[Itech] Fwd: Tomorrow's Professor eNewsletter: 1366. The Nature of Self-Directed Learning

[Teresa Franklin]

Hi Graduates,

I thought I would pass this on since so many of you have been thinking
about self-directed learning as part of your research.

Dr. Franklin


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rick Reis <reis at stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:02 PM
Subject: Tomorrow's Professor eNewsletter: 1366. The Nature of
Self-Directed Learning
To: tomorrows-professor at lists.stanford.edu



   Please click here if e-mail below is not displayed correctly.
<http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/enewsletter.php?msgno=1366>
   [image:
Tomorrow's Professor eNewsletter, Sponsored by Stanford Center for Teaching
and Learning]
*In this section of the chapter we review self-directed learning from three
perspectives.  First are definitions of SDL that frame it both as a method
of organizing instruction and as a personal attribute; second, we review
 the goals of SDL ranging from gaining new knowledge to inspiring social
action and change.  Finally, examining some of the myths of SDL will help
to further clarify what this type of learning is all about.*

1366. The Nature of Self-Directed Learning

*Folks:*

[image: Rick Reis]

The posing below is a nice overview of the nature of self-directed
learning. It is from Chapter Four - Self-Directed Learning, in the
book, *Theory
and Practice*, by Sharan B. Merriam and Laura L. Bierema.  Published by
Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand. One Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San
Francisco, CA 94104-4594. www.josseybass.comCopyright © 2014 by John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.  All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis

reis at stanford.edu

        Anyone can subscribe     SUBSCRIBE
<https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor>      Visit
our website     TomProf On-line
<http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php>      Visit
us on Facebook and Twitter   [image: Tomorrow's Professor Facebook Page]
<http://www.facebook.com/TomorrowsProfessor> [image: Tomorrow's Professor
Twitter] <http://twitter.com/tomorrowsprof>         UNSUBSCRIBE
<https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor>
    UP NEXT: Reading Guides Rediscovered


Tomorrow's Teaching and Learning
--------- 1,657 words ----------
The Nature of Self-Directed Learning  (SDL)


In this section of the chapter we review self-directed learning from three
perspectives.  First are definitions of SDL that frame it both as a method
of organizing instruction and as a personal attribute; second, we review
 the goals of SDL ranging from gaining new knowledge to inspiring social
action and change.  Finally, examining some of the myths of SDL will help
to further clarify what this type of learning is all about.

SDL which has been researched, theorized, and practiced for over 50 years
(Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991, 2012; Candy, 1991; Houle, 1961; Knowles, 1975;
Tough, 1967, 1971, 1978) has been described both as a personal attribute
(that is, a person can be very self-directed and autonomous in their
learning), or as a process (that is, a way of organizing instruction).  SDL
as a personal attribute refers to an individual predisposition toward this
type of learning, and comfort with autonomy in the learning process. SDL as
a process is an approach to learning that is controlled by the learner.
Knowles is well-known for his definition of the process of SDL "in which
individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in
diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying
human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing
appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating those learning outcomes"
(1975, p. 18).  Knowles (1975) also delineated a six-step process which
could form the basis of a learning contract for learners and instructors to
follow in planning self-directed learning.  The six steps are:  (1) climate
setting, that is, creating an atmosphere of mutual respect and support; (2)
diagnosing learning needs; (3) formulating learning goals; (4) identifying
human and material resources for learning; (5) choosing and implementing
appropriate learning strategies; and (6) evaluating learning outcomes.

Tough (1978) studied SDL from the perspective of learning projects which he
defined as deliberate efforts to build knowledge, develop skills or make
changes, efforts that took a minimum of seven hours.  He also outlined a
process similar to that of Knowles.  Learners move through a series of
steps that have to do with first deciding what to learn, then what
resources they need (time? money? materials?), where to learn, and how to
maintain the motivation for learning.  The steps also involve setting goals
and timetables, determining the pace, and assessing the current level of
knowledge and skill.  Self-directed learners also evaluate their learning
to determine what might be hindering their learning and adjust accordingly.

Clardy (2000) interviewed 56 adult workers and identified four types of SDL
projects: induced, synergistic, voluntary, and scanning.  Induced SDL
occurs when learning is mandated by an authority. You have no mastery of
the material (indeed, you may have no knowledge at all) and would be
considered "unconsciously incompetent" in the area.  For instance, imagine
you have been diagnosed with high blood pressure and your doctor directs
you to lower it.  Now you need to take steps to learn about the condition
and change your health behaviors.  Before you were diagnosed, you had no
knowledge about how to manage your blood pressure, making you
"unconsciously incompetent."  Synergistic SDL is not mandated learning, but
instead optional and inspired by the opportunity to take advantage of a
learning situation made available by another person.  You would be
"consciously incompetent" in these situations.  Continuing with the high
blood pressure example, imagine that you are now aware of your management
options and met another person who has managed the condition well for some
time who offers you access to her library of books and resources to learn
more. Voluntary SDL occurs when learning something helps you achieve a
goal.  This type of learning is not motivated or validated by a higher
authority and you are "consciously competent" in knowing what you need to
do in order to attain your goal.  Say you have made progress in managing
your blood pressure and you decide to commit to lowering it even further as
a preventive health measure.  You embark on a learning journey that
includes new cooking methods and an exercise regimen.  Finally, Clardy's
last category, Scanning SDL, is an ongoing process of searching for new
learning.  Now that you have your blood pressure well managed, you are
constantly on the lookout for new studies and information on the
condition.  Or, keeping up to date in your field would be another example
of Scanning SDL.  As an adult educator, you are always seeking new ideas,
teaching techniques, and ways of better reaching your learners.

Goals of SDL

Caffarella (2000) suggested that there were four goals likely to motivate
learners to engage in SDL.  The first is the aspiration to gain knowledge
or develop skill - say you want to learn to speak Spanish.  Another is to
become more self-directed in learning.  This might mean that after you take
some Spanish classes, you are ready to strike out on your own by watching
Spanish speaking television shows, traveling to Spanish speaking countries,
or conversing with Spanish speakers.  SDL can also inspire transformational
learning when critical reflection is a component of the process.  One
transformation that an acquaintance of Laura's had during an educational
trip to Costa Rica was the opportunity to meet an independent coffee
famer.  She learned that the only way these farmers can support their
families is to bypass large corporations and sell their beans directly to
the premium market.  The insight changed how she views her coffee and other
purchases.  Finally, SDL can be emancipatory, supporting social justice and
political action - moving beyond the realm of individual learning.  In this
case, the Costa Rican traveler might decide to become politically active to
support small farms or protest corporate exploitation.

Myths of SDL

Though adults have always continued to learn, it wasn't until the late
1960s that adult educators and researchers began systematically attending
to adult learning.  Andragogy (see Chapter 3) and self-directed learning
were the two earliest and most robust conceptualizations of the nature and
characteristics of adult learning.  While andragogy identified assumptions
or characteristics of adult learners, self-directed learning is more about
the process involved when adults engage in their own learning.  SDL
immediately resonated with adult educators and researchers, producing a
burgeoning body of writings, publications and applications.  Along with the
growing body of research and writing a number of misconceptions or, as
Brockett (1994) calls them, myths of SDL evolved which sometimes cloud new
learners' understanding of this type of learning.  We thought it would be
helpful to look at these myths and their refutation by Brockett. Six of the
myths relate to the learners themselves and their activities.  Myth 1, SDL
is an all-or-nothing concept, is the mistaken notion that you are either a
self-directed learner or you are not.  In reality, every learner is
different, possessing varying levels of self-directedness.  It is more
accurate to view SDL as a continuum, "a characteristic that exists, to a
greater or lesser degree, in all persons and in all learning situations"
(Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991, p. 11).  Myth 2, Self-direction implies
learning in isolation, is an incorrect stereotype that places the learner
in seclusion from other learners.  Although learners may engage in periods
of intense, individualized learning, their learning will be enhanced by
sharing it with others and inquiring with other adults or instructors about
their questions, insights, and reflections.  Myth 3, SDL is the best
approach for adults, can cause problems if the unique needs and goals of
learners are not taken into account when structuring learning activities.
As with any approach, we must be realistic about the limitations of SDL and
use it appropriately.  Myth 4, SDL is limited primarily to white,
middle-class adults, suggests that this learning method reflects the
dominant culture.  Although this is one of the main critiques of SDL,
Brockett notes that there are examples of SDL across diverse social groups
and societies outside North America and Western Europe.  Myth 5, SDL is not
worth the time required to make it work, depends on a cost-benefit analysis
of the learning goals versus the time and resources available.  It is true
that not all learning can be best accomplished using SDL. Investing in SDL
preparation, learning needs diagnosis, determination of a learning plan,
and learning assessment engages the learner in a very meaningful way that
is likely to result in deeper learning than teacher-directed approaches,
making it worth the time.  Myth 6, SDL activities are limited primarily to
reading and writing, overlooks the informal nature of learning and that
many skills cannot be learned from books such as improving a golf swing,
speaking a language, building a deck, or training a dog.  SDL works best
when it is experiential, that is, lodged in the adult's life context (see
Chapter 6).

The remaining four myths focus more on teachers, pedagogy, and
institutions.  Myth 7, facilitating self-direction is an easy way out for
teachers, is one of the most pervasive myths, according to Brockett
(1994).  Helping learners be self-directed requires educators to take a
very active, individualized approach with learners to communicate the
process and support the development of their SDL plan. Learners come to SDL
with different needs and capabilities, making facilitating it as demanding
as - if not more demanding than - traditional teaching.  Myth 8, SDL is
limited primarily to those settings where freedom and democracy prevail,
assumes ideal conditions must exist for SDL to occur.  Yet SDL certainly
occurs in very controlling social and educational environments.  Think of
the SDL engaged in by protesters in the Arab Spring revolutions or by women
and girls who continued their learning in hiding under Taliban rule in
Afghanistan.  Myth 9, self-direction is just another adult education fad,
can be debunked just on the longevity of SDL as a theory and practice in
adult education for over 50 years.  Myth 10, SDL will erode the quality of
institutional programs, has not emerged when learners are given greater
control over learning.  The only risk to quality is when SDL is poorly
administered.

References

Brockett, R.G. (1994). Resistance to self-direction in adult learning:
Myths and misunderstandings.  In R. Hiemstra & R.G.

Brockett (Eds.), Overcoming resistance to self-direction in adult learning
(New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 64, pp. 5-12).

Brocket, R.G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning:
Perspectives on theory, research, and practice.  New York: Routledge,
Chapman, and Hall.

Brockett, R.G., & Hiemstra, R. (2012).  Reframing the meaning of
self-directed learning.  Proceedings of the Adult Education Research
Conference, USA, pp. 155-162.

Caffarella, R.S. (2000). Goals of self-directed learning. In G.A. Straka
(Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptual
considerations (pp. 37-48).  Berlin, Germany: Waxmann.

Candy, P.C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive
guide to theory and practice.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clardy, A. (2000). Learning on their own: Vocationally oriented
self-directed learning projects.  Human Resource Development Quarterly,
11(2), 104-125.

Houle, C.O. (1961). The inquiring mind.  Madison, University of Wisconsin
Press.

Knowles, M.S. (1975).  Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and
teachers.  New York: Association Free Press.

Tough, A. (1967). Learning without a teacher.  Toronto: Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education.

Tough, A. (1971). The adult's learning projects: A fresh approach to theory
and practice in adult learning.  Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.

Tough, A. (1978).  Major learning efforts: Recent research and future
directions.  Adult Education, 28(4), 250-263.
         "Desktop faculty development 100 times per year."
Over 50,000 subscribers at over 850 institutions in more than 100 countries

TOMORROW'S PROFESSORSM eMAIL NEWSLETTER
<http://cgi.stanford.edu/%7Edept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php>

Archives of all past postings can be found here
<http://cgi.stanford.edu/%7Edept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php>:

Sponsored by Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning
<http://ctl.stanford.edu>

Check out the Tomorrow's Professor Blog
<http://derekbruff.org/blogs/tomprof/>

NOTE: To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor List click HERE
<https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor>
  [image: Tomorrow's Professor Facebook Page]
<http://www.facebook.com/TomorrowsProfessor> [image: Tomorrow's Professor
Twitter] <http://twitter.com/tomorrowsprof>


--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
tomorrows-professor mailing list
tomorrows-professor at lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor






-- 


*"A teacher affects eternity; [she]he can never tell where the influence
stops." - Henry Adams*Dr. Teresa Franklin
Professor, Instructional Technology
Fulbright Research Scholar to Turkey 2013-14
Department of Educational Studies
The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education
Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701
740-541-8847 (cell)
also: franklinteresa at gmail.com

*~~~~~~Ohio University -- The best student-centered learning *experience in
America~~~~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/itech/attachments/20141110/82eabdcf/attachment-0001.html