Bridging the theory–practice gap in self-directed learning

Successful implementation of self-directed learning opportunities depends largely on how well researchers and practitioners are able to bridge the gap between theory and practice. zyxw Bridging the Theory-Practice Gap in Self-Directed Learning Ralph G. Brockett Roger Hiemstra zyxw There is considerable research and theory into self-directed learning, as Brookfield and Mezirow note in Chapters One and Two. The purpose of this chapter is to build a bridge between their discussion of theory and research and the remaining chapters, which focus on particular areas in which selfdirected learning can or does operate. As Figure 1 shows, we see this chapter as a filtering device that distills theory and research into several areas. This chapter focuses on four issues: the learner’s readiness for self-direction in learning, the teaching and learning process advocated for work with self-directed learners, policy considerations related to self-directed learning, and ethical issues relative to the implementation of self-directed learning concepts. Self-Directedness: An All-or-Nothing Concept? z zyxwvutsrqpon zyxwvutsr zyxwvutsrq zyxwvutsrq A clear understanding of how key concepts are defined is essential when we attempt to translate theory into practice. Such is the case with selfdirected learning. While a detailed review of the ways in which various authors have conceptualized self-directedness is beyond the scope of this discussion, it is crucial to theory and practice to know whether self-directedness is S. Brwkficld (Ed.). Srl/-Dmck’ Lcatntng. From Thiory lo Prnlfirr New Directions for Conrinuing Edrrcation, no. 25. San Francisco:Josscy-Bass, March 1985. 31 32 zyxwvuts zy Figure 1. A Depiction of the Filtering Feature of Chapter Three -t Learner’s Readiness for SDL Policy Considerations in SDL Filter for Practice Implications Ethical Considerations in SDL zyxw tt- zy d Future Research Needs and SDL Teaching and Learning and SDL Planning Learning Implementing Learning Evaluating Learning Learning Contracts Learning Resources an all-or-nothing phenomenon or whether it varies with particular individuals and learning situations. In other words, is self-directedness best viewed as a dichotomous concept or as a continuous concept? In a thought-provoking discussion of cognitive style, Even (1982) has suggested that persons who exhibit a field-independent learning style are likely to benefit from a self-directed emphasis but that field-dependent learners, who tend to have more of a social orientation, are not as likely to succeed in selfdirected learning efforts. She illustrates this point by stating that the fieldindependent learners - those who tend toward self-directedness - prefer the lecture technique over interactive approaches, such as discussion and smallgroup tasks. Further, those persons are likely to prefer a teacher who is formal and highly structured over a teacher who is warm and supportive. Insomuch as this viewpoint does not address the potential interactive nature of psychosocial variables relative to self-directedness, one could argue that the field independence-field dependence model, as presented by Even, views selfdirectedness as a quality that is present in some individuals but not in others and thus that the model seems to embody a dichotomous view of selfdirectedness. In their recent model of lifelong learning, Mocker and Spear (1982) draw a distinction between formal, nonformal, informal, and self-directed learning modes. These categories are represented in their model by two-bytwo matrix based on who controls the objectives and the means for a learning situation - the institution or the learner. While Mocker and Spear view their model as a matrix, one can see the idea of a continuum in the model. For 33 instance, formal learning refers to situations where the institution retains control over the objectives and means. In contrast, self-directed learning implies learner control of both elements. Both nonformal and informal learning involve some control both by learners and by institutions: Thus, they both lie at some point between the two extremes of the continuum. Is self-directedness best viewed as a dichotomy or as a continuum? As Brookfield states in Chapter One, true self-directed learning can rarely if ever be achieved in institutional settings. By their very nature, institutions impose limits on self-direction. As a case in point, take the higher education setting. While an individual instructor may be deeply committed to the value of promoting self-direction in the classroom, the realities of grades and formally scheduled class meetings place a degree of structure on the learning situation that precludes total self-direction. Bauer addresses this dilemma in Chapter Four. The attempt to understand self-directed learning as a continuum poses another problem. The continuum view implies that the degree of self-directedness varies considerably from individual to individual. Indeed, research involving the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) has accentuated the differences that exist among individuals in skills and attitudes related to self-directedness. When we attempt to promote self-direction in learning, we must bear two points in mind. First, since individuals vary in their readiness for selfdirection, it is important for facilitators of adult learning to understand that they may have to assist some learners to become more self-directed. Second, it is important to avoid the pitfall of viewing self-directed learning as the best way to learn. With the great diversity that exists both in learning styles and in reasons for learning, it is extremely shortsighted to advance such an argument. Perhaps it is more appropriate to think of self-directed learning as a n ideal mode of learning for certain individuals and for certain situations. zy Facilitating Self-Directed Learning Identifying the implications of these ideas for teaching is predicated on the notion that nearly all humans are capable of a degree of self-direction in their choices of learning approach, learning resources, and validation or evaluation techniques. This notion is akin to the critical theory assumptions described by Mezirow in Chapter Two. Unfortunately, much of the teaching used with adult learners, especially by individuals who have not had training in the teaching of adults, appears to be based on principles more of teacherdirected learning than of self-directed learning. Thus, we contend that considerable human potential is thwarted because learners are not able to take increased responsibility for learning that will be meaningful for them. Teaching Strategyfor SelfDirected Learners. Many continuing education authorities support the use of a variety of teaching and learning resources, zy zyxwv 34 zyxwvuts facilitator teaching roles, and an active role by adult students during the entire teaching and learning process. In Chapter One, Brookfield refers to the findings of much research on self-directed learning over the past decade that many adult learners express a preference for self as a resource in and director of learning. Such a role often includes participation in activities as diverse as assessing personal needs, planning learning activities, acquiring or developing certain learning resources, sequencing learning activities, and assuming responsibility for personal progress. However, for these activities to take place in such a way that such issues as quality, motivation, and institutional support can be addressed, especially for learning situations where some connection with an institution is necessary, desired, or expected, a learning partnership between the learner and an instructor is necessary. As an example of what can happen when this learning partnership is applied to practice, a nontraditional graduate program at Syracuse University was set up with a major emphasis on the learner-instructor alliance. In September 1982, a Weekend Scholar program was established. The program enabled a student to earn a master’s degree in adult education entirely through weekend courses. One of the assumptions underlying the development of this program was that successful participants would have the ability to assume a high degree of self-direction in meeting program expectations while maintaining professional and personal responsibilities that prevented them from participating in a late afternoon or early evening schedule of courses. All four faculty members who work with this program, which is currently operating at three locations in upstate New York, use a teaching and learning process whereby learners and instructors negotiate a learning contract establishing each individual’s goals, strategies, and evaluation criteria for the particular subject matter under study. Both formative and summative evaluation efforts have shown that the combination of contracting with the faculty’s commitment to learning partnerships has resulted in successful accomplishment of course and degree requirements. In addition, learners exhibit more positive attitudes about learning, the instructional process, and the program than had been anticipated. (The AEGIS program discussed in Chapter Four is a similar initiative at the doctoral level.) The Role of the Instructor. What is the role of the instructor? An answer to this question must begin with the suggestion that traditional expectations tied to heliefs involving the dispensation of knowledge by experts to eager learners are incompatible with the model of personal ownership advocated in this chapter. This is not to suggest that such techniques as lecturing, Socratic dialogue, and standardized testing cannot be used in an interactive teaching and learning process. As a matter of fact, many learners deliberately choose to include such techniques or procedures in their personal learning plan. However, we wish to suggest that it is crucial for the successful teacher in self-directed zyxw zyxwv zyxwvu zy zy 35 zyxw zyx learning situations to use facilitation techniques and to serve primarily i s a manager of the teaching-learning transaction, not as an information provider. This implies that a facilitator must be able to tap a wide range of interpersonal helping skills, such as empathy, respect, and genuineness (Brockett, 1983). The role of the manager differs from what often appears to be the norm in traditional teaching-learning situations - an authoritarian role whereby the teacher, in either an autocratic or a benevolent manner, adopts an expert posture and expects learners to recall and recite everything that they have been told or that they have read in the books assigned. Thus, the notions of interactiveness and potentiality, which encourage and indeed expect learners to take responsibility for their own learning, are of particular importance. Significant by-products for learners are positive feelings toward the subject matter, desire to explore the area of knowledge further, follow-up learning activities, and positive attitudes toward the total learning experience. Programs, such as Weekend Scholar and AEGIS, that attempt to make a high level of selfdirection a vital part of the process are likely to be successful to the extent that facilitators are willing to shed the role of transmitter of content. Toolsf o r Self-Directed Learning. Just as a move toward increased selfdirectedness implies a changed role for the instructor, so can a number of tools be used to facilitate the learning process. Learning contracts and written materials designed for proactive use are two such tools. Learning contracts have come into increasingly widespread use in recent years, especially in nontraditional higher education settings. Essentially, a learning contract is a written plan in which an individual documents, in varying degrees of detail, what and how he or she intends to learn in a given learning experience. The learning contract serves as a tool for communication between the learner and the facilitator. A major difficulty faced by most facilitators who advocate a self-directed approach is keeping track of the wide range of learning activities in which students choose to engage. The contract provides a written record of each student’s proposed learning activities. In this way, it serves as a quality control mechanism. In addition, the contract offers learners a guide for planning the learning experience. While learning contracts can play a valuable role in enhancing the self-directed learning process, it is important to remember that the contract is only a tool - a means to an end. Written learning materials are frequently identified as an important resource for continuing education. However, most discussions of materials have tended to focus on materials for programmed instruction or for adult basic education or high school equivalency programs. The use of written materials as resources for proactive learning in a self-directed mode has received little attention. However, such an approach could have important implications for adult learning opportunities in such areas as nontraditional higher education, continuing professional education, and programming in rural and isolated settings. Brockett (1984) has developed a model that asks a number of 36 zyxwvuts zyxwvu questions important to the process of planning and developing written materials for proactive learning. Facilitating Self-Directed Learning. A number of instructional roles are related to work with self-directed learners. Facilitators can serve as one of many possible content resources. They can locate resources and present new information pertaining to derived learner needs. They can arrange for, manage, and employ a variety of resources necessary to accomplish learning goals. They can use a wide variety of learning techniques and supportive instructional devices to maintain learner interest and to present certain types of information. They can stimulate the interest and motivation of learners toward the chosen content areas. They can help learners to develop positive attitudes and feelings of independence relative to learning. They can promote discussion, questioning, and self-directed inquiry skills, and they can serve both to evaluate learner progress and to stimulate self-evaluation by learners. A11 these issues are addressed in Smith (1983). Policy Recommendations for Self-Directed Learning The development of educational policy is a difficult and often a complicated activity. It requires a multidisciplinary view, recognition of the complex nature of most problems, and the bringing together of a great deal of information, opinion, and existing practice. Implementation of such policy usually requires considerable care, dedication, and patience. The word poliGy can refer to rules, procedures, directives, and even traditions. In essence, a policy is a course of action recommended for accomplishing an organizational goal. As a way of exploring the relation of policy development to self-directed learning, Hiemstra (1980) conducted a workshop that led to the development of a set of policies that aids organizations as they consider the implementation of self-directed learning concepts. The policies were conceptualized for three groups: adult learners, continuing educators, and continuing education agencies. During the workshop, a variety of implementation suggestions were derived for each of the policy recommendations offered here. Adult Learners. The workshop developed eleven recommendations for adult learners: (1) The first step in recognizing our unlimited learning potential is to recognize that each of us is a worthwhile learner. (2) To gain selfacceptance, to capitalize on our assets, and to set personal goals, we must examine our strengths and weaknesses objectively. (3) To ensure continuous growth in our learning efforts, we must develop and strengthen our own internal mechanisms for reinforcement. (4) We must understand our own cognitive styles in order to shape our learning experiences for that style. (5) In order to enhance our efficiency and effectiveness, we must seek objective, individualized assistance in the planning and processing of learning projects. (6) To obtain direction, resources, and support, we must join and participate in learner advocate groups. (7) To capitalize on synergistic learning efforts, we zyxw zy zyxw 37 must form autonomous learning groups. (8) To enhance our self-esteem and validate our progress, we need reinforcement and encouragement from O ensure that we control our own learning, we must give ourselves others. (9) T the same status and respect that we accord to our teachers. (10) To ensure relevant and meaningful learning experiences, we must actively seek and take responsibility for our education. (11) To actualize our own learning potential, we must govern our time, space, and energy for learning projects. Continuing Educators. The workshop developed three recommendations for continuing educators: (1) Research in continuing education must explore components of self-directed learning that have not already been studied. (2) In conjunction with their respective institutions, continuing educators must use the theories and practices of self-directed learning in classroom content and application efforts. (3) Continuing educators must help the agencies serving adults to incorporate the concepts of self-directed learning into their standard operating procedures. Continuing Education Agencies. The workshop developed five recommendations for continuing education agencies: (1) Agencies, organizations, and institutions must provide administration, faculty, and staff with opportunities to become knowledgeable about published research on self-directed adult learning. (2) Agencies, organizations, and institutions must develop and maintain measures or criteria for accountability and evaluation. (3) Agencies, organizations, and institutions must provide support services that help self-directed adult learners to adjust to educational activities and any related changes. (4) Agencies, organizations, and institutions must conduct research on participation trends and interests. (5) Agencies, organizations, and institutions must provide environments that accommodate and facilitate self-directed learning. It is obvious that the preceding policy recommendations represent only a few of those that are both possible and needed. For example, policies can be determined for a variety of levels or contexts other than those just described, including government, professional associations, and many specific programs and agencies. One appropriate point of departure for the policy development process is consideration of some ethical issues concerning self-directed learning that may require us to question even the appropriateness of policy development. zyx zyxwv zy zyxwvu Ethical Questions in Self-Directed Learning The idea of self-directed learning is not new. History abounds with examples of individuals - ranging from Socrates and Alexander the Great to Benjamin Franklin and Harry Truman - who have successfully taken charge of their own learning. Yet, only in recent years have continuing educators embraced the concept and begun to identify strategies for assisting adults to become more effective self-directed learners. As the emphasis on working with self-directed learners increases, it is vital for educators who wish to bridge the 38 zyxwvuts zyx gap between theory and practice to examine a number of questions about the ethical implications of intervention with self-directed learners. Singarella and Sork (1983) have noted that continuing education practitioners lack a literature on ethics. In the view of Singarella and Sork, questions related to the basic mission of continuing education and to the educator‘s allegiances to individuals, institutions, and society pose key ethical issues that continuing educators need to explore. Explorations of the ethical questions related to self-directed learning need to address two dimensions: the relationship between learner and facilitator, and institutional issues. With regard to the first - the relationship between learner and facilitator - at least two questions surface immediately. First, can facilitator intervention be detrimental to the learning process in some situations? Facilitators often assume that they can help individuals to become more efficient self-directed learners. Indeed, for many learners, as research (Tough, 1979) points out, efficiency is a primary reason for preferring the se1f;planned approach to learning. This is particularly true when learning is instrumental to some other outcome, such as career advancement. However, we also know that many adults engage in learning for the sake of learning itself. In such expressive learning endeavors, the means are at least as important as the ends. As an example, consider two individuals who wish to study local history. One learner has limited time for study and a schedule that does not permit regular attendance at class sessions. For this person, convenience and efficiency are the essential considerations. The other individual, who does not have the same time constraints, uses interest in local history as a springboard for visits to historical sites and museums in the area, where she meets and talks with other local history enthusiasts. It is appropriate to consider both individuals as self-directed learners. Yet, their needs as learners are very different. The facilitator who works with self-directed learners has a responsibility to understand and respect the individual learner’s real needs. Such understanding can be achieved to a large extent by recognizing that, for some individuals, the learning process is at least as important as the outcome. The second ethical consideration in the learner-facilitator relationship pertains to the issue of quality. Critics of nontraditional continuing education often argue that such opportunities are “watered down” or “quick and dirty” ways of pursuing learning. Others argue that, since self-directed learning implies a high degree of learner control, the facilitator has a convenient excuse for not preparing. In reality, the facilitation of self-directed learning is a very demanding responsibility. As pointed out earlier, the facilitator of self-directed learning opportunities needs to adopt a number of roles and skills that are very different from those of the traditional content-centered teacher. Herein lies the ethical issue. While some educators may misunderstand the meaning and process of self-directed learning and while a few may see the approach as a way of jumping on the latest bandwagon, the facilitator who truly understands and zy zyxw 39 respects the self-directed learning process will strive to refocus, but certainly not to diminish, the nature of his or her responsibility to the learner. The ethical issues just addressed - namely, the appropriateness of intervention and the provision of high-quality learning experiences - can also be addressed on an institutional level. For instance, institutions eager to identify potential new audiences may view self-directed learning as a way of serving persons whom they have not been able to reach in the past. When such efforts are undertaken with a clear sense of purpose and a commitment to the ideals of self-directed learning, they can be viewed as a response to an identified need. However, there is potential for abuse when the attractive prospect of self-directed learning is used to entice people into one type of program, and their needs might better be met by another approach, perhaps one that lies outside the realm of the institution. The attitude of the institution is crucial for questions of quality. Institutions engaged in programs designed for self-directed learners need to consider such questions as these: Is this a learning experience that learners can better achieve on their own outside an institutional setting or in another type of institution? Will this program serve learners who would otherwise not be reached? Given the resources and policies of the institution, is it possible to meet the needs of self-directed learners with high-quality programming? Is the institution willing to commit to the trade-offs - decreased control and flexible program requirements - that are necessary to serve self-directed learners? These questions do not exhaust the possibilities. Rather, they serve to indicate some issues that institutional programming for self-directed learners needs to consider. The question of ethics is crucial when we consider the future of research, theory, and practice in self-directed adult learning. Continuing educators would be well advised to consider these issues in greater depth in the future. Conclusion To serve as a bridge between the chapters on theory and research that precede and the situation-specific, illustrative chapters that follow, this chapter has sought to identify some issues that are vital to the implementation of selfdirected learning. Such considerations as individual differences in selfdirectedness, facilitator roles and strategies, policy development, and ethical issues are important in attempts to implement self-directed learning in a wide range of settings, such as cultural institutions and institutions of higher education, as well as with diverse populations, such as older adults and health professionals. While the ultimate value of self-directed learning lies in its implementation by individual learners, a strong theory and research base can make an invaluable contribution to informed practice. Continuing educators need to make frequent trips across the bridge that separates theory and practice. 40 zyxwvuts zyxwvut zyxwv zyxwvu zyxwvuts zyxwvut References Brockett, R. G. “Facilitator Roles and Skills.” LijZong Learning: The Adult Years, 1983, 6 (5), 7-9. Brockett, R. G. “Developing Written Learning Materials: A Proactive Approach.” Lifelong Learning: A n Omnibus ofpractice and Research, 1984, 7 (5), 16-18, 28. Even, M. J . “Adapting Cognitive Style Theory in Practice.” Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years, 1982, 5 (5), 14-16, 27. Hiernstra, R. Poliy Recommendations Related to Self-Directed Learning. Occasional Paper No. 1. Syracuse, N.Y. : Administrative and Adult Studies, Syracuse University, 1980. Mocker, D. W., and Spear, G. E. Lifelong Learning: Formal, N o n f o m l , Informal, and SelfDirected. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, 1982. Singarella, T. A,, and Sork, T. J . “Questions of Values and Conflict: Ethical Issues for Adult Education.” Adult Education Qmrterb, 1983, 33 (4), 244-251. Smith, R. M . (Ed.). Helping Adults Learn How to Learn. New Directions for Continuing Education, no. 19. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1983. Tough, A. M. The Adult> Learning Projects: A Fresh Approach to Theory and Practice in Adult Learning. Austin, Texas: Learning Concepts, 1979. zyxwvut Ralph G. Brockett is assistant professor o f adult and higher education at Montana State University, Bozeman. When he was on the adult education f a c u l p at Qracuse Universip, he helped to develop the Weekend Scholar program, and he cochaired the Task Force on Self-Directed Learning of the Commission of Professors o f Adult Education. Roger Hiemstra is professor and chair of the Adult Education Program at Syracuse Universip, Syracuse, N e w York. A past president o f the Commission of Professors of Adult Education, he has been actively involved with the editorial boards o f several publications in thejeld o f adult education, and his research and writing on self-directed adult learning have spanned more than a decade.