Fund and Improve the Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning Through Innovation Grants and Pilot Projects

Date: July 21, 2010

—An NCL WIA Reauthorization Priority

Article by Heidi Silver-Pacuilla

Consider these statistics about how U.S. adults are using technology in 2010 and whether adult education programs are prepared to take advantage of these trends:

Broadband. 74 % of adults have broadband access at home, and 67% consider themselves as users of that access in the home. The main dividing lines for access are along socioeconomic dimensions such as income and education:

46% of adults whose highest level of education is a high school degree are broadband users at home;

82% of adults who have attended or graduated from college are broadband users at home.

52% of Americans in households with annual incomes of $50,000 or below have broadband at home, compared with 87% of those in households with incomes above that level.
Among low-income Americans—those whose annual household incomes fall below $20,000—broadband adoption stands at 40%.

African-Americans (59%) and Hispanics (49%) trail the average in home-based broadband access, although gaps have narrowed since early 2009. For Hispanics who took the survey in Spanish, broadband adoption is only 20%.

Senior citizens over the age of 65 continue to trail the national average in broadband adoption with a 35% broadband-at-home penetration rate. But nearly half (48 %) of senior citizens are Internet users, regardless of connection type[i].

Americans with disabilities have broadband at home at a 42% rate, considerably lower than the national average. Some 39% of non-adopters have a disability, much higher than the 24% of the overall survey respondents who have a disability[ii].

Source: Broadband Adoption and Use In America, pg. 13

Public access. People of all ages, incomes, races, and levels of education go to the library for Internet access, whether they have a connection at home or not. Overall, 44% of people in households living below the federal poverty line ($22,000 a year for a family of four) used public library computers and Internet access. Among young adults (14–24 years of age) in households below the federal poverty line, 61% used public library computers and Internet for educational purposes. Among seniors living in poverty, 54% used public library computers for health or wellness needs[iii].

Cell phone. 83% of adults in 2009 have cell phones or smart phones and, among them, 35% have accessed the Internet via their phone.[iv]

There are many needs if adult education is to ramp up service to meet expanding demand in this downturned economy. Currently, adult education programs are serving a mere 3% of all the eligible low-skilled adults in this country, yet our programs and brick-and-mortar classrooms are bursting at the seams.

Call to Action:

We must retool our programs to take advantage of the many new channels that adults now have for information and learning – in their workplaces, communities, homes, and pockets.

We need federal investments to jumpstart innovation, the use of open source tools and resources, public-private partnerships, and meaningful uses of technology for professional development, teaching, learning and assessing rather than an incremental digitizing of existing practices.

In order to begin this retooling, we need a systematic survey of the infrastructure capacity in the adult education field in order to create a comprehensive capacity-building plan for the adult education programs and professional development. Experience indicates that access to the Internet is not consistent across programs or states, and is certainly far from ubiquitous in learning environments.

We need WIA to authorize policy innovations that will free the field from barriers such as a tradition of using learner “seat time” for accountability metrics; this could lead to creative blended models of instruction that support adults to engage in self-study along with or as an alternative to classroom learning.
We should remain united with other advocacy groups concerned about the “digital exclusion” of low income, minority, immigrant, and disabled populations for whom the fastest connections and most powerful computers are priced out of reach, a phenomenon recognized in the FCC’s Broadband Plan.

See more ideas for educational technology in the NCL Response to the National Education Technology Plan.

[i] Horrigan, J.B. (2009). Broadband Adoption and Use In America.

[ii] Lyle, E. (2010). A Giant Leap and a Big Deal.

[iii] Opportunity for All: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries.

[iv] Rainie, L. (2010). Internet, Broadband, and Cell Phone Statistics.

Related Posts

» Adult Education: A Wise Investment

» Blending Social and Technology Support for Digital Literacy

» Technology Innovations for Learning, Part II

» Technology Innovations for Learning, Part I

» Adult Learners, Libraries, and Digital Literacy

Tags: advocacy, public policy, reauthorization, technology, WIA

Comments RSS TrackBack 22 comments

Grey Gorman

in July 21st, 2010 @ 12:09

These are stark statistics to be sure, and seem within line in the realities that my students face. The access gradient is already so massive that it is difficult for those in poverty conditions or who come from an unprivileged background to do it on their own. Which brings me to my concern.

With your call for innovation, and demand for changes in approach and the metrics, my question is, how do you see the power dynamic of funded-organization to poor student changing in terms of access? If there is more online material, that is great. However, that positivity goes away in my mind the second it comes with a need to access it through a particular organization. It is not demand oriented in that sense. The supply is provided and enough demand to justify it is found.

If we have learned anything from the Internet, it is that human nature is directly connected with choice. That we like to be in the driver’s seat. Even when in absence of vital choice, the illusion of it through arbitrary selection helps, like with airline beverages, for instance.

In this sense, for adult education to reach more than the mere single digit percent, it must come with addressing the students as consumers, which comes with a sense of respect of their limitations. With the realities of their lives, the education for many must work around many other constraints.

So, towards that end, what do you envision for students who come from that side of the digital divide?

For instance, in a Level 1 ESL class I had two years ago, several of the women in class had been in the U.S. nearly a decade before this, their first English class. They may even have cable at home, with a computer. But English is still foreign to them, and being maxed out of school in their native country at sixth grade or eighth grade their literacy with their native language is not sufficient for advancement if and when they will work out of the home. Until their children were all in school for the day, these women did not have the hours available. Now they are available they are working behind where their children are.

So, if they can’t get out of the house for five years or eight years for a regularly scheduled class, what can we expect is innovated for them that is in-home based and that importantly is demand-based, not supply-based? What can someone in this position expect in the next authorization that will bring them into the Information Age? I’m thinking two birds one stone, with early childhood material that the parent can work with and learn from supplementary materials that support it. There is a demand there already for it. But how the supply is brought will determine the success of it.

I understand that what you wrote about what more macro and regarding the policy, but with a few million folks on the ground that are much like these women, I pose the question as such things are considered, what’s in it for them? What will be supplied that will meet the demands and limitations?

Thank you for your time and work on this.

Best regards,

Grey Gorman

[Reply]
Heidi Silver-Pacuilla Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Hello Grey, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I agree that adult ed programs and students can be a far cry from the high end users that digital content producers are targeting!

I would like to raise the issue about cell phone learning, though. Around the world, NGOs are using text messaging and hotlines to reach rural and/or poor populations with study materials, supplemental experiences to broadcast lessons (radio or TV), and just in time information such as market prices of commodities.

I am hesitant to endorse cell phone learning for video and Internet-based digital content as I’m not sure we know enough about learning on such a small screen.

However, the rates of cell phone adoption for the populations in this country that you are referencing is very, very high, at least 6 out of 10 according to Pew Research (http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Mobile-Access-to-Data-and-Information.aspx).

Considering broadcast media like radio and TV (remember those free sources of information?!) with supplemental study guides and connections to tutors or other learners that are accessed either by cell or email (rates of public access at libraries are WAY up) can fill a need for moms staying home with children.

Sesame St Workshop, for example, is really pushing this “360″ model of learning all the time. See some of their new initiatives at http://www.sesameworkshop.org/initiatives.

The Family Literacy Center builds on ideas like what you mention, too, for parent+child engagement. See their activities at http://www.famlit.org/activities.

Incenting more learning content development and opportunities that is delivered for free or very low cost is part of what we are advocating for. Another part is to invest in the infrastructure to take advantage of the high quality digital learning opportunities for learners and their instructors.
mltait

in July 21st, 2010 @ 15:51

In April, NCL conducted an advocacy symposium in Columbus, OH in partnership with the Dollar General Literacy Foundation and several state organizations. One of the things we discussed was the rapid pace of technological change in society and how it affects adult literacy students and programs. By coincidence, CNN aired a segment about the use of cell phones as an instructional tool in middle schools on the morning of the symposium. You can find the link and read the discussion from the symposium here: http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/2010/04/ohio/.

[Reply]
Jackie Taylor

in July 21st, 2010 @ 16:53

Hello Heidi,

I have a question for you.

You raise great points in your article and the implications for adult education are tremendous. We know that information is developing exponentially. According to Karl Fisch and others, the top ten in-demand jobs in 2010 did not exist in 2004. I always like their video Shift Happens, an argument for why information technology is becoming more important for education: http://smpd-abe.ning.com/video/did-you-know-20. It brings me back to the problem that we must take bigger and bolder measures for integrating technology in adult education if we are going to help adults gain the skills they need to be successful in the 21st century. The usual updating of our computers and software in our classrooms is no longer enough.

I’m wondering, would you say more with respect to the importance of technology skills and the implications for preparing adult learners for the 21st century workplace?

Thanks,

Jackie Taylor

[Reply]
Heidi Silver-Pacuilla Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Since I wrote this blog post starter message, I’ve been reading this newly released report:

Help Wanted: Projecting Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018, by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, at http://cew.georgetown.edu/jobs2018/. This work forecasts that by 2018, 63 percent of all jobs will require at least some postsecondary education. Employers will need 22 million new workers with postsecondary degrees – and the report shows that we will fall short by three million workers without a dramatic change in course. This translates into a deficit of 300,000 college graduates every year between now and 2018. Get the full report and see the interactive map showing the %age of jobs in each state requiring postsecondary educations.

What’s interesting for our discussion is the identification of technology as the driver of economic change and the upgrading of existing skill requirements. In adult education, we MUST embrace technology for teaching, learning, productivity, and assessment to assist our learners to upgrade their skills for these new jobs and further education. Here is a short excerpt from the report:

…the economic history of the United States is one of lock-step progression between technology and educational attainment.

Integral to this trend is a concept borrowed from labor economics, known as “skill-biased technological change.” This simply means that technological development and the organizational changes that come with it favor workers with more education because they have the expertise needed to handle more complex tasks and activities. Demand for these workers, in turn, grows across the board as the technology spreads throughout the economy.

In this case, the technology in question is information technology. Like electricity in the industrial age, the computer is a general purpose technology that works across industries and in the larger society.

These flexible [workplace] networks, which now dominate the knowledge economy, require communication and information technologies that allow organizations to connect easily with one another and with their customers. Here, then, is where skill-biased technological change goes to work. Increases in organizational complexity lead to an ever-increasing bias toward skilled and educated workers, because they need more knowledge and training to handle that complexity. Increases in educational attainment, in turn, result in efficiency and productivity gains when better-trained workers are paired with the technologies that make the networks possible. The result is predictable—demand for better-prepared workers goes up.

On the flip side, information technology can depress demand for workers with only high school diplomas or less. Available evidence shows that information technology tends to substitute for the narrow and repetitive work tasks that require low-skilled workers in many industries—which is why many lower-level jobs tend to disappear forever in recessions. Prior to the 1991 recession, roughly one-third of laid-off workers with a high school education or less reclaimed their old—or comparable—positions during recovery periods. In the past two recessions, the numbers were even smaller.

That picture is not changing. A recent McKinsey Global Institute report suggests that too few American workers are equipped with the skills required to fill attractive jobs in the economy’s new growth sectors. In fact, the study claims, 71 percent of U.S. workers are in jobs for which there is either low demand from employers, an oversupply of eligible workers, or both.

These numbers suggest that unless we can find a way to educate the American workforce for the complexities of the knowledge economy, we risk leaving hundreds of thousands of workers behind. (pages 15-16)

And I love Shift Happens (search for this on YouTube and there are a lot of versions) videos. It really makes the point that we have to be teaching for learning and flexibility, not particular job-related or education-related skills that exist today. Adults are at least a lot closer to the market, so to speak, but even if they train for a job that they can fill next month, that same job will continue to change.

One of the points that keeps getting made from various perspectives and is really hammered on in Help Wanted is that those workers with more education are those who are offered more training on the job. It is true now, was true 10 and 20 years ago, and most likely will be true in the future. We have got to prepare people to learn in all kinds of environments and from all kinds of presenters and just keep learning!
Sonia Socha

in July 21st, 2010 @ 16:55

SBLC has been involved for years in helping to close the digital divide for our learners. But even if we can get an affordable computer into the home of a learner, they may not be able to afford/maintain the cost of internet.

Over the years, we have seen more of our enrolled learners answering on their surveys that they do have access to a computer in their home or community. However, at the lower literacy levels, the capacity to use a computer obviously declines without support in place.

SBLC offers basic computer literacy classes, an open computer lab for learner and community use, on line software (SKillsTutor), and our OPT is now available in the lab for individual use, as well as mutiple types of instructional software. Off site classes at partner sites in inner city neighborhoods, do not have the same instructional technology options (if a class or learner cannot get to the SBLC site).

So–as SBLC staff recommended as part of a University of Maryland Public Policy doctoral class study in which we participated–until Baltimore (or any city) has “free” accessible broadband for basic use by everyone (much like TV or public television), accessing education will have its limited affect for the adult literacy population. Access through the public library is certainly a good first step. But, it will not work as well as making the link to the internet the same as turning on the television. When that can happen, we will be looking at truly opening the access to all.

[Reply]
Nancy Reeder

in July 21st, 2010 @ 19:12

Hi Heidi,
It’s nice to be able to give comments to your blog. I agree with what you say and am trying to think out-of-the box.

I coordinate a distance learning program for ABE/ASE students and receive a small amount of money from the feds to keep this program going. However, as your statistics show, the digital divide remains deep and wide.
Some students, who would like to work on their GED or English learning via distance, do not have internet access or computers at home to be able to participate in distance programs.

I’m interested in funding for check-out computers/laptops, accompanied by internet connection, perhaps for 3-6 months per student, with renewal available, much the same way our public libraries provide books.

The process, procedures, security, etc., will have to be worked out for each institution, but I believe this is a viable approach to closing the technology gap in the 21st century.

Local communities and businesses need to be involved in supporting this type of project. Our adult students, who need a GED or high school diploma, are the future of our country right now; however, they remain behind the eigh ball.

This is the type of out-of-the box programming and thinking we all need to be pursuing in order to effectively serve the realistic needs of our 21st century students.

Thanks for listening.
Nancy Reeder

[Reply]
Heidi Silver-Pacuilla Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Thanks for all these good comments, questions, and on the ground solutions. One of the implications of advocating for innovation and model demonstration programs is to be able to fund smaller and more nimble program ideas that might work in particular localities. We have not had this kind of funding or flexibility in the recent past. It’s what we hope to be able to do with a proposed innovation fund for adult education.
Jackie Taylor

in July 22nd, 2010 @ 15:11

Hello Heidi, All,

Thanks for your helpful responses and for the report, I hadn’t seen it yet. Will check it out.

What I hear you calling for is not a refinement of the existing adult education programs – more and updated computers and software, for example. But significant reform – a shakedown – that changes the way we do things now, how we count participation in adult education programs, what tools are available for teaching and learning, and the professional development needed to implement real change. My question is two part: What’s needed from professional development, in particular, to help bring about this change?

Secondly, what do advocates need to do or where should they focus their advocacy in order to see real technology reforms take place in adult education?

(These questions are open to anyone; feel free to weigh in.)

Jackie Taylor

[Reply]
Heidi Silver-Pacuilla Reply:
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:09 am
Shake down Shake up Break Out
One challenge is to advocate for WIA reauthorization while pushing hard to find new ways to get learning opportunities to adults not in the WIA funded programs. Federally funded programs are serving less than 5% of the people who are eligible for services! Can anyone comment on how they are doing this?

On PD: We are hearing from national technical assistance providers is that almost all adult ed teachers now have access to computers and the Internet. These computers might not be in the classroom and students might not have access to computers yet. (I would REALLY like to see a national survey of equipment and access so we know what we can expect!)

This means that we can at least start expecting teachers to participate in web-based professional development. This will open a lot of opportunities, and federal, state and local technical assistance programs should start to take advantage of them. Individual teachers can also participate in trainings on their own, there are many free webinars and online self-paced learning modules offered on the web. If all of our programs made some of the trainings we do locally available for all, we’d have a wealth of training materials and be able to leverage the expertise out in the field.

Here again is the link to the adult ed response to the National Ed Tech Plan which has some of these ideas embedded and linked http://www.national-coalition-literacy.org/AdultEdResponsetoNETP_FINAL.pdf.

mltait Reply:
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:40 am
Hi Heidi! I’d like to address your question about how programs not currently receiving federal WIA funding manage to serve students, and make a comment on Nancy Reeder’s post above. When I am not wearing my National Coalition for Literacy “hat”, I am the Director of a small community-based adult literacy program in Central New York. We do not currently receive any federal funds under WIA, Title II, but we do have a grant from NYS under its Adult Literacy Education funding stream. This program requires us to produce, measure and analyse outcomes using the NRS, so we have the same accountabilities that the WIA-funded program in our community has for these funds. We provide instruction through traditional one-on-one tutoring and small group classes. We use both paid instructors and volunteers. We are facing a severe budget cut in our ALE funding stream next year — 30%, in fact. Our other sources of funding are the local United Way (also facing reduced funding next year), foundation and corporate grants, and private philanthropic donations.

I believe that community-based adult literacy programs are a part of the solution to the increasing demand for adult literacy services facing our communities. In a climate of scarce resources, it becomes harder and harder to sustain such programs by themselves, however. So I have concluded that the answer for my program is to develop strategic partnerships in our community, diversifying not only the models of instruction that we use, but also the opportunities for volunteers to provide supplemental instruction in publicly funded classroom settings. Partnering strategically and successfully requires the ability to think creatively and to approach problem solving with your collaborators as true partners — not as competitors.

With regard to the question about creating lending labs, I have found that foundation and corporate funders are open to requests for hardware and software in the context of program improvement or grants for instruction. This may be a way of getting funding for technology outside of your public funding streams. If you do not qualify for grant funding yourself, perhaps you can find a partner in your community who does. Also, see if any of the agencies in your community already have technology labs that are not in use 24/7 — perhaps you can provide instructional opportunities through collaboration with another agency. Approach the demand for services as the problem — and try to work with your collaborators to solve it together.
Mev Miller

in July 28th, 2010 @ 14:15

Do you have similar statistics by gender? More and more, it seems that gender indicators are disappearing from the research. I’ve seen conflicting reports about women’s access and use of these technologies. Since so many women are directly affected by WIA authorization, this seems an important question to ask and statistic to know.

[Reply]
Heidi Silver-Pacuilla Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Hi Mev, that’s a good question and savvy observation. I think the good people at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research would agree that gender analyses are disappearing from public reports of all types.

They did a review of outcomes for women in WIA funded workforce programs, and found that women seemed to have been funneled into traditional, lower paying job tracks. The report is here: http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C372WIA.pdf
Their congressional testimony on the topic is posted here: http://iwpr.org/pdf/WIA_notes.pdf

In technology, the gender gap is disappearing or shifting. The NAAL report did not find significant differences in by gender in the analyses they ran on technology. (That’s not to say that those of us who can should not get into that database and ask different questions!)

For new technology studies, I think what is being seen is that it is not as clearly a question of have and have not but that females use different features of various tools or use them in a different way. For example, the assumption/stereotype is that girls play online websites, boys play video games.

The Pew studies show that teenage girls use their mobile phones differently than boys. Girls are more likely to make phone calls and send texts; boys do those things less and do more online surfing and more with video.

In the Gates Study of public access in libraries, the report says: Race and gender are also significant factors in the likelihood of library visits. Women are more likely to visit a public library than men, with about 72 percent of women making library visits in the past year compared to 67 percent of men (p. 27). Perhaps this %age gets at your sense that women do not have the access in their homes and seek it at public access points.

The study of technology use by low skilled adults in the UK, Adult Learning in the Digital Age by Selwyn, Gorard, and Furlong (2006), followed adults into their homes for ethnographic interviews. There they saw different patterns of access and use to the equipment and write eloquently about that. But I don’t think they would be prepared to make sweeping statements about gender based on those case studies.

I appreciate the question and again, it begs for more research, more analyses of existing data, and more awareness of unique circumstances that women – especially single low income women – face on the road to furthering their education.
Sonia Socha

in August 3rd, 2010 @ 19:20

Heidi,

What are other countries doing to provide adult literacy inb=struction via technology (TV, internet, or in the classroom)? I am particularly interested in countries that are ahead of the U.S. in their educational outcomes & results, and also the countries that have made significant improvements in access for delivering their services–like Ireland — when they expanded their AEL class offerings through their public television.

[Reply]
Heidi Silver-Pacuilla Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
I am intersted in this, too! We have much to learn from other countries that are working with different funding and delivery models. I have not been studying this, however, so will defer to others who can weigh in. (I’ll send this comment to David Rosen to start us off.)

David J. Rosen Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
In some countries mobile phones (cell phones) are being used to provide basic literacy instruction (e.g. to women in Pakistan in their first language, also to women and men in Niger), English language learning (BBC in Bangladesh), access to science teaching videos in remote areas (the Philippines), elementary school teacher training (South Africa) and wide-scale distribution of the country’s most popular novels, written on and for mobile phones (Japan). Many developing countries are using Interactive Radio instruction and, in the case of Liberia, for adult education teacher training. In some countries — especially during the World Cup — people watch television on their mobile phones. This, and regular broadcast and digital television, means that educational TV is also a useful education technology. These technologies, and of course the Internet, all provide good opportunities for online and blended learning for adult learners as well as professional development for teachers.
Don Block

in August 6th, 2010 @ 12:55

Let’s address a tough political reality in this discussion about technology. Some policymakers and some business people who don’t understand our field very well view technology as a way to reduce the number of human teachers needed. They advance technology as a cost-saving or cost-cutting strategy. Efficiency, in their view, is the goal. We in the field know that our students are not self-directed enough to handle most technology on their own without coaching and support from an instructor. Throwing a device in their lap will not result in learning.

[Reply]
Heidi Silver-Pacuilla Reply:
August 6th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Thank you! Well said! Much more graphic, but the same conclusion in the paper I wrote for NIFL in 2007: http://www.nifl.gov/publications/pdf/NIFLOnlineLearningReport.pdf.
New learners MUST be supported in some way to be successful with online learning. You are very correct that the first response is technology is a teacher replacement. The good news is that the National Ed Tech Plan (http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010) doesn’t take that stance and that Plan is and will be driving policy. We have to be clear that we all want success for students and programs.

David Rosen Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 5:11 am
Don, and others,
Blended models work best with most adult learners. I especially like ones that begin with a majority of face-to-face (f2f) time, provided one-on-one or in small groups, and a small percent of online time where students are introduced to online learning, and to web-accessible hardware and software in a setting where they can immediately get help if needed. Program models that begin with 80% f2f and 20% online time, and over a period of weeks or months become 50/50% or, in the case of blended distance learning 20/80%, in my opinion, have the most promise. These do not necessarily cost less, nor necessarily reach many more students, but they do introduce adult learners to online learning, the internet and using computers, and they often do enable students to increase intensity of learning and thus progress faster. This is based on my experience, however; we don’t have much research to support (or refute) this.
Federico Salas-Isnardi

in August 6th, 2010 @ 18:05

Heidi and colleagues

I agree with your call for action, step by step. However, a component that may be buried in your second bullet is professional development focused on how to use technology in the adult education classroom. Note this is not about uses of technology for PD as your bullet states, or uses of technology for learning and assessing but rather PD that will help instructors bridge the “comfort gap” in the use of technology for instructional purposes. As I train adult educators around the nation on implementing century 21 literacies in the classroom, I hear again and again teachers tell me they are the ones who don’t feel they know enough about the technology to make it work. So, as I speak of 21C literacies, many are uncomfortable with information and technology literacy.

We do need retooling and we need the investment to jumpstart innovation but we need to make sure that for every dollar we invest in innovation we reserve a few cents to train teachers on the best applications of that innovation.

Peace,

federico

[Reply]
Sharyl Markham

in August 9th, 2010 @ 12:06

I have seen this need for a long time, and I have a project that I am working on for my ESL students. Many of my students are migrant workers for the farming communities throughout Logan County. It is my plant to place computers in each community so they can access a work study program called Rosseta Stone. This is a very good program to teach English and it also helps with low level reading and math. My problem is funding. Rossetta Stone cost nearly $400.00 per CD, and many of these farming communities have no internet access, so I have to purchase this software for each computer. I would like to have 20 computers up and going in the county. We have plenty of computers, we just do not have the funding to purchase the software. The state will not purchase is because of the cost. Do you have any suggestions? I am writing grants, but have not gotten any funding yet. I am afraid due to the unpopular political debates going on right now that there may not be any funding. Can you point me in the right direction. We do have internet service in the learning center so if we got some funding we can run Rosetta Stone on site. Thanks for listening!

[Reply]
David Rosen Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 5:18 am
Sharyl and others,
In some states public libraries have subscriptions to commercial ESOL/ESL software that can be used at the library or online. Also, there is a very good free online ESL software program designed for adults called USALearns [http://usalearns.org. ] It can be used online by individuals from home, work, and possibly libraries. It is not designed for use in a computer lab or other settings where several people are trying to access it at the same time from the same place. Another free (to the learner) adult ESOL/ESL learner support service available in some states is the Learner Web [ http://learnerweb.org ]

National Coalition for Literacy

Get Alerts and Updates

Polls

Facebook

Categories

Links

Meta

Fund and Improve the Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning Through Innovation Grants and Pilot Projects

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 22 comments

Grey Gorman

mltait

Jackie Taylor

Sonia Socha

Nancy Reeder

Jackie Taylor

Mev Miller

Sonia Socha

Don Block

Federico Salas-Isnardi

Sharyl Markham