ANDRAGOGY FOR ADULT LEARNERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Allied Academies International Conference
page 107
ANDRAGOGY FOR ADULT LEARNERS IN
HIGHER EDUCATION
Margaret A. Thompson, Kennesaw State University
margaret_thompson@coles2.kennesaw.edu
Michael Deis, Clayton College and State University
MichaelDeis@mail.clayton.edu
ABSTRACT
There is much information available to the public through published course curricula,
syllabi, and online course descriptions at university websites from which we could speculate what
is taught to undergraduate business students in the United States. What we do not have as much
information about is how the courses are taught. What teaching methodologies are used? And, to
what levels do instructors of business classes understand and practice andragogical principles? As
competition for adult students in higher education becomes more intense, not only what we teach,
but how we teach it becomes more important.
This paper will review and summarize the literature that suggests a significant theoretical
difference between andragogy and pedagogy. The premise is that the assumptions behind pedagogy,
which in the original Greek means “child conductor,” do not always fit the needs of the adult
learner. Andragogy, derived from the Greek word for “adult or man,” provides a better model for
the growing number of nontraditional students enrolled in many universities.
This paper will present a theoretical foundation for curriculum development based on
andragogical principles. The paper will also present a model with an example of innovative
learning which meets the demands of these student populations. Finally, the authors make
suggestions for how to plan a course based on the principles of andragogy.
INTRODUCTION
The student population of colleges and universities in the U.S. has changed dramatically in
the past thirty years. Although there have been numerous demographic changes, it is questionable
how many university professors consider their impact. Educators often speak about pedagogical
models, but in our research we found few who mention andragogical models and how to apply them.
We believe that new models of learning in higher education must be developed based on the theory
of andragogy.
Malcolm Knowles’ (1977) developed the paradigm of andragogy as we know it today (see
Table 1). Lawson (1998) described Knowles’ work as pivotal in terms of a shift in the educational
paradigm. It is very interesting to note that, although in academic terms Knowles’ work might be
considered “dated,” that most of the articles reviewed for this paper cited at least one article by
Knowles and proclaimed him the unmistakable “founder” of adult learning doctrine. Additionally,
no one refutes his claims, but only supports them with additional arguments. So, for this paper, we
believe it is appropriate to use Knowles’ model as a foundation for course development, and to cite
Proceedings of the Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies, Volume 9, Number 1
New Orleans, 2004

---

page 108
Allied Academies International Conference
additional supportive literature. Knowles defined andragogy as “the art and science of helping
adults learn” (1980, page 43), and claimed that there were four critical andragogical assumptions
of adult learners which differ from the assumptions of pedagogy (Knowles, 1977).
Table 1
Knowles’ Principles of Andragogy (1977, p. 39):
1. His self-concept moves from one of being a dependent personality toward one of being a self-directed
human being.
2. He accumulates a growing reservoir of experience that becomes an increasing resource for learning.
3. His readiness to learn becomes oriented increasingly to the development tasks of his social roles.
4. His time perspective changes from one of postponed application of knowledge to immediacy of
application, and accordingly his orientation toward learning shifts from one of subject-centeredness to one
of problem-centeredness
Principle 1: Learner as Self-Directed
These principles are not mutually exclusive; by their very nature and in keeping with
Knowles’ intention, they are part of a system of learning theory. Only for the purposes of analysis
and example, we will explain each principle individually. In his first principle of andragogy,
Knowles (1977) claims that superior andragogical learning conditions should motivate the learners
to feel a need to learn. Because adults regard education as a life-time activity, they are able to learn
more effectively in a self-directed environment, which is quite different from the environment of
traditional students (Patterson & Pegg, 1999). Learning as an iterative, dynamic process of change,
dependent on the self-efficacy of the learner to take responsibility for his or her own learning is
summarized by Galbraith (1990) who stated that "learners and facilitators are involved in a continual
process of activity, reflection upon activity, collaborative analysis of activity, new activity, further
reflection, and collaborative analysis, and so on" (p.10). In an analysis of undergraduate
management education, Gammie (1995) concluded that “maximum flexibility and student self-
governance” result in the most effective programs.
As Reed (1993) indicated, adults should be motivated through internal rather than external
means. In support of an andragogical model, students should be dynamically involved in planning
their learning process (Cervero & Wilson, 2001).
Principle 2: Learner as Resource
Knowles’ second principle claims that adults can be a resource for their own learning and
the learning of others. According to Patterson & Pegg (1999), collaboration was the most cited
difference in adult learners when compared to children. Galbraith (1990) claims that collaboration
is a key ingredient for successful adult learning methodologies. Using an andragogical model
requires that educators undergo a basic change in the way that they feel about learning and allow
learners to rely on themselves as resources of learning (Boud, Cohen, & Walker, 1993; Cell, 1984).
The model must follow Knowles’ theory on andragogy and must value nontraditional students’ life
experiences and awareness of self (Uehling, 1996).
New Orleans, 2004
Proceedings of the Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies, Volume 9, Number 1

---

Allied Academies International Conference
page 109
Principle 3: Learning as Developmental
The third principle in Knowles’ andragogical model is focused on the learners’
developmental goals. The andragogy paradigm requires that instructors choose strategies that will
enable adults to achieve their learning goals. By “romancing” the individual adult learner,
organizations and society are improved because "a society whose central dynamic, change--
economic and technological, political, social, cultural, even theological-- requires a citizenry that
is able to change" (Knowles, 1980, p.36). This suggests a focus on learning to learn, which may be
a developmental goal of the mature learner. Lawson (1998) supports the importance of andragogy
in helping adult learners make career transitions and claims that andragogy can be a powerful tool
in influencing the delivery of services to adults. “Program evaluation procedures can help determine
if the participants in the learning activity reached their educational objectives and desired outcomes;
they can be used in the planning process and for program improvement; and they can be used for
program justification and accountability" (Galbraith. 1990, p.8-16). Beaman (1998) indicated that
adults “need assessment not just for evaluation, but also for motivation and feedback. Assessment
for adult learners can also be empowering and can lead to a richer, deeper learning experience” (p.
58). Learners may develop skills and self-awareness through feedback and evaluation of others’
behavior in the classroom (Saunders, 1991). “The driving force in lifelong learning is not the
acquisition of knowledge per se as it is amongst youngsters, but rather the self-actualization of
individuals of themselves and through the organizations where they work and live. That can scarcely
be accomplished through a normative curriculum or through any model of higher education
provision based on the philosophy of ‘faculty knows most - and best’ ” (p.328) (Prestoungrange,
2002).
Principle 4: Learning as Application to Real World
The last principle of andragogy according to Knowles (1977) is the need for immediate
application of theory to practice and the related focus on problems as opposed to content. The
learning strategies should be less involved with theory, and more focused on emphasizing practical
applications of knowledge relevant to the real world (Patterson & Pegg, 1999). Similarly, Galbraith
(1990) claims that successful education will relate theory to practice, and Wankel & DeFillippi
(2003) advocate bringing “real world” opportunities into the classroom through simulations, cases,
technology, and collaborative learning opportunities between educational institutions and business.
There is little evidence to suggest that making higher education for nontraditional adult learners
should be anything but as real as possible, and as immediately applicable to their own lives as is
reasonable.
In the Summer Semester 2003, one of the authors (Thompson) designed and facilitated a
course which encompassed many of the andragogical principles presented in this article. The design
of the course will be presented in terms of Knowles' model of andragogy.
Proceedings of the Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies, Volume 9, Number 1
New Orleans, 2004

---

page 110
Allied Academies International Conference
REFERENCES
Beaman, R. (1998). The unquiet... even loud, andragogy! Alternative assessments for adult learners. Innovative Higher
Education, 23 (1), 47 (13).
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (1993). Using Experience for Learning. Bristol, Pennsylvania: The Society for
Research into Higher Education Open University Press.
Brookfield, S.D. (1986). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cell, E. (1984). Learning to Learn From Experience. Albany: SUNY Press.
Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (2001). Power in Practice: Adult Education and the Struggle for Knowledge and Power
in Society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davenport, J. I.. & Davenport, J. A. (1986). Andragogical-Pedagogical orientations of adult learners. The Education
Digest, 52(1), 58.
Elliot, C.J., Goodwin, J.S. & Goodwin, J.C. (1994). MBA programs and business needs: Is there a mismatch? Business
Horizons, 37(4), 55 (6).
Galbraith, M.W., Ed. (1990). Adult Learning Methods: A Guide for Effective Instruction. Malabar: Robert E. Krieger
Publishing.
Gammie, B. (1995). Undergraduate management education: An analysis of rationale and methodology. The International
Journal of Education, 9 (4). 34.
Goffee, R. (1996). Managerial capability in the professional firm - assessing compentences in the City. The Journal of
Management Development, 15(7), 4.
Grabowski, S.M., Ed. (1970). Adult Learning and Instruction. Adult Education (ED045867). Association of the U.S.A.
Washington, DC.
Henschke, J.A. (1998). Modeling the preparation of adult educators. Adult Learning. 9(3), 11-13.
Horn, L. (1996). Nontraditional Undergraduates, Trends in Enrollment From 1986 to 1992 and Persistence and
Attainment Among 1989-90 Beginning Postsecondary Students (NCES 97-578). U.S. Department of Education,
NCES. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Jacobs, J.A. & Stoner-Eby, S. 1998). Adult enrollment and educational attainment. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science. 559, 91 (18).
Kennesaw State University (2002). Kennesaw State University Fact Book. Retrieved February 3, 2004, from
http://web1.kennesaw.edu:8080/fb2003/default.htm
Knowles, M.S. (1970). The Modern Practice of Adult Education; Andragogy versus Pedagogy. New York: The
Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1977). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy (Eighth ed.). New York:
Association Press.
New Orleans, 2004
Proceedings of the Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies, Volume 9, Number 1

---

Allied Academies International Conference
page 111
Knowles, M. S. (1980). My Farewell Address...Andragogy-No Panacea, No Ideology. Training and Development
Journal, 48-50.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying Modern Principles of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Lawson, G. (1998). New paradigms in adult education. Adult Learning, 8(3), 10.
Marshak, R. J. (1983). What's Between Pedagogy and Andragogy? Training and Development Journal. 37(10), 80-81.
Masikiewicz, M. (1995). Universities and businesses: Partners for tomorrow. The Business Times, 18(8), 1.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2002). Findings from the Condition of Education 2002; Nontraditional
Undergraduates (NCES 2002-012). U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Norman, J. (2003). Creatvity is important. The Orange County Register.
Patterson, I. & Pegg, S. (1999). Adult learning on the increase: The need for leisure studies programs to respond
accordingly. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(5), 45.
Prestoungrange, G. (2002). Why do managers learn best at work? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 14(7), 328.
Reed, J. (1993). Learner-centered learning. Training and Development Journal, 47(6), 20.
Rifkin, G. (1996). Leadership: Can it be learned? Forbes, 100 (109).
Saunders, C. E. (1991). Pedagogy vs. Andragogy: Are we treating our students like children? Military Intelligence
Professional Bulletin, 42.
Seaman D. (1969). Behavioral Skills for Adult Basic Education: A Resource Document and Institute Report (ED034143).
State College: Mississippi State University.
Thiebert, (1996). Train and degree them - anywhere. Personnel Journal, 75(2) 28.
Uehling, K. S. (1996). Older and younger adults writing together: a rich learning community. Writing Instructor, 15, 61-
69.
Wankel, C., & DeFillippi, B. (2003). Educating managers with tomorrow's technologies. Greenwich, Conn.: Information
Age Pub.
Proceedings of the Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies, Volume 9, Number 1
New Orleans, 2004

---

page 112
Allied Academies International Conference
New Orleans, 2004
Proceedings of the Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies, Volume 9, Number 1

---