of Delaware, USA

Zoi A. Traga Philippakos, University of Tennessee, USA

Elizabeth L. Tighe, Georgia State University, USA

Reviewers

Niels‐Hugo Blunch, Washington and Lee University, USA

Jennifer Ouellette‐Schramm, Riverland Community College, USA

Acknowledgments

I thank the many adult literacy and postsecondary education students from whom I have learned so much over the years. I am also grateful to all the authors, some of whom also served as section editors and reviewers, as well as the Wiley team, for their dedication and hard work.

Conceptual Framework and Overview of the Handbook

Dolores Perin

Teachers College, Columbia University, USA

Introduction

Although global adult literacy rates have been gradually rising, an estimated 750–758 million adults in the world today remain characterized as “illiterate” (CIA World Factbook, 2018; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2017). Based on an estimate of the total adult world population of 5,460,231,050 (adults defined as age 15 and above, CIA World Factbook, 2018), the worldwide adult illiteracy rate is approximately 14%. The phenomenon of low literacy skills among adults has negative effects on the attainment of educational goals, job functioning, civic participation, health, family life, and, more broadly, on national economic productivity and well‐being (Akello, Lutwama‐Rukundo, & Musiimenta, 2017; Cilasun, Demir‐Şeker, Dincer, & Tekin‐Koru, 2018; Feinberg, Tighe, Greenberg, & Mavreles, 2018; Oxenham, 2008; Post, 2016; Tejero, Insa, & Roca, 2019; World Literacy Foundation, 2015). Although adult literacy rates have increased dramatically over the past century, especially in industrialized countries (Roser & Ortiz‐Ospina, 2018), concern about low literacy skills among adults has persisted (International Council for Adult Education, 2016; Sticht, Caylor, Kern, & Fox, 1972; U.S. Department of Education Office of Career Technical and Adult Education, 2015). To understand the impact of this problem it is important to review definitions of adult literacy.

Definitions of Literacy

Definitions of literacy run the spectrum from broad to narrow. At its broadest, literacy refers to knowledge of a specific domain, such as in the terms “financial literacy” and “health literacy” (Happ, Förster, Rüspeler, & Rothweiler, 2018; Zambrana et al., 2015). Slightly less broad are definitions that extend to communication by a variety of means. For example, the International Literacy Association (2018) defines literacy as “the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, compute, and communicate

Dolores Perin 2

using visual, audible, and digital materials across disciplines and in any context” (International Literacy Association, 2018, p. 2).

More narrowly, literacy refers to print literacy, that is, understanding and expressing ideas in printed language (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018; Lynch, 2009). Attempts to understand the nature of print literacy bring the subject to contested ground, as views differ on the use of printed language. Essentially, the debate concerns whether literacy should be seen as an unchanging set of skills or as a constellation of socially conditioned practices. For example, it has been argued that the benefits of “having” literacy will be contingent upon the typical behaviors and the expectations of specific societies. This view, called an “ideological model,” is compared favorably with an “autonomous model” (Street, 1984, pp. 2–3) in which literacy is seen as a predetermined set of print behaviors that are uniform across societies.

Within this comparative framework, the view to which one subscribes has important effects on how adult literacy practices are understood and taught. An example of the ideological model is seen in the instructional approach of a seminal thinker and practitioner in the field of adult literacy, Paolo Freire (Freire, 1968/2005), who taught disenfranchised Brazilian adults to read printed words using material designed to promote “conscientização” (conscientization, Freire, 1974/2005, p. 37). Within a visionary framework of “dialogic pedagogy” (Shih, 2018, p. 230), Freire’s method of teaching reading utilized phonologically based decoding techniques (Freire, 1974/2005, pp. 43–47 and 76–77) that were highly similar to the current decoding techniques that are effective for teaching children to read (Clarke, Paul, Smith, Snowling, & Hulme, 2017; Lovett et al., 2017) and were characteristic of the autonomous model. However, Freire’s instructional approach differed in the use of vocabulary selected to raise students’ awareness of the political oppression currently existing in their lives and in the extension of his pedagogy beyond the formal academic environment to the community at large (Fleuri & Fleuri, 2018).

Beyond their instructional implications, definitions of literacy may be tied to assessment approaches. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) focuses on reading ability and excludes writing from the definition of literacy for its “Survey of Adult Skills” in the Programme for the International Assessment for Adult Competencies (PIAAC):

Literacy is defined as the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential. Literacy encompasses a range of skills from the decoding of written words and sentences to the comprehension, interpretation, and evaluation of complex texts. It does not, however, involve the production of text (writing). Information on the skills of adults with low levels of proficiency is provided by an assessment of reading components that covers text vocabulary, sentence comprehension and passage fluency. (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, 2013a, p. 59)

In estimating the worldwide adult illiteracy rate of 14% mentioned earlier, literacy was taken to be a person’s ability to “both read and write with understanding a short simple statement on his/her own life” (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], n.d.) or, even more simply, “age 15 and over can read and write” (CIA World Factbook, 2018). However, by using a definition

Conceptual Framework and Overview of the Handbook 3

better aligned to the types of reading and writing required for full civil, academic and community functioning in many countries today, the number of adults without adequate literacy skills is much higher than the estimated 14%.

Identifying Adults with Low Literacy Skills

In the early 2000s, the global standard for adult literacy was set at the ability to read and perform numeracy tasks in “technology‐rich environments” (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, 2013b, p. 3). Among 33 countries1 participating in an OECD survey of adult literacy skills in this more demanding context (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, 2013a, 2016), an average of 18.5% of respondents were found to have low reading skills. OECD divided its 500‐point scale into five levels, with Levels 2 and 3 (score range 226–275) signifying adequate performance on typical literacy tasks in the target countries.

At Level 1 of the OECD scale, a person can understand the literal meaning of short, simple texts but not much more. Many students attending adult literacy programs are found at this level. At the highest level, an individual must demonstrate the ability to:

perform tasks that involve searching for and integrating information across multiple, dense texts, constructing syntheses of similar and contrasting ideas or points of view, or evaluating evidence and arguments. He or she can apply and evaluate logical and conceptual models, and evaluate the reliability of evidentiary sources and select key information. He or she is also aware of subtle, rhetorical cues and can make high‐level inferences or use specialised background knowledge. (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, 2016, p. 21).

This level of literacy is needed to learn effectively in postsecondary (tertiary) education, where students must be able to comprehend complex texts and convey complicated information coherently in writing (Fallahi, 2012; Holschuh & Lampi, 2018). Thus, students who enter postsecondary education lacking these skills (Georgiou & Das, 2015; MacArthur, Philippakos, & Ianetta, 2015) could conceivably be included in the population of adults with low literacy skills.

In this handbook a somewhat unusual position on adult literacy is taken by seeing as its constituent population not only individuals at the lowest levels of literacy skill, that is, those eligible to participate in adult literacy programs, but also adults who have literacy skills significantly lower than those required in their educational environments. Thus, research on three groups is reported in the handbook: adults who participate in or would qualify for entry to adult literacy programs; and two groups of postsecondary students: students assessed to have low literacy skills and referred to developmental (remedial) programs (Bailey et al., 2016; De Paola & Scoppa, 2015; Rienties, Tempelaar,

1 The participating countries were Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, the Czech Re public, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Respondents were aged 15–65 years .

Waterval, Rehm, & Gijselaers, 2006) and students with dyslexia (Birch, 2016; Joshi & Bouck, 2017; Suárez‐Coalla & Cuetos, 2015).

People in each of these groups display difficulties reading and writing printed text that severely interfere with the accomplishment of their educational goals. Furthermore, although there is limited research on literacy interventions for adults, positive effects of instruction in reading comprehension strategies have been reported for all three groups (Greenberg et al., 2011; Sabatini, Shore, Holtzman, & Scarborough, 2011; Snyder, 2002; Zeng, Ju, & Hord, 2018).

Similar Literacy‐Related Difficulties among Three Adult Populations

Reading

Members of all three populations display difficulty with similar key reading components. Printed word recognition and decoding difficulties have been reported for adult literacy students (Binder et al., 2013; MacArthur, Konold, Glutting, & Alamprese, 2010; Mellard, Woods, & McJunkin, 2015; Pae, Greenberg, & Williams, 2012; Shore, Sabatini, Lentini, Holtzman, & McNeil, 2015), postsecondary developmental students (Ari, 2016; Macaruso & Shankweiler, 2010), and individuals with dyslexia in postsecondary institutions (Callens, Tops, & Brysbaert, 2012; Pedersen, Fusaroli, Lauridsen, & Parrila, 2016). Difficulty with important aspects of reading comprehension have also been reported for members of all three populations (Callens et al., 2012; Ng, Payne, Steen, Stine‐Morrow, & Federmeier, 2017; Paulson, 2014; Perin, Lauterbach, Raufman, & Santikian Kalamkarian, 2017). There are also other overlaps. For example, weakness in literacy‐related metacognitive skills have been reported for people in all three groups (Bergey, Deacon, & Parrila, 2017; Huang & Newbern, 2012; Pacello, 2014). Furthermore, slow language processing has been reported for adult literacy students (Barnes & Kim, 2016) and for postsecondary students with dyslexia (Callens, Tops, Stevens, & Brysbaert, 2014; Georgiou & Das, 2015).

Writing

There are also overlaps regarding the process of writing. Adult literacy and postsecondary developmental students demonstrate difficulty with academic essay writing (Berry & Mason, 2012; MacArthur et al., 2015; Sturm, 2016) and with written summarization (Ouellette‐Schramm, 2015; Perin & Lauterbach, 2018). Further, spelling difficulty has been reported for all three groups (Atkinson, Zhang, Phillips, & Zeller, 2014; Eme, Lambert, & Alamargot, 2014; Nergård‐Nilssen & Hulme, 2014; Tuominen et al., 2014).

Objective, Organization, and Content of the Handbook

In this handbook the aim is to inform researchers, professional developers, program administrators, graduate students, and policymakers of recent issues and findings concerning adults with low literacy skills. Organized in three sections, the chapters in this volume represent a range of research paradigms and theoretical perspectives. The first section, on basic literacy components, consists of 11 chapters on research on the reading and writing skills of adults with low levels of literacy.

Conceptual Framework and Overview of the Handbook 5

In Chapter 1, John Sabatini, Tenaha O’Reilly, Kelsey Dreier, and Zuowei Wang apply information from a vast literature on the reading of children and adolescents to understand cognitive patterns in the reading of adults with low literacy skills. Although there are clearly large differences in child and adult learning of literacy, the authors point to cognitive constructs that pertain to both populations.

In Chapter 2, José Morais and Régine Kolinsky report on research comparing the phonological processes of adults with and without literacy skills. This work is discussed in the context of their groundbreaking work on how learning literacy skills in an alphabetic orthography may influence phonological processes.

Motivation to read is explored in terms of gender differences by Jan C. Frijters, Emily Brown, and Daphne Greenberg in Chapter 3. Similar to the tactic taken in Chapter 1, these authors compare adults to children and discuss findings suggesting that gender gaps in the motivation to read seen in children may persist to adulthood.

In Chapter 4, Elizabeth L. Tighe provides an in‐depth critique of a body of studies that investigate the component skills underlying the reading of adults with low literacy. Considering this work within the “Simple View of Reading” framework, she discusses issues of statistical analysis and measurement that need to be resolved to further the understanding of reading processes among adults with low skills.

Adults with low literacy whose primary language is different from the dominant language in their country of residence have the burden not only of improving their literacy skills but also of doing so in a language that is new and non‐dominant for them. In Chapter 5, Stephen M. Doolan investigates the writing skills of postsecondary students who are long‐term residents of the United States and who have limited English language proficiency and low literacy skills. He discusses literature on this population, focusing on how their writing skills are influenced by both language‐related and social challenges.

Picking up the thread of comparing adults to children in Chapter 6, Katherine S. Binder, Amani Talwar, Nora K. Bond, and Nicole Gilbert Cote investigate the spelling skills of adults with low literacy, asking how their spelling errors compare to those of children matched for skill level. Using story‐telling and dictation tasks, the authors identify differences in the two age groups and account for the error patterns in terms of learners’ strengths in combination with compensatory, task‐specific strategies.

Turning to a population in Norway, in Chapter 7 Lise Øen Jones and Terje Manger examine literature on the literacy skills of incarcerated adults. In particular, the chapter considers various estimates of the incidence of dyslexia among the prison population, and, arguing that education is a basic human right, possible relationships between incarcerated persons’ levels of self-efficacy, interest in participating in prison education programs, and their reading and writing skills.

In Chapter 8, M Cecil Smith, Thomas J. Smith, Amy D. Rose, and Jovita M. Ross‐Gordon analyze selected data from four English‐speaking countries (Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States) collected in the PIAAC Survey of Adult Skills. The authors focus on “readiness to learn,” which refers to the ability to relate new knowledge to one’s own life, and to solve problems as one learns new information. The authors present data suggesting a systematic relationship between this construct and skill use and proficiency among adults with low literacy skills in the sample studied.

Perin

In Chapter 9, Maaike Callens and Marc Brysbaert review literature on cognitive processes among postsecondary students who have been diagnosed with dyslexia. The authors draw together variables concerning word reading and spelling, reading comprehension, phonological processing, intelligence, vocabulary knowledge, processing speed, memory, visuo‐spatial ability, and writing and mathematical ability to explain the dyslexic pattern as seen at the postsecondary level.

George K. Georgiou and J. P. Das, in Chapter 10, are also concerned with reading disabilities at the postsecondary level. Following a review of literature on cognitive and linguistic weaknesses among individuals with dyslexia and reading comprehension difficulties, the authors present data from two students who were diagnosed as having reading disabilities but who differ in their reading skills and their underlying cognitive processes. The authors discuss the core deficits of dyslexia and reading comprehension that have been proposed in the research literature and explain the patterns found in the two students in terms of the authors’ Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) theory of intelligence.

In Chapter 11, Dolores Perin reviews the literature on the reading and writing skills expected at the postsecondary level and reports findings on relationships between self‐efficacy on the one hand and a range of literacy skills, including reading comprehension, metacognition in reading, written summarization, and persuasive essay writing, on the other. Based on gaps identified in the research literature, the author argues that a lack of research directly comparing students that have low skills with typically performing peers makes it difficult to design targeted interventions that would promote academic improvement.

The second section of the handbook consists of seven chapters that discuss research on the contexts of literacy for adults with low skills. In Chapter 12, Aydın Yűcesan Durgunoğlu, Hilal Gençay, Meltem Cantűrk, and G. Hilal Kuşçul describe the development of an adult literacy program in Turkey that focused not only on skills instruction but on empowerment concepts. The authors discuss how the program was adapted for online learning in a hybrid format and provide data on literacy and numeracy outcomes. They offer the program as an example of how cognitive and sociocultural frameworks, which may at first glance seem contradictory, can be reconciled in an instructional model.

In Chapter 13, the troubling problem of child mortality in rural Ghana is investigated by Niels‐Hugo Blunch in relation to maternal literacy, numeracy, and health education. Using two different outcome variables, the author presents regression data that indicate a large and statistically significant causal effect of maternal education on child mortality in the region studied.

In Chapter 14, Cristine Smith and Konda Reddy Chavva review literature on adult literacy programs in South Asia. The focus of the studies is relationships between program participation and changes among individuals, families, communities, and societies. On the basis of the capability theory and the social ecological model of change proposed by Sen (1999), the authors discuss evidence from Nepal, India, and Bangladesh and suggest that adult literacy is systematically related to social change.

In Chapter 15, Esther Prins and Shannon Monnat utilize a theoretical model on social determinants of health to investigate access to a range of opportunities and resources that promote health. The authors make a helpful distinction between health literacy and print literacy, two concepts that are often confused in the literature. Based on a

review of literature and on evidence from their own studies using PIAAC data for adults from the United States, they argue that health status is directly affected by literacy and numeracy abilities.

In Chapter 16, Margaret Becker Patterson also uses PIAAC data on U.S. adults and augments these with information from the PowerPath™ to Education and Employment dataset. Patterson focuses on adults with low literacy skills who have self‐reported learning disabilities and learning difficulties. The skills of the PIAAC and PowerPath samples are compared. The chapter summarizes descriptive information on participation in formal education, educational attainment, employment, incidence of co‐existing disabilities, and health status of the respondents.

George K. Zarifis considers adult literacy in southeastern Europe in Chapter 17. The author notes that despite the existence of literacy policy and initiatives, this area of education has not been prioritized in countries in this region. However, the topic received more attention after the publication of PIAAC (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, 2013c) data and the entry of large numbers of migrants and refugees to the Balkan countries. Participation rates in adult education have been historically low. Zarifis reviews research that sheds light on socioeconomic reasons for this problem and he reports that participation rates have been increasing as a result of local and regional educational partnerships.

In Chapter 18, Hendrickje Catriona Windisch argues that adults with low literacy skills can benefit more from educational programs that are contextualized in family and workplace content than from conventional programs, which lack a clear thematic focus. The author describes family and workplace literacy programs in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and the United States as examples of contextualized learning opportunities that can motivate adults to improve their skills.

In the third section, there are seven chapters concerning research into practical approaches to the education of adults with low literacy skills. In Chapter 19, Régine Kolinsky, Cristina Carvalho, Isabel Leite, Ana Franco, and José Morais discuss evidence from a variety of countries showing that adults with low literacy skills benefit from the same instructional techniques used to teach children with comparable reading levels. Focusing on the skills needed to decode words, the authors review studies on systematic phonics instruction for adults who have not yet learned to read (called “fully illiterate” by the authors), or who have only rudimentary reading skills, and provide instructional guidelines for practitioners. The authors also describe and provide encouraging evidence for an instructional technique based on these guidelines that was deployed with a group of Portuguese adults who were initially unable to read.

Overcoming a frequent problem in the literature on adult literacy instruction of measuring only short‐term outcomes, in Chapter 20 Stephen Reder discusses findings from a longitudinal study of U.S. adults with low literacy skills. Instructional impact, measured as literacy skills and earnings, was compared for adult literacy program participants and matched non‐participants. Long‐term impact was positive for participants. The author details the number of hours of program participation needed to produce learning gain, as well as the number of years following participation needed for skills to develop fully.

As noted in Chapter 5 of this volume, an important segment of the adult literacy population are students whose primary language is different from the language spoken in the country where they live. In Chapter 21, Jennifer Ouellette‐Schramm discusses the development of literacy skills by English language learners in adult literacy and in

community college developmental education programs. Applying the constructive‐developmental theory of Kegan (1982; 1994), the author discusses cognitive dimensions among this population as developmental capacities, how experiences of learning literacy vary according to developmental patterns, and how learning of literacy by adults can be supported by specific pedagogical and programming approaches.

In Chapter 22, Arthur C. Graesser, Daphne Greenberg, Andrew M. Olney, and Maureen W. Lovett provide information on educational technologies that have been developed to teach reading comprehension skills to adults with low levels of literacy. They discuss how technology‐based reading instruction should be grounded in theories on the complexity of the reading comprehension process and should reflect curriculum standards, incorporate assessment methods, and utilize text appropriate for adults with low literacy. The chapter also presents practical examples of conversational agents designed to teach reading comprehension to adult literacy students.

In the field of adult literacy research, reading skills have received much more attention than writing. However, as Zoi A. Traga Philippakos and Charles A. MacArthur point out in Chapter 23, the ability to write competently is required to function both in social situations and in the workplace. In this chapter, Philippakos and MacArthur review studies of writing interventions used with postsecondary students with low literacy skills. The authors emphasize the importance of explicit strategy instruction, which is strongly supported by evidence from elementary and secondary education, although there is limited data at the postsecondary level. On the basis of their review of the available studies, the authors identify research that is still needed.

In Chapter 24, Elizabeth Zachry Rutschow focuses on the need to provide support to adults with low literacy who are in adult literacy programs or who have left school prior to completion of secondary education. From a review of quasi‐experimental and experimental studies, the author discusses three practical approaches for promoting the transition of adult education students to postsecondary education and suggests large‐scale educational reforms that would facilitate this transition.

In the final chapter, Maria Cormier and Susan Bickerstaff draw connections between adult literacy and postsecondary developmental education by discussing how reading and writing are taught in the two areas. Focusing on U.S. community colleges, the authors glean information on barriers to achievement and completion of postsecondary education by developmental education students who have previously been enrolled in adult literacy courses. Cormier and Bickerstaff provide direction for improved outcomes for these students in a discussion of two promising interventions that have been reported in the literature.

References

Akello, J. A., Lutwama‐Rukundo, E., & Musiimenta, P. (2017). Functional adult literacy: An alternative gateway to grassroots women’s improved income generation in Lango Subregion, Northern Uganda. Adult Education Quarterly, 67(2), 79–96. https://doi. org/10.1177/0741713616685143

Ari, O. (2016). Word recognition processes in college‐age students’ reading comprehension achievement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(8), 718–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1098578

Conceptual Framework and Overview of the Handbook 9

Atkinson, T. S., Zhang, G., Phillips, S. F., & Zeller, N. (2014). Using word study instruction with developmental college students. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12015

Bailey, T., Bashford, J., Boatman, A., Squires, J., Weiss, M., Doyle, W., … Young, S. H. (2016). Strategies for postsecondary students in developmental education – A practice guide for college and university administrators, advisors, and faculty (NCEE 2017‐4011). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/23

Barnes, A. E., & Kim, Y. S. (2016). Low‐skilled adult readers look like typically developing child readers: A comparison of reading skills and eye movement behavior. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 1889–1914. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11145‐016‐9657‐5

Bergey, B. W., Deacon, S. H., & Parrila, R. K. (2017). Metacognitive reading and study strategies and academic achievement of university students with and without a history of reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022219415597020

Berry, A. B., & Mason, L. H. (2012). 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, 33(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0741932510375469

Binder, K. S., Tighe, E., Jiang, Y., Kaftanski, K., Qi, C., & Ardoin, S. P. (2013). Reading expressively and understanding thoroughly: An examination of prosody in adults with low literacy skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐012‐9382‐7

Birch, S. L. (2016). Prevalence and profile of phonological and surface subgroups in college students with a history of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414554007

Callens, M., Tops, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Cognitive profile of students who enter higher education with an indication of dyslexia. PLoS One, 7(6), e38081. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0038081

Callens, M., Tops, W., Stevens, M., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). An exploratory factor analysis of the cognitive functioning of first‐year bachelor students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 64(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881‐013‐0088‐6

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

CIA World Factbook. (2018). Index mundi: World demographics profile 2018. Retrieved from https://www.indexmundi.com/world/demographics_profile.html

Cilasun, S. M., Demir‐Şeker, S., Dincer, N. N., & Tekin‐Koru, A. (2018). Adult education as a stepping‐stone to better jobs: An analysis of the adult education survey in Turkey. Adult Education Quarterly, 68(4), 316–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713618783890

Clarke, P. J., Paul, S. S., Smith, G., Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2017). Reading intervention for poor readers at the transition to secondary school. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(5), 408–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1318393

De Paola, M., & Scoppa, V. (2015). Procrastination, academic success and the effectiveness of a remedial program. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 115(C), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.12.007

Dolores Perin

Eme, E., Lambert, E., & Alamargot, D. (2014). Word reading and word spelling in French adult literacy students: The relationship with oral language skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(3), 268–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2011.01508.x

Fallahi, C. R. (2012). Improving the writing skills of college students. In E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 209–219). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Feinberg, I., Tighe, E. L., Greenberg, D., & Mavreles, M. (2018). Health literacy and adults with low basic skills. Adult Education Quarterly, 68(4), 297–315. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0741713618783487

Fleuri, R. M., & Fleuri, L. J. (2018). Learning from Brazilian indigenous peoples: Towards a decolonial education. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 47, 8–18. Retrieved from http://eduproxy.tc‐library.org/?url=/docview/2101891341?accountid=14258

Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press/Continuum. (Original work published 1968).

Freire, P. (2005). Education for critical consciousness. London, UK: Sheed & Ward/ Continuum. (Original work published 1974).

Georgiou, G. K., & Das, J. P. (2015). University students with poor reading comprehension: The hidden cognitive processing deficit. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(5), 535–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413513924

Greenberg, D., Wise, J. C., Morris, R., Fredrick, L. D., Rodrigo, V., Nanda, A. O., & Pae, H. K. (2011). A randomized control study of instructional approaches for struggling adult readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19345747.2011.555288

Happ, R., Förster, M., Rüspeler, A.‐K., & Rothweiler, J. (2018). Young adults’ knowledge and understanding of personal finance in Germany: Interviews with experts and test‐takers. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 17(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2047173417747601

Holschuh, J. P., & Lampi, J. P. (2018). Comprehension. In R. F. Flippo & T. W. Bean (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (3rd ed., pp. 118–142). New York, NY: Routledge.

Huang, J., & Newbern, C. (2012). The effects of metacognitive reading strategy instruction on reading performance of adult ESL learners with limited English and literacy skills. Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 1(2), 66–77.

International Council for Adult Education (2016). Formal and non‐formal adult education opportunities for literacy and numeracy, and other skills for acquisition and retention: A 29‐country review of the concepts, processes and structures of literacy provision and reporting ‐ background paper prepared for the 2016 global education monitoring report education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002470/247039e.pdf

International Literacy Association (2018). Standards for the preparation of literacy professionals 2017. Newark, DE: Author.

Joshi, G. S., & Bouck, E. C. (2017). Examining postsecondary education predictors and participation for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415572894

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Conceptual Framework and Overview of the Handbook 11

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181

Lynch, J. (2009). Print literacy engagement of parents from low‐income backgrounds: Implications for adult and family literacy programs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.6.5

MacArthur, C. A., Konold, T. R., Glutting, J. J., & Alamprese, J. A. (2010). Reading component skills of learners in adult basic education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(2), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409359342

MacArthur, C. A., Philippakos, Z. A., & Ianetta, M. (2015). Self‐regulated strategy instruction in college developmental writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 855–867. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000011

Macaruso, P., & Shankweiler, D. (2010). Expanding the simple view of reading in accounting for reading skills in community college students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 454–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903241363

Mellard, D., Woods, K. L., & McJunkin, L. (2015). Literacy components model for at‐risk young adults enrolled in career and technical education. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12014

Nergård‐Nilssen, T., & Hulme, C. (2014). Developmental dyslexia in adults: Behavioural manifestations and cognitive correlates. Dyslexia, 20(3), 191–207. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/dys.1477

Ng, S., Payne, B. R., Steen, A. A., Stine‐Morrow, E. A. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2017). Use of contextual information and prediction by struggling adult readers: Evidence From reading times and event‐related potentials. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(5), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1310213

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2013a). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd‐ilibrary.org/education/oecd‐skills‐outlook‐2013_9789264204256‐en

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2013b). Literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology‐rich environments: Framework for the OECD Survey of Adult Skills. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2013c). Skilled for life? Key findings from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.oecd.org/site/piaac/SkillsOutlook_2013_ebook.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (2016). Skills matter: Further results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi:https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264258051‐en. Retrieved from. http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/ publications.htm

Ouellette‐Schramm, J. R. (2015). More than a “basic skill”: Breaking down the complexities of summarizing for ABE/ESL learners. Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 4(2), 52–57.

Oxenham, J. (2008). Effective literacy programmes: Options for policy‐makers. Fundamentals of educational planning series. (Vol. 91). Paris, France: UNESCO‐IIEP. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001636/163607e.pdf

Dolores Perin 12

Pacello, J. (2014). Integrating metacognition into a developmental reading and writing course to promote skill transfer: An examination of student perceptions and experiences. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 44(2), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195. 2014.906240

Pae, H., Greenberg, D., & Williams, R. (2012). An analysis of differential response patterns on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test‐IIIB in struggling adult readers and third‐grade children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(6), 1239. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11145‐011‐9315‐x

Paulson, E. J. (2014). Analogical processes and college developmental reading. Journal of Developmental Education, 37(3), 2–13.

Pedersen, H. F., Fusaroli, R., Lauridsen, L. L., & Parrila, R. (2016). Reading processes of university students with dyslexia – An examination of the relationship between oral reading and reading comprehension. Dyslexia, 22(4), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/ dys.1542

Perin, D., & Lauterbach, M. (2018). Assessing text‐based writing of low‐skilled college students. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593‐016‐0122‐z

Perin, D., Lauterbach, M., Raufman, J., & Santikian Kalamkarian, H. (2017). Text‐based writing of low‐skilled postsecondary students: Relation to comprehension, self‐efficacy and teacher judgments. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(4), 887–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐016‐9706‐0

Post, D. (2016). Adult literacy benefits? New opportunities for research into sustainable development. International Review of Education, 62(6), 751–770. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11159‐016‐9602‐5

Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., Waterval, D., Rehm, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Remedial oonline teaching on a summer course. Industry and Higher Education, 20(5), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000006778702300

Roser, M., & Ortiz‐Ospina, E. (2018). Our world in data: Literacy. Retrieved from https:// ourworldindata.org/literacy

Sabatini, J. P., Shore, J., Holtzman, S., & Scarborough, H. S. (2011). Relative effectiveness of reading intervention programs for adults with low literacy. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(2), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2011.555290

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf. Shih, Y.‐H. (2018). Rethinking Paulo Freire’s dialogic pedagogy and its implications for teachers’ teaching. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(4), 130–235.

Shore, J., Sabatini, J., Lentini, J., Holtzman, S., & McNeil, A. (2015). Development of an evidence‐based reading fluency program for adult literacy learners. Reading Psychology, 36(1), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.835294

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.

Sticht, T. G., Caylor, J. S., Kern, R. P., & Fox, L. C. (1972). Project REALISTIC: Determination of adult functional literacy skill levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 7(3), 424–465.

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sturm, A. (2016). Observing writing processes of struggling adult writers with collaborative writing. Journal of Writing Research, 8(2), 301–344. https://doi.org/10.17239/ jowr‐2016.08.02.05

Conceptual Framework and Overview of the Handbook

Suárez‐Coalla, P., & Cuetos, F. (2015). Reading difficulties in Spanish adults with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 65(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881‐015‐0101‐3

Tejero, P., Insa, B., & Roca, J. (2019). Difficulties of drivers with dyslexia when reading traffic signs: Analysis of reading, eye gazes, and driving performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(1), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418765766

Tuominen, T., Korhonen, T., Hämäläinen, H., Temonen, S., Salo, H., Katajisto, J., & Lauerma, H. (2014). Functional illiteracy and neurocognitive deficits among male prisoners: Implications for rehabilitation. Journal of Forensic Practice, 16(4), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP‐10‐2013‐0044

U.S. Department of Education Office of Career Technical and Adult Education. (2015). Making skills everyone’s business: A call to transform adult learning in the United States. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/making‐skills.pdf

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2017). Literacy rates continue to rise from one generation to the next (Fact Sheet No. 45 September 2017, FS/2017/LIT/45). Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ fs45‐literacy‐rates‐continue‐rise‐generation‐to‐next‐en‐2017.pdf

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (n.d.). Adult literacy rate. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary‐term/adult‐literacy‐rate

World Literacy Foundation. (2015). The economic and social cost of illiteracy: A snapshot of illiteracy in a global context. Retrieved from https://worldliteracyfoundation.org/wp‐content/uploads/2015/02/WLF‐FINAL‐ECONOMIC‐REPORT.pdf.

Zambrana, R. E., Meghea, C., Talley, C., Hammad, A., Lockett, M., & Williams, K. P. (2015). Association between family communication and health literacy among underserved racial/ethnic women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 26(2), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2015.0034

Zeng, W., Ju, S., & Hord, C. (2018). A literature review of academic interventions for college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(3), 159–169. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0731948718760999

Section I

Cognitive, Affective and Motivational Factors Underlying Adult Literacy

Cognitive Processing Challenges Associated with Low Literacy in Adults

John Sabatini, Tenaha O’Reilly, Kelsey Dreier, and Zuowei Wang

Educational Testing Service, USA

Introduction

In this chapter, we examine child‐focused reading models with respect to cognitive processing deficits associated with low literacy in adult learners. Why take this approach? First, there is greater breadth and depth of research focused on children and in‐school, adolescent students; ignoring this literature may restrict our knowledge of adult learner challenges. Second, the challenges adults face in acquiring reading literacy skills often began when they were children or adolescents in formal school settings. The roots of those challenges may not have been identified then, but their influence persists, interacting with current learning. Finally, most measures of the reading or learning difficulties used in studies of adult learners were developed initially for use with younger populations, but often have not been adequately validated with an adult learner population. These assessments may be successfully implemented with adult learners, with the caveat that the validity of inferences need to be reexamined in light of theory and research with adults (e.g., Nanda, Greenberg, & Morris, 2014).

The focus population in this chapter is adults who might be served in adult literacy or remedial postsecondary programs (e.g., developmental courses in community colleges). We exclude adults with postsecondary level skills who have been identified as dyslexic or with specific learning disabilities early in their lives and have subsequently received enough instructional or intervention support to have achieved reading literacy proficiency at the postsecondary level. Although we draw on the theories and literature of reading and learning disabilities in skilled adults, our focus is on adults with reading skills below the postsecondary level.

We view cognitive challenges as any knowledge, skills, or dispositions that have been identified as instrumental or supportive in the acquisition of proficiency in reading literacy. We are agnostic about whether these challenges are congenital, acquired, or stem from the absence of learning opportunities. Adults with low literacy have varied histories that are not typically easy to reconstruct (Fowler &

John Sabatini, Tenaha O’Reilly, Kelsey Dreier, and Zuowei Wang 18

Scarborough, 1993), so we have taken as broad a perspective as possible in understanding which and whether the assumptions underlying cognitive models apply to adults with low literacy.

In the research literature on learning or reading disabilities, what we have termed “challenges” are often referred to as deficits. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term “deficit” as a “deficiency or failing, especially in a neurological or psychological function” (Deficit, n.d.). For many in the adult education community, this negatively worded definition connotes that the condition is fixed, permanent, or cannot be changed. We have chosen to use, whenever feasible, the terms challenges or obstacles as these terms have a more productive connotation. A challenge is something that one might overcome. An obstacle is something one may need to work around. This is not to deny the existence of individual differences in cognition, some of which are sufficiently severe to make it almost impossible to achieve high levels of reading proficiency without Herculean feats of learning effort and time. Deficits are typically measured as continuous variables that range from mild to severe rather than as all or none. The severity of a deficit defines the challenge level. A mild challenge may be one that can be overcome with the investment of learning and practice in an intervention program. A severe challenge may represent an obstacle best worked around, that is, compensated for with assistive devices or perhaps avoided by executing reading strategies. Also, there are numerous routes to learning, such that investments of learner time and effort can result in significant and meaningful gains in proficiency along alternative learning pathways.

Adult learners with low literacy skills have sometimes not been diagnosed as learning or reading disabled when still in formal school settings, and consequently the history of their academic difficulties is often not documented. In addressing this issue, Fowler and Scarborough (1993) questioned whether adults with reading disabilities should be distinguished from other adults seeking literacy instruction. They concluded that there are few differences between adults with reading disabilities and adults with reading problems stemming from a lack of educational opportunity or other learning factors. On this basis, they noted the relevance of research on reading disabilities as pertinent to adult learners generally. They also recommended that the focus of research should be on targeting persistent difficulties that can be improved. Deficits that emerge in childhood and interfere with reading development are likely to persist into adulthood, unless they have been identified and remediated while the child was still in a formal school setting. Thus, research on which deficits might occur, how to measure their severity, and what are promising options for addressing them instructionally, should continue to be pursued with adults (Vogel, 1998).

With this framework in mind, the organization of the chapter is as follows. We first provide a brief overview of the target population of adult learners. We then summarize child‐focused models of reading, reading comprehension, and reading difficulties. We organize this developmentally, from the skills associated with learning to read to the skills and strategies involved with comprehension. The goal of this section is to determine what cognitive constructs seem most relevant to the challenges adult learners may face in acquiring literacy proficiency. Then, we review the research with adolescents and adults that is pertinent to cognitive challenges and learning. Finally, we review specific cognitive functions implicated in reading development, roughly in a sequence from perceptual processing to complex cognitive abilities.

Who Are Adult Learners with Low Literacy?

An estimated 19% of adults worldwide (17.5% of adults in the United States) are classified as at or below Level 1 Literacy Proficiency and another 33% at Level 2 based on the results of the Programme for International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC: Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development [OECD], 2013). Level 1 texts are short and the tasks involve a single operation such as searching for a piece of information or literal understanding. At Level 2, texts may be longer and tasks may involve the simple integration of information, comparing and contrasting, or low‐level inferences. Most adults at Level 2 are considered below postsecondary literacy proficiency, whereas adults at Level 1 or below possess even more limited reading literacy skills.

In the United States, Sec. 203(1) of AEFLA (Adult Education and Family Literacy Act) defines adult education as:

services or instruction below the postsecondary level for individuals (A) who have attained 16 years of age; (B) who are not enrolled or required to be enrolled in secondary school under State law; and (C) who (i) lack sufficient mastery of basic educational skills to enable the individuals to function effectively in society; (ii) do not have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, and have not achieved an equivalent level of education; or (iii) are unable to speak, read, or write the English language (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

The precise percentages of these adults with specific reading or learning disabilities is difficult to estimate because of the wide variability and change over time of how disability is measured and defined by schools, researchers, or learners themselves (Vogel, 1998; Vogel & Holt, 2003).

Who are the adults that participate in adult education programs? In the United States, in the enrollment year 2011–2012, there were 39% Hispanic, 26% White, 22% Black or African American, 8% Asian, 2% multiple races/ethnicities, 1% Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian/Native Alaskan learners enrolled (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The most recent national survey of adult education programs found that 47% of learners were enrolled in adult basic education, 13% in adult secondary education, and 40% in English literacy programs. Participants ranged in age from 16 to 60+, with 41% between the ages of 25 and 44. About 53% of program participants were female and about 47% were employed (Tamassia, Lennon, Yamamoto, & Kirsch, 2007).

Although most of this chapter focuses on native speakers of a language, a large subpopulation of adult learners across the globe are non‐native speakers of the primary language of the country in which they reside. Non‐native speakers must learn to speak, listen, read, and write in a new language, and in the process acquire vocabulary, sy ntax, grammar, pragmatics, and other elements of the linguistic structure of the language. Research also suggests that speakers of non‐standard English—which includes pidgin, creole, dialects, accents, or African‐American Vernacular English—may also face additional challenges in learning to read (August & Shanahan, 2006).

The interaction of language learning and reading development, and which factors may cause challenges in learning, are complex and not always well understood (Shore & Sabatini, 2009). Individual differences in reading related to language learners and

John Sabatini, Tenaha O’Reilly, Kelsey Dreier, and Zuowei Wang

language minorities have been found in studies of adult learners (Baer, Kutner, & Sabatini, 2008; Curtis & Kruidenier, 2005; National Research Council, 2012; Sabatini, 2012, 2015; Tighe & Schatschneider, 2014). A significant proportion of adults in the United States with low literacy skills are immigrants or non‐native speakers of English, and they show both component accuracy and rate challenges when compared to other low‐skill adults (Sabatini, 2015). The fact that English was not their first language is not the only obstacle to their literacy performance. Studies have shown that when Hispanic adult learners in the U.S. were tested in Spanish, their performance was at lower levels compared to Spanish speakers in Mexico (Tamassia et al., 2007). However, it remains unclear how to distinguish a specific deficit from a lack of sufficient opportunity to learn the English language (Durgunoğlu, Nagy, & Hancin‐Bhatt, 1993; Shore & Sabatini, 2009; Wrigley, Chen, White, & Soroui, 2009). It is likely that interacting psychological and sociocultural factors pose obstacles to the acquisition of reading proficiency. For example, psycholinguistic variation between the reception and production of speech codes, as with a dialect speaker, could interfere with acquiring fluent decoding skills. A sociocultural mismatch between academic, school‐based language use versus the communication and learning expectations of the community may also present barriers to the learner.

When testing or instructing individuals with diverse language backgrounds, it is important to consider the validity of inferences about the challenges and obstacles faced by these individuals from their performance on tests that have been designed for native readers. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to address this topic adequately (see August & Shanahan, 2006; Shore & Sabatini, 2009; Wrigley et al., 2009).

Learning to Read and Cognitive Challenges: Child‐Focused Models

In this section, we summarize the child‐focused literature on reading development and disabilities research across the span of formal schooling. We examine challenges that emerge in childhood. We briefly review relevant theoretical constructs, measures, and instructional/ intervention techniques derived to address at‐risk or struggling readers, as preface to evaluating the relevant, parallel research with adult learners.

Primary School (Early Grades)

For children from entry into school through the fourth year (in the United States system), models of reading development and disability have primarily focused on the cognitive components associated with the acquisition of decoding and word reading efficiency, culminating in fluent, prose reading by the end of fourth grade or around 9 years of age. Tens of thousands of studies have been conducted to: develop theoretical component constructs; design measures and assessments; model the interactions among the components across different subpopulations of children; and implement instructional and intervention programs to remediate children struggling to learn to read (National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US), 2000; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Numerous studies have compared typically

Cognitive Processing Challenges Associated with Low Literacy in Adults 21 developing children to low achieving students, or to those identified with reading or learning disabilities, often using a study design that matches reading level age and grade (Stanovich, Nathan, & Zolman, 1988; Treiman & Hirsh‐Pasek, 1985).

For most children learning to read in English, direct, explicit teaching of phonemic awareness, that is, training in how to parse spoken words into phonemic sound units within a word, followed by a systematic phonics program, that is, instruction in letter–sound correspondences within printed words, has been found to be effective in fostering reading development, and these strategies are recommended for remediation when children are identified as struggling to learn to read (Bus & van Ijzendoorn, 1999). Research supports a reciprocal relationship between continued growth in phonemic awareness and provision of phonics instruction because familiarity with the spellings of words facilitates phonemic analysis (Ehri, 2005).

Phonemic awareness—the ability to segment the speech stream into phonemic units—seems to be especially sensitive to differences in individuals (Melby‐Lervåg, Lyster, & Hulme, 2012). Phonemic awareness is a language‐based process with operations that require manipulation of the speech code. Mild to severe deficits in phonemic awareness (i.e., a failure to respond to instruction and training) that persist, predict reading achievement longitudinally in English‐language readers (Torgesen & Wagner, 1994). Studies of learning to read other languages typically also show a relationship between phonemic awareness and reading ability, but the relationship is mediated by the relation of the language to the writing system (Durgunoğlu et al., 1993; Perfetti, 2003). In languages with a regular, consistent relationship between the spelling system and the phonology of words, the impact of weaknesses in phonemic awareness are diminished, though still detectable. Often the impact is observed in the speed or automaticity of word recognition processes (Landerl & Wimmer, 2008).

Research has also explored whether there are temporal processing deficits in young children. Children who are unexpectedly slow in naming the components of the alphanumeric system (i.e., digits and letters) may have a temporal processing deficit. Wolf and Bowers (1999) proposed the double‐deficit hypothesis to describe children who exhibited this slow processing coupled with phonological deficits. Such children exhibit low reading ability and are resistant to interventions; they may exhibit effortful reading throughout their lives.

The duration of effective phonemic awareness or phonics instruction varies by language. In languages with a regular, consistent relationship between the spelling system and the phonology of words, learning the sight to sound system may not require as much direct instruction, and phonemic analysis skills may play a less central role in learning to read. However, for irregular systems such as English, phonics instruction may span two years of schooling. Extensive daily practice of reading continuous texts is typically implemented alongside the phonics instruction. Specifically, oral reading practice that is guided and repeated has been found to be effective in enhancing reading fluency in children and has been associated with gains in comprehension (NRP, NICHHD, 2000).

Why does daily reading practice help? Reading is a skill and the acquisition of reading fluency is a milestone accomplishment in early reading achievement (Samuels, 2006). Definitions and measures of reading fluency typically include the accuracy and ease of

Wiley handbook of adult literacy perin download pdf