Asked about why I used the word pedagogy instead of andragogy, I think it’s worth elaborating (since I already had in my reply ;) and sharing. In short, I think it‘s a false dichotomy. So here‘s my analysis of andragogy vs pedagogy.
Looking at Knowles‘ andragogy, I think it‘s misconstrued. What he talks about for adults is really true for all learners, taking into account their relative cognitive capability and amount of experience. So I fear that using andragogy will perpetuate the myth that pedagogy is a different learning approach (and keep kids in classrooms listening to lectures and answering rote questions). Empirically, direct instruction works (tho‘ it‘s interpretation is different than the name might imply, I once pointed out how it and constructivism properly construed both really say the same thing ;).
There was an article that posited five differences, and I see a major confound; the article‘s talking about andragogy as self-directed learning, and pedagogy as formal instruction. That‘s apples and oranges. It really is more about whether you‘re a novice or a practitioner level and the role of instruction. Age is an arbitrary element here, not a defining factor. Addressing each point:
1. Adults are self-directing learners. No, in things they know they need, they can be, but also they may have their bosses or coaches pointing them to courses. Plus, for areas where the adults are novices, they still need guided instruction. Also, owing to our bad K12 and higher ed, we’re not really enabling learners to be effective and efficient self-directed learners. Further, kids are self-directed about things they‘re interested in. But we make little effort to ground what we do (particularly K6) in any reason why this is on the syllabus.
2. The role of learner experience. Yes, this matters, but it‘s a continuum. Also, you always want to base instruction on learner experience, because elaboration requires connecting to and building on existing knowledge. Yes, we do tend to do give kids abstract problems (particularly in math), which is contrary to good learning science. “Only two things wrong in education these days, the curriculum and the pedagogy, other than that we‘re fine.†Ahem. We teach the wrong things, badly.
3. Adults generate interest in useful information. So does everyone, but that‘s not a matter of developmental level. Kids also prefer stuff that‘s relevant. We‘ve developed a curriculum for kids that is out of date, and we don‘t motivate it. Everyone has a curriculum, and there are degrees of self-direction, but it‘s not a binary division.
4. Adult readiness to learn is triggered by relevance (yeah, kind of redundant).Kids also learn better when there‘s a reason. Hence problem-based, service-based, and other such philosophy‘s of learning. Even direct instruction posits meaningful problems. Again, the article‘s comparing an ideal human learning model compared to a broken school model.
5. What motivates learners are real life outcomes. Really, we‘ve covered this, everyone learns better when there‘s motivation. Children learn for grades because no one‘s made it meaningful for them to care! Kids will pursue their learning when it makes sense to them. John Taylor Gatto made the case that kids could learn the entire K6 curriculum in 100 hours if they cared! Kids do learn outside of what‘s forced on them from schooling, be it Pokemon, polka, or porcupines.
Thus, in the comparison between andragogy vs pedagogy, I come down on the side of pedagogy. It‘s the earlier term, and while ped does mean ‘kid‘, I still think it‘s really about learning design. Learning design should be aligned to our brains, not differentiated between child and adult. Yes, there are developmental differences, but they‘re a continuum and it‘s more a matter of capacity, it‘s not a binary distinction. That‘s my take, what‘s yours?
I agree 100% !
I’ve also changed the section on ‘How adults learn’ in my recent Train-the-Trainer courses to ‘How people learn’.
Neuroscience and brain-based learning are far more important than distinguishing learning based on age.
Glad to hear. Not really a fan of ‘neuroscience’ or ‘brain-based’ either, as they’re either misleading (former) or redundant (latter), but there are worse things out there ;).
Good points, Clark.
FWIW: The more I teach adults, the more I see similarities to younger age groups.
Really good points, Clark. Life can be easier if you turn a continuum into neat categories. We do it all the time. It may not be right, but it’s easier. The andragogy vs pedagogy categoration has always bothered me. Where’s the line between the two? Is there a line? I doubt it. There may be differences in levels of experience and levels of mastery that determine different approaches for formal instruction, but not based on age.
I’ve used the term ‘how adults learn’ in the past. Like Helena, going forward I’ll revert to ‘how people learn’. If we take Eric Kandel’s view into account we may need to extend even beyond humans….
I 100% agree with you here, Clark. I’ll tell you – I have found VERY valuable strategies in Harry Wong’s “The First Days of School” that can (with a little tweaking) be perfectly applied to the adult learning environment. I’ve been saying this for a long time and I’m glad to see an L&D name that I respect saying it, too. Tells me I’m on the right track!
Interesting to read your analysis on this topic. Looking forward to reading more of such stuff.
Thanks for the feedback. As I read the comments (here and on LinkedIn), I realize that Knowles may well have been suggesting don’t teach adults like you teach kids. My fear, as I expressed, is that it normalizes what we do to kids in the name of education. Instead, I want to say “don’t do to kids what we’re currently doing”, it’s not aligned with what we know about how learning works best. Back to my claim “only two things wrong with education, the curriculum and the pedagogy, other than that it’s fine”.
Yep. The strength of my homeschooling is I taught my children as though they were adults wherever appropriate. Let them be self directed in their learning, and made it relevant. They NEVER fell behind the “standards” because they learned that learning is FUN (gasp) and RELEVANT and they became competent. This developed the confidence and motivation to excell. Now bringing those experiences to adult instructional design. I have always been so confused why we knowingly educate our children with these old methods.
Hi Clark,
I love a good discussion and debate on learning and the topics and points you raise have come in discussions that I have had with learning professional throughout the years. And I can appreciate that American or Anglo-saxon learning professionals may have a tendency to seek one word that applies to many things. The English language is this way. We have one word that means many things. For example the word love. In the English language we use language to describe the many kinds of love.
Whereas in the Greek language, we have different distinct words for specific types of love, such as, Agápe (ἀγάπη agápÄ“[1]) means “love: esp. brotherly love, charity; Éros (á¼”Ïως érÅs) means “love, mostly of the sexual passion”; Philia (φιλία philÃa) means “affectionate regard, friendship”, usually “between equals”, Storge (στοÏγή storgÄ“) means “love, affection” and “especially of parents and children”, Philautia (Greek: φιλαυτία, romanized: philautÃa) means “self-love”. Xenia (Greek: ξενία) is an ancient Greek concept of hospitality. And while these are all expression of love, however the intended receivers are different.
As a bicultural Greek-American learning and performance professional, I like to use both of these Greek words, Andragogy and Pedagogy. Andragogy meaning leading man in Greek and Pedagogy meaning leading children. It is more clear who is the receiver and adult (>25 years, prefrontal cortex fully developed) vs a child (25 because of the many more years of experience that they could bring to each learning experience.
Catherine, thanks for that exposition. (And thanks to others for some stories and comments.). My point is that if we differentiate between child and adult, we might prejudice one or the other. My take is that Knowles wanted to separate out adult learning from what is done to kids. I want to not let a vibrant picture of adult learning allow kids to still suffer in schools. Interesting that you put the barrier at 25. Many have suggested that the cognitive capacity is capable at roughly high school. I think any age is arbitrary, particularly since our learning mechanisms really don’t change. Sure, we might have more limited working memory capacity at very young ages, and certainly our experience base expands consistently, but that doesn’t mean we don’t all benefit from meaningful projects with guidance and feedback.
As a previous elementary educator who now works with adults, I COMPLETELY agree! I am most curious about how we make instruction design/delivery decisions for novice vs expert learners. Have you encountered research related to this?
Debbie, in general, if they’re novices, they’ll need fully contextualized and motivating instruction. With more expertise, they tend to know what they need to know, and just need it, so it’s more about resources than courses (e.g. LXP instead of LMS). Also, making it accessible/findable. Unless I’m misinterpreting your question.
I have always said that people and their behaviors have not changed throughout the ages, and I think, if I am interpreting your point correctly, that this point can be applied to learning…that how we learn has not changed. As you note in one of your comments, certainly the brain develops with age (in terms of working memory capacity etc.). However, at the same time we need to acknowledge what learning is and how it is constructed. In other words, we need to pedagogically focus on at from which point or in which scenario the learner is “starting”: as a novice, as one with emerging knowledge and/or skills, or as a “master” or “expert.” ( I do recognize these are broad categories and that other factors come into play such as disabilities.)
It would seem that the learner’s needs and experiences, “situation,” and motivations play a significant role in pedagogy, whether the learning is based on a systematized structure–as in K-12, higher-education, and most professional training initiatives–or is outside of the pre-defined and arbitrary lines/rules/systems.
Coming to mind are personalized learning vs. standardized learning and the No Child Left Behind Act…curious about your thoughts on these topics.
PS: Appreciate your claim that “only two things [are] wrong with education, the curriculum and the pedagogy, other than that it’s fineâ€. Such a powerful and poignant point!
Thank you,
Kelly
Thanks for the feedback, Kelly. I’m a fan of personalized learning, and other such initiatives, but only after we first get the pedagogy right. I too often see people going for the flash before the form’s been taken are of. Overall, I’d say aligning with learning science is the first, and best, investment. A shiny bad design is still a bad design… As for NCLB, and even Common Core, I still think the PISA style curricula and assessment aren’t right, as I’m not the first to point out.
Nice write up. I am glad that there are people who think like me. Thanks!
I’m a former teacher turned ID student.
The tendency to discard pedagogy in ID always bothered me. I still see so much relevance even with adults. I love this idea of a continuum. It truly articulates the very thing I have felt while studying androgyny. Thank you for sharing.
I think it is important to note that article doesn’t truly speak to andragogy. Nor did Knowles ever intend the two to be different. Knowles actually says to use both regardless of who you are teaching.
True that I didn’t cite him directly, I was pointing to specific things mentioned in an article. Also, the principles I cited were five of six he’s linked to. In addition, he ultimately changed to say both, but if he didn’t intend them to be different, why did he create a separate term instead of just suggesting what good learning is?
Clark,
You’re right that in many ways pedagogy and andragogy can be construed as the same. But it’s worth noting that andragogy is a brand name, Knowles’ brand name for his theory of adult education. Andragogy is to adult education what Xerox is to photocopiers and Hoover is to vacuums.
Knowles wasn’t interested in how pedagogy and andragogy were alike. Quite the opposite. He made effort to emphasize the differences. In these ways he was as much a marketer as he was an educationist.
Though andragogy, and the whole field of adult education, is ideology Knowles called it a technology. The irony is that technology means applied science and there is no science to the field of adult education or andragogy. Since at least the days of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow adult education has been imbued with humanistic ideals. There’s a characteristic lexicon that threads through the literature of andragogy and the broader adult education field: words like independent, empowerment, voluntary, agency, respect, self-directing, self-evaluating, etc., are common punctuations. If andragogues and adult educators a US political stripe they would be progressive Democrats. In Canada they would be the New Democratic Party. In music they’d be Pete Seeger.
Pedagogy also isn’t known for its strong inclinations as a field of science. There’s much more art and craft to the field than science. In that way andragogy +AE and pedagogy are similar. But pedagogy is much less driven by global ideological ideas.
I think that pedagogy is only remotely similar to instructional design (I hate the term learning design). Talk to a middle or secondary school teacher and most won’t understand how it’s possible to ‘design’ for a subject that they don’t have some academic expertise in. They don’t grasp the idea of subject matter experts.
Secondary teacher education programs require students to have teachable subjects. They subscribe to the view that effective teaching practices necessarily lie within the structures of the subject matter. Hence they offer what are known as disciplinary methods courses. In other words, to teach science, mathematics, history etc you must learn the domain-specific methods. Thus you get people who do masters and PhD degrees in mathematics, science and English literature education. That view of education hasn’t translated to instructional design.
Part of the problem with andragogy is that it’s forever tied to Malcolm Knowles. The brand owner is long dead.
I would like to chime in. I love reading all the responses about this very interesting topic. I have been in education the past 20 years, I have taught everything from pre-school to high education, general and special education. I then went on to specialize and am a board certified behavior analyst. I am now actively transitioning in the field of ID and am already learning so much from everyone. I’ll be the first to say I am new to this world and still learning however…
I would like to point out that the study on Direct Instruction was a HUGE research piece done by the federal government showing tremendous outcomes. My understanding is ID has pieces from the cognitive, constructivism and behaviorism approaches. As a former classroom teacher but now behavior analyst, I want to make sure that others know there is an applied science called ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis). It is a science of teaching by understanding human behavior principles.
It is THE most effective tool I have ever had as a teacher (no matter age, cognitive functioning, place of teaching environment) and is a science field of learning used in a wide multitude of populations, ages and environments. Direct Instruction has a TON of ABA teaching components in it.
With that being said, I just feel that trying to tease apart androgogy and pedagogy in a component analysis — we could… but we just might be missing the mark if there is an applied field of science that has 40 years of research, ooodles of journals in various professions who use it that back up it’s effectiveness teaching/learning.
Just my thoughts.
Example of the difference between adult learning and kid learning:
A basic kid curriculum is filled with large chunks of memorization and practice of basics: alphabets, numbers, spelling lists, parts of speech, times tables, trigonometric formulas, parts of a plant, taxonomy of mammals, addition and subtraction practice sets, handwriting (or key-boarding), and much, much more. Designing learning for kids that skips these foundations has quite disappointing results.
Once kids are adults, and have the broad foundational knowledge that should result from a well-rounded K-12 curriculum, (or remnants of it, and know how to find what they don’t remember), then learning activities can focus more on exploration and practicing the objective knowledge or skills.
Yes, humans all share common cognitive and emotional characteristics, but children and adults are different.
Kent, thanks for engaging. What you’re talking about is the curriculum, not the pedagogy. Kids need skills too: not just all those elements, but also how and when to apply them. Further, kids will learn better when it’s active, meaningful, etc. That’s what makes a foundation that sticks so it’s available as adults. Kids need knowledge and skills, and adults need knowledge and skills. Yes, there are knowledge differences, but how our brains develop these doesn’t fundamentally change as we age.