Comparing the American and European Perspectives on the International Concept of Andragogy and the Implications for the Development of Adult Education Theory and Practice
In this research paper we present a thorough pictur e of both the American and European perspectives on andragogy. We believe this to be much needed in the ongoing development of what many erro n ously consider a static concept. Purpose of This Research The purpose of this research was to answer the ques tion: What are the major English language works published around the world on andrag ogy [the art and science of helping adults learn] that may provide a clear and understandable comparison between the American and European perspectives of this international concept of andragogy; and what, if any, are the implications of this research for the development o f adult education theory and practice? Included in this research were: Any material in En glish that presents various aspects of the concept of andragogy; and, a presentation and view of the content of andragogy within any country of the world Sources included: Data bases journal articles, practice pieces, conference proceedings, books, dissertation abstracts, and bib liographic references within the above materials. More than 250 items were found. The int rpretive form of research design was used. Positioning the Study of Andragogy Internationally Merriam (2001) posited that international scholarsh ip on andragogy since 1990 has taken two directions. One seeks to establish it as a sci entific discipline; and, the other critiques andragogy for its lack of attention to its learning context. She also asserts andragogy and selfdirected learning as the two "pillars" of adult lea rning theory that will engender debate, research, discussion, and enrich our understanding and practi ce of facilitating adult learning. King and Wang (2007) said that the overall continui ng research on andragogy conducted since the year 2000 by Cooper and Henschke (2007) presents a much needed continuing development of what many erroneously consider as a static concept. Savicevic (personal conversation with Henschke, 9/27/06, in Bamberg, Ge rmany) emphasized that the ongoing study of andragogy and publication of the same by Henschk e and Cooper, has singularly become very important in "bridge building" not only between the American and European perspectives of andragogy, but also the numerous worldwide perspect ives on andragogy. The European Perspective Beginning with the European perspective on andragog y, Savicevic (1999) provided the broad foundational European perspective with compar ing andragogical concepts of ten European Countries five western (German, French, Dutch, Br itish, Finnish) and five eastern (Soviet, Czech Slovak, Polish, Hungarian, Yugoslav) This c omparison showed common roots but results in five varying schools of thought: (a) Wh ether andragogy and pedagogy are parallel; (b) whether the science is integrative of the process o f learning, guidance, and orientation; (c) whether or not andragogy is prescriptive on the tea ching and learning of adults; (d) andragogy as a science is considered doubtful and refuted; and e) the possibility of andragogy being a scientific discipline. Savicevic (1999) clearly aligned himself with the f ifth school of thought in that this research aims toward establishing the origin and de velopment of andragogy as an academic discipline. He put forth the various perspectives of Europe and America that have the longest traditions and/or strongholds in andragogy. The European concept of andragogy is more comprehen sive than the American conception, even though Europeans do not use the te rms andragogy and adult education synonymously (Young, 1985) European andragogy acc ompanies adults to become more refined and competent. European pedagogy assists a child t o become an adult. Likewise, there should be differences in the relationship between a teache r and adult pupils and the relationship between a teacher and children. The American Perspective Turning then to the American perspective, Knowles 1995, 1996) provided the most articulate expression and understanding of andragog y fr m the American perspective. The structure of the theory is comprised of two concept ual foundations: The learning theory and the design theory. The learning theory is based upon a dults and their desire to become and/or to express themselves as capable human beings and has six components: Adults need to know a reason that makes sense to them, for whatever they ne d to learn; They have a deep need to be self directing and take responsibility for themselv es; Adults enter a learning activity with a quality and volume of experience that is a resource for their own and others' learning; They are ready to learn when they experience a need to know, or be able to do, something to perform more effectively in some aspect of their life; Adults' o rientation to learning is around life situations that are task, issue, or problem centered, for whic h they seek solutions; and, Adults are motivated much more internally that externally. Knowles' (1995) conceptual foundation of the design theory is based in a process, and is not dependent upon a body of content, but helps the learner acquire whatever content is needed. There are eight components of the design process: (a) Preparing the learners for the program; (b) setting a climate that is conducive to learning [ph ysically comfortable and inviting; and psychologically mutually respectful, collaborativ e, mutually trustful, supportive, open and authentic, pleasurable and human] (c) involving le arn rs in mutual planning; (d) involving learners in diagnosing their learning needs; (e) in volving learners in forming their learning objectives; (f) involving learners in designing lea rning plans; (g) helping learners carry out their learning plans; and, (h) involving learners in eval uating their learning outcomes. Active involvement seems to be the watchword of Knowles' thus American) version of andragogy, and each step of the andragogical learning process. Knowles (1970, 1995, 1996) successfully tested and refined his theory and design on a broad spectrum in numerous settings: corporate, wo rkplace, business, industry, healthcare, government, higher education, professions, religiou s education, and elementary, secondary, and remedial education. Houle (1992) also emphasizes t h impact of Knowles on American andragogy, and how he has worked this out in practi ce especially in non school settings and the workplace. He went on to indicate that scholars an d theorists may find great value in Knowles' discussion of the development of learning theories in the educational literature, and his exploration of the roots of his own thinking about theorizing. He also spoke about Knowles' work being practical and providing concrete example s and in depth case studies of how learning activities are planned, structured, and executed. Criticism of the American Perspective Nevertheless, there was strong criticism of America n andragogy, and that coming from Europe and Australia (Candy, 1991; Jarvis, 1984) At the time Knowles articulated andragogy, self expression and personal development were in vo gue. Thus, andragogy was best understood in curriculum terms as an expression of the romanti c, was launched into a romantic philosophy, similar to it and receptive to it. So it would see m that andragogy emerged at a time when its romantic philosophical structures reflected the rom antic structures of the wider society. Welton (1995) leveled the assertion that "the 'andr gogical consensus' [anchoring the study of adult education in methods of teaching and u erstanding the individual adult learner] formulated by the custodians of orthodoxy in the Am erican Commission of Professors in the 1950s and solidified by Malcolm Knowles and others in the 1960s and 1970s, has unraveled at the seams" (p. 5) The fundamental accusations exp ressed are that because of this perspective, adult education has abandoned its once vital role i n fostering democratic social action, is on a shaky foundation, works to the advantage of large s cale organizations, and is conceptually inadequate to serve the interests of the disenfranc hised in North American society. Savicevic (1999) indicated that Knowles was inconsi stent in determining andragogy and thus has caused much confusion and misunderstanding He identified six mistakes of Knowles regarding his perspective on andragogy that are pre sent d here. First, Knowles defined andragogy as 'science and art' following in the foo tsteps of Dewey in doing the same thing with pedagogy. Second, he defined andragogy as 'the sci ence and art of helping adults to learn' thus reducing it to a prescription or a recipe for how a te cher needs to behave in educating adults. Third, he declared andragogy as a 'model' for teach ing even in pre school, thus moving it away from just applying to adults. Fourth, he directed andragogy only toward problems of learning, thus neglecting social and philosophical dimensions of adults. Fifth, he emphasized an individualistic approach to learning and education with no link to adults' existing circumstances, education level, and other factors relating to lear ning. Sixth, Knowles' lack of historical awareness prompted him to think he was the first to use andragogy in the American adult education literature. Grace (2001) considered that Knowles' (hence the Kn owlesian American) andragogy as a theory of how adults learn, ascended to prominence in the U. S. adult education after the 1970 publication of his book The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy. By 1990 it was losing much of its punch as a result of the discussion and controversy surrounding it. He felt that Knowles' perspective s too much caught up with individualization, institutionalization, professionalization, techno s cientization, self directed learning, the politics of exclusion, maintenance, and conformity. Grace a lso believed it ignores resistance and transformation, and sees mainstream U. S. and Ca