Academic Exchange Quarterly
Volume 23, Issue 1    Spring 2019
Welcome to the Spring 2019 edition of Academic Exchange Quarterly
Our article, Rethinking Pedagogy, Andragogy and Heutagogy (Winter 2018 issue), highlighted a shifting change
in definition, philosophy and thought process around the more strident learning and cognition understandings that have
been based within the understandings of pedagogy, andragogy and heutagogy. Specifically, towards a rethinking around
learner needs and knowledge base readiness. A simplistic framework through which to consider differentiated areas of
consideration, amongst the three learning understandings, may be represented in the following tabular manner:
The concepts around defining and differentiating the learning theories as styles of instructional design and instructionally
facilitative engagement are worthy of consideration, specifically while considering that the normative expectations around
learning theories alignment with age ranges may not necessarily be the most appropriate framework through which to
design instructional efforts. Simply stated, for learners who do not have a developed knowledge base around the subject
matter in focus, it would be an imprudent and irrational endeavor to design and implement instruction without first focusing
upon developing a basic knowledge and understanding upon which a basis of basic knowledge and subject matter
comprehension may develop. Based upon our article and the delineations between pedagogy, andragogy and heutagogy
as presented, it is appropriate to consider the subject matter engagement from levels of understanding and the ability to
work with the subject matter knowledge as a perception and discernment of the subject matter is most appropriate towards
the learnerís successful experience and engagement consideration.
This was an especially intriguing topic to undertake, as our authors come from varied backgrounds and areas of expertise.
One author comes from a professional background that is focused upon initial teacher education licensure and administrative
leadership within the Pre-Kindergarten through high school instructional career paths. A second author is specifically focused
upon adult learning experiences and subject matter engagement, within the area of software engineering. A third author is a
mixture of both author colleagues, with a wide swath of experience from classroom teaching experience in the middle school
and high school realms, shifting interests towards the higher education realm of adult learning, as well as the learning and
development world of human resources talent development. From each of the authorís differentiated understandings and
areas of expertise. We came together to recognize the intriguing similarities and differences amongst our instructional
colleagues, the needs of our learners throughout their educational journey, as well as the professional standards and
expectations inherent within the real world job market that marks their professional career successes. Each of the authors
recognize, that the impact of our instructional design, efforts and modeling for our students, will clearly impact their current
learning successes as well as future professional journey. As such, it is appropriate to offer an understanding of each authorís
teaching experiences that led into our meeting of the minds.
Author Oneís Teaching Experiences Over the past few years the pedagogy used in my graduate-level engineering classes
has varied greatly. The students have proved to be much more passive learners than what is needed for them to actually learn
the material required. They require extensive sets of differing types of activities in order to push them to absorb the basics of
the knowledge required of the curriculum. By passive learning I mean that, unless given a specific set of very prescribed and
well thought out activities to perform both in the classroom and outside the classroom, on an extremely frequent basis
(every class meeting), the student relies only on reading the minimum of the material provided at the last moment before any
assignment or testing situation is required. The end result is a failure to understand almost any new concept as it requires
much more than a passing casual read.
As a response to this, I have changed my classroom from lecture based to almost entirely student activity-based engagement
with the subject matter. One may suggest a flipped classroom style of engagement, wherein lecture support, knowledge-based
readings and associated research and knowledge-focused engagement occur prior to attending face to face experiences that
have shifted towards student activity-based experiences that highlight building upon progressive higher order thinking skills and
information engagement (Anderson, Krathwohl, Airasian, Cruikshank, Mayer, Pintrich, Raths & Wittrock, 2001; Bloom,
Englehart, Furst, Hill & Krathwohl, 1956; Krathwohl, Bloom & Masia, 1964). For example, in each class meeting some form
of in-class activity is given which requires the student to solve a simple problem, a problem that was provided in an earlier class
to review and research. Alternatively, the student might be asked to answer 3-5 questions that test the studentís absorption and
understanding of some key concepts that were discussed in the previous class, or that they were assigned to review conveying
subject-focused concepts such as recorded lectures or podcasts on the subject. The classes are 3 hours long and 30 minutes
are allowed for this. After the in-class activity, discussion and review of the topics takes place, engaging in re-learning while also
offering knowledge-based enhancements that support the studentís scaffolding understanding towards an enhanced level of
cognitive taxonomical engagement. This can take 30 minutes or longer depending on the topic. This in-class activity is graded,
and enough weight is assigned to it to motivate students to take these activities seriously.
In addition to this, I also require students to work in groups on an assigned software project. Each group is typically 2-3 students
and class size has historically been 20-30 students. Smaller class size lend to much more attention to each group, but all groups
learn and benefit from the each group discussion. Class time is taken up each meeting with a public, whole class participation
and engaged review of the work that each team group has achieved on their project since the previous meeting. Students in
each group must explain, in detail, their work to me and to the class and answer all manner of questions regarding the work.
This review takes the form of an informal presentation in that much interruption and discussion takes place. Feedback to the
student is a goal and is improving the studentís developing professionalism and ability to respond to critical formative
development comments and the studentís ability to express technical information in a meaningful manner. In particular I point
out what is lacking, weak in structure or execution, or illogical, as well as what is working well, what is promising, and what
should be continued. I also give the group guidelines as to what they need to accomplish before the next review. This is an
extremely exhausting exercise for me, as it requires an intense communication exchange that is quite involved and can feel,
at times, like a stylistic form of interrogation; however, this exercise not only strengthens the strategic competencies inherent
within real world professional standards of engagement, but supports the team group communicative experiences that naturally
occur within software engineering fields. In addition, I know from experience that I will typically be required to answer the bulk
of my own questions asked, as the students need significant developmental guidance towards modeling how to think through
questions and appropriately viable responses to formative evaluative reviews, particularly in the beginning weeks. Such answers
may require in-depth explanations. A formal presentation and review are required at the end of the semester where the end
project is presented for a final grade; however, at this stage of instructional engagement, public evaluation and feedback is not
offered. These activities form the bulk of the active learning portion of the class, taking upwards of 70% of the class time. The
other 30% is passive instruction such as traditional lecture. This approach has resulted in significant improvement related to the
course-based evaluations of course objective student attainment associated with the understanding of basic knowledge required
of the class. I have found it extremely useful, and continue this process in each of my classes.
Author Twoís Teaching ExperiencesIt is obvious that my instructional design is eclectic, having elements that adequately
meet the needs of each student. My experience has demanded that I shift from instructor-focused to student-focused with
discipline, consideration, and respect for course content, objectives, goals, and other instructional design engagement.
Because of my personal dedication to teaching and learning, I expected my students to have that same enthusiasm. I was
so focused on ensuring that I met all the objectives and that students understood each assignment in which they would
apply what they had learned. The problem was that I made assumptions about how excited my students would be about
the assignments, especially since I included a detailed rubric with specific assignment guidelines. After several rounds of
disappointment about studentsí attitudes toward the course and the assignments, I was forced to reflect, redirect, and regroup.
Therefore, I became more flexible, less rigid, more relaxed, less scripted, and more approachable, and less tense. The
transformation yielded better results and higher engagement.
While incorporating and modifying meaningful, relevant assignments and class discussions/activities and maintaining the
integrity of the course, I find that student-focused classroom settings: prompt studentsí interests to engage with enthusiasm
and determination; allow them to share their experience, which may lead to building their own confident levels; and, provides
opportunities for them to reflect and build upon their experience while learning new content, building upon their prior knowledge
and connecting what they know and what they have learned, which leads to higher level practices. Though, I have shifted to a
student-centered style, I find that I have adopted realms from each theory of pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy that do not
impede on my flexibility or approachability.
In my own understandings around pedagogy and andragogy, I am instructor-directed and knowledge focused because it is
important that I adhere to the course content and objective to facilitate studentsí academic growth. To ensure that I remain
student-focused, I allow students to connect their prior knowledge to what they have learned. I facilitate the process with
students and allow them to take control of learning the content through innovative activities that combine both theory and
practice. Both the students and I are self-directed, but we do it together so that we both enjoy the journey to learning and
experiencing something new. In considerations towards heutagogy, I am determined to design, implement, modify, and
re-implement activities and assignments that spark studentsí interest and catapult them to higher levels of performance.
Likewise, students become determined to reach new levels of synthesizing, creating, and evaluating. Ironically, when my
students are engaged and submit scholarly assignments, I become more reflective, excited and determined to work on my
own style that keeps evolving to meet the needs and learning styles and interests of all students.
Author Threeís Teaching Experiences Iíve found that my instructional design and style of teaching and facilitation shifts
with the needs of the learners, yet I have values-laden expectations that persist throughout my own instructional efforts and
experiences. First I will offer my values-laden expectations and philosophical beliefs around what I perceive as the teaching
and learning process, then followed by a discussion around how I design and instruct within instructional environments.
I find, as the years pass, that my style of instructional design and desire towards facilitative engagement is quite different from
many of the colleagues with whom I work. This is not to suggest that my colleagues are in any way lacking or inferior; instead,
I am merely quite different and apart in how I perceive the teaching and learning process of expectations. Perhaps this begins
in my realization that I truly despised everything about the Industrial Age mandates associated with teaching and learning.
Show up on time, sit in an assigned seat, raise oneís hand to hopefully have an opportunity to speak, and knowledge
regurgitation were the ways of my learning experiences throughout the vast majority of my Pre-Kindergarten through high
school years (I cannot claim through 12th grade senior year, because I couldnít take it any longer and graduated after
my 11th grade junior year) and my undergraduate higher education experiences. It was also during these experiences, that I
realized all of my honors and gifted courses merely filled me full of knowledge, I was never taught the gifts nor skills associated
with learning how to learn and this would haunt me for decades. It wasnít until my masterís degree coursework that I was
honored to learn from Dr. Jon Suter; not only was he the head university librarian whom I realized was a true font of fun
and interesting knowledge, but his instructional style was actually engaging, interesting, and varied from lecture to real world
engagement to thoughtful research that led to truly creative and expanding understandings of the subject matter. I finally found
a reason to enjoy learning.
As well, I realized that my professional journey would evolve into attempting to better understand the process of learning as an
individualized endeavor. Not only towards better supporting the knowledge acquisition by learners so as to develop a base
knowledge that would support enhanced engagement with the subject matter, but also towards better understanding the
formation and support towards developing a viable learning environment that embraced the concepts of cognitive vulnerability
(Crawford, 2015, 2016, 2018a; Crawford & Semeniuk, 2016; Crawford & Smith, 2015), conceptual frameworks of understanding
(Vygotsky, 1934/1987, 1962, 1978) and learning in landscapes of practice (Wenger-Trayner, Fenton-OíCreevy, Hutchison,
Kubiak, & Wenger-Trayner, 2014; Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015).
I began realizing that my understandings of the teaching and learning process were also significantly shifting. Although I had
always recognized the linkage between what one learned and the real world usefulness of the information, I found that I was
naturally embedding opportunities towards real world implementation of the subject matter within each unit of instruction, within
each assignment, so as to embed an understanding of the information as not merely a need to know but also a must use from
the point of immediacy. This belief also emphasized the importance of self-efficacy amongst the learners. Meaning, I was
working towards the learnerís recognition of their own ability to work with the information while embedding real world
community-based feedback as supporting the learnerís professional belief in their own abilities and strengths; this wouldnít
merely come from the instructor of record who was grading the work, but more importantly the formative feedback and positive
insights were coming from the learnerís own world that existed beyond the four walls of the classroom environment. The
importance of the real-world implementation of the subject matter has been integral and undergirding much of my current
instructional efforts and study (Crawford, 2017, 2018b; Crawford & Michael, 2017), focusing the style of instruction throughout
my courses upon not only knowledge base acquisition, but through the cognitive taxonomies of Bloom (Bloom,
Englehart, Furst, Hill & Krathwohl, 1956; Krathwohl, Bloom & Masia, 1964) and the revised digital age cognitive taxonomies
of Anderson and Krathwohl (Anderson, Krathwohl, Airasian, Cruikshank, Mayer, Pintrich, Raths & Wittrock, 2001).
A surprising yet positive outcome of my own professional journey towards better understanding the teaching and learning
processes, is the recognition that itís not only the learners who are enjoying the course experience. I am also more fully
engaged and enjoying the creativity, vulnerability, collegiality and trust that empower the learners to bond within the
learning community Ö as well as far beyond the timeline experiences of our course session together.
Final Thoughts Intriguing is the different reasons and understandings that each of the authors have brought forward, as we
describe and attempt to define our own philosophies of learning, as based within our instructional design efforts, instructional
facilitation, understandings and beliefs about the learners, as well as engagement with the subject matter. The authors have
highlighted aspects of each journey that have deeply impacted basic understandings around engaging with the subject matter
while also engaging with the learners in meaningful ways, always with the ultimate goals focused upon achieving learning
objectives, engaging with the subject matter in real world and meaningful manners of understanding, self-efficacy of the
learners, and additional considerations that directly support each learnerís cognitive development. Each journey towards the
differentiation between pedagogy, andragogy and heutagogy supports the realization and recognition of differentiated learner
needs, understandings and support structures towards better understanding the teaching and learning process associated with
talent development. Rethinking the teaching and learning engagement endeavors towards differentiated understandings around
a shifting change in definition, philosophy and thought process associated with pedagogy, andragogy and heutagogy theories.
As the cooler weather of winterís restful respite begins to shift towards springís warmer breezes and the welcomed rebirth of
the landís blessings, may you also find rejuvenation in the exploration of this spring issue of Academic Exchange Quarterly.
The presentation of creativity, innovation and expertise throughout these pages may offer an enveloping of warmth and
like-minded collegiality. As well, we hope that prior AEQ issues will also continue to stir excitement for the renewing and
rejuvenation of our own professional endeavors.
Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., &
Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloomís Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
Crawford, C. (2015). Vulnerability in learning. In J. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology.
(pp. 832-835). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483346397.n338
Crawford, C. M. (2016). Instructor immediacy and authenticity: Engaging in cognitive vulnerability within the online
instructional environment. In Steven DíAgustino (Ed.), Creating Teacher Immediacy in Online Learning
Environments. pp. 15-36. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Crawford, C.M. (2017). Shifting Classroom Teacher Perceptions of Learning Technologies through a Community of Practice
and Community-Embedded Approach. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2017 (pp. 356-361). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education (AACE).
Crawford, C. M. (2018a). Implicit cognitive vulnerability. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Information Science
and Technology (4th Edition), pp. 5149-5157. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Crawford, C. M. (2018b). Instructional real world community engagement. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
Information Science and Technology (4th Edition), pp. 1474-1486. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Crawford, C. M., & Michael, T. B. (2017, Fall). Real world engagement: Collegial community impact. Academic
Exchange Quarterly 21(3), 44-50.
Crawford, C.M. & Semeniuk, M. (2016). Metaphoric Representations of Cognitive Understanding via a Stairway Approach:
Implicit Cognitive Vulnerability Theory through a Progressive Cognitive Taxonomical Approach. In Proceedings of Society
for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2016 (pp. 1383-1393). Chesapeake, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Crawford, C. M., & Smith, M. S. (2014). Rethinking Bloomís Taxonomy: Implicit Cognitive Vulnerability as an Impetus
towards Higher Order Thinking Skills. In J. Zing (Ed.), Exploring Implicit Cognition: Learning, Memory, and
Social-Cognitive Processes, pp. 86-103. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. Handbook II: The affective domain. New York: David McKay.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S.
Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39Ė285). New York: Plenum Press.
Wenger-Trayner, E., Fenton-OíCreevy, M., Hutchison, S., Kubiak, C., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (Eds.). (2014). Learning in
Landscapes of Practice: Bounaries, Identity, and Knowledgeability in Practice-Based Learning. London: Routledge.
Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015, April 15). Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction.
Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/07-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf
Caroline M. Crawford, University of Houston-Clear Lake, TX
Sharon A. White, University of Houston-Clear Lake, TX
Jennifer Young Wallace, Jackson State University, MS