There are two main ways to teach people

1. in a Child-like way (pedagogy) – where the learner is spoon fed everything by the teacher 
2. or an Adult-like way (Andragogy) – where learner is not spoon fed, but instead guided in their learning in order promote change.

So, in a pedagogic classroom, the learners just sit there, absorb the information that is being churned out by the teacher and then they leave.   The teacher decides everything – what the content is, how it will be structured, displayed etc.   The learner is passive.

In an androgogic classroom, the teacher becomes a facilitator.   Learners are encouraged to engage in dialogue – to question, to quiz, to explore, to discuss, to work out (problem-solve) etc.   The learner and teacher work together to determine the content, how to engage with the content.  The learner is active as is the teacher.

In medicine, we try to go for the andrologic approach, because we want the learners to learn things for themselves.  We want any change to come from themselves.  Change from within is more likely to be internalised and adopted than change which is forced externally.  It’s interesting that Androgogy is the term used – because children can learn in this way too!  It’s not just for adults.

Also, do NOT see androgogy as the best way to teach and pedagogy as old fashioned and rubbish.   They are both good teaching approaches – which one you choose to do depends on what you are trying to teach.   Teaching a class of 100 trainees in 1 hour about an update in Dermatology – a pedagogic slide show with the lecturer speaking and others listening may well be the best way with the time given.    Andragogy and pedagogy are best seen NOT as separate entities but as two ends of a spectrum: what methods of each you wish to employ depends on your target audience and the educational objectives set.

Knowles: the father of androgoic learning.   He devised some basic principles that will promote adult learning.   If you want to know how to promote adult learning in your teaching, adopt these principles.   They are displayed for you above.

Constructivism is based on the theory that people learn best by actively constructing their own concepts, ideas and understanding usually by fitting new information together with what they already know.   It’s emphasis is on the learner rather than the educator.  For example, if you give a group of adults a novel to read, and then ask them to describe it, they’ll come up with their own different interpretations.  Therefore, one of the most fundamental principles of constructivism is that there are no universal truths and that meaning is socially negotiated* (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, and Windschitl, 2002).   Constructivism emphasises the social nature of learning and the rich learning the group environment provides us with.   It’s androgogic in nature. 

Vico’s verum factum principle (1710) states that truth is verified through creation or invention and not, as per Descartes’ previously held belief, through mere observation. 

Gibb’s cycle is a neat little tool because it provides you with a structure for tackling any case discussion learners have experienced – especially the emotionally charged ones.   It encourages learners to reflect on what happened so that they can somehow make sense of the experiences. But reflection is not enough: one has to put the new learning and understanding into practise.  

How to Use It

1. Use the headings below to structure the reflective discussion around any experiential event.
2. Use it to encourage trainees how to write up learning events for their e-portfolios.
3. Make sure the learners are not too hard on themselves: the evaluation phase should help you tease what was GOOD and bad about the experience.

Kolb’s learning cycle is another model that you can use in a similar way to Gibb’s.   Go through the four main areas with trainees to help them reflect and learn from their experiences.  Remember Mezirow’s principles: learning cannot happen without reflection.  

This model is based on Hersey and Blanchard’s work into ‘situational leadership’ (in ‘business management’) and translated by Gerald Grow to the educational setting.     Its basic principle is that teaching is situational: the style of teaching needs to be matched to the learner’s ability and motivation at the time (termed “readiness”). 

Grow proposed four learner styles and four matching teacher styles.  You can only move trainees to the next level if you figure out where they currently are and match them first.  The four levels are described in the tableon the right.  Problems occur when dependent learners are mismatched with non-directive teachers and when self-directed learners are mismatched with highly directive teachers. 

Therefore, the purpose of this model is to help you

• Identify where your current learners are in terms of self-directedness
• Match your educational activities/session to that level and then
• Facilitate their progression to the next higher level.

Good teaching does two things: a) it matches the student’s stage of self-direction, and b) it empowers the student to progress toward greater self-direction.  Remember, moving the learner onto the next stages requires time; it doesn’t happen overnight!  You need patience.

Whenever I am facilitating a small group, I am always mindful of Tuckman on group dynamics.   If you’re going to be involved in teaching small groups it’s imperative you have some understanding about group dynamics (how groups work).   

Tuckman’s model helps you understand ‘how groups develop’ thus helping you to help a group function more effectively.   

According to the model, groups that are going to be in existence for a while (i.e. not ‘one offs’) go through four stages as they come together and start to function.  But how long they spend at each stage depends on how well they know each other: if there are lots of familiar faces, less time might be spent on the first three stages and the group quickly progresses to the desired performing stage.  But that’s not to belittle the first three stages: it’s important for groups to go through each stage otherwise they might ‘perform’ .   Groups often become dysfunctional (stuck in the storming stage) if the facilitator has not allowed enough time and attention for the forming stage.

By the way, Tuckman’s model can be applied to teams as well as small groups.

A fifth stage, adjourning (or some call mourning) was added in 1975: ten years later.   This is where the group’s life span comes to an end and they split.   There may be some feeling of loss amongst members.  However, it still doesn’t feature in most visual representations of Tuckman’s model because he wanted to focus on how groups develop, not how they end; it’s the former that is going to help us as facilitators.