The Salem Witches of ID OR Cancel culture has arrived in Instructional Design
Photo by Erica Marsland Huynh on Unsplash
What do the Salem witch trials and woke cancel culture have in common?
Both established rogue thoughts as truth.
I'm sorry to report that over the past few months, cancel culture has arrived in Instructional Design.
Personally, I've seen "Andragogy" and "Brain-Based Learning" attacked and discarded on public LinkedIn posts, threads, and some blog posts. I'll be collecting them here below as I find them. However, if there get to be too many (and already collecting these was depressing and exhausting. In one case there were 30 replies and that was not even to me!) I'll stop collecting.
It is as if a newer ID hears of brain-based learning, says to
themselves "huh, where else is learning supposed to happen?" and then
calls brain-based learning stupid because of the name.
I've tried to point out that what's happening is that less educated Instructional Designers are approaching these concepts as words only or with very little in-depth research and are tossing out the concept entirely.
In
the case of Andragogy, I tried defending it. It's an established
section of education with a depth of history of more than 50 years (in
popular Education studies, longer in lexicon). Attacking it, to me, is
the equivalent of attacking Black History. Why would you do this? It
makes no sense. The arguments against andragogy always seem to equate little children with adults.
For example:
- According to andragogy, adults want to know why.
- My child asks why.
- When doing so, my child behaves as an adult.
- My child is not an adult.
- Therefore, andragogy does not exist.
It's tough out there. Note in this first example, the author is the post is ALSO the author of the article hosting place called The Learning Scientists--- which is a point that I make; that the OP is putting on a aura of authority that is, perhaps, inappropriately authoritative to the audience. Said another way, readers might not understand that the writing, all inclusive here, was opinion.
Andragogy
~May 1, 2022
Pedagogy vs. Andragogy: What's The Difference, from The Learning Scientists:
Follow up discussion, in part, on LinkedIn (I'm going to copy and paste and anonymize, except for me. All spelling in situ):
Heather (first to comment):
Oo. Downvote. 👎 First of all, opinion based. Second, approaching from the place where I see most criticisms of andragogy launch from: that children are "little adults" as in children can be found to have some of the characteristics of adults some of the time. I don't find that to be a strong argument.
Larry:
Huh? Did you read the article? Sources are referenced and the "little adult" argument isn't even related to what is discussed here. Knowles talks about five ways pedagogy differs from andragogy, and this article addresses those five areas, often describing the adult novice mind being more like a child's mind, not vice versa. Your response is a passion plea, not a rebuttal.
Heather:
Larry, I
did read the article. The sources are referenced, but not cited. There
is a difference. I would also point out that the author writes "here’s
my analysis" so I believe it is clear that they are not aiming for solid
academic writing. Some of the sources appear to show that methods that
work for adults work for children. Hooray! Cheers all around! That's
great for learning! But it does not support the author's point.
I
disagree with your characterization of Knowles - and that is not the
topic of my post which was pointed to the Learning Scientists post. I
feel andragogy addresses the differences for adult learners. Your
response to me is interesting. I'm intrigued. Would you prefer if this
article by the Learning Scientists was entitled "Treat Adults Like
Second Graders"? That's the vice versa.
[Since this is my blog, I can show you that writing right here!]
Byron:
Heather, I
think the issue is this - if there are distinct differences, they are
not those that Kniwles identified generations ago. Like all science,
we’ve learned differently. Your quip regarding treating adults as 2nd
graders actually needs to be flipped, in regards to learning. Knowles
was not addressing cognitive science, rather behaviorist approaches that
we have found to be less effective since his version of differentiated
constructivism was unleashed upon the world. And it’s not that adult
learning theory is wrong, we just need to remove the term “adult”. Now,
perhaps with our very youngest learners, it’s less applicable, but two
decades of working with learners of literally all ages indicates
otherwise.
One only needs to look at a child’s favorite and most
annoying question to begin debunking the notion that adults have
inherently different motivations and practices for learning. Knowles,
like learning styles, will soon join Hercules and Odin in the annals of
history.
Larry:
Heather, I
didn't make any characterization of Knowles, so I'm not sure what you
think you're disagreeing with. I did reference Knowles distinctions
between andragogy and pedagogy discussed in the article. If you think
his assumptions are correct, how about you address the five areas
contrasted instead of introducing unrelated (and also outdated, btw)
criticism of 1960s era behavioral approaches - that's what the "little
adults" argument actually refers to. This article disputes Knowles
assumptions, and even Knowles admits they are his ideas/opinions, not
scientific fact.
From the article: Educators should know their
learners, make content relevant to those individuals, give them choice
in the learning process, and build on their prior knowledge – whether
they are novices or experts in the domain at hand. These principles are
true for learners of any age.
Since you seem entrenched in the
idea that Knowles' theory is somehow supported by peer-reviewed
scientific data, show us the data. Dispute the argument at hand, not the
one you're trying to assign to the article.
Heather:
Larry, My initial post was my response. For your other request, it does not seem sincere. Therefore, I care not.
Larry:
Heather, your
post is a position not reflective of the argument presented in the
article. It's a red herring. Your questioning of my sincerity is
deflection. The irony is, your initial post is your own opinion not
backed by data disparaging someone else's opinion because they are
referencing but not directly citing peer-reviewed studies, which I find
kind of hilarious.
Larry's independent comment (no replies)
Since
I first heard of Knowles, his main premise didn't sit well with me. It
seemed very disrespectful to children and how particularly Americans
prefer to educate their children. How we think changes across the
lifespan and one of the greatest disservices we do to children is assume
they are naive, when in fact they may simply have different experiences
and therefore different world views. Like any other person. To assume
someone "knows nothing" because they are young is ageism and just says
to me you didn't allow them space to make themselves understood.
Byron's independent comment (no replies)
Thank you! I’ve been screaming this from the mountain tops for years.
Charlie's independent comment:
Yes! 👏👏 👏 Andragogy is flat earth theory for learning professionals! It's amazing how we in society have come to think that a human fundamentally evolves as soon as we hit 18 where we don't need to engage the 5 senses in learning or that we didn't need hand's on, why based learning in grade school. Our basic humanity does not change. The only things that happen as we age beyond childhood are that some of us acquire the skill to extract meaning from a single mode of communication, and that we bootstrap ourselves as we build on prior experiences. But this does not mean we don't need multiple modes of representation and involvement to learn at our best. LOL!
Byron:
😂 “Flat earth theory for learning professionals.” Can I steal this?
Charlie:
Bryon, Absolutely!
Heather:
You shame yourself.
Charlie:
Would love to hear a counter-argument. I'm game! How about it?
Amelia's independent comment:
Basing
this opinion only on the premise of Knowles’ theory of adult education
versus pedagogy is where I find fault with the above claim. I agree with
most of the points made but still wouldn’t make the above statement
that there’s no real difference true. And I know, like most essays or
journalistic styles usually a quick duality rather than in-depth
analysis of approach. And that analysis is much too long for a comment
in a thread but there are differences in approach, levels of learning,
desired outcomes—learning isn’t apples to apples and why most
instructional frameworks start with analysis.
Byron:
Fair,
but plenty of neuro-research illustrates that the brain doesn’t change
the way it processes information. The only glaring ageist difference is
in executive function, so concepts like motivation, task orientation,
and other self regulatory matters, but in my experience (nearly 2
decades extensively with ages 12 - 70), there is very, very little
difference to approach. The desired learning outcomes are the same.
The approaches and methodologies that produce results are the same. As
you’ve noted, there is too much for a single comment, but I could on for
hours on this topic.
Amelia:
Byron, do you have experience in early childhood education?
The
reason I ask is because I think having a great grasp of pedagogy makes
for a well-versed adult educator. Especially now with more progressive
views on teaching critical thinking and lifelong application. Those I
know who have focused their careers on adult education usually have a
tougher transition—not saying it’s impossible—to pedagogy. That’s the
shortest and probably crassest example of why I don’t think they’re
equal.
Heather:
Byron: Some
definitions of "adult" begin with puberty or first experience of sex
which in Western countries happens before age 12. Just be aware that
claiming you don't see much differences in ages 12-70...isn't saying
much. 😁
Byron:
Heather, Fair,
but then that’s the whole flaw with the Knowles model. At what point
do we start this differentiation? And I’ve also done my fair share of
work with pre-adolescents. Still not much difference, including with my
own sons.
Amelia, yes, though most of mine is at the secondary level
Amelia:
World of difference in development throughout those years from preschool to middle school!
Byron:
Amelia, but
is this because of a difference in learning, or how learning develops?
Or is it behavioral in nature? I’d argue the latter.
Heather:
Bryon, Indeed,
defining an adult is an exercise done in the first couple of days of an
adult education course. Usually it starts at at something like
"independent, pays own bills"/perhaps post-college and works its way
backwards through drinking, voting, driving, to sex/puberty. I haven't
seen any arguments younger than puberty that claim "adultness" (i.e. an
awareness that some actions lead to death--sometimes religions use that
as a pre-baptism signal?).
I don't think Knowles was concerned with
the difference between 11 years & 364 days old and 12--- I suspect
he was more concerned with age 7 and age 35 but then again, I'm not him.
Betty:
Amelia, I would argue that the littles are more like the adults following this model.
They need to know why. They will ask why for everything.
They need choice or the illusion of choice (breakfast or get dressed first).
They need to be apply the information immediately. The idea of learning now to pass a test isn't there for 6 year olds.
They need hands on experiences more than listening to a teacher blab on and on.
They
are motivated by their own desire to learn about a topic. For example,
many kids love to learn about animals and will learn a ton. Again, the
concept of learning because the teacher says they have to doesn't
develop until they are a little older.
Amelia:
Betty, if I’m reading you correctly—you’re bringing up an argument about
motivation and yes, we hope at any age to instill curiousity and
passion for learning. My argument initially was about learning design
and how that looks different depending on age, situation, context— a
child may need more teacher-led guidance than an adult. (One example)
Byron:
Amelia, understood,
and I’m not suggesting that there is no difference from age 2 to 20.
And I’m well versed in childhood psych. But if Knowles was solely
speaking to early childhood learning, why call this “adult” learning
theory?
Betty, and even then, it’s behavioral conditioning that breeds such compliance, not their innate nature.
Amelia,
Betty, As
for the last part, the teacher says they has to begins as early as
preschool—lots of standardization in development an example of such test
is Brigance.
Bryon, I’m
not exactly sure I understand your question. The premise Im arguing to
is there being no real difference between pedagogy and adult learning.
As Heather mentioned above, that’s likely where the comparison came from
something like age 7 vs 35.
Larry:
Amelia, your
argument is too broad. Obviously there are developmental differences
across the lifespan. Motor development and cognitive development that
occur across the lifespan may impact the learner's ability to produce a
response, but that is definitely not a continuum in terms of learning.
Because of motor and cognitive development, some domains are easier to
learn at certain earlier points in life, like language acquisition and
highly technical athletic skills like gymnastics and figure skating. But
that has NOTHING to do with Knowles' five defined areas where child
learning differs from adult learning. What the article argues, and what I
would argue as a life-ling learner and having worked as a learning
scientist, a teacher, a trainer (of humans, other animals, and even
plants), and an athletic conditioning coach over the past 40 years, is
that there is NO DIFFERENCE in those specific five areas, regardless of
who you're training.
From the article:
Educators should know
their learners, make content relevant to those individuals, give them
choice in the learning process, and build on their prior knowledge –
whether they are novices or experts in the domain at hand. These
principles are true for learners of any age.
Bryon:
Heather, Perhaps,
and arguably likely, but even then the differences aren’t marked enough
to warrant an entire theory dedicated to differentiating how people
learn. I suppose that’s my platform statement on the matter? And I’m
not suggesting that a 1 year olds learning needs are the same as a 30
year olds, assuming the ages I previously selected weren’t disparate
enough to illustrate my point. But even still - HOW they learn isn’t
really different. We can argue that adult motivations differ - get a
job, pay the bills, etc - but only in their context. The mitivation for
learning falls under the larger umbrella of self-improvement, so
perhaps telling an adult “you need this to succeed at your job” is a
context-specific motivational line. But even with that, teachers and
parents alike use similar motivational lines with kids - “it’s your job”
or “you need this to get a job.” Immediacy of need might differ, but
it’s all the same stuff. Knowles wasn’t talking Piaget, he was
addressing behavioral norms, but behavioral norms are environmental
contexts for learning, not HOW we learn. Sorry, I’m clearly too
passionate about this topic.
Larry, exactly.
Piaget and other early psych researchers developed frameworks for
development, but Knowles is addressing something much different in
entirely too broad terms.
Betty:
Amelia, I'm not sure I'm understanding.
I know that my students in math need more teacher guidance than
history. Or my math intervention students need a different curriculum
than the core classes. Or my students need more guidance with a math
concept on day 1 than day 3. Or my students in August need more guidance
on classroom expectations than they do in June. Or my students with
learning disabilities need supports my other students do not. My
advanced students need ways to challenge themselves. My 6th graders
needed more guidance than my 11th graders do. Teaching is full of those
nuances. It's one reason teachers are constantly making decisions...we
are always adjusting our teaching based on student need.
But the general principles stay the same.
Amelia:
Larry, Hmm…we’re
actually not disagreeing if you look at my comment again. “Basing this
opinion only on the premise of Knowles’ theory of adult education versus
pedagogy is where I find fault with the above claim. I agree with most
of the points made but still wouldn’t make the above statement that
there’s no real difference true.”
So yes, based on the five points made in the this post alone, I agree.
Larry, Also,
another point—pedagogy to adult education works—not necessarily the
other way around. I know it was a long thread but I stand by it. Don’t
actually see an argument against what I said. Thanks for weighing in
though and happy to always discuss these nuances!
Amelia,
Bryon, hahaha—I was waiting for this. We circle back and agree.
Larry:
Amelia, yes,
that's what I'm trying to point out. You want to extend the discussion
beyond what was presented as the argument, which was the validity of
Knowles theory of andragogy. Can't criticize an argument that wasn't
made. No one was arguing that there aren't developmental differences
between adults and children. But there is no difference in terms of
learning theory, as your "pedagogy to adult learning works" comment
seems to suggest. That's just a difference between whether you prefer a
sage on the stage directive approach or a guide on the side
constructivist approach. Whether you see your learners as empty vessels
require you to tell them what they need to know and learn versus a more
self-directed approach.
Amelia:
Larry, Oh
I’m sorry, I was just going by what you wrote…my argument is “too
broad”. Im happy to concede I introduced a new argument! And since we’re
commenting and not talking irl, you’ll have to excuse the specifics.
Larry:
Amelia, what
I wrote was what you finally conceded to. So I don't get why you felt
the need to add "I'm sorry, I was just going by what you wrote" unless
it's your way of acknowledging that you misunderstood what I was saying,
which is evident.
Amelia:
Larry: - Funny, I feel the same way which generally happens on these threads.
I also feel like by your responses you’re reading into some tone that really doesn’t exist on my end.
This
whole situation reminds me of one time, a team I was on went down a
rabbit hole about a thing we were working on…after about an hour one
team member threw up his hands and said with a huge eyeroll, “CMON
GUYS…pedagogy doesn’t exist!”
Hope you have a good weekend, Linda.
Larry:
Amelia, it's
fine to misunderstand other people. It's not fine to attribute
something to them which is in fact your own perception. Any "tone"
you're feeling is all you. Don Miguel Ruiz's Agreement #2.
Amelia:
Larry, This
conversation has moved way beyond a discussion about ideas to a place
of ego. Im no longer interested in engaging with you in this space. Im
way more than happy to admit I misunderstand things, make mistakes, and
not be the smartest person in the room (gross!). I’ve tried numerous
times to talk to you but I’m not being extended the same courtesy. Time
for me to bow out.
Larry:
Amelia:you
seem offended. Given that, I'm not sure why you are continuing to
engage me. Sorry you are choosing to view my words so negatively.
Betty: exactly.
Great job addressing why there is no difference between pedagogy and
andragogy by directly showing that children need the same along the five
tenets Knowles described as being specific to adults only. Literally
what Knowles is describing is the difference between direct instruction
and constructivism. It's a bit concerning to see so many people who
identify as learning professionals have so loose a grasp on these
concepts. The vitriol I've received from some folks on this thread just
goes to show how entrenched some learning folks are in their own dogma.
On this post, I'm stopping copying here. There were many more replies of support for the original post (so support that pedagogy does not exist). Sad.
Brain-based Learning
July 1, 2022
Early May 2022 LinkedIn Post:
Help me out! I’m working
on an article on learner engagement and I have a fundamental question…
What is “brain-based” learning exactly? Beyond rhetorics, videos, and
theoretical blogs (mostly about cog psych)… Have you ever
tried/implemented “brain-based” learning? What exacltly did you do? With
what performance results?
Thanks so much!!
Mike:
Doesn’t all learning happen in the brain?
Patti:
Ever touched a hot stove?? 😀
Mike:
Patti, I do that all the time. Just a few days ago I burnt my knuckles while turning over food with my hands while it was in the oven.
Bob:
Mike, If you cut your fingers off you will forget all about it ;)
Cathy:
This
may be a side bar but, there is research that suggest our entire
nervous system can “learn”, not just in our brain. I enjoyed reading The
Embodied Mind by Thomas Verdy. Brain-based can refer to cognitive
process or somatic pathways (such as developmental reflexes and
patterning in humans)
[A rare, positive, and correct response!]
Pirate (interesting name, so I kept it):
Saying
"brain-based" learning is like saying mouth-based eating or leg-based
walking..that's the first issue . Every scientist that I know and work
with will roll their eyes at that. It's a marketing term.
There
is a direct value from what we learn about the function of the brain
from neuroscience/cognitive neuroscience and how that can be translated
into the practice of learning and learning design. That being said, it
takes a high degree of understanding to know how to appropriately put
this into practice for it to be effective
When we blend the
underlying function of the brain with method/theory it can be quite
remarkable what we can do and the results that one can achieve, but it's
a much greater conversation than what I can get into in a response
here. You're always welcome to reach out :)
Making
sure the correct information is being shared is incredibly important to
maintaining credibility when it comes to science, humans, and learning
and I appreciate your curiosity! YARR!!
[Oo, looks who's back. OP from above poking head in.]
It's bollocks, that's what it is. https://3starlearningexperiences.wordpress.com/2019/09/24/brain-based-bullocks/
Once again, stopping on the copying here, there is just too much.
Brain-based Learning is actually a well established learning theory. I'll refer to a separate blog post on that.
I fear that different areas of Education are coming up next: Gender-based studies? What about the contributions of Indigenous Peoples to Science or Health/Medicine Education?
Bear in mind that I don't mind "Thinking better when the time comes"-- oh yes, I'm all for that. I don't think we should cling to old ideas for old ideas sake. For example, humans had 'slavery for blacks' for a long time. Now we don't. I think getting rid of slavery was a very good new idea.
But what's happening with this cancel culture is that someone somewhere suddenly thinks that something is dumb, stupid, outdated, or wrong and then they want everyone to discard it. These are established parts of our academy of knowledge. The time for testing and weighing ideas is when they are new, not when they are old. Said another way...just because you do not understand it, does not mean that you can toss it out. And a LACK OF WILLINGNESS to understand does not get out out of the problem (ignorance).