[NLA] Research in adult literacy education

[AWilder106@aol.com]

Dear Deborah,

This is a day for teasing out word meanings.  I didn't take Cheryl's post to 
mean that evaluators should know nothing about a program's goals, objectives 
or methods.  Personally, I would want an evaluator who would know plenty 
about methods and goals and with wide experience--I would call that rigorous. 
 

To dive right in, let's take phonemic awareness, which has been pushed down 
people's throats for some months, now.  It's fine with me, I think every 
teacher should know what this is, how to teach it, how it fits in turning 
speech into print, and so on.  I have a friend now in college who couldn't do 
phonemic awareness, a learning disability.  She learned globally, by what 
many (gasp!) still call whole language.  Evaluators would have to know about 
language and about learning disabilities and diagnosis.  I know I'm fooling 
around with language, myself, here, but I have never seen why there shouldn't 
be multiple ways of reaching a goal like literacy--multiple rigorous ways of 
becoming literate.   Rigorous needn't mean rigid.

Given how little time adult learners have to spend in class, I think it would 
be great to use the time as effectively as possible, to make that an upfront 
goal,--takes knowledgeable teachers, constant teaching upgrades, evaluators 
who are also coaches, and funding.

Thanks for the Interesting post

Andrea



_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org