Chambers Literature Review

An Introduction to Self-Directed Learning

Name	Commented On
DeArtha Chambers	Nicole Mann
	Raeanne Schlotterbeck Michael Szajewski  Tashina Manuel  Terry Rood

 Introduction

Increasingly across the globe in the 21^st century individuals can access information at the end of their fingertips. From GPS real time mapping on a mobile device, to accessing how-to videos on public access websites, to full degree programs online. As society, our seemingly unlimited access to the information highway provides an opportunity for self-directed learning (SDL) scholars to explore the goals, models, and instruments explaining the motivations, characteristics, and readiness of individuals who seek out SDL opportunities.

While SDLs are organic by nature, concepts related to SDL have been studied in relationship to organizational development (Confessore & Kops, 1998), nursing education (Crooks, Lunyk-Child, & Patterson, 2002), learning processes (Merriam & Roberson, 2005), age cognition (Merriam & Roberson, 2005), economic education (Siminica & Traistaru, 2013), motivation (Artis, Boyer, Edmondson, Fleming, 2013), personality traits (Cazan & Schiopca, 2014), support (Artis et al, 2013) as well as recent meta-analyses (Loyens, Magda, & Rikers, 2008; Artis et al, 2013; Ayyildiz & Tarhan, 2015). While this list is not comprehensive it provides a glimpse of the topics studied regarding SDL.  Hence, the purpose of this brief literature review is to reveal basic trends within SDL research. In the following pages limited to the definition of SDL, as well as models and instruments related to SDL used to assess the above topics.

Three Themes

Definition

Factors such as “…internal locus of control, motivation, support, and self-efficacy are important antecedents to increase students’ willingness to use SDL” (Artis, Boyer, Edmondson, & Fleming, 2013, p. 36). When an individual is inclined to engage in a self-directed learning experience she/he initiates a systematic process in she/he diagnoses individual learning needs with or without the help of others, formulates of goals, identify both human and material resources, chooses and engages in appropriate learning strategies and evaluating success through learning outcomes (Knowles, 1975; Long, 1994; Merriam, 2001). As such SDL projects are (a) deliberate act consisting of (b) related activities which (c) involving a minimum of seven hours of dedicated work to complete within a six-month period, generating specific knowledge, skills, or lasting change within the learner (Artis et. al., 2013). SDL does not exist on its own however, quite often SDL is found in the accompaniment of another learning type (Loyens, Magda, & Rikers, 2008).

Models of SDL

Grow’s (1991, 1994) staged self-directed learning (SSDL) model is a matrix whereby the learner can locate themselves in terms of their readiness and comfort with being self-directed learner (Merriam, 2001). This framework focuses on the interaction between the environment and the student with an emphasis on the abilities of the student to engage in SDL and the methods of engagement (Frecker & Flanigan, 2012). The SSDL has four stages of learning, beginning with the learning being completely dependent on the educator (Grow, 1991). The second stage moves the student into interest, in this case the educator is more of a motivator using lecture and discussion (Grow, 1991). The spark from the interested stage can lead to goal setting and learning strategies. Involved is the third stage of the model, transforming the educator into a facilitator through discussion and group projects (Grow, 1991). Lastly, self-directed is the final stage, where the educator is a consultant and the student is engaged in individual work (Grow, 1991). Deciphering the connection between learner characteristics and instructional design may reveal a misalignment effecting affective responses from the learner (Frecker & Flanigan, 2012).

Garrison (1997) proports an SDL model with three interacting dimensions: self-management, self-monitoring, and motivation tethered together. Self-management relates to the learning taking control of the learning context to achieve learning goals (Hill & Song, 2007). As responsible learners, within Garrison’s model, learners integrate self-management aspects (context, social setting, resources, and actions) with self-monitoring processes such as regulating and evaluating cognitive learning strategies (Abdullah, 2001), driven by motivation. A self-regulated learner articulates motives well, is self-efficacious, and practices metacognition concepts (Garrison & Pilling-Cormick, 2007) exemplifying an internal process. Self-management appears as an external task control with a focus on the context. Garrison’s (1997) SDL model is a comprehensive model placing the learner as responsible for the management, maintenance, and motivation of their own learning. While Garrison (1997) and Grow1991) provide SDL literature with models by which to explain processes, SDL instruments provide empirical evidence of motivation, readiness, affect and cognition.

Instruments

Self-directed readiness scale is the most commonly used scale to assess the individual skills, motivations and skills of the self-directed Learner (Artis, Boyer, Edmondson, & Fleming, 2013; Ayyildiz & Tarhan, 2015). Identifying eight factors defining the attitude, abilities and values of the learner as it relates to readiness this scale has been (Best, Hoban, Lawson, Mazmanian, & Seibel, 2005; Ayyildiz & Tarhan, 2015). The eight factors are: future orientation, openness to learning opportunities, self-perception of effective learning, initiated and independent learning, creativity, informed responsibility for one’s own learning, a love to learn, and critical thinking skills (Best et. al., 2005; Lai, 2011). As one of the most common measure to use for assessing self-directed learning insight provided lacks theoretical backing (Best et. al., 2005) and must be provided by the researchers utilizing this instrument.

Frequently used to measure self-directed learning (Frecker, Harvey, & Rothman, 2006), Oddi’s Continued Learning Inventory (OCLI) is a 24-itemed instrument designed to measure the degree to which individuals demonstrate motivational, affective and cognitive characteristics associated with being a self-directed learner on a seven point Likert scale as described by Francis and Flanigan (2012). Dimensions of the OCLI include motivation to initiate and sustain SDL, the external control and self-management issues of the social and other environmental aspects associated with learning, and the internal, self-monitoring, cognitive and metacognitive aspects of the learning” (Frecker, Harvey, & Rothman, 2006, p.199). OCLI provides a unique insight into the characteristics and motivations of the continuing lifelong learner.

Self-rating scale of Self-directed learning scale (SRSSDL) has been translated into multiple languages, such as Italian (Cadorin, Palese, Saiani, Suter, & Williamson, 2010) and Chinese (Chen, Hu, & Shen, 2014) and is prevalent in medical training research (Cadorin et. al, 2010; Williamson, 2013; Chen, et. al., 2014; Cadorin, Cheng, & Palese, 2015) The SRSSDL is a 60-item measure developed to identify which skills are necessary for lifelong learners (Ayyildiz & Tarhan, 2015). Reportedly there are five overarching categories deciphered by the SRSSDL, each with 12 questions (Chen, Hu, & Shen, 2014): awareness, learning strategies, learning activities, evaluation, and interpersonal skills (Williamson, 2013). The SRSSDL is scored through a five-point Likert scale with ‘5’ indicating an always and ‘1’ a never. (Williamson, 2013), scores ranging from 30-140 are considered low, 141-220 are moderate and 221-300 are high. A higher score indicates students are effective at self-directed learning while a low score indicated student dependent on a teacher-based learning environment.

Implications

Implications of motivations, models, and measures for self-directed learning inform practical praxis. Instructors benefit from instrumental measures as they assist educators in identifying students’ strengths and weakness (Ayyildiz & Leman, 2015) and increase awareness of possible resources (Artis, Boyer, Edmondson, & Fleming, 2013). Identifying student needs as self-directed learners may be a guiding light for instructors implementing SDL strategies in the classroom, for example, through the SRSSDL student are enlightened about individual levels of self-directedness and an understanding of the concept of self-directed study (Williamson, 2013). While educators who employ the SRSSDL assessment will help learners identify their individual levels of self-directed study allowing educators to assist students in growing from a dependent learner to an independent learner (Williamson, 2013). Potentially, a pitfall of self-directed learning may be that if the individual does not have a motivation to seek out information on a topic she/he is unlikely encounter such information without intervention (Baily, 2004). Ultimately, informing students on their learning strengths, weaknesses, and resources raises student awareness of her/his role in their own education.

Reflection

Highlights. The review of literature on the topic of self-directed learning (SDL) is not limited to the topics revealed here. This text briefly summarized two learning models by Grow (1991) and Garrison (1997), three instruments to measure SDL aspects and motivation. It has been the goal of this author to inform and encourage further research into the topic of SDL through this snippet.

Process. To complete this (or any) project, I started early, researching and saving sources within the first few days. I briefly read the material and let it sit for a few days before I returned to the articles and began to dissect them per the assignment. My dissection process involves building an outline by first plugging in the main parts to cover, in this case the introduction, general themes, implications, and my reflection. After I have blocked out the outline I then fill the appropriate areas with applicable quotes from academic sources, building my reference list in APA format as I go. Kind of the “clean as you go” mentality I learned in food service, rather “build as you go” for academe. When my outline is complete, I begin to write in the glue between the quotes to build my argument or stance on the topic I am researching.

The main themes/ideas in the literature (Check General Themes)	Application of the main ideas in practice (check Implications)
Idea 1 Definiton	Defines what an SDL is and what it entails as an self-directed project
Idea 2 Models	Assist in understanding the processes involved in self-directed learning
Idea 3 Instruments	Help learners, instructor, and program designers assess individual strengths and weakness and address them appropriately or plan for difficulties.

References

Abdullah, M. H. (2001). Self-directed learning. Erick Digest. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov.proxy.bsu.edu/fulltext/ED459458.pdf

Artis, A. B., Boyer, S. L., Edmondson, D. R., & Fleming, D. (2013). Self-directed learning: A tool for lifelong learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 36, 20-32, doi:10.1177/0273475313494010

Ayyildiz, Y. & Tarhan, L. (2015). Development of the self-directed learning skill scale. International Journal of Live Ling Education, 34, 663-679, doi:10.1080/02601370.2015.1091393

Bailey, T. Self-directed learning versus learning in the interests of public safety: A dilemma in adult education? International Education Journal, 5, 215-220.

Best, A. M., Hoban, J. D., Lawson, S. R., Mazmanian, P. E., & Seibel, H. R. (2005). The self-directed learning readiness scale: A factor analysis study. Medical Education, 39, 370-379.

Cadorin, L., Palese, A., Saiani, L., Suter, N., & Williamson, S. N. (2010). Self-rating scale of self-directed learning (SRSSDL): Preliminary results from the Italian validation process. Journal of Research in Nursing, 16, 363-379, doi:10.1177/1741987110379790

Cadorin, L. Chen, S. F., & Palese, A. (2016). Concurrent validity of self-rating scale of self-directed learning and self-directed learning instrument among Italian nursing students. BMC Nursing, 15, doi:10.1186/s12912-016-0142-x

Cazan, A. M. & Schiopca, B. A. (2014). Self-directed learning, personality traits and academic achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 640-644, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.327

Chen, H. L., Hu, Y., & Shen, W. Q. (2014). The validity and reliability of the self-directed learning instrument (SDLI) in mainland Chinese nursing students. BMC Medical Education, 14, doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-108

Confessore, S. J. & Kops, W. J. (1998). Self-directed learning and the learning organization: Examining the connection between the individual and the learning environment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9, 365-377.

Crooks, D., Lunyk-Child, O., & Patterson, C. (2002). A new perspective on competencies for self-directed learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 41, 25-35.

Ellinger, A. D. (2004). The concept of self-directed learning and its implications for human resource development.  Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 158-177, doi:10.1177/1523422304263327

Francis, A. & Flanigan, A. (2012). Self-directed learning and higher education practices: Implications for student performance and engagement. The International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(3), 1-18.

Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 125-149.

Frecker, R. C., Harvey, B. J., & Rothman, A. I. (2006). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Oddi continuing learning inventory (OCLI). Adult Education Quarterly, 56, 188-200, doi:10.1177/0741713605286167

Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 18-33.

Garrison, D. R. & Pilling-Cormick, J. (2007. Self-directed and self-regulated learning: Conceptual Links. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 33(2), 13-33.

Hill, J. R. & Song, L. (2007). A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in online environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6, 27-44.

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York, NY: Association Press.

Lai, H.J. (2011). The influence of adult learners’ self-directed learning readiness and network literacy on online learning effectiveness: as study of civil servants in Taiwan. Education Technology & Society, 14(2), 98-106.

Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationship with self-regulated learning. Education Psychology Review, 20, 411-427, doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13.

Merriam, S. B. & Roberson, D. N. (2005). The self-directed learning process of older, rural adults. Adult Education Quarterly, 55, 269-287, doi:10.1177/0741713605277372

Siminica, M. & Traistaru, A. (2013). Self-directed learning in economic education. International Journal of Education and Research. 1, 1-14.

Williamson, S. N. (2013). Development of a self-rating scale of self-directed learning. Nurse Researcher, 14, 66-84.