Self Directide Learning - Term Paper Example

? Self Directed Learning (Adult Education) Introduction During the present decades, increased attention has been learnt to focus on the aspect of self-directed learning (SDL). However, it needs to be mentioned in this context that the theoretical emphasis towards the idea of SDL is considered to be comparatively recent, even though, a long as well as strong record has been found with regard to the degree of interest associated with the concept. In the past decades, the notion of self-study was considered to be the basic way related to learning earlier to the commencement of the field of formal schooling. In the later periods, SDL was found to be frequently regarded as a way to make certain of the extent of control on the learners regarding their respective learning environment existing inside as well as outside of the official educational institutes. The facet of SDL, similar to conventional adult education, was learnt to be chiefly manipulated by the principles related to behaviorist, developmental and humanist psychology. Various explanations have been laid down with regard to the concept of SDL which implies the nonexistence of a rational and mutually comprehended or acknowledged explanations. Hereby, the absence of an appropriate explanation gives rise to the question regarding the viability related to the application of SDL (Spencer, Scott & Thomas, 1998). The paper will intend to focus on comprehending the concept of SDL and the prevalent paradoxes along with ascertaining the viability of its application. Literature Review of the Concept of Self-Directed Learning According to Knowles (1975), SDL can be referred to as a particular process where individuals are believed to undertake the drive which could be with as well as without the assistance of other individuals. This underlying reason for the assistance was measured to be for the reason of detecting the learners’ respective learning requirements, structuring the learning goals, recognizing the resources related to human as well as material for the purpose of learning, selecting and practicing the suitable strategies with regards to learning along with assessing the results obtained from the process (Fisher, King, & Tague, 2001). SDL has also been regarded as a definite process that is supposed to take place naturally concerning every individual (Chee, Divaharan, Tan, & Mun, 2011). In the period of 1960s, increased concentration was focused on the reason and ways behind the learning of adults. The notion of SDL was stated to arise during this specific period of time. It requires to be stated in this context that this particular notion was traced back to the period of 1961. It was during this year when the typology related to goal, compass readings related to the activity as well as learning within the adults were structured by Houle (1961). The purposes and activities related to learning with regard to numerous adult learners was delineated by Houle (1961) who had selected to chase their respective process of learning without the need and requirement of institutional encouragement with respect to affiliation. This particular aspect called for the attention of further assessment during that particular time period. During the period of 1980s, Knowles (1980) re-narrated the development of SDL with the suggestion of an idea called “andragogy” which was widely referred as the ability and science related to assisting adults for learning. This particular notion was considered in comparison to all the prevalent theories related to learning during that definite phase of time and which were supposed to be reliant on the facet of pedagogy. Pedagogy referred to the science as well as the art related to providing assistance to the child learners. This was again considered to be dependent on five basic suppositions regarding the adult learner. The initial supposition stated that the self-concept with regard to an adult was observed to shift from the perception related to dependent personality towards a self-directing individual with maturity. The other supposition implied that the adults were learnt to collect experience which was identified as an affluent resource related to learning. The third supposition has been stated to relate to the willingness perceived by a particular adult for the reason of learning which is considered to be closely associated with the developmental jobs related to the social role of that particular individual. The final supposition affirms that an adult is considered to be increasingly problem centered in contrast to being subject centered with regard to learning (Svedberg, 2010). It was mentioned by Knowles (1984) that the internal features were found to stimulate the adults relatively in comparison to the external ones. Based on the initial supposition, it was observed by Knowles (1984) that the self-concept of the adults was found to undergo a shift from being dependent personality to an individual of self-directing nature with maturity. The notion of SDL was stated to be conceptualized in numerous methods. The existence of such numerous explanations with regard to SDL was further noted to trigger a significant degree of vagueness which resulted to quite some different terms appearing to be made use of interchangeably with the notion of SDL such as self-teaching, self-directed inquiry, self-directed constant learning, autonomous learning, self-planned learning and self-initiated learning. Furthermore, a self-directed learner was also referred as proactive learner, autonomous learner, self-directed inquirer, autodidact and constant self-learner (Svedberg, 2010). Self-directed learning, with the help of drives or endeavors that are observed to be learner-based, is believed to enable the notion of personal as well as informal acquirement related to knowledge. In case of the customary course related to education, knowledge was found to be characteristically obtained with the help of a pre-ascertained set of courses which emphasized on the notion of note learning as well as regurgitation. This particular customary way of attaining knowledge was guided on the basis of the supposition that an individual is considered to be an unfilled vessel that was awaiting to get full with the help enlightened knowledge (Tanaka, 2002). In contrast to the customary way of learning, which was considered to generally occur in the official locations of the institution, the notion or the approach connected to self-directed learning was found to be comparatively competent. It was owing to the fact that it could be implemented or applied anywhere along with recognizing the role as well as accountability with regard to the particular learner to be equivalent with respect to the facilitator (Ponton, Derrick, & Carr, 2005; Glastra, Hake, & Schedler, 2004; Mutch, 2003). Therefore, it is in this context that the notion of self-directed learning was considered to be increasingly flexible along with being an applicable and advance with respect to an assortment of learning requirements and conditions that were debatably perceived to be democratic, sympathetic and comprehensive approach related to the idea of learning (Robles, 2010). It was further mentioned by Stewart (2007) that SDL is considered to be an effectual way of learning with regard to the adults in the continuously altering learning environment of the present times as the process has been referred to be a constant commitment towards attaining, implementing and constructing knowledge accompanied with the skills with respect to a particular learner’s exceptional problems. The competencies related to SDL are considered to be quite vital in the constantly altering economy associated with knowledge where alterations or rather changes are regarded as the sole continuous phenomenon. Hence, the process related to SDL is believed to assist to a large extent in inculcating a viewpoint in relation to life-long learning (Stewart, 2007). The roots related to self-directed learning puts forward the fact that every individual is considered to be born with the possession of unrestricted prospective related to development as well as progress. The idea related to education was described to be the agency which is believed to enable and trigger this particular progress along with offering a word of prudence that the facilitator needs to act as a guide without intervening with or attempting to direct the process associated with learning (Huang, 2008). The notion of SDL was found to be conversed about from a diverse viewpoint by Guglielmino (1977) stating that self-directed learners possess definite characteristics with regard to the respective outlook related to SDL along with the competency to indulge in self-directed learning. These specified features were further regarded to be essential in the course of the process related to SDL. It was further added in this context that the characteristics helped in making the ultimate ascertainment regarding the occurrence of self-directed learning under a provided condition. In this context it was identified by Guglielmino & Gugliemino (1991) that the learning atmosphere was considered to manipulate the process related to SDL to a significant extent. For instance, the dearth of resources recognized in terms of the learning environment, authoritarian facilitators, the scarcity of time and the unanticipated occurrences might call for an outcome of re-assessing or re-directing the processes of learning by the respective learners (Huang, 2008). The notion of SDL was further investigated by Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) which revealed that the procedure of SDL was frequently regarded as a feature related to the personality and an instructional procedure as well. The exploration of the process identified two different areas related to SDL. The facet of self-directed learning was stated to be the instructional procedure and the ‘learner self-direction’ was stated to be the personality feature. The concept in relation to self-directed learning has been explained to be the procedure where a particular learner supposes principal responsibility with regard to planning, application and assessing the process of learning. Conversely, the concept of learner self-direction has been referred to as the focal point of a learner’s wish or inclination for presupposing responsibilities towards the process of learning. These two mentioned realms were united by Brockett & Hiemstra (1991). Furthermore, based on this combination, the process of SDL was referred to as the external features related to an instructional procedure along with the internal features with regard to the learners. Owing to the combination of both these features an individual is believed to presume the basic responsibility towards the experience related to learning (Huang, 2008). The writings laid down by Candy (1991) also helped in offering a multi-level explanation in relation to SDL. According to the writings, the notion of self-direction was noted to be a consequence of education derived from the facet of self-direction. As a result, self-direction has been widely supposed to be compiled of personal independence along with proficiencies related to self-management. It has been found to relate to the individual features, eagerness and competency of the learner to carry out one’s process of education (Huang, 2008). In addition, SDL has been stated as an intended mental procedure which is by and largely followed and encouraged by the behavioral actions that are identified to be engaged in recognition and seeking out for information. In case of this particular system the learners were observed to deliberately agree to the accountability for developing decisions regarding the objectives and endeavors which therefore become their respective agents for learning alterations (Bhat, Rajashekar & Kamath, 2007). It is worth mentioning in this regards that there has been stated to be an existence of constant comparison among the notion of teacher-directed learning and self-directed learning. Numerous questions were raised regarding the required proficiencies for becoming an effectual SDL. The social, educational and cultural background, subject matter, self concept, previous experiences and the related proficiencies associated with study were observed to manipulate the degree till which the aspect of self-directedness seemed promising (Greveson & Spencer, 2005). In this similar context, Bhat, Rajashekar & Kamath (2007) stated that an effectual SDL has been stated to be the individual who is believed to possess personality features as well as proficiencies for instance information-processing, cognitive processing, goal-setting, executive processing and skills related to decision-making. The Paradoxes and Contradictions The noticeable paradoxes as well as contradictions which has been learnt to distinguish SDL in the form of notion in comparison to its practical implementation with regard to an official academic setting has been identified as quite a few in numbers. It has been stated in this regard that in spite of the professed inhibitors, the aspect of practicing the application of SDL has been still considered to be worthy enough for the development of learning skills. The advantages derived from this particular kind of learning were found to be transformative as well as liberating (Donaghy, 2005). There is learnt to be the existence of two different paradoxes as well as contradictions with regard to SDL. The initial paradox identified with regard to SDL was further stated to be regarding the person concerned with SDL. An individual concerned with the process of SDL was found to indulge alone in that activity, but from the explanation of the concept in the literature, it has been found that individuals seldom indulge themselves in the process alone. The other paradox has been stated regarding the process of SDL referring it to be something that was usually carried out remotely from the formally structured activities which was found to be guided by other individuals. However, it could be inferred from some portion of the literature reviewed with regards to SDL that the process was engaged participation with regard to the activities guided by other different individuals. The process related to SDL was not regarded as a lone act which was capable of carrying out alone by any individual. The foremost scholars with regard to this particular subject comply with the fact of SDL being a relational activity or behavior but the relevant literature was considered to be heavily inclined towards the fact of SDL being an individualized behavior (Donaghy, 2005). In order to gain a complete comprehension regarding the concept related to self along with its specific relationship with learning, it becomes imperative to take into deliberation the sources and the outcomes related to its application in frequently contending communities sharing similar interests. If, for instance, the community, with regard to SDL which comprises of the scholars, is learnt to organize its behaviors and viewpoints around the idea where SDL needs to be considered as an activity in which an individual is believed to indulge in entirely alone, then in such an instance its language and the relevant literature will ultimately focus on replicating that specific stance. The other pertinent elucidations would then be considered by the other existing scholars with increasing compatible perspectives. Opportunely, the initial paradox that has been mentioned above proposes the assurance of no such occurrences with regard to the referred SDL community owing to the recognition of the significance perceived by the other individuals by the stalwart members of the community with respect to the activities related to self-directed learners (Donaghy, 2005). However, the other paradox which was mentioned with respect to SDL was found to be comparatively considered as insignificant by the community of SDL. The facet of self-direction and associated contribution by so-directed with regard to formal teaching along with the learning practices might prove to be quite self-contradictory for the reason of being completely acknowledged by the SDL scholars (Donaghy, 2005). The other contradictions that existed in this regard were stated by Brookfield (1988) who offered numerous grave reflections related to SDL. It was recommended by the author that the excess recognition of the practitioners as well as researchers related to adult education with the aspect of SDL can be considered as imprudent owing to its insufficient theoretical base. The other concern that was identified with regard to this was the discernment that almost all the relevant researches conducted on SDL was found to principally exist in the quantitative form. Another chief contradiction was found to be concentrated on the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) by Guglielmino (1977) which was referred to as instruments that were made use of by numerous researchers in the field of SDL. There were contradictions regarding the mentioned instruments as their usage was stated to be quite complicated with regard to some definite groups. The instruments were also found to lack suitable validation and were believed to be both methodologically as well as theoretically flawed. The concept of SDL was observed and stated to be impasse in the current years owing to the nonexistence of a constant theoretical base, constant perplexity regarding the implication of the term and also the constant usage of unsuitable research paradigms (Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning, 2006). Conclusion The above discussion helps in providing a lucid comprehension regarding the concept of SDL and adult learning. It has been mentioned with regard to this notion that majority of the activities related to learning is believed to be triggered and promoted with the help of a learner’s inventiveness irrespective of its availability with the aid of formal settings. Furthermore, the concept of SDL was found to be perceived as a particular structure of study where individuals are supposed to possess the principal responsibilities with regard to planning, practicing and also assessing the endeavors related to adoption of the skills associated with learning. Certain paradoxes as well as contradictions were however identified in this regard, but the degree of significance and viability of SDL still cannot be completely refused. References Bhat, P. P., Rajashekar, B. & Kamath, U. (2007). Perspectives on self-directed learning-the importance of attitudes and skills. Bioscience Education Journal. Chee, T. S., Divaharan, S., Tan, L. & Mun, C. H. (2011). Self-Directed learning with ICT: Theory, practice and assessment. Self-directed learning (SDL)- A natural process of learning, pp. 1-62. Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning (2006). Self-directed learning controversies. Self-Directed Learning. Donaghy, R. C. (2005). Studying self-directed learning: The personal stories of four scholars. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, pp. 1-101. Fisher, M., King, J. & Tague, G. (2001). Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse education today, pp. 516-525. Glastra, F., Hake, B. J. & Schelder, P. E. (2004). Lifelong learning as transitional learning. Adult Education Quarterly, pp. 291-307. Greveson, G. C. & Spencer, J. A. (2005). Self-directed learning-the importance of concepts and contexts. Medical education, pp. 348-349. Huang, M. H. (2008). Factors influencing self-directed learning readiness amongst Taiwanese nursing students. Queensland University of Technology, pp. 1-236. Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher Education, pp. 24-38. Ponton, M. K., Derrick, M. G. & Carr, P. B. (2005). The relationship between resourcefulness and persistence in adult autonomous learning. Adult Education Quarterly, pp. 116-128. Robles, T. R. (2010). Assessing self-directed learning as an effective approach to inclusion in the post- secondary environment: A review of the literature. Ontario College of Art and Design, pp. 1-76. Spencer, B., Scott, S. M. & Thomas, A. M. (2011). Learning for Life: Canadian Readings in Adult Education. Canada: Thompson Educational Publishing. Stewart, R. A. (2007). Investigating the link between self directed learning readiness and project-based learning outcomes: The case of international masters’ students in an engineering management course. European Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 453-465. Svedberg, M. K. (2010). Self-directed learning and persistence in online asynchronous undergraduate programs. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, pp. 1-80. Tanaka, G. (2002). Higher education’s self- reflexive turn: Toward an intercultural theory of student development. The Journal of Higher Education, pp. 263-294. Read More