Pedagogy, Andragogy and Heutagogy

Colleen M. Halupa
A.T. Still University, US
LeTourneau University, US

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the theoretical foundations of pedagogy,
andragogy and heutagogy. A brief description of the most common pedagogical theories, cognitivism,
constructionism and behaviorism, as well as emerging theories such as social pedagogy, Pedagogy 2.0
and Education 3.0 are discussed. In addition, the tenets of andragogy, including its linkages to
transformative education are presented. Heutagogy, which is self-determined learning, is also presented.
This chapter also provides a discussion of whether pedagogy, andragogy and heutagogy are on a
continuum or can be exhibited at any time during the educational experience, particularly with the advent
of more advanced educational technologies.

Key Words: Epistemologies, Self-directed Learning, Self-determined Learning, Holistic Learning

INTRODUCTION

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online (2014) defines pedagogy as “the art, science or profession of
teaching” (p.1). Smith (2012) defined it as “the art and science (and maybe even craft) of teaching” (p.
1). Knowles (1973) defined it as the art and science of teaching children. Pedagogical principles began
around the time a more formal educational experience was adopted about 13 centuries ago in the
monasteries of Europe where monks were the most educated of the population at that time. The term
comes from the Greek terms paid and agogus which mean leader of a child (Holmes & Abington-Cooper,
2000).

This concept of andragogy was first defined by Alexander Kapp in 1833 to describe the teaching style of
Plato who formalized Socratic principles (Nottingham Andragogy Group, 1983). Merriam Webster
Dictionary Online (2014) defines andragogy as “the art and science of teaching adults.” Andragogy was
not used in North America until 1970 when the concept was published by Malcolm Knowles. Knowles
(1970) defined it as the art and science of helping adults learn.

While andragogy is student-centered or student-directed learning, heutagogy is self-directed learning.

The seminal work on heutagogy was done by Hase and Kenyon of Southern Cross University in Australia
in 2000. Heutagogy is a much more holistic approach which teaches students how to learn and gain the
competencies and skills they need for their selected field. In simpler terms, pedagogy is faculty-centered
education, andragogy is student-centered education and heutagogy is self-directed and transformative.
This chapter will present multiple educational theories that have led to models in pedagogy, andragogy
and heutagogy.
PEDADOGY

There are numerous educational theories that helped develop pedagogy as it is today. The “Big 3”
theories of cognitivism, constructionism and behaviorism will be briefly presented, as well as emerging
theories related to transformative learning.

Cognitivism

The basis of cognitive learning theory is based around how the brain of the learner gains and processes
information. Perhaps the most widely accepted cognitive learning theory is Gagne’s conditions of
learning theory. In this theory learning requires different instructional designs, strategies and learning
outcomes. Gagne’s nine events of instruction were discussed in Chapter 2. Instructional design is based
on cognition where instruction is created that will meet various types of learning styles.

One important component of cognitivism is the concept of learning styles. Kolb in 1984 outlined four
types of learners that are presented in table 1.0 below:

Learning Style Characteristics

Accommodators Hands-on learning
Converger Hands-on learning and theory
Diverger Real life experience and discussion
Assimilator Theories and facts

Table 5.0 David Kolb Learning Styles

Another learning style model that gained great prominence is Fleming’s VARK model (Fleming & Mills,
1992 which categorizes learning as visual, auditory, reading/writing preference or kinesthetic. This model
is based on the historical model that was used as far back as the Greeks in educational history with the
additional category added. This model is outlined in Table 5.1 below.

Learning Style Characteristics

Visual Preference for pictures and visual aids
Auditory Preference for lectures and discussion
Kinesthetic Preference for hands-on learning
Reading Writing Preference Prefers to read and write to learn

Table 5.1 Fleming & Mills VARK Model

Harold Gardner (1985) expanded the theory of learning styles even further with his theory of multiple
intelligences. The intelligences outlined by Gardner are represented in Table 5.2.

Intelligence Abilities
Logical Mathematical Numerical patterns and structured reasoning
Linguistic Understands sounds and rhythms of language
Musical Appreciates rhythm, pitch and timbre
Spatial Appreciates concepts dealing with visual-spatial
world
Body-kinesthetic Appreciates movement
Interpersonal Receptive to people’s moods and emotions
 Intrapersonal Able to understand one’s own emotions

Table 5.2 Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

All of these theories attempt to understand why learners learn the way they do, as well as why they prefer
specific types of learning. This is guided by the underlying premise this is caused by the physical and
chemical makeup of each individual’s brain. Some theories of cognitivism, such as Gagne’s, were built
to explain the premises these theorists felt were not explained by constructivism.

Constructivism

In constructivism, students obtain knowledge by filtering new knowledge through their own personal
experiences. Perhaps the most famous constructivist theorists are Jean Piaget, John Dewey, Maria
Montessori and Lev Vygotsky. Piaget’s constructivist theories are based on the concepts of adaptation
where learners adapt to their learning experiences through assimilation and accommodation. In
assimilation, new knowledge is learned within the context of previous knowledge and experiences.
Accommodation includes making judgment and assumptions about this new knowledge based on
previous knowledge and experiences (von Glaserfield, 1989). John Dewey was an advocate for students
noting students were not vessels to be filled and learning can only occur when a student can connect new
knowledge to his own life and experiences. In addition, the student determines both quality and quantity
of learning; however, it cannot be totally student-centered because facts and truths also determine
instruction. Dewey was a proponent of hands-on learning (1902).

Maria Montessori’s constructivist theories were built among three major concepts: 1) student choice, 2)
working with curriculum rather than direct instruction, and 3) interrupted blocks of learning time
(American Montessori Society, 2014). Vygotsky (1978) postulated students learn long before they ever
begin a formal education. In education he advocated for a zone of proximal development to determine
what a student can do with help and without help. In this case, the educational process helps the student
step up to this next level of knowledge

The curriculum design theory most widely associated with constructivist theory is backwards design by
Wiggins and McTighe which is outlined in chapter 2. A second instructional model is problem-based
learning and authentic assessment. In problem-based learning, the following curriculum design principles
should be used:

 Learning activities should be built around a larger task or problem

 Learner must gain ownership for task or problem
 Task must be authentic
 Task should be reflective of the complexity of the learning environment
 Learner must be given ownership of the process to solve the problem
 The curriculum design must support and challenge the learner’s thinking
 Design so learner can test ideas of alternate concepts
 Provide an opportunity for learner to reflect (Savery & Duffy, 1995)

Some constructivist theories have been grouped under the category of student-centered learning.
Proponents of student-centered learning include John Dewey, Harold Gardner and Lev Vygotsky whose
theories have been previously discussed. Another proponent was Benjamin Bloom whose taxonomy was
covered extensively in Chapter Two. Perhaps the most famous theorist in student-centered learning was
Carl Rogers whose name is synonymous with this concept. Student-centered learning is based around the
premise of teachers being facilitators to allow students to develop their own critical thinking skills. He
recommended education be conducted in a non-threatening environment to enhance student performance
and that students not only learn from teachers; teachers also learn from students (Rogers, Lyon & Tausch,
2013).

Constructivism and cognitivism have some similarities in that educational experiences are built around
student experiences. In contrast, in behaviorism, curriculum is designed as a stimulus to induce learning.

Behaviorism

In behaviorism it is hypothesized learning occurs when the learner is subjected to a stimuli, such as new
knowledge. Behaviorism is a psychological approach. Some of the most famous behaviorist theorists
include Pavlov, Watson and primarily in education, Skinner. Pavlov used dogs to demonstrate a
conditioned response to outside stimuli using food. This was called a condition reflex (Todes, 2002).
John Watson took this theory of conditioned behavior called classical conditioning and applied it to
humans with his “Little Albert” experiments where he subjected an 11 month old boy named Albert to
negative exposure to white rats by clanging a large iron rod every time the rat was presented.. Eventually,
Albert became afraid of all white animals proving Watson’s theory (Watson & Rayner-Watson, 1921).
Skinner’s (1953) theory of operant conditioning is based on learning curves. This is trial and effect
learning with positive and negative stimuli. Skinner (1968) outlined a teacher-focused model where the
teacher arranges reinforcement in the form of curriculum to expedite learning. Both academic and social
operants are used to accomplish this. In education, the positive stimuli is good grades and positive
reinforcement; negative stimuli is poor grades and negative reinforcement. Drill and practice are
educational events that are most closely associated with behaviorism.

The curriculum design model most closely associated is the Dick and Carey instructional model. Dick
and Carey created the ADDIE model outlined in Chapter 2. Their steps of their recommended design
processes in this primarily teacher-focused model are listed below:

 Assess needs
 Conduct instructional analysis
 Analyze learners
 Write objectives
 Develop assessments
 Develop instructional strategy
 Develop and select instruction
 Perform formative assessment
 Revise instruction (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2014)

Since its original printing, Dick and Carey’s foundational text has been updated to include more content
and updated curriculum methods and processes. The next theory that will be discussed is the emerging
theories of social pedagogy and transformative learning that are important to the context of this book.

Emerging Pedagogies

The first of the emerging pedagogies that is relevant to this text is social pedagogy as outlined by Freire
whose basic theories were outlined in regards to transformative learning in Chapter 1 of this text. Freire
notes in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” education is re-presentation of the things students want to know
more about. Authentic education is not delivered to a student or it is not only about the student himself,
instead it is “mediated by the world” (1970, p.168). Rather than indoctrinate students to facts and
concepts, students must be liberated to learn for themselves.
In regards to emerging theories, McLoughlin and Lee (2008) discussed “Pedagogy 2.0.” All students, no
matter what their age, are now juggling work, study and technology. This technology has caused a
blurring effect between their academic, work and social lives. Students are now consumers of
information. This was the vision of Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the internet who noted in 2000, “…
the information has something to which everyone has immediate and intuitive access, and not just to
browse, but to create” (p. 169). Technology has the ability to increase and supplement traditional
student/faculty and student peer engagement. However, this can cause a greater pedagogical disconnect
in what students want and what faculty members think they want in their educational experience. In
addition, to keep pace with students, faculty must also hone their technology skills. Pedagogy 2.0 also
has a social pedagogy focus where all learners become creators and consumers of information. However,
some of this information is of good enough quality for educational purposes while much of it is not. The
skills of information creation, inquiry and networking which created connectivism are critical
characteristics of Pedagogy 2.0 according to McLoughlin and Lee (2008).

McLoughlin and Lee (2008, p.15) outlined guidelines for effective implementation of Pedagogy 2.0:

 Micro-units of content generated by students and faculty

 A dynamic curriculum open to learner input
 Multiple opportunities for various types of communication
 Contextualized, reflective learning processes
 Informal and formal resources that are global in scope
 Scaffolding between students, peers, faculty, experts and communities
 Authentic task-driven, experiential learning

These researchers also identified the “3P’s of Pedagogy 2.0” which include personalization, productivity
and participation which increase learner autonomy.

Since “Pedagogy 2.0” was based principally on Web 2.0 tools, which includes social software, in
education we are now fully within the bounds of Web 3.0 tools, otherwise known as the “Semantic Web”
which was coined by Tim-Berners-Lee. The semantic web allows better integration of web content which
in essence is created by other more descriptive web languages and data models other than html. The
semantic web differs from Web 2.0 in that it is better at defining and describing relationships between
data (W3C, 2014). In response, the term “Pedagogy 3.0” was coined by Jim Vanides at Hewlett Packard
in 2010 as the tools educators and students will need in the Web 3.0 world. Gerstein (2013) calls this
“Education 3.0” and notes that it is truly self-directed learning or heutagogy. This will be discussed later
on in this chapter.

ANDRAGOGY

All of the educational theories discussed so far have been primarily pedagogical in nature. Knowles
brought the idea of andragogy into the learning community in the 1970s when he proposed there is a
difference in the way adults learn. Knowles (1970) developed five assumptions that underlie his theory of
andragogy:

 Adults are self-directed learners.

 Adults bring a great deal of experience into the classroom.
 Adults who seek education are ready to learn.
 Adults are internally motivated.
 Adults want problem-based learning.
Knowles did not view andragogy as a true epistemology. Instead he viewed it as a concept rather than a
theory. He based his work on that of constructivists, in particularly Carl Rogers. He also based it on the
hierarchy of needs developed by Abraham Maslow. As learners continue to mature, they become more
self-directed (Blondy, 2007). Knowles (1980) outlined a seven-step process for faculty to promote
andragogy:

 Develop cooperative learning environment

 Involve learner in the setting of goals
 Diagnose learner needs and interests
 Help learner formulate objectives based on his/her interests and needs
 Design sequential learning experiences to meet these objectives
 Meet objectives with materials and resources
 Evaluate the quality of learning and impact on future learning

In Table 5.3 is a comparison of the major tenets of pedagogy and andragogy.

Concept Pedagogy Andragogy

Role of Learner Dependent Self-Directed
Role of Faculty Member Delivers knowledge Facilitates Knowledge
Experiential No Yes
Primary Activities Lecture-Based; Objective Testing Experiential Strategies: group
work, case studies, simulations,
field experience; varied types of
testing
Readiness Are told when they are ready Decide what additional
knowledge is needed
Sequencing Step-by-step uniform progression Based on learner skills and
readiness
Learning Facts which will only be useful Process-oriented for future
later on potential
Curriculum Simple to Complex Competency-based or categorical
Age Group All age groups; but primarily K- Higher education (although
12 concepts can be applicable to K-
12)
Motivation External Internal
Knowledge Done without question Must understand why it is
important
Readiness to Learn What is required When content is relevant
Focus Subject-centered Life-centered

Table 5.3 Comparison of Pedagogy and Andragogy

Chapter 1 was devoted to the concepts of Mezirow and other proponents of transformative education. In
essence, transformative learning can be viewed as a social andragogy as Mezirow, Cranton and others
discussed and evaluated it where the learner reflected on previous knowledge and experiences as well as
the world around them. However, most theorists have continued to maintain that there is a dichotomous
relationship between pedagogy and andragogy. These differences truly fall into two different subsets: 1)
the issue of age and 2) the issue of teacher versus learner-directed learning.
Are there truly differences between pedagogy and andragogy? Initially Knowles theorized the more
mature the learner, the higher the tendency towards andragogy. But when does this actually occur? Does
it occur for most between 18 and 22 when students are completing undergraduate education? Is it
different for each student? Holmes and Abington-Cooper note differences between pedagogy and
andragogy go beyond “age and years” (2000, p. 1) and before 1950, there was no differences in the way
children and adults were taught. In 1984 even Knowles changed his mind and noted pedagogy and
andragogy are actually on a continuum, and there are times when either approach may be appropriate for
all ages and types of learners. Merriam (2001) noted some adults are highly dependent on teachers for
structure, while some children are independent learners. Cyril Houle, Knowles mentor, disagreed and
noted education is the same wherever and whenever it occurs; however, learners no matter what age
should be involved in their own learning process (Merriam, 2001).

In the 21st century andragogy has truly transformed more into self-directed learning which was theorized
by Houle in 1961 and Tough in 1971. Even Knowles addressed self-directed learning in addition to
andragogy. This is where self-directed learning intersects with transformational learning.
Transformational learning is a type of self-directed learning where critical reflection is required since this
self-knowledge is key to autonomy in the learning process. In addition, as does in the basis of
transformative learning in the social consciousness theory of Paolo Freire, self-directed learning also calls
for social action.

Delahaye, Limerick and Hearn (1994) hypothesized learners can use pedagogical and andragogical
principles at the same time and identified four stages of learning:

 Stage 1: High Pedagogy Low Andragogy

 Stage 2: High Pedagogy High Andragogy
 Stage 3: Low Pedagogy High Andragogy
 Stage 4: Low Pedagogy Low Andragogy

Stage 1 and 2 learners are pedagogy-oriented while stage 2 are both pedagogy and andragogy-oriented.
Stage 3 learners have a preference for andragogy while stage 4 learners are completely self-directed. Pew
(2007) noted professors usually either have pedagogical or andragogical underlying assumptions that
direct their teaching, but this is problematic when a professor is pedagogical when andragogy is called for
and andragogical when pedagogy is called for. Either of these situations can have a significant negative
effect on student motivation. Each day the number of traditional learners who enter college directly from
high schools is decreasing while the number of non-traditional students is increasing. Pew notes the
question is not only about pedagogy and andragogy but instead about student motivation. Even in
student-centered and andragogical practices, motivation is often still viewed as instructor-driven rather
than student-driven which leads the instructor back into pedagogical practice. This is one major reason
faculty in higher education cling to pedagogical models. Pew notes faculty often resort to pedagogy
because that is the way it has always been done in the past. This leads to a co-dependent relationship
where faculty are trying to fix students. Instead, faculty must assist students in fixing themselves. Paavola
and Hakkaraein (2005) called for innovation in learning style and theories to enable learning to be viewed
as knowledge creation. This is particularly true in a technological age where it is more important for
students to find and use knowledge than it is to memorize and regurgitate it. Whether the underlying
premise is pedagogical or andragogical, digital literacy is key to today’s educational process. Rather than
creating instruction that is teacher-focused or creating assessments that are student-focused, students need
to develop skill sets in digital literacy which enable them to adapt knowledge to form new concepts from
both a personal and experiential sense. This in essence is heutagogy, which is considered as the next step
in educational theory and is what this author posits is the essence of education today with the advent of
technological advances.

HEUTAGOGY

Heutagogy was first defined by Hase and Kenyon (2000) as a “form of self-determined learning” (p.1).
Heutagogy is built upon the concepts of double-loop learning outlined by Argyris and Schon in 1974 who
noted all students have mental maps and governing variables. These governing variables are dimensions
the learner is trying to keep within normal limits. In single-loop learning, students choose other strategies
in keeping with their own internalized goal when something goes wrong. In other words, if a student gets
an incorrect answer in a math problem, he reworks the problem a different way to try to get the correct
answer. The governing variables might be the time he is willing to spend, if it is acceptable to ask for help
or even if it is acceptable to cheat in solving the problem. In double-loop learning the learner does not
seek out different strategies to fix an error; instead, the governing variables are examined. In the case of
the math problem, a better solution may be to ask someone for help in understanding and solving the
problem. In essence, rather than just dealing with the symptom, double-loop learning involves getting to
the root cause of a problem which usually is related to underlying norms, policies, procedures or
processes. In double-loop learning the learner analyzes and evaluates the situation more holistically.

According to Hase and Kenyon (2000), heutagogy is not a linear process but rather includes “capability,
action learning processes such as reflection, environmental scanning (as used in systems theory) and
valuing experience and interaction with others. It goes beyond problem-solving by enabling proactivity”
(p.2). In true heutagogical approaches the teacher provides the material, but the students decide how to
negotiate the learning process. Education becomes a learning process rather than a means to an end, and
control shifts to the learning. Methods include action learning and action research which facilitate lifelong
learning. Hase and Kenyon noted that technology can definitely facilitate the move to a heutagogical
model.

Blaschke (2012) also noted heutagogy is a “net-centric” theory where the internet can provide the
resources for the self-directed experience. She posits it will become a learning theory of distance
education and views it as further point on the learning continuum after pedagogy and andragogy. In
addition, she notes heutagogy is congruent with transformative education since heutagogy also requires
learners to reflect on the learning process. These reflective capabilities increase with maturity in learning
and cognitive processes. Whereas pedagogy is objective based and andragogy is competency-based,
heutagogy is capability-based. Blaschke notes the social Web 2.0 tools allow learners to be active rather
than passive, as well as engaged with others in the learning experience and further develop “Pedagogy
2.0” as noted by McLoughlin and Lee.

A heutagogical design contains the following elements:

 Learning contracts
 Flexible curriculum
 Learner-directed questions
 Flexible and negotiated assessment (Blaschke, 2012)

Course design elements can include:

 Reflective journaling
 Action Research which allows learners to experiment with real-life situations
 Formative and summative assessment
  Collaborative learning (Blaschke, 2012).

McAuliffe, Hargreaves, Winter and Chadwick (2008) proposed the following principles of heutagogy:

 Knowing how to learn is a crucial skill

 Educators focus on learning process rather than content
 Learning goes beyond specific discipline
 Learning occurs through self-chosen and self-directive action

They also noted educators tend to return to the time honored practice of pedagogy because they truly do
not understand how to facilitate andragogical and heutagogical learning.

Gerstein (2013) defines Education 3.0 as a “connectivist, heutagogical approach” (p. 1). In this model,
she notes schools are literally everywhere and resources are there for the taking. These can include open
educational resources, MOOCs, and multimedia in addition to traditional learning resources. However, in
addition, she notes there is still the need for pedagogical and andragogical approaches depending on the
task at hand.

In this author’s mind, before Education 3.0 can every truly be implemented, a way must be found to
tackle the overarching concept of “information discernment” which includes informational and digital
literacy and how learners can categorize and appropriately use the information they have access to in
order to optimize their learning experiences. Even faculty members can at times have difficulty in
determining the quality and accuracy of information in this quickly changing technological world. In
Education 3.0, Gernstein does not directly address this topic, but it is crucial the resources are still
provided by a skilled facilitator of learning who understands information literacy and is able to guide
students through self-determined learning ensuring the resources provided are accurate as well as timely.

Although this concept has not yet taken hold in mainstream education, heutagogy was explored in relation
to nursing education by Bhoryrub, Hurley, Neilson, Ramsay and Smith (2010). Nurses require skills to
work in a rapidly-changing health care system as patient complexity and acuities increase and
technologies change. Bhoryrub et al. postulate that in order for nurses to survive in ever-changing
environments, they must become life-long learners; therefore, heutagogical methods are more appropriate
than pedagogical or andragogical methods in nursing education. Although heutagogy is just an emerging
epistemology, it is more transformative than pedagogy or andragogy.

SUMMARY

This chapter provides a brief overview of the epistemologies that are important in curriculum and
learning. Many faculty cling to pedagogy because it is what they know. However, to instill critical
thinking in their students, the relevant problem-based assessments used in andragogy may be more
appropriate in many cases with some students. Although pedagogy and andragogy are usually presented
upon a continuum where andragogical practices are not usually used until the student is no longer an
undergraduate, some students mature much quicker and may feel restrained by pedagogical practices.
Consequently, some adult students are not ready for andragogical practices and still need pedagogical
methods. Ultimately, what techniques are needed are based on content area and student need. However,
faculty teaching a class of 20-30 students do not have the ability or the capacity to personalize curriculum
for each individual student. When designing curriculum, contexts of educational theories from pedagogy
through heutagogy may be needed for multiple reasons. The first is to try to meet the needs of all
learners. The second is to attempt to increase the educational maturity level of those students who may
still be at the pedagogical level. It would be ideal for all students to reach the level of heutagogy,
particularly in graduate education. However, at this time this vision, even with the advances of
technology that enhance the journey towards heutagogy, may in fact be utopian. Faculty have to deal
with student learners from the K-12 system who are used to basic pedagogy and rote learning, and it can
be difficult to assist these students to the next level where the pursuit of knowledge outweighs the pursuit
of completion and grades. In addition, the further governmental scrutiny of higher education institutions
including student retention and graduate rates may make some faculty wary of experimenting with new
methods that make students life-long learners and educated discerners and seekers of knowledge. The
road from memorizing information to finding and utilizing information is a long one but well worth
traveling.
References

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-
Bass.

American Montessori Society. (2014). Retrieved at https://amshq.org/

Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Weaving the web. New York: Harper Collins.

Bhoryrub, J., Hurley, J., Neilson, G.R., Ramsay, M., & Smith, M. (2010). Heutagogy: An
alternative practice based learning approach. Nurse Education in Practice, 10(6),
322-326

Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-
determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 56-71.

Blondy, L.C. (2007, Summer). Evaluation and application of andragogical assumptions to the adult online
learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 116-130.

Delahaye, B. l., Limerick, D.C. & Hearn, G. (1994). The relationship between andragogical and
pedagogical orientations and the implications for adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 33 (4), 187-
200. Retrieved at http://www.lindenwood.edu/education/andragogy /andragogy/2011/Delahaye_1994.pdf

Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. University of Chicago Press.

Dick, W., Carey, L. & Carey, J. (2014). The systematic design of instruction. 8th ed. New York, New
York: Harper Collin

Fleming, N.D. & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the
Academy, 11, 137-155.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In David J. Flinders and Stephen J. Thornton’s 2013
Curriculum Reader. New York: Routledge

Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gerstein, J. (2013, May 2013). Education 3.0 and the pedagogy, andragogy and heutagogy of mobile
learning. Retrieved from http://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com
2013/05/13/education-3-0-and-the-pedagogy-andragogy-heutagogy-of-mobile-learning/

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Ultibase Articles, 5(3), 1-10.

Holmes, G. & Abington-Cooper, M. (2000). Pedagogy vs. andragogy: A false dichotomy. Journal of
Technology Studies, 26, 2. Retrieved at http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Summer-Fall-
2000/holmes.html

Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston: Gulf.

Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education (Vol. 41). New York: New York
Association Press.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy

to andragogy. Chicago: Follett.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. New York:
Jossey-Bass.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McAuliffe, M. B., Hargreaves, D. J., Winter, A. J. &mChadwick, G. (2008) Does pedagogy still rule?
In: 19th Annual Conference of Australasian Association for Engineer Education, 7-10 December 2008,
Central Queensland University, Yeppoon

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2008). Mapping the digital terrain: New media and social software as
catalysts for pedagogical change. Ascilite Melbourne.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self‐directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-14.

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com

Pew, S. (2007). Andragogy and pedagogy as foundational theory for student motivation in higher
education. InSight: A Collection of Faculty Scholarship, 2, 14-25.

Rogers, C.R, Lyon, H. C. & Tausch, R. (2013) On becoming an effective teacher: Person-centered
teaching, psychology, philosophy, and diologues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon. London:
Routledge.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Smith, R. O. (2012). Fostering transformative learning online. The Handbook of Transformative

Learning: Theory, Research and Practice, 408-422.

Todes, D.P. (2002). Pavlov's physiology factory. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-
140.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of
Children, 34-41

Watson, J. B., & Rayner-Watson, R. (1921). Studies in infant psychology. The Scientific Monthly, 13 (6)
493-515.
Worldwide Web Consortium (WC3). (2014). WC3 semantic web activity. Retrieved at
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/

ADDITIONAL READINGS

Barbezat, D. P. & Bush, M. (2013). Contemplative practices in higher education: Powerful

methods to transform teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Beetham. H. & Sharps, R. (1013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st
century learning. New York: Routledge Publishing.

Blaschke, L.M., Kenyon, C. & Hase, S. (2014). Experiences in self-determined learning.

Amazon Digital Services.

Bozalek, V., Ng’ambi, D., Wood, D., Herrington, J. Hardman, J. & Amory, A. (2014). Activity
theory, authentic learning and emerging technologies: Towards a transformative higher
education pedagogy. New York: Routledge Publishing.

Bradshaw, M., & Lowenstein, A. (2013). Innovative teaching strategies in nursing and related
health professions. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Brown, S. T., Kirkpatrick, M. K., Mangum, D., & Avery, J. (2008). A review of narrative
pedagogy strategies to transform traditional nursing education. The Journal of Nursing
Education, 47(6), 283-286.

Burns, S. M., Mendel, S., Fisher, R., Cooper, K., & Fisher, M. (2013). Critical thinking in nurse
anesthesia education: A pilot study. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 2(1), 8.

Canning, N. (2010). Playing with heutagogy: Exploring strategies to empower mature learners in
higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(1), 59-71

Canning, N., & Callan, S. (2010). Heutagogy: Spirals of reflection to empower learners in higher
education. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 71-82.

Crumly, C. (2014). Pedagogies for student-centered learning. Online and on-ground. Amazon
Digital Services: Fortress Press.

Daily-Hebert, A. & Dennis, K. (2014). Transformative perspectives and processes in higher

education. New York: Springer.

Diekelmann, N. L. (2003). Teaching the practitioners of care: New pedagogies for the health
prodessions. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Doyle, T. & Zakrajsek. (2011). Learner centered teaching: Putting the research on learning
into practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Eberle, J. (2009). Heutagogy: What your mother didn’t tell you about pedagogy and the
conceptual age. In 8th European Conference on E-Learning, University of Bari, Italy, 29-30
October 2009 (p. 181). Academic Conferences Limited.

Fernandez, N., Dory, V., Ste‐Marie, L. G., Chaput, M., Charlin, B., & Boucher, A. (2012).
Varying conceptions of competence: an analysis of how health sciences educators define
competence. Medical Education, 46(4), 357-365.

Fried, J. (2012). Transformative learning through engagement: Student affairs practice as

experiential pedagogy. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Fullan, M. (2012). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy and change knowledge.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Publishing.

Garnett, F. (2010). Heutagogy and the craft of teaching. The Heutagogic Archives.

Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Goodson, I., Gill, S. Steinberg, S. & Friere, M.A. (2014). Critical narrative as pedagogy. New
York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Halstead, J. (2011). Navigating the new pedagogy: Six principles that transform teaching.
New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing.

Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2013). Self-determined learning: Heutagogy in action. New York:
Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hinchey, M. D., Bennett, E., & Blanchard, R. (2012). AM last page: Applying Knowles'
andragogy to resident teaching. All Scholarly Works.

Inoue, Y. (2007). Online education for lifelong learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Kapplinger, B. & Robak, S. (1014). Changing configurations in adult education in transitional

times: International perspectives in different countries. Berlin: Peter Lang Publishers.

Kerry, T. (2013). Applying the principles of heutagogy to a postgraduate distance-learning

programme. Self-Determined Learning: Heutagogy in Action, 69.

Kirstein, K.D., Schieber, C. E., Flores, K.A. & Olswang, S. (2013). Innovations in teaching
adults: Proven practices in higher education. CreateSpace Amazon Digital Publishing.

Knowles, M. (1988. The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Cambridge Publishing.
Lee, A., & Danby, S. (2011). Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and
pedagogies. Florence, KY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Leone, S. (2013). Characterisation of a personal learning environment as a lifelong learning

tool. New York: SpringerBriefs in Education.

Merriam, S. & Bierma, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Penguin Books.

Ramsay, M., Hurley, I., & Neilson, G. R. (2013). Workplace learning for nurses. Self-
Determined Learning: Heutagogy in Action, 85.

Ryan, M., & Ryan, M. (2015). Sustainable pedagogical change for embedding reflective learning
across higher education programs. In Teaching Reflective Learning in Higher Education (pp.
213-227). Springer International Publishing.

Tappin, R. M. (2014). Adult development and andragogy theories: Application to adult learning
environments. Author: Amazon Digital Services.

Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Andragogy: the teaching of adults

Behaviorism: learning epistemology where knowledge is gained through stimulus and response

Cognitivism: learning epistemology where facilitating learning is dependent on the understanding of the
human mind

Constructivism: learning epistemology where knowledge is created through interaction between their
experiences and ideas (or content)

Epistemology: a theory

Heutagogy: self-determined learning

Holistic Learning: encompassing all aspects of the learning experience; not just knowledge, but true
learning and critical thinking

Pedagogy: the teaching of children

Self-determined Learning: self-regulated and self-directed learning; internal motivation to learn

Self-directed Learning: taking action and responsibility for one’s own learning