[AAACE-NLA] STAR Struck!

[gspangenberg@caalusa.org]

Colleagues,

John Coming's recent posting prompted me to recall that mountains of research was done by the Ford Foundation back in the 70s and 80s on adult learning theory (much of it by scholars in Israel). I don't recall all of the specifics, but I do believe that one thing it established is that you can't separate "how" adults learn from "where" and "with what goals and motivations" they learn it, and from what background knowledge they bring to the task. What works for children who are captive in the classroom is not necessarily appropriate for adults. (An inquiry to the Ford Foundation might provide information on the nature of their work back then and the reports they issued.)

This issue is politically, not just pedagogically, important. For instance, the debate about phonics vs. whole language is in part political. On this, I remember conversations with the pre-eminent Harvard researcher Jeanne Chall.  In her research on the use of phonics with children, she was very careful to point out that her findings did not apply to adults. (She was also careful to make it clear that even with children, phonics is seldom used all by itself, but usually used in combination with multliple other approaches.) 

Moreover, I believe that there is a large body of research to indicate that there are many different learning "styles" -- which we don't recognize or accommodate very well either among adults or in the classroom. Scholars at ETS and elsewhere have written about this in some depth over the years. 

It occurs to me that the Hunter-Harman book, Adult Illiteracy in America, might shed some additional light on this whole issue. I think the book is out of print but I have it and could try to reproduce it at cost (with permission of McGraw-Hill) if anyone wants a copy. 

I haven't seen this whole string of communications, so perhaps I've missed the point.  If so, please excuse me for jumping into the conversation. 

Gail Spangenberg