Traditionally, staff development has been viewed largely as a remediation process. Gaps in practitioners' knowledge and skills are identified and experts are called upon to help fill the perceived gaps (Fingeret and Cockley, 1992; Lytle and Cochran-Smith, 1991 as cited by Fingeret and Cockley, 1992). Nationwide, single-session workshops have been the chosen staff development method among adult basic education programs (Pelavin and Associates, 1992).
As part-time workers by and large, many adult literacy educators must balance competing professional commitments. Many work in isolation from colleagues as well as from the larger field of adult education. According to Lytle, Belzer and Reumann (1992), these same workers are often presumed
In some sense, workshops have been reponsive to these presumptions. In many cases, a few paid hours for workshop attendance are built into a practitioner's annual schedule. Workshop presenters are often university-based experts to whom practitioners may not otherwise be exposed due to what is perceived as lack of preparatory training. Additionally, workshops enable practitioners to come together periodically to engage in informal sharing and receive support, thus reducing some of the isolation many experience.
The merit of workshops is apparent in this light. However, when we critically examine the attitudes, assumptions and beliefs embedded in our traditional staff development methods and relate these to what we know about ourselves as adult learners we are led to approaches even more promising.
A 1991 evaluation of staff development activities influenced the Office Of Adult Education, along with scores of adult educators throughout the Commonwealth, to engage in this critical examination.