Higher Order Thinking and Adult Learning

Merriam, S., Baumgartner, L. (2020). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 9781119490487.

Chapter 6 Self-Directed Learning

Since Tough's work on adult learning projects was published in 1971, self-directed learning (SDL) has captured the imagina on of researchers and writers both inside and outside the field of adult educa on. Many schools, colleges, and universi es have used this concept to describe one of the primary goals of their ins tu ons: to enable their students to be lifelong, self-directed learners. Although certainly adults have always learned on their own, serious study of this phenomenon is rela vely recent in comparison to other aspects of learning, such as memory, cogni on, and intelligence (see the chapters in Part IV). This lag is due in part to much of SDL occurring outside of formal ins tu onal se ngs and therefore being so embedded in people's everyday lives as to be invisible. Tied in with this perspec ve is the role of educators of adults. How might we work with learners outside the formal ins tu onal environment? And might we be cu ng into our own “business” as educators if we acknowledge that many adults can learn very effec vely without our assistance? Despite these concerns, the study of SDL has emerged as one of the major thrusts of adult educa on research. There is, in fact, a voluminous literature base to draw from, an annual conference on the topic, and a website (h p://www.sdlglobal.com), which houses, along with other resources, an online journal devoted to SDL.

Tough (1967, 1971), building on the work of Houle (1961/1988) and others, provided the first comprehensive descrip on of SDL as a form of study that he termed self-planned learning. From his research into the learning projects of 66 people from Ontario, Canada, he found that “highly deliberate efforts to learn take place all around you. The members of your family, your neighbors, colleagues, and acquaintances probably ini ate and complete several learning efforts, though you may not be aware of it” (Tough, 1971, p. 3). Wri ng about the same me as Tough, Knowles proposed that one of the hallmark assump ons of adult learning is that learners become increasingly self-directed as they mature (Knowles, 1970, 1980). Knowles's thinking about SDL is grounded in his concept of andragogy, discussed in Chapter 5. Knowles's defini on of SDL con nues to be the most widely cited:

In its broadest meaning, ‘self-directed learning’ describes a process in which individuals take the ini a ve, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formula ng learning goals, iden fying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implemen ng appropriate learning strategies, and evalua ng learning outcomes. (1975, p. 18)

Although in the past there have been challenges to his assump on that most, if not all adult learners strive toward greater self-direc on, there are many who treat it as fact and structure their prac ce accordingly.

Building on the pioneering work of Houle (1961/1988), Tough (1978, 1979), and Knowles (1970, 1975), the earlier research in this arena was primarily descrip ve in nature (Brocke , 1985; Caffarella & O'Donnell, 1987). The emphasis in this early work was on verifying that adults do deliberately learn on their own and on discovering how they go about doing this. Tough's research on SDL became the basis for numerous disserta ons and research studies around the world. In the 1970s and early 1980s a range of specific popula ons were studied using Tough's original or modified interview schedule. These studies, along with surveys of adults (Livingstone, 1999), confirmed the prevalence of SDL in adults' lives. Although there is some variance across these studies in the amount and type of SDL that goes on in the general popula on, we can say without reserva on that the existence of the independent pursuit of learning in adulthood has been well established (Owen, 2002).

Following these descrip ve studies, researchers began offering more in-depth conceptual models (for example, Brocke & Hiemstra, 1991; Candy, 1991; Garrison, 1997). Scholars also ini ated a debate about what the goals of SDL should be (Brocke & Hiemstra, 1991; Brookfield, 1986; Collins, 1988; Mezirow, 1985) and started exploring the personal characteris cs and a ributes of those who are self-directed in their learning (Candy, 1991; Chene, 1983; Oddi, 1986).

Recent Applica ons

Current work in the area of SDL has explored related terms that have been used to describe this phenomenon and/or studied the role of technology in SDL. Among some of the terms used interchangeably with SDL (such as self-planned learning, self-teaching, independent study), Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (2017) claim that SDL

has been subsumed by self-regulated learning. Texts offering methods for developing self- regula on among college students (Nilson, 2013) and among adults in online learning environments (De ori, 2011), are now available. Research using models of self-regulated learning and related strategies are emerging across disciplines. (p. 405)

Further, Teachers College Record's en re “Yearbook Issue” for 2017 is devoted to self-regulated learning (SRL; Michalsky & Schechter, 2017). Basically, “self-regulated learning focuses upon learning that is guided by metacogni on (thinking about one's thinking)” (Ross-Gordon, Rose, & Kasworm, 2017, p. 228).

SDL is a somewhat broader concept than SRL in that SDL is taking responsibility for one's learning whereas SRL “is highly strategic and uses a variety of key cogni ve and metacogni ve processes to ensure that the intended learning is achieved”. Further,

an effec ve SDL must be an effec ve SRL, using a variety of key SRL processes to achieve their self-iden fied chosen goals (Brydges et al. 2010). However, an effec ve SRL is frequently not a SDL, with learning goals being externally formulated by their teacher. (Gandomkar & Sandars, 2018, p. 862)

Saks and Leijen (2014) reviewed 30 empirical studies of SDL and SRL in an e-learning environment no ng “the tangled use of terms, especially in the ar cles on SDL” and that the e- learning environment of these studies had not in itself affected “the use of terms SDL and SRL” (p. 197).

In our increasingly technological world, self-directedness and SDL have become more important and more visible. King (2017) makes the case that technology both promotes and enhances SDL:

SDL is emerging as a popular strategy for learning technology … . One realizes that it is physically impossible to a end teacher-led classes for every new piece of equipment, device, technology tool, program, applica on, or version one encounters in a given month. In order to survive in a rapidly changing technology environment, adults have to master the ability to iden fy their learning needs, strategies, resources, and get started.Concomitantly, with rapid technology development has been a rapid prolifera on and distribu on of resources to assist in technology learning. From work to home and recrea on, consider how frequently many people turn to on- demand videos (such as we find in YouTube) to learn how to use entertainment and household devices as well as simple and complex equipment and programs. (pp. 89–90)

King concludes that “in adults' everyday lives, the self-directed characteris c of andragogy has reached mainstream adop on, because it has ridden the wave of technology innova on” (p. 90)

In reviewing this rich array of work on SDL, we have grouped the literature into three broad categories, each outlining a major facet of SDL. We report first on literature that explores the goals of SDL. We then examine research that describes SDL as a process or form of study. Third, we review self-directedness as a personal a ribute of the learner. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of recent applica ons of SDL and the important challenges to be considered in building future research and theory in SDL.

Goals of Self-Directed Learning

O en defined by the underlying philosophical posi on of the writer, the three main goals of SDL can be categorized as follows: (a) to enhance the ability of adult learners to be self-directed in

their learning, (b) to foster transforma onal learning as central to SDL, and (c) to promote emancipatory learning and social ac on as an integral part of SDL.

The first goal, to enhance the ability of adults to be self-directed in their learning, has stemmed primarily from the work of Knowles (1980) and Tough (1979). This ability to be self-directed in one's learning is conceived as both a set of personal a ributes and specific skills (Brocke & Hiemstra, 1991; Caffarella, 2000; Caffarella & O'Donnell, 1989). Within this goal, the assump on is that part of the job of educators of adults is to help learners, whether they are learning on their own or in formal learning programs, to be able to plan, carry out, and evaluate their own learning. For example, in the independent pursuit of learning, educators might provide assistance to individuals or groups of learners in loca ng resources or mastering alterna ve learning strategies. The learners themselves would seek out this assistance, perhaps in nonformal or informal learning se ngs or through technology pla orms. However, adult educators might also recognize that

Adult students are not all automa cally self-direc ng merely by virtue of being adults, or even easily trained to become so. Educators seeking self-direc on from their adult students are not merely asking them to take on new skills, modify their learning style, or increase their self- confidence. They are asking many of them to change the whole way they understand themselves, their world, and the rela onship between the two. They are asking many of them to put at risk the loyal es and devo ons that have made up the very founda on of their lives. (Kegan, 2018, p. 44)

Of course, as some writers point out, we cannot wait un l adulthood to begin developing self- directed lifelong learners. This goal is something that needs to be a ended to at all levels of schooling from primary educa on through university and professional training (Schrader-Naef, 2000; Williams, 2001). This first goal has spawned the majority of research in SDL.

Goal One is grounded primarily in humanis c philosophy, which posits personal growth as the goal of adult learning. Brocke and Hiemstra (1991, pp. 26–27), for example, have stated that their model of SDL, the Personal Responsibility Orienta on (PRO) model, is based on three fundamental ideas espoused by this philosophy: “[T]hat human nature is basically good, … that individuals possess virtually unlimited poten al for growth … [and] that only by accep ng responsibility for one's own learning is it possible to take a proac ve approach to the learning process.” Accep ng responsibility and being proac ve take into account two other tenets of humanis c philosophy: personal autonomy and free will to make individual choices.

Goal Two, to foster transforma onal learning as central to SDL, is found primarily in the work of Mezirow (1985) and Brookfield (1985, 1986). Mezirow (1985, p. 27) suggests that

there is probably no such thing as a self-directed learner, except in the sense that there is a learner who can par cipate fully and freely in the dialogue through which we test our interests and perspec ves against those of others and accordingly modify them and our learning goals.

In essence, adults need to reflect cri cally and have an understanding of the historical, cultural, and biographical reasons for their needs, wants, and interests. “Such self-knowledge is a prerequisite for autonomy in self-directed learning” (p. 27). For Mezirow, the “key” to self- directedness is “becoming cri cally aware of what has been taken for granted about one's own learning” (p. 17). For example, in a study by Van Wyk (2017) student teachers' use of ePor olios was found to be an “empowering tool” to enhance SDL in an online teacher educa on course. Taylor (2008) also explored the connec ons between SDL and transforma ve learning and found “a large number of characteris cs … to be common to both learning approaches” (p. 23).

Brookfield (1985, 1986) echoes Mezirow's ideas by calling on adult educators to dis nguish clearly between the techniques of SDL and the internal change in consciousness. More specifically, Brookfield (1986, p. 38) asserted that “the most complete form of SDL occurs when process and reflec on are married in the adult's pursuit of meaning.” The cri cal reflec on component of the second goal is founda onal to the third goal of SDL: promo ng emancipatory learning and social ac on. It can be argued that cri cal reflec on in SDL is at the heart of breakthroughs in many fields. Vogt (2014) makes the case that Einstein and the Wright Brothers were self-directed, transforma ve change agents and that “SDL driven by wonder, curiosity, and vision, are characterized by originality, contribu on, and the ah-hah experience” (p. 226).

Writers advancing Goal Three have been some of the strongest cri cs of the first goal of SDL: enhancing the ability of individual learners to be more self-directed in their learning. The heart of their cri cism is that this first goal is too narrow, with the focus of that goal being primarily instrumental learning and assis ng individual learners. As Brookfield and Holst (2014) write, “A self-directed learning stance focused on the individual as a fully integrated being disconnected from broader social currents also allows wider beliefs, norms and structures to remain unchallenged and thereby reinforces the status quo” (p. 7); further, “a separa st concep on of self-direc on severs the connec on between private troubles and wider social and poli cal trends” (p. 8). In contrast, authors who support the goal of promo ng emancipatory learning and social ac on want included not only the examina on by learners of the sociopoli cal assump ons under which they learn and func on, but also the incorpora on of collec ve ac on as an outcome. Collins (1996) emphasizes the importance of having an “unequivocal focus of emancipa on as a core concern” in the study of SDL and adult learning in general (p. 119). By this Collins means that par cipatory research methods should be used to foster democra c and open dialogue about SDL, and ethical and poli cal concerns about SDL should be a part of this dialogue. To foster the study of this cri cal prac ce of SDL, Brookfield and Holst (2014) suggest

that researchers use cri cal theory and interpre ve and par cipatory research approaches. An example of this orienta on is a study by Andruske (2003) wherein she inves gated the SDL projects of women on welfare. She found that the women became “poli cal change agents” who took “control and power back from experts, agencies, and ins tu ons” (p. 16). Their “SDL led to greater social jus ce for them and others in their communi es” (p. 16).

In this same vein, Brookfield (1993, p. 227) asserts that “any authen c exercise of self- directedness requires that certain poli cal condi ons be in place.” More specifically, Brookfield argues first that having learners exercise control over all educa onal decisions needs to be a consistent element of SDL. As such, educators of adults in formal and nonformal se ngs need to shi to learners as much control as possible in the learning process. Brookfield views this shi as difficult to accomplish in se ngs where the culture itself is highly controlling, such as some higher educa on ins tu ons or corporate environments. Therefore, he asserts that educators

might decide to work collec vely at changing the poli cal culture of ins tu ons…. Control from this perspec ve would be seen in our coming to understand the origins, func oning and contradic ons of the system and in our working to change or replace it with one that honors our daily ac vi es as educators. (1993, p. 235)

Second, Brookfield calls for more easily accessible and adequate resources so that learners can more readily exercise control over their learning, especially learners who have been denied access to resources because of cost or preferen al treatment for privileged groups.

It should be noted that although we have iden fied three goals of SDL, the actual conduct of a SDL project is likely to encompass more than one goal. In Andruske's (2003) study cited previously, the women became be er self-directed learners as well as change agents in their community. Likewise, in a study of explorers, scien sts, inventors, and social ac vists who changed our world, Guglielmino et al. (2009) found that not only were they highly self-directed in their learning, they had “a strong sense of social responsibility and desire to contribute to the well-being of others that drove many of their self-directed learning efforts” (abstract, p. 11).

Self-Directed Learning as a Process

SDL as a process of learning, in which people take the primary ini a ve for planning, carrying out, and evalua ng their own learning experiences, has received a great deal of a en on in the literature. We contend, as described in Chapter 2, that this form of learning can take place both inside and outside ins tu onally based learning programs, especially in today's high-tech environment. For the most part, however, being self-directed in one's learning is a natural part of adult life. Within this category of SDL as a process, three types of models—linear, interac ve, and instruc onal—have been extensively discussed in the literature. In the next three

subsec ons we set out descrip ons and cri ques of the most prominent models of SDL. These models represent a mixture of conceptual, empirical, and experien ally derived views of the process of SDL.

Linear Models

The early models of SDL, those proposed by Tough (1971) and Knowles (1975), were linear in nature. Learners moved through a series of steps in a self-directed manner to reach their learning goals. The resul ng frameworks of the learning process for these models included many elements of the tradi onal teaching process.

Tough (1967, 1971, 1979) proposed the first comprehensive descrip on of SDL, which he termed self-planned learning. Drawing on a study of the learning projects of 66 people from Ontario, Canada, he found that 70% of all learning projects were planned by the learners themselves. He defined a learning project as

a highly deliberate effort to gain and retain certain definite knowledge and skill, or to change in some other way. To be included, a series of related learning sessions (episodes in which the person's primary inten on was to learn) must add up to at least seven hours. (Tough, 1978, p. 250)

Tough found that learners used 13 steps in self-planned learning projects, represen ng key decision-making points about choosing what, where, and when to learn along with deciding on resources for learning, detec ng possible barriers to learning, and so on.

To foster SDL, Knowles (1975) proposed the use of learning contracts. Learning contracts consist of six major steps: (a) climate se ng, (b) diagnosing learning needs, (c) formula ng learning goals, (d) iden fying human and material resources for learning, (e) choosing and implemen ng appropriate learning strategies, and (f) evalua ng learning outcomes. His steps are somewhat similar to those proposed by Tough (1979). Knowles includes numerous resources for both learners and teachers for comple ng each of these tasks. Although the work of Tough and Knowles “has provided the language, the concepts, and more importantly the descrip ve terms for key elements and processes of self-planned learning” (Kasworm, 1992, p. 56), other scholars have conceptualized different processes.

Interac ve Models

A second portrait of SDL is that this learning process is not so well planned or linear in nature. Rather, there is an emphasis on two or more factors, such as opportuni es people find in their own environments, the personality characteris cs of learners, cogni ve processes, and the context of learning, which collec vely interact to form episodes of SDL. Three such models are

discussed as illustra ve of the work in this arena: the models of Spear (1988), Brocke and Hiemstra (1991), and Garrison (1997).

Spear's Model

Spear (1988), building on his earlier work with Mocker (Spear & Mocker, 1984), presented a model that rests on three elements: the opportuni es people find in their own environments, past or new knowledge, and chance occurrences. These factors come together around an “organizing circumstance” that drives the SDL process. This model of the SDL process is much more spontaneous than linear in that “the learner doesn't invest in significant preplanning, but rather seeks out a SDL journey based in limited possibili es present in their environment” (Ross- Gordon et al., 2017, p. 226). For example, a move from an apartment to a single-family residence affords an opportunity to pursue gardening. This fortuitous ac on in conjunc on with some prior knowledge of gardening, perhaps in combina on with a chance encounter with an old friend who is an accomplished gardener, results in an SDL project.

Spear also concluded from his study that SDL projects do not generally occur in a linear fashion—that is, one cluster does not necessarily bear any rela on to the next cluster. Rather, informa on gathered through one set of ac vi es (one cluster) is stored un l it fits in with other ideas and resources on the same topic gleaned from one or more addi onal clusters of ac vi es. A successful SDL project is one in which a person can engage in a sufficient number of relevant clusters of learning ac vi es and then assemble these clusters into a coherent whole. Spear (1988, p. 217) concludes, “The learner is perhaps in greatest control when the assembling of the clusters begins and decisions are made regarding what knowledge is of most and least importance.”

Although only a few studies have been conducted using all or parts of Spear's framework (for example, Berger, 1990; Padberg, 1994), other researchers have come to similar conclusions in their work. Danis and Tremblay (1987, 1988), for example, who studied 10 long-term adult learners, found that their respondents were able to specify learning goals only when they had mastered certain knowledge or skills, and that in general these learners went about learning on their own using mul ple approaches as opposed to only one approach. In addi on, they noted that the impact of random events stood out in that these learners took advantage of any opportuni es offered to them. Berger (1990), in her study of 20 white males with no formal degrees beyond high school, found li le evidence that her subjects did any preplanning in their SDL ac vi es. Her subjects “constantly redefined their projects, changed course, and followed new paths of interest as they proceeded” (p. 176). In essence, the majority of her respondents adopted a trial-and-error approach, with an emphasis on hands-on experience and prac ce, guiding themselves by both their successes and their mistakes as they moved on to new levels of learning.

Brocke and Hiemstra's Model

In their PRO model, Brocke and Hiemstra (1991, p. 26) provided a framework for what they term self-direc on in learning, which comprises “both instruc onal method processes (self- directed learning) and personality characteris cs of the individual learner (learner self- direc on).” In the instruc onal processes dimension, learners assume primary responsibility for planning, implemen ng, and evalua ng their learning experiences. The authors note that “an educa onal agent or resource o en plays a facilita ng role in this process” (p. 24). In this facilita on role, instructors must possess skills in helping learners do needs assessments, locate learning resources, and choose instruc onal methods and evalua on strategies. Many of these skills have been discussed in previous literature on SDL (for example, Knowles, 1975, and Tough, 1979) and are stressed in their model, with an emphasis on the interac ve nature of the teaching and learning process.

Their second dimension, related to the personality characteris cs of individual learners, “centers on a learner's desire or preference for assuming responsibility for learning” (Brocke & Hiemstra, 1991, p. 24). The no on of personal responsibility, which they define as “individuals assuming ownership for their own thoughts and ac ons” (p. 26), is the point of departure for understanding their concept of self-direc on in adult learning. Their concept of personal responsibility is grounded in the concepts of humanism and human poten al. Although they agree that individual learners are central to the idea of self-direc on, they also regard the context, or social milieu, in which that learning ac vity transpires as important. In acknowledging these contextual factors, they recognize the importance of situa onal factors in the SDL process, which mirrors others' descrip ons of the process of SDL.

A er more than two decades of research and cri ques of their PRO model, Hiemstra and Brocke (2012) proposed a revision, the Person Process Context (PPC) model. This model retains the essence of the PRO model but has (a) a empted to streamline the language of the earlier model and (b) placed context on an equal foo ng with the person and process elements of SDL. In this model the person or learner, the process and the social context are equally important. They write that SDL is

most effec ve…when the person, process, and context are in balance. In other words, the learner is highly self-directed, the teaching-learning process is set up in a way that encourages learners to take control of their own learning, and the sociopoli cal context and the learning environment support the climate for self-directed learning, (p. 159)

One outgrowth of the PRO model was the development of an instrument to assess the two components (teaching-learning and learner characteris cs) of the model. Stockdale's (2003) 35

item Personal Responsibility Orienta on to Self-Direc on in Learning Scale (PRO-SDLS) was found to be highly reliable with the sample of graduate and undergraduate educa on students.

Since its development, the PRO-SDLRS has been used in a number of studies including research designed to look at the rela onship between self-direc on and sa sfac on with an online higher educa on course (Fogerson, 2005), construc vism in computer educa on programming (Gaspar, Langevin, Boyer, & Armitage, 2009), SDL characteris cs of first-genera on students in a summer bridge program (Hall, 2011), use of technology for individuals entering the workforce (Holt, 2011), informa on literacy (Conner, 2012), SDL among midlevel army officers (Carlisle & Fishback, 2015), confidence to integrate technology into the classroom among preservice teachers (Beard, 2016), grit (Ru encu er, 2018), resilience (Beeler, 2018), and a tudes toward con nuing educa on among community college allied health students (Hall, 2018).

S ll another development that is at least in part an offshoot of Brocke and Hiemstra's work on SDL is the possibility of a connec on between elements of SDL and constructs from the area of posi ve psychology. Teal, Vess, and Ambrose (2015) created a model that integrates elements of both SDL and posi ve psychology. In addi on, several studies have addressed linkages between SDL and select posi ve psychology concepts. Vess (2015) found a rela onship between SDL and gra tude. Dieffenderfer (2014) found SDL to be related to hope in the workplace se ng. Ru encu er (2018) reported a correla on between SDL and grit. Finally, Beeler (2018) found a strong rela onship between SDL and resilience. Although not all of these studies u lized the PRO-SDLS, each drew from the PRO/PPC model as part of their conceptual framework.

Garrison's Model

Garrison (1997) has proposed a mul dimensional and interac ve model of SDL. His model (see Figure 6.1), grounded in a “collabora ve construc vist” perspec ve, “integrates self- management (contextual control), self-monitoring (cogni ve responsibility) and mo va onal (entering and task) dimensions to reflect a meaningful and worthwhile approach to self-directed learning” (p. 18).

The first dimension, self-management, acknowledges the social milieu in which learners are interac ng, whether they are in formal or informal se ngs. It involves learners taking control of and shaping the contextual condi ons so that they can reach their stated goals and objec ves. “Control,” says Garrison, does not translate into social independence or freedom from influence. Educa onal self-management concerns the use of learning materials within a context where there is opportunity for sustained communica on. Self-management of learning in an educa onal context must consider the opportunity to test and confirm understanding collabora vely (1997, p. 23), which translates into increased responsibili es for the learner.

“The next two dimensions of the model—self-monitoring and mo va on—represent the cogni ve dimensions of self-directed learning” (1997, p. 24), which Garrison believes have been given li le a en on in the literature on SDL. Self-monitoring describes the ability of learners to be able to monitor both their cogni ve and metacogni ve processes, which includes their being able to use a repertoire of learning strategies and the ability to think about their thinking. “Self- monitoring is synonymous with responsibility to construct meaning … [and] is very much associated with the ability to be reflec ve and think cri cally” (pp. 24–25). The mo va onal dimension involves what influences people to par cipate or enter into a SDL ac vity and what keeps them par cipa ng in the ac vity or task: “Mo va on and responsibility are reciprocally related and both are facilitated by collabora ve control of the educa onal transac on” (p. 29). Garrison observes that self-monitoring and mo va on need to be explored in much greater detail by those studying SDL.

Other Models

A number of other interac ve models of the SDL process have been introduced into the literature. A er conduc ng a case study of how the Wright brothers learned to fly, Cavaliere

(1992) iden fied five stages of a learning project—inquiring, modeling, experimen ng, theorizing, and actualizing. Within each of these steps were four cogni ve processes. Her model, though not tested, is provoca ve in describing the stages of the process as well as the cogni ve elements that cut across the stages.

Danis's (1992) “framework” for studying SDL incorporates research from SDL, self-instruc on, and learning and study strategies. The main components thus consist of learning strategies, phases of the learning ac vity, the content of the learning, learner or collec ve learner characteris cs, and the external context of the learning ac vity. Unlike the other models reviewed, Danis explicitly takes into account the context as well as the poten al of self-taught groups of learners. A study (Rager, 2003) of the SDL of women with breast cancer underscores the importance of context and seems to fit well with Danis's framework. Rager's study uncovered the emo onal context as cri cal in shaping par cipants' SDL:

As reported by the par cipants, emo ons interfered with their ability to begin learning and their ability to make use of some resources, influenced their reac ons to some of the informa on they did find, and impaired their ability to stay focused. (2003, p. 290)

Other models of the SDL process can be found in studies of specific popula ons or topics. For example, Valente (2005) studied the SDL process of older adults who managed their own health care. Her model begins with a “health event.” Once a health event is diagnosed, the cycle of SDL begins. Health care professionals are consulted, which s mulates the older adult to acquire and assess informa on, followed by choosing a treatment op on. The treatment is monitored and reflected upon and adjustments in lifestyle or treatment or both are made. The cycle then repeats itself as the learner acquires and assesses more informa on, o en in consulta on with health care professionals.

Roberson and Merriam (2005) also uncovered a process of SDL in their study of rural older adults. The process begins with an incen ve, o en related to late-life changes, to learn; if the person has an interest in the topic or ac vity, he or she will pursue it. Next, resources are accessed and systema c a en on and me are given to the project. Adjustments are made as the project progresses. An interes ng component of the process is that the mo va on and intensity to learn are o en enhanced by a catalyst, such as another person s mula ng interest, or a late-life change in family or health.

Instruc onal Models

The third category of SDL models represents frameworks that instructors in formal se ngs could use to integrate self-directed methods of learning into their programs and ac vi es. Two models are highlighted that were designed with formal se ngs in mind: those of Grow (1991) and of Hammond and Collins (1991/2016).

Grow's (1991, 1994) Staged Self-Directed Learning (SSDL) model outlines how teachers can help students become more self-directed in their learning. Grow, who grounded his model in the situa onal leadership model of Hersey and Blanchard (1988), describes four dis nct stages of learners:

Stage 1: Dependent learner. Learners of low self-direc on who need an authority figure (a teacher) to tell them what to do.

Stage 2: Interested learner. Learners of moderate self-direc on who are mo vated and confident but largely ignorant of the subject ma er to be learned.

Stage 3: Involved learner. Learners of intermediate self-direc on who have both the skill and the basic knowledge and view themselves as being both ready and able to explore a specific subject area with a good guide.

Stage 4: Self-directed learner. Learners of high self-direc on who are both willing and able to plan, execute, and evaluate their own learning with or without the help of an expert.

At each of these stages, Grow outlines possible roles for the teacher or facilitator. Figure 6.2 shows how the four types of learners, four roles of the facilitator, and appropriate instruc onal methods are interrelated. Grow also explores the problems that may arise when there is a mismatch between the role or style of the teacher and the learning stage of the par cipants. Grow emphasizes that good teachers individualize their teaching strategies to match the learners' stage of self-direc on and allow the students to become more self-directed in their learning. Therefore, integra ng SDL as a way to organize learning experiences is situa onal in nature.

Grow's model seems to resonate with many in formal instruc onal se ngs who seek to promote more autonomy on the part of the learner. For example, DeMaris (2012) used Grow's model in teaching adult avoca onal voice students; Carpenter (2012) applied his framework to enhancing self-direc on in the online and face-to-face classroom, and Jons-Cox (2014) employed Grow's model with osteopathic medical students in their learning of osteopathic manipula ve techniques.

The instruc onal model proposed by Hammond and Collins (1991/2016) is the only model that explicitly addresses the goal of promo ng emancipatory learning and social ac on as a central tenet of SDL. Grounding their work in studies of cri cal pedagogy, popular educa on, and par cipatory research, these authors have outlined a seven-component framework for assis ng learners in formal se ngs to engage in the cri cal prac ce of adult educa on. In their model, learners take the ini a ve for:

Figure 6.2 Applying the Staged Self-Direc on Model to a course.

SOURCE: Grow, 1991, p. 143. Reprinted by permission.

Building a coopera ve learning climate

Analyzing and cri cally reflec ng on themselves and the social, economic, and poli cal contexts in which they are situated

Genera ng competency profiles for themselves

Diagnosing their learning needs within the framework of both the personal and social context

Formula ng socially and personally relevant learning goals that result in learning agreements

Implemen ng and managing their learning

Reflec ng on and evalua ng their learning

What makes their model different from Knowles's and other process models is the purposeful inclusion of the cri cal perspec ve through the examina on of the social, poli cal, and environmental contexts that affect their learning, and the emphasis on developing both personal and social learning goals. Although greater control of the learning process is what Hammond and Collins see as the immediate goal for learners using their model of cri cal SDL, their “ul mate goal is to empower learners to use their learning to improve the condi ons under which they and those around them live and work” (1991/2016, p. 14).

While not using a par cular instruc onal model, Murad, Coto-Yglesias, Varkey, Prokop, and Murad (2010) reviewed 59 studies to determine the effec veness of employing SDL strategies in health professions educa on. They concluded that “SDL in health professions educa on is associated with moderate improvement in the knowledge domain compared with tradi onal teaching methods” and that “when learners were involved in choosing learning resources, SDL was more effec ve” (p. 1057). In yet another study that supports the inclusion of SDL in formal instruc onal se ngs, Morris (2018) found that in voca onal training programs in England, outstanding programs “reflected a collabora ve rela onship between teacher and learner in direc ng the learning process” whereas inadequate programs were “overwhelmingly teacher- directed” (abstract, p. 1).

Self-Direc on as a Personal A ribute of Learners

An important focus in the research literature on SDL has been self-directedness as a personal a ribute or characteris c of the learner. The assump on underlying much of this work is that learning in adulthood means becoming more self-directed and autonomous. Recall that one of Knowles's (1980, p. 43) four major tenets of andragogy is that mature “adults have a deep psychological need to be generally self-direc ng.” Brocke and Hiemstra (1991) echo Knowles's assump on in that they see a link between learner self-direc on, which they define as characteris cs of learners that predispose them toward taking primary responsibility for their own learning, and a posi ve self-concept. Tennant and Pogson (1995/2002) have asserted that “the idea of autonomous or self-directed learning is firmly entrenched in contemporary thinking about adult educa on” (p. 121). Tennant (2012) has in fact explored numerous concep ons of the “self” with an eye to the “‘technologies of the self’ adopted by teachers and others in the helping professions to promote learning for personal change” (p. viii).

Research into the nature of the self-directed learner asks the who and what ques ons: Are these learners introverts or extroverts? What is their learning style? What level of educa on have they achieved, and does this affect their ability to be self-directed? Are they more

autonomous than other learners? How do we know if learners are ready for self-directed ways of learning? Basically, researchers are trying to gain an understanding of the typical self-directed learner's characteris cs or a ributes and the arenas of our lives ranging from formal to informal se ngs where we exercise self-direc on (see for example, Stebbins's [2017] study of SDL and “complex leisure” ac vi es). More specifically, researchers have tried to link a number of different variables, such as learning style, level of educa on, or life sa sfac on, with being self- directed in one's learning. Findings from these studies have been, for the most part, inconclusive. The focus on SDL as a personal a ribute has also been studied with the use of instruments assessing the presence of self-direc on as a trait, and of the readiness to be self- directed; further discussions center on the concept of autonomy and its rela onship to self- direc on.

Assessing Self-Directedness

Two instruments, the Oddi Con nuing Learning Inventory (OCLI) and the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS), have been used to assess aspects of self-directedness in learners. The OCLI is a 24-item Likert scale that measures one's self-directedness as a personality trait (Oddi, 1986; Oddi, Ellis, & Roberson, 1990). More than 25 variables have been posi vely correlated with self-directedness as measured by the OCLI; some of these variables are self-efficacy, self- concept, personal responsibility, on-the-job learning, grade point average, and le brain hemisphericity (Owen, 2002). It might be men oned that the OCLI was developed by a nurse educator par cularly interested in par cipa on in con nuing professional educa on (CPE); hence, a number of studies with the OCLI are in areas of CPE.

Readiness, which implies an internal state of psychological readiness to undertake SDL, has received the most a en on in data-based studies of SDL (Guglielmino, 1997). Guglielmino (1977) states that readiness for SDL consists of a complex of a tudes, values, and abili es that create the likelihood that an individual is capable of SDL. She iden fies the psychological quali es involved in readiness for SDL as ini a ve, independence, and persistence in learning; acceptance of responsibility for one's own learning; self-discipline; a high degree of curiosity; a strong ability to learn independently; enjoyment of learning; a tendency to be goal oriented; and a tendency to view problems as challenges rather than obstacles. These quali es undergird her SDLRS. There are three versions of the SDLRS (also referred to as the Learning Preference Assessment): one for adults, one specifically adapted for non-na ve English speakers, and one for elementary school students. Each of these is available online in English for individual or group administra on (h p://lpasdlrs.com). The adult form has been translated into 23 languages, of which there are two versions, one of them a self-scoring version (the Learning Preference Assessment).

The SDLRS is the most frequently used quan ta ve measure in studies of self-directed learning. Examined in studies using the SDLRS are a wide range of issues from rela ng readiness for SDL with job sa sfac on, course grades, occupa on, self-concept, life sa sfac on, job performance, and so on (Owen, 2002). Many of these studies are correla onal, examining the rela onship of SDLRS scores with scores on other instruments. For example, in a report of three disserta ons using the SDLRS, one correlated the SDLRS with a scale measuring cross-cultural adaptability, another correlated the SDLRS with a learning style instrument, and the third used a scale measuring crea vity (Beswick, Chuprina, Canipe, & Cox, 2002). All three studies found posi ve rela onships between SDL readiness scores and scores on the instruments measuring cross- cultural adaptability, learning styles, and crea vity. However, a recent study correla ng doctoral students' scores on the SDLRS with their preference for online versus tradi onal courses found no sta s cal differences; that is, preference for one or the other course structure was unrelated to SDLRS scores (Van Duyne, 2017).

There are numerous studies using the SDLRS in health and medical-related areas. For example, Findley and Bulik (2011) found “modest” rela onships between SDL readiness scores and knowledge-based and performance-based measures of success in medical students, and Payne, Rundquist, Harper, and Gahimer (2013) found that physical therapy students increased in SDL readiness a er their clinical educa on experience. Slaughter (2009) was able to confirm that doctor of pharmacy students with high SDLRS scores had higher on- me gradua on rates and higher grade point averages than those with lower SDLRS scores.

Guglielmino and colleagues feel that “individual readiness for self-directed learning could be an important factor in matching certain types of jobs with applicants seeking those jobs” (Guglielmino & Roberts, 1992, p. 271) and that “employees who score lower in readiness for self-directed learning should be given opportuni es to become effec ve self-directed learners” (Durr, Guglielmino, & Guglielmino, 1996, p. 355).

Autonomy and Self-Directedness: Innate or Situa onal?

The rela onship of autonomy and self-directedness in learning has been discussed primarily at the conceptual level. Chene (1983), for example, defines three elements that describe an autonomous learner: independence, the ability to make choices and cri cal judgments, and the capacity to ar culate the norms and limits of a learning society. Candy (1991) adds to Chene's no on of the autonomous learner by characterizing autonomous people as those with a strong sense of personal values and beliefs. These values and beliefs give them a solid founda on for conceiving goals and plans, exercising free choice, using ra onal reflec on, having the willpower to follow through, and exercising self-restraint and self-discipline. The same overarching concepts of independent thinking, self-responsibility, and control over ac ons of learning are

also highlighted by Brocke and Hiemstra (1991), Garrison (1992), and Tennant and Pogson (1995/2002).

Autonomy, however, is not necessarily context free; there is a rela onship between the personal and situa onal variables that must come into play for a person to be autonomous in certain learning situa ons. Knowles (1975, 1980) was the first to express the importance of context in his descrip ons of andragogy. He qualified his asser on that adults are naturally self- direc ng when he observed that people move toward self-directedness at differing rates and not necessarily in all dimensions of life and that in some situa ons adults may need to be at least “temporarily dependent” in learning situa ons. For example, when coping with a crisis, such as a flood or an earthquake, people may need or want to rely on the informa on and direc on of others, both during the event itself and at least for a me in the a ermath of the event. This same sen ment, that even those adults who can and want to be self-directed in their learning may choose not to exhibit or pursue this characteris c at certain mes, has been expressed by a number of authors (Brocke & Hiemstra, 1991; Candy, 1987, 1991; Pra , 1988; Tennant & Pogson, 1995/2002).

One study has confirmed the situa onal characteris c of autonomy in SDL (Poulton, Derrick, & Carr, 2005). Using a path-analy c model rela ng resourcefulness and persistence in SDL of 492 adults, the authors found that although adults might intend to persist in valued learning ac vi es, they o en do not choose to engage in such ac vi es. They a ribute this to the nature of adulthood:

Although an adult may an cipate the future rewards of present learning and even priori ze such learning over nonlearning ac vi es in terms of value a ribu on, the lawn may need mowing, the kids may need to be taken to soccer prac ce, or perhaps a friend may need consoling now…. The exhibi on of autonomy is presently argued as domain specific. That is, one can be an autonomous lawn mower or an autonomous learner. (p. 124)

Four major variables appear to have the most influence on whether individual adult learners exhibit autonomous behavior in learning situa ons: their technical skills related to the learning process, their familiarity with the subject ma er, their sense of personal competence as learners, and their commitment to learning at this point in me.

Since this combina on will vary from situa on to situa on, a learner's autonomy is also likely to vary from one context to another, and educators must avoid the automa c assump on that simply because a person has successfully learned something in the past either in an instruc onal se ng or outside it, he or she will be able to succeed in a new area: Orienta on, support and guidance may all be required in the first stages of a learning project. (Candy, 1991, p. 309)

In addi on, moving from an individual to more of a collec ve context, Candy (1991) and Tennant and Pogson (1995/2002) posit that the socially constructed nature of the self and knowledge may also limit adults' capacity for autonomy or self-directedness in learning. Adults, in part, are their historical and cultural selves and o en find themselves in learning situa ons where others around them determine what is worth knowing and how that knowledge should be used.

In a similar vein, Boucouvalas (2009) has challenged the exclusive emphasis on the autonomous self as only a par al explana on of what sel ood is all about. Although autonomy reflects independence and uniqueness, homonomy is the idea that “as individuals we are also embedded in rela onships, groups, communi es and cultures, na ons, and society-at-large. As well, beyond these affilia ons, the en re human species shares a global iden ty as ci zens of planet earth” (p. 4). The prime mo va ons for the autonomous self are “achievement and self- governance” (p. 4), whereas par cipa on in something beyond the individual self is the mo va on for the homonomous (connected) self. With regard to SDL, Boucouvalas calls for

a balance between autonomous and homonomous drives. Both can operate simultaneously. In our globalized world it is balance between an individualized sense of self-mo va on/direc on and that of a larger sense of self that is called for. That which brings about balance in one culture, however, may differ in another….Both trajectories of development are part of what it means to be human. (p. 8)

Other writers in SDL concur with Boucouvalas's observa on and call for further explora on of the social and cultural aspects of self-directedness and the concept of interdependence in the learning process (Ahteenmaki-Pelkonen, 1994; Brown, 2000; Eneau, 2008; Nah, 2000; Rowland & Volet, 1996). Nah (2000), for example, points out that for Koreans to cul vate self- directedness and independence “without being interdependent passes for immaturity or self- centeredness” (p. 18). Giving wider recogni on to this connected or interdependent part of the self may allow for a fuller explana on of the collabora ve aspects of SDL referred to by Tough (1978, 1979), Knowles (1975), and Caffarella (1993) in ac vi es such as teamwork, shared resources, and peer networks.

Applica ons of SDL and Building Research and Theory

Con nuing research and wri ng in SDL demonstrate an interest in the concept's applicability to lifelong learning, human resource development (HRD), and online learning. Schrader-Naef (2000) makes the case that to implement lifelong learning in society, “schools of all levels have to set the founda ons for self-directed lifelong learning and adult educa on has to build on those founda ons” (p. 143). No longer can educa onal systems “hand on knowledge to the next genera ons”; rather, schools from primary through university must “develop the condi ons,

founda ons and mo va on” for people to see learning as “their own responsibility and mo va on” (p. 144). In keeping with Schrader-Naef's recommenda on, SDL is being promoted and studied at all levels of educa on as, for example, second graders and their par cipa on in computer-supported SDL for mathema cs (Lao, Cheng, Huang, Ku, & Chan, 2017), SDL on a high school robo cs team (Dolenc, Mitchell, & Tai, 2014), self-directed and SRL in voca onal educa on (Jossberger, Brand-Gruwel, Boshuizen, & Van deWiel, 2010), and a study that revealed a posi ve effect of team-based learning on undergraduate students' SDL (Janoth, 2015).

The professions in par cular are recognizing the importance of developing prac oners to be lifelong learners. Nowadays, formal training is only a beginning; knowledge is accumula ng at such a fast rate that one must con nue to learn to be effec ve. Indeed, most professions mandate that their members con nue learning in order to maintain their license to prac ce. SDL ac vi es, such as journal reading and online courses, are growing in acceptance as one form of CPE (Cole & Glass, 2004). Research to be er understand the nature of SDL in professional lives is another form. Embo, Driessen, Valcke, and Van der Vleuten (2014), for example, offer a framework to facilitate SDL, assessment, and supervision in midwifery prac ce. Sipe (1995) studied experimentally “open” teachers and found that they valued SDL, collabora on, reflec on, and challenge; risk taking in their learning was seen as an opportunity, not a threat. In a review of the literature on barriers and facilitators to SDL in con nuing professional development for physicians in Canada, Jeong et al. (2018) found five factors that func oned as both barriers and facilitators to SDL: individual, program, technologies, environmental, and workplace/organiza onal. Dunlap and Grabinger (2003) make the case that in order to prepare students in higher educa on to be lifelong learners, we must develop their capacity for self-direc on, metacogni ve awareness, and a disposi on toward learning. They propose three teaching strategies to facilitate these ends: problem-based learning (PBL), inten onal learning environments, and cogni ve appren ceships. Similar to Dunlap and Grabinger's work is Bolhuis's (2003) process-oriented teaching for self-directed lifelong learning. He argues that because learning is a social phenomenon, even in SDL we need to consider how the social context, prior knowledge, and emo onal aspects of learning foster self-directed lifelong learning.

The role of SDL in HRD prac ce is also drawing a en on. Some propose how SDL can be harnessed to address the needs of the organiza on. For example, Piskurich (1993, p. 330) defined SDL as “a training design in which trainees master packages of predetermined material, at their own pace, without the aid of an instructor,” no ng that there is li le choice in learning objec ves on the trainees' part, par cularly in technical and skills training. Smith (2002) also advances this u litarian no on of SDL by poin ng out that “there is considerable commercial value in encouraging employees” to be self-directed learners because they can then “contribute

to compe veness without the need for all learning to occur when there is direct training by an instructor” (p. 111). In linking the learning organiza on with SDL, Rana, Ardichvili, and Polesello (2016) iden fy five prac ces for merging SDL and the learning organiza on: building community and a shared vision, fostering collabora on and teamwork, empowering employees through par cipa on, providing opportuni es for con nuous learning, and u lizing relevant technologies in the workforce. Guglielmino and Guglielmino (2005) have in fact explored the rela onship between SDL readiness, dimensions of culture, and economic indicators for seven countries. They found strong posi ve rela onships between SDL readiness and gross domes c product per capita and per-capita income.

Other writers consider how the self-directed part of SDL can enhance the workplace. Brown (2000) examined the interac on between social influences at work and the individual's commitment to being self-directed. Clardy's (2000) study of job-related SDL projects of 56 employees from five organiza ons found three types of projects—induced, voluntary, and synergis c. Induced SDL projects are undertaken by an employee because of some perceived imbalance between current and needed skills, voluntary projects are those an employee undertakes because of a personal desire to learn, and synergis c projects “arise in situa ons where there are new enabling organiza onal condi ons that ignite a latent employee readiness to act and learn” (p. 121). Interes ngly, among the five organiza ons studied, the one where the most synergis c and voluntary projects were found was an organiza on that “used a system of organiza onal prac ces that formed a culture of learning” (p. 118).

In other research on SDL and the workplace, Raemdonck, Gijbels, and Van Groen (2014) studied 837 workers in nine sectors and found a SDL orienta on and job demands to be posi ve predictors of workplace learning behavior. In an interes ng study of mobile app technologies in the workplace, Gu (2016) discovered that these technologies enhanced workers’ “responsibility and ini a ve toward learning. They reported they had more control of their learning and used online resources more effec vely” (p. 315). Indeed, it seems that the workplace as site for SDL equals if not surpasses a en on to SDL in other sites. A recent book, tled Autonomous Learning in the Workplace, edited by Ellingson and Noe (2017), is based on workers taking charge of their own learning and explores how organiza onal culture and employee development intersect with SDL, workplace learning, and informal learning.

That SDL and the learning organiza on are interrelated is explored by Cho (2002). Cho points out that although the primary purpose of SDL has been recognized as personal growth, interac on and collabora on with others can play very important roles in the process…. Such interdependent and collec ve aspects of SDL appear to be fully consistent with some essen al characteris cs of the learning organiza on. (2002, pp. 468–469)

Another ar cle iden fies some of the tools and prac ces needed to promote SDL in the learning organiza on such as providing opportuni es for con nuous learning and u lizing relevant technologies in the workplace (Rana et al., 2016). And in a though ul examina on of the linkages between SDL and HRD, Ellinger (2004) reviewed the literature on SDL with special a en on to how instruc onal models, organiza onal characteris cs, and assessment tools can all be incorporated into promo ng SDL in an HRD context. The ar cle concludes with a number of sugges ons for research and theory building in this area, such as assessing the prevalence of SDL in the workplace, how it is linked with organiza onal learning, the cultural and ethical issues involved, and so on.

One of Ellinger's (2004) sugges ons for research is to examine the impact of technology on SDL. This is definitely an area of growing interest with the prevalence of the Internet and web-based instruc onal strategies. As cited earlier in this chapter, King (2017) has noted the link between our technology-saturated environment and the rise of SDL. There's no doubt that the Internet is an important learning resource (King, 2017; Roberson, 2003; Valente, 2005) as well as a site for SDL. For example, Harju, Pehkonen, and Niemi (2016) found that blogging was both self- directed and social and labeled it a form of lifelong learning. But the Internet is not only a resource in SDL; many studies of online learning at least acknowledge if not foster the need for self-direc on on the part of learners in this environment. Freed (2003), for example, examined how graduate students in an online discussion used reflec on, dialogue, and self-direc on to construct knowledge and Lai, Shum, and Tian (2016) found a training program enhanced learners' self-directed use of technology for language learning. Sumuer (2018) discovered that scaffolding of SDL, Web 2.0 tools, and online communi es can enhance college students' SDL. Most recently, Boyer, Holt, and Redding (2019) explored how online technology including game- based learning is able to develop and extend par cipants' SDL.

Research on SDL con nues to engage both academics and prac oners, as noted earlier in this chapter. There is also an ac ve research group at the University of Tennessee exploring the literature on SDL. This group has reviewed disserta ons produced between 1980 and 2002 (Canipe & Fogerson, 2004) and analyzed Educa onal Resources Informa on Center (ERIC) documents that appeared between 1993 and 2003 (Canipe, Fogerson, & Duffley-Renow, 2005). Analyses of both databases suggest a steady interest in and research on SDL.

More recently, another group from Tennessee has explored the literature even further by conduc ng a cita on analysis of literature from the Interna onal Journal of Self-Directed Learning (Kirk, Shih, Smeltzer, Holt, & Brocke , 2012; Holt, Smeltzer, Brocke , Shih, & Kirk, 2013).

There is a sense, however, that research and theory building in SDL is in need of fresh ques ons. Brocke (2000) a ributes the decline in the number of published ar cles (in contrast to the

disserta ons and ERIC documents already men oned) on SDL since the mid-1980s with the shi away from “the individual adult learner toward looking at the sociopoli cal context of adult educa on” (p. 543). This sociopoli cal context is, of course, one of the very ques ons that could be explored with regard to SDL. Brocke (2000) also suggests that the field consider developing “new ways to measure self-directedness” and “raise ques ons about the limits of self-direc on, and how self-direc on interfaces with issues of power and conflict in various prac ce se ngs” (pp. 543–544). From Brocke 's (2000), Ellinger's (2004), and our own thinking, we suggest the following areas for inves ga on, all of which could expand our understanding of adult learning through SDL:

How do issues of power and control interact with the use of SDL in formal se ngs?

Does being self-directed as a learner have an impact on one's own instruc onal and planning ac vi es?

Are there public policy issues at the na onal, state, or local level related to SDL? If so, what roles could adult educators play in advoca ng and developing such policies?

Should policy and procedures be formulated related to SDL in formal se ngs, such as the workplace, so that SDL is recognized as an integral part of educa on and training programs?

What cons tutes the cri cal prac ce of SDL? How can cri cal SDL prac ce be incorporated in our work as educators?

How and to what extent is SDL situa onal or cultural?

How do cultural and contextual factors shape SDL?

How is technology rela ng to and affec ng SDL?

Summary

SDL is one of the most researched topics in adult learning. Although learning on one's own has been the principal model of learning throughout the ages, serious studies of this subject did not become prevalent un l the 1970s and 1980s. In reviewing this research, what became clear is that SDL is a mul faceted concept. Therefore, we grouped the work that we reviewed into three broad categories: the goals of SDL, processes and applica ons of SDL, and self-direc on as a personal a ribute of learners.

Three major goals of SDL were iden fied. The first goal, that of enhancing the ability of adults to be self-directed in their learning, has generated the most research in SDL. The fostering of transforma onal learning as central to SDL, the second goal, is founda onal to the third goal, that of promo ng emancipatory learning and social ac on. Our assump on is that each of these goals is of equal importance in capturing the essence of SDL.

Within the broad category of SDL as a process, three types of models have been extensively discussed in the literature: linear, interac ve, and instruc onal. The linear models o en reflect more tradi onal ways of thinking about teaching, although they could be applied to learners' informal learning as well as to formal and nonformal se ngs. The interac ve models more closely resemble how learners go about learning primarily on their own, and the instruc onal models are specifically designed to be used as ways to organize instruc on in formal and nonformal se ngs. Although a rich array of models is now available, more data-based research using these models would be a welcome contribu on to the literature.

Assessing self-directedness and the concept of autonomy have received the greatest a en on from scholars who are studying self-direc on as a personal a ribute of learners. Several scales for assessing self-direc on were reviewed. Readiness, which implies an internal state of psychological readiness to undertake SDL, has generated the majority of the data-based studies. The rela onship of autonomy and self-directedness in learning has been discussed primarily at the conceptual level. An important ques on regarding autonomy and self-directedness is the extent to which the context of the learning situa on and the culture of the learner affect learner autonomy.

The chapter concluded with a review of recent applica ons of SDL to lifelong learning, HRD, and online se ngs. Finally, sugges ons for building future research agendas in SDL were discussed.

Printed by: Prin ng is for personal use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmi ed without the publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.