The Use of Andragogical Principles I Facilitating Science and Tech10logy Education

THE USE OF ANDRAGOGICAL PRINCIPLES I FACILITATING SCIENCE AND TECH10LOGY EDUCATION

, "-- \.

.." ~

DR. TIUOTHY O. POPOOLA

tmIVERSITY OF LAGOS

AKOKA . YABA . LAGOS THE USE OF ANDRAGOGICAL PRINCIPLES IN FACILITATING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

ABSTRACT: In tlis paper kno~ledge of cience und technology i3 seen a3 transcending just the ability to recall, conprehend 0 even up ly scientific and technological information to a limited functional purposes. Knowledge of science' nd technology means being able to accumulate anu org' nise scientific and technological information in a systematic a d formal manner. It means fixing of mea ing in a perrr:aent, decontextualised forms, which allows for comparative in~eTpret~tion, revision ~nd trans~er of scientific and t ecr. oLcg i ca.l knollledge. i.lso, it means ob j ect i f i ca't i on of tr.e outcome of thinking, thus, leading to learning how to learn - the ultimate goal of e uc~tio. AnJr~goGical prinCiple (or principles of ~u 'tained two-way co unication bet een the facilitator an" the le~rner, a d among the learners) involve: setting a clim te for le~~ningj establis ing a structure for m tual pl nningj diuGllo~ing ne~ ci for learnin~j :0 mulating direction3 (objectives) for l~arning, and C.esigning a p:....ttefornr learning experiences.

I TRODUCTION

Knowledge of science and technology tran~cends just the ability to recall, comprehe d or even apply scientific and technological

Ln I'o rma t Lon to a limited functional purposes. Kno'Nledee of ci enc e and technology helps an individual to develop the ability a.d di po ition to enzuge in 'reflect thinking' in order to solve problem in a system tic, objective, verifiable, repeatable an economical manner. Since a ults as lell as children are meaning makers (Kno~les, 1984j popoola, 1997), andragogical principles

(or principles of sustaLrie d two-way commun i cat i on between the facilitator and the le rner, and among,the learners) ca be u ed to help both adult and non-adult learners to become reflect thinkers (Solomon, 1991; Jegede and Okebukola, 1991a). Mere exposure of students to laboratory work, information, and textbooks - 2 - do not automatically make them understand the nature of science and technology (Gallagher, 1991; Lumpe and Scharmann, 1991).

The function of reflect thinking corresponds to the

construction of domain-specific pro~ositional knowledge, the acquisition of procedural knowledge for operating on physical world, and the intellectualization of mental functions. It seems, therefore, that it is reflect thinking in particular, rather than acquisition of scientific and technological information in general that should be the ultimate goal of science and technology education.

Intellectualization of Mental Function

The first dimension of reflect thinking has to do with intellectualization of mental functions, that is, the process of bringing them under conscious and voluntary control. This process depends heavily on the teaching method chosen and used in the

educational transaction. This should enable the mental functions themselves to be made the object of attention and reflection. Re~earch studies show that to facilitate learners' intellectualization of mental function of what is taught, learning process shouldbe experiential, democratic and problem-solving (Baker and Piburn 1991; Basili and sanford, 1991). In other words, the educator should help learners to clarify their own aspir:ltions. She should accept and treat learners as persons. She should seek to build rel~tionships of trust and cooperation among learners. In fact, she should become a co-learner in the spirit of mu tuaI enquiry (Popoo La , 1997; Knowles, 1980).

Decontextualization

The second dimension has to do with decontextualization, the ability to detach a concept from the particular contexts in which it was first encountered. Decontextualizing, alor:.gwith drawing apfropriate inferences from the set of propositions th t lliakeup a text, or recombining propositions in a dif':erent V/E..y in ord er- to - 3 - make a pOint in an effective rhetorical manner, is an instance of the sort of know how that reveals the ability to decontextualize what has been learnt. Decontextualized learners should be able to relate their learning in science and technology to their beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and interests (Ajewole, 1991; Jegede and Okebukola, 1991a,b). Such learners sho~ld be able to see some elements of what they learn in science and technology laboratories, classes and textbooks in newspapers, museum exhibits, and natural or everyday settings (Wellington, 1991; Ault and Herrick, 1991). Iso, only teachers who follow andragogical principles can facilitate .• decontextualized learning effectively. Such educator expose le~rners to new possibilities for self-fulfilment. She helps leL.rners diagno e relev'nt problems. She involves learners i 1 CJ. mu t a.L process of formulating learning otjectives and sh..a. res .,ith Lear-ner-s pot ential methods to achieve these ob jectives. She eLp s learners to exploit their own experiences on learning resources.

She zeal's presentation of her own resources to the levels of

Leu.cne rs I experienc es. She I.•e. lps learners integrate new learning to :heir own experiences. She involves learners in dev'sing criteria and methods to measure prosre s. Also, she helps learners develop and apply ~elf evaluation p ·o~edures.

•. "';j I -, "I ~ t \ I,

tl " ) ..•. l!. ••..• , •••. Integration and Systematization of Knowledge

The third di ension of the change in mental functioning associated with reflect t inking is a move ent tOW3.r s the

Lnt egrat i o and syate atization of:: at is known VIithin t e f orcna I fr~~eworks provi ed by theoretic&l kno~le be. To so e extent it

ca i be seen as an out come or the first t.t•o. type of change that have just been discu sed. Ho ever, more is required if thinking is to be described as theoretical. First, the learner should be able to re~resent his beliefs in the form of coherently related sets of propositions. second, he should be able to justify those beliefs.

popoola (1995) describes this a pect of reflect thinking as trans~er or carryover of know edge, kills or other responses fro - 4 the situation in which they were initially acquired to some other

situations for which they were not specially learned. The importance of transfer cannot be over-emphasized. The very existence of our science and technology educational programme is based on the premise that knowledge and skills developed by the students in such educational prograIll1L.ewsill be transferred to life

situations.

Gagne (1987) regards this aspect of reflect thinking as problem solving. He views it as the highest stage in the hierarchy of learning. It only occurs when the lec.rner could draw upon his

previously Lear-ned skills, concept s and rules in order to discover

an answer to a problematic situa~ion. ,~ . 'I.'" ~, \' .' ,. ~ . .." Sustained Two-Way Instructional Approach

Indoctrination (or sustained one-'N:J.iYn.:;tructio.calapproach)

te lds to ignore students' perceptions and how trte perceptions affect subsequent learning. Zoller (1991) Narns against the use of in'octrination in science nd technolo8Y educ~tion. He asserts that the repertoire a learner builds and the expanding mental model of

the world that he iclabits are the re3ults of the learner's constructive effort, achieved through a progressive and cumulative process of hypothesis formation, testing, and modification. Each new step in the constructive process results from a transaction in Which what is already known is brought to bear on new information, creating new meaning and enhanCing understanding and control.

In other words, there can be no such thing as 'objective knowledge' in the sense of knowledge that is independent of particular individuals who know. Indeed, 'knowledge' is not an

entity at all, but a mental state - the state of understanding arrived at by learning, that is, through the various constructive processes involved in coming to know. To be sure, what a person knows can be represented in the form of proposition and these propositions may be given general assent. However, it does not - 5 - follow that the knowledge of which these propositions are formulations is identical from one knower to another because for each knower the propositions are embedded in a unique structure of personal knowing arrived at through a particular, socially situated learning biography (Ryle, 1998).

Here comes the difference between information and knowledge. Larsen (1986:331) believes "that knowledge cannot simply be

transmitted but must be induced in the learner.1I Propositional or personal knowledge, when communicated, becomes public information which then must be induced in the receiver. Knowledge is therefore not transmitted directly but is induced through the use of andragogical method or sustained two-way communication; that is, through the active and vol~ntary participation of the learner. This means that knowledge depends upon what one does with

information and how it is integrated into existing cognitive structures through interaction with others. Knowledge is awareness

developed through critical analysis. The function of education is to develop the skills of critical analysis and, therefore, the ability to acquire knowledge. Vfuile information can be acquired through one-way communication as it is usually the case in indoctrination, reflect thinking can only be facilitated through two-way communication in harmony with andragogical principles.

However, to argue that knowledge is individually constructed is not to ignore the role of other people in the process. Studies of scientific literacy language acquisition clearly show the contribution of educators in providing the evidence on which the learner constructs his representation of the language system (Baker and Piburu, 1991). Similarly, the educators' method of engaging with the learner in a construction task was shown to be positively correlated with the learner's success in learning to perform the

tasks (Gagne, 1987; Zoller, 1991). However, neither in learning of scientific literacy languages nor construction procedures through interaction do the educators of the more successful learner attempt to assist them through direct, one-way, instruction. - 6 -

ANDRAGOGICAL PRINCIPLES

Andragogical principles are based on the premise that knowledge has to be individually constructed, and therefore, it

cannot be transmitted from one individual to another simply by uttering the appropriate propositions. This seems to be contrary to the belief of many educational theorists. For example, Heap (1985:246) characterizes pedagogical conception of education as

follows

The corpus of knowledge for each lesson is conceived as the curriculum. It is formulated as existing in a preconstituted form, prior and external to the

running of the lesson. Instruction is conceived as the transmission by the teacher of this corpus to students. The corpus is fully under the control of

the teacher. I , '.: ' ••..~; ; •• II. -3,) ~ . , .' " .Ii···~

The interpretations that individual learners place on what '>

they hear, read or observe depend on the existing understanding and on their interpretations of the total context in which the propositions are encountered. If learners are to come to know what their teachers know, therefore, more is required than the presentation of propositional knowledge through mere exposure to laboratory work, talk or text. Education must be thought of in terms not of the transmission of knowledge but of transaction and transformation

through the development and sustainance of reflect thinkirrg. It is, therefore important that all educators must be versed in the use of andragogical principles to facilitate learning. Knowles' (1980: 57,58,223-244) andragogical principles cover setting a climate for

learning, establishing a structure for mutual planning, diagnosing needs for learning, formulating directions (objectives) for learning, designing a pattern for learning experiences, and managing the learning experiences. - 7 - setting a Climate for Learning

The physical and psychological qualities of a learning environment may facilitate or inhibit learning. To facilitate learning, the physical environment should be comfortable.

The psychological environment should exude a spirit of mutual respect: the environment should facilitate interaction among the participants. It should be supportive and caring: people should be able to feel safe and unthreatened; they should be able to feel free to express themselves openly and reveal their real feelings. It should be warm and friendly: the participants should not only be able to feel respected, but also liked. It should be collaborative rather than competitive. It must be a climate of mutual trust and mutual responsibility where the participants see the educator as a fellow learner, and not as an authoritarian present to control or manipulate them. The participants should feel free in accepting responsibility to help in making decisions that affect their learning; the learners should not be afraid to take initiative. It should be a place in which the emphasis is on learning, rather than on teaching. If it were being televised, the cameras would be focused on what is happening to the learners, not what the educator is dOing (Bowen and Bodner, 1991).

Establishing a Structure for Mutual Planning

The ideal situation is when a group is small enough for all participants to be involved in every aspect of planning every phase of learning activity. The educator retains the responsibility for facilitating the planning by suggesting procedures and coordinating process. With large groups the ideal situation can be approximated by an imaginative use of subgroupings (Basili and sanford, 1991; Pizzini and Shepardson, 1991; Kempa and Ayah, 1991). - 8 -

Diagnosing Needs For Learning

For the highest level of individual motivation to be achieved, it is imperative that the specific learning needs of the particular participants of a given learning activity be diagnosed - in fact, self-diagnosed. Trumper (1991) stresses the need for the teacher to act as a diagnostician in eliciting students' alternative frameworks, to develop strategies to confront these frameworks, and to develop evaluation techniques that examine the extent of assimilation of concepts taught.

•:") I(fLij';'': 'Y\i. ~,~ ',! d ~_ ~ Formulating Directions (Objectives) for Learnjng

Programme objectives serve the purpose of determining what activities will be provided for what groups of participants and of providing benchmarks for evaluating the total programme. Learning objectives serve the same purposes for particular activities. It is important, therefore, that learning objectives be stated in a form that will be helpful to the instructor and participants in planning and conducting learning experiences and evaluating their outcome.

Designing a pattern of Learning Experiences

As much as possible, learning experiences should proceed from the simple to the complex. The simple is defined as that which contains few elements or subordinate parts, as a one-celled animal is simpler than a many-celled animal, or as hydrogen and oxygen are simpler than chemical compounds. Chemistry and biology courses should, as much as pOSSible, be organized on this principle.

Learning experiences should be based on the order of prerequisite learnings. This principle should be followed particularly in subjects consisting largely of laws and principles, such as physics and mathematics. These subjects are organized on the supposition that theorems bear a particular logical relation to one another and are learned in that relation. - 9 -

Learning should proceed from the whole to the part. Geography fre~uently begins with the globe, with the idea that the earth is a sphere, because this conception serves to interprete many geographic observations, such as differences in time and seasons.

Learning should be chronological. Facts and ideas are arranged in a time se~uence so that the presentation of later events is preceded by discussion of earliear ones. This organisation should be followed in history of science and technology courses.

Where the development of behaviour is the primary concern, - other organizing principles may be used, including increasing breadth of application, i~creasing range of activities included, from the part to the whole, and, a demonstration or direct experience followed by the development of principles.

These learning principles emphasize that three major criteria must be met in building an effectively organized learning experiences. These are continuity (the vertical reiteration over time of major learning experiences), se~uence (higher levels of treatment with each successive learning experience), and integration (the horizontal relationship of'learning experiences so as to provide a unified view and unified behaviour. In identifying important organizing principles, it is necessary to note that the criteria - continuity, se~uence and integration - apply to the experiences of the learner and not to the way in which these matters may be viewed by someone already in command of the elements to be learned.

CONCLUSION

The translation of a learning design into a se~uence of activities involves making decisions about the most effective techni~ues and most useful materials for accomplishing the objectives of each unit, and then evolving strategies with the learners for their sharing responsibility in the execution of the decisions. - 10 -

The role of the educator is to serve both as a strong procedural technician - suggesting the most effective ways the learners can help in executing the decisions - and as a resource person or coach, who provides substantive information regarding the subject matter of the unit, possible techniques, and available materials, when needed. The educator can also perform a useful

'threading' function, providing the connective tissue or transitional commentary from one unit to the other. The role of the

educator is to teach learners to learn how to learn. REFERENCES ~ .,:,-': ",: ;I~\/,'"'~ ";' ~;y-:~ ,-'"';,~, 'J' '~!'... ~ ~ ilL' '. \ l -!J ~ U ',;~ .,;' ;: ~',: ',i: ..!.:: ;~~~~ Ajewole, G.A. (1991): Effects of discovery and expository instructional methods on the attitude of students to biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(5), 401-409. Ault, C.R. and Herrick, J. (1991): Integrating teacher education about science learning with evaluation studies of science museum exhibits. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(4), 101-105. Baker, D.R. and Piburn, M. (1991): Process skills acquisition, cognitive growth, and attitude change of ninth grade students in a scientific literacy course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(5), 423-436. Basili, P.A. and sanford, J.P. (1991): Conceptual change strategies and cooperative group work in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 293-304. Bowen, C.W. and Bodner, G.M. (1991): Problem solving processes used by students in organic synthesis. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 143-158. Gagne, R.M. (1987): The condition of learning .. New York: Rinahart and Winston. Gallagher, J.J. (1991): Perspective and practicing secondary school science teachers' knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121-133 Heap, J. (1985): Discourse in the production of classroom knowledge: reading lessons. CUrriculum Inquiry, 15, 245-279.

Jegede, O.J. and Okebukola, P.A. (1991a): The relationship between African traditional cosmology and students' acquisition of a science process skill. International Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 37-47. - 11 -

Jegede, O.J. and Okebukola,P.A.O.(1991): The effect of instruction on socio-cultural beliefs hindering the science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 275-286. Kempa, R.F. and Ayob, A. (1991): Learning interactions in group work in science. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 341-354. Knowles, M.S. (1980): The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. New York: Cambridge Books.

Knowles, M.S. (1984): Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Larsen, S. (1986): Information can be transmitted but knowledge must be induced. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology. 23(4), 331-337. Lumpe, A.T. and Scharmann, L.C. (1991): Meeting contemporary goals for lab instruction: A content of two secondary biology textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 91(6), 231-235. Pizzini, E.L. and Shepardson, D.P. (1991): Student questioning in the presence of the teacher during problem solving in science. School Science and Mathematics, 91(8), 348-352. popoola, T.O. (1995): The relationship between literacy levels and vocational competence among selected apprentices. Ph.D Thesis, Adult Education, University of Lagos. popoola, T.O. (1997): The concept and practice of andragogy: Myth or reality? In Ejiogu, A. and Ajayi, K. (eds.) Emergent Issues in Nigerian education. Vol.2, Lagos: Unilag Consult, 107-116. Ryle, G. (1998): The concept of mind. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books. Solomon, J. (1991): Teaching about the nature of science in the British National Curriculum. Science Education, 75(1) 95-103. Trumper, R. (1991): Being constructive: An alternative approach to the teaching of the energy concept-part two. International Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 1-10. Wellington, J. (1991): Newspaper science, school science: Friends or enemies? International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 363-372. Zoller, U. (1991): Teaching/learning styles, performance, and students' teaching evaluation in S/T/E/S - focused science teacher education: A quasiquantitative probe of a case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(7), 593-607.