How Texts, Voices and Experience Construct Adult Knowledge

A concise research briefing with complete scholarly references.

Contents

1. Central argument
2. Intertextuality in sociolinguistics
3. How discourse becomes knowledge
4. From pedagogy to andragogy
5. Seven moves from experience to knowledge
6. Power, identity and recognition
7. Implications for teaching
8. Evidence and limits
9. Conclusion
10. References
11. AI-assistance disclosure

Thesis: Adult knowledge is built by relating and revoicing prior discourse, experience and competing sources. Intertextuality is therefore a central sociolinguistic bridge between social constructivism and learner-directed education—not the sole foundation of either.

1. Central argument

Every utterance responds to earlier discourse and anticipates other voices (Bakhtin, 1981; Kristeva, 1980). Learning is likewise not the transfer of an untouched idea. Learners recall, compare, contest and revoice material from work, family, institutions and disciplines.

This supplies the missing mechanism between two educational claims. Social constructivism treats knowledge as culturally mediated activity (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991); andragogy stresses adults’ experience, relevance, problem orientation and growing self-direction (Knowles, 1980; Merriam, 2001). Intertextuality explains how experience becomes educational knowledge: it is made shareable, placed beside other accounts, tested and re-accented for a new purpose.

The bridge: available texts and voices → socially negotiated meaning → greater responsibility for warranted judgment and action.

↑ Back to contents

2. Intertextuality in sociolinguistics

Bakhtin’s dialogism treats language as inherently responsive (Bakhtin, 1986), while Kristeva describes a text as an intersection of other texts (Kristeva, 1980). Four dimensions matter for education:

• Manifest intertextuality: quotation, citation, reported speech and explicit reference.
• Interdiscursivity: mixing workplace, personal, policy and academic discourse (Fairclough, 1992).
• Addressivity: shaping an account for peers, assessors or professional communities.
• Recontextualization: moving discourse into a new setting where its function and authority change (Bauman & Briggs, 1990; Bernstein, 1990).

A connection becomes educationally consequential only when participants propose, recognize, resist or ratify it. Intertextuality is therefore a social accomplishment, not merely the presence of two texts (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993; Lemke, 1992).

↑ Back to contents

3. How discourse becomes knowledge

Sociocultural constructivism locates thinking in signs, tools and interaction (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991), and situated learning adds participation in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Intertextuality identifies the semiotic work inside that process: learners select available language, relocate it into a present problem and make it their own without becoming detached from evidence or other people.

Academic literacy makes this visible because voice, identity and legitimate knowledge are contested rather than neutral skills (Lea & Street, 1998; Scollon et al., 1997). The mature outcome is intertextual agency: locating sources, judging authority, relating explanations, detecting exclusions and taking responsibility for a warranted response.

↑ Back to contents

4. From pedagogy to andragogy

Knowles’s model emphasizes adults’ developing self-concept, accumulated experience, practical readiness and internal motivation (Knowles, 1984). Yet pedagogy is not necessarily transmissive, and adults do not always benefit from unsupported self-direction. Critiques also question andragogy’s empirical precision and tendency to treat adults as a homogeneous group (Hartree, 1984; Rachal, 2002; St. Clair & Käpplinger, 2021).

The defensible shift is a continuum of epistemic agency: from one principal authority toward multiple sources with visible criteria; from experience ignored to experience examined; and from teacher-owned judgment toward increasing learner responsibility. Explicit modelling remains vital for novices and safety-critical tasks. The aim is scaffolded participation, not instructor withdrawal.

↑ Back to contents

5. Seven moves from experience to knowledge

1. Activate a repertoire: a problem evokes earlier texts, experiences, languages and identities.
2. Entextualize: part of that experience becomes a shareable account, example or diagram.
3. Recontextualize: the account is placed beside concepts, evidence and other histories.
4. Negotiate: participants question relevance, credibility and consequences.
5. Appropriate: learners reformulate discourse in a voice usable for the present problem.
6. Transform: relations among voices alter a frame, identity or capacity to act.
7. Address forward: the new understanding is shaped for a future audience or practice.

The sequence is recursive rather than mechanical. It complements transformative learning by showing how prior frames encounter alternatives and become available for revision (Mezirow, 2003).

↑ Back to contents

6. Power, identity and recognition

More voices do not automatically make learning democratic. Institutions still decide which texts count, which genres receive credit and who may introduce relevant experience. Interdiscursivity exposes what is permitted to mix (Fairclough, 1992), while classroom studies show that nominally open dialogue can reproduce dominance (Jang, 2018; Zhang & Zhang, 2020).

Knowledge construction is therefore also identity construction. The critical question is not whether a classroom is intertextual—it inevitably is—but who may introduce which texts, who ratifies the relation, and what follows for knowledge and recognition.

↑ Back to contents

7. Implications for teaching

• Use problems that require research, policy, cases, community knowledge and professional experience.
• Elicit experience, then test what it supports, omits and whether it transfers.
• Teach quotation, paraphrase, synthesis, stance, genre and source evaluation as knowledge-making practices.
• Make standards visible, invite countertexts and transfer judgment gradually.
• Assess relations and transformations through synthesis maps, case analysis, portfolios or oral defence.
• Protect participation through structured turn-taking, multimodality, translanguaging and explicit genre teaching.

The instructor is neither sovereign lecturer nor passive facilitator, but the designer of conditions in which learners can enter, examine and eventually redirect consequential conversations.

↑ Back to contents

8. Evidence and limits

Evidence caution: this bridge is a well-supported integrative explanation, not a proven universal causal law. Adult and university studies document intertextual work in reading, ESL, writing and teacher education (Jarvis, 2000; Jang, 2018; Zhang & Zhang, 2020). Broader reviews and meta-analyses support dialogic teaching (Howe & Abedin, 2013; Xie & Lin, 2024; Tao & Chen, 2024), but dialogue is not identical to intertextual appropriation, and much causal evidence concerns school-age learners.

Adult-specific evidence remains mostly qualitative and context-bound. Material practice, emotion, embodiment, tools, instruction and institutions cannot be reduced to text. Direct comparative studies of structured intertextual learning are still needed.

↑ Back to contents

9. Conclusion

The move from pedagogy toward andragogy is best understood as a redistribution of epistemic agency, not the replacement of one age-bound science by another. Intertextuality is central because it explains how experience becomes a public knowledge resource, concepts are mediated by prior discourse, disciplinary voices are appropriated and authority is reproduced or contested.

The bounded conclusion is the strongest: intertextuality functions as a constitutive, power-laden bridge between sociocultural constructivism and learner-directed adult education. It becomes productive when relations among voices are visible, contestable, inclusive, answerable to evidence and consequential for future action.

↑ Back to contents

10. References

1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.; V. W. McGee, Trans.). University of Texas Press. https://doi.org/10.7560/720466
3. Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423
4. Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Routledge.
5. Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 304–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/747928
6. Fairclough, N. (1992). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and Education, 4(3–4), 269–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898%2892%2990004-G
7. Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed (50th anniversary ed.; M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Bloomsbury Academic. (Original work published 1970)
8. Hartree, A. (1984). Malcolm Knowles’ theory of andragogy: A critique. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 3(3), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260137840030304
9. Holmes, G., & Abington-Cooper, M. (2000). Pedagogy vs. andragogy: A false dichotomy? Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v26i2.a.8
10. Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024
11. Jang, E.-Y. (2018). Tracing power through intertextuality in the ESL classroom. English Language Teaching, 30(4), 49–68. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002424696
12. Jarvis, C. (2000). Reading and knowing: How the study of literature affects adults’ beliefs about knowledge. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(6), 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370050209069
13. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). Cambridge Books.
14. Knowles, M. S. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Gulf.
15. Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art (L. S. Roudiez, Ed.; T. Gora, A. Jardine, & L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). Columbia University Press.
16. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
17. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364
18. Lemke, J. L. (1992). Intertextuality and educational research. Linguistics and Education, 4(3–4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898%2892%2990003-F
19. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.3
20. Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172
21. Rachal, J. R. (2002). Andragogy’s detectives: A critique of the present and a proposal for the future. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(3), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713602052003004
22. Scollon, R., Tsang, W. K., Li, D., Yung, V., & Jones, R. (1997). Voice, appropriation and discourse representation in a student writing task. Linguistics and Education, 9(3), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(97)90001-2
23. St. Clair, R. (2024). Andragogy: Past and present potential. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20546
24. St. Clair, R., & Käpplinger, B. (2021). Alley or autobahn? Assessing 50 years of the andragogical project. Adult Education Quarterly, 71(3), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136211027879
25. Tao, Y., & Chen, G. (2024). The relationship between teacher talk and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 45, 100638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100638
26. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
27. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1pncrnd
28. Xie, W., & Lin, X. (2024). Are dialogic teaching-and-learning programs effective in pre-primary and primary schools? A meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104823
29. Zhang, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2020). Dialogic discussion as a platform for constructing knowledge: Student-teachers’ interaction patterns and strategies in learning to teach English. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00101-2
30. Zhang, Y. (1999/2000). Intertextual dynamics: Understanding the reading and inquiry processes of competent readers in a collaborative learning environment [Master’s scholarly paper, University of Arizona]. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474062.pdf

↑ Back to contents

11. AI-assistance disclosure

AI-assisted tools supported source discovery, synthesis and drafting. Bibliographic claims and cited findings were checked against publisher records, DOI pages, ERIC records or institutional repositories. This is a critical integrative briefing, not a database-complete systematic review.

↑ Back to contents