Contextualized learning technical assistance project final report & handbook on contextualized learning. Division of Adult & Continuing Education, Office of Academic Affairs, City University of New York. (July, 1993).

In many ways, contextualized learning is nothing new. It is based on the proposition that people learn more effectively when they are learning about something that they are interested in, that they already know something about, and that affords them the opportunity to use what they already know to figure out new things. It is similar to a fairly common approach in reading instruction which emphasizes the value of prior knowledge in enabling readers to make sense of what they read. It is also similar to curriculum themes in elementary school classes, paired content and skills courses in colleges, and "less is more" approaches in high schools affiliated with Ted Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools.

But, that is not the way it is usually discussed. More often, a context is assumed to be little more than a container, the contents which can be easily identified and counted, and distributed straightforwardly to the people who need to use them. The shortcomings of this approach have been eloquently chronicled by Sheryl Gowen of Georgia State University in The Politics of Workplace Literacy (Gowen). We would suggest that the popularization of an unnecessarily narrow notion of contextualized learning has make many adult educators critical of its assumptions and skeptical of its potential.

At the beginning of the Institute, we discussed specific concerns about contextualized learning that participants had articulated in their applications. Some expressed concern that contextualized learning would result in a narrowing of curriculum and instruction to specific training for a specific job. If that occurred, they reasoned that contextualized learning would just be a new form of tracking. Others had suggested that a preoccupation with preparation for work, at a time when too few good jobs were available, was mistaken. Still others had asked if contextualized learning was anything different from good pedagogy.

In part, different conceptions of contextualized learning result from the number of different interests converging on contextualized learning. The impetus for the development of contextualized approaches to the provision of literacy and language instruction has come from at least three sources. The first source is the evidence accumulated by various researchers that adult literacy instruction provided in the context shaped by the requirements of certain occupations enables students to make more significant and enduring progress than is usually the case with " general" literacy instruction. The preeminent advocate in this field has been Tom Sticht. (See articles and reports listed in the Reference section.) The second source is the growing public policy concern with designing effective linkages between literacy and occupational education, especially in the context of the JOBS Program, wherein emphasis has been placed on the provision of educational services that lead to employment. The third source is a fairly widespread dissatisfaction with high attrition, low retention over time and, by most accounts, quite modest accomplishment on the part of students in adult education programs (Diekhoff). One of the promising potentials of contextualized learning programs is that it allows programs to enroll students who might have otherwise been excluded. For example, occupational training programs often establish grade level criteria for enrollment. As a result, many prospective students are denied entry. But, contextualized curriculum development allows literacy, language, and GED programs to incorporate texts and tasks from the occupational curriculum into their classrooms and allows individuals to prepare for r challenges they might face in the training program - even if they would still score below a cut point on a test. At the same time, contextualized curriculum development allows training programs to incorporate literacy and language learning opportunities in to the occupational education coursework. Either approach requires that teachers form the academic and occupational disciplines become familiar with each other’s work.

There are some surprises in store. For example, we found that some occupational instructors are already fostering literacy development by assigning their students significant amounts of reading outside of class. While reading educators agree on few things, one thing they do agree on is that doing a lot of reading helps someone become a better reader. Thus, it may in fact be the case that occupational teachers are fostering literacy development even thought they might not have been doing so intentionally. What the occupational instructors probably lack, however, is a strategic understanding of how to assist students who are having difficulty in reading certain materials. Efforts to contextualize work-oriented classes or programs must acknowledge and expand upon the best aspects of current practice in both literacy education and vocational education.