Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 18 November 2014, At: 22:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Gerontology & GeriatricsEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgge20
Who is Teaching LifelongLearners?Sharon Simson PhD a , Estina Thompson PhD b &Laura B. Wilson PhD c ca Division of Lifelong Learning and Engagement , theUniversity of Maryland Center on Aging , CollegePark, MD, USAb Department of Health Education , the University ofMaryland , USAc Department of Health Education , University ofMaryland , USAPublished online: 04 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Sharon Simson PhD , Estina Thompson PhD & Laura B. Wilson PhD(2002) Who is Teaching Lifelong Learners?, Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 22:1,31-43, DOI: 10.1300/J021v22n01_03
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J021v22n01_03
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
Who Is Teaching Lifelong Learners?:A Study of Peer Educators
in Institutes for Learning in Retirement
Sharon Simson, PhDEstina Thompson, PhDLaura B. Wilson, PhD
ABSTRACT. Although much is known about many aspects of lifelonglearning–the adult learner, the learning process, programs, policies andlearning environments–little research was uncovered about the olderadults who serve as peer educators in lifelong learning programs, and nopublished research was found about peer educators of Institute forLearning in Retirement (ILRs) study groups. This exploratory, descrip-tive study seeks to address this gap by investigating the characteristics,activities and concerns of 76 peer educators in 33 ILRs affiliated with theElderhostel Institute Network. Five areas are considered: (1) the back-ground of peer educators; (2) the characteristics of their study groups;(3) the motivations and rewards of peer educators; (4) the training thatpeer educators acquire; and (5) the teaching-learning experience of peereducators. The outcomes of this study provide an initial understanding ofpeer educators in Institutes for Learning in Retirement and a foundation
Sharon Simson is Coordinator of the University of Maryland Senior University, Di-vision of Lifelong Learning and Engagement, the University of Maryland Center onAging, College Park, MD. Estina Thompson is Assistant Professor, Department ofHealth Education, the University of Maryland. Laura B. Wilson is Director of the Cen-ter on Aging, Chairperson and Professor, Department of Health Education, Universityof Maryland (E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]).
Address correspondence to any of the authors at: Center on Aging, University ofMaryland, HHP Building, College Park, MD 20742.
Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, Vol. 22(1) 2001� 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 31
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
for advancing the development and growth of lifelong learning programsfor older adults. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Docu-ment Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2001 by The HaworthPress, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Institutes for Learning in Retirement, peer educators,lifelong learning
Lifelong learning is a popular area of growing interest to older adults.Lifelong learning enables older adults to build on prior educational, oc-cupational, social, and personal experiences through continuing educa-tion. A major vehicle for lifelong learning is the Institutes of Learningin Retirement (ILRs) that are affiliated with the Elderhostel InstituteNetwork. ILR members are typically age 50 and over and come frommany social, economic, ethnic, educational, and career backgrounds.ILRs encourage older adult learning by using a variety of instructionalmethods, particularly peer-led study groups. Since the first Institute forRetired Professionals was founded in 1962 by a group of retired teach-ers at the New School for Social Research in New York City, hundredsof thousands of older adults have participated in thousands of studygroups. Nearly 73,000 older adults participated in these programs dur-ing the 1999-2000 academic year in 264 ILRs (ILR Leader, 1999).
The increasing numbers of active older adults in the United Statessuggest that participation in ILRs will continue to grow at increasingrates. Today, there are more than 34 million people over the age of 65 inthe United States. This number will have grown to over 69 million bythe year 2020. In just twenty years older adults will account for over 20percent of the total U.S. population (AARP, 1997). These older adultsenjoy active lifestyles and have the discretionary income, prior educa-tional and occupational experiences, and adequate health that enablethem to engage in lifelong learning during their retirement years.
The core educational experience at ILRs is based on study groups ledby peer educators. Study groups are similar to courses in that they offeropportunities for serious study and learning. They differ because theyare conducted by peer educators who do not teach but lead. Unlikecourses, study groups do not have grades, tests or academic credithours. Study groups are participant-friendly and encourage the pre-ferred methods of adult learning, experiential learning and active partic-
32 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
ipation through peer leadership rather than passive listening. They areled by ILR members, university faculty and staff and community mem-bers who are knowledgeable in the subjects they lead. The expertise ofleaders is based on their formal college and graduate school education,informal study or life-long experiences.
Study groups may assume a variety of formats: seminars, discus-sions, presentations, field activities, or lectures. Members help to shapethe content and learning style of a study group according to their interestsand learning objectives. Study groups cover a wide range of subjects suchas literature, foreign language, history, science, social science, businessand economics, mathematics, computer technology, mathematics, thearts, and other topics of interest to members. Study groups usually meetfor two hours each week, for six to twelve weeks. Preparation at homeand in the library may be expected. Study groups are usually small, with10-15 members, although larger groups of 20-50 may be convened forlecture series that are often delivered by university professors.
Study groups are coordinated by ILR curriculum committees com-prised of ILR members. The curriculum committee surveys membersfor their educational interests, suggests study group topics, recruits peereducators, solicits and reviews study group proposals, and selects andschedules the study groups that will be offered. The curriculum com-mittee may conduct orientation and training workshops for peer educa-tors, offer guidance and encouragement, develop an esprit de corpsamong peer educators, and assist with obtaining feedback from studygroup members.
Little research was uncovered about the older adults who serve aspeer educators in lifelong learning programs, and no published researchwas found about ILR study groups. The lifelong learning literature hasfocused on the adult learner, the learning process, educational pro-grams, policies and learning environments (Caffarella, 1994; Candy,1991; Hiemstra, 1991; Robinson, 1983; Smith, 1983; Steinback, 1993;Thorp, Edwards & Hansom, 1993). These works highlight the impor-tance of helping learners achieve self-direction, developing self-orga-nized learners, diagnosing learning styles and preferences, consciousness-raising, and collaborative learning.
Early work by Smith discuss helping learners achieve self-direction,developing self-organized learners, diagnosing learning styles, increas-ing state of consciousness and learning capacity, and training for effec-tive collaborative learning (1983). Robinson (1983) suggests thatprogram providers must determine specific learning interests, desiredlearning formats, and instructional supports for older adults. The scope,
Simson, Thompson, and Wilson 33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
meaning, and dimensions of learning, new theoretical insights andself-direction learning are discussed by Candy (1991). The uniqueneeds of older adult learners and the role of physical aging, motivation,language processing, and memory on the learning process are addressedby Twitchell, Cherry and Trott (1996), Lamdin (1997) and Sinnott(1994).
With the increasing importance of computer technology in tradi-tional learning environments, the use of technology and related teach-ing tools to facilitate learning among older adults is debated (Draves,1995; Fisher, 1998; Himestra, 1991: Manheimer, Snodgrass & Moskow-McKenzie, 1995; Steinbach, 1993). Research on the learning processrecognizes that all learners are not alike and that teaching adult learners,particularly older adults, requires an appreciation of the learning styles,the appropriate learning environment, and the bio-psycho-social con-text of aging.
These unique issues and needs have rarely been translated into a dis-cussion of teachers of adult learners, especially if the teachers are olderadults themselves. Galbraith (1990) argues that “certain skills [are]needed to build supportive and active educational climates and abilities[are] needed to provide challenging teaching and learning interaction”(p. 137). He goes on to suggest the characteristics of an adult educatorand the program planning skills, teaching and learning transaction skillsneeded when assessing effective learning. Stouch (1993) argues that in-structors need to incorporate learning how to learn into their teachingand should shift from being content experts and sources of knowledgeto the role of co-learner, research person and coach. Important charac-teristics of adult educators are their motivations for becoming and re-maining teachers and their previous experience teaching (Rose &Leahy, 1997). Seaman and Fellenz (1989) find that teachers need popu-larity/personal prestige, pride of accomplishment, confidence, a desireto be helpful, personality expression, concern for self-improvement,and financial gain.
METHOD
Subjects
The purpose of this research is to address the gap in knowledge aboutwho is teaching older adult lifelong learners through a study of peer ed-ucators in institutes for lifelong learning in retirement. This study uses
34 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
an exploratory, descriptive approach to investigate the characteristics,activities, and concerns of peer educators in Institutes of Learning inRetirement (ILRs) that were affiliated with the Elderhostel InstituteNetwork (EIN) during the 1999-2000 academic terms. Data were col-lected by drawing a convenience sample of 65 institutes (about 25%) ofthe ILRs affiliated with EIN that were listed in the 1999 Directory of In-stitutes for Learning in Retirement (Elderhostel, 1999). The ILRs se-lected for this study covered these categories of characteristics:
1. Geographical areas: at least one ILR included from each of the50 United States.
2. Membership size: small ILRs (up to 150 members), mediumILRs(151-300 members) and large ILRs (over 300 members).
3. Membership fees: ILRs with annual fees, semester fees, percourse fees.
4. Sponsoring institutions: public or private.5. Number of study groups offered per term/semester: 10-50.6. Year started: 1970s, 1980s, 1990s.7. Educational approaches: all ILRS indicated use of study groups
with peer leading and learning.
Measures and Procedure
ILRs were contacted for participation in this research by asking theirdirectors to distribute questionnaires to as many as three peer educatorsat their respective ILRs. Typically, ILR directors were knowledgeableabout the educational activities at their respective ILRs and had the ad-ministrative capabilities to contact their members. ILR directors wereasked to call upon their expertise and experience to select peer educatorrespondents whom they thought likely to provide substantive andknowledgeable responses. The questionnaires were brief in order to en-courage responses from busy ILR peer educators. The questionnairecontained 18 forced-choice and 3 open-ended questions and addressedfive areas: (1) the background of peer educators; (2) the characteristicsof their study groups; (3) the motivations and rewards of peer educators;(4) the training acquired by peer educators; and (5) the teaching-learn-ing experience of peer educators.
Responses were received from 76 peer educators. Seven of the sur-veyed ILR directors reported that their ILRs did not have peer educatorsand were not appropriate participants in the survey. The overall re-sponse rate for eligible ILRs was 51% (33/58 ILRs), with an average of
Simson, Thompson, and Wilson 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
2.3 peer educators responding for each responding ILR. Results are re-ported by descriptive measures of central tendency, dispersion, and per-cent frequency. Although these results are not scientifically representative,they do achieve the study’s objective of providing a springboard for ex-ploring and describing peer education in lifelong learning institutes forolder adults.
RESULTS
Background of Peer Educators
Most peer educators (74%) were members of ILRs and had a widevariation in length of time as members, ranging from one to twentyyears. The remaining peer educators who were not ILR members indi-cated they were members of the community (12%) or faculty of col-leges or universities (11%). The majority were retired (71%) or partiallyretired (24%). Peer educators reported a high level of educational at-tainment, with 36% having masters’ degrees, 29% having doctoral de-grees, 11% having some postgraduate education, and 15% havingbachelors’ degrees. The age of peer educators ranged from 40 years to83 years (average 69.1 years, median =72 years). They led an average ofthree study groups, a median of 4.5 study groups, and a range of one to40 study groups. Over half (58%) indicated their study groups were re-lated to their previous occupational areas of knowledge. Motivationsfor becoming peer educators varied. One study group leader reflected:
I retired from business. I didn’t want to sit around after havingbeen so active at work and in community affairs. I wanted some-thing meaningful to do so I joined our ILR. I participated in studygroups for two years. The Curriculum Committee asked me to leada study group on basic economics. I had a master’s degree in eco-nomics and thought I would give it a try. I’m glad I did.
Another commented,
I retired as professor emeritus in music from the university. TheILR invited me to lead a study group on Romantic Music, my spe-cialty area. That was three years ago and I have led a study groupevery semester. I have invited former students and colleagues as
36 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
guest performers and our study group has attended recitals at theuniversity music center.
Study Group Characteristics
Nearly half of the study groups reported by peer educators were inthe areas of either history/current events/politics (25%) or literature andwriting (20%). The arts (art, music and dance) and sciences were eachoffered by 12% of study groups. Less common study groups were reli-gion and philosophy (8%), with social sciences, computer technology,health, foreign language, mathematics, and business comprising 5% orless. None of the study groups had tests, grades, or academic credits.Nearly all (90%) of the study groups required at-home preparation. Theaverage number of participants in a study group was 25.9, the mediannumber was 19, and the range extended from 6 to 75. The average num-ber of hours in that a study group met was 14.3 hours, the median was12 hours, and the range extended from 2 to 26 hours. Two study groupsmet over the course of two semesters for an average total of 56 hours. Achairperson of an ILR curriculum committee for five years offeredthese observations:
I have found that our members want a variety of subjects to be of-fered each semester. They do not want recreational topics but seri-ous subjects they can “sink their teeth into.” They prefer seminarsand do not like large lectures where they are “just anonymousfaces” and passive listeners. They like to take study groups on sub-jects that they might have studied on an introductory level orwould have liked to have studied in high school or college. Theywant to do preparation outside of study group such as readingbooks or researching material at the library or over the internet.
Motivations and Rewards for Leading
Many factors attracted peer educators to lead study groups. Thesefactors ranged from the desire for intellectual challenge, to social bene-fits, to opportunities to improve work-related skills. The top factorscited by over three-quarters of the peer educators were personal enjoy-ment and satisfaction (87%), intellectual stimulation (83%) and enjoy-ment of teaching (78%). Use/increase of knowledge and skills wasreported by 58%, followed by the opportunity to develop social rela-tionships (44%), prior participation in a study group (40%), commit-
Simson, Thompson, and Wilson 37
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
ment to volunteerism (32%), opportunity to continue past occupation(30%), and entrée to new work options (7%). Respondents noted an av-erage of 4.6 different factors that attracted them to leading groups. Oneretired high school teacher commented:
I was ready to retire from teaching school but I wasn’t ready to re-tire from education. Leading study groups at my ILR was the an-swer. I have been able to continue my interest in literature in studygroups with my peers who are very challenging, eager to learn andto contribute their experiences to group discussions. I find “learn-ing for the sake of learning” to be very gratifying.
Another study group leader stated: “I supervised the computer depart-ment at a large government office. I always enjoyed helping others tolearn about computers and now I am able to do this in the study groups Ideveloped for my ILR. I’ve felt motivated to keep up with the latestsoftware and haven’t let my skills go to waste. I feel useful and appreci-ated.”
Peer educators noted many rewards for leading the study group. Therewards cited most frequently were the factors that initially attractedthem to enter the program: personal enjoyment and satisfaction (88%),intellectual stimulation (86%), increase of their knowledge/skills (74%)and increase in enjoyment of teaching (70%). Other rewards included:social relationships (46%), commitment to volunteerism (30%), oppor-tunity to continue past work (26%), and entrée to new work options(5%). Respondents cited an average of 4.4 rewards that they experi-enced from leading. Overall, their experiences seemed to be over-whelming positive, with 97% indicating that they would considerleading a study group in the future and only several (3%) were uncertainwhether they would lead again.
Training of Peer Educators
The majority (66%) of peer educators indicated that they did not re-ceive specific training to lead an ILR study group. One-third (34%) re-ported that they received some type of training from their ILRs to leadstudy groups. Among those who received training, most (69%) attendedmeetings of study group peer educators, and about half (54%) receivedsome type of printed information or handbook. Most (89%) of the train-ing they attended was conducted by members of their ILRs. The aver-age number of hours devoted to training was 2.7 with the median being
38 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
2 hours and range being 1 to 8 hours. Respondents indicated that train-ing in a number of areas would have been helpful, raising issues such as,
I would like to know how to encourage quiet members to partici-pate and discourage dominant members from taking over discus-sions.
I would like training in developing content, planning and organiz-ing sessions and using audio visual aids.
I was a new study group leader and I would have benefited fromhaving an experienced leader as peer mentor. We did this infor-mally but it would have been valuable to have an established rela-tionship with someone who would have provided ongoingguidance and advice about what does and doesn’t work well.
Leading-Learning Experience of Peer Educators
Peer educators used a variety of approaches that they deemed effec-tive for facilitating learning. Nearly all (92%) reported discussion waseffective. Lecture (61%), presentations by participants (50%), and call-ing on participants (41%) were also seen as effective approaches. Theaverage number of effective approaches cited was three. One peer educa-tor leader summed up the characteristics of an effective peer educator:“We need skills in leading group discussions, enthusiasm, eagerness tolearn from others, mastery of the content, strict personal neutrality wheneliciting views and opinions of others, and the ability to create a safe,comfortable environment for active participation and learning.” Read-ings were the most common resource materials used (cited by 68%), aswell as audio-visuals (cited by 54%), libraries (20%), and guest speak-ers (24%). Resources used less were computers (11%) and outings/fieldtrips (11%). A peer educator commented:
I became very creative with my use of resource materials. Ourstudy group went to the college library for an orientation and weused their rare book collection for our study of the Great Depres-sion. In another study group, we toured a Civil War site and en-joyed a lecture by a docent. I’m going to co-lead a current eventsstudy group with the computer study group leader who is going todemonstrate use of the internet for researching news media sites.
Simson, Thompson, and Wilson 39
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
DISCUSSION
Implications for Recruitment of Peer Educators
The motivations and rewards associated with participation as leadersin peer education are multi-faceted. With an average of 4.4 to 4.6 fac-tors cited per person for rewards and motivations, numerous factors mo-tivate any one individual to participate as a peer educator. The topresponse categories center on personal enjoyment and satisfaction, in-tellectual stimulation, and enjoyment of teaching. These elements arekey to the underlying construct of ILRs: learning for the sake of learn-ing. For peer educators this construct becomes leading for the sake ofleading.
As this study has shown, ILRs are most likely to attract college edu-cated members who have had experience learning in college settingsand are seeking to continue their learning in environments in which theyare familiar. Comfort with higher education learning and learning envi-ronments are probable factors in their decisions to join ILRs and leadstudy groups. Because Institutes for Learning in Retirement usually arebased on college campuses, they also attract pre- and post-retirementfaculty as members who may then become peer educators. The demo-graphics of baby boomers suggest that the pool of members and peer ed-ucators will continue to grow. Boomers will not only represent thelargest group of retirees in U.S. history, but also will be the most edu-cated.
A general observation can be made regarding who might be attractedto becoming a peer educator in an ILR. The United States has only re-cently begun to grapple with several issues: the aging of the workforce;the retirement income issues that may affect the length of time workersremain in the workforce; and the need to enhance the opportunitiesavailable for a healthier and better educated older population to remainactively involved in society. Because part-time work and volunteer op-tions remain relatively limited for more educated older adults, member-ship in an ILR is one of the few widely available options for potentialpeer educators to utilize their time and talents. Research indicates thatolder adults prefer flexible schedules when selecting post-retirementlearning options (AARP, 2000, p. 45). The ILR study group frameworktends to be less structured, adult learning centered, and flexible in termsof length of time commitment. These factors make study groups an at-tractive choice for potential peer educators who are likely to seek flexi-ble options for their volunteer commitments.
40 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
This study finds almost all peer educators willing to lead anotherstudy group; strong motivations and meaningful rewards abound forthem. This pool of committed peer educators provides the basis forgrowth and stability for the future of ILRs. As the expansion of lifelonglearning options is fueled by retirement of the baby boomers, the currentfoundation of experienced peer educators will be important in under-standing the peer education process. ILRs represent an opportunity foreducators to define best practices and to document approaches that willenable the next generation of peer educators to build on prior successesand experiences.
Training
The implications of the finding that ILRs conduct limited study groupleader preparation and training are important for future ILR develop-ment. Many ILRs are relatively new and still in an early stage of organi-zational development. Formalization and institutionalization of theprogram have not yet occurred. Since most ILRs are predominantlymember led volunteer organizations with limited paid staff, early devel-opment tends to focus on establishing basic structures and processesthat meet high priorities such as member recruitment, fiscal stability,and program content.
The less formal organizational structure of an ILR is intentionally de-signed to create a relaxed learning atmosphere that is attractive to theolder learner. This type of structure may foster a similarly relaxedteaching atmosphere. Peer educators who are retired teachers or profes-sors may did not perceive a need for formal training due to their educa-tional backgrounds and teaching experience. Despite the college campuslocation or affiliation of many ILRs, a connection generally does not ex-tend to college-based opportunities for teaching preparation for studygroup leaders.
CONCLUSION
The Elderhostel Institute Network reports that new Institutes for Learningin Retirement are growing at the rate of twenty-five additional institutes peryear (Elderhostel Institute Network, 1999). The location of these instituteson college campuses enhances their capacity to attract and serve the grow-ing numbers of older learners seeking lifelong learning and engagement.As ILRs continue to grow both in numbers and membership, the impor-
Simson, Thompson, and Wilson 41
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
tance of assessing and documenting the learning process in ILRs and thelong term impact of ILRs will become increasingly relevant.
ILRs form an important underpinning for the future of lifelong learn-ing due to their capacity to create a stable, sustainable and recognizedmeans to attract and retain older learners over an extended period oftime. Older learners in ILRs have the potential to be a part of univer-sity-based learning over a longer period of time than their youngercounterparts who are pursuing academic degrees. The role of peer edu-cators in facilitating lifelong learning is only beginning to be defined.Better tools to identify effective learning approaches and best practicemodels can be developed and evaluated to determine the long-term ben-efits of these learning organizations. Institutes for Learning in Retire-ment, university educators and researchers should collaborate at thisearly point in ILR development in order to document and refine thelearning approaches that are best tailored to these settings.
There is a similar need for careful consideration of the long-termbenefits of standardized preparation of peer educators. Although manyof these individuals have high educational attainment, prior training inother fields and significant knowledge and experience to bring to theirpeer education experience, they should be given training in basic skillsand information that are relevant and unique to this teaching experi-ence, such as collaborative and experiential learning techniques, man-agement of group discussions, application of knowledge and materialsand knowledge to the ILR study group format, and adaptation for spe-cial needs learners. In addition to providing a common framework forall peer educators, training also helps foster personal satisfaction, inter-action and group identity for study group leaders.
It is still relatively early in the history of Institutes for Learning in Re-tirement. The demand by older adults for effective lifelong learning op-portunities is growing. Professional educators, peer educators, memberparticipants, university liaisons, and researchers have an opportunity tocontribute to the growth and effectiveness of ILRs and adult learningopportunities.
REFERENCES
AARP (2000). AARP survey on lifelong learning. Washington, DC: Author.AARP (1997). Profiles of older Americans. Washington, DC: Author.Caffarella, R. S. (1994). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide for
educators, trainers and staff developers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
42 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to the-ory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Draves, W. A. (1995). Energizing the learning environment. Manhattan, KS: LearningResources Network.
Elderhostel Institute Network (1999). Directory. Boston: Author.Fisher, J. C., & Wolfeds, M. A. (1998). Using learning to meet the challenge of older
adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Galbraith, M. W. (1990). Attributes and skills of an adult educator. In M. W. Galbraith
(Ed.), Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction (pp. 3-22). Malabar,FL: Krieger.
Hiemstra, R. (Ed.) (1991). Creating environmental for effective adult learning. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lamdin, L. (1997). Elderlearning: New frontier in an aging society. Phoenix, AZ:Oryx Press.
Manheimer, R. J., Snodgrass, D., & Moskow-McKenzie, D. (1995). Older adult edu-cation: A guide to research, programs and policies. Westport, CT: GreenwoodPress.
Proposed ILR regional breakout. (2000, 8,1). ILR Leader, p. 1.Robinson, Jr., P. B. (1983). Educating older adults. In C. E. Kasworm (Ed.), Educa-
tional outreach to select adult populations (pp. 65-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Rose, A. D. & Leahy, M. A. (1997). Assessing adult learning in diverse settings: Cur-
rent issues and approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Seaman, D. F., & Fellenz, C. (1989). Effective strategies for teaching adults. Colum-
bus, OH: Merrill.Sinnott, J. D. (1994). Interdisciplinary handbook of adult lifespan learning. Westport,
CT: Greenwood.Smith, R. M. (Ed.) (1983). Helping adults learn how to learn. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.Steinbach, R. (1993). The adult learner: Strategies for success. Menlo Park, CA:
Crisp.Stouch, C. A. (1993). What instructors need to know about learning how to learn. In D.
Flannery (Ed.), Applying cognitive learning theory to adult learning (pp. 59-67).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thorpe, M., Edwards, R., & Hanson, A. (1993). Culture and processes of adult learn-ing. NY: Routledge.
Twitchell, S., Cherry, K. E., & Trott, J. W. (1996). Educational strategies for olderlearners: Suggestions from cognitive aging research. Educational Gerontology, 22,169-181.
Simson, Thompson, and Wilson 43
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
22:
17 1
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
