Andragogy is a theory of learning as learning applies to adults rather than children (pedagogy). According to Malcolm Knowles, there are 6 key components of adult education.
- Adults need to know the reason for learning something (Need to Know)
- Experience (including error) provides the basis for learning activities (Foundation).
- Adults need to be responsible for their decisions on education; involvement in the planning and evaluation of their instruction (Self-concept).
- Adults are most interested in learning subjects having immediate relevance to their work and/or personal lives (Readiness).
- Adult learning is problem-centered rather than content-oriented (Orientation).
- Adults respond better to internal versus external motivators (Motivation).
I fail to see how these six things are not also true for children.
The objects that adults produce as part of their learning should be different than the objects children produce. Adults don’t need to create posters (although this may still be a valuable learning experience depending on the context) at the same rate that children do during their learning.
Adults have some different external concerns (children, job, home, etc…) than do children that sometimes interfere with their ability to learn in a classroom setting, but these concerns are just different than the concerns of children, they are no less important to the learner.
Adults come to their learning with more experiences than children, and this may make any unlearning (if necessary) more challenging for them, but the fundamental process through which they learn should be significantly similar to the process children go through.
The primary difference I see between adult learning and children learning is how much power they are granted during their learning.
Andrew LeBlanc says:
As an adult high school educator and a former regular high school teacher I bump up against andragogy versus pedagogy semantics all the time. When I first starting teaching adults and in my interview for the job I was constantly asked how I’ll do things differently now that I teach adults. After 7 years the answer is, not much. I had great role models while a student teacher and also as a young high school teacher. The people I worked with respected their students and treated them exactly like Malcolm Knowles says we should treat adults. There are some differences, of course, but they are no greater than the differences between students of the same age in any classroom. I prefer the term “anthrogogy” to either andragogy or pedagogy now that I have done both and seen first hand the universality of Education and good teaching.
January 10, 2013 — 12:25 pm
Tim Frodsham says:
David,
When Malcom Knowles penned his theory of adult learning, I do not think he meant it to be exclusive to children. On point one, I think Knowles should have rephrased this as “Adults demand to know the reason for learning something.” Children need to know as well, but they do not demand to know before learning. This is a point in favor of the children. There are times when I wish my adult math students had a childlike sense of wonder and exploration.
Another difference is point four. Children do not necessarily demand to know the relevance of what they are learning, another point in their favor. Your previous post on a mathematicians lament is relevant here. Children are so much better at “wondering, playing, amusing yourself with your imagination.”
When I work with children, my goal is to help them gain the experience of adult learners without destroying the curiosity and enthusiasm of the child.
January 11, 2013 — 11:21 am
Chris Wejr says:
Thanks for bringing another important topic out there. In my masters program, it was a bit of a joke that an 18 year old had very little say in their education and a 19 year was “adult ed” and had way more say… And did not have to do much of the “stuff” that lacked relevance. I wonder if andragogy should filter down into high school AND true primary pedagogy should filter up. A hybrid of relevance from andragogy and wonderment from primary pedagogy may be where we need to move.
January 12, 2013 — 12:32 pm
Stephen Hurley says:
Hi David,
I was thrilled to find this entry this morning, just as I had finished reading a piece from a clinical law journal about “disorienting moments”. In that article by Fran Quigley, the work of Malcolm Knowles is referenced in some detail. I first ran across Knowles’ work back in the mid-90’s when our district was preparing a strategy through which to support teachers in their use of technology. At that time, I remember having this same type of conversation: “What is the difference between ideal adult learning conditions and ideal learning conditions for younger learners?”
I tend to think that learning conditions are relatively the same. What I have come to realize and experience in my own teaching that there is a sense in which schools aren’t always open to supporting the ideal learning conditions for young people.
I also suspect that Knowles’ work is based on the idea that adults arrive “to the classroom” in a substantially different context: their presence is more voluntary than that of children; their cognitive perspective (Quigley) is, in most cases, more sophisticated; and, connected to the first, motivation is greater, usually spurred on the immediate relevance and perceived value of the work that they are undertaking.
My question is how can we think about the contextual shift necessary to really (and not just theoretically) claim that the lines between andragogy and pedagogy are a little more blurry than we might think.
I’m appreciating the comments by all here! (If any of these reflections seem a little scattered, its because I’m cooking, drinking a little wine and struggling to help my 5 year-old son, Luke, gain a little more independence with the building of his new lego police station.
January 13, 2013 — 2:24 pm