Adult Learning HW

When andragogy and the concept that adults and children learn differently was first introduced in the United States by Malcolm Knowles in the early 1970s, the idea was groundbreaking and sparked a great deal of research and controversy. Since the earliest days, adult educators have debated the essence of andragogy. Spurred in large part by the need for a defining theory within the field of adult education (AE), andragogy has been extensively analyzed and critiqued. It has been alternately described as a set of guidelines (Merriam, 1993), a philosophy (Pratt, 1993), a set of assumptions (Brookfield, 1986), and a theory (Knowles, 1989b). The disparity of these positions is indicative of the complex nature of adult learning. Regardless of what it is called, “andragogy is an honest attempt to focus on the learner. In this sense, it does provide an alternative to the methodology-centered instructional design perspective” (Feur and Gerber, 1988). Merriam, in explaining the complexity and present condition of adult learning theory, offers the following:

Attempts at codifying differences between adults and children as a set of principles, a model or even a theory of adult learning have been, and continue to be, pursued by adult educators. However, just as there is no single theory that explains all of human learning, there is no single theory of adult learning. Instead, we have a number of frameworks, or models, each of which contributes something to our understanding of adults as learner. The best known of these efforts is andragogy.

(Merriam et al., 2007, p. 83)

Despite years of critique, debate, and challenge, the core principles of adult learning advanced by andragogy have endured (Davenport and Davenport, 1985; Hartree, 1984; Pratt, 1988). Few adult learning scholars would disagree with the observation that Knowles’ ideas sparked a revolution in AE and workplace learning (Feur and Gerber, 1988). Brookfield (1986), positing a similar view, asserts that andragogy is the “single most popular idea in the education and training of adults.” Adult educators, particularly beginning ones, find these core principles invaluable in the practical challenge of shaping the learning process for adults.

It is beyond the scope of this introductory book to address all the dimensions of the theoretical debate raised in academic circles. Our position is that andragogy presents core principles of adult learning that in turn enable those designing and conducting adult learning to build more effective learning processes for adults. It is a transactional model that speaks to the characteristics of the learning transaction, not to the esoteric goals and aims of that transaction. Thus, andragogy is applicable to any adult learning transaction, from community education to human resource development (HRD) in organizations.

Care must be taken to avoid confusing core principles of the adult learning transaction with the goals and purposes for which the learning event is being conducted. They are conceptually distinct, though as a practical matter may at times overlap. Critiques of andragogy point to missing elements that keep it from being a defining theory of the discipline of adult education (Davenport and Davenport, 1985; Grace, 1996; Hartree, 1984), not of adult learning. Grace, for example, criticizes andragogy for focusing solely on the individual, and not operating from a critical social agenda or debating the relationship of AE to society. This criticism reflects the goals and purposes of the discipline of AE. Human resource development in organizations has a different set of goals and purposes, which andragogy also does not embrace. Community health educators have yet another set of goals and purposes that are not embraced.

We see the strength of andragogy as a set of core adult learning principles that apply to all adult learning situations. The goals and purposes for which the learning is offered are a separate issue. Adult education professionals should develop and debate models of adult learning separately from models of the goals and purposes of their respective fields that foster adult learning. Human resource development, for example, embraces organizational performance as one of its core goals; whereas AE focuses more on individual growth.

It is important to note that these core principles are incomplete in terms of learning decisions. Figure 1.1 graphically shows that andragogy is a core set of adult learning principles. The six principles of andragogy are (1) the learner’s need to know, (2) self-concept of the learner, (3) prior experience of the learner, (4) readiness to learn, (5) orientation to learning, and (6) motivation to learn. These principles are listed in the center of the model. As you will see in this and subsequent chapters, there are a variety of other factors that affect adult learning in any particular situation, and may cause adults to behave more or less closely to the core principles. Shown in the two outer rings of the model, they include individual learner and situational differences, and goals and purposes for learning. Andragogy works best in practice when it is adapted to fit the uniqueness of the learners and the learning situation. We see this not as a weakness of the principles, but as a strength. Their strength is that these core principles apply to all adult learning situations, as long as they are considered in concert with other factors that are present in the situation.

This eighth edition of The Adult Learner provides a journey from theory to practice in adult learning. Figure 1.1 provides a snapshot summary of considerations within the journey in displaying the six core adult learning principles surrounded by the context of individual and situational differences, and the goals and purposes of learning.

Figure 1.1 Andragogy in practice

Source: Knowles et al. (1998)