The need for an optimal balance between 'control' and 'freedom' for the development of self-direction

My contribution in this blog reflects the position I take for my study on self-direction. My main argument is that self-direction is developmental and when we design curricula for developing it, the instructor's roles and the students' level of readiness for self-direction should be considered in order to create optimal learning environments for its development. The relevant literature and discussion are given below.

Self-directed learning is

any study form in which individuals have primary responsibility for planning, implementing , and even evaluating the effort (Hiemstra, 1994)


When implementing a curricula to promote self-directed learning, it is important to consider the of level of readiness of learners (their readiness for accepting greater responsibility for learning) and the teaching style of the instructor (their preparedness to relinquish control and pass on greater responsibility for learning to students)

According to Hiemstra(1994), both external factors such as curricula and instructors that facilitate learners taking primary responsibility as well as internal factors such as learner readiness that predispose a learner taking responsibility for learning contribute to the development of self-direction in learning.

In addition, he says that learning conditions for the development of SDL are optimal when a learner’s level of self-direction is balanced with the extent to which self-directed learning opportunities are possible.

So, it can be said that it is quite inevitable that this optimal balance in the learning environment should be considered when designing curricula to successfully promote self-directed learning.

To reinforce the necessity to consider the learners readiness for self-direction, I will highlight some key points from the Literature about this:

1.Humans grow in capacity to be self-directing (Knowles, 1995).

2.Learner readiness for self-direction has been categorised into levels and several studies have

also been been conducted to measure readiness using scales such as the self-directed

readiness scale (SDLRS) developed by Guglielmino (1977).

3. Brookfield (1995), has recognized that many students lack the independence and confidence

to be successful self-directed learners.

4. There is also clear evidence in the literature that the capacity to self-direct is developmental

5. Educators have been charged with the job to assist adults to learn in a way that enhances their

capability to function as self-directed learners (Merriam, 2001)

My research aims to investigate how the optimal balance between external and internal factors for developing self-direction can be created in the learning environment where I teach.
I will be conducting an evaluative study of a curricula redesigned and implemented to promote self-direction in 2 domains of learning ( humanities and engineering). The study which will be an evaluative case study will be conducted using Grow’s (1991, 1994) Staged Self Directed Learning (SSDL) instructional model.

The 4 categories of stages of learning from dependence to self-direction and their corresponding teaching styles will be used to identify the development of self-direction as a redesigned curriculum is implemented in the tutorial/lecture setting. SSDL categories will be used to identify the changes in the instructor’s style and student’s learning behaviour in the teaching-learning transaction through the complete duration of the curriculum implementation. Any changes to the curricula to “match” the level of student readiness will be made based on the analysis of balance between style and learning behaviour observed and analysed in the teaching-learning transaction.

This method of discourse analysis will help me track the development of self-direction and changes to curricula made to support it.

In the next phase, a comparison of SDLS (self-directed learning scales) implemented at the beginning, middle and end of the intervention will b ecompared. This together with semi-structured interviews using focus groups conducted at the end of the implementation will provide feedback on the effectiveness of the curriculum design. Information on features of the curriculum and teaching style that supported this will also be identified.

The research which combines an understanding of the impact of a curriculum redesign on developing SDL and the effectiveness of the curriculum will serve to provide information on

a.how the curriculum needed to be modified (features that supported SDL)

b.what the role of teacher was in providing an optimal learning environment (characteristic that

facilitated development of SDL)

c. the extent to which the curriculum was successful in developing SDL.

This information, I hope will provide useful input to curriculum designers and tutors who can make a significant difference in helping learners develop self –direction for lifelong learning.

Without the capacity to be self-directed learners our future graduates will find it a great challenge to cope with the information explosion of the 21st century……..

Love to hear your thoughts.......


Some Key References

Bentz, V. M., & Shapiro, J. J. (1998). Mindful inquiry in social research. London: Sage.

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

Formann, E. A., & McCormick. (1995). Discourse analysis: A sociocultural perspective. Remedial and Special Education. 16(3), 150-158.

Grow, G. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. 41(3), 109-114.

Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. (2008). Self-directed learning in Problem-Based Learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, (20), 411-427.

Marshall, C., & Rossmann, G. (2006). The what of the study: Building the conceptual framework. In Designing Qualitative Research (4th ed, pp. 23-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of Adult Learning Theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89.

Shea, E. O. (2003). Self-directed learning in nurse education: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(1), 62-70.

Yin, R. (2005). Case study methods. In Green, I., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. B. (Eds.), Complementary Methods for Research in Education (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Developing Self-Directed Learners : a cognitive or sociocultural approach ?

The key readings used for the critique offered in this blog are found in the references segment of this blog.

In this blog, I want to share my views on a short piece of research on self-directed learning.

The authors Jossberger et.al (2008) discuss their research on difficulties and success factors in workplace simulations found in pre-vocational secondary education.

They begin by explaining the practice-orientated nature of the learning environments which meet the characteristics of learners whom they describe as ‘do-learners’.They situate their study by identifying the gap “problems students have in these workplace simulations have not yet been systematically investigated and analyzed…” They then identify several possible factors that interact to differentiate between successful and unsuccessful workplace learning.

They mention that the factors influencing learning could be rooted in student characteristics , learning environment or social environment. While they mention these factors, they do not identify the theoretical frame they intend to use in the study. Based on this , it seemed to me at the start that they would be approaching the study using a sociocognitive /sociocultural lens.

As the I read further, I realized, they collected data using focus group interviews and grounded theory as their analytic tool. Only then did it become apparent that they were using the sociocultural lens. Stating the frame at the start of the study would not have left the reader wondering why the study was incomplete ie why the sociocognitive aspect of the study was not addressed. In fact, they even mentioned cognitive regulatory processes to be important for the developmet of self-direction but did not mention.that it was not going to be addressed within the scope of their study.

In addition, it was rather misleading for the authors to have mentioned that “the interaction between the different factors makes the difference between successful and unsuccessful workplace simulation learning” and not study the interaction of the factors..

Next, I find the conclusions reached in the study contradictory and that this contradiction could have been avoided if more careful thought had been put into expounding the theory of learning that supported their theoretical frame. On the one hand they say that students who are ‘poor self-regulated learners’ will find workplace simulations to be difficult, and on the other they say in their findings that the environment provides clear instructions yet this “interferes with the idea of self-directed learning and students seem to be very dependent on the guidance.” Would it have been less contradictory if the authors considered how the structures scaffolded learning to help those who are ‘poor self-regulated learners’and then discuss how the scaffolds could be ‘released’ as the learners became more self-directed?

I close this segment by referring the reader to Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning and the concept of ZPD which I discussed in blog#2. It gives insight into the inevitable and delicate tension between guidance and independence in the development of self-directed learning.

Further to my critique above on the importance of articulating and thinking about our theoretical framework , I give references to 2 blogs below where I feel the authors should at some stage articulate what self-directed learning means to them. This will help clarify the theory of learning they adopt in their approach to developing self-directed learning. The authors of the 2 blogs seem to approach the development of self-directed learning quite differently. I would like to propose a consideration of a greater balance between the notions of ‘structure/guidance’ and ‘free choice/independence’ in the the authors' development of resources for developing self-direction..

Dave’s blog

Judith’s blog


Love to hear your views…..


Reference

Bentz, V. M., & Shapiro, J. J. (1998). Mindful inquiry in social research. London: Sage.

Cresswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the 5 approaches. London: Sage.

Helen Jossberger, Saskia Brand-Gruwel, Henny Boshuizen, Margje Van De Wiel (2008). Self-Directed learning in pre-vocational secondary education: an analysis of difficulties and success factors in workplace simulations. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International learning sciences

Kindfield, A. C. H. (2009). Situating cognitive/socio-cognitive approaches to student learning in genetics. Cultural Studies of Science Education, (4), 193-199.

Marshall, C., & Rossmann, G. (2006). The what of the study: Building the conceptual framework. In Designing Qualitative Research (4th ed, pp. 23-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.



.

Determining the phenomenon to study and choosing the appropriate lens

Determining the theoretical lens

The alignment of a researcher’s ontology, epistemology and paradigm of enquiry will help frame and ground the phenomenon being studied in an appropriate theoretical framework. This theoretical framework will be the lens through which the phenomenon to be understood will be explored. The theoretical lens will also help ground the choice of methodology or research design as well as the methods or analytic tools to be used to study the phenomenon at hand.

Differentiating theoretical lenses is discussed in Ann, C. H. (2009)

In her critique on the use of 2 different perspectives to illumine genetics learning, she discusses how the same phemomenon of learning can be studied from 2 perspectives which are different yet complementary. She highlights the importance of defining what needs to be studied and then choosing the perspective or theoretical lens based on an understanding of what it can reveal to us. For example a cognitive/sociocognitive lens can help illumine conceptions or conceptual changes in learners ie ‘in the realm of the internal- what’s in the mind’. On the other hand, a sociocultural perspective will focus on the discursive and interactional aspects of human learning with the aim of illuminating socio-cultural issues related to learning. In the same way, both perspectives can rely on ‘talk’ for data in their methodology but look for very different things. ‘Talk’ can be used either to reveal what’s in the ‘student’s minds’(cognitive) or to illumine areas like expectations and values that may structure interactions (socioculural).

As the two perspectives illuminate different aspects of learning, they complement each other to provide ‘a more complete picture of how students learn as well as what they learn’. The two theoretical lenses illuminate different aspects of learning and are selected on the basis of what the researcher intends to study of the chosen phenomenon.

Learning theories that align with the theoretical lens

Learning theories that align with the cognitive/sociocognitive and sociocultural perspectives discussed above would include social learning theories such as Bandura’s social cognitive theory and Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of social interaction and scaffolding in learning.

The application of these complementary theories of learning in practice are discussed in
Peer. K.S. and McClendon, R.C’s (2002) sociocultural learning theory in practice.

The alignment of learning theories and theoretical frameworks ensure the researcher is clear about what is being studied and is able to choose the appropriate lens what’s being studied.

Taking a step back to align this with the ontology, epistemology and paradigm of inquiry discussed at the start of this blog ensures a congruent frame (OEPTMm) that drives the research design and process securely grounded in the researcher’s fundamental definition of what knowledge is (ontology) and how it can be known (epistemology).

(o) Ontology
(e) Epistemology
(p) Paradigm
(t) Theoretical framework/lens
(m) Methodology
(m) Methods


Share your views on how important you think your ontology and epistemology are in grounding your theoretical perspective and the following methodology and methods used to study your phenomenon…….

Do scaffolding and self-direction go together?

Self-directed learning (SDL) has been described as ‘ a process in which individuals take the initiative with or without the help of others, to diagnose their learning needs, formulate learning goals, identify resources for learning , select and implement learning strategies, and evaluate learning outcomes( Knowles, 1975). In addition, it is a concept central to what adult education is all about (Mezirow 1985).

Three questions come to mind:

• Does self-direction need to be facilitated or does it just happen?
• Is self-direction confined only to adult learners?
• What should a teacher’s involvement in the learning process be if students direct their own learning ?
  

Here are some triggers to prompt your response:

Research discussed in 'getting started' indicated that many students have difficulty with transition to higher education in particular the expectation that they will be independent and self-motivated learners.

This clip and the it's related excerpt below gives us some insight into self-direction in young learners.

Excerpt

Two very different philosophies of education have dominated teacher training in this century: Teacher directed, whole group learning with its emphasis on subject matter has been in opposition to the discovery method with its emphasis on active child learning. Sensitive teachers of both persuasions have felt frustrated at the level of learning generated by adherence to these methods. The work of Lev Vygotsky offers a new synthesis of these philosophies that overcomes many problems of single perspective approaches. This video provides examples of how learning can be structured so children are active learners while teachers use their superior knowledge base to meaningfully guide learning. Three essential elements of scaffolding are explained and demonstrated as children in urban classrooms become literate and ever more responsible for their weekly learning plans.

Please share your views....

Why self-directed learning?

Being an educator in the twenty-first century, I often grapple with the seeming incongruence between my desire and the level of success I experience as an educator cum practitioner who endeavours to develop self-directed learners.

It’s well known among educators in our region that since the end of the last century, self-directed learning has been accorded top priority in the reform agenda of many countries in the Asia Pacific region (Mok and Cheng, 2002). In sync with this trend, the institution of higher learning where I work has recently adopted as a principle reform, the development of self-directed learners through a redesign of our existing undergraduate curriculum.

As both an advocate and participant in this reform, I embark on a research journey to understand how the intervention of a more student-directed curriculum would impact our learners who have typically been experiencing a more traditional and teacher-directed approach. The next segment of my blog will refer to ideas articulated in Gibbons and Wentworth (2001). I use the paper as a springboard to articulate my own concerns and experience in curriculum redesign and intervention. I was involved in a pilot self-directed learning curriculum redesign and intervention project for the past 3 years.

While our students may be savvy online users, I affirm Gibbon's and Wentworth’s (2001) statement that the students may not be approaching their learning in a non-traditional self-directed manner. I have experienced this in my own attempts to encourage greater ownership and independence in my students.

In addition, most tutors value the traditional and time honored didactic objectivist approach mentioned by Gibbons and Wentworth. As such, I concur with their assumption that


‘traditional learners rely heavily on an instructor's knowledge, which is disseminated in a unilateral (teacher-to-student), lecture-based method. Learners are expected to accept without question the information disseminated, 'learning' the material and delivering it back to the instructor in the same manner it was presented to them.’

The introduction of a new curriculum into our contexts of learning would inevitably shape the learners approach to learning and the instructors approach to teaching.

‘Nontraditional learners require an alternative framework within which to learn. Knowles suggests that nontraditional learners need to know why they need to learn something before undertaking to learn it’
(Merriam & Brockett, 1997).

In the same way, tutors would need to adjust and develop new frameworks for shaping and cultivating the new mode of learning in their students. Tutors (Gibbons and Wentworth, 2001) would no longer

· instruct but facilitate
· be experts but facilitators and resource persons

I will be designing my study to understand how a curriculum intervention to promote the development of self-directed learning will interact with elements of the learning environment to shape the development of self-directed learning in the students. I belief that the tutor’s pedagogy and the learner’s concept of learning will interact as the curriculum is implemented. I would like to understand how the various factors interact to shape learning over the period of implementation.

I end with a extract from Gibbons and Wentworth which captures something close to my heart

‘ New facilitators become capable of creating an "educational program and setting in which adult [nontraditional] students can develop their latent self-directed learning skills" (Brookfield, p. 92). Through this evolutionary process, the new facilitator learns to create a course that "emphasizes the primacy of the learner, grants a substantial measure of control to learners and places learning directly in the context of learners' own experiences" (p. 124).

Reference:

Gibbions, H. S. & Wentworth, G.P. (2001). Andrological and Pedagogical Training Differences for Online Instructors.Proceedings DLA Callaway,Georgia 2001.