Research Paper
Education
E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 8 | Aug 2019
M. ED. STUDENTS' COMBINATORIAL INCLINATIONS ON PEDA-ANDRAGOGICAL ORIENTATIONS Dr. C. Siva Sankar Assistant Professor, Dept. of Education, Rajiv Gandhi University (CU), Itanagar-791112, Arunachal Pradesh, India. INTRODUCTION: Pedagogy is the art and science of teaching children. The basic content of pedagogy deals with knowledge, practice and belief or professional ethics of teaching. In the pedagogical orientations, the teacher has full responsibility for making decision about what will be learned, how it will be learned, when it will be learned. It is based on the assumption that learners need to know only what teacher teaches them. In pedagogical approach, learning experiences are more teacher-directed. It includes lectures, transmitting factual information, assigned readings, drills, tests and rote learning. Andragogy is the art and science of teaching adults. In other words, it is science and art of helping adults learn. The adult learner goes from being dependent to self-directed. The growth and development of andragogy as an alternative model of instruction has helped to remedy this situation and improve the teaching adults. In andragogical approach, learners are expected to be independent in learning and society acknowledges what people want to learn. In andragogical orientations, the role of teacher is that of a facilitator and it includes self-direction, autonomy, accountability and responsibility for decisions resource of experience, performance of social roles and immediacy of application or action. The peda-andragogical orientations are useful to refine the teacher and learner behavior in teaching learning process. RATIONALE OF THE STUDY: Blondy (2007) compares the assumptions of pedagogy and andragogy. In pedagogical approach, the learner is expected to be dependent where as in andragogical approach; learner is expected to be independent. Learner's experience has little relevance in pedagogical approach whereas learner's experience is more valuable for learning in andragogical approach. Pedagogy supposes that society dictates the learner what to learn and andragogy acknowledges what people want to learn. Christian (1983) believes that instructor is the knowledge transmitter in pedagogy where as in andragogy, instructor is knowledge facilitator. They also reveal that female students had a higher andragogical orientation. It was also supported by Davenport and Davenport (1985). Choy &Delahaye (2002) have investigated that the most of the youth have preferred for andragogical orientation and they have low level of readiness for self-directed learning. Chen (1994) reveals that the adult students tended to prefer andragogical orientation more than the pedagogical orientation. Sandlin (2005) admits that the pedagogical orientation includes lectures, transmitting factual information, readings, drills, test and rote learning. Knowles (1980) pointed out that the learners in pedagogical learning are teacher directed. Learning content is prescriptive in order to acquire of knowledge and skills. Conner (2004) believes that pedagogy is an art and science of teaching children while andragogy is an art and science of teachings adults. Henry (2009) reveals that learner with andragogical orientation expects teachers to provide the environment that enhances learning. Merriam et.al (2007) adds that cognitive apprenticeship, situated learning, reflective practice and communities of practice are important notions found in adult learning. Instrumental learning, S-R learning, classical learning and rote learning are the notions found in the child learning. Kramer & Wren (1994) reveal the learning method orientations of andragogy include small group discussion, problem based learning, debate, concept mapping, class discussion, computer games, bulletin boards, biographical reports, field trips, library research, drama, role playing and laboratory experiment. Leaning method orientation of pedagogy includes lecture, demonstration, textbook assignment, vocabulary drills, peer teaching, coaching, oral reports, construction of scrapbooks, audio tutorial lessons, loud readings, student report and interview. Keeping in view the importance of pedagogical and andragogical orientations in learning environment, the researcher has taught to do research on pedagogical and andragogical orientations. Papum Pare district is socially, culturally and educationally a well-connected area among the districts of Arunachal Pradesh. This is a kind of educational hub, yet no any kind of research has been conducted on pedagogy and andragogy orientations in teaching-learning process in Papum Pare district of Arunachal Pradesh. Particularly, prospective teachers or teacher
educators should develop appropriate cognition on andragogical and pedagogical orientations. By knowing combinatorial inclinations of prospective teacher or teacher educators on peda-andragogical orientations, it could possible to modify teaching effectively and teacher behaviour among prospective teacher or prospective teacher educators. Hence, investigator has thought to do research on M.Ed. students' combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations. Hence, the investigator has stated the problem as given below. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: “M.Ed. Students' Combinatorial Inclinations on Peda-Andragogical Orientations” OPERATIONAL TERMS USED: a) Peda-andragogical orientations: It is a set of methods for teaching children at school level and adults at higher level respectively or it may be called as art and science of teaching children as well as adults. b) Combinatorial inclinations: It refers to set of views that are approaching in order to differentiate between pedagogical and andragogical orientations. c) M.Ed. Students: Students who are putting enormous endeavour to modify their behaviour for becoming teacher educators. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY: 1. To find out M.Ed. students' combinatorial inclination levels on Pedaandragogical orientations. 2.
To find significant difference in M.Ed. students' combinatorial inclinations on Peda-andragogical orientations with regard to gender.
3.
To find significant difference in M.Ed. students' combinatorial inclinations on Peda-andragogical orientations with regard to age.
4.
To find significant difference in M.Ed. students' combinatorial inclinations on Peda-andragogical orientations with regard to locality.
HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY: 1. There exists no significant difference in M.Ed. students' combinatorial inclinations on Peda-andragogical orientations with regard to gender. 2.
There exists no significant difference in M.Ed. students' combinatorial inclinations on Peda-andragogical orientations with regard to age.
3.
There exists no significant difference in M.Ed. students' combinatorial inclinations on Peda-andragogical orientations with regard to locality.
METHODOLOGY: The methodology is the basic research design to any kind of research study. The effectiveness of any research depends on the techniques and methods followed in conducting the investigation. The methodology has been prepared as given below. METHOD OF THE STUDY: In this present study, the investigator used the survey method for collecting relevant data. Basically, survey method is designed to obtain factual information. In the present study, the investigator wants to find out combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations among M.Ed students of Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills, Doimukh. Therefore, the researcher adopted survey method of educational research to investigate the knowledge and awareness of M.Ed. students' combinatorial inclinations towards peda-andragogical orientations. POPULATION OF THE STUDY: Population may be defined as the totality of all the observations of statistical experiment or enquiry. It is also known as universe. A population may be finite or
Copyright© 2019, IERJ. This open-access article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License which permits Share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and Adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) under the Attribution-NonCommercial terms.
International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]
22
Research Paper
E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 8 | Aug 2019
infinite. In this present study, the population is M.Ed. 2nd and 4thsemester students from Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills, Doimukh, and Arunachal Pradesh. SAMPLE AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE: Sample is a part of the population selected for study. In other words, the selection of a group of individuals or items from a population in such a way that this group represents the population is called a sample. The investigator used the purposive sampling technique for collection of data which consists of 45 students from M.Ed 2nd and 4th semester of Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills, and Doimukh. Out of 45 students, 25 students from the M.Ed. 2ndsemester and 20 students from M.Ed. 4thsemester were drawn as sample of study. Purposive sampling technique is a non-probability sampling technique that is selected based on characteristics of a population and the objectives of the study. Purposive sampling is also known as Judgmental or selective or subjective sampling. This type of sampling can be very useful in situations when you need to reach a targeted sample quickly and where sampling for proportionality is not the main concern.
the collected and organized data. The data is analyzed and interpreted by using statistical technique like mean, standard deviation, percentage, frequency, t-test and F-test. Table 1: Shows Levels of Combinatorial Inclinations among M.Ed students with respect to Andragogy, Pedagogy and Overall. Sr. No. Dimensions
Low Level
Moderate Level
High Level
f
%
f
%
f
%
2.22
44
97.7
1
Andragogy
0
0
1
2
Pedagogy
0
0
15
33.3
30
66.6
3
Overall
0
0
4
8.88
41
91.1
TOOL USED IN THE STUDY: There is no standardized tool to measure the combinatorial inclinations of M. Ed. students on pedagogy and andragogy orientations. Hence, the present investigator constructed and developed a new tool to measure combinatorial inclinations among M.Ed students on pedagogical and andragogical orientations. a) Planning and Preparation of the Scale: Combinatorial inclination scale on pedagogy and andragogy orientations is planned for preparing items. All the 68 statements were prepared, followed by three alternative options namely 'incline' 'undecided' and 'decline' for each statement. There are positive and negative statements in a given scale. Before using the combinatorial inclination scale on pedagogy and andragogy orientations, investigator adopted the test standardization procedure and the content validity was established with consultation of subject experts. b) Collection and Editing of statements: The investigator collected statements from different sources of literature relating to content and various aspects of pedagogy and andragogy orientations. The matter was also discussed with some subject experts and the researcher constructed 68 statements. All the statements were edited by the content and language experts. After thorough revision or review 68 statements were kept in the initial draft from preliminary test. c) Item Analysis: The preliminary draft of the combinatorial scale on pedaandragogical orientations was administered on a sample of 24 students of M.Ed students from 2nd and 4th semester. After the scoring work, the investigator did the item analysis by dividing the students in two groups on the basis of their performance on the combinatorial inclinations scale. For the purpose of data analysis of each statement, 27% of cases from higher side and 27% of cases from lower side of the scores were taken for computing the t-value of all the 68 statements of the combinatorial inclinations scale. The tvalue of each statement was calculated using formula. In case of the significant t-value of the item, the statement is accepted. In case of the insignificant t-value of the item, the statement is deleted. In the item analysis, 66 statements were found with significant t-values and remaining 2 statements were found insignificant. Here item 18 and 25 are deleted. The final draft of the tool is prepared with 66 statements. d) Reliability and Validity: Reliability means the stability or consistency of scores over time or across raters and validity means quality of being true, legally being acceptable and reasonable. After finalizing the final draft of the combinatorial inclinations scale, the investigator computed the reliability of the items by making used of Split-Half method. The co-efficient of reliability came out to be 0.88, which indicates a quite high amount of reliability of the test. The intrinsic validity of the tool is 0.94. Procedure of Data Collection: For the collection of data, the investigator went personally to concerned department and asked permission from HoD and classroom teacher educator. The investigator told the M.Ed students the purpose of her visit and instructed them how to response in the combinatorial inclinations scale by putting tick mark (√) in any one of the three alternative options namely 'incline' 'undecided' and 'decline' against each statement. After that she distributed the test sheets and collected after completion of the scale.
Figure 1: Shows levels of Combinatorial Inclinations among M.Ed students with respect to Andragogy, Pedagogy and Overall. There is zero frequency at low level of combinatorial inclinations towards andragogy among M.Ed students. It means, there are no students at low level of combinatorial inclinations towards andragogy. There is 1 student at moderate level of combinatorial inclinations towards andragogy. It means that 2.22% of M.Ed students have moderate level of combinatorial inclinations towards andragogy. There are 44 students at high level of combinatorial inclinations towards andragogy. It means that 97.7% of M.Ed students have high level of combinatorial inclinations towards andragogy. There is zero frequency at low level of combinatorial inclinations towards pedagogy among M.Ed students. It means, there are no students at low level of combinatorial inclinations towards pedagogy. There are 15 students at moderate level of combinatorial inclinations towards pedagogy. It means that 33.3% of M.Ed students have moderate level of combinatorial inclinations towards pedagogy. There are 30 students at high level of combinatorial inclinations towards pedagogy. It means that 66.6% of M.Ed students have high level of combinatorial inclinations towards pedagogy. There is zero frequency at low level of combinatorial inclinations towards pedagogy among M.Ed students. It means, there are no students at low level of combinatorial inclinations towards pedagogy. There are 4 students at moderate level of combinatorial inclinations towards peda-andragogy. It means that 8.88% of M.Ed students have moderate level of combinatorial inclinations towards pedaandragogy. There are 41 students at high level of combinatorial inclinations towards peda-andragogy. It means that 91.1% of M.Ed students have high level of combinatorial inclinations towards peda-andragogy. Table 2: Shows the Mean, SD, D, SEd and t-values with regard to Andragogy, Pedagogy and Overall due to variation in gender. Gender Sr. No. Dimensions
Male (11) M1
1 2 3
SD1
Female (34) M2
D
SEd
t-values
0
1.63 1.66 3.21
0 0.34 0.17
SD2
Andragogy 100.09 5.38 100.09 0.76 Pedagogy 69.90 4.49 70.47 5.62 Overall 170 9.35 170.56 8.99
0.57 0.56
Scoring Procedure: The items on combinatorial inclinations scale were scored by using 3,2 and 1 for positive statements and 1,2 and 3 for negative statements. There are 66 statements. Out of 66 statements, 12 are negative statements and 54 statements are positive. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: After the collection of data and organizing data, the investigator moves to the analysis and interpretation of data. So, the analysis and interpretation of results are considered quite significant segments of any piece of research work. This chapter of the research work is the soul of it, because it speaks out the final outcomes in terms of establishing some relationships and giving some meaning to
23
Figure 2: Shows the means of male and female with regard to Andragogy, Pedagogy and Overall
International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]
Research Paper
E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 8 | Aug 2019
From table 4.2, it is clear that the calculated t-value (0) with respect to andragogy due to variation in gender (M1=100.09, M2=100.09; SD1=5.38, SD2=0.76; D=0; SEd=1.63), P ≤ 0.01is not significant. Here, gender does not vary in terms of andragogy. It tells that the formulated null hypothesis is accepted. It means that there exists no significant difference in M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on andragogy orientations with regard to gender. From the mean values, it is clear that male M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on andragogy orientations (M1=100.09) is similar to female M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations (M2=100.09) on andragogy orientations. From the SD values, it is clear that male M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on andragogy orientations (SD1=5.38) are more deviated than female M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations (SD2=0.76) on andragogy orientations.
The calculated t-value (1.59) with respect to pedagogy due to variation in age (M1=67.6, M2=70.68; SD1=3.93, SD2=5.27; D=3.08; SEd=1.94), P ≤ 0.01is not significant. Here, age does not vary in terms of pedagogy. It tells that the formulated null hypothesis is accepted. It means that there exists no significant difference in M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations with regards to age. From the calculated mean values, it is clear that M.Ed students' of 30 years and above 30 years have slightly less combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations (M1=67.6) is slightly smaller than below 30 years M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations (M2=70.68). From the calculated SD values, it is clear that combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations among M.Ed students 'of 30 years and above 30 years (SD1=3.93) are less deviated than M.Ed students' of below 30 years(SD2=5.27).
The calculated t-value (0.34) with respect to pedagogy due to variation in gender (M1=69.90, M2=70.47; SD1=4.49, SD2=5.62; D=0.57; SEd=1.66), P≤0.01is not significant. Here, gender does not vary in terms of pedagogy. It tells that the formulated null hypothesis is accepted. It means that there exists no significant difference in M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations with regard to gender. From the mean values, it is clear that male M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations (M1=69.90) is slightly less than female M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations (M2=70.49). From the SD values, it is clear that male M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations (SD1=4.49) are less deviated than female M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations (SD2=5.62).
The calculated t-value (0.97) with respect to peda-andragogical orientations due variation in age (M1=166, M2=170.98; SD1=11.08, SD2=8.77; D=4.98; SEd=5.14), P ≤ 0.01 is not significant. Here, age does not vary in terms of pedaandragogical orientations. It tells that the formulated null hypothesis is accepted. It means that there exists no significant difference in M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations with regard to age. From the calculated mean values, it is clear that M.Ed students 'of 30 years and above 30 years have less combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations ( M1=166) than M.Ed students' below 30 years (M2=170.98). From the calculated SD values, it is clear that combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations among M.Ed students 'of 30 years and above 30 years (SD1=11.08) are more deviated than M.Ed students' below 30 years (SD2=8.77).
The calculated t-value (0.17) with respect to peda-andragogical orientations as whole (M1=170, M2=170.56; SD1=9.35, SD2=8.99; D=0.56; SEd=3.21), P≤0.01 is not significant. Here, gender does not vary in terms of peda-andragogical orientations. It tells that the formulated null hypothesis is accepted. It means that there exists no significant difference in M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations with regard to gender. From the calculated mean values, it is also clear that male M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations (M1=170) is slightly less than female M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations (M2=170.56). From the calculated SD values, it is clear that male M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations (SD1=9.35) are less deviated than female M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on pedaandragogical orientations (SD2=8.99).
Table 4: Shows the Mean, SD, D, SEd and t-Values with regard to Andragogy, Pedagogy and Overall due to variation of locality. Locality Sr. No. Dimensions
Urban (35)
Rural (10)
M1
Sd1
M2
SD2
D
Sed
t-Value
1
Andragogy 99.97
5.24
100.5
6.5
0.53
2.24
0.24
2
Pedagogy
4.52
71
6
0.86
2.04
0.42
3
Overall
170.11 16.89 171.5 12.69 1.39
4.92
0.28
70.14
Table 3: Shows the Mean, SD, D, SEd and t-Values with regard to Andragogy, Pedagogey and Overall due to variation in age. Age Sr. Below 30 Yrs. Dimensions 30 Yrs. &Above No. (40) 30 Yrs. (5) M1
SD1
M2
D
SEd t-Values
SD2
1
Andragogy
98.4
7.86
100.3
5.41
1.9
3.62
0.52
2
Pedagogy
67.6
3.93
70.68
5.27
3.08 1.94
1.59
3
Overall
166
11.08
170.98
8.77
4.98 5.14
0.97
Figure-4: Shows the means of urban & rural with regard to Andragogy, Pedagogy and Overall From table 4.4, it is clear that the calculated t-value (0.24) with respect to andragogy due to variation in locality (M1=99.97, M2=100.5; SD1=5.24, SD2=6.5; D=0.53; SEd=2.24), P ≤ 0.01 is not significant. Here, locality does not vary in terms of andragogy. It tells that the formulated null hypothesis is accepted. It means that there exists no significant difference in M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on andragogy orientations with regard to locality. From the mean values, it is clear that M.Ed students' with urban background (M1=99.97) are slightly less than M.Ed students' with rural background in combinatorial inclinations on andragogy orientations (M2=100.5). From the calculated SD values, it is clear that combinatorial inclinations on andragogy orientations among M.Ed students' with urban background (SD1=5.24) are less deviated than M.Ed students' with rural background (SD2=6.5).
Figure 3: Shows the means of 30 years & above and below 30 years with regard to Andragogy, Pedagogy and Overall. From the table 4.3, it is clear that the calculated t-value (0.52) with respect to andragogy due to variation in age (M1=98.4, M2=100.3; SD1=7.86, SD2=5.41; D=1.9; SEd=3.62), P ≤ 0.01 is not significant. Here, age does not vary in terms of andragogy. It tells that the formulated null hypothesis is accepted. It means that there exists no significant difference in M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on andragogy orientations with regard to age. From the mean values, it is clear that the M.Ed students of 30 years and above 30 years have less combinatorial inclinations on andragogy orientations (M1=98.4) than M.Ed students of below 30 years( M2=100.3). From the calculated SD values, it is clear that the combinatorial inclinations on andragogy orientations among M.Ed students of 30 years and above 30 years (SD1=7.86) are more deviated than M.Ed students of below 30 years (SD2=5.41).
International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]
The calculated t-value (0.42) with respect to pedagogy due to variation in locality (M1=70.14, M2=71; SD1=4.52, SD2=6; D=0.86; SEd=2.04), P ≤ 0.01 is not significant. Here, locality does not vary in terms of pedagogy orientations. Here, formulated null hypothesis is accepted. It means that there exists no significant difference in M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations with regard to locality. From the calculated mean values, it is clear that M.Ed students' with urban background (M1=70.14) have less combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations than M.Ed students' with rural background (M2=71). From the SD values, it is clear that combinatorial inclinations on pedagogy orientations among M.Ed students' with urban background (SD1=4.52) are less deviated than M.Ed students' with rural background (SD2=6). The calculated t-value (0.28) with respect to peda-andragogical orientations due variation in locality (M1=170.11, M2=171.5; SD1=16.89, SD2=12.69; D=1.39; SEd=4.92), P ≤ 0.01 is not significant. Here, locality does not vary in terms of peda-andragogical orientations. It tells that the formulated null hypothesis is
24
Research Paper
E-ISSN No : 2454-9916 | Volume : 5 | Issue : 8 | Aug 2019
accepted. It means that there exists no significant difference in M.Ed students' combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations with regard to locality. From the calculated mean values, it is clear that M.Ed students' with urban background (M1=170.11) have less combinatorial inclinations on pedaandragogical orientations than M.Ed students' with rural background (M2=171.5). From the calculated SD values, it is clear that combinatorial inclinations on peda-andragogical orientations among M.Ed students 'with urban background (SD1=16.89) are more deviated than M.Ed students' with rural background (SD2=12.69). EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS: Every research study possesses some educative values and accordingly the present studies have also its own educative values and those are stated below. 1.
The andragogical theory of adult learning can help the instructional and planning processes of teacher education.
2.
The andragogical learning process is an excellent preparation for a lifetime of learning.
3.
It helps to develop and select evaluation systems and instruments that measure the expected competencies and outcomes. It is useful in student assessment and programme evaluation.
4.
Andragogy places great emphasis on the involvement of adult learners in the process of self-diagnosis and this help the learner to measure the gaps between his present skills and those required by the profession.
5.
In pedagogy, learning should be organized into a fairly standardized curriculum, with a uniform step-by- step progression for all learners.
6.
In pedagogy, it is needed looking for appropriate technique, tools, approaches and audio-visual presentations.
7.
In pedagogy, the teacher is expected to take full responsibility for determining what is to be learned, when it is to be learned, how it is to be learned.
8.
In pedagogy, teacher needs complete idea on formulation of instructional objectives, proper provision of learning experiences, assessment procedures, teaching technology, multimedia approach and communication technology.
14. Christian, A.C. (1983). A comparative study of the andragogical-pedagogical orientation of military and civilian personnel. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 0643a. 15. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From Pedagogy to andragogy. New York: Cambridge Books. 16. Hadley, H. (1975). Development of an instrument to determine adult educators'orientations.Andragogical or PedagogicalDissertation Abstract International: Boston University, 35,759a. 17. Mc, Terman E.J (1974). Andragogical education in the heal services. Adult Education Quarterly, 37,187-198. 18. Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. New York: Association Press. 19. Maslow. A. H. (1968). Towards a psychology of being (2nded.). New York, NY: Van No strand Reinhold.
CONCLUSION: Firstly, the prospective teacher should gain knowledge related to pedagogy in philosophical, sociological, psychological and technological perspective. Secondly, the prospective teachers should cultivate positive inclination towards teaching and learning process. Thirdly, prospective teachers should cultivate skills to deal children at primary and secondary level in terms of content delivery, assessment and provision of learning resources. Further, they need to get competence in self-leaning, self-analysis, and self-evaluation in the light of andragogy. REFERENCES: 1.
Sharma R. A. (2014). Teacher Education and Pedagogical Training. Meerut: VinayRakheja.
2.
Henry, George William. (2009). an Historical Analysis of the Development of Thinking in the Principal Writings of Knowles. (Doctoral Dissertation). School of Learning and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education, Queensland university of Technology.
3.
Schunk, D.H. (2008). Learning theories (5thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
4.
Blondy Laurie C. (2007). Evaluation and Application of Andragogical Assumptions to the Adult Online Learning Environment. Journal of Interaction Online Learning .volume 6, Number2, summer.
5.
Deveci, Tanuja. (2007). Andragogical and Pedagogical Orientations of Adult Learners Learning English as a Foreign Language. Journal of New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resources Development. Volume 21, Number3, Summer/Fall.
6.
Sandlin, Jennifer A. (2005). Andragogy and its Discontents: AN Analysis of Andragogy from Three Critical perspective. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, Vol. 14, 2005, 25-42.
7.
Gibson, S. K. (2004). Social Learning (cognitive) theory and implication for human resources development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6,193-210.
8.
Chen, Y. (1994). A comparative study of learning orientation between adult and traditional students in Taiwan. Bulletin of Social Education, 23, 251-265. Retrieved October.
9.
Kramer, Betty J & Wren, Rachel (1994). The Blending of Andragogical and Pedagogical Teaching Methods in Advanced Social work Practice Courses. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, Volume 10, Issue 1-2, 1994. Published online: 5th Nov.
10. Rogers. C. & Freiberg, H. J. (1993). Freedom to learn. London. England: Merrill. 11. Knowles, M (1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, Houston, TX: Gulf. 12. Merriam S.B.(1988).Finding your way through the maze: A guide to the literature on adult learning. Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 11(6), 4-7. 13. Jarvis, P. (1985). The Sociology of adult and continuing education. Beckenham. England: Croom Helm.
25
International Education & Research Journal [IERJ]