"DIALOGUES IN ANDRAGOGY"
Dr. John Henschke
University of Missouri-St. Louis
Saturday, January 22, 2000
Class members (see attached list) provide self-introduction. JH receives permission to record the class sessions from this point. NOTE: Speakers are identified by initials in these proceedings.
JH: There were some wonderful gems that were shared during this particular time but I was reluctant to do that [turns on tape] until I'd heard from everybody, because that can create a signal that's not best.
KS: One of the things that I came up with when you gave the presentation on this course that really just put a little fire under my burner was when you were talking about worldwide andragogy. Not that Malcolm Knowles and Lindeman and all these other--our American--andragogy is bad, but it's a bastardization of the whole process. There might be something else out there--other concepts--that we're not accepting or learning. Rudi comes from a different educational background. As a born and bred American, I only know one system and it would be kind of nice to….
RuV: Fish in water type routine, right?
KS: Yes, it would be nice to get into the bigger waters and see what's out there.
LB: I think about some of the traditional concepts of education and…we say in discussion we think about treating kids with a more andragogical kind of approach but I'm not sure that is the tradition of education.
RuV: It's less than a hundred years old.
LB: Exactly. And so it's fascinating to that we say that's the traditional way of education but it's not. And I don't know how we came to that. I don't know how we came to…
RuV: Society needed it.
JH: Came to which?
LB: …the history of directing education, of telling kids to "do this…"
RuV: The need for factory labor.
LB: Wasn't part of it also from a church-type education where they were training them to go into the ministry and it was pretty much…. I don't know.
RuV: My suspicion is that was probably a relatively open approach compared to the very closed, teacher-centered approach that I think you were mentioning.
LB: And that's what I was referring to when we talk about "traditional education."
RuV: What's his name? Elton Tom Barton. John Naibitt. People like that. Futurists. Toffler is the guy who wrote Future Shock. I missed the title for the second one right now and then the third one is The Third Wave. What he makes quite clear, and once you recognize it you start seeing it in other places, is that somewhere in the late 1880's, early 1900's, that period, we start changing our attitude because what we need--if we assume that education is preparation for life--what was the need in life at the time? You needed to be on time to start on the assembly line when the whistle blew and you stood there for two and a half hours and the whistle blew and you could go smoke and drink a cup of coffee for ten minutes and then the whistle blew again and you're back. So there is this regimentation that was needed in humans who, prior to that, had not been regimented. When you're in a rural environment and an agricultural environment, you're free and time is meaningful.
RoV: Except for seasons.
RuV: Well, but that's a different time issue and add to that here in the United States at about the same time the need for creating a common basis which in other countries did not exist, okay? If you look at European education systems, I mean everybody grew up with the same value system. Everybody grew up with the same language. Everybody grew up with the same coinage. Stuff like that. Here in the United States we got all of this mixture coming in and so now the educational system really totally becomes a socialization rather than a cognitive learning process.
LB: You don't think that happened worldwide--the socialization of directed education? I don't have the answer to that. I can trace history in the United States….
RuV: Well, I'm not sure that it happened as early.
JH: Back in ancient times, though, all the teachers in ancient times were teachers of adults. And they used adult education approaches if you will at that particular time, where my understanding is that we got off track somewhere along the way. I'm not sure that I can fully document this but I think where we got off track was before the time of the printing press. If there was a manuscript that somebody had written down, the way to preserve it was to put it in a cave somewhere so it might be preserved. Well, those caves got more and more in them and people were saying "How are we going to preserve that?" and some of those materials began to deteriorate. Some of the monastic schools send their people in there to copy. Okay? And it was like a rote thing. They learned how to copy the letters and in some way that got brought in as an educational process, that education was rote memory of whatever was on the document or whatever was printed or whatever was said and, as a consequence…
RuV: Early behaviorists is what you're saying.
JH: …prior to some of the industrialization. And as a consequence--I'm not certain about the year but--folks like Comenius and Rousseau were rebelling against that whole notion. I have a video of some of Rousseau's early ideas and how he rebelled against that while he was primarily focusing on teaching or the education of children, he had spillover in that. And as a consequence we also did some research for teaching and learning and whatever else, but most of the research if you look at it was research on how rats and pigeons respond to stimuli, how dogs and whatever else respond to regimentation and then focusing on schooling, on the act of teaching, on training and a few other things. And the notion of learning sort of faded into the background because we began to organize things and structure things so that we were thinking that we needed to control a lot of learning that went on. And I'm not saying that all of that is without merit. There is some merit in all of that that took place, but I think we got off track and failed to understand that we're dealing with people in the teaching/learning situation rather than that we are teaching material. It is important that we have material but, as Alfred North Whitehead said back in 1931, we have reached the stage in which the transmission of information is no longer the primary issue in education. It is to obtain and gain and acquire the tools of learning for continued inquiry, because from the dawn of recorded history to 1850 we take the amount of information that we had accumulated by that time in our history as human beings and use that as a baseline. It took 75 years for that information to double. And the next time it doubled was in 37 years and the next time it doubled was in 11 years and the next time 4 years and now we've reached that point where the half-life of half of the information we know is probably less than 5 years and some of it is maybe 5 minutes in the world in which we are. So there's more information than any of us can acquire in a lifetime out there so the notion is that we need to continue learning. What is that about? What is the learning process? And then regarding the business of andragogy in some fashion it's been termed or defined as the art and science of helping adults learn and yet there are those who disagree with that definition in saying that andragogy is much more than just learning. So that's part of what we want to investigate in this process.
SI: I think the military had something to do with helping with this too. They wanted to take groups of people and turn them all into the same and very quickly. And so they kind of took away individualism. They wanted everybody to look the same and know the same things and do the same things, all in the same way for the purpose of having a successful fighting force. I think the military has always been a leader, out there developing things and passing things on the general public in the way of technology and techniques and I think that's kind of maybe where that started and then it went from adults to children and the military schools. All standing up and repeating things--that's very military.
KS: It's partly that plus it's society and what business--the big "B" word--wanted. For the last 150 years, we've had the industrial revolution and people were trained to be robots. And now since, let's say '71, with the age of technology coming in, there's more and more information out there and business finally realized--or they're slowly realizing--that they don't want just walking/talking robots. They want a thinking man out there now to be able to investigate, to be able to think, to be more than just a body at a desk or behind a computer or something else, to be able to do group activities. The style and the demands out there now have changed drastically in our world, in the 21st century. I can't imagine how training is going to have to be different, learning is going to have to be different. Communication and socialization is going to be different for these kids--and older folks--to be reintroduced to society as productive. It's a change that's been going on for 30 years now and it's starting to catch on. Before then, it you could put a widget on a ratchet, you could find a position and do something. Now you have to be able to think. You have to be able to explore and a lot of people were never trained to do that. So education is changing.
RuV: I wish to take somewhat of an exception to that because even during the regimentation time of education, we developed some very innovative thinkers and we developed some lifelong learners and stuff like that. So what I think we're seeing, if I may amend what you said slightly, is that society doesn't need the large numbers of regimented, factory floor type folks anymore and, therefore, we're realizing that we need to change the educational system.
KS: I was talking more of the masses. As a mass. We've always had individuals. We've always had scientists. We've always had philosophers or whatever else but they' were a minority of the whole general public.
RuV: And what's bringing all of this on is what the trainers amongst us would call the "transference" issue. We're discovering that by using this set of processes, you don't get that result which is now wanted. You do get that result which we wanted 5 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago; but we don't want that result anymore. We want this result. So I think what's going on is we're seeing a process of questioning. If this is the result, we used to be able to get this result--fine we can go back to the old way of doing it but with a modern flavor, a modern fling, appropriately adapted.
JH: Well, to underscore that idea, the fact is a couple of years ago I had somebody in a company come to me and say, "We feel like our people need to be critical thinkers." --whatever that means, critical thinkers--and when I asked the question, probing a little bit, I said: "Well, what is it you're doing to provide them with help to become critical thinkers and what is it that you think that if they become critical thinkers they'll be able to do?" (They'll be able to contribute more to the business that what they are and so on and so forth?) And I said: "Well, what's the way in which you're bringing that about?" But the idea was that "They ought to kind of learn that by osmosis in the process of whatever it is that they're doing in the business." And I said, "Well, I don't think that's going to take place. How long have you been doing that kind of thing?" They talked about how many years they've been doing it, and I said, "Well, is it working? Has it worked up to this point?" "No, I guess not." And I said, "Maybe you need to design a means for teaching critical thinking and setting out yourself and saying how long is this going to take and what it is we need to do in order to engage these people in a process that, in fact, will move them from where they are--the uncritical thinker, or maybe just uncritical, not thinkers at all, nonthinkers--and move them in that particular direction." And they said, "Can you come up with a suggestion?" And I came up with a suggestion about what it would take and, sad to say, they backed away from it. Wasn't serious about moving that situation and kept on entertaining the assumption, the belief, that somehow that would happen as a natural process in a very tightly controlled corporate environment.
RuV: And it will. It will with a very small group of people but if the control stays, if you don't get cultural change in the organization, those people will leave once they've reached that level.
LB: But you can have that with anything. A small percentage of people who are self-directed will challenge the system. That's universal, regardless of the system they're working in.
JH: There are those that are born teachers. There are those that are born self-directed learners.
RuV: But the point I wanted to make is they may have been during that 20, 30, 40 years that they were working on it, they may have been very successful, but because they didn't accept critical thinkers in the organization, those people who by osmosis developed it, left.
LB: Absolutely. Do you think it's becoming more of a person-centered system? Are we now focusing on individuals?
RuV: I think it depends on the level of analysis. If you're at an overall societal analysis, we're still looking at society.
LB: But are strategies more focused on the individual?
KS: In my fishbowl, yes. (I've got a real small fishbowl!) I can focus on strategies, but we have thousands of people with fishbowls and can't do that.
RuV: Well, that's one of the areas of interest that I have.
KS: You can do it, but you have to develop new strategies and have to work very hard to do that.
RuV; One of the areas of interest that I have--and I don't want to bore you all with it--but after working through the first courses last year, with Dr. Sweeney and working with Dr. Henschke, I got frustrated. What I'm seeing in the literature, in a very initial review, is that "andragogy works great with adults, with children, with anybody, with everybody--but you can only do it in small-group environments." Well, I'm in an environment of large groups. My smallest class is 100-110 students and a typical class is 140 and a large class is about 210. And so maybe one of the things I really did is--from what the literature says is all you can do to that group is lecture--and I'm sure there is some literature that agrees with me. And that's not all we can do. We can work with self-directed learning, we can introduce the concepts of learning diagnosis, learning plans, learning contracts, agreements, whatever you want to call them. We can introduce the concept of collaborative learning But I really got to that point from the transference issue. My task is to get people ready for real life where they will be running a small business. You can't do that by talking about it.
LB: And this goes back to the focus on the individual, the focus on individuals in the classroom and the classroom as a whole.
RuV: Well, what I think we're saying, and I'm not sure yet but it's very preliminary, but what I think we're seeing--and it's a time issue, it's an energy issue, it's a skill issue on the part of the instructor and of the institution--but what I think we're seeing is that if I have a large lecture class--look at any college campus, go right across the street here and look at North Campus, large lecture class, what are we going to do? We're going to do it almost totally behaviorally, we're going to tell you what the objectives are, we're going to tell you what you're going to learn, I will pontif--excuse me, I will lecture (almost said "pontificate" there) for a period of time and then I will test you. And that test will have nothing to do with real life. It will only have to do with the behavioral objectives that we said before and then we assume you're knowledgeable, you're capable, you're skillful, and, Roger, you and I are dealing with that all the time where we ARE dealing with people who need behavioral skills. So I think what needs to happen is we need to start doing a little separation. We need to look at what's the end product we want? There's nothing with their behavioral approach. I'm sorry, but I'd like a guy with a little bit of gray hair around the ears who has gone 17,000 times through emergency landing approaches. Forgive me.
RM: And there's a place for that.
RuV: Oh, yes!
RM: In some settings like this, you have to drill because that's how you get them there.
RoV: Well, there are procedures to follow if you're in an emergency landing/crash situation, you want that person to know those procedures and be skilled at it and competent and all of that. On the other hand, there's the critical thinking part that says "Is this one of those situations?" and "Which piece of the skill do I use here?" So you can't just say it's one or the other. We need both in a more complex situation. And in a more complex society, I think it becomes more and more important to us all the time.
RM: Not just our fields. Anything. You're faced with a problem, so you draw on your past experience and you go, "Hmmm, this looks like a similar thing. Let's try this approach or this combination."
RoV: And that goes back to what I was saying earlier, because it's good to have the model, the skill set, the whatever it is to know what procedures have worked in the past, but if all we ever do as either learners or practitioners is use what we know other people have done, then we'll never come up with new ways of doing things better that may be more applicable in our current situation and the changing situation in society and knowledge and all the rest of it. I want to just go back a bit and say one thing, too, about this fallacy that we can't do andragogy in large groups. There's another piece of the fallacy, which I discovered this past semester: It is not necessarily true that andragogy will always work in small groups. Because there's another aspect to that. I had a group of two students--these are graduate students in a business writing course. They needed to pump up their business writing skills, so it was my job to teach them communications. They were both going into an MBA program. Very bright people, very competent people in the business world. One worked for Monsanto. One worked for the government--Fannie Mae. So here were people, both of whom had other people working for them doing all kinds of wonderful things, but they both needed some business writing skills. So I thought "Well, two people. We'll just do a really cool thing. We'll have you decide what piece of this you want to do, and how you want this graded and all that sort of stuff. And it totally fell apart. In looking back and reflecting, I'm thinking because they weren't properly prepared. We did have a discussion about "it is important for adult learners to be somewhat self-directed wherever possible and have alternatives and opportunities made possible for them. And grades, we talked about, the value or lack thereof of grades where adults are concerned (I think if we ever got away from the idea that grades are important, it might be helpful--but that's just me!). In any case what happened was, among other things, there was a male and a female student and the male student was far more competent in terms of the writing part than she was. She was much better at the oral presentation. But when I asked them how their work should be graded, he was more critical of himself and graded himself harder down than I would have, and she graded herself much higher than I would have. So, by that methodology, would have ended up with a higher grade than he--and certainly didn't deserve it in terms of what she had done.
RuV: In your judgment.
RoV: In my judgment. And then I'm looking at this holistically and saying "How much does it matter?" Well, it matters a great deal to the students because that's the tradition they grew up in and they wanted to know what their grade was going to be and all that sort of stuff. So it was important to them. It was also very important to the institution, which had a very "institutionalized" grading system. They've got a whole raft of papers you have to fill out…
RuV: How important is it to the outcome in society, to the employer?
RoV: If you ask them what they learned, they were both amazed at how much they now know and they'll never look at writing the same and all of that and so, as far as I was concerned, I was happy with the outcome. And I think they both were, as well. I would have done some things differently. One of the things was in terms of the andragogical approach, if you've grown up in a pedagogical or traditional approach, you may need to prepare your students as learners for that change, because it's not an automatic.
RuV: There is also a prior knowledge issue that comes into play in that. The literature is quite clear on that and I'm discovering some very neat connections. One of the things I'm discovering working with large groups is that--John and I have discussed this--process is messy. Whether it's organizational culture change as I think, Susan, you're in the process of discovering. That's messy! It falls apart. I think Joyce talked about it earlier. And what we probably need to do as teachers, as faculty members, as facilitators is provide why Vygotsky and Bruner call "scaffolding," what in the business world Hersey and Blanchard, out of the military, started presenting as "situational leadership" concepts. Neat, neat article that Mary [Cooper} gave me by a gentleman by the name of Jerry Grow from Stanford (does that sound right?). He took the same thing, the same stuff I was struggling with, he took a couple of years ago and came up with an adaptation of Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership for the classroom environment. Right now the term he used escapes me but it is situational leadership in the classroom environment.
RM: What's "situational leadership"?
RuV: Situational leadership is a series of concepts reasonably tightly modeled together where the way you lead a group of people is dependent on the knowledge and motivation of the followers. And I can give you a ton of information on that, Roger, and I'll be delighted to. I have the pleasure of teaching leadership courses and critical thinking courses at National-Louis University and we have a ball with it. There is some neat stuff there.
JH: Generally, there are four stages in the process, depending on the maturity of the people that are there. The various strategies you use.
RuV: Ken has done super stuff with it. He's walking away from it now and going in a different direction.
LB: But we had a question last summer about learning how to learn and I talked earlier about my process of becoming more of an "adult learner" in this program and one of the missing elements that Dr. Henschke talked about was an introduction to learning how to learn--or reintroduction I should say.
RuV: And if you look at our guru now, Dr. Knowles, right there he says it and in the little one he makes it even more clear. Here's an outline for a seminar I do before the semester starts.
LB: That's right! That's what we talked about last summer. That's what we knew. (This is my soap box!)
JH: Let's take a break and when we come back, I want to share some of the materials that at least I've got before us and we'll see what we know.
(Group returns from break. First part of discussion missing.)
RoV: …leaders, but then they stomp on you literally and figuratively when you step outside their policies, procedures, and guidelines. "We don't do things like that around here!" or "That's not how we've always done it!" or whatever else. And my point is, I used to do social services, a lot of work around dysfunctional family theory. And this is the same thing. If one member of the dysfunctional family gets better, they pretty much have to leave the family or find some other role to play because they family wants them to go back to the role they had been playing, because then they don't have to change.
JY: Or the family changes.
RoV: Yes! Or the family has to change and, of course, you're dragging everybody along with you and so they would rather see you go back to the dysfunctional blob you were before. And I have a feeling that that same notion applies in companies. And the problem for me is if we go about doing this whole "organizational development," if all we do is an intervention with a department but we don't create an environment that fosters or nurtures that change once it's there, once we've done the intervention, things will either revert to what they were before--and probably worse, because now you've raised a set of expectations which have been dashed and sets up resentments and all kinds of backlashes--or they do as Rudi was saying--they leave because they now have other skills. They go on and they go "I want to be able to do this" and so they'll find a better environment for themselves.
RuV: They don't fit the culture anymore.
RoV: And the bottom line of that was that I think probably applies not just in business but in education because if I say I want to do something new, nontraditional, but then the instructor hasn't changed or the system hasn't changed and they still require certain things that are inflexible, or the teacher needs total control or whatever, then all of a sudden you have a mismatch and it creates problems for the learners.
JH: Yes, in dysfunctional groups or dysfunctional families or whatever, when one of ones who is out of step gets help for their disease, that's one piece of the puzzle. The other piece is that the rest of the system has to take care of and work on recovering from their disease because a system works together. It's not an isolated situation of pieces functioning separately.
RoV: The symbol that I used to use, the metaphor, was a mobile over a baby's crib. All the pieces are intertwined with very delicate, fragile wires or string, so if you touch this thing over here, everything else moves. And that's pretty much what happens in families.
(Dr. Henschke handles housekeeping details regarding class list and listserv and reviews course syllabus.)
JH: The course description, of course, if basically what I had put on the little one-sheet advertisement for this course and we will explore the roots and application of andragogy within a variety of setting, the European and USA and some other places within the world and worldwide. This course is designed for those who want to consider and/or conduct research and practice related to this concept. At the conclusion of this seminar, the participants with the guidance of myself or the instructor as a lifelong learner, will develop or increase the following cluster of competencies. Those of you who know the acronym that we've had for some time around her--the KUSAVI acronym--if you will, the "knowledges," "understanding," "skills," "attitudes," "values" and "interests." It is knowledge of the roots and applications of andragogical research and practice within the global and woldwide settings; understanding the application of that knowledge in various contexts; skill in conducting inquiry; a positive attitude toward investigating andragogy within its global scope; determining and clarifying their values regarding the roots and applications of andragogy. (And I must say to you that the material that we'll be exposed to will not all be favorable to andragogy. There are the pros and the cons and that's part of what we're going to look at and deal with and argue with and debate and dialogue about to see if we can see where we are.) And then an interest in contributing to the broadening, deepening investigation of stuff. The "program objectives," you know we've talked about grades--you know that's not a major issue in these classes. But I'm asking each of you to engage the class in dialogue about a number of articles that you will take and be prepared to sustain or counter the author's viewpoint and field arguments from other participants. This engagement will include but not be limited to the answers to the questionnaire [on page 3]. Set up a questionnaire that basically I think it would be well for us to look at and see what is there in those articles. The materials used and studies are for the purpose of discovering and focusing on andragogy. That's what we want to get out of it. Those articles. What is it saying about andragogy? The questions are: What sources regarding andragogy are the authors basing the articles on? The strongest part of the case the author is making. The weakest part. The strongest part--what's the evidence? Do you agree or disagree? How would you present the case more strongly if you were presenting it? The weakest part. Evidence you perceive to be missing. Do you agree or disagree? How would you present this? And how do you perceive it to be contributing to the overall dialogue? Second "program objective" to join the dialogue and debate focused on andragogy within the class sessions. Third one would be to raise a question on the listserve for each of the other participants to join in the dialogue regarding the question that is raised. So hopefully we'll get into some discussion during the in-between times when we meet. And then you'll investigate an aspect of andragogy which is your self-determined interest and habit and present it to class. So a particular thing you want to focus on in terms of andragogy. No texts are required but I will be handing out some materials. But there also are just lots of other materials. In other words, this stack here are individual articles, and there's a dissertation in here, and there's one I want to show you that no one will be able to use, I'm sure because of it's being in Czech unless, Rudi, you're able to…
RuV: No, sir!
JH: It's about a hundred and some pages.
KS: Did it come off the internet?
JH: No, it didn't. I got it in Slovinia when I was there two years ago. They gave me a copy of it. It based on "comparative andragogy" and I'm at a standstill in terms of not being able to translate it. It's quite a document.
RuV: Didn't we last summer have a guest in the comparative education course who might be able to help us there? The young lady that runs the store? Was she Czech? Was she Slovakian?
SI: She was Bosnian?
RM: Can Bosnians read Czech?
RuV: I doubt it. Let's talk to Barb Edelman. She may be able to find somebody.
JH: There the document. So you can see…
RuV: I'm not sure that a translation is necessary. If someone can give us the gist of it.
JH: Well, in any event, there are documents that are--there was a dissertation done in 1980 regarding it. I think if I counted correctly last night when I was putting these together, there's about 30 articles that I have gotten. I've got some other documents here, some instruments, some journal articles. There's also some ERIC documents that I have accessed. And what we'll ask you to do in terms of the ERIC documents…
Tape ends here. Part of discussion missing.
JH: …and then if you will make copies for everybody, this way we'd like to--I want to develop an archival section in the library specifically on andragogy. And while it may be small to begin with, I think we'll find it will enlarge and if we get transcription of some of this stuff we're doing, it'll be surprisingly large when we've finished with it. Any questions or any things you would like to add or take away or are problematic to what the scope of the syllabus itself is? And then we'll move forward in looking at some of the materials.
RoV: I have a question about the nature of the thing. I realize that may change as we progress here but where my interests are in andragogy is not just studying the history of and having a list of definitions, although that's useful. How do we apply that in our classes or in our training sessions? The actual work we do in the real world environment is kind of what I'm interested in. For instance, if I take a basic understanding of andragogical concepts, methodologies and so on and apply that to brain dominance-based teaching and learning. Is that okay for this course? Is that what you're looking for? Or are you looking for something else?
JH: Well, it probably is okay. I'd like to have it pretty clear about what is the andragogy that you are applying? For instance, one of the things that I've thought about doing today is I've got a couple of diagnostic instruments I could have us use in terms of looking at our own perspective on andragogy and pedagogy in that regard. It's sort of a scientific instrument that has been developed regarding that. Okay? And look at on the one hand the popularization of Malcolm Knowles' variety of andragogy and then look at a journal article that came from a British journal at ten different countries and their perspective on andragogy and how they deal with it. So I guess if you're going to do that, then the question would seem to me to be part of that presentation or discussion would be "What is the andragogy that you are referring to?"
RoV: Or how does this relate to andragogical concepts or something like that?
JH: Okay. Something of that nature. Other comments or questions you want to investigate? Just to make reference, we also have the possibility of having Peter from the library come with us from 930-1100 the second time we meet, on February 12, to talk about digging into the archival information, whether it's into the…
LB: That would be nice.
KS: Can that be hands on or is he going to give us a bunch of books to look at?
JH: No, no, I think it can be hands on.
KS: I would prefer it that way, because I think all of us have been through in our undergraduate and graduate courses where he brings his mobile bookcase of what's available. And that's great and nice, but until you actually get into it…
JH: Do you want it hands on?
RuV; Peter will do that. In fact, one of the reasons I know he will do it is that I spend some time yesterday. Found two things that I ordered. Also found a comparative. They are in my area of interest having to do with andragogy. One of the articles is entitled: "The Houle Typology After 22 Years--A Large-Scale Empirical Test."
JH: The what?
RuV: Houle. Cyril Houle. Typology After 22 Years--A Large-Scale Empirical Test." I found it for my multivariate course, not for this one, but we'll use it. It's from 1985.
JH: But you're not considering that as being andragogy?
RuV: I don't know. If I understand it right, it certainly is an underlying factor in the development of application of andragogy.
JH: I'll be interested in hearing.
RuV: I haven't read it yet. All I did last night at five o'clock was pick it up.
JH: The only thing that I've gotten from Houle, I had the impression, having talked with him personally and read his works, that he was NOT an advocate or a buyer-into andragogical.
RuV: What if I read it before the next one and then report on it?
JH: Well, that's part of what the investigation is about.
RuV: The other one that I found that I ordered--by the way it is ERIC and there are some fiches missing as the librarian will tell you, but it's been ordered through interlibrary loan--written by a bunch of Dutchmen: "Decentralized Decision-Making and Organizational Effectiveness in Colleges for Vocational Education." Sounds like programmatic level andragogy. Again when I get it, I'll read it and report on it.
JH: As I've indicated to you, I have about 30 articles and we'll go through some of them because you may want to take them, read it, and report on them. Or you may want to dig out your own material.
(Dr. Henschke continues distribution of articles.)
RM: Do you have a preference on how far back we go?
JH: No. No, because we're investigating current stuff as well as some of the backgrounds for some of this stuff because what I'm interested in is things that fall in the purveyance of this questionnaire: What sources are they relying on? As I've read some of the articles, when I ask the question "what source are they relying on," one was that they developed an argument on the concept of andragogy and never cited anything that had anything to do with andragogy in the material that they were using as a whipping boy, whipping, girl, or whatever you want to call it.
RoV: Whipping person.
JH: Whipping post! And I said, "Well this is an interesting perspective, but it really--." To me, it's an undocumented kind of thing, a witches' brew of a whole bunch of stuff that has a little to do with fact, or it's not based in fact in terms of being a scholarly inquiry. To me, that's one of the things I want to sort out. It said basically that andragogy is dead and it was Malcolm Knowles' variety but the only thing that was cited from Malcolm Knowles was in a box of materials from 1957 that had to do with a Commission of Professors of Adult Education. And if you know anything about his exposure of andragogy, he was not exposed to it until the summer of 1967. So how do you draw on an article that's 10 years before something appeared in that person's lexicon and say it's dead and gone. Just as an illustration. And this was supposed to be scholarly inquiry. And that's questionable.
KS: This might be kind of rudimentary but I'm a person who doesn't like to do what everybody else has done already. Is there a listing of what articles you have or anything instead of me spending hours looking for an article you already have?
JH: These we don't have. These are the ones that I don't have. These here--I'll hand those out to individuals who want to use that particular one.
KS: Okay. I just want to make sure we're not crossing hairs and everybody looking for the same article and everybody doing duplicate work.
JH: I think when we get to the question of picking up on work that we want to do, we'll read through some of these articles. It was difficult to figure out how to make a list or develop a list of all the things so that everybody had a copy. We won't be doing duplicate work.
(Dr. Henschke continues distribution of articles. Polls class interest in completing an inventory to determine their individual bent toward andragogy or pedagogy.))
JH: What I'd like to do is get a reading on this group and see if there are any issues.
RoV: See who doesn't belong!
RuV: See who has an opportunity for change.
JH: See if there's a great disparity. And the way I'm going to ask for it is for you to indicate to me on each item--just raise your hand--whether you put down "strongly agree," "agree," "undecided," "disagree," or "strongly disagree." On each of the items and I'm going to take a tally on that. Do you know what I'm saying?
RuV: You're trying to get a composite score.
JH: I want to get a composite score but I want to see where the items are that we have a great deal of variance and it's an issue between or among us. We may take some time and discuss those. (Passes out andragogy vs pedagogy instrument.)
RuV: There are some "should" statements here, so we're going to have discussion.
Group completes instrument. Dr. Henschke polls class for answers to each item. After compiling results….
JH: Well, there are some items that have the widest variance possible.
RV: Which is good. That leads to discussion.
JH: Number 7, 12, 15, 21, 22, 23, 39, 45, 49, 57, and 60. Interesting. Can we go over for just a moment and see what kind of scores we had? Are you willing to say what you raw score is or your algebraic remainder?
RuV: Well, my raw score was 251 and my algebraic remainder, therefore, rounds off to 40.
JH: Okay. Interesting. (Announces lunch break.) We'll move forward and maybe discuss some of this. Keep hold of your instruments. Obviously we won't have time to discuss all of this this afternoon. We also want to make some assignments and go through some of the materials and see what you want to pick up on, and we'll see where we go from there.
Group takes lunch break. They return and class resumes.
JH: Well, do we want to tackle a few of these questions before we move along to other things or do we want to leave them until later?
RoV: Let's go!
LB: I only felt that way about one.
RoV: The "truth" one?
LB: Yeah, that was the one I felt that way about.
JH: Let's look at number 7. 27 did you say?
RoV: Well, that was the one she was talking about.
LB: Yeah, it's not one that we really diverged on that much, though. We can start with 7.
RuV: 27 was fine apparently.
RoV: Leah had said earlier "whose truth?" So that's why you answered it the way you did, I think.
LB: I disagreed with it…
RuV: I strongly agreed. I think that's the task of any educator.
SI: Well, truth is really…. Whose truth? Now knowledge, that's one thing. To know something about something, but truth is…
RuV: In the eyes of the beholder?
SI: Kind of.
RuV: And I think it is the task of an instructor to help each individual find that individual truth.
RoV: Well, but it didn't say that, though.
RuV: But that's the way I chose to read it.
SI: I think that's why we're…. I think it's the question's fault. I think that's what we're going to find.
LB: Some of the questions are bad.
RuV: They're not necessarily bad. They're open to interpretation and they--if we do critical thinking--will allow us to surface our assumptions in the way we read the questions.
JH: But are we saying, though, that there is an objective truth? Are we saying there is NEVER an objective truth? And if we say that, are we saying we have just violated our own rule by saying there is NEVER….
RuV: I'm saying that there IS an objective truth. There is an absolute truth. I'm also saying that for us humans that is very hard to find. We find our own interpretation of that truth and I think--the way I read that question--it is the facilitator, the instructor, the faculty member's responsibility to assist students to find their own interpretation of the truth and then to allow them to continue to question that.
RoV: Well, and I think what complicates this discussion is when we look at the word "truth" and we think "moral certitude" about something. That's not the truth I'm talking about. I'm talking about the "truth" of, the "veracity" of. Facts can be the truth. Properly conducted scientific inquiry would be truth perhaps, or those kinds of things. We're not necessarily talking about moral truth or those things that are shaded or subjective or individual all the time. There are certain things we recognize as facts which, by the way the world was flat at one time, too. So I think everything is subject to inquiry and proper inquiry should be done. It is my job, perhaps, as an instructor to guide students toward questioning so that will lead them closer to that immutable truth--whenever and wherever it may be found. But it's not for me to prescribe that. And that's not what the question asked.
JH: Well, since you raised that issue, has it ever been--I'm not certain that this category is in "truth"--but you talked about "moral certitude." Has it ever been right to murder somebody?
RoV: Even for those who follow a Judeo-Christian ethic where we say "Thou shalt not kill" we can point to passages, particularly in the Old Testament, where people were instructed by God to wipe out a whole town and wipe every remembrance of them off the planet.
LB: I think you can get more…. The example that comes to mind, for instance, is a police officer. There are certain situations that an officer is in where it is totally appropriate to use deadly force. Do I subscribe to the idea that we should all go around toting guns and killing people? No, but I'm also not going to say that it's NEVER okay to use deadly force.
RoV: Like a mother protecting a child, for instance.
JH: All I'm trying to get at is whether or not we're saying there is some objective truth that is true as true can be whenver.
RoV: Immutably and unchangeably.
JH: Immutably and unchangeably. Or are we saying that we really never can arrive at ANY truth?
RuV: But you're changing context when you go there.
JH: Well, let's keep the context the same and say…
RuV: Well, your first question is: Is there an objective truth?
JH: Or isn't there?
RuV: Or is there not? And the answer probably is subject to opinion. But it automatically leads to the other step you were trying to take. If there is absolute truth, can we as humans discover it?--which is a totally separate issue.
JH: Well, probably that discussion will not be settled. (Group jokes.)
RoV: That's like the riddle: A says B lies and B says C lies and C says A and B both lie, so who's telling the truth? So you have to work on that for awhile. I would take it a step further and say something like: I might hold a value and my values are truth for me, and truth in the context that they work for me, and I think they're good, and I can show everyone how that applies. I teach those as "truths." I don't prescribe those as "truths." That's a different concept for me. One example might be: "Love is better than fear." You can even say "Love is always better than fear." And I would even go so far as to say that love and fear are antithetical and mutually exclusive. Where love is, fear can't be and so on--a scriptural principle. But I had this discussion with someone once who said, "No, fear can be a good thing." I said: "Give me an example." He said: "I stay in my own lane when I'm driving because I'm afraid if I get into the other lane I'll hurt somebody or else I'll be killed myself. So fear is a good thing." And I said: "But couldn't you say that you stay in your own lane because you loved life and you wanted to protect yourself and everyone else?" Anything you can do out of fear, you can do out of love--and that's a better thing. It's a better motivator. Again, it's one of those discussions that will never be ended, but I think that there ARE things that come down to a form of truth but, it's difficult for us outside of a given context to say what that is. And so-called immutable truths may also be altered--like the killing thing--in different contexts.
JH: Okay, what about number 7? Do you think examinations regularly motivate students to learn?
RuV: Give us the breakdown.
JH: It's 1 strongly agrees, and 6 disagree and 3 strongly disagree.
RM: You know when you have an exam hanging over your head, you are motivated but for the wrong reasons.
LB: And you're not learning to remember it.
JY: But is it "learning?"
LB: It is learning….
RM: I don't think it's learning if you cram for a test. And with an examination, I've found one tends to teach to the test. And I think then you're doing a great disservice to everyone.
RuV: There are situations in life where that is quite appropriate. Going back to your profession.
RM: Like CPR? You teach the test. You're right. There are exceptions to that.
RuV: I hope on teaching landings we teach to landings.
RM: And we'll test them on it. Regularly.
RuV: And we will test them on it. I think the reason you see discrepancies here is interpretation. People are going to have a different interpretation to two words in this statement: the word "examination" and the word "regularly." I don't think in this group we're going to have much of an argument over "motivation."
RM: When you read that question, I didn't think about training. I thought about the classroom.
RuV: I thought about the word "examination" and I realized that the way it was written--and this is the fallacy of a test like this, you get to a point that you start looking at what they want the outcome to be--to me examinations are things that happen in everyday life. Every day I have to do something, I'm being examined; therefore, it is an examination. What I think is happening in education, specifically in institutionalized education, is that the word "examination" is beginning to take on a meaning other than the term as I described it. It's beginning to mean probably a paper and pencil test, probably a regurgitation, probably multiple guess, probably in a standardized, normalized environment. So what we're beginning to see in education literature now is that the term "examination" in the broad sense that I used it has five or six different words applied to it. We're now talking about portfolios--looks to me like an examination. We're now talking about--and I'm not sure I can pick the word--assessment. And then we're talking about realistic assessment. You guys do it in the cockpit every day. I hope it's realistic! So the term "examination" here is becoming, for some of us, quite open to interpretation. Second question is "regularly." I expect from my students and I expect as a student in any course somewhere along the line to provide evidence of learning in some form. Okay? Once during each course I take sounds regular to me.
RoV: But I think for most of us probably--and my guess is for the test creators here, the instrument creators--"examination" for them was probably that dreadful thing that we call a "final," "mid-term," the typical classroom examination that we've all been subjected to.
LB: But I didn't think of "examination" in the broad term that Rudi described it in. I still don't know if I would have…. For instance if it said: This assessment instrument is bad…therefore I disagree. I don't think necessarily think it motivates us to learn. If I turn in a portfolio as evidence of what I've learned, that's not the motivator for me. The motivator is to learn whatever I decide to learn and the exam is evidence of that accomplishment or achievement. But I disagree that even in the broadest sense the exam greatly motivates students to learn.
RoV: I said what I said, which was that I disagreed with the statement, because I perceived it the opposite way. I think that if I know I have a test coming up, that's going to force me to read the book, do the library search, do whatever it is to cover that, to be competent in that. What motivates me is a negative motivator, because I hate it.
RuV: But there is an assumption underlying that and the assumption is that I wish to do well. And there are going to be times when I don't give a hoot. There are going to be other times when I might actually wish to do NOT well on the test. And by the way, in case you misinterpreted my comment, I strongly disagree with the statement. I just find it not very well worded. There are too many assumptions built in here for me to make this--if it were to stand on its own--a valid instrument question. It doesn't stand alone; it's one of many. But if it were alone, I'd have concern about what does it really measure?
JH: It's part of this instrument.
RuV: I agree.
MK: My perspective at first glance, the word "examination" tends to bring a negative connotation, unfortunately, as I read it. So, therefore, it made it more external motivation rather than intrinsic. I don't study for this exam because I want the knowledge but because I don't want to be embarrassed by the results.
RoV: Well, the other thing is the word "learn." I like to make that a fluffy thing, like meaningful learning, or significant learning, or profound learning, or something really applicable, but if you're talking about acquiring facts, yeah, having an exam to face is going to make me acquire facts--even if I promptly forget them out of sheer contrariness.
RuV: It's called a "learning curve."
JH: All right, we'll do one more before we shift gears here and we'll come back to this at a later time, so keep your instrument intact and with you. Let's try one that is a little bit more evenly distributed and let's take a look at number 21. I think that has strongly agree 1, agree 2, undecided 2, disagree 2, and strongly disagree 3. Okay? So it's a somewhat even distribution. "The teacher should not change his expressed decisions without unusually good reasons."
RM: Well, I agree, and the reason is if you start to waffle on things, you're going to confuse everybody. And I thought It's okay to change your mind, but have a reason for it. A good reason for it.
RuV: What makes it an unusually good reason?
LB: Yeah, I was suspicious of that.
JH: I kind of agree with that. There better be a good reason.
RM: Let's say you're teaching this class and you've been teaching long-accepted practice and then they find out it hasn't been working. I think that's an unusually good reason.
RuV: The problem with it is that I love your example, Roger, but it doesn't cause them to change what they teach.
JH: Well, it should.
RuV: I agree with you that it should, but it doesn't.
RoV: Would it have changed anyone's answer if it had not said "unusual."
RuV: Yes, it would have changed my answer. (Others agree.) If the word "unusual" hadn't been there, my answer would have been different.
KS: Because many times I change just because I want to change and there's no valid reason. I cannot think of a logical, valid reason why I would have to change my method or strategy to teach that particular lesson. I might change--a lot of times right in the middle of class I might say "Hold it! Stop! Let's try it this way." Just for the heck of it. I don't have a valid reason. I mean I can't logically say I have a valid reason because some might be getting it, who knows?
JH: You're talking methods and strategies there.
KS: I'm just talking anything. I do a lot of things on the spur of the moment. I say: "Let's try this." And if it works, fine. If it doesn't work, then I'll change it again and do something and try to adapt again. It's more adaptation to me. I'd rather be able to adapt on the fly to a degree, use different, various degrees of skills and resources. If the audio doesn't work, use visual. If visual doesn't work, use both. If that doesn't work, use tactile. Anything I can think of.
RM: That's a good reason.
KS: But it doesn't have to be "unusually." I might do that as an enhancement. Unusually is if I'm teaching a lesson and I'm saying something here and you guys have dumb looks on your face like "I don't get it." That's unusual enough for me that I say: "Okay I have to change it" to try to give them something else.
JY: But didn't you have a reason?
KS: Yes, but it has to be…. For me unusual has to be something out of the ordinary.
RoV: My guess, though, Kerry, is that you're a very intuitive person, especially when it comes to your students and your teaching. So even though you're not consciously aware, you do have an understanding of what you're doing. You just haven't put your finger on it. You haven't consciously….
RuV: You haven't verbalized it yet.
KS: But a lot of times it's for the fun of it. Is that unusual to do something for the fun of it? Let's try this….
RoV: No, for those of us with a low boredom threshold, that's a perfectly good reason--an unusually good reason, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to do the same thing twice--ever.
KS: That's how I am to a degree. Maybe that just comes automatic with me, but my thing is that something unusual is something unique. Something happened that was unique. Maybe the building burns down. Now that's unique! But maybe just changing on the fly is NOT unique. Maybe that's just my interpretation.
RoV: How did everybody interpret "decisions"?
LB: Expressed decisions.
RoV: Well, how did they interpret "expressed decisions"?
RM: This whole thing is so subjective it's hard to….
RoV: What I would say about my methodologies, or "Here's how we're going to do something"--that's a little easier to change than something in my written syllabus, the grading criteria or something. And when they said "expressed," I took it to mean written or verbalized.
KS: Are you talking about flexibility then? Are you rigid? Are you flexible? That's how I took part of it too. Are you rigid because you have to have an unusual thing to change your grading criteria or whatever you're doing? Can't you be flexible? I like…. Rudi comes up and says: Can't we do it this way?" Go for it!
RuV: Realize what they're trying to measure. They're trying to oppose pedagogy to andragogy. From a pedagogical point of view, the teacher should never change anything he or she has said. To JH: Would your colleagues agree with that? Probably not. That was probably a slightly excessive statement. And so there even a good reason to make a change in real life as a teacher doesn't become adequate to change. And it may be because they're subject to review by a principal. They're subject to review by other administrative officers. They're subject to review by accreditation organizations. So I think this is one of those extreme questions that tests the pedagogy side.
JH: Well, though I think it has to do with an orientation and the question that would be to me implied underlying this is "Am I always dealing with complete information or am I dealing with incomplete information?" And am I able to say "I was wrong" or "I thought so and so based on such and such and now with further evidence with which I have been confronted, I really have no choice but to change my opinion."
RuV: And of course pedagogues would give you an example "Okay, the further evidence that you've been presented with, Dr. Henschke, is the whole class doesn't like the approach you're taking. What are you going to do?" They would advocate that you stick with the approach that you started with. And I may be being overly negative toward pedagogues. I apologize for that.
JH: Well, some of my pedagogical colleagues would say "Now, pedagogy was never intended to be bad practice."
RuV: And I would buy that. That doesn't mean that the implementation isn't there.
JH: All right. Anyway, we'll put that on hold for a bit and think about it and come back to it.
Sends class roster sheet among group. Begins distribution of research articles for discussion in subsequent classes.)
JH: I just want to add one comments, that Dusan Savecivec, who is the author of this article is the one that in 1967 was in a workshop in adult education at Boston University that Malcolm Knowles was conducting and he introduced Malcolm to the concept of andragogy. Malcolm had not heard of it prior to that. So we'll get some of the crossings of that.
RM: Is he still alive?
JH: Dusan? I think so. I'm sure, though, that life is terribly difficult for them. He's been at the University of Belgrade for years and, as you know, a large measure of their infrastructure was dessimated during the war and I am certain that they are having some cold days and nights and difficult days and nights in Belgrade and in Yugoslavia. Periodically, someone has been able to make connection with him. I think, however, the last connection that I'm aware of with any colleagues that I know probably was a year ago and so we're not absolutely certain what the situation is with Dusan. But he gave that particular perspective and I think it's one for thinking about and consideration.
Continues distributing articles.
JH: Also, Marcie Bucavalis, who--I've got two of my colleagues that are on the committee in "Dialogues in Andragogy" that are willing to be with us. The one has agreed to come on the 29th of April and will be with here. In fact, he was in the course and at the place and time when Dusan introduced Malcolm to the concept of andragogy. And Leo Johnson has worked with Malcolm in a variety of settings over a long period of time, working with him probably most intensely at the Fielding Institute, one of the kind of external degree programs that has been prominent in the United States. He's pretty well retired from it. I think he's just about out of Fielding right now. In any event, Leo is planning and willing to be with us and we need to talk about what we want to ask of him when we get a little bit closer to the time and we know where we're headed in our discussions and what we want to find out from him. Also Marcie Bucavalis. We're going to try to get with her on the telephone sometime during the session. We haven't set the date on that but she's been doing "Dialogues in Andragogy" at Virginia Tech--Polytech--a northern Virginia graduate school in Falls Church, with her doctorate students. They take a role-playing kind of arrangement. Let me give you a for instance. One day I got an e-mail from one of her students and said: "Can I borrow a copy of your dissertation?" I said "fine." And he took the responsibility of reading it…
Tape ends here. Part of discussion missing.
JH: …and, incidentally, what I want to say is you're free to set up the way you want to do your discussion. You can use or choose any method or technique that you want to in terms of what it is you're coming out with as far as your articles are concerned.
RuV: As long as we address these questions.
JH: Yeah, in some way, some fashion, to address these issues is what is of critical importance.
Continues to distribute articles.
MC: Can we take more than one?
JH: Yes [discussion about process].
MC: And once we read it we might decide that doesn't interest us and we can do something else?
JH: Sure. And it doesn't mean that everything in the article has to be presented. This is NOT what I would call a "book report" or an "article report." I think it's really for you to get into the heart of what that person's argument is in relation to the concept of andragogy. Are they supporting it? Are they debunking it? Are they sort of riding the fence? What are the documents that the authors are using to support their argument? Do you agree with it? Do you disagree with their argument? Do you feel like you could have made a stronger argument? Do you want to counter theirs? What's the weakest part of their argument? And what contribution do you think that makes to the debate and the dialogue of andragogy?
Continued distribution of articles and discussion about process.
JH: I think one of the things I want to do is probably just give you some of the stuff from Cyril Houle at this point. In his book, The Design of Education, he first wrote this in 1973 and then revised it in 1996 about a year and a half before he died. He had quite a bit of perspective in presenting various credos and systems in education. And of course presenting those and, as an alternative, presenting his own saying "Here's THE system." Cy was an interesting fellow. I never went to a conference where Cy was presenting that somewhere in his remarks--whatever the topic was he was talking about--always managed to work into his comments: "I always chide Professor Knowles and tell him there is no difference between how adults learn and how children learn. Of course when that would happen, especially in the Commission of Professors of Adult Education, the professors loved to get Cy and Malcolm in the same room at the same time and start arguing about some particular issue. And Cy was always very, very serious. And I have to say that it was a great to the field of adult education when the University of Chicago program was cut out at the University of Chicago because Cy was one of the best researchers that ever existed in the field of adult education. I mean Malcolm made the statement: "I went to the University of Chicago and studied with Cy for the purpose of sharpening and enhancing my research competency. That's what I wanted to learn from him. I knew he knew how to do research." It was a great loss. But every time he would do that, Malcolm would be sitting there listening to that and when he'd get done, he'd always laugh. He was always…. In other words, the discussion was started then and they would go at it just tooth and nail and lots of controversy, lots of give and take, lots of stuff, and there's where people used to get after Malcolm…
Tape ends here. Part of discussion missing.
JH: [continues] …and you knew he was taking it all in and when they got done, he's just say: "You know, you seem to have a great deal of energy. I think it would be good if you would research in that area."
RuV: Good professorial move.
JH: Very encouraging. And I never went to the Commission without seeing a lot of people gathered around Malcolm--and Cy, for that matter. They were both considered some of the elder statespeople of the field. And there are some new ones coming along the way. But he talks--and I'll give you a copy of this later--but I want to sort of set the stage a little bit. [Quoting from article] In the quarter of a century since Malcolm brought into popularization andragogy in this country and around the world, since then andragogy has proved to be widely popular," he says. "It has been taken up with enthusiasm in many settings and the results of the ensuing projects have been extensively publicized. Almost immediately, critics of Knowles and his ideas were heard and debate about the soundness and practical utility of the new term became recurrent, reaching a zenith in the late 1980's. Knowles kept evolving, enlarging and revising his point of view and therefore he became something of a moving target. Particularly since he was intimately involved with many projects at every level of magnitude in both customary and unusual settings all over the world. He could bring to discussions and debate a wealth of experience that his opponents could not match. Moreover, some of his followers developed variant conceptions of andragogy, thereby enlarging the discourse." Ken Benny--I don't know if any of you know Ken Benny who was at Boston University and was on my dissertation committee--had an interesting metaphor or analogy. And this sort of matches what Cy in part has said here. He said: "Boston University is a place for Malcolm to stand and be professor to the world." That was just a comment he made and it was like: "Yeah, probably that's right." It was sort of a pulpit for him to be "professor to the world." I laughed when he told me that because I thought it was an interesting word picture. And here's Cy saying Malcolm's experience took him all over the world and it was hard for his opponents to match that. He said: "The fluidity of Knowles' theories make it difficult to summarize them." And then he takes account from Andragogy in Action and he's simply saying "Andragogy remains as the most learner-centered of all patterns of adult education programming. Distinctions between childhood and adulthood are unnecessary. Indeed, references to pedagogy seem irrelevant. Those who wish to do so can wholly contain their practice in the ideas expressed by Knowles and others, establishing appropriate physical and psychological climates for learning and carrying forward all of its processes collaboratively. Far more significantly, andragogy influences every other system, even leaders who guide learning chiefly in terms of mastery of the subject matter, the acquisition of skills, the facing of social problems, or some other goal, know that they should involve learners in as many aspects of their education as possible and in the creation of a climate in which they can most fruitfully learn." His definition of andragogy is "a system of program design centrally based on nature, wishes and participation of the learner or learners, particularly those who are adult." And he has some other references in there which I have included in the bibliography.
RuV: You had fun with this guy. Is Houle the one who gave you the tough time?
JH: I had fun with who? Cy Houle or Malcolm?
RuV: Cy. Is he the one who gave you a tough time?
JH: Oh, yes! When I was doing my dissertation, I took my old reel tape recorder--that was back in those days, the ancient days--I mean I carried it like a suitcase. I went around the country and interviewed a number of adult educators when I was interviewing for getting information on my dissertation on the contemporary history of Malcolm's contributions to the theory and practice of adult education. And I'd gone down to the University of Georgia and visited with Jean Johnson. Jean Johnson was the head of the Metroplex Assembly here back in--what?--in the mid 50's in St. Louis? And later went to the University of Georgia. Went to Chicago to visit with Rob Sillers, who was part of the old liberal adult education group that had gotten into loggerheads with Malcolm and his implementation and use of the funds of the Ford Foundation in carrying out the adult education mission and goals. And I went to Rob's office in Chicago--I'm trying to remember, he was an executive in some major corporation there…
RuV: Was it Bell and Howell?
JH: I don't think so. It was a cement corporation. A cement mixing corporation of some kind. Building. But Rob asked me when I walked in: "Is any of this going to find its way back into the archives or into the annals of people who may come back and want to beat me over the head with it?" I said: "You can have absolute confidence that there is confidentiality in what is said." And Rob interviewed with it. Cy Houle gave me the opportunity to interview him and I went to the University of Chicago and we sat and I have to say Cy was most gracious. He sat there and he listened to everything that I had to say and responded to every question that I asked, held nothing back. He told me that he--he said: "I wanted to respond fully to everything that you were asking me"--and there was no hesitation--"and I hope that I have told you what is important and that I have responded to your questions as you had hoped and expected me to." And I said: "Yes." He says: "Now that that is done with…
RuV: Here it comes! Okay, John!
JH: He said: "I have some things to say." And he said: "I want you to know that I think what you are doing is not worthy of a doctoral dissertation or a doctoral degree. It is inadequate as far as the research design is concerned. Your interview questions are quite inadequate." Incidentally, the instrument that we had developed, we did in a general strategies in change in social systems seminar in Bob Chinn's basement in Brookline, Massachusetts, where we used to get together in that seminar at 7:30 in the evening and sometimes left there about 2:30 in the morning because we were arguing and discussing and debating and refining that instrument. And I used basically that instrument and Cy basically told me that my research project was not worthy of a doctoral dissertation. I listened to what he had to say and I thanked him and he did not try to take the tape away from me--and we didn't tape record that--but he just said: "I wanted to respond as fully as I possibly could." There was quite a controversy that went on in the field because I was stepping out into some territory that was highly unusual. I was doing a contemporary historical study similar to what Arthur Schlessinger did on Kennedy with the writing of The Thousand Days. You know it's looking at history and recording it while it's happening. Well, you don't do THAT! That's not appropriate and according to Louis Gottschalks' Understanding History, the research methodology, one of the major things, of course, that is lacking in that whole thing is to see whether or not over time this remains as a piece of the history or whether it passes out of existence. A retired professor from the University of Wisconsin, Bert Cridelow, said to me: "I think it's a great deal that you're doing with Malcolm and studying. I've got one recommendation, though. You ought to take this data and stick it away in a vault and 50 years after Malcolm is dead, get it out. And if andragogy survives until that time, then Malcolm has had something to do with it in this country." Well, I didn't do it quite according to Bert's suggestion but at the memorial service, when I was asked by the family to do the professional eulogy of Malcolm, I didn't give the names but I gave that--I said since I wrote the dissertation 25 years ago, 25 years has lapsed since that time and andragogy is alive and well in this country and other parts of the world. So I said: "We'll see what happens in the next 25 or 50 years." Also, you know the Midwest Research to Practice Conference that we had here, well the granddaddy of that conference is called the Adult Education Research Conference, which is probably about 40 years old. It'll be held in Vancouver this year. Well, it was held in Chicago in 1974 and I submitted my paper based on my dissertation for that conference and was accepted and did the paper at the conference. And one of the gentlemen who was from the University of Minnesota came to my session. When I explained my method for researching--in other words, when I asked permission to do that study, Malcolm, of course, was to be my major advisor and my dissertation chair because of my study with him and he said, "Well, I would be honored and humbled if you did that and I will give permission for it, but my first order of business is to get off the committee and serve as an information resource to you, not as your chair." And when I told that, when I said along the way Malcolm and I had a few conversations and my chair told me: "It's time you quit talking to Malcolm!" I said: "I don't know whether I need this or not. This whole grief process of doing this dissertation." And he was very empathetic. He said: "Ummmm!" He said: "Are you doing this and this and this?" And I said: "I don't know. You may not like what I'm doing and you may want to tell me to go jump in the lake." He said: "No, I'll wait until after it's all over and done with and then I'll tell you to go jump in the lake." But, anyway, this guy from the University of Minnesota, when I told him the process that I had done in there, he said: "Oh, I feel much better now that I know that that was not just simply your writing down what Malcolm wanted to have you write down." And in the dissertation, of course, if you ever have a chance to read it, I talk about Jack Crabtree, who was president of Adult Education Association of the United States. He, in Adult Leadership--you may wish to read that, it's in our library--put in there one day that the Lee Bradford, Ken Benny, Malcolm Knowles and all that ilk that belonged to the "group dynamics boys" wanted to take us up to Bethel, Maine, and perform the voodoo rites of the human relations movement. And I included that in what was part of the whole perspective in terms of Malcolm's contribution and the controversy that surrounded it, the contribution or the lack of it. Anyway, it was quite an interesting thing. Then the controversy continued, even up until 1985 when I was in Europe visiting the German Adult Education Association and there were--what?--10 of us in adult education in the United States and one of the persons that has written a history of adult education was very much upset over the fact that I had done what I had done as far as my dissertation is concerned. He asked me about that whole process and when I got done telling him what the process was that I went through for gathering the data for the dissertation, he turned to me and he said: "You know, John, I'm glad to hear what you have to say about that whole process. I think I, as well as other people in the field, thought that there was some kind of 'cult of personality' that was in operation when you were writing that dissertation." And it was interesting that I've had my days in court, so to speak, to be able to address some lingering concerns that some people have. And the interesting part of it is that Cy Houle was most supportive of the kinds of research that Malcolm did for his dissertation. And he did a history of the adult education movement in the United States and Cy, in his literature of adult education that was published in 1991-92, said that that was the best history to date in the field of adult education, especially in this country. There isn't any that has surpassed it. There are some others that have sought to do other things and have added to the history, but there are really histories of movements and everybody writes their own perspective and it's not as if there is nothing to some of the perspectives. And, incidentally, there have been some other dissertations that have been written. At East Texas State University, there was a doctorate that was done and the dissertation was on "The Father of American Andragogy." There was a dissertation on that and this guy, Jim Cook, interviewed probably 15 adult educators and he did that in terms of writing about it. So it has its positives and it has its drawbacks but, nevertheless, that's what scientific inquiry is about. That's what probing and investigation is about. And so as a consequence, I've talked a little bit longer on that whole thing that I had intended...
JH: A couple of questions that I would like to ask before we go, and it doesn't need a group discussion, but are we beginning to move in any direction partially, fully or whatever, that you think may be beneficial to you in this investigation that you're engaged in?
JH: I didn't know exactly what or how to expect or what to think about, so I said as the time comes near I'll figure something out and we'll try to put together what we need to put together and I think we have some exciting things that will begin to come together. Each of you can be ready to do some sort of presentation next time on the stuff and we'll see what else is there and we'll see what else you want to investigate. One of the things you don't want to overlook, and that is the citations that are in the articles or the materials that you get. If you can look at those citations, you might probe further and find more things regarding that.
RuV: Are you interested at all in creating a citation database because I think that might end up being beneficial. And I don't know how much work it is. I haven't looked at the articles I've taken, but maybe we can just take the citations as they are here and put them on disk. I don't mind putting them in a database form at all that we can then keep. My suggestion is that we would consider Endnotes so that it's easily importable to all sorts of other database formats.
JH: I think that would be wonderful in terms of not only what we're going to go in this class--and I hope to run this class sometime in the future--but also what we're doing in the Commission of Professors in terms of "Dialogues in Andragogy," the material that could be available in that kind of thing. I think it will make its way, its circuit around the world, and we'll find as the years roll along andragogy is not a uni-dimensional construct. It's multi-dimensional and has a wide variety of things and we may find some beneficial things that may grow out of this. I think any beneficial ideas that you all have for enhancing what we're trying to do, let's add that to the arsenal of what we're seeking to do. Technology stuff I don't know a whole lot about and I'll have to rely upon you…
RuV: If you can give me just the way they are here. Okay? We don't need to expand them at this time--that may come later. [additional discussion about process]
LB: When you look at what I'm going to be reading about the metamorphosis of the term, I keep thinking of a timeline. Some kind of visual timeline. When things started happening. You know how people will actually draw the timeline of when things appeared in the literature, in the lexicon.
RuV: Neat thought!
RoV: Well, one thing as we come out of the class we could compile a timeline based on all the work that we're doing now. [referring to article] This one is interesting in that regard because it says "The first time the word 'andragogy' was used blah, blah, blah…"
RoV: German school teacher, Alexander Knapp in 1833 first employed the term.
JH: In our "Dialogues" in San Antonio, one of our presenters was from Germany and he had a photocopy of the article and the cover page where it was used and we probably can get hold of that. We'll make available his e-mail address and I'm sure that he will be delighted to join in the discussion.
RoV: Well, another thing we might want to do, too, is as everybody reads, if there are dates in there, jot a note about that and give them to Lea.
LB: I think that will be neat. For me, I like the "picture."
RoV: And also with the citations we need to categorize them.
RuV: We may want to look at, when we start getting… We may need some time for that at the next session, John, when we start getting a feel for the subject. Some of them are already grouped.
LB: And some will be overlapping.
RuV: But that's the interesting thing that starts coming out. How inbred is this literature in all reality?
RM: I've got a couple of articles that already have things broken down.
RuV: Yeah, I'm sure it's not a new concept. It's been done before, but you start seeing the cross-fertilization, so to speak. [additional discussion about process]
JH: Any other questions?
RoV: It seems to me--and this may be overly ambitious for our first attempt at this process--that in addition to the timeline, we ought to compile "what does that all mean?" and "where do you go from here?" now that we know this. It's the idea that I don't want to just stay stuck. It's important to understand your foundations, your history--I said that this morning, but I think it's also important to ask what does that all mean and where do we go from here with that knowledge. Because otherwise, all that needs to be known is not in the literature. It's in our everyday experience. We're doing new things that Malcolm never thought of and that needs to be captured. We're creating history, as well. And I sort of relate this to when we took our history and philosophy class and our panel discussion was "What's Missing from the History?" And that's the next trend, perhaps, or the next piece of new knowledge that we need to build. That would be my charge, I guess, if I were to make a charge. Let's look at what's missing, where we need to go and what's next.
JH: Maybe we can add that to the questionnaire. What's missing? Where do we need to go? We need to add to what's here.
LB: That becomes the end of the timeline.
RoV: Right! Seriously, we could create on banner format a paper timeline that'll stretch across that blackboard up there that says "Here's the whole progression of things" and that would be eminently not only publishable but of interest to people at conferences, and other educators, and God knows.
SI: And you know what's interesting is that once we do a timeline, we might see a pattern repeated that would help us predict.
General wrap-up discussion about transcription of tapes, etc. Class session dismissed. Next class on February 12, 2000.