Verner (1962) believed that teaching method must be matched to subject matter, and he mapped student "participation" (similar to the dependent-independent dimension in this theory) against subject matter (ranging from abstract to experiential). The present theory presses toward a different conclusion, and, while I have some doubts about this conclusion, here it is: The SSDL approach is independent of subject matter. Teaching style should be governed not by subject matter but by the balance between teacher directiveness and student control, usually set by the student's ability to participate as a self-directed, self-motivated, responsible learner--though sometimes negotiated between teacher and student (such as when students capable of self-direction choose a directive teacher). Back                 As you may suspect, I am guessing somewhat here, and the situation may not be as clear as I am telling it. (I just wanted you to know that I know.) Not everything is guesswork, though. Some of my thinking here comes from John Lewis's dissertation about adult learners in statistics courses. Back.               Andragogy. This split is reminiscent of an old debate in adult education. Teachers of the S1 and S2 types appear more "pedagogical," while teachers of the S3 and S4 types appear more "andragogical" and the two camps readily oppose each another. But like more recent discussions of andragogy (and staged models like Pratt's), the SSDL model infuses the assumptions of andragogy through all levels of education and through all methods of teaching--even directive methods, when they are part of a long-term program for developing greater self-direction. Back.