A Critique of

"Andragogy as a Relational Construct"

by

Daniel D. Pratt

Spring, 1988

Sources:

See the attached bibliography. However, as noted by Dr. Henschke on page 164 a reference is made to Holmes, 1984 and is not included. However, we have tracked that particular article down. Another flaw in the documentation is also on page 164 when Dr. Pratt alludes to "recent debate" and fails to document this. This is a fairly old document and should only be viewed as a theoretical jumping off point for this discussion.

Case:

Dr. Pratt stated that "this paper will suggest that andragogical practice should acknowledge and accept of its learners both self-directedness and its obverse, dependency" (p. 161). He points out literature (p.160) that suggests that andragogy and pedagogy cannot be viewed on a continuum because adults are so different. He tries to explain Knowles philosophy in a very elementary way on p.160.

Pratt continues to explain two andragogical presuppositions:

    1. Adults want to be self-directed in their learning and
    2. Adults should be taught through collaborative methods.

He then goes on to explain that these suppositions need be examined in light of three interacting sets of variables (p.162):

    1. Situational variables: time, cost, audience size, re-certification requirements. Faced with these variables, Pratt says many adults would prefer a set curriculum and established ways of delivering content and evaluating progress. For example a nursing program. Good point!
    2. Learner variables: Pratt cites several authors and concludes that "taken collectively, the work of these authors suggests that adults are likely to be widely distributed in their ability and desire to take on a more-or-less equal role with the teacher. In my opinion, this section only dealt with collaboration and not self-directedness.
    3. Teacher variables: Pratt contends that teachers "may have little, if any, experience or training that would effectively prepare them for sharing that authority" (p.164) which is the responsibility for making decisions regarding the conduct of education. He claims that teachers are not taught to be collaborative.

However, Pratt continues (p. 165) and says, "direction and support are the keys to a teacher’s role and to the relationship between learner and teacher". Another fallacy in this discussion is Pratt’s statement on p. 166 " if learners and teachers agree that the goals are appropriate, the teacher can provide support by encouraging, listening, appreciating feelings, and reinforcing effort and good work"" Is this not collaboration? I believe he is implicitly supporting Knowles here.

Opinion: Overall a weak argument in that as he attempts to show that adults are not always autonomous and self-directing, he keeps bringing up arguments that show that they may be after all. However, it would be wise to at least consider as adult educators that in some cases (such as certification type environments) one may need to look at pedagogical approaches.

Reviewed by: Roger A. Mason

Seminar: Dialogues in Andragogy, Winter Semester 2000

UMSL- Dr. John Henschke