Web viewThis paper attempts to explore SDL in adolescent learning, and how this contributes to preparing young learners for work ... In the world of LDL, the fading of

Running head: BUILDING SDL SKILLS IN THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER IN PREP FOR WORKPLACE 1

Building Self-Directed Learning Skills in the Adolescent Learner

In Preparation for Success in the Work Place

Gayle B. Fisher

EHRD-630-700, Dr. D. Chlup

Texas A&M University

BUILDING SDL SKILLS IN THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER IN PREP FOR WORKPLACE 2

Not only is building Self-Directed Learning (SDL) skills in the adolescent (and emerging

andragogy) learner essential for success in the working world, but these same constructed SDL

skills can be acquired by the learning-delayed learner (LDL) if the same building components are

present. The building components for SDL as represented in the literature are (but are not limited

to) : self-motivation, metacognition, personality traits, and core social skills. The learning-

delayed learner (LDL) would include (but not be limted to) those with developmental delays due to

sensory-integration problems, language delays, autism, apraxia, being socially at-risk or

economically at-risk, or with chromosomal abnormalities. The LDL may be either neuro-typical

or not.

Self-Directed Learning (SDL) as a learning style has been established as one of the six

characteristics of andragogy (Knowles, 1975). Recently, increasingly, subject-matter experts

(SMEs) are saying that SDL can also be a part of adolescent learning (Merriam, Caffarella and

Baumgartner, 2007, p. 407; Zemke and Zemke, 1996, p. 40). This paper attempts to explore SDL

in adolescent learning, and how this contributes to preparing young learners for work place

simulations (WPS). Jossberger, Brand-Gruwel, Boshuizen and Wiel (2010) discuss SDL, self-

regulated learning (SRL) and workplace simulations (WPS), and include constructive implications

to students as they transition through vocational training. Jossberger, et al., (2010) resoundingly

recommends that vocational students “acquire SDL and SRL skills” so that they can learn and

work effectively in WPS in preparation for the actual workspace. They also differentiate between

SDL as both a personality/learning characteristic and a learning environment compared to self-

regulated learning (SRL) as solely a personality/learning characteristic. This clarification of SDL

and SRL is needed, they say, due to the “confusion” caused by Knowles’ definition of SDL (as not


being specific enough to differentiate it from SRL; in all fairness to Knowles, the comparison did

not exist in 1975). Jossberger, et al.’s thorough report continues with the concept of “authentic

setting”, which is also taught by Clark and Mayer (2008). Authentic setting and authentic practice

integrate SDL, andragogy and educational technology’s best practices. “Integrating theory and

practice seems especially relevant for vocational education” (Jossberger, et al., 2010), p. 426.

These are indeed exciting school-to-work concepts being implemented in vocational schools:

authentic practice, authentic setting, far-transfer, adaptive learning, workplace simulations, macro-

level learning trajectory (SDL), micro-level learning trajectory (SRL), individual initiative,

personal responsibility orientation, self-regulated learning activities, and self-direction in learning,

all of which are covered in published, peer-reviewed research, and some of which will be covered

within the constraints of this paper.

We will discuss how SDL compares and contrasts with Self-Regulated Learning (SRL).

We will examine building SDL in adolescent learning (emerging andragogy), relating to:

1) problem-based learning (PBL), 2) motivation, 3) metacognition 4) social skills, 5) creativity,

6) personality traits, and 7) the “sensemaking” paradox (lacking domain knowledge, yet expected

to make good choices in self-direction). Also, we will briefly introduce the Self-Directed

Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) and its modifications as useful diagnostic tools to help sort

and prepare adolescent learners for the workplace.

Background

Purposeful SDL, or SDL built on purpose, can be used to assist young people improve their

working futures. When purposeful SDL is in process, then mentors, activators, teachers, and

facilitators can improve the prospects of incoming highly-motivated young non-disabled learners


before they transition to the workplace. Further, the same purposeful building of SDL skills can

also be utilized by highly-motivated learning-delayed learners (LDLs) as they prepare to become

first-time workers. So, to begin, a literature search was performed using the library databases at

Texas A&M University, using key words “school-to-work”, “transition”, “creativity”, “SDL”,

“adaptation”, “disabilities” and “urgency”. There were easily enough peer-reviewed, journal-

published articles to support this paper, especially when limiting the target learners to neuro-

typical (meaning, the brain responds to incoming messages with typical responses). There is

published research to also include special-needs, at-risk, and learning-delayed learners. Middle-

school students in North Carolina with “moderate intellectual disabilities” taught themselves to

self-direct their learning activities in chemistry and physical science by using 15-step KWHL

charts. They have helped to change the game on how special education has historically been

teacher-directed. Their success with KWHL charts (“know”, “want”, “how”, and “learned”)

improved hope for more inclusion education, which increases neuro-typical peer modeling

opportunities. (Jimenez, Browder, and Courtade, 2009). In fact, the research for SDL and

disabilities gloriously extends past the constraints on this specific paper. Therefore, we can say

that there is already extensive peer-reviewed research ongoing in the field of SDL and adolescent

learners with learning disabilities, emerging into the world of andragogy, with specific applications

into workplace transitions (WPS) and school-to-work transitions (SWT), awaiting final

implementation in the actual workplace.

Surprisingly, countries besides the U.S. have said emerging first-time workers lack the

basic skills to succeed or to provide the job skills required by businesses within those countries

(Jossberger, et al, 2010, pg. 415, citing Achtenhagen and Oldenburger, 1996). Conversely, there

is great hope gleaned from the literature, for there are programs continually and increasingly


implemented to lift our young emerging workers into the learned habits of SDL (and all that

encompasses), into a win-win for workers and national economies as a whole.

A passion for the at-risk, special-needs, and learning-delayed emerging worker fuels my

stretch to include them in this paper. They are entitled to their personal and unique life-long

journey of learning, creating a fulfilling adulthood, by whatever definition they call happiness, be

it Western or Non-Western, be it Native American, Confucian, African Liberation, Buddhist, or

African Indigenous definitions (Merriam, et al., 2007). The LDLs, once buoyed up by purposeful

SDL skills, could become stable and valued employees, able to live independently by putting

macro-SDL into practice. This authentic and life-long practice will require their personal

motivation and determination to overcome their personal obstacles. The stretch of this paper is

the application of all being said in the literature about SDL could also be specifically attributed to

the learning-delayed learner (LDL), assuming that metacognition, motivation, learner self-interest

and core social skills are all in place. To complicate this stretch, Loyens, Magda, and Rikers,

(2008), pp. 416-417, use the general phrase “active engagement in one’s learning process”. This

characteristic of “active engagement” could be difficult but essential to master for the learning-

delayed learner (LDL), due to sensory integration or social/communication deficiencies (as in the

autistic spectrum or with apraxia). Secondly, for the LDL who is lacking some self-awareness, or

is unable to prove with expressive language back out to the world that he or she is truly self-aware

(as an example, a non-verbal learner in the autistic spectrum or a non-verbal or pre-verbal learner

with apraxia), the proof of metacognition could be a higher hurdle to overcome, compared to that

of a neuro-typical learner.


SDL, Self-Regulated Learning (SRL), Metacognition, and Motivation

The terms “SDL” and “self-regulated learning”(SRL) are described in the literature as SDL

being the overarching concept, and SRL as being a subset of SDL. Sometimes the two terms are

used interchangeable, but this is misleading, for there are similarities and differences between the

two terms. In short, SDL and SRL are both characteristics of learners. SDL is a learning

environment; SRL is not a learning environment.

Loyens, et al, (2008), on p. 417, talk about SRL operating within the “biological,

developmental, contextual and individual boundaries of the learner”, and that “students can be

trained to extend their metacognitive knowledge base”, becoming “more effective SRLs”. In other

words, there is a wide door beckoning to emerging SDLs (from pedagogy into andragogy) who

are motivated to want such “training”. Loyens, et al., on p. 417 describe SRL processes via

“metacognition and intrinsic motivation”, citing Zimmerman’s 1989 definition of SRLs: students

described as “self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, and

behaviorally active participants in their own learning process. The learner’s choice of goals is an

important determiner of SRL.” (Loyens, et al, (2008), p. 417. This supports that to be a SRL, you

need metacognition, intrinsic motivation, and learner self-interest.

There are differences between SDL and SRL, as cited by Loyens, et al., (2008), pp. 417-

418, who say that SDL pertains to “both the design of the learning environment and describing

learner characteristics (activities or processes that the learner substantiates)”, and that SRL

describes the learner characteristics. SDL can be used anywhere in life, even outside school. In

contrast, SRL is “within school learning”.


Metacognition and motivation are both core concepts of SDL and SRL. SDL and SRL are

“similar in that they both activate metacognitive skills”, and that “metacognitive awareness is

involved in all steps that precede the actual study activities and the evaluation of those activities

afterward”. So, metacognition is described as being aware of one’s thinking, or thinking about

one’s thinking before the learning, during the learning, and after the learning.

Motivation is described in connection with a learner having control over their learning, able

to direct their individual cognition (Loyens, et al., (2008), p. 417). Another study, Rozendaal,

Minnaert and Boekaerts (2002), p. 275, discusses students who study their subjects deeply, how

they are therefore “likely to find the material more interesting and easier to understand” (because

they studied the subjects deeply), and then how those long hours of study “are not a hardship”

because they wanted to study the subjects deeply for many hours (Rozendaal, et al., 2002, citing

Entwistle, 1981). This example helps us understand how motivation and cognition are related and

even co-mingled (Rozendaal, et al., 2002, p. 275).

Also, motivation and learner self-interest are part of self-regulated learning (SRL),

Rozendaal, Minnaert, and Boekaerts (2002), p. 275 discuss some “visible and important indicators

of motivation”, and include interest and persistence. Interest is the “personal meaning” of the

assignments, of the learning to be done. Persistence is the determination to “continue with the

task until it is completed”. A student can be persistent even if the subject is of little interest,

because it is the learning, the conquering that matters, not the specific topic.

SDL and Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

Since its introduction and development in the mid-1960s, PBL has been a “useful

instructional alternative to conventional teaching” (Loyens, S. M.M., Magda, J., and Rikers,


R.M.J.P., 2008, p. 412). In PBL, small groups of students critically evaluate and try to solve ill-

fitting problems, mostly using their own prior knowledge and creativity. “Problems are the

starting point of the learning process” (Loyens, et al., 2008, p. 413). This means, ideally, that

students already have the prior knowledge, the prerequisite problem-solving skills in their pockets,

ready for use. We as the educators might have to fill in some of the holes, to properly prepare

students for thriving in PBL. This preparation will be worth the effort, for one of the goals of

PBL is “fostering students intrinsic motivation to learn”. PBL “fosters” and enables SDL (Loyens,

et al, 2008, pp. 413, 421). PBL usually occurs within a group of students, each of whom have

(ideally) some characteristics of SDL already in place. PBL is a group activity, with the learner as

the initiator of the learning task. By contrast, in self-regulated learning (SRL), the learning task

can be teacher-generated. In other words, SDL refers to the “preparedness of a student to engage

in learning activities defined by him- or herself”, not by the teacher (Loyens, et al., 2008, p. 414,

citing Schmidt, 2000, p. 243). By purposefully building SDL habits that support PBL into

adolescent learners, SDL becomes linked to “lifelong learning” (Loyens, et al., 2008, p. 416, citing

Miflin et al., 2000). The powerful influence of feedback to learners is also key in PBL, especially

in the novice stage. Appropriate feedback gives the emerging SDLs small corrections to keep

them headed in the right direction(s). This feedback is identified as a highly powerful influence

on both learning and achievement (Clark and Mayer, 2008; Jossberger, et al., 2010; citing Hattie

and Timperley, 2007). Feedback is also provided in a transition into PBL called Case-Oriented

Problem-Stimulated learning, which we will examine next.

There is a hybrid version of PBL called “Case-Oriented Problem-Stimulated” (COPS)

which had a positive effect on learning, in a study with Canadian medical students. This hybrid

learning environment used assistance provided by the teacher, based on the premise that not all


students are totally able initially to be SDLs, that instead a gentle tutorship with appropriate

nudges helped give them training wheels in what SDL was and the self-confidence to get

successfully jump-started (Lee, Mann and Frank (2010). In this published study, the students

had in-place self-awareness of their existing skills; but they had little prior knowledge of small

group dynamics, for from the population (n=118), 82 responded that their experience with small

group learning was “none” or “a little”. They were also able to define the deficiencies in their

personal knowledge (what as missing), to assess the effectiveness of their on-going learning, and

to be responsible for their own learning (Lee, et al, 2010, pp. 430-431). Group social dynamics

also greatly affected their SDL, revealing the need for core social skills and group communication

skills to be in place for best success in small-group case-based learning. The teacher would fade

her prompts, moving from activator to tutor to finally facilitator. (Lee, et al., 2010, p. 432-433;

Jossberger, et al., 2010). To recap so far, the building blocks of SDL are documented in the

literature to include: self-regulated learning (SRL), metacognition, motivation, and PBL.

Additionally, personality traits also can provide some building blocks for SDL.

SDL and Personality Traits

As a personality trait, SDL is “relatively enduring over time and across situations for

individuals”, on a “continuum ranging from low to high”, and is a characteristic that exists to some

degree in each of us and in each potential learning opportunity (Lounsbury, Levy, Park, Gibson

and Smith, 2009, p. 411, citing Brockett and Hiemstra, 1991, and Hiemstra, 1991). For example,

SDL as a personality trait would be a skill or talent a student “just had” as a child, within the

pedagogical world. As the student matured into andragogy, that personality trait would blossom,

shining continually brighter. Lounsbury, et al., (2009),p. 412, elaborates on this as related to two

characteristic of the Myer-Briggs personality test: Extraversion and Intuition. As a personality


trait that you may or may not be born with, any trait could still be continually cultivated if you

were motivated, just as you could work at improving your GPA, if you desired that goal

(Lounsbury, et al., (2009), p. 412).

The literature made additional but lesser correlations with SDL and personality traits of

work drive, optimism, sense of identity, career decidedness, self-actualization, low anxiety, and

Myer-Brigg’s intuition, and suggested further research, as cited in Lounsbury, et al., (2009), p.

415. Jossberger, et al, (2010) mentions persistence, self-control and self-monitoring.

SDL and Social Skills

As a pre-requisite for almost every interaction in life, social skills can be learned by

modeling, and sometimes must be purposefully taught. Social skills can also be required to

prepare for any group or team at the workplace. Young, Mann and Frank (2010), p. 425, discusses

how peer awareness, peer expectations and the dynamics of small groups were shown to be

“important factors influencing SDL”.

Some factors today erode effective social skills. Too much internet, too much pretense via

avatars, and too little face-to-face practice with real people can poorly prepare young neuro-typical

digital learners for the social interactions their working world will require of them. Even a life as

a programmer involves interfacing with people. The better we are with other people, the happier

and better connected our personal social lives will be. Some lucky people are born intuitive,

gregarious, and inter-dependent. Others can benefit from purposeful learning of nuanced social

skills. Since each person is unique in their outgoing social messages, effectively “reading” people

is not a cookie-cutter skill. Group dynamics can be complicated, especially when wrestling with

ill-fitting problems. Learning-delayed, at-risk, and special-needs learners need extra help in


navigating social waters. Effectively presenting personal opinions in a group setting can be

daunting. Everyone wants to be respected and listened-to. To properly support the learning of

SDL, the essential social skills should be in prior knowledge prior to group dynamics of PBL.

Rozendaal, et al., 2002, p. 278, says that “learning in interactive learning groups is in line with

social constructivism”. In other words, interactive social learning is constructed and built on prior

social learning experience, constructing new learning as you go on. Jossberger, et al., (2010) cites

the social concepts of “reciprocal interactions among personal, behavioral and environmental

influences” (citing Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 2004) as part of SRL at the micro-level (as compared

to SDL at the macro-level). There is concensus that basic social skills are at the core of small-

group PBL within SRL and SDL. Jimenez, et al., (2009) tells us that the middle-schoolers from

North Carolina, the learners who self-directed their scientific learning with KWHL charts, who had

“moderate intellectual disabilities” were in a mainstream science class, as much for the core social

skills as the science content they were learning.

SDL and Creativity

SDL also relates to creativity in research performed with a population of (n=114)

Tennessee junior college students in a study by Beswick, Chuprina, Canipe and Cox (2002).

Conventional wisdom says that if an adolescent learner is constantly entertained by merely

consuming, there is little incentive for his or her imagination to kick into action to create. Legend

has it that we have to be at least slightly bored before we start to use our imagination. The study

by Beswick, et al. (2002), p. 7, confirms the link of SDL to creativity in saying that the “creative

activity would be described as a type of learning process where the teacher and pupil are located in

the same individual” (Breswick, et al., 2002, citing Koestler, 1964). As expected, the literature

calls for more research of the relationships between SDL and creativity (Beswick, et al. (2002).


Back to our North Carolinian special-education students: the report goes on to say that they were

able “to surmise a new untaught concept” using their KWHL charts as antecedent clues in true

self-directed fashion, across a variety of content, complete with generalization into their

mainstream science class, learning and “showing mastery” of scientific concepts side-by-side with

their typical peers (Jimenez, et al., 2009, p. 45).

SDL and the Sensemaking Paradox

The sensemaking paradox that SDLs face is that they are required to apply “deep-level

thinking skills” to process data in a meaningful way, “but they often lack the requisite domain

knowledge needed to deeply analyze” sources and to integrate the information into their own

structure of prior knowledge (Butcher and Sumner , 2011, p. 123). This study analyzes

Customized Learning Service/Interface for Concept Knowledge (CLICK) as an algorithmic tool to

help non-expert SDLs (lacking domain knowledge) with their metacognitive tasks of seeking

information, evaluating content, and using knowledge representations, but with greatly faded and

ever-fading prompts. As SDL processes information, the knowledge will be on a continuum of

deep to shallow. Sensemaking refers to the state of being valuable to future learning, that the new

information makes sense when added to the existing knowledge (prior knowledge). During

SDL,”metacognative skills encompass at least three major activities” (Butcher and Sumner, 2011,

citing Azevedo, Guthrie, and Seibert, 2004; Quintana et al., 2005; Shraw, 1998):

1) The analysis for strengths and weaknesses of existing information

2) The search for new or supporting information or materials

3) The use of deep, knowledge-based strategies when revising


This sensemaking paradox reinforces the importance of building prior knowledge integration,

much like the hybrid Case-Oriented Problem-Stimulated (COPS) does for PBL. The novice SME,

the SDL, has the metacognition, the motivation, and the self-interest. All he or she is lacking is

the scaffolding (and power) of prior knowledge to assist them with some guidance and mentoring.

“Prior knowledge is not a bank of information to which learners can deposit (large) chunks of

information or wipe clean and replace with a better set of information or concepts.” Prior

knowledge gradually improves. CLICK provides personalized feedback on specific gaps, holes, or

errors in the learner’s output, based on its three algorithms of domain knowledge maps, and

educational resource recommendations. This feedback is called “cognitive personalization” and

can contain worked examples and prompts which should eventually fade. (Butcher and Sumner,

2011, pp. 133-134). In some ways, CLICK employs the concepts of being a pedagogical agent, to

personalize instruction (Clark and Mayer, 2008). In the world of LDL, the fading of prompts is a

common practice in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), the predominant educational intervention

for teaching children in the autistic spectrum. With ABA, the teacher will teach hand-over-hand,

and begin fading the prompts ASAP. Prior knowledge of and familiarity with ABA may left-

handedly and subliminally enable LDLs to a smoother path onto SDL.

SDL, the Readiness Scale and the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory

SDL has some documented measurement tools. One is the The Self-Directed Learning

Readiness Scale (SDLRS), which is used for measuring “learning readiness”, not a specific style of

learning (Lounsbury, et al., (2009), p. 413). The original adult Guglielmino SDLRS was

designed in 1977, and contained 58 items. There is a modified SDLRS (MSDLR), evaluated in 20

teacher-assessment questions, for measuring the learning readiness of children, as discussed by

Nor and Saeednia, (2008), in a study of 183 nine-year old Iranian children. This study reinforced


that “SDL is measurable among children” in spite of the “inefficiencies of the educational system”.

(Nor and Saeednia, 2008). There is also a Resource Associates Self-Directed Learning Scale, as a

10-item scale, measured in a 5-point Likert scale (Lounsbury, et al., (2009), p. 413.

Conclusion

Research supports building blocks of SDL, so that young learners (documented as middle-

schoolers and older) are able to exhibit characteristics of social skills, creativity, problem-based

learning (PBL), motivation, personality traits, and sensemaking. As teachers, mentors, activators

and facilitators, we play instructional detectives as we discover “what is missing?” in jumpstarting

SDL as a learned procedure. We then help them make SDL their own as we fade our prompts.

Literature also supports the need for more research into PBL. As discussed in Loyens, et al.,

(2008), on p. 419, “we have a need for much more research to better understand how, when, and

why PBL fosters the development of SDL”.

Truth be told, there is plentiful and inspirational research awaiting real-world

implementation and action. It is this implementation that excites me to my core, to do what I can

to help young emergents, with and without learning disabilities. Rusch, Hughes, Agran, Martin

and Johnson (2009), page 53, recommend teaching students, with and without disabilities, to

become self-directed learners “before they enter high school”. Yes, that was before high school.

To help make that happen, adult education, with applications and implementations of SDL to so

many new members, will continue to attract attention, research, and hopefully, a great many

practitioners.


Annotated Bibliography

Beswick, D.M., Chuprina, L., Canipe, J.B., Cox, B., (2002), Investigating self-directed learning

in culture, learning styles and creativity, ERIC (U.S. Dept. of Education), 2002-11-00, 1-9

Summary: This research has three areas of study, and I am using only the third one,

ealing with SDL and creativity in a population of 114 junior-college students in

Tennessee.

Assessment: The grouping of the three areas of SDL application seems rather

eclectic, with nothing in common but SDL.

Reflection: This article seems like research done somewhere after novice but

before SME. They use admirable statistics (which I don’t understand), but they

leave me wanting the rest of the picture.

Butcher, Kirsten R. and Sumner, Tamara(2011), Self-directed learning and the sensemaking

paradox, Human-Computer Interaction, 26: 1, 123 — 159

Summary: The Sensemaking Paradox is requiring adolescent learners to apply SDL

techniques when they yet lack the SME prior knowledge. The CLICK model of

personalized feedback (like a HAL computer telling them when they are right and

wrong) acts like a personalized pedagogical agent to provide them expert feedback

in their authentic practice sessions.

Assessment: This paper has an extensive metacognitive and prior knowledge

integration sections, and comes across as very authentic and well-researched.

Reflection: I would love to see the equations of the CLICK algorithms. I am

currently on a 2-student team in EDTC-651 designing such a simulation, so seeing

how CLICK ticked would be a huge benefit.


Clark, R.C., and Mayer R. E. (2008), E-learning and the Science of Instruction, John Wiley &

Sons, Inc., San Francisco, CA

Summary: This book is our EDTC-651 Tutorials and Simulations text this

semester, and is the sequel to our text for Graphic Learning last semester:

Educational Technology at her finest.

Assessment: Dr. Clark has written many volumes, and this is one of her second

editions covering instructional design implementation. She is a well-recognized

SME of e-learning applications and digital learning environments.

Reflection: Mainstream digital learning products can be made better the more

these concepts are incorporated into the instructional design.

Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., & Courtade, G. R. (2009). An exploratory study of self-directed

science (concept) learning by students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Research &

Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34(2), 33-46.

Summary: Mainstreamed students with moderate intellectual disabilities in a North

Carolina middle school work within SDL learning by creative use of KWHL charts

in chemistry and physical science classes. Student achievement and applied

statistics are both featured.

Assessment: Thorough statistical methods were used to gather information. This

research is rich in support documents in the form of tables, charts, and statistical

analysis.

Reflection: The young heroes featured in this study achieved important short-term

victories. I would love to know how their SDL has continued to unfold.


Jossberger, Helen , Brand-Gruwel, Saskia , Boshuizen, Henny and van de Wiel, Margje(2010),

The challenge of self-directed and self-regulated learning in vocational education: a

theoretical analysis and synthesis of requirements, Journal of Vocational Education &

Training, 62: 4, 415-440

Summary: Workplace Transitions (WPS) , SDL, and SRL within vocational

education in The Netherlands are analyzed. Learning theories are thoroughly

discussed.

Assessment: There is a lot of tactical detail relating to what is taught and how it is

taught to their target audience. The researchers stay on-task, discussing and re-

introducing the concepts of SDL and SRL as they both relate to WPS.

Reflection: This useful resource feels very well structured. There is no

discernable emotion or sense of entitlement for their learners with disabilities.

Instead, they discuss dignity, hope and opportunity for the transitions and

workplace training of learners with disabilities.

Kerka (2002), "Teaching adults: Is it different?" ERIC, Myths and Realities, No. 21.

Summary: This paper supports that technology is re-wiring our brains, and

explores the dichotomy of learning being teacher-directed or learner-centered.

Assessment: Children are learners. Adults are learners. How are they different?

This article addresses this question, and discusses autonomy in learning.

Reflection: This article was the first I had digested on SDL, the first of many now.

There is much in the published literature on SDL and how to build it in young

learners. This paper first opened my eyes.


Knowles, M.S. (1975), Self-directed learning. New York: Associated Press.

Summary, Assessment and Reflection: I have not read this reference. No report on

SDL can omit a Knowles reference.

Lee, Y.M., Mann, K.V., and Frank, B.W., (2010), What drives students’ self-directed learning in a

Hybrid PBL curriculum?, Advances in Health Science Education, 15:425–437

Summary: Early medical school students in their first two years are featured in this

research, when their self-concept of SDL is tenuous and insecure. COPS gives

them teacher guidance in a SDL environment.

Assessment: The report contains a great deal of statistical and anecdotal data. The

hybrid program seems like the best of all worlds for these specific learners.

Reflection: There is relevance for this helper environment with SDLs who have

learning disabilities (my area of passion). If neuro-typical, over-achiever medical

students benefit from these training wheels, so can emerging SDLs with learning

delays.

Lounsbury, J.W., Levy, J.J., Park, S., Gibson, L.W., and Smith, R., (2009), An investigation of the

construct validity of the personality trait of self-directed learning, Learning and Individual

Differences, 19 (4), 411-418

Summary: The sample population is 398 middle school, 568 high school, and

1,159 college students. The research objective is to provide support that the

personality trait(s) of SDL can be taught.

Assessment: This research used Myers-Briggs characteristics, Resource Associates

SDL scale, GPA, demographic data, and intelligence tests in their correlations.

Their list of references is extensive.


Reflection: I personally believe personality traits are pivotal in SDL, and I

thoroughly enjoyed all the qualitative factors offered, in addition to the quantitative

data of this report.

Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., and Rikers, R. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based

learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review,

20(4), 411-427.

Summary: SDL is explored as an autonomous learning process, defined by the

learner, not the teacher. The differences between SDL and SRL are explored and

evaluated.

Assessment: This report explores thoroughly the relationship SDL has with SRL

and how they both relate to PBL and subsequent learner goals.

Reflection: There is a lot of “self” in this research report, and I really appreciate the

depth and breadth of the full analysis. I now better understand the nuances of these

concepts.

Merrian, S.B., and Associates, (2007), Non-western perspectives on learning and knowing, Krieger

Publishing Co.

Summary: Dr. Merriam brings together great wisdom and respect for many

continents and cultures, recounting how they have learned through generations.

Assessment: This slim volume contains ten chapters with nine diverse SME

perspectives from eight guest experts, most of which are all new information to

most students. The authors merge their different stories into a tapestry of learning

wealth.


Reflection: With the risk of sounding too conversational, I loved this volume for

how it has widened my vicarious experiences and brought new enlightenment to

many transformational traumatic experiences in my life.

Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., and Baumgartner, L.M. (2007), Learning in Adulthood, John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Summary: Merriam, et al., present a full range of adult education topics. Each

section is well documented from the literature and from their collective experiences.

Assessment: As a comprehensive guide from long-standing SMEs, this volume

covers a full range of adult education topics, and splendidly so.

Reflection: I am abundantly grateful for this book, this class, and all that has been

made more concrete this semester.

Nor, M., & Saeednia, Y. Y. (2008). Exploring self-directed learning among children. Proceedings

of World Academy of Science: Engineering & Technology, 48563-568.

Summary: This research is a study on SDL, with a target population of 183 Iranian

nine-year olds. This study created the Modified Self Directed Learning Readiness

(MSDLR), designed for measuring SDL in children by adults.

Assessment: The two authors accomplished much within this one research project.

In its simplicity, the entire project is brilliant: Take something famous (SDLRS)

and morph it in a credible way for scientifically measuring SDL in young children.

Reflection: The conclusions in Iranian hammer home the authenticity of this

admirable research. The report comes off as unassuming; however, they made it

through all the gatekeeping of the Iranian government, and created with original

thinking the MSDLR, a unique product in the world of SDL


Rozendaal , J.S., Minnaert, A. and Boekaerts, M., (2002), Motivation and self-regulated learning in

secondary vocational education: information-processing type and gender differences,

Learning and Individual Differences, 13 (2003) 273–289

Summary: Motivation and SRL are key in this research, and a lot of energy is

spent discussing how the learners process thought (deep-level or surface-level).

Assessment: Correlational statistics are featured in this ambitious report. The

gender issues discussed are not included in my paper; the motivation and SRL

issues are very helpful.

Reflection: I was initially skeptical about European vocational learners being

Relevant to supporting my argument. Happily, I was wrong.

Rusch, F.R., Hughes, C., Agran, M., Martin, J.E., and Johnson, J.R., (2009), Toward self-directed

learning, post-high school placement, and coordinated support constructing new transition

bridges to adult life , Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 2009: 32: 1, 53 -59

Summary: The authors discuss the non-success of historical school-to-life

transitions for learners with disabilities. They also propose updated transitions

which they call “bridges”, and relate the preparation to SDL.

Assessment: I love this paper; it causes me great waves of emotion and

determination. The authors dispassionately discuss what has worked, what has not

worked, and what needs to work in the future to bring the life prospects of learners

with disabilities distantly near parity, compared to the adult expectations of learners

without disabilities.


Reflection: Within the literature for scholarly research of SDL and disabilities, this

research links many ideas, and it provides a solid close to the discussion. There is

great love, ethics, and educator dedication in this piece.

Zemke, R., and Zemke, S., (1995), Adult learning: What do we know for sure?" Training, pp. 31-

40.

Summary: This is nearly the quintessential SDL, Motivation, PBL primer. This

article discusses problem-centered and project-centered learning, motivation,

curriculum, and feedback.

Assessment: The far-transfer strategies are very useful for considering curriculum

design. I like the statement on p. 50, that the SDL “is very efficiency minded”.

Reflection: It’s breathtaking to see how much information has been shared within

this class, this semester, since Zemke & Zemke was first assigned. I don’t even

recognize the old me anymore.

Internet Resources

SDLRS (Guglielmino, L.,1977) test and info. This site offers an elementary age version of the

SDLRS test.

Modified Self-Directed Learning Readiness (MSDLR), modified from the SDLRS of Guglielmino,

as authored by Nor and Saeednia (2008) is not a self-report test.

http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v46/v46-95.pdf

http://www.lpasdlrs.com/

Documents

Web viewThis paper attempts to explore SDL in adolescent learning, and how this contributes to preparing young learners for work ... In the world of LDL, the fading of