![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This article focuses on the quantitative phase of a multiphase mixed methods study investigating adults’ and families’ access to government food assistance. The research evaluates participants’ comprehension of, and ability to, adequately complete authentic complex texts—national food assistance application documents. Summative usability testing of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program application was conducted with 12 adult participants in divergent literacy learning subgroups: 6 adults enrolled in adult literacy classes and 6 adults enrolled in a doctoral program in education. Protocol analysis and extended think alouds were used to evaluate the materials. Individual sessions were audio/video recorded and types, kinds, and rates of error metrics were compared by subgroup. The completion rate without critical errors for doctoral and adult literacy students was 66.6% and 0%, respectively. Results indicate significant concerns with the usability and comprehensibility of food assistance applications and point to the importance of including educationally/linguistically diverse participants in the usability/evaluation process for government assistance applications to prevent further marginalization.
References
Section:
|
Alexander, P. A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 413–436. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Baker, L., Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In Pearson, P. D. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York, NY: Longman. Google Scholar | |
|
Barnum, C. M. (2010). Usability testing essentials: Ready, set … test! Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar | |
|
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., Ivanic, R. (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Cheek, A. (2014, November). The US plain writing act of 2010: Ensuring the citizen’s right to clarity. Paper session presented at International Clarity Conference 2014, Brussels, Belgium. Google Scholar | |
|
Clay, M. M. (2000). Running records for classroom teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Google Scholar | |
|
Coleman-Jensen, A., Gregory, C., Singh, A. (2014). Household food security in the United States in 2013 (USDA Economic Research Report No. 173). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service website: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err173.aspx Google Scholar | |
|
Cromley, J., Azevedo, R. (2011). Measuring strategy use in context with multiple-choice items. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 155–177. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
de Beaugrande, R. (1987). Text, attention, and memory in reading research. In Tierney, R. J., Anders, P. L., Mitchell, J. N. (Eds.), Understanding readers’ understanding: Theory and practice (pp. 15–58). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Ericsson, K. A., Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Gee, J. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. In Secanda, W. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 25, pp. 99–125). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Google Scholar | |
|
Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D. J., Burke, C. L. (1987). Reading miscue inventory: Alternative procedures. Katonah, NY: Owen. Google Scholar | |
|
Gray, W. S. (1947). Progress in the study of readability. The Elementary School Journal, 47, 491–499. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar | |
|
Holschuh, J. P., Aultman, L. P. (2009). Comprehension development. In Flippo, R. F., Caverly, D. C. (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategies (2nd ed., pp. 121–144). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? The Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 696–699. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 249–259. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Nash-Ditzel, S. (2010). Metacognitive reading strategies can improve self-regulation. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40, 45–63. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Nielsen, J., Landauer, T. K. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In Ashlund, S., Mullet, K., Henderson, A., Hollnagel, E., White, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI’93 Conference (pp. 206–213). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: ACM Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Newman, E. (2010, February). Struggling for sustenance: Food stamp program/SNAP access barriers in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Retrieved from www.shfb.org/docs/advocacy/foodstamp_accessbarriers.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Pearson, P. D., Camperell, K. (1981). Comprehension of text structures. In Guthrie, J. T. (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research perspectives (pp. 27–55). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Google Scholar | |
|
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41, 219–225. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Plain Writing Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2861 (2010). Retrieved from http://www.plainlanguage.gov/plLaw/ Google Scholar | |
|
Pressley, M., Van Etten, S., Yokoi, L., Freebern, G., Van Meter, P. (1998). The metacognition of college studentship: A grounded theory approach. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., Graesser, A. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 347–381). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Quesenbery, W. (2008). The five dimensions of usability. In Albers, M. J., Mazur, B. (Eds.), Content and complexity: Information design in technical communication (pp. 75–95). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar | |
|
Quesenbery, W. (2012). Evaluation in government environments. In Green, T. (Ed.), Usability in government systems (pp. 317–330). Boston, MA: Morgan Kauffman. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Rubin, J., Chisnell, D. (2008). The handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley. Google Scholar | |
|
Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Guthrie, J. T. (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research perspectives (pp. 27–55). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Google Scholar | |
|
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar | |
|
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 117–139. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
St. Clair, R., Belzer, A. (2010). Adult basic education. In Kasworm, C. E., Rose, A. D., Ross-Gordon, J. M. (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 189–199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Street, B. (1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Stringfield, S. (1994). Outlier studies of school effectiveness. In Reynolds, D., Creemers, B. P. M., Nesselrodt, P. S., Shaffer, E. C., Stringfield, S., Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Advances in school effectiveness research and practice (pp. 78–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
The Plain Language Action and Information Network . (2011). Federal Plain Language Guidelines, March, 2011. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines/FederalPLGuidelines/TOC.cfm Google Scholar | |
|
U.S. Department of Agriculture . (2007). NSLP/SBP access, participation, eligibility, and certification study—erroneous payments in the NSLP and SBP. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslpsbp-access-participation-eligibility-and-certification-study-%E2%80%93-erroneous-payments-nslp-and-sbp Google Scholar | |
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . (2013a). Usability test plan template. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/resources/templates/usability-test-plan-template.html Google Scholar | |
|
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . (2013b). Usability test screener: Government website. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/resources/templates/usability-test-screener-government-site.html Google Scholar | |
|
Virzi, R. A. (1992). Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors in Ergonomics Society, 34, 457–468. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Web Accessibility Initiative Site Task Force of Education and Outreach Working Group and American Institutes for Research . (2003, October 24). WAI site usability testing questions. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/UCD/questions.html Google Scholar |
