Opinion & Perspective

Revisiting Andragogy: Applying
Knowles’ Instructional Approach to
Adult Learners in Japanese University
Classrooms
Paul A. R. Rowan
Nihon University
Hideyuki Kumaki
Nihon University
Though pedagogy is a term generally used by educators in regards to theirinstructional process, does it truly reflect the learner’s knowledge and experience
with the subject being studied at the university level of education? That is, surely
university students are not children, which the term pedagogy implies. For, infact, these students have experience with life and learning skills, gained throughtheir childhood education, and university is the setting where they are expected
to apply their experiences and to expand them during their courses of study. In
this article, we argue that it is time for university educators, and the university
system in general, to rethink the terminology used to describe the instructional
process. We focus particularly on the concept of andragogy, its principles, andhow it should be applied to the Japanese university context and to English
language programs in particular.

52

Revisiting Andragogy, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 52-62

What is Andragogy?

Malcolm Knowles (1913-1997), in particular, is accredited with popularizing
the concept of andragogy. Andragogy is commonly defined as coming from theGreek words anere, meaning adult, and agogus, meaning the art and science ofhelping students learn. In contemporary use, andragogy is a methodologicalapproach that seeks to enhance and complement adult learners’ previously
acquired knowledge and experience. Knowles left a legacy that continues to
impact on how educators guide their adult learners through to their desiredlearning objectives and goals. Like other great thinkers in education, such as
John Dewey, Edward Lindeman, and Lev Vygotsky, Knowles believed thatlearning was better affected by developing the learner’s experience rather thanby a teacher-centered pedagogical approach that is based on the students’ simple
reception of knowledge and experience of others (Knowles, 1950). Unlike
Dewey, Lindeman, and Vygotsky, Knowles focused not only on general learning
trends, but specifically on adult learners by amassing research centering on the
educational concepts for adult learners who strove to attain their educational
goals (Fiorini, 2003; Henry 2009; Knowles, 1950, 1970; Knowles, Holton, &Swanson, 1998; Smith, 2002).
Formal learning is a process where interactions between teachers, students,
and the materials of instruction culminate to meet desired outcomes. The
andragogical function of the teacher is to guide or facilitate the students’
educational experiences by allowing the students to further develop knowledge.
This approach allows them to build and develop their own natural potential(Knowles, 1950).
Pedagogy, in contrast to andragogy, is essentially, as Knowles (1968) states,“the art and science of teaching children” (p. 351). In a pedagogical, teachercentered learning environment, students wait for information to be imparted by
the teacher because they do not have the experience to apply the new information
to their learning circumstance. Instruction does not concern itself with theinterests of learners, but with meeting requisite outcomes. Knowles understoodthat the objective of adult education is not to expect the learner to be interested
in what the instructor offers, but for the instructor to be the facilitator of53

Rowan & Kumaki

information that is of interest to the learner.
The andragogical approach will have the instructor as the facilitator oflearning, guiding the learners to find answers that supplement their experiences
and increase their self-reliance as they define and meet their educational goals.
There are, of course, similarities between pedagogy and andragogy as both
instructional methodologies seek a defined set of outcomes. However, the key
difference between the two types of learners centers on learner perception, theirbackground, maturation, and how they receive learning.
Knowles’ (1970) Andragogical Principles of Learning
Andragogy is a methodological approach to adult education that replaces the
instructor from the central position with the learner. Andragogy is based onfour assumptions. First, the learners have gone through a process of growth/maturation from a dependent human being to a self-directed individual. Second,
they have experienced a growth of learning that they can depend on. Third,
they become increasingly oriented to the “developmental tasks of [their] socialrole” (Knowles, 1970, p. 39) Fourth, with respect to the postponed nature ofchildhood subject-centered learning where knowledge is stored for later use, theshift in adult learning is where the students gain the opportunity to apply their
youthful knowledge in an adult environment where learning shifts to a more
problem-solving centered structure.
From these assumptions, five principles center on how we view the adultlearner, and this impacts on how we deliver our course. As the adult learner wants
to know the what/how/why of something, the want becomes the main objective
for meeting the learner’s goal.
The first principle is the learner’s need to know, which is to say that the adultlearner needs to be cognitively aware of their situation, why they want to know,
and how their past experiences relate to what they study and/or how they apply
their studies to given situations. This principle implies that when the second
language (L2) learner understands the why, and/or how of a language act for
example, they are better able to work with the subject and gain experience thatcan be used in future situations.
54

Revisiting Andragogy, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 52-62

The second principle, self-concept, is where the learner comes to be responsible
for his/her actions in learning. For the language learner entering university, forexample, here in Japan the notion of self-concept/responsibility is relatively new.
One example of learner responsibility is with error correction. Most students wantteachers to correct every mistake in their work (Richardson, 2011). However,
andragogically speaking, this is not the function of the instructor. Rather, it is thetask of the learner to seek out answers to their questions/problems by themselves,
with the instructor being there to aid them in this process. The instructor works
with the learner’s concepts to reach requisite outcomes and in doing this, theinstructor is facilitating learning. Indeed, with andragogical instruction, theinstructor cannot interfere with the learning of the adult learner by “substituting[the instructor’s] own pedagogical sequence of steps rather than flowing with thelearners’ natural sequence” (Long 1985, p. 42).
The third component of the andragogical model is experience. This meansthat the adult learner is able to apply their life experiences, schema, to theirlearning situation. Looking at the past experience in L2 English classes, theseyoung adult learners now entering a Japanese university have studied how theEnglish language works, but few learners have had the opportunity to engage
in actual English language exchanges. Simply put, they do not have experience
using the language, and this is a particularly important point for students where
English is a foreign language, not frequently heard outside a classroom. Indeed,meeting the learner’s needs, which is to gain experience with L2 English, is where
the instructor’s role as a facilitator is most meaningful. As a facilitator, it is the
instructor’s role to create the L2 learning environment where students can gain
the necessary experience they need to be successful in their studies.
The fourth principle is focused on the student’s readiness to learn, which isa rather complex concept but one that is particularly notable. Readiness implies
a willingness to learn, which then implies that they understand why they learn
what they want to learn. They have an interest in their study, and this then islinked to their motivation to learn. Yet, when students want to learn but
they do not understand why they learn in the manner they do, this readinesswanes. For example, Rowan (2009), by asking students in a survey that asked
55

Rowan & Kumaki

about their impressions of their English study at a university in Japan (where
they were required to attain a 500 TOEFL score in order to pass the English
requirements), the feedback showed that learners were more motivated to learn alanguage than they were to simply pass a test. Indeed, the test focus of the study
resulted in student comments such as “system doesn’t make us want to study”
and “we don’t understand the [English program’s] purpose” (Rowan, 2009, p.
235). Unfortunately, the formal education system in Japan continues with apedagogical approach to language learning where success is measured by a test,
not with a demonstration of the students’ acquired knowledge gained throughtheir studies.
The fifth principle is the student’s orientation to learn. Adult learners view
how they receive content differently from children. With children, learning
is delayed in that an application of their gained knowledge is not expected, so
information is abstract and stored for when it may be needed or applied. Adults
have the view that they may need to apply their information or knowledge at any
time. There is a potential immediacy for them to utilize their knowledge.
As noted, this discussion focuses on the L2 English learner at the university
level in Japan and on building learners’ experiences. But what are their previous
experiences? In the following section we take into consideration our own personal
past experiences as L2 learners and instructors here in Japan.

English Language Education and the JapaneseExperience

In the Japanese educational system, there is constant consternation as to why
students cannot produce or function in their acquired second language after six
years of study prior to their entering university. Generally speaking, students have
only experienced pedagogical learning typified by the teacher-centered grammartranslation method. This method focuses on student textbooks for visual learningof English in preparation for a paper-based test, especially university entrance
examinations. Little or no speaking practice is given in their studies, nor is there
practice with creative writing. Of course most teachers will state that they wanta positively engaged class, yet understanding how the Japanese L2 learner builds
56

Revisiting Andragogy, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 52-62

their L2 ability, which mirrors that of many other cultures’ approach to English
as a foreign language (EFL), is important in understanding how an andragogicalapproach to L2 English learning may impact on students as they enter and begin
their university career.
A seemingly universal L2 learning trait is when people speak in a second
or foreign language, they become more apprehensive and tense, and thus more
unwilling to participate in a conversation (Chen, 2003; Horwitz, Horwitz, &Cope, 1986). With respect to this noted trait, we consider five key concepts,
which are often cited by Japanese students and personally experienced by us, fortheir reticence to use/speak English in or outside of the classroom environment.
We also make some suggestions to overcome these issues.
1) Peer pressure. The fear of making mistakes and lack of confidence are interrelated factors. Japanese students tend to focus on accuracy rather than fluency.
They often place more emphasis on the details, especially grammar, of theirutterances before they are willing to speak. Simply put, they do not want to lose
face (Brown & Levinson, 1987) in front of their peers and teachers. Therefore,
they tend to be less responsive. To overcome this problem, it is necessary to create
a welcoming and non-threatening classroom atmosphere. To gain a rapport, thequality of the working relationship between a teacher and his or her students isessential. Indeed, there is ample research proving that rapport plays a significant
role in teaching and learning (Fleming, 2003).
2) Low Japanese proficiency. In some cases, a lack of Japanese (L1) proficiency
influences a student’s low English proficiency. When attempting a written
composition in English, lower level students tend to translate their Japanese
directly into English. This means that if their Japanese ability is incomplete, theirEnglish will also be filled with grammatical and syntactical errors. Therefore,
the first thing that teachers and students focus on is building up their Japanese
language proficiency. This is a problem as the English teacher’s function is toteach English, not Japanese. Without having an adequate L1 knowledge/ability,
to expect these English learners to speak another language, especially when thoselanguages are linguistically far apart, is one of the real challenges of L2 education.
3) Lack of experience with oral communication even in Japanese. As a great57

Rowan & Kumaki

many junior and senior high school students in Japan do not have opportunities
to express themselves in front of people (including their classmates) in their L1,
let alone in L2 English. This partially explains why students do not feel sure/comfortable with what/how they might express their ideas in both an L1 or an
L2. This issue is also closely related to the previous one in that if students cannot
complete something in their L1, it is unlikely they will be able complete it intheir L2.
4) Inability to keep up with native English speakers. Japanese students tend toregard L1 speakers’ English (especially the West Coast North American dialect)
as the norm. Considering the usage of English all over the world, the West Coast
dialect of English is a minority dialect. However, students tend to think that theyshould speak as these native speakers do. In fact, many students end up speaking
Japanese accentuated English or simply give up learning English. Therefore, it isnecessary for students to know that there are many different dialects of English
spoken all over the world and that what is more important is the content of the
speech, not how closely you speak like a native speaker of English.
5) Different learning styles. During the student’s general secondary
schooling, they are taught to memorize many things, with little opportunity to
discuss or explore the information provided by their teachers. This may be dueto the number of students in one class, which often exceeds thirty-five members.
Indeed, student numbers will affect the classroom dynamic as the managementof large classes often results in a more teacher-centered classroom (Knowles,
1968). Furthermore, teachers answer their own questions in the class due to thetime constraint or the lack of students’ active participation. To solve this issue
is not an easy task, but students should be streamed based on their language
proficiency and classrooms should be more interactive.
Although the above five points that outline learner apprehension for active
communicative engagement with the Japanese students’ coursework may seem
stereotypical, these five points can be found in our personal experiences both as
instructors and as students. The above statements may seem to be a condemnationof the Japanese education system; however, it must be remembered that they58

Revisiting Andragogy, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 52-62

are in fact generalized statements of learner perceptions of their educational
experiences and based on our own personal learning (as an L2 English student)
and as teachers at all levels of instruction here in Japan.

Andragogy Applied

At the university level, educational opportunities change based on how they areor can be delivered. Of course, not every student enjoys self-actualized learning ofa second language; however, it must be noted that university education is aboutbuilding experiences of the learner for their future careers.
With respect to an andragogical approach to instruction, andragogy’s
primary goal is to have the learner seek out what they need as they attempt tomeet requisite course outcomes. It is to have the teacher facilitate learning by
guiding learners to what they need to learn/study in order to meet curricular
objectives. Learners must understand that learning is an applied activity that
requires practice, objectives, and self-responsibility. Students must be engaged
with their learning opportunities, and the instructor must facilitate learning byadjusting their understanding of the course content with the learner’s perspective
so that the learner can build their skills/self-reliance and apply them as needed.
Lessons at the university level, akin to how L2 business English instructors
approach their lessons, must not be designed pedagogically. The five guiding
principles of andragogy are there to remind us of whom we teach and of thestudents’ knowledge/experience, as well as to approach instruction as facilitationof learning centered on student objectives/needs. The discussion concerninglearner experiences prior to entering university should remind instructors thatlearning must transcend simple and ineffective tests like vocabulary recognition,
but not acquisition or competence.
For Japanese students studying English, up to the university level, study
has held a testing objective. A good score on a paper-based test that does notcreatively engage the test-taker’s L2 communicative abilities has been more
important than actual communication skill using their L2. Students have comefrom schools where there was little opportunity to use their L2 and where theirteachers focus on testing, not communication. With few support staff to aid large
59

Rowan & Kumaki

class sizes (usually they are capped at 36-40 students per class), teachers at thesecondary teaching level use instructional methods that best accommodate theirworking environment. These are just some of the factors that make the grammartranslation methodology the first choice for pre-university L2 English study.
This awareness of the general student population’s experiences can aid the adultuniversity educator to facilitate these L2 learners’ educational and possible careergoals.
Though seemingly insignificant, it is important to consider the words we use
when we explain our work at the university level of instruction. Though teachers
may describe students entering university as “kids,” the use of this term does notmean that the instructional model most often used to describe these curricular
objectives must also be pedagogy. Indeed, university students are not children,and the methodology of instruction and how we describe it must respect theknowledge and experience of the recipients of instruction—and this is called
andragogy. This approach must be shown both in the instructional methodology
used by instructors (which for the most part it is) and in how we describe or
discuss their curriculum and lessons.
Instructors at the university level should set objectives with learner needs
taken into consideration. Students need to know what and why they study, and it
should not be just to write a TOEFL paper test. The need to know what and why
they study is an andragogical need of any adult learner. Although the pedagogicallystylized grammar-translation method may show results with passive tests akinto the TOEFL or TOEIC paper-based tests, this type of instruction does notnecessarily meet most of the learner’s future needs: Communicative ability inusing their written/oral L2 skills are what students themselves recognize as aneed.
While many will agree with some of our postulations, and some will agreewith none, our discussion is centered not on the methodology or purpose forwhat we teach, but how we explain our approach to students and how it fitswith their potential needs beyond their formal educational experiences. This is
not political correctness but a call for a clear articulation of what professional
language instruction is at the adult level. The content of our classes may not
60Revisiting Andragogy, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 52-62

change, but how we describe it should. University is a place for adult learningand our students need to accept responsibility for their learning. Andragogicalprinciples referred to above will help students to better understand the why andhow of their studies and to better understand their application as they movebeyond their university education.

References

Brown, P. & Levinson, P. (1987). Politeness: Some universals of language usage.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, T. (2003). Reticence in class and on-line: Two ESL students’ experienceswith communicative language teaching. System, 31, 259-281.
Fiorini, D. (2003). Malcolm Knowles, personal vita. Retrieved from http://
www-distance.syr.edu/pvitamk.html
Fleming, N. (2003). Establishing rapport: Personal interaction and learning,
IDEA Paper No. 39. Retrieved from http://ideaedu.org/sites/default/files/
IDEA_Paper_39.pdf
Henry, G. W. (2009). An historical analysis of the development of thinking in theprincipal writings of Malcolm Knowles (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland
University of Technology).
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom
anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
Knowles, M. S. (1950). Informal adult education: A guide for administrators,
leaders and teachers. New York, NY: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1968). Andragogy, not pedagogy. Adult Leadership, 16, 350386.
Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus
pedagogy. New York, NY: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III., & Swanson, R.A. (1998). The adult learner:
The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (5thed.). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Taskbased language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (Eds.),
61

Rowan & Kumaki

Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-100). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Richardson, R. (2011). Comparing student and teacher views on effective
language teaching. OnCue Journal, 4(3), 243-263.
Rowan, P. (2009). Yokohama City University’s Practical English programme:
Building success for the student’s future. The Bulletin of Yokohama City
University, 61, 227-246.
Smith, M. K. (2002). Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, selfdirection and andragogy, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved
from www.infed.org/thinkers/et-knowl.htm.

Author biosPaul Rowan is currently an assistant professor of English languages at Nihon
University holds a Doctorate of Education from Nova Southeastern University. He
is deeply interested in the uses of technology in education, many of which are adultlearner centred, hence his interest in andragogy. p.rwn@edu-designing.com
Hideyuki Kumaki is currently an assistant professor of English languages at Nihon
University. He is very interested in how non-native speakers of English learn English
more effectively with student-centred learning being the most powerful system of
instruction. hiderin224@hotmail.com
Received: October 7, 2012
Accepted: July 24, 201462