The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 67:24–36, 2019

Copyright © 2019, Association for Continuing Higher Education

ISSN 0737-7363
DOI: 10.1080/07377363.2019.1629804

Applying Andragogy to an Outdoor

Science Education Event
Lauren Remenick
Lissy Goralnik

Abstract. Andragogy provides a framework for how adults learn, and contemporary researchers have explored
its validity and usefulness in varied contexts. This article joins the discussion by examining andragogy in an as-yet-
unstudied setting—an outdoor science education event (HJA Day). In this mixed-methods study, we examine how
andragogy applies to HJA Day at the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest in the Oregon Cascades. HJA Day reflects
many aspects of andragogy, with some inconsistencies. For example, many participants preferred learning sessions
applicable to their work or personal interests, reflecting the assumption that adults prefer learning content with
strong personal relevance. However, some participants attended sessions to be with their friends or to experience
a specific learning style, demonstrating a diversion from the andragogical model. Overall, our results affirm the
relevance of andragogy for adult field-based science outreach and offer context-specific suggestions for the use of
andragogy in outdoor science education.

Keywords. andragogy; andragogical model; adult learning; science education; outdoor education

Introduction care about the material, as it might be for children or

Andragogy, the study of adult learning, provides a
framework of adult learners’ needs. By understanding
this framework and how it may or may not apply in
practice, practitioners and researchers can further inform
the impact and relevancy of the model across learning
environments. In doing this, educators and program
planners will have a greater understanding of how to
meet adult learners’ needs to best achieve their educa-
tional goals.
Knowles (1984) states that adults generally learn to
solve a problem or satisfy an interest, rather than to satisfy
an external expectation. As adults are increasingly return-
ing to educational programs in the United States (Noel-
Levitz, 2013), the difficulty is not in motivating them to
younger adults (Wang & Sarbo, 2004), but in crafting
learning environments that address their particular needs
and learning goals.
In the following case study, we examine participant
experiences at HJA Day, a one-day outdoor science educa-
tion event for adults, through the lens of andragogy. At the
Andrews Experimental Forest (HJA) in the Oregon
Cascades, HJA researchers and artists presented mini-
lessons on their work to an audience of researchers, fac-
ulty, staff, and students from Oregon State University, local
forest service members and researchers, and commu-
nity members.
Because HJA Day is geared toward engaging adult
learners, we sought to examine the relevance of the
andragogical model for our outcomes in this unique

Lauren Remenick is PhD Candidate and Research Assistant, Department of Educational Leadership and Higher Education, College of
Community Innovation and Education at University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. Lissy Goralnik is Assistant Professor, Department of
Community Sustainability, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Address correspondence to Lauren Remenick, Department of Educational Leadership and Higher Education, College of Community Innovation
and Education, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816, USA (Lauren.Maroon@UCF.edu).

setting through use of a qualitative event survey before
and after HJA Day. The pre-event survey provided infor-
mation about participants’ backgrounds, while the post-
event survey provided insight into participants’ experien-
ces at the HJA Day event. We found that while some
inconsistencies between theory and practice existed, a
large majority of participant experiences at HJA Day
reflected Knowles’ conceptions of andragogy, thereby
affirming the relevance of his model for field-based sci-
ence outreach for adult learners. Observing the extent to
which learners “behave andragogically” in this type of
learning setting is an important first step in exploring
how to deliver outdoor education more effectively for
adult learners.
Literature review
Andragogy
Malcolm Knowles defined andragogy as “the art and
science of helping adults learn” (Knowles, 1980, p. 43).
The andragogical model comprises six assumptions, each
of which have implications for practice (Knowles, 1980):
1. Adults need to know the reason for learning some-
thing and learn best when they come upon educa-
tional gaps on their own.
2. Experience provides the basis for learning and is
used to build and integrate new ideas.
3. Adults need to be involved in the planning and
evaluation of their learning, as they are accustomed
to taking responsibility and autonomy in the deci-
sions of their lives.
4. Adults are most interested in learning topics that have
immediate relevance to their work or personal lives.
5. Adult learning should be problem-centered rather
than content-oriented.
6. Adults are internally motivated to learn because new
information can be readily incorporated into their
personal and professional lives.
Adult learners are adults who participate in a learning
process that changes their thoughts, values, or behavior
(Cranton, 1992) for personal improvement, interest, or
fulfillment (Hansman & Mott, 2000). With years of experi-
ence, adults are poised to use their background know-
ledge as a tool in a new learning environment.
One central benefit of the model is its flexibility to
adapt to a variety of contexts (Roberts, 2007).
Alternatively, some scholars have criticized andragogy for
not integrating other cultural perspectives (Roberson,
2002), supporting the status quo by not considering
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education
25
political or social contexts (Sandlin, 2005), and lacking
consideration of other cultures, belief systems, and ways
of knowing (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2012).
Others have critiqued its lack of empirical grounding
(Caruth, 2014; Jarvis, 1984; Laird, Naquin, & Holton,
2003; Noe, 2010), a limitation many researchers continue
to work to rectify.
Research on andragogy
Researchers have investigated the effectiveness of
andragogy in specific higher education contexts, including
degree-granting educational programs (Harper & Ross,
2011), university library use and access (Cannady, King, &
Blendinger, 2012), coursework (Chen, 2014; Sato,
Haegele, & Foot, 2017), online learning (Blondy, 2007),
or specific populations, such as nontraditional college stu-
dents (Kenner & Weinerman, 2011). For instance,
DeNoyelles, Cobb, and Lowe (2012) used concepts from
andragogy to redesign a faculty professional development
course at a large public university, finding that courses
rebuilt with a focus on andragogy led to greater satisfac-
tion for a variety of adult learners. These courses balanced
autonomy and support, emphasized active participation,
acknowledged students’ prior experiences, shifted from an
individual to community-centered approach, and focused
on each learner as an active participant in the meaning-
making process. In general, researchers have found
andragogy useful in designing, modifying, and framing the
areas of higher education mentioned earlier to be more
encompassing and cognizant of the adult learning process.
Scholars have also tested andragogy’s applicability in
a variety of learning settings outside of traditional aca-
demia, including police training (Birzer, 2003), criminal
justice programs (Birzer, 2004), medical training (Bedi,
2004; Blanchard, Hinchey, & Bennett, 2011), and man-
agement education (Forrest & Peterson, 2006; Roberts,
2007). In general, researchers have concluded that
andragogy is useful as a facilitation tool for adult educa-
tion, as well as a means to set educational goals (Blondy,
2007; Chan, 2010; Chen, 2014; McGrath, 2009; Sato
et al., 2017).
We join this conversation with our study on the
applicability of andragogy for a one-day non-formal out-
door science education event for adult learners. This event
is hosted in the HJA Forest by site researchers, who pre-
sent mini-lessons on the site’s major research areas to
members of the public and friends of the Oregon State
University College of Forestry.
 26
Applying Andragogy to an Outdoor Science Education Event
Methods
HJA Day background
Site description
The H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest was estab-
lished in 1948; in 1980, the forest became one of 26 sites
funded through the National Science Foundation’s
Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Program. The HJA
Program hosts an interdisciplinary group of researchers
from around the world conducting more than 85 research
projects on forest management, mountain watersheds,
old-growth forest dynamics, climate, governance, environ-
mental ethics, and field education. The HJA supports edu-
cational programs for K–12, undergraduate, and graduate
students, as well as continuing education opportunities for
natural resource managers and teachers. The goal of all
sites in the LTER Network is to conduct research that pro-
vides information to effectively manage, protect, and con-
serve ecosystems (LTER Network Office, 2015). The
purpose of HJA Day is to showcase the research and edu-
cational programs that take place in the HJA Forest.
Study event
HJA Day is a one-day, nonformal, outdoor science
outreach event for adult learners. In 2014 HJA Day had
space for 130 participants; the event was promoted pri-
marily to the College of Forestry students, faculty, and
researchers as well as the communities surrounding the
forest. Participants met at Oregon State University in the
morning, where they loaded into vans for the two-hour
trip to the forest. Refreshments were provided upon arrival
while the lead principal investigator gave a welcome
speech. The morning was organized into several brief (20-
minute) sessions designed to introduce participants to the
diverse research and educational programs at the site,
including content on long-term ecological measurements
of snowpack, pollinator identification, novel climate
change detection instruments, and an artwork exhibit.
Lunch followed, after which participants signed up for one
of four afternoon field trips, including (a) place-based
education in the forest, (b) forest history and productivity,
(c) stream ecology, and (d) ecological forestry.
Research purpose
While HJA Day has a 20-year history, there has been
no prior research on participant demographics, learning,
or the HJA Day experience. As HJA Day has both similar-
ities and differences with other nonformal adult learning
programs, our findings may help fill gaps in the current lit-
erature on adult learning and provide relevant insight for
similar events. Overall, we sought to understand how the
model of andragogy applied to this unique learn-
ing setting.
Method of analysis
Data collection
We conducted a survey before and after HJA Day to
understand how the experiences and outcomes of partici-
pants at HJA Day reflect the assumptions of andragogy.
The pre-event survey collected demographic data and
information about participants’ history with HJA Day; the
qualitative post-event survey asked participants about (a)
learning style preferences and experiences, (b) satisfaction
with field trip presenters and structure, and (c) perceived
learning from the event.
All participants were asked to complete an online
pre-event survey following event registration, and were
then sent a reminder e-mail a week before the event and
also given an opportunity to complete a hard copy of the
survey prior to departing for the forest. We implemented
hard copies of the post-event survey at the end of the event
during a closing activity, offering HJA lapel pins to partici-
pants who completed it on-site. Participants could also
take the survey on the van ride back to Oregon State
University. We e-mailed a link to the survey a few days after
the event, then again one week later.
One hundred thirty-six people attended the event; we
received 76 pre- and 76 post-event surveys (not necessar-
ily the same 76 participants for each survey) for a
response rate of 56% for each survey.
Pre-event survey
The eight questions on the pre-event survey were ana-
lyzed with descriptive statistics (Table 1).
Post-event survey
Qualitative data were collected from 11 open-ended
questions on the post-event survey (Table 2). We used a
summative and conventional content analysis framework
(Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) to conduct an inductive the-
matic analysis of the responses, coding themes as they
arose directly in participants’ language. To do this, we
read participant comments multiple times, noting key-
words in the margins (Ryan & Bernard, 2003), then clus-
tered keywords in groups based on similarities and
 The Journal of Continuing Higher Education
27

Table 1. Pre-Event Survey Questions.

1. Excluding this HJA Day 2014, how many HJA Days have you attended in the past?
2. How did you hear about HJA Day 2014? (Choose all that apply.)
a. Colleague
b. E-mail notification
c. Friend
d. Flyer
e. Other (please explain)
3. Have you visited the HJA Forest in the past, other than for HJA Day?
a. Yes
b. No
4. What was your main purpose of your previous visit to the HJA Forest? (Choose all that apply.)
a. Attend another program
b. Perform research in the forest
c. Visit the forest
d. Other (please explain)
5. Why are you participating in this HJA Day 2014? (Choose all that apply.)
a. Learn about or stay up to date on the research and education programs performed at the
HJA Forest
b. Network with other participants or researchers
c. Receive a free lunch and snacks
d. Spend time in the forest or enjoy a day in nature
e. Other (please explain)
6. What is your connection to the HJA Forest? (Choose all that apply.)
a. Field crew
b. LTER personnel
c. Local resident
d. Oregon resident
e. Oregon State University faculty or staff
f. PNW Forest Science Lab
g. Region 6 National Forest Staff
h. Researcher
i. Graduate student
j. Undergraduate student
k. Other (please explain)
7. What is your age (in years)?
8. What gender do you identify with?
a. Male
b. Female

repetitive language. This was an iterative process, with sev-
eral rounds of coding, condensing, and re-arranging, and
returning to the original data to make sure our condensed
themes were reflecting the participant experience, until sat-
uration occurred and we arrived at our final categories:
(a) participants’ reasons for attending HJA Day, (b) par-
ticipant outcomes, and (c) outcome drivers. We then cre-
ated a codebook to describe each category, including the
themes that characterize each category (see later discus-
sion), with a definition and a “typical” example.
We also used the codebook to determine inter-rater
reliability following Kurasaki (2000), whereby a peer
researcher coded 25% of the comments from each ques-
tion using the codebook as a guide. The main researcher
then compared her coding to her peer’s and arrived at a
percentage of inter-rater reliability by creating a ratio of
similar codes to different codes. The resulting reliability
was 88%, an acceptable score (Neuendorf, 2002). Along
with co-coding, peer debriefing took place throughout the
analysis process to establish credibility (Hsieh &
 28
Applying Andragogy to an Outdoor Science Education Event

Table 2. Post-Event Survey Questions.

1. What sections of HJA Day did you attend? Comments?
2. Why did you join that specific afternoon field trip?
3. Please rate your experience with the following elements of the afternoon field trip. Comments?
a. Time of day
b. Climate
c. Length
d. Number of participants
e. Topics covered
f. Visuals or graphics used
g. Activities
h. Organization
i. Professionalism of speakers
j. Clarity of the speakers’ presentations
k. Ability to hear speakers
l. Ability to see speakers
m. Enthusiasm of speakers
n. Information provided by speakers
o. Amount of time allocated to discussion or questions
p. Speakers’ response to questions
4. Do you have any comments for the speaker?
5. Please rate your experience with each session. Comments?
6. Please describe an experience of the activities listed below [for example, self-guided reading/visual,
lecture/presentation, small-group discussion] that you encountered at HJA Day.
7. Did your experience at HJA Day spark, draw upon, or inspire any of the following [for example,
curiosity, emotional connection, past experience, personal relevance] for you?
8. How can we enhance your experience at HJA Day?
9. What other topics would you like to see covered at HJA Day?
10. As a result of participating in HJA Day, I gained an appreciation of:
11. Do you have any other thoughts about HJA Day?

Shannon, 2005), whereby a knowledgeable colleague
who is not directly involved in the research acts as both a
devil’s advocate and a sounding board to allow the pri-
mary researcher to consider different analytical ideas
(Manning, 1997).
Results
Participant demographics
Participants of HJA Day are unique in that they are
adults who were able to take a whole day during the work-
week to attend this event. Furthermore, the pre-HJA Day
survey revealed that the majority of participants are con-
nected to scientific fields. When asked about their connec-
tion to the HJA Forest, respondents indicated that they are
researchers (34%), Oregon State University faculty or staff
(30%), HJA Forest field crew (20%), LTER personnel
(18%), students (18% undergraduate; 12% graduate),
and/or forestry personnel (12% Region 6 National Forest
staff; 11% Pacific Northwest Forest Science Lab).
Participants range from 19 to 81 years old (average age
41), with 57% female and 43% male. Most participants
had not previously attended HJA Day (64%). However,
26% had been up to 10 times before, and 9% of partici-
pants had previously participated in 11 or more HJA Day
events. Sixty percent of first-time HJA Day participants indi-
cated that they had previously visited the forest.
Participants’ reasons for previous visits included conduct-
ing research (57%), visiting the forest (36%), and partici-
pating in another program (34%). Therefore, many
participants were already acquainted with the LTER pro-
gram and/or the HJA Forest.
Most participants (85%) registered for HJA Day to
learn about or stay up to date on the research and educa-
tion programs at the HJA Forest. Seventy percent of

participants wanted to network with other participants or
researchers, 66% wanted to spend time in the forest or
enjoy a day in nature, and 27% wanted to receive free
lunch and snacks.
Post-event survey results
We identified three primary categories in the qualita-
tive analysis (characteristic themes in parentheses): (a)
participants’ reasons for attending HJA Day (career rele-
vance, personal interest, and connection), (b) participant
outcomes (appreciation and enjoyment, perceived know-
ledge gain and application), and (c) outcome drivers
(event structure, people and networking, learning
style preference).
Participants’ reasons for attending HJA Day
Participants attended HJA Day for two primary rea-
sons: (a) career relevance and (b) personal interest
and connection.
Career relevance
Eight respondents commented that the information
presented at HJA Day was relevant to their work or
research. When asked if HJA Day drew on participants’
past experience, personal relevance, or practical applica-
tion, responses included “Relevant to my work/research,”
and “The Discovery Trail was relevant for any work I do
in conservation education.” Fourteen participants chose a
certain field trip based on its usefulness and similarity to
their work, as they explained: “I do primarily aquatics
research so I was interested in learning about the tools
that scientists use to study terrestrial environments” and “I
work with elementary and middle school students during
various outdoor events. So I wanted to get some
new ideas.”
Personal interest and connection
Participants’ comments about their personal interests
generally revolved around a love of learning, usually about
science and research. As a result of previous HJA visits to
the forest, nine participants reported strong connections
to the site and/or the LTER program. When asked if any of
the sessions at HJA Day stirred emotion in participants,
respondents answered, “Long-term connection with HJA,”
“Worked here a long time,” and “It definitely mined my
emotional connection to the forest and the program.”
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education
29
Participant outcomes
Participants reported two major outcomes from their
experience at HJA Day: (a) appreciation and enjoyment
and (b) perceived knowledge gain and application.
Appreciation and enjoyment
Throughout the survey, many participants,
unprompted, wrote “Thank you,” along with a description
of a positive experience. We received a total of 32 of these
comments out of 48 comments within the outcomes
theme. Comments generally encompassed multiple aspects
of participant enjoyment, including “Thank you so much
for sharing HJA Day with us,” “I am in love with HJA. I
truly enjoyed every minute of my experience there. Thank
you!,” and “Thank you! For a fun, educational time and a
chance to talk to all kinds of interesting people.” Many
comments also indicated general enjoyment, such as
“Another fantastic day at the site and in the field,” “A valu-
able endeavor,” and “Very good experience. Super glad I
came.” While the expressions of gratitude and general sat-
isfaction feel fairly straightforward and disconnected from
specific learning content, they are remarkable because of
their consistency across the data and also the exuberance
of the responses. They speak to the affective, or emotional
learning, impact of the field-based learning experience
and explain why participants return year after year to
HJA Day.
Perceived knowledge gain and application
Perceived knowledge gain was the second major out-
come from HJA Day (N ¼ 16). Participants often wrote
directly about their learning: “So many facts and so much
cool information! Just walking around and hearing about
things from different people was awesome. I learned so
much!” and “I learned a lot!” They also commented on
the usefulness of the knowledge they gained. For instance:
“I will use some of what I learned to inform my work”
and “I can use many of the ideas presented.”
Outcome drivers
Our analysis illuminated three main drivers that
impacted participant outcomes: (a) event structure, (b)
people and networking, and (c) learning style preference.
Event structure
Event structure emerged as a major theme of the
overall HJA Day experience, with 55 positive comments
 30
Applying Andragogy to an Outdoor Science Education Event
and 76 negative comments. Three subthemes character-
ized participant responses about the event structure: (a)
organization, (b) content, and (c) responsible use of
the forest.
Organization
Twenty-one comments indicated participants’ satisfac-
tion with the organization of HJA Day. Positive comments
generally used the words “organization” and “balance” to
describe the structure of the day. The structure of HJA Day
has changed in recent years, from many brief sessions to
fewer in-depth sessions. This new structure has benefits
and drawbacks, as reflected in participants’ comments.
Often, comments in this theme referred to the time or
length of an activity. For example, “I was in [the] Forest
Detectives [activity] and felt the sessions were informative
and the right length.” Comments about the van ride were
also included, such as “Van ride was on time, comfortable,
and reasonable length.”
Twenty-seven participants indicated dissatisfaction
with the organization of the event in their comments,
detailing issues with the timing of activities, the need for
an overarching theme, and the impact of the event struc-
ture on people’s physical needs. For example, “Was the
time after field trips specifically for networking? Somehow
I never picked up on that.” Comments about the van ride
also fit into this theme, such as “Going down to HJA with
eight people in the van felt more comfortable than coming
back with 12 people. Not only in a physical comfort way,
but also in the ability to have/enjoy conversations with
others in the van.”
Content
Content was the second subtheme within the event
structure theme. Twenty comments referred to partici-
pants’ satisfaction with the content at HJA Day. Organizers
chose what research and programs speakers should high-
light, so depending on individual participants’ goals and
interests, too much or too little of certain information
could sway one’s overall satisfaction of the event.
Comments often referred to specific topics, such as the
soil pit, streams, art, and pollinator activities. For instance:
“The dye in the streams was really cool!”
Other comments expressed a desire for more
detailed or broader information. For instance, “While I
enjoyed the morning sessions, I thought they were a little
bit ‘scaled back’ in terms of density and complexity of
information.” Forty-six participants indicated dissatisfac-
tion with the amount and type of content provided.
Responsible use of the forest
Finally, several participants commented on the per-
ceived impacts the group had on the forest during the
event, suggesting that HJA Day activities conflicted with
their own values about landscape use. These responses
used negative words, such as “disturb” and “trample” and
these observations interfered with these participants’ enjoy-
ment of the event. For example, “I really do not think it is
responsible to dump large amounts of dye in the stream,
especially just for a demonstration.”
People and networking
People and networking was the second major theme
that contributed to participant outcomes. For example:
“Perhaps the most important aspect was networking with
past and present FS [Forest Service] employees and scien-
tists, one on one.” Other than the allotted networking ses-
sion, participants remarked that there was time for
networking between sessions and at lunch. Comments
referred to networking, talking with others, and meeting
new people. The main words used were “networking,”
“meet,” “talk,” or “interact.” There were no negative com-
ments associated with networking.
Networking was the second greatest reported reason
that participants attended HJA Day. Twenty-five comments
referred to satisfaction with a variety of people at HJA Day.
Comments often used the words “everyone,” “staff,”
“volunteers,” “people,” and “presenters.” For example,
“Everyone at HJA is knowledgeable in their field while
maintaining a good sense of humor.” Presenters had a
consequential impact on participants’ experience of HJA
Day. Comments referred to multiple aspects of presenters,
such as their personality or their presentation. Often a spe-
cific presenter’s name was used. A typical example was,
“Our presenter is full of wonder and joy and fun to be on
the trail with.” However, 10 participants were dissatisfied
with the presenters, commenting that the presenters were
biased or too homogeneous. For example, “Too many
questions to audience, not enough experienced peo-
ple speaking.”
Learning-style preference
A preference for how information was shared at HJA
Day was the third major theme that contributed to partici-
pant outcomes. Forty-seven participants expressed

Figure 1. Relationships between HJA participants’ outcomes and outcome drivers.
satisfaction with the learning style used at HJA Day. For
example, “The presenters also had excellent visual aids
and excellent discussion. My personal style is to listen
more to what their areas of expertise are as opposed to
them asking us for questions and hypothesis, but I know
that isn’t as engaging for some.” Hands-on participation
had the most positive comments (12), followed by lec-
ture/presentation (10), small group discussion (8), self-
guided reading/visual (7), large-group discussion (3),
and group work (2).
Alternately, 16 participants commented on dissatisfac-
tion with a learning style used at HJA Day. Comments
referred to the quantity, inefficient use, and disinterest in a
specific learning style. For example, “Didn’t have quite
enough of this [hands-on participation]” and “Not fun
[self-guided reading/visual].” Most negative comments
focused on hands-on participation (5), followed by small-
group discussion (4), group work (3), large-group dis-
cussion (2), lecture/presentation (2), and self-guided
reading/visual (1).
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education
31
The relationship between outcomes and
outcome drivers
Once we gained an understanding of participants’
experiences and the outcomes of the day, we sought to
understand how the outcomes and drivers related to one
another. A graphic representation of the outcomes and
drivers is shown below (Figure 1).
The two main outcomes in this study were (a) appre-
ciation and enjoyment and (b) perceived knowledge gain
and application. Perceived knowledge gain and application
directly influenced appreciation and enjoyment because
participants’ main goal of the day was to learn. The three
main drivers that affected these outcomes were (a) event
structure, (b) people and networking, and (c) learning-
style preference.
Within the outcome drivers theme, the three sub-
themes related to one another in a nested, linear fash-
ion: event structure ! people and networking !
participants’ learning-style preference. The organization
of the event structure facilitated networking; there was
 32
Applying Andragogy to an Outdoor Science Education Event
time between sessions and at lunch to meet and net-
work with other participants and presenters in addition
to the allotted networking session at the end of the
day. During their presentation, the presenters used
various teaching styles, which facilitated or limited per-
ceived knowledge gain and application, and ultimately,
appreciation and enjoyment.
The event structure also directly affected participants’
outcomes. For instance, the structure of the event allowed
some participants to move from session to session easily,
without being “rushed or lost.” In this way, participants
could focus on learning the content rather than figuring
out where to go next. For others, the organization of the
sessions and activities caused them to become bored or
lose attention. One participant commented about a prefer-
ence for activities in the morning rather than the afternoon
to avoid fatigue. A reorganization of the day for this partici-
pant could mean that more participation and energy would
go into the learning activities, which would ultimately lead
to greater knowledge gain.
Second, people and networking directly affected par-
ticipants’ outcomes. Networking with others allowed par-
ticipants to learn more about the topics presented as well
as topics related to other participants’ backgrounds.
Participants enjoyed talking to presenters, as it gave them
a chance to discuss the content more deeply, and relate it
to their own knowledge, thus enhancing their perceived
knowledge gain and application. However, some partici-
pants desired more diversity of presenters. One com-
menter wished for presenters who could give more
opinionated information rather than trying to avoid bias.
This decreased their perceived knowledge gain and enjoy-
ment because the participant felt that the presenters were
holding back pertinent information.
Finally, learning-style preference, the third theme
within the outcome drivers category, affected participants’
outcomes. When asked about their experiences with vari-
ous learning styles, many participants commented about
their range of enjoyment with those styles, such as
“Great,” “Enjoyed,” “Boring,” and “Not fun.” Therefore,
we concluded that the style used affected participants’
enjoyment of the session, if not the whole day. Many par-
ticipants loved the hands-on activities and presentations
and disliked the group work. A few participants com-
mented on how the learning styles affected their perceived
knowledge gain and application. For instance, one partici-
pant said that the props helped them visualize the informa-
tion presented, while another said that the large-group
discussion lacked good information.
Discussion
After understanding participants’ identities and expe-
riences at HJA Day, we sought to examine if and how our
data from this specific learning context reflected the
assumptions of andragogy. Much of our analysis reveals
strong ties to andragogy (Table 3), including participant
interest in learning immediately relevant topics and
internal motivation.
HJA Day met many assumptions of andragogy in its
organization and structure, but we were able to examine
each assumption more closely by analyzing the results of
the qualitative data.
Assumption 1 states that adults need to know the rea-
son for learning something and that they learn best when
they come upon educational gaps on their own (Knowles,
1980). The event was open to all participants, but mar-
keted to those who had a relationship with the HJA Forest.
On the pre-event survey, we found that most participants
(85%) attended to learn about or stay up to date on the
research and education programs performed at the forest.
Other participants attended for the purpose of networking,
spending time in the forest, or receiving a free lunch. This
suggests that participants had a personal goal in mind
when registering for HJA Day. Therefore, the first assump-
tion of andragogy was met by participants upon their
registration.
Assumption 2 states that experience provides the
basis for learning and is used to build and integrate new
ideas (Knowles, 1980). Again, participants’ backgrounds
and identities largely served to meet this assumption. The
majority of participants are closely linked to the scientific
field, and 34% are researchers by profession. This suggests
that participants registered for HJA Day to build upon their
existing knowledge and ideas. When we asked in the post-
event survey why they attended the event, many participants
told us that the research being presented at HJA Day was
relevant to their own work or research, and that they could
use the research presented to inform their own studies.
This is exactly what Knowles wrote about with his second
assumption: that learning can be used to build new ideas
onto an adult learner’s existing experience and knowledge.
Assumption 3 states that adults need to be involved in
the planning and evaluation of their learning, as they are
accustomed to taking responsibility and autonomy in the
decisions of their lives (Knowles, 1980). HJA Day was an
optional event for participants. Therefore, participants
were acting autonomously by registering for this educa-
tional event. While the event itself was mostly structured,
participants were given the option to choose from one of

Table 3. Assumptions of Andragogy Linked to Participants’ Experiences at the Event.
Assumptions of Andragogy
1) Adults need to know the reason for learning
something and learn best when they come upon
educational gaps on their own.
2) Experience provides the basis for learning and
is used to build and integrate new ideas.
3) Adults need to be involved in the planning and
evaluation of their learning, as they are
accustomed to taking responsibility and
autonomy in the decisions of their lives.
4) Adults are most interested in learning topics
that have immediate relevance to their work or
personal lives.
5) Adult learning should be problem-centered
rather than content-oriented.
6) Adults are internally motivated to learn because
new information can be readily incorporated into
their personal and professional lives.
the four afternoon field trips. This gave participants the
flexibility to choose a field trip topic that was most relevant
to themselves, thus again allowing participants to be
involved in the planning of their education. In the com-
ments, we saw participants express satisfaction and appre-
ciation of the ability to choose their field trip, but some
dissatisfaction with the event structure, suggesting that
some participants could have benefited from more flexibil-
ity at HJA Day.
Assumption 4 suggests that most participants would
choose a field trip that has immediate relevance to their
work or personal lives (Knowles, 1980). We found this to
be mostly true. Many participants chose to attend a specific
field trip based on its relevance to their personal interest,
work, or research. But others chose a specific field trip for
two reasons that we didn’t anticipate. One was for the
learning style used in the field trip, such as a preference for
hands-on learning. The other reason they chose a specific
field trip centered on people or networking opportunities.
For instance, participants made their choice based on other
participants’ choices or to learn from a specific presenter.
As a result of the field trip options provided, partici-
pants often commented on how their work and research
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education
33
Participants’ Experiences at HJA Day
85% of HJA Day participants registered for the
event to learn about the research and education
programs at the HJA Forest.
The majority of participants are closely linked to
the scientific field; 34% are researchers.
Participants were given the option to choose from
one of four afternoon field trips. They chose for
(a) structural aspects, (b) relevance to their own
work, or (c) for the people—either to see a
specific presenter talk or to stay with
their friends.
Participants often commented on how they could
use the knowledge that they learned at HJA Day
in their personal or professional life.
Many participants told us that the research being
presented at HJA Day was relevant to their own
work or research, and that they could use the
research presented to inform their own studies.
Participants attended because of personal interest,
work relevance, and a connection to the HJA.
Participants’ personal interests revolved around
a love of learning, usually about science
and research.
related to the information presented, and therefore, they
could use the knowledge they learned at HJA Day in some
aspect of their lives. Thus participants felt they learned
something throughout the day, as seen in the outcome
“knowledge gain and application.”
Assumption 5 states that adult learning should be
problem-centered rather than content-oriented (Knowles,
1980). In registering for HJA Day, many participants were
seeking out information that could inform their work. For
example, graduate students studying stream ecology could
attend the stream ecology field trip to gain more in-depth
knowledge on the topic, talk to the presenter about their
findings, and view the results of previous research. We
saw the effects of this in the comments, such as the desire
for more detailed information or broader information.
Assumption 6 states that adults are internally moti-
vated to learn because new information can be readily
incorporated into their personal and professional lives
(Knowles, 1980). We again saw this in the responses from
participants. Participants chose to attend HJA Day for its
relevance to their work or because of a personal interest
or a personal connection to the forest. Participants who
attended for personal reasons did so because of a love of
 34
Applying Andragogy to an Outdoor Science Education Event
learning about science and research. This suggests that
participants were internally motivated to attend; they regis-
tered because they felt that HJA Day provided some intrin-
sic value in their lives.
HJA Day was designed for participants who would
benefit from learning about the latest research and pro-
grams taking place at the HJA Forest. Because this event
was initially created to meet adult learners’ educational
goals, was marketed to those who already had a relation-
ship with the HJA Forest, and gave participants a choice in
their learning content, the event closely followed the tenets
of andragogy. As a result of the structure of this event,
most participants expressed appreciation and enjoyment
of the event as well as knowledge gain and application of
that knowledge. Those who expressed dissatisfaction with
the event structure could have benefited from more pro-
gram flexibility.
Overall, our findings reflect other studies that exam-
ine nonformal adult education, and reinforce the idea that
incorporating the tenets of andragogy, such as using
adults’ prior knowledge, taking a problem-centered
approach to learning, and providing topics of interest to
learners, is beneficial for successful learning and satisfac-
tion (Crowther, Maclachlan, & Tett, 2010; Lim, Morris, &
Kupritz, 2007).
Conclusion
This study is an attempt to further understand the
learning experience of adults at a nonformal science edu-
cation event by comparing it to Knowles’ tenets of andra-
gogy. While we cannot generalize our findings to the
greater population, our results do have relevant implica-
tions for event planners and adult educators. Adults are
autonomous people with busy lives, so spending time on
nonformal learning must mean that is important to them.
To meet the demand of adult education programs and
decrease levels of attrition, educational programs need to
cater to the multiple needs of adult learners in ways that
respect, validate, and stimulate the minds of adults so they
can pursue lifelong learning (Nesbit, Dunlop, &
Gibson, 2007).
In general we found that andragogy fit well within the
HJA Day framework. As a result, participants experienced
generally positive outcomes that matched their educational
goals. Participant goals included a desire to learn about
the research and programs going on in the HJA Forest,
network with other participants and presenters, and spend
a day in nature. By understanding participants’ learning
goals, we can help them better meet those goals. This
could be done in two ways. Either program planners can
ask registered participants about their goals and then tai-
lor the event to meet those goals, or program planners
can be direct and forthcoming about the goals of the event
so that interested participants can align their interests with
the given objectives of the event.
When we asked participants about themselves and
their reasons for attending HJA Day, we found that partici-
pant identities were consequential for their overall experi-
ence at the event, both impacting the outcomes
participants experienced, as well as how they experienced
those outcomes. For instance, those who came with a
background in rivers or streams connected differently to
the stream field trip than did those with a forest ecology
background. Andragogy suggests that adults learn to fulfill
a personal interest or solve a problem (Knowles, 1980).
Each adult learner’s problem or interest is unique to that
person. Therefore, their background and previous know-
ledge base affects their approach and perceptions of a
new learning situation (Knowles, 1989). This is why it is
important to understand program attendees before crafting
an educational program. Many of our participants already
had a connection to the forest. An event tailored to nurture
this connection might look different from an approach
aimed at catalyzing new connections for people who know
very little about the site. This is all useful information
because we can now tailor our approach and learning
methods to the learner audience at our event.
This study provides adult education program devel-
opers insight into the drivers that contribute to positive
learner outcomes. Meeting the needs of participants by
using andragogy as a framework is likely to contribute to
the success of these events and continued registration of
participants each year. Therefore, event planners might
find it helpful to consider our findings as they plan and
implement adult education programs.
ORCID
Lauren Remenick http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2294-6767
Lissy Goralnik http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9326-6470
References
Bedi, A. (2004). An andragogical approach to teaching
styles. Education for Primary Care, 15(1), 93–97.
Birzer, M. L. (2003). The theory of andragogy applied
to police training. Policing: An International

Journal of Police Strategies & Management,
26(1), 29–42.
Birzer, M. L. (2004). Andragogy: Student centered
classrooms in criminal justice programs. Journal
of Criminal Justice Education, 15(2), 393–411.
Blanchard, R. D., Hinchey, K. T., & Bennett, E. E.
(2011, April). Literature review of residents as
teachers from an adult learning perspective.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Blondy, L. C. (2007). Evaluation and application of
andragogical assumptions to the adult online
learning environment. Journal of Interactive
Online Learning, 6(2), 116–130.
Cannady, R. E., King, S. B., & Blendinger, J. G.
(2012). Proactive outreach to adult students: A
department and library collaborative effort. The
Reference Librarian, 53(2), 156–169.
Caruth, G. D. (2014). Meeting the needs of older stu-
dents in higher education. Participatory
Educational Research, 1(2), 21–35.
Chan, S. (2010). Applications of andragogy in multi-
disciplined teaching and learning. Journal of
Adult Education, 39(2), 25–35.
Chen, J. C. (2014). Teaching nontraditional adult stu-
dents: Adult learning theories in practice.
Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 406–418.
Cranton, P. (1992). Working with adult learners.
Middletown, OH: Wall & Emerson, Inc.
Crowther, J., Maclachlan, K., & Tett, L. (2010). Adult
literacy, learning identities and pedagogic practice.
International Journal of Lifelong Education,
29(6), 651–664.
DeNoyelles, A., Cobb, C., & Lowe, D. (2012).
Influence of reduced seat time on satisfaction and
perception of course development goals: A case
study in faculty development. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 85–98.
Forrest, S. P., & Peterson, T. O. (2006). It’s called
andragogy. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 5(1), 113–122.
Hansman, C. A., & Mott, V. W. (2000). Philosophy,
dynamics and context: Program planning in prac-
tice. Adult Learning, 11(2), 14–16.
Harper, L., & Ross, J. (2011). An application of
Knowles’ theories of adult education to an under-
graduate interdisciplinary studies degree program.
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education,
59(3), 161–166.
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education
35
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three
approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Jarvis, P. (1984). Andragogy: A sign of the times.
Studies in the Education of Adults, 16(1),
32–38. doi:10.1080/02660830.1984.11730438
Kenner, C., & Weinerman, J. (2011). Adult learning
theory: Applications to non-traditional college stu-
dents. Journal of College Reading and Learning,
41(2), 87–96.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult
education: From pedagogy to andragogy.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.
Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying
modern principles of adult learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knowles, M. (1989). The making of an adult educa-
tor: An autobiographical journey (1st ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kurasaki, K. S. (2000). Intercoder reliability for vali-
dating conclusions drawn from open-ended inter-
view data. Field Methods, 12(3), 179–194.
Laird, D., Naquin, S. S., & Holton, E. F. (2003).
Approaches to training and development (3rd
ed.) New York, NY: Basic Books.
Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V. (2007). Online vs.
blended learning. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 11(2), 809–816.
LTER Network Office (2015). 2014 Annual Report of
the Long Term Ecological Research Network.
Retrieved from The Long Term Ecological
Research Network: lternet.edu
Manning, K. (1997). Authenticity in constructivist
inquiry: Methodological considerations without
prescription. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(1), 93–115.
McGrath, V. (2009). Reviewing the evidence on how
adult students learn: An examination of Knowles’
model of andragogy. Adult Learner: The Irish Journal
of Adult and Community Education, 2009, 99–110.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ860562
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M.
(2012). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive
guide. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Nesbit, T., Dunlop, C., & Gibson, L. (2007). Lifelong
learning in institutions of higher education. Canadian
Journal of University Continuing Education, 33(1),
35–60.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guide-
book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 36
Applying Andragogy to an Outdoor Science Education Event
Noe, R. A. (2010). Employee training & development
(5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw- Hill.
Noel-Levitz. (2013). 2013 national adult learners
satisfaction-priorities report. Coralville, IA: Noel-
Levitz.
Roberson, D. N. (2002). Andragogy in color.
Education Resources Information Center (ED
465047). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED465047.pdf
Roberts, M. S. (2007). Applying the andragogical
model of adult learning: A case study of the
Texas comptroller’s fiscal management division.
(Master’s Project). Retrieved from https://digital.
library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/3580/
fulltext.pdf?sequence=1
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to
identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.
doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569
Sandlin, J. A. (2005). Andragogy and its discontents: An
analysis of andragogy from three critical perspectives.
PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 14, 25–42.
Sato, T., Haegele, J. A., & Foot, R. (2017). Developing
online graduate coursework in adapted physical edu-
cation utilizing andragogy theory. Quest, 69(4), 1–14.
Wang, V. C., & Sarbo, L. (2004). Philosophy, role of
adult educators, and learning: How contextually
adapted philosophies and the situational role of adult
educators affect learners’ transformation and emanci-
pation. Journal of Transformative Education, 2(3),
204–214.
Copyright of Journal of Continuing Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.