자기조절학습과 자기주도학습: 왜 서로 의사소통이 안될까? (IJSDL, 2014)

자기조절학습과 자기주도학습: 왜 서로 의사소통이 안될까? (IJSDL, 2014)

SELF-REGULATED AND SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: WHY DON’T SOME NEIGHBORS COMMUNICATE?

Laurent Cosnefroy and Philippe Carré

지난 50년간 서양권 국가에서 등장한 평생학습과 자율적 지식노동자에 대한 유망한 비전과 함께, 성인교육, 직업교육, 교육심리와 관련된 분야의 문헌에서 자기학습 개념에 대한 관심이 매우 높아졌다. 약 20년 전에 Carre는 성인교육 문헌에서 자율학습과 관련된 15개 이상의 언급들을 찾아냈다.

Parallel to the promising visions of lifelong learning and the autonomous knowledge worker that have emerged in most Western countries over the last 50 years, the literature in the relevant fields of adult education, vocational training and educational psychology has evidenced a striking intensification of interest in self- learning concepts. More than 20 years ago, Carré (1992) conducted an initial search which produced no less than 15 notions used in the adult education literature in relation to autonomous learning: 

• autonomous learning, 
• independent learning, 
• self- directed learning, 
• self-managed learning, 
• self-organized learning, 
• self-regulated learning, 
• self-determined learning, 
• self-planned learning, 
• self-initiated learning,
• self-learning, 
• self-education, 
• self-instruction, 
• self-teaching, 
• autodidaxy, and 
• autodidactic learning.

이 중에 가장 많이 나타나는 것은 SDL과 SRL이다. 

보통 사람들에게 SDL과 SRL은 거의 동의어처럼 보인다. 심지어 교육심리 분야의 학자들도 SDL과 SRL은 문헌에서 서로 interchangeable하게 사용되기도 한다.

Definitions and Scope Analysis For the layperson, there is little doubt that, semantically speaking, SDL and SRL are close neighbors and could be considered as synonymous. Even scholars in educational psychology have suggested that the terms self-directed learning and self-regulated learning have often been used interchangeably in the literature (Loyens, Magda, & Rikers, 2008).

SDL의 가장 널리 사용되는 개념적 토대는 Knowles의 것이다.

A widely accepted conceptual foundation of SDL is Knowles’ (1975) definition: 

In its broadest meaning, self-directed learning describes a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the assistance of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes. (p. 18)

20년 후에 Long은 다시 이렇게 말했다.

Twenty years later, Long (1991) concurred: 

“I define self-directed learning as a personally directed purposive mental process usually accompanied and supported by behavioral activities involved in the identification and searching out of information” (p. 15).

거의 동시에 Zimmerman은 이렇게 말했다.

At about the same time, Zimmerman (1989) proposed: 

In general, students can be described as self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process. Such students personally initiate and direct their own efforts to acquire knowledge and skill rather than relying on teachers, parents, or other agents of instruction. To qualify specifically as self-regulated in my account, students’ learning must involve the use of specified strategies to achieve academic goals on the basis of self- efficacy perceptions. This definition assumes the importance of three elements: students’ self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy perceptions of performance skill, and commitment to academic goals. (p. 329)

Zimmerman의 SRL에 대한 모델이 아마 가장 유명할 것이다 다른 것도 있다.

Zimmerman’s model of SRL is probably among the most popular.

• Boekaerts’ model emphasizes emotional aspects, 
• Corno’s the volitional aspect, and 
• Winne’s model underscores the cognitive aspects of SRL. 

무슨 모델이든 SRL은 다음과 같은 것을 함의한다.

Whichever the model, all assume that SRL implies 

• directing one’s learning by setting goals, 
• monitoring the learning process, and 
• using various cognitive and volitional strategies (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Pintrich, 2004).

이러한 첫 번째 정의는 두 개념의 유사성을 지적하는데, 비의존성과 agentic management 등이 그것이다. Lovens 등은 이렇게 말했다. '종합적으로 SDL과 SRL은 능동적 참여와 목표지향적 행동을 포함한다'. Pilling-Cormick과 Garrison 등에 의하면, SDL과 SRL은 모두 학습에 대한 책임과 통제를 의미한다. 

These first definitions point to the similarity of the two concepts, both aimed at describing the various dimensions of independent, agentic management of one’s learning efforts. Loyens et al. (2008, p. 417) note, “Overall, both SDL and SRL involve active engagement and goal-directed behavior.” According to Pilling- Cormick and Garrison (2007), SDL and SRL both address issues of responsibility and control in learning. 

3차원적 비교 

A Three-Dimensional Contrast

이전 문헌에서 다룬 바와 같이, "성인교육의 근간이 되는 SDL은 학교 외 환경에서 이뤄지는 학습의 역사의 개념이다. SRL은 반대로 학교 환경 내에서의 학습에 대해 연구해왔다". 둘 사이를 구분짓는 첫 번째 요소는 연구 전통이다.

As noted in previous reviews (Loyens et al., 2008, p. 418) “The adult education roots of SDL give this concept a history in learning outside school environments. . . . SRL, on the other hand, has been studied within school learning.” This first element accounts for two significant differentiating factors between both research traditions: 

• SRL is mostly concerned with school-based learning, hence mostly studied by educational psychologists, while 
• SDL, since its foundation, has been inspired by adults at grips with continuous formal or informal learning after their school years and hence has been mostly analyzed by adult education specialists. 

명백하게, SDL과 SRL은 학생의 통제에 대한 요소를 포함한다. 그러나 학습자가 가진 통제의 수준은, 특히 학습이 시작될 시점에서의 것이 SDL과 SRL이 다르다.

Clearly, both SDL and SRL carry an element of student control. However, the degree of control the learner has, specifically at the beginning of the learning process when the learning task is defined, differs in SDL and SRL. 

• SDL에서 학습과제는 항항 학습자로부터 시작된다. SDL학습자는 무엇을 학습할지를 정의할 줄 알아야 한다.
  In SDL, the learning task is always defined by the learner. A self-directed learner should be able to define what needs to be learned. . . . 
• SRL에서 학습과제는 교사가 정해줄 수도 있다. 이런 관점에서 SDL은 SRL을 포함한다.
  In SRL, the learning task can be generated by the teacher. . . . In this sense, SDL can encompass SRL, but the opposite does not hold. (p. 418) 

Loyens et al. (2008) state,

반대로, 이러한 구분은 SDL이 SRL을 포함함을 말한다. SDL하려면 SR할 수 있어야 한다.

Conversely, this distinction also implies that SDL requires SRL: one needs self- regulation to become a capable self-directed learner.

학교 시스템 내에 있는 학생들의 학습노력에 대한 연구를 다룬 교육심리연구에서 출발했다는 점에서 SRL으 주로 전략, 기술, 태도 등을 연구하며 더 넓은 목표는 학습자 자신에게 속하게 되지 않는다. 반대로 SDL연구는 성인교육 전문가에 의해서 수행되었고, Tough의 학습프로젝트라는 개념을 따르고 있다. 이는 학교 밖에서, 독립적인 학습자가 자기 결정적 교육 노력의 주된 의사결정자이다. 

Due to its origins in educational psychology’s studies of learning efforts of youth within the school system, SRL primarily investigates strategies, skills and attitudes favorable to an effective learning activity in constrained academic situations where the wider goals do not belong to the learners themselves. In contrast, investigations of SDL have been carried out by adult education specialists who, following the tradition of Tough’s notion of learning projects, have been mostly concerned with out-of-school, independent learners as the prime decision- makers of self-determined educational endeavors. 

학습프로젝트의 소유권이라는 측면에서, SDL에서 이것은 정의상 거의 학습자에게 있다. 반면 SRL에서는 외부에 의해서 통제될 수 있다. 반대로 말해서 agency가 둘 모두에서 핵심적 개념일지라도, SDL에서 이것은 보다 멀리 떨어지고 광범위한 목표를 의미하며, SRL에서는 가까운 목표에 제한된다. 이러한 SDL학습자는 학습의 궤적 전체를 조절하며, SRL학습자는 학습활동에 제한된 통제권을 가진다. 우리는 Lovens가 말한 것에 동의한다. SDL은 SRL을 의미할 수 있지만 그 반대는 아니다.

The difference lies in the ownership of the learning project, which rests, almost by definition, with the learner in SDL; while it could be controlled externally in SRL. In other words, while agency is at the core of both concepts, it applies to the larger distal goals in SDL but is restricted to proximal learning goals in SRL. The self-directed learner controls the learning trajectory as a whole, whereas the self-regulated learner’s control is restricted to the learning activity. We agree with Loyens et al. (2008) in stating that SDL can (and should) imply SRL, but the reverse is not true.

여기서 자기결정이란 학습자가 교육과 수련에 대한 옵션을 선택할 때 스스로 결정한다는 뜻이다.

Table 2 shows subcategory possibilities when crossing setting goals and achieving goals. Self-determination here means that the learners make their own decisions when choosing their options in education and training.

SRL은 방법론, 자원, 학습시간과 관련한 학생의 선택으로, 하나의 연속체로서 여겨진다. Winne이 말한 것과 같이 SRL은 학습에 있어 (인지적으로) 내재된 것이다. 비록 그 관여와 참여의 수준은 다를지라도 학습자는 메타인지적 모니터링 과정을 통해 학습에 대한 결정을 내리게 된다. 더 나아가서, 학습목표를 누가 설정했고, 학습상황이 어떻든간에 목표가 달성되기 위해서 그 목표는 보호받아야 하고 유지되어야 한다. 이러한 관점에서 SRL이 없는 상황은 사실상 거의 존재할 수 없으며, 이는 비록 학습상황이 거의 대부분 교사에 의해서 정의되고, 학습자의 선택이 매우 제한적인 상황에서도 그러하다. 이것이 우리가 SR의 부재 대신 낮은 SR이라고 언급한 이유이다.

Self-regulated learning is viewed as a continuum depending on the level of choices allowed to the student in terms of methodology, resources, or study time. As stated by Winne (1995), self-regulated learning is a cognitively inherent aspect of learning. Through the process of metacognitive monitoring the learner always makes decisions and controls his or her learning, albeit with a varying degree of engagement and success. Moreover, whatever the source of goals and the characteristics of the learning situation, goals often require protection and maintenance if they are to be met (Corno, 1993). In this sense, lack of self- regulated learning cannot really occur even though the learning situation is strongly defined by the teacher and curtails the learner’s choices. This is the reason why we used low level of self-regulation instead of lack of self-regulation in Table 2.

마지막으로 SDL과 SRL의 구분은 Rubicon 모델에 잘 맞는다. 이 모델에서는 Lewin의 목표달성을 위한 노력과 목표 설정에 대한 구분을 강조한다. 

Finally, the distinction between SDL and SRL nicely fits in the Rubicon model of action phases elaborated by Heckhausen (Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1986). This model capitalizes on Lewin’s distinction between goal striving and goal setting (Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, & Sears, 1944). 

• Goal striving is behavior directed toward existing goals, whereas 
• goal setting addresses the issue of what goals a person will choose. 

Heckhausen은 이 두 가지 문제를 하나의 이론적 모델로 합하여 deliberation부터 evaluation of action까지 네 단계를 구분하였다. 목표달성을 위한 노력은 '의지'이고, 목표 설정은 '동기'이다. SRL이론은 '의지'를 강조하고, SDL이론은 '숙고(deliberating)'단계를 강조한다.

Heckhausen has included these two problems into a single theoretical model that allows us to study the two steps in relation to each other and to introduce a temporal perspective by distinguishing four phases, from deliberation to evaluation of action. Goal striving is related to volition, goal setting to motivation. Being focused on the how of self-regulation, SRL theories enhance the volitional part of the learning process, whereas SDL theories focus on the deliberating phase of learning.

Target populations.

First, one should note that SDL is much more closely linked to adults than SRL. 

Conversely, SRL is more linked to academic achievement than SDL.

Theoretical framework. 

SRL연구는 인지심리학에 뿌리를 두고 있다.

Research on SRL is rooted in cognitive psychology. As stated by Winne (1996), research on metacognition and cognitive strategy “has built a broad platform for newer and increasingly more active work in SRL” (p. 327). Capitalizing on metacognitive theory, the SRL paradigm calls for expanding the study of learner activity by combining the investigation of cognitive, metacognitive and motivational processes in order to achieve a better understanding of autonomous learning (Cosnefroy, 2011).

SRL과 SDL모두 자율적 학습자가 무엇인가를 이해하고자 한다. 자율성은 동기 이론의 핵심이다. SDT는 자율과 통제된 자기조절을 구분한다. 

• 자율: 자기 지지적 통제 (self-endorsed regulation) 스스로의 행동을 인식는 것이 스스로에서(내부에서) 나오는 것.
• 통제된 자기조절: 한 사람의 행동은 자신 외부의 강제력에 의해서 이뤄지는 것.

SRL and SDL theories both attempt to understand what it means to be an autonomous learner. Autonomy is also at the core of a leading motivational theory. Self-determination theory (hereafter SDT) makes a distinction between autonomous and controlled self-regulation. The former is a self-endorsed regulation, the sense that one’s actions stem from oneself and are one’s own, whereas the latter means that the person’s behavior is regulated by coercive forces outside the self (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

두개의 평행우주?

Two Parallel Worlds?

SDL과 SRL 사이에는 연결이 약하다. 마찬가지로 SDT와도 연결이 약하다.

As shown above, there has been a significant increase in research on SDL and SRL from 2000 to 2010. The studies refer to one or the other but hardly ever to both concepts together, as if the research belonged to two parallel worlds without any connection. Likewise, there is a patent lack of connections with SDT, another theory that also focuses on autonomous self-regulation.

의사소통이 안 되는 이유

Conclusion: Three Combined Reasons Why Some Neighbors Don’t Communicate

It is hypothesized that three reasons account for the fact that such close conceptual neighbors don’t communicate – namely institutional differences, epistemological barriers, and scientific power issues.

• This first distinction accounts for the fact that researchers, practitioners, readers and potential users of the corresponding theories have seldom found common ground or circumstances to exchange ideas, concepts and experience relative to their (unbeknownst to them) common interest in various forms of learner autonomy.
• This second institutional divide, this time between university departments, reinforced mutual ignorance among faculty and students of both families. Respect for (or fear of) disciplinary frontiers may also have been reinforced by the classical phenomenon of paradigmatic closure, which Kuhn brought to light (Kuhn, 1962).
• Almost as a consequence of the preceding remarks, one could consider the lack of interaction between SRL and SDL as a key instance of scientific competition between rival academic groups.

---

SELF-REGULATED AND SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: WHY DON’T SOME NEIGHBORS COMMUNICATE?

Laurent Cosnefroy and Philippe Carré

In connection with the ever-growing necessity of autonomous lifelong learning, psychological and educational research abounds with a plethora of self constructs. Among these, concepts that appear closely related seem to be used in complete ignorance of one another, thus appearing to operate within clearly segmented areas of empirical and academic subcultures. This paper examines two major constructs – self-regulated and self-directed learning – in order to (a) define them and establish their conceptual proximity and differences; (b) document the absence of links between them in the relevant literature(s); and (c) suggest three possible explanations for this mutual ignorance among close scientific kin. 

Keywords: self-directed learning, self-regulated learning, self-determination, selfefficacy, metacognition, autodidaxy, autonomy