We Are... A Discussion on Invitations and Implications

My Twitter pals and I got caught up in a semantic debate today on the differences between "pedagogy" and "andragogy". Some highlights:

bpanulla: So why does the learning design community around here use the term "pedagogy" instead of "andragogy"? Habit? Conscious choice? Philosophy?
agyorke (@bpanulla): Andragogy is used in the field of adult education, specifically in reference to Malcolm Knowles and his work.
DanaCK (@bpanulla): Pedagogy is a commonly accepted terminology for all age groups - in my field and in education as well. Androgogy=semantics.

This got me thinking about an article my colleague Alisha Swaggerty shared with me about a year ago (The Value of Diversity: Diversity involves more than celebrating differences) and several recent posts about invitations, including the Chris Stubbs post that started it all.

On Diversity

The diversity article talks about making assumptions about our students' diversity and missing things that are not on the surface.  Anong others, example included a 20-year-old student who, on the surface appeared to be a traditional student, but was an Iraq War veteran with life experiences that differed from traditional students.

Additonally we may have students who may have enrolled immediately after high school, but have the added responisibility of being a parent.  On the flip side, many people write off gaming as an activity for kids and young adults, when there are adult students who have grown up with games since the days of Pong.

On Invitations

Chris Stubbs' "No Invitation Required" was in response to many people wanting to be explicitly invited before they would participate in the Web 2.0 world.  I made the comment that sometimes defining your audience too well may be an anti-invitation; it could make others feel they are not welcome in to participate in such a niche group.

Up for Discussion: No Jargon Required

So here's where I stir the pot...

• Why are we still making such distinctions between adult learners and traditional learners? 
  
• Who is an adult learner and who is traditional learner? 
  
• Are we underserving our students by making assumptions and trying to fit them into neat little categories?  What other audiences do we underserve this way?
  
• Aren't these distinctions as arbitrary as racial/ethnic categories, and, frankly, just as off-putting to the people who fall outside standard definitions?
  
• How does implying a certain audience affect the level of engagement for your audience?  Does feeling the course, program, discussion, group, or whatever was defined for someone other than you make you feel less likely to participate?
• Are semantic alpha-geek argmuents like ours just Jargon Monoxide? Do they poison they environment and make you not even want to participate in my discussion here? Thus, proving my point that you can alienate people by defining one's audience too rigidly. ;)