The Power of Practical Andragogues

Andrew Creed, Lecturer, Bowater School of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business and Law, P.O. Box 423, Deakin University, Warrnambool, 3280. Email: acreed@deakin.edu.au

Abstract

In the tertiary education environment, educators might assume or suggest they should have the most significant influence over the way andragogical theory is translated into online education products. The continuing growth of online education indicates a need to be sure we understand who really does have the greatest influence in this area. This paper introduces a model of the broader development process of online learning resources and the ways educators, learners and resource developers interact in the process. It reveals a backbone of practical andragogy which is currently dominated by resource developers due to their central technological translational expertise. There are implications in this for learners, educators and contractors/financiers of online education products. Understanding the development process reveals at least one critical bearing point where few but the resource developers have andragogical input. This paper examines and analyses the educator-learner-developer triad through the lens of four case study organisations actively applying andragogy in the development of management learning resources in an online format.

Introduction

Educators have expectations about the way online resources should support student learning. Students of on line courses have needs that must be factored into resource development. Developers of on line resources affect andragogical mechanisms in the way a resource development brief is implemented. There are inevitable compromises between what students need, what teachers expect and what developers are capable of. This tension is heightened when added to the increasing pressure in tertiary education to deliver expanded online services with more value at lower costs. (Alavi et al., 1997)

This paper examines and analyses the educator-learner-developer triad through a study of case study organisations actively applying andragogy in the development of management learning resources in an online format.
The focus is on andragogy as the core issue and the resultant strategic decisions that must be taken in development.

Andragogy Defined

This paper distinguishes between theoretical andragogy as a field of thought about the best ways to generate learner-focused learning, and practical andragogy, which deals with making a learning tool come to life in a tangible learning resource. Practical andragogy is related to the process of translating a learning theory into a product to assist learning. Practical andragogues oversee the translational process and significantly influence the end product.

The Research

The author studied and participated in key elements of production processes during 2001-2004 with three organisations engaged in online resource development in Australia and one in the USA. Each industry study provides its own perspective and contributes to the integrated model developed for this paper.

The methods of engagement with each of the case study organisations are summarised here:

* Observation refers to the maxim, “Watch, listen, ask, record.” (Radnor, 2002)

On this basis, we may limit our conclusions to the extent of management education resources, however, it would seem reasonable to extrapolate to other tertiary disciplines in further investigations.

Further, the limitations of bias that might be directed to an interpretive study of one organisation or project may be limited in this instance by the observation of four cases dispersed widely geographically and culturally. In any case, the selection of an interpretive approach is appropriate for the development of a complex, wholistic model with a pragmatic context.

In this light, the models and conclusions drawn from this study are proposed as snapshots of current industry practice. This is especially significant in the context of the continuing paradigm shift in information media that impacts so heavily on educational publishers, and on the way research in the industry must be conducted. (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000)

Critical Observations

Before proceeding to the core model of the paper, here is a list of critical observations drawn from the three year participant observation of the educational publishing industry. These observations are indicators of foundational interpretive outcomes driving the development of the model.

• The technologist can hold a position of power
  
• The original development brief can be significantly reinterpreted and renegotiated
  
• Financiers/contractors often do not have a clear, practical conception of the expected final product
  
• Financiers/contractors often expect creative interpretation to be undertaken by resource developers
  
• Educators may not always understand the technological implications of design requests
  
• Educators may not appreciate the creative imperative provided to technologists by financier/contractors
  
• Educational theory is often developed out of the paradigm created by the printing press and not that of the networked electronic media
  
• Applications of educational theory in the online environment are driven more today than previously by the technologists due to the newness of the networked media paradigm
  

The Model

Figure 1 is a representation of the online resource publishing process with emphasis on the cycles of development as a tool for quality production. It was developed by the author as a conceptual tool during project coordination with TRENDS at South West Institute of TAFE. The process is viewed predominantly from the developer perspective taking account of the needs and constraints of technical publishers. It is important to think about the publishing process of online resources because there are implications to discuss for educational theory and practice.

Figure 1

Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the specialised nature of resource development. Within the cycles of edit activity an education product must be created in accordance with the development brief. The andragogical theories and suggestions of educators have to survive the editing process. It becomes important then to understand the flow of andragogical input from beginning to end of the development cycle.

Following on, Figure 2 proposes a model of andragogical influence on the resource development process. It shows the triad of conceptual input from teachers, learners and resource developers. It is proposed a backbone of practical andragogical influence stems from the developers. Their position as technical and publishing experts tends to impose on the process to a greater extent than with print resources. This is especially true at the critical bearing point illustrated in the model.

Similarly to modern motor vehicles requiring high engineering levels to the exclusion of most amateur manufacturers, on line resources require higher expertise levels, which naturally impacts on the extent of input non publishing specialists can have during the latter stages of the development process.

Figure 2

** There is an overarching policy and review role for financiers of resource development and for industry reference groups (if used) at every stage.

In summary, this model traces the same pathway as Figure 1 but showing the broader influences on the development brief, the review process and the centralised role of developers as the premise proposed in this paper. Next is analysis of the features of Figure 2.

Key Features

Development brief

The brief is the development contract. It is determined with necessary input from learners and educators, but is driven mainly by the needs, expectations and policies of the funding and contracting entities against the backdrop of a range of defining conditions.

Defining conditions

A resource development brief is constructed in a climate of conditions which affect the scope and depth of the final instructions. Aside from the overarching goals and policies of financiers/contractors, account must also be made of economic conditions, current social issues, technological factors, industrial influences and norms, political realities, cultural influences and limitations, and the requirements of history or tradition in the field. Instances of each include:

• Economic: Consideration of the budget of the financier and the likelihood of further funding from the same or other sources for the same or other projects.
  
• Social: Ensuring current taboos are avoided and prevailing social preferences are built into the design of the learning resource at the level of the brief.
  
• Technological: Acknowledgement of capabilities and limitations of current technology in the development brief.
  
• Industrial: Recognition of the practices, expectations and limitations imposed by the industry for which the learning resource is being generated.
  
• Political: Recognition of the particular needs and objectives of all the parties that will be affected in the development of the resource. This may include financiers, educators, policy-makers, learners, developers, writers, artists and technologists.
  
• Cultural: Consideration of the cultural expectations, traditions and mechanisms that should be responded to in the building of a learning resource.
  
• Historical: Retention of context in the brief in relation to achievements and capabilities of the past. Notice the model allows for the brief to be informed by feedback from previous editions of the education product. Obviously, in the case of a brand new product, there is only historical reference to similar products that can inform the brief.

Education product

The product is the end result of the development process as defined by the brief. Note that, especially for on line resources, the feedback loop for subsequent editions remains open, and there is an argument that the immediacy of the online environment necessitates more frequent review and revision. Of course, available finance will determine the extent of revisions.

Theoretical andragogical input

A conceptual framework for the learning resource must be built into the development brief. The brief strongly determines the andragogical nature of the finished product. Input from educator and learner at the stage of refining the brief is most critical for ensuring currency and relevance of andragogy. Too great a reliance on historical development, economic issues, or any of the other defining conditions, can lead to poorly developed andragogy, which means a product of little value to the ultimate audience - educators and learners.

There is a limit to the active role of theoretical andragogy once resource developers commence their work, therefore, it is important to have the theoretical framework well defined in the brief. Developers necessarily adapt technology and capabilities in the absence of clear directions, which facilitates production but may lead to abstraction of original andragogical intention.

Backbone of practical andragogy

A conclusion of this research project is practical andragogy is a kind of translational practice employed by resource developers during interpretation of the brief and production of the resource.

This leaves the developers in a particularly influential place in the development process. They become a backbone in the process. Increasing technological sophistication in the online field is increasing the specialist role of developers. Online technology has the effect of integrating andragogy and resource presentation and interaction in far shorter time frames, and with more multi-layered effects, than any print resource.

The sequential nature of print allowed educators of the past to take a leading role in design and presentation of andragogy. The new complexity of the online experience has now brought specialist developers to a more central position. This might suggest an ongoing need to train developers in educational theory, or train educators in design technology, or both.

Critical bearing point

The critical role of resource developers is magnified when you consider, once all review stages are completed, there is no further input from educators or learners until the education product is rendered. This position of effective monopoly in the development process is the critical bearing point. It is here that, in the absence of advice or direction from external sources, the developer is somewhat free to interpret, decide and implement andragogical practice or device. This may be contrary to the spirit of the brief, if it is not clearly enough defined, but such license may be exercised in the following cases:

• In order to cater for a technological limitation
  
• In response to a directive from financiers
  
• The opportunity to test a recently released technology
  
• The desire to impose an artistic style
  
• Lack of management control/reference to the requirements of the brief.
  
• Too long spent between the last external review and rendering of the final product, opening the way for developer reinterpretation of requirements.

Instances of taking such license in the critical bearing point of the resource development process are relatively common in the resource development industry and are the focus of quality assurance initiatives with varying degrees of success. Educators and financiers simply need to be aware of this critical bearing point in the development process and expect to deal with issues arising from it.

Review input points

Educators and learners typically have opportunities to participate in practical andragogy during review stages. Quality control generally requires external and internal review of resources in development. Figure 2 depicts three practical andragogical review input points during development. Industry practice does vary depending on time and budget constraints. The review input points shown in Figure 2 effectively represent three turns of the drafting cycle depicted in Figure 1.

Revised edition feedback loop

Online resources tend to require more frequent maintenance and revision than many print resources. Of course, the brief defines the extent of any ongoing maintenance contract. In the event of a whole new edition a new brief will be presented. The feedback loop is included in the model to show the direct influence previous products have on the development brief. Any developer-initiated changes to andragogy from the first edition can find their way into revised editions unless the new development brief is specific enough to exclude or revise them. Of course, the point is the original reinterpretation may repeat itself if the same factor that initiated it in the first round is repeated. Diligence by andragogical theorists is needed to ensure a pure interpretation is developed in any edition.

Financiers and reference groups

The overarching influence of financiers is recognised in this model, but not as a core driver of andragogy. Similarly, most development briefs include the mechanism of an industry reference group, which is fine for quality control in the sense of keeping up with the latest industry issues and factors, but also does not centrally affect andragogy.

In practice, financiers and industry reference groups appear to engage the attention of educators and developers as part of the defining conditions that feed the brief, commonly industrial, political and economic factors. The review input points allow for reference group input but usually to provide industry rather than andragogical perspective.

One interesting facet is the critical bearing point is devoid of andragogical influence from educators or learners, but remains open to certain, conditional changes by financiers in particular and, sometimes, reference groups. The longer the time spent in this critical stage, the greater the chances of such influence affecting the features of the education product. So there may be indirect effects on practical andragogy in the critical bearing point from these influences. Further study of this phenomenon may be indicated.

The Educator Perspective

Education is a role assumed for a purpose. The purpose in the mind of the educator helps determine the style of educating along a continuum. At one extreme is the educator as an end point, where the learner is encouraged to view the educator as the final authority in all learning sequences. At the other end is the educator as a hub, not assuming expertise, but being there primarily to connect the learner with further information. This is especially apparent in educating in a practical industry like management, but the central tenet merges with most disciplines of education. (Garvin, 2000)

Figure 3 The educating continuum

Online resources can assist an educator in their role at any point along the continuum. This correlates to an extent with the continuum in the educational debate between constructivism and designed instruction. (Tam, 2000)

For example, online journal articles are valuable for learners. The constructivist educator, who is more likely to assume the role of the hub, may suggest to the student to go and find a journal article to support a particular topic or argument. The mild constructivist might suggest a probable source. The extreme constructivist will not. Their goal is to have students construct their own search and analysis thereby becoming masters of the topic through their own endeavours. In the spirit of good andragogy, they are pointing learners to their learning, not handing it directly to them. (Jonassen, 1996)

Instructional designers are more likely to see their role as an end point in the learner’s education. This is fundamentally pedagogical. If a journal article is required for reference in study, the direction to it will be specific, it may be supplied directly to the learner. At the extreme it may be authored by the educator themselves as the ultimate authority on the topic.

Each point on the continuum it may be argued has a place in education depending upon the style and preferences of the educator, of the learner, and, of course, the nature of the learning topic. In addition, the availability and type of resources will affect which point on the continuum the educator positions themselves.

Another recurring theme in tertiary education is the paucity of time, if not other resources, for educational practitioners to engage in the kind of strategic andragogical analysis that contributes to development of high quality on line learning resources. So, a constructivist/hub educator needing a website created to provide links for many different sources of information is equally short of resources to achieve this goal as is an end point educator needing their latest journal article formatted for online publishing.

The purpose of this paper is not to stake a position in the debate between constructivists and instructional designers, but to posit the constraints that either proponent inevitably encounters in the production of all kinds of online learning resources, for whatever educational purpose. The issue being that the critical bearing point of the model holds the potential to transmute andragogical theory into practical andragogy as interpreted mostly by resource developers rather than educators.

The Learner Perspective

The needs of the learner necessarily inform resource development imperatives for both teachers and resource developers. Apart from extreme constructivist contexts, where learners may be encouraged to create or source their own materials, the requests and perspectives students provide generally guide what educators and developers need at the brief, and at review input points.

In the same counterintuitive way as with educators, learners are restricted at the critical bearing point from actively contributing to practical andragogy in the finished educational resource (product). This is not to say learner input in the revised edition feedback loop, and in scheduled review input points, is not implemented. Developers simply dominate the critical bearing point toward the end of the process, where the imperative is on production schedules, technology capabilities, management directives, and other resource limitations, which can tend to drive learner preferences down the priority list. There are instances where andragogical feedback from learners is heeded and a solution found, but time, budget, and other resource constraints in the critical bearing point can prevent the implementation.

The Developer Perspective

The developer is the technologist in resource production. Online resources are derivative of sophisticated information technology and to be deployed effectively need to be administered by people with commensurate skills.

This places the developer at the centre of the model. They become, in effect, a backbone to carry the resource through to final production. As the model in Figure 2 demonstrates, there is some input from teachers, learners and other influences but, at all times, especially the final stages, the developer holds court over what may or may not be created, how it shall be formatted, and how other technical specifications may be incorporated..

This is a position of power in a sense, but one essentially requiring good andragogical awareness. Educators who have seen this shift in expertise toward technological specialists have engaged variously in retraining and upskilling in the arts of online production. Conversely, resource developers who feel compelled to better serve the needs of learners and educators have sought training in philosophies and practices of education, however, there remain limitations on the convergence of the educator and the technologist.

This leads to inevitable compromises between what students need, what educators want and what developers are capable of. Where the developer cannot conform to student and teacher requirements, they must implement a compromise which, in the context of rushed production deadlines, must still include good andragogy, or else the resource will be ineffective for its purpose.

The Accessibility Factor

The momentum of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C: http://www.w3.org/) and the issue of accessibility in online resources further drives the developer to the centre of the andragogical process. (Pasini and Rehak, 2002) In each organisation studied for this paper the impact of accessibility issues on technological capability was palpable. Driven at least by organisational policy and often by legislation, accessibility simply has to be built into online education products. However, this requirement can alter practical andragogical features.

For example, educators can suggest quite reasonable andragogical activities for translation into the online environment which, due to accessibility problems have to be reworked by the developers to become practical. Changing the structure of an educational activity often changes its andragogical emphasis. Educators remain limited in their ability to rework an activity in the online environment due to technological training limitations. For example, online matching exercises, where learners are asked to drag and drop a synonymous item are a common request from educators, but there can be some technical challenges to make these accessible to all learners.

The critical bearing point in the process is where developers no longer have ready access to eductors for advice about the andragogical implications of changes made to accommodate accessibility requirements. Since many accessibility problems arise in the usability testing phases, some necessarily late in the development process, the developer remains in the central position having to make critical decisions about technological solutions that determine the andragogical nature of the final product.

Application of the model

The growth in online education initiatives at the tertiary levels shows few signs of abating. Very few universities remain with no online component in their courses. Even institutions with a long standing online presence are choosing to revise or add learning resources. If they are not building, they are renovating. (Harrison, 2004)

Coal face educators need to be aware of the limitations of practical andragogy when they are called upon to contribute to resource development and redevelopment. Awareness of the backbone of practical andragogy and the critical bearing point, in particular, can minimise the surprise factor when an educational product is produced which seems markedly different from expectations in regard to andragogical theory.

Financiers of educational products may be interested to understand the ways learner feedback inform development. The limitations on responsiveness to students needs may be counter to some of the rhetoric about online resources. The critical bearing point and the central role of developers as technologists place a natural barrier to real time responsiveness.

Reference group members, especially in the management or business disciplines, as practical exponents of the theories being taught, will benefit from knowing how their input can be limited to review input points and restricted at the critical bearing point.

Contractors and financiers may find it useful to understand the broader influences that feed the development brief, as well as to notice their implicit directive power at all stages of the development process. In the same way a mission statement or set of organisational values can set a tone in an organisation, the actions, statements and suggestions of contractors and financiers, (the latter more dominantly in commercial development situations), can determine changes, albeit indirectly, at the practical andragogical level. Most significantly this can happen at the critical bearing point to the exclusion of all other parties except the developers.

Resource developers, as practical andragogues, may silently agree they have the power to implement andragogical solutions to technical issues and problems, especially at the critical bearing point. The influence imposed by contractors and financiers appears to vary depending on the industry, the prescriptive (or otherwise) nature of the development brief, and the contractual and communicative mechanisms between the financiers, the contractors and the resource developers.

Education policy makers and managers may heed the implications of an increasingly pivotal technological function. Factors that may need adjustment in this context include:

• Technological skills of educators
  
• Educational skills of technologists
  
• The gap between andragogical theory and application
  
• Time developers spend in the critical bearing point.
  
• Clarity and specificity of the development brief

Conclusion

If there is an opinion amongst educators that they have the final say in how an online learning resource is structured from an andragogical viewpoint, this industry-based study of the resource development process may challenge it.

The backbone of practical angragogy is primarily composed of the resource developers with some theory and review input from educators and learners respectively. The critical bearing point just prior to publication of the online education product is primarily the developers’ domain. At the critical bearing point, even where sentiment might encourage developers to seek opinion from educators about the andragogical implications of technological solutions to development problems, time, procedural and resource constraints frequently prevent this.

In addition, increasing technological complexity of online learning resources and the search for refinement and efficiency, exemplified in directives such as W3C, place the developers even more directly at the helm. We may question whether this is a situation that should be changed. At the least, a better awareness of the situation is recommended.

(Seely Brown, 2002) talks of a subtle sociological shift whereby technology used to support the individual but now it is increasingly helping define relationships between individuals. Online management education resources are at least a part of that change process, and themselves caught in the social dynamics at play.

The model suggested in this study may assist educators, learners, resource developers, financiers/contractors and policy makers to review the process and its affects on andragogical development. The current climate of growth in online resources in tertiary education compels a better understanding of online resource design and implementation toward achievement of quality andragogical objectives.

References

Alavi, M., Yoo, Y. and Vogel, D. R. (1997) Using Information Technology to Add Value to Management Education. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (6).
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications. London
Garvin, D. (2000) Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Harrison, A. (2004) E-learning Grows In and Out of University. BBC News Online, London. (Viewed 2 June 2004) HREF1
Jonassen, D. H. (1996) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Knowles and Associates, M. (1984) Andragogy in Action: Applying Modern Principles of Adult Learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Pasini, N. and Rehak, D. (2002) What Content Developers and Instructional Designers Need to Know. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. (Viewed 2 June 2004) HREF2
Radnor, H. (2002) Researching Your Professional Practice: Doing Interpretive Research, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Seely Brown, J. (2002) Growing up Digital. USDLA Journal, (Viewed 2 June 2004) HREF3
Tam, M. (2000) Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3 (2). (Viewed 2 June 2004) HREF4

Hypertext References

HREF1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3445991.stm

HREF2

http://www.lsal.cmu.edu/lsal/expertise/papers/presentations/plugfest701122002isd/plugfest701122002isd.pdf

HREF3

http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html

HREF4

http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_2000/tam.html

Copyright