IDENTIFYING “SUCCESS” CHARACTERISTICS IN SELF-DIRECTED ADULT LEARNERS

Roger Hiemstra

Robert Judd

Adult and Extension Education

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

1978

[The research reported in this paper was made possible by a mini-grant awarded by the University of Mid-America (UMA), Central Office, Lincoln, NE.]

TOPICS COVERED IN THIS PAPER

INTRODUCTION

Background

Statement of the Problem

Limitations of the Study

Significance of the Study

Objective of the Study

Definition of Critical Concepts

METHOD OF THE STUDY

Phase 1 – Literature Review

Phase 2 – Determination of Success Criteria

Phase 3 – Analysis of Data

Phase 4 – Development of a Research Framework

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

General Literature on the Adult as Learner

Self-Directed Learning

SUCCESS CRITERIA

ANALYSIS OF DATA

IMPLICATIONS

NEEDED RESEARCH

Defining Framework Terms

Basic Research About Adult Students

Basic Research Regarding Adult Educators/Researchers

Basic Research on Adult Education Institutions

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX A: IMPLICATIONS SUGGESTED IN THE LITERATURE

APPENDIX B: REPORT FOR UMA STUDENTS

INTRODUCTION

Background

Are we a self-directed learning society? The "discovery” in the past few years of the vast amount of learning by adults that takes place each year outside of the formal classroom would lead one to believe that we all are living in a self-directed learning society. Tough's (1971) seminal research on adult's learning projects increased our awareness of the enormity of self-directed learning. Subsequent research on learning projects by many individuals has provided indications that the high level of invo1vement by adults in self-directed learning activity is fairly consistent across populations and even societies irrespective of such variables as location, amount of education, age, economic status, and occupational history. Indeed, the entire non-traditional education movement and the evolvement of institutions like UMA are related at least in part to this desire by adults to be engaged in self-directed learning.

It may well be that adults always have been heavily engaged in numerous learning endeavors, much of which has been self-directed in nature. Indeed, before there were many institutionalized means for adult classes there were libraries, study groups, discussion clubs, and “Abraham Lincoln's” study by the light from the fireplace; American pioneers learning about traveling, survival, and agriculture in new lands through observation, experimentation, and experience; vast numbers of newly arrived United States residents learning English in self-study groups; and many other forms of self-directed adult learning. However, the research described above, the increasing pressure by adults for more learning opportunities and the awareness of diminishing national resources with related future implications for less travel to classroom settings are some of the pressures forcing more attention on self-directed learning. Subsequently, there is a real need for educators in higher education, adult education, and non-traditional education to respond in some real ways.

Statement of the Problem

As described above and as will be detailed in a later section, a great deal is known about the self-directed learner. Indeed, much of the development and success of the entire non-traditional education movement has been predicated on the notion that adults crave opportunities for learning that can exist outside the bureaucratic framework of traditional schools and institutions of higher education. However, very little is known regarding what characteristics of "success" are related to self-directed learning. Finding some answers to this question should enable educators to be more successful, themselves, as they strive to focus their planning and course development efforts in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.

Therefore, the specific problem under investigation in this study is to develop some understanding of what it means to be a "successful" adult learner and, more precisely, to identify some characteristics of success that are related to non-traditional or self-directed learning. Available data on self-directed learning will be reexamined in terms of some of the identified success characteristics.

Limitations of the Study

An obvious limitation is the difficulty in defining the term "success" and in finding means of measuring success. The literature reviewed provided only limited help as will be seen because the term is utilized in many different ways. However, as this study is developmental in nature it will provide a basis for future research and clarification of the term.

Another limiting factor is the fact that new data were not gathered to answer questions raised by the research problem. Time and resource constraints necessitated the analysis and reexamination of already available data. It is expected that the data utilized still will provide some insight regarding the relationships between successful adult learning and self-directed learning.

A final limitation stems from not knowing what direct relevance the study will have for such non-traditional education endeavors as course development, resource identification, and student facilitation. Therefore, the report contains an implication section, a suggested model for analyzing research needs, and a set of research questions. It is hoped that future resources will be made available to allow further study and to promote better understanding of both success and self-directed learning.

Significance of the Study

The results of this study should be useful in a variety of ways. It has been an effort to better understand the evolving theory area of and concepts related to self-directed learning. Indeed, it is believed that the entire effort by institutions of higher education and other organizations to serve learners outside of the formal classroom setting will be greatly enhanced by research efforts of the nature of this study.

In the final analysis this and following studies should be useful in at least the following ways:

1. Developing a theoretical framework for better understanding self-directed learning, non-traditional education, and the relation between the two areas.
2. Promoting a better understanding of the concept "success" as it relates to the adult learner.
3. Enhancing the knowledge base regarding adult learner needs within the context of self-directed learning.
4. Providing a basis for further research, related discussion, and learning facilitation.

Objective of the Study

The primary objective of the study is to obtain a more thorough understanding of the meaning of "success" as it relates to both self-directed learning and non-traditional education. Self-directed learning will be the primary focal point for study and from that study implications for non-traditional education will be drawn. The following questions served as the basis for the study:

1. What theory, research, and literature on "success" in relationship to adult learning are available?
2. How might some of the available data on self-directed learning be analyzed in terms of "success" criteria?
3. What contributions can such findings make to future research and development in non-traditional and adult education?

Definition of Critical Concepts

The key concepts used in this study and some suggested definitions are outlined in the following sub-groups.

Adult learning. There may be as many unique definitions of adult learning as there are writers of the term. Each word in the two word concept elicits numerous definitional variations. Adult usually refers to a person who has reached some maturity level or responsibility for se1f and/or others. A related concept, adult education, usually refers to some relationship between this adult and some learning specialist or resource in an endeavor to learn something new. Learning, is generally accepted as the acquisition of knowledge, attitudes, and skills, usually resulting in some individual behavioral change. Thus, in this study adult learning refers to the process of information acquisition during adulthood made by individuals depending on needs, interests, learning skills, and resource availability.

Learning projects. The primary definitional basis for this term comes from the seminal work of Tough (1971). It refers to a series of clearly related learning efforts adding up to at least seven hours of effort within a six month period. Much of the current attention to self-directed learning stems from Tough's initial work.

Non-traditional education. Non-traditional education is a recognition that education should be measured by what the learner knows rather than by an educational process or institution. Therefore, non-traditional education is based on the premise that opportunity for learning should be equal for all who wish to learn, that learning is truly lifelong in nature., and that learning cannot be confined to one's youth or to formal classroom settings (Cross, 1975, p. 1).

Self-directed learning. "In its broadest meaning, 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 goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes" (Knowles, 1975, p. 18). Such learning frequently is self-initiated and carried out alone.

Self-fulfillment learning activity. There are several subject matter groupings that have been utilized to classify the contents of learning projects. One such area, self-fulfillment, includes efforts at learning for leisure, arts and crafts, hobbies, and recreation. Thus, most learning efforts of a very personal nature can be considered, including study related to such areas as music, art, dance, theatre, religion, ethics, or moral behavior (Hiemstra, 1975, p. 5).

Success. To succeed according to the Random House dictionary, is to accomplish what is attempted or intended. In terms of self-directed learning and non-traditional education, success will imply satisfaction of accomplishment or in the participation act, itself, relative to the learning activity. The concept of success as discussed in the literature reviewed for this study will be described in considerable detail in a later section.

Type of learning planner. Key to understanding the concepts of self-directed learning and learning projects is the acceptance of the fact that the planning and facilitation of learning by adults can be quite varied. Several researchers who have examined the "learning projects" area have analyzed the type of planner used by adults for assistance in learning in the following categories: The learner himself or herself; a group or its leader/instructor; one person in a one-to-one situation; a non-human or material resource; and a "mixed" category where no dominant type of planner can be identified.

METHOD OF THE STUDY

The method followed in this study involved four different phases:

• Phase 1-- Literature Review
• Phase 2 -- Determination of "Success" Criteria
• Phase 3 -- Analysis of Data
• Phase 4 -- Development of a Research Framework.

Phase 1- Literature Review

As would be expected, the literature directly or indirectly related to success in learning, self-directed learning, and non-traditional education is immense. A decision was made very quickly because of limited time and resources to limit the review to the following types of sources:

1. General (overview-type) literature on self-directed learning and non-traditional education, usually in book form.
2. Learning projects studies.
3. The journal, Adult Education.
4. UMA sponsored or coordinated studies.
5. Selected adult education related studies, reports, and books.

Obviously, much more literature still needs to be located and reviewed. One noticeable gap is literature of a psychological or sociological nature related to the "success" concept. In addition, numerous journals on such topics as educational gerontology, non-traditional education, and international adult education research contain relevant information waiting to be gleaned. Hopefully, subsequent research can include a review of some of these suggested literature sources.

Phase 2 - Determination of Success Criteria

The original intent and expectation was that obvious "success" criteria related to adult learning would be easily found. However, this was not the case in the literature reviewed. Subsequently, some synthesizing, conclusion drawing, and theoretical suggesting were necessary. Basically, success is looked at within the context of the individual learner and his or her learning activity.

Phase 3 - Analysis of Data

There are three sources of data utilized in this study: the original learning projects data displayed or described by Tough (1971); the study of older adults' learning projects in Nebraska (Hiemstra, 1975); and a study of learning projects carried out by professional adult educators in Nebraska (Zangari, 1978). The choice of the original conceptualizing work by Tough and the two Nebraska studies should provide considerable relevant information for future use by UMA program planners and researchers in the Great Plains area.

The success criteria determined in Phase 2 will be examined where possible by a display of data from the original studies. In some cases the data has been reexamined and displayed in new tables. In some instances, the criteria are examined without available data but by suggesting how the known findings are related. In all cases, some explanation and discussion is included.

Phase 4 - Development of a Research Framework

One of the main products of the research effort was the realization that many more questions were being raised than were being answered. Correspondingly, the need arose to organize these questions in some useful way. Thus, a conceptual framework was conceived for categorizing the various questions. It is hoped that the framework and research suggestions will be a meaningful by-product in terms of future efforts by others to increase knowledge regarding all the areas studied.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

General Literature on the Adult as Learner

Considerable research and writing about adult learning has been carried out during the past several years. This development has reached a level of sophistication such that there now exists a fairly sizable body of tested knowledge on adult learning and achievement. However, the purpose of this section will not be to outline that body of knowledge. Knox (1977a, 1977b) and Knox and Others (1968) do an excellent job of presenting such information. What this section will contain is a description of some of what is known about the adult as a participant in learning activities. Hopefully, such a picture will set the stage for understanding the self-directed adult and for examining such a learner in terms of several success criteria.

The adult as a participant in both formal and informal learning settings has been studied by several researchers. Boshier (1977) summarized considerable research on participation over several years with a factor analysis study. He suggests, for example, that young adults are more inclined to enroll for what he calls "External Expectations." Those who could be considered high in the amount of participation seem more inclined to be enrolled for escape or stimulation reason. He reports a variety of similar type of conclusions in the article.

Sharon (1971) found that a strong positive relationship existed between the previous amount of education and academic involvement. This was supported by Dickinson's (1971) findings. Cross (1975) found that the reasons adult learners gave for participation included such goals as gaining new knowledge, job advancement possibilities, becoming a happier person, and meeting new people.

The above researchers are cited only as examples of the wealth of literature available on the adult learner as a participant. Hiemstra (1976) summarizes some of these findings by suggesting that the adult participant tends to be younger, highly educated, highly motivated to learn, and highly skilled in social relationships (pp. 84-85). Other findings of this nature, a discussion of the adult drop-out, and a description of some barriers to participation are also included in the 1976 source.

Satisfaction and level of achievement also have been examined by several researchers. McLoughlin (1971) found that adult participation in course planning did not affect achievement but it did improve attitudes about the learning experience. Cole and Glass (1977) found that participation improved both achievement and attitude but it did not affect the retention of knowledge. Knox and Others (1968) determined that prior participation in adult education was associated with learning effectiveness. White and Hansen (1976) looked at means of increasing participant satisfaction and suggest several things the facilitator should consider. Again, the sources cited in this paragraph are only intended to provide the reader with a sense of the type of literature that is available.

One other area, because it is relatively new and gaining in attention by researchers, needs to be mentioned. Andrulis and Bush (1977) suggest that it is important adult learners be examined in terms of their cognitive styles. Meierhenry (1978), too, shows the need to examine cognitive styles in terms of their relationships to adult learning and other areas of research related to adults. Cross (1977) even suggests how certain cognitive styles may favor or be related to self-directed learning. This area of research has potential for understanding considerably more about the adult as learner and participant in adult or non-traditional higher education programs.

Self-Directed Learning

Considerable credit must be given to Baghi (1979) for the material contained in this section. The notion of self-directed learning is not a recent phenomenon. Tough (1967) and Kulich (1970) describe the emphasis on self-education throughout history. This concept emerged in adult education as self autonomous learning, self-directed learning, and self-planned learning in the 1960's. In theoretical terms, the work of Malcolm Knowles (1973, 1975) in self-directed learning is helpful.

Knowles refers to self-directed learning as "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 outcome" (1975, p. 18). He further suggests that other labels found in the literature to describe this process are "self-planned learning", "inquiry method", "independent learning", "self-direction", "self-instruction" and "autonomous learning." But the different labels are often mistakenly associated with the belief that learning is in isolation and the learner does all his/her activity on an entirely independent basis.

Tough (1971) in his explanation of self-planned learning points out that different labels such as self-education, self-instruction, self-teaching, independent study, self-directed learning, and individual 1earning "are somewhat similar to self-planned learning projects, but not identical" (1971, p. 42). He agrees that even though the learner may obtain help from a variety of human and material resources, the key to being a self-planned learner is carrying on the responsibility for the detailed decisions and arrangements associated with the learning activities. Hiemstra defines self-planned learning as "a learning activity that is self-directed, self-initiated and frequently carried out alone" (1976, p. 39).

Smith (1976) describes self-directed learning as having a special orientation to learning that "emphasizes the learner establishing and maintaining the major share of the responsibility for initiative and motivation in planning and carrying out his own learning activities" (1976, p. 3). The process includes diagnosing needs, formulating goals and choosing resources and methods. He further states that when the learner accepts this responsibility, the major consequences for him will be learning how to learn on his own or with a little assistance from others.

Knox (1973) suggests that a self-directed learner is the person who continues his learning "reflected in his selection of objectives that have high priority, followed by his selection from a range of learning activities that are most appropriate for the specific circumstances he confronts." For self-directed learning he suggests the following resources: Printed media, electronic media, informal groups, formal groups, and tutorial schedules.

The nature of self-planned learning is consistent with a basic characteristic of adults as self-directing human beings. Nevertheless, as Knowles (1975) points out, adults are not adequately prepared for this type of learning. Then he cites Kidd and suggests that the purpose of education should be producing "a continuing, inner-directed, self-operating learner" (Kidd, 1975, p. 47). The phenomenon of self-directed learning which has been explained by Tough (1967, 1971) and supported by many researchers who replicated his efforts started with an examination of the "learning project" or "a major learning effort." He defines the learning project as “a series of related episodes, adding up to at least seven hours within a consecutive 6-month period. In each episode, more than half of the person's total motivation is to gain and retain certain fairly clear knowledge and skills, or to produce some other lasting change in himself. For convenience the short hand label 'learning project' has been adapted to refer to this series of related episodes: a sustained, highly deliberate effort to learn" (1971, p. 6).

The focus of this learning project phenomenon includes the following basic components:

1. The entire range of deliberate learning efforts -- in the learning project any method can be used if the person's purpose in learning was to gain and retain certain knowledge and skills.
2. The major planner of a learning effort from one session to the next session can be the learner himself, a group, an individual, or a nonhuman resource.
3. Noncredit learning and learning for a degree or certificate is another component of the learning project.
4. Most common motivation and less common motivation for learning is another component of a learning project. In addition to the basic component of learning projects, various aspects related to learning projects have been explored by many researchers. These aspects include resources used, obstacles to learning, subject matter, areas of the learning project, reasons for beginning and continuing the learning project (Tough, 1967, 1971), the learner planning the task (Tough, 1971), and who helped with the self-planned learning project (Luikart, 1975).

Tough and his associates (1971) conducted a survey of learning projects 66 persons selected from seven populations: social science professors, municipal politicians, lower-class white-collar men, blue collar factory workers, lower-class white-collar women, beginning elementary school teachers, upper-middle class women with preschool children.

The findings are summarized as follows:

1. "Almost everyone undertakes at least one or two major learning efforts a year and some individuals undertake as many as 15 to 20. The median is eight learning projects a year, involving eight distinct areas of knowledge and skill" (1971, p. 1).
2. The typical range of time that the learners spend on learning activities is from 8 to 16 hours. Some individuals indicated that they spent more than 2,000 hours in learning projects in the preceding six months.
3. Tough found that the most common motivation for learning was application of a particular knowledge or skill. Usually the learners anticipated some outcome from their learning activities. Basically, adults conducted learning projects which were related to their occupations.
4. This research also identified the major source of planning for learning projects. Tough (1978) suggests that in approximately 75 percent of the learning projects the major responsibility for planning lies with the learner himself or herself.

The above research has also revealed that a large proportion of adults are engaged in highly deliberate learning efforts outside of educational institutions. Such a finding has a direct relationship to the non-traditional education movement. The many subsequent research efforts are detailed very highly in the following paragraphs.

McCatty (1973) studied learning projects of 54 randomly selected professional persons (engineering, law, education, medicine, architecture and science) in Ontario, Canada. The average professional person conducted 11.1 learning projects per year and spent 1,244 hours on the learning projects. Seventy-six percent of the learning projects were self-planned.

Johns (1973) studied the learning projects of 39 pharmacists from Atlanta, Georgia. He found that the average pharmacist had conducted 8.4 learning projects in the twelve months prior to the interview. The average number of hours spent on the projects was 1,046; 56% of the total learning projects were self-planned; 16% were group planned; 9% were one-to-one methods; 19% were resource planned. This study reported that only 5% of the total learning projects were for credit.

In another study Fair (1973) examined the learning projects conducted by 35 first year elementary school teachers who were selected randomly from two school districts in Ontario, Canada. Fair discovered that the teachers conducted an average of 8.8 learning projects during the 26 weeks preceding the interview. Each project lasted for approximately 57 hours. Ninety-seven percent of these learning projects were self-planned. Less than one percent of the projects were for credit applied toward a degree or certificate.

Allerton (1974) studied the learning projects of 12 parish ministers in the Louisville, Kentucky metropolitan area. The research period was six months. Each minister kept learning diaries during the six month period. Eleven ministers in the sample conducted self-planned learning projects. The total number of projects conducted during the six months was 106, an average of 9.6 per person. The mean number of hours for each project was 52.6. These ministers devoted 65% of their time to vocational duties, 16% to hobbies and recreation, 8% to home and family life and the remaining 14% to other various interests.

Miller and Botsman (1975) studied the continuing education activity of Cooperative Extension agents. It was found that the average number of learning projects per agent was 12. Forty percent of these learning projects were self-planned. More than half of their learning was planned by experts and through workshops.

Kelly (1976) studied the learning projects of two groups of secondary teachers from Cortland County, New York. Group one consisted of 20 teachers with one or two years experience in teaching. Group two also consisted of twenty teachers, but with 10 to 15 years experience in teaching. She found that the average teacher had conducted 7.9 learning projects in the year prior to the interview. The total number of learning projects undertaken by the teachers ranged from 2 to 17. Kelly found that 68% of the projects were planned by the teacher himself/herself, 17% were planned by a group, 7% were planned by individuals in one-to-one relationships with learners, 0.3% were material resources planned and 7.9% were mixed planned. The mean number of self-planned projects per person was 5.4.

McCatty (1976) investigated the patterns of learning projects among physical and health education teachers. He found that the learning efforts of those teachers were largely self-planned and not for credit.

Miller (1977) identified the nature and extent of self-directed learning undertaken by teachers and non-teaching professionals in a single school district in upstate New York. She selected randomly a sample of 60 elementary and secondary school teachers and non-teaching faculty. Major findings in this survey report were that faculty members conducted an average of five learning projects each and spent an average of 136 hours on a learning project over the six month period. Eighty-nine percent of the faculty members' learning projects were self-planned. In this study, one-fourth of the projects were motivated by self-fulfillment needs.

Benson (1974) studied the learning projects of fifty randomly selected college and university administrators in Tennessee. He found that the administrators undertook an average of 4.5 learning projects over a one-year period before the interview. Administrators spent an average of 269 hours on their learning projects in one year. This study reports that 75% of the administrators planned their own projects and 25% were group planned.

Zangari (1978) studied the learning projects conducted over a one year period by 45 adult educators in post-secondary institutions in Nebraska. The data in this research show that adult educators undertook an average of 7.19 projects. They spent a mean of 583.20 hours on those projects. Approximately 72 percent of the learning projects were self-planned. Fifteen percent of their learning activities were group-planned. The remaining 13% were implemented through use of tutors or programmed materials.

Armstrong (1971) found a significant number of learning projects among adults of low educational attainment in Toronto, Canada. The Tough instrument was applied to those who were identified as potential subjects by at least two instructors. High attainment learners averaged 5.7 credit oriented learning projects during the year. They spent 1,340 hours on their learning projects. Low educational attainment adults averaged 5.5 projects and spent 1,117 hours on them. For the non-credit purpose high attainment learners averaged 13.9 projects. They spent 1,121 hours on them. The average low educational attainment adults conducted 3.4 projects in a year. They spent 100 hours on their projects.

Johnson (1973) investigated the learning projects of 40 adults who had just completed their senior high school examinations in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The average number of learning projects for adults was 14.4. The range was 6-29. Adults averaged 3.4 "credit" learning projects and 10.9 non-credit learning projects. They spent the average of 876.8 hours on the learning projects. Fifty percent of all the projects were planned by the learner.

Coolican (1973) studied the learning project of 48 Syracuse, New York mothers of pre-school age children. It was found that young mothers conducted an average of 5.8 learning projects. The mean length per project was 43 hours. Sixty-six percent of learning projects were learner planned, 16% were group planned.

Hiemstra (1975) studied the learning project activity of 214 adults (age 55 and older) in Nebraska. The data show that older adults each undertook an average of 3.3 learning projects. They spent an average of 324 hours on their learning projects. Fifty-five percent of the projects were self-planned, 20% were group planned, 10% were planned on a one-to-one basis and 10% had no dominant type of planner. Fifty-four percent of their learning projects were self-fulfillment, which includes arts, crafts, recreation and religion.

Peters and Gordon (1974) studied the learning projects of 466 adults in urban and rural Tennessee. About 91% of the adults conducted at least one learning project during a year. Adults conducted an average of 3.9 learning projects and spent an average of 155.5 hours on these projects. Seventy-six percent of the projects were planned by the learner, 11% were group-planned, 6% were planned on one-to-one basis, 1% was resource planned, and 5% were planned through other means.

Umoren (1978) explored the learning activities of 50 adults randomly selected from a socio-economic group in two neighborhoods in Lincoln, Nebraska. Thirty-eight of the adults in the sample were identified as low income people and twenty-two were middle or high income people. Adults conducted an average of 4.7 projects in the twelve months before the interview. They spent a mean of 554.5 hours on those projects. Approximately 40% of the learning projects were learner-planned.

Denys (1973) studied the learning efforts of 40 randomly selected professionals (20 were secondary school teachers, 20 were store managers) in Ghana. It was found that adults undertook an average of 4.0 learning projects during one year prior to the interview. They spent a mean of 92 hours per project. Seventy-five percent of the learning projects were self-planned, 11% were group-planned, 6% were planned on a one-to-one basis, and 4% were resource planned.

Field (1977) studied the learning efforts of 85 adults of low literacy attainment in the Brownstown area in Jamaica. He found that adults conducted a mean of 4.2 learning projects each. They spent a mean of 504.3 hours per person in their learning activities during a one year period. The mean length of time of a learning project was 142.8 hours. Approximately 25% of the planners are individual and about 20% of the learning projects were planned by the learner himself. More than 50% of the planners were group leaders because so many learning projects focused on literacy training and religion, two areas which seem to rely on group leaders.

The combination of the findings of all these studies shows that the differences among several populations are not great. The findings in each study are roughly similar with findings in other studies. The large differences are not among populations; they are within the given populations. The findings which have been summarized by Tough (1977) are as follows:

1. Ninety percent of adults conduct at least one major learning effort during the year before the interview.
2. The average learner conducts five distinct learning projects in one year.
3. The person spends an average of 100 hours per learning effort, a total of 500 hours a year.
4. Seventy-five percent of the learning projects are motivated by some anticipated use of the knowledge and skill; 20% of all learning projects are motivated by curiosity or puzzlement; 5% are motivated by credit toward a certificate, degree, etc.
5. Who plans the learning efforts is fairly standard for "every study of adults finds a similar pattern, although the exact figures vary a little" (Tough, 1977, p. 6).

Looking at the above composite findings, Tough (1978) argues that until recently researchers looked only at the tip of the iceberg. In adult education the visible portion of the iceberg is primarily learning in classrooms, workshops, auditoriums, or conferences, tutorial or correspondence study, and programmed instruction. But what has been unnoticed until fairly recently, the invisible portion of the iceberg, is self-planned learning. Looking at adult education efforts in terms of the whole body of the iceberg, the conclusion can be made that adult education institutions could not possibly meet all the learning needs of adults through their traditional programming services. Therefore, adult and non-traditional education professionals must develop efficient and effective approaches for assisting adults with their deliberate self-planned learning efforts outside the traditional realm.

SUCCESS CRITERIA

Is there even such a phenomenon as self-directed learning? The previous section reviewed all available literature on learning projects research. Certainly, the research reveals a high level of learning activity by adults. Gooler (1975) suggests that to determine success one must decide what criteria to use, gather related evidence through some measure, and compare the evidence against the criterion standard. Although the above literature citations do not specifically spell out success criteria in terms of learning projects, the excitement generated by the research implies that some important information is emerging. Thus, in this ex post facto comparison of available data a success criterion is offered as an initial means for evaluating the learning projects research data:

· To what extent are adults engaged in learning?

Directly related to the above statement and of primary importance to this study is the nature of the involvement by individuals in learning. For example, Zahn (1967) provides some evidence to suggest that highly rated, self-sufficient adults tend to be well educated, from upper middle class families, cosmopolitan in nature, and more job-oriented then family oriented. Hiemstra (1976) reviewed the literature on adult education participation and summarized the findings on active participants by noting they tended to be younger, highly educated, middle class, and urban in terms of their place of residence. Thus, another success criterion is offered as follows:

· To what extent do the participants in Learning Projects differ from each other in terms of the amount of 1earning undertaken?

Another obvious success screen through which the learning projects data must be examined is the nature of the planning activity prior to and during learning. For example, do adults prefer learning in groups or by themselves? Tough (1971, p. 93) suggests that the self-reliant, independent type of person is likely to prefer self-planning as the primary learning mode. Therefore, the following criterion is offered:

· To what extent do adults select themselves as the primary planner in carrying out learning projects?

Means for examining the actual success of individual, self-directed adult learners can be extracted from the suggestions of several authors. For example, Knowles (1975) suggests that self-directed learners are motivated by internal incentives such as a need for self-esteem, a desire to achieve, and the satisfaction that will come from accomplishing something. Tough (1971) suggests something similar in his list of reasons as to why self-planned learning is popular and why it is selected by certain individuals:

1. Efficiency
2. Confidence in individual ability
3. Freedom to pursue learning at own pace
4. Reliance on self as a resource
5. Ability to find resources
6. Insight into personal learning abilities
7. Self-reliance and independence
8. Proud of individual accomplishment (pp. 92-93).

Guglielmino (1977) has developed a self-directed learning readiness scale. Through a factor analysis procedure she isolated eight factors in self-directed learning:

1. Openness to learning opportunities
2. Self-concept as an effective learner
3. Initiative and independence in learning
4. Informed acceptance of responsibility for one's own learning.
5. Love of learning
6. Creativity
7. Future orientation
8. Ability to use basic study skills and problem solving.

A success criterion offered to examine this concept is as follows:

· To what extent do self-directed learners carry out learning projects of a self-fulfillment nature?

Another means for examining success can be extracted from discussion about resources utilized for the learning endeavor. Zangari (1978), for example, found that reading material was the most utilized resource for learning. Tough suggests that one of the reasons certain learners select self-planned learning as their approach is because of their ability to locate and utilize printed materials. Meierhenry (1977), too, urges that more be understood about the ability of field independent learners to place structure and organization on learning resources. Therefore, another criterion is offered:

· To what extent do self-directed learners utilize printed and other non-human resources in their learning endeavors?

This study represents only a first step in conceptualizing the notion of "success" in adult learning and in drawing some comparisons between success and self-directed learning. Much work and research remains to be completed if the research direction is to aid program planners, adult education teachers, and non-traditional education administrators. There are many more success criteria to be developed and tested. However, it is expected that this study will provide a basis for further research and examination.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The first criterion asks the question, to what extent are adults engaged in learning. The seminal research by Tough (1971) and subsequent work by many have revealed that a heavy involvement in learning by most adults is taking place. Specifically for this section, the work by Tough, Hiemstra (1975), and Zangari (1978) will be examined.

Table 1 shows the comparison between these three studies on several basic areas of study. In addition, a composite picture offered by Tough (1977) is provided. Generally, the data reveal that adults are heavily engaged in learning, perhaps spending an average of 500 hours a year in learning. Note, too, the heavy reliance on self as a planner in the learning activity. (The self as planner will be examined in greater detail later in this section.) Therefore, in terms of this success criterion, the heavy involvement of most adults in learning can be verified.

Table 1. A Comparison of Summary Data from the Hiemstra, Tough, and Zangari Studies.

Data Description	Hiemstra^a	Tough^b	Zangari^c	Composite^d
Number of Learning Projects:
Mean	03.3	08.3	07.2	05.0
Median	03.0	08.0	07.0	n.a.
Range	1-9	0-20	2-21	0-35
Percent of Participation in Learning Project Activity:	84%	98%	100%	90%
Number of Hours of Participation:
Mean	325	816	583	500
Median	237	687	445	n.a.
Range	12-2300	0-251	129-2830	0-6200
Current Status of Projects:
Active	75%	66%	75%	70%
Inactive/Completed	25%	34%	25%	30%
Credit Status of Projects:
Credit	04%	01%	03%	05%
Non-Credit	96%	99%	97%	95%
Planner Type:
Self-planned	55%	68%	72%	73%
Group planned	20%	12%	15%	14%
One-to-one	10%	08%	08%	10%
Resource Planned	04%	03%	02%	03%
Mixed	10%	09%	03%	n.a.

^aHiemstra (1975), older adults, N = 214.

^bTough (1971), seven different adult populations, N = 66.

^cZangari (1978), adult educators, N = 45.

^dComposite, Tough (1977)’s approximated figures from all studies or approximations by examining all the data.

However, are there differences among adults in the amount of learning undertaken (criterion two)? Table 2 compares those engaged in one or more learning .projects each year. Generally, it can be suggested that the more educated, higher social class, younger, and urban located individuals appear to be the most heavily engaged in learning. Although only the Hiemstra (1975) data are displayed the Tough (1971) and Zangari (1978) findings tend to support those shown in the table. In addition, the literature cited earlier agrees with the findings. Thus, from the standpoint of the success criterion, differences can be found and in the predictable directions.

Table 2. Crossbreak Comparisons of Selected Study Demographic Variables with the Level of Learning Project Activity.^a

Comparison Variables	No Learning Projects Number	No Learning Projects Percent	One or More Projects Number	One or More Projects Percent
Gender:
Female	026	061.9	125	058.4
Male	016	038.1	038	041.6
χ^2= 0.06; Sig. = N.S.
Race:
White American	042	100.0	185	086.4
Other	000	000.0	029	013.6
χ^2= 5.14; Sig. = < .05
Marital Status:
Married	022	052.4	140	065.4
Widowed	014	033.3	051	023.8
Single/Divorced	006	014.3	023	010.7
χ^2= 2.58; Sig. = N.S.
Years of Education:
Less than 8^th Grade	002	004.8	022	010.3
8^th – 11^th Grade	017	040.5	045	021.1
High School Graduate	017	040.5	065	030.5
Some College	004	009.5	033	015.5
College Graduate	001	002.4	024	011.3
Graduate Training	001	002.4	024	011.3
χ^2= 14.15; Sig. = < .05
Community:
Urban	019	045.2	126	058.9
Rural	002	004.8	036	016.8
Small Town	021	050.0	052	024.3
χ^2= 12.73; Sig. = < .01
Age:
55-64	010	023.8	091	042.5
65 and older	032	076.2	123	057.5
χ^2= 5.14; Sig. = < .05
Social Class:
Lower	001	002.4	014	006.5
Lower Middle	031	073.8	085	039.7
Upper Middle	008	019.0	101	047.2
Upper	002	004.8	014	006.5
χ^2= 16.75; Sig. = < .01
Living Arrangement:
Apartment	004	009.5	028	013.1
House	034	081.0	159	074.3
Other	004	009.5	027	012.6
χ^2= 5.14; Sig. = N.S.

^aSource: Hiemstra (1975). The source contains an explanation of terms and category combinations.

The third criterion calls for an examination of the learning project data in terms of the type of planner selected. As tables 3a, 3b, and 4 show, the learner himself or herself is the overwhelming choice as the primary planner. As a success criterion, this intense involvement of self as the primary planner indicates that the notion of self-directed learning is a real phenomenon. In addition, it can be noted that little differences in the amount of self-directedness is observable between various demographic sub-categories.

Table 3a. Types of Planners Involved in All Learning Projects.^a

Planner	Number	Percent
The Learner Himself/Herself	234	72
A Group or its Leader/Instructor	048	15
One Person in a One-To-One Situation	027	08
A Non-Human Resource	006	02
Mixed (No Dominant Type of Planner)	009	03

^aSource: Zangari (1978).

Table 3b. Frequency of Type of Primary Planners of Learning Projects.^a

Primary Planner of Project	Number With At Least One Project	Average Number With Planner	Tough Data
A Group or its Leader/Instructor	086	1.69	32
One Person in One-To-One Situation	048	1.52	31
Material/Non-Human Resource	022	1.27	08
The Learner Himself or Herself	183	2.14	63
Mixed (No Dominant Type)	046	1.57	26

^aSources: Hiemstra (1975) and Tough (1971).

Table 4. Crossbreak Comparisons of Selected Demographic Variables with the Amount of Self-Directedness.^a

Comparison Variables	High Self-Directedness No.^b	High Self-Directedness %	Low Self-Directedness No.	Low Self-Directedness %
Gender:
Female	060	48.0	065	52.0
Male	052	58.4	037	41.6
χ^2= 1.87; Sig. = N.S.
Race:
White American	102	55.1	083	44.9
Other	010	35.7	019	64.3
χ^2= 4.78; Sig. = N.S.
Marital Status:
Married	077	55.0	063	45.0
Widowed	026	51.0	025	49.0
Single	008	50.0	008	50.0
Divorced/Separated	001	14.3	006	85.7
χ^2= 4.53; Sig. = N.S.
Years of Education:
Less than 8^th Grade	005	22.7	017	77.3
8^th – 11^th Grade	029	64.4	016	35.6
High School Graduate	038	58.5	027	41.5
Some College	019	57.6	014	42.4
College Graduate	013	54.2	011	45.8
Graduate Training	007	29.2	017	70.8
χ^2= 16.90; Sig. = < .01
Community:
Urban	064	50.8	062	49.2
Rural	027	75.0	009	25.0
Small Town	021	40.4	031	59.6
χ^2= 10.51; Sig. = < .01
Age:
55-64	043	38.4	048	47.1
65 and older	069	61.6	054	52.9
χ^2= 1.93; Sig. = N.S.
Social Class:
Lower	007	50.0	007	50.0
Lower Middle	045	52.9	040	47.1
Upper Middle	053	52.5	048	47.5
Upper	007	50.0	007	50.0
χ^2= .07; Sig. = N.S.
Living Arrangement:
Apartment	011	39.3	017	60.7
House	090	56.6	069	43.4
Institution	008	44.4	010	55.6
Other	003	33.3	006	66.7
χ^2= 4.8; Sig. = N.S.

^aSource: Hiemstra (1975).

^bThose individuals with more selections of “self” as primary planner than the overall mean number of “self” selections.

Future research and program planning must deal with this phenomenon. Most importantly, the fact that success may be tied to self-initiated and self-planned learning and much less tied to say the teacher as instructor or to the use of something like a televised lesson (non-human resource) indicates that adult and non-traditional educators may need to go "back to the drawing board."

The fourth criterion calls for an examination of the learning projects in terms of the nature of their content. Obviously, in an ex post facto examination some conceptual liberties are taken because such measures as self-concept or satisfaction were not precisely measured. However, as Table 5 shows, there was a heavy overall preference for "self-fulfillment." Table 6 also reveals that there are some differences in the -amount of "self-fulfillment" involvement among different demographic groupings.

Table 5. Comparison of Subject Matter Area By Various Demographic Variables.^a

Comparison Variables	Occupational/ Vocational No.	Occupational/ Vocational %	Personal/ Family No.	Personal/ Family %	Social/ Civic No.	Social/ Civic %	Self-Fulfillment No.	Self-Fulfillment %
Age:
55-64	085	27.33	072	23.15	023	07.40	131	42.12
65 and older	030	07.50	072	18.00	044	11.00	254	63.50
χ^2= 62.01; Sig. = < .001^b
Community:
Lincoln	080	18.48	095	21.94	047	10.85	211	48.73
Rural/Non-Town	022	16.42	025	18.66	008	05.97	079	58.96
Rural/Small Town	013	09.03	024	16.67	012	08.33	095	65.97
χ^2= 13.60; Sig. = < .01
Gender:
Male	076	26.86	050	17.67	020	07.07	137	48.41
Female	039	09.11	094	21.96	047	10.98	248	57.94
χ^2= 40.34; Sig. = < .01
Race:
White American	110	18.12	109	17.96	064	10.54	324	53.38
Black American	000	00.00	003	100.00	000	00.00	000	00.00
Mexican American	005	04.95	032	31.68	003	02.97	061	60.40
χ^2= 26.52; Sig. = < .001
Social Class:
Lower	004	10.53	008	21.06	000	00.00	026	68.42
Lower Middle	032	12.90	061	24.60	021	08.47	134	54.03
Upper Middle	062	17.82	061	17.53	030	08.62	195	56.03
Upper	017	22.08	014	18.18	016	20.78	030	38.96
χ^2= 9.93; Sig. = < .05
Living Arrangement:
Apartment	023	12.07	022	19.82	017	15.32	049	44.14
Home	087	11.76	104	21.05	036	07.29	267	54.05
Institution	000	00.00	008	11.10	014	19.18	051	69.86
Other	005	15.15	010	30.30	000	00.00	018	54.55
χ^2= 14.70; Sig. = < .01
Marriage Status:
Married	085	18.44	087	18.87	026	05.64	263	57.05
Widowed	015	08.98	043	25.75	025	14.97	084	50.30
Single	007	10.94	008	12.50	013	20.31	036	56.25
Divorced/Separated	008	42.11	006	31.58	003	15.79	002	10.53
χ^2= 11.64; Sig. = < .01
Education:
Less than 8^th Grade	002	02.90	021	30.43	001	01.45	045	65.22
8-11^th Grade	011	10.00	020	18.18	013	11.82	066	60.00
High School Grad.	026	12.68	043	20.98	022	10.73	114	55.61
Some College	024	17.65	023	16.91	011	08.09	078	56.35
College Graduate	016	17.98	019	21.35	012	13.48	042	47.19
Graduate Training	036	35.64	018	17.82	008	07.92	039	38.61
χ^2= 26.59; Sig. = < .001
Occupation:
Highest Professional	013	27.08	006	12.50	006	12.50	023	47.92
Lower Professional	040	26.14	029	18.95	012	07.84	072	47.06
Administrative Pers.	024	37.50	012	18.75	004	06.25	024	37.50
Homemaker	009	04.23	051	23.94	022	10.33	131	61.50
Clerical/Sales/Tech.	010	10.53	024	25.26	003	03.16	058	61.05
Skilled Manual	009	27.27	014	16.28	011	12.79	052	60.47
Semi-Skilled/Operative	009	27.27	044	12.12	003	09.09	017	51.52
Unskilled	001	07.69	004	30.77	000	00.00	008	61.54
χ^2= 34.33; Sig. = < .001

^aSource: Hiemstra (1975).

^bChi-square values are based on the collapsed categories as displayed in Table 9. Percentages are based on comparison variable sub-category totals.

Table 6. Crossbreak Comparisons of Selected Demographic Variables with the Level of Self-Fulfillment Learning Project Activity.^a

Comparison Variables	One or Fewer Self-Fulfilment Learning Projects No.	One or Fewer Self-Fulfilment Learning Projects %	Two or More Self-Fulfilment Learning Projects No.	Two or More Self-Fulfilment Learning Projects %
Gender:
Female	080	55.9	071	62.8
Male	063	44.1	042	37.2
χ^2= .97; Sig. = N.S.
Race:
White American	135	94.4	092	31.4
Other	008	05.6	021	18.6
χ^2= 12.81; Sig. = < .01
Marital Status:
Married	089	62.2	073	64.6
Widowed	033	23.1	032	28.3
Single	014	09.8	007	06.2
Divorced/Separated	007	04.9	001	00.9
χ^2= 4.98; Sig. = N.S.
Years of Education:
Less than 8^th Grade	009	06.3	015	13.3
8^th – 11^th Grade	043	30.3	019	16.8
High School Graduate	047	33.1	035	31.0
Some College	016	11.3	021	18.6
College Graduate	013	09.2	012	10.6
Graduate Training	014	09.9	011	09.7
χ^2= 10.46; Sig. = N.S.
Community:
Urban	084	58.7	061	54.0
Rural	014	09.8	024	21.2
Small Town	045	31.5	028	24.8
χ^2= 6.82; Sig. = < .05
Age:
55-64	062	43.4	037	32.7
65 and older	081	56.6	076	67.3
χ^2= 2.56; Sig. = N.S.
Social Class:
Lower	007	04.9	008	07.1
Lower Middle	074	51.7	042	37.2
Upper Middle	052	36.4	057	50.4
Upper	010	07.0	006	05.3
χ^2= 6.70; Sig. = N.S.
Living Arrangement:
Apartment	019	13.3	013	11.5
House	115	80.4	078	69.0
Other	009	06.3	022	19.5
χ^2= 11.95; Sig. = < .01

^aSource: Hiemstra (1975).

Zangari (1978) compared those projects where "self" was selected as the primary planner with those projects where other than "self" was selected on several affective types of measures. He found that self-directed learners generally feel they have learned a great deal (Table 7), were very enthusiastic about their learning (Table 8), and expressed a high degree of benefit from the learning endeavor (Table 9). It should be noted that in each of these three comparisons, the "mixed" category received the highest response rating indicating that some mixture of self-directed learning with other modes may be the best arrangement in promoting success.

Table 7. Degree of Knowledge or Change for All Learning Projects Identified by Type of Planner.^a

Response	Self No.	Self %	Group No.	Group %	One-to-One No.	One-to-One %	Non-Human No.	Non-Human %	Mixed No.	Mixed %
Learned a large amount or changed a great deal	140	60	024	50	012	44	005	83	008	89
Learned a medium amount or changed moderately	084	36	015	31	010	37	001	17	001	11
Learned a small amount or changed very little	010	04	009	19	005	19	-	-	-	-

^aSource: Zangari (1978).

Table 8. Degree of Enthusiasm Expressed for All Learning Projects Identified by Type of Planner.^a

Response	Self No.	Self %	Group No.	Group %	One-to-One No.	One-to-One %	Non-Human No.	Non-Human %	Mixed No.	Mixed %
Very enthusiastic	173	74	027	56	015	56	004	67	008	89
Fairly enthusiastic	055	23	018	38	010	37	002	33	001	11
Not especially enthusiastic	006	03	003	06	002	07	-	-	-	-

^aSource: Zangari (1978).

Table 8. Degree of Benefit for Others Expressed for All Learning Projects Identified by Type of Planner.^a

Response	Self No.	Self %	Group No.	Group %	One-to-One No.	One-to-One %	Non-Human No.	Non-Human %	Mixed No.	Mixed %
Fairly large extent	135	58	025	52	004	15	005	83	008	89
Medium extent	066	28	013	27	014	52	001	17	001	11
Small extent	033	14	010	21	009	33	-	-	-	-

^aSource: Zangari (1978).

The final criterion examined in this study called for an examination of the type of resources being used by learners. As might be expected be cause of the heavy incidence of self-directed learning, the use of books or printed material is intense (Tables 10 and 11). Note that programmed materials and TV are utilized fairly infrequently. Therefore, success as measured through the selection of non-human resources is difficult to ascertain beyond the use of fairly common forms such as books, articles, or newspapers.

Table 10. Resources Used in Learning Projects as Identified by Older Adults in Nebraska.^a

Resources	No. of Projects	Rank	Percent of Projects
Books, articles, newspapers, etc.	222	1	31.3
Expert	032	6	04.5
Friends, Relatives, Peers	053	5	07.5
Group/Group Instructor	086	3	12.1
TV/Radio/Recordings/Films	066	4	09.3
Displays/Exhibits/Museums	008	8	01.1
Programmed Materials	020	7	02.8
Mixed Sources	221	2	31.2

^aSource: Hiemstra (1975).

Table 11. Resources Used in Learning Projects as Identified by Adult Educators in Nebraska Postsecondary Institutions.^a

Resources	No. of Responses	Percent of Responses
Books, articles, newspapers, etc.	262	33.8
Expert	142	18.3
Friends, Relatives, Peers	117	15.1
Group/Group Instructor	094	12.1
Experience/Observation	086	11.1
TV/Radio/Recordings/Films	040	05.2
Travel	015	01.9
Displays/Exhibits/Museums	012	01.6
Programmed Materials	007	01.6

^aSource: Zangari (1978).

This examination of success and self-directed learning with these five criteria provide only an initial look at adults and their learning endeavors. It can be concluded from the state of the knowledge as it now exists that most adults prefer and carry out some self-directed learning each year. Only an initial understanding of the success of this learning is possible. However, it appears clear that adult and non-traditional educators must examine more closely the role they can and should be playing in facilitating such learning. The long-range livelihood of such educators and the overall effectiveness of adult learning depend on a better understanding of needed roles and products.

IMPLICATIONS

A conclusion is offered based on this study effort: Much more attention must be given by society, and more specifically by educators, to the self-directed learning phenomenon. Indeed, many educators are giving attention to the self-directed learner in terms of the development of learning resources and through the offering of alternative learning options. However, it would appear that for too many educators seem to be embracing this "new" learner as a clientele base of dollars waiting to be spent on learning. Still other educators working with adult learning programs are either pooh-poohing the self-directed learning research or viewing the at tempts to serve self-directed learners as threatening to their own head count needs. Unfortunately, there have not been many reports in the literature of efforts to think through the implications, policy needs, and programming changes related to the self-directed learner.

For example, and perhaps most important, what are the rights of the learner and the related responsibilities of the educator? Should the educator intervene in self-directed learning activities? If so, when, how often, how much, and what should be the nature of the intervention? What are the responsibilities of the educator and the rights of the learner regarding the costs of learning assistance? These and many other related questions need to have answers in the form of policies and guidelines. Perhaps, and this is not intended to be flippant, the self-directed learner needs to be protected by a code of ethics.

Another implication has to do with the creation of more and better resources for learning. High quality learning guides, programmed learning materials on a variety of subjects, inexpensive help in the form of avail able resource people throughout a community, improved correspondence courses, educational opportunities in the form of lower drop-out rates, and a greater mobilization of the entire community and its available re sources for learning are some of the possibilities. There are many other possibilities related to the development of resources.

A final implication to be discussed here deals with the differences in learning style or learner preferences of self-directed learners. Thus, the need to truly act as a facilitator of learning is as great outside the classroom setting as it is inside the classroom. Subsequently, the future training of educators who will work with or are working with life long learning programs must deal with both the facilitator and the self directed learner concepts.

For the reader's future study, several related implications were found during the literature review. They are listed in Appendix A but not in any detail. The overall sense is that good needs diagnosis methods, better resources for learning, more knowledgeable educators in terms of self-directed learning, and a more informed society that will recognize the value of self-directed learning are needed. The real challenge to educators is to truly permit the learner to grow in his or her own manner (Hesburgh & Others, 1973).

NEEDED RESEARCH

Carrying out of this research effort resulted in the development of many additional research questions. Subsequently, there arose a need to organize these questions into some meaningful way to aid future re search efforts. Borrowing some format ideas from the College Board's "Future Directions for a Learning Society" project, a framework was developed to facilitate this organizational effort. Table 12 displays the framework. Following the framework is a definition of the key concepts and a display of research questions according to the displayed format.

Table 12. Framework for Organizing Research on Self-Directed Learning.

Research Type/Area	Adult Students	Adult Educators/Researchers	Adult Education Institutions
Descriptive	D-S	D-E	D-I
Purposes	P-S	P-E	P-I
Content	C-S	C-E	C-I
Methods	M-S	M-E	M-I
Resources	R-S	R-E	R-I
Support	S-S	S-E	S-I
Outcomes	O-S	O-E	0-1

Defining Framework Terms

Adult students. Research about the adult student as self-directed learner.

Adult Educators/Researchers. Research about the adult educator as a facilitator of self-directed learning or about special research that needs to be undertaken by the adult education researcher.

Adult Education Institutions. Research regarding the role of the adult or non-traditional educational institution in terms of self-directed learning.

Descriptive Research. Research that will build a basic understanding or provide knowledge benchmarks.

Research on Purposes. An examination of the aims toward which se1f directed learning is directed.

Research on Content. The substantive content that needs to be studied and/or applied.

Research on Methods. An examination of the structures and processes through which self-directed learning opportunities are provided or facilitated.

Research about Resources. Understanding the various resources avai1 able, utilized, or possible for self-directed learning.

Research on Support. Knowledge about those activities that enable the provision of learning to take place.

Research about Outcomes. Examining the results of self-directed learning

Basic Research About Adult Students

D-S-1. What are the distinguishing characteristics of non-traditional adult students and how do these differ from self-directed learner characteristics?

D-S-2. What is the nature of non-traditional learning activity and how does it compare with the nature of self-directed learning activity?

P-S-1. What motivates the self-directed learner and how do these motivations compare with similar findings about both non-traditional and traditional adult learners?

P-S-2. How can self-directed learners (and other types of learners) be helped to establish priorities, set goals, and consider options?

C-S-1. How does the content selection by self-directed learners compare with selections made by more traditional adult learners?

M-S-1. What are the relationships between cognitive style theory and self-directed learning information?

M-S-2. In what ways can cognitive style mapping be utilized for assisting self-directed and non-traditional adult learning?

M-S-3. What is the self-directed learner's relationship to the physical or social environment relative to success?

R-S-1. Can self-directed learners locate and use various resources more efficiently or effectively than other learners?

S-S-1. What support functions do self-directed learners need or provide to themselves?

O-S-1. What are the commonly perceived feedback channels for "success" attainment?

O-S-2. Is "success" the ultimate goal of the self-directed or non traditional learner or are there other important goals?

O-S-3. What is in it for the learner to be successful?

Basic Research Regarding Adult Educators/Researchers

D-E-1. What is the basic relationship between cognitive style research and information on learning projects?

D-E-2. What are both the technical and emotional aspects of non-traditional learning and are there interrelationships between the two aspects?

D-E-3. What is the relationship between stress or load and the involvement in self-directed learning?

P-E-1. What part can or should the adult educator play in helping to determine purposes of self-directed learning?

P-E-2. What part of success lies in goal setting?

C-E-1. What is the scope and different categories of non-traditional education and how do they compare to the learning projects data?

C-E-2. How does the adult education program planner deal with content in a self-directed learning setting?

M-E-1. What new methods need to be researched, developed, and evaluated for use in self-directed learning?

M-E-2. How should older methods be altered or used for self-directed learning?

R-E-1. How does the adult educator help learners match resources with needs in a self-directed learning setting?

R-E-2. What type of resource guide could be developed to aid self-directed and non-traditional learners in selection and implementation activities?

R-E-3. How could such a guide be made available and periodically updated?

S-E-1. What policy development, counseling procedures, and other support service products are required to enhance the success of the self-directed learner?

O-E-1. What are the relative bounds of the term "success"?

O-E-2. What are the criteria useful in examining the success of self directed learning?

O-E-3. How can success be measured efficiently and accurately?

Basic Research on Adult Education Institutions

D-I-1. What are institutions of higher education and the various non traditional programs doing to foster self-directed learning and learner success?

P-I-1. What are the relationships between the institutional purposes of organizations like UMA and learner goals?

P-I-2. What criteria do such institutions utilize to measure "success"?

C-I-1. How is the content of non-traditional offerings determined?

C-I-2. Is such content examined in light of self-directed learning?

M-I-1. What methods are advocated by or permissible in non-traditional institutions?

M-I-2. Do such institutions need renewal in terms of their understanding of available methods?

R-I-1. What resources are made available to learners and how are they evaluated?

R-I-2. Is there a need to create new kinds of resources?

S-I-1. How greatly does the idea of non-traditional learning differ from traditional in regard to planning, implementation, and available support for learning?

S-I-2. Are new support functions needed by self-directed learners?

O-I-1. Would a concentrated catering to self-directed learners significant1y alter the outcome expectations of non-traditional institutions?

O-I-2. Shou1d some non-traditional experiences shift to a more traditiona1 mode for better "success"?

O-I-3. What are the societal outcomes from institutions facilitating self-directed learning?

REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

1971 White House Conference on Aging. (1973). Toward a National Policy on Aging (Volume II, Proceedings of the Conference). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Allerton, T. D. (1974). Selected characteristics of the learning projects pursued by parish ministers in the Louisville metropolitan area. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia.

Andrulis, R. S. & Bush, D. Adult cognitive styles and test performance. Educational Gerontology, 2, 173-182.

Armstrong, D. (1971). Adult learners of low-educational attainment: The self-concepts, backgrounds, and educative behavior of average and high learning adults of low educational attainment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.

Baghi, H. (1979). An investigation of the learning projects among adults of low literacy attainment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University.

Benson, F. B., Jr. (1974). Learning projects of selected administrators in Tennessee colleges and universities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tennessee

Bicknell, J. E. (1977). A proposed structure for research on adult open learning (Theoretical Paper No. 1). Lincoln, NE: University of Mid-America.

Boshier, R. (1977). Motivational orientations revisited: Life-space motives and the Education Participation Scale. Adult Education, 27, 89-115.

Cavert, C. E. (Compiler). Designing Diversity, 75 (conference proceedings). Lincoln, NE: University of Mid-America.

Cavery C. E. (Compiler). Forum 76 (conference proceedings). Lincoln, NE: University of Mid-America.

Cole, J. W., Jr. & Glass, J. S., Jr. (1977). The effect of adult student participation in program planning on achievement, retention and attitude. Adult Education, 27, 75-88.

Coolican, P. M. (1973). The learning style of mothers of young children. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Coolican, P. (1974). Self-planned learning: Implications for the future of adult education. Syracuse, NY: Educational Policy Research Center, Syracuse University Research Corporation.

Cross, K. P. (1977). Accent on learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, K. P. & Others. (1975). Planning non-traditional programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deep, S. D. (1977). Student support: A total support system. In J. Kroll (Ed.), Fourth national conference on open learning and non-traditional study (proceedings). Minneapolis: Continuing Education and Extension, University of Minnesota.

Denys, L. (1973). The major learning efforts of two groups of Accra adults. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975, 35, 5759A.

Dickinson, G. (1971). Educational variables and participation on adult education. Adult Education, 22, 36-47.

Ebert, G. M. (1978). Correlates of success of adult open learning college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University.

Eggert, J. D. (1974). An examination of goals and potential and actual learners (Working Paper No. 1). Lincoln, NE: University of Mid-America.

Eggert, J. (1974). Developing student achievement measures (Working Paper No. 3). Lincoln, NE: University of Mid-America.

Fair, J. (1973). Teachers as learners: The learning projects of beginning elementary school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.

Field, J. L. (1977). The learning efforts of Jamaican adults of low literacy attainments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.

Gooler, D. D. (1975). Criteria for evaluating the success of the University of Mid-America (Working Paper No. 8). Lincoln, NE: University of Mid-America.

Gross, R. (1977). Let’s stop ignoring 80% of adult learning. In J. Kroll (Ed.), Fourth national conference on open learning and non-traditional study (proceedings). Minneapolis: Continuing Education and Extension, University of Minnesota.

Gross, R. (1977). The lifelong learner. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 6467A.

Haas, A. D. (1978). The exhilarating age of stressful change. TWA Ambassador, July, 23-25+.

Hesburgh, T. M., Miller, P. A., & Wharton, C. R., Jr. (1973). Patterns for lifelong learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hiemstra, R. (1975). The older adult and learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 117 371).

Hiemstra, R. (1976). Lifelong learning. Lincoln, Nebraska: Professional Educators Publications. Reprinted in 1984 by HiTree Press, Baldwinsville, New York. Updated in 2002.

Johns, W. E. (1973). Selected characteristics of the learning projects pursued by practicing pharmacists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

Johnson, E. (1973). Selected characteristics of learning projects pursued by adults who have earned a high school diploma and/or high school equivalency certificate (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 2332A-2333A.

Kelley, N. E. (1976). A comparative study of professionally related learning projects of secondary school teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cornell University.

Kidd, J. R. (1973). How adults learn. Chicago: Association Press.

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York: Association Press.

Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Knox, A. B. (1973). Lifelong self-directed education. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse.

Knox, A. B. (1977a). Adult development and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knox, A. B. & Others. (1977b). Adult intelligence and learning ability. Adult Education, 18, 188-196.

Kroll, J. (Ed.). (1977). Fourth national conference on open learning and non-traditional study (proceedings). Minneapolis: Continuing Education and Extension, University of Minnesota.

Kulich, J. (1970). An historical overview of the adult self-learner. Paper presented at the Northwest Institute on Independent Study: The adult as a self-learner, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Lehmann, T. (1977). Evaluating student learning: Some findings and implications for male and female adult learners. In J. Kulich (Ed.), Fourth national conference on open learning and non-traditional study (proceedings). Minneapolis: Continuing Education and Extension, University of Minnesota.

Long, H. B., Hiemstra, R., & Associates. (1980). Changing approaches to studying adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Luikart, C. (1975). Social networks and self-planned adult learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

McCatty, C. (1973). Patterns of learning projects among professional men. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

McCatty, C. (1975). Patterns of learning projects among physical and health education teachers. Reporting Classroom Research (Ontario Educational Research Council), 5, 7-8.

McLoughlin, D. (1971). Participation of the adult learner in program planning. Adult Education, 22, 30-35.

Meierhenry, W. C. (1978, April). The potential relationship between the findings of cognitive style research and findings of right and left brain hemispheric research. Paper presented at the Adult Education Research Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Miller, N. L. (1977). Teachers and non-teaching professionals as self-directed learners. Unpublished maters thesis, Cornell University.

Miller, N., & Botsman, P. B. (1975). Continuing education for extension agents. Human Ecology Forum, 6(2), 14-17.

Peters, J. M. & Gordon, R. S. (1974). Adult learning projects: A study of adult learning in urban and rural Tennessee. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 102 431).

Sell, G. R. (1975). An examination of learning center effectiveness (Working Paper No. 11). Lincoln, NE: University of Mid-America.

Sharon, A. T. (1971). Adult academic achievement in relation to formal education and age. Adult Education, 21, 231-237.

Smith, R. M. (1982). Learning how to learn in adult education (Information Series No. 10). Dekalb, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse in Career Education.

Tough, A. (1967). Learning without a teacher: Tasks and assistance during self-planned learning projects. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Tough, A. (1971). The adult's learning projects. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Tough, A. (1977). Major learning efforts: Recent research and future directions (Mimeographed Report). Toronto: Department of Adult Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Tough, A. (1978). Major learning efforts: Recent research and future directions. Adult Education, 28, 250-263.

Umoren, A. P. (1978). Learning projects: An exploratory study of learning activities of adults in a select socioeconomic group. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 2490A.

Walsh, P. L. (1975). An exploration into reasons for non-enrollment in SUN courses (Working Paper No. 6). Lincoln, NE: University of Mid-America.

White, M. A. & Hansen, M. D. (1976). Guidelines for achievement of learner satisfaction in gerontological short term training. Educational Gerontology, 1, 193-197.

Williamson, C. (1975). Factors possibly influencing an individual’s decision to enroll in a SUN course (Working Paper No. 7). Lincoln, NE: University of Mid-America.

Zahn, J. C. (1967). Some characteristics of successful and less successful overseas community development advisors. Adult Education, 19, 15-23.

Zangari, D. J. (1978). Learning projects of adult educators in Nebraska post-secondary institutions. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 7086A.

APPENDIX A

IMPLICATIONS SUGGESTED IN THE LITERATURE

1. Deep (1977) -- suggests reasons why self-directed learners may fail and what institutions should do to prevent such failure.

2. Gross (1977) -- suggests several national policies needed for self directed learners.

3. Lehmann (1977) -- talks about the need for special learning resources, support services, and course development.

4. Sell (1975) -- describes the value and use of learning resource centers for self-directed learning.

5. Tough (1971, 1977, 1978) -- suggests a variety of implications related to improving self-directed learning resources and opportunities.

APPENDIX B

This appendix contains a report addressed to the student enrolled in UMA courses. The UMA decision makers are urged to disseminate the report as a means of showing such learners that efforts are being made to improve the institutional capabilities.

As students enrolled or considering enrollment in UMA courses you are probably aware of the purpose of the university to make available college level courses to persons who are unable to arrange the time or resources for on-campus study. There would seem little need for lengthy discussion of today’s busy world to understand the relevance and importance of educational networks of this distant learner type. Though still in a relatively early stage of development compared to the traditional form of higher education, the permanence of this approach to education seems already assured. The sheer numbers of persons like yourselves who are busy with work and family and at the same time desire opportunity for more learning, whether for advanced degree or not, promote such an assurance.

Throughout history the doctrine of supply and demand has provided realistic insight into educational developments and their long term effect. Without becoming overly broad in considering this perspective, the UMA's bearing upon current developments in non-traditional learning should not be minimized. Though its style at present is centered upon learning through television broadcasting, its institutional structure and approach relates to other models of non-traditional learning as well. What is learned and achieved through the UMA will contribute to the entire spectrum of education in this country and conversely throughout the world. In time, the methods and distinctions between what is currently known as traditional and non-traditional education will diffuse and develop into a new state of affairs in educational terminology and practice. As today's adults and students, you are both the cause and meaning behind this steady change. It is with this reality, the importance of the UMA student, in mind that this report is written.

In recent months, researchers in adult education at Iowa State University, under a grant from the UMA have been concerned with understanding "success" as it relates to the learner in a non-traditional setting. By viewing success in terms of learner characteristics it is hoped that a research contribution can be made on two fronts: to the adult as a student and learner, and to the UMA whose continued development depends in part upon research of this type. In accordance it seems fitting to address you, the student, directly with some of our findings due to the relevance they might hold for your ambitions and learning.

The very idea of defining success poses immediate problems because the word readily invites questions concerning in what way or in whose eyes the reference is being made. At best, success is relative to the frame work within which it is placed. The characteristics associated with it are likewise liable to similar interpretation. Everyone knows in an off hand way that success stands for the attainment of a level of achievement. As regards our educational system, success is a label given to satisfactory completion of a given course or degree orientated curriculum. Though this understanding is satisfactory on one level of social understanding, it fails to incorporate any recognizable basis on which to view individual characteristics as potential for it. On an equally important level the broad term understanding does little to account for the possible and probable variation within the reality of individual interpretation. Every one enjoys being labeled successful but not everyone is willing to rely on the label given them by others; contrary-wise, success may be personally acclaimed while not so defined by the external world. Perhaps a relevant question exists as to whether these points should make any difference given that we have at least a common understanding; at the same time another question asks if there is any way to circumvent the confusion or lack of constant interpretation between the individual, others, and the educational system of which he is a part. The significance of re search on this point necessarily addresses both the individual and the system, because above and beyond a standard definition, the relationship which they hold to one another embodies their immediate relevance, their future, and their final degree of success.

The topic of success as treated in educational writings is used most often as the end statement concerning the benefits of an organizational structure or the final point in a procedural format of learning. It is the ambition of this brief discussion to present another hopefully some what advanced view as found in self-directed learner theory. The essence of the theory relates to the motivations of the self, or adult personality, and as such relegates to the individual's problem solving interpretation and approach, the many components summed in the learning experience. Similarly, the factors and interpretive criteria of distinguishing and labeling success are also thought to rest within the individual as opposed to the educational system through which they learn. A brief survey of some major success labels is in order to better view the student and their relation to success within the S-D theory. No one doubts that the UMA holds a vested interest in its students achieving success. This measurement is limited however to statistics on course completions and ranges of received grades which maybe further analyzed with the use of student-course evaluations. In addition, focusing on the success of the student involves enormous amounts of planning administratively and especially in constructing the instructional package. The course topics, delivery systems, quality of production and credibility are all issues of concern in anticipating success. In terms of this analysis they may be seen as the learner’s institutional characteristics.

In addition to planning for the success of the student, success must be reckoned with on a purely institutional level as well. In this light it is defined by the numbers of students enrolled, satisfactory administrative functioning, adequate financial funding, and continued research and development. To take the last point a step further, the success of the UMA is characterized in relation to other educational innovations and as such its concern goes beyond its own organization and the learning of its students.

The student’s relationship to the UMA and success may be varied also. They may interpret their own success strictly in terms of the final judgment of the UMA, in conjunction with grades received for course work, or they may pass judgment independently through their own criteria of learning or personal achievement. Family and friends may exert an influence upon the student’s interpretation of success as might an enhanced work status or opportunity. As mentioned earlier the acceptance or claim of success may also seem at odds with any of the above due to the self analysis the individual decides to employ. What the view of self-directed theory expands upon is the latter part concerning the individual's will and capacity to be the judge of his or her own standing with success. This is not to suggest that the facilities, knowledge, and judgments of education al organizations such as UMA is obviated or deferred to the wisdom of the student, but rather that the student, whether acknowledged or not, maintains a judgmental understanding of his or her involvement with learning and within this sense embodies the various potentialities and components of success. Self-directed theory doesn't try to identify demographic characteristics as a predictor for the adult student. Rather it deals with the learner in terms of his maturity and the ambitions he is most likely to express from that vantage point. It follows that the educational systems which seek to serve the adult learner must necessarily observe this capacity of the adult self in order to maintain their own significance as learning centers.

Motivation on the part of the learner is far more important than the instructor or the style of instruction they enter into. Any teacher is, in reality, only a small part of learning; learning is achieved by, and takes place within the learner. Both these statements strike at the heart of the self-directed learner. The recognition the learner gives to these is similar to the level of understanding employed with the student's personal evaluation of success. It’s quite simply an assumption which in its true nature transcends institutional settings. The contributions which self-directed theory makes in adopting this view is two fold in that it structurally interprets the steps taken in everyday life concerning learning projects and also identifies the uniqueness of the individual aside from any possible affiliation with an educational system. In a sense, the system's interpretation of the adult learner obviates even its own capacity to label success in learning, although by seeking to recognize in the individual a problem solving mode it goes beyond labeling and allows the significance of success to rest with the learner. In this interpretation the adult learner is at once both purposefully responsible for learning and through a range of understanding which goes beyond the institutional framework of learning and success, directed toward their own final interpretation. The recognition of this on the part of the educational system which seeks to deal with adults is as purposeful as its ultimate relation to the idea of supply and demand. Their adoption to a truly facilitative style of educating should be, according to the self directed learner theory, recognizable and actively supported by the adult as student. In this style seeking success and finding success are a conscious means of progression through a chosen subject area. The institution which seeks to operationalize this state of learning does so with the self recognition that its own position is not to achieve success through administrative labels but rather as a recognition conferred upon it by its students. Though this is suggestive of a perhaps idealistic level of understanding it is also a condition which is dictated by the foundations of the S-D theory.

April 23, 2005

Return to first page