As noted in Chapter 2, educational practice is continually subjected to renewal
needs (Alt 2015). These changes necessitate a new range of abilities adapted to the
emerging requirements of present society, such as diversified social,
communication and cooperation skills, and an ability to critically select, acquire and
use knowledge (Alt 2015). These types of renewal needs require continual updating
of pedagogical approaches that integrate knowledge with transferable skills
required for personal and professional life (Alt 2015).
Given the learning environment is described as ‘the set of conditions that enable
and constrain learning’ (Brown 2008, p. 20), and its central purpose is the creation
and sharing of meaning, it is proposed that establishing learning environments that
are self-directed, reflective and relevant to students, are important pedagogical
considerations for educators to respond to such renewal needs (Brown 2008; Luca
& Oliver 2002; Zimmerman 1990; Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching 2006).
Other research supports this proposition that students need learning environments
119
which educators teach students how to teach themselves (Kamenetz 2010, cited in
Blaschke 2012).
Writers grounded in humanistic philosophy (such as Knowles 1975, 1978; Merriam
2001; Tough 1971) suggest that self-directed learning should have as its goal the
development of students’ ability to be self-directed (Merriam 2001). A second goal
of self-directed learning is the fostering of transformational learning (Brookfield
1986; Mezirow 1985). Transformational learning, as presented by Mezirow (2000),
posits critical reflection by the student as central to the process. This critical
reflection is an ‘understanding of the historical, cultural and biographical reasons
for one’s needs, wants, and interests… such self-knowledge is a prerequisite for
autonomy in self-directed learning’ (Mezirow 1985, p. 27). It is fair then to suggest
that educators have an important role to enhance students’ ability to learn in a way
that ‘enhances their capability to function as self-directed learners’ (Mezirow 1981,
p. 137).
The literature provides some useful insights into the complexities of self-directed
learning and the implications for educators. Garrison (1997) offers a useful
definition of self-directed learning as an approach where students are motivated to
assume personal responsibility and collaborative control of the cognitive (self-
monitoring) and contextual (self-management) processes in constructing and
confirming meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes. Another view comes
from Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) who proposed a Personal Responsibility
120
understand the complexity of self-direction, it is essential to recognize differences
between self-directed learning as an instructional method and student self-
direction as a personality characteristic. These two dimensions are linked through
the recognition that each emphasizes the importance of students assuming
personal responsibility for their thoughts and actions. Knowles defined self-
directed learning as:
The process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes (1970, p.7).
What appears to be clear is that self-directed learning, invokes both social and
cognitive issues, that is, issues of ‘self-direction’ and ‘learning’ respectively
(Garrison 1997). These cognitive and social issues within self-directed learning are
key to the model developed by Garrison (1997, p.22) which includes three
overlapping dimensions: self-management (task control); self-monitoring (cognitive
responsibility); and motivation (entering any task). This model is presented as
121 FIGURE 3.2:GARRISON’S DIMENSIONS OF SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING
Adapted from: Garrison, DR, 1997.
As discussed in 3.2.1, reflexivity is an important element of self-directed learning
and calls for students to use double-loop learning (Eberle 2009). Cooper (2004,
cited in Eberle 2009) eloquently explains double-loop learning as a high order
learning where students question the goal structures and rules when they detect an
‘error’ in their thinking, something like ‘colouring outside the lines’ to solve a
problem (2009, p. x). This process may lead to alterations in student plans,
strategies or consequences initially related to the ‘problem’ at hand from changes
to a student’s habit of thought (see 3.2.1). A critical element of double-loop
learning is students exploring the process of how they came to a specific conclusion,
how the process they undertook may potentially lead to other solutions, and how
their [student] assumptions may have changed through the process of engagement.
For self-directed learning to be successful, both educators and students need to be
familiar with the concept (i.e., have a cognitive understanding of the self-directed
learning process) and possess the skills required to implement it (Knowles 1998). Of
note, Knowles highlights important competencies for educators wishing to promote
Motivation (Entering/Task)
Student reflects on perceived value and anticipated success of learning goals at the time learning is initiated and mediates between context (control) and cognition
(responsibility) during the learning process
Self-Monitoring (Responsibility)
Student takes responsibility for the construction of personal meaning (i.e. integrating new ideas and
concepts with previous knowledge)
Self-Management (Control)
Student focus is on task control issues being the social and behavioural implementation of student intentions
122
self-directed learning as a pedagogical approach. Competencies seen as
fundamental for an educator are summarised as:
creating a learning environment characterised by mutual caring, support and intellectual rigour;
diagnosing learning needs and more importantly the capacity to help students diagnose their own needs;
assisting students to set their own goals by translating learning needs into clear, realistic and achievable objectives;
promoting collaborative learning (as discussed in 3.5.2); and
evaluating learning outcomes in a way which promotes both reflection on learning and peer review (Levett-Jones 2005).
Of note is the need for educators to provide students with support in making
choices about their learning pathways and to analyse the implications of any such
choices (Attard, Di Lorio, Geven & Santa 2010). However, as Candy (1991, p. 309)
writes, a student’s ‘autonomy’ or ability to be self-directed is likely to ‘vary from
situation to situation’ so educators should not assume that because a student has
been self-directed in one situation, that he or she will be in another.
From defining self-directed learning and identifying important educator
competencies to facilitate it, it is also useful to consider the pedagogical approaches
that will support it. Authentic learning is a pedagogical approach that focuses on
aligning the conditions and enablers for self-directed learning (Herrington 2015). It
is arguably an appealing pedagogical approach because it situates knowledge in
realistic contexts. It requires ‘the creation of meaningful products that are worthy
of the investment of time and effort that students put into them’ (Herrington, 2015
p. 65). In authentic learning the task governs the activities that students perform,
123
worthwhile ‘product’ (Herrington 2015). In essence it is the ‘students who decide
the most effective pathways to learning as they engage collaboratively in the
creation of genuine, worthwhile and meaningful artefacts’ (Herrington 2015, p. 61).
This can create a challenge for educators to craft complex tasks that enable multiple
diverse outcomes (Herrington 2015).
Other research outlines the elements of authentic learning in the context of
authentic e-learning (Herrington, Reeves & Oliver, 2010). The authors suggest an
authentic context as one that reflects the way the knowledge will be used in real life
with tasks (and sub-tasks) that are ill-defined and have real world relevance. Such
tasks can be seamlessly integrated into assessment and allow for competing
solutions and a diversity of outcomes. Importantly, in any authentic learning
context students need to feel enabled and encouraged to explore different
perspectives on topics from varying points of view (Herrington et al. 2010).
Authentic learning also provides a non-linear organisation of information to enable
students to readily return to any element of their learning journey if desired. This
non-linear approach affords students an opportunity to compare themselves with
experts and other students during stages of the learning experience (Boud, Keogh &
Walker 1985; Schön 1987).
Kember also found that self-directed learning could be developed by setting
assignments which required students to find materials themselves, hence helping
124
‘sometimes the notes given do not contain all the information, then we will look up
from the references for details of the situation, what is happening and the current
thinking abroad’ (Kember 2009, p. 46).
In summary, designing pedagogical approaches that support self-directed learning,
requires educators to commit philosophically (also discussed in 3.4.1) and
practically. It would appear that there are a number of critical competencies
needed in an educator’s ‘toolkit’ such as authentic learning experiences which may
support self-directed learning. Furthermore the extent to which students believe
their needs, concerns, learning ‘difficulties’ and personal goals are considered by
educators reflects positively on both their sense of academic ability and
development of self-directed learning (Alt 2015).
From the examination of the literature, the seventh postulate emerges which can
be subject to empirical scrutiny to confirm/disconfirm the importance of
pedagogical approaches that support self-directed learning as a justified component
of graduate attribute development.
Postulate 7:
A student’s ability to employ self-directed learning strategies may increase in an authentic learning environment.