SDL과 Action Research (IJSDL, 2009)

SDL과 Action Research (IJSDL, 2009)

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING AND ACTION RESEARCH

John M. Peters, Jonathan E. Taylor, Megumu M. Doi

RESEARCH ON SDL

Merriam, et al. (2007) summarize the literature on various facets of SDL in terms of three broad emphasis categories: goals, process, and learner attributes. According to Merriam, et al., 

• the first goal of SDL is to enhance the abilities of adult learners to be self-directed, 
• the second is to foster transformational learning, and the 
• third is to promote emancipative learning and social action.

• The beginning of SDL as a distinct area of study was marked by at least a partial focus on the first of these three goals (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Knowles, 1975; Tough, 1979). In keeping with this goal, scholars have provided strategies for enhancing self-directedness and structuring effective self-directed learning projects (Knowles, 1975). Such strategies involve ways that adults can “plan, carry out, and evaluate their own learning” (Merriam, et al., 2007, p. 107). It is worth noting that Tough’s (1968) initial interest in SDL was on the planning aspect of what he called self-planned learning.

• The second goal, transformational learning, came into focus as scholars such as Brookfield (1985, 1986) and Mezirow (1985) pointed out the limits of instrumental, goal-directed learning strategies and chose instead to focus on the role of a learner’s own biography as the basis for advancing individual learning experiences. Proponents of this goal orientation stress the importance of critical reflection on personal assumptions, beliefs, and values as a basis for making significant changes in the individual’s meaning perspectives. Mezirow’s (1985) pioneering theory building has stimulated one of the more visible and extensive lines of inquiry in the study of adult learning.

• The third goal identified by Merriam, et al. (2007) centers on emancipative learning. This is a perspective that takes into account socio-political factors present in any SDL activity (Brookfield, 1993). Scholars working in this area of SDL cite various shortcomings of the individualistic, positivistic frameworks associated with the first two goals. In contrast, the emancipative learning goal is framed in terms of a critical theory perspective (Collins, 1996; Freire, 1972). Although proponents of this goal acknowledge the individual learner’s role, their interest extends to social action as a prospective vehicle of change in systemic factors that influence individual and group learning. This interest extends to ways in which research on SDL is designed and conducted. For example, Collins (1996) and Hammon and Collins (1991) cite participative research methods as preferred ways to study multiple social forces that influence the decisions and actions of self-directed learners.

With regard to the process category of SDL literature, Merriam, et al. (2007) describe three types of process models: linear, interactive, and instructional. 

• Linear models are illustrated in descriptions of the self-directed learning process described by Tough (1971) and Knowles (1975). Tough identified thirteen steps in self-planned learning. Knowles identified five more commonly recognized steps to planning and conducting self-directed learning activities is an enabling process in which 
• “individuals take the initiative, with or without the help 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). 
• Knowles’ steps are augmented by lists of resources that can be used by the learner along the way to a successful learning experience. The steps involved in Knowles’ model are discussed later in this article.

• Interactive models were developed as alternatives to the linear approach, as the latter was considered an ideal process that rarely depicts what learners actually experience as they decide and act in circumstances that are not always within their control. Interactive model developers cite such factors as context, opportunity, personality, and serendipity as important aspects of SDL, which they claim are not accounted for in linear forms of process. Works that fall into the interactive category include Brockett and Hiemstra (1991), Danis (1992), Garrison (1997), and Spear (1988), among others. For example, Spear and Mocker (1984) took an interactive approach to planning and conducting self-directed learning projects: 
• 1. The triggering event for a learning project stems from a change in life circumstances. 
• 2. The changed circumstance provides an opportunity for learning. 
• 3. The structure, method, resources, and condition for learning are directed by the circumstances. 
• 4. Learning sequences progress as the circumstances created in one episode become the circumstances for the next logical step” (pp. 4-5).

• Instructional models were developed in response to the recognition that SDL is not exclusively an informal learning process. It can and does occur in formal educational settings, usually under the guidance of an expert teacher and/or in concert with group learning activities. Instructional models describe various learner characteristics that need to be understood by instructors who are interested in helping students become more self- directed in their academic experiences. The models are also intended to assist instructors and students in their attempt to sort out the respective roles they play in classroom learning environments. This intent is illustrated in the work of Grow (1991) and Hammon and Collins (1991).

The third type of process model, personal attributes of learners, has served as the focus of numerous studies that seek to identify characteristics related to a learner’s decisions about what to learn and how to learn it. In recent years, most of this research has been on instrument development and assessment of learner readiness and personality traits (Beswick, Chuprina, Canipe, & Cox, 2002; Guglielmino, 1997; Oddi, 1986). !

---

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING AND ACTION RESEARCH

John M. Peters, Jonathan E. Taylor, Megumu M. Doi

This article discusses the relationship between self-directed learning and action research. Our examination of self-directed learning is based on Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner’s (2007) critique of self-directed learning literature, and our review of major sources of literature in action research is used to compare its features to self-directed learning terms similar to those used by Merriam, et al. Based on our interpretation of both literature sources, we make several observations about the similarities and dissimilarities in action research and self-directed learning. We conclude that both areas are more alike than different, and encourage others to examine both fields as a way to increase the understanding of each.