Learning is learning

I got embroiled in a Twitter discussion today with Mark Childs and Fred Garnett on whether the word andragogy is actually helpful to our understanding of learning. I'm not convinced. As ever, I like to promote argument, so here on this blog, I offer you my own views on what is quite an old debate. For the uninitiated, Andragogy (from the Greek Andros, meaning man) was a term made popular in the education world by Malcolm Knowles. It refers to learning strategies and experiences that are for adults rather than children. Knowles had made the distinction between children's learning and adult learning on the basis of adult motivation for learning being different from that of children. Pedagogy, another term used widely in education, derives from the time of the Roman slaves, known as pedagogs, who were tasked to either train their masters' children, or in many cases, to 'lead them to education'. Pedagogy is sometimes erroneously applied only to children's education, but is best applied to all forms of teacher directed learning.

The main problem with Knowles's concept of andragogy is that it is intended to be different to pedagogy, which implies that adults learn differently to children. But is there any evidence for this? How does Knowles differentiate between adult and child learning? Here are his four main tenets for andragogy (in italics), accompanied by my own critical commentary:

1) Adults need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction. This is problematic on several levels. Firstly, the term instruction implies that the teacher is directing the process of learning, which undermines the whole point of the autonomous learning andragogy is meant to epitomise. Secondly, should children not also be involved in the planning and evaluation of their 'instruction' or do they not have the same human rights as adults? Thirdly, if we believe that children don't really know what they need to learn, then we should concede that many adults don't either. However, taking this stance denies that many adults and children are actually much more astute at knowing what they need to learn than teachers give them credit for. Either way, this first distinction is meaningless.

2) Experience (including mistakes) provides the basis for learning activities. Adults make mistakes and learn from them, but so do children. All we are talking about here is the length of time it takes to accumulate 'experience'. How much time on this planet does an individual need to accrue before they can in Knowles's terms be accepted as 'experienced'. If this is an indication of how adult learning differs from children's learning, it is tenuous indeed.

3) Adults are most interested in learning subjects that have immediate relevance to their job or personal life. This statement is actually more descriptive of the differences between compulsory and elective education than it is about any differences that may exist be between child and adult learning. True, many adults study disciplines to gain qualifications so they can either secure a career, or enhance their position within their present employment. When they leave scjool they have a choice what they wish to study. In school, children are still fed the 'just in case' curriculum, which not only wastes a great deal of contact teaching time, but also ultimately turns many young people off learning for good. Furthermore, although most children don't have jobs, they are constantly and informally acquiring knowledge and learning many skills that have immediate relevance to their personal lives. So what is the difference?

4) Adult learning is problem-centered rather than content-oriented. This is also more a commentary on the nature of state-funded schooling than it is on the nature of learning. Any learning can be supported through problem-centred methods regardless of whether it is adult or child oriented. I would even go farther to suggest that presenting any learner, whether adult or child, with a problem can deepen their understanding of concepts, content and context. In reality within the current western education systems, we find elements of problem based and content based learning in both adult and child contexts.

So does the concept of Andragogy add any value to our understanding of learning? For me, the answer is no.  Learning is learning. Does it really matter whether you are an adult or a child as you learn? Are different processes at work, or is Knowles unwittingly describing the differences between the environments within which adults and children learn? Am I right or am I missing something? Please feel free to enter the debate in the comments box below.

Image from Justin Chadwick's The First Grader


Learning is learning by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.