Santa Monica College Pedagogical Learning Experience

After reading the definitions for “pedagogy” and “andragogy” in this week’s content, please discuss your experiences with each. Remember that the way I am using “pedagogy” here is consistent with the way Malcolm Knowles used the term and might be a little different than how others define it. (Warning: you really need to understand the posted readings if you are going to create a successful post in this discussion)

In your response to this prompt, be sure to use the specific terminologyassociated with Malcolm Knowles’ theory of andragogy and be sure to use those terms in a way that demonstrates your understanding of them. Here’s your discussion topic:

You have been a student for quite a long time now. And as such, you have most certainly developed some expertise on what helps to create effective learning. Malcolm Knowles argued that adults learn best under conditions of “andragogy,” a model of adult learning, and not so well under conditions of “pedagogy” (as he defined, referring to methods typically used to teach children, not adults). Reflecting on your own experiences, please discuss the following:

An excerpt from:
Murray, D. S. (2009). Navigating the liminal space between pedagogy and andragogy:
Coordination and management of professor-student communication (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (3370126)
Pedagogy and Andragogy
Darrin S. Murray, PhD
The Origins of “Andragogy”
In the early 1970s, there developed considerable interest in researching and theorizing
about adult learning. Cross (1981) explained the “growth of the learning society” (p. 1) as a
phenomenon in the last third of the 20th century involving unprecedented growth in the number
of adults seeking and receiving continuing education. Accompanying the increased demand for
education far beyond childhood, scholars began work that examined adult learning as a distinct
construct, different from child-focused pedagogical theory and research (Merriam & Caffarella,
1999, p. 271). Merriam and Caffarella (1999) argued that one of the best known and most
productive efforts in creating a theory of andragogy was advanced by Malcolm Knowles.
Knowles (1970) was troubled by what he believed to be a widespread assumption that
learning was something that happened in one’s youth, rather than something that was a lifelong
process. Further, he considered it problematic that the adult education that was taking place was
built on a model of pedagogy, which he defined as “the art and science of teaching children”
(Knowles, 1970, p. 37). Knowles (1984) observed that existing “theories had all been based on
research on animals (mostly rodents, at that) and children, and I had trouble seeing their
relevance to what I had observed about learning by adults” (p. 5). Instead, Knowles argued that
lifelong learning is critical, but that it needs to be accomplished not by the same methods
children are taught, rather by attending to the distinct characteristics of adult learners (see
Knowles, 1970, 1980, 1984, 1990). The better part of Knowles’ career, which spans the entire
second half of the 20th century, was devoted to understanding the principles of andragogy and
putting that theory into practice in adult education.
Contrasting Pedagogy and Andragogy
Knowles’ extensive observations of the techniques that are sometimes employed in adult
education yielded a substantial description of what he argued are a problematic set of
assumptions and instructional design elements. It is these assumptions and techniques that
Knowles (1970) referred to as pedagogy, intending this term as a critique of their use in the
context of adult education. In describing pedagogy and prescribing andragogy, Knowles and
subsequent theorists (e.g., Cross, 1981; Kolb, 1984; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999) demonstrate
the disadvantages of these pedagogical patterns for adult learners and the comparative
advantages of an andragogical orientation. Knowles (1970) noted that even children may not be
best instructed using pedagogical methods, and that in some circumstances and under certain
conditions, pedagogical methods may appropriate for adults (Knowles, 1984). Nevertheless, his
ultimate intention was to develop a theory of adult education that provided an alternative model
to what he saw as the traditional educational status quo. The following discussion summarizes
this prime focus of Knowles’ career: Advocating andragogy by contrasting it to what he saw as a
set of fundamentally problematic “pedagogical” assumptions and instructional design techniques
often employed in adult education. The set of assumptions and the instructional design elements
of pedagogy versus andragogy, according to Knowles, are discussed below.
Assumptions of Pedagogy versus Andragogy
Self-concept. According to Knowles (1970), children are, by nature, dependent on others
for basic needs and direction. He stated that most pedagogical models of education use this
dependent nature as the foundation for teaching and learning. If instructors assume that students
are dependent, then it logically becomes the instructor’s responsibility to guide, direct, and
control the activity and learning of the student. As children grow, they move away from
dependency and develop increasing independence. Andragogy assumes that adult learners have
grown beyond their childhood dependence and have developed self-concepts of self control and
independence (Knowles, 1970, 1984, 1990; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). There are two
correlates to these assumptions about learner self-concept. The first is that learners have the
capacity to be substantially self-directed; Knowles believed that instructors should acknowledge
and work with that capacity for self-directed learning (Knowles, 1970). The second correlate
relates the notion of personal responsibility.
This notion of adults developing self-concepts containing a greater perception of selfcontrol becomes more apparent in Knowles’ later works (i.e., Knowles, 1990), where he suggests
that the adults are characterized by a stronger sense of personal responsibility than children. I see
this concept as similar to Rotter’s (1966) treatment of “locus of control;” an external locus of
control assumes that external forces and environmental factors are the root cause of what
happens to the self, while an internal locus of control is associated with a view of the self as
being the root cause of events in one’s world. While the foundation of the “locus of control”
construct has been called into question as culturally biased and theoretically problematic (e.g.,
Baistow, 2000; Furby, 1979; Steitz, 1982), Knowles was looking at the assumptions about a
learners’ self-concepts, and his observations seem to indicate that educators do indeed assume
that learners are either more or less inclined to claim personal responsibility for events in their
lives. As such, pedagogy would assume that learners have a tendency to blame external forces
for what happens to them, and andragogy would work from the perspective that learners have a
more developed sense of control over themselves and a greater sense of personal responsibility
for the things that happen in their lives. While an individual’s belief about their own internal or
external locus of control should not be confused with the actual or potential control they may or
may not have over events in their lives (Furby, 1979), the concept of personal responsibility, as I
use it here, focuses on the communicative espousal or denial of control as something that is
negotiated in conversations between professors and students.
Experience. By the simple fact that they have had a limited existence on the planet,
children have life experiences that are more limited than that those of adults. There may be little
available, then to use as a foundation for instruction, so pedagogy tends to rely on the instructor
to provide information, application, and relevance for what is being taught (Knowles, 1970).
This constructs a primarily transmissive mode of education (Knowles, 1990). In a pedagogical
approach, experience is an external event—something that happens to students; in andragogy,
however, experience has become an integral part of identity (Knowles, 1970). Andragogy, then,
can draw information, application, and relevance from the life experiences of the learners.
Educators can exploit the accumulated experiences of the students and employ a greater variety
of instructional modes, such as experiential learning, discussion, case study analysis, simulation
exercises, and peer-to-peer work (Knowles, 1990). While this approach could have distinct
advantages for children as well as adults (for example, see Dewey, 1938), Knowles observed that
experiential approaches are often underutilized in adult education, and firmly advocated their
integration as a way of effecting andragogy.
Readiness. Knowles noted that children are taught what adults feel they need to know;
adults determine the developmental stages a child will progress through, and set (often
institutional) standards for what the child should be ready to learn. Children are expected to learn
what they are told they must (Knowles, 1984). Adults, on the other hand, have learning needs
that are based on life experience, life positions, social roles, tasks, needs, and life problems
(Knowles, 1984). Those factors become the driving force in what the adult is ready to learn
(Knowles, 1970). Andragogy does not require the educator “to sit by passively and wait for
readiness to develop naturally” (Knowles, 1990, p. 61). Therefore, andragogy suggests that
educators may need to help students become aware of their need to learn, to help students
understand the relevance of what they are learning to their lives, and to help foster students’
readiness to learn through teaching, counseling, exercises, and other activities (Knowles, 1990).
Time perspective. With children, Knowles stated, it is assumed that what is learned will
be used at some time in the future; often the distant future. Much of the pedagogical culture is
built around the delayed gratification model; children are told to learn this now because it will be
important in the future (Knowles, 1970). Further, they are often expected to simply trust their
educators on the future relevance of what they are learning (Knowles, 1990). With adults, there
is usually the expectation that what is learned will have immediate, clear, observable, and
measurable application to current needs (Knowles, 1990). It is frequently the opinion of adult
learners that what is learned must be directly relevant to the immediate (Knowles, 1970, 1990).
Orientation to learning. As an extension of the different assumptions about time
perspective, Knowles contended that pedagogy and andragogy take distinctly different
orientations to learning. Pedagogy is subject-centered; students are expected to accumulate
knowledge in particular disciplines, and these disciplines are often segmented in a way that gives
the appearance that learning on one subject is unrelated to learning on another subject (Knowles,
1970). Andragogy needs to be more integrative. Since adults learn better when instruction is
focused on a particular task or problem that has immediate relevance, it is often necessary and
productive to cross disciplinary boundaries and integrate information in a way that fulfills the
immediate needs for learning (Knowles, 1970, 1984, 1990).
Motivation. There is a substantial body of literature, dating both before and after
Knowles’ work, that examines human motivation. One particularly relevant concept is Deci and
Ryan’s (1985) conceptualization of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. While there are many
different types and sources of motivation, intrinsic motivation can be defined as “doing
something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable” and extrinsic motivation can be
defined as “doing something because it leads to a separable outcome” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.
55). In Knowles’ conceptualization, pedagogy assumes that children are motivated by extrinsic
forces. These rewards and punishments may take the form of grades, praise, shame, etc., the key
factor is that they are forces outside the individual (Knowles, 1984). Further, based on my
previous discussion of the pedagogical assumptions that a learner’s self-concept is primarily
oriented to an external locus of control, these outside forces are likely seen as at least somewhat
beyond the control of the learner. In other words, punishments and rewards are things that are
given or withheld by others. While adults are most certainly motivated to at least some degree by
extrinsic forces, such as salary or career advancement, they are also more motivated by intrinsic
forces than children (Knowles, 1984). Knowles (1984) felt that andragogy should take advantage
of an adult’s intrinsic motivators such as self-esteem, job satisfaction, ego, self-actualization, and
quality of life.
Diversity within groups of learners. While groups taught under a pedagogical model are
often assumed to be fairly homogonous, and often bureaucratically sorted into homogeneous
groups, adults typically have substantial individual differences, and may often be found in
groups where there is considerable diversity among learners (Knowles, 1984). This diversity
could take the form of readiness to learn, prior knowledge on the topic of instruction, different
life experiences, cultural differences, class differences, and the like (Knowles, 1990). It is
probably specious to assume that groups of children lack diversity, but regardless, Knowles
(1984) observed that assumption of homogeneity applied to adult learners. Andragogy suggests
that instruction needs to be individually adapted to diverse adult learners (Knowles, 1990).
Though it is not included in his original list of assumptions, I have added diversity within groups
of learners to Knowles’ list of assumptions. Originally Knowles examined the homogeneity of a
group of learners as being an aspect of “the role of learners’ experience” (Knowles, 1990, p. 59)
However, I feel that the diversity of a group is particularly significant. Learner diversity not only
impacts the experiences available from which an educator can draw, it also has important
impacts on the climate of a group, readiness to learn, and many other instructional design
elements. For that reason, I have separated out “diversity” as an additional assumption that
deserves as much attention as any other. Separating it out as an additional assumption is
consistent with Knowles’ thinking, and simply clarifies and extends the existing categories.
Further, separating out diversity as an additional assumption provides a foundation for my
addition of “individualization” (Knowles, 1990, p. 59) into Knowles’ instructional design
elements.
I have summarized Knowles’ work comparing and contrasting pedagogical assumptions versus
andragogical assumptions in Table 1.
Table 1
Contrasting the Assumptions of a Pedagogical Model to the Assumptions of an Andragogical
Model (Knowles, 1970, 1984, 1990; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999)
Self-concept
Experience
Readiness
Time perspective
Orientation to
learning
Motivation
Diversity within
group
Pedagogy
Children are dependent in
nature, and depend on an
instructor to direct their
activity. Learners take an
external locus of control
(Rotter, 1966).
Because they have limited life
experience there is little in
children’s background that can
be used as a foundation for
instruction.
Institutional standards set the
criteria for what a child should
be ready to learn, and they
become ready to learn what
they are told they must.
What is learned will be used
sometime in the future,
perhaps in the distant future.
Children accumulate
knowledge on a particular
subject matter or discipline.
Extrinsic forces (such as
grades) are primarily
responsible for a child’s desire
to learn.
Learners are fairly
homogeneous.
Andragogy
Adults are responsible for
themselves and their own
learning, and therefore want,
need, and seek self-direction.
Learners take a more internal
locus of control (Rotter, 1966).
Adults have substantial
background and life experiences
that can be drawn upon as the
basis of learning, and to enrich
and enliven instruction.
The life positions, social roles,
tasks, needs, and life problems
an adult faces, dictate the
individual’s readiness to learn.
Adults expect that their effort in
learning will have immediate,
observable, and measurable
application to their current
needs.
Adults learn better when
instruction is focused on a
particular task or problem.
Internal motivation provides a
stronger force for creating
learning than external
motivation.
Adults have developed
substantial individual
differences from one another.
Instructional Design Elements in Pedagogy versus Andragogy
Climate. Knowles stated that the pedagogical environment tends to be relatively formal,
traditionally fosters competitiveness, and is centered on formal authority. In fact, most
educational systems have embraced a particularly authoritarian style (Vygotsky, 1926/1997).
Andragogy asserts that this sort of climate is not conducive to learning (Knowles, 1970, 1984,
1990). Facilitators of adult learning must attend to both the physical environment as well as the
psychological environment; the climate most suited to adult learning, Knowles (1984) asserted,
is less formal, and should foster respect, collaboration, and mutuality.
Planning and formulation of objectives. Here I have combined “planning” (Knowles,
1990, p. 119) with “formulation of objectives” (Knowles, 1990, p. 119) into a single category
since they are closely related, usually occur simultaneously, and are not always clearly
distinguishable as separate elements in instructional design. Again, this is consistent with
Knowles’ thinking, and does nothing more than collapse and simplify his treatment of
instructional design. Pedagogically, the responsibility for preparation and for setting learning
outcomes normally rests almost exclusively with the instructor (Knowles, 1990). Andragogy, on
the other hand, must provide for mutual cooperation between instructors and students (Knowles,
1990). As much as possible, the instructional design should be established collaboratively, rather
than unilaterally (Knowles, 1984).
Diagnosis of needs. Typically it is one of the primary functions of the pedagogically
oriented educator to determine the needs of the learners. With limited diversity (or at least the
perception of limited diversity) on the part of the students, norms and standards are set for the
entire group of learners by the educator (Knowles, 1990). In andragogical terms, however, both
the instructor and the students should stand as equals, and collaboratively engage in mutual selfdiagnosis, thereby mutually diagnosing various needs for learning (Knowles, 1984, 1990).
Learners should be directly involved in determining their learning objectives, designing plans for
learning, executing their learning plans, and evaluating learning outcomes; learning plan
contracts can help to serve this function (Knowles, 1984).
Instructional design. Pedagogical instructional design is typically determined by what
best suits the subject matter; it is organized into “content units” (Knowles, 1990, p. 119). Content
units may not necessarily be the best way to organize instruction for adults, Knowles argued.
Since education is oriented toward individual student’s needs and readiness to learn, andragogy
suggests that instructional design is best sequenced into “problem units” where instruction is
organized around fulfilling a particular learning need (Knowles, 1990, p. 119).
Activities. Traditionally, pedagogy has been focused on a transmission model of
communication. As with traditional lecturing styles, the teacher sends instruction to students who
(apparently) wait passively for the message to arrive and receive and absorb it (Knowles, 1990).
Western systems of education have been strongly influenced by behaviorist ideology (Graham,
2002; Ormrod, 2004), and in translating that philosophy into classroom instruction, have become
particularly focused on an “injection model” where learning is seen as occurring when
knowledge is given by the instructor to the student. The view of andragogy is that because adults
want and need to be self-directing, more interactive and experiential techniques need to be used
in the educational process. In this way, instructors and students can collaborate mutually to
conduct inquiry and solve problems (Knowles, 1984, 1990).
Individualization. I have included the category of “individualization” (Knowles, 1990, p.
59), which was not one of Knowles’ original design elements. In his discussion of the role of
learners’ experiences, however, Knowles’ acknowledges the importance of instruction being
targeted toward a group of adults with “a wider range of individual differences than is the case
with a group of youths” (Knowles, 1990, p. 59). Knowles (1990) continued to posit that such
diversity creates a significant need for “emphasis in adult education on individualization of
teaching and learning strategies” (p. 59). Thus, just as “diversity” was a simple, consistent, and
necessary addition to Knowles’ list of adult-learning assumptions, “individualization” is an
important element to add to the list of instructional design elements. In pedagogical situations,
learners may be perceived as a relatively homogeneous group, making it feasible and appropriate
to conduct instruction en masse (Knowles, 1984, 1990). The idea of andragogical
individualization suggests that instruction needs to be adapted to a diverse group of learners; this
approach maximizes the need for both individualization of the instructional style and
individualization of the pacing of that instruction (Knowles, 1984, 1990).
Evaluation. Knowles observed that pedagogically oriented instructors see it as their
responsibility to establish the norms for what is to be learned and on what schedule. Therefore,
instructors evaluate their students in terms of the students’ conformity with the instructor’s
transmission of knowledge. Andragogy suggests that there be a continuing and mutual diagnosis
of needs by both the instructor and the students (Knowles, 1984, 1990). Further, there should
also be mutual and collaborative evaluation of the overall learning program conducted by all of
the participants, both learners and facilitators (Knowles, 1984, 1990).
Table 2 is a summary of Knowles’ ideas comparing and contrasting pedagogical instructional
design to andragogical instructional design.
Table 2
Critical Components of Instructional Design that Should Differ Between Pedagogical and
Andragogical Methods (Knowles, 1984, 1990)
Pedagogy
Andragogy
Climate
The classroom is formal,
A much less formal setting, the
focused on competition, and
environment should be one of
centered on an authority figure. respect, collaboration, and
mutuality.
Planning and
The responsibility for
There should be a provision for
formulation of
preparation and setting
mutual cooperation between
objectives
learning outcomes rests almost instructor and students in
exclusively on the instructor.
instructional design.
Diagnosis of needs
The instructor determines the
Both the instructor and the
needs of the learners.
students should be directly
involved in mutual selfdiagnosis
Instructional design Design of instruction is set
Instruction should be set in
primarily by what best suits the terms of the learners’ readiness,
subject matter, so instruction
so it is best sequenced as
happens in “content units.”
“problem units.”
Activities
Instruction is primarily an
Because adults need to be selfinstructor to student
directing, more experiential
transmission; focus on
techniques should be utilized,
traditional lecture.
where instructors and students
mutually collaborate to conduct
inquiry and solve problems.
Individualization
Learners are in relatively
Instruction must be adapted to a
homogeneous groups, so
diverse group of learners,
instruction can be conducted
maximizing the need for
en masse.
individualization of the style
and pacing of instruction.
Evaluation
Instructors evaluate their
There should be a continuing
students in terms of the
diagnosis of needs by both
students’ conformity with the
instructor and students, and
instructor’s transmission of
mutual evaluation of the overall
knowledge.
learning program.
Heuristic Value and Validity
Knowles’ theory of andragogy has had substantial heuristic value in serving as the genesis
of continued research and theory building. A variety of other learning theorists have built upon
Knowles’ foundation to advance and develop this theory of andragogy. Cross (1981), for
example, developed an extensive treatment of the “characteristics of adult learners” (p. 235) that
enhances Knowles’ model by focusing more comprehensively on the personal and situational
characteristics of adult learners. She developed a significant, pragmatic “framework for thinking
about what and how adults learn” (Cross, 1981, p. 248). Kolb (1984) synthesized a considerable
amount of constructivist learning theory from scholars such as Dewey (1938) and extended this
thinking into a comprehensive model of adult learning. Kolb’s work in examining experiential
learning in relationship to human development is a significant contribution to the understanding
of andragogy. Finally, Merriam and Caffarella (1999) named McClusky, Knox, and Jarvis each
as individually making significant contributions to the literature on adult learning but noted that
considerable work still remains to fully understand and test adult learning behavior (p. 287).