The search for a separate theory of adult learning

: Does anyone really need andragogy? Hanson, Ann. (1996). Boundaries of adult learning (pp. 99-108)

Hanson pointed out the self-conflict of Knowles's andragogy: while it demonstrates "a strong humanistic and individualistic commitment," it simultaneously may dehumanize children (p. 100). For Hanson, the distinction between pedagogy and andragogy is artificial, for the rationale for andragogy is also relevant to pedagogy. More, andragogy is problematic, she argued: it effectively moved the issues of knowledge, power and control. Centered on autonomous, self-directed learners, andragogy obscure the system of their learning as a social, cultural and political construct. Hanson wrote: "Theories of adult learning which do not take account of culture and power do adults little service, even if they aim to produce self-directed learners." (p. 101) [WHY? she doesn't explain]

More critically, Hanson argued that the goal of self-direction, a western value presented as universal, left unexamined. Even critical self-reflection is not always beneficial, for they are characteristics of seriously depressed people, she argued.

In contrast, Hanson called for reflective learning, in which learners "reflect critically on a situation or piece of knowledge, to understand its meaning, to be able to incorporate the new concept into their own understandings sufficiently to transform perspectives." (p. 106) To do so, Hanson emphasize contextualizing learning within questions of culture and power.

[Why do learners need to transform their perspectives? Does this author say anything about it?]