Andragogy in Practice: Clarifying the Andragogical Model...

118 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(1) pp. 118-143Andragogy in Practice: Clarifying the AndragogicalModel of Adult Learning

Elwood F. Holton, IIILouisiana State University

Richard A. SwansonUniversity of Minnesota

Sharon S. NaquinLouisiana State University

ABSTRACT

The andragogical model has stoodfor many years as a central model ofadult learning. The purpose of thisarticle is to offer a fresh look at certainaspects of andragogy that are impor-tant for performance improvementprofessionals as well as other adulteducators. More specifically, the ob-jectives are to clarify the current stateof the andragogical principles, ad-dress certain key issues in usingandragogy in practice, and offer a

clearer framework for adaptingandragogy to different practice condi-tions. An expanded model, Andragogyin Practice, is offered that more explic-itly accounts for factors that must beconsidered in shaping andragogy to fitthe learning situation. An analysisframework called andragogical learneranalysis is also offered to utilize theandragogy model in practice duringneeds assessment and curriculum de-velopment.

One area of expertise needed byperformance improvement profes-sionals is an understanding of learn-ing theory (Brethower, 1995; Gay-eski, 1995; Stolovitch, Keeps, &Rodrigue, 1995). More specifically,they need a clear understanding ofadult learning theory for situationsin which the proper performance im-provement intervention is trainingor learning. Yet only limited atten-tion has been paid to adult learningin the performance improvement lit-erature. Because improving perfor-mance still relies on developing indi-vidual adults’ expertise through

learning in many cases, it is impor-tant to have a complete and up-to-date understanding of adult learningtheory. This article provides a freshlook at one adult learning perspec-tive–andragogy–and considers somecore issues that are relevant to per-formance improvement practitionersas well as other adult educators.

In the late 1960s when Knowles(1968) introduced andragogy in theUnited States, the idea wasgroundbreaking and sparked muchsubsequent research and contro-versy. Since the earliest days, adulteducators have debated what

1

VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1/2001 119

andragogy really is (Henschke,1998). Spurred in part by the needfor a defining theory within the fieldof adult education, andragogy hasbeen extensively analyzed and cri-tiqued. It has been alternately de-scribed as a set of guidelines (Mer-riam, 1993), a philosophy (Pratt,1993), and a set of assumptions(Brookfield, 1986). Davenport andDavenport (1985) note that andra-gogy has been called a theory of adultlearning/education, a method ortechnique of adult education, and aset of assumptions about adult learn-ers. The disparity of these positionsis indicative of the perplexing natureof andragogy. But regardless of whatit is called, “it is an honest attempt tofocus on the learner. In this sense, itdoes provide an alternative to themethodology-centered instructionaldesign perspective” (Feur & Gerber,1988).

Despite years of critique, debate,and challenge, the core principles ofadult learning advanced by andra-gogy have endured (Davenport &Davenport, 1985; Hartree, 1984;Pratt, 1988), and few adult learningscholars would disagree with the ob-servation that Knowles’ ideassparked a revolution in adult educa-tion and training (Feur & Gerber,1988). Brookfield (1986), positing asimilar view, asserts that andragogyis the “single most popular idea in theeducation and training of adults.”Adult educators and performanceimprovement professionals, particu-larly beginning ones, find them in-valuable in shaping the learning pro-cess to be more effective with adults.

The andragogical model has un-dergone a variety of refinements,some explicitly incorporated into themodel and others as variations in

practice. The purpose of this article isto offer a fresh look at certain aspectsof andragogy. More specifically, theobjectives are to:

1) Clarify the current state of theandragogical principles.

2) Address certain key issues for us-ing andragogy in practice.

3) Offer a clearer framework foradapting andragogy to differentpractice conditions.

It is not our intent to reignite orrehash earlier debates (e.g., Daven-port & Davenport, 1985), review theentire history of andragogy, or at-tempt to proclaim it again as theuniversal model of adult education.We do believe that there are someimportant issues that need to beclarified and discussed from a differ-ent perspective than has previouslyoccurred in other literature. In doingso, we believe andragogy can becomemore useful to a broader array ofpractitioners, including performanceimprovement professionals.

Clarifying the CoreAndragogical Model

Popularized by Knowles (1968),the original andragogical model pre-sents core principles of adult learn-ing and important assumptionsabout adult learners. These coreprinciples of adult learning are be-lieved to enable those designing andconducting adult learning to designmore effective learning processes foradults. The model is a transactionalmodel (Brookfield, 1986) in that itspeaks to the characteristics of thelearning transaction. As such, it isapplicable to any adult learningtransaction, from community educa-


tion to human resource developmentin organizations.

Depending on which citation isconsulted, various authors presentandragogy in different ways. Accord-ingly, it has often been difficult toascertain both the number and con-tent of the core assumptions ofandragogy. This difficulty stemsfrom the fact that the number ofandragogical principles has grownfrom 4 to 6 over the years as Knowlesrefined his thinking (Knowles, 1989).In addition, many authors still seemto prefer to use Knowles (1980) as thecore citation for his andra-gogical as-sumptions, despite the fact that heupdated the list twice since then. Theaddition of assumptions and the dis-crepancy in the number cited in theliterature has led to some confusion.

Figure 1 shows the six principles(or assumptions) of the currentmodel, as well as the ones cited inprevious works. As the figure indi-cates, andragogy was originally pre-sented with 4 assumptions, numbers2 to 5 (Knowles 1980, 1978, 1975).These first four assumptions aresimilar to Lindeman’s (1926) fourassumptions about adult education,although there is no evidence thatKnowles obtained his early formula-tion of andragogy directly fromLindeman (Knowles, Holton, Swan-son, 1998; Stewart, 1987). Assump-tion number 6, motivation to learn,was added in 1984 (Knowles, 1984a)and assumption number 1, the needto know, was added in more recentyears (Knowles, 1987, 1989, 1990).

Thus, today there are six core as-sumptions or principles of andragogy(Knowles et al., 1998):

1) Adults need to know why theyneed to learn something before

learning it.2) The self-concept of adults is

heavily dependent upon a movetoward self-direction.

3) Prior experiences of the learn-erprovide a rich resource for learn-ing

4) Adults typically become ready tolearn when they experience aneed to cope with a life situationor perform a task.

5) Adults’ orientation to learning islife-centered, and they see educa-tion as a process of developingincreased competency levels toachieve their full potential.

6) The motivation for adult learnersis internal rather than external.

These core principles provide asound foundation for planning adultlearning experiences. Absent anyother information, they offer an ef-fective approach to adult learning.See Table 1.

The second part of the andra-gogical model is what Knowles(1984a, 1995) called the andragogi-cal process design, steps for creatingadult learning experiences. Origi-nally, Knowles presented these asseven steps (Knowles 1984a, 1990).Recently, he added a new first step,preparing learners for the program,which brought the total to eight steps(Knowles, 1995):

1) Preparing learners for the pro-gram.

2) Establishing a climate conduciveto learning.

3) Involving learners in mutualplanning.

4) Involving participants in diagnos-ing their learning needs.

5) Involving learners in formingtheir learning objectives.


Figure 1. Andragogy in Practice Model

ANDRAGOGY IN PRACTICE(Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 1998)

Andragogy:Core Adult Learning Principles

Individual and Situational Differences

Goals and Purposes for Learning

Individual Growth

Individual Learner Differences

1 Learner’s Need to Know- why- what- how

2 Self-Concept of the Learner

- autonomous- self-directing

3 Prior Experience of the Learner

- resource - mental models

4 Readiness to Learn- life related- developmental task

5 Orientation to Learning

- problem centered- contextual

6 Motivation to Learn

- intrinsic value - personal payoff

Situ

ational D

ifferences

Societal G

rowth

Su

bjec

t M

atte

r D

iffe

ren

ces

Inst

itu

ion

al G

row

th


Tab

le 1

Ch

ange

s in

Cor

e A

nd

rago

gica

l P

rin

cip

les

The A

dult

Learn

er

(5th

ed.,

Know

les,

Holt

on, &

Sw

anso

n,

1998)

Adult

Learn

er

(4th

ed.,

Know

les,

1990)

Makin

g o

f

an A

dult

Educato

r

(Know

les,

1989)

Adult

Learn

er

(3rd

ed.,

Know

les,

1984)

Andra

gogy

in A

cti

on

(Know

les,

1984)

Modern

Pra

cti

ce o

fA

dult

Educati

on

(2nd ed.,

Know

les,

1980)

Adult

Learn

er

(2nd ed.,

Know

les,

1978)

Need t

o K

now

""""

""""

""""

""""

Learn

er

Self

-

Concept

(self

-

dir

ecte

d)

""""""""

""""""""

""""""""

""""

Learn

er'

s

Experi

ence

""""""""

""""""""

""""""""

""""

Readin

ess

to

Learn

(li

fe

task

s)

""""""""

""""""""

""""""""

""""

Ori

enta

tion t

oL

earn

ing

(pro

ble

m-

cente

red)

""""""""

""""""""

""""""""

""""

Moti

vati

on t

o

Learn

(inte

rnal)

""""""""

""""""""


6) Involving learners in designinglearning plans.

7) Helping learners carry out theirlearning plans.

8) Involving learners in evaluatingtheir learning outcomes.

The significance of the secondpart of the andragogical model forthis discussion is that it emphasizesthat Knowles’ conception of theandragogical model focused prima-rily on the learning process andlearning transactions. Table 2 showsthe andragogical process elements aspresented by Knowles (1990) andupdated by Knowles (1995).

An Individual-Transactional Framework

Some of the sharpest criticism ofandragogy has come from theoristsoperating from a critical philosophi-cal perspective. Grace (1996), for ex-ample, criticizes andragogy for focus-ing solely on the individual and notoperating from a critical socialagenda or debating the relationshipof adult education to society. Cross(1981, p. 227) concluded, “Whetherandragogy can serve as the founda-

rated with the ideals of individual-ism and entrepreneurial democracy.Societal change may be a by-productof individual change, but it is not theprimary goal of andragogy” (Pratt,1993, p. 21).

Andragogy’s critics are correct insaying that andragogy does not ex-plicitly and exclusively embrace out-comes such as social change and criti-cal theory, but they are incorrect inthinking that it should. Knowles(1989, 1990) and others (Darken-wald & Merriam, 1982; Grace, 1996;Merriam & Brockett, 1997) clearlyidentify andragogy as being rooted inhumanistic and pragmatic philoso-phy. The humanistic perspective, re-flected by the influence of Maslowand Rogers (Knowles, 1989), is pri-marily concerned with the self-actu-alization of the individual. The prag-matic philosophy, reflected in the in-fluence of Dewey (1938) and Linde-man (1926) on Knowles, valuedknowledge gained from experiencerather than from formal authority(Merriam & Brockett, 1997).

It is easy to see from its philo-sophical roots that andragogy is anindividual-transactional model ofadult learning (Brookfield, 1986).The philosophies of pragmatism, be-haviorism, humanism, and construc-tivism focus most of their assump-tions on two dimensions: the learnerand the learning transaction. Criti-cal theory, however, is much moreconcerned with the outcomes oflearning, namely social change(Merriam & Brockett, 1997).Knowles implicitly acknowledgedthis tension when he wrote of thephilosophical debates between 1926and 1948, with “one side holding thatthis goal [for adult education] shouldbe the improvement of individuals,

tion for a unifying theory of adulteducation remains to be seen.” Oth-ers have pushed for adult learningtheory to reach beyond the teaching-learning transaction to encompasssome elements of desired outcomes.Most prominent of these include per-spective transformation (Mezirow,1991) and a critical paradigm of self-directed learning (Brookfield, 1984b,1987). Pratt (1993) also criticizesandragogy for not adopting a criticalparadigm of adult learning. He con-cludes: “Clearly andragogy is satu-


Table 2Process Elements of Andragogy

Process Elements

Element Andragogical Approach

Preparing Learners Provide information

Prepare for participation

Help develop realistic expectations

Begin thinking about content

Climate Relaxed, trusting

Mutually respectful

Informal, warm

Collaborative, supportive

Planning Mutually by learners and facilitator

Diagnosis of Needs By mutual assessment

Setting of Objectives By mutual negotiation

Designing Learning Plans Learning contracts

Learning projects

Sequenced by readiness

Learning Activities Inquiry projects

Independent study

Experiential techniques

Evaluation Be learner-collected evidence validated by peers,

facilitators, and experts.

Criterion referenced.

Developed from Knowles (1992) and Knowles (1995)


and the other holding that it shouldbe the improvement of society(Knowles, 1990, p. 44).

Our view is that Knowles nev-erintended for andragogy to be a theoryof the discipline of adult education asit is defined by the critical theorists,or any of its sub-fields, for that mat-ter. Attempts to embed the specificgoals and purposes of any sub-fieldinto the andragogical model of adultlearning are conceptually and philo-sophically flawed. Adult learning oc-curs in many settings for many dif-ferent reasons. Andragogy is a trans-actional model of adult learning thatis designed to transcend specific ap-plications and situations. Adult edu-cation is but one field of applicationin which adult learning occurs. Oth-ers might include organizational hu-man resource development, highereducation, or any other arena inwhich adult learning occurs.

Furthermore, adult education is avery diverse discipline with littleagreement as to its definition. Forexample, many definitions of adulteducation would incorporate humanresource development (HRD) as asub-field, but few definitions of HRDlabel it as such. Each sub-field en-gaged in adult learning has its ownphilosophical foundations regardingthe role of education in society andthe desired outcomes from educa-tional activities for adults (Dark-enwald & Merri-am, 1982; Merri-am& Brockett, 1997). For example, inHRD, critical theory is only one ofseveral theoretical frames. Unfortu-nately, andra-gogy has been cri-tiqued mostly through the criticalphilosophical lens, which is only onesub-field interested in a particulartype of adult learning.

The debates about the ends andpurposes of adult learning events areimportant and vital but should beseparated from debates about mod-els of the adult learning process.There are real issues that each arenaof adult education must debate andcarefully consider. Our point is thatthose issues are not, and were neverintended to be, part of andragogy. So,for example, scholars might debatewhether organizational HRD shouldbe approached from a critical theoryor a performance perspective—butthat is not a debate about andragogy.We suggest that these criticisms aremore relevant to why adult learningevents or programs are conducted(i.e., their desired outcomes) than tohow the adult learning transactionoccurs, which is the more central con-cern of andragogy. Andragogy maynot be a defining theory of any sub-field of adult education.

It is important to note thatandragogy also does not prohibitcombining it with other theories thatspeak to the goals and purposes. Wenow know that andragogy can beembedded within many differentsets of goals and purposes, each ofwhich may affect the learning pro-cess differently. So, for example, onecould engage in adult learning for thepurpose of social change (criticaltheory) and use an andragogical ap-proach to adult learning. Similarly,one could engage in adult learningfor performance improvement in anorganization (performance/humancapital theory) and use an andra-gogical approach.

To the extent that critical theoryhas become the predominant para-digm among adult education re-searchers, prior criticisms of andra-


gogy point to missing elements thatkeep it from being a defining theoryof the discipline of adult education(Davenport & Davenport, 1985;Grace, 1996; Hartree, 1984), not ofadult learning. Merriam andBrockett (1997, p. 5) note that,“Adult education can be distin-guished from adult learning, and in-deed, it is important to do so whentrying to arrive at a comprehensiveunderstanding ofadult education.”Knowles mayhave invited thisconfusion withhis statements inearly works thatandragogy mightprovide a unify-ing theory foradult educationor for all of educa-tion (Knowles,1973, 1978), astance which hehas since softened (Knowles, 1989).

bate about andragogy has been con-founded by conflicting philosophicalviews about adult education. It isunfortunate that andragogy has notbeen as heavily critiqued and re-searched from other philosophicalperspectives, as it may well be moreappropriate when viewed throughother philosophical lenses.

There are other theories that aresimilarly neutral to goals and pur-

poses. Consider,for instance, KurtLewin’s (1951)t h r e e - s t a g etheory of change( u n f r e e z i n g —movement—re-freezing) that haslong stood as onecornerstone of or-ganization devel-opment theory.His theory alsodoes not debatethe ends or means

of any particular type of change butrather simply focuses on the changeprocess. We could criticize Lewin’stheory because it does not embracethe goals of reengineering or of egali-tarian corporate structures, for ex-ample, but it would be violating theboundaries of the theory. As Dubin(1969) notes, one critical componentof any theory building effort is todefine the boundaries of the theory.It seems that much of the criticism ofandragogy has come from attemptsto make it become more than it wasintended to be, particularly withinthe adult education scholarly com-munity. Such efforts violated theboundaries of the theory and re-sulted in confusion and frustration.

Knowles (1980, p. 26) conceptionof “adult education” was broad. His

Andragogy is atransactionalmodel of adult

learning that isdesigned to

transcend specificapplications and

situations.

A Dynamic View ofAndragogy

That andragogy does not speak toall possible goals and purposes oflearning is not a weakness but astrength because andragogy canthen transcend arenas of applica-tion. Ironically, by focusing andra-gogy more narrowly on its originalintent, it may become stronger andmore versatile, though incomplete asa full description of adult learning inall situations. We recognize thatcritical theorists would likely dis-agree because they have a particularworldview that emphasizes adulteducation for a certain purpose. AsPodeschi (1987) points out, the de-


definition of an adult educator was“one who has responsibility for help-ing adults to learn.” He also notedthat there were at least three mean-ings of the term “adult education”(Knowles, 1980). One meaning was abroad one to describe the process ofadult learning. A more technicalmeaning, he suggested, was of adulteducation as an organized set of ac-tivities to accomplish a set of educa-tional objectives. Finally, a thirdmeaning was a combination of thetwo into a movement or a field ofsocial practice. In his examples, helisted everyone in what we wouldtoday call adult education, humanresource development, communitydevelopment, higher education, ex-tension, library educators–andmore. It seems clear that he intendedfor andragogy to be applicable to alladult learning environments.

Integrated System orFlexible Assumptions?In early works, Knowles pre-

sented andragogy as an integratedset of assumptions. However,through the years of experimenta-tion, it now seems that the power ofandragogy lies in its potential formore flexible application. As othershave noted (Brookfield, 1986, Feuer& Geber, 1988; Pratt, 1998), over theyears the assumptions becameviewed by some practitioners assomewhat of a recipe, implying thatall adult educators should facilitatethe same in all situations. There isclear evidence that Knowles in-tended for them to be viewed as flex-ible assumptions to be altered de-pending on the situation. For ex-ample, Knowles (1979, 52-53) statedearly on:

My intention, therefore, was topresent an alternative set of as-sumptions to those that had beentraditionally made by teachers ofchildren so that others would haveanother choice. I saw them as as-sumptions to be tested (not to bepresumed), so that if a pedagogicalassumption was the realistic condi-tion in a given situation, then peda-gogical strategies would be appro-priate. For example, if I were now,at age 66, to undertake to learn abody of totally strange content (forexample, the higher mathematics ofnuclear physics), I would be a to-tally dependent learner. I wouldhave very little previous experienceto build on, I probably would have alow degree of readiness to learn it,and I don’t know what developmen-tal task I would be preparing for.The assumptions of pedagogywould be realistic in this situation,and pedagogical strategies wouldbe appropriate.

I would like to make one caveatto this proposition, though: an ideo-logical pedagogue would want tokeep me dependent on a teacher,whereas a true andragogue wouldwant to do everything possible toprovide me with whatever founda-tional content I would need andthen encourage me to take increas-ing initiative in the process of fur-ther inquiry.

Knowles (1984b, p. 418) reiter-ated this point in the conclusion tohis casebook examining 36 applica-tions of andragogy. He noted that hehad spent two decades experiment-ing with andragogy and had reachedcertain conclusions. Among themwere:

1)The andra-gogical model is asystem of elements that can beadopted or adapted in whole or in


It seems clear thatKnowles alwaysknew, and then

confirmed throughuse, that andragogycould be utilized in

many differentways and would

have to be adaptedto fit individual

situations.

a result, the andragogical assump-tions about adults have been criti-cized for appearing to claim to fit allsituations or persons (Davenport,1987; Davenport & Davenport, 1985;Day & Baskett, 1982; Elias, 1979;Hartree, 1984; Tennant, 1986).While a more careful read ofKnowles’ work shows he did not be-lieve this, andragogy is nonethelessopen to this criticism because it failsto account explicitly for the differ-

ences. Because ofthe conceptualu n c e r t a i n t y ,Merriam andCaffarella (1999,p. 20) go so far asto say, “Andra-gogy now appearsto be situation-specific and notunique to adults.”

Several re-searchers have of-fered alternativecontingency mod-els in an effort toaccount for thevariations inadult learning

situations. For example, Pratt (1988)proposed a useful model of how theadult’s life situation not only affectsher or his readiness to learn but alsohis or her readiness for andragogical-type learning experiences. He recog-nized that most learning experiencesare highly situational and that alearner may exhibit very differentbehaviors in different learning situa-tions. For example, it is entirelylikely that a learner may be highlyconfident and self-directed in onerealm of learning but very dependentand unsure in another. Heoperationalized this by identifying

part. It is not an ideology that mustbe applied totally and withoutmodification. In fact, an essentialfeature of andragogy is flexibility.

2) The appropriate startingpoint and strategies for applyingthe andragogical model depend onthe situation.

More recently, Knowles (1989, p.112) stated in his autobiography:

So I accept (and glory in) thecriticism that Iam a philosophi-cal eclectic orsituational istwho applies hisphi losophica lbeliefs differen-tially to differ-ent situations. Isee myself as be-ing free from anysingle ideologi-cal dogma, andso I don’t fitneatly into anyof the categoriesphilosophers of-ten want to boxpeople in.

He further sta-ted that “what this means in practiceis that we educators now have theresponsibility to check out which as-sumptions are realistic in a givensituation” (Knowles, 1990, p. 64).

It seems clear that Knowles al-ways knew, and then confirmedthrough use, that andragogy could beutilized in many different ways andwould have to be adapted to fit indi-vidual situations. Unfortunately,Knowles never offered a systematicframework of factors that should beconsidered when determining whichassumptions are realistic in order toadapt andragogy to the situation. As


two core dimensions within whichadults vary in each learning situa-tion: direction and support. Cross’s(1981) Characteristics of AdultLearners (CAL) model also embodieda range of individual characteristicsas well as some situational charac-teristics. Pratt (1998) discusses fivedifferent perspectives on teachingbased on an international study of253 teachers of adults. Grow (1991)also offered a contingency frame-work for self-directed learning.

These and others were attackingthe same problem: the need for acontingency framework that avoids a“one size fits all” approach and offersclearer guidance to adult educators.It seems clear that this is one area inwhich andragogy has been weakest,though experienced users learned tomodify it as needed. There seems tobe a need to clarify andragogy fur-ther by taking into account more ex-plicitly key factors that affect theapplication of andragogical prin-ciples. A more complete andragogicalmodel of practice should direct usersto key factors that affect its use inpractice.

The Andragogy in PracticeModel

Andragogy in Practice, the frame-work depicted in Figure 1, is offeredas an enhanced conceptual frame-work to apply andragogy more sys-tematically across multiple domainsof adult learning practice. The threedimensions of Andragogy in Practice,shown as rings in the figure, are: 1)Goals and Purposes for Learning, 2)Individual and Situation Differ-ences, and 3) Andragogy: Core AdultLearning principles.

This approach conceptually inte-grates the additional influences withthe core adult learning principles.The three rings of the model interact,allowing the model to offer a 3-di-mensional process for understand-ing adult learning situations. Theresult is a model that recognizes thelack of homogeneity among learnersand learning situations and illus-trates that the learning transactionis a multi-faceted activity. This ap-proach is entirely consistent withmost of the program development lit-erature in adult education that insome manner incorporates contex-tual analysis as a step in developingprograms (e.g., Boone, 1985; Houle,1972; Knox, 1986). The following sec-tions describe each of the three di-mensions in the model.

Goals and Purposes forLearning

Goals and Purposes for Learning,the outer ring of the model, are por-trayed as developmental outcomes.The goals and purposes of adultlearning serve to shape and mold thelearning experience. In this model,goals for adult learning events mayfit into three general categories: indi-vidual, institutional, or societalgrowth. Knowles (1970, 1980) usedthese three categories to describe themissions of adult education, thoughhe did not directly link them to theandragogical assumptions. Beder(1989) also used a similar approachto describe the purposes of adult edu-cation as facilitating change in soci-ety and supporting and maintaininggood social order (societal), promoteproductivity (institutional), and toenhance personal growth (indi-vidual).


Merriam and Brockett (1997) dis-cuss seven content-purpose typol-ogies (Apps, 1985;Beder, 1989; Bry-son, 1936; Darkenwald & Merriam,1982; Grattan, 1955; Liveright,1968, Rachal, 1988), using Bryson’s(1936) five-part typology (liberal, oc-cupational, relational, remedial, andpolitical) and noted that the pur-poses for adult learning havechanged little since then. Bryson’s(1936) typology would also fit intoKnowles’ three-part typologywith “liberal,” “re-lational,” and “re-medial” fittinginto the individu-al category, “occu-pational” fittinginto the institu-tional category,and “political” fit-ting into the soci-etal category.Thus, Knowles’three-category ty-pology can be seenas also encom-passing all of thecategories foundin other majortypologies of pur-poses for adultlearning.

That so manyresearchers have attempted to createtypologies for adult learning out-comes reinforces our position thatthe goals and purposes are conceptu-ally separate from the core andra-gogical assumptions. As was seen inthe early discussion about criticismsof the andragogical model, it is easyto attempt to imbue the core prin-ciples with value-based or philo-sophical dimensions of the goals and

purposes. Andragogy has almost al-ways been found lacking when exam-ined from that perspective. That is,attempts to take a transactionalmodel of adult learning and make itbigger have failed.

We are not suggesting that goalsand purposes of the learning pro-gram do not affect the learning trans-action. To the contrary, it is vitallyimportant that they be analyzedalongside the core principles as they

may influencehow the core prin-ciples fit a givensituation. It is un-realistic to thinkthat the core prin-ciples of andrago-gy will always fitthe same in learn-ing programs of-fered for differentgoals and pur-poses. However,keeping themconceptually dis-tinct and analyz-ing them sepa-rately allows an-dragogy to accom-modate multipleperspectives onlearning out-comes. Also, onlythen can the in-

teractions between the goals, phi-losophies, and contexts with theadult learning transaction be fullyidentified and correctly defined.

It is for that reason that Knowlestalked extensively about adaptingthe use of andragogy to fit the pur-pose of the learning event (Knowles,1980, 1984b). Consider adult literacyprograms as an example. Such pro-grams may be conducted by an adult

The threedimensions ofAndragogy in

Practice, shown asrings in the figure,are: 1) Goals and

Purposes forLearning,

2) Individual andSituational

Differences, and3) Andragogy: Core

Adult LearningPrinciples.


education center to help individualsimprove life skills (an individualgoal); by a corporation to improve joband organizational performance (aninstitutional goal); or by some otherentity seeking to help a disadvan-taged group of citizens improve theirsocio-economic position (a societalgoal). While the goal differs in each ofthese situations, the actual learningprogram and immediate learningoutcomes (e.g., improved literacy)may be quite similar or even identi-cal. Therefore, andragogy is equallyapplicable to each scenario becauseandragogy focuses on the learningtransaction, as opposed to the overallgoal for which the program is offered.

However, the goal will also likelyaffect the learning process. For ex-ample, when offered for societal im-provement purposes, extra emphasismay be placed on developing self-directedness among the learners.When offered for work-related per-formance improvement, extra em-phasis might be placed on relatingthe content to work situations. How-ever, these changes are not a directresult of applying the andragogicalmodel but of the context in whichandragogy is utilized. This illus-trates the strength of andragogy: it isa set of core adult learning principlesthat can be applied to all adult learn-ing situations.

Individual Growth. The tradi-tional view among most scholars andpractitioners of adult learning is tothink exclusively of individualgrowth. Representative researchersin this group might include somementioned earlier such as Mezirow(1991) and Brookfield (1984a, 1987).Others advocate an individual devel-opment approach to workplace adultlearning programs (Bierema, 1996;

Dirkx, 1996). At first glance, andra-gogy would appear to fit best withindividual development goals be-cause of its focus on the individuallearner.

Institutional Growth. Adultlearning is equally powerful in devel-oping better institutions as well asindividuals. Human resource devel-opment, for example, embraces orga-nizational performance as one of itscore goals (Brethower & Smalley,1998; Swanson & Arnold, 1996),which andragogy does not explicitlyembrace either. From this view ofhuman resource development, theultimate goal of learning activities isto improve the institution sponsor-ing the learning activity. Thus, con-trol of the goals and purposes isshared between the organization andthe individual. The adult learningtransaction in an HRD setting stillfits nicely within the andragogicalframework, although the differentgoals require adjustments to bemade in how the andragogical as-sumptions are applied.

Societal Growth. Societal goalsand purposes that can be associatedwith the learning experience can beillustrated through Friere’s work(1970). This Brazilian educator sawthe goals and purposes of adult edu-cation as societal transformation andcontended that education is a con-sciousness raising process. From hisview, the aim of education is to helpparticipants put knowledge intopractice and that the outcome of edu-cation is societal transformation.Freire believed in the human abilityto recreate a social world and estab-lish a dynamic society and that themajor aim of education is to helppeople put knowledge into action.Doing so, according to Friere (1970),


would enable people to change theworld–to humanize it. Friere isclearly concerned with creating abetter world and the developmentand liberation of people. As such, thegoals and purposes within this learn-ing context are oriented to societal aswell as individual improvement.Once again though, the actual adultlearning transactions fit within theandragogical framework, thoughwith some adjustments.

One reviewerremarked that wemight be confus-ing levels ofanalysis with theindividual learn-ing perspective ofandragogy. Thisis not the case.Rather, this per-spective acknowl-edges that learn-ing occurs for avariety of rea-sons, has out-comes beyond theindividual level,and frequently issponsored by orembedded in or-ganizational orsocietal contexts(Boone, 1985;Brookfield, 1986; Knowles, 1980).Andragogy is an individual learningframework, but individual learningmay occur for the purpose of advanc-ing individual, institutional, or soci-etal growth.

Individual and SituationalDifferences

Individual and Situational Dif-ferences, the middle ring of the

Andragogy in Practice Model, areportrayed as variables. We continueto learn more about the differencesthat impact adult learning andwhich act as filters that shape thepractice of andragogy. These vari-ables are grouped into the categoriesof individual learner differences,subject matter differences, and situ-ational differences.

Subject Matter Differences.Different subject matter may require

different learn-ing strategies.For example, in-dividuals may beless likely tolearn complextechnical subjectmatter in a self-directed manner.Or, as Knowlesstated in the ear-lier quote, intro-ducing unfamil-iar content to alearner will re-quire a differentteaching/learn-ing strategy. Notall subject mattercan be simplytaught or learnedin the same way.

SituationalDifferences. The situational effectscategory captures any unique factorsthat could arise in a particular learn-ing situation and incorporates sev-eral sets of influences. At the micro-level, different local situations maydictate different teaching/learningstrategies. For example, learners inremote locations may be forced to bemore self-directed, or perhaps lessso. Or learning in large groups may

As part of needsassessment for

programdevelopment,andragogical

learner analysisuses the Andragogyin Practice Model to

determine theextent to whichandragogical

principles fit aparticularsituation.


mean that learning activities are lesstailored to particular life circum-stances.

At a broader level, this group offactors connects andragogy with thesocio-cultural influences now ac-cepted as a core part of each learningsituation. This is one area of pastcriticism that seems particularly ap-propriate. Jarvis (1987) sees all adultlearning as occurring within a socialcontext through life experiences. Inhis model, the social context mayinclude social influences prior to thelearning event that affect the learn-ing experience, as well as the socialmilieu within which the actual learn-ing occurs. Thus, situational influ-ences prior to the learning eventcould include anything from culturalinfluences to learning history. Simi-larly, situational influences duringlearning can be seen as including thefull range of social, cultural, and situ-ation-specific factors that may alterthe learning transaction.

Individual Differences. In thelast decade, there has been a surge ofinterest in linking adult educationliterature with psychology to ad-vance understanding of how indi-vidual differences affect adult learn-ing. Tennant (1997) analyzes psycho-logical theories from an adult learn-ing perspective and argues for psy-chology as a foundation discipline ofadult education. Interestingly, agroup of educational psychologistshave recently argued for building abridge between educational psychol-ogy and adult learning, calling forcreation of a new sub-field of adulteducational psychology (Smith &Pourchot, 1998).

This may be the area in which ourunderstanding of adult learning hasadvanced the most since Knowles

first introduced andragogy. A num-ber of researchers have expoundedupon a host of individual differencesaffecting the learning process (e.g.,Dirkx & Prenger, 1997; Kidd, 1978;Merriam & Cafferella, 1999). Thisincreased emphasis on linking adultlearning and psychological researchis indicative of an increasing focus onhow individual differences affectadult learning. From this perspec-tive, there is no reason to expect alladults to behave the same, but ratherour understanding of individual dif-ferences should help to shape andtailor the andragogical approach tofit the uniqueness of the learners. Itis somewhat ironic that andragogyfirst emerged as an effort to focus onthe uniqueness between adults andother learners. Now, we know thatandragogy must be tailored furtherto fit the uniqueness among adults.

It is beyond the scope of this ar-ticle to delineate all the individualdifferences that may affect learning.However, Jonassen & Grabowski(1993) present a typology of indi-vidual differences that impact onlearning which incorporates threebroad categories of individual differ-ences: cognitive (including cognitiveabilities, controls, and styles), per-sonality, and prior knowledge. Table3 shows their list of individual differ-ences that may impact upon learn-ing.

While there remains much uncer-tainty in the research, the key pointis clear–individuals vary in their ap-proaches, strategies, and prefer-ences during learning activities. Fewlearning professionals would dis-agree. At one level, merely being sen-sitive to those differences should sig-nificantly improve learning. Evenbetter, the more that is understood


Table 3Individual Learner Differences (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993)

COGNITIVE1. General Mental Abilities

• Hierarchical abilities (fluid, crystallized, and spatial)

2. Primary Mental Abilities• Products• Operations• Content

3. Cognitive Controls• Field dependence/independence• Field articulation• Cognitive tempo• Focal attention• Category width• Cognitive complexity/simplicity• Strong vs. weak automatization

4. Cognitive Styles: Information gathering• Visual/haptic• Visualizer/verbalizer• Leveling/sharpening

5. Cognitive Styles: Information organizing• Serialist/holist• Conceptual style

6. Learning Styles• Hill’s cognitive style mapping• Kolb’s learning styles• Dunn and Dunn learning styles• Grasha-Reichman learning styles• Gregorc learning styles

PERSONALITY7. Personality: Attentional and engagement styles

• Anxiety• Tolerance for unrealistic expectations• Ambiguity tolerance• Frustration tolerance

8. Personality: Expectancy and incentive styles• Locus of control• Introversion/extraversion• Achievement motivation• Risk taking vs. cautiousness

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE9. Prior knowledge

• Prior knowledge and achievement• Structural knowledge


about the exact nature of the differ-ences, the more specific learningtheorists can be about the exact na-ture of adaptations that should bemade.

Another area of individual differ-ences in which our understanding isexpanding rapidly is adult develop-ment. Adult development theoriesare generally divided into threetypes: physical changes, cognitive orintellectual development, or person-ality and life span role development(Merriam & Cafferella, 1999; Ten-nant, 1995). Cognitive developmenttheory’s primary contributions aretwo-fold. First, they help to explainsome differences in the way adultslearn at different points in their life.Second, they help to explain why thecore learning principles are exhib-ited in different ways at differentpoints in life. Life-span role develop-ment theory’s primary contributionis to help explain when adults aremost ready for and most need learn-ing and when they may be most mo-tivated to learn.

An understanding of individualdifferences helps make andragogymore effective in practice. Effectiveadult learning professionals usetheir understanding of individualdifferences to tailor adult learningexperiences in several ways. First,they tailor the manner in which theyapply the core principles to fit adultlearners’ cognitive abilities andlearning style preferences. Second,they use them to know which of thecore principles are most salient to aspecific group of learners. For ex-ample, if learners do not have strongcognitive controls, they may not ini-tially emphasize self-directed learn-ing. Third, they use them to expandthe goals of learning experiences. For

example, one goal might be to expandlearners’ cognitive controls andstyles to enhance future learningability. This flexible approach ex-plains why andragogy is applied in somany different ways (Knowles,1984b).

Applying the Andragogy inPractice Framework

The Andragogy in PracticeFramework is an expanded concep-tualization of andragogy that incor-porates domains of factors that willinfluence the application of coreandragogical principles. We turnnow to an example to illustrate howto use the Andragogy in PracticeModel.

As a general note, we have notedinteresting differences in the waypeople apply the model and thereforethe best way to explain it. Those fa-miliar with the six core principles ofandragogy tend to want to begin con-ceptually in the middle of the model,working outward to adjust the sixprinciples to fit the individual andsituational differences as well as dif-ferences due to the goals and pur-poses. For them, the outer two ringsact as “filters” through which the coreprinciples are examined to make ad-justments. Those unfamiliar withthe six principles seem to prefer tostart with the outer ring and workinward. For these individuals, itmakes more sense to analyze thegoals and purposes first, then theindividual and situational differ-ences, and then to adjust their appli-cation of the core principles to fit thefull context.

Both perspectives have merit, de-pending upon the application. Wesuggest a three-part process for ana-


lyzing adult learners with theAndragogy in Practice Model:

1) The core principles of andra-gogyprovide a sound foundation forplanning adult learning experi-ences. Without any other informa-tion, they reflect a sound ap-proach to effective adult learning.

2) Analysis should be conducted tounderstand: a) the particularadult learners and their indi-vidual charac-teristics; b) thecharacteristicsof the subjectmatter; and c)the character-istics of thep a r t i c u l a rsituation inwhich adultlearning is be-ing used. Ad-justments nec-essary to thecore principlesshould be an-ticipated.

3) The goals andpurposes forwhich theadult learningis conducted provide a frame thatshapes the learning experience.They should be clearly identifiedand possible effects on adultlearning explicated.

This framework should be used inadvance to conduct what we callandragogical learner analysis. Aspart of needs assessment for pro-gram development, andragogicallearner analysis uses the Andragogyin Practice Model to determine theextent to which andragogical prin-

ciples fit a particular situation. Fig-ure 2 is a worksheet created for thispurpose. The six core assumptionsare listed in the left-hand columnand comprise the rows in the matrix.Each of the two outer rings and thesix groups of factors contained withinthe Andra-gogy in Practice Model areshown in the other six columns.Thus, each cell of the matrix repre-sents the potential effect of one of thefactors on a core assumption.

The analystusing the andra-gogical lensshould first as-sess the extent towhich the andra-gogical assump-tions fit the learn-ers at that pointin time and checkthe appropriateones in Column 2.Then, he or shemust determinethe extent towhich each of thesix groups of fac-tors would impacton each of the sixcore assump-tions. That im-

pact might be to make it more impor-tant, less important, not present inthe learner group, etc. Deviationsand potential changes should benoted in the appropriate cell of thematrix. When used for this purpose,it is probably best to start with theouter ring and work inward. On theother hand, if one does not have muchof an opportunity to analyze thelearners in advance, then it may bemore appropriate to begin the pro-gram with the core principles as aguide and make adjustments as the

That so manyresearchers have

attempted to createtypologies for adultlearning outcomes

reinforces ourposition that the

goals and purposesare conceptuallyseparate from thecore andragogical

assumptions.


Fig

ure

2. A

nd

rago

gica

l L

earn

er A

nal

ysis

Ex

pec

ted

In

flu

ence

of

Ind

ivid

ual

an

d S

itu

atio

nal

Dif

fere

nce

sG

oal

s an

d P

urp

ose

s fo

r L

earn

ing

An

dra

go

gic

al

Pri

nci

ple

Applies tolearners?

Su

bje

ctm

atte

rIn

div

idu

alle

arn

erS

itu

atio

nal

Ind

ivid

ual

Inst

itu

tio

nal

So

ciet

al

1)

Ad

ult

s n

eed

to

kn

ow

wh

y t

hey

nee

d t

o l

earn

so

met

hin

g b

efo

rele

arn

ing

it.

2)

Th

e

self

-co

ncep

t o

f ad

ult

s is

heav

ily

d

ep

en

den

t u

po

n

a

mo

ve

tow

ard

sel

f-d

irec

tio

n.

3)

Pri

or

exp

erie

nce

s o

f th

e le

arn

erp

rov

ide

a ri

ch r

eso

urc

e fo

r le

arn

ing

4)

Ad

ult

s ty

pic

all

y b

eco

me r

ead

y t

ole

arn

wh

en t

hey

ex

per

ien

ce a

nee

d t

oco

pe

wit

h a

lif

e si

tuat

ion

or

per

form

a ta

sk

5)

Ad

ult

s’ o

rien

tati

on

to

learn

ing

is

life

-cen

tere

d;

ed

ucati

on

is

a p

rocess

of

dev

elo

pin

g i

ncr

ease

d c

om

pet

ency

lev

els

to a

chie

ve

thei

r fu

ll p

ote

nti

al.

6)

Th

e m

oti

vati

on

fo

r ad

ult

learn

ers

is i

nte

rnal

rat

her

th

an e

xte

rnal

.


other elements of the model becomeknown.

For example, a municipal govern-ment has developed a new manage-ment development program to helpchange the organization to a high-performance workplace. It was de-veloped based on “best practices andthinking” in performance improve-ment leadership. Figure 3 shows theandragogical learner analysis formcompleted for this scenario.

An analysis of the learners indi-cates that they generally fit the coreassumptions of the andragogicalmodel (check marks in column two).This presents several problems be-cause the program cannot be con-ducted in a completely andragogicalapproach (comments that follow arenoted in the appropriate cell in Fig-ure 3). First, the ultimate goal of theprogram is to enhance organiza-tional performance. Thus, learnerswill not have as much choice aboutthe content of the learning (goal fac-tor). It was determined that consid-erable effort will have to be devotedto convincing the learners of the“need to know” because some may notperceive they need the program. Sec-ond, most of the learners are experi-enced managers who consider them-selves to be reasonably accomplishedat their jobs. However, the programwill challenge learners’ mental mod-els of management development as itpresents a new approach to manag-ing in the public sector. Thus, theirprior experience could actually be abarrier to learning (individual differ-ence factor). Next, it was determinedthat few of them had engaged in self-directed learning with regard tomanagement issues. This fact,coupled with the unfamiliarity of the

material, will make self-directedlearning unlikely, at least in theearly stages of the program. Furthercomplicating the design is that thereis likely to be little formal payoffbecause public sector employmentsystems do not allow for perfor-mance- or skill-based pay increases(a situational factor). Much of the“payoff” will be intrinsic, and learn-ers will have to be convinced of thevalue. Finally, the subject matter it-self will shape the learning. The ap-proach being taught would be unfa-miliar to these managers and rely ona complex integration of theories.Thus, some portions of the programmay be more didactic than others(subject matter factor).

This example illustrates howandragogy becomes more powerfulby explicitly accommodating contin-gencies present in most adult learn-ing situations. It is difficult to expli-cate the precise mechanisms bywhich the factors in the outer ringwill influence application of the coreassumptions because of the complexways in which they interact. Butandragogical learner analysis basedon the Andragogy in Practice Frame-work provides practitioners a struc-tured framework within which toconsider key ways in whichandragogy will have to be adapted.

ConclusionWhat we have offered in this pa-

per is a clarified conceptualization ofthe andragogical model of adultlearning that more closely parallelsthe way andragogy is applied in prac-tice and, we believe, is closer toKnowles’ original intent. TheAndragogy in Practice Model ex-pands andragogy’s utility by a) con-


Fig

ure

3. A

nd

rago

gica

l L

earn

er A

nal

ysis

for

Man

agem

ent

Dev

elop

men

t C

ase

Ex

pec

ted

In

flu

ence

of

Ind

ivid

ual

an

d S

itu

atio

nal

Dif

fere

nce

sG

oal

s an

d P

urp

ose

s fo

r L

earn

ing

An

dra

go

gic

al

Pri

nci

ple

Applies ?

Su

bje

ct m

atte

rIn

div

idu

al l

earn

erS

itu

atio

nal

Ind

ivid

ual

Inst

itu

tio

nal

So

ciet

al1

) A

du

lts

nee

d t

o k

no

w w

hy

th

eyn

eed

to

lea

rn s

om

eth

ing

bef

ore

lear

nin

g i

t.""""

Lea

rner

s m

ay n

ot

per

ceiv

e th

ey

nee

d p

rog

ram

so

mu

st w

ork

har

der

her

e2

) T

he s

elf

-co

ncep

t o

f ad

ult

s is

hea

vil

y d

epen

den

t u

po

n a

mo

ve

tow

ard

sel

f-d

irec

tio

n.

""""

Few

hav

e en

gag

ed

in s

elf-

dir

ecte

d

lear

nin

g o

n

man

agem

ent

issu

es3

) P

rio

r ex

per

ien

ces

of

the

lear

ner

pro

vid

e a

rich

res

ou

rce

for

lear

nin

g""""

Pri

or

ex

per

ien

ces

may

be

a b

arri

er

to l

earn

ing

bec

ause

new

pro

gra

m i

s v

ery

dif

fere

nt

4)

Ad

ult

s ty

pic

ally

bec

om

e re

ady

to l

earn

wh

en t

hey

ex

per

ien

ce a

nee

d t

o c

op

e w

ith

a l

ife

situ

atio

n

or

per

form

a t

ask

""""

Wil

l h

ave

to

con

vin

ce l

earn

ers

of

the

val

ue

of

the

new

lea

rnin

g

Nee

d f

or

pro

gra

m

is n

ot

imm

edia

tely

app

aren

t in

th

eir

ever

yd

ay j

ob

s

5)

Ad

ult

s’ o

rien

tati

on

to

lea

rnin

g

is li

fe-c

en

tere

d;

ed

ucati

on

is

a

pro

cess

of

dev

elo

pin

g i

ncr

ease

d

co

mp

ete

ncy

le

vels

to

ach

iev

e

thei

r fu

ll p

ote

nti

al.

""""

New

mat

eria

l m

ay

be

com

ple

x a

nd

un

fam

ilia

r;

lear

ner

s m

ay f

eel

thre

aten

ed6

) T

he

mo

tiv

ati

on

fo

r ad

ult

learn

ers

is

in

tern

al

rath

er

than

exte

rnal

.""""

No

fo

rmal

rew

ard

s in

pu

bli

c

sect

or

for

par

tici

pat

ing

so

wil

l d

epen

d o

n

inte

rnal

mo

tiv

.

Applies?


ceptually separating the goals andpurposes of learning from the coreandragogical principles of the learn-ing transaction so the interactionsand adaptations can be more clearlydefined, and b) explicitly accountingfor individual, situational, and sub-ject matter differences in the learn-ing situation.

This is not an attempt to reigniteprevious debates about andragogy orto suggest that andragogy should bethe single defining model of adultlearning. Rather, we tend to agreewith Merriam and Cafferella (1999,p. 278) who said: “We see andragogyas an enduring model for under-standing certain aspects of adultlearning. It does not give us the totalpicture, nor is it a panacea for fixingadult learning practices. Rather, itconstitutes one piece of the rich mo-saic of adult learning.” Our under-standing of Knowles’ work suggeststhat this is entirely consistent withhis views. To the extent thatandragogy is the right model of adultlearning in a given situation, theAndragogy in Practice Frameworkshould improve its application.

As some critics have pointed out,andragogy has not been tested wellempirically (Grace, 1985; Pratt,1993). However, the reality is thatnone of the prominent theories ormodels of adult learning have beentested well empirically (Caferella,1993; Clark, 1993; Hiemstra, 1993;Merriam & Caffarella, 1999), and all,including andragogy, are in need ofmore research. Knowles (1989, p.112) himself acknowledged in his au-tobiography that he no longer viewedandragogy as a complete theory:

I prefer to think of it as a modelof assumptions about adult learn-

ing or a conceptual framework thatserves as a basis for emergingtheory.

However, such research shouldnot ask questions about andragogythat are outside its intended theo-retical frame. Thus, we have offeredsome alternative perspectives thatshould help guide future research. Itis important that andragogy beevaluated from multiple perspec-tives. Further research is needed tomore explicitly define how theandragogical principles will be af-fected as different factors change. Wesee this as an initial attempt toclarify how andragogy can be a morerealistic, and therefore useful, ap-proach to adult learning.

ReferencesApps, J. (1985). Improving practice in

continuing education. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Beder, H. (1989). Purposes and philoso-phies of adult education. In S.Merriam & P. Cunningham (Eds.).Handbook of adult and continuingeducation (pp. 37-50). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Bierema, L. (1996). Development of theindividual leads to more productiveworkplaces. In R. Rowden (Ed.),Workplace learning: Debating fivecritical questions of theory and prac-tice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boone, E. (1985). Developing programsin adult education. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brethower, D. (1995). Specifying a hu-man performance technology knowl-edge base. Performance ImprovementQuarterly, 8(2), 17-39.

Brethower, D., & Smalley, K. (1998). Per-formance-based instruction: Linkingtraining to business results. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.


Brookfield, S. (1984a). The contributionof Eduard Lindeman to the develop-ment of theory and philosophy inadult education. Adult EducationQuarterly, 34, 185-196.

Brookfield, S. (1984b). Self-directedadult learning: A critical paradigm.Adult Education Quarterly, 35, 59-71.

Brookfield, S. (1986). Understandingand facilitating adult learning. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing criticalthinkers: Challenging adults to ex-plore alternative ways of thinking andacting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bryson, L. (1936). Adult education. NewYork: American Book Company.

Cafarella, R. (1993). Self-directed learn-ing. In S. Merriam (Ed.), New direc-tions for adult and continuing educa-tion, No. 57–An update on adultlearning theory. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Clark, M. (1993). Transformationallearning. In S. Merriam (Ed.) Newdirections for adult and continuingeducation, No. 57–An update on adultlearning theory. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Darkenwald, G., & Merriam, S. (1982).Adult education: Foundations ofpractice. New York: HarperCollins.

Cross, K. (1981). Adults as learners. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davenport, J. (1987). Is there a way outof the andragogy morass? LifelongLearning, 11, 17-20.

Davenport, J., & Davenport, J.A. (1985).A chronology and analysis of theandragogy debate. Adult EducationQuarterly, 35, 152-159.

Day, C., & Baskett, H. (1982). Discrepan-cies between intentions and practice:Re-examining some basic assump-tions about adult and continuing pro-fessional education. InternationalJournal of Lifelong Education, 143-156.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and educa-tion. New York: Macmillan.

Dirkx, J. (1996). Human Resource Devel-opment: Fostering the educativeworkplace. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Work-place learning: Debating five criticalquestions of theory and practice. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dirkx, J., & Prenger, S. (1997). A guide toplanning and implementing instruc-tion for adults: A theme-based ap-proach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building: Apractical guide to the constructionand testing of theoretical models. NewYork: The Free Press.

Elias, J. (1979). Andragogy revisited.Adult Education, 29, 252-255.

Feur, D., & Gerber, B. (1988). Uh-oh…Second thoughts about adultlearning theory, Training, 25(12),125-149.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the op-pressed. New York: Herder & Herder.

Gayeski, D. (1995). Changing roles andprofessional challenges for humanperformance technology. Perfor-mance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2),6-16.

Grace, A. (1996). Striking a critical pose:Andragogy–Missing links, missingvalues. International Journal of Life-long Education,15, 382-392.

Grattan, C. (1955). In quest of knowl-edge: A historical perspective on adulteducation. New York: AssociationPress.

Grow, G. (1991). Teaching learners to beself-directed: A stage approach. AdultEducation Quarterly, 41.

Hartree, A. (1984). Malcolm Knowles’theory of andragogy: A critique. Inter-national Journal of Lifelong Educa-tion, 3, 203-210.

Henschke, J. (1998, September). Histori-cal antecedents shaping conceptionsof andragogy: A comparison of sourcesand roots. Paper presented at the In-ternational Conference on Researchin Comparative Andragogy, Radov-ljica, Slovenia.

Hiemstra, R. (1993). Three underdevel-oped models of adult learning. In S.


Merriam (Ed.), New directions foradult and continuing education, No.57–An update on adult learningtheory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Houle, C. (1972). The design of educa-tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in thesocial context. London: Croon-Helm.

Jonassen, D., & Grabowski, B. (1993).Handbook of individual differences,learning, and instruction. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kidd, J. (1978). How adults learn.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: CambridgeAdult Education.

Knowles, M. (1968, April). Androgyny,not pedagogy. Adult Leadership.

Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practiceof adult education: Andragogy versusPedagogy. Houston, TX: Gulf Pub-lishing Co.

Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: Aneglected species. Houston, TX: GulfPublishing.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learn-ing: A guide for learners and teachers.New York: Association Press.

Knowles, M. (1978). The adult learner: Aneglected species (2nd ed). Houston,TX: Gulf Publishing.

Knowles, M. (1979, Fall). Andragogy re-visited II. Adult Education, 52-53.

Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practiceof adult education: From pedagogy toandragogy (2nd ed.). Chicago: Follett.

Knowles, M. (1984a). The adult learner:A neglected species (3rd ed). Houston,TX: Gulf Publishing.

Knowles, M. S. (1984b). Andragogy inaction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, M. (1987). Adult learning. In R.Craig (Ed.), Training and develop-ment handbook (pp. 168-179). NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Knowles, M. (1989). The making of anadult educator: An autobiographicaljourney. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: Aneglected species (4th ed). Houston,TX: Gulf Publishing.

Knowles, M. (1995). Designs for adultlearning. Alexandria, VA: American

Society for Training and Develop-ment.

Knowles, M., Holton, E., III, & Swanson,R. (1998). The adult learner (5th ed.).Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Knox, A. (1986). Helping adults learn.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in socialscience. New York: Harper.

Lindeman, E. (1926). The meaning ofadult education. New York: New Re-public.

Liveright, A. (1968). A study of adulteducation in the United States. Bos-ton: Center for the Study of LiberalArts.

Merriam, S. (1993). Adult learning:Where have we come from? Where arewe headed? New Directions for Adultand Continuing Education, 57. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S., & Brockett, R. (1997). Theprofession and practice of adult edu-cation: An introduction. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S., & Cafarella, R. (1999).Learning in adulthood (2nd ed.). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative di-mensions of adult learning. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass

Podeschi, R. (1987). Andragogy: Proofsor premises? Lifelong Learning, 11,14-20.

Pratt, D. (1993). Andragogy after twen-ty-five years. In S. Merriam (Ed.),New directions for adult and continu-ing education, No. 57–An update onadult learning theory. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Pratt, D. (1988). Andragogy as a rela-tional construct. Adult EducationQuarterly, 38, 160-181.

Rachal, J. (1988). Taxonomies andtypologies of adult education. Life-long Learning: An Omnibus of Prac-tice and Research, 12(2), 20-23.

Schein, E. (1990). Organizational cul-ture. American Psychologist, 45, 102-119.

Smith, M., & Pourchot, T. (Eds.). (1998).Adult learning and development: Per-


spectives from educational psychol-ogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.

Stewart, D. (1987).Adult learning inAmerica: Eduard Lindeman and hisagenda for lifelong learning.Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.

Stolovich, H., Keeps, E., Rodrigue, D.(1995). Skills sets for the human per-formance technologist. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 8(2), 40-67.

Swanson, R., & Arnold, D. (1996). Thepurpose of HRD is to improve perfor-mance. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Work-place learning: Debating five criticalquestions of theory and practice (pp.13-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tennant, M. (1986). An evaluation ofKnowles’ theory of adult learning.International Journal of LifelongEducation, 5, 113-122.

Tennant, M. (1997) Psychology and adultlearning. London: Routledge.

Tennant, M., & Pogson, P. (1995). Learn-ing and change in the adult years: Adevelopmental perspective. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

ELWOOD F. HOLTON, III, Ed.D.is Professor of Human ResourceDevelopment in the School of Hu-man Resource Education andWorkforce Development at Louisi-ana State University. He alsoserves as Executive Director of theCenter for Leadership Develop-ment at LSU. Mailing address:HRD Program, Louisiana StateUniversity, 142 Old ForestryBldg., Baton Rouge, LA 70803.Telephone: 225-578-2456. E-mail:[email protected]

RICHARD A. SWANSON, Ed.D., isProfessor of Human Resource De-velopment and Director of the Hu-man Resource Development Re-search Center in the Department

of Work, Community and FamilyEducation at the University ofMinnesota. Mailing address: 210AVocational & Technical EducationBldg., 1954 Buford Ave., Univer-sity of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN55108.

SHARON S. NAQUIN, Ph.D., isAssistant Professor of Human Re-source Development and Directorof the Office of HRD Research inthe School of Human ResourceEducation and Workforce Develop-ment at Louisiana State Univer-sity. Mailing address: HRD Pro-gram, Louisiana State University,142 Old Forestry Bdlg., BatonRouge, LA 79893. E-mail: [email protected]

Andragogy in Practice: Clarifying the Andragogical Model...

Documents

Transcript of Andragogy in Practice: Clarifying the Andragogical Model...