Dave Laton / Joe Reynolds
Ted Davis / Dave Stringer

Forward

In the 1970s, when Malcolm Knowles first introduced his ideas about adult education, many regarded andragogy as a breakthrough in explaining the adult learner. Since those early years, more than 200 subsequent works by various authors have sought to clarify, substantiate, and amplify Knowles’ andragogical assumptions (Henschke & Cooper, 2006). Among the literature, one also finds additional gogical variants either aiding or, perhaps, confusing those involved in adult teaching and learning. This paper introduces a Teaching-Learning Continuum to explain these variants. It presents four teaching/learning stages (pedagogy, mesagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy) through which students navigate as they mature in their learning abilities, and it addresses the roles that teachers assume in this journey. This continuum is highly contextual; that is, both external or environmental factors as well as intrinsic influences impact the continuum’s implementation.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 - Recognizing – Yet Avoiding – Gogymania
Chapter 2 - The Teaching-Learning Continuum
Chapter 3 - Applying the Continuum
Chapter 4 - Philosophical Underpinnings
Chapter 5 - Mesagogy
Chapter 6 - Utility: How the Continuum Assist Educators
Chapter 7 – Conclusion
References / 4
8
15
17
20
22
30
32

Chapter 1

Recognizing – Yet Avoiding – Gogymania

It could be said that when Knowles first articulated the concept of andragogy, he opened the proverbial can of worms. In the debate that followed, his ideas about adult learning and distinct teaching methodology for adult educators inspired rebuke from some (Elias, 1979; Houle, 1972; London, 1973), plaudits from others (Carlson 1979; McKenzie, 1977), and—for better or for worse—theoretical conjecture from just about everyone in the field. As the debate over Knowles’ concepts for andragogy was only just beginning, many apparently thought the more significant lesson was his relegation of pedagogy to a situational teaching method. The resulting void on the landscape of educational theory then became a playing field for other suggested concepts, sometimes in harmony with andragogy and sometimes not.

Armed with pieces and parts of Knowles’ arguments, and certainly his semantic license, a number of authors attempted to introduce additional ‘gogies’ into the dialogue. In the decades since, the field has been presented with gerogogy (Lebel, 1978) and eldergogy (Yeo, 1982) for older adults, synergogy (Mouton & Blake, 1984) for small groups, ergonagy (Tanaka & Evers, 1999) for workplace training, heutagogy (Hase & Kenyon, 2000) for those who have graduated from an andragogical environment, ubuntugogy (Bangura, 2005) for education in Africa, and humanagogy (Knudson, 1979) and anthrogogy (Trott, 1991), which are meant to cover the full spectrum of learners. Surely there are others of which this paper’s authors are unaware.

Expectedly, there was a significant backlash to what Courtenay and Stevenson (1983) disparagingly referred to as gogymania. Rachal (1983) warned against an unneeded “educational taxonomy” of gogies (Davenport & Davenport, 1985, p. 156). Plecas and Sork (1986) devoted a good part of their discussion to an endorsement of the gogymania critique, accusing the adult education discipline of “building outward but not upward” (p. 55) and employing terminology on a “user preference basis” (p. 57). Davenport (1987) notably characterized the gogy line of discussion as a “morass.” Ferro (1997) gave perhaps the most impassioned plea against the linguistic adventure set in motion by Knowles, blaming “the seductive temptation to coin and use ‘cute’ or ‘catchy’ terms” (p. 41).

It is within this rather daunting context that the following paragraphs will attempt to move the gogy discussion forward, not backward. The paper will argue the utility of such a theoretical and, yes, linguistic exercise, and will endorse certain perspectives—old and new—that will further identify and refine what aspects of it can be useful to practitioners. Indeed, this paper is primarily concerned with what is immediately applicable in the field of adult education, and will be wholly informed by challenges faced by the Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education.

Background: The Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education

The idea of a Teaching-Learning Continuum sprang from several years of experience within the Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education (DPE). A part of the Alabama Community College System, DPE has a subordinate unit known as the Curriculum and Instruction Unit (CIU). The CIU develops standardized curricula within the state’s various career and technical education programs by working closely with faculty from around the state and with other subject matter experts. This work facilitates state-wide articulation between Alabama’s secondary institutions and the two-year colleges.

As part of the CIU’s activities, faculty development is fostered under the Instructor Skills Enhancement Training (ISET) program. ISET equips faculty with basic instructional methodologies, lesson planning and presentation skills, and information related to how adult students learn. ISET emphasizes methods to create an environment in which adult learners are motivated to develop new skills in various career and technical disciplines. Additionally, college administrators may request other specific content to meet faculty needs.

One of the CIU’s goals is to stimulate postsecondary students to transition from pedagogical to andragogical learning. During recent faculty development sessions, members of the CIU were specifically asked about motivating students toward this transition. This spurred discussion among the CIU team about how this change occurs and how to better foster it during instruction. This then led to research that culminated in the development of the Teaching-Learning Continuum. The intent of the continuum is to illustrate the progressive maturation of learners as they improve, enjoy, and benefit from the teaching-learning transaction; further, it illustrates the changing role of the teacher during that process.

The Need for a Teaching-Learning Continuum

The idea of a continuum of theoretical perspectives in adult learning, one that could inform practice, is an established one. Knowles (1980) presented the discipline with a continuum that articulated a relationship between pedagogy and andragogy and acknowledged the situational utility of each method. These gogies sat at opposite ends and forced theorists and practitioners to consider the balanced approach required at various points in between. This paper does not seek to critique, redefine, truncate, or otherwise compromise the integrity of what pedagogy has come to be viewed as or the andragogy Knowles has advocated. On the contrary, we believe the methodologies presented by pedagogy and andragogy to be critical for sound practice. What we will argue is that the continuum could, and indeed should, be expanded and clarified. This could be accomplished in such a way as to preserve the vision of Knowles’ continuum while at the same time offering additional guidance for educators.

The Current Continuum: Two Questions

Knowles’ continuum, although representing a major step forward, begs two questions. First, what happens when andragogy succeeds? Andragogy’s aim is to see a learner become fully self-directed, but the continuum does not incorporate any such end state. If adult educators are going to embrace the idea that learners are to be empowered through andragogical methods, then they would be aided in understanding this terminal learning relationship, in which the learner successfully commandeers the educational contract. This stage would see the teacher relegated to the role of a passive resource, a person useful only to the extent that he or she can further the learner’s objectives. This can be a delicate topic for educators for obvious reasons. We are professionals who feel an obligation to steer students in their activities, and certainly in most scenarios that responsibility does exist. However, any continuum of adult education must contain a stage in which the learner’s agenda, leadership, and level of responsibility exceed that of the teacher. Such a concept is supported by the writing of Hase and Kenyon (2000), who offered the term heutagogy to describe the realization of andragogical goals. Heutagogy describes a point at which the student becomes the primary agent in the student-teacher relationship. Fittingly then, the model presented in this paper will expand the continuum to include this stage as a necessary follow on to andragogy.

The next question an educator might ponder when considering Knowles’ continuum is how he or she is to conceptualize the vast array of possibilities that lie between pedagogy and andragogy. The realization by Knowles et al. (2005) that a complementary relationship did exist was a momentous revelation. As the teaching-learning situation evolved, instruction from the educator would begin to share space with the volition of the student. This evolution remains a crucial concept, but the often-laborious process of pursuing it remains undefined. Educators would be helped immensely if the continuum offered them just such a transitional stage.

In the field, the process of bringing learners into an andragogical stage of learning is a difficult one. It could be said that the task of moving the teacher-learner relationship along the continuum toward andragogy is a skill in and of itself. We would suggest that it therefore constitutes another new stage along the continuum, occupying a space between pedagogy and andragogy. This stage would validate the journey which many teachers and learners have experienced and, more importantly, can inform those who have yet to face it. This stage is presented here as mesagogy, a uniquely “transitional” stage that would embody the struggle both teachers and learners experience in moving beyond pedagogical assumptions and techniques. As stated earlier in this paper, the authors are sensitive to the introduction of yet another “gogy,” as many others will undoubtedly be; yet, for the time being it effectively communicates the concept. The gogy convention is at this point familiar within the discipline, and therefore must be accepted as one method of communicating new ideas.

Linking the Gogies

By expanding on Knowles’ position in this manner, a unified framework emerges that illustrates learner maturity in gogical terms. Such a framework is useful in so far as it can familiarize practitioners with a single developmental learning model applicable to a vast array of teaching situations. It subsumes a number of other, more disparate, propositions regarding teaching and learning and should, therefore, prove more practical in the field. Its impact could be far reaching since, as Knox (1977) pointed out, “[p]ractitioners can use generalizations about adult development and learning in many ways. Included are facilitation of client self-directedness, linking of client needs to relevant resources, and articulation of services with those from other specialists” (p. 28).

As with the work of Knowles, the Teaching-Learning Continuum could come to be described as a learning theory, an assumption, an explanation, or, as Knowles described andragogy, “a conceptual framework that serves as a basis for an emergent theory” (1989, p. 112). In assuming any one of these roles, this continuum could assist in the:

search for a body of ideas, theories, and experience which will guide practical workers in many fields of adult learning. It is probably no longer necessary to justify the importance of theory. Theory is usually the result of the distillation of practice. Nothing is so practical as good theory. Put in the words of the old saw – theory without practice is empty, and practice without theory is blind (Kidd, 1973, p. 25)

The Continuum provides gogical alignment to maximize the consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the teaching and learning transaction – a sought benefit as described by Wlodowski (1999, p. 87).

Chapter 2

The Teaching-Learning Continuum

The continuum (Figure 1) indicates that learners progress through four gogical stages as they mature. This maturity can inhabit any or all domains of learning, whether cognitive, affective, or psychomotor. The figure also portrays the teacher’s various roles. Teachers should respond appropriately to the learner’s stage of development, thereby facilitating the student’s move from dependence to independence, from passive to active learning. The rate of movement and development through stages of the continuum vary from learner to learner and from situation to situation. Again, the continuum is contextually contingent. The learner’s development is indicated on the continuum by a diagonal line intersecting the model from left to right. This line traces upward towards the right hand side of the model, which represents the continuum’s terminus. Of note, the areas underneath the line—representative of the student’s role—become increasingly larger as the line progresses across the model. Conversely, as a learner’s degree of maturity and responsibility increases, the active role of the teacher decreases.

This model also introduces a stage of development between pedagogy and andragogy, which the authors have termed mesagogy. Meso in Greek refers to middle or intermediate; therefore, mesagogical learners are beyond pedagogical learning—being largely dependent upon the teacher—and are focused on becoming andragogical, motivated largely by their own needs and desires to learn. A more in-depth discussion of mesagogy, and the other gogical stages, is provided later. The Teaching-Learning Continuum depicts the cognitive, affective, and (or) psychomotor maturation of learners, regardless of age, and the role teachers assume in that process.

The Continuum reflects the work of Grow (1991) in terms of learner growth and the teacher’s concomitant role. As our research team reviewed the literature, we initially had not encountered Grow’s Staged Self-Directed Learning (SSDL) Model, yet it was refreshing to discover similar thinking. Although Grow did not directly associate the gogical stages with the SSDL, it is important to include his ideas in explaining the Continuum.

Figure 1 - The Teaching-Learning Continuum

Student Progression

The Teaching-Learning Continuum offers four terms to define the student’s maturation process. These four terms are tied directly to four stages of gogical development and are intended to help describe the learner during that stage of cognition. A summary of these four terms can be found at Table 1.

Receiving describes a student (one possibly accustomed to pedagogical methods) whose role is to acquire basic facts and concepts presented by the instructor. Termed by Grow (1991) as Dependent Learners, these students learn through such methods as rote memorization, reading assignments, and attending lectures. They are dependent upon the teacher at this point and, as the term “receiving” indicates, are generally passive learners. Typically, their development is limited. They have little self-confidence in their ability to apply the information, may not be motivated to learn, might be dissatisfied or frustrated withthe current situation, or may feel varying levels of discomfort, anxiety, or fear.

The term used to describe the next group of students along the Teaching-Learning Continuum is accepting, as depicted within the model’s mesagogical stage. Here, the student exhibits emerging self-confidence and motivation and comprehends the relationship of facts and concepts taught. Grow (1991) referred to these learners as Interested Learners. Therefore, although still dependent upon the instructor, these learners show some interest in learning and application. They now accept the teacher’s instruction and advice as applicable to them.

The third term, internalizing, coincides with the andragogical stage because the student has taken personal control of learning. Although still dependent upon the instructor for some information, this learner prefers to interact with the teacher and take direct responsibility for “how learning will be conducted, what learning will occur, and why learning is important” (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005, p. 184). Students here seek to apply learning, integrating new concepts and values into their mental schema. Grow (1991) described these as Involved Learners. Students will be confident, committed, and motivated to learn because they now recognize the validity of the information and how it applies to their particular situation.

Synthesizing relates to the heutagogical stage and is characterized by a student’s expectation of success. Described by Grow (1991) as a Self-directed Learner, the student has developed to the point of accountability for his or her decisions and actions, as well as the creation of new and unique applications of learned concepts. Full responsibility for determining sources, flow, content, and outcomes of the learning experience is assumed by the learner. The student-instructor relationship (if an instructor is needed) is now one of interdependence, where challenges are met through mutual inquiry.

Table 1 - Learner Characteristics and Teacher’s Roles
Learning Stage / Learner Characteristics / Teacher Role
Pedagogy / Receiving – Is looking for a solution; dissatisfied or frustrated withthe current situation. May feel varying levels of discomfort, anxiety, or fear. Low self-confidence; depends on others for knowledge.
Is able to identify basic facts and terms about the subject. Is able to name parts, tools, and simple facts about a competency.
Is willing to pay attention or participate in the learning process. / Close support - Provides physical or psychological support by giving advice, directives, and external control.
Mesagogy / Accepting - Willingness to try or comply. Unconvinced of validity of solution but willing to comply (acquiescence). Emerging self-confidence. Dependent on external control.
Is able to recognize the relationship of facts and state general principles about the subject. Is able to determine step-by-step processes.
Exhibits new behaviors as a result of new knowledge and experience. / Moderate Support - Allows opportunities for performance and recognizes effort. Provides guidance, encouragement, and feedback.
Andragogy / Internalizing - Recognizes the validity of the solution. Self-confidence grows. Begins to internalize the information and take ownership of it. Moves toward independence.
Is able to analyze facts and principles and draw conclusions about the subject. Can identify why and when a competency must be done and why each step is needed.
Shows definite involvement or commitment. Integrates new values into one’s general set of values, giving it ranking among general priorities. / Consulting - Allows self-directed learning. Is available as needed for guidance and feedback.
Heutagogy / Synthesizing – Creatively applies knowledge and skills. Has an expectation of success. Accountable for decisions and actions. Realizes Independence.
Evaluates information and makes decisions to its value or worth. Predicts, isolates, and resolves problems about the competency.
Fully integrates new values. Behaves consistently with new values. / Synergy – Collaborates in the learning and exploration process. Blends abilities to capitalize on strengths and to compensate for weaknesses. Encourages higher levels of exploration and learning. Serves to validate learning.

Teacher’s Roles