week 6 edu525

Theories and Practice of Teaching Adults” Please respond to the following:

o Choose your favorite strategy in the article “

You Can Lead Students to the Classroom, and You Can Make Them Think: Ten Brain-Based Strategies for College Teaching and Learning Success

”, and provide three (3) ways you think the strategy could be used in an online class.

References

Please list at least 2

RESEARCH STARTERS
ACADEMIC TOPIC OVERVIEWS

Andragogy
Adult Education > Andragogy

Abstract

This article discusses the history and application of the theory
of andragogy[3], a teaching theory for adult learners[2] in
which the educator’s role remains meaningful but less instruc-
tive, involving coaching, facilitating, and guiding. Today the
learner-centered assumptions and practices of andragogy have
proven sufficiently effective to filter into many educational set-
tings, including pedagogy[7], professional development, staff
trainings, and service learning. Although it functions as a highly
influential guide to practice, some educational theorists find that
the claims of andragogy remain insufficiently verified in higher
education.

Overview

In contrast with traditional pedagogy in which the teacher trans-
mits knowledge to receptive but passive children, andragogy, or
the “art and science of helping adults learn” (Knowles, 1970),
offers an appropriate and viable alternative. Malcolm Knowles,
andragogy’s most famous proponent, argued that adults were
self-directed, problem-solving learners whose life experience
constituted a significant learning resource. Thus, instead of the
traditional hierarchical relationship between the teacher and

pupil, the adult learner participates fully in his or her education,
influencing the curriculum and determining learning objectives.

Andragogy is perhaps most clearly understood, as Knowles has
suggested, in contrast with pedagogy, a distinction that high-
lights the stark difference between a teacher-dominated form of
education, long regarded as appropriate for children’s learning,
and a learner-centered one, now viewed as particularly relevant
for non-traditional adult learners.

During the first half of the 20th century, European wars and
other disruptions prevented large numbers of students in eastern
Europe from completing even a primary education. In peace-
time, recovering industries were met with a large but uneducated
labor supply. Demand grew for adult education — a new concept
— and new teaching methods. Andragogy became an important
field of both research and practice (Krajnc, 2011).

The history of this coined term as it moved from Eastern Europe
to the United States is instructive. If pedagogy is the art and sci-
ence of teaching children (from the Greek paid, meaning “child,”
and agogos meaning “leader of”), andragogy was intended as
a parallel term with its root of the Greek aner (from the stem
andra) meaning “man, not boy.” In his writing about the work-
ers’ movement, the German educator Alexander Kapp coined
the term (Andragogik ) in 1833 to clarify Plato’s educational
approach. It reappeared in 1921 when German social scientist
Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy made use of the term to call attention
to the need for special methods and teachers to be used with the
blue collar workers (Loeng, 2013). Then, Eduard Lindeman, a
colleague of James Dewey who shared his commitment to pro-
gressive education, first introduced the term into English (1927),
emphasizing the informal, experiential, and lifelong nature of the
andragogical orientation (Davenport, 1985). Lindeman had been
studying the German Folk High School, a form of which contin-
ues today in Norway: it is a residential educational environment
for adult learners whose instruction is a general civic education
with no standard curriculum but a wide, free range of courses
appropriate for adults (Brookfield, cited in Heimstra & Sisco,
1990). Soon after, Malcolm Knowles, who, like Lindeman, had
worked with adult learners at the YMCA, was exposed to the
term by the visiting Yugoslavian adult educator Dusan Savicevic
(Carlson, 1989).

Abstract
Overview

Implications

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading

Table of Contents

Andragogy

Thus, Knowles, whose name dominates the field of andragogy in
American education, is indebted to an Eastern European ancestry
in its attention in the mid-twentieth century to the learning of the
adult worker which, in turn, calls for an action-oriented, non-tra-
ditional education. Perhaps not coincidentally, Knowles’ young
adulthood too was devoted to working with adults as he moved
from service in the National Youth Administration to become
director of adult education for the YMCA of first Boston, and
later Detroit and Chicago. Although ultimately Knowles earned
his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and established a grad-
uate program in adult education, his early years of working in
informal and civic adult education, which avoided didactic lec-
turing in favor of a more democratic involvement with students
to address their interests, formed a significant autobiographical
foundation for his continued work (Carlson, 1989).

His pragmatic, goal-oriented approach, so attractive to practi-
tioners, may have in part accounted for his widespread success
in promoting this field throughout the world, but may also have
finally put him at odds with the academy, which still today ques-
tions whether his theory of andragogy is empirically valid. His
character – service-oriented, admittedly imperfect, self-reflec-
tive, and pragmatic – seems at odds with an academic scientific
approach in which a concept is carefully scrutinized, tested, and
verified. Nonetheless, Knowles’ influence remains profound,
both in practice and in the academy.

When andragogy was effectively introduced by Malcolm
Knowles to the American educational scene in 1968, it was
welcomed as an appropriate counterpoint and necessary relief
to the presumptions of pedagogy; moreover, it proved immedi-
ately successful. Previously, the focus on the child’s learning was
so dominant that few psychologists had considered that adults
might be able to learn (Merriam, 2003). The possibility that
they might learn well but differently from children rested upon
the then surprising notion that adults too continued to develop
psychologically, intellectually, and emotionally in keeping with
their age. This differentiation between adult learners and younger
learners is crucial to andragogy, with its attention on the adult as
a whole person with specific developmental needs.

Thus, in contrast to the passive child who is receptive to the
teacher’s transmission of knowledge, the adult learner was
presumed to be self-directed and eager to initiate inquiry into
knowledge that was particularly meaningful to him or her. In
place of a one-directional communication from teacher to pupil,
the andragogical model involved participatory learning with the
adult assuming increasing responsibility.

By 1980, Knowles had refined his definition of andragogy and
clarified its relation to pedagogy, formulating a distinctive set of
assumptions about mature learners:

1. Their self-concept moves from dependency to indepen-
dency or self-directedness. Although pedagogy may have
made learners dependent, the adult educator (or andra-

gogue) can help to move adults to self-directed learning
in which they assume primary responsibility for their
learning and its direction.

2. They accumulate “a growing reservoir of experiences”
that can be used as a basis on which to build learning.
The adult’s life experience becomes an invaluable learn-
ing resource, as valid a mine of riches as an academic
library.

3. Their readiness to learn becomes increasingly associated
with the “developmental tasks of social roles.” In other
words, adults are not as motivated as children to learn due
to external academic pressure; rather, they learn best in
response to their own sense of what they need to know in
order to grow.

4. Their time and curricular perspectives change from post-
poned to immediate application of knowledge and from
subject-centeredness to problem-centeredness.

5. Their motivation to learn becomes internal (Hiemstra &
Sisco, 1990).

The first two assumptions, which recognize that an adult is an
independent individual with a fully formed, unique personal-
ity, are drawn from humanistic psychology, while the second
two assumptions, which attend to an adult’s readiness to learn,
rely on a psychosocial development perspective (Holmes &
Abington-Cooper, p. 4). The final assumption regarding internal
motivation was added later.

In his work entitled “Modern Practice of Adult Education” (1970)
Knowles presented a practical “technology” of andragogy which
flows logically from these assumptions (although published ear-
lier). In a seven-step process, adult educators should accomplish
the following with their students:

1. set a cooperative learning climate

2. create mechanisms for mutual planning

3. arrange for a diagnosis of learner needs and interests

4. Enable the formulation of learning objectives based on
the diagnosed needs and interests

5. Design sequential activities for achieving the objectives

6. Execute the design by selecting methods, materials, and
resources,

7. Evaluate the quality of the learning experience while
rediagnosing needs for further learning (Carlson, 1989).

Understanding Knowles’ assumptions in conjunction with his
“technology” gives a clear sense of the core of his theory of
andragogy. As evident and appropriate as these assumptions and
practices may seem to us today, they pose profound implications,
particularly in the areas of curriculum and the educator-learner
relationship.

Andragogy

Implications
With the recognition of the adult learner’s rich and varied life
experience as a learning resource, the “curriculum” shifts from a
pre-ordained set of truths collected and sustained by tradition to
a process of inquiry initiated and directed by the learner. Instead
of the learner beginning at point zero (the mind as a tabula rasa
or “blank slate”) to subsequently master a body of knowledge,
the adult student is able to rely upon his or her experience and
maturity to catapult him or her into a process of new learning.
Lindeman, who protested that “too much of learning consists of
vicarious substitution of someone else’s experience and knowl-
edge,” enthusiastically described this “new process by which
the adult begins to be aware of and evaluate his experience”
(cited in Conner, 2005). Because the learner’s experience largely
(though not completely) substitutes for a pre-designed curricu-
lum, education activities are especially designed to draw out that
wealth of knowledge: prior knowledge learning, case studies,
small group discussion, simulation or role playing exercises,
and problem-solving. From the other end of the spectrum, Prior
Learning Assessment (PLA), now common in higher education,
recognizes that significant learning takes place throughout life
and in various non-academic settings with the adult learner at
the wheel: PLA assesses and credits the learner’s experience as a
substitute for academic courses.

With the learner directing the learning process founded upon
his or her life experience, there is a significant shift from the
acquisition or accumulation of knowledge as an appropriate
outcome to the dynamic experience of self-directed inquiry as
a goal appropriate in itself. True, there may be the additional
component of problem-solving as a result of inquiry, but inquiry-
based learning is also praised as the joyous, continuous action of
meaningful, “lifewide” learning. Recently, inquiry-based learn-
ing has been used successfully with young children and children
with learning disabilities to engage them in practicing this open-
ended discovery process. And if the purpose of the curriculum
shifts from being content-centered to support problem-solving
(as Knowles suggested in his fourth assumption), this process
may still include engagement with content, albeit from a prag-
matic point of view.

Today, in disciplines such as science and social science, inquiry-
based learning is aligned with problem-based learning in which
the student initiates (or is challenged to initiate) a process of
discovery and research in order to develop a solution or an
answer. Its benefits, not surprisingly, are the deep learning and
ownership that accompanies self-directed inquiry as well as the
transfer of skills (e.g. goal-setting, cooperation, research, learn-
ing through trial and error, and self-evaluation) to other spheres
(Oliver, 2007). Contemporary education includes the presence
of an instructor in problem-based learning, but this role may be
prominent only at the beginning of the process while during the
inquiry itself, the teacher may function more as a coach or guide.

Indeed, the relationship between the educator and the learner is
dramatically different in the andragogical model from the tra-

ditional pedagogical experience, for the authority figure whose
expertise typically determines the curriculum has effectively
descended from the hierarchic position of knowledge to share
authority as well as responsibility for learning. In place of the
transmission model of a mature adult teaching an ignorant child,
we have a transactional encounter between two adults in which
the learner is honored. The learner’s life experience is honored
and the learner’s needs are addressed–a far cry from traditional
19th and 20th century pedagogical model, still witnessed today,
in which students receive learning directives designed by distant
experts which the learners then attempt to accomplish.

This deep respect for and trust in the learner to sense what he
or she needs to learn has had a profound effect on the practi-
tioners of andragogy. An andragogue (the teacher of adults) is
willing to forego the traditional seat of authority to become a
colleague who contributes to the learner’s self-esteem and sense
of accomplishment. Thus, the transactional, mutually respectful
relationship between the facilitator and the learner (“the edu-
cation of equals” (Jarvis, 1985) becomes crucial in andragogy,
not unlike Carl Rogers’ humanistic clinical psychology. If the
learner’s self-actualization is the ultimate goal of andragogy
(Knowles, 1980), then the facilitator’s role is not unlike that of
a coach who creates an environment and provides resources to
help the adult realize his or her full potential and move toward
fully independent learning.

Today a few tools exist to help teaching faculty identify their
practice along an andragogical-pedagogical continuum. In the
“Educational Orientation Questionnaire” a teacher may be cat-
egorized as either a mentor (Knowles, 1970) or a master teacher.
Faculty who consider themselves mentors believe their students
should be empowered for self-education, determining course
content and self-evaluation, with the faculty member acting as
facilitator and coach (Pearson, 1990). Similarly, in the “Princi-
ples of Adult Learning Scale,” educators evaluate their teaching
styles by identifying their comfort with specific practices in
seven areas: “learner-centered activities, personalizing instruc-
tion, relating to experience, assessing student needs, climate
building, participation in the learning process, and flexibility for
personal development” (Conti, 2004). The high-scoring adult
educator sustains a student-centered classroom by promoting
problem-solving curriculum designed by students, self-paced
instruction, and risk taking. This facilitator raises student con-
sciousness while acknowledging life experience, and builds a
democratic, flexible, and personally supportive climate.

Andragogy experienced a resurgence with the rise of distance
learning. Autonomous, self-determined students found a perfect
vehicle in the Internet for providing online classrooms and open
university courses. Particularly after the introduction of Web
2.0, a host of tools and resources became available for develop-
ing learner-generated content and pathways to discovery. One
species of andragogy that evolved in this rich new context was
heutagogy, an andragogolical method aimed at fostering a capac-
ity to self-train in a highly complex and evolving technological

Andragogy

workplace (Blaschke, 2012). Hussain (2013) found a high degree
of satisfaction among users of distance tutoring. When Brand-
man University, an adult college within California’s Chapman
University system, spun off to become its own accredited institu-
tion, the particular needs of adult students were reviewed, and a
transition away from physical classrooms and face-to-face inter-
action with a professor and toward a more flexible, Web enabled
instruction model was developed (Korr, Derwin, Greene, &
Sokoloff, 2012). Brandman was part of a trend, and blended or
fully online courses became common in higher education. Much
of the push for online university classes, however, came from
budgetary rather than andragogical concerns. The andragogical
model seemed to offer a cost-efficient alternative to the old —
and costly — pedagogical approach to university education.

Therein, perhaps, lies the rub between traditional university
education and andragogy. If adult education means a kind of
democratic and guided interaction managed by the adult educa-
tor, the expertise, research, and intellectual rigor at the heart of a
university education may easily suffer. The professoriate, those
highly trained experts who profess the significance of their field,
may be relegated to a support position on the sidelines with the
adult learner assuming primary responsibility. Although one
cannot overlook the continued effectiveness of the andragogical
methodology, its critics have expressed a variety of significant
concerns.

Viewpoints

Critics, particularly academics, have objected to the slippery or
ambiguous terminology used by Knowles. Indeed, is andragogy
correctly termed an “art” or a “science?” (Knowles, 1970). When
he alludes to the “technology of … “does he more accurately
mean “methodology?” Is andragogy a valid, unified theory of
learning, or merely practice, or the application of a theory? Is the
theory accurately focused on learning or on teaching? (Cross,
cited in Heimstra & Sisco, 1990). While these persistent ques-
tions imply the unsystematic character of Knowles’ thought, the
most serious criticism is implicit in the charge that no empirical
testing has sufficiently verified Knowles’ claims for andragogy
(Davenport, 1980). Appropriate research into its efficacy is
needed (Rachal, 2002).

In addition, a number of readers have noted Knowles’ oversim-
plified and mistaken focus on the age of the learner rather than on
the learning context itself. The generic and ideal use of “adult”
implies that all learners of a certain chronological maturity are
indeed self-directed and internally motivated, a notion that has
been called a “myth.” (Cross, cited in Heimstra, 1990) Similarly,
the lived experience which substitutes for a designed curriculum
can be problematic and perhaps not easily transformed into an
exemplum for learning.

Knowles (1970) himself acknowledged that his original dichot-
omy of pedagogy and andragogy was facile; he later (1980)

identified them as alternative ends of a learning continuum. But
some critics do not accept even the notion of a meaningful dif-
ference between child and adult learning, noting that the learning
context or social setting is far more influential than the chrono-
logical age of the learner. For children, too, may be self-directed
and voluntary learners, and in an unfamiliar learning situation,
an adult may be a dependent but highly motivated learner. Polson
posed the question: “Is the ‘adult learner’ a recognizable, single
entity for whom there is one best way to teach, or for whom
there is one best way to learn? No” (cited in Holmes & Abington-
Cooper, 2000).

A number of educational theorists have posited more inclusive
“gogies,” objecting to the separatist focus of both pedagogy
and andragogy. The terms “humanagogy,” (Knudson, cited in
Holmes, 1980),”anthropogogy,” (Svicevic, cited in Heimstra,
1990) and the African “ubuntugogy” (Bangura, 2005) intend to
convey a humanitarian, all-encompassing educational method-
ology. On the other hand, “gerogogy,” (Lebel, cited in Heimstra
1990) “gerontagogy,” and “eldergogy” (Yeo cited in Heimstra,
1990) call attention to Knowles’ failure to notice the unique
needs of the elder learner. Finally, Mohring proposes “telia-
gogy,” a gender-inclusive term referring to the learning of all
adults (cited in Holmes & Abington-Cooper, 2000).

At the same time, many educational philosophers have stood
on Knowles’ shoulders to create their rich and unique renditions
of various elements of adult teaching and learning. Two have
made particularly significant and creative contributions to this
field. Brookfield (1995), an articulate proponent of the power of
critical reflection, particularly important for practicing teachers,
notes the danger of leaving the expertise to others. At the same
time, revering the lived experience of the adult student cannot
be an uncritical, unexamined activity: “Of all the ideas that can
be identified as quintessentially adult educational, the emphasis
on honoring, while at the same time critically analyzing, peo-
ple’s experience has the strongest intellectual lineage” (p. 222).
And Mezirow (1978) goes further in attesting to the power of
critical reflection when he posits that truly transformative learn-
ing arises out of a “disorienting dilemma,” a clash between the
adult’s unexamined assumptions and a powerful new truth. In a
safe environment with other adult learners, the disoriented adult
thinker can reflect, analyze, reevaluate, and after such significant
“perspective taking,” ultimately integrate the challenging idea
that had earlier been earlier rejected.

On the practical level, trainers’ guides, workbooks, and litera-
ture based on andragogical principles are directed to specific
audiences – for example, those in the health professions, social
sciences such as criminal justice, as well as industrial and church
settings (Heimstra & Sisco, 1990). Any number of fields that
require staff training are eager for successful tools which engage
and privilege their adult learners.

Thus, in practice, Malcolm Knowles’ teachings and writings on
andragogy remain powerfully influential and inspiring in both

Andragogy

national and international spheres to those who train or teach
adult learners. His critic Professor Rachal has expressed the
hope that “as much of the spirit of andragogy as possible should
infuse adult learning situations” while also urging careful empir-
ical research that will allow it to become “more than [merely]
a beloved article of faith underlying much present practice”
(Rachal, 2002, p. 225).

Terms & Concepts

Adult Learning: An identified learning style of those who bring
significant lived experience to their learning as well as clear and
pragmatic goals. Adult learning is characterized by self-direction,
application, and an egalitarian relationship with the instructor.

Adult Learners: Typically those non-traditional, mature adults
who choose their education for immediate application of knowl-
edge. Because of their age and experience, they call for a style
of instruction that values their leadership of their own learning
process.

Andragogy: Adult learning theory, particularly as identified by
Malcolm Knowles, and its counterpart, the instruction of adult
learners.

Disorienting Dilemma: A state of disequilibrium stimulated by
a crisis or a new situation that challenges an adult’s presupposi-
tions. If critical reflection ensues, ultimately the dilemma can
result in transformative learning.

Experiential learning: Whether informal or structured, experien-
tial learning involves an iterative process of at least two stages
(and often more): action followed by reflection.

Inquiry-based learning: An open-ended learning process that
begins with a question to be answered or a field of interest to be
explored, whether self-determined by the learner or provided by
curriculum or instructor. The inductive process, which includes
critical thinking and examination of data, fosters an exciting
sense of discovery of what has been unknown. Also known as
guided inquiry, inquiry-guided learning, discovery learning.

Pedagogy: The art or science of learning by children; in general,
the field of learning and instruction.

Prior Learning Assessment (PLA): The granting of recognition
or academic credit by a university to the documented life learn-
ing accomplished by an adult.

Problem-based learning (PBL): A learning process in which stu-
dents, often working in teams, are confronted with a problem to
be solved, whether real or instructor-designed. Students define
the problem, conduct the research, assess various solutions, and
evaluate their success.

Self-actualization: The fifth and highest level of human needs
identified by Abraham Maslow. This is the intrinsic need of a
healthy individual to be fully developed.

Self-directed learning: Learning initiated and owned by the
learner and typically occurring as part of one’s every day life. A
related term, “lifewide learning” refers to that systematic, daily,
widespread learning that depends neither upon an instructor or
a classroom.

Transformative Learning: Because the learning process involves
questioning one’s assumptions, beliefs, and values as well as
considering alternative perspectives, the learner is significantly
changed emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and politically.
Reflective learning becomes transformative when the previously
held assumptions are found to be inauthentic or invalid.

Bibliography

Bangura, A. K. Ubuntugogy: An African educational para-
digm that transcends pedagogy, andragogy, ergonagy, and
heutagogy. Journal of Third World Studies. 2 (2), 13-53.
Retrieved on April 12, 2007 from EBSCO online data-
base, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19221350&sit
e=ehost-live

Blaschke, L. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A
review of heutagogical practice and self-determined
learning. International Review of Research in Open &
Distance Learning, 13(1), 56-71. Retrieved December 15,
2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=71275487&site=ehost-live

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective
teacher. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (1984). The contribution of Eduard
Lindeman to the development of theory and philosophy in
adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 34, 185-196.

Carlson, R. (1989). Malcolm Knowles: Apostle of andragogy.
Vitae Scholasticae, 8 (1). Retrieved March 22, 2007 from
http://www.nl.edu/ace/Resources/Knowles.html

Conner, M. L. (2005). Andragogy and pedagogy. Ageless
Learner, 1997-2004. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from
http://agelesslearner.com/intros/andragogy.html

Conti, G. J. (2004). Identifying your teaching style. In
Galbraith, M.W. Adult learning methods: A guide for
effective instruction. Malabar, Florida: Krieger.

Andragogy

Davenport, J. & Davenport, J. (1985). Knowles or Lindeman:
Would the real father of american andragogy please stand
up? Lifelong Learning: 9(3), 4-5.

Fidishun, D. (n.d.). Andragogy and technology: Integrating
adult learning theory as we Teach with technology.
Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://www.mtsu.
edu/~itconf/proceed00/fidishun.htm

Hiemstra, R. & Sisco, B. (1990). Moving from pedagogy to
andragogy. (Adapted and Updated from Individualizing
instruction: Making learning personal, empowering and
successful. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). Retrieved March
19, 2007 from http://home.twcny.rr.com/hiemstra/ped-
toand.html

Holmes, G. & Abington-Cooper, M. (2000). Pedagogy
vs. andragogy: A false dichotomy? The Journal of
Technology. XXVI: 2. Retrieved April 2, 2007 from
http://www.scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Summer-
Fall-2000/holmes

Hussain, I. (2013). A study of learners’ reflection on andra-
gogical skills of distance education tutors. International
Journal of Instruction, 6(1), 123-138. Retrieved December
15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=86697960&site=ehost-live

Jarvis, P. (1985). The sociology of adult and continuing educa-
tion. Beckenham: Croom Helm.

Knowles, M. S. (1968). Andragogy, not pedagogy! Adult
Leadership, 16, 350-352, 386.

Knowles, M.S. (1980). Modern practice of adult education:
Andragogy vs. pedagogy. Chicago: Follett. (Original
work published 1970).

Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species.
(4th ed.) Houston: Gulf.

Knowles, M. S. (1989). The making of an adult educator: An
autobiographical journey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Korr, J., Derwin, E., Greene, K., & Sokoloff, W. (2012).
Transitioning an adult-serving university to a blended
learning model. Journal of Continuing Higher Education,
60(1), 2-11. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO
Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=721
07384&site=ehost-live

Krajnc, A. (2011). The study of andragogy and education of
andragogues. Andragoška Spoznanja: The Andragogic
Perspectives, (2), 28-43. Retrieved December 15,

2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=63281920&site=ehost-live

Lindeman, E. C. (1989). The meaning of adult education. New
York: New Republic. Redistributed edition.

Loeng, S. (2013). Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy — An andragogi-
cal pioneer. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(2), 241-
253. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from EBSCO Online
Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebsco-
host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88070795
&site=ehost-live

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 89,
3-13. Retrieved April 16, 2007 from EBSCO online data-
base, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebsco-
host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9178913&
site=ehost-live

Mezirow, J. (1978) Perspective transformation. Adult
Education 28, 100-110.

Mezirow, J. & Associates (1990). Fostering critical reflection
in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipa-
tory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Oliver, R. (2007). Exploring an inquiry-based learning
approach with first-year students in a large under-
graduate class. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 44 (1), 3-15.

Pearson, P. (1990). The educational orientations of social work
faculty. Journal of Social Work Education. 34 (3), 427-
436.

Prince, M. & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of induc-
tive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science
Teaching. 36 (5), 14-20. Retrieved April 13,

2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=24359797&site=ehost-live

Rachal, J. R. (2002). Andragogy’s detectives: a critique of the
present and a proposal for the future. Adult Education
Quarterly. 52 (3), 210-227. Retrieved April 13, 2007 from
EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e
hh&AN=7216998&site=ehost-live

Smith, M. K. (2004). Eduard C. Lindeman and the meaning of
adult education. the encyclopaedia of informal education.
Retrieved March 22, 2007 from http://www.infed.org/
thinkers/et-lind.htm

Andragogy

von Moltke, F., Huessy, F. & Stahmer, H. M. (1996).
Biography of Eugen Rosenstock-Huessey. Retrieved on
April 12, 2007 from http://www.valley.net/~transnat/erh-
bio.html

Suggested Reading

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher.
San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Galbraith, M.W. (2004). Adult learning methods: A guide for
effective instruction. Malabar, Florida: Krieger.

Henschke, J.A. (2011). Considerations regarding the future
of andragogy. Adult Learning, 22(1), 34-37. Retrieved

November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database
Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=58031256&site=eh
ost-live

Knowles, M. S. (1970, 2nd ed. 1980). Modern practice of adult
education: Andragogy vs. pedagogy. Chicago: Follett.

Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species.
(4th ed.) Houston: Gulf.

Knowles, M. S. (1989). The making of an adult educator: An
autobiographical journey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learn-
ing. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Essay by M. Sheila Bartle, Ph.D.

Dr. M. Sheila Bartle obtained her Master’s and Ph.D. from Loyola University. Most recently, she held the post of Associate Dean of
Education at Kendall College. She teaches and writes in Chicago, IL.

Copyright of Andragogy — Research Starters Education is the property of Great Neck
Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

RESEARCH STARTERS
ACADEMIC TOPIC OVERVIEWS

Instructional Modeling
Teaching Methods > Instructional Modeling

Abstract

This article explores modeling as an instructional methodology
in a variety of educational contexts. Modeling occurs whenever
a teacher demonstrates a concept or skill for a student. Addi-
tionally, modeling occurs whenever individuals learn behaviors,
attitudes, values, and beliefs through observation. Discussion
focuses on the various definitions and benefits of modeling. A
wide range of applicable educational situations are highlighted
including modeling for reading comprehension and music
instruction, modeling for demonstration of life skills for visually
impaired students, and modeling sustainability and environmen-
tally sound practices in school settings. Issues and alternative
viewpoints are also discussed with regard to the negative effects
of excessive modeling and the complexity and difficulty faced
when attempting to model for instructional purposes.

Overview

Haston (2007) indicates that modeling occurs whenever a teacher
demonstrates a concept for a student. In its most basic form, a
teacher models for students by working through a sample prob-
lem, demonstrating how to perform a particular task, dictating
his or her thought process out loud when reading or solving a
difficult problem, etc. Modeling occurs frequently in classrooms
as students often need an example to follow before attempting
to fully apply a particular skill on their own. Teacher modeling
is often the first step in the learning process, followed by guided
practice and eventually individual application without assistance.
The overall goal of modeling, as an instructional methodology,
is to provide an example for students to follow in order to be
able to integrate a particular behavior, successfully perform a
task, or acquire a specific skill on their own. Teacher modeling is
also used in co-teaching contexts where the experienced teacher
can provide effective modeling for a teacher candidate, who
would be able to use it in his or her own future classroom Patel
& Kramer, 2013).

Modeling is not only an effective instructional methodology; it
is also a process that occurs naturally outside of the academic
context. Haston (2007) extends the definition of modeling as
a process through which individuals learn behaviors, attitudes,
values, and beliefs through observations. Not only do teach-
ers model for academic purposes, they also model through
their everyday actions and communication with students about
beliefs, values, and attitudes. Many teachers serve as role models
for youth, thereby modeling appropriate behavior and attitude.
Chiou & Yang (2006) suggest that when students recognize
teachers as role models, teachers have a direct impact on what
students learn. Higgs & McMillan (2006) support the notion that
teachers act as models for students. They claim most students
generally view teachers as competent individuals and therefore
internalize the behaviors and attitudes observed and experienced
in the classroom setting. Methe & Hintze (2003) further sup-
port the assertion that school leaders, teachers, and classroom
assistants influence student behavior through demonstrating and
modeling desired behavior. Ideally, acquisition of desired behav-
iors during instructional sessions is followed by generalization
of these behaviors to contexts similar to classroom activities for
all participants (Ledford & Wolery, 2013).

Abstract
Overview

Benefits of Modeling

Applications

Modeling Reading Instruction

Modeling in Music Education

Modeling for Visually Impaired Students

Modeling Sustainability in Schools

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading

Table of Contents

Instructional Modeling

Social learning theory as discussed by Bandura (1977, 1986;
cited in Methe & Hintze, 2003) further illuminates the modeling
process as observational in nature. Learning often takes place
in the absence of direct reinforcement as people learn naturally
through imitation of models (Haston, 2007). Just as a young child
mimics words heard in a conversation, people, in general, aim to
emulate behaviors observed. Bandura (1977) claims that highly
valued individuals can have positive effects on other individuals
and can thereby encourage desirable behavior through ongoing
visual feedback. Methe & Hintze (2003) suggest that teachers
act as facilitators of desirable behavior and thus are often in the
position of highly valued individuals with much influence over
student behavior and attitude.

Higgs & McMillan (2006) highlight that research strongly indi-
cates modeling is an effective way to teach knowledge, skills and
behaviors. They also assert that effective modeling motivates
students to learn and helps them to develop core values. When
students are exposed to multiple models whether academic or
value based, behaviors and skills are often learned quickly and
efficiently as students internalize observed models and integrate
observed behaviors and values with their own.

Benefits of Modeling
Riva & Korinek (2004) indicate modeling has been demon-
strated to be an effective instructional methodology in a variety
of contexts. They specifically highlight modeling as an effec-
tive process for teaching and learning complex problem solving,
evaluation, writing tasks, leadership, and communication among
others. In an academic setting, students benefit greatly from
exposure to instructional models because they are able to
develop clear understandings of expectations for both process
and product. Once students observe a teacher model exactly how
to follow a specific process or how to perform a particular task,
they are much more likely to be successful when it comes to
applying the skills learned.

Additionally, teachers are not always the only individuals mod-
eling in classroom settings. Peers often model for instructional
purposes by guiding each other through acquisition of specific
skills or through processes necessary for successful completion
of tasks, etc. When peers model for each other, both individuals
benefit tremendously from the teaching and learning relationship.
When a student is able to effectively model or teach a particular
concept or skill to another individual, he or she takes on the role
of a teacher and thereby demonstrates a complete understand-
ing of the concept or skill taught. Furthermore, peer modeling
encourages strong peer relationships and increased self-esteem
and self-confidence.

Riva & Korinek (2004) support the notion that modeling is
effective when direct learning outcomes are intended, but can
be equally as powerful when no teaching or learning is intended
at all. Haston (2007) discusses how modeling allows students to
learn naturally and intuitively. When teachers effectively model
behaviors, attitudes, and values, students absorb and integrate

what they observe with little, if any, direct instruction. Therefore,
teachers model and students learn without actually being aware
that teaching and learning is occurring. Haston (2007) further
highlights that, as students improve as a direct result of model-
ing, they begin to become more independent and creative in their
own thought processes. Once they acquire the skills necessary
via modeling, students are often able to build upon learned skills
to develop their own understandings.

Applications

As discussed, modeling occurs in a variety of educational con-
texts from direct instructional methodologies to more implicit
and natural situations. The following section focuses on a variety
of applicable situations in which modeling plays a major role.
Modeling as a direct teaching methodology is explored in the
context of both reading and music instruction. Next, modeling
as an instructional technique for visually impaired students is
discussed. Finally, modeling of behaviors, attitudes and values is
highlighted in the context of sustainability and environmentally
sound practices in schools.

Modeling Reading Instruction
Methe & Hintze (2003) discuss the findings of many researchers
regarding the impact of teacher modeling on reading instruction.
They assert that teacher modeling is a common element identi-
fied across a variety of reading programs and they highlight the
strong relationship between on-task reading behavior and teacher
modeling. When teachers model on-task reading behaviors and
demonstrate for students why reading is important and critical
to success, students are more likely to be on-task when read-
ing (Methe & Hintze, 2003). One specific way teachers model
on-task reading involves a common practice, Sustained Silent
Reading (SSR). During SSR, students are required to read a book
of their choice silently, on their own, without interruption for a
specified period of time. Teachers that model on-task behavior
by reading a book of their choice as students read, implicitly
communicate to students the importance of reading.

Walker (2005) discusses the direct effects of teacher modeling
on reading comprehension via the think-aloud technique. When
teachers articulate their thought process for students and make
strategies they use to comprehend text transparent to students,
students are more likely to apply such strategies when reading
on their own. Walker (2005) asserts modeling of the think-aloud
technique promotes strategy use, self-efficacy, and increased
engagement in the reading process and comprehension of text.
She claims that struggling readers directly benefit from teachers
who model their own thoughts and self-statements as they read.

When teaching reading comprehension strategies, teachers
model a variety of techniques that assist with comprehension
of text. Teachers may model the prediction process by articulat-
ing predictions out loud as they read a text to students. They
may model thoughtful questions by pausing and asking differ-

Instructional Modeling

ent questions while reading. Teachers may model connection
making by detailing, out loud, specific connections they make
between the text and their own lives. Through active listening
and direct observation of strategies teachers use to comprehend
text, students slowly, but surely, begin to integrate such strate-
gies and techniques into their own reading.

Modeling in Music Education
Whereas modeling in reading instruction is most effective when
teachers think out loud and clearly articulate their thought pro-
cess for students, modeling in music education works in the
opposite way, and is most effective when students are exposed to
minimal verbal explanation of what a teacher is thinking while
playing a musical instrument (Haston, 2007). Haston (2007)
asserts that the most appropriate use of modeling in a music
classroom occurs when teachers teach new musical concepts
or demonstrate specific performance skills without reference to
printed music. He further asserts that modeling can occur via
live performance or recordings, in group settings or in individ-
ual instruction, or by encouraging older students to model for
younger students via peer mentoring relationships.

Haston (2007) claims that music instruction lends itself primar-
ily to aural modeling processes because students learn implicitly
by listening and aiming to match what they hear via the model.
A choral director or teacher may model staccato for students
by demonstrating it using the voice or an instrument and then
requiring students to repeat. A string teacher may model how to
hold the bow, where to place it and how to hold the fingers when
playing a string instrument. Haston (2007) further asserts that
all music teachers can model good and poor tone quality, style,
diction, articulation and phrasing in addition to a variety of other
musical concepts and understandings.

However, he illuminates that despite all of the evidence indicat-
ing the benefits of modeling in music instruction, researchers in
various studies claim that modeling is employed only 10 to 25
percent of the time in music education classes (Haston, 2007).
Should music educators expect students to better emulate musi-
cal performance skills and acquire deeper understandings of
musical concepts, they need to employ modeling techniques
more frequently in classroom settings.

Modeling for Visually Impaired Students
Modeling is a strategy largely used with visually impaired stu-
dents to help them acquire life skills necessary to be successful.
O’Connell et al. (2006) highlight specific modeling strategies that
are employed when teaching visually impaired students, such as
tactile modeling, physical guidance and demonstration. As stu-
dents are taught a modeled process, they are able to reproduce
the actions and increase their understanding of what they need to
do (O’Connell et al., 2006). O’Connell et al. (2006) further state
that once students understand what they need to do to perform a
specific skill, they are able to create a mental picture of the pro-
cess based on the model and are therefore able to reproduce the
specific action or skill.

Tactile modeling and physical guidance are two specific mod-
eling techniques used for instructional purposes with visually
impaired students. Tactile modeling involves participation via
touch that can help a student learn and understand a skill by feel-
ing and exploring the model’s body in the direction of movement
(O’Connell et al., 2006). Tactile modeling enables a student to
take control over his or her learning as he or she is able to choose
specific movements to focus on for information gathering pur-
poses (O’Connell et al., 2006). Physical guidance differs slightly
in that the student performs a particular movement with the model
to better understand the feel, rhythm, and motion of the move-
ment being instructed (O’Connell et al., 2006). The model literally
places the student’s body in the position necessary to perform a
particular task and moves with the student to model the actions.
Both forms of modeling are highly effective in helping visually
impaired students understand movements behind specific skills.

O’Connell et al. (2006) highlight the research of Bandura (1997)
indicating that new skills can be acquired through physical dem-
onstration, pictorial or verbal instruction describing exactly how
to perform a given task. When teachers explain verbally how
to perform a specific task or demonstrate physically the pro-
cess necessary, students acquire the skill quickly and efficiently.
Bandura (1997) asserts the most effective way of translating
information about how to perform a specific skill or action to a
visually impaired student is via proficient modeling.

Modeling Sustainability in Schools
Higgs & McMillan (2006) discuss multiple ways educators can
model environmental sustainability in schools with the goals of
helping students better understand concepts related to sustain-
ability and incorporate sustainable practices into their daily
behaviors. The researchers primarily focus on four distinct ways
in which schools model sustainability: role modeling, modeling
via campus facilities and operations, modeling via school gover-
nance, and modeling via school culture. Although the researchers
directly discuss the effects of modeling on sustainability and
environmentally sound practices, the information extrapolated
from their research with regard to modeling can be applied in a
variety of educational contexts for a variety of purposes, not just
sustainability.

The most direct form of modeling with the most impact on student
attitudes and beliefs involves observed behaviors that promote
sustainability (Higgs & McMillan, 2006). When teachers model
sustainable practices such as recycling empty cans, using recy-
cled paper, driving hybrid cars, and conserving energy, students
are more likely to integrate these behaviors into their daily lives.
Direct observation of such behaviors in trusted adults results in
changed behaviors on behalf of students primarily because stu-
dents observe these behaviors daily and begin to incorporate what
they learn via observation into their own daily actions.

Higgs & McMillan (2006) further discuss the role that campus
facilities and operations play in teaching students about sustain-
ability. They assert that by making “green” facilities and the

Instructional Modeling

operations necessary to sustain “green” practices transparent to
students, students are more likely to become directly involved
in maintaining and promoting such environmentally sound prac-
tices. Higgs & McMillan (2006) claim that by involving students
in the operations of the school, students gain a deeper under-
standing and appreciation for the waste, consumption, inequities,
governance and economics of the school as these components
become much more visible and tangible. The more effort schools
put forth to model sustainability via environmentally sound facil-
ities and operations, the greater the impact on student behaviors,
attitudes and beliefs.

A third way in which schools model sustainability involves
modeling via school governance. Higgs & McMillan (2006)
highlight specific schools that promote sustainable practices via
direct student involvement in the decision making process in
order to model social equity and civic participation. By mod-
eling the participatory process in school governance, schools
give students and faculty power to influence decisions. Higgs
& McMillan (2006) assert that schools modeling social equity
and civic participation via shared decision making, whether for
sustainability or not, empower students and help them to feel a
sense of ownership of their own education.

Finally, Higgs & McMillan (2006) focus on the effects of
modeling sustainability via school culture and tradition. The
researchers highlight the fact that traditions, rituals and ceremo-
nies play a major role in establishing school culture. Therefore,
modeling values, beliefs and attitudes via school traditions and
rituals directly impacts student behavior. Students are more
likely to adopt behaviors if they continually and directly observe
people and institutions that model and respect such values, rather
than simply being told that it is important to hold certain values.
Higgs & McMillan (2006) firmly believe that modeling helps
students transfer abstract ideas into personal, tangible applica-
tions. They assert that direct observation of specific behaviors is
essential if educators expect students to carry out such behaviors
on their own. The more opportunities educators seize to model
attitudes, beliefs and behaviors for students, the more likely
students are to be prepared to integrate such values into their
everyday lives.

Viewpoints

Although research highlights the fact that modeling is a highly
effective strategy for increasing reading comprehension, teach-
ers often struggle with implementing modeling techniques in the
classroom. Pressley (2002) indicates the think-aloud strategy is
rarely used in classrooms because of the complexity involved
in modeling the actual thought process for students. Walker
(2005) discusses how teachers are moving away from asking
rote comprehension questions with determined answers toward
more critical thinking questions involving complex comprehen-

sion processes. However, teachers continue to have difficulty
implementing the think-aloud strategy. Although it should be a
common practice in classrooms, it is not (Walker 2005).

One of the main reasons this particular modeling strategy is diffi-
cult to implement is because teachers need to make their thinking
explicit for students. Rather than just simply performing a task
or comprehending text implicitly while reading, teachers need
to voice, out loud, the process they use to determine mean-
ing from text. While this may seem simple on the surface, it is
actually quite difficult to implement in the classroom setting.
Furthermore, thinking aloud must occur frequently for students
to actually internalize the strategies and begin to use them on
their own.

An additional concern raised by researchers with regard to
modeling as an effective teaching methodology involves inhibi-
tion of creativity (Gardner, 1994; cited in Haston, 2007). When
modeling is used too frequently and employed to an extreme,
some educators believe that modeling can, in turn, stifle a child’s
individuality and creativity. While it is true that modeling can
have tremendous benefits for students in terms of helping to con-
struct knowledge and shaping their beliefs, attitudes and values,
teachers need to be careful with regard to the extent that model-
ing practices are employed in the classroom as students cannot
always imitate what they see and hear. Educators also need to
ensure that students evolve into independent, creative thinkers.
In addition, a study of teachers responding to questions about
the moral work of teaching revealed that teacher participants
commonly believed that modeling is a primary means by which
moral education occurs (Sanger & Osguthorpe, 2013).

Terms & Concepts

Aural Modeling: Aural modeling requires students to learn
implicitly by listening and aiming to match what they hear via
the model.

Modeling: Modeling occurs whenever a teacher demonstrates a
concept for a student. In its most basic form, a teacher models
for students by working through a sample problem, demonstrat-
ing how to perform a particular task, dictating his or her thought
process out loud when reading or solving a difficult problem etc.
Haston (2007) extends the definition of modeling as a process
through which individuals learn behaviors, attitudes, values, and
beliefs through observations.

Social Learning Theory: Social learning theory as discussed by
Bandura (1977, 1986; cited in Haston, 2007) describes the mod-
eling process as observational in nature. Learning often takes
place in the absence of direct reinforcement as people learn natu-
rally through imitation of models.

Instructional Modeling

Sustained Silent Reading (SSR): During SSR, students are
required to read a book of their choice silently, on their own,
without interruption for a specified period of time.

Tactile Modeling: Tactile modeling involves inspection via touch
that can help a student learn and understand a skill by feeling and
exploring the model’s body in the direction of movement.

Think Aloud: A modeling strategy used primarily in reading
comprehension instruction. Teachers articulate their thought
process for students and make strategies they use to comprehend
text transparent to students thus encouraging students to apply
such strategies when reading on their own.

Bibliography

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ; Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York: W. H. Freeman

Chiou, W. & Yang, C. (2006). Teachers modeling advantage
and their modeling effects on college students’ learning
styles and occupational stereotypes: A case of collabora-
tive teaching in technical courses. Adolescence, 41 (164),
723-737. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online
Database Education Research Complete. http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=236
00991&site=ehost-live

Gardner, H. (1994). The arts and human development. New
York: Basic Books.

Haston, W. (2007). Teacher modeling as an effective teach-
ing strategy: Modeling is a technique that can help your
students learn effectively in many situations. Music
Educators Journal, 93 (4), 26-30. Retrieved June 15,
2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=24344139&site=ehost-live

Higgs, A. & McMillan, V. (2006). Teaching through model-
ing: Four school’s experiences in sustainability educa-
tion. Journal of Environmental Education, 38 (1), 39-53.
Retrieved June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database
Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23675635&sit
e=ehost-live

Ledford, J. R., & Wolery, M. (2013). Peer modeling of aca-
demic and social behaviors during small-group direct
instruction. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 439-458.

Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online
Database Education Source Complete. http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=882
66507&site=ehost-live

Methe, S. & Hintze, J. (2003). Evaluating teacher modeling
as a strategy to increase student reading behavior. School
Psychology Review, 32 (4), 617-623. Retrieved

June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education
Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11924948&site=ehost-live

O’Connell, M, Lieberman, L., & Petersen S. (2006). The use
of tactile modeling and physical guidance as instructional
strategies in physical activity for children who are blind.

Patel, N. H., & Kramer, T. A. (2013). Modeling collaboration
for middle-level teacher candidates through co-teaching.
Teacher Educator, 48(3), 170-184. Retrieved December
19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct
=true&db=ehh&AN=88786116&site=ehost-livePhysical
Education Teacher, 100 (8), 471. Retrieved June 15,
2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=22415391&site=ehost-live

Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case
for balanced teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Riva, M. & Korinek, L. (2004). Teaching group work:
Modeling group leader and member behaviors in the
classroom to demonstrate group theory. Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 29 (1), 55-63. Retrieved
June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education
Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13127574&site=ehost-live

Sanger, M. N., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2013). Modeling as
moral education: Documenting, analyzing, and address-
ing a central belief of preservice teachers. Teaching &
Teacher Education , 29167-176. Retrieved December 18,
2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=83653172&site=ehost-live

Walker, B. (2005). Thinking aloud: Struggling readers often
require more than a model. The Reading Teacher, 58 (7),
688-692. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online
Database Education Research Complete. http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=167
38076&site=ehost-live

Instructional Modeling
Suggested Reading

Block C., & Israel, S. (2004). The ABC’s of performing highly
effective think-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 58, 154-167.

De Groot, C. (2001). From description to proof. Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School, 7 (4), 244-248. Retrieved
June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education
Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5760425&site=ehost-live

English, L., Fox, J., & Watters, J. (2005). Problem posing and
solving with mathematical modeling. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 12, 156-163. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from
EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e
hh&AN=18456815&site=ehost-live

McAlister, A., Ama, E., Barroso, C., Peters, R., & Kelder,
S. (2000). Promoting tolerance and moral engagement
through peer modeling. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 6(4); pp. 363-373.

McGee, L. & Schickedanz, J. (2007). Repeated interactive
read-alouds in preschool and kindergarten. The Reading
Teacher, 60 (8), 742-751. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from
EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e
hh&AN=24958563&site=ehost-live

Widdowson, D., Dixon, R. & Moore, D. (1996). The effect of
teacher modeling of silent reading on students’ engage-
ment during silent sustained reading. Educational
Psychology, 16, 171-180.

Wilen, W., & Philips, J. (1995). Teaching critical thinking: A
metacognitive approach. Social Education, 59, 135-138.

Essay by John Loeser, M.Ed.

John Loeser is an Assistant Head of an elementary school in San Mateo, California. He received his Master’s of Education in School
Leadership from Harvard University. His research interests include differentiated instruction, improving instructional practice, and
strategic change and leadership in schools. He is a member of the National and California Association of Independent Schools, and the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. He currently resides in San Mateo, California with his wife.

Copyright of Instructional Modeling — Research Starters Education is the property of Great
Neck Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.