A Learners’ View (ALV) Is Of Choices On The Shortest And Fastest Path To Learning, The Oxygen Of Social Life.

Definition: 1. a Social function or use of social interaction of educators working in non-school settings with learners by invitation of a third party. b Originated in the Department of Special Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1966. c Name for participant-observer activities in communities that lead to a learners’ view (ALV) of learning.

2. Name adopted for the activities of child advocates in education; represents volunteers persuading someone in authority for a learner to participate in a formal program from which they have been excluded.

3. Category of activity of field teachers to distinguish it from other social functions, such as child advocacy.

4. Reducing risks of learners failing to learn what age peers learn to do in schools and training programs.

Antonyms: NAMES OF PROGRAMS with physical addresses, such as a preschool operating in a house in a residential neighborhood.

Related Reading

1. Altstein, H. (1972). Field teaching and the social process. Peabody Journal of Education. 49 (3) 188-191.
2.  Cunningham J. J. Field teaching: A means for educators to work in non-school settings. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Washington, DC, March 1972.
3.  Cunningham, J. J. The field teacher as social researcher. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association on Mental Deficiency, Minneapolis, May 1972.
4.  Dokecki, P., Scanlon, P., & Strain, B. (1972). In search of a transactional model for education. Peabody Journal of Education. 49 (3), 182-187.
5.  Farber, B & Lewis, M. (1972). Compensatory education and social justice. Peabody Journal of Education. 49 (2), 85-96.
6.  Gregory, R.J. (1972). To the rescue of child advocacy. Peabody Journal of Education. 49 (2), 119-125.
7.  Harvey, D.L. & Heiny, R. (1972). The teacher as social critic: An examination of Neighborhood Learning Center Activities. Peabody Journal of Education, 49 (2), 104-118.
8.  Heiny, R. Cunningham, J., Edgar, G., Lukenbill, R., & Yancey, W. (1972). Field teachers: An introduction to an alternative to schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 49 (2), 83-84.
9.  Heiny, R., Cunningham, J., Edgar, G., Lukenbill, R., & Yancey, W. (1972). Field teachers: Reflections, responses, rebuttals. Peabody journal of Education, 49 (3), 175-176.
10.  Heiny, R. &Cunningham, J. J. (1972). Field teaching: A social history. Peabody Journal of Education, 49 (2), 97-103.
11.  Heiny, R., Cunningham, J. J., & Stachowiak, R. (1975). Final Report: Field teaching training program – A report of one year of planning and prototype activities. Nashville: George Peabody College.
12.  Karnes, M. & Zehrbach, R. (972). Reaction to articles on field teaching. Peabody Journal of Education, 49 (3), 177-181.
13.  Lewis, W. (1972). Response on field teaching. Peabody Journal of Education. 49 (3). 202-201.
14.  Salvia, J. & Harder, W. (1972). Field teaching: Romance and reality – a response. Peabody Journal of Education. 49 (3), 192-196.
15.  Stachowiak, R. (1972). Book review: Critics of Society: Radical Thought in North America. Peabody Journal of Education, 49 (2), 247.
16.  Thomson, R.P. (1972). Response to field teaching essays. Peabody Journal of Education. 49 (3), 197-201.

Related Resources

1. x