reflection paper

Order Description
(choose and cite at least two for assignment): focus on what the authors below say about Mezirow and Freire

Introduce Transformative and Critical perspectives by commenting what you plan to talk about in your reflection. Up to __1 points.

Be sure to include a paragraph about what Mezirow and the authors from this week say about key components of transformative learning (the authors will usually start with Mezirow’s thoughts on this perspective). Include your thoughts on the learner and educator roles for a transformative learning perspective. Use in-text citations to identify where you are getting your information from. Up to __2.5 points.

Next include a paragraph that comments on what Freire and the authors from this week say are key components of critical learning. Include your thoughts on the learner and educator roles for a critical perspective. Use in-text citations to identify where you are getting your information from. Up to __2.5 points.

Provide a summary that synthesizes similarities and differences between these two perspectives, and, an example from your life where you were personally involved in a transformative learning situation or with critical community education or learning that connects to key components of these. How might you or others support transformative learning efforts in the workplace or your lives? What concerns might you or other educators have about using these perspectives in their practices (see the readings for ethical and practice concerns for these)? Up to __3.5 points.

Don’t forget your reference list. Up to __.5 point.
References to read (In Attachment):

Perspectives and theories of adult learning – MAGRO (see pgs. 86 – 92 for overviews on transformative and critical education.)

Transformational learning – MERRIAM & CAFFARELLA (consider Geri’s transformative learning experience on p. 130, the discussion on Mezirow from p. 133 to the middle of p. 134 plus the summary of Mezirow on p. 137, the discussion on Freire pgs. 140-141, the critique of Mezirow and Freire on p. 154, and, the first paragraph of The Educator’s Place in Fostering Transformative Learning on p. 154 to think about ethical issues with transformative perspectives.)

Transformative learning as a professional development goal – CRANTON & KING (see their discussion of Tranformative education on p. 32 and especially consider their final sentence on this page, see their discussion on Habits of Mind about Teaching on pgs. 33 & 34, the practice and praxis of critical education on p. 34 too, and p. 35 & 36 to consider what this might look like if you were to use transformative and-or critical perspectives to teach others.)

Radical adult education and learning – FOLEY (see Dr. Foley’s p. 72 and bottom of p. 73, and, middle of p. 74 for educators role, plus note that Highlander Folk School is mentioned on this page too, and, see p. 78’s story on learning in neighbourhood houses for learner’s role, and, for methods see p. 79 and p. 80).

Good teaching: One size fits all? – PRATT : See Pratt’s “Social Reform” Perspective (see pgs. 12 & 13)

(choose and cite at least two for assignment): focus on what the authors below say about Mezirow and Freire
This chapter provides a counterargument to the trend
toward a new educational orthodoxy that says all teacher
development should follow a constructivist path to good
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION, no. 93, Spring 2002 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 5
I thank Robert Rubeck and John Collins for their comments about and contributions to
this chapter.
Good Teaching: One Size Fits All?
Daniel D. Pratt
Across North America and, increasingly, the rest of the world, there is a
move within education to adopt a constructivist view of learning and teaching.
In part, the argument for this move is a reaction against teachercentered
instruction that has dominated much of education, particularly
adult and higher education, for the past forty years or more. Although I do
not argue with the basic tenets of constructivism, I do resist the rush to
adopt a single dominant view of learning or teaching. Unless we are cautious,
I fear we are about to replace one orthodoxy with yet another and
promote a one-size-fits-all notion of good teaching.
My caution is derived from ten years of research in five different countries,
studying hundreds of teachers of adults. Across a wide range of disciplines,
contexts, and cultures, my colleagues and I found a plurality of good
teaching, not all of which rests on constructivist principles of learning. Our
findings are not unique. They correspond to those of many other
researchers around the world, as far back as Fox (1983) and as recently as
Grubb and others (1999). In reviewing most of that research, Kember
(1997) found a surprisingly high level of correspondence across countries
and researchers. No single view of learning or teaching dominated what
might be called “good teaching.”1 In our research, we documented five perspectives
on teaching, each with the potential to be good teaching: transmission,
developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing, and social reform (Pratt
and others, 1998).
Five Perspectives on Teaching
A perspective on teaching is an interrelated set of beliefs and intentions that
gives direction and justification to our actions. It is a lens through which
we view teaching and learning. We may not be aware of our perspective
because it is something we look through, rather than look at, when teaching.
Each of the perspectives in this chapter is a unique blend of beliefs, intentions,
and actions. Yet there is overlap among them. Similar actions,
intentions, and even beliefs can be found in more than one perspective.
Teachers holding different perspectives may, for example, have similar
beliefs about the importance of critical reflection in work and educational
contexts. To this end, all may espouse the use of higher-level questions as
a means of promoting critical thinking. However, the way questions are
asked and the way in which teachers listen and respond when people consider
those questions may vary considerably across perspectives. These variations
are also directly related to our beliefs about learning, knowledge, and
the appropriate role of an instructor.
It is common for people to confuse perspectives on teaching with methods
of teaching. Some say they use all five perspectives at one time or
another, depending on circumstances. On the surface, this seems reasonable.
However, a deeper look reveals that perspectives are far more than
methods. In part, this confusion derives from the fact that the same teaching
actions are common across perspectives: lecturing, discussion, questioning,
and a host of other methods are common activities within all five
perspectives. It is how they are used, and toward what ends, that differentiates
Based on data from over two thousand teachers who have taken the
Teaching Perspectives Inventory (Pratt and Collins, 2000), we know that
over 90 percent of teachers hold only one or two perspectives as their dominant
view of teaching and only marginally identify with one or two others.
It could not be otherwise, given that perspectives vary in their views of
knowledge, learning, and teaching.
What follows is a snapshot of each perspective, including a metaphor
for the adult learner and a set of key beliefs, primary responsibilities, typical
strategies, and common difficulties. Each snapshot is a composite of
many representative people. Therefore, it would be unlikely that any one
individual would have all the characteristics listed for any one perspective.
As you read them, try to locate yourself not by looking for a perfect fit but
for the best fit. Which of the perspectives seems to capture your own orientation
toward teaching and learning? I expect you will find parts of each
perspective that fit but that the overall profile of one or two snapshots will
feel more comfortable than others.2
A Transmission Perspective. The transmission perspective is the
most common orientation to teaching in secondary and higher education,
though not in elementary and adult education. From the transmission perspective,
effective teaching starts with a substantial commitment to the content
or subject matter, so it is essential for transmission-oriented teachers
to have mastery over their content.
Many who teach from this perspective hold certain assumptions and
views of adults as learners. Some tend to think of the adult learner as a “container”
to be filled with something (knowledge). This knowledge exists outside
the learner, usually within the text or in the teacher. Teachers are to
efficiently and effectively pass along (teach) a common body of knowledge
and way of thinking similar to what is in the text or the teacher.
Such a process of learning is additive, meaning that teachers should
take care not to overload their learners with too much information. To
increase the amount that is learned, teachers should focus their presentations
on the internal structure of the content. This structure can then be
used as an effective means of storing and retrieving the material. With
proper delivery by the teacher and proper receptivity by the learner, knowledge
can be transferred from the teacher to the learner.
From the transmission perspective, learners are expected to learn the
content in its authorized or legitimate forms, and teachers are expected to
take learners systematically through a set of tasks that lead to mastery of the
content. To do this, teachers, beginning with the fundamentals, must provide
clear objectives and well-organized lectures, adjust the pace of lecturing,
make efficient use of class time, clarify misunderstandings, answer
questions, correct errors, provide reviews, summarize what has been presented,
direct students to appropriate resources, set high standards for
achievement, and develop objective means of assessing learning. How do
effective transmission teachers accomplish this? What strategies do they use?
First, transmission teachers spend a lot of time in preparation, ensuring
their mastery over the content to be presented. They specify what students
should learn (objectives) and take care to see that resources and
assignments are in line with those objectives. Their goal is to pass on to
learners a specific body of knowledge or skill as efficiently and effectively
as possible. In order to accommodate individual differences, they vary the
pace of instruction, sometimes speeding up and other times slowing down
or repeating what was said. Feedback to learners is directed at errors and
pointing out where learners can improve their performance. Assessment of
learning is usually a matter of locating learners within a hierarchy of knowledge
or skill to be learned.
As with all other perspectives, teachers holding transmission as their
dominant perspective have some difficulties. For example, they often find
it difficult to work with people who do not understand the logic of their
content. This causes difficulty anticipating where and why learners are
likely to struggle with the content. In addition, many whom we studied had
difficulty thinking of examples or problems from the world outside the
classroom as a means of making their content come to life. And when challenged
by learners, they often returned to the content as a means of dealing
with those challenges. Finally, it was not unusual in our observations to see
transmission teachers spend too much time talking. In fact, it seemed that
many used learner responses or questions as an opportunity to talk some
more. These teachers were primarily focused on the content rather than the
Much of this description sounds negative, and, indeed, most of us can
think of teachers who fit well in this perspective and were less than stellar.
Transmission orientations to teaching provide some of the most common
negative examples of teaching. Nevertheless, many of us also have positive
memories of teachers who were passionate about the content, animated in
its delivery, and determined that we go away with respect and enthusiasm
for their subject. Such an individual may have inspired us to take up a particular
vocation or field of study. Their deep respect and enthusiasm for the
subject was infectious. It is the memory of those teachers that must be preserved
if we are to see transmission as a legitimate perspective on teaching.
A Developmental Perspective. The constructivist orientation to learning
is the foundation for this perspective on teaching. From the developmental
perspective, the primary goal of education or training is to develop
increasingly complex and sophisticated ways of reasoning and problem solving
within a content area or field of practice.
A typical metaphor for understanding the adult learner is the computer.
From this perspective, teachers need to know how their learners are “programmed,”
that is, how they think and what they believe in relation to the
content or work. With that information, teachers try to build bridges from
the learners’ way of thinking to better, more complex, and more sophisticated
ways of thinking and reasoning. The assumption behind this strategy
is that learning brings about one of two kinds of change inside the brain.
First, when a new experience fits with what someone already knows, it
builds a stronger and more elaborate pathway to that knowledge. Second,
if a new experience or new content does not fit the learner’s current way of
knowing, she or he must either change the old way of knowing or reject the
new knowledge or experience. The goal is to change the way learners think
rather than increase their store of knowledge.
Behind this view lies a constructivist tenet that learners use what they
already know to filter and interpret new information. In effect, this means
that learners construct their understanding rather than reproduce the
teacher’s understanding. Making sense of the world by relating it to what
one already knows has implications for teaching. Foremost, it means that
teachers must genuinely value learners’ prior knowledge and understand
how they think about the content before presenting new material. Once this
is accomplished, developmental teachers employ two common strategies:
the judicious use of effective questioning that challenges learners to move
from relatively simple to more complex forms of thinking and the use of
meaningful examples. Questions, problems, cases, and examples form the
bridge that teachers use to transport learners from previous ways of thinking
and reasoning to new, more complex, and sophisticated forms of reasoning
and problem solving. Approaching instruction in this way has
implications for the use of teachers’ knowledge. Developmental teachers
adapt their knowledge to learners’ ways of understanding.
It is not easy to teach from this perspective, as teachers trying to change
from a transmission to developmental orientation will attest. For example,
asking good questions, the kind that require time to think and reason before
answering, is not easy. And after asking the question, waiting while learners
think and voice their thoughts takes patience. It is difficult to refrain
from telling learners rather than letting them figure it out for themselves,
especially when teachers know the answer. However, the most common difficulty
that teachers have when trying to teach from this perspective is in
developing practice and assessment tasks that are consistent with complex
reasoning. They tend to focus on recall, recognition, and correct answers
rather than on reflection, analysis, and reasoning.
Increasingly, teachers at all levels of education are espousing this perspective
on teaching. It has become the new orthodoxy and is also the basis
for much of the progressive movement of problem- and case-based learning
in the professions. The central commitment to the learner’s level of knowledge
and skill as a starting point is laudable and effective. However, the progression
from espousing to enacting a developmental perspective involves
much more than a repertoire of techniques for engaging learners in problems
and discussion. It also means that teachers must use their knowledge
and expertise in ways that do not undermine the goal of helping learners
construct their own forms of understanding. Indeed, from this perspective,
sometimes less (telling) means more (learning).
An Apprenticeship Perspective. The apprenticeship view of teaching
may be familiar to many, especially those who have gone through an
apprenticeship or internship. As we learn more about why so little classroom
learning transfers to work sites, this view becomes increasingly relevant.
From an apprenticeship perspective, learning is facilitated when
people work on authentic tasks in real settings of application or practice.
Although this is difficult to do in a classroom, some teachers have accomplished
this in classrooms (Collins, Brown, and Holum, 1991).
Whether in classrooms or at work sites, the instructor is responsible
for revealing the inner workings of skilled performance. This is part of the
transition apprenticeship teachers must make when moving from doing
the work to teaching about doing it. Performing is different from teaching
about performing. Teachers must find ways to translate the habituated
movement and artistry of performance into language and demonstrations
that are accessible and meaningful to learners.
From an apprenticeship perspective, learning is more than the building
of cognitive structures or the development of skilled competence. It is,
as well, the transformation of the learners’ identity that occurs as they adopt
the language, values, and practices of a specific social group. In the language
of collaborative learning and social constructivism, this is the same process
teachers take students through when reenculturating them into a new community
of practice way of thinking (Bruffee, 1999). A useful metaphor for
thinking about the learner, then, is as an outsider using education and training
as a means of entry to practice. However, from this perspective, learners
are also using education or training as a means of learning a new
discourse of action and identity.
Learning therefore is a matter of developing competence and identity
in relation to other members of a community of practice. Learners’ progress
is marked by their skilled performance and their movement from the
periphery (as novice or beginner) to the center (as experienced members)
of the social life and practices of a community. As new members come into
a community, the community itself undergoes changes in defining and
enacting appropriate roles, responsibilities, and relationships. Thus, three
central tenets of this view are that learning is a process of enculturation,
knowledge is socially constructed through participation in a social group,
and the product of learning is of two kinds: competence and social identity
in relation to the community of practice.
The instructor’s responsibility is to see that learners work on tasks that
are meaningful and relevant to the community of practice. One of the principal
strategies by which they do this is scaffolding: breaking the performance
or work into tasks and sequences that progress from simple and
marginal to complex and central to the work of the community. Ideally, all
of the scaffolding of learning should be integral to the work and legitimate
in the eyes of other workers.
At the same time, instructors have another responsibility: reading their
learners’ point of entry and capability in relation to the work, which
Vygotsky (1978) called finding their “zone of proximal development.” In
more conventional terms, it means knowing the difference between what
learners can do on their own and what they can do with guided assistance
from the instructor. This is their zone of development, but it is also the
teacher’s zone of instruction. As learners make progress, the zone moves
with the learners, defining new boundaries of autonomous and guided
As learners mature and become more competent, the instructor’s role
changes. Tasks are still chosen based on the learner’s zone of development,
but over time, instructors offer less direction and give more responsibility
as learners move from dependent to independent workers. Making the
change from performing while learners watch to scaffolding the work
according to learners’ zone of development is a difficult transition for teachers.
Finding the right balance between zones of development and scaffolding
of work takes time and patience.
Because of this, the most common difficulty facing teachers is finding
relevant and authentic tasks for classroom instruction. This is usually
accomplished with cases or problems drawn from real contexts and situations
of practice. However, it is not easy to develop authentic tasks at varying
levels of learner competence. Another troubling aspect, even in work
sites, is that of matching learners’ capabilities with tasks that represent legitimate
work. This is one of the keys to good teaching, yet it is encumbered
by competing demands for quality work and quality teaching. Issues of
safety and quality routinely intrude on teaching. Finally, many instructors
find it difficult to put their knowledge or skill into words. They often say,
“I know what to do, but it’s difficult telling others how I do it.” This difficulty
is most common in skill-based occupations but is also evident in jobs
that require complex reasoning. The longer we have been doing complex
tasks, the more routine they become. The more routine they are, the less we
need to articulate what we do. We just do it. And that is precisely what
learners need to do too.
A Nurturing Perspective. The nurturing perspective assumes that
long-term, diligent, persistent efforts to achieve come from the heart, not
the head. People become motivated and productive learners when they are
working on issues or problems without fear of failure. Learners are therefore
nurtured by the knowledge that their achievement is a product of their
own effort and ability, rather than the benevolence of a teacher, and that
their efforts to learn will be supported by their teacher and peers. The more
there is pressure to achieve and the more difficult the material is to be
learned, the more important is such support for learning.
Because many adults come to further education and training with
wounds from previous schooling, the working metaphor of the learner here
is the vulnerable self. This metaphor is based on the belief that when a
learner’s self-concept is under threat or diminished in any way, learning will
be blocked, diverted, or halted altogether. Desired learning outcomes therefore
include more self-sufficient and confident learners, believing in the
power of their own actions to achieve the learning they seek. And the primary
responsibility of nurturing teachers is to find a balance between caring
and challenging. To do this, they promote a climate of caring and trust,
helping people set reasonable but challenging goals, and supporting effort
and achievement. Above all else, they are cautious not to sacrifice selfefficacy
in favor of academic achievement. Success must be clearly and consistently
due to learners’ ability and effort, not the benevolence of the
teacher, if learners are to become less vulnerable and more competent.
Typical nurturing strategies include such simple things as getting to
know people, consistently listening and responding to emotional as well as
intellectual needs, and working with permeable role boundaries—for example,
teaching versus counseling. Nurturing teachers provide a great deal of
encouragement and support, along with clear expectations and reasonable
goals for each learner. And their assessment of learning often considers individual
growth or progress, as well as absolute achievement.
People often misunderstand this point and assume that nurturing
teachers exempt their learners from external standards or examinations. On
the contrary, external forms of accountability are presented as reasonable
and achievable, especially if they are part of a program or certification
requirement. Learners are encouraged to see that it is doing them no favor
to be excused from being evaluated. Instead, they are helped to prepare,
usually in small approximations that are both challenging and achievable,
and then are encouraged to take their tests.
Nurturing forms of teaching are fraught with difficulties. First, evaluation
is difficult, especially when institutional expectations run counter to
an instructor’s perception of what is needed to promote success with learners.
Second, for many teachers, keeping the boundaries between teaching
and counseling permeable is a problem. They often give too much of themselves
and in the end suffer for it.
In addition, many find themselves defending the nurturing perspective
against their colleagues’ criticisms. Its very name has feminine connotations,
and some view it as suggesting lower standards. Yet for those who are most
exemplary of this perspective, there is no lowering of standards. Quite the
contrary; they make reasonable demands and set high expectations for their
learners. For them, caring does not negate having high expectations.
The balance between caring and challenging is difficult to achieve and
sustain, especially with a diverse group of learners. Some nurturing teachers
never do find it and succumb to the most common ailment of this perspective:
wanting (too much) to be liked by their students. However, for the
good teachers, the overriding goal is to help people feel good about their
achievements and believe in themselves as learners. It is the reversal of these
means and ends that most defines this perspective. For nurturing teachers,
achievement is only the means by which people can improve their selfconfidence
and self-esteem as learners. Because of this, these teachers are
never willing to sacrifice self-esteem on the altar of achievement.
A Social Reform Perspective. The social reform perspective is the
most difficult one to describe because it has no single, uniform characteristics
or set of strategies. In our research, we found social reform teachers in
community development, Native education, AIDS awareness, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, the civil rights movement, environmental education,
women’s health, labor union education, religious education, and even
within such established occupations and professions as automotive repair
and medical education. In every instance, the teacher we met was either a
leader or a rebel.
At first glance, effective social reform teachers have much in common
with other effective teachers. They are clear and organized in their delivery
of content, bring learners into diverse communities of practice, ask probing
questions and use powerful metaphors that help learners bridge between
prior knowledge and new concepts, and work hard to respect and promote
the dignity and self-efficacy of their learners.
These skills and attributes are not, however, the defining qualities of
social reform teachers. They are instead the means by which these teachers
work toward a set of ideals. It is a particularly strong set of ideals that distinguishes
their orientation and is ultimately the measure of their teaching.
When social reform teachers are effective, those ideals are explicitly and
profoundly related to the lives of their learners. For the teaching to be
judged effective, learners must come to believe that the guiding ideals are
as important to them as they are to the teacher. Social reform teachers seek
not just to interpret the world, but to change it in ways that correspond to
their ideals.
Social reform teachers make three assumptions: that their ideals are
necessary for a better society, that their ideals are appropriate for all, and
that the ultimate goal of teaching is to bring about social change, not simply
individual learning. The collective, rather than the individual, is the
object of change. Social reform teachers are unequivocal and clear about
what changes are desired and necessary. They see themselves as instruments
of social change and are known among their colleagues and students as
advocates for the changes they wish to bring about in society.
Social reform teachers encourage students to consider the ways in
which they, as learners of the discipline they are studying, are positioned
and constructed in particular discourses of practice. Common practices
within a discipline or field of study are examined for their implicit values
and the ways in which those practices reproduce and maintain untenable
conditions. Texts and practices are interrogated for what is said and what
is not said, what is included and what is excluded, and who is represented
and who is not represented in the dominant discourses of practice.
Classroom discussion is centered not on knowledge itself or how knowledge
has been created, but by whom and for what purposes. Subject matter
content therefore is not just taught; it is interrogated for its complicity
in the malaise of society. However, the critical deconstruction of text and
common practices, though central to this perspective on teaching, is not
an end in itself. The purpose of encouraging students to take a critical
stance is to give them power to take social action to improve their own
Teachers who embody the social reform perspective are few and far
between. But those who do are very likely to have a lasting impression on
their learners. We may have had a teacher who caused us to question things
we took for granted, about ourselves or about society at large. It may have
been the first critical theory course we took, or a feminist educator we
knew, or a spiritual leader who caused us to rethink our deepest assumptions
and convictions. In any case, like the other perspectives, this orientation
to teaching can be wonderful or dreadful, depending on the quality of
teaching and our readiness to embrace its underlying values.
Applying Awareness of the Perspectives to Improving
Perspectives are neither good nor bad. They are simply philosophical orientations
to knowledge, learning, and the role and responsibility of being a
teacher. Therefore, it is important to remember that each of these perspectives
represents a legitimate view of teaching when enacted appropriately.
Conversely, each holds the potential for poor teaching. However, if teachers
are to improve, they must reflect on what they do, why they do it, and
on what grounds those actions and intentions are justified. Besides resisting
a one-size-fits-all approach to development and evaluation, how can
these perspectives help in that process?
For several years, educators of adults have been admonished to reflect
critically on the underlying assumptions and values that give direction and
justification to their work. This is not an easy task. What is it that we are to
reflect on? How are our underlying values and assumptions to be identified?
In other words, the objects of critical reflection are not self-evident. Indeed,
it is something of a twist to look not only at our teaching but at the very
lenses through which we view our teaching.
In our work with educators, we use these perspectives as a means of
helping people identify, articulate, and, if necessary, justify their approach
to teaching. In this process, it also helps them thoughtfully revisit assumptions
and beliefs they hold regarding learning, knowledge, and teaching. I
believe this is what faculty development should be rather than the mastery
of technique. Throughout the process, preconceived notions of “good teaching”
are challenged as educators are asked to consider what teaching means
to them.
1. I realize the phrase good teaching is loaded with subjectivity and may be unacceptable
to some. However, the word good is probably the most frequently used scale point
to indicate an acceptable or expected level of performance in learner and peer evaluations
of teaching. In most instances, the qualifier good corresponds to a quality of teaching
that is more than adequate though not necessarily outstanding or excellent. In my
experience, it is also the threshold that all teachers, regardless of their context or disciplinary
home, are expected to achieve.
2. A much more detailed description of all five perspectives is provided in Pratt and
others (1998). The Teaching Perspectives Inventory can be accessed at www.teaching
Bruffee, K. A. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority
of Knowledge. (2nd ed.) Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., and Holum, A. “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking
Visible.” American Educator, Winter 1991, pp. 6–46.
Fox, D. “Personal Theories of Teaching.” Studies in Higher Education, 1983, 8, 151–163.
Grubb, W. N., and others. Honored But Invisible: An Inside Look at Teaching in Community
Colleges. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Kember, D. “A Reconceptualisation of the Research into University Academics’
Conceptions of Teaching.” Learning and Instruction, 1997, 7, 255–275.
Pratt, D. D. “Conceptions of Teaching.” Adult Education Quarterly, 1992, 42, 203–220.
Pratt, D. D., and Collins, J. B. “The Teaching Perspectives Inventory.” In Proceedings of the
Forty-First Adult Education Research Conference. Vancouver, B.C., 2000. (ED 452 417)
Pratt, D. D., and others. Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and Higher Education.
Malabar, Fla.: Krieger, 1998.
Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978.
DANIEL D. PRATT is professor of adult and higher education in the Department
of Educational Studies at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver,


find the cost of your paper

This question has been answered.

Get Answer