의과대학에서 자기주도학습 촉진하기: 교육과정 혁신만으로는 부족할 때(IJSDL, 2011)

FOSTERING SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN MEDICAL SCHOOL: WHEN CURRICULAR INNOVATION IS NOT ENOUGH

Janet F. Piskurich

1984년 the Physicians for the Twenty-first Century: Report of the Project Panel on General Professional Education of the Physician and College Preparation for Medicine (Association of American Medical Colleges [AAMC]) 에서도 강조함. 

Advances in scientific information and technology are proliferating at an accelerating pace, requiring that physicians continually acquire new knowledge and skills. In 1984, the Physicians for the Twenty-first Century: Report of the Project Panel on General Professional Education of the Physician and College Preparation for Medicine (Association of American Medical Colleges [AAMC]) emphasized that a medical education should prepare students to learn throughout their professional lives.

1990년 다시 기념비적 보고서가 나옴 (ACME-TRI report)

Again in the 1990’s, a seminal report on assessing medical education change stated, “…Faculty members’ first goal should be to foster their students’ lifelong learning by helping them to develop their learning skills” (AAMC, 1993, p. S33).

LCME 기준에도 평생학습 기술이 포함됨

Standards for medical school accreditation now specify that medical education programs must include opportunities for independent study to foster lifelong learning skills (Liaison Committee on Medical Education [LCME], 2010).

PBL이 도입되었고, Mercer University School of Medicine에서는 25년넘게 PBL에 교육과정의 유일한 기반

One nontraditional pedagogy, problem-based learning, emerged early as a method for development of self-direction and lifelong learning skills in medical students (Neville, 2009). While many medical schools use blended approaches incorporating various aspects of this instructional pedagogy, problem-based learning has been the sole basis of the curriculum at Mercer University School of Medicine for over twenty-five years (Donner & Brickley, 1993).

또 다른 교육과정의 혁신은 임상표현중심 교육과정. 이는 기초의학지식이 특정한 임상사례에만 엮이는 단점을 개선하기 위한 것으로, 진단 스키마가 기초의학과 임상지식의 gap-free integration의 scaffold가 된다. 이러한 스키마가 전문가들이 사용하는 귀납적 진단 추론과정을 더 촉진시켜주며, 전문가와 같은 형태에 더 노출된다.

Another curricular innovation that is being introduced into medical schools to improve diagnostic reasoning skills of medical students as well as their retention and transfer of knowledge is clinical-presentation-based curricula, an attempt to avoid the drawback of having basic science knowledge tied to specific clinical cases (Mandin, Jones, Woloschuk, & Harasym, 1997). In this approach, diagnostic schemes that serve as scaffolds for gap-free integration of basic science and clinical knowledge are provided. These schemes are used to promote more inductive diagnostic reasoning processes as used by experts, and exposure to experts is maximized.

학습자들의 저항은 잘 알려져있다.

Initial resistance of some learners to self-directed learning is well-recognized. The transition can represent an intimidating change in educational approach for individuals without previous self-directed learning experience (Long, 1994). It has been shown that medical students, who have normally excelled in a teacher-centered college environment, value the familiar teacher-directed approach rather than self- directed, independent learning (Ho & Tani, 2007). Resistance by medical students as the responsibility for their learning is shifted from the teacher to the student has also been noted in publications aimed at preparing medical students for problem-based learning (Woods, 1994). In both problem-based and clinical presentation-based curricula, faculty are encouraged to serve as learning facilitators and provide students with opportunities for self-directed learning; however, resistance of learners to accept responsibility for their learning occurs in both programs, especially early in the first year. Since excellent evaluations by their students are essential components of the medical educator portfolios required of faculty for tenure and/or promotion (Fresco & Nasser, 2001; Simpson et al., 2007), faculty are likely to perceive learner resistance as a formidable barrier to teaching-learning transactions that foster self-directed learning.

Methods

Problem-based Learning Curriculum

인터벤션 방식 Intervention.

Essential elements of the problem-based learning curriculum are described above. During the four years spanned by this study, the average class size was 50 medical students. The one-minute paper is an in-class writing activity that takes a minute or less to complete where students respond to a question posed by the instructor (Cross & Angelo, 1988). It enables students to reflect on the instruction and provides instructors with useful anonymous student feedback. The intervention in the problem-based learning curriculum consisted of two one-minute papers, performed at the first session, after group members introduced themselves but before they started the first case. 

• The first question posed was: “Name one thing a good group member does?” Pieces of paper were handed out on which students were asked to write their response. All papers were collected into a bag. The bag was then passed around and students were asked to draw out a paper and read it aloud while the facilitator made a list of the responses. 
• This process was repeated for the second one- minute paper, for which the question posed was: “Name one thing a good faculty learning facilitator does?” 

Reflection by students at this first session was private while each composed their response. Facilitators were encouraged to set aside time during the last formal group session of each week to discuss students’ perceptions of the learning process within the group. To initiate discussion, the facilitator provided the list of responses gathered during the first session. Group members were encouraged to collectively reflect and discuss how the group and learning process was working.

설문 도구 Survey instrument.

Students’ scores and comments from the level-one evaluation survey (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) were examined for the six-week “Host Defense” course that occurs early in the curriculum.

Clinical Presentation-based Curriculum

인터벤션 방식 Intervention.

The intervention consisted of a student survey using an audience response system. 

• The survey question, which described team-based learning in layman’s terms for the students, was: “Our next session (based on the self- taught learning module) will be interactive and composed of clinical vignettes with audience response questions that you can use to formatively assess your knowledge. How would you prefer to answer the questions during this session?” 
• The possible responses were: “By consensus of your assigned small group” (consistent with team- based learning) or “Individually” (inconsistent with team-based learning). 

Students’ responses to the survey were collected anonymously, and the collective results were shared with the class. For the year when there was no intervention, the class was not surveyed and students were not given any chance to provide input.

Assessment.

Results

Problem-Based Learning Curriculum

Clinical Presentation-Based Curriculum

Discussion

Since students selected for admission may have been successful in situations dominated by didactic instruction, they may be highly resistant to self-directed learning (Long, 1994; Albers, 2009). Especially during their first year, students may reward faculty who use a directive lecture approach with higher scores on teaching evaluations.

두 가지 인터벤션은 그 교육과정 자체만큼이나 다르지만 둘 다 결과가 좋았다.

The two types of interventions seem almost as different as the curricula themselves, yet both yielded very favorable results.

Simpson, D., Fincher, R.-M. E., Hafler, J. P., Irby, D. M., Rich, B. F., Rosenfeld, G. C. & Viggiano, T. R. (2007). Advancing educators and education by defining the components and evidence associated with educational scholarship. Medical Education, 41, 1002-1009.

FOSTERING SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN MEDICAL SCHOOL: WHEN CURRICULAR INNOVATION IS NOT ENOUGH

Janet F. Piskurich

Medical students are poised to enter a constantly changing field. Although medical school education standards specify inclusion of independent study to foster lifelong learning skills, first-year medical students may pressure faculty to provide necessary knowledge in strict lecture format, especially early in their programs. This paper reports on two different interventions that were used to help support students’ autonomy and their acceptance of self-directed learning during this transitional period in two very different medical school curricula. Medical students’ perceptions of sessions that fostered independent study were improved by interventions that allowed students to provide input into the facilitation or implementation of these sessions.

자기주도학습준비도와 의과대학에서의 지식기반- 혹은 수행능력기반- 척도로 측정한 성공의 관계(IJSDL, 2011)

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING READINESS TO KNOWLEDGE-BASED AND PERFORMANCE BASED MEASURES OF SUCCESS IN MEDICAL STUDENTS

Brian W. Findley and Robert J. Bulik

Sloan, Donnelly, Schwartz, and Strodel은 "의사들은 임상역량이 지식만으로 충분하지 않다는 것을 안다. 충실한 지식의 토대를 갖추는 것은 필수적이지만, 임상 역량은 다른 숨낳은 영역도 포괄한다" 

Sloan, Donnelly, Schwartz, and Strodel (1995) declare, “Physicians recognize that clinical competence is determined by more than knowledge. Although a sound knowledge base is vital, clinical competence encompasses numerous other domains” (p. 736). Almost 20 years ago, 

• the UK Medical Council published Tomorrow’s Doctors, which called for increasing the SDL capacity in medical education (Whittle & Murdoch-Eaton, 2004). More recently, 
• the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) established implementing practice-based learning in medical school as one of its six core competencies. Two of the key components of this approach are directly related to SDL--lifelong learning and self-reflection (ACGME, 2006).

문제의식

Problem Statement

의학교육의 중요한 교리 중 하나는 SDL과 같은 역량을 개발하여 평생학습, 독립적 학습을 할 수 있게 하는 것이다. Harvey, Rothman, and Fecker 는 "독립적인 자기주도적 평생학습자가 되게 하는 것은 학부의학교육의 중요한 목표 중 하나이다."라고 했다.

One of the major tenets of medical education is to cultivate competencies, such as SDL, that will transfer into lifelong, independent learning (Whittle & Murdoch-Eaton, 2001). Harvey, Rothman, and Fecker (2003) state that, “becoming an independent and self-directed lifelong learner is one of the critical outcomes of undergraduate medical education” (p. 1259).

의학과 3학년을 대상으로 한 연구에서 SDLRS/LPA가 일반인보다 매우 높은 평균점수를 받은 것이 나타났다.

Previously, a study done with third-year medical students enrolled in this curriculum curriculum (IMC) showed significantly (p < .01) higher mean scores (236.6) when compared to the general population (214.0) on Guglielmino’s (1978) Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale/Learner Preference Assessment (SDLRS/LPA) (Bulik, 2003).

SDL에 의해서 의사로서 바람직한 자질을 기를 수 있기에, PBL/EBM은 의과대학 교육과정에 더 흔해지고 있다. 

Partially due to the fact that the desirable traits of physicians are fostered by SDL, PBL/EBM is becoming more common in medical school curricula. Therefore, the contribution of SDL throughout the medical school experience is worthy of investigation.

개념틀

Conceptual Framework

의과대학 통합교육과정

Integrated Medical Curriculum

AAMC에 따르면 의학교육과정의 질을 개선하는 것은 끊임없는 작업이다. 의학은 언제나 "진화하는 사회적 요구, 진료 패턴, 과학적 발전"에 응답해야 한다.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (1998) the process of improving the quality of medical education curriculum is continuous. Medicine must always be responsive to “evolving societal needs, practice patterns and scientific developments” (Association of American Medical Colleges, p. 9).

Lujan and DiCarlo 는 학부과학교육의 양이 학생들의 학업적 성공에 아무런 영향이 없음을 지적했다.

Lujan and DiCarlo (2006) note that the quantity of undergraduate science education has no effect on medical students’ academic success.

자연과학, 해부학, 생화학 지식이 거의 유지되지 않는 것 때문에 교육과정과 관련한 의사결정자들은 그들의 정책을 다시 생각해보게 되었다. 그 결과 "교사들은 학생이 암기해야 하는 사실정보의 총량을 줄이고, 수동적 강의 형태를 줄이고, 더 많은 시간을 학생들이 능동적, 독립적, 문제해결자가 되도록 하는데 노력해야 한다."라고 했다.

Low retention rates of basic science, anatomy and biochemistry information prior to medical school graduation have led those involved in curricular decision-making to rethink their strategies (Lujan & DiCarlo, 2006). As a consequence, the philosophy that “teachers should reduce the total amount of factual information students are expected to memorize, reduce our use of the passive lecture format, and devote much more effort to helping students become active, independent learners and problem solvers” (Lujan & DiCarlo, 2006, p. 17), is now prevalent in medical education. 

자기주도학습을 개발하기 위한 두 개의 비슷한 방법이 PBL과 EBM이다. 

Two closely related methods identified to facilitate the development of self- directed learning are problem-based learning (PBL), and evidence-based medicine (EBM) curricula (Williams, 2004). These forms of self-instruction have increased substantially over the past 15 years. In fact, 94% of medical schools reported using self-instruction in their curricula in 1998-99 (Albanese, 2000).

PBL의 도입

PBL, which is grounded in cognitive psychology, was introduced in the late 1970’s (Tärnvik, 2007) by Barrows and Tamblyn at McMaster University in Canada (Trevena, 2007).

PBL을 지적하는 사람도 있지만, 정보처리이론에 기반을 두고 있다.

While PBL has detractors (Colliver, 2000) who claim all medical education is clinically contextual, PBL is based on information-processing theory which involves activating prior knowledge, encoding specificity, and knowledge elaboration (Albanese, 2000; Schmidt, Vermeulen, & Van Der Molen, 2006).

EBM은 19세기 중반의 파리로 거슬러 올라가는데, 다음과 같이 정의된다. Bardley는 EBM이 진행되는 다섯 단계를 설명했다.

Evidence-based medicine, whose origins date back to mid-19th century Paris, is defined as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients (Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, 1996, p. 71).” Bradley et al. (2005) identify five steps to the EBM process: 

• formulating clinically important questions, 
• efficient gathering of clinical evidence (research), 
• critical appraisal (assessment) of evidence, 
• applying evidence to practice, 
• evaluating own practice” (p. 150).

연구결과에 기반하자면 PBL.EBM의 인지적 장점은 SDL기술을 기르는 것이며, 이것은 다음에 도움이 된다.

Based on available research, the cognitive advantages of PBL/EBM are an increase in honing SDL skills that transfer to 

• professional practice, 
• motivation (Schmidt et al., 2006), 
• scientific thinking, 
• promoting deeper understanding (Yalcin et al., 2006), 
• better knowledge acquisition (Bradley et al., 2005; Schmidt et al.), 
• critical appraisal skills, learner autonomy (Bradley et al.), and 
• problem solving (Schmidt et al.; Yalcin et al.). 

대인관계적 장점은 다음과 같다.

The interpersonal advantages of PBL/EBM include 

• improved professional collaboration, (Schmidt et al., 2006; Yalcin et al., 2006), 
• conflict resolution (Yalcin et al.), 
• retention, 
• better patient communication, 
• teamwork, 
• expertise in running meetings, 
• helping colleagues’ confidence, 
• ability to work and plan efficiently (Schmidt et al.) and 
• improved attitudes (Bradley et al., 2005). Further, 

또한 전통적인 교육과정보다 장점도 있다.

PBL enhances enjoyment of school by both student and instructor when compared to traditional curriculum (Albanese, 2000), and they affiliate better, as well (Abraham, Upadbya, & Ramnarayan, 2005; Albanese, 2000). In fact, PBL graduates were more likely to, “spend more time in direct patient care, bill for more psychotherapy services per month, have an academic appointment, enter family medicine and be in group practice” (Albanese, p. 736).

의학분야에서의 자기주도학습

Self-Directed Learning in the Medical Field

세 개의 미국 의과대학에서 진행된 연구를 보면, SDLRS/LPA는 신뢰할 수 있는, 성-평등한 평가법이다. 의과대학생의 평균점수는 235점으로 일반 인구집단보다 높다.

In a study involving three U.S. medical schools (n=941), the SDLRS/LPA was found to be a reliable, gender-fair assessment. The mean score for the medical students was 235, placing them in the above-average range of SDLRS/LPA scores for the general population (Guglielmino, Mazmanian, Guglielmino, Hoban, & Pololi, 2002).

Assessments

Final grade.

National Board of Medical Examiners-Family Medicine Subject Examination.

Objective Structured Clinical Exam.

Preceptor ratings.

Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale/Learning Preference Assessment.

Data Collection and Analysis

Findings

Mean Scores

연구질문 Research Question 1

Do medical students who have completed the FM clerkship have higher scores on the SDLRS/LPA than the general adult population reported by Guglielmino and Guglielmino in 1988 (214.0 + 25.59)? The mean SDLRS/LPA score was 229.06 + 23.19, which places the sample in the top 31% of those tested (Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 1991).

연구질문 Research Question 2

Is there a significant correlation between medical students’ SDLRS/LPA scores and knowledge-based measures of success (NBME scores)? The Pearson r correlation showed a significant (p < 0.05) relationship between SDLRS/LPA scores and NBME-FM scores, but the relationship was negligible (r = .073).

연구질문 Research Question 3

Is there a significant correlation between medical students’ SDLRS/LPA scores and performance-based measures of success (OSCE scores, preceptor rating scores)? The Pearson r correlation showed significant (p < 0.01) relationships between SDLRS/LPA and OSCE 1 (r = .109, p = .001), OSCE 2 (r = .103, p = .002), and OSCE AVG (r = .133, p = .000). Correlation analysis also showed significant (p < 0.05) correlations between SDLRS/LPA scores and preceptor rating 2 (r = .168, p = .034), and preceptor rating 3 (r = .305, p = 0.05).

연구질문 Research Question 4

Is there a significant correlation between medical students’ SDLRS/LPA scores and the combination of knowledge-based and performance-based measures of success (final grade)? Correlation analysis showed significant (p < 0.01) correlations between SDLRS/LPA scores and final grade (r = .138). While this correlation is significant, it should be interpreted with caution since the effect size is small.

연구질문 Research Question 5

Are knowledge-based and performance-based measures of success (OSCE and preceptor ratings scores) and SDLRS/LPA scores significant in predicting NBME-FM scores? Regression analysis was performed to determine the nature of the relationship between the variables. The regression equation used NBME-FM scores as the criterion variable and SDLRS/LPA scores, OSC AVG, and preceptor ratings as variables for predictors. The final grade was purposely not included in this analysis since NBME-FM scores were calculated into that score and it would confound the results due to collinearity.

Conclusions, Discussion And Recommendations

Conclusions and Discussion

While the relationships of SDLRS/LPA scores of medical students in this study with knowledge-based and performance-based examinations were modest, they mirror the relationships that have appeared consistently across a number of studies and indicate a tendency for medical students with higher levels of SDL to perform better in medical preparation programs.

One of the major tenets of medical education is to cultivate competencies, such as SDL, that will transfer into lifelong independent learning (Whittle & Murdoch-Eaton, 2001). Accordingly, Harvey et al. (2003) state that, “becoming an independent and self-directed lifelong learner is one of the critical outcomes of undergraduate medical education” (p. 1259). Bulik (2003) agrees, stating “Success in medical school is strongly related to the ability to direct and regulate one’s own learning experience” (p. 76).

새로운 지식이 끊임없이 생산되면서 진료의 표준을 준수하는 최신 상태를 유지하는 것은 의사의 직무 중 더욱 더 큰 부분을 차지하고 있다. 실제로 생의학지식의 반감기는 7~10년으로 추정되고 있다. Friedman 등에 따르면 생의학지식이 기하급수적으로 증가하고, 하나의 지식의 반감기가 짧아지면서 근대의학은 진료를 지원하고 에러를 줄이기 위해 점점 더 외부의 지식에 의존하게 되었다. 

The constant proliferation of new information has made maintaining currency with best practices for standards of care an even greater component of a physician’s job. In fact, it has been estimated that the half-life of biomedical knowledge is 7-10 years (Rugh, Goggins, & Hatch, 2009). According to Friedman et al. (2005), “the exponential growth of biomedical knowledge and shortening half-life of any single item of knowledge both suggest that modern medicine will increasingly depend on external knowledge to support practice and reduce errors” (p. 334). It is evident that physicians will be increasingly reliant on self-directed learning in order to maintain proper levels of care.

Albanese, M. (2000). Problem-based learning: Why curricula are likely to show little effect on knowledge and clinical skills. Medical Education, 34, 729-738.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING READINESS TO KNOWLEDGE-BASED AND PERFORMANCEBASED MEASURES OF SUCCESS IN MEDICAL STUDENTS

Brian W. Findley and Robert J. Bulik

The purpose of this study was to compare the self-directed learning readiness of third-year medical students to the general population mean; and to determine (a) if relationships exist between selfdirected learning readiness and other measures of medical school success; and (b) if measures of success in medical school and Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS/LPA) scores are significant in predicting National Board of Medical Examiners Family Medicine Subject Examination (NBME-FM) scores. Mean SDLRS/LPA score for the 873 participants was 229.06 + 23.19, significantly higher than the general population mean (p < .05). Correlations were significant for SDLRS/LPA scores to NBME-FM scores (r = .073, p < .05), Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) scores (r = .133, p < .01), and final grade (r = .138, p < .01). Regression analysis revealed that SDLRS/LPA, OSCE AVG and preceptor ratings predicted 9.7% of the variance in NBME-FM, which was significant (p < .001).

자기주도학습을 촉진하기 위한 교수개발: THE NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY접근법 (IJSDL, 2012)

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT TO PROMOTE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: THE NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY APPROACH Gerda Reitsma, Lucy Guglielmino, and Elsa Mentz

모든 교육은 미래에 대한 어떤 이미지로부터 출발한다. 만약 한 사회가 그리는 미래에 대한 이미지가 부정확하면, 그 교육 시스템은 젊은 세대를 배신하고 말 것이다. - 엘빈 토플러

All education springs from some image of the future. If the image of the future held by a society is grossly inaccurate, its education system will betray its youth. Alvin Toffler (1974)

학습촉진자는 사실상 무한한 양의 정보와 지식 속에서 학습자가 적절한 정보의 위치를 찾고, 평가하고, 선택하는 것을 도와주어야 한다. 명백하게, 자기주도학습은 이러한 변화의 중심에 있다.

Now, the learning facilitator needs to become a primary resource for assisting learners to locate, evaluate, and select among a virtually enless amount of available information and knowledge. Clearly, self-directed learning is central to both of these shifts (Francom, 2010).

SDL에서의 교수개발

Faculty Development In SDL

교수 콜로키움

Faculty Colloquia

위원회의 첫 번째 단계는 자기주도학습, 자기조절학습, 성인학습, 평가 등의 개념을 논의하는 교수 콜로키움을 여는 것이었다.

The Teaching-Learning Committee of the Faculty compiled an action plan to execute the strategic priority of implementing SDL throughout the curriculum. One of the first action steps was to organize faculty colloquia where the concepts of self-directed learning, self-regulated learning, adult learning, and assessment were discussed.

• 첫 단계는 정의, 개념, 이점에 대한 논의
A November, 2009, colloquium focused primarily on discussion of definitions, conceptualizations, and benefits. Three NWU faculty members led the discussion. 

• 두 번째 단계는 사례를 공유하는 것. 밑바닥부터의 사례가 교수들에게 긍정적인 자시를 이끌어냄. 
At a second colloquium in May, 2010, four other NWU faculty members presented examples from practice. The grassroots advocacy and examples from within the Faculty did much to develop a positive attitude towards change throughout the Faculty of Education. In addition, the representative from the administration was favorably impressed.

이 워크숍의 초점은 교수들이 준비되도록 하는 것

Initially, the central concern for the workshop was revision of the preservice teacher education program to prepare teachers who are more highly self-directed learners.

교수 자기평가

Faculty Self-Assessment

2일짜리 워크숍에 참석한 교수들은 SDLRS를 했다. 결과는 교수들이 높은 자기주도성을 가진 것으로 나타났다. 한 집단의 평균점수치고는 가장 높은 수준임.

The lecturers* who attended the two-day workshop on SDL completed Guglielmino’s (2010) Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (Learning Preference Assessment) on-line beforehand. The results from the tests indicated that the lecturers had a high level of readiness for self-directed learning, with a mean of 243.64 ± 23.01 out of a maximum of 290. This mean relates favorably to some of the highest mean scores on the SDLRS, understandable since the Faculty has an expressed interest in and focus on SDL.

*(As in Europe, lecturer is the term used to refer to faculty members, as Faculty refers to the whole body of faculty, i.e. the Faculty of Education Science)

SDL 교수 워크숍

The SDL Faculty Workshop

성찰

Reflection. 

워크숍에서는 먼저 교수들이 스스로의 자기주도학습 준비도에 대해서 성찰해보고, 자신의 과거 자기주도학습 프로젝트에 대해서 생각해봤다.

The workshop began with lecturers* reflecting on their own self-directed learning readiness and past self-directed learning projects.

대부분의 교수들은 SDL에 대해서 긍정적이지만, 어떻게 도입해야 하는가에 대해서 불확실해했다. 또한 학생들의 반응에 대해서도 우려했다.

In summary, most of the lecturers were positive about SDL, but unsure how to go about implementing it.

SDL관련 정보 제공

Building an information base on SDL.

더 많은 정보를 제공했음

Further information on the 

• processof SDL (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Candy, 1991; Knowles, 1975; Long, 1989, 1990), 
• characteristics of highly self-directed learners (Guglielmino, 1978; Oliveira & Simões, 2006; Posner, 1991), and 
• research-based benefits of SDL (Guglielmino,2008; Guglielmino et al., 2009) 

were discussed and questions were addressed. 

교육과정 전체에 걸쳐 SDL을 도입하는 전략의 토대는 SDL을 '개발가능한 능력'으로 보는 것이었으므로, 그러한 개념을 보여주는 연구를 보다 강조하였다.

Since the strategic priority of implementing SDL throughout the curriculum was based on the concept of SDL as a developable capacity (Guglielmino, 1978, 2008), research results demonstrating the accuracy of that concept were emphasized (Gabrielle, 2003; Kasworm, 1983; Litzinger, Wise, & Lee, 2005; Posner, 1991, 2009; Slaughter, 2009).

SDL전략과 학업성취도를 연결시키는 연구를 보여주었다. SDL준비도가 직장에서의 우수한 수행능력과 연관되어 있음을, 그리고 국가의 경제지표와 연결되어 있어서 국가 개발의 중요한 지점임을 강조했다.

Studies linking integration of SDL strategies and improved academic achievement, such as the research of Dynan, Cate, & Rhee (2008), Gabrielle (2003), Nowocien (2005), Reio (2004), and Wayne State School of Pharmacy (Slaughter, 2009) were presented. Mention was made of correlations of SDL readiness with high workplace performance (Connolly, 2004; Durr, 1992; Liddell, 2008; Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 2008; Roberts, 1986, among others) and country economic indicators (Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 2006), areas of strategic importance for country development.

학생들의 SDL 준비도 향상을 위한 접근법

Exploring approaches to facilitating student development of SDL readiness.

자기주도적 학습자를 개발하고 지원하는 전략 등이 간단히 소개되었다.

Strategies and teaching approaches supportive of developing self- directed learners, such as 

problem-based learning, 

project-based learning, 

peer teaching, 

communities of learning, 

use of technology, and 

SDL-promoting assessment 

were briefly introduced.

각 그룹마다 토론을 진행하고 다음날 자신들이 선택한 접근법을 발표하게 했음

Time was provided for group work and division of responsibilities. The next day, after some additional group time, representatives from each group delivered interactive sessions to familiarize the group with the approach they had chosen, including a power point presentation supported by activities to involve the learners and allow them to share their own experiences.

도입의 위한 계획수립

Planning for Implementation

워크숍의 마지막 세션에서 교수들은 다시 한번 그룹별로 나뉘어 SDL을 도입하기 위한 situation analysis를 수행하였다. 이 토의의 결과는 각 교수들이 SDL 도입에 대해서는 긍정적이나, 그러기 위해서 넘어야 할 장애물들이 분명히 있음이 나타났다. 장애물에는 다음과 같은 것이 있다.

During the last session of the workshop, the lecturers were once again divided into different groups and were invited to do a situation analysis of implementing SDL in the Faculty. The outcomes of this session indicated that lecturers were positive about the implementation of SDL across the curriculum, but that they perceived very definitive obstacles that need to be addressed to make the process possible. These obstacles include 

• institutional policies and procedures, 
• infrastructure and administration, 
• Faculty development, and 
• SDL readiness of the students.

SDL을 과목 단위별로 도입하는 action plan을 세웠으며, 그런식으로 거의 대부분의 교육과정에 걸쳐서 SDL이 도입되도록 하는 것이었다. 다음과 같은 것이 필요하다

Action plans include implementing SDL in a course-by-course approach, ending with the majority of curricula implementing SDL (Major & Palmer, 2006), by 

• redesigning courses, study guides, contact sessions, 
• implementing new teaching methods with appropriate assessment (Costa & Kallick, 2004; Dynan, Cate & Rhee, 2008), 
• increasing reflection by both lecturer and students (Major & Palmer, 2002), and 
• providing more opportunities for collegial discussions on the process of implementing SDL (Major & Palmer, 2006), thus resulting in collegial support.

지속적인 교수개발 노력

Continuing Faculty Development Efforts

초반의 교수개발 노력은 교수들의 실험과, 개인적 상담, 추가적인 워크숍과 콜로키엄 등으로 이어졌다.

The initial faculty development efforts were followed up with faculty experimentation, individual consultations on research and practice, and additional workshops and colloquia both on SDL general knowledge and on some of the specific approaches being used to develop students’ SDL readiness.

Bulik, R. J., & Frye, A. W. (2004). A workshop for faculty: Teaching beliefs and implications for self-directed learning. International Journal of Self- Directed Learning, 1(1), 70-75. Retrieved from http://sdlglobal.com/ journals.php

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT TO PROMOTE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: THE NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY APPROACH

Gerda Reitsma, Lucy Guglielmino, and Elsa Mentz

This paper shares an approach to the process of implementing selfdirected learning across the curriculum in a university Faculty of Education. How is it initiated? What preparation is needed for faculty? What are the logical steps and probable barriers? The process used by the Faculty of Education, North-West University (NWU), South Africa, is described.

자기주도학습과 오픈소스 소프트웨어 참가자: 특징과 관계(IJSDL, 2012)

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE FORUM PARTICIPANTS: CHARACTERISTICS AND RELATIONSHIPS

Lila Holt and Vandana Singh

최근 SDL은 개인의 철학적 관점에 따라 세 가지 목적을 갖는 것으로 분류되엇다.

More recently, self-directed learning (SDL) has been categorized as having one of three goals depending on a person’s philosophical view: 

• (a) personal responsibility, 
• (b) transformational learning, and 
• (c) social impact (Merriam, 2001). 

• '개인의 책임'이라는 목적은 학습자가 자기 자신의 학습에 책임을 지고 통제권을 갖는 것이다. 
• '전확학습'의 목적은 자기성찰과 자신에 대해서 아는 것이 자기주도학습의 핵심적 부분인 '자율성'에 중요하다고 본다. 
• '사회적 영향력'에 있어서 학습자는 사회적 변화를 위한 동력을 공론화 시키기 위해서 인터넷을 사용할 수 있다.

The goal of personal responsibility is for learners to take control by being personally accountable for their own learning (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Garrison, 1997). The goal of transformational learning posits reflection and self-knowledge as necessary for the autonomy that is an integral part of self-direction in learning (Mezirow, 1985). Other goals of self- directed learning are social impact and emancipatory learning. For example, learners can use the Internet to mobilize, publicize a cause, and create social change (Meikle, 2002; Shirky, 2008).

Personal Responsibility

One widely recognized model of self-direction in learning—the Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) model—depicts SDL as encompassing both personal or learner characteristics (LC) as well as a learning process called the teaching/learning (TL) transaction (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991). In the PRO model, it is the learner’s assumption of personal responsibility that stimulates the learning process. In an effort to validate ways of empirically examining selfdirection in learning, a recent scale was developed based on the PRO model of selfdirection in learning (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991) titled the Personal Responsibility Orientation–Self-Directed Learning Scale (PRO-SDLS) (Stockdale, 2003; Stockdale & Brockett, 2010). The PRO model of self-direction, as captured in the PRO-SDLS, includes the following four factors:

1. Control: 

According to Brockett & Hiemstra (1991), “[I]t is the ability and/or willingness of individuals to take control of their own learning that determines their potential for self-direction” (p. 26). Control is a factor of the TL transaction of self-direction.

2. Initiative: 

Based on the PRO model of self-directed learning, the learner is proactive by taking steps toward decisions and/or actions. Previous definitions have used the term initiative in a similar manner (Knowles, 1975). Again, initiative is a factor of the TL transaction.

3. Motivation: 

Included in the learner characteristics of the PRO model, motivation is the desire to take action steps. This desire can be internal or external. Adult education scholars propose a theoretical relationship between self-directed learning and intrinsic motivation (Bitterman, 1989; Delahaye & Smith, 1995).

4. Self-efficacy: 

Like motivation, self-efficacy has been derived from Social Learning Theory and refers to the belief in one’s own capabilities required to produce a given outcome (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997). The self-efficacy factor is based on writings regarding the learner’s self-confidence (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991). Again, self-efficacy is part of the learner characteristics of SDL.

Further characteristics of SDL have been defined through the construction of a widely used scale to measure readiness for self-direction. The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) (Guglielmino, 1978) has been translated into at least 20 languages and has a wide acceptance among many scholars in the field of adult education (Caffarella & Caffarella, 1986). To date, the SDLRS has been used by over 300,000 individuals and 500 organizations (Guglielmino, 2010). Developed through a three-round Delphi study of 14 SDL experts, the 58-item scale includes eight factors identified through factor analysis (Guglielmino, 1978).

Those factors include:

1. Love of learning

2. Self-concept as an independent learner

3. Tolerance of risk in learning

4. Creativity

5. A view that learning is lifelong

6. Initiative

7. Self-understanding

8. Acceptance of responsibility for one’s own learning

While no quantitative assessments are used in this study, the characteristics that have been identified in the construction of scales to measure self-direction in learning and/or readiness supply a needed lens through which to examine the selfdirection in learning of forum participants.

Transformational Learning

A second identified goal of SDL is transformational learning, which encompasses the changing of one’s assumptions and values through the learning process (Mezirow, 1981). According to Mezirow (1981), “Enhancing the learner’s ability for self-direction in learning as a foundation for a distinctive philosophy of adult education has breadth and power. It represents the mode of learning characteristic of adulthood” (p. 21). Mezirow (1981) goes on to offer guidelines to enhance self-direction in learning. Included in those guidelines that may lead to transformative learning are the following:

가이드라인(by Mezirow)

• Encourage a progressive reduction of the learner’s dependence on the educator.

• Enable the learner to use learning resources – especially how to engage in learning relationships.

• Assist the learner in defining needs and assuming responsibility for those needs.

• Organize learning around current levels of understanding.

• Foster the use of learner decision-making and evaluating learning via criteria.

• Foster a self-reflexive corrective approach.

• Facilitate problem posing and solving.

• Reinforce learner self-concept.

As an extension to transformative learning, Mezirow (1981) further suggests that such transformation may result in emancipatory or social action and thus create the power for adults to further change and learn. Other guidelines that promote self-directed leaning as well as transformational learning were suggested by Taylor (2008) through a review of the literature (p. 27):

가이드라인(by Taylor)

• Promote student autonomy/agency.

• Create a safe, open environment for learners.

• Encourage critical reflection.

• Acknowledge affective aspects of learning (the role of feelings and emotions).

• Value learning for action.

• Facilitate learning that involves the examination of issues, values, and concerns.

• Value and include students’ experience.

• Accentuate importance of feedback and assessment.

• Develop awareness of social contextual influences in learning.

• Encourage and support collaborative and group learning.

Brockett and Hiemstra 의 세 가지 전략

In addition to the above guidelines and relationships, Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) note three strategies for helping a learner enhance self-direction in learning: 

• to promote critical reflection and 
• (to promote) rational thinking, and 
• to facilitate or use helping skills to enhance learner self-direction. 

While the authors also suggest specific tools and methodologies to implement these three strategies, the implementation in this study will be examined through the use of OSS forums because they have had such successful outcomes.

Social Action

Tough - 자기주도적학습이란 "개개인의 관심을 억압하는 것의 반대편에 설 것을 강조하는 문화적 전통"으로 해석될 수 있다.

In examining “adult self-teachers,” Tough (1979) found that adults engage in continued learning by undertaking an average of eight learning projects a year. Within the scope of these projects, there may be political acts for power and control. Self-directedness in learning “can be interpreted as part of a cultural tradition that emphasizes standing against the individual’s repressive interests” (Brookfield, 1993, p. 227). 

Brockett and Hiemstra - 자기주도성의 정치적 차원은 여전히 계속 성인교육자들에게 간과당하고 있다.

Additionally, Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) surround personal responsibility with social context. They argue that “The political dimension of self-direction continues to be largely overlooked by adult educators” (p. 220). Thus, self-directed learning may become conducive to creating social and political change.

In summary, self-direction in learning has had the three areas of personal responsibility, transformational learning, and social action identified as goals. Not only are there various factors that have been identified that may underlie selfdirection in learning, but self-directed learning itself can be learned. Various facilitation methods have been identified to enhance learner self-directed learning.

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE FORUM PARTICIPANTS: CHARACTERISTICS AND RELATIONSHIPS

Lila Holt and Vandana Singh

Today more than ever, the workplace and education ecosystems strive to keep pace with the vast amount of information and knowledge available in a global community. Within these environments, self-directed learning has been identified as a needed skill in the 21st century to underpin constant change. In an effort to further expand pedagogies for both the workplace and higher education, tools such as online forums are now used within educational environments. This paper examines characteristics and relationships of self-directed learning within forum participation. Due to the successful outcomes of the use of forums within open source software (OSS), the OSS forums became the theater for this examination. Analysis of data derived from open-ended questionnaires and follow-up interviews provides further insights into self-directed learning and forum participation.

자기주도학습의 두 가지 차원(IJSDL, 2012)

THE DOUBLE DIMENSION OF SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: LEARNERS EXPERIMENT WITH FREEDOM

Philippe Carré

The Double Dimension of Self-Directed Learning

그 개념이 널리 퍼지기 전부터, SDL이란 아이디어는 두 가지 차원에서 다뤄졌다. 이는 Tough의 '성인의 학습 프로젝트 분석'으로부터 시작된다. 한 가지는 '기대 이득'이고 다른 하나는 '자기 계획;이 성인의 자율학습의 토대로 보았다. Long의 대표적 연구에서 SDL을 "개인 수준에서 주도된 의도된 정신적 과정으로서, 정보를 검색하고 규명하는 행동을 기반으로 한다"라고 정의하였다. Carre는 1975년부터 2000년까지의 문헌을 분석하여 적극성 요인과 메타인지/전략 요인을 찾아냈다. 그리고는 SDT와 SRT와의 유사성을 언급했다.

Even before the concept was widely disseminated, the idea that self-directed learning (SDL) was based on two articulated dimensions appeared in several authors’ work, starting with Tough’s (1971) renowned analysis of adults’ learning projects. Anticipated benefits, on the one hand, and self-planning skills, on the other, appeared as fundamentals of adult autonomous learning. Long’s (1991) seminal definition characterized SDL 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). Carré (2003) identified a regular twofold partition of conative and metacognitive/strategic factors in several SDL scholars’ work from 1975 to 2000. He then noted the proximity of these factors with well-established theories in educational psychology: self-determination motivation theory and self-regulated learning theory.

이후 SDL의 개념적 모델이 제안되었고, 그것은 (a)자기 결정적 동기, (b) 자기조절학습 능력과 전략을 기반으로 한다. 

A conceptual model of self-directed learning was then proposed, as grounded in the dynamic interaction of (a) self-determined motivation to learn and (b) abilities and strategies of self-regulation in learning. Later, following an extensive search of two of the largest international educational databases, Carré and Cosnefroy (2011) noted that precious little research effort has been devoted to fertilizing common scientific or pedagogical ground by the relevant scholarly communities (self-determination, self-regulation, self-direction), in spite of the obvious semantic and pragmatic closeness of the three sets of concepts, which all relate to some form of autonomy in learning. In a recent synthesis, we proposed a fourfold classification of related concepts (Carré, Moisan, & Poisson, 2010), which is represented in Table 1.

After thus clarifying the notional status of various uses of the “self” component in learning, the present author wished to conduct an experiment using the twofold concept of self-directed learning as part of a course-based actionresearch project. This article presents the course itself and the research method, gives an account of the main results of the experiment, and draws some conclusions related to the facilitation of self-directed learning in a formal setting.

THE DOUBLE DIMENSION OF SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: LEARNERS EXPERIMENT WITH FREEDOM

Philippe Carré

On the basis of previous research in adult education and learning psychology, the author has proposed a dual model of selfdirected learning, which defines it as a dynamic combination of selfregulated learning strategies and self-determined motivation. This model was used to design an innovative 24-hr course for master’s students that was organized for three different groups over a threeyear period. The present paper analyzes students’ end-of-course evaluation forms and proposes a research option for testing the model further on a larger empirical scale.

자기주도학습: 왜 여전히 교수들은 잘못하고 있는가? (IJSDL, 2013)

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: WHY DO MOST INSTRUCTORS STILL DO IT WRONG?

Roger Hiemstra

Instructional/Facilitator Roles 

교수의 역할은 다음과 같다.

Instructional/Facilitator roles that work for me in promoting corresponding personal responsibility among adult learners are listed below.

1. 내용 전문가/제공자

1. Content resource

서적 자료나 인터넷, 발표자료, 면대면, 온라인 토론 등등을 통해서 전문성과 지식을 공유한다.

Sharing expertise and knowledge with learners through written material, web pages, presentations, face to face or online discussions, and one-on- one advising, conversations, counseling, and coaching (Posner, 2009). 

2. 자원 배분자

2. Resource locator

다양학 학습자원을 배분하고 공유하여 학습경험 중 드러난 학습요구를 충족시킬 수 있게 한다. 서적 자료, 인터넷 자료, 다양한 사람을 만날 수 있도록 촉진하는 것(기관 방문), 작은 인턴십, 주제별 전문가와의 대화 등이 될 수 있다.

Locating and sharing various learning resources to meet needs identified and emerging during learning experiences. These can include written materials, Internet resources, and facilitating for learners various people-oriented experiences such as agency audits or visits, mini-internships, and talking with topic specialists. 

3. 관심 유발자

3. Interest stimulator

면대면 혹은 온라인, 다양한 학습자원, 학습 경험을 조직화하고 활용하여 학습자의 관심을 유발할 수 있도록 설계한다. 게임 기계, 소그룹 토론, 온라인 비동시 포럼, 면대면 혹은 온라인 게스트 발표, 유머러스한 PPT발표 등도 포함된다.

Arranging for and employing, face-to-face or online, various resources and learning experiences designed to maintain learner interest such as gaming devices, small group discussions, online asynchronous forums, face-to- face or online guest presentations, and even humorous PPT presentations.

4. 긍정적 태도 유발자

4. Positive attitude generator

학생들의 자신감을 높이고 건설적 피드백과 개인적인 격려, 긍정적 강화, 폭넓은 비평을 통해서 스스로 학습 결정을 내릴 수 있도록 한다.

Helping students gain increasing confidence in making personal learning decisions via constructive feedback, personal encouragement, positive reinforcement, and extensive critique of written material. 

5. 창의성과 비판적 사고 유발자

5. Creativity and critical thinking stimulator

토론, 스터디그룹, 일기, 독서그룹, 롤플레이, 그림을 이용한 일기, 관련된 사람의 전기 작성 등을 활용하여 학습자의 창의성과 비판적 사고 기술을 자극한다. 웹페이지나 블로그를 만들게 하는 방법도 있다.

Stimulating a learner's creative and critical thinking skills through discussions (face-to-face or online), study groups, journal writing (Hiemstra, 2001), interactive reading logs, role playing, creating a written or pictorial autobiography (Hiemstra, 2011b), writing a biography of a relevant individual, or various ways of stimulating real-life experiences. Additional means include helping learners develop web pages or blogs as an electronic technique for sharing what they have developed. 

6. 평가 촉진자

6. Evaluation stimulator

학습자의 진전을 평가하고 자신들이 스스로 자기평가를 하게끔 한다. 학습계약은 학습자들이 교수자, 동료, 기타 다른 사람들을 자기자신의 학습노력을 평가하는데 활용할 것인지를 생각하게끔 도와준다.

Evaluating learner progress and stimulating self- evaluation by learners. The learning contract provides opportunities for learners to think about how they can use an instructor, colleagues, and others to enhance personal evaluation of their learning efforts.

My Colleagues Voice Their Opinions

• Encouraging Students to Take Individual Initiative

• Using Learning Contracts

• Why Do Teacher-Directed Approaches Still Dominate?

• Why Do Most Still Do It Wrong?

왜 여전히 잘못하고 있는가에 대한 나의 생각

Why I Believe Most Still Do It Wrong

우선, 나는 교수철학에 대해서 개인적인 진술서를 가지고 있는 것이 매우 중요하다고 생각한다. 왜냐면 그러한 철학이 가르치는 방향을 정하기 때문이다. 우리가 말하고 믿는 것과 우리가 다른 사람과의 관계에서 실제로 행하는 것 사이의 비일관성을 바라보기 시작한다면 변화의 기전이 될 수도 있다.

To begin with, I have long contended that it is very important to develop a personal statement of instructional philosophy because such a philosophy drives the way we teach. A statement of philosophy also can be a mechanism for changing the way we teach if we begin to see inconsistencies between what we say we believe and what we actually do in our interactions with others, especially students (Hiemstra, 1988b).

이러한 점에 더하여 나는 많은 교수들이 전통적인 교수자 중심적 접근법을 따르는 것은 그들의 행동주의적 관점, 특히 그들이 배운 선생님으로부터 형성된, 그리고 그들이 학생이었을 때 경험으로부터 형성된 그러한 관점을 학습자를 대하는 가장 좋은 수단으로 여기기 때문이다. 일부 교사들은 진심으로 학생들에게 그들이 알아야 할 지식을 말해주는 것이 자신의 역할이라고 믿는다. 그러나 나는 이렇게 행동주의에 의존하는 것은 의도치 않게 많은 학습자의 성장과 발달을 저해할 수 있다고 생각한다.

Related to the above point, I believe that many teachers employ traditional teacher-directed approaches because their views of behaviorism, often modeled after former teachers and their own experiences as learners, are seen as the best means for working with learners. Granted some teachers truly believe that their role is to “tell” students the knowledge they need to know. However, my beliefs based on nearly forty years of SDL scholarship suggest that reliance on behaviorism may unintentionally inhibit the growth and development of many learners by creating dependency (Hiemstra & Brockett, 1994).

나는 종종, 어떤 선생님들은 얼마나 그 학생들로부터 받은 코멘트를 심각하게 여기는지 궁금하다. 일부 고등교육기관은 매 코스가 끝난 다음 그 과정에 대한 평가를 요구한다. 이러한 자료를 사용하는 것은 교수방법적 접근에 큰 차이를 가져온다.

I often wonder, too, how seriously some teachers take the evaluative comments coming from their learners. Admittedly, some higher education institutions mandate evaluation procedures after each course is completed. However, utilizing such information to make significant changes in instructional approaches takes a real effort.

마지막으로, 지난 수십년간 교수법 향상에 대해서 기관 차원의 후원은 축소되어왔다. Schylinski가 말한 바와 같이, 대부분의 대학 교수들이 스스로 알아서 하게끔 방치되는 현실과 대부분이 그들이 경험한대로 하는 현실에 우려를 표한다.

Finally, I have observed during my several decades of teaching that there has been a diminution of institutionally sponsored or promoted opportunities for instructional improvement. As supported by Schylinski (2012) in her research, I fear that today a majority of college professors are often left to their own devices and must rely mainly on modeling their instruction on what they experienced in classrooms themselves as students.

어떻게 SDL의 잠재력을 더 널리 전파할 수 있을까?

How Do We Better Disseminate the Potential of SDL?

• The development of several Web site(s) devoted to promoting the use of SDL and ? II with such items as supportive essays from several faculty, testimonials from students, examples of such approaches or techniques as learning contracts, and models of instructional materials that can be utilized. Following are three such

• Web site examples: 

(a) http://www.sdlglobal.com/; 

(b) http://selfdirected learning .com/; and 

(c) http://www-distance.syr.edu/distancenew.html.

• The development and publishing of various video clips through such sources as ? YouTube, Meta Cafe, and Google Video that describe SDL, how it can be used, and successes that are possible. Following are three YouTube examples: 

o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqZR6ZJsKJA 

o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AexdB8aBi8I 

o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEydFhZj9Y.

Schylinski 가 면담한 한 사람은 이렇게 말했다.

One of the people interviewed by Schylinski (2012) in her research, a professor of religious studies, revealed how he is working to incorporate SDL approaches in his teaching: 

“I take adult learning theory seriously. You must treat students as adults, with respect, as having capacity to learn for themselves, and taking responsibility to learn. The fundamental reality is I will have them for a short time. If I don’t enable or encourage their fundamental ability to learn on their own, what have I done? My hope is when they leave, they will be lifelong learners” (pp. 56-57).

Gross and Salko 의 말이 잘 표현해준다.

Gross and Salko (2013) perhaps say it best: 

“How will we learn most and best in the 21st century? We believe it will be through self-directed learning (SDL).”

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: WHY DO MOST INSTRUCTORS STILL DO IT WRONG?

Roger Hiemstra

In a recent article in this journal I described how most instructors of adults use a teacher-directed approach in spite of the SDL scholarship and lost learner potential. In this article I describe why this apparent disconnect takes place. In addition, twelve teaching colleagues provide their ideas relative to why many teachers fail to utilize SDL approaches. They also describe their own experiences in helping learners take increasing responsibility for their own learning. I add my own ideas on why many instructors still do it wrong and end by suggesting various ways to better advocate for SDL processes, techniques, and instructional approaches in classrooms.

성찰의 수준: 현미경, 혹은 쌍안경(IJSDL, 2013)

LEVELS OF REFLECTION: THE MIRROR, THE MICROSCOPE, AND THE BINOCULARS

Tanya McCarthy

거울

The Mirror

Guided questions asked in the report to trigger a more reflective response were:

• What are my strengths and weaknesses?

• What surprised me about myself?

현미경

The Microscope

Guided questions asked in the report to trigger a more reflective response were:

• What did I do well?

• What do I need to improve?

• How have I improved from point A to point B?

쌍안경

The Binoculars

Guided questions asked in the report to trigger a more reflective response were:

• What are my goals for my future?

• What skills will help me in my university career and beyond?

Levels of Reflection in Self-Directed Learning

O’Malley and Chamot은 "메타인지적 접근을 하지 않는 학생은 방향을 잃은 것과 마찬가지이며, 자신의 진전과 성취, 미래에 나아갈 방향을 되짚어 볼 능력이 없는 것과 같다"라고 했다. Burnard와 Chapman에 따르면 자기성찰적 질문에는 주로 두 수준이 있다. 심층적 유의미한 질문과 피상적 문제해결이다. 학생들의 최종 보고서를 분석한 결과  자기주도학습에 대해서 깊은 수준의 성숙이 있었던 것이 확인되었다. 다양한 구조화된, 혹은 비구조화된 성찰 모델을 활용하여 학생들은 단순히 일어난 일을 기술하는 것이 아니라 적절하고 관련된 목표를 세우고, 활동 계획을 수립하고, 변화를 관찰하고, 변화를 모니터링하고, 일어난 사건을 해석하고, 다음에 무엇을 해야할지 이론을 세우고, 스스로의 발전을 평가하였다.

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) state, “students without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction and ability to review their progress, accomplishments and future learning directions” (p. 99). According to Burnard and Chapman (1988), there are two main levels of reflective enquiry: deep and potentially meaningful inquiry and superficial problem solving. Analysis of students’ final reports showed a deeper level of maturity in students related to the progress made in their selfdirected learning. Incorporating various structured and unstructured modes of reflection in the course (as shown previously in Figure 1), encouraged students to go beyond a mere description of events (which was prevalent in the pilot course) to setting appropriate and relevant goals, planning an action, observing changes, monitoring progress, interpreting events, theorizing about what to do next, and evaluating their own progress (see Figure 5).

여러 연구문헌에서 정의한 '성찰'

Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985)

Reflection is an important human activity in which people recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it. It is this working with experience that is important in learning (p. 19).

…Those intellectual and affective activities in which individuals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations (p. 19)

Dewey (1933) 

Active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought (p. 9).

Schön (1983) 

The practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomenon and a change in the situation (p. 68).

Smith (2001)

The act of reflecting-on-action enables us to spend time exploring why we acted as we did, what was happening in a group and so on. In so doing we develop sets of questions and ideas about our activities and practice

Schunk and Zimmerman (1998)

Self-regulation theorists view learning as an open-ended process that requires cyclical activity on the part of the learner that occurs in three major phases: forethought, performance or volitional control, and self-reflection…self-reflection, involves processes that occur after learning efforts and influence a learner’s reactions to that experience (p. 2).

Jarvis (1987) 

Reflection is an essential phase in the learning process whereby people explore their experiences in a conscious manner in order to lead to a new understanding and, perhaps, a new behavior (p.168).

King (2002) 

Critical reflection is taken to mean a deliberate process when the candidate takes time, within the course of their work, to focus on their performance and think carefully about the thinking that led to particular actions, what happened and what they are learning from the experience, in order to inform what they might do in the future (p. 2).

York-Barr, Sommers, Ghore and Montie (2001)

It is a complex process that requires high levels of conscious thought as well as a commitment to making changes based on new understanding of how to practice (p.4).

Reflective practice is “a deliberate pause to assume an open perspective, to allow for higher level thinking processes. Practitioners use these processes for examining beliefs, goals, and practices, to gain new or deeper understandings that lead to actions that improve learning for students” (p.6).

Hatton &Smith (1995)

Deliberate thinking about action with a view to its improvement (p. 52).

LEVELS OF REFLECTION: THE MIRROR, THE MICROSCOPE, AND THE BINOCULARS

Tanya McCarthy

Abstract

This paper analyzes the written reflections of 18 freshman students in a self-directed learning course. In the pilot course, it was found that the depth of students’ reflections was limited to mainly short answers or surface reflections. Students reported that they found it difficult to understand the concept of reflecting on learning. A new course that placed more emphasis on various levels of reflection was designed with the specific aim of helping students to reflect more deeply on their learning so that they could be more aware of why they were doing what they were doing and see their accomplishments. The course culminated in a final 500-word report in which the students were asked to reflect on what they learned about themselves (the mirror), strengths and weaknesses they identified in their learning (the microscope) and how this connected to their life outside the classroom and into the future (the binoculars).

성인학습자로 가는 길: 의존적 학습자에서 자기주도적 학습자로 (J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014)

The Journey to Becoming an Adult Learner: From Dependent to Self Directed Learning

Joshua A. Daily, MD; Benjamin J. Landis, MD

당신이 의과대학에서 배운 것중에 절반은 졸업 후 5년 이내에 사라지거나 틀렸음이 증명될 것이다. 문제는, 거기에 해당할 것들이 무엇인지 알려줄 수 있는 사람이 아무도 없다는 것이다. 따라서 가장 먼저 배워야 할 것은 스스로 학습하는 방법이다.

“Half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either wrong or out of date within 5 years of graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half, so the important thing to learn is how to learn onyour own.”—David L. Sackett, OC, MD (1) 

성인학습을 설명하는 다양한 모델이 있지만, 가장 잘 알려진 노력은 Malcolm Knowles가 설명한 Andragogy이다. 다음의 여섯 가지 가설에 기반한다.

Although many models exist to explain adult learning, the best known of these efforts is andragogy (meaning “theart and science of helping adults learn”), which was described by Malcolm Knowles and is based upon the 6 following assumptions (2,3): 

1. 사람이 성장할수록 그의 자기개념은 의존적인 인성에서 자기주도적 인간으로 나아간다.

1. As a person matures, his or her “self-­concept” moves from that of a dependent personality toward one of a self­directing human being. 

2. 성인은 경험을 축적해나가며 이것은 학습의 원천이 된다.

2. An adult accumulates a growing reservoir of experience, which is a rich resource for learning.

3. 한 성인의 학습에 대한 준비도는 그의 사회적 역할상의 발달과업과 관련되어 있다.

3. The readiness of an adult to learn is closely related to the developmental tasks of his or her social role.

4. 사람들이 성장하면서 시간에 대한 관점이 바뀌는데, 처음에는 지식을 미래에 적용하는 것에서 즉각적인 적용으로 바뀐다.

4. There is a change in time perspective as people mature, from future application of knowledge to immediacy of application. 

5. 가장 강력한 동기는 외적 동기보다는 내적 동기이다.

5. The most potent motivations are internal rather than external.

6. 성인은 왜 무엇을 배워야 하는가를 알아야 한다.

6. Adults need to know why they need to learn something.

소수의 성인만이 이 원칙을 온전히 습득하고 있으며, 따라서 이 원칙들은 성인학습이 어떠해야 하는가에 대한 지시문으로 보는 것이 낫다. Knowles는 이 프레임워크에서 필수적인 요소는 SDL이라 하였다.

Few adult learners fully embody each of these principles, and thus, the principles may be best considered as prescriptive statements for what adult learning should look like. Knowles recognized that within this framework,the essential factor is self­directed learning, 

불행하게도, 전통적인 의학 교육과정은 SDL을 촉진하기에 부적절하며, 이 과정은 의사들이 스스로 해야 하는 과제로 남는다. 이러한 gap에도 불구하고 우리는 가장 강력한 가능한 근거를 우리의 경험과 주위의 조언에 더해서 다음의 권고를 한다. 

Unfortunately, the traditional medical school curriculum often inadequately promotes self­directed learning, so physicians are often left to make this transition independently (4,5). Despite this gap in early medical curricula, we have aimed to synthesize the strongest evidence available with referenceto our own experiences and advice of colleagues and mentors to encourage the following recommendations for fellows­in­training and early career cardiologists on becoming self­directed life­long learners. The specific Knowles’ assumptions from which each recommendation was developed are provided in italics. 

1. 학습의 주도권과 책임을 가지라

1. Take initiative and responsibility for your learning. 

당신이 해야 할 교육이란 스스로의 전문성에 대한 교육이다. 주입식의 CME 프로그램은 의사의 행동에 영향을 거의 미치지 않음을 상기하라. 대신 스스로의 독특한 교육요구를 인식하고 그것에 대한 책임을 지라

Recognize that as an independent clinician your education is your own professional responsibility. You control what, when, and how you learn. It would be amistake to assume that fellowship completion and board certification is tantamount to completion of your education. Be aware that didactic continuing medical education programs can have limited impact on physician behavior (6). Rather, recognize your particular educational needs and take responsibility for themby developing regular habits that promote learning. Knowles’ assumptions 1, 3, and 5(2,3). 

2. 겸손한 태도를 가지라

2. Develop an attitude of humility. 

불확실성을 인정하고 스스로 답을 모른다는 사실을 인정하라. 과도한 자신감은 피드백을 얻고 평생학습을 하는데 장애가 될 뿐이다.

Acknowledge uncertainty and admit when you do not know the answer.Recognize that overconfidence is an impediment to the pursuit of feedback and life­long learning (7). Knowles’ assumptions 1 and 5(2,3). 

3. 질문을 하고 답을 찾아라

3. Ask questions and seek answers. 

탐구하는 자세를 가지고 의학과 과학에 대한 관심을 지속적으로 유지하라. 시간을 가지고 연구하여 질문에 대한 답을 찾으라. 질문에 대한 답을 찾기 위해서 효과적으로 문헌을 검색하는 방법을 익히라. 그리고 비판적으로 평가하고 관련 자료를 선택하고, 마지막으로 환자와 informed care decision을 내리라.

Sustain the inquisitive nature that compelled your interest in medicine and science and take the time to research answers to your questions. Learn to first efficiently perform a literature search to answer a focused question, then to critically appraise and select relevant resources, and finally, to make informed care decisions for the patient at hand and future encounters. Knowles’ assumptions1 and 4(2,3). 

4. 최신의 지식을 유지할 수 있는 시스템을 갖추라

4. Develop a system for remaining up to date. 

일반적인 주제를 다루는 저널과 특수한 주제를 다루는 저널을 모두 읽으라. journal watch를 생성하여 새로운 문헌을 놓치지 말라. 적절한 라벨을 붙이고, 정기적으로 컨퍼런스에 참가하라.

Read both general and specialty journals regularly, create a journal watch for new papers in your field, utilize technology to store important literature with adequate labels for easy retrieval, and routinely attend conferences. Reject the tendency to settle into the role of a dependentor passive learner, such as relying on continuing medical education requirements to stay informed. Knowles’ assumptions 1, 3, and 4(2,3). 

5. 비판적으로 성찰하라

5. Critically reflect. 

스스로를 정직하게 평가하는 습관을 길러라. "어떻게 하면 더 잘할 수 있었을까?"라고 스스로 물어라. 일지를 기록하는 식으로 스스로의 발전을 기록하라. 당신의 동료와 환자는 중요한 학습의 원천이다. 피드백을 요청하라.

Develop the habit of honestly assessing yourself. After a challenging clinical encounter,ask yourself: “How could I have done better?” Consider developing the practice of reflection through journaling. Your peers and patients are important sources for learning, so request feedback from them and conscientiously reflect on their input. Knowles’ assumptions 1 and 2(2,3). 

6. 목표를 설정하라

6. Set goals. 

스스로의 교육적 요구에 맞춰서 명확하고 구체적이고 가능하고 의미있는 목표를 세우라. 그리고 달성가능한 꼐획을 세우라. 반복적으로 스스로의 진전 정도를 평가하고, 필요하다면 새로운 목표를 만들라. 1개나 2개의 구체적인 토픽에 초점을 두라.

Based upon your educational needs, develop clear, specific, feasible, and meaningful goals, and then formulate an achievable learning plan to accomplish these goals. In an iterative process, regularly reassess your progress and adjust and create new goals as necessary. Consider focusing on 1 or 2 specifictopics at a time until you have mastered the information to avoid becoming overwhelmed. Knowles’ assumptions 1 and 5(2,3). 

7. 동료로부터 배우라

7. Learn from your colleagues. 

딜레마에 빠졌을 때 동료의 의견을 구하라. 서로 다른 수련을 받는, 다른 배경에 있는 사람의 의견을 구하라. 만약 동료가 명확한 설명 없이 조언만 준다면 그 주제를 스스로 더 찾아서 연구해보라.

When confronted with clinical dilemmas, ask for the opinion of your colleagues. Specifically, seek out the opinions of those with different training and background. If your colleague provides a recommendation without a clear explanation, spend the time to research the topicyourself. Ask noncardiology consultants to provide the rationale for their recommendations and the alternatives that they considered. Knowles’ assumptions 1, 2, and 4(2,3). 

8, 창조하라

8. Create. 

강의를 하거나, 교육과정을 짜거나, 독립적이거나 협력적인 연구 프로젝트를 하거나, 논문을 쓰거나, 교과서 집필에 참여할 기회를 찾아라. Bloom의 Revised Taxonomy에 따르면 '창조'는 인간 사고에서 가장 높은 수준에 해당한다.

Seek out opportunities to give lectures, craft educational curriculum, engage in independent andcollaborative research projects, write journal papers, and contribute to textbooks. According to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (a framework developed by psychologist Benjamin Bloom for categorizing educational goals), creating is the highest level of complexity of human thought and usually results in mastery of a subject matter (8). Knowles’ assumptions 1 and 2(2,3). 

9. 타 분야 개발에 힘쓰라

9. Develop your mind. 

비의학적인 학습을 해나가라. 한 분야에 대한 학습은 다른 분야를 더 강하게 해준다. 또한 의사는 환자에 대해서 전인적인 관점을 가질 수 있어야 한다.

Incorporate nonmedical learning into your life. Learning in 1 area enhances and strengthens learning in other areas (9). Additionally, physicians become well­rounded and develop a moreholistic perspective of their patients. Personally, I like to listen to audio books during my morning and evening commutes to accomplish this goal. Knowles’ assumptions 1 and 8(2,3). 

10. 의미를 가지고 배우라

10. Learn with sense and meaning. 

뇌는 정보를 저장할 때 논리적이고 의미가 있을 때 더 효율적이다. 단순히 암기하지 말고 당신에게 의미가 있는 프레임워크에 맞추라. 이것이 추가적인 일이 될 수 있지만 궁극적으로 더 오래 기억하게 해줄 것이다. 추가적으로 언제나 환자를 돌보는 것과 스스로의 전문성 개발과 어떤 관련이 있는지 생각하라. 

Your brain is efficient and most likely to store information that is both logical and meaningful (9). Don’t just memorize, but rather fit new learning into a framework that makes sense to you. This takes extra work, but it will significantly improve retention. Additionally, always keep in mind the relevance to patient care and your own professional development. In which scenarios will you applythis knowledge or in which of your past encounters could this information have improved an outcome? If youcan answer these questions, you are more likely to remember the information. Knowles’ assumptions 1, 4, and 6(2,3). 

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Nov 11;64(19):2066-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.023. Epub 2014 Nov 3.

The journey to becoming an adult learner: from dependent to self-directed learning.

SDL 측정도구와 관련된 조절효과(IJSDL, 2013)

THE MODERATING EFFECT OF THE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING MEASUREMENT TOOL: A USER’S GUIDE

Stefanie L. Boyer, Diane R. Edmondson, and Andrew B. Artis

SDL이 학문과 실용 모두에서 성인학습의 성공을 촉진한다는 것은 잘 알려져 있다. 

It is widely accepted that self-directed learning (SDL) promotes adult learning success in both academia (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Knowles, 1975; Long, 2001; Speck, 1996) and practice (Artis & Harris, 2007; American Society for Training & Development, 2009; Boyer & Lambert, 2008; Burns, 1995; Durr, Guglielmino, & Guglielmino, 1996). There are over 1,600 articles and 600 dissertations on the topic in academia alone (Edmondson, Boyer, & Artis, 2012).

이론적 배경

Theoretical Background

자기주도성은 타고나는 것일 수도 있다. 혹은 연습을 통해서 독립적으로 향상될 수도 있다. 그리고 교수자에 의해서 향상될 수도 있다. 사실 Transformation theory에 따르면, 사람이 배우거나 새로운 기술을 익히거나 새로운 지식을 습득할 때 세계관이 진화하기 때문에 사람은 바뀐다. 이러한 방식으로 자기주도성도 변할 수 있다.

Self-directedness can be innate, stemming from personal characteristics; it can be learned independently through practice; and its development can be facilitated by an instructor. In fact, transformation theory (Mezirow, 1985) suggests that when people learn, develop new skills, and acquire knowledge, they change because their basic assumptions about the world evolve; in this way, their level of self-directedness can change.

전 세계에서 SDL에 대한 연구를 진행했다. SDL에 속하는 구인으로는 다음과 같은 것들이 있다.

Scholars conduct empirical research on SDL across the globe. Some of the constructs investigated alongside SDL and reported here include 

• 호기심 curiosity (the desire forknowledge; Barnes, 1998); 
• 삶에 대한 만족 life satisfaction (the extent to which a person likes him/herself, is happy with the way he/she is leading his/her life, and is generally satisfied with the way he/she is; Brockett, 1982); 
• 동기 motivation (the degree to which an individual is self-motivated and achievement oriented; Livneh, 1988); 
• SDL능력 SDL competence (knowledge and skill required for SDL; Savoy, 2004); 
• 자기효능감 self-efficacy (judgment of a person’s own capability for successfully executing a course of action; Tuksinvarajarn, 2002); and 
• 지지 support (the ability to get independent assistance related to learning; Yu, 1998). 

추가로 연령이가 교육수준같은 demographic factor도 관계가 있다.

In addition, other demographic factors have been reviewed in relation to SDL, such as age and level of education.

목적과 가설 

Purpose and Hypothesis

SDL문헌들에서는 SDL척도와 구인간의 관계를 설명한 바 있다. 예컨대 호기심과의 관계는 0.1에서 0.79까지 다양하다. moderator가 존재할 가능성이 높다.

The SDL literature examines a wide range of relationships between SDL measures and other constructs. For instance, the variance of correlations between SDL and curiosity is .1 to .79. With such a large variance, it is possible that a moderator exists that would help explain such a large range (Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le, & Schmitt, 2005).

SDLRS가 워낙 많이 사용되어왔으므로, SDLRS와 다른 척도간의 비교를 하고자 한다. 

Since there was so much emphasis on using the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS; Guglielmino, 1978) in the literature, the investigation focused on those studies using the SDLRS vs. those studies using another form of measurement of SDL. The following hypothesis was tested: 

가설

H1: Measurement type moderates the relationship between SDL and (a) age, (b) curiosity, (c) education, (d) life satisfaction, (e) motivation, (f) SDL competence,(g) self-efficacy and (h) support.

SDL척도

SDL Measures Used

다양한 척도가 있었는데 대표적으로 다섯 개를 꼽음.

Although there were a variety of self-directed learning measures used in the literature, based on our meta-analysis, there were five measures used most often to assess SDL. 

• The SDLRS (Guglielmino, 1978) has been used more than any other instrument (800 times). 
• The Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory (OCLI; Oddi, 1984) comes in as a distant second in usage compared to the SDLRS (about 25% usage in comparison). 
• The number of hours spent using SDL based on Tough’s (1979) recommendation of at least seven hours in the previous six month period was used to measure SDL 78 times, the 
• BISL (Bartlett, 1999) was used 65 times, and 
• the number of learning projects used within a specific period was assessed 41 times.

Meta-Analytic Results

Table 1. Summary of Meta-Analytic Results

SDLRS 대 비-SDLRS

SDLRS vs. Non-SDLRS Moderator Results

Table 2. Moderator Results

결론

Conclusion and Discussion

SDL과 일부 구인과의 관계는 어떻게 SDL을 측정했느냐에 따라 달라진다. 따라서 age과 같은 요인들은 연령이 높아지면 SDL준비도가 높음을 뜻할 수도 있다. 그러나 다른 인적특성이나 다른 SDL요소인 자기주도학습에 사용한 시간, SDL활동의 수와 연관은 그만큼 강하지 않을 수도 있다. 이는 satisfaction, SDL competency, self-efficacy and support.에 대해서도 마찬가지다.

It is important to note that the relationships between SDL and some of the constructs used in the study do change depending on how SDL is measured. Therefore, factors such as age may implicate that learners will be more ready for SDL; however, as the data illustrate, age may not relate significantly to other measures of personal characteristics or other components of SDL such as the amount of time spent practicing SDL or the number of SDL activities completed, with the same strength. This is also true for life satisfaction, SDL competency, self-efficacy and support. 

그러나 curiosity, education, and motivation 에 대해서는 척도에 따라서 크게 달라지지 않았다. 즉 이 세가지는 어떻게 SDL을 측정하든 일관된 결과를 보여준다.

However, since relationships with curiosity, education, and motivation did not change significantly depending on the measurement instrument, it is possible that the constructs are important in both readiness for SDL and other components of measurement of SDL, such as use of SDL and time spent using SDL. Therefore, these three components yield consistent results when measuring SDL using different measures.

각 척도의 적절한 사용법 

Appropriate Uses of the Most Popular Measures

The measures of SDL should be selected based on the goals of the institution, the motivation for assessing SDL, the type of data collected and research questions presented. 

• For instance, if the goal of the research is to understand how likely employees are to adopt a SDL culture in the workforce or academic setting, then a personal characteristic measure may be more appropriate. 
• If the intent is to understand if employees/students use SDL and how effectively they are using SDL, then it might be more appropriate to assess behavioral measures such as how often they use SDL, what types and number of projects they use, SDL competence, and an output measure of performance.

각각이 장점이 다 다르다.

It should be noted that each of the measures has its own advantages. The most accurate forms of measurement can be taken through multiple assessments, and tell a richer story. This can be compared to diversifying a portfolio in the stock market to diminish risk.

Table 3. SDL Measurement Usage Suggestions

Appendix A Self-Directed Learning Measures

Self-Directed Learning Readiness - Cho & Kwon, SDLR-K-96 K-96 2005

THE MODERATING EFFECT OF THE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING MEASUREMENT TOOL: A USER’S GUIDE

Stefanie L. Boyer, Diane R. Edmondson, and Andrew B. Artis

The relationship between self-directed learning (SDL) and other constructs varies depending on the measurement tool used in data collection and analysis. A meta-analysis of SDL research studies is used to explore the moderating effect of the measurement tool between SDL and constructs from adult education. This paper outlines the most commonly used measures to assess SDL and provides advice to researchers, trainers and employers on the appropriate tool given the goals of the assessment. Using multiple measures of SDL (contextual, behavioral and personal) along with output measures (job performance and learning effectiveness) will provide the most accurate assessment of SDL.

기술을 활용한 자기주도성 함양(IJSDL, 2013)

FOSTERING TECHNOLOGY AND SELF-DIRECTION: THE IMPACT ON ADULTS IN EDUCATION, BUSINESS, AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Naomi Boyer, Jeffrey Beard, Lila Holt, Joanne Larsen, Janet Piskurich, and George Piskurich

기술의 발전보다 21세기에 더 빠르게 발전한 분야는 없을 것이다. 하나의 예를 들자면, 1996년에는 총 4개의 인터넷 연결이 있었다. 2013년, 매 초 80개의 연결이 추가되며, 2014년 동안에는 초당 100개의 연결이 추가된다. 

It would be difficult to identify an area in which change has been more omnipresent and rampant in the 21st century than in the all-important area of technology. Just one telling example: in 1996 there were a total of four (4) internet connections on the planet. In 2013, 80 connections per second are being added, with 100 connections per second expected during 2014. By 2020, projections indicate that the number of internet connections will reach 50 billion--from zero to 50 billion, all during half of a human lifetime.

8세부터 18세까지의 2000명의 아이들을 대상으로 한 연구에서, 젊은 세대는 "미디어 멀티테스커"이다. 다양한 형태의 기술을 하루에 평균 7.5시간 이상 사용한다. 비록 연구가 젊은 세대에 맞춰져 있지만 가정에 그러한 최신기술이 존재하여 최소한 노년층도 이러한 기술에 노출되고 있다.

The findings, based on 2000 children from ages 8-18, are clear that young people today are “media multitaskers,” using various forms of technology an average of more than 7.5 hours per day. While the study focused on young people, the study reported an increase of technology presence in the home indicating adults are at least exposed, if not users, of these technologies.

최신 기술의 활용은 흥미와 필요에 의하지만 연령에 의해서 제한되지는 않는다. 많은 성인들이 필요가 생기면 기술에 적응한다. 최근의 보고서를 보면 71%이상의 성인이 일상적으로 인터넷을 활용하고 90%이상의 직장에서 이메일을 어떤 목적이든 사용한다. Horrigan은 성인들이 젊은 세대와 비슷한 속도로 - 특히 인터넷 접근에 대해서는 - 전자기기를 활용하고 있다고 보고했다.

It appears that technology use is primarily derived from interest and need and is not limited by chronological age (Horrigan, 2009). Many adults are required to use technology in the workplace and older adults often have to adapt to using technology as the need arises. Recent reports reveal that over 71% of adults use the Internet daily and over 90% of today’s workforce use email for some purpose (Rainie, 2010). Horrigan (2009) additionally discovered that adults are embracing the use of electronic devices at a rate comparable to young people - especially in relation to Internet access.

디지털 학습자

The Digital Learner

요즘 학생은 유치원부터 대학까지 컴퓨터 기술과 인터넷으로 가득찬 세상에서 자라왔다. 이 1980년대 이후 출생자들을 'Net Generation' 혹은 '디지털 네이티브'라고 부른다. Net Gen은 1980~1984년생을 지칭하며 약 9천만명에 달한다. Barnes Marateo, Ferris 등은 "이 세대는 디지털, 사이버 기술과 함께 자라난 첫 세대라는 점에서 특이하다"라고 했다. 

Most of today’s students (kindergarten to college) were raised in a world filled with computer technology and an Internet where information can be instantly obtained. This new generation of learners was born after 1980 and are commonly referred to as the Net Generation (Net Gen) or “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001). The Net Gen represents a population born between 1980 and 1994 and involves approximately 90 million people (Davidson & Goldberg, 2009; Johnson & Romanello, 2005; Notarianni, Curry-Lourenco, Barnham, & Palmer, 2009; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005a; Sherman, 2006; Tapscott, 1998). Barnes, Marateo, and Ferris (2007) suggest that “[t]his generation is unique in that it is the first to grow up with digital and cyber technologies” (But Net Geners Learn Differently section, para. 3). Current college students have grown up in a digital world with the Internet and cell phones and communicate using various media options (Beyers, 2009; Davidson & Goldberg, 2009). These communication formats include texting, instant messaging, email, and social networking tools like Facebook and Twitter (Beyers, 2009; Horrigan, 2009; Lorenzo, Oblinger, & Dziuban, 2007).

미국 교육부의 직업 및 성인교육팀에 따르면 디지털 기술은 다음의 것을 포함해야 한다.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, digital technologies must be included: 

The use of digital technologies for learning both supports local efforts to educate adult learners and their teachers and extends educational opportunities to reach new groups of students. The thoughtful integration of digital technologies into the traditional scheme of education and their use to develop new ways of learning is necessary to ensure students have the tools to thrive in a complex and rapidly changing technological society. (Technology and Distance Learning, 2008)

자기주도학습

Self-Directed Learning 

많은 사람들이 SDL을 정의했다. 그리고 일부 정의는 '사람들이 자신이 바라는대로 정의하는 바람에 비뚫어졌'다. Owen은 이러한 SDL 정의의 왜곡을 "무계획적인 명명"이라고 말하며, 이 때문에 같은 개념을 다양한 이름으로 부르게 되었다고 했다. Carre는 20개 이상의 서로 다른 SDL에 대한 이름을 찾았고, Hiemstra는 200개 이상의 variation을 찾았다. 

Many have defined self-directed learning (SDL), and some of these definitions may have "been skewed by those who choose to define it as they wish" (Brookfield, 1986, p. 18). Owen (2002) attributes a distortion of the SDL definition to "haphazard nomenclature" (p. 1) leading to many names for the same general concept. Carré (1994) found well over 20 different names used for SDL, while Hiemstra (1996) discovered over 200 variations in conference proceedings. Self-direction in adult learning has been labeled as 

• self-teaching, 
• self-planned learning, 
• inquiry method, 
• independent learning, 
• selfeducation, 
• self-instruction, 
• self-study, 
• self-initiated learning, and 
• autonomous learning (Owen, 2002). 

이 모든 이름들은 '한 사람의 고립된 학습'이라는 인상을 주나 Knowles는 SDL은 주로 다양한 종류의 도우미(교사, 튜터, 멘토, 동료)와 함께 이뤄진다고 했다. SDL은 스스로의 학습의 방향을 정하는 개인과 그 과정에 포함되는 다른 사람들을 포함한다.

All of these labels give the impression of one person learning in isolation, whereas Knowles (1975) wrote that SDL usually takes place in association with various types of helpers such as teachers, tutors, mentors, and peers. SDL can involve an individual directing his or her own learning with other people involved in the process. 

어떤 사람들은 SDL을 자율학습이라고 정의하는데, '자기주도'는 혼자서 공부하는 것 만으로 생각되어서는 안된다. Brockett과 Hiemstra는 다음에 대해 SDL의 신화라며 대해서 이렇게 이야기했다. "SDL은 고립되어 일어나는 것이라는 것은 잘못된 신화이다. 진정으로 자기주도성의 효과를 알기 위해서는 교수법 차원에서, 그리고 개인의 특성 차원에서 SDL이 발생하는 사회적 환경을 인식하는 것이 중요하다"

While some have defined self-directed learning as autonomous learning, selfdirection should not be perceived only as learning by oneself. Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) caution against the myth that SDL “takes place in isolation. In order to truly understand the impact of self-direction, both as an instructional method and as a personality characteristic, it is crucial to recognize the social milieu in which such activity transpires" (p. 32).

사람은 가장 효과적인 방법을 선택하면서, 그것이 다른 사람에게도 가장 잘 맞는 방법일거라고 생각한다. 그러나 어떤 생각이나 개념을 (특히 교육학에서는) 만병통치약으로 생각해서는 안된다. SDL은 학습을 촉진하는 유일한, 혹은 최고의 방법이 아니다. 반대로 학습자의 학습에 대한 개인적 책임을 강조하는 것처럼, SDL은 어떤 맥락인지 어떤 목표인지에 따라서 함양할 가치가 있고 고려할 가치가 있는 것이다.

Humans adopt methods that are most effective for use and often assume that what works for one must be the best approach for others. However, as with any idea or concept (especially in education), one must not be quick to proclaim a “one size fits all” strategy. SDL is not the “only” or “best” way to facilitate learning for self or others; however, as it pertains to learners assuming personal responsibility for their own learning, SDL is worthy of cultivation and consideration dependent upon the context and objective.

Brockett과 Hiemstra는 SDL이 성공적인 학습으로 도달하는 유일한 접근법이 아니라는 것을 명확히 했다. 다만 교육자가 학습자들이 학습에 개인적인 책임과 참여를 하도록 이 방법을 선택할 수는 있다. 어떤 학습에 들어설 때 자기주도성의 수준이 성공의 지표가 되지 못한다고 했다. 그러나 성인교육자는 성인들이 "학습에 대한 개인의 책임"을 가질 수 있도록 해야한다.  

Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) make it clear that SDL is not the only approach that leads to successful learning, but one that educators of adults may choose in order to enable learners to assume personal responsibility and involvement in their own learning. They go on to explain that the level of self-direction demonstrated by a learner upon entering a learning experience is not necessarily indicative of success; however, the adult educator can play a role in assisting adults to “assume personal responsibility for their own learning” (p. 27). In this article SDL will be defined as Knowles (1975) posited:

자기주도성을 통한 기술 활용

Learning to use Technology Through Self-Direction: Learning Technology Itself

새로운 기술이나 기기의 사용을 익힐 때는 직접 경험이 중요하다. Dewey는 "직접 경험하는 과정과 교육 사이에는 매우 가깝고도 필수적인 관계가 있다"라고 했다. 학습자가 직접 경험을 해야 한다는 생각은 새로운 것은 아니지만, 어떤 주제가 '테크놀로지'에 대한 것일 때는 더욱 그러하다. Jarvis는 "모든 학습은 경험과 함께 시작한다"라고 했고, Linderman은 "성인교육에서 최고의 가치는 학습자의 경험이다"라고 했다.

Learning to use new applications or electronic devices involves the user’s hands-on experience. Dewey (1938) suggested “there is an intimate and necessary relation between the process of actual experience and education” (p. 20). The idea of the learner gaining actual experience with a topic of study is not new, but may be more desirable when the subject is technology. Jarvis (1987) posited “all learning begins with experience” (p. 16) and Lindeman (1926) argued that the “highest value in adult education is the learner’s experience” (p. 6).

SDL접근법은 교육 세팅이 학생들이 새로운 테크놀로지를 사용하는 것을 배울 수 있도록 되어 있을 때 좋은 결과를 가져온다. Clinton과 Reiber는 SDL접근법을 석사 프로그램에서 사용하였다.

The SDL approach is being used with good results in educational settings where students are learning to use technology. Clinton and Rieber (2010) use an SDL approach in an instructional technology master’s program through a series of studio courses. The program uses an SDL approach that Candy (1991) refers to as assisted autodidaxy (self- education with instructor guidance, e.g., independent study).

의학교육에서의 사례 

Case Example: Medical Education

• The 1984 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Physicians for the Twenty-first Century: Report of the Project Panel on General Professional Education of the Physician and College Preparation for Medicine acknowledged that advances in scientific knowledge and technology were already occurring at such a rate that doctors for the new century must learn throughout their professional lives rather than simply master current information and techniques (AAMC, 1984). Recommendations were made that medical students should be adequately prepared for active, independent, self-directed learning; and that medical schools should provide opportunities for development of learning skills and evaluate students’ abilities to learn independently. 
• Almost 10 years later, the AAMC Assessing Change in Medical Education-The Road to Implementation (ACME-TRI) report further recommended that “faculty members’ first goal should be to foster their students’ life-long learning by helping them to develop their learning skills” (AAMC, 1993). 
• The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) was formed as the nationally recognized accrediting agency for medical education programs in the U. S. and Canada. LMCE accreditation standard ED-5-A states, “A medical education program must include instructional opportunities for active learning and independent study to foster the skills necessary for lifelong learning (LCME, 2010).

Changes in medical education focused on the goal of meeting accreditation standards and graduating medical students who are skilled learners have fostered development of a number of novel medical school curriculum models. These models include those that are strictly problem-based (Blumberg, 2000) or clinical presentation- based (Mandin, 1997), plus an increasing number of hybrid approaches. 

• In the problem- based curriculum students read medical cases, set learning issues and independently fulfill the self-prescribed learning necessary to fully understand the aspects of each case with a learning facilitator serving only as a guide. 
• In contrast, the clinical presentation-based curriculum relies more on experts to model and encourage inductive rather than deductive reasoning approaches toward clinical diagnoses.

Teachers and learning facilitators who foster self-directed learning in undergraduate medical education use online resources in a wide variety of ways. 

• In a problem-based learning curriculum, a study was designed to explore why only a subset of medical students used the available online resources to fulfill their self-prescribed learning needs (Piskurich, 2004). We asked the students to describe experiences that they felt had made them better online learners. Interestingly, their comments included many of the behaviors that have been proposed for the improvement of self-directed learning (Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 2004).
• Even for the more expert-driven clinical presentation-based medical school curriculum model, the effort to meet LCME accreditation standards is resulting in a push to move lecture content out of the lecture hall and to use class time for more active learning; thus more medical schools are embracing “flipped-classrooms” where various digital formats are used to move content previously delivered as in-class lectures to homework delivered online, thus freeing up class time for simulation and application exercises (Prober & Heath, 2012).

단점: 의과대학생이 받아들이기를 거부한다. 

One drawback is that medical students who relied heavily on lectures delivered in lecture halls to attain the grades and standardized test scores to gain acceptance into medical school are initially reluctant to adopt these more self-directed approaches to learning. Initial resistance to self-directed learning has long been recognized (Long, 1994) and can result in poor student perceptions of faculty who employ teaching-learning interactions that foster self-direction. 

임상표현 모델에서 ARS 시스템의 활용, 성공적.

In the clinical-presentation model, audience response systems have been successfully utilized to give students a choice in the design of upcoming classes (Piskurich, 2012). Providing this opportunity for learner input into the class design and role of the learning facilitator had a positive impact on student level one evaluations, even when the sessions were delivered in the “flipped classroom” format.

AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges). (1984). Physicians for the twenty- first century: Report of the project panel on the general professional education of the physician and college preparation for medicine. Journal of Medical Education, 59, 1-208.

AAMC. (1993). Educating medical students: Assessing change in medical education-the road to implementation (ACME-TRI report). Academic Medicine, 68, S33.

Piskurich, J. F. (2012) Fostering self-directed learning in medical school: When curricular innovation is not enough. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 8(2) 44- 52. Retrieved from http://sdlglobal.com/journals.php

Prober, C. G., & Heath, C. (2012). Lecture halls without lectures: A proposal for medical education. New England Journal of Medicine, 366(18), 1657-1659.

FOSTERING TECHNOLOGY AND SELF-DIRECTION: THE IMPACT ON ADULTS IN EDUCATION, BUSINESS, AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Naomi Boyer, Jeffrey Beard, Lila Holt, Joanne Larsen, Janet Piskurich, and George Piskurich

Technology has become the backbone of everyday life and is integral to our daily process. Whether the word “technology” relates to the technical infrastructure such as networks, Internet, or software programs, or the tools that we use to be productive, communicate, and learn, matters not; in all of these areas, the technological world requires individual self-direction and adaptability to remain current. Through case examples, the intersections of technology, self-directed learning, and everyday life are presented to portray the implications of technology for adult learning and development. While technology alone is not a panacea for the facilitation of learning, the coupling of self-direction with technology does provide the opportunity to fundamentally alter the way in which individuals perceive, construct, and engage with learning activities.

의과대학 교육과정 중 자기주도학습 역량 향상을 위한 현실적 전략(IJSDL, 2014)

PRACTICAL STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN THE MEDICAL CURRICULUM

Dirk Morrison and Kalyani Premkumar

근거중심의학의 저명한 선구자인 David Sackett은 SDL이 왜 다급한지 다음과 같이 요약했다.

David Sackett, a well-known pioneer of evidence-based medicine, famously summed up one of the major reasons that development of self-directed learners is increasingly being recognized as an urgent need: 

당신이 의과대학에서 배운 것중에 절반은 졸업 후 5년 이내에 사라지거나 틀렸음이 증명될 것이다. 문제는, 거기에 해당할 것들이 무엇인지 알려줄 수 있는 사람이 아무도 없다는 것이다. 따라서 가장 먼저 배워야 할 것은 스스로 학습하는 방법이다.

Half of what you'll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half -- so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own. (Cited in Daily & Landis, 2014, p. 2066)

Daily, J. A., & Landis, B. J. (2014) The journey to becoming an adult learner: From dependent to self- directed learning. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 64 (19), 2066-2068. Retrieved from http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=921687

SDL이 평생학습의 중요한 원칙이라는 것과 평생학습이 보건의료직에 대해 일반적으로 기대되는 점이라는 것은 자명해보인다.

It seems intuitively obvious that SDL is an important principle of lifelong learning (Candy, 1991) and that lifelong learning is a general expectation for the health professions;

SDL의 가치는 높이 평가받지만, 적어도 원칙에 있어서 어떻게 UME, GME, CPD라는 의학교육 연속체에서 SDL을 증진시키고 실현할 것인가에 대해 다룬 문헌은 거의 없다. Premkumar의 최근 종단연구에서 University of Saskatchewan’s College of Medicine 학생들은 SDLRS나 LPA로 측정했을 때 UME동안 입학때에 비해서 자기주도학습성이 떨어졌다.

While SDL is valued, at least in principle, along the medical education continuum (undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing professional education), there is a clear lack of documentation regarding how to promote and actualize SDL. A recent longitudinal study (Premkumar et al., 2013) of undergraduate medical students at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Medicine assessing changes in self-directed learning readiness, as measured by the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) or Learning Preference Assessment (Guglielmino, 1978; Guglielmino & Associates, 2010) indicated a significant drop during undergraduate medical training, as compared to measures of SDL readiness at admission.

의과대학에 들어온 학생이 일반적인 학생집단에 비해서 SDLRS가 높다는 점을 비추어보면, 의과대학 교육과정의 특정 요소들(인지적 과부하, 평가유형, 시간 부족) 등이 초반의 높은 자기주도성을 하락시키는 것으로 추정된다.

Given that entering students of health professions have been shown to have higher SDLRS scores as compared to the general student population (Premkumar et al., 2013), it is speculated that specific factors in the traditional orientation and structure of the medical curriculum (e.g., cognitive overload, assessment types, lack of time, etc.) may erode an initial positive orientation toward self-directed learning.

Reversing the Trend: Integrating SDL principles and Strategies Into the Curriculum

전략 1: SDL에 대한 오리엔테이션 제공

Strategy 1: Provide an Orientation to SDL

학생과 교수 모두 SDL기술과 역량을 발휘하고 있으나, 그렇게 이해하고 있지는 않을 수 있다.

It is likely that many students and faculty exercise skills and competencies of SDL but may not understand them as such

교육과정 시작시에 SDL의 목표와 원칙에 대해서 명확히 설명해주기 위한 노력을 충분히 들여야 한다.

어떻게 SDL이 학생들에게 기대되고 있으며, 이것이 전체 교육과정에서 중요한 점이라고 명확히 설명해주는 것, 그리고 일관된 교육 주제 등이 이러한 오리엔테이션을 잡는데 중요할 것이다.

Clearly explaining how SDL is an expectation of all students and that it is an integral part of the overall curriculum, a consistent pedagogical theme, will be an important part of such an orientation (Daniels, 2011).

전략 2: 학습자의 SDL준비도와 기술을 확인하라.

Strategy 2: Identify Individual Learner's SDL Readiness and Skill Level

SDLRS가 있다.

The SDLRS instrument,

Grow의 네 단계 모델을 활용하는 방법도 있다.

The application of Grow's (1996) Staged Self Direction Model (stage 1: low self-direction - stage 4: high self-direction) may also provide some insight here,

SDL준비도는 상황이나 교육내용에 따라서 달라질 가능성이 높다. 학습자의 SDL준비도를 알고 거기에 맞춰서 교육을 조절해야 한다. 예컨대 Dynan Cate rhee는 SDLR 점수에 따라 구조화된 혹은 비구조화된 학습환경으로 학습자를 구분하고 두 집단 모두에서 SDLRS 점수가 상승함을 확인했다.

SDL readiness will likely vary based on situation and topic. It would be important to understand learner readiness to engage with SDL and make adjustments to the curriculum. For example, Dynan, Cate, and Rhee (2008), in reviewing a research study that grouped learners in structured and unstructured learning environments based on their SDLR scores found that the SDLRS scores increased in both groups.

전략 3: SDL역량의 발달을 명확히 하고 촉진하라

Strategy 3: Clarify and Promote the Development of SDL Competencies

Weimer가 지적한 바와 같이 SDL에 필요한 핵심 역량은 다음을 포함한다. 

As Weimer (2010) points out, a core set of competencies for SDL would include the ability for learners to “

• assess the demands of the task, 
• evaluate their own knowledge and skills, 
• plan their approach, 
• monitor their progress, and 
• adjust their strategies as needed” (p. 5). 

다른 것으로는..

Other competencies would include: “

• proficiency in assessment of learning gaps, 
• evaluation of self and others, 
• reflection, 
• information management, 
• critical thinking, and 
• critical appraisal” (Premkumar et al., 2013).

이러한 기술을 연습할 분명한 지침과 기회를 전 교육과정에 걸처 제공하는 것이 중요하다. 또한 Wimer는 연구를 살펴보면 SDL skill은 직접적 교육보다는 우연에 의해서 향상되며 메타인지 기술을 갈고닦을 필요가 있음을 언급했다.

Explicitly providing instruction and opportunities to practice these skills, across the curriculum, will be critical if SDL is to be successfully integrated. In addition, Weimer (2010) states that research indicates SDL skills are developed much more efficiently by direct instruction than by happenstance, and includes the need to hone metacognitive skills.

• Assess the task by being more explicit than you may think necessary. 

• Evaluate how well they’re equipped to do the task by providing opportunities for self-assessment early and often. 

• Plan an appropriate approach by first implementing a plan you’ve provided and then by creating their own plans. 

• Apply selected strategies and monitor progress by having students do guided self-assessments.

• Adjust their strategies by encouraging them to analyze the effectiveness of what they have done.

전략 4: 자신의 관심사를 추구할 기회를 제공하라

Strategy 4: Provide Opportunities to Pursue Own Interests

학습자가 학습과제를 다양한 전략과 다양한 방법으로 접근하게끔 장려하는 것은 중요하나, 이에 못지 않게 학습자들이 스스로의 관심사를 능동적으로, 체계적으로 쫒도록 하는 것도 중요하다. 이는 SDL을 학습과 교육의 구조 속에 넣는 것으로 달성될 수 있다.

While it is important to encourage learners to approach a task in different ways using different strategies, it is also critical that learners actively and methodically pursue their own interests. This may be achieved by framing SDL in the way learning and instruction is organized.

현재 의과대학은 주로 4학년때 관심있는 자신의 전공과나 분야 경험을 쌓을 수 있다. 예컨대 학생들은 구체적인 관심영역을 개별 코스에서 쫒을 수 있다. 이 SDL과정은 적절한 평가 요소를 포함시켜 공식화 될 수 있다.

Currently, medical students are usually given opportunities in their senior years to pursue experiences in medical specialities or areas that are of interest to them However, more and more varied opportunities need to be provided throughout the curriculum. For example, students can be given opportunities to pursue specific topics of interest within individual courses; this SDL process needs to be formalized with incorporation of an appropriate assessment component.

학습자가 자신의 문제를 스스로 만들어서 학습 전략을 활용할 수 있는 환경을 제공하는 것은 논리적으로 합당할 뿐만 아니라 authenticity와 학습자가 심화 학습을 위해 참여할 수 있는 길을 만들어준다. 

As often as is reasonable, providing strategies and learning contexts whereby learners formulate their own problems (individual or collective) to be researched and solved, will provide another layer of authenticity and, potentially, increase learner engagement and deeper learning.

전략 5: 협력적 학습을 활성화시키라

Strategy 5: Activate Collaborative Learning

SDL이 많은 경우 자율학습과 동일한 의미로 사용되지만, 이는 사실이 아니다. 비슷한 생각을 하고 비슷한 동기를 갖는 동료들과 함께 공부하는 것은 SDL의 원칙에 위배되는 것이 아니다. 팀바탕 학습의 다양한 기회를 제공하고, 동료끼리 가르치고 프로젝트나 문제를 기반으로 한 그룹 학습은 개개인의 학습 전략과 그룹 협력적 프로세스를 통하여 SDL의 원칙을 더 강조할 수 있다. 

While SDL is seen by many as synonymous with autonomous learning (insinuating a “learner learning alone”), nothing is farther from the truth: opportunities to learn with other like-minded, like-motivated peers is not antithetical to the principles of SDL. Providing multiple and varied opportunities for team-based learning, peer teaching and project or problem-based group learning would underscore the fact that the principles of SDL can be actualized via individual learner strategies and collaborative group processes.

의학 교육과정의 심화 이해를 달성하기 위해 Barrett과 Moore는 학습자들이 문제에 깊이 관여하면서 아이디어를 공유하고, 다양한 관점과 해석을 접하고, 공통의 의미를 향유함으로서 능동적으로 지식을 생산, 재생산하는 것이 필요하다고 주장하였다. 이는 상호작용/협력/의사소통을 통해서 가능하다.

If deep understanding of the medical curriculum is to be achieved, Barrett and Moore (2011) argue for the need to create environments and processes whereby learners actively create and re-create knowledge together, by sharing ideas, confronting divergent views and interpretations, embracing shared meanings and by deeply engaging with learning problems in “interactive, collaborative, communicative ways” (Armitgage, 2013, p. 5).

전략 6: 의미있는 성찰을 장려하기

Strategy 6: Encourage Meaningful Reflection

따라서 학습자들이 자신의 SDL에 대해서 능동적, 비판적으로 성찰하려면 개념적, 조작적 프레임워크를 제공하여 평가 틀로 활용해야 한다. 이 능동적 성찰의 최종 목표...

It will be important, therefore, to provide a conceptual and operational framework, an evaluative scaffold, if you will, whereby the learner can actively and critically reflect on their SDL. End goals of this active reflection might be to 

• look for insights into how one learns best, 
• evaluate and then make adjustments in personal learning strategies, 
• pursue promising avenues of investigation and interest, 
• reflect on action (i.e., retrospective analysis) and 
• reflect in action (a mindfulness while one is executing an action) (Schon, 1983).

Day One이나 Evernote, e-portfolio 등을 사용할 수 있다.

application journal such as Day One (Bloom Built, 2014) or Evernote (Evernote Corp., 2008) 

Regularly annotating e-portfolio entries

전략 7: SDL을 통합시키기 위해서 학생 평가를 바꾸라

Strategy 7: Alter Student Assessment To Integrate SDL

성찰 없이는, MCQ, 빈찬 캐우기, 단답형 등과 같은 평가방식은 효율성은 높을지 모르나 SDL의 기회는 거의 제공하지 않는다. 더 정확히는 자기주도적 평가가 안된다.

With a little reflection, it is clear that multiple choice, fill-in-the-blanks, short answer and other such assessment tools, while affording efficiencies (e.g., machine- graded), offer little to create opportunities for SDL, or, more accurately, self-directed assessment.

Driessen 등은 포트폴리오를 성공적으로 사용하는 조건을 언급했다.

Driessen et al. (2005) outline some of the necessary conditions for the successful use of portfolios in medical education; what is especially important in this study is that they were able to show that “portfolios are a potentially valuable method of assessing and developing students’ reflective skills in undergraduate medical training…” (p. 1230). If this method is to be used to encourage and support SDL, then necessary conditions need to be fulfilled, including: 

• “an appropriate portfolio structure, 
• an appropriate assessment procedure, 
• the provision of enough new experiences and materials, and 
• sufficient teacher capacity for adequate coaching and assessment” (Driessen et al., 2005, p. 1230).

전략 8: SDL을 진행할 시간을 주라

Strategy 8: Make Time Available for the Processes of SDL

Goodlad는 교수자는 학교의 상황을 만들고, 학교의 상황에 따라 만들어진다. 시간은 사용할 수 있는 가장 중요한 학습 자원으로서, 시간을 어떻게 사용하는가가 학습 기회의 차이를 가져온다. 따라서 시스템은 이 소중하고 제한된 자원의 활용(또는 오용)되는 것에 영향을 주며, SDL활동과 절차를 위한 시간을 배분하기 위해서는 Radical한 사고의 전환이 필요하다.

Goodlad (1984) points out, “teachers both condition and are conditioned by the circumstances of schools...; time is virtually the most precious learning resource they have at their disposal…[and]...differences in using time create inequities in opportunity to learn” (pp. 29-30). The system, then, perpetuates the use (or misuse) of this precious and limited commodity; a radical shift in thinking will need to occur in order to press for allocations of time for SDL activities and processes. 

이러한 주장을 할 때 '단순히 시간을 더 달라'라고 주장하는 것이 아님을 강조하는 것이 중요하다. 그보다 Goodlad의 말을 활용하자면, "우리는 시간을 더 달라고 주장하는 것을 멈추어서는 안된다. 나는 언제나 많은 시간을 무익하게 쓰느니 적은 시간을 잘 사용하는 것을 선택해왔다. 시간을 늘리는 것은, 사실상, 어떻게 그 시간을 사용할 것인가에 대한 개선이 동시에 있지 않다면 오히려 생산성을 저해시킬 뿐이다."

It is important, when making such arguments, to underscore that we are not arguing for simply more time but echo the sentiments of Goodlad (1984), who states: We must not stop with providing only time. I would always choose fewer hours well-used over more hours of engagement with sterile activities. Increasing [time] will, in fact, be counterproductive unless there is, simultaneously, marked improvement in how time is used. (p. 283)

전략 9: 대화 학습법을 핵심 방법으로 강조하기

Strategy 9: Emphasize Dialogical Learning as a Core Method

대화의 힘이 고관여의 심화학습의 줏추돌임은 이미 보여진 바 있다. Armitage는 이렇게 주장했다. 대화는 학생과 교사가 아는 것과 다시 아는 활동을 통해 서로 모아준다. 교사에게 고정되어있던 지식을 정적으로 전달하는 것 대신, 대화는 의식화 운동(conscientization)의 과정을 통해 지식을 칠천할 것을 요구하며 재생산한다.

The demonstrated power of dialogue as the cornerstone for engaged and deep learning seems clear. Armitage (2013) asserts: ...Dialogue brings together the teacher and the student in the joint act of knowing and re-knowing the object of study, where instead of transferring knowledge statically, as a fixed possession of the teacher, it demands and recreates acts of knowledge through the process of conscientization. (p. 7)

현재의 정보통신기술을 활용하여 실시간이 아니어도 학습자는 토론을 할 수 있다.

Rather, harnessing current information and communication technology tools (e.g., smart phones), learners would be able to extend the discussion not only in real time,

전략 10: ICT를 사용하라

Strategy 10: Provide and Train Learners in the Use of Information And Communication Technologies (ICT) Tools to Enhance SDL Strategies

전략 11: 학습자가 정보를 관리하고 평가할 수 있게 하라.

Strategy 11: Help Learners to Manage and Evaluate Information

정보의 신빙성과 관련성을 평가하는 기술이 필요하다.

Honing these skills to include critical appraisal of the trustworthiness (of sources, validity, etc.) of relevant and targeted information resources will prepare medical students for the realities of being a physician in the 21st Century (Cronin et al., 2014).

전략 12: 교수개발이 필요하다

Strategy 12: Train Faculty in SDL

성공적인 SDL을 도입하려면 교수들의 참여가 필수적이다. 처음에는 약간의 긍정적인 평가에 지나지 않을 수 있다.

The most critical factor in the successful implementation of an innovation such as the integration of SDL across the medical curricula will be medical faculty buy-in, which, initially, may be little more than positive regard, or a general agreeableness to the idea.

SDL에 대한 아이디어가 도입되기 시작하면, 실험과 평가, 긍정적 평가를 통해서 근거를 제시해야 하고, 그 다음에는 기관 전체의 교수들에게 SDL전략의 설계, 전달, 평가에 대한 훈련을 통해 효과적인 도입이 가능하다.

Once the idea of SDL takes root, providing concrete evidence of its efficacy via trials, evaluations, positive assessments, etc., then broaching the next steps, namely, taking an integrated approach to SDL and moving well beyond buy-in from medical faculty to an institution-wide commitment to training in the design, delivery and evaluation of SDL strategies will ensure effective implementation.

It is important to underscore that many of the SDL learning strategies described above, especially those that are skills, knowledge, attitudes-based, are not mutually exclusive; it is likely that these would be used in an ever-changing constellations or combinations, when needed and as the particular SDL challenges dictate. The point here is that the medical student uses what she needs, when she needs it; and applies these in the ways she needs to, to direct and be in control of her own learning.

It is clear that not all of the suggestions provided above could immediately, or easily be adopted and integrated by any particular medical education faculty and curriculum. However, moving the established medical education system toward a greater emphasis on self-directed learning principles and practices, even if incrementally, would be a step in the right direction and yield positive results as we prepare the doctors of tomorrow for lifelong learning.

Grow, G. O. (1991/1996). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41 (3), 125-149. Expanded version available online at: http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow

PRACTICAL STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN THE MEDICAL CURRICULUM

Dirk Morrison and Kalyani Premkumar

Ideally, the 21st century physician, as a lifelong learner, is empowered by a deep understanding and actualized skills of self-directed learning (SDL). While SDL is an intuitively valued element of most medical education curricula, unless SDL is explicitly valued and spirally integrated across the curriculum, it is unlikely to be acquired as a core learning skill set by undergraduate medical students. In this paper, we outline a coherent set of practical strategies to promote and sustain SDL in the undergraduate curriculum. The implementation of these teaching and learning strategies may reverse a trend discovered in one medical school (i.e., a drop in student SDL readiness), by providing a teaching and learning environment in which the principles of SDL can be fully supported and actualized.

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

보건의료인교육에서의 SDL (Ann Acad Med Singapore, 2008)

Self-directed Learning in Health Professions Education

M Hassan Murad,1MD, MPH, Prathibha Varkey,1MBBS, MPH

지식이 얼마나 빠르게 증가하고 있는가

• More than 600,000 new citations were published in MEDLINE in 2005; this raised the total number of indexed citations to more than 14 million citations.1 
• In a study be Williamson et al,2 2 out of 3 primary care physicians described the volume of literature as unmanageable, and 1 out of 5 reported that they were not using or were unaware of the 6 selected recent clinical advances in medicine. 

• In addition, physicians’ knowledge declines with time, which may result in lower quality of care.3 
• Ramsey et al4 showed that the knowledge of internists inversely correlated with the number of years elapsed since their board certification, with a sharp decline noted after 15 years.

교과서와 리뷰 문헌마저 충분히 최신 근거를 반영하지 못함.

Textbooks and review articles lag chronologically behind the current evidence.

CME프로그램 대부분이 의사의 행동을 바꿔놓지 못함.

Furthermore, systematic reviews of continued medical education programmes (CME) demonstrate that most of these programmes are not effective in changing physicians’ behaviour, do not affect patients’ outcomes, and are generally not based on learners needs.6-8

SDL은 평생학습을 위한 촉망받는 방법이었다.

Self-directed learning (SDL) has been suggested as apromising methodology for lifelong learning in medicine.

• The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) endorsed accreditation standards in 2004 that promote flexibility and innovation in learning and provide medical students with skills necessary for self-directed learning.9
• The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education(ACGME) recommended that residents should become self-directed learners, evaluate their learning with innovative tools such as computerised diaries and portfolios, and facilitate the learning of others.10 
• The American Board ofInternal Medicine (ABIM) recommends that a basic component of the maintenance of certification programme is that physicians become lifelong learners and be involved in a periodic self-assessment process to guide continuing learning.11 

그러나 SDL의 개념은 여전히 모호하다. 학생과 교육자 모두 그것을 정의하고 그것의 가치에 동의하는데 어려워한다.

However, the concept of self-directed learning continues to be elusive, with students and educators finding difficulty in defining it and agreeing on its worth.12,13

SDL은 다양한 개념과 용어로 사용되어 왔다.

The term SDL has been used widely in the literature to describe various concepts in learning such as 

self-planned learning, 

learning projects, 

self-education, 

self-teaching, 

autonomous learning, 

autodidaxy, 

independent study, and 

open learning.15

우리는 SDL을 Malcolm Knowles의 일곱 가지 요소로 구성된다고 보았다.

We considered SDL to consist of 7 key components as described by Malcolm Knowles (Table 1). Knowles22 defined SDL as a process, in which individuals 

• take the initiative, with or without the help of others, 
• in diagnosing their learning needs, 
• formulating goals, 
• identifying human and material resources for learning, 
• choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and 
• evaluating learning outcomes. 

We evaluated the included articles to determine how often educators applied these SDL components in their programmes and whether these components were effective compared with traditional didactics.

촉진자로서의 교수자 The educator as a facilitator: 

교수자는 skill의 source이며 content의 source가 아니다.

Although self-directed learning may imply the lack of the need for an educator,learners often need an expert to introduce them to the basicsof SDL including the appraisal of educational needs,adoption of a theoretical construct and development oflearning goals.43 Therefore, teachers in SDL programmesare seen as a source for skills rather than a source of content,and they assume the role of facilitators or consultants to thelearner.44 

학습 요구의 파악 Identification of learning needs: 

교육요구는 현재의 역량과 기대되는 역량 사이의 간극이다. 학습요구를 파악하는 것은 SDL의 핵심적 요소이다. Beckert 등은 학생의 요구와 self-drive에 기반한 학습활동이 외부 자원에 의해서 정해지는 활동보다 더 효과적임을 보여줬다. Knowles도 학습자가 학습요구를 더 명확히 알아낼수록, 그 요구와 사회, 기관, 학업적 열망이 조화를 더 잘 이룰 수 있으며, 더 효과적인 학습이 일어날 것이라 했다.

Educational needs arethe discrepancy between the present level of competencyand the required level of competency (or the differencebetween aspiration and reality).45 Identification of learning needs is an integral component of SDL. Beckert et al46demonstrated that learning activities based on student’sneeds and self-drive are more likely to be successful thanactivities dictated by extrinsic sources. Knowles45 alsosuggested that the more explicitly learners identify learningneeds and the more harmonious their needs are withsocietal, organisational or academic aspirations, the morelikely effective learning will take place.

학습 목표의 개발 Development of learning objectives: 

pool of needs로부터 objective를 정한다. 높은 우선순위를 가진 것, 그리고 학습 평가를 촉진하기 위해 측정가능한 것으로 정하게 된다.

Learning objectives are the desired outcomes of learning and are derived from the pool of needs generated by learners. Learners translate needs into objectives and ideally, would choose the ones that are higher on their priority list and are measurable to facilitate learning evaluation.45

학습 계약에 대한 헌신 Commitment to a learning contract: 

학습계약이란 과목 전문가의 조언하에 '무엇을 어떻게 배우고, 어떻게 확인할 것인가'를 설명한 문서이다. 따라서 이 문서는 학습자의 자기주도성을 인정하며, 학습목표, 자원, 전략, 성취의 근거 등을 명확히 해준다.

A learning contract is a formal document prepared by learners in consultation with a subject expert to demonstrate “what is to be learned, how it is to be learned, and how learning will be verified”.40 Thus, learning contracts acknowledge learners’ self- directedness and specify learning objectives, resources, strategies and evidence of accomplishment.22

Pereles 등은 학습 계약을 작성한 의사가 더 변화가 많았고, 더 환자에게 영향을 주었음을 확인했다. 의과대학 교육에서도 1학년돠 2학년 학생 중 학습 계약을 활용한 학생이 더 많은 SDL task에 도달하였고, SDL에 더 긍정적인 모습을 보였고, SDLRS에서도 점수가 높았다.

Pereles et al42 reported geriatricians who made a written commitment to change their practice after an educational course made more changes and affected more patients when compared with counterparts in a control group. In undergraduate medical education, first- and second-year medical students who used learning contracts were able to accomplish more SDL tasks, demonstrated more positive attitudes regarding SDL, and scored higher on the self-directed learning readiness scale (SDLRS).40

학습자원 확인 Resource identification: 

Knowles는 학습자가 학습자원 배정에 참여해야 한다고 했다. 적절한 자원을 자신이 선호하는 학습방법에 따라, 목표에 따라 정한다. 

Knowles22 advocated direct involvement of learners in the allocation of learning resources. Learners in consultation with a subject expert, choose the appropriate resources based on their preferred method of learning and the type of learning objectives. He suggested that...

• cognitive objectives are best learned by lectures, written resources, interviews, colloquy and panel discussions; 
• behavioural objectives are best learned by experience-sharing, role-playing, sensitivity training and case-based learning and 
• psychomotor objectives are best learned by skill practice exercises, role-playing, simulation and drills. 
• procedural skills: SDL interventions designed for health professions education describe the use of written materials (e.g. articles, workbooks), computerised modules, web sites, audio-visual aids (e.g. videos) and mannequins for teaching procedural skills.28,30,33,43,47

학습과정 진행 Implementation process: 

SDL의 분위기를 조성하고 라뽀를 쌓으려면 촉진자들은 인트로덕션 미팅을 가져야 한다. 이 미팅에서는 학습자와 교수자의 파트너십을 강조한다. 또한 학습요구, 목표, 계획, 평가도구 등을 결정하기 위한 후속 미팅이 이어진다. 학습자들은 처음에는 부정적 느낌이나 혼란 불만이 있으 수 있지만 점차 SDL에 긍정적인 느김을 갖게 될 것이다.

To build rapport and set the climate for SDL, facilitators should conduct introductory meetings with learners. These meetings emphasise the partnership between learners and educators, rather than dependency of students on teachers. Subsequent meetings can be utilised to identify learning needs, goals, learning plan and evaluation means.22 Learners may experience initial negative feelings such as confusion and dissatisfaction; however, transformation to positive feelings as SDL progresses is expected.48

학습 평가 Learning evaluation: 

포트폴리오가 권장된다. 포트폴리오의 장점은 아래와 같다.

Learning portfolios that demonstrate the acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes and achievements have been recommended for health professionals undertaking SDL.52 Learning portfolios enable learners to control the educational process, maintain autonomy, promote reflective thinking, increase SDL skills and evaluate learning outcomes.52 Portfolio computerisation can further enhance their role by providing better accessibility, ease of use and security features for confidential information.38,39

MCQ나 OSCE, 질적/양적 자기보고 척도도 가능함.

In addition to portfolios, SDL can be evaluated by multiple choice questions, OSCE, and qualitative and quantitative self-reported measures of competency.22,34,35,49,53

SDL의 효과성

Effectiveness of SDL

일반적으로 SDL의 효과를 비교한 연구는 적다. 여기서 확인한 여러 연구도 학습자의 수용도나 만족을 측정했다.

In general, there is paucity of evidence to document the efficacy of SDL compared with traditional didactics. In this review, we found most studies to be mainly focused on evaluating learner’s acceptability and satisfaction with SDL as well as feasibility of SDL projects rather than studies providing information on the impact of SDL learning outcomes.

교육이론과 SDL 

Education Theory and SDL

SDL은 여러 교육이론, 교육개념과 일관된 측면이 있다.

SDL is consistent with several educational concepts and theories including the theory of adult education, humanism, constructivism, empowerment, the Schön model, and the Kolb learning cycle.44 

• The theory of adult education assumes that adult learners display attributes of maturity, independence, self-direction, responsibility and individuality; and that their learning is related to their social roles and previous experiences. Thus, it may be more appropriate for adult learners to use less paternalistic learning models that promote partnership between the learner and the teacher, such as SDL.44,45,56
• The humanist approach to learning is consistent with SDL in that the locus of learning relates to the needs of the learners and the motivation for learning is self-actualisation and self-fulfillment.44,57 
• SDL is also consistent with constructivism in that learning is not acquired by transplanting knowledge in an empty reservoir; it is rather built by learners based on their prior knowledge, experiences, cultural and psychosocial background.58 
• In addition, SDL empowers learners. Learners who have been personally, educationally, socially or politically oppressed, take control of their own learning and experience a liberating effect by using SDL.59,60
• The Schön and the Kolb learning models resonate well with the philosophy of SDL. After encountering a question that requires knowledge, skills or attitudes that learners do not possess in their “zone of mastery”, learners face a “surprise” that provokes learning. The problem that instigates learning can be a specific problem (a question that pertains to an individual situation) or a general problem (a gap in knowledge or skill that can be applied to in a variety of situations).

SDL의 한계

Limitations of SDL

SDL의 적용은 그 실제 도입에서의 다양성과 교육자들이 가진 SDL의 정의의 다양성에 의해서 제약을 받는다. 또한 SDL의 효과를 측정한 무작위 연구도 별로 없다.

The application of SDL in health professions education is limited by the heterogeneity in the implementation and definitions of SDL by educators. In addition, only a few randomised studies document the efficacy of SDL. There is also a lack of evidence on the content that is most appropriate for SDL.

또한 SDL에 대한 학습자의 준비도를 측정하는 표준화된 척도도 없다. SDLRS가 있지만 미래의 학습 행동을 예측하는 능력이 떨어진다. OCLI와 Rayn 설문지도 있긴 하다.

Furthermore, there is no standardised method to assess learners’ readiness for SDL. 

• The most widely used and studied scale is the SDLRS, developed by Guglielmino in 1977. Despite the good convergent, divergent and criterion validity, the SDLRS is criticised for reliance on self-report instead of objective data and for its inability to predict future learning behaviour.44,63 
• Other readiness scales, such as the Oddi continuing learning inventory (OCLI), which emphasises personality traits enabling for SDL, and the Ryan’s questionnaire, which emphasises students’ perceptions of SDL, have little evidence of validity.63-65 
• The accuracy of learners’ self-assessment of learning needs and learning outcomes has been doubted repeatedly in the literature.

SDL과 PBL은 서로 섞여가면 사용된다.

SDL and PBL have often been used interchangeably in the literature, often erroneously. Since SDL is often initiated after encountering an educational challenge or a “problem”,27 SDL has been linked with problem-based learning (PBL) in the literature.

그러나 PBL도 교수자가 목표를 정해줄 수 있고 강의 등을 방법을 사용하기도 한다.

However, this is not always the case, and PBL curricula can contain learning objectives dictated by teachers and course organisers and can also include didactics.73,74

또한 근거가 서로 상충된다.

In addition, the evidence regarding SDL activities in PBL curricula is conflicting.

Self-directed learning in health professions education.

자기주도학습 (Arch Dis Child,1996)

Self directed learning

Angela Towle, David Cottrell

Knowles의 SDL 정의

As defined by Knowles,1 self directed learn- ing is a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in goals,theiridentifying humanneeds, andformnulating learning diagnosing material learning for learning, choosing and implementing - resources appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes, that is, they take responsibility for, and control learning (see box 1).

학생을 교육의 중심으로 가져오려는 시도가 되고 있다.

Fortunately progress is now being made to introduce more active, student centred methods of education, and to focus attention on the needs and aspira- tions of the learners rather than those of the teachers.

학습을 촉진하고 평생학습의 비판적 기술을 배양하기 위한 가이드들. Schmidt는 아래의 원칙을 제시함.

The medical education literature provides guidance as to what will the facilitate learning as well as help cultivate critical skills of lifelong learning. Schmidt, for example, gives three principles which will make teaching more relevant and effective, based upon what is known about adult learning.3 

• (1) Building on prior knowledge: students to the knowledge they already possess use understand and structure new information. closer the the 
• (2) Learning in context: resemblance between the situation in which something is learned and the situation in which it is applied, the more likely it is that transfer of learning will occur. 
• (3) Elaboration of knowledge: information is better understood and remembered if there is opportunity for elaboration (this includes teaching questions, answering discussion, peers, critiquing).

PBL은 1960년대 중반 McMaster에서 도입됨. 

Problem based learning originated McMaster University in Canada in the mid- 1960smedicaland hasschoolssince throughout been adopted thebyworldperhapsas the sole or major learning method and by several hundred as one of the methods in a hybrid curriculum. 

가장 원래의 형태는 다음과 같다.

In its purest form (for example at McMaster and Maastricht), a problem is presented to a group of students and the group decides it needs to know in order to solve it.

The learning objectives of such an exercise are generated by the students and several groups of students simultaneously encountering the same problem will end up learning different things. A more structured problem based learning system might entail a list of learning objectives generated by the teachers or course organisers to which students are guided gently. 

Harvard 등의 일부 의대는 혼합한 방식을 사용하였음.

Some medical schools (such as Harvard) mix problem based learning with more traditional forms of teaching such as lectures and seminars which are related to the problems being studied. Comparisons of different curricula suggest that students perform as well following problem based courses as students receiving traditional courses, but do indeed acquire a more inquisitive and self directed style of learning.6

대부분의 작업은 학생이 수행함.

Thus, much of the work carried out by the students will be in between the tutorial sessions facilitated by the teacher when the group meets to review progress. Teachers are required to operate in very different ways to facilitate this kind of learning: clear learning objectives need to be set for each problem presentation and to tutors should facilitate must the learn in analysis skills in and small questioninggroup teachingwhich have tooccurresist thethetemptation to controlThey alsothe direction of insteadthe discussion of encouragingand tostudentsprovideto information find out for themselves. Studies have shown that with tutors of the expert problem being discussed areknowledgemore directive, speak more frequently and for longer, provide more direct answers to questions, and suggesttutors.7 These effects may discourage themore topics for discussion than do non-expertdevelopment of active, self directed learning.

자기/동료평가

Self/peer evaluation

자기평가 혹은 동료평가는 PBL의 주요 요소이나 다른 교육방식과 함께 학습 과정의 일부로 사용될 수도 있다. (스스로의 능력을 평가하기 위한 task를 설계하거나, criteria를 만드는 작업을 학생이 함.)

Self the or peerassessmentassessmentprocess.8is often a key com- ponent of problem based learning but can be introduced as part of the learning process in conjunction with most forms of teaching.

Self directed learning.

특이성의 일반성(Med Educ, 2003)

On the generality of specificity

Kevin W Eva

성격, 임상전문성, 학생평가, 면접, 문제해결, 전문직업성, 비판적 사고, 인적 특성 공학....이 모든 것에 대한 기초 연구와 적용에는 '맥락특이성'의 영향이 널리 퍼져있다. 맥락특이성은 '특정 상황이나 특정 문제에서 대한 개개인의 수행능력이 다른 상황이나 다른 문제에서의 수행능력을 매우 미약하게만 예측한다'라는 것으로 정의된다.

Personality, clinical expertise, student evaluation, personal interviews, problem solving, professionalism, critical thinking and human factors engineer-ing: central to all of of these seeminglydiverse areas basic research andapplication is a widespread influence ofcontext specificity. Context specificity iscommonly defined by the observationthat an individual’s performance on aparticular problem or in a particularsituation is only weakly predictive of thesame individual’s performance on adifferent problem or in a different situ-ation.

"많은 '기술'과'기질'은 한때 우리가 개개인의 특성이라고 보았으나, 그보다는 어떠한 맥락에 따른 '상태'라고 보는 것이 타당하다.

Many ‘skills’ and ‘traits’ that wecommonly believe to be indicativeof individuals themselves are often better accounted for by contextual ‘states’ 

더 일반적으로, 맥락특이성은 학습과 행동의 '기질'적 특성보다 '상태'의 중요성을 강조하는 것이다. 대부분의 사람들이 고정된 인적 기질(부끄러움, 유머러스함, 외향적인)을 가지고 있다고 믿지만, 이 분야에서는 개개인의 특성에 그러한 딱지를 붙이는 것은 부적절하고, 그러한 '기질'이 맥락에 따라 다르게 드러나는 것이며, 그러한 '상황'이 오히려 '성격'보다 더 미래 행동을 잘 예측해준다는 것이다.

More generally, context specificityillustrates the importance of ‘state’ asopposed to ‘trait’ theories of learningand behaviour. Although most of usbelieve that individuals have stable per-sonality traits (e.g. shy, humorous orextroverted), research in this area sug-gests that it is inappropriate to treatsuch labels as characteristics of an indi-vidual (i.e. as traits), but implies ratherthat we should recognise that the ‘traits’individuals exhibit are context-depend-ent and that the situation (i.e. the state)is often a better predictor of behaviourthan personality.3 

Darley and Batson4이 Princeton Theological Seminary students를 대상으로 한 연구는 '기질'과 '상태'의 차이를 극적으로 보여주는 예시이다. 여러 상황에서 성격을 측정한 결과들이 있고, 이들은 서로 유의미한 상관관계를 보이나, 사실 그 상관관계의 크기는 상황의 영향력에 비하면 미미하다.

This difference nicely illus-trates the influential nature of the staterelative to that of the traits of theseindividuals. Statistically significant cor-relations are often found between meas-ures of personality across multiplesituations, but the correlation is rou-tinely tiny (< 0AE3) and pales in compar-ison to the impact of the situation.3 

인지 기술과 행동이 맥락 의존적인가 하는 것에 대한 논쟁은 학업에 대한 것 만은 아니다. 이는 우리가 역량을 정의하고 측정하는데도 영향을 준다. OSCE는 다양한 상황에서의 관측을 통해서 한 사람의 역량을 일반화한다. 비슷한 방식이 학생 선발에도 시도되고 있다.

This debate over whether or notcognitive skills and behaviours are con-text-bound is not simply an academicexercise; it has tremendous influence onthe way we define and measure com-petence within the health sciences. Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) have become the goldstandard for evaluating clinical compet-ence due to the recognition that mul-tiple observations are necessary to derive a generalisable assessment ofsomeone’s abilities. This same tech-nique has recently been adopted in anattempt to improve the validity of stu-dent admissions protocols.5

늘 똑같이 불리는 것은 아니지만 '맥락특이성'은 상당히 여러 분야에서 나타나는 광범위한 특성이다.

While not always assigned the same label, ‘context specificity’is a profoundly general phenomenon 

맥락특이성이 우리 자신의 능력에 대한 자기평가능력에 미치는 영향으로 인해 우리의 자기주도적 학습 능력이 제한된다.

Our ability to self-direct our own learning is handicapped by the impact of context specificity on our ability to self-assess our own abilities 

Kruger와 Dunning은 자기평가에서 맥락특이성이 나타나는 한 가지 기전에 대한 실험적 근거를 제시햇다. 특정 업무에 대한 전문성의 함수로 자기평가능력의 정확성을 평가하였다. Kruger와 Dunnning은 특정 영역에서 더 수행능력이 우수한 사람이 자신의 수행능력을 더 잘 평가하는 것을 보여주었다. 다른 말로 하면, 자기평가에 대한 능력은 generic skill이 아니며, 우리는 우리의 역량을 유지할 수 있는 맥락 안에서만 유능한 자기평가자가 될 수 있다. 이와 같은 안타까운 결론은, 현실적인 관점에서 보자면 외부의 지도 없이 그 누구도 자신의 역량 부족을 알아챌 수 없다는 것이며, 결과적으로 학습자들을 자기주도적이 되게 하려는 교육방식을 둘러싼 레토릭의 타당성을 약화시킨다.

Kruger and Dunning have providedexperimental evidence for at least one ofthe mechanisms whereby specificitymight arise in the context of self-assess-ment.10 By examining the accuracy ofself-assessments as a function of exper-tise on a series of tasks, including theability to recognise humour and logicalreasoning, Kruger and Dunning wereable to show that individuals who per-formed better in a specific domain alsorevealed better calibration in assessmentof their own performance in that do-main. In other words, the ability to self-assess should not be considered ageneric skill; rather, we will only revealourselves to be competent self-assessorsin contexts within which we maintaincompetence. The unfortunate aspect ofthis conclusion, from a practical stand-point, is that one can never know that one is incompetent without externalguidance, thereby reducing the validityof the rhetoric around nurturing learn-ers to be self-directed. 

마지막으로, 역설적으로 보자면 특이성을 중요시하는 것이 오히려 여러 기술의 일반성을 향상시킬 수 있다. 예를 들면 개개인이 자가평가능력이 맥락 의존적인 것을 깨닫는다면 외부의 지도를 내면화하기 위한 노력을 더 할 것이며 자기 인식의 타당도도 높아질 것이다.

Finally, in an ironic twist of speculation,nurturing an appreciation of specificity might actually increase the generalityof many skills. For example, if individuals realise that their ability to self-assess is context-dependent, they mightbe more likely to seek and internalise external guidance regarding multiple aspects of their the performance, thereby increasing validity of their self-conceptions. 

5 Eva KW, Reiter HI, Rosenfeld J,Norman GR. An Admissions OSCE:MedicalThe Multiple Mini-Interview. Education. In press. 

Med Educ. 2003 Jul;37(7):587-8.

On the generality of specificity.

SDL - 개념과 맥락의 중요성 (Med Educ, 2005)

Self-directed learning – the importance of concepts and contexts

G C Greveson & J A Spencer

3학년 학생들이 온전히 자율적으로 학습하지 않으며, 또한 지지와 방향제시를 원한다는 결론을 내렸다. 온전히 혼자 하도록 내버려둬지는 것보다 지지와 방향제시가 있을 때 더 동기부여가 되고, 자신의 학습요구를 찾고 추구하는 것도 더 잘 한다는 것이다.

They concluded that their 3rd year students were rarely fully autonomous, and val- ued support and direction (organ- isational, affective and pedagogic), with which they became more motivated and apparently better able to identify and pursue their own learning needs than if left to their own devices.

'자기주도성'을 아우르는 구인이 있다는 것을 지지하지 않으며, 그 측정도구는 다양한 특성을 포괄하고 있음을 관찰했다. 또한 이것들이 SDL을 예측하는 것도 아니었다. 주된 결론은 SDLRS는 SDL과 관련된 특성을 측정하는데 약하다는 것이다.

They found no support for an overarching construct of self-direc- tedness, and observed that many of the characteristics comprising the instrument (for example, positive attitudes towards learning as tool for life) were not necessarily pre- dictive of SDL behaviour. Their main conclusion is that the SDLRS falls short of measuring character- istics that are claimed to be associ- ated with SDL.

Candy는 철학에 따라, 이념에 따라, 도구에 따라 SDL을 바라보는 다양한 관점이 있을 수 있을 수 있음을 지적하면서, 다양한 세팅에서는 서로 다른 함의를 가질 수 있음을 지적했다. 예컨대 Miflin 등은 SDL에 기반한 graduate medical course를 도입하는데 어려움이 있었다고 보고하면서, 이는 주로 교수와 학생에게 'SDL'에 대한 해석이 너무 다양했기 때문이라고 하였다.

Candy sug- gested there are several conceptu- ally distinct ways of viewing SDL, based on varying educational phi- losophies, from the ideological to the instrumental, which may have different implications for practice in different settings.3 For example, Miflin et al. reported the difficulties in implementing a graduate med- ical course based on the idea of SDL when there were many differ- ent interpretations of the concept amongst the teachers and students involved.4

Coffield는 너무 오랫동안 평생학습이 근거도 불충분하고, 연구도 잘 안되고, 이론도 없는 채로 방치되어왔다고 주장했다. SDL에 대해서도 같은 지적을 할 수 있다.

Yet Coffield caustically claimed that for too long life-long learning has remained an evidence-free zone, under-researched, under-theorised, unencumbered by doubt and unmoved by criticism .5 The same could probably be said of SDL.

Eva는 생소하지 못한 영역에서는 외부의 방향제시가 늘 필요하며, 따라서 학습자의 자기주도성을 길러야 한다는 주장의 타당성 기반에 대한 비판을 가했다. Schmidt는 전문직 진료에 있어서 SDL이 지나치게 과장되었다고 지적한다.

Eva claimed that exter- nal guidance would always be required for unfamiliar areas of practice, thus reducing the validity of the rhetoric around nurturing learners to be self-directed .8 Sch- midt put forward similar arguments for his claimthat the importance of SDL skills in professional practice had been overemphasised.6

인지주의자는 학습의 개인적, 개별적 특성을 강조한다. 그러나 Candy는 다르다. 

Cognitivists stress the private and individual nature of learning. However, Candy claims: 

The term self-direction has misled many into elevating the individual above the collective – but the nature of knowledge and learning inherently puts learners in relationship with others .3 

SDL의 위치는 심각하게 고려되어야 한다. Dorman의 연구는 임상의학에서의 학습이란 학습자와 환경의 상호작용의 결과물이라고 보았다.

The place of self-direction must be carefully considered, and Dornan’s research adds weight to the view that learning in clinical medicine is as much the product of an interaction between the learner and the environment as a private, individual process.

학습의 맥락이 고려되어야 한다. 자기주도성을 상대적으로 고정된 특성이라거나 측정가능한 특성으로 본 적이 있이며, 이것이 SDRLS의 개발에 깔린 가정이기도 하다. 그러나 많은 연구로부터 자기주도성 또는 그 동기는 맥락에 따라 다르다는 것이 보여진 바 있다.

The context of learning must also be considered. Self-directedness has been seen by some as a relat- ively stable trait or measurable personal attribute, the underlying assumption behind the develop- ment of tools such as the SDRLS. However, many authors3,9 argue that the ability and motivation to be self-directed varies with the context of learning. 

• The subject matter; 
• the social, cultural and educational setting; 
• past experiences; 
• self-concept; and 
• relevant study skills 

all influence the extent to which self directedness is possible or likely.

그렇다면 SDL연구는 어떻게 되어야 할까? contextual factor를 더 고려해야 한다.

So, what of future research on SDL? As Candy, and Merriam & Caffar- ella3,9 have argued, it must take much more account of contextual factors, so that educators can con- sider how the findings may apply to their own situations.

Eva KW. On the generality of specificity. Med Educ 2003;37:587–8.

Self-directed learning--the importance of concepts and contexts.

SDL 교육, 평가, 정책 향상을 위해서는 이론이 필요하다 (Med Educ, 2011)

Theory is needed to improve education, assessment and policy in self-directed learning

Paul Mazmanian & Moshe Feldman

최근 연구결과를 보면 SDL 특이적 이론모델은 보건전문직의 교수, 학습, 정책을 가이드하는데 혼란을 주거나 중복되는 부분이 있는 듯 하다.

Recent studies1–3 suggest that a theoretical model unique to selfdirected learning (SDL) would help in making sense of confusing or overlapping concepts often used to guide teaching, learning and policy in the health professions.

예컨대 JeffSPLL의 originator인 Hojat 등은 평생학습과 SDL은 self- initiated learning behaviours, information-seeking skills and the ability to recognise one’s own learning needs.과 같은 공통점을 갖는다.

For example, Hojat et al.,4 originators of the Jefferson Scale of Physician Lifelong Learning (JeffSPLL), an instrument validated in use with practising doctors4 and with undergraduate medical students,5 indicate that lifelong learning and SDL share key concepts, including self- initiated learning behaviours, information-seeking skills and the ability to recognise one’s own learning needs.

그들은 SDL이 skill과 attitude에서는 전통적인 교육법과 비슷하게 효과적이며, 학습원을 찾는데 학습자가 참여한다면 더 효과적이라고 제시했다 .예컨대...

They suggest SDL may be as effective as traditional teaching in the skills and attitudes domains, and more effective when learners are involved in identifying their learning resources. For example, 

• cognitive objectives might be achieved using written resources or panel discussions; 
• behavioural objectives might be attained using role-play or case-based learning, and 
• psychomotor objectives may be best fulfilled by role-play and simulation.1

의과대학 4학년생들에게 instructional objective에 대한 설명을 간단히 한 다음에 ECG예제를 정확한 해석과 기술된 설명과 함께 제공하였으나, 이들은 교수-학생 상호작용이 가능한 강의나 워크숍을 통해서 교육받은 학생들보다 그 성과가 낮았다. SDL그룹의 학생들은 instructor에게 질문할 기회가 없었던 것이다.

Year 4 medical students assigned to receive a brief introduction with instructional objectives, along with sample electrocardiograms (ECGs) with correct interpretations and written explanations, performed less well than those who received instruction delivered either as a lecture or as a workshop that involved faculty staff and student interaction. Students in the SDL group were given no opportunity to ask questions of their instructor.

Mahler 등은 독립적 학습에 참여하는 것이 의과대학생들에게 평생학습기술을 익히는데 중요하지만, 관리감독이 없다면 지식 향상은 미미했다고 주장한다.

Mahler et al.2 suggest that partici- pating in independent learning is necessary for medical students to acquire the skills of lifelong learning, but found that no super- vision led to smaller gains in knowledge.

Lefroy등이 보고한 두 번째 연구에 따르면 1학년 의과대학생들을 포커스그룹에 참여시키고 기본적 의사소통 기술 과정의 routine 평가에 참여시켰다. 이 연구의 rationale은 몇 가지 이론적 구인에 따른다.

The second study, reported by Lefroy et al.3, included two cohorts of Year 1 medical students involved in focus groups and a routine evaluation of their intro- ductory communications skills course. The rationale for the study asserts several theoretical con- structs, including, for example: 

• ‘Self-directedness is important for adult learning in a group setting and learners should be encouraged to have choice and control whenever possible,’ and 
• ‘Adult learners also value self-esteem and […] differ in their self-confidence, risk-taking, self-awareness (meta- cognition), mastery and performance goals, and […] these affect how individuals learn and how much support and challenge each requires.’

학생들은 다른 그룹원들이 지켜보는 가운데 SP인터뷰를 했고, 연구에 참여한 대부분의 학생은 감정수준을 조절할 수 있는 기회가 도움이 되었다고 했으나 다른 학생들은 이러한 조절 옵션이 불필요하거나 도움이 안 된다고 했다. 

Students interviewed SPs while being observed by the rest of their group, which comprised six or more of their peers. Most students in the study found the opportu- nity to increase or decrease the emotional intensity helpful, whether they were interviewing the SP and controlling the difficulty of the task, or observing others to see the different levels of emotion and to think about how they might empathise with the patient. Other students found the control option unnecessary or even unhelpful. Perspectives on comfort and challenge varied.

The interlocking relationships of education, assessment and policy point to the importance of applyinga testable theory of SDL

Garrison과 Pilling-Cormick 은 3차원 모델을 제시한다.

Garrison9 and Pilling-Cormick and Garrison10 espouse a three-dimensional model of SDL in which:

1 educational self-management includes the use of learning materials within a context in which there is opportunity for sustained communication and opportunities to test and confirm understandings with others, which translate into increased responsibilities for the learner; 

2 self-monitoring includes the ability of learners to monitor both their cognitive and metacognitive processes, including the use of a repertoire of strategies to enable them to think about their thinking, and 

3 motivation involves what influences people to participate in or to enter into an SDL activity and how their attention is focused on the activity or task. Motivation and responsibility are inter-related and both are facilitated by collaborative control of the educational transaction.

Theory is needed to improve education, assessment and policy in self-directed learning.

학부의학교육에서 포트폴리오를 활용한 SDL: 멘토의 관점 (Med Teach, 2013)

Promoting self-directed learning through portfolios in undergraduate medical education: The mentors’ perspective

SANDRIJN VAN SCHAIK, JENNIFER PLANT & PATRICIA O’SULLIVAN

Knowles는 SDL을 다음과 같이 정의했다. 

Knowles (1975) describes self-directed learning (SDL) as a process that involves 

• diagnosing one’s learning needs, 
• formulating learning goals, 
• identifying resources for learning,
• implementing appropriate learning strategies and 
• evaluating learning outcomes. 

이에 의과대학은 다음과 같은 것을 강조한다.

Medical schools should therefore focus on producing lifelong, self-directed learners with skills related to 

• monitoring, 
• regulating and 
• planning one’s own learning(Spencer & Jordan 1999; Quirk 2006) 

rather than solely encouraging acquisition of knowledge and clinical skills (Quirk 2006)

포트폴리오는 SDL의 과정을 돕기 위한 도구로서 떠오르고 있다. 포트폴리오는 근거를 모으고, 다양한 소스에서 피드백을 모으고, 학습자들이 자신들의 발전과정을 성찰하는 플랫폼이면서 학습요구를 진단하고 학슴고표와 계획을 만드는 것을 도와준다.

Portfolios have emerged as an educational tool in both undergraduate and graduate medical education to assist with the process of SDL. Portfolios allow for collection of evidence and feedback from various sources and function as a platform for learners to reflect on their progress, diagnose learning needs and create learning goals and plans (Van Tartwijk & Driessen 2009), 

SDL은 개인적 차원의 활동으로 보면 안된다. Knowles는 SDL이 성공하기 위해서는 교수의 촉진자적 역할이 필수적이라고 했다. 이러한 것에 맞물려 몇몇 연구는 포트폴리오의 성공은 적절한 멘토쉽에 달려있다고 했다. 교수개발은 필수적이나, 좋은 포트폴리오 멘토를 만들어주는 것이 무엇인지는 잘 모른다. Gans는 프트폴리오 멘토는 'mindful practice'의 롤모델이 되어야 한다고 했는데, 왜냐하면 포트폴리오의 주 목적은 성찰을 촉진하는 것이고, 성찰이란 SDL과 관련된 메타인지 기술이면서 실무를 바탕으로한 전문직의 학습에 필수적인 기술이기 때문이다. 유사하게 포트폴리오의 목적이 SDL을 촉진하는 것이라면 효과적인 포트폴리오 멘토는 SDL의 롤모델이어야 하며, 잠재한 구인을 확실히 쥐고 있어야 한다. 교수가 SDL과 관련된 기술에 대한 단일한 이해를 가지는지, 그리고 관련된 기술을 평소에 잘 쓰고 있는지는 연구된 바 없다.

SDL should not necessarily be seen as an individualistic activity, and several authors, including Knowles, have emphasized that a teacher or faculty member with a facilitating role is essential for successful SDL (Knowles 1975; Pilling-Cormick 1997). In concordance with this role for faculty in SDL, several studies suggest that the success of portfolios is dependent on adequate mentorship (Driessen et al. 2005; Dekker et al. 2009). Faculty development is deemed essential (Dekker et al. 2009), but little is known about what makes a good portfolio mentor. Gans (2009) has argued that a portfolio mentor should be a role model of ‘mindful practice’, since a major purpose of portfolios is to promote reflection, one of the main metacognitive skills associated with SDL and an essential skill for practice-based professional learning (Scho¨n 1987; Quirk 2006). Similarly, if the goal of a portfolio is to promote SDL, one can argue that effective portfolio mentors should be role models of SDL and have a solid grasp of the underlying construct. Whether faculty mentors have a unified understanding of SDL and its associated skills and routinely practice these skills themselves has not been explored.

온라인 포트폴리오

The portfolio utilized an on-line platform(Mahara open source e-portfolios, www.mahara.org). Students selected three of six competencies (adapted from the ACGME competencies) and reflected on their progress towards corresponding milestones provided for their level of training.

멘토의 역할 

Role of mentors 

Advisory college mentors were each assigned 1/8th of a class of 160 medical students. In the academic years prior to the implementation of the portfolio, faculty mentors met with students individually on at least an annual basis to review progress and any potential problems; the structure, focus and duration of these meetings were at the discretion of the mentor and student. After implementation, mentors reviewed students’ portfolios prior to one-on-one meetings, which occurred twice a year, and focused on discussion of the portfolio contents.

질적 분석

Qualitative analysis 

We analysed the data using a theory-driven approach to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke 2006). Sandrijn van Schaik and Jennifer Plant read the first four randomly selected transcripts independently and created a list of initial codes. Through discussion, they then collapsed the initial list into one coding scheme, which they used to code all transcripts independently. They then discussed and reconciled differ- ences in coding for all transcripts. Subsequently, the primary investigator Sandrijn van Schaik identified major themes, which were reviewed by Jennifer Plant to ensure accuracy in comparison to the original data set and by Patricia O’Sullivan for internal consistency and coherency. We used HyperResearchTM for coding and qualitative data analysis.

멘토는 SDL를 서로 제각각 다르게 정의내리고 있다.

Theme 1: Mentors have varied definitions of SDL 

일부는 self-motivated learning이라 정의한다.

Mentors have quite variable definitions of SDL, with some mentors defining it as self-motivated learning: 

일부는 이니셔티브를 학습자 내부에 가지고 있는 것으로 생각하면서 process 이상의 의미를 갖는다고 본다.

Others, while acknowledging the self as the locus of initiative, described SDL more as a process: 

절반의 멘토가 자기성찰의 중요성을 언급했지만 효과적인 SDL을 위해 필요하다고 느끼는 skill과 자질은 비슷했다.

Although half of the mentors mentioned the importance of reflection, there was similar variability in the skills and attributes they felt are needed for effective SDL.

tenacity, enthusiasm, creativity, capacity to work hard, staying focused, determining and understanding resources, taking responsibility over one’s own learning and looking at long-term goals.

SDL은 의과대학생들에게 중요하며, 이들은 내재적으로 이런 능력이 있다.

Theme 2: SDL is important for medical students, who have innate abilities in this domain 

그 개념을 어떻게 정의하든 멘토는 SDL이 중요하다고 보았다. 이러한 맥락에서 멘토는 의과대학생들이 SDL능력을 내재하고 있다고 언급했다. 또한 많은 멘토들이 이 skill은 가르칠 수 있는 것이 아니라고 보았다.

Regardless of how they defined the concept, mentors saw SDL as important for students and physicians. In this context, mentors often mentioned that medical students have an innate ability for SDL and its associated skills. Many mentors felt that these skills cannot be taught: 

다른 멘토들은 사람들은 SDL에 대해서 서로 다르다고 언급했으나 한 명의 멘토는 SDL의 개념이 의과대학생들에게 생소한 것이라고 했다.

Others noted variability among people in this regard, whereas only one mentor thought the concept of SDL was foreign to medical students:

멘토 자신의 SDL은 서로 차이가 많으나 지식 격차와 습득에 대한 강조는 모두 강조한다.

Theme 3: Mentors own SDL is variable, but the emphasis is on knowledge gaps and acquisition 

멘토는 스스로의 SDL이 잘 조직화되어있다고 하진 않았으며, 대체로 지식적 측면에 맞춰져 있었다. 한 멘토는 성찰에 대해서 언급했다.

The approach the mentors themselves took to SDL was rarely organized and mostly focused on knowledge. One mentor mentioned reflection:

멘토는 스스로의 SDL도 가르치면서 동기부여가 된다고 했음.

Mentors mentioned that their own SDL is motivated by their teaching, as well as by issues that arise during patient care.

포트폴리오는 학생들의 SDL 활동과 멘토-학생 관계를 구조화하는데 도움을 준다.

Theme 4: The portfolio brings structure to students’ SDL activities and to the mentor–student relationship 

멘토들은 포트폴리오가 학생들의 자기평가, 자기성찰, SDL을 도와주며 포트폴리오를 기록의 도구, 정보공유의 도구로 사용하는 수단으로 보았다.

Mentors discussed that the portfolio helps students with self- assessment, reflection and SDL and saw the portfolio as an instrument for documentation and sharing of information that demonstrates progress.

몇몇 멘토는 포트폴리오가 학습자 주도로 이뤄져야 한다고 강조했다. 멘토는 포트폴리오 과정이 학생과의 관계를 변화시킨다고 하였으며, 미팅에 구조를 부여한다고 했다.

Several mentors emphasized that the portfolio should be learner driven. Mentors felt that the portfolio process changed their relationship with the students, and provided more structure to the meetings:

대부분의 멘토는 이러한 관계의 변화를 도움이 된다고 보았지만, 한 명의 멘토는 부정적인 결과도 언급했다. (미팅을 즐기기보다는 일로 보는 것 같다)

Most mentors perceived these changes in the relationship as beneficial, although one mentor saw a negative consequence as well:

멘토들은 SDL에 대해 다양한 정의를 내리고 있었다. 물론 일부는 Knowles가 말한 내용을 포함하고 있긴 했다. 이러한 사실이 놀랍지 않은데, 문헌에서도 SDL에 대해서 다양한 용어가 언급되기 때문이다. 여러 용어들은 관련된 개념들을 다루고 있지만, 그 경계가 명확하지 않다. 이는 평생학습과 SDL에 대해서 특히 더 그런데, 의학교육문헌에서 서로 interchangeably 사용되고 잇다. 전문기관들은 '평생학습'이란 용어를 활용하고 있으며, 여러 전문과에서 certification을 유지하는 조건으로 요구한다.

Mentors had variable definitions of SDL, although many included elements from the description offered by Knowles (1975). This lack of a uniform definition is not surprising considering the confusion that exists in the literature: a variety of terms including SDL, lifelong learning, self-regulation, self- determination and metacognition are used to describe related concepts with significant overlap but often unclear boundaries to distinguish between them (Candy 1991; Quirk 2006; Mazmanian & Feldman 2011). This is particularly true for lifelong learning and SDL, two terms frequently used inter- changeably in the medical education literature (Mazmanian & Feldman 2011). Professional organizations have embraced the term ‘lifelong learning’, and documentation of the process is now required for maintenance of certification in many specialties (Batmangelich & Adamowski 2004).

SDL의 초점은 지식 습득 활동에 주로 맞춰져 있었다. 

• 이는 Hojat이 평생학습에 사용한 개념과 비슷한데, 
• 반대로 Campbell 등은 평생학습을 CPD와 동일한 것으로 보았고, 역량 바탕의 모델을 제시하면서 구체적인 활동보다는 학습 전략의 차원에서 강조하였다. 
• SDL에 대한 다른 모델은 Li 등이 제시한 것으로 지식에 덜 초점을 맞추고 메타인지적 과정(자기성찰, 목표설정, 계획개발, 향상 평가)에 두었다. 
• Mazmanian은 SDL의 독특한 통합적 모델이 필요하다고 하였다.
  

The focus tends to be on activities aimed at knowledge acquisition, which is consistent with the conceptualization of lifelong learning used by Hojat et al. (2003). In contrast, Campbell et al. (2010) equate lifelong learning to continuing professional development, and describe a model that is competency based and emphasizes strategies for learning rather than specific activities. Another model for ‘self-directed lifelong learning’ conceptualized by Li et al. (2010) focuses less on knowledge and more on metacognitive processes, such as self-reflection, goal generation, plan development and progress assessment. Mazmanian has argued that a unique and unified theoretical model for SDL is required to support research of best practices for instruction and assessment around SDL (Mazmanian & Feldman 2011).

이러한 상황은 Krupat 등이 비판적 사고에 대해서 지적한 것과 비슷하다. 의사에게 필요한 것이라 모두들 생각하지만, process인지 skill인지 innate quality인지에 대한 정의가 다양하다.

This situation appears to be analogous to the one described by Krupat et al. (2011) regarding critical thinking: it is uniformly seen as essential for clinicians but variably defined as either a process, a skill or innate quality.

유사하게, SDL의 구인에 대한 명확하고 공통된 이해가 멘토의 교육능력을 향상시킬 것이고, 교수개발의 초점이 되어야 한다.

Similarly, a clear and shared understanding of the construct of SDL may enhance mentors’ ability to teach students SDL skills, and this should be an explicit focus of faculty development offered to mentors.

SDL과 CT가 모두 내재적 능력과 습득한 기술을 필요로 하는 것으로 보이며, 흔히 관찰되는 패러독스는 교수들의 이해 부족에 의한 것으로 보인다.

It is likely that both SDL and critical thinking require a combination of innate abilities and acquired skills, and that the observed paradox in each instance is the result of faculty members’ incomplete understanding of the underlying constructs.

Mazmanian P, Feldman M. 2011. Theory is needed to improve education, assessment and policy in self-directed learning. Med Educ 45(4):324–326.

Krupat E, Sprague JM, Wolpaw D, Haidet P, Hatem D, O’brien B. 2011. Thinking critically about critical thinking: Ability, disposition or both? Med Educ 45(6):625–635. 

Lesser CS, Lucey CR, Egener B, Braddock CH, Linas SL, Levinson W. 2010. A behavioral and systems view of professionalism. JAMA 304(24):2732–2737.

Promoting self-directed learning through portfolios in undergraduate medical education: the mentors'perspective.

SDL 준비도: 의과대학생을 위한 새로운 척도의 타당도 (Med Teach, 2009)

Readiness for self-directed learning: Validation of a new scale with medical students

GRAHAM D. HENDRY & PAUL GINNS

간단히 정의하자면, 무엇을 어느 정도 깊이로 어느 정도 폭으로 학습할지 결정하는 것이 SDL이다. 이것은 사회적 맥락에서 결정되며, 의사결정과정과 메타인지 사고를 필요로 한다. 보건의료인 교육에서 SDL은 졸업역량으로 요구되는데, 보건전문직은 지속적으로 전문직으로 일하는 내내 지식을 습득하고 최신 지견을 업데이트 해야 하기 때문이다.

Defined simply, the process of deciding what to learn to what depth and breadth is self-directed learning (SDL); it occurs in a social context and includes decision making and metacognitive thinking (Candy 1991; Schmidt 2000). In health professional education, SDL ability is seen as a desirable graduate attribute, because health professionals ought to be able to continue learning and updating their knowledge into their careers (Williams 2004; Greveson & Spencer 2005).

일부 연구자들은 SDL을 자율과 자기실현을 포함하는 것을 포괄해서 넓게 본다. 종합적으로 보면 이것은 학습과정에 학습자가 통제권을 갖는 것이다. SDL을 개인적인 기저영역으로 보는 경우도 있다. 모든 학생들이 충분히 SDL기술을 가지고 있지 않으며, 스스로 어느 정도까지 공부할지 결정하는 것을 좋아하지는 않는다는 근거가 있다. 일부 학습자들은 교수자에 의존해서 교육목표와 학습계획을 결정해주는 것을 선호한다.

For some authors SDL also refers to a broader process that encompasses autonomy and self-actualization; overall, it means learner control over the process of learning (Kaufman et al. 2000). SDL is also seen as an underlying personal dimension (Greveson & Spencer 2005). There is evidence that not all students are equally well skilled and/or willing to make decisions about what to learn to what depth and breadth. Some learners prefer to rely on their teachers to take most of the responsibility for determining learning objectives and planning study (O’Shea 2003).

최근 SDL준비도에 대한 새로운 척도가 개발되었고 간호학교육에서 타당도를 검증한 바 있다. Fisher 등은 11명의 간호교육자들을 델파이 기술로 면담해서 SDL에 대한 동기, 기술, 태도를 측정하는 93개의 문항의 적절성을 평가하였다. 

Recently, a new readiness for SDL scale has been developed and validated in nursing education (Fisher et al. 2001). Fisher and co-workers first interviewed a panel of 11 nurse educators using the Delphi technique to assess the suitability of a bank of 93 items purporting to measure the motivations, skills and attributes of self-directed learners. 

Two rounds of this technique, and item exclusion based on examination of inter-item correlations, resulted in a subset of 42 items. These were administered to a sample of 201 undergraduate nursing students, with exploratory factor analysis suggesting three underlying factors: self-management, desire for learning and self-control. 

이 새로운 SDLRS 척도는 의학교육과정에서 타당도가 평가된 바 없다. 

This new self-directed learning readiness scale (SDLRS) has not been validated for use in medical education curricula. For Fisher and co-workers ‘self-directed learning can be defined in terms of ... The degree of control the learner is willing to take over their own [...this learning degree of control] will depend on their attitude, abilities and personality characteristics’ (p. 516).

Fisher의 세가지 요인과 비교하였다.

The extracted factors were compared with the three-factor structure obtained by Fisher et al. (2001). As described above, Fisher et al. (2001) extracted three factors: 

• ‘Self-management’, 
• ‘Desire for learning’ and 
• ‘Self-control’. 

여기서 도출된 요인들

On the basis of item clusters, we labelled the emergent factors in the present study as follows: 

• ‘Critical self-evaluation’, 
• ‘Learning self-efficacy’, 
• ‘Self-determination’ and 
• ‘Effective organization for learning’. 

Table 1 gives summary details of the four factors, including the two items with the strongest factor loadings for each factor, the number of items, and Cronbach’s (1951) estimate of internal consistency.

연구의 한계는 자료가 긍정적인 방향으로 skew 되어있을 수 있다는 점

The limitations of this study are that our data was positively skewed: students rated themselves as highly ready for engaging in SDL, and this may reflect over-confidence in their SDL ability at the beginning of their course. It may be that students who self-select and are successful at gaining entry to PBL medical programmes are more confident in their SDL ability than students who enrol in traditional courses.

비록 성취도에 차이가 없더라도 학생들은 전통적인 방식보다 PBL에서 SDL을 더 잘한다. PBL에서 SRL을 더 잘하는 학생의 성취도가 더 높았다. PBL은 효과적으로 SDL을 하게끔 해준다. 그러나 이러한 긍정적인 결과는 self-selection의 결과일 수도 있다. 

Recent research shows that students are indeed more self-directed or in their learning – able to self-regulated manage their study time, set learning goals and monitor their learning – in PBL than in traditional medical programmes, although there are no differences in students’ achievement between these programmes (Lycke et al. 2007). Better self- regulated learning in a PBL programme results in higher achievement (Van Den Hurk 2006). It seems that in a PBL context students are capable of effectively directing their learning, whereas in a traditional course, teachers accomplish the same goal but without students acquiring SDL skills. However, the positive results associated with PBL may be partly due to self-selection of students with higher SDL readiness into PBL programmes. Ho and Tani (2007) found that students in a ‘scenario’ or case-based traditional under- graduate medical programme (including over 50% in first year) preferred teacher directed learning rather than SDL. 

Readiness for self-directed learning: validation of a new scale with medical students.

의학교육에서의 학습자 중심 접근법 (BMJ, 1999)

Learner centred approaches in medical education

John A Spencer, Reg K Jordan

전통적인 교수자 중심 접근법에서 학생 중심 접근법으로의 변화는 학생들이 자신의 배우는 것에 대한 책임이 강조되며, 가르치는 교수자에서 학습의 촉진자로 선생님의 역할 변화를 요구한다.

The pedagogic shift from the traditional teacher centred approach, in which the emphasis is on teachers and what they teach, to a student centred approach, in which the emphasis is on students and what they learn, requires a fundamental change in the role of the educator from that of a didactic teacher to that of a facilitator of learning.3

SDL에서 학생은 다음과 같은 것을 한다.

Self directed learning is when students take the initiative for their own learning: 

• diagnosing needs, 
• formulating goals, 
• identifying resources, 
• implementing appropriate activities, and 
• evaluating outcomes. 

The key features of self directed learning (box 1) concord with the principles of adult learning4 (box 2) and the findings of research in cognitive psychology.5

SDL은 능동적 과정이다. 1970년대에 처음 제시된 학습에 대한 심층적 접근법(deep approach)를 권장한다. 심층 학습은, 표면 학습과 반대되는 말로서, 이해를 위한 적극적 탐색을 말한다. 표면 학습은 학생들이 배운 것을 재생산하는 것에 그친다. 학생들이 학습에 대한 접근법은 - 그것이 표면이든 심층이든 - 학습 성과의 질을 결정하는 중요한 요인이다.

Self directed learning is an active process. It encourages the adoption of the deep approach to learning first described in the mid 1970s. Deep learning, as opposed to surface learning, is an active search for understanding. Surface learning merely encourages students to reproduce what has been learnt.6 Research has identified the student’s approach to learning—surface or deep—as the crucial factor in determining the quality of learning outcomes.7

SDL은 의학교육의 연속체에서 가장 효과적인 접근법으로 제시되고 있으며, 특히 이는 학습이 경험을 기반으로 할 때, 그리고 새로운 지식과 이해가 개개인별로 개인과 전문가로서의 맥락에 통합된다.

Self directed learning is suggested as the most efficacious approach for the continuumof medical educa- tion, particularly when learning is based on experi- ence, and new knowledge and understanding can be integrated into the personal and professional context of the individual.8

PBL에 대한 universal한 정의는 없으며, 이러한 개념적 모호함이 그것의 철학과 실제 운영에 모두 존재한다. 예컨대 Problem-based라는 말은 PBL이라는 교육법과 동시에 교육과정의 철학이 무엇인가에 대한 것을 모두 의미한다. 이것은 평가, 연구, 프로그램간 비교에 상당한 영향을 준다. 그러나 PBL은 일반적으로 학생들이 특정 문제에 대한 이슈를 찾고, 기저의 개념과 원칙을 이해해가는 교육 전략을 의미한다. 초점은 항상 "설명이 필요한 현상"을 중심으로 구성되고 기술된 문제에 있다.

There is no universal definition for problem basedlearning, and a “conceptual fog” prevails regardingboth its philosophy and practice—the term is used, forexample, to describe both an educational method anda curricular philosophy.15 This has important implica-tions for evaluation, research, and comparisons of pro-grammes.16 However, problem based learning isgenerally understood to mean an instructional strategyin which students identify issues raised by specificproblems to help develop understanding about under-lying concepts and principles. The focus is usually awritten problem comprising “phenomena that needexplanation.”17 

Development of problem based learning 

PBL의 적용은 새로운 것이 아니며, 1889년에 "multiple working hypotheses"가 등장했다. 교육이론가인 듀이는 학생들에게 실제 삶에서의 문제를 제시하고, 그 문제를 풀기 위한 정보를 찾도록 도와줘야 한다고 했다. 이후에 다른 연구에서 학생들에게 이미 만들어진 문제에 대한 답을 주는 것은 학습에 "명백히 비효과적"이다라는 것을 보여줬다. 1960년대 후반 McMaster는 최초로 PB 의학 교육과정을 선도했으며, Maastricht가 1974년에 그 뒤를 이었다. 150개의 의과대학이 PB curriculum을 사용중이다.

The application of problem based approaches in edu- cation is not new. In 1889 a method known as “multiple working hypotheses” was advocated.20 Dewey, one of the educational theorists of the early part of this century, recommended that students should be presented with real life problems and then helped todiscover the information required to solve them. Later,other workers showed that giving students ready madesolutions for problems was “manifestly ineffective” forlearning.21 In the late 1960s, McMaster medical schoolin Ontario pioneered the first completely problembased medical curriculum, with Maastricht following in1974 as the first in Europe. Around 150 medicalschools worldwide (some 10% of the total) haveadopted problem based curriculums

PBL은 다음과 같이 정의되며 관련 영역은 다음과 같다.

Problem based learning can be seen as “a systematic attempt to apply findings of cognitive psychology to educational practice.”17 Relevant areas include: 

• activation of prior knowledge (a major determinant of what can be learnt); 
• learning in context (enhancing transfer of knowledge); 
• elaboration of knowledge (enhancing subsequent retrieval); and 
• fostering of competence by an inquisitive style of learning.22 

Some of these benefits may be indiscernible fromthose related to other concurrent curricular innovations. Maudsley, however, considers problem based learning to have survived unprecedented scrutiny.15 Several dis- advantages have also been identified including the costs for starting up and maintenance,27 excessive demands on staff time,29 increased stress on both students and staff,27 relative inefficiency,25 reduced sciences,26 and acquisition of knowledge of basic implementation difficulties when class sizes are large or where there is a broad lack of enthusiasm for the approach.25 Finucane and colleagues provide a balanced consideration of the advantages and disad- vantages of adopting a curriculum for problem based learning.28 There is as yet no evidence that graduates of problem based programmes make better—or worse— doctors in the long term.

혼합 접근법의 좋은 예시는 guided discovery learning이라 불리는 Newcastle과 Dundee에서 찾아볼 수 있다. 

The better examples of this mixed approach, such as that adopted by Newcastle and Dundee,30 may be described as a form of guided discovery learning. The key features are learning how to learn through the process of discovery and the exploration of knowledge, coupled with the responsibility of the learner to master the content needed for understanding (box 5).

여기서 학습가이드는 학생들의 학습을 도와주기 위한 수단이다. 이 학습가이드는 교수들이 자기주도학습을 도와주는 도구이기도 하다. 학생을 가이드하는 동시에 스스로의 학습을 관리하도록 적극적 참여를 하게 하는 도구이다. 

In this context a study guide is an aid designed to assist students with their learning. The study guide is the main tool by which staff support self directed study—guiding the learners while at the same time ensuring active involvement in the management of their own learning.31 

좋은 학습 가이드의 요건

A good study guide 

• indicates what should be learned by specifying learning outcomes, 
• helps students to set their own objectives and plan their learning, 
• identifies appropriate learning resources and advises on their use, and 
• provides opportunities for students to assess their own competence. 

학습가이드의 적절한 활용으로 의사소통을 향상시킬 수 있으며, 과도한 교수-학생 접촉을 줄여줄 수도 있다. 

Properly used, study guides improve communication and can provide guidance like a good tutor but without the need for excessive staff-student contact. Interactive electronic versions of study guides on the world wide web have also been developed, usu- ally in the form of notes.32

교수개발에 대한 함의

This has major implications in terms of staff development, with the recognition that changing a curriculum and keeping it going are unlikely to be effective if teachers are not able to take on new roles. Such development needs to take place at all levels from the institutional to the individual.35 Barriers include the perennial problems of conflict with service provision and the “research first” culture that prevails in most medical schools, and the underresourcing of faculty development.

BMJ. 1999 May 8;318(7193):1280-3.

Learner centred approaches in medical education.

아일랜드 의전원생들의 임상술기 관련 SDL의 성과 (BMC Med Educ, 2015)

Outcomes of Irish graduate entry medical student engagement with self-directed learning of clinical skills 

Deirdre McGrath*, Louise Crowley, Sanath Rao, Margaret Toomey, Ailish Hannigan, Lisa Murphy and Colum P Dunne

평생학습

Life-long learning is an on-going process, which leads to “systematic acquisition, renewal, upgrading and completion of knowledge, skills and attitudes”; its success depends on learners’“increasing ability and motivation to engage in self-directed learning (SDL) activities” [1]. 

SDL의 개념

The concept of SDL was first outlined in the context of adult learning [2] and was defined as “ a process in which individuals take the initiative…in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating goals, identifying …resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes”.

SDL 정의가 일관되지 않다.

In the context of medical education, there is inconsistency in how SDL is defined [3,4] 

초기의 불확실성에도 불구하고 SDL은 다양한 임상과에서 평생학습을 강조하는 수단으로 많이 사용되었다.

Despite some initial uncertainty [4,5], SDL has been proposed as a means of emphasising the importance of life-long learning, particularly in the context of professional competence for medical professionals across many disciplines

최근 수십년간 여러 의과대학들이 PBL을 교육전략으로 도입하였다. 비교적 새로운 접근법이기에 많은 연구가 되었지만, PBL에 대한 일관된 정의가 부족하고, 양질의 연구가 적어서 얼마나 활용되고 있는가를 이야기하긴 어렵ㄴ다.

In recent decades, medical schools are incorporating the educational strategy of Problem-based Learning (PBL) into their curricula to a lesser or greater extent. As it is a relatively innovative approach, much research has been done on PBL. However, due to lack of consistent definitions of PBL, and limited research of high quality, it is difficult to determine just how widespread its use is [14].

의과대학에서 일반적인 임식술기 교육 진행. 보여주고, 연습하고, 실제로 하고, 피드백 받고, 연습하고.

In medical schools, clinical skills training tends to occur in standardized, controlled and safe learning environments conducive to students “

• being shown what to do, 
• practicing (where possible) on models, simulated patients or one another, 
• performing (skills) under close supervision, 
• obtaining feedback, and then 
• practicing the skill with increasingly distant supervision until they are ‘licensed’ to perform the skill independently” [21]. 

임상교사를 충분히 모집하는 것이 어렵고, 비용이 많이 든다. 임상교육과 졸업후교육에서도 SDL 접근법이 매력적으로 다가온다.

However, recruitment of sufficient, relatively expensive, clinical teachers can be problematic and as students need to practise skills with increasingly distant supervision, SDL approaches to clinical skills training have become attractive and have expanded beyond the boundaries of effective pre-clinical teaching [22] into clinical and post graduate training.

아일랜드의 ULGEMS에서 이뤄진 연구이다. 

This study was completed at an exclusively graduate-entry medical school (ULGEMS) established at the University of Limerick, Ireland in 2007 [28,29]. Previous reports have described the progress of this school and the academic de- velopment of its students [30,31].

SDL에 대한 기록은 전자 SDL 예약기록 활용(후향적)

A retrospective analysis of the extent of student engagement with SDL was performed using the retained electronic records of SDL bookings for the academic years beginning September 2008-2010.

단면조사

A cross-sectional survey of all medical students in the school (two pre-clinical years and two clinical years, n = 358 registered between 2008 and 2010) was carried out in 2012. Students were contacted by email and provided a link to the Survey MonkeyTM online study instrument and to a concise, unbiased explanation of the survey topic. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The first question of the survey asked students to confirm that they consented to the study.

주관식 문항 분석

Data were downloaded from Survey Monkey™ software to an electronic data file. Free text comments were analysed independently by two reviewers (LC, AH) to identify emergent themes. Researchers then met, discussed the themes emerging from the data, identified dominant themes and reached agreement around the clustering of themes into categories.

임상기술 교육에서 SDL을 적용하거나 효과성이 있을 것인가에 대한 많은 논이가 있었다. 본 연구에서 참여자는 다양한 배경을 가진 의전원 학생들이었는데 매 해 지날수록 임상술기 SDL에 대한 참여가 감소하는 것이 확인되었다.

There has been considerable discussion as to the applicability and efficacy of self-directed learning of clinical skills [21], allied to recognition of the challenges associated with students having the requisite self-awareness to take responsibility for determining their own learning needs and, indeed, the readiness of students to assume that role [34]. In this study, the participants were exclu- sively graduate entry medical students but from diverse primary degree disciplines and with varying levels of post-graduate experience. Despite variations in the com- position of student classes beginning medical studies in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the assumed attitudinal differ- ences towards didactic and self-directed learning that such variation may bring, a year on year decline in en- gagement with clinical skills SDL was noted (Table 1).

이러한 결과는 시뮬레이션과 임상상황에서의 불일치 때문일 수 있다. 이는 주관식 응답에서도 확인되었다. 또한 참여가 감소한 것은 각 학년의 학생 수가 늘어나면서 SDL 실습실에 대한 접근이 제한되었기 때문일 수도 있다.

This could be interpreted as being reflective of disparity between simulation in medical teaching and practice in a supervised clinical setting, as reported elsewhere [18], which also emerged as a theme from the free text com- ments of students. This decline in engagement may also be as a result of increasing student numbers in each co- hort and reduced access to the SDL labs, another theme that emerged from students’ free text comments.

그러나 본 연구에서 SDL에 참여한 것이 대부분 항목에서 OSCE 수행능력을 높여주는 것으로 나오지 않았는데, 이는 학생들의 지도해주는 사람이 없는 상태에서 실수나 불확실한 부분이 더 악화되었을 수 있다. 혹은 SDL에 오는 학생이 이미 학업적으로 우수하지 못해서일 수도 있다. 

However, our analysis did not indicate any statistically significant effect of SDL engagement on OSCE performance (Tables 2 and 3) for most of the clinical skills examined. There is, therefore, a possibility that students may be compounding errors/uncertainties while practising skills unsupervised. Alternatively, it is possible that those students who may be academically weaker are accessing SDL to work on improving skills they feel they are weaker in, and hence any improvement they achieve may just bring their proficiency up to the mean of the group.

There is an argument for the development of strategies to promote greater engagement with clinical skills SDL, even if solely to avoid the financial implications of requiring additional clinical tutors for increased formal clinical skills training. In light of the results of this study, possibilities such as...

• supplementary workshops [36], 
• allied to encouragement of learning portfolio use by students such that they reflect on their progress, 
• diagnose learning needs and create learning plans [10], 

could potentially result in an overall increased use of SDL . 

That said, records of the timing of personal SDL bookings indicated that imminent clinical skills examinations incentivised engagement with SDL considerably, particularly in the second pre-clinical year. As this is the third time that students will have participated in OSCEs, the observed enhanced interest in SDL may be due to increased awareness of skill deficits and plans to mitigate these [37] or reflect assumption of greater responsibility for their own learning over time [38]. Introducing more informal/formative testing throughout the academic year may be another option to increase SDL engagement among students

Outcomes of Irish graduate entry medical student engagement with self-directed learning of clinical skills.

현대 의학교육 문헌에서 SDL의 정의와 목표 (Ann Acad Med Singapore, 2005)

Definitions and goals of "self-directed learning" in contemporary medical education literature. 

Ainoda N1, Onishi H, Yasuda Y.

SDL의 역사와 정의

The history of SDL can be said to date back to the ancient Greek philosophers. 2 Studies on SDL have developed along 2 pathways, SDL as a goal and SDL as a method with several theoretical approaches. 3,4 These pathways involve an understanding of the attributes associated with self-direction and an understanding of the process of self- direction. The term “self-direction” or “self-directedness” has also been discussed – Candy5 described self-directedness in SDL in 4 dimensions, involving personal autonomy, self-management, learner control and the independent pursuit of learning. He also extracted approximately 100 traits associated with self-direction in the literature review.4"

왜 SDL에 대한 정의를 내린 문헌이 이렇게 적을까? 세 가지 가능한 이유. 

Why is SDL defined so scarcely? There are 3 possible reasons. 

의학교육자들이 필요하다고 생각하지 않아서. 그러나 다양한 접근법이 있고, 다양한 접근법에서 SDL에 대한 다양한 관점이 생길 수 있다. 따라서 SDL에 대해 효과적으로 토론하기 위해서, 그리고 다른 사람의 접근법과의 차이나 공통점을 알기 위해서는 이론에 관심을 기울일 필요가 있다.

Firstly, medical educators might simply believe in presenting a concept without necessarily referring to educational theories. SDL has been studied with different approaches, including cognitive/constructivist, social learning, and humanist approaches."

This conceptual difference may result in diverse views of SDL. It is, therefore, important to pay attention to the theoretical background in order to discuss SDL effectively, and to understand others’ differences or sameness of views."

둘째로 SDL을 단순한 기술로 보고 있을 수 있다.

Secondly, researchers may regard SDL as simple skills, e.g., learning skills, data searching skills, critical appraisal skills, or knowledge application skills of evidence to the real setting."

셋째로 SDL을 학습자의 어떤 특질로 볼 수도 있다. 

Thirdly, SDL is sometimes viewed as an attribute of the learner’s own characteristics. This tendency is historically understandable, because the first study of SDL involved the categorical analysis of interviews with 22 adult learners in 1961. 2 Since then personal elements and assessment tools have been developed, including the frequently used Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS).2"

두 가지 중요한 차원이 있고, 하나는 scientific-technical, 다른 하나는 socio-emotional이다. 이 프레임워크에 기반하면 약 절반정도는 S-T dimension에 대해서만 specify했고, 10% 이하는 S-E dimension에 대해서만 그렇게 했다.

From the viewpoint of physicians’ behaviour for patient welfare, 2 crucial dimensions, scientific-technical and socio- emotional, are emphasised.7 Using this concept as a categorical framework, about half of published articles specified SDL only for the scientific-technical dimension, while less than 10% did so only for the socio-emotional dimension."

여기에 대한 한 가지 이유는, 교육자들이 SDL을 촉진하고자 할 때 ST dimension에 대해서 더 명확한 생각을 가지고 있기 때문이다. 만약 환자중심적 치료와 환자의 복지를 고려한다면 SDL의 목표를 SE dimension으로 생각하는 것이 더 강조되어야 한다. 그러나 SDL의 관점에서 보면, 이 경우에 학생들은 목표를 설정하고, 어떻게 무엇을 배우고, 어떻게 향상을 평가해야할지 더 어렵게 느낄 것이다. 

그렇다면 SDL을 SE 측면에서 활용하는 것이 가능할까? 우리는 가능하다고 생각한다. 읽기와 쓰기 등을 활용해서 인문학을 교육할 수 있다. 환자의 관점의 중요성에 대한 교육을 실습기간에 단기간 시행해서 효과를 본 연구도 있다. 가장 어려운 지점은 어떻게 학생들이 읽기와 쓰기 외에 다른 여러 전략을 활용해서 SE 측면을 학습하는가를 이해하는 것이다.

Definitions and goals of "self-directed learning" in contemporary medical education literature.

자기평가와 자기모니터링의 차이 분석 (Adv in Health Sci Educ, 2011)

Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring

Kevin W. Eva • Glenn Regehr

전문직의 자기조절에 관한 많은 모델이 자신의 기술의 부족함을 알고, 그것을 CPD 활동을 통해서 채워나갈 책임을 요구한다. 그러나 이러한 기대와 달리 자기평가에 대한 많은 문헌들은 자기조절적 전문직이 이 과저을 효과적으로 할 수 있는가에 대한 의구심을 표한다. 이에 대해서 저자들은 자기조절에 관한 문헌에서 표현되는 자기평가에 대한 구조가 문제가 있음을 지적한 바 있다. 본 논문에서 2 개의 연구를 통해서 자기평가와 자기조절의 관계를 살펴보고자 한다.

• 자기평가: a global judgment of one’s ability in a particular domain
• 자기조절: a moment-by-moment awareness of the likelihood that one maintains the skill/knowledge to act in a particular situation

Many models of professional self-regulation call upon individual practitioners to take responsibility both for identifying the limits of their own skills and for redressing their identified limits through continuing professional development activities. Despite these expectations, a considerable literature in the domain of self-assessment has questioned the ability of the self-regulating professional to enact this process effectively. In response, authors have recently suggested that the construction of self-assessment as represented in the self-regulation literature is, itself, problematic. In this paper we report a pair of studies that examine the relationship between self-assessment (a global judgment of one’s ability in a particular domain) and self-monitoring (a moment-by-moment awareness of the likelihood that one maintains the skill/knowledge to act in a particular situation). 

본 연구들은 수행능력과 자기평가와의 상관관계는 낮지만, 자기모니터링과 관련한 척도와는 상관관계가 높음을 보여준다.

These studies reveal that, despite poor correlations between performance and self-assessments (consistent with what is typically seen in the self-assessment literature), participant performance was strongly related to several measures of self-monitoring including: 

• 문제에 대해서 답을 할 것인가 미룰 것인가. the decision to answer or defer responding to a question, 
• 그 결정(답을 할 것인가 미룰 것인가)을 내리는데 걸린 시간 the amount of time required to make that decision to answer or defer, and 
• 정답이 제시되었을 때의 답에 대한 자신감 the confidence expressed in an answer when provided. 

이러한 차이는 자기모니터링과 자기평가에 대한 인지적 기전을 이해하는데 도움이 될 것이며, 교육과 학습에 대한 노력을 어떻게 더 잘 제시해줄 수 있을 것인가에 대한 이해에 도움이 될 것이다.

This apparent divergence between poor overall self-assessment and effective self-monitoring is considered in terms of how the findings might inform our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms yielding both self-monitoring judgments and self-assessments and how that understanding might be used to better direct education and learning efforts.