WattsSEL7006-8-8
0
Knowles’ Andragogical Model and Learning
Stephen W. Watts
Northcentral University
WattsSEL7006-8-8
1
This assignment is available online on my wiki here.
Knowles’ Andragogical Model and Learning
There was a time when teaching was teaching, learning was learning, and it was all
pedagogical. A pioneer arose inciting a profession, attaching a label and a few assumptions to a
concept that should have been obvious, but until then had been noticed by only a few. This
concept is that children and adults are different; they have different experience bases, have
different learning needs, and have different faculties and resources. The label granted to this
shift from the teaching of children to the teaching of adults was andragogy. Andragogy has a
past, prior to its popularity. Andragogy is based on assumptions regarding adult learners.
Andragogy is the foundation for several extension theories of adult learning and teaching.
Andragogy has many proponents, but the lack of empirical validation for its assumptions is
troubling to many, and criticisms have been leveled. These criticisms have led to querying
whether andragogy is a theory of adult learning at all.
Andragogy’s Past
Andragogy is “the art and science of helping adults learn” (Blanchard, Hinchey, &
Bennett, 2011, p. 2; Clapper, 2010, pp. e7-e8; Henschke, 2011, p. 34), has many supporters and
critics, and identifies foundational concepts for the teaching of modern adults. The term was
originally coined by Alexander Kapp in 1833 (Abela, 2009; Fidishun, 2011; Knowles, Holton, &
Swanson, 2005) and philosophically flows from Plato’s theory regarding educating young adults
(Abela, 2009). The term, however, remained dormant until revived by Eugen Rosenback in the
early twentieth century when education of adults came in vogue (Taylor & Kroth, 2009). In the
U.S., Malcolm Knowles was the leading proponent of andragogy and built on the foundations of
organizational development theory; most notably the work of Edward Thorndike and Eduard
WattsSEL7006-8-8
2
Lindeman (Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008; Hoadley, 2007; Ruey, 2010). Lindeman
mentioned andragogy but was more interested in the practical application of adult learning
theory; experience-focused learning to make adult education more efficient (Donavant, 2009;
Strang, 2009). Thorndike focused on adult learning experimentation positing that variations and
differences between people require differences in delivery and that learning occurs from the
consequences of stimulus (Chyung & Vachon, 2005; Westera, 2012). In 1967 Knowles was
enlightened by Dusan Savicevic that his educational practice was called andragogy (Fidishun,
2011; Henschke, 2011). The educational community in the U.S. popularized the term after
Knowles (1970) book, The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy.
Ultimately Knowles formulated six assumptions regarding the adult learner that were to be used
to inform teaching practice.
Knowles’ Six Assumptions and One Upshot
Knowles (1984) identified six main tenets or assumptions regarding the adult learner in
his theory of andragogy; focusing on what he perceived as the significant differences between
how children and adults learn. Originally, Knowles touted andragogy as a complete theory for
the teaching of adults and he had many supporters then and now. The assumptions are; (a) adults
should have the reason for learning clearly explained to them upfront, (b) adults self-perceptions
are shaped by the way they are treated, (c) adults should be encouraged to share their experiences
to amplify their learning, (d) adults are motivated to learn, (e) real-world contexts optimize adult
learning, and (f) adult motivation to learn increases as the learning is made relevant. An upshot
of these six assumptions, identified by a number of authors, is that adults require a safe nonthreatening environment to learn the best (Buch & Bartley, 2002; Gunawardena, LinderVanBerschot, LaPoint, & Rao, 2010; McGlone, 2011).
WattsSEL7006-8-8
3
The Need to Know
Adult learners are independent and will not necessarily learn what they are told but need
to understand why they need to learn something and the benefits it will bring (Baskas, 2011a;
Fidishun, 2011; Kenner & Winerman, 2011; Strang, 2009). Teachers should present the
objectives of the learning before or at the beginning of a course and encourage students to
evaluate the benefits of learning versus the disadvantages of not learning (Kistler, 2011). It is
beneficial to ask students what they expect to get from a course, and then use that information to
tailor the concepts to the expectations expressed (Fidishun, 2011). Facilitators can do this
through simulations and activities that increase interest and help students become aware of their
lack of knowledge.
Supporting and criticizing the need to know. The emotion of interest appears to be
the trigger that increases adult students’ motivation to learn (Baskas, 2011b; Nummenmaa &
Nummenmaa, 2008). Research shows that the sub-dimensions of motivation are attention,
confidence, and relevance (Ally, 2008; Bradford, 2011; Keller, 2006). By focusing on students
need to know and engaging learners in interactions and relevant activities instructors can raise
interest in and motivation for learning the subject. In my experience students do not always
attend class at their own behest. In such situations, many students are resistant and even
belligerent toward learning and in their interactions. This is consistent with Knowles’
assumptions that resentment and resistance is the result of forced learning. Online learners
demonstrate this same need (Gibbons & Wentworth, 2001; Kiliç-Cakmak, 2010). McGrath
(2009) identified that most adult students in higher education understand the reality of
educational standards, credentialing bodies, and the constraints of time and will take the
appropriate classes and perform the necessary assignments to achieve their goals regardless of
WattsSEL7006-8-8
4
apparent relevancy to their learning purposes. Research suggests that adults will devote
considerable time and resources to learning material they consider valuable (Knowles, 1984;
Taylor & Kroth, 2009).
Self-Concept
Adult learners become more self-directed and need to have control over their learning
(Blanchard et al., 2011; Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008; McGlone, 2011). Learners expect
to be treated with respect, and resent when others attempt to impose their own will on them
(Taylor & Kroth, 2009). Teachers should seek to encourage self-direction by formulating
conditions and experiences in the classroom that minimize dependency and foster the students’
ability to make decisions and take charge (Kistler, 2011). According to some, learners should be
actively involved in planning their own learning (Keengwe & Georgina, 2012) while teachers
should act as facilitators instead of dispensers (Blanchard et al., 2011; Galbraith & Fouch, 2007).
These strategies help the student become more self-directed and shed his or her dependency on
the instructor; learning how to learn (Cercone, 2008; Fidishun, 2011).
Supporting the assumption of self-concept. The theory of self-directed learning
springs from Knowles, and specifies that learning should be learner-directed, and may or may
not be formal. Self-directed learning and andragogy assume that as people mature their selfconcepts transform from dependence on others to increasing degrees of self-direction. Selfdirection results in individuals who take responsibility, are autonomous, and goal-oriented.
Traditional classroom settings tend to pull students into a dependent role because of operant
conditioning, but the online classroom can provide a different experience if the instructor
encourages self-directed activities and expectations (Kistler, 2011).
WattsSEL7006-8-8
5
Disputing the assumption of self-concept. A criticism of andragogy with regards to
self-direction is whether all cultures incline toward self-direction and the development of an
individualized self-concept (Blanchard et al., 2011; Merriam et al., 2007). Instructors of adult
students know that every student is not confident and self-efficacious. Many students, regardless
of maturity or experience are anxious, self-conscious, and have low self-esteem (McGrath,
2009). This is not supportive of andragogy’s enumerated assumptions.
Experience
Adult learners have a varied and rich experience base, as well as different learning styles
and motivators. Adult learners want to be acknowledged for and have their experiences used in
learning (Abela, 2009; Blanchard et al., 011; Fidishun, 2011; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011). The
inclusion of these experiences can enrich learning in the classroom. Consistent with this view,
extended theories like constructivism or problem-based learning suggest that a key ingredient in
successful adult online learning is collaboration and student-student interaction (Abrami et al.,
2010; Boling et al., 2011; Jackson et al., 2010; Keengwe & Gerogina, 2012; Pelz, 2010; Ruey,
2010).
Benefits of utilizing adult experience. Teachers must design activities to draw on the
resources of class members and encourage them in becoming active rather than passive learners.
Though problem solving, simulations, group discussions, and case studies the existing
experience of adult students can be drawn on and used to enhance the learning experience of all
students in a class (Kistler, 2011). The constructivist and heutagogical views posit that
collaborative exploration, interactive problem-solving, and group knowledge construction
produce better understanding and learning outcomes for students than does traditional passive
WattsSEL7006-8-8
6
learning (Allen et al., 2009; Blaschke, 2012; Cabrera-Lozoya,Cerdan, Cano, Garcia-Sanchez, &
Lujan, 2012; Chen & Lien, 2011; Hurtado & Guerrero, 2009; Tapscott & Williams, 2010).
Negatives of utilizing adult experience. Kistler (2011) identified three challenges of
utilizing student experience in the classroom. He suggested that techniques and methods should
be individualized due to the enormous differences among learners. It is the adult’s experience
that forms their self-concept and care should be used to neither ignore nor devalue these
experiences. Further, a student’s experience is just as likely to close their minds to new
interpretations or nuances, and the teacher needs to encourage students to reflect and examine
their mental models. Liu, Liu, Lee, and Magjuka (2010) cited numerous studies showing
differing cultures have dissimilar reactions and desires for interaction in online classes indicating
that this assumption may not be universal among all human adults.
Motivation to Learn
Adult learners become more intrinsically motivated, focusing on aspirations than
extrinsically motivated, encouraged by rewards or punishment (Abela, 2009; Donavant, 2009;
Minter, 2011). Pintrich (2003) confirmed that motivated students have higher levels of interest
and intrinsic motivation. Through proper course design and development, student engagement
and motivation can be enhanced (Allen, Crosky, McAlpine, Hoffman, & Munroe, 2009), but
course design alone is not sufficient to ensure online learning success (Bhuasiri et al., 2012).
Supporting and criticizing Knowles’ idea of motivation. Bye, Pushkar, & Conway
(2007) discovered that when adults have competing demands on their time, if teachers minimize
extrinsic pressure while promoting interest and curiosity, students motivation and positive affect
increase, resulting in positive growth. Motivation is a critical factor of adult learning.
Motivation can be either intrinsic or extrinsic (Bhuasiri, Xaymoungkhoun, Zo, Rho, & Ciganek,
WattsSEL7006-8-8
7
2011; Hoic-Bozic, Mornar, & Boticki, 2009). Knowles’ assumed that adult learners are
intrinsically motivated, and did not mention extrinsic motivation at all. All adults are not equally
motivated (Abela, 2009). Lam and Bordia (2008) identified that some students lack motivation,
which can hamper their e-learning experience, which is not supportive of the assumptions
identified by andragogy.
Orientation to Learn
Adult learners are more motivated to learn when a challenge enters their life; encouraging
them to discover how to handle it better (Baskas, 2011; Donavant, 2009; Zemke & Zemke,
1995). As adults seek to move forward in their careers, advance personally or professionally, or
develop new skills or talents they may seek informal or formal training. By focusing on the
practical and setting objectives or goals with students upfront, learners will be able to apply the
lessons to their immediate situation (Galbraith & Fouch, 2007). A criticism of andragogy
regarding students learning orientation is that it does not differentiate between learning contexts
or the uniqueness of each learner, attempting to squeeze each learner into the same mold
(Cercone, 2008).
Readiness to Learn
Adult learners are interested in learning how to solve problems, perform tasks, or
improve their life in ways relevant to their social roles (Cercone, 2008; Chyung & Vachon, 2005;
Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; Taylor & Kroth, 2009). This assumption conveys the idea that
education “focus on relating theory to practice, and . . . make learning experiences more relevant
and authentic for the learners” (Keengwe & Georgina, 2012, p. 369). Clapper (2010) cites
several studies regarding participation linking social roles and responsibilities to active
WattsSEL7006-8-8
8
participation in the classroom. Adults prefer learning that stimulates thinking, is realistic and
engaging, and somewhat challenging (Zemke & Zemke, 1995).
Learning Environment
Adult learners expect a student-centered approach to learning in an environment of
mutual respect between teacher and student, and between students (Karge, Phillips, Dodson, &
McCabe, 2011; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; McGlone, 2011; Minter, 2011). Andragogy
suggests that learning is learner-centered with the teacher acting more as a mentor, guide, and
facilitator of learning rather than as dispenser of knowledge (Blanchard et al., 2011). By
providing only necessary scaffolding, support, and encouragement, the teacher promotes learning
and increased self-concept and self-efficacy within the learner (Cercone, 2008), greater
satisfaction with online courses (Ali & Ahmad, 2011; Jackson, Jones, & Rodriguez, 2010; Shea,
Fredericksen, & Pickett, 2006), magnified motivation to learn (Al-Fahad, 2010; Omar, Kalulu, &
Belmasrour; Park & Choi, 2009; Pigliapoco & Bogliolo, 2008), and optimal learning outcomes
(Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, & Tamim, 2010; Boling, Hough, Krinsky, Saleem, &
Stevens, 2011; Martinez-Caro, 2011; Pelz, 2010). Creating an environment that engenders these
benefits requires three critical principles; needs assessment, safety, and sound relationships
(Galbraith & Fouch, 2007). Through collaboration with the instructor, the learner should
identify and form the content that is most applicable and relevant to their needs. The learner and
the instructor need to work to foster a relationship where trust, competence, and dialog are
encouraged. Finally, learning requires and is based on relationships that must be nurtured.
Theory or Framework
Andragogy has few studies empirically validating its assumptions (Henschke, 2011;
Merriam, Cafferella, & Baumgartner, 2007; Taylor & Kroth, 2009). It is through empirical
WattsSEL7006-8-8
9
analysis that justification and the development and advancement of specific principals of
optimized implementation regarding a theory can be determined (Tolutiene & Domarkiene,
2010). Due to the dearth of empirical justification for andragogy several authors have
questioned its status as both a theory (Grace, 2001; Sandlin, 2005; Taylor & Kroth, 2009) and
“established doctrine in adult education” (Henschke, 2011, p. 34). Mintor (2011) summarized
that no adult learning theory has sufficient empirical evidence to be accepted and generalized by
educators, while Taylor and Kroth (2009) summarized andragogical critiques simply; “it lacks
the fundamental characteristics of a science because it cannot be measured. . . . The anecdotal
evidence far outweighs the experimental evidence” (p. 7).
Regarding whether andragogy qualifies as a theory, Pratt (1993) acknowledged that
andragogy has made a significant contribution to the field of adult learning, but denies that it
meets the criteria for a theory because “it has done little to expand or clarify our understanding
of the process of learning” (p. 21). A prevalent criticism of andragogy is that all adults learn in
the same manner, regardless of culture or context (Clapper, 2010; Gorges & Kandler, 2012;
Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). If a hypothesis is proposed in research but the
findings are unable to increase predictive validity, it indicates low construct validity; the
measures do not measure what the researcher hoped it would (Cozby & Bates, 2012). So, if
adult learners may or may not be described by the assumptions of andragogy, depending on
context, and children may have some or all of these selfsame characteristics, what is left to base
a hypothesis (or a theory) on?
Abela (2009) found that while the assumptions of andragogy are beneficial as a
framework for working with mature students, he also determined that several critical factors for
effective learning were only briefly alluded to, like motivation, or completely missing.
WattsSEL7006-8-8
10
Andragogy does not adequately address reflection (Abela, 2009; Cercone, 2008) although it has
been shown through research to stimulate metacognitive expertise (Cacciamani, Cesarini,
Martini, Ferrini, & Fujita, 2012), meta-learning (Baskas, 2011; Bradley, 2009), high-quality
learning (Blaschke, 2012; Ke, 2010; Ruey, 2010), and deep learning (Cercone, 2008; Clapper,
2010; Ke & Xie, 2009).
In answer to his critics, Knowles ultimately declared that andragogy represents “a model
of assumptions about learning or a conceptual framework that serves as a basis for an emergent
theory” (Knowles, 1989, p. 112), that the assumptions are not exclusive to adults, and are often
situation specific (Clapper, 2010). He also acknowledged that “pedagogy and andragogy
probably represent the ends of a spectrum that ranges from teacher-directed to student-directed
learning. Both approaches, he and others now suggest, are appropriate with children and adults,
depending on the situation” (Zemke & Zemke, 1995, para. 12). Whether andragogy is a theory
for adult learning, or a theory of teaching, or simply a frame waiting for a theoretical canvas, it is
the principal origination for many novice teachers of adults (McGrath, 2009). In the beginning
Knowles work galvanized adult educators, giving them new concepts to discuss and a name by
which the discussion could proceed (Taylor & Kroth, 2009). Ultimately, however, no one has
stepped forward to take up the yoke of furthering the assumptions propounded in andragogy so
that it can assume a position as the theory of adult learning, or not.
Conclusion
Andragogy in its present form has engaged the minds and hearts of educators for over 40
years. Many authors have identified its assumptions as the theoretical framework of their
research, literature reviews, meta-analyses, and presentations. Though there are valid criticisms
to several of the assumptions, few educators appear to deny them. The major criticism of
WattsSEL7006-8-8
11
andragogy is that it does not inform practice, nor does it inform research. Over the decades
andragogy has proven difficult to operationally define, so that its principles and assumptions can
be measured, validated, and corroborated. It stands today in much the same position it did 40
years ago; a strong, intuitive, and anecdotal assertion that this is what adult students are like,
with little empirical or experimental validation to help advance it beyond its original explication.
WattsSEL7006-8-8
12
References
Abela, J. (2009). Adult learning theories and medical education: A review. Malta Medical
Journal, 21(1), 11-18. Retrieved from
http://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
Al-Fahad, F. N. (2010). The learners’ satisfaction toward online e-learning implemented in the
college of applied studies and community service, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia:
Can e-learning replace the conventional system of education? Turkish Online Journal of
Distance Education (TOJDE), 11(2), 61-72. Retrieved from https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/
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.
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)
Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2011). Critical success
factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT
experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843-855.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.010
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
ERIC Database. (ED521385)
WattsSEL7006-8-8
13
Blaschke, L. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and
self-determined learning. International Review of Research In Open and Distance Learning,
13(1), 56-71.
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
Bradford, G. R. (2011). A relationship study of student satisfaction with learning online and
cognitive load: Initial results. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 217-228.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.001
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
Bye, D., Pushkar, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Motivation, interest, and positive affect in
traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 57,
141‐158. doi:10.1177/0741713606294235
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
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
Clapper, T. C. (2010). Beyond Knowles: What those conducting simulation need to know about
adult learning theory. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 6, e7-e14.
doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2009.07.003
WattsSEL7006-8-8
14
Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2012). Methods in behavioral research (11th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw Hill Higher Education.
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
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
Galbraith, D. D., & Fouch, S. E. (2007). Principles of adult learning: Application to safety
training. Professional Safety, 52(9), 35-40. Retrieved from http://www.vistatraining.com/principles-adult-learning.pdf
Gibbons, H. S., & Wentworth, G. P. (2001, June). Andrological and pedagogical training
differences for online instructors. Proceedings of the Distributed Learning Association,
Callaway, GA.
Gorges, J. & Kandler, C. (2012). Adults' learning motivation: Expectancy of success, value, and
the role of affective memories. Learning and Individual Differences.
Doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.09.016
Grace, A. P. (2001). Using queer cultural studies to transgress adult educational space. In V.
Sheared & P. A. Sissel (Eds.), Making space: Merging theory and practice in adult
education (pp. 257-270). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
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
Henschke, J. A. (2011). Considerations regarding the future of andragogy. Adult Learning,
22(1). 34-37. doi:10.1177/104515951102200109
Hoadley, C. (2007). Learning sciences theories and methods for e-learning researchers. In R.
Andrews, & C. Haythornthwaite (eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp.
139-156). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
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
WattsSEL7006-8-8
15
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., & 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
Keengwe, J., & Georgina, D. (2012). The digital course training workshop for online learning
and teaching. Educational and Information Technologies, 17, 365-379.
doi:10.1007/s10639-011-9164-x
Keller, J. M. (2006). What is motivational design? Retrieved from
http://www.arcsmodel.com/pdf/Motivational%20Design%20Rev%20060620.pdf
Kenner, C., & Weinerman, J. (2011). Adult learning theory: Applications to nontraditional
college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 87-96. Retrieved from
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)
Kistler, M. J. (2011). Adult learners: Considerations for education and training. Techniques:
Connecting Education and Careers, 86(2), 28-30. Retrieved from ERIC Database.
(ED926047)
Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy vs. pedagogy. New
York, NY: Cambridge Book.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Knowles, M. S. (1989). The making of an adult educator: An autobiographical journey. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
WattsSEL7006-8-8
16
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F. III, & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive
classic in adult education and human resource development. New York, NY: Elsevier.
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
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. doi:10.1002/cae.20337
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
McGrath, V. (2009). Reviewing the evidence on how adult students learn: An examination of
Knowles' model of andragogy. Adult Learner: The Irish Journal of Adult and Community
Education, 99-110. Retrieved from
http://www.aontas.com/download/pdf/adult_learner_2009.pdf
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
Nummenmaa, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2008). University students' emotions, interest and
activities in a web-based learning environment. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78, 163-178. doi:10.1348/000709907X203733
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/
Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or
persist in online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217.
Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_4/18.pdf
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
WattsSEL7006-8-8
17
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pratt, D. D. (1993). Andragogy after twenty-five years. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 57, 15-23. doi:10.1002/ace.36719935704
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
Sandlin, J. A. (2005). Andragogy and its discontents: An analysis of andragogy from three
critical perspectives. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 14, 25-42. Retrieved from
http://www.iup.edu/ace/publications/default.aspx
Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., & Pickett, A. (2006). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with
on-line courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 2-31. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
Strang, K. D. (2009). Measuring online learning approach and mentoring preferences of
international doctorate students. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 245257. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2009.11.002
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2010). Innovating the 21st-century university: It’s time!
EDUCAUSE Review Online, 45(1), 16-29. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/innovating-21st-century-university-it%E2%80%99stime
Taylor, B., & Kroth, M. (2009). Andragogy's transition into the future: Mata-analysis of
andragogy and its search for a measurable instrument. Journal of Adult Education, 38(1),
1-11. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (EJ891073)
Tolutiene, G. & Domarkiene, J. (2010). Learning needs and the possibilities of their satisfaction:
The case of prospective andragogues. Tiltai, 50(1), 147-158. Retrieved from
http://www.ku.lt/leidykla/tiltai.php
Westera, W. (2012). The eventful genesis of educational media. Education and Information
Technologies, 17(3), 1-12. doi:10.1007/s10639-011-9162-z
Zemke, R., & Zemke, S. (1995). Adult learning: What do we know for sure? Training, 32, 69-82.
Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED504481)