Talk:Andragogy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Alternative education (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of alternative education on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Education (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This is quite unoriginal[edit]

This article is largely a rip from andragogy.net. No question we need references, but I would think that wikipedia authors should be providing fresh syntheses, not just direct copies or paraphrases of existing material. No? Iatttmp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia but this article could be/should be improved with a stronger lede and encyclopedic format . . . I can tag the article but if you have the time , why not try your hand at editing . . . there are "watchers" should you need help.65.190.196.45 (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


instructional theory vs. learning theory[edit]

Andragogy is an instructional theory focused on mature learners (adults). Instructional theory and learning theory are different. Learning theory would be behaviorism, cognitivism, humanism, and constructivism. Instructional theory includes diaskagogy, pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy. Instructional theory relates to age and/or maturity.Stmullin (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


Temp page made[edit]

I'm not the original author, but I stumbled across this while surfing the Wikipedia. I've made a temp page because I think this would be a useful thing for the Wikipedia to have in it. Jimhutchins 13:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andragogy and Motivation[edit]

Andragogy also covers motivational aspects of the adult learner.

This will need to be further elaborated with content and references. In particular, andragogy indicates that Adult learners are not motivated the same way as young learners. In particular they want that what they learn is related to their experience. Nabeth (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs fleshing out[edit]

Andragogy is a complex issue. Should add the work of Karen Kitchener (Kitchener, King, & DeLuca), which tends to support and expand upon both Knowles and Piaget. See Merriam & Cafferella 3rd ed. for capsule discussion of critics of Knowles' andragogy. One claim is that andragogy itself is not a theory. However, critics have not been able to say what andragogy *is* if it is *not* a theory. Moreover, the word "theory" desperately needs disambiguation when it comes to this topic. 24.99.207.164 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC) kc64

ericka roldan ralpie lozada ?[edit]

What is the relevence of the text "ericka roldan ralpie lozada" in the second section ("Diversity and generalization")? - is this meant to be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.122.64 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

I do not mind neologisms, but I think greek aner andros means human male as opposed to gynaïka. Are the latter excluded ? 62.88.20.54 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Michel Franckart michel.franckart@euphonynet.be

And is Google Translate a valid reference now??--141.23.79.252 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Critique section[edit]

Could be more specific after stating both are appropriate for children and adults, and how it changes from teacher directed to student directed.This is part of a college course project Beltonb (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Approaches[edit]

Specific approaches followed in andragogy could be added.Aashitha6 (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What are learning styles doing here?[edit]

There is a) no reason to include a section on adult learning styles, that have nothing at all to do with andragogy and b) substantial critique of the whole concept of learning styles that suggests they are no more valid than astrology. I propose removing that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondron (talkcontribs) 17:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Jondron (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Checked, included in every major higher education-success factors index related books, which shows acceptance of the sourced given content and its relevance.117.215.197.142 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Reverting back actions possibly due to lack of faith and ill practices. Adding an additional book screenshot (its an old one, but acknowledges what the deleted content says) for future lack of faith measures and to lessen counts of edit war lovers: https://i.imgsafe.org/01924ef585.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.18.127 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is no case for including this section which makes controversial claims with very poor sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Explain your "controversial" statement consistently. 117.242.252.81 (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Compare and contrast with learning styles and then read WP:CONTENTFORK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Fixed as per overall input.103.196.228.39 (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Not fixed at all. To fix the content fork you have to start from the position that 'There are substantial criticisms of learning-styles approaches from scientists who have reviewed extensive bodies of research.[1][4] A 2015 peer reviewed article concluded: "Learning styles theories have not panned out, and it is our responsibility to ensure that students know that."[2]:269'. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Content fork no more applies here. For reasons of personal pov removing of data is unlike you as a supporter of inclusionism. There are other materials based on MBTI categories. Look into an another peer reviewed article for checking surface relevance: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1003548313194 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.196.228.39 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I happened to notice this conversation because 103.196.228.39 also edited learning styles today. I'd like to point out that the article cited above, "Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning" doi:10.1023/A:1003548313194 is not about learning styles at all, it's about student-centred learning, so I'm not sure why it was cited in this conversation. Biogeographist (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that. I guess 103.196.228.39 is trying to resolve the fork by bringing learning styles into conformity with this article. Nothing wrong with that, of course; indeed it's likely to create more effective scrutiny of his edits. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:CONTENTFORK "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." That is precisely what you are doing here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Felder, R.M. Are learning styles invalid ?. NCSU - address' both concerns. Neutrality is kept by adding "descriptors of common behavior patterns" the content didn't go all the way dejecting it and state it in a negative tone. To not mislead anyone and to avoid content fork circular link on learning styles is given, it paints vividly the point you intend to ascertain. For more details check about active learning and https://books.google.com/books?id=1qSaBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA173 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.196.228.39 (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The article on learning styles starts with the fact that they are basically nonsense: from the lead 'Although there is ample evidence that individuals express preferences for how they prefer to receive information,[4]:108 few studies have found any validity in using learning styles in education.[2]:267 Critics say there is no evidence that identifying an individual student's learning style produces better outcomes.[6]:33 There is evidence of empirical and pedagogical problems related to forcing learning tasks to "correspond to differences in a one-to-one fashion".[7] Well-designed studies contradict the widespread "meshing hypothesis" that a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student's learning style.[4]'. Your proposed text starts from the presumption that these discredited ideas are meaningful, and that's the very essence of a CONTENTFORK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you give a link to the article you are quoting from, it is for understanding and something like that would avoid future problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.163.68 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The link is at the start of the previous paragraph, but here it is again: learning styles. Enjoy, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you are quoting it directly from wikipedia. I looked into the cited references of those statements .... what it says is learning styles are not "the exact" process, it says as in Felder article which I have mentioned above, these are potential descriptors of behaviors and the cited reference support Kolb's method in teaching or presenting the material ... helps the student. But where learning styles fails is to replicate learner's output in similar contexts....It also concludes that incorporating learning styles in teaching strategies is useful and verified to be useful to students. It is a counterargument to the idea that the student is either dumb or smart...The other article goes on with detailing the current learning style applications and with support of flawed hypothesis and no input on sample size, goes on insisting learning styles are not efficient. But also acknowledges other research materials that supports and reveals the significance value its shows, but significance shown from their own analysis is discredited by themselves to show that meshing method is not the optimal method for instruction in every fields of learning, in that aspect and thesis statement the article is a good source - they acknowledge research regarding heterogeneous learning environment and correlations is not widely present or missing and concludes with an inject about testing that isn't addressed in the article prior in experimental conditions. Ultimately it is about preferences that instructors have that is far from well-being of students - a classic clash between passive vs active teaching and facilitation of such learning environment. So, I am not going to correct prevarications in learning styles or advocate there on choosing appropriate sources (This is something you see everyday in wikipedia, some gets noticed...some are left knowingly or for future editors). Overall, I don't find keeping 3-4 lines on learning styles with neutrality would be against any wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.163.68 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andragogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)