Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

14 Percent of U.S. Adults Can't Read
Robert Roy Britt, livescience.com



http://www.livescience.com/culture/090110-illiterate-adults.html

that's not bad

You'll find this is what is called 'functional' illiteracy rather then... errr, literal illiteracy.

Not that this is not a large problem, as the fact I have a job attests to, this being my exact area, but it's an important distinction- which is to say, for people classed as 'illiterate', you'll be surprised what they can actually read, compared to the implications caused by the expected definition of the word.

Is this Illiterate as in not being able to read at all, ie recognize any text or letters whatsoever?
Or illiterate in the sense of making too many spelling mistakes, and having problems reading?

hm not a surprise, ime sure theres many areas across most of the world where illiteracy is common, and in an area as large as the USA its nothing of a surprise.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Is this Illiterate as in not being able to read at all, ie recognize any text or letters whatsoever?
Or illiterate in the sense of making too many spelling mistakes, and having problems reading?

The literal meaning of the word is that you actually cannot read at all.

The way it is used- including this survey- is that you are not literate enough to function properly in the world- as in, there are certain basic tasks or activities you have a right to in life that these people find difficult due to their poor literacy skills.

Frankly I am surprised the given proportion is so low. The Moser Report in the UK gave our figure as 20%. So this will all be down to differences in what the required standard of literacy is meant to be.

Like I say, you'll find a great deal of them CAN read, especially relatively simple stuff. which includes most published works.

But they wouldn't be inclined to do it.

The actual, literal 'cannot read' illiteracy rate in the US won't be anywhere near the level given here.

What does "not function properly" mean? I mean, what can't they read?

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Frankly I am surprised the given proportion is so low. The Moser Report in the UK gave our figure as 20%. So this will all be down to differences in what the required standard of literacy is meant to be.

wow

I was expecting single digit numbers for western industrial nations, especially given it is criminal to keep a child home from school (barring the obvious) (also, iirc)

Originally posted by Bardock42
What does "not function properly" mean? I mean, what can't they read?

probably more in the comprehension of long strings of symbols rather than in word recognition

I am assuming based on what Ush said, I have no idea personally

Like I say, you have to be careful with the definition of it. Every country rates the standard differently.

For example, in the UK the threshold is if you are able to use the Yellow Pages to call a plumber if you need one.

Also just a note- looking at the methodology this US study used, they include adults who were unable to take the assessment at all due to a language barrier. Obviously that is an important perspective- it includes people that are not illiterate at all, they simply cannot understand English.

I had to analyse the hell out of Moser when I was training, so I am used to the way these studies work and how you have to be careful with interpreting the results.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Like I say, you have to be careful with the definition of it. Every country rates the standard differently.

For example, in the UK the threshold is if you are able to use the Yellow Pages to call a plumber if you need one. But don't you just need to know one word and the alphabet for that? How can they read simple stuff if they can't do that?

Or is the using yellow pages harder than reading a standard book for some reason?

Yes, you will find information finding is a seperate skill from just being able to read words at all. I have plenty of learners who can read a book but cannot read a timetable or any reference work to save their lives.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, you will find information finding is a seperate skill from just being able to read words at all. I have plenty of learners who can read a book but cannot read a timetable or any reference work to save their lives.

Ah, well, that's a really different thing then though. Or is that actually related? I mean is the ability to read standard books somehow related to the ability to find information? I mean, except for if you can't read at all you can't find the information, either.

Ok, definition used by this survey is:

"ranges from being unable to read and understand any written information to being able only to locate easily identifiable information in short, commonplace prose text in English, but nothing more advanced"

Now, as I say, I;d be careful there,.

For example, take a look at how they define people who are functionally innumerate. A lot of these people, if you asked them to take 20 away from 100, they will look at you blankly.

But if you asked how much change they got from a pound for something costing 80p, they'll asnwer 20p quite easily. The skill is there, the context is not.

For some the skill won't be there either, but that proportion would be MUCH lower than the proportion listed as being innumerate.

It's the same here- being functionally illiterate has a lot to do with context, motivation, confidence and application, more than just... being literally incapable of reading.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah, well, that's a really different thing then though. Or is that actually related? I mean is the ability to read standard books somehow related to the ability to find information? I mean, except for if you can't read at all you can't find the information, either.

Yes, it's related. It's basically down to being able to read a text non-sequentially, something most of us take for granted but that a surprising number of people never really think of to do.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

But if you asked how much change they got from a pound for something costing 85p, they'll asnwer 20p quite easily.

I would question their ability there


But, I get what you mean.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, it's related. It's basically down to being able to read a text non-sequentially, something most of us take for granted but that a surprising number of people never really think of to do.

So, would someone that can read better something sequential be better at reading a timetable, or might that fluctuate. Like, related to your last post, if someone reads more timetables they might be really good at that but not be able to read a book well?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, you will find information finding is a seperate skill from just being able to read words at all. I have plenty of learners who can read a book but cannot read a timetable or any reference work to save their lives.

Now that is interesting, amazing how the brain works.

(in response to Bardock)

It's not really like that unless the person is some sort of memory freak.

The default way of handling text when you first learn it is to start at the beginning and go through to the end. The idea of starting a page, a paragraph or even a sentence halfway through is alien by default.

If you don't learnt that skill, then confronted with a refefence material- like the Yellow Pages, or a timetable, your only coping mechancism is to try and rwad the whole thing through from start to end, which obviously effectively gives a nonsense response.

And whilst such a person is likely to be intellectually capable of recognising the concept of, say, looking through a book alphabetically for the right reference, they are pracitcally simply unable to do it, and become confused.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Now that is interesting, amazing how the brain works.

There's a limit, though. If a person can read a reasonably complex novel, they would only be unable to use a reference work if they had a specific issue in that area.

By which I don't mean a learning disability! Some people are just bad a things. Some people cannot add in their heads, some people are clumsy, some people just won't ever be able to use a timetable.

But generally speaking if you have good literacy you'll be able to use reference works too. It's just worth bearing in mind that if a person cannot read a timetable- something which by our definition would make them illterate- it does not necessarily mean they literally cannot read.

So I would look at this study in the same light.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/2626394836_f68aefa54d.jpg?v=0

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Also just a note- looking at the methodology this US study used, they include adults who were unable to take the assessment at all due to a language barrier. Obviously that is an important perspective- it includes people that are not illiterate at all, they simply cannot understand English.



Well I mean it would be hard to function in Japan without knowing Japanese, right?

Originally posted by jaden101
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/2626394836_f68aefa54d.jpg?v=0

That is great material

They don't have money, so don't deserve help.

They'll probably have a life of crime anyway since they can't read so we might as well leave them be. Any potential criminal is not a friend of mine.

Originally posted by lord xyz
They don't have money, so don't deserve help.

They'll probably have a life of crime anyway since they can't read so we might as well leave them be. Any potential criminal is not a friend of mine.

What on earth are you going on about?

Originally posted by chithappens
Well I mean it would be hard to function in Japan without knowing Japanese, right?

Hardly evidence of illiteracy though.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hardly evidence of illiteracy though.

I'm speaking of your case concerning being able to function in a society.

Seeing as that was about being unable to function in society due to poor literacy skills (as was relevant to thsi thread being made) and not thopse who are perfectly literate but just do not speak English, then actually that's totally irrelevant to my case.

I have a hard time using the Yellow Pages. Not because I can't pick up an encylopedia and find racoon, but because in the yellow pages racoon could be listed under animal, pest, mammal or quadroped.

the funny part is now they are going to blame this on george bush.

Who is "they"? All the posts in the thread that don't mention him?

Why am i not supprised...Functional literacy simply isn't good enough in this day and age.
Lrn2teache i say

I can read but I cant see str8 half the time..."I see 3 of em" "hit the one in middle!" "yeah hit the one in the middle" (Rocky) I hope I didnt say that here already?..lol

The number could get far worse, especially if the economy gets so bad that the state governments cut or cease funding for quality education. Future generations might get all the technology in the world, but an education taught by a properly-run institution might not ever reach them. Pro-business and corporation-minded people most likely see this little statistic as a perk, justifying their belief that plebian society resides purely in cog and wheel workloads and nothing more than that.

It starts off at a young age. Too many electronic gadgets make reading Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" a nightmare to many middle school students. By the time high school runs through, testerone and estrogen clearly make a mockery of literature classes. Quality education may not ever have a chance to match wits with those two frontlines in urbanite environments. To the dismay of the greater good of all us 300,000,000 residents.

My dad can read but he can't spell worth a damn... when I was 7, 8, 9 I was helping him with words I shouldn't have KNOWN how to spell...

but it's gonna happen... I'm actually quite surprised that percentage isn't higher...

i blame it on aspertame and fluoride

Well I say **** 'em.

And if you can read this then I'm not talking to you. haermm

Originally posted by Itzak
Well I say **** 'em.

And if you can read this then I'm not talking to you. haermm

damn, thats impressively ironic. Good job