I'm in Historical Analysis hell and nothing else is on my radar right now. In fact, I think I'm going to use this blog to spew forth my opinions about what I've read, which I have to keep firmly locked away as I write my academic paper.
I've been exploring the history of andragogy, and oh boy, isn't this the theory everyone loves to hate. Almost every article acknowledges that it has become one of the best loved theories for adult educators in the field, and then they go on to say that there's a "dearth" of research to test it's effectiveness and many of its assumptions are flawed. Now, I don't mind practitioners and theorists taking a critical stance, but they do all seem to have missed the point a little to my mind.
In one of the earliest descriptions of Andragogy (Knowles, 1970), Malcolm Knowles (viewed as the father of andragogy in the USA) goes to great pains to point out that he is not writing a "how-to" for teaching adults, but is instead attempting to engage in "dialogue" with us adult educators who are interested in andragogy. He further goes on to say that people should not read the book looking for "truth", but should instead treat it as a framework from which they can "compare and test your own ideas" (p. 15). It therefore seems in-congruent to me that people should even attempt to test andragogy quantitatively.
Of course, empirically testing a theory like andragogy is near impossible, not least because andragogical classes shouldn't have the kind of outcomes that can easily be evaluated, like tests. My biggest problem with many of the studies I have read are in their definitions of "adult learners" - until you have 'adult' clearly defined, and you can be sure you're following Knowles' definition of adult, you have a weak study in my opinion, although little mention is made of this in the literature.
Finally I am a little shocked at how many studies, even in recent years, cite Knowles' original assumptions about Andragogy published in 1970, or indeed his update in 1980. Since then Knowles updated his assumptions and models at least once more, but this is rarely acknowledged in the literature.
While the articles I have read on this have been full of criticism for andragogy, and I even took this on board when I described the theory as being a 'little passe' during my presentation in class a few weeks ago, I actually still feel that it is a valuable theory and model to use in adult education. Instead of concentrating on the areas that I may not 100% agree with, I will read the updates Knowles and his followers added to the theory to see if my issues are addressed, and then I will take Knowles' original advice and approach andragogy with a "gentle skepticism" and test his assumptions against my own experiences and "adopt those that make sense" to me (p. 16).
Knowles, M. (1970) The Modern Practice of Adult Education.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rach, as always you're post is thought provoking. One thought that I had was how specifically contextual adult education is. Unlike public k-12 there are really varied and non-uniform standards depending upon the level of education the adult is participating in. There are basic literacy classes, GED classes, non-traditional degree seeking students, and community classes, to name a few. One would be hard pressed to find an all-encompassing theory to include all adult learners. I give Knowles great credit for founding his theory in the 70s and 80s. I think that YOU should (and could!) formulate a theory for the new millenium!
ReplyDeleteEven though you were in Historical Analysis hell, this post really shows you’re critically examining andragogy and it was fascinating to read, Rach. I’m left wondering how you feel now after doing more readings? Did you make any adoptions to the theory based on your own experiences? I’d also be excited to see how has your thinking evolves after the teaching experience your will have this summer. :))
ReplyDelete