Adult Self-Directed Learning Research: From
Whence Have We Come?
Roger Hiemstra, Professor and Chair, Adult Education
June, 2003
Benny, at age 43, was diagnosed with
Multiple Sclerosis. Married with two children, a college dropout, and
Jen, who after retiring at 55 from a very
stressful job, began pursuing a new hobby. She had always been interested in
quilting, but never before had the time to get started. She took her first
class through the local quilt guild and became hooked. She joined the guild,
continued taking classes, read several books on the subjects, talked to fellow
guild members about quilting, spent many spare hours creating quilts, explored
quilting shops whenever she and her husband traveled, and entered every museum
she could find that contained old quilts. Her skills developed rapidly because
of her experiences years before in sewing clothing for her children. Within two
years she was teaching quilting classes, gave presentations on the history of
quilting to local women’s groups, and started winning awards at quilting
contests.
Paul, aged 31, finished his doctoral degree
in sociology and accepted a teaching position in a Midwestern college. After
settling his family in their new home and beginning his career as a professor,
he felt he had time to pursue something he had always wanted to do: create a
genealogy history of his family. He started by taking a course on genealogy at
the local community college. He then created a questionnaire and sent it to
many of his older relatives. After compiling the information that was returned
on forms disseminated during the course, he phoned several relatives to clarify
his understanding. He next arranged a trip to the Mormon Family History Library
in
What do Benny, Jen, and Paul have in common? All are self-directed learners? However, each pursues their learning experiences differently. It is these varied ways of pursuing learning by yourself that has captured the interest and imagination of so many and made self-directed learning (SDL) such an interesting area of study. This chapter provides an introduction to SDL, its literature and knowledge base, its leaders, and the energy that has been associated with it.
Much of the current literature base and knowledge associated with SDL can be traced to the work of Allen Tough and his research on adults’ independently pursued learning projects. Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) put it this way:
In 1965, Allen Tough completed his
doctoral dissertation at the
Tough completed subsequent related research (1971) and discovered that adults were carrying out much more learning each year than had previously been known or reported in the literature. Most importantly, he determined that nearly 70 percent of this learning was self-planned. It is this finding that served as the heart of much of the SDL research to follow. Self-direction had long been assumed as an important adult education goal, but it was through Tough’s research that this predilection for self-planning became apparent.
Tough actually used the analogy of a iceberg to describe such learning. Only a small portion of learning (i.e., the part above the water) is visible, what we had though before about adults taking organized courses, while the rest of learning (all the self-planned, initiated, and implemented learning) was below the surface. The main point of that analogy is that during the adult development process, the vast majority of what adults learn most likely is self-directed.
Such learning throughout the adult development process connects this chapter well to the theme of this book. Kasworm (1983b) believes that SDL behaviors are inherently woven into the foundation of lifespan cognitive and human development. She further believes that such self-directed and self-motivated involvement is necessary in the cognitive complexity of the act of learning. She cites Perry’s (1970) scheme of cognitive and ethical development as important in understanding the lifespan developmental process.
Other theorists provide some clues in understanding how an individual’s learning endeavors help guide the developmental process. For example, Erikson’s (Erikson, 1980; Hoare, 2000) eight stages of development show how the sixth and seventh stages provide a foundation for the adult development process. Levinson (1978) saw the developmental process not as a continuous process but as a series of alternating stages of structure-building and structure changing. Thus, as adults experience varying needs for change and development, it is no wonder that they turn to individualized learning as a means of coping with the complexities of development and living.
Long (1992b) also urges that we better understand long term memory, deep processing skills, and meta-cognitive control processes in relationship with SDL. The work of Csikszentmihalyi (1990) on flow, intention, and how attention is focused within the learning process is important to understanding SDL within the adult development process. Finally, understanding cognitive strategies (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986), how learners process information (Marton & Saljo, 1976), and learning how to learn (Smith, 1982) are some additional areas that relate to SDL. Other chapters in this book provide many more connective possibilities.
Defining SDL
An examination of the SDL literature will reveal a multitude of definitions for the term, “self-directed learning.” Space limitations in this chapter prevent a thorough reporting of these varied definitions. Gerstner (1992) provides a table (pp. 93-94) that includes 13 such definitions. Three definitional areas will be included in this section.
One of the 13 definitions was by Knowles (1975). It has frequently been cited by others:
. . . “self-directed learning” describes a process 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 learning outcomes. (p. 18)
Perhaps because of its simplicity and logical portrayal of SDL actions, it has had considerable staying power. It did not hurt that Knowles was a prolific author and frequent presenter at adult education conferences and workshops.
Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) believed, however, that SDL and all its related concepts were too complex to be adequately described in what is shown in the Knowles definition. They developed a framework for understanding SDL that they called the PRO model (see Figure 1 shown later in this chapter). They believed that to understand self-direction it must be viewed as encompassing both the instructional methods and processes (what they believe can best be called self-directed learning) and the personality characteristics of the individual learner (what they called learner self-direction). Both dimensions are predicated on the notion that an individual has a propensity for and ability to accept personal responsibility for learning actions:
This model, which we refer to as the “Personal Responsibility Orientation” (PRO) model of self-direction in adult learning is designed to recognize both the differences and similarities between self-directed learning as an instructional method and learner self-direction as a personality characteristic. The model is not only intended to serve as a way of better understanding self-direction, it can also serve as a framework for building future theory, research, and practice. (p. 26)
“Self-direction in learning” is now used occasional in the SDL literature, but “self-directed learning” is still the more common term and is used throughout this chapter.
Long (2000) offers four conceptualizations for organizing a definition, the fourth one of which ties well with many adult development ideas:
1. The sociological concept based on Tough’s definition and research into adults’ learning projects
2. The technique concept based on Knowles’ ideas about teaching formats
3. The methodological concept, based on the distance method of delivering instruction
4. The psychological concept based on my ideas of self control over the cognitive process of learning. (p. 13)
He then examines the psychological conceptualization in more detail by discussing what he believes are three primary dimensions and four secondary dimensions. He describes the importance of examining this framework in our efforts to understand self-direction in learning:
This essay, therefore, has identified and discussed some of the more critical psychological constructs and processes that contribute to self-direction in learning. Three primary dimensions of self-direction in learning were identified as motivation, metacognition, and self-regulation. The thesis underlying the above is that motivation is crucial to self-direction in learning. Somehow, the amotivated state must be changed. Preferably, intrinsic motivation will prevail in order for the learner to extend learning to higher quality levels. Metacognition is important in that it is a resource the learner can use to increase efficacy of self-direction. Finally self-regulation includes important processes that can be implemented by the self-directed learner.
Four secondary dimensions of self-directed learning flow from the three primary ones mentioned in the above paragraph. They are discussed as the four cs as each begins with the letter c: choice, competence, control, and confidence. The four secondary elements are highly interactive. They supplement and reinforce each other to contribute to the most positive outcomes of self-direction in learning. (p. 23).
This
section has provided some definitional constructs from which the remainder of
the chapter can be better understood. It is recommended that the interested
reader pursue many of the references cited throughout to obtain a more clear
understanding. The next section provides an overview of the history of
self-directed learning and provides some information that will help bridge between
a definitional structure and the development of the SDL knowledge base.
History
The
history of SDL is long and rich. Many people trace its beginning, at least in
Back to the Twentieth Century, there were few known times prior to 1961 in which concepts related to SDL were mentioned. Although he was still oriented toward adults participating in classroom efforts, Lindeman (1926) talked about the importance of individualized involvement: “We need, then, to be educated for self-expression because individuality is the most precious gift we have to bring to the world . . . ” (p. 57). Perhaps the first mention of self-directed learning in juxtaposition with adults was by Bryson in 1936 when he equated self-directed education efforts directly with adult education.
The first research effort tied to SDL was Houle’s study in 1960 that resulted in the 1961 book. Although he did not use the term self-directed learning in his 1961 publication--he used such terms as “self-education” and “auto-didactics” (p. 12)--in Houle’s archives at Syracuse University, typed and handwritten notes on the papers (handwriting authenticated by his son, D. Houle, personal communication, May 9, 2003) for that publication refer to self-concept, self-educating, and “How does the subject view himself [sic] as a self-directed learner” (Hiemstra, 2002a). It was perhaps this growing interest in the self-directed learner that influenced at least two of his students to make a huge contribution to SDL.
Tough was influenced in a graduate course taught by Houle in 1963 to begin his own research related to SDL when he analyzed his recent preparation for a comprehensive language exam. He discovered that most of the learning came through his own self-teaching. The next year he began his dissertation research on the teaching activities performed by adults during their own self-teaching (Tough, 1967). O’Donnell (1992) describes the unique contributions this research made to SDL:
The Tough research is a classic for a number of reasons. Foremost, it exemplifies how educational concepts develop. Professor Houle was interested in the elements of program planning. Tough expanded this to the person learning without a teacher by asking how he/she [sic] went about conducting the tasks of the learning project. The Tough research is also considered classic because it established a research method that could be duplicated by other researchers. (p. 76)
Tough’s (1971)
book, The adult’s learning projects, that
grew out of subsequent research when he returned to
It was through
describing elements and processes related to teaching adults, that another of
Houle’s students, Malcolm Knowles, became permanently attached to SDL concepts,
literature, and even research. Knowles’ contacts with Houle actually began in
the late 1940s (Hiemstra, 2003a). Malcolm decided to
study with Professor Houle because he said that in 1947 when he was deciding
about graduate school, Cy Houle was “the leading adult
educator in this country at that time” (Knowles, 1989, p. 13). From his studies
at the
However, it was a book he published in 1975 that impacted
the most on SDL, at least in
Tough’s emphasis was more upon the individual, and his learner-oriented approach emphasized the
learner to the point of almost neglecting the teacher or relegating the
learner-teacher relationship to an occasional contact. In contrast, Knowles’
interest was in the learner who often engaged in some kind of group learning activity, such as
classroom learning. As a result, Knowles has more to say about the teacher’s
relationship to the learner than does Tough. (p. 38)
Obviously, the history of SDL does
not end in 1975, but it can be argued that everything leading up to this date
set the scene for an explosion of knowledge, literature, and discussion that continues
to the present. Other sections in this chapter describe some of the
controversies that grew out of this earlier history, some of the important
contributions made by later researchers and authors, the crucial role played by
the International Self-Directed Learning Symposium (ISDLS), and the development
of the lexicon and literature that developed basically after 1975. Donaghy (R.
C. Donaghy, personal communication,
Instruments
The
popularity of SDL as an area for research that has grown throughout this
history has resulted in the development of numerous instruments, techniques,
and procedures for measuring some aspect of the concept. Long and
Confessore
and Long (1992) and Long and Confessore (1992) utilized similar search
techniques to examine hundreds of published articles or papers or unpublished
ERIC documents by reviewing ERIC, PSYCHLIT, and SOCIOFILE databases between
1966 and 1991. Confessore, Long, and
Table 1 describes seven such instruments or approaches as examples of those either used often in such research or that offer considerable promise. The SDLRS continues to be the most frequently used instrument. This instrument also has morphed into multiple forms based on translations in languages other than English (there are 12 translations to date), type of respondent, and specific administration style. For example, the LPA (Learning Preference Assessment) is a self-scoring version. The DLRA, a new instrument designed to measure an individual’s readiness for e-learning, is currently under development (Guglielmino, 2003).
-- Place Table 1 approximately here --
The
SDLPS instrument and the Tough interview approach, both developed in
Stockdale, Fogerson, Robinson, & Walker (2003) examined the frequency of use of such instruments by looking at the ISDLS annual proceedings from 1990 through 2000. In addition, in preparation for this chapter the author added uses based on examining the 2001 through 2003 proceedings. Three of the above instruments were used the most frequently: SDLPS (8 time), SDLRS (50), and the SESDL (8). Although the SDLRS has been used the most, only time will tell whether or not its popularity continues in the future.
And the beat does go on….. as intimated in a song many years ago. The latest instrument developed is from a dissertation effort resulting in the Personal Responsibility Orientation to Self-Direction in Learning Scale (PRO-SDLS) (Stockdale, 2003). It is aimed at measuring self-directedness in learning within the framework of both teaching and learning. No doubt more instruments will be created as interest in this topic continues to capture the attention of researchers wanting to understand more about the adult as learner and the adult development process.
Perhaps one of the greatest contribution these instruments has made is accelerating our understanding of the various relationships, audiences, and settings associated with self-direction in learning. For example, Stockdale, Fogerson, Robinson, and Walker (2003) detail several settings that have been chosen for research on SDL. These include such diverse locations as elementary and high schools, undergraduate and graduate programs in various higher education settings, distance and non-traditional learning experiences, military programs, workplace settings, individualized hobby settings, and many others. Perusing the annual International Symposium books reveals that researchers have studied SDL by using such instruments or other study approaches to examine amateur radio operators, modern dance, art efficacy, architecture students, weight loss, the author Louis L’Amor, female executives, the topic of curiosity, medical students, personality types, self-concept, and even John Lennon and Paul McCartney among many others.
It seems clear that SDL has universal appeal in our desire to understand the adult development process and the instruments and data gathering approaches described in this section and elsewhere in the chapter have been useful in furthering such understanding. Merriam and Caffarella (1988) put it this way:
Research into the nature of the self-directed learner asks the who and what questions: Are these learners introverts or extroverts? What is their learning style? What level of education have they achieved, and does this affect their ability to be self-directed? Are they more autonomous than other learners? How do we know if learners are ready for self-directed ways of learning? Basically researchers are trying to gain an understanding of the typical self-directed learner’s characteristics or attributes. (p. 306)
Models for SDL
A number of models have been developed or associated with self-directed learning. Knowles (1970, 1975) and Tough (1971) presented models in their writings that suggested ways people go through their learning activities or ways of facilitating such learning. Perhaps the first model developed specifically for self-directed learning once the various research efforts got underway in the 1970s and early 1980s, was the work of Spear and Mocker (Spear & Mocker, 1984; Spear, 1988). They based their work on the notion that SDL processes were based around knowledge, learner actions, and the environment within which such learning takes place. These result in various organizing circumstances from which individuals make decisions about their interactions with learning opportunities and resources. Four major patterns for such interaction are suggested to exist: Type I, a single learning event with anticipated learning; Type II, a single learning event with unanticipated learning; Type III, a series of learning events that are perceived as related to each other; and Type IV, a series of learning events that result in or are based on unrelated learning.
Grow (1991) introduced a model aimed at representing the teaching and learning process. Called the “Staged Self-Directed Learning” model, it provided four stages aimed at helping teachers determine the best ways they can organize, carry out, and support individual learning. Stage 1 provides a description of teacher or facilitator roles for learners who have low self-directing abilities and who need an authority figure to provide direction. Stage 2 is for learners of moderate self-direction but have no or little understanding of the area to be learned. Stage 3 is for learners of intermediate self-directed learning abilities and who are ready, even eager, to move forward with the help of a facilitator. Stage 4 is for those learners with high self-directing abilities who basically can move forward with learning on their own. It spawned considerable thought and literature, even a challenge by one person (Tennant, 1992), which Grow responded to with a thoughtful piece (1994).
The third model to be described here pertains to the work of Brocket and Hiemstra (1991). They developed the PRO model as a framework for understanding self-direction in learning. Figure 1 depicts the model. It is based an assumption that an individual is capable of accepting personal responsibility for thoughts and actions, especially as they apply to learning. Given that assumption, the notion of self-direction is believe to have two components or characteristics, those of the learner and those associated with the teaching and learning process. These combine to under gird the learning actions of an individual in what the authors refer to as self-direction in learning. All of this must be considered, however, within the various social settings or environments within which the learning takes place. To date, at least two dissertations have provided additional clarification of the PRO model (Newell, 1995; Stockdale, 2003).
-- Place Figure 1 approximately here --
Again,
space limitations prevent a description of the many additional models,
frameworks, and conceptual pieces that add clarity to SDL in various ways.
Reading the annual International Symposia books will provide much of this
information. In addition, Merriam and Brockett (1997) and Merriam and
Caffarella (1988) provide useful summaries of various models that have
implications for understanding self-directed learning. Words associated with
many of these models are included in the next section.
SDL
Lexicon and Literature
A
nephew that graduates with a PhD in math may have a difficult time explaining to
his uncle, a PhD holder in sociology, what his dissertation is all about. A
daughter working in the field of human geography will receive looks of
incomprehension from her parents, both college graduates, when she describes
her research in
SDL as a sub-specialty primarily within the field of adult education is no different. For example, in the three decades or more since the initial scholarship of people like Houle, Knowles, and Tough, literally hundreds of terms, concepts, and definitions associated in some way with self-direction in learning have developed. Gerstner (1992) provides a useful discussion of the origin of the term "self-directed learning" from a linguistic viewpoint. She includes a graphic representation from an onomastic approach where the concept is identified and then the various words associated with it are described.
Hiemstra (1997b) completed some research to determine the lexicon that had developed from 1986 through 1994 by using eight books published annually as proceedings from the ISDLS (Long & Associates, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995). [A portrayal of all book and chapter titles that have been developed from these symposia, 1986-2003, is shown in Hiemstra (2002b)]. Using a modified content analysis procedure, he examined the words in these books related in some way to SDL. In this effort, messages, as the unit of analysis, included single words, groups of words, analogous words, and associated derivatives. The normal content analysis protocol was modified in that categories of meaning were not sought nor was there an effort to do any hypothesis testing.
Words were counted each time they were used with only a very few exceptions. For example, if a word, term, or phrase was repeated three times in a paragraph it received a frequency count of three. However, words or terms displayed in tables, figures, or reference sections were not counted. If a term was clearly redundant (e.g., Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale followed immediately by SDLRS in parentheses) it received a frequency count of only one; however, if later in that same sentence SDLRS was again used another frequency count was added. Normal associations between concepts or acronyms were made. For instance, "SDLRS" and "Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale" were counted as the same term when recording frequencies. As another example, autodidaxy and autodidactic learning were counted as the same term under the heading of autodidactic learning as they were assumed to be closely associated terms, but used slightly different according to the preference of the author. But, the names of businesses, centers, conferences, and organizations were not counted even if a self-directed learning term was associated with it. In essence, only the text of a chapter as the data source was included. The first data column in Table 2 portrays the most frequently used SDL terms, concepts, and associated derivatives for that research.
-- Place Table 2 approximately here --
For purposes of
this chapter, the same methodology was utilized for a selection of chapters
from the subsequent eight Symposia proceedings to determine if patterns or uses
had changed over time (Long & Associates, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003). For the initial study noted above, 137 chapters were
examined; however, for this follow-up effort, only 46 chapters, just over one
third as many, were selected. Thus, the numbers in the second and third columns
need to be compared with caution.
There were some noticeable changes in the second eight-year period given the limitations obvious from using only a partial database for the research. Autodidacticism, learning projects, self-directed learner, self-education, and self-taught adults appear to have diminished in their usage given the sample selected for the second period. The use of language referring to the two most popular instruments in the first eight-year period, the OCLI and the SDLRS, diminished. Another instrument, the SDLPS, had not been developed by 1995, but it did receive considerable mention in the sample selected for the second time period.
The term self-directed learning, by far the most popular term in the first period as might be expected, appears to have even increased in use during the second period. Another term, self-direction in learning, also appears to have increased in frequency if a weighting is added to the third column to approximate a total if all chapters had been selected. Three other terms, learning environments, self-efficacy, and self-regulation appear to have been used frequently during the second time period.
As was noted in the Hiemstra (1997b) study, an amazingly large number of terms were found. There were 205 different terms used in the initial eight books, and another 53 words were introduced in the second eight-year period. The SDL sub-field is rapidly reaching the point where a discipline-specific thesaurus is needed. Fascinating, too, is the number of creative ways the term "self-directed learning" actually can be said. Following is a list of some of them:
Assuming primary responsibility Self-educated
Asynchronous learning environment Self-guided learning
Independent learner Self-managed learning
Individual responsibility toward learning Self-regulated learning
Inner directed Self-taught
Intrinsically motivated learning Solitary learning
Isolated learning Student generated learning
Learning without a teacher Teacherless individual learners
Self-acquired knowledge Unsupervised learning
The second eight-year period also brought some interesting new terms associated with SDL, although not unexpected given the technological developments occurring between 1996 and 2003. These included such terms as distance learning, e-learner, e-mentoring, self-directed learning in an on-line environment, virtual learner, and web-based learning. The next eight years of research and scholarship related to SDL no doubt will bring many new words, concepts, and even surprises.
The literature associated with SDL is just as diverse as the words used. The 16 books that have developed from the annual International Symposia is but a small proportion of the available literature. As noted earlier, Confessore, Long, and Redding collaborated in an examination of 173 dissertations and 383 books, book chapters, published articles or papers, and unpublished ERIC documents that were in some way affiliated with SDL. They note, too, that the selection criteria they used no doubt eliminated many dissertations or other materials that arguably should have been included. Their research period ended in 1991, so including the symposia books since 1991 and the numerous research papers presented at other meetings, journal articles, books and book chapters, and hundreds of Web pieces, the SDL literature base has become immense.
Caffarella and O’Donnell (1987, 1988) carried out a fairly extensive review of the literature related in some way to SDL. The looked at several studies that were verifications of the learning projects approach used by Tough. They also studied the nature of the methods used for SDL in terms of planning, acquiring learning resources, and the competencies that had been determined as necessary to carry out self-directed learning activities. They looked, too, at the nature of the individualized learner, the reported philosophical orientations associated with SDL, and some associated policy issues.
Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) carried out an extensive review of the literature to develop Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of their book, each based on a different stream of research. They began by providing a portrayal of the work of Allen Tough and the learning projects research stimulated by his initial efforts. They included a discussion of the various quantitative efforts to study SDL utilizing various approaches. The finished their reporting of the literature by describing qualitative methods that had been employed to provide some explanation of the meanings and contexts of self-direction in learning during adulthood. They recommended how to interpret the nature of the research associated with SDL:
It is important to bear in mind that while these three streams of research have evolved in a somewhat sequential manner, they are not distinct stages of research. In other words, newer methodologies have not replaced previous approaches. Rather, each stream of inquiry continues to serve an important role in addressing specific types of research questions relative to self-direction in learning. (p. 40)
Confessore and
Confessore (1992a, 1992c) used the
Brockett and his
colleagues at the
They also looked at the productivity level of various authors associated with the publications. They noted the following:
Six
authors: Rosemary Caffarella (n = 9), Ralph Brocket (n = 8), Huey Long (n = 8),
Stephen Brookfield (n = 6), Lorys Oddi (n = 5), and Randy Garrison (n = 3)
wrote approximately one-third of the total articles published on
self-direction. All of these authors, with the exception of Oddi, continued to
write on this topic well past the peak period (1983 – 1991). Brockett,
An examination of additional literature in preparation for writing this chapter showed that Brockett and Long continued their heavy involvement beyond 1998.
Stockdale,
Fogerson, Robinson, & Walker (2003) utilized a similar content analysis
approach to examine ISDLS annual proceedings from 1990 through 2000. They
reviewed a total of 214 chapters from this time period and also examined the
contribution level of various people. The top five contributors were Huey Long
(32 chapters as author or co-author), Lucy Guglielmino (13), Gary Confessore
(10), Jane Pilling-Cormick (10), and Terry Redding (9). Hiemstra (2002b)
completed a content analysis of all the proceedings (1988 through 2003) and
discovered that the top five producers were the same, although the order
changed slightly: Long (46), Guglielmino (18), Pilling-Cormick (17),
Donaghy,
Robinson, Wallace, Walker, and Brockett (2002) completed a citation analysis of
SDL literature by examining 127 journal articles. The top twelve most
frequently cited references were as follows: Tough (1971), 42 times;
Guglielmino (1977), 37 times; Knowles (1975), 31 times; Knowles (1970), 21
times; Brookfield (1984), 16 times; Hassan (1982), 15 times; Brookfield (1981),
Johnstone and Rivera (1965), and Sabbaghian (1980), each 14 times; and Brockett
(1985b), Brookfield (1986), and Houle (1961), each 13 times. Another
interesting finding was the most frequently cited authors. Here are the top 10
either as a first author or as part of an authoring team:
Perhaps
the most interesting finding from the Brocket et al. (2000) study was a decline
in the number of publications each year since 1986. Merriam and Caffarella
(1998) suggested that there exists a stagnation in the
development of cohesive research tradition related to SDL. Merriam and Brockett
(1997) urged that new perspectives on SDL be created. The decline in
publications could attest to a waning interest in the topic of SDL. However, it
also may suggest that the interests of researchers with prior attachments to
SDL are, indeed, broadening. ISDLS leaders are now in conversation about
developing a new journal that will focus just on SDL (L. M. Guglielmino,
personal communication,
Controversies
Self-directed learning as a collection of knowledge, concepts, teaching and learning approaches, literature, and associated individuals, like so many other knowledge areas, has had its share of controversies. The first area of controversy began in relationship to Knowles’ 1970 publication in which he raised the consciousness of North American adult educators about notions of andragogy. His ideas seemed to resonate with many people who were looking for an organized set of procedures for working with adult learners. However, a number of people took issue with Knowles’ work in various ways. Some were disappointed in the distinctions he made between teaching adults and children; others were concerned that too heavy a reliance on self-directed learning negatively impacts on certain learners. The lack of empirical support for many of his ideas was troublesome to many. Merriam and Caffarella (1998) provide a fairly comprehensive discussion of the controversy surrounding this area.
Another point of contention, and one that led to impassioned pro and con debate, was the fault that a few people found with Guglielmino’s SDLRS. Brockett (1985b, 1985c) and Caffarella and Caffarella (1986) were the initial people to raise concerns about who should or should not be completing the scale. Field (1989, 1991) had perhaps the harshest criticism by questioning the instrument’s reliability and validity and even queried whether or not the instrument should continue to be used. Straka and Hinz (1996) and West and Bentley (1991) also raised some important questions about the instrument’s continued use. Scholars interested in the debate and unabashed supporters of the instrument, however, fought back with a flurry of articles pointing out either weaknesses in the critics’ work or providing new validation information (e.g., Delahaye & Smith, 1995; Guglielmino, 1997, Guglielmino, Long, & McCune (1989); Long & Walsh, 1992; Morris, 1997; Rodriguez, 2003). Regardless of the criticisms and surrounding controversy, as noted earlier, the SDLRS continues to be a very popular instrument and one that is used around the world.
Brockett
(1985a) and Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) were the first people to offer some
challenges back to
It appears that
There
have been several more controversies, criticisms, or even attacks similar to
those noted above. Unfortunately, space limitations prevent their description
here. The interested reader will find several of them described on the World
Wide Web. For example, Christensen and Hooker (2000), Kerka (1999), and Rossi
(n.d.) provide some interesting discussion of several controversial areas. In
addition, accessing and reading the annual ISDLS proceedings, especially those
chapters authored by Long, will provide an excellent overview of the criticisms
and the various rejoinders.
Influentials
In
many respects the interested reader can examine prior sections and obtain at
least a beginning understanding of the most popular, prolific, and influential
leaders working with SDL. However, such information does not tell the whole
story. The author, having worked with SDL in various ways for more than 30
years, has developed an understanding and appreciation for the type of
influence that goes beyond publishing records,
Obviously,
writing a personal evaluation of the contributions people made means that
biases are included. It also means that some people will be left out whom
others believe should have been described. For example, individuals whose
contributions predated 1961 are not included. Some individuals who have many
SDL publications during the past few years are not mentioned. Many deserving
individuals from outside of
Ralph Brockett. Ralph became interested
in SDL very early in his graduate studies and developed an important
dissertation that helped shed some new light on the SDLRS (Brockett, 1983). A
prolific author, his role as Editor-in-Chief of New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education for many years
helped developed the knowledge base for the field of adult education. Several
of the quarterly sourcebooks had a direct relationship to SDL. His
co-authorship with Hiemstra on four publications also helped push the envelope
of knowledge forward (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Brockett & Hiemstra,
2004; and Hiemstra & Brockett, 1994a, 1994b). Since 1999, he has developed
a cadre of associates in some way affiliated with the
Steve Brookfield. Steve has made major
contributions through his many publications, many of which are cited in this
chapter, and his engaging speaking style. Beginning with a journal article and dissertation
while still living in
Rosemary Caffarella. Rosemary, too, has
contributed much to SDL through her many publications. She has written about
various aspects of SDL from the use of learning contracts to using SDL in staff
development to judging the quality of SDL work. An award winning author,
Rosemary teamed with Sharan Merriam to author Learning in adulthood (Merriam & Caffarella, 1998) that
contains very useful information on SDL. Frequently co-authoring with Judith
O’Donnell, their specific efforts over the years to capture the essence of SDL
literature has been very helpful to other scholars and people interested in
learning more about the topic.
Phil Candy. Phil is included here
primarily because of his book, Self-direction
for lifelong learning (1991). An Australian, he obtained his doctoral
degree in adult education from the
Gary and Sharon Confessore. Gary
and Sharon have been long supporters of and contributors to the ISDLS. Both
began their careers related to SDL when
Lucy and Paul Guglielmino. This second married duo have contributed much to SDL.
Beginning with Lucy’s groundbreaking dissertation (Guglielmino, 1977), both
have made many presentations and written many chapters in affiliation with the
International Symposium. As noted elsewhere, Lucy’s SDLRS has been used
considerably more than any other instrument in research associated with SDL.
Translated into several languages and with various versions, the instrument has
met the needs of adult educators around the world interested in SDL research.
Both have long been affiliated with
Roger Hiemstra. Hiemstra has contributed
to SDL knowledge in various ways. His 1975 publication involved administering
the Allen Tough Learning Projects protocol with older adult learners. This was
followed by a number of publications dealing with SDL over the years, with the
three most notably ones being Brockett and Hiemstra (1991), Hiemstra and
Brockett (1994b), and Hiemstra and Sisco (1990). Perhaps his greatest
contributions have been related to the more than three dozen dissertations he
chaired during the past 30 years that have been associated in some way with
SDL, many of which are cited in this chapter or in the work of Brockett and his
colleagues at the
Cyril
Houle. As has been noted elsewhere, in many respects Cy
can be seen as the father of SDL research and development at least in
Carol Kasworm. Carol has contributed
considerable scholarship to SDL. Combining roles as a higher education administrator and
professor for many years, she has done perhaps more than anyone to bring
understanding of how SDL can be used in higher education settings (Kasworm, 1983a,
1988, and 1992a). Utilizing both quantitative and qualitative research
methods, she has become one of the leading authorities in understanding adult
development and participation patterns of adults in higher education. Currently
Carol serves as Department Head and Professor in the adult education area at
Malcolm Knowles. Malcolm contributed to the self-directed learning knowledge base in various way. His 1970 book introducing concepts of andragogy into the North American adult education lexicon, stimulated considerable interest in and debate about how to teach adults. His interest in individualizing instruction and in providing considerable responsibility for learning back to the adult facilitated his authoring of the book Self-Directed Learning (1975). That book was very popular for years and helped bring SDL to the attention of many adult eductors. Subsequent work that he did related to andragogy, adult learning, and learning contracts helped build the knowledge base. Malcolm also was inducted into the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame in 1996.
Huey Long. Not many people will
debate the leading role that Huey has played in furthering knowledge and
interest related to SDL. He conceived of and ran the first North American
Symposium on Adult Self-Directed Learning in 1986 on the
Jane Pilling-Cormick. Having been
affiliated with SDL for only a few years, Jane has already made some important
contributions. She has contributed frequently to the ISDLS in recent years both
as a presenter and chapter author or co-author. Her dissertation
(Pilling-Cormick, 1996) and the resulting Self-Directed Learning Perception
Scale has led to a number of studies. President of Professional Learning &
Training, an organization in
Allen Tough. Allen did more than anyone to stimulate the initial research in the 1970s that resulted in the eventual explosion of SDL-related interest and literature. His 1967 and 1971 publications are important benchmarks in understanding the development of the field as citational research noted earlier has shown. For example, three of the 12 retrospective chapters on previous SDL contributors in Confessore and Confessore (1992b) were on Tough’s work. An individual with many interests, Allen’s engaging presentational style made him a popular speaker in adult education circles for some ten to fifteen years after his 1971 publication. His subsequent work on intentional change (Tough, 1982) moved the knowledge base into an important new area that, unfortunately, has not received the attention that it deserves. As Kasworm (1992b) noted, Tough’s work provides a crucial beginning in contemplating and creating ways of facilitating self-directed learning.
Concluding Thoughts
It should seem clear that one chapter cannot do justice in describing the immense knowledge base, excitement, and energy associated with SDL. Indeed, the fact that just in North America 16 books have developed from the annual ISDLS, several additional books have been authored, many papers have been presented at conferences, and numerous journal articles have been published provide evidence that this chapter, to use Allen Tough’s metaphor, is just the tip of a huge iceberg. The author teaches a graduate course just on SDL and students always complain about the Herculean task of attempting to understand the topic in only one course. Thus, the purpose of this last section is to whet the appetite of the interested reader in terms of all the additional material, related concepts, and future possibilities related to SDL.
An
obvious gap in the information provided thus far is that it has related
primarily to
Another gap is all the information
that could have been presented related to the implications of the SDL knowledge
base for facilitating adults as learners. For example, Hiemstra and Sisco
(1990) present an entire instructional planning, design, and implementation
process based on SDL and learners taking increasing responsibility for their
own learning called the individualizing instruction or II model. Hiemstra (1997a;
2003b) presents ideas about conceptualizing the teaching and learning process
in a manner that incorporates ideas where learners assume increasing amounts of
responsibility and details many of the SDL tools and resources available to
help them. There is considerable information available on the importance of
learning contracts when working with adult learners in an SDL setting (Hiemstra
& Sisco, 1990, pp. 104-120; Knowles, 1986). Wulff, Burke, &
Hurley (2001) and Burke, Wulff, & Hurley (2003) have developed a guided
self-directed learning conceptual framework that is a continuum of
instructor-student responsibility and actions as learning occurs. Instructors
establish a foundation of learning standards and guides, while learners undertake
self-direction in their areas of interest or specialization.
There are a number of other very important topics related to SDL that simply were not covered in this chapter because of space limitations: (a) The role of ethics in SDL (Brockett & Hiemstra, 2004); (b) designing an effective learning environment for SDL (Hiemstra, 1991); (c) helping learners overcome initial resistance to SDL (Hiemstra & Brockett, 1994b); (d) the role of humanism and humanistic philosophy in SDL (Brockett, 1997; Hiemstra & Brockett, 1994a); evaluating the effectiveness of SDL (DeJoy & Mills, 1992; Steele, 1992); (e) the relationship of both self-efficacy and self-regulation to SDL (Hoban & Sersland, 2000; Hrimech, 1995) (f) the role of SDL in the workplace (Durr, 1995; Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 2003; Piskurich, 1993); (g) the heavy involvement for many years by the nursing profession in SDL (Cooper, 1980; Long & Barnes, 1995); and (h) the role of technology into SDL (Ekstrom, Landau, & Plowman, 2003). Future scholarship in these areas will certainly enhance our overall knowledge base.
Long (2001) in a chapter talking about technology and how it is bringing about new approaches to teaching and learning provides an appropriate ending for this chapter:
The self-directed
learner is important in the movement toward effectiveness in learning. I don’t
mean to assert that all of what we now call self-directed learning always is
effective. I have had experiences with students who have engaged in
self-directed learning both ineffectively and inefficiently. Nevertheless, the
self-directed learner is critical to the above scenario. We have seen the
future, and the future will be built upon the shoulders of self-directed
learners. Their learning will not be limited to classrooms and training rooms.
It will occur at the computer in virtual reality as well as in the workshop,
the place of business, the houses of religion, in offices of health providers
and wherever a human might be. The limitations of place, resources, and time
will no longer interfere with the desire to learn. (p. 11)
References
Brockett, R. G. (1983). Self-directed
learning readiness and life satisfaction among older adults. (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 42A.
Brockett,
R. G. (1985a). A response to
Brockett, R. G. (1985b). Methodological
and substantive issues in the measurement of self-directed learning readiness.
Adult Education Quarterly, 36, 15-24.
Brockett, R. G. (1985c). The relationship
between self-directed learning readiness and life satisfaction among older
adults. Adult Education Quarterly, 35, 210-219.
Brockett, R. G. (1997). Humanism as an
instructional paradigm. In C. R. Dills & A. J.
Romiszowski, (Eds.), Instructional
development paradigms (pp. 245-256).
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R.
(1991). Self-direction in learning:
Perspectives in theory, research, and practice.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R.
(2004). Toward ethical practice.
Brockett, R. G., Stockdale, S. L., Fogerson, D. L., Cox, B.
F., Canipe, J. B., Chuprina, L. A., Donaghy, R. C., & Chadwell, N. E. (2000,
February). Two decades of literature on
self-directed learning: A content analysis. Paper presented at the 14th
International Self-Directed Learning Symposium,
Bryson,
L. (1936). Adult
education.
Burke, E. L., Wulff, S., & Hurley (2003). Guided self-directed learning (GSDL):
Working model II and case study implementation in an international corporate
training environment. In H. B. Long & Associates, Current developments in e-learning &
self-directed learning pp. 105-116).
Carre,
P. (1994). Self-directed learning in French professional
education. In H. B. Long & Associates, New
ideas about self-directed learning (pp. 139-148).
Caffarella, R. S., & Caffarella, E. P. (1986). Self-directedness and learning contracts in adult education.
Adult Education Quarterly, 36, 226-234.
Caffarella, R., & O'Donnell, J. M.
(1987). Self-directed adult learning: A
critical paradigm revisited. Adult
Education Quarterly, 37, 199-211.
Caffarella, R., & O’Donnell, J. M.
(1988). Research in self-directed
learning: Past, present and future trends. In H. B. Long
& Associates, Self-directed learning: Application & theory (pp. 39-61).
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong
learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice.
Canipe, J. B. (2001). The relationship between self-directed
learning and learning styles. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Tennessee, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 01A,
p. 53.
Channing,
W. E. (1839). Self-culture: An address
introductory to the
Christensen, W. D., & Hooker, C. A.
(2000). An interactivist-constructivist
approach to intelligence: Self-directed anticipative learning. Philosophical Psychology, 13, 5-45. Retrieved
Chuprina,
L. A. (2001). The relationship between self-directed learning
readiness and cross-cultural adaptability in
Chuprina, L., & Durr, R. E. (2002). The relationship between self-directed learning readiness and
cultural adaptability of expatriate assignees at Motorola. In Long, H. B., & Associates, Twenty-First Century
advances in self-directed learning (pp. 55-70).
Confessore, G. J., & Confessore, S. J. (1992a). In search of consensus in the study of self-directed learning.
In H. B. Long & Associates, Self-directed learning: Application and
research (pp. 25-46).
Confessore, G. J., & Confessore, S. J. (1992b). Guideposts to self-directed learning.
Confessore, G. J., & Confessore, S. J. (1992c). Selecting the key literature in self-directed learning. In G. J. Confessore & S. J.
Confessore (Eds.), Guideposts to self-directed learning (pp.
12-22).
Confessore, S. J., & Confessore, G. J. (1994).
Learner profiles: A cross-sectional study of selected factors associated with
self-directed learning. In H. B. Long & Associates, New
ideas about self-directed learning (pp. 201-227).
Confessore, G. J., & Long, H. B. (1992). Abstracts of literature in
self-directed learning 1983-1991.
Confessore, G. J., Long, H. B., &
Cooper, S. S. (1980). Self-directed learning in nursing.
Cox, B. F. (2003). The relationship between creativity and
self-directed learning among adult community college students. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Tennessee, 2002). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 63, 07A, p. 2433.
Craik, G. L. (1840). Pursuit of knowledge under
difficulties: Its pleasures and rewards.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology
of optimal experience.
DeJoy, J. K., & Mills, H. H. (1992). Evaluation
of a self-directed learning program for
adult learners. In H. B. Long & Associates, Self-directed
learning: Application and research (pp. 345-354).
Delahaye, B. L. & Smith, H. E. (1995). The validity of the Learning Preference Assessment. Adult
Education Quarterly, 45, 159-173.
Derrick, M. G. (2002). Persistence and
the adult autonomous learner. In Long, H. B. & Associates, Twenty-First
Century advances in self-directed learning (pp. 13-30).
Donaghy, R. C., Robinson, M., Wallace, A.
H., Walker, K., & Brockett, R. G. (2002, February). A
citation analysis of literature on self-directed learning. Paper
presented at the 16th International Self-Directed Learning Symposium,
Durr,
R. E. (1992). An examination of readiness for self-directed
learning and selected personnel variables at a large midwestern electronics
development and manufacturing corporation (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic
University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 53, 1825.
Durr,
R. E. (1995). Integration of self-directed learning into the
learning process at Motorola. In H. B. Long & Associates, New
dimensions in self-directed learning (pp. 335-344).
Eggleston, G. C. (1872). How to educate yourself with or without
masters (Putnam’s handy book series).
Ekstrom, K. M., Landau, N. B., & Plowman, T. S. (2003).
Implications of
classroom technology on self-directed learning. In H. B. Long &
Associates, Current developments in e-learning & self-directed learning (pp. 123-140).
Erasmus,
D. (1994). Praise of folly
(Introduction and revised by A. H. Levi; Translated by B. Radice).
Erikson,
E. (1980). Identity and
the life cycle.
Field,
L. (1989). An investigation into the structure, validity, and
reliability of Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Adult
Education Quarterly, 39, 125-139.
Field,
L. (1991). Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale: Should it
continue to be used? Adult Education Quarterly, 41, 100-103.
Gerstner,
L. S. (1992). What's in a name: The language of self-directed learning. In H. B. Long & Associates, Self-directed
learning: Application and research (pp. 73-96).
Grow, G. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed: A
stage approach. Adult Education Quarterly,
41, 125-149.
Grow, G. (1994). In defense of the staged
self-directed learning model. Adult
Education Quarterly, 44, 109-114.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the self-directed
learning readiness scale
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 6467A.
Guglielmino,
L.M. (1997). Reliability and validity of the Self-Directed
Learning Readiness Scale and the Learning Preference Assessment. In H. B. Long & Associates, Expanding horizons in
self-directed learning (pp. 209-222).
Guglielmino, L. M. (2003, May). Guglielmino
& Associates. Retrieved
Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P.
J. (2003). Self-directed learning and the learning
organization. In H. B. Long &
Associates, Current developments in e-learning & self-directed learning
(pp. 20-29).
Guglielmino,
L. M., Long, H. B., & McCune, S. K. (1989). Reactions to
Field's investigation into the SDLRS. Adult Education Quarterly, 39,
235-245.
Hassan, A. M. (1982). An investigation of the learning
projects among adults of high and low readiness for self-direction in learning.
(Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 3838A.
Hiemstra, R. (1975). The older adult and learning.
Hiemstra, R. (Ed.). (1991). Creating environments for effective adult
learning (New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 50).
Hiemstra, R. (1997a). Helping
learners take responsibility for self-directed activities. Retrieved
Hiemstra, R. (1997b). What’s
in a word? Changes in self directed learning language over a decade. Paper
presented at the 1996 International Symposium on Self-Directed Learning,
Hiemstra, R. [Translated for the WWW]. (2002a).
Cyril Orvin Houle Papers 1929-1986
(B1/F (Self-Evaluating Project/Basic Sheets-Tally-Self-Concept).
Hiemstra, R. (2002b). International
self-directed learning symposia: Annual books published from symposia
presentations (Author and Chapter Titles). Retrieved
Hiemstra R. (2003a, March). Founding of the AEA of the
Hiemstra, R. (2003b). Techniques, tools, and resources for the
self-directed learner. Retrieved
Hiemstra, R., & Brockett, R. G.
(1994a). From behaviorism to humanism:
Incorporating self-direction in learning concepts into the instructional design
process. In H. B. Long & Associates, New ideas about
self-directed learning (pp. 59-80).
Hiemstra, R., & Brockett, R. G.
(Eds.). (1994b). Overcoming resistance to self-direction in adult learning (New
Directions for Continuing Education, No. 64).
Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction for adult learners: Making
learning personal, empowering, and successful.
Hoare, C. H. (2002). Erikson
on development in adulthood: New insights from the unpublished papers.
Hoban, G. J., & Sersland, C. J.
(1999). Developing learning plans for
adult learners—Can self-efficacy predict a readiness
for self-directed learning to determine effective modes of instruction. In H.
B. Long & Associates, Contemporary ideas and practices in self-directed
learning (pp. 49-61).
Hoban, G. J., & Sersland, C. J.
(2000). Why assessing self-efficacy for
self-directed learning should be used to assist adult students in becoming
self-directed learners. In H. B. Long & Associates, Practice
& theory in self-directed learning (pp. 83-96).
Hosmer, W. (1847). Self-education: Or the philosophy of mental improvement.
Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind (a second
edition was published in 1988 by the Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing
Professional and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK).
HRDE. (2001). Administration data for norm study of Learner Autonomy Profile.
HRDE. (2003). Inventory of instruments for the
Learner Autonomy Profile. Retrieved
Hrimech, M. (1995). Some self-regulated learning strategies utilized by
advanced adult learners. In H. B. Long and Associates, New dimensions in self-directed learning (pp.87-99).
Jarvis,
P. (1990). Self-directed learning and the theory of adult
education. In H. B. Long & Associates, Advances in research and practice in self-directed learning (pp. 47-65).
Jarvis,
P. (1998). Self-directed
learning: Self-help or self-service. In Long, H. B. & Associates, Developing paradigms for
self-directed learning (pp. 15-25).
Johnstone, J., & Rivera, R. (1965). Volunteers for learning, a study of the educational
pursuits of American adults (
Kasworm,
C. (1983a). An examination of self-directed learning as an
instructional strategy. Innovative Higher Education, 8, 45-54.
Kasworm,
C. E. (1983b, April). Towards
a paradigm of developmental levels of self-directed learning. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Kasworm, C. (1988). Self-directed learning in institutional
contexts: An exploratory study of adult self-directed learners. In H. B. Long
& Associates, Self-directed learning: Application & theory (pp.
65-97).
Kasworm, C. E. (1992a). Adult learners in academic
settings: Self-directed learning within the formal learning context. In H. B.
Long & Associates, Self-directed learning: Application and research (pp.
223-244).
Kasworm, C. E. (1992b). The adult’s learning projects: A
fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning, 2nd edition
(Carol E. Kasworm on Allen Tough). In G. J. Confessore &
S. J. Confessore (Eds.), Guideposts to self-directed learning (pp.
53-73).
Kerka, S. (1999). Self-directed learning:
Myths and realities no. 3.
Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult
education (a second edition was published in 1980).
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide
for learners and teachers.
Knowles, M. S. (1986). Using learning contracts: Practical
approaches to individualizing and structuring learning.
Knowles, M. S. (1989). The
making of an adult educator: An autobiographical journey.
Levinson, D. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life.
Lindeman, E. C. (1926). The meaning of adult education.
Long, H. B. (1992a). Learning
about self-directed learning. In H. B. Long & Associates, Self-directed
learning: Application and research (pp. 1-8).
Long, H. B. (1992b). Philosophical, psychological and
practical justifications for studying self-direction in learning. In
H. B. Long & Associates, Self-directed learning: Application and
research (pp. 9-24).
Long, H. B. (1992c). Self-directed
learning: A guide for learners and teachers (Huey B. Long on Malcolm S.
Knowles). In G. J. Confessore & S. J. Confessore (Eds.), Guideposts
to self-directed learning (pp. 36-47).
Long,
H. B. (1994). Challenging some myths about self-directed
learning research. In H. B. Long & Associates, New
ideas about self-directed learning (pp. 1-14).
Long,
H. B. (2000). Understanding self-direction in learning.
In H. B. Long & Associates, Practice & theory in self-directed learning.
Long,
H. B. (2001). A new era in teaching and learning. In H. B. Long
& Associates, Self-directed learning and the information age (pp. 1-15).
Long, H. B., & Associates.
(1988). Self-directed learning: Application & theory.
Long, H. B., & Associates.
(1989). Self-directed learning: Emerging theory & practice.
Long, H. B., & Associates.
(1990). Advances in research and practice in self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Associates.
(1991). Self-directed learning: Consensus & conflict.
Long, H. B., & Associates.
(1992). Self-directed learning: Application and research.
Long, H. B., & Associates.
(1993). Emerging perspectives of self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1994). New ideas about self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Associates.
(1995). New dimensions in self-directed literature.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1996). Current developments in
self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1997). Expanding horizons in self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1998). Developing paradigms for self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1999). Contemporary ideas and practices in
self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (2000). Practice & theory in
self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (2001). Self-directed learning and
the information age.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (2002). Twenty-First Century advances
in self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (2003). Current developments in
e-learning & self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Barnes, K. (1995). Self-directed learning in nursing education.
In H. B. Long & Associates, New dimensions in self-directed learning.
Long, H. B., & Confessore,
G. J. (1992). Abstracts of literature in self-directed learning 1966-1982.
Long, H. B., &
Long,
H. B., & Walsh, S. M. (1992). An analysis of a modified
form of Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. In H. B.
Long & Associates, Self-directed learning: Application and research
(pp.189-208).
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976).
On qualitative differences in learning I--outcome and
process. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Merriam, S. B., & Brockett, R. G.
(1997). The profession and practice of adult education: An introduction.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S.
(1998). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd
Edition).
Morris,
S. S. (1997). Item analysis of
Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale: Revisiting the issue of
internal consistency. In H. B. Long &
Associates, Expanding horizons in self-directed learning (pp. 195-207).
Newell, L. T. (1995). How family physicians learn a new medical
procedure: Case investigations using the personal responsibility orientation
model (flexible sigmoidoscopy). (Doctoral dissertation,
Syracuse University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57,
04B, p. 2453.
Oddi, L. G. (1984). Development of an
instrument to measure self-directed continuing learning (Doctoral dissertation,
Northern Illinois University, 1984).
Dissertation
Abstracts International, 46, 49A.
Oddi, L. F. (1986). Development and
validation of an instrument to identify self-directed continuing learners.
Adult Education Quarterly, 36, 97-107.
O’Donnell, J. M. (1992). Learning without a teacher: A study of tasks and assistance during
adult self-teaching projects (Judith M. O’Donnell on Allen Tough). In G. J. Confessore & S. J. Confessore (Eds.), Guideposts to
self-directed learning (pp. 74-84).
Park, E., & Confessore, G. J. (2002). Development of new instrumentation: Validation of the
learner autonomy profile beta version. In Long, H. B., & Associates, Twenty-First
Century advances in self-directed learning (pp. 289-306).
Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Intellectual and ethical development in
college years.
Pilling-Cormick, J. (1996). Development of the Self-Directed
Learning Perception Scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Pilling-Cormick, J. (1998). The self-directed learning perception scale: A step toward
a toolbox approach to instrumentation proposed for self-directed learning. In
H. B. Long & Associates, Self-directed learning: Application &
theory (pp. 159-168).
Piskurich, G. M. (1993). Evaluating self-directed learning in a
business environment. In H. B. Long & Associates, Emerging
perspectives of self-directed learning (pp. 263-281).
Ponton, M. K., & Carr, P. B. (2002). The development of instrumentation that
measures an adult’s intention to exhibit initiative and resourcefulness in
autonomous learning. In Long, H. B. & Associates, Twenty-First
Century advances in self-directed learning (pp. 223-242).
Rodriguez, A. (2003). A validation of the paper-and-pencil self-directed learning readiness scale (SDLRS), and an online version of the scale. In H. B. Long & Associates, Current developments in
e-learning & self-directed learning (pp. 243-253).
Rossi, D. (n.d.). Self-directed
learning: A strategy for lifelong learning. Retrieved
Sabbaghian, Z. S. (1980). Adult self-directedness and
self-concept: An exploration of relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa
State University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 40, 3701A.
Smiles, S. (1882). Self-Help.
Smith, R. M. (1982). Learning how to learn.
Sork, T. (2000). Conference
Proceedings AERC. Retrieved
Spear, G. E. (1988). Beyond the organizing circumstance: A search for methodology
for the study of self-directed learning. In H. B. Long & Associates, Self-directed
learning: Application & theory
(pp. 199-221).
Spear, G. E., & Mocker, D. W. (1984). The organizing circumstance: Environmental determinants in
self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35, 1-10.
Steele, S. M. (1992). Evaluation and
self-directed learning. In H. B. Long & Associates, Self-directed
learning: Application and research
(pp. 287-307).
Stockdale, S. L. (2003). Development of an instrument to measure
self-directedness. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation,
Stockdale, S. L., Fogerson, D. L., Robinson, M. G., &
Walker, K. (2003). The self-directed learning literature: a more inclusive
look. In H. G. Long & Associates, Current developments
in e-learning & self-directed learning (pp. 30-43).
Straka, G. A. (Ed.). (1997). European views of
self-directed learning: Historical, conceptual, empirical, practical, vocational.
Straka, G. A. (Ed.). (2000). Conceptions of
self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptual considerations.
Straka, G. A., & Hinz,
Tennant, M. (1992). The staged self-directed learning model.
Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 164-166.
Tough, A. M. (1966). The assistance obtained by adult self-teachers. Adult Education, 17, 30-37.
Tough, A. M. (1967). Learning without a
teacher: A study of tasks and assistance during adult self-teaching projects
(a second edition was published in 1981).
Tough, A. M. (1971). The adult’s learning projects (a second edition was
published in 1979 by Learning Concepts,
Tough, A. (1978). Major learning efforts: Recent research and future
directions. Adult Education, 28, 250-263.
Tough, A. M. (1982). Intentional changes: A fresh approach to helping people
change.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E.
(1986). The teaching
of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd
Edition).
West, R., & Bentley, E. L., Jr.
(1991). Relationship
between scores on the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale, Oddi Continuing
Learning Inventory and participation in continuing professional education.
In H. B. Long & Associates, Self-directed learning: Consensus &
conflict (pp. 71-92).
Wulff, S., Burke, E., & Hurley, J. (2001). Guided self-directed learning
strategies for distance and on-site education. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on
Distance and
Table 1
Selected Instruments or Approaches Utilized to Measure Some Aspect of SDL
____________________________________________________________________________
Name Description Source
____________________________________________________________________________
1. LAP Learner Autonomy Provides
understanding of a HRDE
(2001, 2003)
Profile learner’s level of autonomy
2. LPQ Learning Profiles Provides an alternative measure of Confessore and
Questionnaire an adult’s learning projects Confessore (1994)
3. OCLI Oddi Continuing Designed
to identify self-directed Oddi (1984, 1986)
Learning
Inventory continuing
learners
4. SDLPS Self-Directed Designed
to investigate learners’ Pilling-Comick
(1996,
Learning
Perception Scale perceptions abut
the SDL process 1998)
5. SDLRS Self-Directed Designed
to measure aspects of a Guglielmino (1977)
Learning Readiness Scale person’s readiness for SDL
6. SESDL Self-Efficacy for Designed to measure the relationship Hoban & Sersland
Self-Directed Learning of self-efficacy and self-directed learning (1999, 2000)
7. Tough Interview Designed to obtain information about Tough (1971)
Approach a person’s learning projects
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2
Most
Frequently Used Self-Directed Learning Terms, Concepts, or Associated Derivatives
______________________________________________________________________________
Term, Concept, or Derivative # in 1986-1994 (137 Chpts.) # in 1995-2003 (46 Chpts.)
______________________________________________________________________________
Autodidactic
(learning) 209 12
Autonomous
learning 92 45
Learning
environments 0 146
Learning
projects 231
47
OCLI
(Oddi’s Inventory) 102
2
SDLPS
(Pilling-Cormick’s Scale 0 273
SDLR
(S-D learning readiness) 188
151
SDLRS
(Guglielmino’s Scale) 1299 346
Self-directed
learner 436
67
Self-directed
learning 2833 1159
Self-direction
in learning 182
163
Self-education
105 0
Self-efficacy
107 151
Self-planned
learning 118
44
Self-regulation/regulated
learning 38 64
Self-taught adults 109 0
Figure 1 The “Personal
Responsibility Orientation” (PRO) Model
