Return-Path: <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g4NKaeO02485; Thu, 23 May 2002 16:36:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:36:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1a5.2b2693d.2a1eac61@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: BRmidwest@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:1120] Re: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:2167] Research-based X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10504 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1a5.2b2693d.2a1eac61_boundary" Status: O Content-Length: 2248 Lines: 41 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/23/02 2:32:26 PM Central Daylight Time, sylvan@cccchs.org writes: > grant > applications where you're supposed to talk about how your instruction is > "research-based Perhaps people have addressed this issue on the listserv many times before, but I have come across the same issue. How much adult ed "research"--or applicable adult ed research--is there to base instruction on--and what constitutes "research" in the views of the writers of the adult ed (or family lit) RFPs? Sometimes it is not the RFP writers themselves who demand that adult ed be research-based--in the case of government grants, this demand for scientifically-based instruction often stems from legislation. Betsy Rubin Chicago
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:04 EST