Reconceptualising Change and Related Adult Learning in Adult Education Research

Reconceptualising change and related adult learning in adult education research

8886

Reconceptualising change and related adult learning in adult education research

James A. Farmer, Jr., College of Education, University of Illinois
H.R. (Morris) Baskett, University of Calgary
Helen S. Farmer, University of Illinois
Peter Jarvis, University of Surrey

Abstract

Four researchers with diverse backgrounds describe the theoretical frameworks that they employ in conceptualising change and related adult learning in adult education research. They show how their conceptual frameworks lead to research paradigms that overcome weaknesses in popular paradigms.

Introduction

How change and related adult learning are conceptualised in designing adult education research can have major effects on what types of data are collected and how findings are interpreted. A relatively sophisticated form of data analysis cannot overcome the limiting effects of a relatively weak conceptual base in adult education research.

This symposium focuses on how different theoretical frameworks contribute to the design of adult education research. The four presenters were selected because they all have experience in dealing with the topic. Yet they do so from quite different perspectives: country of origin (i.e. Canadian, United Kingdom, and United States); gender (i.e. female, male), and/or field/discipline (i.e. psychology, adult education).

Each presenter was asked to address the following questions from his or her perspective: (a) What theory base(s) do you use in adult education research design to conceptualise change and related adult learning? (b) What do you see as the main advantages and disadvantages of that approach? (c) What other questions and concerns do you have regarding how change and related adult learning are conceptualised in adult education research?

More specifically, each presenter was encouraged to show how the use of the theory base(s) he or she uses allows the researcher to handle one or more of the following potential problems:

avoiding the assumption that more change and/or learning is necessarily better;

interpreting zero change associated with adult learning;

doing justice to both intentional and unintentional change;

handling interactional effects between change and adult learning;

doing justice to and adequately classifying forms of adult learning that are different from the standard ones.

The first presenter focuses on his theory base which provides not only an explanation for change but also a framework for investigating its occurrence. The other three presenters describe their theory bases and illustrate how these relate to research methods. Excerpts from each presentation follow.

A socio-psychological learning theory approach with an empirical base

Peter Jarvis

Learning occurs in society whenever there is a gap (disjuncture) between people’s biographies and their current experiences. When no disjuncture occurs, no learning usually results. By contrast, the gap between biography and experience can be self- or other-induced. The type of learning may depend upon the reasons why and the situation in which it was induced. Underlying all of this it should be recognised that social and individual changes occur continually so that the gap between biography and experience is a frequent occurrence. Perhaps this is more so now than ever before in history, since industrial, technological society has created a norm of rapid social change. New information and regular exposure to it also help to create disjuncture-producing situations in which learning becomes a lifelong phenomenon.

This adult education researcher draws upon a mixture of theory bases in conceptualising change and related adult learning in adult education research. Central to his approach is socio-psychological learning theory with an empirical base. People have to learn how to cope with the environment. Learning is inextricably intertwined with being because it is part of the human condition. The body of learning, which has become (during the earlier years of development) the mind of the human person, can create a harmonious situation with the world which enables people to act in an unthinking manner. It is tested by experience. For much of the time it works, and behaviour can be taken for granted. But this body of knowledge is not total, nor is it sufficient for every contingency in the process of living. Suddenly an experience is problematic. For a variety of reasons the store of knowledge is insufficient to cope with the world. This is disjuncture between biography and experience, and this cannot be taken for granted.

Learning is, therefore, placed in a much more fundamental context by this researcher than in some of the theories that educationalists have adopted. The disjuncture between biography and experience keeps recurring. Traumatic events bring the question into the open - why has this happened to me? A process of questioning ensues, a process that continues intermittently throughout life. This experience of disjuncture may occur naturally because a person has an experience which is novel, or it may occur because the novel experience is induced by an outsider, like a teacher, or even because it is self induced.

This is the inevitable paradox. Without this disjuncture there could be no learning, and without learning there could be no mind nor self. Yet always the human being is seeking to habitualise experience so that behaviour can occur in a taken-for-granted manner. This then is a paradox of being human - that mind and self are learned as the human being is both being and becoming.

As a result of this approach to learning, it is possible to recognise twelve different responses to a potential learning experience. Some of these responses do not result in change but rather in conformity. These different responses include three types of non-learning, three of non-reflective learning, and six of reflective learning, of which three are conformist. The reason for this is that we learn through interaction to conform. We also acquire the same language and the same perspectives. Indeed, people feel happier when they conform, but then this has been part of their socialisation.

The thesis of this paper, then, is that, because humans have no instinctive behavioural patterns, there is always the potentiality of disjuncture between biography and experiences and that learning is a response to that disjuncture. Moreover, this is the very process through which the mind and the self were actually formed.

A phenomenological approach using attribution theory

H.R. (Morris) Baskett

Change and related learning can be conceptualised in adult education research in terms of four themes. First, learning involves the attribution of meaning. Second, attribution of meaning can occur before, during, and/or after change. Third, meaning is socially mediated. Fourth, individual receptivity and environmental opportunity are preconditions for learning and change. Essentially, these themes draw from an interpretist paradigm, which is in conflict with the generally held linear and positivist paradigm. By embracing this framework, phenomena such as zero change, transformation, reframing, and reflection-as-learning may be accommodated. This approach is not dependent on traditional forms of instruction having occurred. It seeks to identify and understand the effect of critical variables that are beyond the control of the educator as well as those controlled by the educator.

This perspective focuses the researcher on meaning as experienced by the individual subject. It therefore moves one into the realm of naturalistic inquiry, and it dictates the kind of methodologies for data collection and analysis which are most appropriate. This researcher assumes that there is dynamic interaction between the researcher’s world view, explicit theory, general methodological approach, specific methods, and the nature and definition of the research problem. Each influences and changes the other. As a result, there are often vast differences between initial research design and conceptualisation and the final product. One must, therefore, perceive any research endeavour as constantly evolving and changing, rather than static.

This researcher’s personal inclination is individualistic and interpretist. He leans toward ‘constructivlst’ interpretations and less toward structural-functionalist and conflict orientations. He understands ‘learning’ to involve the attribution of meaning and significance to experience. Learning occurs internally, although it is socially and environmentally mediated. ‘Change’ is the behavioural manifestation of learning. New ‘learning’ can occur without ‘intake’ of new information or ideas. In essence, internal ‘restructuring’ has occurred. In the act of reflecting, one can make new meaning out of previous experiences. No new experiences have occurred, but the meaning of those experiences to the person has changed. No change has occurred in the behaviour, but the individual has learned something. The person’s ‘reality’ has become altered.

By using the approach described above, one can understand why what participants learn in adult or continuing education is often somewhat different than the ‘Learning objectives’ devised by the programme designers and resource persons. In effect, each participant has placed different significance or meaning on the ‘same’ experiences in the programme. Thus, ‘unintentional’ learning has occurred.

If meaning, as understood by the learner, is to be examined, then the instruments or measures must be able to be flexible and situationally directed as well as be able to probe deeply and gain contextually. Generally, use of pieces such as journals are favoured over large-scale questionnaires, especially during early stages of the research. Similarly, because there is little in the way of substantive theory of how professionals learn, much of this researcher’s work is devoted to theory development, or the ‘context of discovery’.

A longitudinal approach based on social learning theory

Helen S. Farmer

Some research questions concerned with change and related learning in adults lend themselves best to longitudinal studies. For example, if the question concerns aspects of a lifelong learning process such as career development, data collected at one point in time can, at best, be used to weakly predict changed perspectives and behaviours in the future. Further, if learning is linked to identifiable stages of development, change is expected to be non-linear, that is, some changes will be growthful, others not, and the concept of no change (zero change) developmentally may in some cases be viewed positively.

For her particular research question, ‘Why do women contribute less to the arts and sciences, compared to men?’ this researcher has found cross-sectional evidence that women change their self-concept and their motivation to achieve in a downward direction during the years following adolescence. In order to understand and explain this phenomenon, this researcher suggests that research studies should begin with women during adolescence and continue throughout their productive years.

A major challenge in longitudinal research is how to assess change both at one point in time and across several time points. Social learning theory as defined by Albert Bandura provides a theoretical basis for the former. Social learning theory views learning and related behaviour as resulting from three sets of interacting influences: (a) background or given influences such as gender, ethnicity, and ability; (b) psychological or personal self-concept factors such as attitudes, beliefs, and previous experiences; and (c) environmental or social factors in society that affect the individual. According to Bandura, explanations of learning have generally favoured linear causal models emphasising either environmental or internal factors. In contrast, social learning theory views learning as involving a continuous reciprocal interaction between behavioural, cognitive, and environmental influences. A statistical package known as LISREL VI uses structural equation modelling, a form of path analysis, which permits assessment of interaction effects. As noted earlier, social learning theory views learning and related change as coming about through the interaction of persons with their environment.

The longitudinal approach permits the researcher to report differences without making judgements about whether ‘more is better’. Social learning theory does not impose value judgements on change data. The researcher may, however, build value assumptions into the model investigated. The subjects themselves may hold different values, and these can also be assessed.

For many of the variables measured in this researcher’s model, zero-order change over time may be desirable. For example, zero change in a positive self-concept or a supportive environment would both be interpreted positively. By intentional and unintentional change in adult learning and behaviour this researcher means those changes the person planned or expected versus those changes that the person did not plan or expect. The interview is the best vehicle for assessing unintentional change.

A multi-theory based approach

James A. Farmer, Jr.

This researcher uses several theory bases in designing adult education research which focuses on change and related adult learning. These include: (a) social psychology; (b) cognitive psychology; and (c) structural functionalism. From his perspective, no single theory base has been found sufficient, in and of itself, for such inquiry. Each of these theory bases contributes differentially. Used together, they tend to complement each other.

This researcher used these theory bases in designing a naturalistic study in which data were collected from 2,014 adults on significant developmental, organisational, and/or societal changes and related learning. What has been referred to variously as the elaboration model, the interpretation method, or the Lazarfeld method was used in analysing the data and interpreting findings.

In keeping with a socio-psychological approach to studying open systems, this researcher looks first at outcomes and then identifies what contests, inputs, and processes are associated with specific outcomes. Doing so permits focusing on specific changes, which are not defined merely as a function of education or learning. Then, through statistical analysis, factors are identified that associate positively or negatively at a statistically significant level with those changes as well as with various forms of zero change (i.e., high to high; low to low).

In using such an approach, the research does not merely ask ‘How much adult education and/or adult learning has taken place?’ or ‘How much change has taken place?’ or ‘Did what was intended take place?’ and then concludes that the answers tell us what type(s) of adult learning are ‘best’. Rather, in keeping with a structural-functional perspective, data are collected about: (a) the functionality of experienced changes, as defined by the subject; (b) associated variables including learning activities; and (c) how the subject sees (a) and (b) to be related. Moreover, in keeping with a cognitive psychological perspective, data are collected on the meaningfulness of change and related learning. No one form or mode of learning is taken to be inherently more meaningful than other forms and modes of learning.

This approach avoids concluding that zero change is necessarily dysfunctional. For example, a person was found to be doing very well at a previous point in time, experienced a traumatic change, accommodated to it due to certain learning activities, and is still doing very well. ‘Doing very well’ previously and still measures as ‘zero change’. It would be unfair and inappropriate, however, necessarily to conclude that the learning activities and adaptive efforts associated with such ‘zero change’ were ineffectual or that such ‘zero change’ was not beneficial.

If one stays within a standard paradigm ( such as those developed by Freire, Houle, or Knowles) in one’s research, one is unlikely to collect data about non-standard forms of adult learning and how they associate with change. This researcher adapted Platt’s ‘strong inference’ in order to design data collecting instruments that permit the subjects to indicate: (a) which alternative form(s) of change they experienced; and (b) which alternative form(s) of learning they used and under what conditions. He found that some of the more functional approaches to learning were other than the standard ones because they consisted of sequences of standard approaches or ‘hybrids’, in which elements from two or more standard approaches were used.

Reproduced from 1988 Conference Proceedings, pp. 485-490  SCUTREA 1997