In defence of pedagogy: A critique of the notion

of andragogy

Philip Darbyshire

Malcolm Knowles’ theory of andragogy has gained increasing acceptance among

nurse educators. Andragogy is espoused as a progressive educational theory,
adopted as a theoretical underpinning for curricula and is even considered to be
synonymous with a variety of teaching techniques and strategies such as ‘problem-
based’ and ‘self-directed’ learning. This paper offers a critique of the notion of
andragogy which maintains that the distinction created between andragogy and
pedagogy is spurious and based upon assumptions which are untenable. It is
argued that andragogy has been uncritically accepted within nursing education in
much the same way that the nursing process and models of nursing were in their
day. Finally, it is claimed that true pedagogy has far more radical, powerful and
transformative possibilities for nursing education.

As a teacher with a particular interest in storytell-

ing and narrative approaches to understanding, INTRODUCTION
I begin this paper with a story. In a large Scottish
The notion of andragogy, as popularised by
college of nursing a few years ago, there was a
Malcolm Knowles (1970, 1979, 1980, 1984) has
sense among the senior staff that the college
been increasingly accepted within higher edu-
‘philosophy’ was perhaps not as progressive as it
cation and nursing education. Perhaps accep-
should be. Fortunately a member of staff had
tance is too passive a descriptor in this respect,
been learning about a ‘new approach’ to adult
for it does seem that andragogy is not simply
education called andragogy which seemed to
accepted but actively promoted and espoused as
answer this particular need nicely. A memoran-
the educational philosophy which will give nurs-
dum was duly sent to all teaching staff informing
ing education the credibility and respectability
them that a series of in-service lectures on
which nurse educators so desperately seek.
‘andragogy’ was being held. The memo con-
Indeed it seems that for many nurse educa-
cluded, without a hint of irony, by informing
tors, andragogy has become the new orthodoxy
staff that their attendance was compulsory.
or new religion to be extolled as the ‘underpinn-
ing philosophy’ for everything from curricular
Philip Darbyshire RNMH RSCN DipN (Land) RNT MN
design to teacher-student relationships.
PhD Lecturer in Health & Nursing Studies,
Department of Health & Nursing Studies, Glasgow However, like so many nurse educators’ causes,
Caledonian University, City Campus, Cowcaddens for example, the nursing process, nursing
Road, Glasgow G4 OBA, UK
models and nursing diagnoses, andragogy seems
(Requests for offprints to PD)
Manuscript accepted 2 April 1993 to have been wholly and uncritically adopted. In

328
 NURSE EDU(:AI‘ION TODAY 329

this paper I suggest why this unquestioning theories, philosophies and teaching approaches
acceptance may have come about. It is also are required. Yet Knowles presents little or no
argued that the foundational assumptions of evidence for this bold assertion. Hartree (1984),
andragogy are inappropriate for nursing edu- in a sustained critique of Knowles’ work has
cation and that a caring pedagogy offers a more argued that this assertion ‘is as yet an arguable
radical alternative for the twentieth century one’ (~203). Similarly, Thompson (1989) has
nurse education. shown that:

The notion that all adults share a set of learner

characteristics that differ from the learner
WHAT IS WRONG WITH characteristics of all children was found to be
ANDRAGOGY? problematic. (~2)

The first assumption, the children are essen-

Andragogy’s underlying tially dependent while adults are self-directed is
assumptions are flawed a gross simplification of human learning. This
Andragogy is no new concept. Davenport & view encapsulates much of the deficit-mode
Davenport (1985b) have noted that the term was thinking related to children’s education which
originally coined by a German educationalist, sees them as essentially unwilling conscripts in an
Alexander Kapp in 1833. Andragogy has endeavour in which they have no motivation,
however, been touted as a particularly ‘modern interest or personal involvement.
practice’ of adult education (Knowles 1970). In In contrast we are asked to believe that adult
order to understand both the appeal of andra- education is (or should be, for Knowles never
gogy and its fatal flaws, it is necessary to turn first makes this distinction clear) hallmarked by an
to the major assumptions which underly the enthusiastic voluntarism on behalf of the adult
notion. Knowles (1980), drawing upon the works student. I contend that most parents of children
of other educationalists such as Lindeman (Dav- at school would scarcely recognise this image of
enport & Davenport, 1985a), posits four ways in their child as lacking in essential self-direction. I
which andragogy is to be differentiated from suspect also, that an examination of the projects
pedagogy. and coursework done by many school pupils
would upend the suggestion that they lack ‘auto-
As a person matures, his or her self-
nomy’ or educative initiative. Similarly, in rela-
concept moves from one of dependence
tion to adult education, it must be acknowledged
towards independence, self-direction and
that voluntarism and self-direction are by no
autonomy. means self-evident givens. Rather, as Rachal
An adult accumulates a rich background
( 1983) has explained:
and store of experiences which are used in
developing new learning. Voluntarism is hardly an either/or proposi-
Adults readiness to learn are now more tion; rather it is measurable by degree. (~15)
closely related to their developmental tasks
To this should be added that it may be
in relation to their social roles.
measurable by degree but assuredly not by age.
Adults experience a change in orientation
Nurse teachers will recognise that not all
to learning away from the subject-centred
students are driven by a desire to become self-
learning of school to more problem-based
directed and autonomous in their learning.
learning which is of more immediate
These may be qualified nurses who feel the need
importance and relevance.
to ‘get a degree’ or some other qualification, not
Fundamental to these assumptions is the notion because they have a burning desire for know-
of difference. It is suggested that children’s ledge and enlightenment but because ‘you need
learning is fundamentally different from adults’ a degree to get on’ or because ‘everyone else is
and that consequently different educational getting them’.
330 NURSE EDUCATION TODAY

At a recent conference on transforming RN children’s ‘developmental tasks’ as long ago as

(American ‘post-registration’) education, 1948. As with the previous assumption, this
Patricia Benner spoke of nurses who sought, and seems to be another example of Knowles’ eleva-
educators who provided, ‘stamp-me-smart tion of more calculative and instrumental think-
courses’. In ‘stamp-me-smart’ courses, the ing in relation to learning. ‘Mature’ or ‘adult’
student comes knowing all there is to know and learning is seen to be directed towards more
resents any educational attempts to question worthy goals than the thinking of the child.
ideas or practices in a real and radical sense. Diekelmann (1991) brings out the importance of
Educators who collude with such courses will be alternative conceptualisations of thinking when
content to deliver the ‘appropriate content’ in she draws upon Heidegger’s work on thinking in
the most unchallenging way, that is by lecture or noting that:
by ‘modified lecture’ where a few questions may
Thinking is dwelling in the world (. . .) Think-
be periodically asked.
ing as a pathway does not necessarily lead to a
Knowles’ second assumption is equally ‘andra-
predetermined outcome. (p46-49)
centric’, suggesting as it does that children’s life
experiences are qualitatively of lesser value than
Finally, Knowles assumes that pedagogy is
those of adults. The history of pedagogy and
synonymous with subject-centred learning while
what has been termed ‘progressive’ or ‘child-cen-
andragogy involves adults in problem-solving
tred’ educational theory and practice, from John
activities, since of course they are essentially
Dewey to Carl Rogers is a history which places
goal-directed in their learning. Yet again it
the child’s experience at the heart of teaching
seems that Knowles has devised a dichotomy
practice. Andragogy also suggests that the adult
between children’s and adults’ learning which
has reached a more mature stage in this respect
bears little resemblance to our knowledge of
in that he or she now defines their self in terms of
either current schooling practices or to present-
private, idiosyncratic, personal experiences.
day developments in higher and nursing edu-
This, Knowles suggests is a developmental pro-
cation.
gression from the child’s understanding of self
The andragogues’ travesty of both primary
as being relational and ‘external’. Such a view is
and secondary education in this assumption
consistent with a typically western, technological
seems patent. If, and as Hartree (1984) observes,
understanding of the person (Dreyfus 1990)
this is yet another uncertainty, Knowles is sug-
where individualism and autonomy are cele-
gesting that this is how schools and higher
brated. This view of the radically insular self and
education are, then he may be quite simply
person has been criticised most successfully from
wrong. Alternatively, if he is suggesting that this
a Heideggerian phenomenological position by
is how children’s and adults’ education should be
Benner (1985a, 1989), Benner & Wrubel(1989),
then he does a huge disservice to children by
Leonard (1989) and specifically in nursing edu-
suggesting their exclusion from problem-solving
cation by Diekelmann (1990, 1992). Benner’s
learning and their consignment to a schooling
and Diekelmann’s work has helped us to revision
involving no more than the acquisition of subject
education and practice in ways which allows the
matter content.
relational, contextual and connected nature of
Sensing perhaps the flaws in his assumptions,
caring practices such as nursing and teaching to
Knowles (1979) did try to revise his andragogy
show up for us.
versus pedagogy polarisation when he claimed
Knowles’ third assumption seems equally that:
untenable. While an adult’s readiness to learn
may well be connected to their social role, career 1 am not saying that pedagogy is for children
progression etc, it is myopic to claim that readi- and andragogy is for adults, since some peda-
ness is not an equally marked feature of chil- gogical assumptions are realistic for adults in
dren’s learning. Hartree (1984) reminds us here some situations and some andragogical as-
that the psychologist Havighurst was describing sumptions are realistic for children in some
 NURSE EDU(:Al-ION TODAY 33 1

situations. And I am certainly not saying that do is project based or coursework based, involv-
pedagogy is bad and andragogy is good; each ing considerable self-direction, initiative and a
is appropriate given the relevant assumptions. pronounced lack of quiescent ingestion of facts.
(~52) It is also possible that ‘integrated studies’ may
have been offered in which case the pupils will be
Such an about-turn in thinking seems uncon-
unlikely to have a view of education synonymous
vincing however when read in the context of the
with the rote learning of isolated subject-specific
rest of Knowles work where little doubt appears
content.
as to which approach is most desirable. To judge
Uncomfortable as this may be, we now need to
from the regularity with which androgogues
contrast this with the educational experience
decry pedagogy and extol andragogy, it seems
which these young men and women might well
clear that advocates of his ideas do not accept this
encounter when they move into the ‘andragogi-
turn either. Knowles’ defence here also gives the
cal’ world of nursing education. Allen (1990), in
strong impression that andragogy is not an
discussing the dominant teaching ethos, has
educational philosophy or approach but merely
described the approach taken towards many
a collection of teaching techniques and strategies
students in higher education as being akin to:
to be used with students of any age whenever
‘appropriate’. As Thompson (1989) has argued, Assembling them in autitoriums and hosing
it is difficult to see how a teacher could reason- them down with microfacts. (~70)
ably subscribe to both of Knowles’ assumptions
Likewise, Bevis (1990) highlights the oppress-
and simply ‘pick ‘n’ mix’ supposedly andragogi-
ive and disempowering practices which continue
cal or pedagogical approaches for particular
to permeate so much of what is fondly imagined
lessons or students. To assume this is to ignore
to be ‘adult’ nursing education. Behaviourist
the very real sense in which teaching is not
assumptions, constraints and objectives continue
merely the implementation of a series of educa-
to define teacher-student power relationships
tive techniques or strategies (Van Manen 199 1,
and learning encounters. Evaluation and grad-
Diekelmann 1992).
ing continues to be a disciplinary event rather
There is a particularly cherished myth in
than an educative process. Curriculum con-
higher education and nursing education that
tinues to be seen as the property of teachers
students experience a particular ‘culture shock
which is to be ‘delivered’ to students, and of
when they move from school into nursing edu-
course the lecture is the dominant mode of
cation. This myth is usually expressed as follows:
‘transmission of content’. In many Colleges of
These are schoolchildren who are used to Nursing there are elaborate panoplies of rules,
being spoon-fed information by teachers. Now regulations and surveillance procedures which
that they are in college/polytechnic/university show the thinly disguised contempt which
they’ll find it difficult making the transition to characterises so much of the teacher-student
adult learning where they need to take respon- relationship. Students may have to sign in and
sibility for their own learning, work indepen- out of buildings and classes (because of ‘fire
dently and take part in more discursive types regulations’ of course), be refused admission to
of learning. classes if they are minutes late, have no choices
regarding attendance, have only ‘guided or
This myth may be fantasy for two reasons. ‘supervised’ study time, and generally have little
First, senior pupils in many secondary schools or no involvement in their own education. Any
will be more than comfortable being in classes student resistance or ‘insolence’ in the face of
where they work in smallish groups since many such oppression is likely to evoke the standard
secondary school classrooms are now organised victim-blaming teacher’s response that this
to teach pupils in groups at tables rather than by shows immaturity or obduracy on the part of the
having children sitting passively in rows of desks. students.
In addition, much of the work that senior pupils In the present political climate, with its almost
332 NURSE EDUCATION TODAY

exclusive emphasis on ‘traditional teaching’ and focussing on the importance of feminist under-
‘effectiveness and efficiency’, it is possible that standings of our history, theory and practice,
this situation may worsen rather than improve. countenance the adoption of a neologism which
A recent newspaper report on Scottish higher excludes the vast majority of nurses?
education noted an average 14% increase in I have argued, that it is inappropriate to
admissions without a concomitant increase in dichotomise child and adult learning. There is,
resources. The report also described how: however, much stronger evidence of differences
between the ways in which men and women
Across the country, lecture halls are overflow-
learn (Belenky et al 1986). Could we therefore
ing and students are being forced to sit in
adopt the term ‘gynagogy’ to describe the edu-
aisles. One university is relaying lectures to
cation of adult women? To continue within
remote rooms with primitive television equip-
Knowles’ fragmentary ‘difference’ paradigm,
ment. In many institutions, ‘small’ tutorial
Rachal (1983) has suggested that it may not be
classes have doubled or trebled in size and are
too long before infantagogy, adolescagogy and
being held less frequently. (Briggs 1992, p6)
geragogy are mooted as ways to build further
In the light of the above, it is to say the least, empires within education.
difficult, to maintain the andragogues’ imagined I suggest that the dichotomising of adult and
differences between school and nursing/higher child education into pedagogy and andragogy is
education. a pointless exercise in the fragmentation of
education which damages a potentially unified
and holistic practice.
I would also concur with Elias (1979) who
Andragogy is linguistically
charged that the attempt made to create a
inappropriate
distinction between andragogy and pedagogy
The almost wholesale, uncritical acceptance of was:
andragogy within nursing education, particu-
not a matter of educational theory but a
larly in the UK, has devalued and demeaned the
misguided attempt to enhance the status of the
term pedagogy. Knowles must accept some of
held of adult education. (~254)
the responsibility for this as he subtitled the first
two editions of his book The Modern Practice of In a patriarchal society which over-values
Adult Education - ‘Pedagogy versus Andragogy’ autonomy, control, mastery and productivity,
and subsequently ‘From Pedagogy to Andra- caring practices involving children, such as
gogy’. The message here seemed as simplistic as parenting, child care, and teaching are margin-
it was obvious; andragogy = good, progressive alised and accorded a lesser status. I suggest that
and an achievement, pedagogy = bad, oppress- the notion of a separate andragogy would never
ively traditional and merely a starting point. For have arisen if children’s education and the
many educators, pedagogy has now become teaching of children were highly valued and
almost an educational term of abuse. richly rewarded practices within our society.
But when pedagogy is caricatured as a quasi-
Dickensian oppression involving the passive
acquisition of subject-related facts, then almost
Why has andragogy been so
anything can appear to be an improvement, even
uncritically accepted by nurse
the scarcely coherent notion of andragogy. The
educators?
andragogues have chosen the wispiest of straw Hartree (1984) has argued that andragogy ‘says
men to attack. what his (Knowles’) audience wants to hear’
The word ‘andragogy’ is derived from the (p203), and that is that they are special, progress-
Greek ‘aner’ meaning ‘man’ (Hartree 1984, ive, and with a unique edifying theory of their
~203) and ‘agogus’ meaning ‘to lead’. Can nurse own to underpin their practice. I suggest that
educators, in a profession which is increasingly there are other questions which need to be raised
 NURSEEDUCATION TODAY 333

in relation to nurse education’s open-armed nurse teacher preparation, it is unlikely that the
acceptance of andragogy. As nursing education foundational educational philosophy which
has moved gradually into the realms, if not the underpins the behaviourist assumptions will be
actual sites of higher education there has been a seriously critiqued. Such instrumentalism short-
commensurate desire on the part of educators to circuits real thinking about education and allows
find for nursing the academic credibility which notions such as andragogy to be readily accepted
we seemed to lack. Unfortunately however, as synonymous with certain techniques such as
nursing’s rush to find theoretical respectability ‘problem-solving’ or ‘self-directed learning’
was often more headlong than considered. In which will maximise the efficient achievement of
the 1970s management theory offered us ‘the the overall ‘course objectives’ while leaving more
nursing process’ which educators embraced radical questions about the meaning of andra-
wholeheartedly as the only way to ‘organise’ or gogy unasked.
‘deliver’ nursing care. In the 1980s ‘models of
nursing’ filled a similar void in nurse educators’
thinking.
As with the nursing process, acceptance of IN DEFENCE OF CARING
particular models and the need for models in PEDAGOGY
general was promoted almost uncritically. To
question, or worse still to oppose such ideas was To speak of caring pedgagoy is tautologous since
taken as evidence of unprogressive, tradition- an elemental dimension of pedagogy is ‘that
alist thinking. When practitioners in particular which directs us and draws us caringly’ (Van
expressed concerns in relation to these ‘new’ Manen 1991, p3 1) towards our students. I do
ideas, this was often taken as evidence of resist- this nevertheless to locate the practice of peda-
ance to change, lack of theoretical understand- gogy within the wider tradition of caring prac-
ing, and of the essential deficiency of practice tices and to stress that without an involved caring
itself. Andragogy may well be merely the latest in stance, the educator is in danger of seeing the
a line of notions. entire educative project as synonymous with
What is of fundamental import here is the teaching strategies and techniques. As Van
concern that nurse educators may be less than Manen (199 1) warns:
willing or able to practise the kind of critical
It is possible to learn all the techniques of
thinking in relation to their own practices which
instruction but to remain pedagogically unfit
they so often demand of their students. Perhaps
as a teacher. (p9)
we need to question more seriously the adequacy
of nurse teacher education. I would suggest that There is a proud tradition of humanistic think-
the majority of nurse teacher preparation ing within nursing which can be traced through
courses are still based upon an essentially behav- the work of, for example, Peplau, Henderson,
iourist, instrumental and content-driven con- Paterson & Zderad. Over the past decade, the
ception of education. Within such courses work of visionary nurses such as Patricia Benner,
student teachers will receive a particular behav- Madeline Leininger, Jean Watson and others,
iourist view of education and curriculum which has helped nursing re-claim and rescue the ideas
claims that we know the ‘competences’ of the and practices of caring in nursing. We are now
‘product’ which schools will ‘produce’ at the end more aware of the power and complexity of
of a course. The nurse teacher’s job is therefore nursing’s caring practices. We understand that
to sequence the curriculum in such a way as to human caring is central to nursing and that it is
ensure that students finish the course having not merely sentimentality nor an essentially
duly ‘covered the content’. For many nurse private, individual feeling or personality trait.
educators, this model of curriculum and edu- Within nursing education and education in
cation is so obviously ‘right’ that an alternative general a similar reclaiming of pedagogy is now
vision of education is impossible. Within such required in order that the vision and richness of
334 NURSE EDUCATION TODAY

possibilities offered by pedagogy may be recov- education not primarily as an epistemological

ered from the deficit-mode stereotype created endeavour whose prime function is the trans-
by Knowles and the andragogy movement. mission of curricular content. It is a pedagogy
Pedagogy has a long and valuable tradition which re-visions teaching as a particular way of
within European and North American edu- being with and for our students (Berman et al
cation and human science (Van Manen 1990, 1991).
1991). In the field of general education, Max
Van Manen continues to be the most eloquent
articulator of the complexity and power of
pedagogical throughtfulness and practice. Van CONCLUSION
Manen explains that pedagogy involves all of our
encounters and dealings where we dwell learn- These are both challenging and destitute times
ingly with our students for the sake of their for nurse educators. Destitute times because we
development, growth and well-being. Pedagogy are in an era which seems to value thinking less
is neither a set of teaching techniques, nor a and less in favour of a mechanistic, ‘pack ‘em
method of curricular organisation. Nor is it tight and teach ‘em cheap’ national education
age-specific. Pedagogy calls forth not simply new policy. As the managerial imperative forces
‘ways of teaching’ but new ways of being, think- questions of effectiveness and efficiency to the
ing, conversing and becoming lifelong learners forefront of the educational agenda for predom-
ourselves. For as Heidegger (1954/1977) has inantly financial reasons, there is a real danger
observed: that the actual practices of teaching may be even
further ignored and devalued (Leftwich 1991).
Teaching is even more difficult than learning.
The challenge of our times is for nurse educators
We know that; but we rarely think about it.
to rediscover a vision of teaching. Andragogy’s
And why is teaching even more difficult than
vision seems divisive and fragmentary. It seeks to
learning? Not because the teacher must have a
elevate the status of adult education by
larger store of information, and always have it
demeaning the education of children. It offers
ready. Teaching is more difficult than learn-
little more than the possibility that different
ing because what teaching calls for is this; to let
teaching techniques will transform the edu-
learn. The real teacher, in fact, lets nothing
cational experience of adults when what is
else be learned than-learning. . . The teacher
required is a far more radical and fundamental
is ahead of his (sic) apprentices in this alone,
understanding of the nature and meaning of
that he (sic) has still far more to learn than they
teaching and learning and of the lived experi-
- he (sic) has to learn to let them learn. The
ences of teachers and students. If nurse teachers
teacher must be capable of being more teach-
were to rediscover the sense of pedagogy which
able than the apprentices. (~356)
andragogy either ignores misrepresents, then
In nursing education, the Curriculum Kevolu- andragogy might be seen as at best, the stimulus
tion movement has given nurse educators a for such a reclaiming, or at worst, a distraction
renewed sense of the power of true pedagogy from such a search.
(NationalLeague For Nursing 1988,1989,1990,
1991). When educators such as Diekelmann,
Tanner, Watson and Bevis speak of pedagogy; References
of our lives and practices as teachers, this is no
educational infantilism which is being proposed. Allen D G 1990 Critical social theory and nursing
education. In: National League For Nursing.
This is a pedagogy which embraces critical, Curriculum revolution: Redefining the student-
feminist, political, hermeneutic, and phenome- teacher relationship. National League For Nursing,
nological insights (Giroux 1989, Bevis & Watson New York
Belenky M F, Clinch B M, Coldberaer N R, Tarule I M
1989, Donahue SC Quandahl 1989, Stanley 1986.Women’s ways of knowing,the developmen; of
1992). It is a pedagogy which asks us to consider self, voice and mind. Basic Books, New York

Benner P 1985 Quality of life: A phenomenological
perspective on explanation, prediction and
understanding in nursing science. Advances in
Nursing Science 8 (1): 1-14
Benner P 1989 The quest for control and the
possibilities of care. Paper presented at the ‘Applied
Heidegger’ conference, Berkeley, California
Benner P, Wrubel J 1989 The primacy of caring.
Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park
Berman L M, Hultgren F H, Lee D, Rivkin M S,
Roderick J A, Aoki T 1991 Toward curriculum for
being: voices of educators. State University of New
York Press, New York
Bevis E M 1990 Has the revolution become the new
religion? In: National League For Nursing.
Curriculum revolution: Redefining the student-
teaching relationship. National League For Nursing,
New York
Bevis E M, Watson J 1989 Toward a caring curriculum:
A new pedagogy for nursing. National League For
Nursing, New York
Briggs S 1992 Surge in students engulfs universities’
resources. Scotland On Sunday, October 25th, p6
Davenport J, Davenport J A 1985a Knowles or
Lindeman: Would the real father of American
andragogy please stand up. Lifelong Learning 9 (3):
4-5
Davenport J, Davenport J A 1985b A chronology and
analysis of the andragogy debate. Adult Education
Quarterly 35 (3): 152-159
Deikelmann N 1990 Nursing education: Caring,
dialogue and practice. lournal of Nursing Education
29 (7F 300-3~5 ” revolution: community budding and activism.
Deikelmann N 1991 The emancipatory power of the
narrative. In: National League For Nursing. New
York
Diekelmann N 1992 Learning-as-testing: A
Heideggerian hermeneutical analysis of the lived
experiences of students and teachers in nursing.
Advances in Nursing Science 14 (3): 72-83
Donahue P, Quandahl E 1989 Reclaiming pedagogy:
The rhetoric of the classroom. Southern Illinois
University Press, Illinois
Dreyfus H L 1991 Being-in-the-world: A commentary
on Heidegger’s being and time, division 1. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA
Elias J L 1979 Andragogy revisited. Adult Education 29
(4): 252-256
Giroux H 1989 Schooling for democracy: Critical
pedagogy in the modern age. Routledge, London
Hartree A 1984 Malcolm Knowles’ theorv of
andragogy: A critique. International Journal of
Lifelong Education 3 (3): 203-2 IO
NURSE EDUCATION TODAY 335
Heidegger M 1977 What calls for thinking? In: Krell D
F (ed) Martin Heidegger, basic writings, Harper
Collins, San Francisco. (Original work published in
1954)
Knowles M S 1970 The modern practice of adult
education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. Association
Press, New York
Knowles M S 1979 Andragogy revisited part II. Adult
Education 30 (1): 52-53
Knowles M S 1980 The modern practice of adult
education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Association
Press, Chicago
Knowles M S 1984 Andragogy in action; Applying
modern principles of adult learning. Jossey Bass, San
Francisco
Leftwich A 199 1 Pedagogy for the depressed: the
political economy of teaching development in British
universities. Studies in Higher Education 16 (3): 277-
290
Leonard V W 1989 A Heideggerian phenomenologic
perspective on the concept of the person. Advances in
Nursing Science 1 I (4): 40-55
National League For Nursing 1988 Curriculum
revolution: mandate for change. National League For
Nursing, New York
National League for Nursing 1989 Curriculum
revolution: reconceptualising nursing education.
National League For Nursing, New York
National League For Nursing 1990 Curriculum
revolution: redefining the student-teacher
relationship. NationaT League For Nursing, New York
National League For Nursing 199 1 Curriculum
National League for Nursing, New York
Rachal J 1983 The andragogy-pedagogy debate:
Another voice in the fray. Lifelong Learning 6 (9):
4-5
Stanley W B 1992 Curriculum for utopia: Social
reconstructionism and critical pedagogy in the
postmodern era. State University of New York Press,
New York
Thompson G 1989 The complete adult educator: A
reconceptualisation of andiagogy and pedagogy.
Canadian lournal of Universitv Continuine
Education“15 (1): 1-13 ’
Van Manen M 1990 Researching lived experience:
Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. The
Ahhouse Press, Ontario
Van Manen M 199 1 The tact of teaching: The meaning
of pedagogical thoughtfulness. State University of
New York Press. New York.