This week for EDTECH 522 we had to read through our text and accompanying readings and respond to two questions. Please see my questions and responses below.
Question
What are the primary criticisms of andragogy and where do you stand on the issue(s)?
Andragogy refers to the assumptions set forth by Knowles regarding how adult learners differ from how children learn. As Connor (2004) stated, "andragogy is referred to learner-focused education, whereas pedagogy is referred to as teacher-focused education". The main tenet of andragogy is that adult learners are self-directed and come to learning events with prior knowledge, experience, and therefore, have a different motivation to learn. Knowles originally termed andragogy as the science of adult learning, but later revised this terminology to assumptions because of criticism (Taylor & Kroth, 2009). The main criticism spurring this change was the lack of empirical evidence or data to sufficiently classify this philosophy as scientific fact. Simply because the nature of this theory is difficult to accurately measure definitively the assumptions put forth by Knowles. Factors contributing to this main criticism are whether andragogy is a theory or adult learning, and there is not a clear meaning as to what constitutes effective practice. Also there is difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of the theory as this traditionally as been accomplished through exams and grades, whereas these methods of measurement are a contradiction to the theory itself. And lastly andragogy assumes that characteristics of this theory are only applicable to adults and not children (Taylor & Kroth, 2009). These are all valid criticisms.
One thing I would challenge these criticisms is that most studies are being performed in an educational setting and are missing the opportunity to tap into the private sector where the representation of an adult learner might be more pure to the definition of an adult learner. From working in a corporate L&D department I would agree with the assumptions put forth by Knowles. And even in my own experience as a learner in corporate and educational contexts, I have found that those instances where andragogy theories were implemented in the course design were more effective than those classes where pedagogy theories were used. I agree that adult learners sometimes come to a learning experience with more knowledge than the instructors. This is extremely true in my work environment. Our L&D consultants are not experts on conducting sales calls or how to prepare a proposal for a client, however, their role in the training they conduct is to facilitate and help employees discover greater knowledge about their role and to expand their skills. The learning event is learner-focused. I also understand the challenge of measuring the effectiveness of andragogy theories. In our work we struggle to quantify the return on investment (ROI) to our business leaders, as there is rarely a direct correlation between a learning event and a measurable outcome. Often times it's more a behavioral change that is measured as opposed to a measurable increase in sales. But measuring behavioral change is a challenge as evaluations need to be conducted before, during and after the learning event and the data collected can be subjective. There is no hard data.
Lastly, from my own experience as a learner I have had one class during my time undertaking this degree where it was clear pedagogy theories were used as opposed to andragogy theories. This was my least enjoyable class and my motivation and learning experience changed during this class as the respect for our prior knowledge and skills was ignored. My motivation became simply to complete the coursework but not to actually understand the content. I missed out on a deeper learning experience because of the course design. I believe at the graduate level and in a corporate setting, the assumption should be made that learners are self-directed and instructional designers should develop courses based on this while still incorporating the different levels of self-directedness as outlined by Stavredes (2011). I wholeheartedly agree with one of the criticisms in that instructors cannot assume that children lack the ability to be self-directed. Some of the assumptions of andragogy should also be incorporated into pedagogy theories for children who respond better to different types of learning. The main take away from this should be that in the design of learning there is not a one size fits all approach. The challenge for instructional designers is to try to incorporate components that will engage all learners regardless of their level of self-directedness.
Question
Where are you on the Grow's Staged Self-Directed Learning Model described in Stavredes (2011)? What is the implication of this model for you as an online teacher?
While Knowles assumptions regarding adult learners provides a high level overview of how and why adults learn there needs to be a deeper exploration to these assumptions. Grow's Staged Self-Directed Learning model supports these assumptions by looking at the attributes of learner's motivation, life experience and self-directedness (Stavredes, 2011). There are four stages Grow outlines in this model. Stage 1 is the dependent learner who has little prior knowledge, is unsure of the focus of their learning, and has little motivation and self-confidence. Stage 2 learners are interested learners who may have little prior knowledge but are motivated to learn. Stage 3 represents involved learners who have some skill and knowledge of the topic and are motivated to learn. Stage 4 learners are self-directed and have prior knowledge, are motivated, know what needs to be accomplished, and feel confident they can achieve their objectives.
When I look at myself in light of this model I would place myself between stages 3 and 4. I do have prior knowledge of this subject through my work experience, I know what I want to achieve out of this course and feel confident I can achieve the objectives. However, I am curious and do like some direction from the course instructor to guide my learning. I also appreciate the opportunity to work independently but also enjoy sharing my experiences with others.
As an online teacher this model challenges us to make sure when we develop courses we need to ensure the design encompasses learners at each of the different stages. While I personally sit between stage 3 and 4, the courses I design will have learners in all stages. Certain activities such as working alone on a project might appeal to me, however, other learners may need more interaction and discussion with others in the course to have a meaningful learning experience. As a course developer all stages need to be addressed by providing a variety of interactions and projects that allow stage 1 to stage 4 learners to become engaged in the learning experience regardless of where they sit in the model. As an instructor my interactions with learners in the course also need to change based on the learners. Providing opportunities for questions and making sure expectations for interactions and projects are clear will help facilitate a positive learning experience for everyone. We must remember that a one size fits all approach will not be effective and therefore we must design the course projects and interactions accordingly.
References:
Stavredes, T. (2011). Effective online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, B., & Kroth, M. (2009) Andragogy's transition into the future: Meta-analysis of andragogy and its search for a measurable instrument. Journal of Adult Education, Vol 38, Number 1.
No comments:
Post a Comment