WattsSEL7006-8-1
0
Adult Learning Theories
Stephen W. Watts
Northcentral University
WattsSEL7006-8-1
1
Adult Learning Theories
There is no universal adult learning theory to which all practitioners of adult education
subscribe. Hundreds of learning theories exist. The philosophical foundations of the current
theories are variegated and controversial. Most Practitioners admit to an eclectic approach to
theory, or neglect theory completely and work from their own intuition. Adult online learning
has been most influenced by two theories; andragogy and constructivism.
Adult Learning Theories
Hundreds of learning theories are available, providing a rich foundation for
understanding the complexity of learning and teaching (Minter, 2011). Each theory has many
characteristics common to other theories, strengths, weaknesses, supporters, and detractors.
Many theories do not distinguish between teaching adults and teaching children, or are not
applicable to adult learners (Minter, 2011). Most authors concur that the main branches of
learning theory are behaviorism, cognitivism, and humanism (Hoic-Bozic, Mornar, & Boticki,
2009; Yusoff & Salim, 2012, Abela, 2009) though little consensus follows this admission (Watts,
2012a).
Constructivism
Constructivism is an extension of cognitivism, which focuses on internal perceptions,
brain-based learning, and the individual as the locus of learning (Merriam, Cafarella, &
Baumgartner, 2007). Constructivism spotlights the subjective nature of knowledge and mental
constructs and is “the most widely accepted model of learning in education today” (Hoic-Bozic
et al., 2009, p. 21). Learning is viewed as an active process in which the learner constructs his or
her own subjective representations of reality, and new information is impinged by prior
knowledge (Ashworth, Brennan, Egan, Hamilton, & Saenz, 2004; Martinez-Caro, 2011). The
WattsSEL7006-8-1
2
underlying premise of constructivism engages the learner as a whole person at a cognitive,
social, and affective level to shape deep learning (Ke, 2010; Ke & Xie, 2009). The theory
assumes that learning is (a) goal oriented, (b) active and meaningful or relevant, (c) reflective,
(d) collaborative, and (e) a partnership (Segrave & Holt, 2003; Watts, 2012a). Ruey (2010)
asserted that constructivism is more effective in terms of learning than are more passive or
teacher-centered approaches.
Andragogy
Andragogy, “the art and science of helping adults learn” (Blanchard, Hinchey, & Bennett,
2011, p. 2; Cercone, 2008, p. 137), is an extension of humanism, which focuses on human
potential, freedom, and intentionality. Similar to cognitivism and constructivism, learning is
student-centered for the humanist. In humanism, however, the ultimate goal is for the learner to
become autonomous and self-actualized (Blanchard et al., 2011). Malcolm Knowles was the
leading proponent of andragogy in the U.S. and developed a number of tenets that describe the
adult learner, and these have been further expanded by various authors (Watts, 2012b). The
main principles of andragogy include:

Adult learners are independent and self-directed (Baskas, 2011a, Fidishun, 2011;
Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; Knowles, 1984; Strang, 2009).

As adults learn they become more self-directed and need to have control over their
learning (Blanchard et al., 2011; Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008; McGlone,
2011).

Adult learners want to be acknowledged for and have their experiences used in
learning (Abela, 2009; Blanchard et al., 2011; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; Knowles,
1984).
WattsSEL7006-8-1

3
Adults are more motivated to learn due to present life challenges they want to handle
better (Baskas, 2011a; Donavant, 2009; Zemke & Zemke, 1995).

Adult learners are interested in learning how to solve problems, perform tasks, or
improve their life (Cercone, 2008; Chyung & Vachon, 2005; Kenner & Weinerman,
2011).

Adult learners become more intrinsically motivated and less extrinsically motivated;
focusing on aspirations and self-actualization (Abela, 2009, Donavant, 2009; Minter,
2011).

Adult learners expect a student-centered approach to learning in an environment of
mutual respect between teacher and student (Karge, Phillips, Dodson, & McCabe,
2011; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; McGlone, 2011; Minter, 2011).
Implications of constructivism and andragogy
Andragogy and constructivism are not mutually exclusive. The literature consistently
identifies six characteristics that contribute to optimal online learning for adults (Cercone, 2008).
These six characteristics include (a) a strong student-instructor relationship and facilitation by
the instructor (Boling, Hough, Krinsky, Saleem, & Stevens, 2011; Chyung & Vachon, 2005;
Jackson, Jones, & Rodriguez, 2010; Simonson, Schlosser, & Hanson, 1999), (b) student-student
interaction and collaboration (Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, & Tamim, 2010; McGlone,
2011; Pelz, 2010; Sinclair, 2009; Yang & Cornelious, 2005), (c) the need for reflection by the
learner to tie new learning to existing experience (Ali & Ahmad, 2011; Cacciamani, Cesareni,
Martini, Ferrini, & Fujita, 2012; Cercone, 2008; Ruey, 2010), (d) development of a sense of
community among class participants (Andrews & Haythornthwaite, 2007; Sharples, Taylor, &
Vavoula, 2007; Tallent-Runnels, Thomas, Lan, Cooper, Ahern, Shaw, & Liu, 2006), (e)
WattsSEL7006-8-1
4
immediate real world application of learning (Baskas, 2011b; Blanchard et al., 2011; Ke & Xie,
2009; Segrave & Holt, 2003; Zemke & Zemke, 1995), and (f) student motivation (Abrami et al.,
2010; Baskas, 2011b; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; Omar, Kalulu, & Belmasrour, 2011).
Research demonstrates that as these characteristics are included and emphasized in online
learning the performance of adult learners’ increases, as does their participation, and satisfaction
(Watts, 2012a).
Student-instructor relationship and facilitation by the instructor. “Development of
the student-teacher relationship [is] the key to the success of distance education” (Simonson,
Schlosser, & Hanson, 1999, p. 63). A basic tenet of constructivism is that learning is a
partnership between the student and the instructor and should be focused on the learner (Segrave
& Holt, 2003), while andragogy expects learning to be student centered with mutual respect
between instructor and student (Karge et al., 2011; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; McGlone, 2011;
Minter, 2011). Student satisfaction and learning outcomes increase in online classes as the
instructor facilitates and mentors (Blanchard et al., 2011) while students “become active
participants in learning” (Yang & Cornelious, 2005, Ensuring Effective Online Instruction, para.
3; see also, Donavant, 2009; Ferguson & De Felice, 2010; Gunawardena, Linder-VanBerschot,
LaPointe, & Rao, 2010).
Student-student interaction and collaboration. Constructivists assume that learning
must be collaborative (Abrami et al., 2010; Commonwealth of Learning, 2000), while according
to andragogy the learner is self-directed and needs to control learning (Fidishun, 2011; Guilbaud
& Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008). Student-centered learning melds both of these assumptions and
provides an environment where students can interact, work, and collaborate with other students.
Interaction between students has been shown to promote understanding of course content,
WattsSEL7006-8-1
5
stimulate higher-order thinking, decrease feelings of isolation, and engender a sense of
community in online classes (Palloff & Pratt, 2003; Watts, 2012a). Several studies reflect the
efficacy of theory by demonstrating that as levels of interactivity between students increase so
does student satisfaction (Abrami et al., 2010; Gunawardena et al., 2010; Lee, Redmond, &
Dolan, 2008; Omar et al., 2011) and significant learning outcomes (Allen, Crosky, McAlpine,
Hoffman, & Munroe, 2009; Cabrera-Lozoya, Cerdan, Cano, Garcia-Sanchez, & Lujan, 2012;
Chen & Lien, 2011; Hurtado & Guerrero, 2009).
Learner reflection. Andragogy does not adequately address reflection (Abela, 2009;
Cercone, 2008), while reflection is a major assumption of constructivism (Segrave & Holt,
2003). Reflection has been shown to stimulate metacognitive expertise (Cacciamani et al.,
2012), meta-learning (Baskas, 2011a; Bradley, 2009), high-quality learning (Ke, 2010; Ruey,
2010), and deep learning (Cercone, 2008; Ke & Xie, 2009). Reflection has been revealed as a
key online design dimension (Ali & Ahmad, 2011; Ke, 2010; Yang & Cornelius, 2005).
Students appear to prefer the ability to reflect before engaging in discussions in asynchronous
online learning (Andrews & Haythornthwaite, 2007; Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Martinez-Caro, 2011;
Sinclair, 2009), to examine their biases (Baskas, 2011b), or perspectives (Sinclair, 2009).
Through self-reflection students can transform experience and knowledge (Buch & Bartley,
2002; Chan Mow, 2008), internalize (Ally, 2008; Strang, 2009) and contextualize (Bradley,
2009; Fidishun, 2011) learning (Watts, 2012a).
Developing a sense of community among participants. Vital to successful online
learning is the development of a sense of community between participants (Andrews &
Haythornthwaite, 2007; Boling et al., 2011; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006). Community is an
extension of the relationships between a student and the instructor and other students (Sharples et
WattsSEL7006-8-1
6
al., 2007). Significant benefits follow when students feel a sense of belonging to a community
and care for other members (Watts, 2012a). Benefits for students include; (a) better
understanding of the material (Bradley, 2009), (b) additional reflective thinking (Bradley, 2009),
(c) earlier and improved bonds than in traditional classrooms (Pelz, 2010), (d) increased
motivation (Abrami et al., 2010; Boling et al., 2011, Karge et al., 2011) and satisfaction
(Pigliapoco & Bogliolo, 2008), (e) greater persistence (Pigliapoco & Bogliolo, 2008), and (f)
better learning outcomes (Boling et al., 2011; Fahy, 2008; Moisey & Hughes, 2008; Pigliapoco
& Bogliolo, 2008).
Immediate real world application of learning. Looking through the lens of
constructivism and andragogy, learning for adults is about application of relevant knowledge to
solve real world or life challenges. Encouraging students to bring their experience into the
learning situation while designing the course to focus on problems or tasks they are likely to
encounter after learning acts as a student motivator (Fidishun, 2011), enriches learning, and
expands students ability to handle actual problems (Allen et al., 2009; Ruey, 2010, Watts,
2012b).
Student motivation. Motivation is the most important principle upon which learning is
built (Abela, 2009). Andragogy assumes adults become more intrinsically motivated without
explaining the process or factors for that transformation (Bhuasiri, Xaymoungkhoun, Zo, Rho, &
Ciganek, 2012) or exploring extrinsic motivation. Constructivism assumes that learning is goal
oriented requiring some motivation from the learner. Motivation reflects the amount of effort
applied in persisting and attaining a goal (Watts, 2012b) and can be intrinsic – due to selffulfillment and interest, or extrinsic – due to a reward or hope of a specific outcome (Bhuasiri et
al., 2012). Interest by the adult learner constitutes a key component of motivation (Guilbaud &
WattsSEL7006-8-1
7
Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008) and both contribute to educational success (Kiliç-Cakmak, 2010; Lam
& Bordia, 2008; Omar et al., 2011).
Conclusion
Instructors of adults in online learning typically subscribe to two main theories that are
symbiotic; andragogy and constructivism. For the constructivist, knowledge is constructed in the
mind of the learner based on his or her interactions with the learning environment, the instructor,
other students, and his or her past experiences and knowledge. Each learner creates his or her
own world, without hope of achieving knowledge of objective reality. Andragogy enumerates a
number of validated assumptions describing the characteristics of adult learners. Combined,
these theories contribute to a didactic view for teaching adult online learning consistent with
research suggesting six characteristics for optimal learning.
WattsSEL7006-8-1
8
References
Abela, J. (2009). Adult learning theories and medical education: A review. Malta Medical
Journal, 21(1), 11-18. Retrieved from http://www.um.edu/mt/umms/mmj/PDF/234.pdf
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2010, July).
Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to
improve practice. The Evolution from Distance Education to Distributed Learning.
Symposium conducted at Memorial Union Biddle Hotel, Bloomington, IN.
doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x
Ali, A., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Key factors for determining students’ satisfaction in distance
learning courses: A study of Allama Iqbal Open University. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 2(2), 118-134. Retrieved from http://cedtech.net/
Allen, B., Crosky, A., McAlpine, I., Hoffman, M., & Munroe, P. (2009). A blended approach to
collaborative learning: Making large group teaching more student-centred. The
International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(3), 569-576. Retrieved from
http://www.ijee.ie/
Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.),
The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 15-44). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca
University.
Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2007). Introduction to e-learning research. In R. Andrews,
& C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 1-51). Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Ashworth, F., Brennan, G., Egan, K., Hamilton, R., & Saenz, O. (2004). Learning theories and
higher education. Retrieved from Dublin Institute of Technology:
http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=engscheleart
Baskas, R. S. (2011a). Applying adult learning and development theories to educational
practice. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED519926)
Baskas, R. S. (2011b, March 27). Adult learning assumptions. Retrieved from ERIC Database.
(ED517971)
Blanchard, R. D., Hinchey, K. T., & Bennett, E. E. (2011, April). Literature review of residents
as teachers from an adult learning perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED
521385
Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2011). Cutting the distance in
distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences.
Internet and Higher Education. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.006
WattsSEL7006-8-1
9
Bradley, J. (2009). Promoting and supporting authentic online conversations – which comes first
– the tools of instructional design? International Journal of Pedagogies and learning,
5(3), 20-31. doi:10.5172/ijpl.5.3.20
Buch, K., & Bartley, S. (2002). Learning style and training delivery mode preference. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 14(1), 5-10. doi:10.1108/13665620210412795
Cabrera‐Lozoya, A., Cerdan, F., Cano, M.‐D., Garcia‐Sanchez, D., & Lujan, S. (2012). Unifying
heterogeneous e‐learning modalities in a single platform: CADI, a case study. Computers
& Education, 58(1), 617‐630. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.014
Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., & Fujita, N. (2012). Influence of
participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in
online university courses. Computers & Education, 58, 874-884.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.019
Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design.
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal (AACE), 16(2),
137-159. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/j/AACEJ
Chan Mow, I. T. (2008). Issues and difficulties in teaching novice computer programming. In M.
Iskander (ed.), Innovative techniques in instruction technolgy, e-learning, e-assessment,
and education (pp. 199-204). London, England: Springer Science+Business Media.
Chen, L.-C., & Lien, Y.-H. (2011). Using author co-citation analysis to examine the intellectual
structure of e-learning: A MIS perspective. Scientometrics, 89, 867-886.
doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0458-y
Chyung, S. Y., & Vachon, M. (2005). An investigation of the profiles of satisfying and
dissatisfying factors in e-learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 59(3), 227-245.
doi:10.1177/0741713609331546
Commonwealth of Learning. (2000). An introduction to open and distance learning. Retrieved
from http://www.col.org/PublicationDocuments/pub_ODLIntro.pdf
Donavant, B. W. (2009). The new, modern practice of adult education: Online instruction in a
continuing professional education setting. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(3), 227‐245.
doi:10.1177/0741713609331546
Fahy, P. J. (2008). Characteristics of interactive online learning media. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The
theory and practice of online learning (pp. 167-199). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca
University.
Ferguson, J. M., & DeFelice, A. E. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction,
perceived learning, and academic performance. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 73-84. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/
index.php/irrodl
WattsSEL7006-8-1
10
Fidishun, D. (2011, March). Andragogy and technology: Integrating adult learning theory as we
teach with technology. Retrieved from http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed00/
fidishun.html
Guilbaud, P., & Jerome-D’Emilia, B. (2008). Adult instruction & online learning: Towards a
systematic instruction framework. International Journal of Learning, 15(2), 111-121.
Retrieved from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.30/prod.1638
Gunawardena, C. N., Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., LaPointe, D. K., & Rao, L. (2010). Predictors
of learner satisfaction and transfer of learning in a corporate online education program.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 207-226.
doi:10.1080/08923647.2010.522919
Hoic-Bozic, N., Mornar, V., & Boticki, I. (2009). A blended learning approach to course design
and implementation. IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(1), 19-30.
doi:10.1109/GTE.2007.914945
Hurtado, C., & Guerrero, L. A. (2009). A PDA-based collaborative tool for learning chemistry
skills. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computer supported
cooperative work in design. CSCWD’09, Santiago, Chile, 378-383.
doi:10.1109/CSCWD.2009.4968088
Jackson, L. C., Jones, S. J., & Rodriguez, R. C. (2010). Faculty actions that result in student
satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 78-96.
Retrieved from http://jaln.sloanconsortium.org/index.php/jaln
Karge, B. D., Phillips, K. M., Dodson, T. J., & McCabe, M. (2011). Effective strategies for
engaging adult learners. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8(12), 53-56.
Retrieved from http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/TLC/article/view/6621
Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students.
Computers & Education, 55, 808-820. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013
Ke, F., & Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating online learning communities. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 57(1), 487-510. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9120-2
Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009). Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. Internet and
Higher Education, 12, 136-145. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.001
Kenner, C., & Weinerman, J. (2011). Adult learning theory: Applications to nontraditional
college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 87-96. Retrieved form
http://www.crla.net/journal.htm
Kiliç-Cakmak, E. (2010). Learning strategies and motivational factors predicting information
literacy self-efficacy of e-learners. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
26(2), 192-208. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (EJ886194)
WattsSEL7006-8-1
11
Knowles, A. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lam, P., & Bordia, S. (2008). Factors affecting student choice of e-learning over traditional
learning: Student and teacher perspectives. The International Journal of Learning,
14(12), 131-139. Retrieved from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.30/prod.1585
Lee, D., Redmond, J. A., & Dolan, D. (2008). Lessons from the e-learning experience in South
Korea in traditional universities. In M. Iskander (Ed.), Innovative techniques in
instruction technology, e-learning, e-assessment, and education (pp. 216-222). London,
England: Springer Science+Business Media.
Martinez‐Caro, E. (2011). Factors affecting effectiveness in e‐learning: An analysis in
production management courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education,
19(3), 572‐581. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.v19.3
/issuetoc
McGlone, J. R. (2011). Adult learning styles and on‐line educational preference. Research in
Higher Education Journal, 12, 1‐9. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/rhej.html
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide (3rd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Minter, R., L. (2011). The learning theory jungle. Journal of College Teaching and Learning,
8(6), 7-15. Retrieved from http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/TLC/article/view/
4278/4365
Moisey, S. D., & Hughes, J. A. (2008). Supporting the online learner. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The
theory and practice of online learning (pp. 419-439). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca
University.
Omar, A., Kalulu, D., & Belmasrour, R. (2011). Enhanced instruction: The future of e-learning.
International Journal of Education Research, 6(1), 21-37. Retrieved from http://www.
journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-educational-research/
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online
learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons.
Pelz, B. (2010). (My) three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 14(1), 103-116. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/
publications/jaln_main
Pigliapoco, E. E., & Bogliolo, A. A. (2008). The effects of psychological sense of community in
online and face-to-face academic courses. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning, 3(4), 60-69. Retrieved from http://www.online-journals.org/ijet
WattsSEL7006-8-1
12
Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706-720. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2009.00965.x
Segrave, S., & Holt, D. (2003). Contemporary learning environments: Designing e-learning for
education in the professions. Distance Education, 24(1), 7‐24.
doi:10.1080/0158791032000066499
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R.
Andrews, & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp.
219247). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Simonson, M., Schlosser, C., & Hanson, D. (1999). Theory and distance education: A new
discussion. American Journal of distance Education, 13(1), 60-75.
doi:10.1080/08923649909527014
Sinclair, A. (2009). Provocative pedagogies in e-learning: Making the invisible visible.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 197-209.
Retrieved from ERIC Database. (EJ899306)
Strang, K. D. (2009). Measuring online learning approach and mentoring preferences of
international doctorate students. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 245257. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-ofeducational-research/
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., &
Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 76(1), 93-135. doi:10.3102/00346543076001093
Watts, S. W. (2012a). Online instructor competencies. Unpublished Manuscript, School of
Education, Northcentral University, Prescott Valley, AZ.
Watts, S. W. (2012b). Technological tools impact on learning in online professional
development courses. Unpublished Manuscript, School of Education, Northcentral
University, Prescott Valley, AZ.
Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/yang81.htm
Yusoff, N., & Salim, S. S. (2012). Expert skills in e-learning storyboards using a cognitive task
analysis technique. Computers & Education, 58, 652-665.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.009
Zemke, R., & Zemke, S. (1995). Adult learning: What do we know for sure? Training, 32, 69-82.
Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED504481)