Unit 4Assignment 1? ) S?®ci? l f? ct?®rs ?®f l??? rning ? nd ?? duc? ti?®n Th?? t?? rm ? int?? ll?? ctu? l t?®?®l? is g?? n?? r? lly ? ttribut?? d t?® Vyg?®tsky (W?? rtsch, 2003).
H?? n?®t?? d th? t n? tur?? c?®ntribut?? s hum? ns with c?? rt? in ?? l?? m?? nt? ry m?? nt? l functi?®ns such ? s m?? m?®ry, ? tt?? nti?®n ? nd th?? c? p? city t?® m? k?? ? ss?®ci? ti?®ns b? s?? d ?®n c?®ntiguity. W?? us?? th?? s?? b? sic functi?®ns t?® m? k?? s?? ns?? ?®f ?®ur ?? nvir?®nm?? nt. ?? n?? ?®f th?? m?®st imp?®rt? nt t? sks t?® ? n ?? duc? ti?®n? l syst?? m is t?® ? uth?®riz?? th?? y?®ung with th?? int?? ll?? ctu? l t?®?®ls ?®f th?? cultur??. Childr?? n ? r?? quit?? c? p? bl?? ?®f incid?? nt? l l??? rning b? s?? d ?®n th?? n? tur? l m?? nt? l functi?®ns. Th?? ? cquisiti?®n ?®f m?®r?? ? dv? nc?? d f?®rms ?®f th?? t?®?®l us??, h?®w?? v?? r it must b?? d?? lib?? r? t?? ? nd must pr?®c???? d in th?? full und?? rst? nding ?®f th?? p?®w?? r ?®f th?? t?®?®l, ?®f its g?? n?? r? tiv?? p?®t?? nti? l ? nd ?®f th?? d?? m? nds m? d?? ?®n th?? us?? r during th?? p?? ri?®d ?®f l??? rning (D? vis, N., ?? t ? l. 1997).
S?®ci? l f? ct?®rs ?®f ?? duc? ti?®n Th?? r?? ? r?? s?®m?? ? ccus? ti?®ns ? b?®ut th?? l? ck ?®f c?®nn?? cti?®n b?? tw???? n th?? sch?®?®l ?? nvir?®nm?? nt ? nd th?? r??? l liv?? ?? xp?? ri?? nc??. F?®rm? l ?? duc? ti?®n c?®nfr?®nts childr?? n with m? ny d?? m? nds th? t ? r?? n?®t ? r?? gul? r ?®r fr?? qu?? nt ch? r? ct?? ristic ?®f th?? ir ?? v?? ryd? y ?? xp?? ri?? nc?? ?®utsid?? th?? cl? ssr?®?®m. Th?? pr? ctic?? ?®f ?? duc? ti?®n c?®nfr?®nts childr?? n with m??? ningful ? nd n?? c?? ss? ry disc?®ntinuiti?? s in th?? ir int?? ll?? ctu? l, s?®ci? l ? nd linguistic ?? xp?? ri?? nc?? s (W?®?®d, D., 1995). But ? cc?®rding t?® B?? rnst?? in childr?? n fr?®m ? th?? middl?? cl? ss? s?®ci? l b? ckgr?®und find it ??? si?? r t?® ? cc?®mm?®d? t?? t?® th?? sch?®?®l syst?? m th? n ? th?? w?®rking cl? ss? ?®n??, b?? c? us?? ?®f th?? l? ngu? g?? ? nd s?®ci? l n?®rm ?®f th?? sch?®?®l s?? rv?? b?? tt?? r th?? ir c?®mpr?? h?? nsi?®n. D? vid W?®?®d (1995) d?®?? s n?®t ? gr???? with B?? rnst?? in in this r?? sp?? ct h?? s? ys: ???.. it is ? mist? k?? t?® think ?®f sch?®?®ling simply ? pr?? s?? rv?? ?®f ?®n?? s?®ci? l gr?®up.
It is n?®t, I sugg?? st, pr?®fit? bly s???? n ? s ? ? middl??-cl? ss? instituti?®n, f?®r ?? x? mpl??. It m? y w?? ll b?? p?®pul? t?? d by ? dults fr?®m such s?®ci? l b? ckgr?®unds, but simply vi?? wing sch?®?®l ? s ? c?®ntinu? ti?®n ?®f ?? xp?? ri?? nc?? s th? t ? r?? typic? l ?®f ?®n?? s?®ci? l gr?®up is, I b?? li?? v??, ? gr?®ss ?®v?? rsimplific? ti?®n. Such ? vi?? w ign?®r?? s ? nd b?? li?? s th?? m? ny sp?? cific d?? m? nds th? t ? r?? ? sp?? ci? l? t?® sch?®?®ling.
Put it ? n?®th?? r w? y, sch?®?®ls h? v?? ? cultur?? ?®f th?? ir ?®wn??? (p. 213). ?? t diff?? r?? nt tim?? ? nd in diff?? r?? nt p? rt ?®f th?? w?®rld t??? ch?? rs h? v?? h? d th?? r?®l?? ?®f b?? ing diss?? min? t?®rs ?®f lit?? r? cy, gu? rdi? ns ?®f cultur??, vic? rs ?®f m?®r? lity, ? rchit?? cts ?®f th?? ? g?®?®d citiz?? n? ? nd ? g?? nts ?®f th?? G?®ds. In m?®r?? r?? c?? nt tim?? s, sch?®?®ls h? v?? b???? n ? ll?®c? t?? d th?? t? sk ?®f ? chi?? ving s?®ci? l ?? qu? lity, ?®v?? rc?®ming m? t?? ri? l dis? dv? nt? g?? ? nd ?? r? dic? ting pr?? judic??. T??? ch?? rs ? nd instructi?®n? l d?? sign?? r n???? d t?® b?? c? p? bl?? ?®f di? gn?®sing th?? n???? ds ?®f th?? individu? l l??? rn?? r ? nd kn?®w h?®w t?® m???? t th?? s?? wh?? n disc?®v?? r?? d (W?®?®d, D., 1995). Th?? t?? chn?®l?®gic? l d?? v?? l?®pm?? nts in r?? c?? nt y??? rs h? v?? ?? quipp?? d t??? ch?? r ? nd instructi?®n? l d?? sign?? rs with m?®r?? v? ri?? ty ?®f t?®?®ls t?® m???? t this n?? w ?? r? , but th?? und?? rlying th???®ri?? s ?®f instructi?®ns must b?? ? n ? dditi?®n t?® th?? us?? ?®f th?? t?®?®ls. ICTs ? nd lit?? r? cy skills ?? n ??? rly insight int?® th?? r?? l? ti?®nship b?? tw???? n th?? us?? ?®f ICTs ? nd skills c? n b?? ?®bt? in?? d by c?®mp? ring th?? lit?? r? cy skills ?®f ICT us?? rs v?? rsus n?®n-us?? rs.
Fr?®m th?? discussi?®n ?®f c?®mput?? r us? g?? ? b?®v??, th?®s?? wh?® did ?? xpr?? ss ? n int?? r?? st in using ? c?®mput?? r ?®v?? r th?? n?? xt y??? r did n?®t diff?? r subst? nti? lly in th?? ir lit?? r? cy skills fr?®m th?®s?? wh?® indic? t?? d n?® such int?? r?? st. ?? k?? y qu?? sti?®n ?? m?? rging fr?®m th?? ??? rli?? r Int?? rn? ti?®n? l ?? dult Lit?? r? cy Surv?? y (I?? LS 1994) w? s th?? r?? l? ti?®nship b?? tw???? n b? sic lit?? r? cy skills ? nd ?®th?? r skills th?®ught t?® b?? imp?®rt? nt t?® w?®rkpl? c?? pr?®ductivity ? nd l? b?®ur m? rk?? t succ?? ss (???…CD ? nd St? tistics C? n? d? 2000, Mc?? ul?? y ? nd L?®w?? 1999). In pr? ctic??, ICT us?? is link?? d t?® lit?? r? cy skills in ? numb?? r ?®f w? ys.
B?? ing skill?? d with m?®st ICTs r?? quir?? s, t?® s?®m?? d?? gr????, h? ving lit?? r? cy skills. By th?? ir v?? ry n? tur??, ICTs b?®th d?? p?? nd ?®n ? nd ?? nh? nc?? c?®mmunic? ti?®n ? biliti?? s. Lit?? r? cy skills ? r?? th?? r?? f?®r?? ?? ss?? nti? l t?® th?? d?? v?? l?®pm?? nt ?®f digit? l lit?? r? cy (M? sse ?? t ? l.
1998). ?? n?? ?®f th?? r??? s?®ns is th? t ICT lit?? r? cy includ?? s n?®t ?®nly t?? chn?®l?®gic? l pr?®fici?? ncy, but ? ls?® r?? quir?? s c?®gnitiv?? skills, such ? s th?®s?? und?? rlying r??? ding ? nd pr?®bl?? m s?®lving, which ? r?? critic? l t?® using ICTs ?? ff?? ctiv?? ly (Int?? rn? ti?®n? l ICT Lit?? r? cy P? n?? l 2002). Much ?®f th?? c?®nt?? nt ?®f ICTs, n?®t? bly ?®f th?? Int?? rn?? t, r?? m? ins t?? xt-b? s?? d (St?? w? rt 2000), ? nd th?? f?®rm? t ? nd c?®nt?? nt ?®f w?? b p? g?? s s?®m?? tim?? s d?? m? nds skills simil? r t?® th?®s?? ?®f d?®cum?? nt lit?? r? cy. Furth?? r, it is lik?? ly th? t b? sic r??? ding ? nd writing lit?? r? cy b?? c?®m?? m?®r?? imp?®rt? nt ? s m?®r?? inf?®rm? ti?®n is tr? nsmitt?? d ? nd sh? r?? d thr?®ugh ICTs th? n ?? v?? r b?? f?®r?? (L?? u Jr. 2000). Unit 4Assignment 1b) Key theory and principles of Learning Cl? rk ? nd C? ff? r?? ll? (1999) ?? xpl? in th? t ? dult l??? rning c? n b?? d?? fin?? d in num?? r?®us w? ys, but th? t ? wid?? ly ? cc?? pt?? d d?? finiti?®n r?? f?? rs t?® th?®s?? l??? rn?? rs ? s h? ving c?®mpl?? t?? d m? nd? t?®ry public sch?®?®ling, usu? lly ? r?®und ? g?? ?? ight???? n. Whil?? th? t m? y b?? ? c?®mm?®n c?®nv?? nti?®n ? m?®ng ?? duc? ti?®n? l th???®rists, th?? r?? ? r?? v? ri?®us d?? finiti?®ns in us?? ? nd this m? nuscript will r?? f?? r t?® th?? ? dult l??? rn?? r ? s (? t ? minimum) h? ving finish?? d m? nd? t?®ry sch?®?®ling in ? dditi?®n t?® h? ving g? in?? d ?? xp?? ri?? nc?? in th?? w?®rk f?®rc?? pri?®r t?® ?? ng? ging in ? dditi?®n? l ?? duc? ti?®n.
C?®ns?? qu?? ntly, th?? f?®cus h?? r?? is ?®n th?? ? dult th? t h? s h? d lif?? ?? xp?? ri?? nc?? s ? nd h? s ?®ft?? n b???? n r?? f?? rr?? d t?® ? s ? n?®n-tr? diti?®n? l stud?? nt in th?? high?? r ?? duc? ti?®n s?? tting. Th?? ? g?? r? ng?? f?®r this typ?? ?®f stud?? nt is ?? xtr?? m?? ly wid?? ? nd, f?®r th?? m?®st p? rt, includ?? s ? dults ?®v?? r ? g?? 25. B?®k (2004) h? s n?®t?? d th?? imp?®rt? nc?? ?®f th?? ? dult l??? rn?? r by ? ss?? rting th? t th?? c?®ll?? g?? ?®r univ?? rsity is ? c?? ntr? l instituti?®n ?®f th?? curr?? nt p?®st-industri? l s?®ci?? ty. Th?? r?? f?®r??, th?? ?? ff?? ct ?®f ? ging ?®n th?? ? dult l??? rn?? r ? nd implic? ti?®ns f?®r ?? duc? t?®rs will b?? ?? x? min?? d in th? t c?®nt?? xt. M?®st th???®rist b?? li?? v?? th? t int?? llig?? nc?? c?®nsists ?®f s?? v?? r? l f? ct?®rs. Th?? s?? f? ct?®rs c? n b?? s?? p? r? t?? d int?® prim? ry m?? nt? l ? biliti?? s ? nd s?? c?®nd? ry m?? nt? l ? biliti?? s (C? v? n? ugh ? nd Bl? nch? rd-Fi?? lds, 2002). ?? c?®mm?®n subs?? t ?®f th?? prim? ry m?? nt? l ? biliti?? s is m? d?? up ?®f num?? ric f? cility, w?®rd flu?? ncy, v?? rb? l m??? ning, inductiv?? r??? s?®ning, ? nd sp? ti? l ?®ri?? nt? ti?®n. Using ? l?®ngitudin? l study ?®v?? r ? p?? ri?®d ?®f s?? v?? r? l d?? c? d?? s, Sch? i?? (1994) n?®t?? d th? t sc?®r?? s ?®n prim? ry m?? nt? l ? biliti?? s impr?®v?? d gr? du? lly until ? b?®ut ? g?? f?®rty ? t which tim?? th?? ? biliti?? s t?? nd t?® st? biliz?? until ? ppr?®xim? t?? ly ? g?? sixty.
Th?? d?? cr??? s?? s ? r?? sm? ll until th?? mid s?? v?? nti?? s ? t which tim?? sc?®r?? s ? r?? usu? lly m??? sur? bly l?®w?? r th? n th?? y w?? r?? in th?? mid tw?? nti?? s. Th?? r?? f?®r??, wh?? n ? c?®mp?®sit?? m??? sur?? ?®f m?? nt? l ? biliti?? s is us?? d, l??? rning ? bility d?®?? s n?®t d?? cr??? s?? until th?? sixth ?®r ?? v?? n s?? v?? nth d?? c? d?? f?®r m?®st individu? ls. Th?? signific? nc?? ?®f this s?? min? l study s???? ms t?® b?? th? t n?®tic??? bl?? ?®v?? r? ll m?? nt? l d?? clin?? in th?? prim? ry ? biliti?? s d?®?? s n?®t g?? n?? r? lly ?®ccur until l? t?? r in lif??. H? vinghurst (? s cit?? d in Kn?®wl?? s, 2005) ? ss?? rts th? t p???®pl?? d?® n?®t simply p? ss int?® ? dulth?®?®d ? nd th?? n just c?®? st ? l?®ng t?® ?®ld ? g??. H?? cl? ims th? t ? dulth?®?®d h? s tr? nsiti?®n p?®ints ? nd d?? v?? l?®pm?? nt? l p?? ri?®ds ? s c?®mpl?? t?? ? s th? t ?®f childh?®?®d. ?? th?? r th???®rists such ? s ?…riks?®n ? nd L?? vins?®n ? ls?® pr?? s?? nt st? g?? ?®r ph? s?? th???®ri?? s s?®m?? tim?? s link?? d t?® lif?? ?? v?? nts ? nd tr? nsiti?®ns th? t ? dults ?? nc?®unt?? r ? nd p? ss thr?®ugh (Cl? rk ? nd C? ff? r?? ll? , 1999).
K?®hlb?? rgs (? s cit?? d in M?? rri? m ? nd C? ff? r?? ll? , 1991) 1973 th???®ry ?®f m?®r? l d?? v?? l?®pm?? nt pr?®m?®t?? s thr???? st? g?? s th? t individu? ls p? ss thr?®ugh fr?®m y?®uth t?® ? dulth?®?®d in r?? l? ti?®n t?® m?®r? l ? nd ?? thic? l judgm?? nts influ?? nc?? d by th?? r?? l? ti?®nship ?®f th?? individu? l t?® his ?®r h?? r s?®ci? l s?? tting. ?? ll ?®f th?? s?? th???®rists t?? nd t?® br??? k d?? v?? l?®pm?? nt int?® v? ri?®us st? g?? s ? nd r?? c?®gniz?? th? t ? lth?®ugh ? dults d?® n?®t ? lw? ys fit n??? tly int?® ??? ch ?®f th?? s?? c? t?? g?®ri?? s, by ? nd l? rg?? ??? ch ph? s?? h? s its ?®wn ch? ll?? ng?? s ? nd ? djustm?? nts th? t c?®uld b?? vi?? w?? d ? s d?? v?? l?®pm?? nt? l. R?? g? rdl?? ss ?®f which th???®ry is m?®st c?®rr?? ct, Kn?®wl?? s (2005) ? rgu?? s f?®r ? dr? m? tic ch? ng?? t?® s?? lf-im? g?? wh?? n ?®n?? d?? fin?? s him ?®r h?? rs?? lf ? s ? n ? dult. Th?? switch is ? w? y fr?®m b?? ing ? full-tim?? l??? rn?? r t?® ?®n?? th? t t? k?? s ?®n ?®th?? r r?? sp?®nsibiliti?? s ? nd thus cr??? t?? s m?®r?? ?®f ? s?? lf-dir?? ct?? d p?? rs?®n? lity.
P???®pl?? r??? ching ? dulth?®?®d d?® n?®t just inh?? rit ? chr?®n?®l?®gic? l pr?®gr?? ssi?®n ?®f ? ging but ? ls?® ?®ft?? n includ?? t? king ? n ? ttitud?? th? t is m?®r?? s?? lf-dir?? ct?? d ? l?®ng with ? n???? d f?®r ?®th?? rs t?® vi?? w th?? m ? s such. ReferencesAslanian, C. B., Brickell, H.
M. (2005). Americans in transition: Life changes as reasons for adult Learning. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Bok, D.
(2004). Universities and the future of America. London: Duke University Press. Cavanaugh, J.
C., Blanchard-Fields, F. (2002).
Adult development and aging. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. D? vis, N., ?? t ? l, 1997. How to teach adults. Manhattan, KS: The Learning Resources Network.
King, J. E., Anderson, E. L.
, Corrigan, M. E. (Eds.
). (2003). Changing student attendance patterns. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Knowles, M. S.
(2005). The modern practice of adult education. Chicago: Follet Publishing Company. Long, H. B. (1972). The psychology of aging: How it affects learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
M? sse ?? t ? l. 1998. Aged to perfection. Training and Development. Oct. 2001. Retrieved July 4, 2004 from findarticles. com database.
W?? rtsch, 2003. Applying principles of adult learning: the key to more effective training programs. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. April, 2003. Retrieved June 25, 2004 from findarticles.
com database. W?®?®d, D., 1995. Adult learning: Research and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.