isspte.org

Motivating Adult Learners by Stephen F. Hulse

As coordinator of in-service education for many years, I often was
dismayed by the reaction to our department’s in-service programs. I
would sweat out writing the objectives, pore over the literature to get
the latest information, gather appropriate visual aids and coerce experts
into speaking to our staff. But more often than I’d like to admit, the
reception to in-service programs was strictly “he-hum.” And from
discussions with other in-service coordinators both in and out of radiol-
ogy, I know this was not an uncommon reaction. Why this response
to information that should have been important, even exciting to the
learners? To answer that question, we must review research done on
the topic of adult education. Through the years, a number of educators
and learning psychologists have investigated what, how and why adults
learn. Some of the results of their research may surprise you.
What Do Adults Learn?
Taken as a group, adults are more likely to be interested in learn-
ing information that can be applied in very practical ways, such as
solving problems they face in the work setting.’ After all, most people
rarely search for answers to questions they don’t have. The challenge
for the in-service educator is to consistently show how knowledge can
be applied in common situations that confront learners. Gagne- sug-
gests asking a question, telling a story related to the program objectives
that draws upon the personal experience of the learners, or describing
a typical problem that the information presented during the in-service
will help solve. Another way to do this is to ask learners themselves
how they think they can apply the new information.
You can help ensure that information you’re providing to learners
is practical by doing a procedural task analysis.> There are two benefits
to this exercise. First, a complete description of individual steps plus
the correct sequence involved in task completion are easily discernible.
This data is invaluable for editing and fine-tuning program goals and

TEACHING TECHNIQUES
objectives. Second, important procedural tasks that might otherwise go
undiscovered are brought to light. For example, steps in decision mak-
ing that the competent practitioner uses to select or modify activities
are not overtly evident to the casual observer, yet playa vital role in
task completion.
Another characteristic of adult learners is that they prefer pro-
grams to focus on a single concept or theory.” This bias appears to
increase with age.
How Do Adults Learn?
Learners in general, and adults in particular, need to be able to
integrate new information into an existing framework of knowledge.
Information that is totally new – that is, information that does not
mesh with any of the learner’s previous knowledge or experience – is
assimilated very slowly.
Gagne makes two suggestions that may help. First, tell learn-
ers the program’s goals and objectives. Knowing the objectives helps
learners organize their thoughts and puts them in a better position to
understand why it’s important to learn the material. Second, remind
learners of what they already know. Doing this puts the new informa-
tion into perspective and provides “hooks” for attaching this material to
their existing knowledge framework.
In some educational circles, much is made about the presumed
dichotomy between pedagogy (child education) and andragogy (adult
educatioril.> Pedagogy is characterized by teacher-centered author-
ity and a formal organization of subject content. Common methods of
instruction include lectures, audiovisual materials and suggested readings.
Andragogy, on the other hand, emphasizes an informal, col-
laborative learning environment in which instructor and learner work
together to develop objectives and program content. Group discus-
sions, workshops and the case method are used to promote learning.
Andragogy often is advocated as the “better way” to teach adults. If
this is true, then it might seem that the andragogical model would have
important implications for in-service education. But applying andra-

INSTRUCTIONAL THEORY
gogy in real life has been problematic. Houle and Brookfield= explain
why: “There is a consistent overestimation of the adult learner’s
readiness to be self-directing …. [T]he more common reaction is one of
confusion, anxiety and often anger. Students will say, ‘We paid a high
price to come here and we want your expertise:”
Roelf, in a study cited by Cross.” reinforces this finding. Roelf
found that adult learners older than 30 were more likely to prefer peda-
gogical-based instruction. I observed this phenomenon at a national
educational conference. Attendees were well educated and held posi-
tions of responsibility at their sponsoring institutions, yet virtually all
conference sessions were based on pedagogical principles. Men and
women who routinely made life-and-death decisions sat quietly in their
seats, waiting to be told what they needed to know.
An exception was a session dealing with the application of pro-
gram planning. Thirty of us crowded into the closet-sized room. We
knew we were in trouble when the “facilitator” said, “This is going to
be your workshop. You are going to tell each other how to improve
program planning at your institution.” None of us had a clue about
how to go about this. If we had, we probably wouldn’t have come.
Our initial uneasiness quickly turned to anger. Most of us used the first
break as an opportunity to leave.
Does this mean andragogy doesn’t work? Not necessarily. Mal-
colm Knowles, the “father” of andragogy in the United States, always
maintained that the choice of a learning model (pedagogy vs. andrago-
gy) is situational, depending in part on subject matter and learner char-
acteristics. As Zemke+ observes, “Adults have something real to lose in
a classroom situation. Self-esteem and ego are on the line when they
are asked to risk trying a new behavior in front of peers and cohorts.”
The lesson for instructional designers is clear:
• Provide enough information for learners to begin to compre-
hend and synthesize material.
• Involve your learners by letting them draw upon their collec-
tive experiences.
• But don’t put them on the spot.

TEACHING TECHNIQUES
Why Do Adults Learn?
Research shows that adults generally will seek out learning expe-
riences when some life-changing event occurs, producing what educa-
tors call a “teachable moment.” In professional life, this teachable
moment often coincides with a job change or promotion. Closely tied
to this is the fact that adults are most prone to learn when some imme-
diate benefit can be demonstrated to them, not because learning is seen
as its own reward.
Also, there is strong evidence that an important, although sec-
ondary, reason adults attend educational programs is to increase
self-esteem. Employees should be recognized for their willingness to
increase their knowledge. You might, for example, ask them to present
what they learned to a group or to implement a new procedure based
on what they learned.
Summing It Up
In practical terms, planners who design in-service programs for
adult learners should:
• Take advantage of “teachable moments” by scheduling their in-
service programs as close as possible to changes in job duties.
• Arrange programs to meet the expressed needs of the learners
whenever possible.
• Use task analysis to clearly define the in-service program’s
goals and objectives.
• Tell learners the purpose and objectives of the program before
you start.
• Emphasize a “how-to-do-it” practical approach.
• Demonstrate how the information can be applied.
• Focus on single issues within a given program.
• Remind learners of what they already know about the subject.
• Use a blend of pedagogical and andragogical methods to teach
and involve learners.
• Give learners time to sort things out and ask questions.
• Reward participation in in-service programs.

INSTRUCTIONAL THEORY
Running an in-service program is not easy. Program content
often is mandated by administration or accrediting agencies. But by
using these basic principles of adult education, you can plan and orga-
nize your programs to help your learners get the facts they need back
on the job.
References
l. Cross KP. Why adults participate – and why not. Adults as
Leamers. San Francisco, Calif: Josey-Bass Publisher; 1982:9l.
2. Gagne RM. The Conditions of Leaming. 2nd ed. New York, NY:
Holt, Rhinehart and Winston; 1970:304.
3. Gagne RM, Briggs U, Wager ww. Principles of Instructional
Design. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston;
1988:143.
4. Zemke R, Zemke S. 30 things we know for sure about adult learn-
ing. Training/HRD. June 1981:46-52.
5. Davenport J, Davenport JH. Andragogical-pedagogicalorientations
of adult learners: research results and practice recommendations.
Lifelong Leaming. 1985;9(1) :6.
6. Feuer D, Geber B. Uh-oh … second thoughts about adult learning
theory. Training. December 1988:33.
7. Cross KP. Who participates in adult learning. Adults as Leamers.
San Francisco, Calif: Josey-Bass Publisher; 1982:70.
By Stephen F. Hulse, M.Ed., Rl(R)
Originally published in Val. 62, No.3

I would like to share with you the presentation of Dr. Barnett regarding the importance of technology in our schools. Here is the link; please share this presentation to all teachers and educators you know.

http://www.portical.org/Presentations/Barnett/happen/22938/index.html

Arman “Dr. D” Demesa, Ph.D.

ademesa@cox.net

Welcome to WordPress and to International Symposium of Scholar Practitionersin Technology Education. This is our collaboration area after we complete our EDX1201X course. Let us continue our online dialogue to keep ourselves well informed about the on going technology and innovation being developed from various countries around the globe.

I am wishing of all of you the best on your future endeavors.

Arman “Dr. D” Demesa, Ph.D.

ademesa@cox.net