Adult Learners and the Dialectical Process: A Validating Constructivist Approach to Learning Tranfer and Application
Year: 2007

This article will address the theoretical, conceptual, and the consequent application strategies involved in operationalizing dialectical curricular designs appropriate for adult learners. In particular, the concepts of constructivism, andragogy, experiential learning, and transformational learning will serve as the foundational philosophical and theoretical concepts that can inform and complement a dialectical learning framework. The article will assert that dialectical discourse methods can serve as validating mechanisms for the exchange of ideas and concepts, to use and affirm students' personal and professional experiences, to create a community of learners, and to fulfill the need of continual change in adult learners' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development Volume III, Issue 1 Spring 2008 3  As a consequence of globalization, continuous technological innovation, and demographic population shifts occurring internationally (Karoly Panis, 2004) the early 21 century adult learner must expect to be more committed to what is now termed as "lifelong learning;" this presumably to remain viable in a world increasingly requiring cross cultural competence and more frequent updating of our knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) Adult learners, particularly in the developed world, are especially concerned about this new and accelerating global phenomenon, given that they are increasingly competing with a global talent pool (Florida, 2006) Indeed, accessibility and affordability of education, training and development opportunities for adult learners is one of the most critical issues affecting social and economic stability in contemporary societies (Merriam Caffarella, 1999; Fukuyama, 2002) Accessibility and affordability of relevant training and higher education opportunities certainly are not the main challenges encountered by adult learners. Adult learners, once enrolled in liberal arts education or career and technical training programs, face a myriad of challenges as they attempt to assimilate new KSAs required in 21 century social and occupational settings. For instance, whether encountered at a community college, in a degree completion program offered through a four year liberal arts college, or a traditional university program setting, adult students often engage their education within curricular forms and content that are still largely tailored more for traditional age students. Far too often, the instructional strategies used with adult students are informed largely by a "pedagogical" teaching paradigm, often defined as the art and science of teaching children. The student, regardless of age, it is assumed is lacking in pertinent knowledge and remains passive while the instructor dispenses a monologue about the subject matter at hand. This often leads to instructor frustration, in that, lecture content delivery does not necessarily achieve crucial transfer of learning (Lang, 2006) much less personal transformation. Conversely, "andragogical" curricular methods, characterized as the art and science of teaching adults (Knowles, 1984) informs yet a different teaching and learning paradigm, one where students' needs, knowledge and experience largely dictate what the form and content of the curriculum will offer; the instructor is simply a "facilitator" attempting to achieve, not necessarily professional parity with his or her students, but an egalitarian relationship with students regarding learning objectives (Howell, 2001) ultimately, adult students are to be self directed learners (Knowles, 1984; Brookfield, 1984) Emerging adult learning theory has also been informed by Kolb's (1984) experiential learning constructs. Not only must adult students' knowledge and experience be brought into the classroom discourse, but it is within for instance, realworld case study assignments in the classroom, where exchange between students and their instructors generate new understanding as a consequence of their experiences together. Indeed, Knowles (1984) asserts that the curriculum must create a classroom attitude of mutuality between teachers and students as joint investigators. But, what form of curricular structure lends itself to an organized exchange of experience, knowledge, and ideas likely to bring about a better transfer of learning among adult students? This article will argue that, centered within the constructivist tradition, by applying a dialectical curricular framework (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) adult educators can achieve relevant transfer of learning, indeed meaningful transformation, among adult Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development Volume III, Issue 1 Spring 2008 4 students. This framework can facilitate the exchange between old and new understandings, challenge and/or affirm existing paradigms, and create new knowledge and application to students' personal and occupational lives. In addition, the argument is also made that crucial to this learning process is that the instructor assume the role of, not the sage on the stage, but a subject matter expert by incorporating adult appropriate pedagogical teaching strategies, when addressing foundational content knowledge, at critical junctures during the course. According to Cross (1981) should an educator seek to know how to help a student learn, in general "he needs to know how teachers should behave in order to facilitate learning" (p. 227) In particular, according to Lang (2006) students "need a strong factual and conceptual foundation in order to work effectively in groups or hold intelligent discussions or solve problems" (p.2) In essence, the instructor must be viewed as an expert in their field, not simply a facilitator of divergent views, to establish and maintain the credibility required of leaders. The point is often made when recruiting adult students to various degree programs that the faculty offer, not only academic credentials, but "real world" experience that enhance the learning objectives. Certainly not a new concept but, instructors employ both adult appropriate pedagogical and andragogical teaching methods (form) but apply a dialectical process to encourage and incorporate students' knowledge, ideas, and experiences into the curriculum (content) in an effort to create a heightened sense of commitment on the part of students, a richer and deeper classroom discourse, and improved transfer of learning. The Constructive Dialectical Curriculum Model conceptualizes this idea. The following literature review will begin with a brief treatment of foundational learning theories including behaviorism, constructivism, and the origins and purpose of Hegelian dialectics. Next, the review establishes the theoretical foundations of adult learning theorists including the works of Knowles (1984) and Kolb (1984) Particular attention will also be given to transformational learning theory advanced by Mezirow (2000) In the final section, each of the major theorists discussed are aligned to coalesce their contributions in support of the Constructive Dialectical Curriculum Model. Literature Review Before placing the three foundational theories within the context of adult learning theory, defining their basic meaning is necessary. Two major theories inform pedagogical and andragogical learning theory and practice: behaviorism and constructivism, the latter being a branch of cognitive theory. Behaviorists assert that learning can only be assessed through direct observation; positive and negative reinforcement feedback is necessary for learning, and unlearning. Behaviorism seems more appropriate to understanding how younger students can learn (e.g. cognitive and affective learning) but may be applicable to adult learning objectives as in the case of psychomotor skills development (Cross, 1981) Behaviorism, then, is largely concerned about specific visible learning outcomes; constructivism, on the other hand, concerns itself with creating an environment where a learning process can proceed creatively and productively.  Cognitive learning theorists instead argue that a thinking individual interprets "sensations and gives meaning to events that impinge upon his conscience" (Grippin and Peters, 1984, p. 76) Constructivism, therefore, is essentially "a search for meaning..Knowledge is not simply 'out there' to be attained; is it constructed by the learner" (Baumgartner, 2003, p. 2) Merriam and Caffarella (1999) assert that "constructivists differ as to the nature of reality, the role of experience, what knowledge is of interest, and whether the process of meaning making is primarily individual or social" (p. 261) It is individual in the sense that meaning making is based on a student's "previous and current knowledge structure" (p. 261) and occurs independently. Social constructivism, on the other hand, occurs when "individuals engage socially in talk and activities about shared problems or tasks." Meaning making is therefore a "dialogic process involving persons in conversations, and learning is seen as the process by which individuals are introduced to a culture by more skilled members" (Driver et al. 1994, p. 7) as in the case of subject matter experts. Constructivist dialogical processes often complement and inform dialectical epistemologies and, in particular, Hegel's dialectical framework can serve as a model. The Hegelian Dialectic The term dialectics is used in many variations (e.g. Socratic dialectic, transcendental dialectic, dialectical materialism) but has its roots in Plato's dia