Degree Assignments

 

Richard Thompson – 160202828 – BA (Hons) Education and Personal Development – EPD52

Exploring unified educational theory and the fallacy of “general pedagogical knowledge”.

 

Personal Journal Entry 20191227: New words and ideas are fun toys we rush to play with, gifting power to the initiated (Frye, 2012, p. 101), although this is often nothing more than a conceit.  If we consider the possibility that learners initially perceive the world through the lens of their passions, but lack merely the appropriate vocabulary to translate and articulate this to their audience, (Whiskey Vault, 2019) can we honestly say they are any less developed in their understanding of the fundamental concept?  By labouring to a proscribed outcome, do we not risk increasing disjuncture (Jarvis, 2010) to the point where it gains the French quality of “barbarique” which Frye translated as ‘something we can’t be bothered trying to understand.’ (2012, p. 96).  Through adherence to establishing dogma and theory are we not deliberately stifling an environment of experiment and discovery both for our students and for ourselves? (2012, p. 107)

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson begins the trailer for his Masterclass^TM by saying “One of the great challenges in this world is to know enough about a subject to think you are right, but not enough about the subject, to know you’re wrong.” (2019) That is the caveat and the deliberate limitation set upon this work and as such, to the chagrin of Apple (2018, p. 65), we will continue the burgeoning tradition of “academicizing the political” by working to provide an everyday tool for the development of our own critical reasoning and professional development within the education sector. This will involve a re-evaluation of Knowles work on andragogy but will also touch on the semi-professionalisation of teaching and the need to reassess the humanistic approach of secondary education teaching.

 

 

 

 

Defining general pedagogical knowledge

“One of the reasons for the dearth of empirical studies investigating general pedagogical knowledge could be due to the difficulty in defining this concept.” (Guerriero, 2017)

It is not difficult to define, general pedagogical knowledge is simply a misnomer, existing as neither a singular approach nor overarching concept, rather it has come to be accepted as the generic term for the skills required for teaching. (Holmes & Abington-Cooper, 2000)  An analogous example would be to compare the English word ‘farming’ to ‘T­erroir’ a term coined by French vignerons to describe the complexities inherent within the microclimate, land and soil that influence the taste of the grape and hence the wine (Waterford Whiskey, 2020). Like farming, as a catch all term, does no justice to the intricacies required to manage a farm, attempts to homogenise the distinct and specialised concepts of our wide-ranging “profession” under a single generic label of “general pedagogical knowledge” is equally ridiculous. How has this come to be? As Sagan explained “You have to know the past to understand the present” (Druyan, et al., 1980).

 

The death of the andragogic approach in the UK

Here we will critique an impassioned article from 1993 highlighting the absurdities facing nursing educators at that time and, with the benefit of hindsight, ask was Knowles’ ideology of andragogy really to blame? For this purpose, we will be ignoring most of Darbyshire’s critique of andragogy as it appears to be based on the assumptions of others (Hartree, 1984) (Jarvis, 1984) (Tennent, 1986), but as we will be addressing Knowles in detail later it is felt a brief exploration of a perceived impact widespread andragogy had in UK education is of more importance.

Darbyshire (1993) opens with an inferred proposal that autocratic decision-making led to andragogic programmes, espoused at the time as ‘the’ educational philosophy desperately sought to give credibility and respectability to nursing education, being rolled out en-mass regardless of educators ability or willingness to deliver such programmes.  The actual critique of andragogy is couched in terms of battle and, whilst enjoyable to read, clearly displays negative bias towards the ‘andragogues’ of the time.  Of particular interest in this article is a citation from Thompson (1989), though the original article is sadly unavailable. To quote:

“…it is difficult to see how a teacher is supposed to ‘pick ‘n’ mix’ from andragogical or pedagogical approaches for particular lessons or students”. (p. 331)

That neither of these academics realised there was a common ground speaks volumes of the political climate. 

Moving on we enter a realm of semantics regarding the linguistic impropriety of andragogy, an argument proved moot by returning to the opening statement of the main article: “Androgogy is no new concept” and noting it was coined by Alexander Kapp, a German educationist, in 1833 (Davenport & Davenport, 1985b) (p. 329) an era not particularly well remembered for the advocation of women’s rights. By framing this argument in terms of pedagogy vs andragogy, and arguing the term andragogy demeans feminism, does Darbyshire not open himself to a counter accusation that he is happy to refer to women as children requiring a leader by insisting on using pedagogy? Is that any less ridiculous or is it just another example of labelling over the true word? (Hudak, 2001)  Perhaps a rebranding of Knowles work to prevent similar criticism in the future would be advisable as Knudson and Mohring already offered us true words to embrace, “Humangogy” and “Teliagogy” respectively (Holmes & Abington-Cooper, 2000, p. 52), again we will return to this later.

Other than a list of failings, starting at “Likewise, Bevis (1990)” (Darbyshire, 1993, pp. 331-332), that reads as a clear example of widespread classic pedagogy in practice posing as andragogy, there is little else of substance to be taken from the article. Unsurprisingly, when Darbyshire answers the question “Why has andragogy been so uncritically accepted by nurse educators?” he inevitably returns to flesh out that initial inference to autocratic decision making, giving open reference to negative emotional climates (Carlyle & Woods, 2002) apparently typical of educational managerial practice at the time. Postulating from this article alone, the failure of andragogy in the UK can be attributed, not to Knowles as Darbyshire suggests, but to poor educator training, poorer implementation and an adherence to classic pedagogical teaching models completely at odds with the ideology of the andragogical model that was to be delivered. Had Darbyshire at the time researched Knowles a little more, he might have discovered a man dedicated to the humanistic ideals, one who found learning theorists “terribly dull and abstruse writers… egotistical…mean” and deliberately prejudiced toward theories they did not prescribe to, an educator who saw the disparate learning models of Behaviourist, Cognitive and Humanistic theory and assigned them roles within a  learning spectrum of complexity against learning ability, the friend who, as a favour, dedicated twenty-one days in a hectic schedule to finalise a manuscript entitled “Learning Theory and Human Resources Development” and who was amused when the publishers changed the title to ‘The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species’ when they published it in 1973. (Knowles, 1989, pp. 47-49).  Unfortunately, to parse in Darbyshire’s theatrical terms, the pedagogic / andragogic war was almost over, the enemy general was soon to be dead, and over the horizon came the next big white whale of educational revolution, the Lifelong Learner.

Lest this section be thought of as a critique of Darbyshire himself, nothing could be further from the truth; his editorial (Darbyshire, et al., 2019) and commentary (Darbyshire, et al., 2019) have been instrumental in the following thought exercise though it is concerning that he offers the same arguments, albeit with greater empirical evidence, as he did twenty-seven years ago.

 

Shaping the teaching mindset

Few enter the teaching profession with the humanistic analytical approach Jarvis suggests in his conclusion of the chapter ‘Theorical Perspectives on Teaching’ (2010, p. 195), fewer still confidently claim general pedagogical expertise as our personal experience limits the practical application we can offer to other groups, e.g. child / youth / adult. Guerriero (2017) claims teacher expertise develops over five to seven years, however even a brief perusal of Berliner’s original work gleans the fact this is only true for “exemplary teachers… if one works hard at it” (2004, p. 201) and that the ‘experts’ in question with their complexified world-view found an experiment of planning and delivering a 30 minute lesson on probability to an previously unknown group of high school students extremely challenging. Removed from ‘their’ classroom, ‘their’ students and ‘their’ routine, the expert teachers in Berliner’s experiment experienced distinctive and even ‘barbarique’ levels of disjuncture and floundered. (pp. 202-3) How could this be as their subject knowledge was undoubtably sound? Berliner looks to others for answers to what propels a small number of teachers to make the transition from competency towards proficiency and then expertise, but as a majority of teachers apparently languish happily at or below competency (p. 207), could the blame possibly lie within the label ‘pedagogy’ itself?

At odds with Knowles’ definition of “the art and science of teaching children”, our initial introduction to pedagogy is usually the baser and more emotive “To lead the child”. Our natural response to this concept is that of the protector taking a small child’s hand, followed by stereotypical imagery of the Pedagogue as a strict disciplinarian (Waters, 1979), finally we are told that our understanding of pedagogy is essential for dispensing our ‘duties and responsibilities’ regarding the welfare and academic achievement of our students.  We are, from the outset, forced into a surrogate parental role and subsequently judged as the parent for the behaviour and progress of our charges, quickly losing our professional detachment and allowing the constraints of a fixed mindset (Dweck, 2012) of protection to form. Subsequently when our students disengage with the lesson we cannot readily adapt, taking it as a personal affront and a defiance of our will as the teacher, we demand to know “Why?” and even “How dare they?”. Is this mentality that Knowles was referring when he initially wrote his ‘assumptions of pedagogy’ in 1970?

Contrast this with the definition of andragogy and how Knowles sells it to us. If andragogy is “the art and science of teaching the adult”, our initial concept is that of being the leader of our peers, our professional detachment remains intact as these students become, in our mind at least, our colleagues in this educational endeavour. When we are told to work with our students to improve their welfare and academic achievement it immediately seems less burdensome, the duties and responsibilities remain the same, but the mindset is one of growth because we are asked to fully engage with our students from the outset, to ask what they want to achieve and build customised curricula around this. Then when they choose, perhaps are forced, to disengage we can respect their decision and offer understanding borne of our own similar experience.

In his autobiography Knowles attributes his success to the inspirational adults of his formative years, his father and teachers who were far removed from this classic pedagogic model and were willing to engage their young charges by allowing experimentation and critical thinking regardless of age (1989, pp. 1-6). It would be a mindset of a lifetime, one that placed equal importance on the learner as the learning, that continually adapted to developing knowledge and was most of open to change. “I am therefore certain that if this book is revised in ten years, it will report substantial changes in my thinking” (1989, p. 85)

 

 

Reframing the argument

For clarity, if we consider Knowles’ final definitions of Pedagogy and Andragogy in The Making of an Adult Educator (1989, pp. 77-85) and simply switch the psychologically defined term of adult with the post-Knowles accepted term Lifelong Learner, we see a possible workable frame for this ideology (see Table 1).

By identifying assumptions of the classical Pedagogic approach and directly contrasting this against assumptions of an Andragogic approach, Knowles effectively defines the extremities of the learner and provides the bookends to the learning journey experience. Jarvis (2010, p. 235) accepted this same premise but concluded that experience was the only distinguishing variable and therefore individuals might benefit from a pedagogic approach if they lacked experience or prefer an andragogic approach if already knowledgeable, assumptions already in situ “within the humanistic perspective on adult education.”  Here Jarvis’ bias toward adult education allows for some understanding of the misconceptions that arose, particularly as the role of the child educator is not particularly considered within this remit despite supposedly providing the prerequisite foundation for all adult education. 

If we can accept Knowles provides the alpha and the omega of the learning journey Knudson called “Humangogy”, please allow one conceit for the purposes of clarity. Between Pedagogy and Andragogy, henceforth re-termed as Teliagogy, there is a conceptual chasm I would like to define as Podemgogy, the knowledge and skills of bridging of these two approaches, the purpose of which will become evident as we continue however anyone familiar with Glaser’s (1996) three-stage cognitive theory will understand the implications. (Berliner, 2004, p. 204). Whilst etymologically incorrect, the bastardisation of Latin and Greek in Podemgogy is quite deliberate, for what is the point of labelling something when we are trying to establish a framework of true words to question our very idea of teaching? (Hudak, 2001)

 

 

General Humangogic Practice and applying a concept of Podemgogy

Podemgogy is not new, however naming it finally defines the ethereal qualities of exceptional teaching we develop through our own experiential learning as educators better than the ambiguous labels like “blended learning”. Suggested critical assumptions of the Podemgogical model bridging Pedagogy and Teliagogy can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2

Regarding:	Assumptions of the Pedagogical model	Assumptions of the Podemgogical model	Assumptions of the Teliagogical model
the need to know	Learners need only know that they must learn what the teacher teaches if they want to pass and be promoted, they do not need to know how what they learn will apply to their lives	Learners ask questions, show resilience and develop their own conclusions. They remain dependent on the teacher to maintain appropriate levels of material and disjuncture.	Lifelong Learners need to know why they need to learn something before undertaking to learn it. (a process akin to Freire’s consciousness-raising)
the learner’s self-concept	The teacher’s concept of the learner is that of a dependent personality; therefore, the learner’s self-concept becomes that of a dependent personality.	The learner is inquisitive, developing a growth mindset and critical thinking. Some dependencies on the teacher remain.	Lifelong Learners have a self-concept of being responsible for their own lives. Once they have arrived at this self-concept, they develop a deep psychological need to be seen and treated by others as being capable of self-direction. They resent and resist situations in which they feel others are imposing their will on them.
the role of experience	The learner’s experience is of little worth as a resource for learning; the experience that counts is that of the teacher, the textbook writer, etc.	The learner’s experience is an integral aspect of the learning and future learning develops as a continuation of these prior experiences and concepts.	Lifelong Learners come into an educational activity with both a greater volume and a different quality of experience from youths. It means that for many kinds of learning the richest resources for learning are within the learners themselves.
readiness to learn	Learners become ready to learn what the school requires of them to learn if they want to pass and get promoted	Learners want to apply everything they know to everything else to find the holistic links.	Lifelong learners are ready to learn what they need to know
orientation to learning	Learners have a subject-centred orientation to learning; they see learning as acquiring subject-matter content. Therefore, learning experiences are organised according to subject-matter units and the logic of subject-matter content.	Learners want to experiment, apply what they have learned, then improve on their knowledge.	Lifelong learners have a life-centric orientation to learning, taking advantage of opportunities to learn as they present themselves.
Motivation	Learners are motivated to learn by extrinsic motivators – grades, the teacher’s approval or disapproval, parental pressures.	Learners display a mixture of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. Opportunities for new experiences are a primary motivator.	Lifelong learners are intrinsically motivated to learn, acquiring skills and knowledge to improve their lives and prospects

 

With the understanding of this transition in place, we move onto the critical appraisal. Table 3 is a simple proforma for quick lesson evaluation.

Table 3

Lesson:

Date:

Period:  1  2  3  4  5

Lesson Evaluation

Pedagogical

Podemgogical

Teliagogical

Delivery

Engagement

Behaviour Management

Level of disjuncture

Coincidence

Divergence

Separation

Distinctive

Barbarique

Additional Notes

Reflection dated:

 

Through the immediate assessment of our lesson, we can accurately gauge the

Ownership, lesson observation, continuing professional development,

 

 

Conclusions

Ultimately, this was a futile exercise. For every liberal thinker taking the time to familiarise themselves with the source materials and engage with the work, there will be a conservative thinker focussed solely on a single aspect to criticise, applying merely personal bias and prior knowledge. A broad trigger statement but not untrue, it is the dichotomy of where we, as individuals, perceive power and responsibility to lie (Apple, 2018, p. 65). In an opinionated public article deriding Dewick’s work on ‘growth mindset’, personal power and responsibility, despite alluding to all the empirical evidence to support it, Kohn makes his position clear:  “As I've explained in books and articles, the most salient feature of a positive judgment is not that it’s positive but that it’s a judgment; it's more about controlling than encouraging.” (Kohn, 2015). In this regard, the risk of blindly accepting the concept of general pedagogical knowledge is not only to our students but to ourselves. The most liberal minded and idealistic become jaded and controlling when labouring under conservative expectations; this is probably why so few teachers move from competency into expertise, why so few nurses feel confident to challenge poor practice.

Unfortunately as educators labouring under the pedagogical belief that responsibilities are theirs alone to shoulder move up the hierarchy, they can continue to pile unreasonable pressure upon themselves contrary to guidance (Department for Education , 2015). This leads to micromanagement and autocratic decision-making, the development of negative emotional structures and the unintentional semi-professionalisation of every person under their lead. In the worst-case scenario, this conceit of general pedagogic expertise can lead them to question the subject pedagogical knowledge of their specialist staff as they seek sole ownership of their perceived responsibilities.

Therefore, the role of the Teliagogue is one all educators must aspire to, but it should be purview of the best and brightest, those whose experience and complex worldview most complements the lifelong learner. The rest of us should strive to become outstanding Podemgogues, continually redefining our skills under a broader remit in order to bridge learning gaps and help our students become lifelong learners too. One final clarification, this is not a call to abandon pedagogy, pedagogy absolutely has its place in education; however the classic Pedagogue of Pink Floyd is a relic of a long dead past, let them and that inflexible mindset lie.

 

 

References

Apple, M. W., 2018. The critical divide: knowledge about the curriculum and the concrete problems of curriculum policy and practice. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 4(2), pp. 63-66.

Berliner, D. C., 2004. Describing the Behavior and Documenting the Accomplishments of Expert Teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, June, 24(3), p. 200–212.

Carlyle, D. & Woods, P., 2002. Emotions of Teacher Stress. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books Ltd.

Darbyshire, P., 1993. In defence of pedagogy: A critique of the notion of andragogy. Nurse Education Today, 13(5), pp. 328-335.

Darbyshire, P., Thompson, D. & Watson, R., 2019. Nursing schools: dumbing down or reaching up?. Journal of Nursing Management, November, 27(1), pp. 1-3.

Darbyshire, P., Thompson, D. & Watson, R., 2019. Nursing's future? Eat young. Spit out. Repeat. Endlessly.. Journal of Nursing Management, April, 27(1), pp. 1337-1340.

deGrasse Tyson, N., 2019. Neil deGrasse Tyson Teaches Scientific Thinking and Communication | Official Trailer | MasterClass. [Online]
Available at: https://youtu.be/0kPINNhHGNw
[Accessed 27 12 2019].

Department for Education , 2015. Guidance - Headteachers' Standards. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-standards-of-excellence-for-headteachers
[Accessed 30 01 2020].

Druyan, A., Sagan, C. E. & Soter, S., 1980. Carl Sagan's Cosmos - Ep 2: One Voice In The Cosmic Fugue. [Online]
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSnhugfPMGY
[Accessed 25 01 2020].

Dweck, C., 2012. Mindset. London: Robinson.

Frye, N., 2012. Intoxicated with Words - The Colours of Rhetoric. University of Toronto Quarterly, 81(1), pp. 95-110.

Guerriero, S., ed., 2017. Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Hartree, A., 1984. Malcom Knowles' Theory of Andragogy: A Critique. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 3(3), pp. 203-210.

Holmes, G. & Abington-Cooper, M., 2000. Pedagogy vs. Andragogy: A False Dichotomy?. The Journal of Technology Studies, May, 26(2), pp. 50-55.

Hudak, G. M., 2001. On what is labeled 'playing': locating the 'true' in education. In: G. M. Hudak & P. Kihn, eds. Labeling - Pedagogy and Politics. London: RoutledgeFalmer, pp. 9-26.

Jameson, F., 2000. New Left Review Issue 114. [Online]
Available at: https://newleftreview.org/issues/II4/articles/fredric-jameson-globalization-and-political-strategy
[Accessed 31 12 2019].

Jarvis, P., 1984. Andragogy—a Sign of the Times. Studies in the Education of Adults, 16(1), pp. 32-38.

Jarvis, P., 2010. Adult Education and Lifelong Learning. 4th ed. Oxon: Routledge.

Knowles, M. S., 1989. The Making of an Adult Educator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kohn, A., 2015. The perils of "Growth Mindset" education: Why we're trying to fix our kids when we should be fixing the system. [Online]
Available at: https://www.salon.com/2015/08/16/the_education_fad_thats_hurting_our_kids_what_you_need_to_know_about_growth_mindset_theory_and_the_harmful_lessons_it_imparts/
[Accessed 30 01 2020].

Tennent, M., 1986. An evaluation of Knowles' theory of adult education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 5(2), pp. 113-122.

Waterford Whiskey, 2020. Terroir. [Online]
Available at: https://waterfordwhisky.com/element/terroir
[Accessed 03 01 2020].

Waters, R., 1979. Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2). [Sound Recording] (Harvest Records).

Whiskey Vault, 2019. 2019 Whiskey Tribe Advent Calendar - Day One - Elijah Craig Small Batch. [Online]
Available at: https://youtu.be/MnzDixMw-xA?t=200
[Accessed 27 12 2019].