CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Since the purpose of this project was to develop facilitation methods that would help adults become better learners by assessing their own learning styles and by employing an experiential learning approach to acquire new learning skills, then this review will concentrate on learning style, experiential learning, and the implementation of these in the adult learning situation. Part One of this review explores learning style with particular emphasis on its relationship to the experiential learning process. Part Two investigates the issue of andragogy, explores adult learning foundations, and describes the principles of adult learning.
Part 1: Learning Style
The concept of learning style and its subsequent utilization in learning programs has grown out of the realization that traditional group instruction methods are not adequate for modern education systems. With new technologies rapidly creating a labor market where there is virtually no unskilled labor, the traditional group instruction approach to learning, with its process of eliminating slower students, has been deemed totally inadequate (Knaak, 1983). Faced with this reality, many schools, like Eastern Community College, have turned to the mastery learning model in an attempt to improve the situation. Research has shown that if adequate time for learning is provided along with favourable learning conditions, a high percentage of students can master almost any educational criterion (Block, 1971; Bloom, 1976). Consequently, most of the creative energy that has been expended in the educational revolution so far has gone into breaking the lockstep approach to instruction (Cross, 1976). However, attempts to implement mastery learning through individualized learning programs have made educators realize that each student approaches learning in a unique way. This uniqueness or individuality in learning is referred to as learning style. In this project, the author used learning style theory to help adult basic education students improve their learning abilities. However, before discussing learning style, it is necessary to review the mastery learning model which originally prompted researchers to explore individual differences in learners.
Mastery Learning
Although mastery learning is not a new concept, widespread research and use of the idea did not begin until the 1960s. John Carroll’s Model of School Learning (1963) theorized that if students have the aptitude for a particular subject and are willing to engage actively in learning, a very high percentage will learn successfully when adequate time is allowed. Bloom (1976) goes a step further and postulates that most students become very similar with regard to learning ability, rate of learning, and motivation for further learning when provided with favourable learning conditions. Bloom (1976) states that if the three independent variables, (1) prerequisites to learning, (2) motivation, and (3) the quality of instruction, could be controlled, then it would result in most of the learners attaining a high level of learning, and a relatively small among of variation in the levels of variation in the time required.
Bloom (1976) has established that “previous history will determine the nature of the student’s interaction with the learning task and the learning outcomes of that interaction” (p.30). He refers to this history as “cognitive entry behaviour”. Carroll (1963) also suggests that aptitude is also an important consideration when students enter into the mastery learning situation. He observed that some learners needed considerably less time than others to master a particular criterion. Bloom (1976) explains that if true prerequisites for a learning task are established, “then no amount of effort, persuasion, reward, or quality of instruction will enable learners without these prerequisites to adequately learn the tasks under consideration” (p.33). It is evident, therefore, that if mastery learning is to be implemented then the learner has to be provided with prerequisites before engaging in a particular learning task. bloom (1976) states that the availability of prerequisite learning is essential in a mastery program. As was the case with the program used in this project, mastery learning programs should have diagnostic and prescriptive capabilities built into them.
Carroll (1963) points out that, in traditional group instruction, less than adequate time is provided for learning. This is due to the large amounts of material that teachers are expected to cover. Since students differ in the amount of time needed to learn a particular task to a mastery level, their learning will be incomplete if they are not allowed the time they need (Block, 1971). A student’s learning rate for a particular subject can be predicted by aptitude tests (Block, 1971; Carroll, 1963). Bloom (1976) suggests that aptitudes can be altered by adapting the instruction to suit the student’s needs. While this may increase the amount of time needed for instruction at the beginning of the learning program, it will be a good investment because mastering of early units will save time in the learning of later units (Block, 1971). Bloom (1976) found that students in a mastery learning program who initially took five times as long as the fastest student to achieve mastery, by the midpoint of the research period required only three times as long, and by the end of the research period only one and one-half times as long to master objectives. This information reassured students during the implementation of the project.
Carroll (1963) defines motivation in terms of perseverance of the learner in a given task. Bloom (1976) prefers to use the term “affective entry characteristics”. Bloom found that the student’s effectiveness in learning a particular task affects his or her motivation or effort on a subsequent learning task. Through this, the students, over the years, build a history of learning. Thus, the students in the project, when provided with a history of successful learning experiences, would be motivated to continue carrying out learning objectives.
The quality of instruction affects both learning rate and achievement level (Block, 1971; Bloom, 1976). since its conception, two approaches have been established in the application of mastery learning. Guskey (1980) refers to them as (1) the teacher/development approach and (2) the curriculum/materials approach. Under the former, teachers are trained in the theory and techniques of mastery learning; then they develop materials for the implementation of these strategies in the classroom. Under the latter, a team of curriculum specialists and mastery learning experts develop packages of material that can be used by teachers in a mastery learning format. The author agrees with Guskey who goes on to say that it is probably a combination of the two that will work best in practice.
Bloom (1976) defines the quality of instruction in terms of the interaction between instructor and students. He stresses “cues-participation-reinforcement” as the major characteristic in the instruction and its effects on student learning. As he suggests, the author emphasized the use of feedback and corrective procedures as one means of ensuring that each student had good quality instruction throughout the project.
Although mastery learning is not designed to solve all the problems that teachers confront, it is a tremendously flexible approach that can enhance instruction in the classroom. The model does not attempt to do this by telling teachers how to teach, but rather by suggesting that they change their roles in the classroom. In a traditional classroom setting the teacher serves as a rules-maker and a director of competition whose primary role lies in classifying students. Under mastery learning, however, learning becomes a cooperative rather than a competitive endeavour (Guskey, 1980). Consequently, students in this project were competitors, and their grades reflected what they had learned rather than their class standing.
Although mastery learning has been found to be consistently more effective than traditional group instruction (Hymam and Cohen, 1979), even greater effectiveness may be possible. Students may learn faster in one subject than in another, and faster by one method than by another (Cross, 1976). Knaak (1983) suggests that attempting to provide the best conditions for learning on an individual basis, in the absence of a comprehensive learning model, is a trial-and-error process. Attempts by psychologists and educators to define individual learning preferences have resulted in several theoretical models. These are generally referred to as educational cognitive styles or learning styles, and they provide the theoretical basis for this thesis.
The Development of Learning Styles Theory
The early research on learning styles theory was done by psychologists and was generally known as cognitive style. Some of the early work was done by Carl Jung (1923) who called his theory “Psychological Types”. Jung’s work was followed by psychologists such as Herman Witkin, Isabel Briggs-Myers, and Victor Lowenfeld, who, along with others, developed the dimensions pf cognitive style (Kirby, 1979). Recent interest in the application of cognitive style to educational practice has created a new field of study. One of the early researchers in the field was Joseph Hill. As Kirby (1979) points out:
The purpose of Hill’s “educational cognitive mapping” technique was to develop a method of
matching the learning resources if the institution to the learner’s cognitive style. He developed
a map using what he called the seven educational sciences:
1. Symbols and their meanings
2. Cultural Determinants
3. Modalities of inference
4. Educational memory (neurological, electrochemical, and biological aspects of memory function)
5. Cognitive style
6. Teaching, administrative and counselling style
7. Systematic analytic decision making. (p.59)
Hill also developed five learning modes through which students could learn: (1) traditional lecture, (2) individualized programmed learning, (3) audiotape, (4) videotape, and (5)group seminars with peer tutoring (Knaak, 1983). Hill’s work is important because it set the foundation for much of the work done on learning styles done in the past two decades.
One of the best known models of learning style is that of Kenneth and Rita Dunn. The Dunns’ model is similar to the Hill model. Dunn and Dunn (1978) identify 18 elements of learning style in four groups: (1) environmental -- sound, light, temperature, and classroom design; (2) emotional -- motivation, persistence, responsibility, and the structure of the learning program; (3) sociological -- the learner’s self-concept in relation to peers, partners, teams, non-peers, and mixed groups; and (4) physical -- perception through the senses, food and drink intake, time constraints, and physical mobility. Dunn and Dunn (1978) have developed learning style inventories to assess the degree to which a learner is influenced by each element. This information can be used to prescribe the most effective learning experiences for each student.
A different approach to learning style is taken by Kolb (1984). He combines the phenomenological approach of Gregorc (1984) with the experiential learning cycle of Lewin (1951) to define four basic learning styles: (1) the accommodator, who learns best through concrete experience and active experimentation, (2) the diverger, who learns best through concrete experience and reflective observation, (3) the assimilator, who learns best through reflective observation ans abstract conceptualization, and (4) the converger, who learns best through active experimentation and abstract conceptualization. Gregorc (1984) states that:
This phenomenological perspective in style offers the education profession a qualitatively different way of looking at the topic of style. It offers the proposition that stylistic characteristics are powerful indicators of deep underlying psychological forces that guide s person’s interactions with existing realities. It gives a way, albeit limited, to gain knowledge about ourselves as complex, integrated, holistic, and meaning-seeking human beings (p.54). Kolb’s concern with the psychological underpinnings of learning style is different from Dunn and Dunn’s investigation of the controlling elements of learning; however, both bodies of research were considered in the design and implementation of this project.
Friedman and Alley (1984) suggest that “recognizing and defining the styles by which a person learns is as important to the learning process as diagnostic tests are to the healing process in the field of medicine” (p.77). Students in this project assessed their own learning styles and were made aware that they could improve their learning abilities if they wished.
Learning Style Assessment
Bloom (1976) created a new challenge for educators by recognizing the reality that only about one third of students really master the skills and concepts presented to them in school when ninety-five percent are capable of doing so. This startling fact made it clear that using individual differences as a means of determining who succeeds and who fails had to be replaced by an approach that adapted instruction to suit individual needs. Teaching had to be varied to insure individual success in education programs.
Development of such personalized education programs was first attempted by Joseph Hill and Derek Nunney at Oakland Community College in Michigan. The Educational Sciences (Hill, 1971) provided a conceptual framework and scientific language with which research on educational cognitive styles could be conducted.
Hill’s model of educational cognitive styles consisted of four modes: (1) symbolic orientations, (2) cultural determinants, (3) modalities of inference, and (4) the memory function. Each mode represents a set of elements in the cognitive style map. The symbolic orientation set is divided into language related elements and thought related elements, the cultural determinant set focuses upon those behaviors an individual employs when coming to a decision, and the modalities of inference set represents those behaviors an individual employs when reasoning. Since information relating to the memory set is inconclusive, it is not included in the cognitive style map (Mullally, 1977). The mapping process begins with students completing an inventory which attempts to determine the way they take notes of their surroundings -- how they seek meaning, how they become informed, whether they prefer listening to reading, whether they are concerned with their own viewpoint or whether they are influenced by others, and how they reason. The results of the inventory are fed into a computer and a personalized education program is prescribed for the student. The prescription may subsequently undergo several modifications to insure successful completion of the program.
Many methods of assessing student learning styles have been developed such as the Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Inventory (1978), the Guglielmino and Guglielmino Learning Style Assessment (1982), and the Knaak Learning Style Inventory (1983). The inventories follow the questionnaire approach where students respond to questions and the results are analysed using mathematical formulae to assign a relative value to a student’s preference to use a particular learning style. One notable variation of this approach is the Kolb Learning-style Inventory (1976).
Kolb developed his inventory to identify four different learning style types. It is a nine item self description questionnaire which asks respondents to rank order each set of four words in terms of how they learn best. The responses are summed up in columns so that each column reflects the student’s relative preference for each learning style. The results may be plotted on a learning styles profile or grid with one of the quadrants representing each learning style.
Learning style maps enable educators to better relate to individual students (Nunney and Hill, 1972); Dunn and Dunn, 1978; Kolb, 1984). Although such mapping does have some limitations, the literature reports a great deal of success in using cognitive style maps to accelerate the process of learning style diagnosis.
Teachers have been intuitively assessing learning styles over the years by observing what works and what does not work for each student. However, this process is time consuming, and months may pass before a teacher has determined the styles of all students in a particular class; in fact, the teacher may never diagnose the styles of some students through the trial-and-error method. Consequently, the author decided to make learning styles assessment part of the project and part of the proposed Guide.
However, instead of providing resources which would cater to particular learning styles, the author felt that it would be more appropriate to help students learn how to use all available resources, and, in doing so, broaden their learning styles. Having assessed their learning styles, students would know the kinds of skills they needed to develop. Thus, the author saw that helping students acquire those skills was the key to their becoming more self-directed. He decided to review the literature on self-directed learning in order to define an acceptable “learning-how-to-learn” process.
Learning-How-to-Learn
Helping students develop and improve their learning skills is seen by Cheren (1983) as the vehicle to foster greater learner self-direction. This incorporates what Cheren refers to as “meta” learning or the learning of “process”. If the learning process can be defined, then the specific skills in each stage of the process can be identified and acquired by the learner.
The White House Panel on Education Research and Development which was set up in 1961 by President J. F. Kennedy included the investigation of a “learning-how-to-learn” concept as one of the major concerns to be addressed in their deliberations (Bruner, 1966). The work of Tough (1967) proposed the thesis that independent learners could carry out for themselves the tasks necessary for learning projects, tasks which were normally performed by the teacher. Although the “learning-how-to-learn” concept may be used in varying degrees by all learners, its utilization is a necessity for learners who assume full responsibility for their own learning. Consequently, for the purpose of this thesis, it is necessary to look at learning from the point of view of the learner.
Knowles (1975) describes self-directed learning as “a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating outcomes” (p.90). In addition to basic skills like reading and listening, Knowles (1975) suggests that the self-directed learner must have the following competencies:
1. An understanding of the differences in assumptions about learners and the skills required for learning under teacher-directed learning, and the ability to explain these differences to others.
2. a concept of oneself as being a non-dependent and self-directed person.
3. The ability to relate to peers collectively, to see them as resources for diagnosing needs, planning for learning, and learning; and to give to them and to receive from them.
4. The ability to diagnose one’s own learning needs realistically, with help from teachers and peers.
5. The ability to translate learning needs into learning objectives in a form that makes it possible for their accomplishment to be assessed.
6. The ability to relate to teachers as facilitators, helpers, or consultants, and to take the initiative in making use of their resources.
7. The ability to identify human and material resources appropriate to different kinds of learning objectives.
8. The ability to select effective strategies for making use of learning resources and to perform these strategies skilfully and with initiative.
9. The ability to collect and validate evidence of the accomplishment of various kinds of learning objectives (p.61). Self-directed learners must also be good planners; they must have good personal habits; they must be able to implement their learning plans; they must be able to interact with others and get feedback; they must be able to cope with blocks and obstacles; and they must be able to self-evaluate their accomplishments (Smith, 1982).
While the literature is consistent in acclaiming the learning of process as necessary for greater learner self-direction, there is no definite description of a learning process. Perhaps, the most notable work in this direction is the work on experiential learning. Several experiential learning models were reviewed for this project in an attempt to describe the skills of learning and the process that individuals go through when they learn, or as Kolb (1984) puts it, “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (p.38).
Experiential Learning and Learning Style
Although the idea that human development occurs through learning from experience has been distorted in recent times by rationalism and behaviorism in an overeager embrace of science and technology, Kolb (1984) states that the experiential learning theory “offers the foundation for an approach to education and learning as a lifelong process that is soundly based in intellectual traditions of social psychology, philosophy, and cognitive psychology” (p.3). He adds that “learning methods that combine work and study, theory and practice provide a more familiar and therefore more productive arena for learning” (p.5). Kolb goes on to suggest that all learning is experiential by nature and memory learning is, in reality, an integral part of the experiential process.
Kolb’s ideas have been used to introduce this part of the review because it is he who has provided the connection between experiential learning and learning style. Using the ideas of Carl Jung (1923), Kolb has integrated the concept of individual differences with the experiential learning process, suggesting that particular psychological types use specific experiential learning modes to acquire knowledge. The concept of experiential learning modes has been developed by a number of educators with similar results. Before describing Kolb’s integration of learning styles and experiential learning, it is necessary to provide a perspective of this research. In 1977, Bob Gowin invented a heuristic device to help students understand the structure of knowledge and the process of knowledge construction Novak and Gowin, 1984). Gowin’s Vee heuristic illustrates the theoretical/conceptual and methodological elements that interact in the learning process (see figure 1).
At the point of the Vee are events and objects which is where knowledge begins. By asking questions and recording observations, concepts are developed. The records may then be transformed to construct answers to the focus questions and develop knowledge claims. Principles and theories explain relationships between concepts. Theories are considered to be broader and more comprehensive than principles (Novak and Gowin, 1984). In the Vee, practical experience, observation, and concept development are presented as experiential learning modes which are structured to provide students with a procedure for learning. Novak and Gowin (1984) have also developed the idea of concept mapping which may be used in conjunction with the Vee to establish the link between concepts in the development of principles and theories.
Walter and Marks (1981) have provided six phases of learning which they use to describe the experien-
tial process: (1) the planning phase, which involves identifying learning needs, establishing objectives, and selecting suitable learning activities, (2) the introductory phase, which involves introduction to the total experience and introductions which are given to the activities within that experience, (3) the activity phase, which involves the mechanical aspects of conducting the learning activities, (4) debriefing, which involves a discussion of the completed activity, and provides details, order, and meaning to the participants’ experiences, (5) summary, where participants develop cognitive structures for organizing and giving meaning to the experience, and (6) evaluation, where the leader evaluates the learning experience. Walter and Marks’ model, like the Novak and Gowin model, presents the experiential learning process as a sequence of events.
Another experiential learning model is presented by Steinaker and Bell (1979). Their five stage taxonomy, (1) exposure, (2) participation, (3) identification, (4) internalization, and (5) dissemination, is subdivided into fifteen sublevels, defining the learning process in more detail. Steinaker and Bell (1979) suggest that “the experiential taxonomy can, perhaps, become the most useful of all taxonomies for realistic planning, implementing, and evaluating educational objectives and the related teaching act, because the experiential taxonomy provides a synthesis of the cognitive, affective , and psychomotor elements of the learning process” (p.14).
A fourth experiential model is the Lewinian Experiential Learning Model (see Figure 2) which was adopted by Kolb (1984). By considering learning and problem solving as a single process, we can come closer to understanding the way human beings use their experiences and ideas to guide their behaviour in new situations, and how they continuously modify those ideas to make them more effective. It can be seen as a four stage cycle: (1) practical experience followed by (2) reflection and observation of the experience which lead to (3) the formation of general idea which, in turn, create (4) problems which lead to new experiences. The learning cycle is continuously occurring in living human beings. We test our ideas in experience and modify them as a result of those experiences.
These experiential learning models represent a new and exciting approach to learning. Steinaker and Bell (1979) point out that “one can plan an experience with specific objectives, with a series of taxonomically ordered activities keyed to identified teaching strategies, and with correlated elements of creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving” (p.xi). However, the complexity of the learning process and the lack of opportunity or desire to use all modes of learning suggest that it is possible for different people to develop “unique possibility-processing structures or learning styles” (Kolb, 1984). “Kolb hypothesized that learners find themselves in a state of dialectical tension between the two sets of polarities inherent in the two dimensions, concrete to abstract and active to reflective. Learners go about resolving those conflicting learning demands” (Knaak, 1983).
The author decided to use this combination of experiential learning and learning style to develop an appropriate “learning-how-to-learn” process. Novak and Gowin (1984) report the following based on this approach: When students learn about learning in the ways recommended, they take charge of their own learning. Relieved of the burden of having to cause learning, teachers can concentrate on teaching. When the goal of teaching becomes the goal of shared meaning, a great deal of both the teacher’s and students’ energy is released. These strategies.....can, not only help learners, they will also make better and more powerful teachers (p.xii).
Born out of necessity in the implementation of the mastery learning concept, learning style theory has been developing at a rapid rate over the past two decades. The relationship between learning style and the experiential learning process is another significant step in creating an educational system that will serve all students equally well.
The literature does not draw a distinction between adult learning styles and those of children, even though the work on learning styles includes research in all age groups. Dunn and Dunn work with children, Kolb works with university students, and Hill worked with a wide range of adults in a community college. Most researchers feel that an individual’s learning style develops over a lifetime, and is influenced by both environmental and biological factors. This effect of age on learning led to a number of questions which needed to be answered about the uniqueness of adult learning if the project was to be successfully implemented. The questions are explored in the second part of this review.
Part 2: Adult Learning
Is there a unique theory of adult learning? Is adult learning different from childhood learning? if so, what effect would unique adult learning characteristics have on the implementation of this project? While most educators agree that adults learn differently from children, they also concede that there are many commonalities. Adult education programs come out of a variety of philosophical positions. Although many adult education theories have been put forth to describe adult learning, there is no agreement in the literature on any one theory of adult education any more than there is agreement on one philosophy or theory of human behaviour (Kidd, 1973).
Andragogy
Malcolm Knowles is generally credited with the popularization of the term andragogy in the United States (Cross, 1981). Originally defined by Knowles (1980) as “the art and science of helping adults learn” (p.38), the term andragogy has been the subject of some controversy (Cross, 1981). The position of Houle (1972) that education is the same whenever it occurs and the processes are the same for all stages of life represent the other side of the controversy. Faced with this kind of criticism Knowles (1980) redefined the term as “another mode of assumptions about learners to be used alongside the pedagogical model” and the two not “be seen as dichotomous, but rather as two ends of a spectrum” (p.43). However, this definition has also been criticized. Cross (1981) states that “the problem is that a continuum from pedagogy to andragogy does not exist” (p.225).
The difference between pedagogy and andragogy, as Knowles (1980) sees it, may be understood from his comparison of the two. (1) In the pedagogical model, the teacher assumes full responsibility for what is to be learned. In the andrological model, the learner moves from dependency towards increasing self-directiveness. (2) The pedagogical model assumes the experience that learners bring to the learning situation is of little worth. The andrological model draws upon the learner’s reservoir of experience and uses it to enhance the learning process. (3) The pedagogical model assumes that learners should learn whatever society dictates. The andrological model assumes that learning programs should be organized around life applications and sequenced according to the learners readiness to learn. (4) The pedagogical model assumes that people are subject-centered in their approach to learning; whereas the andrological model assumes that people are performance-centered in their orientation to learning (Knowles, 1980).
Whether pedagogy and andragogy are dichotomous or the ends of a continuum has not been clearly established in the literature. Indeed, it has served only to raise major questions (Cross, 1981): (1) Is it useful to distinguish the learning needs of adults from those of children? (2) What are we seeking: Theories of learning? Theories of Teaching? Both? (3) Do we have to, or can we develop, an initial framework on which on which successive generations of scholars can build? Does andragogy lead to researchable questions that will advance knowledge in adult education? Perhaps the suggestion of McKenzie (1977) that andragogy is an embryonic concept signifying the beginning of a revolution in education best represents the position of most adult educators on this issue.
In the absence of definitive answers on the issue, the author decided to consider all the relevant literature on mastery learning, learning style, and experiential learning in developing the learning process. However, recognizing that adult learning takes place under entirely different circumstances than does the traditional schooling of children, adult education foundations and adult learning principles needed to be considered in implementing any process that was developed.
Adult Learning Foundations
The word “learning” covers a wide variety of experiences from memorization to acquiring a skill to changing one’s behaviour or attitudes (Kidd, 1973). Educational programs may be designed to cultivate the intellect, provide individual self-actualization, effect personal and social improvement, transform society, or make organizations more effective (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982). The foundations for most learning program development are found in the major schools of philosophical thinking; for example, programs for self-actualization are founded in humanist or existentialist thinking, and programs to improve organizational effectiveness are commonly founded on behaviorist philosophy.
There have been many attempts to define a single philosophy of adult education; however, there is a consensus among adult educators that adult education philosophy is pluralistic in nature. Adult education programs seem to have evolved from five basic philosophies: (1) liberal, (2) progressive, (3) behaviourist, (4) humanistic, and (5) radical (Elias and Merriam, 1980). The theorists from these major philosophical movements have provided the foundations for adult education programs and practices throughout the world. This overview is intended to provide a perspective to view the fundamental theories used in writing this thesis.
Liberal learning, organized knowledge, and the development of the intellectual powers of the mind are emphasized in adult education programs based on liberal philosophy which was developed in the works of Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato. This philosophy was used almost exclusively in educational program development until the mid-1960s and still plays a major role in the development of programs offered in schools, colleges and universities throughout the world. Kidd (1972) cites “the best known example of adult activity influenced by Adler (a contemporary liberal philosopher) is the Great Books program with its characteristic form of study based on the examination of ‘fundamental’ problems and principles, employing a Socratic questioning style” (p.152).
John Dewey (1938) describes progressive education as “....cultivation of individuality, ....free activity,....learning through experience, ....making the most of the opportunities of present life, (and)....acquaintance with a changing world” (p.19). The progressive movement in politics, social change, and education is manifest today in vocational education, extension service, family education, open classrooms, and moral education. Progressive adult education emphasizes the relationship between education and society (Lindeman, 1956), experience centered education (Dewey, 1938; Kilpatrick, 1955), problem solving and scientific enquiry (Benne, Bradford, Gibb & Lippert, 1975), and democratic education (Blakely, 1966; Freire, 1970).
Behaviorist adult education is based on the works of Watson (1924), Pavlov (1927), Thorndike (1932), and Skinner (1938, 1948). Skinner’s assumption that the human organism is programmed by the environment has given rise to learning through reinforcement, management by objectives, control management, and behavior modification. Programmed learning, behavioral objectives, and competency-based learning are applications of this philosophy.
Existentialist philosophy and humanistic psychology have given rise to education programs based on freedom, autonomy, trust, cooperation, participation, and self-direction (Elias and Merriam, 1980). Based on the works of such philosophers as Buber (1971) and Macmurray (1932), the implications of these theories for educators may be found in the works of Allport (1961), Rogers (1969), Maslow (1980), Tough (1971), and Knowles (1980).
Rogers (1969) states that “the aim of education must be to develop individuals who are open to change” (p.304). His assumption that humans are naturally growth oriented and forward moving suggests that educational systems should be designed to give learners more freedom. In fact humanistic psychology emphasizes freedom, autonomy, trust, cooperation, and participation. Perhaps Macmurray (1932) best describes the moral ideal of the humanist: Self-realization is the true moral ideal. But to realize ourselves we have to be ourselves, to make ourselves real. This means thinking and feeling, for ourselves, and expressing our own reality in word and in action. And this is freedom.... (p.219). Group dynamics, sensitivity workshops, encounter groups, and self-directed learning are some applications of this philosophy in the field of adult education.
Scale, in his forward to Freire (1970), states that: Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring conformity to it, or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world (p.15). Radical adult educators emphasize the latter definition of education. This philosophy is rooted in socialism and Marxism and is being used successfully to affect social change throughout the world.
Although a particular educational program may be based on one philosophy, its curriculum and instruction may encompass all philosophies to various degrees. A program of study may be organized and defined using behavioral objectives, yet students may be afforded considerable self-direction in carrying out those objectives. Conformity in some things, as well as the need to evoke change in others, may exist in the same educational program. While this thesis is primarily rooted in humanistic and progressive philosophy, the author drew upon other philosophies when it was appropriate.
Adult Learning Principle and Implications for Facilitation
Most educators who have studied learning have devised lists of learning principles which attempt to describe the ideal conditions under which learning occurs. Dewey (1938), Tyler (1949), Lewin (1951), and
Piaget (1970) are representative of educators who have studied learning theory from a learning point of view; whereas Houle (1961), Rogers (1969), Kidd (1973), Brundage and MacKeracher (1980), and Knowles(1980) are representative of educators who have studied adult learning in an applied or practical sense. The learning principles that have evolved from the work of this latter group of thinkers and researchers are sometimes in conflict, but more often they compliment each other. Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) have drawn together the research in adult learning and they have defined a number of adult learning principles which are relevant to this study. These are categorized in the following groups: (1) self-concept, (2) emotions, stress, and anxiety, (3) past experience, (4) time, (5) motivation, (6) paradox, (7) learning styles, and (8) developmental stages. These categories were useful in outlining the learning principles that were used in the development and implementation of this project.
Self-Concept. The way human beings think about themselves is called self-concept and is closely related to self-esteem which is the way human beings feel about themselves. Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) state that “adults with positive self-concept and high self-esteem are more responsive to learning and less threatened by learning environments. Adults with negative self-concept and low self-esteem are less likely to enter learning activities willingly and are often threatened by such environments” (p.26). This presents a special problem to teachers of adults. The adult’s intelligence and ability to use logical judgements have no significant relationship to their achievements on performance tests (Kidd, 1973). While a variety of factors affect achievements of adult learners, self-concept is most significant (Kidd, 1973; Knowles, 1980: Cross, 1981). The teacher of adults must be aware of each student’s rich resource of experience and the self-concept that has been built on that resource. The teacher must not threaten the self-esteem of the student; indeed, every effort must be made to enhance the student’s self-concept and help him or her more readily accept change (Rogers, 1969). This was accomplished in this project by giving adults more of the responsibility for their own learning and will be expanded in the next chapter (Knowles, 1980; Rogers, 1969). Emotion, Stress and Anxiety. Adults confront educational opportunities with mixed feelings and even fear. Zemke (1981) points out that “adults have something real to loose in the classroom situation. Self-esteem and ego are on the line when they are asked to try a new behaviour in front of peers and cohorts” (p.52). This treat to the learner’s self esteem creates anxiety and stress. If it is nor recognized by the teacher, the result may be the loss of the student. It is important to note that, while adults need to be stimulated in order to learn, overstimulation may cause a negative reaction and prevent learning (Brundage and MacKeracher, 1980). When the teacher is able to help the student overcome this stress and anxiety, the adult learner experiences a sense of relief and exhilaration enhancing learning (Knowles, 1980; Rogers 1969). They enter into learning with enthusiasm and vigour and, in fact, surprise themselves with their own accomplishments. Students’ emotions were a major consideration in this project. The learning cycle provided them with relief from anxiety by establishing a routine for completing their objectives.
Past Experience. Adult educators are unanimous in their recognition of the significance of past experience in adult learning. Past experience influences the adult learner’s self concept. It also determines the meaningfulness of the curriculum and how the curriculum is perceived by the learner. The literature is consistent in expressing the importance of past experience in the adult’s approach to learning.
Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) have found that the adult’s self-concept and his or her feelings of self-esteem are based on past experience and how that experience was interpreted and valued by the learner. Adults have been deeply conditioned by their previous schooling to perceive the appropriate role of the learner to be that of a dependent, more or less passive recipient of transmitted knowledge; in addition, they may also carry over a conception that they are not very “smart” (Knowles, 1980). The adult’s past experience greatly influences his or her perception as a learner. Thus, the facilitator must become aware of the learner’s own story and use it to guide his or her own experience in the classroom (Brundage and MacKeracher, 1980).
Smith (1982)points out that “the sum of each person’s experience makes for uniqueness” (p.40). Adults define who they are in terms of the accumulation of their experience (Knowles, 1980). This has a number of further implications for the teacher. Dickinson (1972) suggests that meaningfulness in adult education programs can be increased if the vocabulary and verbal materials are drawn from the experiential background of the learner. The teacher must be conscious of the adult’s identification with past experience and use it to enhance the adult’s learning processes (Brundage and MacKeracher, 1980).
The adult often sees learning in terms of past experience. Smith (1982) suggests that “one learns in order to make sense out of the vast experience accumulated through living” (p.41). The adult approaches learning with a relatively fixed set of values and meanings. The teacher must be aware that, in learning, these values and meanings may be threatened. It is important for the teacher to have a tolerance for uncertainty, inconsistency, and diversity, and to alleviate threat from the adult’s learning (Brundage and MacKeracher, 1980).
In this project, the author helped students use their pas experience as a resource in developing new ideas because they needed to fell confident that their new learning could be integrated with past experience and it would not seriously threaten their values.
Time. When we are young, time seems to be an endless commodity. As we grow older we tend to perceive time as an “ever increasing past, a fleeting and pressured present, and a finite future” (Kidd, 1973). “During one’s thirties and forties, one’s time to live becomes increasingly seen as finite, with implications for how to spend it, and for considering such matters as changing careers or returning to school” (Smith, 1982, p.38).
Since the adult learner focuses on the problems the present, learning contracts can be based on the learner’s needs. Adults perceive a need to learn quickly, find solutions to their problems, and get on with life. Hence, as Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) suggest, the author tried to provide the students in this project with learning opportunities congruent with their “experience, expectations, and potential resources, rather than prescribed by an expert” (p.36).
Motivation. Motivation is a very broad term which is defined by Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) as “a tendency within a person to produce organized behavior” (p.36). Human behavior is motivated by hunger, pain, sex, material and exploratory desires, and by the need for survival and satisfaction. The interaction
of these drives is very complex and not within the scope of this thesis. However, it is necessary to explore the fundamental motivation of adults to participate in learning.
The force-field analysis of Miller (1967) attempts to explain why socioeconomic status and participation in adult education are related. This theory is based on the needs hierarchy of Maslow (1970) and the force-field analysis of Lewin (1947). Kjell Rubenson (1977) has developed a framework for understanding the competing forces at work in motivating adults to participate in educational programs. His expectancy-valence paradigm explains human behavior in terms of interaction between the individual and the environment. Other theorists share similar conclusions with respect to adult participation in learning. Cross (1981) attempts to integrate the theories of Miller, Rubenson, and others into a chain-of-response (COR) model. The model assumes “participation in a learning activity, whether an organized class or self-directed, is not a single act but the result of a chain of response, each based on an evaluation of the position of the individual in his or her environment” (Cross, 1981, p.125).
Houle (1961) studied motivation for adult learning and found that there are three subgroups of adult learners: (1) goal-oriented learners, (2) activity-oriented learners, and (3) those who are learning-oriented. Goal-oriented learners use learning to accomplish specific objectives; for example, to obtain specific practical or personal skills. Activity-oriented learners like to get involved in learning for the activity itself. Cross (1980) suggests they may join an adult education course “to escape loneliness or boredom or an unhappy marriage or job situation, to find a husband or wife, to amass credits or degrees, or to uphold family traditions” (p.82). The third group pursue learning for its own sake. They are learning-oriented and their desire for knowledge compels them to participate in many learning activities. Although there are three distinct groups of adult learners, the literature seems to support Johnstone and Rivers (1965) that “the major emphasis on adult learning is on the practical rather than the academic; or the applied rather than the theoretical; and on skills rather than knowledge or information” (p.91). Knowles(1980), Smith (1982(, Cross (1981), Brundage and MacKeracher (1980), and Rogers (1969) support this position that most adult learning relates to the individual’s life tasks. This was true of the participants in this project because all of them were vocational trainees.
A second aspect of motivation to consider in adult learning is the need for the adult to continue learning once he or she has made the commitment to begin. Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) have found that “as the learner proceeds toward meeting unmet needs, resolving unwanted conditions, or reaching desired goals, the motives for learning tend to change in relation to any feelings and experiences of success/failure and satisfaction/dissatisfaction” (p.41). Success and satisfaction can reinforce learning and motivate further learning. Hence, the author clarified directions and objectives, provided students with meaningful learning experiences, and, thus, indirectly attempted to motivate them to continue learning.
Paradox. Adults need to be able to cope with and respond to diversity, contradictions, dilemmas, and paradoxes. These are listed by Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) as (1) the dynamic equilibrium between stability and change, (2) exposure to threat of failure and loss of self-esteem, (3) the threat of becoming overqualified for their current work or throwing their personal relationships out of balance, and (4) the conflict between the need to be needed and need to learn independency.
While some stress is normal and necessary to stimulate challenge in the learning environment, it may also create anger and frustration. Anger was alleviated in this project by explaining to the students that it was a normal part of the learning process and by helping each of them deal with it in their own way.
Learning Styles. The use of learning styles has already been discussed in part one of this review, but it is included here as an adult learning principle. It is widely accepted that every adult has a predominant learning style, and the potential of the use of learning styles theory to enhance adult learning is very well documented. As previously mentioned, the works of Hill (1971), Kolb (1976), Hunt (1982), and Gregorc (1984) represent extensive studies in the diagnosis and use of learning styles in many adult learning situations. In addition, the consequences of teachers and adult learners having different learning styles has been studied and the advantages of being aware of this reality and the need to compensate for it in the classroom has been suggested by Hunt (1982), Smith (1982), Gregorc (1984), Doyle and Rutherford (1984), and Conti (1985). The author’s understanding of his own learning style, a knowledge of the learning styles of the students, and the ability to be able to respond to each student’s individual need was essential in this project.
Developmental Stages. The literature on developmental stages is very extensive; however, for the purpose of this thesis it is sufficient to discuss some of the major concepts that apply to the implementation of the project carried out by the author. “The term development refers to more or less orderly, predictable, and sequential changes in characteristics and attitudes” (Smith, 1982, p.42). Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) list three approaches to development theory: (1) the development that occurs over a lifetime and is based on age related issues in physical, social, and psychological areas, (2) development which occurs in response to specific events, such as social change or trauma, and (3) development in relation to specific cognition or learning styles.
Havinghurst (1972) is representative of the first type of theory. He describes three major stages in the life of the adult human: (1) early adulthood -- 18 years to 30 years, (2) middle age -- 30 years to 55 years, and (3) later maturity -- 55 years and over. Levenson (1978) divides adulthood into six seasons. Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) point out that adult learning focuses on the problems, concerns, and needs of the individual’s current life situation, and that adults are highly motivated to learn in areas relevant to their current development or transitive period. About one third of the participants in this project, were either in, or close to, middle age, and the remainder were in early adulthood.
The second approach to development focuses on specific responses to change. Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) have synthesized these ideas into four stages: )1) entry, where a person enters an uncertain situation which is stressful or threatening, (2) reactive, where the person develops a sense of being a capable individual, (3) proactive, where the individual feels confident, becomes accepted, and accepts the individuality of others, and (4) interpretation, where the individual moves on to integrate the perspective of others with his own.
The third approach suggests that all adults, when they enter new learning experiences, begin with dependent type behavior and move first to independent behaviour and then to interdependent behavior during the course of learning activity (Brundage and MacKeracher, (1980).
Developmental theory supports the idea that adult behavior is not fixed but changes in response to internal and external pressures. Adults are more responsive to learning during the intervals between traumatic periods in their development, and the need to learn current developmental tasks is itself motivational. All adults do not reach the same level of cognitive development at the same time and sometimes they may even regress. These differences may be accounted for by the pressures of the environment or by a lack of specific experience. While the author had no control over external environmental factors in this project, negative pressures were minimized in the classroom by controlling the learning environment and creating interesting relevant learning experiences.
Summary
While the literature supports the idea of helping adults “learn-how-to-learn” through the application of learning styles theory, it also points out that the learning of process will not, in itself, assure success with adults, and that adult learning principles need to be considered. Since this project was designed to provide students with direction in accomplishing their learning objectives, learning styles theory and experiential learning theory were reviewed to establish a basis for the development of the process that students used to broaden their learning styles and become more self-directed in their learning efforts. In implementing the mastery learning program, adult learning principles were used to provide for the special needs of the students, and the philosophical perspective to develop and implement the project came from adult learning theory. In general, this literature review covers the particular aspects of learning theory relevant to mastery learning and its implementation in adult education.
REFERENCES
Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and groeth in personality. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
Benne, K. D., Bradford, L. P., J. R., & Lippett, R. O. (1975). The laboratory method of changing and learning.
Palo Alto: Science and Behaviour Books.
Blakley, R. J. (1966). Adult education in a free society. Syracuse: Syracuse University Publications in Continuing Education.
Block, J. H. (Ed.). (1971). Mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bloom. B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwhol, D. (Eds.). (1964). A handbook of educational objectives: The cognitive domain. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Botwinick, J. (1973). Aging and Behaviour. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Brundage, D. H., & MacKeracher, D. (1980). Adult learning principles and their application to program planning. Toronto: Minestry of Education.
Bruner, J. (Ed.). (1966). Learning about learning. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Buber, M. (1971). Between man and man. New York: Macmillan.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teacher’s College Record, 64, 723-733.
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intellegence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 1-22.
Cheren, M. (1983). Helping learners achieve greater self-direction. New Directions for Continuing Education, Number 19, 23-38.
Conti, G. J. (1985). The relationship between teaching style and adult student learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(4), p. 220-228.
Cross, K. P. (1976). Accent on learning: Improving instruction and reshaping the curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darkenwald, G. G. & Merriam, S. B. (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice. New York: Harper &
Row.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New york: Collier Books.
Dickinson, G. (1972). Learning processes in ABE. In W. M. Brooke (Ed.), Adult basic education: A resource
book of readings (pp. 229-241). Toronto: New Press.
Doyle, W. & Rutherford, B. (1984). Classroom research on matching learning and teaching styles. Theory Into Practice, 23(1), 20-25.
Dunn, R. & Dunn K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach.
Reston, Virginia: Reston Publishing Company, Inc.
Elias, J. L. & Merriam, S. B. (1980). Philosophical foundations of adult education. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger.
Friedman, P. & Alley, R. (1984). Learning/teaching styles: Applying the principles. Theory into practice, 23(1), p. 77-81.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
Gregorc, A. F. (1984). Style as a symptom: A phenomenological perspective. Theory Into Practice, 23(1), 51-
55.
Guglielmino, L. M. & Guglielmino, P. J. (1982). Learning styles assessment. Boca Raton, Florida: Guglielmino and Associates.
Guskey, T. P. (1980). Mastery Learning: Applying the theory. Theory Into Practice, 19(2), 104-111.
Harrow, A. J. (1972). Taxonomy of psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York: David McKay.
Havinghurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education. New York: McKay.
Hill, J. E. (1971). The educational sciences. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Oakland Community College Press.
Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Houle, C. O. (1972). The design of education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hunt, D. E. (1982). The practical value of learning style ideas. In D. E. Hunt, Student learning style and brain behavior (p. 87-91). Reston, Va.: The National Association of Secondary School Principles.
Hyman, J. & Cohen, S. (1979, February). Learning for mastery: Ten conclusions after 15 years and 3000
schools. Educational leadership, 104-105.
Johnstone, J. W. & Rivera, R. J. (1965). Volunteers for learning. Chicago: Aldine.
Joyce, B. R. (1980). Learning how to learn. Theory into practice, 19(1), 15-27.
Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types. London: Rutledge and Kegan Paul.
Kidd, J. R. (1966). The implications of continuous learning. Toronto: W. J. Gage Ltd.
Kidd, J. R. (1973). How adults learn. New York: Association Press.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1955). Modern philosophies and education. Chicago: national Society for the Study of Education.
Kirby, P. (1979). Cognitive style, learning style, and transfer skill acquisition. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, The Ohio State University.
Knaak, W. C. (1983). Learning styles application in vocational education. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, The Ohio State University.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: a guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follett Publishing Co.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago: Follett Publishing Co.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style inventory - Self-scoring test and interpretation booklet. Boston: McBer and Company.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Krathwhol, D., Bloom, B. S. and Masia, B. B. (Eds.). (1968). A handbook of educational objectives: The affective domain. New York: David McKay.
Lewin, K (1947, June). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in social science. Human Relations, pp. 1, 5-41.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in the social sciences. New York: Harper and Row.
Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf.
Lindeman, E. C. (1926). The meaning of adult education. New York: New Republic Inc.
MacMurray, J. (1932). Freedom in the modern world. London: Faber and Faber Ltd.
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
McKenzie, L. (1977). The issue of andragogy. Adult Education: A Journal of Research and theory, 27 (4), 255229.
Miller, H. L. (1967). Participation of adults in education: A force-field analysis. Boston: Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults, Boston University.
Mullally, L. (1977). Educational cognitive style: Implications for instruction. Theory Into Practice, 14(4), 238-
242.
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunney, D. N. & Hill, J. E. (1972, February). Personalized education programs. Audiovisual Instruction, 10-15.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes. (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
Paiget, J. (1970). Genetic Epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill Publishing Company.
Rubenson, K. (1977, March). Participation in recurrent education: A research review. Paper presented at
meeting of national Delegates on Developments in Recurrent Education, Paris.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behaviour of organisms. New York: Appleton.
Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. New York: Macmillian.
Smith, A. De. W. (1977). Generic skills research and development. Ottawa: Employment and Immigration
Canada.
Smith, R. M. (1982). Learning how to learn: Applied theory for adults. New York: Cambridge.
Steinaker, N. W. & Bell, M. R. (1979). The experiential taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Tough, A. (1967). Learning without a teacher. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tough, A. (1971). The adult’s learning projects: A fresh approach to theory and practice in adult education.
Research in Education Series, No. 1. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walter, G. A. & Marks, S. E. (1981). Experiential learning and change. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zemke, R. (1981, June). Thirty things we know for sure about adult learning. Training/HRD, 45-92.