While the IALS has highlighted the prevalence of literacy levels of the adult populations of many countries around the world, its methodology and approach have been criticised by some. Hamilton and Barton (2000) state three main criticisms: the IALS provides only a partial picture of literacy; culture is treated as bias; and the test items do not represent the real-life items as claimed. Hamilton and Barton adhere to the NLS approach, a belief that literacy only has
meaning within its particular context of social practice and does not transfer unproblematically across contexts. Literacy practice can be defined as the “socially regulated, recurrent, and patterned things that people do with literacy as well as the cultural significance they ascribe to those doings” (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 342). This is in contrast to the IALS approach which assumes consistency of skills across contexts, for example, the skill of reading is the same when reading a book in a library, as opposed to reading a poster in a noisy street.
Hamilton and Barton (2000) argue that there are different literacy practices in different domains of social life, such as education, workplaces, and the community. It is argued that these differences can help reveal the meanings, values, and uses that literacies have for people in their everyday lives and that this understanding of different contexts must be taken into account when discussing literacy (Hamilton & Barton, 2000).
The issue of culture as a bias is contested by Hamilton and Barton (2000). It is argued that in the IALS the tasks are seen as culturally-neutral which in Hamilton and Barton’s view does not take into account the complexities of cross-cultural comparisons. Any literacy practice that is not recognised beyond a particular cultural group was not used to generate test items for the IALS as this would constitute cultural bias (OECD, 2000). However, the NLS perspective sees literacy as constituted by its cultural context (Hamilton & Barton, 2000). Therefore, in searching for cultural neutrality it is argued that the IALS moves away from the factors that are essential for understanding literacy, making the test items not real life tasks, but proxy measures of literacy (Hamilton & Barton, 2000). Hamilton and Barton argue also that the IALS makes generalised claims about causality from descriptive correlations and differences, and question its appearance of objectivity by stating that it does not allow other research paradigms to interpret the results in their own ways.
items, Hamilton and Barton (2000) argue that the levels 1-5 used are arbitrary and are not based on people’s actual lived practices. The authors’ state that an individual’s own judgment of their literacy proficiency is more positive and while the IALS reports this as self-delusion (OECD, 2000), Hamilton and Barton argue that the IALS is measuring something other than everyday literacy practices.
Hamilton and Barton (2000) conclude that the IALS is really measuring “artificially constructed test literacy, sampling a transnational culture and tapping people’s participation in
the global economy. However, the IALS provides useful general correlations and statistics that can help governments to target aspects of their population who are low in literacy” (as has been
measured by the IALS and which Hamilton and Barton do acknowledge as “a literacy” (p.
385)).
The criticism that the IALS only provides a partial picture of literacy is probably accurate; however, this is not necessarily a limitation. Functional literacy is a necessary fundamental building block to further literacies including critical literacies, workplace literacies, computer literacy, etc. An understanding of the factors that enhance engagement in learning functional literacy skills is necessary to explore, just as it is necessary to explore the socio-cultural factors that impact on the development of multiple literacies. However, while related, these are different foci for a series of different studies.
Hamilton and Barton (2000) also criticise the IALS for treating culture as bias. The NLS perspective holds that functional literacy items cannot be removed from their socio-cultural context which gives them meaning (Hamilton & Barton, 2000). The functional skill of reading and comprehension (for the purposes of answering questions about a text, not necessarily understanding the text), however, does not rely on socio-cultural cues to be executed (although admittedly the task would be made a lot easier if it were meaningful). Hamilton and Barton’s
criticism is valid when discussing the use of the IALS to compare the socio-cultural literacy practices of samples across cultures, but in the present study functional literacy skill was used primarily as a descriptor variable of the sample. The prose literacy measure was chosen specifically for its hypothesised relationship to the skills required in adult educational environments (Kirsch, Jungeblut, & Campbell, 1991; OECD, 2000). However, it is acknowledged that functional literacy scores are not necessarily an accurate descriptor of the types of literacy practices important in the educational lives of the participants in this study.
The final criticism that test items do not represent real-life items is also valid if the purpose of the tool is to make socio-cultural comparisons of literacy practices across or within cultures. However, this was not the focus of the present study as outlined above. Hamilton and Barton’s (2000) criticism of the use of five levels of the IALS to denote literacy ability as arbitrary is valid. The Test of Applied Literacy Skills (TALS) used in the current study was based on the same structure as the IALS (but was not the same assessment as the IALS is not publicly available). With the TALS, however, the authors do not recommend any cut-off points for designating adequate and inadequate levels of literacy suggesting instead a continuum of task difficulty which allows for an understanding of the types of tasks each participant could be expected to address with an 80% success rate (Kirsch et al., 1991). This continuous scoring approach has been used in the current study.
3.2C
OPING WITH LOW LITERACY LEVELSWhile many adults with low literacy levels have struggled with the need for literacy skills throughout their lives, they have also developed coping strategies for dealing with this problem. Lytle et al. (1986) have noted that while adults are aware of this struggle, they do tend to have a limited intraindividual repertoire for coping with these difficulties. With the exception of participation in adult literacy programmes (a direct way of approaching the issue), most of the
time variations on avoidance coping strategies are reported by adults with low literacy levels to hide their lack of or low level of particular literacy skills. Ross (1987) reports on students in adult basic education classes who have more strategies for coping without reading than for approaching a reading task. Ross (1987) gives examples of job applications being taken home for others to fill out; avoiding applying for jobs that required a written application; holding jobs that required little reading; while in restaurants, ordering standard items, waiting to be the last to order in the group so options could be heard, or asking the waitress for suggestions were used to cope with being unable to read the menu; and, memory being relied on for doctor’s and pharmacist instructions. Some individuals will avoid situations where they know they may have to read or write while others maintain a pretence of being able to read by buying a newspaper and pretending to read it (Lytle et al., 1986). Further strategies include feigning confidence to cover fear or relying on others to do literacy tasks for them (Eberle & Robinson, 1980).
When confronted with reading tasks, generally students with low literacy levels would use the following strategies to determine the meaning of a word: searching the surrounding context for cues including using picture cues where available without an attempt at decoding; word substitution; or, word analysis involving breaking the word down into parts (Ross, 1987). With spelling, Ross (1987) found that students generally attempted to avoid writing altogether with few asking for help. Ross (1987) argues that unless poor readers in learning environments are explicitly taught strategies for approaching reading tasks, they will fall back into avoidance mechanisms. This point seems sensible given that while the individual has joined the course to improve his or her ability to read, write, or spell for example, learned behaviours of many years may be difficult to give up particularly when they may have protected the individual from stigma (both perceived and actual).
Lytle et al. (1986) report that adults in adult literacy programmes frequently report feelings of embarrassment and the wish to hide their literacy needs. It is proposed that this motive
conflict (a need to avoid versus a need to engage) and the inherent threat and stress it results in, must make it difficult for the learner with literacy issues to directly approach their literacy and learning needs. Research supports this proposition. Iddo (2002) claims that negative attitudes and beliefs an individual holds about his or her mathematical competencies can impede the learning of such skills and the ability to cope with math tasks. Eberle and Robinson (1980) claim that the negative views of others and the stigma associated with low literacy is often internalised by the people involved and continues to act on them throughout their lives. Stodolsky (1985) claims that negative self-beliefs can lead to students becoming passive rather than action-oriented learners with regard to maths.