Australian Journal of Adult Learning - Volume 50 - Response to 'An experiment in method' (J.L.J. Wilson)

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Aldword

Response to J.L.J. Wilson’s 1961 article discusses an experiment in adult education method as practiced by Tom Stehlik. Drawing on Wilson’s historical account, the text examines group discussion approaches used with Indigenous Australians, highlights concerns about teacher-centred learning and the evaluation of learning beyond information transmission, and reflects on how learner development, communication, and facilitation have evolved over decades. It also analyzes participation dynamics and the limits of vocabulary in effective communication.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Response to 'An experiment in method' (J.L.J. Wilson)

Historical context and adult education shifts

Wilson’s method and evaluation challenges

Participation, communication limits, and facilitation

Australian Journal of Adult Learning Volume 50, Number 3, November 2010 Response to ‘An experiment in method’(J.L.J. Wilson) Tom Stehlik School of Education University of South Australia In celebration of the first edition of the Association’s journal, published in July 1961, the current editor has asked me to respond to one of the original three articles which appeared in that issue. J.L.J. Wilson was Director of Tutorial Classes for the University of Sydney, and NSW Chairman of the Australian Association of Adult Education, as ALA was known then. Reading Wilson’s article from a distance of 50 years highlights a number of ways in which we as a nation, adult education as a field, and the journal itself have moved on and progressed significantly—not only in terms of the way we understand learning for marginalised groups in society, but in the very language we use to discuss it. In 1960–61 Wilson was invited to give lectures on ‘modern techniques in adult education’ as part of a training school for those involved in the work of developing ‘Co-operatives for Aborigines’ which were 610 Tom Stehlik sponsored by the Australian Board of Missions—the national mission agency of the Anglican Church in Australia, and an organisation that is still active ([http://www.abmission.org/](http://www.abmission.org/)). In Wilson’s own words, the school ‘consisted of two courses for two groups—one for aborigines, the other for European teachers, administrators and missionaries working in aboriginal settlements’(p. 20) . To his credit, Wilson decided that lecturing either of the groups on modern techniques in adult education was inappropriate, and instead conducted what he considered at the time to be ‘an experiment in method’—a problem-solving approach based on group discussion using the knowledge and experience brought by the participants to an issue that was meaningful and relevant to them. The article therefore consists of a report of these sessions, with Wilson’s reflections and questions on the relevance of this method more generally to adult education, compared with that of the ‘ordinary lecture-discussion session’(p. 20) . What is of great interest to this reviewer is the fact that the article: (1) presents a historical snapshot of a moment in adult education in Australia when an argument was being presented for the importance of introducing group methods in teaching adults—‘Americans have been doing it for years’(p. 20)—and (2) gives a fascinating account of a non-Indigenous Australian grappling with ways to describe his experiences of working with a group of Indigenous Australians from different urban and rural areas and language groups, for whom English was not their first language, and who had varying levels of education and experience in ‘European’ formal instruction. In terms of the first point, Wilson acknowledges the assumptions still being made in adult education in 1961 around the application of teacher-centred learning, based on particular subjects and exposition of set content, at the risk of ignoring the ‘motives, interests and “objectives” of the students’(p. 21). Accordingly, his method in working with the group of Indigenous people was to Response to ‘An experiment in method’(J. L.J. Wilson) 611 attempt to extract from them the important issues around forming a co-operative in their community, from their own perspective and experience ‘by dint of questioning and as little suggestion as possible’(p. 21). Wilson seems almost amazed that in experimenting with his method, the ‘subject’ for the session, with headings and sub-sections, appeared on the blackboard from the input of the group rather than from a pre-determined lesson plan or lecture notes. However, Wilson goes on to wonder in his article about how to evaluate or measure such learning that is not based on transmission and assessment of information, but on solving problems that require longer term transfer of learning in real contexts. He ref

FAQs

What method does Wilson describe in his original article, according to the response?

Wilson describes an “experiment in method” centered on problem-solving through group discussion, using issues that participants consider meaningful and relevant, with minimal suggestion.

How does the response evaluate learning in methods like Wilson’s?

The response notes Wilson’s concern about how to assess learning that is not based on transmitting and testing information, especially when it depends on longer-term transfer in real contexts.

What limitations did Wilson identify in conducting the group sessions?

Wilson reflected that his vocabulary was an obstacle to effective communication, and he observed uneven participation where only about half spoke during the first of two sessions.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Aldword