Assignment One Reading

Jost Reischmann:

Andragogy. History, Meaning, Context, Function The term ‘andragogy’ has been used in different times and countries with various connotations. Nowadays there exist mainly three understandings: 1. In many countries there is a growing conception of ‘andragogy’ as the scholarly approach to the learning of adults. In this connotation andragogy is the science of understanding (= theory)and supporting (= practice) lifelong and lifewide education of adults. 2. Especially in the USA, ‘andragogy’ in the tradition of Malcolm Knowles, labels a specific theoretical and practical approach, based on a humanistic conception of self-directed and autonomous learners and teachers as facilitators of learning. 3. Widely, an unclear use of andragogy can be found, with its meaning changing (even in the same publication) from ‘adult education practice’ or ‘desirable values’ or ‘specific teaching methods,’ to ‘reflections’ or ‘academic discipline’ and/or ‘opposite to childish pedagogy’, claiming to be ‘something better’ than just ‘Adult Education’. Terms make sense in relation to the object they name. Relating the development of the term to the historical context may explain the differences.

The History of ‘Andragogy’ The first use of the term ‘andragogy’ - as far as we know today - was found with the German high school teacher Alexander Kapp in 1833. In a book entitled ‘Platon’s Erziehungslehre’ (Plato’s Educational Ideas) he describes the lifelong necessity to learn. Starting with early childhood he comes on page 241 (of 450) to adulthood with the title ‘Die Andragogik oder Bildung im maennlichen Alter’ (Andragogy or Education in the man’s Age - a replica can be found on www.andragogy.net). In about 60 pages he argues that education, self-reflection, and educating the character is the first value in human life. He then refers to vocational education of the healing profession, soldier, educator, orator, ruler, and men as family father. So already her we find patterns which repeatedly can be found in the ongoing history of andragogy: Included and combined are the education of inner, subjective personality (‘character’) and outer, objective competencies (what later is discussed under “education vs. training”); and learning happens not only through teachers, but also through self-reflection and life experience, is more than ‘teaching adults’. Kapp does not explain the term Andragogik, and it is not clear, whether he invented it or whether he borrowed it from somebody else. He does not develop a theory, but justifies ‘andragogy’ as the practical necessity of the education of adults. This may be the reason why the term lay fallow: other terms and ideas were available; the idea of adult learning was not unusual in that time around 1833, neither in Europe (enlightenment movement, readingsocieties, workers education, educational work of churches, for example the Kolpingmovement), nor in America (Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Lowell Institute in Boston, Lyceum movement, town libraries, museums, agricultural societies); all these existing initiatives had important dates between 1820-40 and their terminology, so a new term was not needed.

The Second and Third Invention In the 1920’s in Germany adult education became a field of theorizing. Especially a group of scholars from various subjects, the so-called ‘Hohenrodter Bund’, developed in theory and practice the ‘Neue Richtung’ (new direction) in adult education. Here some authors gave a second birth to the term ‘Andragogik’, now describing sets of explicit reflections related to the why, what for and how of teaching adults.But Andragogik was not used as “the Method of Teaching Adults”, as Lindeman (1926) mistakenly suggested in reporting his experiences at

the Academy of Labor, Frankfurt, Germany. It was a sophisticated, theory-oriented concept, being an antonym to ‘demagogy’ - too difficult to handle, not really shared. So again it was forgotten. But a new object was shining up: a scholarly, academic reflection level ‘above’ practical adult education. The scholars came from various disciplines, working in adult education as individuals, not representing university institutes or disciplines. The idea of adult education as a discipline was not yet born. It is not clear where the third wave of using andragogy originated. In the 1950’s andragogy suddenly can be found in publications in Switzerland (Hanselmann), Yugoslavia (Ogrizovic), the Netherlands (ten Have), Germany (Poeggeler). Still the term was known only to insiders, and was sometimes more oriented to practice, sometimes more to theory. Perhaps this mirrors the reality of adult education of that time: There was no or little formal training for adult educators, some limited theoretical knowledge, no institutionalized continuity of developing such a knowledge, and no academic course of study. In this reality ‘Adult Education’ still described a unclear mixture of practice, commitment, ideologies, reflections, theories, mostly local institutions, and some academic involvement of individuals. As the reality was unclear, the term could not be any clearer. But the now increasing and shared use of the term signaled, that a new differentiation between ‘doing’ and ‘reflecting’ was developing, perhaps needing a separating term.

Andragogy: A banner for identity The great times of the term ‘andragogy’ for the English-speaking adult education world came with Malcolm Knowles, a leading scholar of adult education in the USA. He describes his encounter with the term: ‘… in 1967 I had an experience that made it all come together. A Yugoslavian adult educator, Dusan Savicevic, participated in a summer session I was conducting at Boston University. At the end of it he came up to me with his eyes sparkling and said, ‘Malcolm, you are preaching and practicing andragogy.’ I replied, ‘Whatagogy?’ because I had never heard the term before. He explained that the term had been coined by a teacher in a German grammar school, Alexander Kapp, in 1833 … The term lay fallow until it was once more introduced by a German social scientist, Eugen Rosenstock, in 1921, but it did not receive general recognition. Then in 1957 a German teacher, Franz Poggeler, published a book, Introduction into Andragogy: Basic issues in Adult Education, and this term was then picked up by adult educators in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and Yugoslavia …’ (Knowles 1989, p. 79). Knowles published his first article (1968) about his understanding of andragogy with the provocative title ‘Andragogy, Not Pedagogy.’ In a short time the term andragogy, now intimately connected to Knowles’ concept, received general recognition throughout North America and other English speaking countries; ‘within North America, no view of teaching adults is more widely known, or more enthusiastically embraced, than Knowles’ description of andragogy’ (Pratt & Ass., 1998, p. 13). Knowles’ concept of andragogy - ‘the art and science of helping adults learn’ - ‘is built upon two central, defining attributes: First, a conception of learners as self-directed and autonomous; and second, a conception of the role of the teacher as facilitator of learning rather than presenter of content’ (Pratt & Ass., 1998, p. 12), emphasizing learner choice more than expert control. Both attributes fit into the specific socio-historic thoughts in and after the 1970’s, for example the deschooling theory (Illich, Reimer), Rogers person-centered approach, Freire’s ‘conscientizacao’. Perhaps a third attribute added to the attraction of Knowles concept: Constructing andragogy as opposing pedagogy (“Farewell to Pedagogy”, 1970) (later reduced) provided opportunity to be on the ‘good side,’ not a ‘pedagogue,’ seen as ‘a teacher, especially a pedantic one’ (Webster’s Dictionary, 1982, p. 441). This flattered adult educators in a time, where most adult educators were andragogical amateurs, doing adult education based on their content expertise, experience, and a mission they felt, not

based on trained or studied educational competence. To be offered now understandable, humanistic values and beliefs, some specific methods and a good sounding label, strengthened a group that felt inferior to comparable professions. And this came coincidentally along with a significant growth of the field of practice plus an increased scholarly approach, including the emerging possibility to study adult education at universities. All these elements document a new period (‘art and science’) in adult education; it made sense to concentrate this new understanding in a new term. Providing a unifying idea and identity, connected with the term andragogy, to the amorphous group of adult educators, certainly was the main benefit Knowles awarded to the field of adult education at that time. Another was that he strengthened the already existing scholarly access to adult education by publishing, theorizing, doing research, by educating students that themselves through academic research became scholars, and by explicitly defining andragogy as science (Cooper & Henschke, 2003).

Issues with Andragogy Over the years critique developed against Knowles’ understanding of andragogy. A first critique argues that Knowles claimed to offer a general concept of adult education, but like all educational theories in history it is but one concept, born into a specific historic context. For example, one of Knowles’ basic assumptions is that becoming adult means becoming selfdirected. But other genuine concepts of adult education do not accept this ‘American’ type of self-directed lonesome fighter as the ultimate educational goal: In family, church, or civic education, for instance, the ‘we’ is more important than the ‘self’. Similarly an instructor who presents (=teaches) the name of the stars in a hobby-astronomy class would not work andragogical because this is not autonomous learning. Consequently the Dutch scholar van Gent (1996) criticizes, that the andragogy concept of Knowles is not a general-descriptive, but a ‘specific, prescriptive approach’ (p. 116). Another critique is Knowles’ conceiving of pedagogy as pedantic schoolmasters’ practice, not as an academic discipline. This hostility toward pedagogy had two negative outcomes: On a strategic level, scholars of adult education could make no alliances with the colleagues from pedagogy; on a content level, knowledge developed in pedagogy through 400 years could not be made fruitful for andragogy (more critical remarks see Merriam/Caffarella, 1999, p. 273ff, Savicevic, 1999, p. 113ff). Thus, attaching ‘andragogy’ exclusively to Knowles’ specific approach means that the term is lost for including pedagogical knowledge and those who do not share Knowles’ specific approach.

The European development: towards Professionalisation In most countries of Europe the Knowles-discussion played no or at best a marginal role. The use and development of ‘andragogy’ in the different countries and languages was more hidden, disperse, and uncoordinated, yet steady. ‘Andragogy’ nowhere described one specific concept or movement, but was, from 1970 on, connected with the in existence coming academic and professional institutions, publications, programs, triggered by a similar growth of adult education in practice and theory as in the USA. ‘Andragogy’ functioned here as a header for (places of) systematic reflections, parallel to other academic headers like ‘biology’, ‘medicine’, ‘physics’. Examples of this use of andragogy are the Yugoslavian (scholarly) journal for adult education, named ‘Andragogija’ in 1969; and the ‘Yugoslavian Society for Andragogy’; at Palacky University in Olomouc (Czech republic) in 1990 the “Katedra sociologie a andragogiky” was established, managed by Vladimir Jochmann, who advanced the use of the term “andragogy” (andragogika) against “adult education” (“Vychova a vzdelavani dospelych”), which was discredited by communistic use. Also Prague University has a ‘Katedra Andragogiky’;

in 1993, Slovenia’s ‘Andragoski Center Republike Slovenije’ was founded with the journal ‘Andragoska Spoznanja’; in 1995, Bamberg University (Germany) named a ‘Lehrstuhl Andragogik’; the Internet address of the Estonian adult education society is ‘andra.ee’. On this formal level ‘above practice’ and specific approaches, the term andragogy could be used in communistic countries as well as in capitalistic, relating to all types of theories, for reflection, analysis, training, in person-oriented programs as well as human resource development. A similar professional and academic expansion developed worldwide, sometimes using more or less demonstratively the term andragogy: Venezuela has the ‘Instituto Internacional de Andragogia’, since 1998 the Adult & Continuing Education Society of Korea publishes the journal ‘Andragogy today’. This documents a reality with new types of professional institutions, functions, roles, with fulltime employed and academically trained professionals. Some of the new professional institutions use the term andragogy - meaning the same as ‘adult education’, but sounding more demanding, science-based. Yet, throughout Europe still ‘adult education’, ‘further education’ or ‘adult pedagogy’ is used more than ‘andragogy’.

Adult education or education of adults? Some writers limit andragogy to a teaching situation (or more in the jargon: helping-adultslearn situation). An early example is Lindeman (1926), when reporting from his experiences at the Academy of Labor, Frankfurt, Germany: he connects Andragogik (using the German term) with teaching by giving his article the title ‘Andragogik: The Method of Teaching Adults’. Knowles, who brought the Americanized version “andragogy” into discussion, also uses this limiting understanding: ‘Andragogy is the art and science of teaching adults’. This definition is generalized by Krajinc (1989, p. 19) from Slovenia in a British international handbook: “Andragogy has been defined as…’the art and science of helping adults learn and the study of adult education theory, processes, and technology to that end’.’ Other authors include ‘education and learning of adults in all its forms of expression’ (Savicevic, 1999, p. 97). Reischmann (2003) offers the term ‘lifewide education’ to describe the opening of this new field, thus encompassing formal and informal, intentional and ‘en passant’, institution-supplied and autodidactic learning. These differences in understanding have to be seen in a historic development of the perception of ‘adult education’: What was perceived as ‘adult education’ in 1833 or 1926 is different from 1969 or 2001. While until the 1970’s the interest in adult education was focused on the action-oriented questions “How can teachers/facilitators support the learning of adults?”, now a new, more analytical-descriptive perspective was added. From the 1970’s on it was more and more perceived and discussed, that learning of adults did not only happen in more or less institutionalized or traditional settings, arranged specifically for the learning of adults. In North America Allen Tough’s research about adult learning projects provided evidence that only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of adults learning was ‘adult education’. In Germany the perception of learning in social movements like self-help groups or citizeninitiatives (peace-movement, feminist groups) started the discussion about the ‘Entgrenzung’ (de-bordering) of adult education. Distance- and E-learning, assessment of prior learning, learning in non-traditional forms, life-situations as learning opportunity, and other nonschool-oriented forms and situations where adults learn widened the perception that the education of adults happen in more situations than just in adult education. As a consequence today many experts understand “adult education” only as a segment of the wider field of the education of adults.

Andragogy: Academic discipline

Besides this widened perception of adult learning another development challenged the understanding of ‘adult education’ in the last decades: The field of adult education worldwide went through a process of growth and differentiation, in which a scholarly, scientific approach emerged. And a new type of ‘adult educators’ was born, which was not qualified by their missions and visions, but by their academic studies. And writing a thesis or dissertation is a quite different task than educating adults: reflection, critique, analysis, historical knowledge qualified this new type of academic professionals. An academic discipline with university programs, professors, students, focusing on the education of adults, exists today in many countries. But in the membership-list of the Commission of Professors of Adult Education of the USA (2003) not one university institute uses the name ‘andragogy’, in Germany one out of 35, in Eastern Europe six out of 26. Many actors in the field seem not to need a label ‘andragogy’. However, other scholars, for example Dusan Savicevic, who provided Knowles with the term andragogy, explicitly claim ‘andragogy as a discipline, the subject of which is the study of education and learning of adults in all its forms of expression’ (Savicevic, 1999, p. 97, similarly Henschke 2003, Reischmann 2003). This claim is not a mere definition, but includes the prospective function to influence the coming reality: to challenge ‘outside’ (demanding a respected discipline in the university context), to confront ‘inside’ (challenging the colleagues to clarify their understanding and consensus of their function and science), overall to stand up to a selfconfident academic identity. Again here this claim only makes sense when an object exists worth to get labeled. Not the term makes a (sub-) discipline, but a reality with sound university programs, professors, research, disciplinarian knowledge, and students. If, where and when this exists, a clarifying label like “andragogy” will make sense.The coming reality will show whether the ongoing differentiation in institutions, functions, and roles will need a term ‘andragogy’ for conceptual clarification.

References and Further Reading •

Gent, van, Bastian (21996): ‘Andragogy’. In: A. C. Tuijnman (ed.): International Encyclopedia of Adult Education and Training. Oxford: Pergamon, p. 114-117.

•

Cooper, Mary K. & Henschke, John A. (2003): An Update on Andragogy: The International Foundation for Its Research, Theory and Practice (Paper presented at the CPAE Conference, Detroit, Michigan, November, 2003).

•

Henschke, John (2003): Andragogy Website http://www.umsl.edu/~henschke

•

Jarvis, Peter (1987): Towards a discipline of adult education?, in P. Jarvis (ed): Twentieth Century Thinkers in Adult Education. London: Routledge, p. 301-313.

•

Kapp, Alexander (1833): Platon’s Erziehungslehre, als Paedagogik für die Einzelnen und als Staatspaedagogik. Minden und Leipzig: Ferdinand Essmann.

•

Knowles, Malcolm S. (21978): The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

•

Knowles, Malcolm S. (1989): The Making of an Adult Educator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

•

Krajinc, Anna (1989): Andragogy. In C. J. Titmus (ed.): Lifelong Education for Adults: An International Handbook. Oxford: Pergamon, p. 19-21.

•

Lindeman, Edward C. (1926). Andragogik: The Method of Teaching Adults. Workers’ Education, 4: 38.

•

Merriam, Sharan H. and Caffarella Rosemary S. (21999): Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

•

Pratt, Daniel D., & Associates (1998): Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger.

•

Reischmann, Jost (2003): Why Andragogy? Bamberg University, Germany http://www.andragogy.net.

•

Savicevic, Dusan (1991): Modern Conceptions of Andragogy: A European Framework. In: Studies in the Education of Adults, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. 179-191.

•

Savicevic, Dusan (1999): Understanding Andragogy in Europe and America: Comparing and Contrasting. In: Reischmann, Jost/ Bron, Michal/ Jelenc, Zoran (eds): Comparative Adult Education 1998: the Contribution of ISCAE to an Emerging Field of Study. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Slovenian Institute for Adult Education, p. 97-119.

•

Pöggeler, Franz (1957): Einführung in die Andragogik. Grundfragen der Erwachsenenbildung. Ratingen: Henn Verlag.

•

Tough, Allen (21979): The Adult’s Learning Projects. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

•

Webbster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (1982). New York: Warner Books.

•

Zmeyov, Serguey (1998): Andragogy: Origins, Developments, Trends. In: International Review of Education. Vol. 44, No. 1, p. 103-108. Autor: Reischmann, Jost

(2004): Andragogy. History, Meaning, Context, Function. At: http://www.andragogy.net. Version Sept. 9, 2004.Source: http://www.uni-

bamberg.de/fileadmin/andragogik/08/andragogik/andragogy/index.htm

MOVING FROM PEDAGOGY TO ANDRAGOGY (Adapted and Updated from Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.) There is little doubt that the most dominant form of instruction in Europe and America is pedagogy, or what some people refer to as didactic, traditional, or teacher-directed approaches. A competing idea in terms of instructing adult learners, and one that gathered momentum within the past three decades, has been dubbed andragogy. The purpose of this resource piece is to provide the interested reader with some background information regarding both instructional forms. The pedagogical model of instruction was originally developed in the monastic schools of Europe in the Middle Ages. Young boys were received into the monasteries and taught by monks according to a system of instruction that required these children to be obedient, faithful, and efficient servants of the church (Knowles, 1984). From this origin developed the tradition of pedagogy, which later spread to the secular schools of Europe and America and became and remains the dominant form of instruction. Pedagogy is derived from the Greek word "paid," meaning child plus "agogos," meaning leading. Thus, pedagogy has been defined as the art and science of teaching children. In the pedagogical model, the teacher has full responsibility for making decisions about what will be learned, how it will be learned, when it will be learned, and if the material has been learned. Pedagogy, or teacher-directed instruction as it is commonly known, places the student in a submissive role requiring obedience to the teacher's instructions. It is based on the assumption that learners need to know only what the teacher teaches them. The result is a

teaching and learning situation that actively promotes dependency on the instructor (Knowles, 1984). Up until very recently, the pedagogical model has been applied equally to the teaching of children and adults, and in a sense, is a contradiction in terms. The reason is that as adults mature, they become increasingly independent and responsible for their own actions. They are often motivated to learn by a sincere desire to solve immediate problems in their lives. Additionally, they have an increasing need to be self-directing. In many ways the pedagogical model does not account for such developmental changes on the part of adults, and thus produces tension, resentment, and resistance in individuals (Knowles, 1984). The growth and development of andragogy as an alternative model of instruction has helped to remedy this situation and improve the teaching of adults. But this change did not occur overnight. In fact, an important event took place some thirty years ago that affected the direction of adult education in North America and, to some extent, elsewhere as well. Andragogy as a system of ideas, concepts, and approaches to adult learning was introduced to adult educators in the United States by Malcolm Knowles. His contributions to this system have been many (1975, 1980, 1984; Knowles & Associates, 1984), and have influenced the thinking of countless educators of adults. Knowles' dialogue, debate, and subsequent writings related to andragogy have been a healthy stimulant to some of the growth of the adult education field during the past thirty years. The first use of the term "andragogy" to catch the widespread attention of adult educators was in 1968, when Knowles, then a professor of adult education at Boston University, introduced the term (then spelled "androgogy") through a journal article. In a 1970 book (a second edition was published in 1980) he defined the term as the art and science of helping adults learn. His thinking had changed to the point that in the 1980 edition he suggested the following: ". . . andragogy is simply another model of assumptions about adult learners to be used alongside the pedagogical model of assumptions, thereby providing two alternative models for testing out the assumptions as to their 'fit' with particular situations. Furthermore, the models are probably most useful when seen not as dichotomous but rather as two ends of a spectrum , with a realistic assumption (about learners) in a given situation falling in between the two ends" (Knowles, 1980, p. 43 ). The andragogical model as conceived by Knowles is predicated on four basic assumptions about learners, all of which have some relationship to our notions about a learner's ability, need, and desire to take responsibility for learning: 1. Their self-concept moves from dependency to independency or self-directedness. 2. They accumulate a reservoir of experiences that can be used as a basis on which to build learning. 3. Their readiness to learn becomes increasingly associated with the developmental tasks of social roles. 4. Their time and curricular perspectives change from postponed to immediacy of application and from subject-centeredness to performance-centeredness (1980, pp. 4445). Andragogy as a concept and set of assumptions about adults was actually not new to Knowles' popularization of the term. Anderson and Lindeman (1927) had first used the word in the United States via a published piece, although Stewart (1986a, 1986b) notes that Lindeman apparently even used the term as early as 1926. Brookfield (1984) suggests that Anderson and Lindeman drew upon the work of a German author of the 1920's, Eugene Rosenstock. However, Davenport and Davenport (1985) assert that the word was first coined in 1833 by Kapp, a German teacher.

Several European countries, such as Hungary, Poland, and Yugoslavia, also had used the term prior to 1968. Hungarian educators, for example, place teaching and learning within an overall system called "anthropogogy" (Savicevic, 1981). This system is subdivided into pedagogy (dealing with youth education) and andragogy (concerned with adult education). There is some variety, too, in the application of related terms. Some countries use adult pedagogy, one (the Soviet Union) uses the term auto didactic among others to refer to adult education activities, and a few countries use andragology to refer to andragogical science (Knoll, 1981, p. 92). Outside of North America there actually are two dominant viewpoints: ". . . one by which the theoretical framework of adult education is found in pedagogy or its branch, adult pedagogy . . . and the other by which the theoretical framework of adult education is found in andragogy . . . as a relatively independent science that includes a whole system of andragogic disciplines" (Savicevic, 1981, p. 88). Knowles in describing his particular version of andragogy associated it with a variety of instructional suggestions and he, too, detailed roles of facilitation for instructors and talked about ways of helping learners maximize their learning abilities. His early work with andragogy and subsequent interpretation of the learning projects research by Tough (1978) and others led to a 1975 publication on self-directed learning where he provides a variety of inquiry projects and learning resources on the topic. Knowles (1975) offered some reasons for his evolving scholarship in the area of self-directed learning. One immediate reason was the emerging evidence that people who take initiative in educational activities seem to learn more and learn things better then what resulted from more passive individuals. He noted a second reason that self-directed learning appears "more in tune with our natural process of psychological development" (1975, p. 14). Knowles observed that an essential aspect of the maturation process is the development of an ability to take increasing responsibility for life. A third reason was the observation that the many evolving educational innovations (nontraditional programs, Open University, weekend colleges, etc.) throughout the world require that learners assume a heavy responsibility and initiative in their own learning. Knowles also suggested a more long-term reason in terms of individual and collective survival: ". . . it is tragic that we have not learned how to learn without being taught, and it is probably more important than all of the immediate reasons put together. Alvin Toffler calls this reason 'future shock'. The simple truth is that we are entering into a strange new world in which rapid change will be the only stable characteristic" (Knowles, 1975, p. 15). It is this ability to carry out individual learning long after the stimulation of some activity like a class or workshop is completed that we believe results from individualizing the instructional process (Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990). Knowles and the andragogical movement as some refer to it, has not been without critics. Carlson (1989) summarizes some of the concerns many people have had about Knowles at times zealous promotion of andragogy. Welton (1995) brought together four other colleagues who share in various ways a more radical philosophy of adult education. They present several arguments against aspects of andragogy and self-directed learning. However, it is clear that andragogy and Malcolm Knowles have brought considerable attention to the adult education field as a separate field during the past three decades. Applied correctly, the andragogical approach to teaching and learning in the hands of a skilled and dedicated facilitator can make a positive impact on the adult learner. Appendix A provides a bibliography that contains many of the references devoted to andragogy and Malcolm Knowles. Source: http://www-distance.syr.edu/andraggy.html

Self-Directed Learning Prepared by: Mardziah Hayati Abdullah ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication Digest #169 The concept of Self-Directed Learning (SDL) is one which educators have investigated and discussed for many years. This Digest will examine the basic tenets of SDL, and it will discuss recently conducted research findings germane to its application in K-12 classrooms.

What is Self-Directed Learning?

Self-directed learning, which has its roots in adult education, is an approach that has also been tried with learners in elementary and secondary schools. There may be slight variations in how different educators define SDL, but a survey of the literature on the subject identifies several tenets that are central to the concept. * As the term suggests, SDL views learners as responsible owners and managers of their own learning process. SDL integrates self-management (management of the context, including the social setting, resources, and actions) with self-monitoring (the process whereby the learners monitor, evaluate and regulate their cognitive learning strategies) (Bolhuis, 1996; Garrison, 1997). * SDL recognizes the significant role of motivation and volition in initiating and maintaining learners' efforts. Motivation drives the decision to participate, and volition sustains the will to see a task through to the end so that goals are achieved (Corno, 1992; Garrison, 1997). * In SDL, control gradually shifts from teachers to learners. Learners exercise a great deal of independence in setting learning goals and deciding what is worthwhile learning as well as how to approach the learning task within a given framework (Lyman, 1997; Morrow, Sharkey, & Firestone, 1993). * Teachers scaffold learning by making learning 'visible.' They model learning strategies and work with students so that they develop the ability to use them on their own (Bolhuis, 1996; Corno, 1992; Leal, 1993). * SDL is, ironically, highly collaborative. Learners collaborate with teachers and peers in (Guthrie, Alao & Rinehart; 1997; Temple & Rodero, 1995). * SDL develops domain-specific knowledge as well as the ability to transfer conceptual knowledge to new situations. It seeks to bridge the gap between school knowledge and realworld problems by considering how people learn in real life (Bolhuis, 1996; Temple & Rodero, 1995). What are the benefits of Self-Directed Learning?

The benefits of SDL are best described in terms of the type of learners it develops. The literature on SDL asserts that self-directed learners demonstrate a greater awareness of their responsibility in making learning meaningful and monitoring themselves (Garrison, 1997). They are curious and willing to try new things (Lyman, 1997), view problems as challenges, desire change, and enjoy learning (Taylor, 1995). Taylor also found them to be motivated and persistent, independent, self-disciplined, self-confident and goal-oriented. Self-directed learning allows learners to be more effective learners and social beings. Guthrie, et al. (1996) noted that the self-directed learners in a Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) program demon-strated the ability to search for information in multiple texts, employ different strategies to achieve goals, and to represent ideas in different forms (drawing and writing). Morrow, et al. (1993) observe that with proper planning and implementation, selfdirected learning can encourage students to develop their own rules and leadership patterns. What can teachers do to support Self-Directed Learning?

One of the most important tasks of the teacher is to raise student awareness of their roles in learning. Taylor (1995) suggests engaging students in discussion on topics from the SelfDirected Learning Readiness Scale. Examples of topics are: I know that I want to learn and that I am a learner, so if I want to learn something, I can, and I like to learn and to solve problems because I know that thinking 'hard' can be fun. The exercise of evaluating oneself on such topics was found to have positively influenced learner awareness. Lyman (1997), who works with readers, suggests generating similar discussion through the use of questions designed to help learners become aware of what good readers do and how to become one. Among the examples he provides are: Did you read better today than yesterday? Could you keep the ideas in your book straight in your mind? Were there words you did not know? How did you figure them out? Learner participation in decision-making is another fundamental aspect of the SDL approach. Taylor advocates involving students in decisions concerning what is to be learned, when and how it should be learned, and how it should be evaluated. In addition, every proponent of SDL emphasizes the importance of allowing learners to pursue their own interests so that learning becomes more meaningful. Morrow, et al. (1993) report that when writers are allowed to choose their own topics, they write more often and they write longer pieces. Students do not have to be given total freedom, however. Teachers could, for instance, establish a thematic framework within which students are given choices (Guthrie, et al., 1997; Temple & Rodero, 1995). Lyman (1997) and Bolhuis (1996) stress that teachers who want to encourage SDL must free themselves from a preoccupation with tracking and correcting errors, a practice that is egothreatening (Guthrie, et al. 1996). Lyman and Bolhuis advocate greater tolerance of uncertainty and encourage risk-taking, and capitalizing on learners' strong points instead of focusing on weaknesses, as it is more beneficial for learners to achieve a few objectives of importance to them than it is to fulfill all the objectives that are important to the teacher. Leal (1993) advocates allowing learners to explore ideas through peer discussions - even without fully intact answers - a process that can yield new and valuable insights. Corno (1992) suggests allowing learners to pursue personal interests without the threat of formal evaluation. Even if they make mistakes while doing so, the activities will sustain their interest, transcend frustration, and eventually break barriers to achievement. According to Lyman, Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading may be one way of accomplishing this objective in the reading classroom.

To establish the habit of self-monitoring, teachers need to encourage learners to reflect on what they did and to revise attempted work (Corno, 1992). Keeping journals is one way of maintaining a record of the learning process. Since SDL stresses meaningful learning, Temple and Rodero (1995) advocate a situated learning approach, in which teachers bring real-life problems into the classroom for learners to work on. They advise against 'sugar-coating' work with fun, the rationale being that if the tasks are meaningful, learners will work on them willingly. Learners should also be allowed to collaborate with the teacher in determining deadlines and other regulations. Finally, teachers need to model learning strategies such as predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing, so that students will develop the ability to use these strategies on their own. Teachers also need to allow individual learners to approach a task in different ways using different strategies (Many, Fyfe, Lewis, & Mitchell, 1996). Researchers have found that as children grow, they have an increasing desire for autonomy. SDL may be one way of harnessing that natural desire to help achieve a meaningful learning experience that will last through adulthood. References

Bolhuis, S. (1996). Towards Active and Selfdirected Learning. Preparing for Lifelong Learning, with Reference to Dutch Secondary Education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New York, NY, April 8-12, 1996). Corno, L. (1992). Encouraging Students to Take Responsibility for Learning and Performance. Elementary School Journal; v93 n1 p69-83 Sep 1992. [EJ453441] Garrison, D.R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. In Adult Education Quarterly, Fall 97 v 48 n 1, p18, 16 p. Guthrie, J.T., Solomon, A. & Rinehart, J.M. (1997). Engagement in Reading for Young Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy; v40 n6 p438-46 Mar 1997. [EJ547197] Guthrie, J.T, and Others. (1996). Growth of Literacy Engagement: Changes in Motivations and Strategies during Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly; v31 n3 p306-32 Jul-Sep 1996. [EJ530522] Leal, D.J. (1993). The Power of Literary Peer-Group Discussions: How Children Collaboratively Negotiate Meaning. Reading Teacher; v47 n2 p114-20 Oct 1993. [EJ470287] Hunt, L.C., Jr. (1997). The Effect of Self-Selection, Interest, and Motivation Upon Independent, Instructional, and Frustrational Levels. Reading Teacher; v50 n4 p278-82 DecJan 1996-97. [EJ547089] Many, J.E., Fyfe, R., Lewis, G. & Mitchell, E. (1996). Traversing the Topical Landscape: Exploring Students' Self-Directed Reading-Writing-Research Processes. Reading Research Quarterly; v31 n1 p12-35 Jan-Mar 1996. [EJ521366] Morrow, L.M. & Others (1993). Promoting Independent Reading and Writing through SelfDirected Literacy Activities in a Collaborative Setting. Reading Research Report No. 2. [ED356455] Taylor, B. (1995). Self-Directed Learning: Revisiting an Idea Most Appropriate for Middle School Students. Paper presented at the Combined Meeting of the Great Lakes and Southeast International Reading Association, Nashville, TN, Nov 11-15. [ED395287]

Temple, C., & Rodero, M.L. (1995). Active Learning in a Democratic Classroom: The "Pedagogical Invariants" of Celestin Freinet (Reading around the World). Reading Teacher; v49 n2 p164-67 Oct 1995. [EJ515907] Source: http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d169.html