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....