KESTER K Androgogical Learning Model

Journal of Education in Developing Areas (JEDA) Vol. 19, No. 1.

Andragogical Learning Model and Training Programmes

By

Kester, K.O. Ph.D &

Ogidan, O. T

Department of Adult Education University of Ibadan

Ibadan, Nigeria

Abstract Training participants unlike children bring a variety of life and work experiences to the training room and are most responsive to learning approaches that provide an opportunity for them to apply what they are taught to their job experiences. Therefore, adult education literature generally has supported the idea that traditional pedagogical model is inappropriate for use with adults. The teaching of adults should be approached in a different way order than teaching children and adolescents which is usually referred to as pre-adults. Thus, suggesting for an alternate way of teaching the adults which is called andragogy. This paper, therefore, examine the extent to which the andragogical learning model, if applied correctly in training programmes will influence training outcomes of the bulk of the labour force that needs to develop the power of work in them.

March , 2011 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

w w w . j e d a - u n i p o r t . c o m Page 1

Introduction

It is obvious that the most dominant form of instruction in any training programme is

pedagogy or what could be refer to as didactic, traditional, or facilitator-directed

training approach. This pedagogical model of instruction was originally developed in

monastic schools of Europe in the Middle Ages (Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990). During this

period, young boys were received into monasteries and taught by monks using an

instructional method that makes them to be obedient, faithful, and efficient servants

of the church (Knowles, 1984; Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990). Much later, this tradition of

pedagogy spread across the whole world becoming the dominant form of instruction in

regular schools and all other educational programmes including training.

In the pedagogical method of instruction, the ‘teacher’ takes full responsibility

for making decisions about what, how and when to learn as well as if the material has

been learned. The underlining assumption in pedagogical model of instruction is that

learners need to know only those things that the teacher wishes to teach. Thus

promoting absolute dependency of the learner on the teacher as well as placing

him/her in a submissive role requiring obedience to the teacher’s instructions.

However, this method has been used for the teaching of children and adults equally

over the years.

Evidences in literature has shown that the usage of the pedagogical method for

both the adults and children has brought about a lot of controversies because as

learners mature, they become increasingly independent, self directed and responsible

for their own actions; and thus, often motivated to learn by a sincere desire to solve

immediate problems in their lives (Knowles, 1984; Imel, 1989; Hiemstra & Sisco,

1990; Lieb, 1991; Gibbons & Wentworth, 2001; Rhonda, 2011; Conner, 2011;

Reischmann, 2011; Thoms, 2011). According to Knowles (1984) in many ways the

pedagogical model do not account for such developmental changes as the learner

grows and this over the years has created tension, resentment, resistance,

ineffectiveness and poor learning outcomes. Therefore, adult education literature

generally has supported the idea that traditional pedagogical model is inappropriate

for use with adults (Imel, 1989). In essence, the teaching of adults should be

approached in a different way other than teaching children and adolescents that are

referred to as preadults.

Thus, suggesting for an alternate way of the teaching the adults which is called

andragogy. Andragogy is essentially a model of humanistic psychology assumption

that presents the individual adult learner as one that is autonomous, free, and growth

–oriented. The andragogical model asserts that five main issues be considered and

addressed when teaching adults namely:



(i) letting the learners know why something is important to learn;

(ii) showing learners how to direct themselves through information;

(iii) relating the topic to the learners’ experiences;

(iv) learners will not learn until they are ready and motivated to learn; and

(v) learners require helping them to overcome inhibitions, behaviours, and

erroneous beliefs about learning.

The growth and development of andragogy as an alternative model of instruction

has really helped to remedy and improve the teaching of adults all over the world and

has made significant impacts on adult teaching practice. This paper, therefore,

examine the extent to which the andragogical model, if applied correctly in training

programmes will influence training outcomes.

What Is Andragogical Learning Model All About?

Andragogical learning model is an evolving field of action, reflection and research that

has been used in different times and countries with various connotations

(Reischmann, 2004). However, nowadays it is seen either as a scholarly approach to

the learning of adults or as a specific theoretical and practical approach, based on a

humanistic conception of self- directed and autonomous learners and teachers as

facilitators of the learning process. Hence, it could be describe as an educational

approach that is based on the self-directed learning theory.

However, Day & Baskett (1982) and Gibbons & Wentworth (2001) offered that

andragogy should be seen not as a theory of adult learning but rather as an

educational ideology that is rooted in an enquiry –based learning. It is a teaching

paradigm that separates the learners and their teachers unlike those in the regular

school system, using all kind of humanistically desirable and democratic practices in

teaching and learning process. According to Imel (1989) the assumptions underlying

the andragogical model which have to do with how adults learn, therefore, follows that

adults should be taught differently, if adult learning differs from preadults learning.

In essence, andragogy is a model of assumptions about the characteristics of

adult learners that are different from the traditional pedagogical assumptions about

child learners and the process elements of adult education that stem from these

characteristics (Rhonda, 2011; Heineke, 2004). Presumably, it is the cumulative

friendly and informal climate in many adult learning situations- the flexible process,

the use of experience and the enthusiasm and commitments of the adult learners as

well as that of the teacher (Infed, 2011). Andragogical learning model rests on the

assumed unique and distinctive characteristics of adults as learners; and based on

these characteristics, it prescribes a specific set of procedures that should be used for



adult learning process (Knowles, 1980; Clardy, 2006). Therefore, Akinpelu (1988: 91)

concludes, “the term andragogy was coined to bring out the differences between the

teaching of adults and the teaching of children as well (as) the differences in their

learning styles.”

Typically, andragogical learning model encompasses the understanding of the

basic concepts of behavioural change and experience, which can prompt practice, and

teaching of adult learning. Knowles (1980) see andragogy as an emerging technology,

which facilitates the development and implementation of learning activities for adults.

This emerging technology is based on five principles of: self- concept, experience,

readiness, orientation, and motivation. To Clardy (2006), the key contention of

andragogical theory is that andragogy should lead to better self - directed, intentional

and purposeful learning process where the learner will make better use of their

experiences.

Based on this, several studies over the years have shown that adults learn

differently from the children or preadults (Beder & Darkenwald, 1982; Feuer & Geber,

1988). Thus, they should be taught differently. Adult Education scholars and

practitioners have argued over the years that pedagogy creates a poor motivating

climate for learning, because it keeps the teacher in a full authority position by

teaching the learner through the teacher’s expertise (Clardy, 2006). Under the

pedagogical model, the teacher’s role is to design, implement and answer the

questions of what; how; and when to learn. On the other hand, under the andragogical

model the teacher’s job is only limited to designing the process while the learners will

be left with implementing and answering the questions of what; how; and when to

learn.

It is important to note that Knowles at the very beginning positioned andragogy

in opposition to pedagogy, where he asserts that pedagogy was best for the children

and andragogy for the adults. Nevertheless, much more lately, he modified his views to

conclude that both methods are possible and can be used with either children or

adults, depending on the existing circumstances (Ojokheta & Omoregie, 2006; Clardy,

2006). In recent time, the distinction between pedagogy and andragogy in terms of

child- adult dichotomy has become less emphasised. According to the UCD Adult

Education Centre (2011) the basic concern of people with pedagogical orientation is

the content (that is what needs to be covered, how to manage, organise; present and

transmit such content to the learners) while those with andragogical orientation are

more concerned about the process of creating a learner- centered environment.

Conner (2011) avers that though, andragogy usually is cited as the way adults



learn, Knowles himself concedes that four of andragogy’s five key assumptions also

apply equally to both the adults and children. The major difference is that children do

not have the same experience levels like the adults and thus have less to relate to

their learning situations. So, whether the andragogical model is used for the adults or

pre-adults, the fundamental principle is that the learning process must be learner-

focused, self- directed, participatory by involving both the learners and the teacher in

planning, realising, evaluating and correcting the learning process ( Taylor, Bryan,

Kroth & Michael, 2009).

Studies have shown that adult learning models generally in themselves have

very little consensus amongst them (Ojokheta, 2010; Biao, 2005) and therefore, are

broken into two elements: a process that creates change within an individual, and a

process to infuse change into an organisation (Clardy, 2006). Thus, andragogical

model suffers from a number of problems in explaining effectiveness of adults’

learning. For instance, it does not fully cover the whole range of adult learning

experiences; makes misleading distinctions between adult and child learners;

minimises individual differences between adults as learners by imputing to the adult

learner more capability for an interest in self- directed learning than necessary as well

as assuming uniformity in needs and motivation among adult learners; and makes

any and all learning process of equal value to all adult learners (Clardy, 2006).

Besides, Taylor, Bryan, Kroth & Michael (2009) argue that andragogy lacks the

fundamental characteristics of a science because of the limited empirical evidences to

prove its effectiveness. Therefore, these limited evidences in literature suggests the

need to establish an instrument to provide measurable data, which can be use to

strengthen the theory and practice of adult learning in future. Regardless of the

continuing debates on the andragogical learning model, it is obvious that over the

years, since it emerged in the 1800s, it had significantly influenced adult learning and

practice as well as the field of adult education generally (Taylor, Bryan, Kroth &

Michael, 2009; Imel, 1989; Reischmann, 2011; Thoms, 2011).

Specifically, the term andragogy can be traced back to 1833, when Alexander

Knapp used the term while trying to described the practice that Plato exerted when

instructing his pupils; but it went into disuse, to reappear in 1921 when Eugen

Rosenback revived it at a Frankfurt conference where he argued that adult education

required special teachers, methods and philosophy (Akinpelu, 1988; Taylor, Bryan,

Kroth & Michael, 2009; Ojokheta, 2010; Infed, 2011). Reischmann (2011), however,

submits that neither did Knapp explained the term andragogy nor says whether he

invented or borrowed it from someone else; but he tried to justified its usage “as the

practice necessity of the education of adults.” Infed (2011) citing the Nottingham



Andragogy Group (1983) avers that afterwards, Edward Lindeman was the first

English writer to pick up and use the term twice. After which Knowles in 1968 used

and popularised the term. For over thirty years ago, Knowles’ writings transformed,

energised and branded the term- andragogy and at the same time give scholars in the

field of Adult education, something new to discuss (Taylor, Bryan, Kroth & Michael,

2009).

Applying Andragogical Learning Model to Training Programmes

The nature and characteristics of participants in training programmes suggest that

training programmes should be based on andragogical learning model. This is because

understanding the characteristics of the adult trainees, helps to evolved a training

curriculum that is process- based rather than the content- based curriculum for

children. In this process it allows the trainer to link numerous resources with the

participants using the andragogical process (Wood, 2011). The elements of the

andragogical process in a training session include:

(i) setting a climate that is conducive to effective learning (i.e giving attention to the

physical environment, creating mutual respect and supportiveness);

(ii) involving participants in diagnosing their training needs and formulating their

learning objectives or gaols;

(iii) involving trainees in mutual planning and designing of the training session;

(iv) helping learners carry out their learning plans; and

(v) involving participants in evaluating their training session.

This model has shown above, predicts that every training programme should be

anchored on these five assumptive principles. Trainees are self- directed learners with

an internal incentives curiosity, who’s readiness to learn are derived from their various

job and problems, which in essence are enough rich resource for the training

programme. Therefore, the training programme must be task- or –problem centered.

Nothing short of this will produce any desired result (s).

Training participants bring a variety of life and work experiences to the training

room and are most responsive to learning approaches that provide an opportunity for

them to apply what they are taught to their job experiences (Gibbons & Wentworth,

2001). Therefore, would-be training participants need to know why they need to attend

(learn something) before undertaking such training programme. Obviously, this thus,

suggests that the responsibility for learning in any training programme must be

transferred from the facilitator (s) to the trainees.

Literature on andragogical learning model has shown that training activities



need to allow maximum participation by trainees, so they can invest their experiences

and values in the training programme process (Laird, 1985; Thoms, 2011). This is

because training participants unlike pre-adult’s learners want a learning outcome

which can be put to use immediately, in concrete, practical and self-benefiting terms.

Every trainees want practical, hand-on training sessions over general and theory-

oriented programme. Besides, they learn best when they use and integrate what they

already know into new knowledge and skill (Thoms, 2011). Therefore, the trainees

must be so convinced that the change in knowledge and skill that the training

programme is about to bring must be justified. They must understand why the change

(acquisition of the new skills) and the training itself are necessary; otherwise, they will

not be motivated.

More importantly, the adult learners must be allowed a limited control over their

learning experiences by giving them the opportunity to collaborate with the facilitator

in determining the pace and content of their training programme as well as in

determining their assignments. They must be giving more time and self-pace to learn

through trial- and –error activities because they frequently tend to be slower in some

physical, psychomotor tasks than pre-adults. The facilitator should be tolerant of the

trainees by allowing them to ask for clarifications all the time; this they will do

because they will not want to make mistakes. The role of the trainer is to manage or

guide the andragogic training process but not manage the content, which is the

traditional approach in pedagogy.

However, these are always posing big challenges to the trainer, but every trainer

must be willing to be flexible and adaptive to the needs of the trainees if the training

outcome is to be achievable. It is important for trainers to know that learner - centered

session or allowing learners to have limited control over their learning works best

when the trainees are relatively matured and possess significant related knowledge of

what to be learnt or where there is no particular sequencing of the training materials

to be learned. On the other hand, facilitator- centered is more appropriate when

trainees are less matured and lack necessary prior knowledge about what is to be

learnt. Evidences have shown that trainees who lack necessary prior knowledge or

immature frequently make poor instructional choices if left on their own (anonymous).

No one model of instruction will be the best for all learning situations.

In using the andragogical model in training predisposes that trainees have a life-

centered orientation to the training programme as opposed to the subject- centered

orientation of preadults. Thus, the trainers must use stimulating dialogue in

facilitating the training session. This will allow the trainees to capitalise on this life-

centered orientation (Gibbons & Wentworth, 2001). Dialogue is the methodological



heart of andragogical learning model. Coulter, Konold & Feldman (2000) were of the

opinion that the dialogue process in adult learning are characterised by adult learners

articulating their own understanding, raising questions and examining others’

assertions. In this process, trainees have the opportunity to interpret and reflect on

their experiences as well develop new understandings. This provides critical thinking

and application based which are very relevant to trainees current job/ life tasks and

problems, thus making trainees to enthusiastically embrace every activities in the

training session because they are motivated by their intrinsic pursuit of personal

growth and achievement . Gibbons & Wentworth (2001: 2) commenting on the use of

dialogical method in adult learning avers that:

the most effective tools for generating dialogue are discussion questions, case analysis, and other applications- oriented materials that put theory into practice. These tools, combined with group and team activities .... allow learners to synthesise theory with their own experiences to best demonstrate learning outcomes. Facilitators...design open-ended questions, constructed to require learners to draw and support conclusions based on this synthesis and analysis.

Every instructor in training sessions as a matter of priority must learn how to

change his or her training-room environments and arrangements to make the training

session less formal. For instance, putting the seating arrangement (chairs) in circle-

like form helps to put the trainer in closer proximity to the trainees and definitely

leads to a better use of learner- centered approach as prescribed under the

andragogical learning model (Gorham, 1984; Imel, 1989).

Beder & Darkenwald (1982) also suggest more adjustment in instructional

content, response to learners’ feedbacks and greater relationship of training materials

to trainees’ life experiences. However, the trainers must ensure that they maintain

careful balances between the presentation of new materials and their applications,

discussions and participation among the trainees. Training facilitators must realise

that their words, actions, and gestures will have an impact on the trainees, therefore,

they should be able to read moods and temperaments of the trainees.

Besides, the use of the two- way communication and feedback is very critical in

andragogic training sessions. However, Wlodkowski (1993) identifies four essential

characteristics/ skills of a good trainer in the andragogical learning sessions:

(i) possess and offers expertise, both in knowledge and preparation;

(ii) has empathy, which includes understanding and consideration;

(iii) show enthusiasm for the training programme, content, trainees and the



training profession, and

(iv) demonstrates clarity, whether it be in training room, explanation of

assignments and discussion.

Beyond these, the facilitator must inspire confidence and trust, relinquish

control of the results, super- charge the training session with his/her energy and

passion, infectious in enthusiasm, eminently adaptable, ditto fair and humility, win

trainees over with authenticity, protect each and every idea until evaluation time, and

must be outcome driven but yet detached from the results (UCD Adult Education

Centre (2011).

Every facilitator must also, understanding that unlike the pre-adults, training

participants have many responsibilities that they must balance against the demands

of the training session (Lieb, 1991). These include lack of time, money, confidence,

interest, scheduling problem, family responsibilities among others. Therefore, must

plan and design positive reinforcement strategies to encourage the participants to be

interested in the training programme in order to motivate them to learn. He/she must

frequently and regularly within the training session encourage correct modes of

behaviour and performance among the participants. Facilitator must also emphasise

retention and application of knowledge and skill through the constant use of practical

sessions. Transfer of learning outcomes, which is the ability of participants to use the

information taught in a new setting, is the expected result of training, therefore, the

facilitator’s job is incomplete if the trainees cannot guarantee positive transference of

training outcomes.

Hence, Heron (1999) emphasised that there are six dimensions to good

andragogical facilitation in any training programme namely:

(i) The planning with the facilitative question of how shall training session acquire

its objectives and programme.

(ii) The facilitative question of how shall meaning be given to and found in the

experiences and actions of participants?

(iii) How shall the participants’ consciousness be raised regardless of constraints

and resistances among participants?

(iv) Next, is how the life of feelings and emotions within the group shall be handled?

(v) Followed by how can the training session’s learning process be structured?

(vi) Lastly, how can such a climate of personal value, integrity, and respect are

created within the training session and among the participants?

Application of the andragogical model to training programmes demand that the

trainers must understand the thinking styles of adult learners- the would-be trainees.

However, some people use more than one style; but generally, each person has a



preferred style. In essence, training programmes would be much successful if trainers

are adaptive and sensitive to ensure that their training approaches meet the variety of

thinking styles among training participants (Rochester Institute of Technology, 2011).

The variety of thinking styles of adult learners are as follows: Reflective thinkers- these

are adult learners who view new information subjectively and relate such to

experiences. They often examine their feelings about what they are learning and prefer

to ask why. Such adult learners are seen as visual learners and learn best through

visual means (graphics, illustrations, images, demonstrations, and slides).

Creative thinkers are those adult auditory learners who like to play with new

information, make excellent troubleshooting by always asking why. Most often, they

create their own solutions and shortcuts, and learn best with abstract concepts,

discussions, and lectures about theories and research. Practical thinkers are those

who want information without any ‘nice- know’ additions. They seek the simplest,

most efficient way to do their work and they are not satisfied until they know how to

apply their new skills to their job or other interest. They are called Kinesthetic learners

and learn best from exercises such as written assignments, taking notes, role playing,

participation in activities and examination of objects. The last are the Conceptual

thinkers, who are also called Environmental learners. They accept and learn new

information best when it is presented in surroundings that match their preferences

because they can control such environment. They want to know how things work and

related, not just the outcome, therefore, they learn best while observing others

(through demonstrations and videos).

Summarily, Helmich (1994) and Lawson (1998) do conclude that every training

programme and their trainers must be guided by the essential principles of adult

learning, which include the under listed:

(i) Establishment of a training environment where every participant will feel safe

and supported; where individual needs and uniqueness are honoured; where

abilities and life achievements are acknowledged and respected.

(ii) Participants must be treated as peers, accepted and respected as intelligent

experienced adults whose opinions are listened to, honoured and

appreciated.

(iii)Training content must have immediacy and relevance with trainees’ past

experiences, job schedules; so that participants can easily relate what they

learn to such past experiences.

(iv) There is the need to elaborate on the intended context (including history,

purpose, methods, and intended results) so that participants can perceive

the content within their own global view.



(v) Training session must facilitate and enhance self – directed learning, where

participants can make action plans as well as take responsibilities for their

own learning.

(vi) Provide opportunities for participants to give feedback and input into the

learning process as well as to receive from trainers and other participants.

(vii) Foster intellectual freedom and encourage experimentation and creativity.

(viii) Guide learning processes that foster team work and provide opportunities for

team members to:

o Develop team norms and guidelines for working together

o Share perspectives, knowledge, insight and experiences

o Tell personal stories, creating common ground and connection

o Develop materials and carry out tasks

o Make action plans and decisions

o Have fun together

(ix) Pay attention to all aspects of the training environment including, music noise,

temperature, charts, displays, illustrations, tables, chairs, windows and so

on.

(x) Provide training session where participants will be involved actively in every

activities that will provide opportunities for real:

o Problem solving

o Practice of judgment skills

o Reflection and inquiry

o Intuitive reasoning

o Interactive questioning

o Learning and practicing critical thinking skills

o Meaningful exploration

o Exploration of questions of values and feelings

o Exploration of the relationship of self to others

o Understanding of relationship through the use of metaphor and similes.

Conclusion

It obvious from the submissions of the authors of this paper that in order for trainers

and instructions in training programmes to differ from that of the pre-adults;

facilitators have to perceive that there are differences in how participants in training

programmes learn. This is because participants in every training programme are more

intellectually curious, motivated to learn, willing to take responsibility for their

learning, willing to work harder at learning, clear about what they want to learn, and

more concerned with the practical applicability of what they learn than pre-adults.



However, there are evidences from literature that the andragogical learning

model is not appropriate in all adult learning situations but then when the

andragogical learning model is properly applied to training programmes by a skilful

and dedicated training facilitator, it can make a significant impact on training

outcomes. It is therefore, very necessary for every trainer as well as organisers of

training programmes to recognise the learning and learning strategies that are

essential and appropriate for different training programmes depending on the

characteristics of would- be trainees. Therefore, every trainer is expected to be trained

to respect the experience, personality, and maturity of the participants and their

motivations for successful training outcomes.

References

Akinpelu J. A. 1988. Introduction to Philosophy of Education Ibadan: Macmillian

publishers.

Beder, H. W., and Darkenwald, G. G. 1982. ‘‘Differences between Teaching Adults and

Pre-Adults: Some Propositions and Findings.’’ ADULT EDUCATION 32, no. 2,

(Spring 1982): 142-155. (ERIC No. EJ 262 809).

Biao, I. 2005: Pedagogical and Andragogical Welfare and the Psycho-Sociology of

Andragogizing in Nigeria. A Paper Delivered at the Special Lecture Series of the

Department of Adult Education, University of Lagos, Nigeria. 22pages

Clardy, A. 2006: Andragogy: Adult Learning and Education at its Best: A Working

Paper 06-clardy-01 submitted for Towson University Human Resources

Development Program. 44pages

Conner,M.L.2011.Andragogic+Pedagogy.http://agelesslearner.com/intros/andragogy.

html

Coulter, B. Konold C., and Feldman, A. 2000: Promoting Reflective Discussions:

Making the Most of Online Resources in Your Classroom. ISTE Learning and

Leading with Technology, 28(2), pp 44-49, 61

Day, C. and Baskett, H . K 1982: Discrepancies between intentions and Practice:

Reexamining some basic assumptions about adult and continuing professional

education. International Journal of lifelong education. 1(2), 143-155

Feuer, D., and Gebr, B. 1988. ‘‘Second Thoughts about Adult Learning Theory.’’

TRAINING 25, No. 12:31-39. (ERIC NO. EJ 381 416).

Gibbons H.S. & Wentworth G.P. 2001: Andragogical and Pedagogical Training



Differences for Online Instructors.

http://westga.edu/`distance/ojdla/fall43/gibbons_wentworth43...

Gorham, J. 1984. ‘‘Differences between Teaching Adults and Pre-Adults: A Closer

Look.’’ ADULT EDUCATION QUARTERLY 35, No. 4ok: 194-209. (ERIC NO. EJ

317 833).

Heineke. N. 2004.Ensuring the success of technical solutions in the workplace; a look

at training methods and adult learners WHP037-A (White Paper).

Helmich J. 1994: Making Connections Teaching and the Human Brain Renate M. And

Caine G. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Heron. J. 1999. The Complete Facilitators Handbook. London: Kogan Page

Hiemstra, J & Sisco, B. 1990: Individualizing Instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_Theories/Adult_Learning_the

http://teachinglearning resources.pbworks.com/w/page/30310516/An

Imel, Susan, 1989. Teaching Adults: Is It Different? ERIC Digest No. 82.

http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9211/teaching.htm.

Infed, 2011: Andargogy. http://www.infed.org/lifelonglearning/b-andra.thm date

retrieved 16th April, 2011.

Jarvis, P. 1985: The Sociology of Adult and Continuing Education. Beckenham; Croom

Helm

Knowles, M. 1984. The Adult Learner: A neglected species. Houston: Golf Publishing

Knowles, M.S 1980: the modern practice of adult education (revised and updated).

Chicago: Association Press (originally published in 1970).

Laird, 1985: Approaches to Training and Development (2nd). Reading. MA: Addison-

Wesley

Lawson, K. 1998: The Trainer’s Handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Lieb, 1991. Moving from pedagogy to andragogy.. http://www-

distance.syr.edu/andragogy.html retrieved April 2nd, 2011.

Lieb.S. 1991.Principles of Adult Education.

http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/....



Ojokheta K.O and Omoregie, C.O 2006; Towards a fusion of pedagogy and andragogy:

A paradigm shift from Malcom Knowles’ Andragogical principle. Trends in

Educational Studies, Journal of the Institute of Education. Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 40-51

Ojokheta, K.O 2010; Empirical Validity of Pedagogical and Andragogical

Epistemological Principles in University Distance Learning Programmes in

Nigeria. African Journal of Studies in Education. Vol. 6 No. 1&2 Pp. 65-179

Reischmann, J. 2004: Andargogy, history, meaning, Context, Function.

http://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/andragogik/08/andragogik/andra date

retrieved 02/04/2011.

Rhonda, W. 2011: Characteristics of Adult Learners.

http://www.assetproject.infor/learner_methodologies/before/characeristics....

Rochester Institute of Technology 2011. Adult Learners. http://online.rit.edu/faulty

/teaching_strategies/adult_learners.cfm

Taylor, Bryan, Kroth and Michael, 2009: Andragogy’s transition into the Future: Meta-

Analysis of Andragogy and Its Search for a Measurable instrument. Journal of

Adult Education. Retrieved 16 April, 2011

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7592?is_200901?ai_n4204545

Thoms, K.J. 2011: They’re Not Just Big kids; Motivating Adult Learners.

http://frank.mtsu.edu/`itconf/proceed01/22/.html

UCD Adult Education Centre 2011. Facilitation Skills: Working With Adult Learners.

http://www.ucd.ie/adulted/resources/facil_andragog.htm

Wlodkowski, R. 1993: Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Guide to Improving

Instruction and Increasing Learner Achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wood, D. Andragogy: Appreciating the Characteristics of the Adult Learner.

http://hawaii.hawaii.edu/tlc/tutor%20training/ANDRAGOGY.htm Date retrieved

16 April, 2011.

Documents

KESTER K Androgogical Learning Model