JOLT 2012 - PAPER 1

Journal of Learning and Teaching

From Pedagogy to Andragogy – Reflections on the Transition in Role from Primary Educator to New Teacher Educator Deborah Wilkinson, Teacher Education Abstract This paper reports on the learning journey and self-reflections of a New Teacher Educator (NTE) and aims to review the differences, with regards to teaching styles, when delivering learning experiences to adult learners instead of child learners. In doing so, comparisons between andragogy and pedagogy are discussed. The paper focuses upon the challenges experienced by a NTE when teaching a large cohort of students in a lecture theatre. The paper acknowledges that learning is a multifaceted process and attempts to identify the variables that impact upon a student’s ability to learn. In considering the best approaches to enhance the student learning experience, reflections considering the impact of adapting teaching style to the preferred learning style of students are discussed.

Introduction This paper aims to identify the challenges faced by an experienced primary school teacher when beginning a career in higher

of adult learning, which make it distinct from child learning (Smith, 2002). The assumptions include: • self–concept (the ability of the learner to self-direct their own

education as a New Teacher Educator (NTE). Although there are

learning)

some similarities between the role of the primary school teacher

• experience

and the professional duties of a NTE there are some adjustments

• readiness to learn

to teaching style and preparation that have to be made when

• orientation towards learning

delivering learning episodes to adults (Murray and Male, 2005).

• motivation to learn

One of the main challenges when beginning the process of teaching adults is the change in role of the educator. In school the role of the teacher is to move children towards independence and the learning is dependent upon the curriculum and the teacher’s perceptions of when, where and how a subject is learned and assessed. This is somewhat different to the teaching of students in a Higher Education establishment as the learning is often about supporting the ‘performance needs’ of the learner (passing assignments and being able to deliver lessons when on teaching

However, Baldwin and Sabry (2003) argue that the learner’s engagement with tasks, their gender, age, cultural and economic background as well as their cognitive learning styles results in different learning behaviours and has an impact upon a student’s understanding of the learning experiences being presented to them. So in addition to considering Knowles’ assumptions, it is imperative that the NTE is aware that the process of learning is a complex process.

practice), is self-directed and motivated and is linked to real-life

When teaching students in lectures, there was a temptation

experiences (i.e. training for a profession) Baird and Fisher (2005).

initially to adopt the transmission model of presenting and

However, as an NTE there is also the desire to foster and develop

imparting knowledge. The desire to prepare student teachers for

a love of learning so that the student teachers continue to learn

their professional role meant that ‘stories’ from prior experiences

and engage with academic research in order to develop their

at school were ‘told to’ the students and although these first-hand

understanding of pedagogy and subject knowledge throughout

experiences were of interest, there was not an attempt to value

their careers.

or elicit student’s experiences in school and allow them to reflect

In order to consider the needs of the adult learner it is pertinent to consider the distinguishing features that set adult education apart from the teaching of children. Andragogy or ‘adult-focused education’, has been developed by Malcolm Knowles and in his ‘Five Learning Assumptions’ Knowles highlights the characteristics 2012 Series: Paper 1

upon these. This, however, is a common experience performed by many teachers who have recently entered the profession of university lecturer as their knowledge of an academic ‘discipline’ is their knowledge of schooling (Murray and Male, 2005). The model adopted in this example assumed a model of the student being a ‘passive recipient’ and thus denies them (of) having an active

Journal of Learning and Teaching role in the process of learning (Murphy 1997). The transmission

been termed ‘neomillenial learners’ by Baird and Fisher (2005)

model of imparting knowledge alone, is likely to fail or at best,

because they have developed new ways of understanding,

result only in short-term learning as many students will not learn

learning and processing new information due to the access that

and understand by simply watching and listening to somebody

they have had to technology as they have been growing up. The

else (Claxton, 1990; Henderson and Wellington, 1998). Therefore,

‘neomillenial learner’, who often makes up the majority of initial

the challenge was to move from the teacher centred didactic

teacher training cohorts, is accustomed to ‘on-demand’ learning

approach in order to make the learning experience more student

i.e. they can access learning situations whenever and wherever

focused.

they wish. Students are easily connected to peers, tutors

Due to perceptions in expectations, pace and timings of lead lectures to over one hundred students, the outcome of the first few lectures included too much ‘teacher talk’ and not enough questioning. A problem of this approach is that the students are not actively linking their background understanding of concepts by questioning the tutor but are passive and may simply take notes and hope that the key ideas will link together. The approach during the first few lead lectures was teacher-focused with the tutor attempting to ‘get the message across’. This delivery approach of listening to a tutor, according to ‘Dale’s Cone of Retention’ only leads to 5% retention of knowledge by the learner (Lalley and Miller, 2007). Indeed, it was observed that students would often sit quietly and appear to listen and look at the power-points and DVD clips but they were reluctant to engage with the few questions

and course materials through laptops, iPods and other digital resources. In order to ‘tap into’ this style of learning, a Personal Response System (PRS) could be utilised during whole cohort lectures. This may benefit the learners because the ‘neomillenial learner’ favours ‘doing something as opposed to just sitting and reading’ Nielson (2005). PRS can be used to ask questions during a lead lecture with the students responding to questions using a hand held device. Campbell and Mayer (2009) discovered that those students who had access to the devices were able to ‘out perform’ those who did not have access to devices when tested on retention tests. However, the challenge as a tutor is the need to consider how many questions to use, what kinds and when they should be presented in order to keep the learner engaged (Campbell and Mayer, 2008).

posed to them. The challenge for a tutor is to make the learning

Baldwin and Sabry (2003, p.337) argue that ‘learners learn more

more student-focused so that they can apply higher cognitive

effectively when information is presented in a manner that fits

skills and apply and relate their ideas and questions to their prior

their preferred method of acquiring information’ which leads to

learning (Biggs, 1999).

more active participation by a higher percentage of students.

The over use of PowerPoint was identified as an issue in the National Student Survey 2010 with some students on an initial teacher training course reporting ‘that some tutors could use a broader range of teaching methods rather than relying too much on PowerPoint’. This raised the question of ‘how could the student learning experience be enhanced so that there is more apparent engagement with the learning within a large cohort?’ To do this it was imperative to consider variables that impact upon the student’s desire to learn in a large lecture theatre as well as considering how the target audience truly wants to receive content.

University cohorts today are quite diversified with some students finding it a challenge to cope with the academic demands of a degree course (Biggs, 1999). Many of today’s students have different expectations and learning styles compared to previous generations of students and these variables need to be considered when planning learning experiences. Adults born after 1982 have 2012 Series: Paper 1

Irvine (2011) supports this notion and maintains that an array of ICT approaches can ensure that students have the opportunity to learn in multiple ways which supports their individual style of learning. It would be interesting to establish if particular types of learners benefit from web-based instruction more than others - for example, do the verbal/linguistic and mathematical learners prefer traditional classroom learning rather than e-learning approaches?

To assess this theory would involve some additional continuing professional development to ensure that the ICT knowledge base of the tutor matches the needs of the student population so that the tutor is confident to deliver e-learning situations.

Journal of Learning and Teaching Meshing Theory and the Use of Multiple Intelligences The term learning styles refers to the concept that learners differ in how they study and learn (Reiner and Willingham, 2010). Howard Gardner’s theory of ‘multiple intelligence’ (M.I) which he postulated

The results of the questionnaires for students on a Primary Education course have been analysed and interpersonal intelligence was found to the dominant trait (a trend that has been the same for the past three years).

in 1984, identified seven forms of intelligence. These intelligences,

The learning behaviours attributed to interpersonal intelligence

in combination, he maintained, enable each of us to find our own

include the ability to thrive in social situations and people with

unique way ‘around the world’. These are categorised linguistically,

this trait are often good at working with others, flourish in social

numerically, spatially, kinaesthetically, musically and also in terms

situations and learn best through interaction and dialogue (Gardner,

of interpersonal and intrapersonal skills. Since his initial research,

1984).

other areas of intelligence have been hypothesised, including existentialism and naturalism. Although some people are able to use a combination of styles to learn most of us favour one in particular so by being aware of the range of teaching styles, and by being able to reflect upon practices, we may produce more satisfied learners.

However, it could be argued that the questionnaire, used with the students is not reliable in that students will respond positively to what they ‘perceive’ to be the correct response to questions. It could be argued there is no stigma attached to being weak at maths but to admit to having poor interpersonal skills is less likely. For example, most students would probably respond positively to the

Although Gardner (1999) does not advocate an intelligence test

statement ‘I enjoy social events’ and ‘I am sensitive to the needs

to ascertain a profile, believing it to be difficult to measure from

of those around me’ but may be willing to respond negatively to ‘I

a single test, M.I. questionnaires are a good initial organiser by

have a facility with numbers and mathematical problems’. To check

which one can describe strengths and weaknesses. During the

the reliability of the questionnaire, the results could be compared

first year of an initial teacher education course, student teachers

to a different group of students to see if they have similar profiles.

are presented with a learning styles questionnaire to elicit their

Although there may have been problems with the design of the

preferred learning styles. This information can then, in theory, be

questionnaire, it was decided to attempt to incorporate tasks to

utilised by some tutors to adapt their sessions to meet the needs

stimulate interpersonal intelligence behaviours into lectures.

of different learners. The model appears to have acceptance among students on an initial teaching course with all except one of the first year undergraduate students believing that MI is a useful tool in supporting them in understanding how they learn best. This high percentage of acceptance of the theory of MI and learning styles may be attributed to the fact that schools routinely administer tests so that they can ‘claim’ that they are meeting government agendas ‘to make personalised learning a reality for all’ (Miliband, 2004) and in doing so, enable learners to develop the necessary skills for lifelong learning (Hall and Mosely, 2005). If learning styles are to be accepted as a useful tool in planning for personalised learning then it could be argued that if learning style is not taken into account then the learning will be inefficient (so if a student is a visual learner, then following this line of reasoning, the information presented should be visual). This is termed the ‘meshing hypothesis’ and is the linking of learning styles to teaching styles (Pashler et al, 2009).

In a number of lectures, students were presented with activities that required them to talk and share ideas and to work with others to answer questions posed to them in a collaborative manner. Students reported to enjoy the use of concept maps and concept cartoons to provoke discussion when learning about more challenging concepts because it stimulated conversation and their ideas were challenged in a non-threatening way. Research indicates that the most effective approaches to retention of learning are if students are provided with the opportunity to teach others, being able to practice ideas and by being able to discuss their ideas with peers (Lalley and Miller, 2007). Smith (2002) concurs and argues that for retention of learning to occur, students need to be encouraged to predict, share memory maps, develop their own learning goals, review work and explain their reasoning. Another approach was to provide pairs of students with post-it notes onto which they wrote the answers to various questions that were posed during the lecture. This approach again worked well because it involved the students talking and working together. Although this approach seemed successful it may be because the methods employed

2012 Series: Paper 1

Journal of Learning and Teaching in the above examples were simply the ‘best approach for the

the students think about while they are in class and to participate in

task’ and instead of focusing on learning styles and applying the

the ‘act of thinking about their learning’ (Caviglioli and Harris 2003

‘mesh hypothesis’ a tutor should consider the optimal approach

p. 13).This involves the student noticing and monitoring what they

for different teaching episodes (Pashler et al, 2009). White (2008)

are thinking, how they are thinking and how they are disposed

and Loo (2004) concur and argue for the need to vary teaching

to thinking. Examining these habits can support the students to

approaches to motivate learners and this should not be confined

learn to regulate their learning in order to improve it. This self-

to the notion of ‘meshing’ the learners so called preferred learning

evaluation will allow students to become more self-directed,

style with a teaching approach.

motivated and orientated towards learning. This approach would

Researchers at Newcastle University were commissioned to evaluate the use of learning style questionnaires with regards to subsequent improvements in learning when students are made aware of their learning styles and are taught in ways which exactly ‘match’ their profiles. The concept of using an assessment tool to establish preferred learning styles and to adapt teaching styles was criticised by the researchers in that there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of learning style questionnaires and if students are labelled with a style then they may be reluctant to move beyond their comfort zone to develop new skills (Coffield,

then allow teaching to become more student focused and less teacher focused in approach and will enable students to fulfil the performance needs of their education and hopefully, to become life-long learners.

References BAIRD, D.E. AND FISHER, M. (2005), Neomillenial user experience design strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support ‘Always on’ learning styles, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34 (1) pp. 5-32.

2004). Instead, Hall and Mosely (2005) argue that there needs

BALDWIN, L. AND SABRY, K. (2003), Learning styles for

to be a focus on learner’s self-awareness and the ability of the

interactive learning systems, Innovations in Education and

student to adopt different approaches in different circumstances

Teaching International, 40 (4) pp. 325-340.

and in doing so break the habit and limitations that learning styles place upon the learner.

Biggs, J. (1999), What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education Research and Development, 18 (1) pp.

Conclusions

57-75.

Although the move from pedagogy to andragogy is an interesting

CAMPBELL, J. AND MAYER, R.E. (2009), Questioning as an

journey it is important for a NTE to consider the similarities between

instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures?,

the roles and to build upon these links when teaching adults. In

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23 (6) pp. 747-759.

both settings (child or adult) it is wrong to assume uniformity within any group whereby every individual is treated in the same way and assumed to study in the same way as this maintains that all individuals are the same. Educators should recognise

CAVIGLIOLI AND HARRIS (2003), Reaching out to all thinkers.

How Teachers can Help All Pupils Become Better Thinkers, Stafford: Network Educational Press Ltd.

that individuals have different strengths, learn in different ways

CLAXTON, G. (1990), Teaching to Learn: A Direction for Education,

and demonstrate understanding differently but this does not

London, Cassell.

necessarily mean adapting lessons to address an individual’s preferred learning style. Instead there needs to be a commitment

COFFIELD, F. (2004), Fashion victims. Could tests to diagnose ‘learning styles’ do more harm than good? TES, 04/05/04, p.16.

to understanding the students. This may include acknowledging their backgrounds, strengths, preferences, anxieties, experiences,

GARDNER, H. (1999), Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences

level of ability and goals. Learners are different and approach

for the 21st Century, New York: Basic Books.

learning tasks differently according to their interests, motivation and prior experiences (Baldwin and Sabry, 2005 and Reiner and Willingham, 2010). In addition to this, instead of asking if we engaged the right sense or learning style, a tutor should ask what 2012 Series: Paper 1

GARDNER, H. (1984), Frames of Mind, London: Basic Books.

Journal of Learning and Teaching HALL, E. AND MOSELY, D. (2005), Is there a role for learning styles in personalised education and training?, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24 (3) pp.243-255.

HENDERSON, J. AND WELLINGTON, J. (1998), Lowering the language barrier in learning and teaching science, School Science Review, Vol. 79, p.228.

IRVINE, C. (2011), An Integration of MI theory and ICT, available at http://www.carairvine.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/intelligenceand-ict, accessed: 18 May 2011.

LALLEY, J. P. AND MILLER, R. H. (2007), The Learning Pyramid: Does it point teachers in the right d­­irection?, Education, 128 (1) pp.64-79.

LOO, R. (2004), Kolb’s learning styles and learning preferences: Is there a linkage?, Educational Psychology, 24 (1) pp.99-108.

MILIBAND, D. (2004), Personalised Learning: Building a new Relationship with Schools, speech made to the North of England Education Conference, 8th January 2004.

MURPHY, P. (1997), Constructivism and Primary Science, Primary Science Review, September/October, 49, pp. 27-29.

MURRAY, J. AND MALE, T. (2005), Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field, Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, pp.125-142.

NAYLOR, S. AND KEOGH, B. (2000), Concept Cartoons in Primary Science Education, Milgate House Publishers.

NIELSON, J. (2005), How Users Read on the Web, accessed from http://www.useit.com/alerbox/9710a.html PASHLER, H., MCDANIEL, M., ROHER, D. AND BJORK, R. (2009), Learning styles: Concepts and evidence, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9 (3) pp.105-119.

REINER, C. AND WILLINGHAM, D. (2010), The myth of learning styles, Change, September/October, pp.32-35.

SMITH, M.K. (2002), Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-direction and andragogy, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education, accessed from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-knowl. htm.

WHITE, J. (2008), Illusory intelligences?, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42 (3-40) pp.611-630.

2012 Series: Paper 1