Posts Tagged ‘6DFS’

Pedagogy v Andragogy … v Humanagogy?

Monday, May 4th, 2015

A colleague recently drew my attention to an article, “Pedagogy vs. Andragogy: A False Dichotomy?”. (Being a person with a Reflector-Theorist learning style) I found it a fascinating read.

These two terms are often used to describe, respectively, how children learn and how adults learn. As the article explains, “The term (Pedagogy) is derived from the Greek words ‘paid’, meaning ‘child’ and ‘agogus’ meaning ‘leader of’ …. Andragogy is based on the Greek word ‘aner’ with the stem ‘andra’ meaning ‘man, not boy’ or adult, and ‘agogus’ meaning ‘leader of’”.

I have been a strong supporter of Andragogy for many years and always include it in Train the Trainer programmes I deliver. When I explain it, I tend to call it the Principles of Adult Learning.

I have also always been mildly uncomfortable with the term Andragogy, as I am aware that the approach is equally relevant to the development of learning for children – not just adults. It also implies that adults are easily able to embrace its principles, and I am aware from experience that this is not always the case.

It is, therefore, more about the group of people we as trainers or facilitators are leading, and the article introduces a term that I have not come across before – Humanagogy. The term was introduced by Knudson in 1980 and the article explains, “Unlike the separate terms of pedagogy and andragogy, humanagogy represents the differences as well as the similarities that exist between both adults and children as learning human beings. It approaches human learning as a matter of degree, not kind.” The emphasis here is moving the focus from an aged based assessment to an assessment comprising a wider range of criteria, such as subject matter, learning styles of the individuals, their level of motivation to learn, etc., but also including age.

This approach links very well with Heron’s 6 Dimensions of Facilitator Style. Heron’s model, as I explain here, is all about the facilitator considering the needs of the group in 6 discrete areas (Dimensions) and then deciding throughout the session whether their style should be Hierarchical (predominantly pedagogical), Co-operative, or Autonomous (predominantly Andragogical).

For me, Heron’s model develops the Humanagogical approach from a 2-D model to a 3-D model. It does this by explicitly indicating that whilst the initial assessment of the group’s needs in a way that matches with Knudson’s Humanagogy is entirely appropriate, this situation needs to be continually re-assessed by the facilitator – almost on a minute by minute basis, based on the group’s reactions and actions – in order to maximise the learning taking place.

I would have to agree with the article’s authors, Geraldine Holmes and Michele Abington-Cooper, that the terms Pedagogy and Andragogy do create a false dichotomy. Perhaps it should be a continuum with Humanagogy in the middle?

I will definitely be including Humanagogy in my future inputs and discussions on this topic.

Throughout the planning for and delivery of any session, the needs and motivations of the individuals have to be paramount. Any model, theory or discussion that helps facilitators understand, recognise, include and manage these needs has to be useful.

What are your thoughts?

Paul

6D Fun From Facilitators!

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Much of the talk these days as to whether entertainment is impactive is whether it is 2D, 3D or even 4D. Well, a 4D facilitator is reasonable, but the very best are 6D! Are you?

If 6CIA is good for coaches, then the 6 Dimensions of Facilitator Style (6DFS, or sometimes 18DFS) is great for trainers and facilitators! This model was developed by John Heron to complement 6CIA, and create a helping tool for people working with groups as opposed to individuals.

Whereas 6CIA has just the 6 Categories, 6DFS has 6 Dimensions (you will see some similarities with the 6CIA Categories) together with 3 Modes.

Heron used the Modes to describe the exercise of power in the running of the group by the facilitator – moving from Hierarchical, where all the power is with the trainer, through to Autonomous where the group has the freedom to finds its own way. As each Mode can be combined with each Dimension, this gives eighteen possible combinations (hence why it is sometimes called 18DFS).

As I explained in a previous post, I find that one of the best ways of explaining this model is to imagine, as a trainer, you have a ‘mixer’ – as a producer would use when recording music. On the producer’s mixer there are 6 controls managing the loudness or softness of each instrument making up the track, which they can change as they see fit – thus enabling them to create the perfect sound. As a trainer, change the instruments to Dimensions, and the loudness / softness control to the Modes. You then use your mixer to set the Dimensions and Modes at their appropriate level for the needs of the group, amending them as you see fit.

Here’s an explanation of the Modes and Dimensions:

Modes

Hierarchical: Power resides with the facilitator who directs and acts on behalf of the group – leading from the front on behalf of the group. The facilitator makes decisions, interprets, gives meaning, challenges, etc for the group and takes on responsibility for all the dimensions described below (“does it for the group”).

Co-operative: Shared responsibility and power with the facilitator ollaborating with the group in the management of the different dimensions. All views are valid and the facilitator’s view is not final. It is part of an agreed or negotiated outcome (“does it with the group”). The facilitator prompts and helps the group when dealing with the different dimensions.

Autonomous: Here the group has the freedom to find its own way with little or no intervention from the facilitator – as the facilitator is respecting the autonomy of the group. This doesn’t mean that the facilitator has a purely passive role, but works to create an environment and conditions whereby he group is self-directing (“gives it to the group”). The facilitator has created an environment and the space for self-directed learning.

Dimensions

Planning: The aims and plans of the group and what should happen to achieve these. It involves the consideration of objectives, methods, resources, times, assessment and evaluation.

Meaning: How the group acquires understanding and makes sense of the learning. This includes the assessment process. Covers different sort of learning – e.g. ideas, theories, experiential. Knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes and behaviours.

Confronting: Dealing with resistance in the group that can hamper the learning. This can come about through habit, anxiety, inexperience, wanting to take an easier route, etc.

Feeling: The management of feelings and emotions within the group and enabling catharsis. The emotions can be positive and/or negative, but need managing so that they create learning and growth and, where necessary energy is redirected.

Structuring: The implementation of decisions regarding the design and methods used. How best to carry out and structure the learning activities that the group will be involved in.

Valuing: Creating the appropriate environment in which the learning will take place. An environment where people feel valued, can be authentic, can shares concerns openly, can disclose their needs and interests, increase their self-respect and are therefore able to thrive.

I find a great way to use this model is when training trainers or when reflecting on a day’s facilitation. I have a grid with Modes along one Axis and Dimensions along the other – let me know if you would like a copy – and then make a note of where the facilitator or trainer is (or was if it is my reflections) at different times of the day. Was I in the right Mode? Did I spend too long in one Dimension? Were there any Dimensions I didn’t operate in, and if so, is that a problem? Where do I need to be operating from tomorrow / the next time I run such a session?

Try it – I’m sure you‘ll find it valuable. Find out if you are 6D!

Paul