This chapter or article attempts to provide an overview of the field of andragogy. It traces the origin of the word, explains that the word is applied to three distinct concepts, attempts to draw a synthesis on those three concepts, and then provides a rather pessimistic prediction of the future of the term, and maybe of the field.

The first section of the chapter entitled "Origins of Andragogy" provides the well-known tracing of the term to its Greek roots. It indicates its first resurfacing in modern history to be its usage by the German high school teacher Kapp in 1833. Van Gent posits that at the time the word was used as a synonym for social education. He then traces the history of the word through its European development in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. He and his major source (Gert van Enckevort) find evidence of some version of the term being used in Russia in the late 1800's, in Germany in the early 1900's, in America (Lindeman) in the mid-1920's, in Switzerland in the early 1950's, in The Netherlands starting at an undefined period of time immediately after World War II (1945). They indicate that its "heyday" started with the creation of a faculty at the University of Amsterdam in 1950, which was followed by rapid government funding for practical application of the concepts in the 1960's and 70's in The Netherlands (and I suspect in other Western European welfare state countries) and started its decline in the early 1980's when European governments discovered that the financial support of welfare states and its programs was untenable in the long run.

Van Gent follows Dr. ten Have, the first professor of "andragogie" at the University of Amsterdam, appointed in 1950, by delineating three different terms: a) "andragogie" (the English term "andragogy") is a field of practice of social and educational work with adults; b) "andragogiek" (English: "andragogic"), the normative theories supporting social work and adult education; and c) "andragologie" (English: "andragology"), the science of adult education. He indicates that Knowles' use of the term "andragogy" would more properly have been "andragology," as van Gent appears to support Henschke's concept of Knowles' as a field-builder.

In the section entitled "Andragogy as a Specific Approach" (page 116), he credits Knowles with developing clear statements of the differences between adults and children as part of Knowles' attempt to create a distinction between andragogy and pedagogy. Van Gent continues by indicating that the traditional professional approach of diagnosis, goal or objective-setting, strategy formulation, and implementation and evaluation were well delineated and, therefore, seems to suggest that adult education practitioners may be in the process of forming a profession.

The last section of the chapter indicates a pessimistic outlook for the future of the term "andragogy." Van Gent seems to indicate that until clear terminology is developed for each of the three segments covered by the current term, confusion will cause a devaluation and disregard of its use. He suspects that its only remaining future use may be as a synonym for the term "adult education."

Van Gent provides 12 citations other than his own work as references for the chapter. In addition, he suggests further reading of four authors. His citations include well-known (in the U.S.) authors such as Knowles, Lindeman, Brookfield, and Mezirow, as well as European authors Hanselmann, Krajnc, Poggeler, Savicevic, ten Have, and van Enckevort.

It is interesting to me that Knowles clearly picked up on concepts, thought processes and developments in other parts of the world when he proposed the term "andragogy" in his 1970 text (The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy vs. Pedagogy). It is equally interesting to note that the welfare states of Western Europe (a process which started in the early 20^th century) saw andragogy, adult education, adult development, continuing education, permanent education, social development, and personal development as terms which were frequently usable synonymously.

To me this chapter provides good background information about the usage of the term "andragogy," as well as an initial perspective of how broad the field (in the Knowles' sense) really is. I take the chapter as a statement by a knowledgeable, authoritative individual of his interpretation of the field. Therefore, I find no need to disagree or argue. I feel that van Gent made his statement in an adequate fashion.

Van Gent acts as an historical reporter in writing this chapter. He points out some problems with the terminology used in the field of andragogy. In that effort, he provides a service to us all. His argumentation is well-reasoned and clearly stated. I would have preferred that the good doctor take the next step in the process of field and/or profession development. It would have been beneficial to us all if Dr. van Gent had advocated (strongly and argumentatively) the adoption by the field of the three terms he so clearly delineates for the segments. Had he done so, the chapter might have become a starting point for further development of the field, the science and art, the profession. As written, a reader is inclined to accept his pessimistic prediction of the future as a fait accompli. This is not necessary. Every field and profession goes through a number of stress or inflection points in its development of a clear delineation and supporting theory.

If my criticism stated above can be positively pursued by readers of this chapter, I feel that van Gent may have made a major contribution. It is common early in a profession's, a field's, an "ology's" development, to have confusion exist regarding the boundaries, concepts, terminologies, methodologies and applications of what eventually becomes a clearly distinct portion of the human knowledge base.

Submitted by: Rudolf P. Vrugtman

February 12, 2000

Education 415: Dialogues in Andragogy

Dr. John A. Henschke

University of Missouri-St. Louis