Reading and writing are essential for social participation. Yet the OECD Programme for the international Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) revealed that about one in five adults in the OECD countries reached a literacy level of 1 or below in the Survey of Adult Skills, indicating low levels of proficiency (OECD, 2019). This raises the question of what interventions are suitable for helping adult literacy learners. A recently published meta-analysis reported a small significant main effect on the literacy levels (g = 0.22) of participants of reading and writing interventions (Kindl & Lenhard, 2023). However, interventions for adults with low literacy skills may target additional aspects of literacy, including literacy practices, attitudes toward reading, or self-confidence, and address different support needs. To analyze the state of knowledge about adult literacy interventions with diverse focuses and learning goals, a systematic literature review is currently examining scientifically studied interventions for adults with low literacy skills and their outcomes (Butscheidt, forthcoming). Included are empirical studies of reading and writing programs for adults (at least 16 years old). Qualitative and quantitative studies are considered. Reported outcomes include gains in literacy skills, literacy practices, certificate attainment, life-skills, occupational skills, aspects of family literacy, or changes in learners’ attitudes toward reading and their self-image.  Because of the focus on learners, studies that examined outcomes solely from the perspective of teachers (i.e., interviews, reports, etc.) were excluded. Studies measuring outcomes through observations by the study's researchers or through learner self-reports are included. Studies of family literacy programs are included if they report effects on adults. Preliminary results from this review, based on ten studies, are presented in this post, with the aim of contributing to the understanding of the landscape of research on adult literacy interventions. 

The ten studies identified so far suggested two types of interventions, which differed in their focuses: Directive Literacy Skills Training and True-to-Life Literacy Programs. Directive Literacy Skills Training focused on teaching the components of reading and writing in a structured and explicit manner. True-to-Life Literacy Programs consisted of authentic literacy training and addressed different needs of adult learners. These types of programs may also teach specific literacy skills but focus on authentic everyday contexts or specific areas where adults need support, such as the labor market. An overview of both types of interventions is presented in terms of their content, explicitly addressed goals, and outcomes.

Directive Literacy Skills Training

Interventions which belong to the category of directive literacy skills training explicitly teach and train literacy skills and sub-skills, such as decoding, reading accuracy, reading fluency and spelling. Five training programs were identified as belonging to this type. 

The first is Corrective Reading. Corrective Reading teaches word structures, moving from a phonological focus to word-level reading over time (Greenberg et al., 2011; Sabatini et al., 2011; Shore et al., 2013). When learners practice reading, the teacher immediately corrects their errors. Immediate feedback and graduate exposure of new material is supposed to ensure that learners master each skill before moving on.  

The second is Guided Repeated Reading. The approach consists of learners rereading short texts or passages for fluency training (Greenberg et al., 2011; Sabatini et al., 2011; Shore et al., 2013). In this program, the participants may be given time to read passages silently to themselves, before reading out loud to the instructor. The focus is on accuracy and an appropriate reading speed. 

The third program is the RAVE-O program. RAVE-O was originally developed for children with dyslexia, then tested with adults (Sabatini et al., 2011; Shore et al., 2013). The program derives from the double deficit hypothesis, which posits, that deficits in phonological processing, and/or in naming speed, can seriously impact reading acquisition (Sabatini et al., 2011; Shore et al., 2013). The modified version of the RAVE-O curriculum for adult learners is designed to help individuals with either one of these deficits or a double deficit (Sabatini et al., 2011; Shore et al., 2013). The program provides systematic orthographic, morphological, phonological and semantic instruction and addresses multiple reading components with a focus on phonics instruction and fluency training (Sabatini et al., 2011; Scarborough et al., 2013).  

The effectiveness of Corrective Reading, Guided Repeated Reading, and the RAVE-O program, was shown in intervention studies analyzing group gains, which included between 81 and 198 participants (Greenberg et al., 2011; Rodrigo et al., 2014; Sabatini et al., 2011; Shore et al., 2013). Two studies showed small albeit significant gains in reading skills for these approaches (Greenberg et al., 2011; Sabatini et al., 2011). Progress was made in decoding, letter and word identification, reading fluency and passage comprehension. 

Unlike other studies, Scarborough et al. (2013) examined individual gains rather than group gains. They found that forty-six percent of the 148 participants trained with different programs (Corrective Reading, Guided Repeated Reading, RAVE-O) made significant gains in reading skills. These findings suggest that individual participants can benefit from literacy interventions and improve their skills. Nevertheless, fifty-four percent of participants did not show significant gains, which underlines the heterogeneity of the target group.

Regarding gains in literacy practices, there were two studies indicating that progress can be achieved through direct instruction of reading skills (Rodrigo et a., 2014; Shore et al., 2013). Rodrigo et al. (2014) reported that participants of programs belonging to this type were more likely to visit bookstores or go to libraries more frequently following training. However, compared to more authentic reading trainings consisting of Extensive Reading elements, the effect was weaker and did not last as long (see chapter True-To-Life Literacy Programs: Extensive Reading). Another study found significant changes in adults' perceptions of their own reading skills for participants of Guided Repeated Reading, Corrective Reading, or RAVE-O (Shore et al., 2013). Participants of the Guided Repeated Reading approach also reported reading more types of texts and reading more frequently (gains in reading frequency for pay stubs, magazines, work forms, their own schoolwork, books to children). Participants of Corrective Reading also reported some increase in reading frequency (reading newspapers and library books more often). 

The fourth program of this type is Word Study, a structured spelling curriculum. In this program, learners study words with similar orthographic features and are encouraged to learn the underlying orthographic rules (Shaw & Berg, 2008). A study with five participants in the experimental group and five participants in the control group found that participants in the experimental group made significant progress. Participants also completed a self-efficacy scale in which they rated their learning gains and confidence in their literacy skills, since taking part in the spelling course. They also rated their satisfaction with their participation, and whether they always studied for class. The results indicated that participants found the course helpful and enjoyed having participated. Follow-up interviews with open-ended questions supported these findings. Examples of participants’ answers are:           

• “I feel good. I feel a lot better. I feel a lot better and I’m really improving myself. I can read and hear sounds.” (Shaw & Berg, 2008, p. 138)

• “Now I know how to hear the sounds and pronounce them […]” (Shaw & Berg, 2008, p. 137)

• “I’m doing much better. […] My spelling has changed in a great way.” (Shaw & Berg, 2008, p. 137)

The last program is AutoTutor. Interventions focusing on reading components are offered in classroom settings as well as through e-learning and distance learning platforms. E-learning allows for flexibility in learning times and various options for personalized instruction (Fang et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021). One digital learning tool for reading comprehension training that has been studied is AutoTutor, an intelligent tutoring system (ITS) (Fang et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021). AutoTutor simulates human-like one-on-one conversations in the form of a dialogue between the learner and an artificial tutor (Fang et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021). Some versions even implement trialogues between the artificial tutor, an artificial peer, and the human learner (Fang et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021). Lessons often include videos with explanations, conversations about texts, sentences, or words, and tasks for the learner. Such tasks may take the form of a competition between the human learner and a digital peer (Fang et al., 2021).

Results from a hybrid intervention, including a human teacher in a classroom setting and AutoTutor for distance e-learning, provided indication for the program's effectiveness (Fang et al., 2021). A sample of 252 participants was categorized into four clusters. Higher performers completed tasks relatively quickly and accurately, conscientious readers completed tasks slowly and accurately, under-engaged readers were fast but inaccurate, and struggling readers were both slow and inaccurate (Fang et al., 2021). Conscientious readers made the largest gains in comprehension, while gains were the smallest for struggling readers (Fang et al., 2021). One of the difficulties with AutoTutor is keeping learners focused and motivated, but research is looking at ways to identify disengagement and redirect focus while using ITS (Chen et al., 2021).

Overall, there is still a lack of research on e-learning methods for adult literacy learners. In particular, there is a need for studies with a control group to assess the extent to which the outcomes of e-learning interventions differ from other approaches to adult literacy.

^{(Image from Mohamed_hassan on Pixabay)}

True-to-Life Literacy Programs

Interventions in this category attempt to support adults in authentic literacy learning with a focus on real life. This includes reading for pleasure, life-skills, or specific areas of literacy important for real-life tasks, such as work literacy or family literacy. Three programs were identified to fit into this category. 

The first is AlphaPlus. It is a literacy program designed to support adult learners in several areas of life and accordingly targets different components of literacy and literacy related tasks. AlphaPlus trains reading and spelling, as well as basic perceptual skills, including auditory and visual skills, that are considered necessary for literacy development (Rüsseler et al., 2012; Rüsseler et al., 2013). The literacy tasks were designed to address real-life needs and help participants with everyday and work-related challenges (shopping, filling out standard forms, reading job offers etc.). In addition, the program includes the use of an online learning platform and social activities such as buying groceries and cooking together or visiting the soccer stadium. Another part of the program is working on an individual job application portfolio and participating in a three-week vocational internship (Rüsseler et al., 2012; Rüsseler et al., 2013). 

A study of the approach was conducted with participants who learned about the course from the German Federal Agency of Employment (“Bundesagentur für Arbeit”). A small sample of 36 participants in the experimental group and 10 participants in the control group took part in the study (Rüsseler et al., 2012; Rüsseler et al., 2013). The participants in the control group took part in common literacy courses in adult education centers in Germany. At the end of the nine months long program, participants in the experimental group improved their spelling and especially their reading skills, with the average reading skills increasing from first to second grade level (Rüsseler et al., 2013). Participants’ experiences with the program and the learning process were described. Initially being reluctant to talk to other people about the nature of the course, they became more open to sharing their experiences and wanted to inform others about the benefits of attending literacy programs (Rüsseler et al., 2012). In addition, the participants ranked the course as 1.7 on a scale from 1 to 6 (general satisfaction with the course), with 1 being the highest score (Rüsseler et al., 2013). Almost one-third of them entered employment after completion of the program, although it is not clear what kind of employment they found, how independently they conducted their job search, and whether they could improve their quality of life. 

The second program is Extensive Reading. While various interventions for adults with low literacy skills incorporate authentic literacy needs into their programs, the Extensive Reading intervention approach places special emphasis on authentic literacy practices. Originally implemented in English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms, it has been modified by researchers to address the needs of adults with difficulty in reading and writing. Unlike directive literacy skills trainings, it does not directly target specific basic reading skills, but rather allows learners to engage in broad and authentic reading experiences, in the hope of improving skills, nonetheless. Extensive Reading simulates a library with books and other reading materials matching participants’ literacy levels (Greenberg et al., 2006). The focus is on reading for pleasure and general comprehension. Students learn about different book genres and how to select reading materials that interest them. They are given the opportunity to read silently, put a book down if they do not like it, take notes while reading, and present what they have read to the other participants (Greenberg et al., 2006). The program also includes the teacher reading aloud from a book they deem suitable for the entire class, followed by a discussion. Similar to a real library, students can borrow books to read at home. 

A study by Greenberg et al. (2006) found, that 27 participants of an Extensive Reading program exhibited growth in reading fluency and expressive vocabulary on the group level. As suggested by learners’ responses, they generally reacted positively to the approach. Participants reported reading more and different types of books and gaining better comprehension. The development of three individual learners was described in detail by the authors. These learners, although initially reluctant, began to enjoy the experience and changed their attitudes toward reading. One participant even started taking books home to read to younger children in his neighborhood, giving them the opportunity to make positive experiences with reading themselves (Greenberg et al., 2006). It is, however, unclear to what extent the progress achieved was due to the Extensive Reading program alone, as the study did not have a control group. 

There are other studies indicating the effectiveness of Extensive Reading. Greenberg et al. (2011) compared the outcomes of Extensive Reading approaches with more direct, explicit approaches (specific reading skills training) and found all interventions to be successful in increasing reading skills (decoding, letter and word identification, reading fluency, passage comprehension) with small effect sizes. A positive effect of Extensive Reading on reading practices was reported in a study by Rodrigo et al. (2014). They administered a reading pattern survey to 181 adults with low literacy skills who participated in either a form of Extensive Reading intervention, or a direct reading skills instruction. Extensive Reading participants reported reading more and being more likely to finish a book they started (Rodrigo et al., 2014). Although participants of both types of programs reported visiting bookstores or libraries more often after treatment, the effect was stronger and longer lasting for Extensive Reading participants (82 % of Extensive Reading participants still visited libraries more often six months after treatment compared to 63 % of non-Extensive Reading participants) (Rodrigo et al., 2014).          

Finally, Family Literacy Programs are reviewed. Some literacy programs are designed to support entire families, helping parents and children improve their literacy skills together and support them in incorporating more literacy practices into their daily lives (Kim & Byington, 2016; Paratore, 2005; Swick, 2009). Research has shown that low literacy in adulthood often correlates with having grown up in families with a low socio-economic status, that have struggled to provide enough learning support (Nickel, 2002). Likewise, early childhood literacy practices and parental literacy skills positively influence children's literacy outcomes (e.g., Kim & Byington, 2016). Therefore, projects like the Family Storyteller Program for Preschoolers help engage parents and their preschool-aged children in family reading practices and language or literacy activities (Kim & Byington, 2016). In this program, parents and children learn to read children's books together, with the instructor modeling reading techniques and parents practicing shared reading (Kim & Byington, 2016). Families can take home books to practice additional language and literacy activities with their children.

One study found a six-week (n = 199) as well as a four-week (n = 175) version of this program to have a strong positive effect on several family literacy outcomes, such as reading frequency, the number of children’s books at home, telling stories, visiting libraries together, and parents’ or children’s initiation of literacy activities (Kim & Byington, 2016). The program took place in economically disadvantaged areas in the southwestern United States.          

^{(Image from geralt on Pixabay)}

Discussion

In this post preliminary results from an ongoing systematic literature review were reported. The review aims at describing the landscape of research on adult literacy interventions, including the goals which are explicitly addressed in the interventions and their outcomes. The preliminary results suggest that different types of literacy programs vary in their focuses - while some address reading and writing skills through explicit instruction and training, others address these skills in addition to literacy practices or focus on the latter. 

The preliminary results also suggest that most interventions analyzed so far focus on training of specific literacy skills, with five different programs of this type having been studied. While it is reasonable to assume that increasing literacy skills is an important first step in improving literacy practices, literacy practices seem to be addressed less often in research on interventions. Notably, studies on interventions focusing on improving literacy skills also rarely include measures of literacy practices. 

Regarding the second focus of the review, i.e., the intervention outcomes, the current review suggests that different types of interventions varying in intervention focuses, can lead to increased reading component skills, spelling and improved literacy practices. Interestingly, literacy skills could be increased through approaches explicitly focusing on those skills as well as programs focusing on authentic reading practice, such as Extensive Reading (Greenberg et al., 2011). Gains in literacy practices, on the other hand, were stronger and longer lasting for participants of authentic approaches (Rodrigo et al., 2014). Effect sizes for gains in literacy skills were small to moderate on the group level (Greenberg et al., 2011; Rüsseler et al., 2013; Sabatini et al., 2011). When looking at individual gains, significant progress could be made by individual participants (46 %), although a similar proportion did not improve (54 %) (Scarborough et al., 2013). 

Another preliminary conclusion concerning research on intervention outcomes is the lack of long-term investigations. Most studies covered so far, have only two test times with a pre-post-test design, or three with an additional follow-up. To analyze learning curves over time, longitudinal studies with continuous measurement of progress over the course of learning are needed. It should also be noted that effects of interventions on employment status or socio-economic situation were rarely reported (Rüsseler et al., 2013).

Since the current post is based on work in progress, the suggested conclusions from this review should be regarded accordingly. Nevertheless, the accumulated data thus far provide evidence that gains in literacy skills and literacy practices, especially in the domain of reading, are possible for adult literacy learners.  

References

Chen, S., Fang, Y., Shi, G., Sabatini, J., Greenberg, D., Frijters, J. & Graesser, A. C. (2021). Automated Disengagement Tracking Within an Intelligent Tutoring System. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 3, article 595627. Retrieved from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2020.595627/full

Fang, Y., Lippert, A., Cai, Z., Chen, S., Frijters, J. C., Greenberg, D. & Graesser, A. C. (2021). Patterns of Adults with Low Literacy Skills Interacting with an Intelligent Tutoring System. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32, 297-322.

Greenberg, D., Rodrigo, V., Berry, A., Brinck, T. & Joseph, H. (2006). Implementation of an Extensive Reading Program with Adult Learners. Adult Basic Education, 16(2), 81-97.    

Greenberg, D., Wise, J, Morris, R., Fredrick, L., Nanda, A. O. & Pae, H.-K. (2011). A randomized control study of instructional approaches for struggling adult readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectivness, 4(2), 101-117.        

Kim, Y., & Byington, T. A. (2016). Community-Based Family Literacy Program: Comparing Different Durations and Family Characteristics. Child Development Research, 1, 1-10.         

Kindl, J. & Lenhard, W. (2023). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of functional literacy interventions for adults. Educational Research Review, 41, 100569.

Nickel, S. (2002). Funktionaler Analphabetismus –Ursachen und Lösungsansätze hier und anderswo. Universität Bremen. Retrieved from: https://media.suub.uni-bremen.de/bitstream/elib/3615/1/ELibD890_Nickel-Analphabetismus.pdf 

OECD (2019). Skills Matter: Additional Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. OECD Skills Studies. OECD Publishing: Paris. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1787/1f029d8f-en

Paratore, J. R. (2005). Approaches to Family Literacy: Exploring the Possibilities. The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 394-396.  

Rodrigo, V., Greenberg, D. & Segal, D. (2014). Changes in reading habits by low literate adults through extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 73-91.   

Rüsseler, J., Menkhaus, K., Aulbert-Siepelmeyer, A., Gerth, I. & Boltzmann, M. (2012). "Alpha Plus": An Innovative Training Program for Reading and Writing Education of Functionally Illiterate Adults. Creative Education, 3(3), 357-361.

Rüsseler, J., Boltzmann, M., Menkhaus, K. & Aulbert-Siepelmeyer, A. (2013). Evaluation eines neuen Trainingsprogramms zur Verbesserung der Lese- und Rechtschreibfähigkeiten funktionaler Analphabeten. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 5(3), 237-249.

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), 118-13.          

Scarborough, H. S., Sabatini, J. P., Shore, J. Cutting, L. E., Pugh, K. & Katz, L. (2013). Meaningful reading gains by adult literacy learners. Reading and Writing, 26, 593-613.

Shore, J. R., Sabatini, J. P., Lentini, J. & Holtzman, S. (2013). Changes in Reading Practices and Perceptions in LowLiteracy-Level Adult Learners. Reading Psychology, 34, 550 – 568.

Shaw, D. M. & Berg, M. A. (2008). Effects of a Word Study Intervention on Spelling Accuracy Among Low-Literate Adults. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 2(3), 131-139.

Swick, K. J. (2009). Promoting School and Life Success Through Early Childhood Family Literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 403–406.

The author:

Butscheidt, Moritz

German Institute for Adult Education - Leibniz Centre for Lifelong Learning (DIE), Bonn, Germany