Abstract
This study explored one preservice teacher education programme through the perspective of andragogy, a framework traditionally associated with adult learning. Conducted at a college of education in Beirut, the research is based on semi-structured interviews with 24 undergraduate student-teachers in their final year of a bachelor’s degree programme. The thematic analysis revealed significant misalignments between the programme’s design and andragogical principles, particularly in relation to learner autonomy, reflective practice, and intrinsic motivation. The findings underscore the necessity of reimagining teacher education not merely as a credentialing process, but as an active space for professional formation, where prospective teachers are empowered to shape their own learning paths and engage critically with the intersection of their lived experiences and academic content. To this end, the study advocates for a transformative approach that unboxes learning beyond accreditation, integrates professors with K-12 teaching experience, and fosters a culture of ongoing professional development. These recommendations not only offer pragmatic solutions for improving the programme but also contribute to the broader discourse on how teacher preparation programmes worldwide can evolve to cultivate reflective, self-directed professionals capable of traversing the complexities of modern educational landscapes.
Introduction
Andragogy, as conceptualized by Knowles (1973), provides a foundational lens for understanding how adults learn, emphasizing autonomy, prior experience, and relevance to real-life contexts. Unlike pedagogy, which is tailored to children’s learning, andragogy addresses the distinct motivations and developmental needs of adult learners (Mukhalalati & Taylor, 2019; Powell & Bodur, 2019). These principles are particularly salient in teacher education programmes, where preservice teachers – often adult learners – must engage in meaningful, experience-based learning (Nassar, 2022).
Andragogy is particularly significant in preservice teacher education programmes, as the learners in these programmes are adults whose unique characteristics demand careful consideration for effective learning and the acquisition of skills essential for becoming proficient teachers (Mayen, 2011). By tailoring educational approaches to align with adult learning principles, such as self-directedness and the incorporation of real-world experiences, teacher education programmes can better address the diverse needs and motivations of adult learners, ultimately equipping them with the knowledge and skills necessary for successful and impactful teaching careers (Smith & Gillespie, 2023).
In fact, adults bring diverse experiences, motivations, and prior knowledge to the learning environment, and theories like andragogy recognize the importance of treating learners as self-directed individuals (Allen et al., 2022). Teacher education programmes informed by adult learning theories can ensure relevance and real-world application, incorporating practical experiences that resonate with teachers’ professional contexts (Smith & Gillespie, 2023). Moreover, such programmes can enhance motivation and engagement by aligning content with learners’ goals and emphasizing the applicability of new knowledge to their work (Zepeda, 2012). The flexibility and individualization, which are key aspects of adult learning theories, allow educators to tailor their learning experiences to meet their specific needs (Mockler, 2022). That is to say, building on prior knowledge, facilitating critical reflection, and addressing diverse needs, teacher education programmes rooted in adult learning theories contribute to the continuous growth and effectiveness of educators throughout their teaching careers.
As teacher education programmes play a pivotal role in shaping the next generation of educators, integrating adult learning principles – particularly those outlined in andragogy – has become increasingly essential to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. While the literature on teacher professional development has often employed adult learning frameworks, there remains a significant gap in research exploring how these principles are applied within formal preservice teacher education programmes offered by universities (e.g., Anderson, 2021; Chikoko, 2021). This gap is especially concerning given the volatile, morally ambiguous, and complex nature of today’s educational landscape, which calls for more responsive, reflective, and contextually grounded approaches to teacher preparation.
In the Lebanese context, teacher education has been examined through multiple lenses: curriculum alignment (Al Jammal & Ghamrawi, 2013a; 2013b), time constraints (Ghamrawi & Al-Jammal., 2013b), instructional leadership (Ghamrawi & Al-Jammal, 2013a), leadership styles (Ghamrawi, 2013a), cultural dynamics (Ghamrawi, 2013b), digital citizenship (Ghamrawi, 2018), teacher leadership (Ghamrawi et al., 2024a), emotional intelligence (Ghamrawi et al., 2013), wellbeing (Ghamrawi et al., 2023), and student leadership (Ghamrawi et al., 2018). Despite this body of scholarship, little to no research has investigated Lebanese teacher education programmes (both in-service and pre-service) through the lens of andragogy.
To address this gap, the present study examined a preservice teacher education programme offered by a university in Beirut, Lebanon, with the aim of analyzing its alignment with core andragogical principles. Conducted at a college of education, the research involved semi-structured interviews with 24 undergraduate student-teachers in their final year of a bachelor’s degree programme. The central question guiding this inquiry was: How well does a teacher education programme adhere to the principles of andragogy?
By shedding light on the experiences and perceptions of teachers enrolled in formal teacher education, this study contributes to the existing discourse on effective teacher preparation.
Literature review
Defining andragogy
Malcolm Knowles, frequently acknowledged as the pioneer of andragogy, characterized it as the art and science of facilitating adult learning. In his 1973 work, Knowles highlighted the self-directed tendencies of adult learners and underscored the significance of acknowledging their experiences, readiness to learn, and motivation. He laid the foundation for his theory on adult learning with six key assumptions (Knowles, 1973). First, adults exhibit a strong desire to understand the purpose behind their learning endeavours. Second, in a learning context, adults should be treated with acknowledgement of their maturity, existing knowledge, and diverse life experiences. Third, the varied life experiences of adults empower them to actively participate in the learning process, distinguishing them from children who may lack such extensive backgrounds. Fourth, adults are most receptive to learning when it aligns with their career, life circumstances, or personal life goals. Fifth, learning experiences for adults should be firmly grounded in real-world contexts, eschewing abstract and disconnected theoretical approaches. Finally, Knowles highlighted that adults are primarily motivated by internal factors, such as the pursuit of higher self-esteem, rather than external motivators. Collectively, these assumptions form the basis of Knowles’ andragogy, providing a framework for understanding and facilitating effective adult learning experiences.
Andragogy versus pedagogy
The terms ‘pedagogy’ and ‘andragogy’ both originate from Greek roots: ‘pedagogy’ stems from ‘paidi’ (child) and ‘ago’ (guide), while ‘andragogy’ is derived from ‘andras’ (man) and ‘ago’ (guide) (Fornaciari & Lund Dean, 2014). Although both terms pertain to educational strategies, they encapsulate distinct philosophies. Pedagogy specifically entails the methodology and practices employed in teaching children, grounded in the principles of cognitive and social development (Jarvis, 2011). It centres on a teacher-oriented approach and employs instructional methods tailored to the learning needs of children. On the other hand, andragogy pertains to the techniques and strategies employed in adult education, with a focus on self-actualization, acquiring experience, and addressing problem-solving (Jeanes, 2021).
In pedagogical settings, learners rely heavily on teachers, who assume full responsibility for evaluating progress and the effectiveness of teaching materials. This approach is characterized by structured, sequenced learning, with students advancing upon completion of prescribed steps. In contrast, andragogy places the onus on adult learners, who depend on themselves for self-evaluation and direction (El-Amin, 2020). Adults bring a wealth of life experience to the learning table, and instructors build upon existing knowledge, encouraging collaboration among learners. Learning in andragogy is not bound by a fixed sequence; instead, it responds to diverse life experiences, filling knowledge gaps as needed (Fornaciari & Lund Dean, 2014). Motivation also differs, with pedagogy relying on external sources and grading, while andragogy emphasizes intrinsic motivation, driven by factors like self-esteem and problem-solving (Jarvis, 2011). Both approaches present advantages and disadvantages, with pedagogy offering structure and guidance, while andragogy fosters learner independence and focuses on real-world problem-solving. The choice between the two ultimately depends on the context and the learners’ characteristics (Fornaciari & Lund Dean, 2014).
In short, pedagogy – by virtue of serving younger learners – typically implies that teachers lead and direct the learning process, whereas andragogy positions learners to take greater responsibility and proactively shape their own learning. However, it is important to recognize that these contrasts – while conceptually useful – are not always easily upheld in practice. Scholars such as Rachal (2002) and Merriam (2001) have critiqued andragogy for its lack of empirical consistency and for presenting oversimplified dichotomies that do not fully account for the complexity of teaching and learning across age groups. The distinction between pedagogy and andragogy, though widely cited, should thus be approached with caution and a critical awareness of its theoretical and practical limitations.
Andragogy in teacher education programmes
Andragogy plays a crucial role in shaping teacher education programmes, particularly those designed for adults who are pursuing careers in education or seeking professional development opportunities (Evans, 2022). Applying andragogy in teacher education programmes acknowledges that adult learners have unique needs, experiences, and motivations that differ from those of younger learners (Balakrishnan, 2021). In fact, adult learners in teacher education programmes are encouraged to take greater responsibility for their own learning. This may involve designing personalized learning plans, setting goals, and reflecting on their progress (Loeng, 2020). Self-directed learning helps teachers develop the skills to guide their future students in becoming autonomous learners.
Teacher education programmes applying andragogy recognize the wealth of experience that adult learners bring to the classroom. This experience becomes a valuable resource, providing a foundation for learning and contributing to discussions on teaching methodologies and practices (Brew & Constanze, 2020). Andragogy encourages a problem-centred approach to learning, which would support teacher education programmes in presenting real-world challenges and case studies, allowing adult learners to apply theoretical knowledge to practical situations they are likely to encounter in the classroom (Mendoza et al.(2023).
Additionally, adult learners in teacher education often seek immediate applicability of what they are learning to their professional practice. Andragogy ensures that the content and activities within these programmes are relevant, addressing the day-to-day challenges and responsibilities that teachers face. While adult learners value independence, andragogy recognizes the importance of collaborative learning. Teacher education programmes may include opportunities for adult learners to engage in discussions, share experiences, and collaborate on projects, fostering a community of practice among future educators (Ma et al., 2023).
Furthermore, andragogy supports flexible learning formats to accommodate the diverse schedules and responsibilities of adult learners. Teacher education programmes may offer online courses, evening classes, or blended learning options to make it more accessible for working professionals (Tarrayo et al., 2023). Adult learners in teacher education programmes are motivated by specific goals, such as acquiring new teaching strategies or obtaining a particular certification. Andragogy acknowledges these motivations and aligns programme objectives with the individual goals of adult learners (Berg et al., 2023).
By incorporating principles of andragogy in teacher education programmes, institutions can better cater to the unique characteristics of adult learners (Roe, 2023), ultimately preparing them to be effective and reflective educators in their classrooms.
Higher education in Lebanon
Lebanon’s higher education system is marked by a distinctive structure characterized by an unusual degree of privatization. The country has only one public institution of higher education which was established in 1951 and currently enrols almost 50% of overall nation’s student population across multiple campuses (Mekdach, 2020). As of the last decade, there were over 40 licensed private higher education institutions, many of which operate with considerable autonomy under a regulatory framework that has historically allowed non-state institutions to flourish (Schmäling, 2024).
Lebanon has built a reputation for quality and academic excellence in higher education. Several of its private universities are internationally ranked. One institution rose from 242nd place in the 2023 QS World University Rankings to 226th in the 2024 edition (QS World University Rankings, 2023; 2024). A total of eight universities from Lebanon were included in the 2024 QS rankings, with several positioned among the top 1000 globally. This presence highlights the country’s disproportionate visibility on the global academic stage, particularly when considered against its modest size and ongoing economic challenges (Schmäling, 2024). At the regional level, Lebanese universities hold a prominent position, with one institution ranked 4th in the Arab region in the 2024 QS Arab Region University Rankings (QS World University Rankings, 2024). This strong performance has reinforced Lebanon’s reputation as a regional leader in higher education.
In the absence of national qualifications standards, Lebanese universities have increasingly sought accreditation from international Western bodies such as NEASC, ABET, and AACSB (Makhoul, 2019; Zein, 2024). This move, driven by neoliberal pressures, has promoted a competitive ethos and reliance on external metrics of quality (Alhaija, 2021; Mahfouz, 2020). Accreditation became a strategy for institutional legitimacy, yet it fostered a culture of standardization and ‘ticking boxes’, often at the expense of contextualized, transformative education (Chahine & Damaj, 2020; Zein, 2024).
Pre-service teacher education in Lebanon
Preservice teacher education in Lebanon is offered through a diverse range of public and private universities, each shaped by institutional heritage, policy frameworks, and distinct educational philosophies. These programmes prepare prospective teachers for the Lebanese school system, which spans four nationally defined stages – preschool, elementary, intermediate, and secondary – and, in many cases, for teaching in regional and international contexts (BouJaoude & Baddour, 2022). Programmes are typically housed within faculties or departments of education and offer credentials such as bachelor’s degrees in education, education licenses, and one-year post-baccalaureate teaching diplomas. Their structural models vary: while some institutions follow American or European credit-based systems, others align with French-patterned modular designs, creating notable diversity in duration, sequencing, and pedagogical emphasis (Agopian, 2024).
The design of these programmes is closely tied to the national curriculum, which tracks students into disciplinary streams (e.g., sciences or humanities) at the secondary level. Teacher preparation must therefore respond to these curricular demands by producing subject-specific educators. Despite their varied structures, most programmes emphasize foundational knowledge in pedagogy and subject matter, a practicum or field component, and – at least nominally – professional reflection. However, the degree to which these elements are integrated meaningfully into student learning varies widely across institutions.
A growing body of research has identified several persistent tensions in Lebanese teacher education. Daccache and Ibrahim (2023) found that while many preservice and novice teachers report feeling well-prepared in lesson planning, classroom engagement, and the use of instructional technology, observational data revealed inconsistencies in how these skills were enacted in real classroom settings. These findings point to a disjuncture between programme intentions and actual teaching practice, raising concerns about the depth and transferability of teacher preparation. Similarly, Du et al. (2020) found that Lebanese teacher candidates are often exposed to passive, lecture-based instruction and have limited opportunities to engage with active or collaborative learning approaches. This reliance on traditional pedagogies – further reinforced by high-stakes assessment systems and cultural expectations – has stifled the adoption of more student-centred, inquiry-driven models of teacher preparation.
These findings underscore the timeliness and relevance of the present study, which adopts an andragogical lens to critically examine a formal teacher education programme in Beirut. As adult learners, preservice teachers bring with them a wealth of prior experience, intrinsic motivation, and personal aspirations that often remain underutilized in conventional programme designs.
Method
Research design
This study was situated within the interpretive paradigm, aiming to understand how student-teachers make meaning of their learning experiences in relation to andragogical principles within a preservice teacher education programme. A qualitative approach was employed, specifically utilizing an exploratory case study design (Yin, 2018), which is particularly fitting for generating initial insights into underexplored, context-dependent phenomena. This design aligns with the study’s goal of uncovering how andragogy is enacted – or overlooked – within a formal teacher preparation setting (Flick, 2018; Silverman, 2020). Semi-structured interviews served as the primary method of data collection, allowing for both structure and flexibility in eliciting participants’ lived experiences, beliefs, and emotions.
Rather than aiming for statistical generalization, this study follows Yin’s (2018) model of analytical generalization, where findings from a single bounded case are related back to conceptual frameworks – specifically, andragogical theory (Knowles, 1973) – to test or refine it. In this logic, the study’s value lies in its theoretical resonance rather than population inference, contributing to the broader discourse on how adult learning principles can or cannot be realized in university-based teacher preparation. This approach allows for contextual depth while maintaining relevance beyond the specific institution under investigation.
Research instrument
Interview Schedule.
Participants
The participants in this study were drawn from a college of education in Beirut, serving as the singular location for the research. The initial step involved contacting the college administration, with one of the researchers conveying the study’s purpose and details through a formal letter. The letter underscored the commitment to maintaining anonymity and confidentiality for all participants. Upon receiving approval from the college to conduct the study on its premises, the research team sought to recruit participants from the seven undergraduate programmes offered at the site. The college, in turn, emailed all final-year students, inviting them to express interest in participating in the study. The administration provided the researchers with the emails of 31 students who expressed interest.
Characteristics of the Sample.
Data analysis
The qualitative data gathered from the interviews underwent analysis through a thematic approach. This analytical process comprised multiple stages, including open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, as recommended in the literature (Williams & Moser, 2019). To ensure the credibility of the codes and themes, a peer debriefing strategy was implemented, involving two researchers independently coding the data and subsequently comparing and reaching consensus on the codes and themes (Scharp & Sanders, 2019). Throughout the analysis, interview transcripts were systematically divided into smaller units and assigned labels (codes). These codes were continuously compared and contrasted to identify patterns and distinctions. The subsequent stage, axial coding, involved categorizing the codes and establishing connections between them. The final phase, selective coding, elevated the analysis to a higher level of abstraction, allowing researchers to articulate the case’s narrative (Flick, 2009).
To preserve participant anonymity while offering contextual clarity, each participant is designated using a code format: P# (Letter), where ‘P#’ refers to the participant number and the letter in parentheses indicates their academic programme. This system maintains confidentiality while allowing thematic analysis across programme areas. For example, P9 (P) represents Participant 9, who is enrolled in the Physical Education programme.
Findings
Theme-Based Analysis of Interviews.
Self-direction
Participants expressed frustration with the programme’s limited opportunities to set personal goals and take ownership of their learning, citing a rigid structure that inhibited their independence. P3 (P) remarked, ‘It feels like everything is already decided for us – what to learn, how to learn, and even how to think. There’s no space to make it our own’. Similarly, P7 (A) shared, ‘I wanted to develop my own teaching philosophy and style, but the programme doesn’t give us the flexibility to explore that. It’s like we’re being molded into one shape instead of finding our unique paths’. This lack of autonomy was particularly discouraging for those who valued self-directed learning. P12 (F) explained, ‘I thrive on setting my own goals and pacing myself, but here, it’s all about meeting deadlines and following prescribed steps. It’s stifling’.
Participants also critiqued the over-structured nature of the curriculum, which left little room for initiative or creativity. P15 (M) commented, ‘The programme is so tightly controlled that it doesn’t encourage us to think critically or take risks. It feels like we’re just following a script’. Others, like P20 (P), felt the lack of independence limited their growth, stating, ‘How can we prepare to guide students toward independence and autonomy if we’re not even given the chance to practice it ourselves?’
While the programme is largely structured, some participants appreciated the opportunities for self-directed learning offered through elective courses. These courses allowed them to explore topics of personal interest and tailor their learning experience to a degree. As P2 (S) noted, ‘The electives provide a chance to dive into subjects we’re passionate about, giving us a bit of freedom to choose our own path’. However, these opportunities were seen as limited in comparison to the overall rigidity of the programme, leaving some students wishing for more flexibility throughout their coursework.
Experience
Participants voiced concerns about the programme’s failure to connect their prior experiences with the coursework and the lack of meaningful experiential learning opportunities. P5 (C) reflected, ‘We all come with unique experiences from our lives or previous work, but those are barely acknowledged. Some professors, sometimes treat us as blank slates’. This sentiment was echoed by P8 (C), who added, ‘There’s so much potential in tying what we’ve already learned outside the classroom to what’s being taught here, but it feels like a missed opportunity. We’re often told to ‘reflect,’ but it’s superficial, not integrated into the learning process’.
Regarding experiential learning, participants found the activities offered in the programme uninspiring and disconnected from real-world teaching. P11 (M) shared, ‘We need more hands-on experiences that mirror the actual classroom. Right now, it’s mostly theory, and the so-called practical tasks don’t feel authentic. It’s like we’re playing a role instead of preparing for one’. Others pointed out the lack of depth in experiential components, with P14 (S) stating, ‘When we do case studies or simulations, they’re so surface-level that they don’t prepare us for the complexity of real classroom challenges. It’s frustrating because we know how different it will be when we’re actually teaching’. P18 (F) captured the essence of these shortcomings, remarking, ‘Learning by doing is critical in teaching, but what we’re getting doesn’t feel like doing – it feels like pretending. We need experiences that make us think, adapt, and grow, not just tick boxes’.
Despite these concerns, some participants acknowledged the programme’s field component as a positive aspect. P3 (P) mentioned, ‘The fieldwork component is one of the few opportunities where we actually get to apply what we’ve learned. It supports learning by doing, which is invaluable’. However, they also expressed the need for these experiences to be better integrated with the curriculum and more closely aligned with real teaching challenges.
Problem-centred
Participants expressed frustration with the minimal application of real-world problem-solving within the programme. P13 (A) shared, ‘The programme talks a lot about problem-solving, but when it comes to actual challenges in the classroom, it feels like we’re never given the tools or opportunities to address real issues’. P1 (M) echoed this concern, saying, ‘There’s a disconnect between the theoretical problems we discuss in class and the practical challenges we face when we’re teaching. The coursework doesn’t prepare us to handle the complexity of real classroom situations’.
Several participants noted that the programme failed to simulate authentic, complex classroom scenarios. P10(M) noted, ‘We need to be tackling problems we’ll actually encounter in the classroom, like student behaviour or curriculum adaptation. But instead, we’re focusing on abstract issues that feel far removed from the real work we’ll be doing’. P20 (P) remarked, ‘We get some theory on problem-solving, but there’s little chance to apply it to actual teaching situations. It’s frustrating because we know that in real life, things don’t go according to plan, and we need to think on our feet’. P23 (E) captured this gap, saying, ‘The lack of real-world problem-solving in the programme leaves us feeling unprepared for the unpredictable nature of teaching. There’s not enough emphasis on how to adjust, adapt, and make decisions in the moment’.
Despite these concerns, the field component was recognized as a space where some problem-solving opportunities were presented. P19 (E) stated, ‘The field component is the closest we get to solving real classroom problems. It challenges us to think on our feet and tackle situations that we wouldn’t experience in class, like managing diverse learning needs or addressing conflict. It’s one of the few places we can practice applying solutions in a live setting’. However, participants still felt that the field experiences could be expanded and better connected to the theoretical learning in the programme.
Internal motivation
Participants frequently highlighted the programme’s shortcomings in fostering their intrinsic motivation to teach. While some entered with a strong passion for the profession, many felt the programme did little to sustain or deepen that enthusiasm. P4 (M) reflected, ‘I came into this programme excited about teaching, but the lack of inspiring courses or activities sometimes makes me question my choice. There’s nothing here that rekindles that spark’. Similarly, P9 (P) observed, ‘It feels like we’re just ticking boxes. There’s no sense of excitement or inspiration – it’s all so mechanical’. This sense of disillusionment was echoed by P20 (P), who shared, ‘You’d think a programme about teaching would be full of passion and energy, but it feels like the programme drains that out of you instead of fuelling it’.
Participants also critiqued the absence of role models or transformative experiences within the programme. P18 (F) lamented, ‘There’s no one pushing us to dream bigger or reminding us why teaching matters. It’s all about meeting standards, not finding purpose’. Others, like P21 (A), expressed a need for a more visionary approach, stating, ‘I hoped this programme would inspire me to innovate and lead in my future classroom, but it just feels like we’re learning to follow instructions’.
However, a few participants noted a rare exception. P8 (C) spoke highly of a single professor, saying, ‘There is one professor who really inspired me. She brought passion and enthusiasm into the classroom, making us feel like teaching was something to be proud of. But unfortunately, that was the exception, not the norm. We need more professors like that to reignite our motivation’. This sentiment reflected the lack of consistent inspiration and the limited number of role models within the programme.
Responsibility for learning
Participants highlighted a lack of consistent encouragement to take ownership of their educational progress. P7 (A) expressed, ‘There’s very little push for us to take responsibility for our learning. We’re often told what to do, but there’s no real emphasis on us driving our own growth’. P13 (A) echoed this sentiment, noting, ‘It’s frustrating because as future educators, we need to model self-accountability, but it doesn’t feel like that’s being modelled or encouraged in the programme. It’s more about completing tasks than about truly reflecting and improving’.
Regarding reflective practices, participants observed that the support provided was inconsistent. P9 (P) remarked, ‘There’s a lot of talk about reflection, but it feels like it’s just an afterthought. Some instructors give us meaningful feedback, but others don’t provide much direction on how to reflect or how to use that reflection to improve’. P1 (M) shared, ‘When we do engage in reflection, it’s often superficial and doesn’t encourage deep thinking about our teaching. We’re asked to reflect, but we don’t always have the guidance to make that reflection meaningful’.
Others noted the lack of structured opportunities for reflective practice, with P16 (C) stating, ‘Without a clear framework for reflection, it feels like we’re just going through the motions. Reflection should be a continuous process, but it often feels like a one-time event’. P19 (E) emphasized, ‘Reflection should help us take responsibility for our learning, but the way it’s integrated into the programme doesn’t make it feel like a personal growth opportunity. It’s more of a requirement than a tool for improvement’.
Readiness to learn
Participants expressed concerns about the programme’s weak focus on adaptability to educational innovations. P4 (M) stated, ‘The programme is very traditional in its approach. There’s little emphasis on how to adapt to new teaching tools or methodologies that are emerging in education’. P11 (M) highlighted, ‘We’re learning mostly about methods that have been around for years, but there’s no push to explore innovative practices or adapt to really new trends in education. It feels like we’re being trained for the past, not the future’.
The programme’s limited preparedness for evolving teaching methodologies was a common concern. P8 (C) shared, ‘We’re given the basics, but there’s no clear guidance on how to incorporate newer technologies or strategies like flipped classrooms, AI in education, or other modern approaches. It’s like we’re being prepared for the old way of teaching’. P15 (M) remarked, ‘Teaching methods are constantly evolving, and I feel like the programme hasn’t kept up. We’re not learning enough about what’s on the horizon for education, and how we can adapt to these changes’. P18 (F) emphasized, ‘It’s critical that we learn how to evolve as teachers, but the programme doesn’t offer enough opportunities to explore these changes or consider how to implement new approaches in the classroom’.
Orientation to learning
Participants expressed that the programme places insufficient emphasis on fostering lifelong learning attitudes. P6 (P) stated, ‘There’s very little focus on developing the mindset of continuous learning. We’re taught the content, but there’s no encouragement to see ourselves as learners beyond the programme’. P12 (F) echoed this concern, saying, ‘Lifelong learning should be a core value in any teacher preparation programme, but here, it feels like we’re just preparing to finish the programme rather than developing habits that will help us grow throughout our careers’.
Regarding continuous professional development, many participants felt the programme had a weak influence. P2 (S) remarked, ‘The programme doesn’t actively encourage us to seek ongoing professional development after graduation. There’s no clear pathway for how we can continue learning and improving as educators once we’re in the field’. P21 (A) shared, ‘Professors speak about professional development, but we are not given the tools or the mindset to continue developing professionally once we leave the programme’.
Others pointed out the lack of support in creating a personal development plan. P16 (C) noted, ‘We’re not encouraged to think about our growth as educators over time. There’s no emphasis on setting personal development goals or seeking out learning opportunities beyond the classroom’. P19 (E) captured the essence of these concerns, saying, ‘The programme doesn’t seem to prepare us for the long-term journey of teaching. There’s no clear support for making continuous professional development a natural part of our career’.
Participants’ suggestions for programme improvement
Participants offered several suggestions for improving the programme, with a strong emphasis on unboxing learning beyond the constraints of accreditation. Many expressed frustration with how the programme seemed to prioritize meeting accreditation standards rather than preparing students for real-world teaching. P6 (P) remarked, ‘Accreditation shouldn’t be the sole focus of the programme. It feels like we’re just checking boxes to meet standards instead of truly preparing us for the classroom. There needs to be more emphasis on practical, meaningful learning’. In addition, integrating professors with K-12 teaching experience into the programme was another key suggestion. Participants felt that professors with real classroom experience could better bridge the gap between theory and practice, offering more relevant and applicable insights. P9 (P) shared, ‘The professors who really inspired us were the ones who had experience in K-12 classrooms. They could relate to the challenges we’ll face and offered valuable insights from their own teaching careers’.
Also, participants also called for a revision and modernization of the curriculum and pedagogical approaches. Many expressed that the current curriculum felt outdated, and there was a strong desire for more current, research-based practices in teaching and learning. P22 (E) commented, ‘The curriculum feels outdated. Teaching is evolving with new technology and methods, but we’re still learning using traditional approaches. It’s important for us to be prepared for the changes happening in the field’. In addition, ongoing training and professional development for professors was another area of concern raised by participants. Several students felt that instructors lacked the tools and knowledge to stay current with the latest educational trends. P14 (S) noted, ‘Professors need to keep up with the latest trends in education and get training themselves. It’s hard to learn from someone who isn’t staying current with the changes in teaching’.
Lastly, participants emphasized the need to recruit professors who are passionate about the teaching profession. Many felt that the lack of enthusiasm among some professors diminished the learning experience. P17 (A) remarked, ‘We need professors who are proud of being in education. If they love teaching, it will inspire us to do the same’. In the same vein, P24 (E) suggested, ‘When your professor explicitly convey to you that you have chosen the wrong profession, then that professor should not be teaching in a college of education in the first place’.
Discussion
This study examined a preservice teacher education programme through the analytical lens of andragogy, interrogating how its principles are interpreted, enacted, and potentially reimagined in the preparation of future teachers. Situated within a college of education in Beirut, dedicated to teacher preparation, the research employed a qualitative methodology, utilizing semi-structured interviews conducted with 24 student-teachers in their final year of study. Findings both confirm and extend existing literature on adult learning in teacher preparation and serve as an invitation to all parties involved in teacher preparation programmes to reconsider the role of andragogy in their curriculum offerings.
First of all, the programme, while ostensibly grounded in principles that advocate for learner autonomy, paradoxically constrains the very self-direction it seeks to promote. This dissonance reveals a broader issue inherent in many teacher preparation programmes: the lack of opportunities for self-directed learning, which stifles teachers’ ability to fully engage in their educational journey (Boud et al., 2013). A curriculum that is rigid and prescriptive, often emphasizing passive compliance over intellectual autonomy, reduces teachers to mere recipients of information rather than active, reflective agents in their learning process (Brookfield, 2005). Such a structure not only limits the potential for creative inquiry but also diminishes the transformative power of teacher preparation itself according to Knowles (1980). When teachers are denied the space to guide their own learning paths, the programme fails to cultivate the critical thinking, adaptability, and problem-solving skills that are essential for navigating the complex and dynamic nature of the classroom. In essence, the absence of self-direction within teacher preparation programmes perpetuates a transactional model of education, one that diminishes teachers’ agency and, by extension, their capacity to foster meaningful, student-centred learning environments, as also suggested by Fein (2022). It is only through the deliberate integration of self-directed learning opportunities that teacher preparation programmes can unlock their true potential, equipping prospective teachers not just with knowledge, but with the tools to continuously evolve in their professional practice.
Second, the programme was not successful in bridging the gap between learners’ prior lived experiences and the formal curriculum emerges as a significant limitation. The andragogical principle of valuing and integrating adult learners’ rich, diverse life histories into the educational process is notably absent, reducing the opportunity for authentic, integrative learning (Roe, 2023). Instead, the curriculum constructs a disempowering dynamic that alienates learners, positioning them as passive recipients of knowledge rather than as dynamic individuals whose experiences hold intrinsic educational value. This dissonance between the learners’ personal histories and the formalized curriculum diminishes the potential for deep, experiential engagement, leaving students with a sense of disconnect. The programme, rather than embracing the complexity of adult learners’ backgrounds, limits opportunities for the integration of theory and practice, a cornerstone of meaningful learning as suggested by Lomas (2025). This absence of authentic experiential learning not only creates a void in connection but also obstructs the development of practical problem-solving skills, which are essential for addressing the real-world challenges that teachers face within their professional contexts.
Third, the study reveals that rather than cultivating intrinsic motivation or nurturing profound intellectual engagement, the programme’s disproportionate emphasis on fulfilling standardized objectives engenders a dispiriting atmosphere – one that extinguishes the very passion, curiosity, and sense of purpose that are foundational to transformative learning. The curriculum, with its narrow focus on measurable outcomes, fails to cultivate the intellectual and professional drive that can spark a teacher’s sense of calling – a fundamental element in teacher preparation, as suggested by Grimmett (2021). Instances of inspiration, typically arising from individual faculty members who bring real-world K-12 experience into the classroom, serve as rare, yet poignant anomalies. These moments highlight the untapped potential within the programme, suggesting that a more consistent demonstration of intellectual vigour and professional enthusiasm could more effectively inspire students (Cui, 2022). The absence of such motivational encounters, however, reinforces a transactional, rather than transformative, educational model – one that limits the programme’s capacity to cultivate educators who are not only competent but also visionary, ready to lead the charge for change in educational systems.
Also, in the context of responsibility for learning, the programme’s failure to adequately foster a sense of ownership over one’s educational journey exposes a fundamental flaw in its andragogical approach. The andragogical framework emphasizes the crucial role of learners in taking responsibility for their growth, advocating for an ongoing process of reflection and the integration of reflective practice into continuous self-improvement (Scholtz, 2024). However, in this programme, such principles are conspicuously absent. Participants report a fragmented and superficial approach to reflection, which lacks the depth and deliberate intent necessary for fostering genuine personal and professional development. The limited, unstructured opportunities for cultivating reflective practice further deepen the disconnect between theoretical concepts and practical application, leaving students inadequately equipped to engage in the critical self-examination essential for lifelong learning and growth. This deficiency undermines any programme’s potential to instill the skills required for continuous improvement and transformation, both of which are indispensable for teachers striving to meet the dynamic needs of the classroom and the profession.
Furthermore, the study suggests that what ought to be a cultivated readiness to learn instead reveals a profound misalignment between the programme’s structural design and the evolving complexities of educational practice. The programme’s adherence to traditional pedagogies and methodologies, while familiar, reflects a concerning inability to equip students with the skills necessary to engage with contemporary education. This resistance to innovation, in line with Kraft and Lyon (2024), not only highlights a gap in pedagogical advancement but also exposes a deeper philosophical contradiction: an institution devoted to shaping future teachers fails to model the adaptability, creativity, and critical thinking essential for traversing the complexities of modern educational practice. As a result, the programme remains ensnared in a temporal paradox – attempting to prepare teachers for a rapidly shifting educational world, yet unable to offer the transformative vision and strategies required to equip students for the challenges they will soon face.
We argue that underlying many of these pedagogical limitations are entrenched beliefs among some faculty members regarding both teacher roles and leadership styles. Instructors who maintain traditional or hierarchical conceptions of leadership – and who view teachers primarily as implementers rather than as empowered leaders – may unintentionally reinforce compliance-oriented learning environments (Ghamrawi et al., 2024a). In some cases, these beliefs manifest in destructive leadership styles (Ghamrawi et al., 2024b) that inhibit dialogue, stifle reflection, and suppress initiative, thereby contradicting the core principles of andragogy, which emphasize autonomy, agency, and critical self-direction. Without a shift in how teacher educators conceptualize both leadership and the professional identity of teachers – as reflective practitioners, collaborators, and leaders – efforts to embed transformative learning within preservice programmes will remain fragmented and constrained by outdated power dynamics.
Additionally, the study suggests profound gap in the programme’s approach to nurturing the lifelong learning attitudes crucial for sustaining professional growth. Contrary to the andragogical tenet that learning is an ongoing, dynamic process, the programme tends to treat education as a finite, culminating event – an endpoint rather than the beginning of an adaptive, lifelong journey (Knowles, 1980). This perception is evident in the programme’s insufficient emphasis on continuous professional development, which not only diminishes the potential for long-term learning but also reflects a broader failure to instill in students a foundational belief in the necessity of continual personal and professional evolution. Programmes that fail to provide sustained encouragement for development beyond graduation, compounded by an absence of guidance in creating individualized growth plans, positions it as a static, insular institution. In lieu of fostering a community of learners committed to the long-term pursuit of knowledge, the programme offers only intermittent engagement with professional development, which in effect leaves students inadequately equipped to navigate the ever-evolving demands of their careers as suggested by Tatto (2021).
These constraints, we argue, cannot be fully understood in isolation from the broader structural and cultural context in which the programme operates. In the Lebanese higher education system, teacher education is largely shaped by centralized curricular mandates, limited institutional autonomy, and a strong orientation toward credentialism and accountability. This often leads to rigid, outcomes-driven programme designs that prioritize formal assessment and content coverage over learner-centred flexibility. Additionally, the broader sociopolitical climate – including economic precarity, limited state investment in public education, and weak linkages between universities and in-service teacher development – further discourages innovation and sustained engagement with lifelong learning principles. Within this ecosystem, treating education as a finite event may be less a deliberate pedagogical stance and more a reflection of systemic inertia and institutional survival strategies. Thus, the failure to promote self-directed learning or leverage prior experiences should be seen not merely as programme-level shortcomings, but as symptomatic of deeper systemic logics that constrain the enactment of andragogical ideals in preservice teacher education.
On the other hand, the proposed reconfiguration of the teacher preparation programme gestures toward a profound epistemological shift – one that moves beyond the instrumentalist paradigm of accreditation-centric instruction and into a more expansive vision of professional formation. At its core, this reimagining resists the notion of education as a closed system of inputs and outcomes and instead foregrounds the dynamic, relational, and evolving nature of learning. The call to ‘unbox’ learning from the narrow strictures of accreditation suggests a deeper yearning for a programmatic ethos that recognizes the learner not as a passive recipient of institutional validation but as an agent engaged in an unfolding process of becoming (Shal et al., 2024). This orientation implicitly values autonomy, reflective praxis, and contextual responsiveness – all central to adult learning philosophies – without reducing them to mere checklists of compliance. This aligns with recent scholarship that positions adult learners as self-directed individuals who thrive when learning is embedded in meaningful, authentic contexts (Knowles, 1980; Merriam, 2020; Smyth, 2023).
Finally, the call for integrating professors with lived K–12 teaching experience, revising pedagogical approaches, and instituting continuous professional renewal for faculty members bespeaks a latent demand for authenticity, relevance, and reciprocal growth within the instructional space. Such recommendations, while pragmatic on the surface, point to a more intricate desire for the dissolution of hierarchies between theory and practice, between professor and student, and between formal knowledge and experiential insight. This aligns with the andragogical perspective that professional learning should be dialogic and situated within the lived realities of the learner (Brookfield, 2017; Gao, 2023; Knowles, 1980). When those who inhabit the role of teacher embody a deep pride in their profession – grounded in both pedagogical competence and reflective integrity – they model the kind of intellectual vitality and professional passion that adult learners instinctively seek to mirror. In this light, the improvements proposed are not mere programmatic tweaks; they are ontological interventions, aspiring toward an ecology of learning where growth is not dictated but co-constructed, and where the arc of professional identity is allowed to evolve with complexity and dignity.
Limitations and recommendations for future research
While this study provides critical insights into the enactment of andragogical principles within a preservice teacher education programme, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the qualitative design – although offering rich, contextualized understanding – relied on a relatively small sample of 24 final-year student-teachers within a single institution in Beirut. As such, the findings, though analytically generalizable, may not capture the full heterogeneity of preservice teacher experiences across diverse sociocultural, institutional, or geopolitical contexts. In addition, the reliance on self-reported data through semi-structured interviews introduces the possibility of social desirability bias, wherein participants may have consciously or unconsciously moderated their responses to align with perceived expectations.
Future research would benefit from employing a comparative, multi-site approach that explores how andragogical principles manifest across varying teacher preparation landscapes, both regionally and globally. Longitudinal studies tracking student-teachers from enrolment through their early years of teaching could further illuminate how programmatic experiences shape professional identity formation, pedagogical agility, and long-term commitment to reflective practice.
Additionally, incorporating the perspectives of faculty, programme designers, and policy-makers would offer a more holistic understanding of the systemic enablers and constraints that mediate the implementation of adult learning principles in teacher education. Also, future inquiries might engage with critical and post-structural frameworks to interrogate how power, ideology, and institutional logics influence the construction of teacher subjectivities, thereby deepening the theoretical discourse surrounding adult learning and professional formation.
Finally, scholars are encouraged to adopt a more critical stance on andragogy itself, challenging the assumption that its prescriptive principles are universally effective or self-evident. Engaging with the critiques of andragogy as a theory (e.g., Merriam et al.) could provide a more nuanced understanding of its contextual applicability and limitations.
Recommendations for practice
As we have recommended the adoption of transformative learning approaches, we provide in this section practical ways in which such approaches can be meaningfully implemented within teacher education programmes. First, integrating critical reflection journals across coursework can foster self-awareness by encouraging student-teachers to examine their assumptions, beliefs, and evolving professional identities (Mezirow, 1997). Second, adopting problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PjBL) can immerse preservice teachers in authentic, complex educational challenges that promote inquiry, collaboration, and reflective decision-making – processes central to transformative learning. Third, embedding dialogic pedagogies, drawing on Freirean principles, can support critical consciousness by treating learners as co-constructors of knowledge rather than passive recipients. Fourth, structured practicum debrief sessions offer opportunities for student-teachers to critically analyze their field experiences through lenses such as equity, learner diversity, and social justice. Finally, employing narrative inquiry, autoethnographic assignments, and peer-led learning communities can deepen perspective transformation by creating spaces for meaning-making, empathy, and collective reflection.
Conclusion
In reimagining teacher preparation through the lens of andragogy, this study underscores the urgent need for a paradigmatic transformation – one that repositions teacher education as a dynamic site of professional formation rather than a mechanistic exercise in credentialing. The findings illuminate a series of deep structural and philosophical incongruities that must be addressed if teacher preparation programmes are to serve not only as incubators of pedagogical skill but also as crucibles of critical agency, reflective depth, and sustained professional identity. Rather than functioning as transmission hubs of fixed knowledge, these programmes should cultivate environments in which adult learners are invited to take ownership of their educational trajectories, interrogate the nexus between their lived experiences and disciplinary knowledge, and actively participate in shaping the conditions of their learning. This aligns with calls for a more emancipatory vision of adult education, wherein learners are recognized not as passive recipients, but as epistemic agents whose prior knowledge, motivations, and aspirations are constitutive elements of the educational process.
To meet the demands of contemporary educational landscapes – marked by volatility, complexity, and moral ambiguity – teacher preparation must transcend reductive, standardized pedagogies and instead embrace pedagogical architectures that are dialogic, relational, and reflexive. This calls for more than just structural adjustments to curricula and assessment – it demands a cultural reorientation that shifts the focus from external standards to rich learning experiences that foster intrinsic motivation, intellectual curiosity, and a sustained commitment to lifelong inquiry. The integration of faculty with lived K–12 experience, the institutionalization of reflective practice, and the nurturing of an ethos of continuous renewal are not merely programmatic enhancements; they are ontological commitments to an ecology of learning where becoming a teacher is a profoundly human endeavour. In such a reconfigured space, teacher preparation emerges not as a finite phase, but as the opening chapter of a profession animated by growth, integrity, and the courage to lead educational transformation from within.
Footnotes
Authors Contribution
All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Also, the authors performed the material preparation, data collection, and data analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written mostly by the first author and all authors commented and contributed to subsequent drafts. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.
Ethical Considerations
The procedures for this study were performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study. Approval was granted by the Lebanese University Integrity Board (LUIB#: 12/2024).
