Participant Perspectives: A View from Three Adult Tutorial Programs in New Hampshire
Guardado en:
| 发表在: | ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) (Jun 1994), p. 1-50 |
|---|---|
| 主要作者: | |
| 出版: | |
| 主题: | |
| 在线阅读: | Citation/Abstract Full text outside of ProQuest |
| 标签: |
没有标签, 成为第一个标记此记录!
|
| 摘要: | A study was conducted of three New Hampshire library literacy tutorial programs to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the adult tutorial programs, staff development, and training needs, and the role of the public library in promoting adult literacy services. Data were gathered through a two-phase process begun in October 1993. A survey was mailed to 531 students and tutors in 3 adult tutorial programs in the state. From this population, a sample of 30 self-selected respondents was identified for interviews. From January to May 1995, five students and five tutors from each program were interviewed, as well as the program coordinators. In addition, three focus groups of students, tutors, and coordinators were convened. The findings from the student surveys and interviews suggest that the adult tutorial programs are a highly responsive and effective means for delivering adult literacy services. Students indicated that the tutorial relationship was a primary strength, along with flexible scheduling, accessibility, and no cost. Students indicated a need for more instructional materials, child care, and transportation. They also stressed their personal limitations. Tutor responses also indicated a high level of satisfaction with the adult tutorial program. Again, the importance of a one-on-one relationship was considered a primary program strength, and the tutors also appreciated the support of the coordinators and their personal satisfaction in working with students. The main program limitation mentioned by tutors was the accessibility and quantity of materials. Tutors also were concerned about their ability to teach. The program coordinators noted that the program strengths were the commitment of the volunteers and students, whereas limitations included inadequate funding and resources. Recommendations were made for preservice and inservice training and for clarification of the library role in the tutorial programs. (The survey materials are included in the report.) (KC) |
|---|---|
| Fuente: | ERIC |