Knowless self directed 3

International Journal
of
Self-Directed Learning®
Volume 8, Number 1
Spring 2011

The International Journal of Self-Directed Learning (ISSN 1934-3701) is published
biannually by the International Society for Self-Directed Learning. It is a refereed,
electronic journal founded to disseminate scholarly papers that document research,
theory, or innovative or exemplary practice in self-directed learning. Submission
guidelines can be found at http://www.sdlglobal.com
SUBSCRIPTION or BACK COPY ORDERS: Contact:
International Journal of Self-Directed Learning
7339 Reserve Creek Drive, Port Saint Lucie, FL 34986
issdl.sdlglobal@gmail.com
© 2011, International Society for Self-Directed Learning. All rights reserved. No portion
of this journal may be reproduced without written consent. Exceptions are limited to
copying as permitted by Sections 107 (“fair use”) and 108 (“libraries and archives”) of the
U. S. Copyright Law. To obtain permission for article reproduction, contact the editors at:
issdl.sdlglobal@gmail.com
Cover design by Gabrielle Consulting

International Journal of Self-Directed Learning Volume 8, Number 1, Spring 2011
i
Volume 8, Number 1, Spring 2011
EDITOR
Lucy Madsen Guglielmino, Florida Atlantic University
EDITOR EMERITUS
Huey B. Long, University of Oklahoma (Emeritus)
EDITORIAL BOARD
Naomi Boyer, University of South Florida Polytechnic
Ralph G. Brockett, University of Tennessee
Robert J. Bulik, University of Texas Medical Branch
Rosemary Caffarella,, Cornell University
Philippe Carré, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, France
Gary J. Confessore George Washington University (Emeritus)
Richard E. Durr, Online Training Institute
Brian Findley, Palm Beach State College
Paul J. Guglielmino, Florida Atlantic University (Retired)
Joan H. Hanor, California State University San Marcos
Roger Hiemstra, Syracuse University (Emeritus)
Waynne James, University of South Florida
Carol Kasworm, North Carolina State University
William J. Kops, University of Manitoba, Canada
Theresa N. Liddell, School District of Palm Beach County
Patricia A. Maher, University of South Florida
Sharan Merriam, University of Georgia (Emeritus)
Magdalena Mo Ching Mok, The Hong Kong Institute of Education
Albertina Oliveira, University of Coimbra, Portugal
EunMi Park, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Janet Piskurich, Paul L. Foster Medical School, Texas Tech
George Piskurich, ACS, a Xerox Company
Michael K. Ponton, Regent University
Kathleen B. Rager, University of Oklahoma
Thomas G. Reio, Jr., Florida International University
Karen Wilson Scott, Idaho State University
Peter L. Zsiga, St. Lucie County Schools, Indian River State College
Editorial Associate: Elizabeth G. Swann
Webmaster: Richard E. Durr, Online Training Institute

ii
Preface
Self-directed learning is coming of age….
In recognition of the 25th
International Self-Directed Symposium, held in
February 2011, this issue begins with some brief comments on the history and impact of
these annual gatherings over the last quarter century from the Editor and the Editor
Emeritus and an introduction to the International Society for Self-Directed Learning,
which grew out of the annual symposia and now sponsor them as well as this journal.
Continuing a tradition begun in the first issue of this journal to provide an
international perspective that reflects cultural differences in the interpretation and
terminology of self-directed learning, Philippe Carré and some of his colleagues present
an in-depth view of l’Autoformation, self-directed learning in France.
Then four authors who presented invited papers at the first International Self-
Directed Learning Symposium in 1986 offer expansions or new perspectives on their
topics. Carol Kasworm explored self-directed learning in institutional contexts in her 1986
paper, arguing that “acts of self-directed learning” should be conceptually framed through
adult developmental theories, focused upon qualitative cognitive and affective change and
growth. To that contention she adds new insights, primarily based on the work of Magolda
and Kegan. Paul and Lucy Guglielmino, who focused on self-directed learning in business
and industry as an information age imperative in 1986, report on an outgrowth of the
cross-cultural examination of self-directed learning in business and industry over the last
30 years: data that indicate very strong associations between self-directed learning
readiness, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and country economic indicators. Finally,
Roger Hiemstra argues that, despite the many years of research and discussion on the
benefits of self-directed learning and the approaches that promote its development in the
classroom, many educators and trainers still rely on traditional approaches. He reiterates
and expands on his suggestions to bring practice into alignment with the SDL
approaches that have proven more promising.
Lucy M. Guglielmino, Editor

iii
______________________________________________________________________
Volume 8, Number 1, Spring 2011
CONTENTS
Preface ii
The International Self-Directed Learning Symposium: A 25-Year Perspective
Lucy M. Guglielmino and Huey B. Long 1
L’autoformation: The State of Research on Self (-Directed) Learning in France
Philippe Carré, Annie Jézégou, Jonathan Kaplan, Pascal Cyrot, and Noël
Denoyel 7
New Perspectives on Post-Formal Cognitive Development and Self-Directed Learning
Carol Kasworm
18
An Exploration of Cultural Dimensions and Economic Indicators As Predictors of
Self-Directed Learning Readiness
Paul J. Guglielmino and Lucy M. Guglielmino 29
Self-Directed Learning: Individualizing Instruction – Most Still Do It Wrong!
Roger Hiemstra 46

Perspectives
1
Perspectives:
The International Society for Self-Directed Learning and
The International Self-Directed Learning Symposium
Lucy Madsen Guglielmino and Huey B. Long
On the 25th
anniversary of the first International Self-Directed Learning
Symposium (ISDLS), the authors describe the International Society for Self-
Directed Learning (ISSDL), an organization that grew out of the
Symposium and now sponsors it; and detail the history and some of the
contributions of the Symposia. They also note the Malcolm Knowles
Memorial Award given by the ISSDL, which recognizes individuals who
have made significant lifelong contributions to the field of self-directed
learning.
Self-direction in learning is coming of of age; it is now recognized as a dynamic
combination of attitudes and skills, essential for dealing with the complexity individuals
face in all aspects of their lives. In educational institutions at all levels, the development
of skills and attitudes supportive of self-direction in learning is now often an integral
part of mission and goals statements. Accreditation standards of medical programs and
engineering programs incorporate a requirement for evidence of preparation of future
doctors, nurses, engineers, pharmacists, and physical therapists, among others, for future
lifelong, self-directed learning (For example, National Academy of Engineering, 2004;
Simon & Aschenbrener, 2005). In business and industry human resource development,
there is increasing recognition that, in a highly competitive global economy, employees
can no longer be taught everything they need to learn in order to help their organizations
remain relevant and productive (Friedman, 2005). Instead, each individual in the
organization must be constantly alert to opportunities to improve products, systems, or
services; and they must be capable of learning what they need to know in order to do
that. There can no longer be a few visionaries assessing the needs of organizations and
passing the needs along to trainers who design programs. Change is happening too fast.
Senge’s (2006) call for the learning organization is now clearly heard by all, if not yet
perfectly understood. In addition, as Pink (2009) so eloquently documented, the old
training approach, normally based on a “carrots and sticks” mentality, has been
demonstrated in research to actually reduce motivation for task completion and for
learning in many situations (p. 35).

Perspectives
2
Our world is vastly different now from the world we lived in 25 years ago. The
few who were calling insistently for more attention to preparing both children and adults
for self-direction in learning are finally being heard, and the echoes are global—but the
work is not done. Many questions still exist, and many who are in positions where
facilitation of learning should be the norm continue to fall back on the stale and
motivation-sapping lecture-and-test syndrome. We are in the middle of a paradigm shift
in institutional and organizational approaches to learning, and paradigm shifts require
time, trial and error, research and application, and constant adaptation and re-invention.
The period of change is inevitably marked by enthusiasm, innovation, and creative
response by some; and by resistance, false starts, and disjunction of espoused theories
and theories of use by others. The need for research and information dissemination on
self-direction in learning continues to be a vital one.
On the occasion of the 25th
International Self-Directed Learning Symposium, it
seems appropriate to document the inception of the International Society for Self-
Directed Learning (ISSDL), which now sponsors the symposia and this journal, and to
reflect on the contributions of the annual symposia over the past quarter-century.
The International Society for Self-Directed Learning (ISSDL)
The International Society for Self-Directed Learning exists because of the
continued need for dedicated research in the critical area of self-directed learning.
Founded in 2006 by a group of researchers attending the 20th
International Self-Directed
Learning Symposium, the ISSDL formed as a Florida nonprofit corporation in 2007,
with the papers being filed as of January 1, 2008.
We are dedicated to
• the promotion of self-directed, lifelong learning and
• the encouragement and dissemination of continued research on self-
directed learning both within and outside of institutional contexts
(ISSDL, 2011, p.1).
Those contexts include childhood education, higher education, adult education, training
and human resource development, as well as informal and non-formal learning settings.
The ISSDL offers two major venues for information exchange and research
dissemination:
The International Self-Directed Learning Symposium
Founded by Dr. Huey Long in 1986, the Symposium provides an annual
international forum for the presentation and discussion of current developments
in the study and application of self-directed learning.
The International Journal of Self-Directed Learning
Published biannually since 2004, the IJSDL is a refereed, electronic journal
founded to disseminate scholarly papers that document research, theory, or
innovative or exemplary practice in self-directed learning. Founding co-editors
were Lucy M. Guglielmino and Huey B. Long.

Perspectives
3
The ISSDL maintains a website to disseminate the journal and to provide
information about the Symposium. For information on paper submission for the
symposium or article submission for the journal, go to www.sdlglobal.com. Both
Maurice Gibbons (2011) and Roger Hiemstra (2011) maintain links to
www.sdlglobal.com on their excellent and very active SDL websites.
The ISSDL also presents the Malcolm S. Knowles Memorial Award to honor
Knowles for his pioneering contributions to the study and practice of self-direction in
learning and to recognize others who have made significant lifelong contributions to the
field of self-directed learning. Further information about each of these three functions
follows.
Contributions of the Symposium
For 25 years, a group of researchers have been devoted to exploring the
phenomenon of self-direction in learning at the International Self-Directed Learning
Symposia. In 1986, approximately 20 years had passed since Houle’s (1961) and
Tough’s (1967) seminal research, closely followed by some major studies in the 1970’s
(for example, Brookfield, 1978; Gibbons et al., 1980; Guglielmino, 1978; Hiemstra,
1976; Long, 1975). Noting the proliferation of research in this area, Huey Long invited
a small group of individuals who had been involved in research and writing on self-
direction in learning to share and discuss their work. Nine presentations were given by
14 researchers to an audience that included 25 other scholars and students of self-
directed learning (Long & Associates, 1988, p. x). Setting a pattern that continues to this
day, each presentation was followed by an opportunity for the listeners to question,
critique, and suggest refinements.
At the symposia, the research is rigorous, but the atmosphere is informal. In
keeping with the concept of fostering self-direction in learning, we strive to develop a
true learning community. The rigor: All proposals are refereed, and those accepted for
paper presentations are required to submit their papers a month before the symposium.
Each paper presenter is assigned a reactor, who receives the paper in advance and leads
the discussion after the paper is presented. The atmosphere: Collegial discussions and
constructive feedback are the norm. We strive to create a true learning community.
The symposia have provided an international forum for the discussion of
important current developments in research and theory-building related to self-directed
learning, as well as opportunities to study successful models of the application of SDL
concepts and processes in a rich variety of contexts. For those whose research focus is
self-direction in learning, the symposia offer a valuable stimulus to research and
discussion in which new conceptualizations and applications can be explored and
cooperative research efforts germinated and nurtured. This opportunity is especially
helpful for graduate students, who often comment in their evaluations of the experience.
A few comments reflect the participants’ perceptions of the value of the Symposium:
• The Symposium was a wonderful opportunity to meet some of the major
researchers in self-directed learning. . . . I think it should be on a must-

Perspectives
4
attend list for any student, practitioner, or faculty member interested in
this line of research. . . .
• The value of the SDL Symposium for me is that we talk across
boundaries and form a true learning community.
Books and CDs Originating From the Symposia
After receiving feedback at the symposia, researchers are encouraged to revise
their papers and submit them for publication. From 1986 through 2003, the revised
papers were then submitted for editorial review and selected papers were published as
book chapters in print or CD format. Sixteen books or CDs including 288 chapters were
published. An index to the chapters was created by a symposium attendee, Travis
Plowman, and it is accessible on the Society’s website, (www.sdlglobal.com).
The International Journal of Self-Directed Learning
Since 2004, researchers have been encouraged to submit their revised papers to
this peer-reviewed journal, the International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, which
also accepts independent contributions. Some of the presented papers have, of course,
been submitted elsewhere for publication. This journal marks the 15th
issue; 82 articles
have been published, and the evidence indicates that the journal has been well-received.
In addition to numerous citations of the IJSDL articles in other refereed journals, the
ISSDL has received a number of requests to link to specific articles, reprint, or repost
them. A few examples:
• The Canadian College of Health Leaders incorporated a page from
Volume 5, Number 1, “Why Self-Directed Learning?” to make the case
for the value of self-directed learning in their Maintenance of
Certification Program Policy and Requirements.
• Maurice Gibbons requested permission to repost the lead article from
Volume 7, Number 2 on his website.
An index by author and title is available on the ISSDL website (www.sdlglobal.com).
The Malcolm Knowles Award
The first Malcolm Knowles Award was presented in 2001 to honor the memory
of Knowles’ contributions to the field of self-directed learning and to recognize Huey
Long, the Symposium’s founder for his lifelong contributions to the field. Nominations
are now accepted only from the previous awardees. Sample documentation includes (a)
involvement in SDL (research, practice, writing) for a lengthy portion of the nominee’s
career, (b) recognized research and/or publications in SDL, (c) supervision of doctoral
students researching SDL, (d) development or implementation of an innovation that
contributed significantly to the field, and (e) other important contributions to the
advancement of SDL.

Perspectives
5
Those who have been recognized with the Malcolm Knowles Award for
significant lifelong contribution to the field of self-directed learning are:
2001 Huey B. Long, University of Oklahoma, U.S. (Emeritus)
2002 Lucy M. and Paul J. Guglielmino, Florida Atlantic University, U. S.
2004 Ralph G. Brockett, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, U.S.
2005 Roger Hiemstra, Syracuse University (Emeritus)
2006 Allen Tough, University of Toronto, Canada (Emeritus)
2007 Maurice Gibbons, Simon Fraser University, Canada (Emeritus) and
Gary Confessore, George Washington University, U.S.(Emeritus)
2008 Richard Durr, Motorola University, Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S. (Retired)
2009 Sharan Merriam, University of Georgia, U.S. (Emeritus) and
Rosemary Caffarella, Cornell University, New York, U.S.
2010 Philippe Carre, University of Paris, France
2011 Naomi Boyer, Polk State College, Florida, U.S. and
Robert Bulik, LPI Global Consultants, Texas, U.S.
The first 25 years have been productive, generating helpful research findings and
many new questions to be explored at future symposia.
References
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Gibbons, M. (2011). Self-Directed learning. (Website). http://www.selfdirectedlearning.
com/index.html
Gibbons, M., Bailey, A., Comeau, P., Schmuck, J., Seymour, S., & Wallace, D. (1980).
Toward a theory of self-directed learning: A study of experts without formal
training. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 20, 41-56.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1978). Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 6467A.
Hiemstra, R. (1976). Lifelong learning. Lincoln, NE: Professional Educators
Publications.
Hiemstra, R. (2011). Roger Hiemstra’s webpage. (Website). http://www-
distance.syr.edu/
Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Johnstone, J. W., & Rivera, R. (1965). Volunteers for learning: A study of the
educational pursuits of adults. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Knowles, M. S. (1970) The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus
pedagogy. New York, NY: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New
York, NY: Association Press.
Long, H. B. (1975). Independent study in the education of Colonial adults. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 8, 54-65.
Long, H. B., & Associates (1988). Self-directed learning: Application and theory.
Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Department of Adult Education.

Perspectives
6
National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press, 2004.
Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Currency.
Simon, F. A., & Aschenbrener, C. A. (2005). Undergraduate medical education
accreditation as a driver of lifelong learning. Journal of Continuing Education in
the Health Professions, 25(3), 157-161.
Lucy M. Guglielmino (lguglie@fau.edu) is founding editor of IJSDL and current chair of
the ISSDL Board of Directors.
Huey B. Long (longhb@yahoo.com) is the founder of the International Self-Directed
Learning Symposium, co-editor emeritus of IJSDL, and founding co-chair of the ISSDL
Board of Directors.

L’Autoformation
7
L’Autoformation: The State Of Research
On Self- (Directed) Learning In France
Philippe Carré, Annie Jézégou, Jonathan Kaplan, Pascal Cyrot,
and Noël Denoyel
The term autoformation (literally, self-learning) first appeared in French
literature on education in the early 1970's, within the wake of the lifelong
education movement. Globally, the notion of autoformation may be
viewed according to five complementary perspectives: radical
(autodidactism), sociocognitive, educational, organizational, and
biographical, which are presented here. These diverse views are united by
a common thread: the role of agency, i.e. the human capacity to make
choices and decisions and act on one's own, in the field of adult learning
and development. Paradoxically, at a time when the European Union
promotes the image of a lifelong, independent learner within a cognitive
society in the making, autoformation appears as both essential and
hazardous for the future of adult education in France.
The term autoformation (literally, self-learning) first appeared in French
literature on education in the early 1970's, in the wake of the lifelong education
movement, in the seminal writings of established authors such as Dumazedier (1985),
Schwartz (1973), and Pineau (1977). A first collection of articles specifically devoted to
the topic appeared a few years after the upsurge of the concept of self-directed learning
in North America (Dumazedier, 1985). By the end of the 1980's a link between both
strands of research was established in France and Quebec (Carré, 1992; Tremblay,
2003).
For the past 25 years, a common thread has united several views of
autoformation, which will be presented here. Whichever the focus, each of them stresses
a common paradigm of agency in learning and self-development. The concept of
autoformation places the emphasis on the learner’s personal control of his or her learning
(learning by oneself), as opposed to the idea of heteroformation (learning through the
action of others). In spite of differences and even oppositions between perspectives that
we shall examine in this paper, all of them underline the agentic dimension of learning.
The idea of autoformation implies looking at education, learning, and development from
the angle of the agent’s personal power to act, as the French philosopher Ricœur (1986)
put it, in accordance with Bandura’s image of people as “at least partial architects of
their own destinies” (1997, p. 8). According to this view, there is room for freedom and
choice in the individual’s way of leading his or her life and learning, alongside and

L’Autoformation
8
beyond the constraints of historical, social, and biographical determinants that French
sociology and clinical psychology have repeatedly uncovered for the past 50 years.
Within this common paradigmatic view, there is room for autoformation as a powerful
agentic lever of human learning and change.
Globally, the notion of autoformation may be viewed according to five
complementary perspectives. According to the oldest view, which could be labeled
radical, what is at stake is the learner’s complete control of his or her learning, in total
independence from educational agents or institutions. We are close to the historical
notion of autodidactism here. Secondly, a more psychological, sociocognitive approach,
draws us closer to the North American notion of self-directed learning, with a deliberate
focus on the psychological dimensions of adult learning (Long, 1989; Carré, Moisan, &
Poisson, 2010). When leaders and teachers endeavor to promote learners’ self-direction
within schools, training centers or open learning programs, we are faced with a third
educational conception of autoformation. Fourth, an organizational perspective
examines collective practice of autonomous learning in ‘natural’ settings such as trade
unions, voluntary organizations, companies and local communities. Lastly, a
biographical outlook, strongly linked to the phenomenological approach of life histories,
focuses on human experience as deciphered and analyzed by the agent himself or
herself. Let us now turn to these different views.
Radical Perspective: Autodidactism
Autodidactism is an old term. It comes from the Greek autos (self) and didaskein
(to teach) and is synonymous with self-teaching. There are many different terms for self-
education. As Tough (1967) writes,
…Self-teaching has also been called self-instruction, self-education, independent
study, individual study and self-directed study. The term self-teacher has been
used to refer to any person while he [sic] is engaged in self-teaching.… Self-
teachers have also been called autonomous learners, self-propelled learners, and
autodidacts. (p. 3)
As an archetypal figure of clandestine learning, the autodidact epitomizes in Europe a
bygone way of learning. When sociologists became interested in this issue they devised
a sociological category for autodidacts. Some recognized that autodidacts lose their
sense of belonging to a social class in their cultural promotion efforts; others distinguish
the old-style autodidacts from the new-style ones, or the true from the false. Obviously,
these scientific works are very helpful for the understanding of this ancestral and
particular way of learning, but now it seems more appropriate to work on the process of
self-teaching in a world where knowledge is more and more short-lived; a world that
prompts everyone to indulge in independent learning at some point. Today’s processes
of self-teaching are in effect different from the old ones. Compulsory schooling does
away with the entirely personal learning, which carries the mythical model of the
autodidact, and invites us to focus on the activity. We can then consider that a self-
teaching episode develops outside of the school environment and independently of a

L’Autoformation
9
full-time tutor or mentor. One also needs to distinguish between intentional and
unintentional learning. Such episodes are free of any external aims or syllabi, but may
rely on the help of others.
In line with the French concept of apprenance (Carré, 2005), autodidactism
exists, and has always existed, in all professions. We encounter autodidactism in ancient
Greece as well as in Arab philosophy; in working classes as well as in upper ones;
during the French Renaissance as well as among African-American slaves.
Characteristics of autodidactism differ through the ages. For example, during the Age of
Enlightenment, autodidactism seems to have mainly been an aristocratic peculiarity; but,
right after the French Revolution it seems to have become extremely proletarian. As
much as historians have neglected this issue, educationalists have worked on it ever
since the late 1960’s. Across the Atlantic, Tough (1967) focused on adult self-teaching
projects and questioned the reasons for beginning and pursuing a learning episode; Spear
and Mocker (1984) underlined the organizing circumstances in self-directed learning;
and Tremblay (1981) studied the needs for assistance during self-teaching periods. More
recently in France, Le Meur (1998) identified the elements of a professional neo-
autodidactism; Verrier (1999) endeavored to gain better understanding of contemporary
self-teaching; while Bézille-Lesquoy (2003) noticed the discrepancies between
autodidactic representations and practices. Nevertheless, self-teaching is seldom
considered through the relationships which support it. If we focus on self-teaching
sociabilities, we can easily identify that self-teachers’ social networks are very important
throughout past and contemporary independent learning phases (Cyrot, 2007).
Furthermore, the new social networking websites (FaceBook, Hi5…) bring this issue to
the fore. Through vastly increased possibilities of high-speed horizontal communication
between peers, opportunities for group autodidactism are soaring.
Scientific interest in the matter certainly prompts new respect for this kind of
learning. Indeed, often derided in literature or in everyday life, the formerly stigmatized
self-learner is gaining increasing legitimacy in France; more so since legislation on
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) came into effect on January 17, 2002 (Ministère de
l’Éducation Nationale, 2011), allowing academic institutions to deliver formal
recognition for curricular units; and, if all requisites are fulfilled, to deliver degrees on
the basis of life experiences.
Social-Cognitive Perspective: Self-Direction in Learning
The next perspective on autoformation is directly inspired by the works of
several North American authors on self-directed learning from the 1960’s and 1970’s,
such as Houle (1961), Knowles (1975), Long (1975), Tough (1967), Hiemstra (1976)
and Guglielmino (1978), as noted by Carré (1992). A global sociocognitive model of
self-learning was gradually elaborated on this basis, using three key psychological
concepts targeting both to better understand agentic learning processes, and to
understand environmental conditions. The emerging theory articulates the concepts of
self-determination, self-regulation and self-efficacy within a common framework (Carré,
Moisan, & Poisson, 2010).

L’Autoformation
10
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) helps us identify the role of self-
processes in human motivation, choice and decision-making within the area of learning
and education. The self-determination continuum spans the gamut of possibilities
between absence of motivation and fully self-determined action, with varying other-
determined forms of action in between. What is at stake here is the understanding of
personal control (or the lack thereof) in learning projects, educational choice,
commitment, persistence and efficiency in adult training and development. The core of
research efforts in this domain is on adult learners’ initial motivation, decision, freedom
and choice to learn… or not to.
When it comes to actual learning behavior, self-regulated learning theory
(Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008) provides us with an ideally suited empirical and notional
framework in order to investigate and promote agency during the learning process itself,
once the decision to embark on a learning project has been made. There is a surprising
lack of interaction between the two research traditions of self-regulation and self-
direction in learning, which opens an avenue for empirical and theoretical work within
the sociocognitive perspective of autoformation.
Underlying the two basic concepts of self-determination and self-regulation, a
third milestone of the sociocognitive approach is self-efficacy, also encompassed by
self-determination theory under the heading of perception of competence. The role of
self-efficacy in self-directed learning has been delineated in numerous recent studies. It
is a major determinant of both self-determined and self-regulated action and thought. As
Bandura (1997) states, “Unless people believe that they can produce desired results by
their actions, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties”
(pp. 3-4). It seems quite obvious that this central statement applies strongly to self-
directed learning issues.
The sociocognitive approach formulates autoformation as the dynamic interplay
of self-determination (an autonomous, authentic free will to learn), self-regulation (the
exercise of agentic, self-controlled learning activity) and self-efficacy. Current research
in this area in France has contributed to endorse the model with empirical meaning,
based on field studies of nurses, medical doctors, managers, entrepreneurs and teachers
(Carré, Moisan, & Poisson, 2010). Future research using this approach should enable
establishing a link with the educational perspective presented below, in order to further
elaborate on issues relating to learning environments that are favorable to self-directed
learning. The notions of autonomy supportive, enabling, or capacitating learning
environments, whether they be thought of in terms of instructional design, informal
learning or digital resources, are crucial here.
Educational Perspective: Self-Learning Environments
Another important trend in research and practice in autoformation and self-
directed learning focuses on open and distance learning environments, designed and
implemented by in-house corporate training, adult education providers, and institutions
of higher education. Environments designed to individualize instruction so as to foster
more self-direction in learning can be found in classrooms, adult learning groups and

L’Autoformation
11
many face-to-face situations (Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990). But, most of the discussion on
the educational perspective in recent years in France has focused on open and distance
learning. These environments take on forms such as multimedia resource centers,
settings for individualized training, or e-learning. Instructional design in these
environments endeavors to support the expression and development of the learner's self-
direction. In France, Jézégou (2005) points to two main levers that can be used to
achieve this.
The first lever is to provide the learner with opportunities for personal decisions
or self-determination in the choice of various components of the learning environment,
while helping the person to regulate management of these components (Hiemstra, 2000;
Jézégou, 2005). The learning environments are shaped by training modalities,
pedagogical methods, course documents, distance communication tools, human
resources or spatial and temporal aspects of learning situations (Jézégou, 2008). One is
able to promote learner self-direction by providing the learner with freedom of choice in
the determination of these. The learner can thus exercise control over the structure and
manage learning situations (Garrison, 2003; Jézégou, 2005). However, opening to
freedom of choice does not automatically guarantee the learner will be self-directing.
Two fundamental aspects are in play here. The first is the learner's motivation to seize
that freedom of choice, while the second refers to his or her ability to exercise control
over the learning settings. An instructor may play a facilitating role in helping the
learner make choices, organize and manage the various aspects in these settings. To be
effective, the educational intervention requires transactions based on dialogue and
negotiation between instructor and learner according to their respective constraints and
resources (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Dron, 2007; Jézégou, 2005).
The second instructional design lever to support expression and development of
self-direction in learning is to create the organizational, pedagogical and technical
conditions to encourage collaboration between learners at a distance. Collaboration here
is seen as the conditions that enable learners to engage in a joint and common approach
for solving a problem or conducting a project. A distance collaborative approach is
based on transactions between learners (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Jézégou, 2010).
Transactions are social interactions built on confrontations of points of view, on
negotiations and deliberations. They are promoted when the socio-emotional climate
generated by the interactions between learners is based on asymmetry of the social
relationship and affability (Jézégou, 2010). Despite the geographical distance between
learners, these transactions and climate create a cognitive and socio-emotional presence
which, in turn, contributes to the emergence and the development of a learning
community (Jézégou, 2010). In addition, this collaborative dynamic allows the
expression of self-direction by each learner in the group. On one hand, it encourages the
learner to participate in making choices and organizing all aspects of the collaborative
space, and in the collective management of these aspects, while controlling his or her
behavior during interactions with other learners, as well as his or her emotions and
motivation. On the other hand, this collaborative dynamic may enable the learner to
satisfy a need for affiliation and belonging to a community, which is a driving force for
his or her distance learning. Such an approach, both collective and individual, may be
encouraged by an instructor who acts as coordinator, moderator and animator. Through

L’Autoformation
12
such interventions, and despite geographic distance, the educational agent embodies a
pedagogical presence for the learners and supports not only the transactions and socio-
emotional interactions existing within the learning community, but also motivation and
strategies of self-regulation of each learner in the community (Jézégou, 2010). These
two main levers, together or independently, contribute to open and distance learning
environments supporting the expression and development of learners’ self-direction.
Socio-Organizational Perspective: Collective Self-Learning
In contrast with the previous perspective, the Socio-Organizational Perspective
of autoformation or self-learning focuses on learning processes organized outside of
education institutions. This type of self-learning takes place in associations, unions and
other instances of civil society. It may also designate learning that takes place in
corporations when it is part of the daily work environment. The fact that the learning is
integrated into regular activities distinguishes these forms of self-learning from the
previous category which relates to institutionalized education.
Self-learning in groups relies on collective organization of the learning activities
by the persons implicated. This distinction sets collective self-learning apart from
autodidactic self-learning. In collective self-learning collective aims and individual aims
need to be accommodated for in the pursuit of learning goals. In this type of self-
learning the weight of collective aims on one hand, and those of individuals on the other,
can result in varying degrees of perceived control over choice, management, and
orientation of the learning. This does not imply that individuals risk feeling that they do
not have as much control as they may wish to when collective aims are strong. First,
collective aims may be endorsed by individuals; and secondly, individual aims can co-
exist harmoniously with collective aims. By all means, effective learning is a question of
the suitability of that which is learned within a social context. In such cases where
collective learning settings promote self-direction, the balance between individual and
collective aims becomes tangible when the boundaries of the self blur. In research that
inquired into learner self-direction in Study Circles, learners could not easily distinguish
between their inner self and their collective one when asked about their strategies when
regulating their learning. Moreover, learning regulation strategies were more often than
not, perceived as collective (Kaplan, 2010a).
One can classify in the category of collective self-learning, networks of learners
such as those organized by the Reciprocal Exchange of Knowledge Movement
(Mouvement des réseaux d'échanges réciproques de savoirs) (Héber-Suffrin, 2001)
where individual goals are salient; nevertheless, embedded in collective organizing of
the learning. Study Circles (Oliver, 1987; Kaplan, 2010b), which were used at the end
of the nineteenth century and became culturally embedded during the twentieth century
in Sweden and the Nordic countries, are illustrative of a format in which social aims
weighed more; at least this was the intention of the unions that organized them when
they were initially launched in Sweden. The reemergence of the format in the mid
nineteen eighties in other parts of the world, sometimes referred to as Learning Circles,
is generally underpinned by aspirations for social change also.

L’Autoformation
13
These examples are given as an illustration of collective self-learning;
nevertheless, many other such forms of learning occur in communities of learners. Self-
directed work teams and the learning organization (Senge, 2006) are other forms of
collective self-learning that, in the latter examples, emerge in organizational
environments. One can find many other examples in communities of practice (Wenger,
1998) such as in associations, unions, activist groups or the professions (e.g. physicians,
software programmers, educators).
When realizing the scope and effectiveness of learning in collective situations
(communities of practice, communities of learners, online communities, etc.) one can
hardly ignore their potential power to shape the environments people inhabit. Realizing
this opens up perspectives for the development of these forms of collective self-learning,
if not as a new social reality, at least with renewed interest.
Biographical Perspective: Existential and Experiential Self-Learning
The biographical perspective on existential autoformation, or self-learning, aims
to cope with the harsh modern and postmodern experience of incompleteness in adult
life. Life is not an achieved given. It still remains something to be done, repeated and
reflected on; something to which a shape must be given. This intrinsic incompleteness of
life literally founds the necessity for an ongoing process of shaping life and giving
meaning to it through biography-forming approaches. In the context of lifelong learning
in French-speaking regions, the biographical perspective, the concept of autoformation
and the research on what is possibly learned through experiential learning emerged
simultaneously, and to a certain extent in a conjunct manner, in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
They were thought to deal with essential and unseen issues, emerging on existential and
experiential levels.
Pineau and Marie-Michèle’s (1983) book Produire sa vie, autoformation et
autobiographie, can be seen as a sign of the emergence of a biographical perspective and
of autoformation in the early 1980’s. Its title underlines a vital constructivist perspective
by using the prefix auto recurrently in order to indicate a dual appropriation; by the
individual of his or her own training, and of the written expression of his or her life
story. Pineau conceives life narratives as tools allowing a process of autoformation based
on a dialogical co-investment, by the narrator and the listener, of a story in which both
promoting and hindering episodes are considered. Through such a process the narrator
produces a story of his or her life. The biographical perspective can be understood
through the use of three different terms: autobiography, life narrative, and biography
(Delory-Momberger, 2003; Pineau & Le Grand, 1992).
The term existential autoformation made its appearance in 1995 in an issue of the
journal Education Permanente entitled L’autoformation en chantiers (Self-learning
under construction) and edited by the Groupe de Recherche sur l’Autoformation
(GRAF). In 1997 Galvani’s (1997) book Quête de sens et formation (Quest for meaning
and education) was published. Existential autoformation has been studied since with
innovative phenomenological approaches such as life narratives, learning blazons and
other projective methods.

L’Autoformation
14
As early as 1991, based on Dewey’s works, Courtois and Pineau (1991)
popularized the neologism experiential in the book La Formation Expérientielle des
Adultes (Adults’ Experiential Learning) and thus anticipated the law on RPL, passed in
France in 2002. Denoyel (1999) has been working on pragmatism and semiotics in order
to formalize the concept of experiential reason through a ternary model: perceptive,
experiential and formal. Ferry (1991), after analyzing the power of experience, explores
the Peircean distinction between icon, index and symbol, in order to configure the
cognitive grammars of intelligence. Mezirow (2001) validates the reflexive turn (Schön,
1991) and suggests thinking over one’s experience to develop self-learning as an
emancipatory practice. In his view, a lived experience becomes a vital one only when it
is exposed to the community, where it must be fed with otherness. As in the case of the
related concept of autodidacy, autoformation must be accompanied, as it is in trade
unions: this training cannot be self-sufficient. Experiential continuity, as Dewey put it, is
a matter of process. Biographical approaches may reveal, through ongoing experiences
one lives, moments of intense autoformation; moments that singularize our lives and that
cannot be achieved through teaching.
Hopes and Perils of Autoformation
The notional and practical universe of autoformation or self-learning is rooted in
the traditional, historical and literary vision of autodidactism. It also explores the
potential of the most up-to-date learning resources of the information society. This
‘galaxy’ of seemingly diverse notions, based on independent empirical and theoretical
traditions and references, is held together by the common paradigm of agency that
accounts for the individual’s personal control and responsibility over his or her learning
and educational career. This shared vision of a fully adult, autonomous learner, as the
goal of education in the 21st
century, is fully supported by the ideological and political
program enshrined in the slogans of cognitive society, knowledge economy, and the
lifelong learner (Carré, 2005). Yet, we must remain watchful of the perils of a radically
liberal understanding that entails the risk of putting tomorrow’s learner in a dangerous
position of being the sole manager of his or her education. Contemporary forms of
educational Darwinism are thus at work under the banner of autoformation and self-
directed learning that could lead to neglecting or abandoning those adults who cannot
turn to self-directed learning for lack of personal resources, motivation or information.
One of the ambiguities of the autoformation / self-directed learning paradigm is that
agency in learning may at once be indispensable at the individual pedagogical level of
analysis, and highly hazardous at the macro-political level. This paradoxical pitfall calls
for even more collaboration between sociologists, psychologists and educationists
around what remains the most promising track of research into authentic adult learning
in the years to come.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H.
Freeman.

L’Autoformation
15
Bézille-Lesquoy, H. (2003). L'autodidacte. Paris, France: L'Harmattan.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on
theory, research, and practice. London, England: Routledge.
Carré, P. (1992). L'autoformation dans la formation professionnelle. Paris, France: La
Documentation Française.
Carré, P. (2005). L’apprenance - Vers un nouveau rapport au savoir. Paris, France:
Dunod.
Carré, P., Moisan, A., & Poisson, D. (Eds.). (2010). L‘autoformation: Perspectives de
recherche. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
Courtois, B., & Pineau, G. (Eds.). (1991). La formation expérientielle des adultes. Paris,
France: La Documentation Française.
Cyrot, P. (2007). Episodes et sociabilités autodidactiques (Unpublished doctoral thesis).
Université Paris X, Nanterre, France.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). What is the self in self-directed learning? Findings
from recent motivational research. In G. A. Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-
directed learning: Theoretical and conceptual considerations. LOS, Learning
Organized Self-Directed Researchgroup. (49-57). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Delory-Momberger, C. (2003). Biographie et éducation: Figures de l'individu-projet.
Paris: Anthropos.
Denoyel, N. (1999). Alternance tripolaire raison expérientielle à la lumière de la
sémiotique de Peirce. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 128, 35-42.
Dron, J. (2007). Control and constraint in e-learning: Choosing when to choose.
London: Idea Group Pub.
Dumazedier, J. (Ed.) (1985). L’autoformation. Education Permanente, 78-79.
Ferry, J.-M. (1991). Les puissances de l'expérience: Essai sur l'identité contemporaine.
Paris, France: Éditions du Cerf.
Galvani, P. (1997). Quête de sens et formation: Anthropologie du blason et de
l'autoformation. Paris, France: L'Harmattan.
Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G.
Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 161-168). Mahwah, NJ:
Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework
for research and practice. London, England: Routledge Falmer.
Groupe de Recherche sur l’Autoformation (1995). L’autoformation en chantiers.
Education Permanente, 122(1).
Guglielmino, L. M. (1978). Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale.
Héber-Suffrin, C., & Bolo, S. (2001). Échangeons nos savoirs ! Paris, France: Syros.
Hiemstra, R. (1976). Lifelong learning. Lincoln, NE: Professional Educators
Publications.
Hiemstra, R. (2000). Self-directed learning: The Personal Responsibility Model. In G. A.
Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptual
considerations. LOS, Learning Organized Self-Directed Research Group. (pp.
93-108). Munster, Germany: Waxmann.

L’Autoformation
16
Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction: Making learning personal,
empowering, and successful (Higher Education Series). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Jézégou, A. (2005). Formations ouvertes : Libertés de choix et autodirection de
l'apprenant. Paris, France: L'Harmattan.
Jézégou, A. (2008). Apprentissage autodirigé et formation à distance. Distances et
Savoirs, 6(3), 343-364.
Jézégou, A. (2010). Créer de la présence à distance en e-learning: Cadre théorique,
définition et dimensions clés. Distances et Savoirs, 8(2), 11-28.
Kaplan, J. (2010a). From self-direction to co-direction in adult cooperative learning. In
S. M. Brigham & D. Plumb (Eds.), Connected understanding: Linkages between
theory and practice in adult education (pp. 176-180). Montreal, Quebec, Canada:
Adult Education – Congresses.
Kaplan, J. (2010b). L'autodirection dans les apprentissages coopératifs: Le cas des
Cercles d'Étude. Sarrebruck, Germany: Éditions Universitaires Européennes.
Le Meur, G. (1998). Les nouveaux autodidactes: Néoautodidaxie et formation. Lyon,
France: Chronique Sociale.
Long, H. B. (1975). Independent study in the education of Colonial adults. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 8, 54-65.
Long, H. B. (1989). Self-directed learning: Emerging theory and practice. Norman, OK:
Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education,
University of Oklahoma.
Mezirow, J. (2001). Penser son expérience : Développer l'autoformation. Lyon, France:
Chronique Sociale.
Ministére Éducation Nationale. (2011). La validation des acquis de l'expérience (VAE)
Retrieved from http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid1106/la-validation-des-acquis-
de-l-experience-v.a.e.html
Oliver, L. P. (1987). Study circles: Coming together for personal growth and social
change. Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.
Pineau, G. (1977). Education ou alienation permanente? Reperes mythiques et
politiques. Paris, France: Dunod.
Pineau, G., & Le Grand, J.-L. (1992). Les histoires de vie. Paris, France: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Pineau, G., & Marie-Michèle. (1983). Produire sa vie, autoformation et autobiographie.
Paris: Edilig.
Ricœur, P. (1986). Du texte à l’action. Paris, France : Le Seuil.
Schön, D. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice.
New York, NY: Teachers College.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning:
Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Schwartz, B. (1973). L’éducation demain. Paris, France: Aubier-Montaigne.

L’Autoformation
17
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.
Spear, G., & Mocker, D. (1984). The organizing circumstance: Environmental
determinants in self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35 (1), 52-77.
Tough, A. M. (1967). Learning without a teacher. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.
Tremblay, N. A. (1981). Apprendre en situation d’autodidaxie (Doctoral thesis).
University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Tremblay, N. A. (2003). L'Autoformation: Pour apprendre autrement. Montréal,
Canada: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.
Verrier, C. (1999). Autodidaxie et autodidactes, l'infini des possibles. Paris: Anthropos.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems
Thinker, 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-
garden/cop/lss.shtml
Philippe Carré (philippe.carre@u-paris10.fr) is a professor of adult education at Paris
Ouest University in Nanterre-La Défense (France). He heads the Apprenance et
formation research group within the Cref (EA1589) in the same university. He also runs
a doctoral seminar and a Master’s programme on adult learning and instructional design
and is editor of the refereed journal Savoirs. He has authored or co-authored 15 books
and 120 articles in the related areas of motivation to learn, self-directed learning and
adult education. In 2010, he won the Malcolm Knowles Award for significant lifelong
contributions to self-directed learning research
Annie Jézégou (Annie.Jezegou@emn.fr) is a researcher in education at the Ecole
Supérieure des Mines de Nantes and in the research team Apprenance et formation at
Paris Ouest University in Nanterre-La Défense (France). She has been working for close
to 15 years on the topic of self-directed learning in adult distance education.
Jonathan Kaplan (kaplan@kaplan-consultants.org) is a social scientist and consultant in
adult education who has been involved in project and program design, management, and
evaluation in adult education for 25 years. He obtained his doctorate in education from
Paris Ouest University in Nanterre-La Défense (France), where as a part-time adjunct
professor he teaches cognitive self-regulation. He is an associate member of Psychologie
des acquisitions et des interactions en contexte lab (EA 4431).
Pascal Cyrot (cyrot.pascal@wanadoo.fr) holds a Ph.D. in Educational Science from
Paris Ouest University in Nanterre-La Défense (France). His research focuses on the
social dimensions of self-learning. He recently joined the Laboratoire d’Etude et de
Recherche sur les Professionnalisations (JE 2537) at the University of Reims
Champagne-Ardenne. He is also a secondary school teacher.
Noël Denoyel (noel.denoyel@univ-tours.fr) is a senior lecturer at François Rabelais
University in Tours (France) and a researcher in the DynaDiv (EA 4246) laboratory. His
research interests include self-learning, biographical research and experiential
approaches to education.

Post-Formal Cognitive Development and SDL
18
New Perspectives on Post-Formal Cognitive Development
and Self-Directed Learning
Carol Kasworm
This investigation expands the current discussion on the theoretical and
practice relationship of hypothesized developmental levels of self-directed
learning in relation to post-formal cognitive development. It is suggested
that the conceptual understandings of post-formal cognitive development
provided a potent and conceptually significant area for differentiating the
nature of engagement and meaning-making for adult self-directed learners.
The current discussion considers this qualitative differentiated complexity
of self-directed learning through the research and writings of Baxter
Magolda and Kegan.
What is the relationship between cognitive development and the learner’s
engagement in self-directed learning? In 1983, I suggested that the “acts of self-directed
learning” should be conceptually framed through adult developmental theories, focused
upon qualitative cognitive and affective change and growth (Kasworm, 1983, p. 632).
My central intent was to explore and understand the differences among learners who
participated in interior acts of self-directed learning beyond the procedural strategies
(often presented through pedagogical language) (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Candy,
1991; Knowles, 1975). I was curious about the differences among adult learners in acts
of self-directed learning — and hypothesized that they were operating at different levels
of the Perry’s Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Development. In my research, reflecting
a variety of studies (Kasworm, 1982, 1983, 1988, 1992; Kasworm & Blowers, 1994),
these individuals described their experiences of self-directed learning in very different
ways, reporting that their understandings and processes of enacting self-directed learning
were understood and were enacted from different set of world views, assumptions, and
beliefs.
In addition, these experiences were documented from both individual interviews
of engagement in self-directed learning as well as classroom observations of these
individuals utilizing the structure of a learning contract and the key focus of engaging in
self-directed learning for class projects. The grounding conceptual article in 1983 and
subsequent research suggested that post-formal cognitive development provided a potent
and conceptually significant area for differentiating the nature of engagement and
meaning-making for adult self-directed learners. For example, some of these learners
spoke to either a change of world-view perspective or of insights to a new set of
understandings during their self-directed learning endeavors, while other individuals
spoke to a more additive knowledge and skill exploration and to maintenance of an

19
ongoing world view. Further, as part of this reconceptualization of self-directed learning
in 1983, the then-recent work of Mezirow and key understandings of transformative
learning further illuminated conceptual understandings of the potential complexity of
self-directed learning.
Thus, the 1983 article suggested key conceptual relationships and assumptions of
self-directed learning vis a vis adult development through Perry’s scheme of post-formal
cognitive development and Mezirow’s transformational learning theory. Self-directed
learning was judged not to be the simplistic development of uni-dimensional or linear
sequential acts of learning; rather, there was a qualitative cognitive and affective
progression in complexity and depth of development in relation to learner knowledge,
skills, and attitudes that impacted the nature and conditions of the learner’s engagement
in self-directed learning. This perspective suggested that it was “ a three-dimensional
relationship to include (a) levels of behavior or skill; (b) levels of cognitive complexity;
and (c) level of affective/value orientation to knowledge and learning actions”
(Kasworm, 1983, p. 45). Further, the interactional characteristics of this model
suggested a “transformation, a paradigm shift… towards (a) an active creator of new
learning events, (b) maker of new meaning of the learner’s reality and (c) the learner’s
development of a new component of knowledge and skills” ( p. 35). In addition, these
qualitative changes suggested a conceptual relationship with the recently formulated
transformational theory of the influence of critical disjunctures impacting qualitative
changes of one’s world view, self as learner, and self as creator of knowledge.
Since this initial presentation, other researchers have also recognized this
conceptual relationship between cognitive development and key developmental
differences in learner’s acts of learning (self-directed learning) (Candy, 1991; Hofer &
Pintrich, 1997; Merriam, 2004). For example, more recent discussions have argued that
self-directed learning doesn’t always occur on a known cartographic knowledge map;
the holistic landscape of knowledge is often not known prior to starting a self-directed
learning project. Thus, the learner has a unique and important engagement of cognitive
responsibility not only for “organizing events,” but to engage in initial experiences
which are murky and ill-defined, reflecting a potential change or disjuncture in one’s
current cognitive scheme. In addition, a learner may seek a self-directed learning journey
which does not meet his or her initial goals or desires. Further, these involvements
sometimes result in learning how to learn, with the adult facing new challenges to gain
skill in a technology, to gain new metacognitive skills in the learning efforts, in another
area of skill development, or in a new content of language and discourse structures as a
foundation for pursuits of desired knowledge and skill. Lastly, self-directed learning is
not always obvious learning, reflecting a learner’s beliefs about the task of self-directed
learning. Engagement in self-directed learning can represent unplanned and disjunctural
engagements; learners in self-directed learning may experience the shadowed
engagements by exploring new possibilities in critical thinking, of challenges to one’s
assumptions and beliefs about areas of presumed knowledge and skill, or of a discomfort
that may conflict with existing attitudes, values, or beliefs. However, little research and
discussion has focused upon these possibilities. As noted in a recent discussion regarding
self-directed learning with ill-defined and complex explorations,

20
Meaningful and worthwhile learning must view external task control and
cognitive responsibility concerns as integral and reciprocal constructs. For
example, self-direction simply focused on task control neglects the critical issues
of setting goals that are relevant and meaningful as well as neglecting cognitive
strategies and opportunities to question accepted orthodoxies. An adult learner
who is fully self-directed has moved beyond simple task control and learned to
think critically and construct meaning in ill-defined and complex content areas.
(Garrison & Archer, 2000, p. 95)
While most recent research and scholarship of self-directed learning has
contributed limited in-depth examination of an individual’s meaning-making and
cognitive strategies or the conceptual focus on self-regulation of learning, there have
been significant collateral engagements and explorations in other disciplinary areas. In
particular, there are a number of scholars and practitioners who are developing new
conceptual understandings and related applications of adult cognitive development
within educational psychology, adult development, and higher education student
development. Building upon the 1983 presentation, this paper will explore these
enhanced understandings and specific intersections of recent research and writings
focused upon post-formal cognitive development and related understandings of
transformative learning. Specifically, this paper will review recent work and discussions
by Baxter Magolda and Kegan regarding the construct of self-authorship and of the
related understandings of transformative learning as part of the differentiated movement
towards the self-authoring mind and to a more complex level of the self-transforming
mind. This operational construct of the self-authoring mind has become a significant
focus of practitioner and researcher understandings concerning the development of post-
formal cognitive development (now labeled constructive development) and of
constructive pedagogy for engaging adult learners. Although these individuals have
focused their research and writings predominantly upon the context of undergraduate
higher education, I suggest that their work has significant implications for furthering our
understandings of the complexity and nature of the broader contexts of self-directed
learning (Baxter Magolda, 1999; Kegan, 2000; Mezirow & Associates, 2000).
Meaning-Making and Self-Authorship: Kegan’s Perspectives
In contextualizing this current discussion, the 1983 Kasworm article posited a set
of understandings that focused upon social constructivist principles and of the nature of
meaning-making as a core of self-directed learning development. In addition, it anchored
the nature of self-directed learning development also within the adult development
arena, suggesting that systems of adult development evolve through stability and change
moving towards greater complexity and differentiation. Kegan’s work (1982) in adult
development also placed adult activity—and the evolution—of meaning making at the
core of development. He suggested that our meaning-making structures are a
combination of elements over which we have control (what Kegan calls object) and
elements that have control over us (what Kegan calls subject), and that growth is
“liberating ourselves from that in which we were embedded, making what was subject

21
into object so that we can ‘have it’ rather than ‘be had’ by it” (1982, p. 34). This
conceptual understanding is a holistic evolution drawing upon all elements of a human’s
engagement in life. As suggested by Baxter Magolda, “this portrayal of self-evolution
integrates thinking and feeling, cognition and affect, self and other” (2009, p. 623). In
discussing this notion of meaning-making, Kegan (1994) asserted that adults, in these
modern times, face demands for adapting the way that they organize their experiences,
“the evolution of consciousness” (p. 9). This consciousness “is the personal unfolding of
ways of organizing experience that are not simply replaced as we grow but subsumed
into more complex systems of mind” (Kegan, 1994, p. 9). Kegan, for example, suggests
that as workers, adults are expected to “invent or own our work, to [be] self-initiating,
self-correcting, self-evaluating…to be guided by our own visions…to take responsibility
for what happens to us…to be accomplished masters of our particular work roles, jobs,
or careers” (p. 153). At the heart of these understandings and actions are the expectations
of self-authorship; they require the ability to construct one’s own visions, make informed
decisions in conjunction with coworkers, act appropriately, and take responsibility for
those actions.
Kegan’s work has also focused upon the interrelationship of conceptual
understandings between his theory and Mezirow’s (Mezirow & Associates, 2000) theory
of transformative learning. Kegan (2000) suggested that from his perspective,
transformative learning is viewed as an epistemological change, rather than a change in
behavioral repertoire or a change in the quantity or fund of knowledge. Elaborating on
Mezirow’s theory, Kegan viewed this particular type of learning as epistemological
engagement in two different arenas. The first arena of epistemological engagement is
meaning-forming, “the activity which we shape a coherent meaning out of raw material
of our inner and outer experiencing” (p. 52). The second arena is meaning reforming, in
which we change our epistemologies. This change of epistemologies or change of
worldview represents the essence of transformative learning delineated by Mezirow.
Thus, Kegan views reforming meaning, or transformative learning, as a developmental
process of moving away from external authority toward self-authorship. Mezirow
defines transformative learning as:
The process by which we transform our taken-for-granted frames of reference
(meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them more inclusive,
discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they
may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide
action. (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, pp. 7-8)
This expansion of meaning making also hinges on “how we learn to negotiate and act on
our own purposes, values, feelings, and meanings rather than those we have uncritically
assimilated from others” (p. 8). Thus, Kegan’s (1994) work, In Over Our Heads: The
Mental Demands of Modern Life, suggests that adults can best adapt to the chaos and
changing understandings of modern life through their engagement in transformative
learning and in creating a more complex set of world views, shifting from the Socialized
Mind to the Self-Authoring Mind to the Self-Transforming Mind. Thus, educators who
desire to enhance the capability of learners would foster a qualitative set of distinctions

22
among various sets of information and experiences and would recognize the significant
cognitive and affective engagement of transformation of self and world-view in these
activities.
At the heart of these discussions is the core of an evolving self-directed learner.
This individual would not only engage in additive knowledge and skill development;
but, when faced by daunting experiences which impact upon the individuals’ sense of
epistemology, this individual would engage in changing views of the world and oneself.
Thus, Kegan’s work offers new understandings, insights, and supports for viewing the
context and complexity of self-directed learning in this contemporary world.
Meaning-Making, Self-Authorship, and Baxter Magolda
Throughout her academic scholarship career, Baxter Magolda has actively explored
post-formal cognitive development and constructivism through significant longitudinal
research studies of undergraduates and has subsequently followed the same groups as
post-graduates (Baxter Magolda, 1999; Baxter Magolda, 2001). As part of her
theorizing, she also examined the implications of this descriptive theory for educators,
suggesting an operational set of understandings for constructive-developmental
pedagogy and the importance of developing self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 1999).
She suggested that self-authorship is simultaneously cognitive (how one makes meaning
of knowledge), interpersonal (how one views oneself in relationship to others), and
intrapersonal (how one perceives one’s sense of identity). The cognitive component of
how people make meaning is their assumptions about the nature, limits and certainty of
knowledge, or their epistemic assumptions. The shift of knowledge from certainty to
uncertainty is accompanied by a shift from viewing oneself as a receiver to a constructor
of knowledge. The intrapersonal component of meaning-making involves assumptions
about oneself. Intrapersonal growth moves from distinguishing one’s impulses from
oneself and identifying enduring qualities of the self to experiencing and eventually
authoring one’s inner psychological life. Lastly, the interpersonal component hinges on
assumptions about the relation of the self to others. Growth in this arena moves from
lack of coordination of one’s point of view with that of others, through subsuming one’s
own view to that of significant others, to developing a system that regulates
interpersonal relationship (Baxter Magolda, 1999).
Drawing from her extensive longitudinal research studies of college students and
post-college adult years exploring the constructive developmental trajectories of adult
learners, she suggests,
Self-authorship… is a complicated phenomenon. It is simultaneously an ability
to construct knowledge in a contextual world, an ability to construct an internal
identity separate from external influences, and an ability to engage in
relationships without losing one’s internal identity. (Baxter Magolda, 1999, p.
12)

23
In particular, her focus has been on formal and informal higher education contexts,
which can influence this constructive development, as well as the nature of self-
authorship, or the internal capacity to define one’s beliefs, identity, and relationship.
In her development of this conceptual landscape, she identified three key
elements of self-authorship, to include: trusting the internal voice, building an internal
foundation, and securing internal commitments (Baxter Magolda, 2008, 2009). The first
element of self-authorship, trusting the internal voice, focused upon recognition of
reality: “ what happened in the world and their lives, was beyond their control, but their
reactions to what happened was [sic] within their control” (Baxter Magolda, 2008, p.
279). This recognition or realization was the basis for adult learners to take
responsibility for “choosing how to interpret reality, how to feel about their
interpretation, and how to react” (Baxter Magolda, 2009, p. 631). This exploration and
making choices has been suggested as comparable to the actions within the Mezirow’s
scheme of perspective transformation--of exploring options and beginning to take
actions. Baxter Magolda believes that this process of making choices in relation to one’s
reality provides the catalyst for change and potentially for transforming one’s journey
towards self-authorship. The second element is focused upon building an internal
foundation, suggested by Baxter as beginning “to organize their choices into
commitments that form a philosophy, or an internal foundation, to guide their ongoing
reactions to reality”(Baxter Magolda, 2009, p. 632). The third element, securing internal
commitments, focused upon moving beyond internal philosophy to living everyday life
with those commitments. These second and third areas reflect a comparable
understanding of Perry’s later stages of ethical commitments such as building and
solidifying the contextual relativist stance of the individual. As noted by Baxter
Magolda,
These commitments automatically came into play as participants navigated the
challenges of their lives, making them comfortable with the chaos they
encountered. These commitments also offered a sense of security that led to a
greater sense of freedom. Trusting that they could use their foundations to make
the best of what happened to them, they were more open to taking risks and to
reevaluating their internal foundations. ( 2009, p. 632)
The anchoring of these three elements of self-authorship is embedded within an
intentional framework promulgated by Baxter Magolda (1999, 2001) of three key
context assumptions for fostering self-authorship:
1. Knowledge is viewed as complex and socially constructed.
2. Self is viewed as central to constructing knowledge.
3. Authority and expertise are shared in the mutual construction of knowledge.
Her work adds an additional perspective and set of research engagements that support
the complex differentiation of post-formal cognitive development and lead to a more
holistic set of understandings that interact with the person’s beliefs and values as a
guiding referent.

24
Why This Continuing Focus Upon Constructivist, Post-Formal Cognitive
Development And Self-Directed Learning?
Self-directed learning is an extremely complex phenomenon. It is a process of
constructivist understanding and development towards a more holistic being within a
lifespan perspective (Kasworm, 1983). As noted by King (2000),
As individuals mature, age-related (but not age-dictated) changes become
apparent in the way they organize and reorganize their thinking to interpret
experience. These changes are posited to evolve in cycles of differentiation and
integration, reflecting developmental patterns of increasing complexity and
ability to connect elements. (p. 601)
As more complex and elaborate mental models evolve, each new approach and
understanding becomes incorporated, more automatic in response. These new
understandings and approaches become part of the everyday way of perceiving and
acting. “Each increasingly complex level may be considered a developmental
benchmark, one that is built on prior levels and sets the ground work for subsequent
levels” (p. 601). However, King warns about the naïve perceptions of this development
and its often-assumed self-hedonistic focus. Rather, she states,
As John Dewey (1944) astutely noted, “We never educate directly, but indirectly
by means of the environment. Whether we permit chance environments to do
the work, or whether we design environments for the purpose makes a great
difference” (p. 19). Experience is a key driver of development, and experience
occurs in environments that may or may not be designed with developmental
purposes in mind. (King, 2009, p. 613)
Thus, King suggests that environments for fostering learner development require both
supports and challenges. King and Baxter Magolda have predominantly focused upon
the undergraduate environment as the enriched educative environment offering
opportunities for longer-term engagement of faculty and student learners in both content
and learning development. Further, this focus has become an important discussion,
because of its implications for developing critical thinking, a major goal of academic
environments.
However, I should also share the finding of Baxter Magolda regarding her post-
graduates and their experiences beyond the academic environment. These graduates
faced renewed challenges in the adult world of work [post undergraduate studies],
particularly in their independence of establishing a sense of adult self and also of being
adult workers. As noted,
…They learned disciplinary content and process of thinking about it [an internal
sense of self] and applying it. It was not until after college, however, that their
employers and graduate educators stressed that their thinking, knowing, and
applying their perspectives to their work all hinged on their internal values and
how they defined themselves. (2001, p. xxii)

25
In examining these postgraduate work experiences, she notes that a number of national
authors writing on college graduate preparation for the work setting suggested that
employers expect developed skills in teamwork, critical thinking, interpersonal
communications, as well as such skills as flexibility and innovation. However, because
the participants after college graduation “lacked this level of complexity and autonomy,
many struggled to respond effectively. Their reliance on externally acquired formulas for
success led them to expect those formulas in their work setting” (p. 240). Although most
of these individuals had displayed the level of self-authorship within the collegiate
context, when they moved beyond the academic structures, they appeared to regress or
potentially suggest an inability to operate in self-authorship in this new world context.
Baxter Magolda suggested that campus work environments needed to provide a more
self-directing environment to instill these younger learners with a scaffolding base to
develop further meaning-making of themselves in relation to work life. Thus, reaching
the level of self-authorship is not a universal strength across all domains of the
individual’s world for action in the world of adulthood. Could this mean that self-
directed learning as a support for self-authorship is context- or schema-based?
These three authors, Kegan, Baxter Magolda, and Mezirow, provide an enriched
consideration that expands and enhances our understanding of self-directed learning. If
one reframes the readings of Baxter-Magolda beyond the traditional undergraduate
higher education setting, one can identify the intellectual understandings and threads of
self-directed learning engagement throughout her discussion. Her focus upon
constructive pedagogy suggests a commitment to self-directedness of learner
engagement in both formal learning experiences, as well as the broader investment in
self development. Baxter Magolda raises issue with current dominant forms of teaching
and learning and of student services within higher education. She suggests that the
“educational process requires moving away from the traditional forms of teaching and
control-oriented forms of organizing student life…” (p. xxii). Thus, she views through
her scholarship the importance of developing the qualities that have been identified as
self-directedness in relation to the constructivist development of an adult self. As
scholars of self-directed learning, we can gain much from her work, but we can also
provide another set of informed understandings to aid these notions of self-authorship
towards a more holistic framework. In addition, Kegan offers a helpful developmental
understanding based within his examination of the complex and ambiguous demands
upon adult life. As with the examination of Baxter Magolda, there are significant threads
that suggest an adult’s engagement in self-directed learning is instrumental in the
individual’s development and evolution of consciousness, of the developmental
evolution from a social conscious mind, to a self-authoring mind toward a self-
transforming mind. Kegan’s work is clearly grounded in similar perspectives of adults
gaining autonomy and self-efficacy, as in the foundational understandings of self-
directed learning. Lastly, Mezirow’s scholarly work on transformative learning and the
many subsequent colleagues who have furthered these understandings offer a significant
additional frame for us to explicate the nature and complexity of self-directed learning.
It is evident from my preliminary research in the 1980’s and subsequent research in the
1990’s, the current significant research on transformative learning (Mezirow &
Associates, 2000; Taylor, 1998), and my current synthesis of transformative learning

26
research in higher education settings (Kasworm & Bowles, in-process) that
transformative learning can be viewed as a self-directed engagement.
Adult learners are faced with challenging issues and tasks in this modern society.
Our work is to focus a sustained spotlight on developing awareness within adult learners
towards the continued development of their self-directed learning capabilities. In
addition, as educators we should continue to develop their skills and abilities for self-
directedness, as well as offer stimulating environments for them to learn, adapt, and
critique this new or challenging way of acting as a self-directed learner. Secondly, as
suggested through this focus on transformative learning, development within self-
directed learning is often in response to perceived dissonance or disjunctures of
experiences and knowledge. It is difficult for adult self-directed learners to easily engage
in an unknown or unvalued world-view change of their beliefs or assumptions. Further,
these experiential challenges are grounded in affect and emotions of self and others, of
values of self and the world, and beliefs of how the world and its components work.
Thus, not only do we need to aid adults to understanding the cognitive work of
epistemological change and development; we need to also focus upon the emotional,
affective components of engaging in self-directed learning which challenge our sense of
world and self. As noted in a number of discussions of post-formal cognitive
development (Kegan, 1982; Kegan, 1994; Perry, 1970), epistemological change within a
learner is a highly complex and often affectively challenging set of experiences. Thus,
within self-directed learning, it may be that the environment of people, supports,
experiences, all can provide a significant “holding environment” to aid the learner’s
journey towards a more evolved state of cognitive complexity or of consciousness
(Kegan’s construct).
It is evident that self-directed learning has become a valuable frame which can
encompass this recent scholarship and continue to demonstrate the importance of
understanding post-formal cognitive development in relation to the learner’s acts of
meaning making. However, in examining Baxter Magolda’s scholarship, there is need to
further explore her underlying findings in relation to their salience for the autonomous
actions of the adult learner beyond the collegiate setting. Baxter Magolda’s research was
housed within the formal higher education community and related to equipping
educators to better prepare the traditional age student (18-24 years of age) for a more
mature and vital adulthood in society. However, this work does not address the key role
of the nonformal and informal learning world for an adult learner’s developmental
journey in self-directed engagement. This opportunity to expand upon her
understandings is significant. Through these examinations of more recent scholarship,
we face new interdisciplinary dialogues and research to guide us in the future. For those
of you working with self-directed learning research, I particularly challenge you to
consider these conceptualizations and their relationship to current and future scholarship
as well as practice.

27
References
Baxter Magolda, M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship:
Constructive- Developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher
education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Baxter Magolda, M. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College
Student Development, 49(4), 269-284.
Baxter Magolda, M. (2009). The activity of meaning making: A holistic perspective on
college student development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6),
621-639. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0106
Brockett, R., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on
theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Candy, P. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching and
learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford, England:
Pergamon.
Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs
about knowledge and knowing, and their relationship to learning. Review of
Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
Kasworm, C. (1982). An exploratory study of the development of self-directed learning
as an instructional/curriculum strategy. Paper presented at the Lifelong Learning
Research Conference Proceedings, College Park, MD.
Kasworm, C. (1983). Self-directed learning and lifespan development. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 2(1), 29-45.
Kasworm, C. (1988). Self-directed learning in institutional contexts. An exploratory
study of adult self-directed learners in higher education. In H. B. Long (Ed.),
Self-Directed learning: Application and theory (pp. 65-98). Athens, GA:
University of Georgia, Department of Adult Education.
Kasworm, C. (1992). Adult learners in academic settings: Self-directed learning within
the formal learning context. In H. B. Long & Associates (Eds.), Self-Directed
learning: Application and research (pp. 223-244). Norman, OK: University of
Oklahoma, Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher
Education.
Kasworm, C., & Blowers, S. (1994). Adult undergraduate students: Patterns of learning
involvement. Report to OERI, Department of Education, Washington D.C.
Knoxville, TN: College of Education, University of Tennessee.
Kasworm, C., & Bowles, T. (in process). Fostering transformative learning in higher
education settings. In E. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The Handbook of
Transformative Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problems and process in human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

28
Kegan, R. (2000). What "form" transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to
transformative learning. In J. A. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation:
Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-70). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
King, P. (2009). Principles of development and developmental change underlying
theories of cognitive and moral development Journal of College Student
Development, 50(6), 597-620. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0104
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-Directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New
Merriam, S. (2004). The role of cognitive development in Mezirow's transformational
learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1), 60-68.
Mezirow, J., & Associates (Eds.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical
perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W. R. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years:
A scheme. Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Taylor, E. (1998). The theory and practice of transformative learning: A critical review
(No. 374). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and
Vocational Education.
Carol Kasworm (carol_kasworm@ncsu.edu) is W. Dallas Herring Professor of Adult
and Community College Education at North Carolina State University. Her research
focuses on adult undergraduate students in higher education, including a number of
qualitative studies on adult undergraduate learning and the participation patterns of
adults in higher education. She has recently been honored with a Senior Fulbright
Specialist award to Finland (Fall 2009) and the Distinguished Professional Achievement
Alumni Award from the College Of Education, University of Georgia, in May 2006.

Cultural Dimensions, Economic Indicators, and SDL
29
An Exploration of
Cultural Dimensions and Economic Indicators
As Predictors of Self-Directed Learning Readiness
Paul J. Guglielmino and Lucy M. Guglielmino
This study explored Hofstede’s (2011) cultural dimensions scores for Power
Distance and Individualism and the economic indices of gross national income
per capita (GNIPC) and gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC) as possible
predictors of self-directed learning readiness in 17 country samples. The
predictive relationships were significant and exceeded Cohen’s (1992) criterion
for a large effect size for each regression. The variance accounted for was also
significant for each variable. The relationship with Power Distance was
negative; the others were positive.
The exponential expansion of knowledge, technology, and global
interconnectedness have changed the world as we know it. Part of that change has been
reflected in the way people learn, innovate, create, and produce. Lifelong, self-initiated
learning is now increasingly recognized as essential for individuals to function
effectively in their personal lives and in the workplace. At the global level, Revisiting
Lifelong Learning for the 21st Century, a publication of the UNESCO Institute for
Education (Medel-Añonuevo, Ohsako, & Mauch, 2001), asserts:
As information and communication technologies (ICTs) permeate our societies
and communities, the role of the individual learner is highlighted. Globalization
has produced outcomes and processes which make the learning of new skills and
competencies of paramount importance. Today it is no longer enough to have the
same living and working skills one had five years ago. Learning to learn,
problem solving, critical understanding and anticipatory learning - these are only
a few of the core skills and competencies needed for all, at a time when 60% of
trades and jobs to be performed in the next two decades or so are not yet known.
(p. i)
The analysis also notes, “…Lifelong learning as it is presently promoted has become
more individual-oriented…. The emphasis of lifelong learning on the learner could be
interpreted as assigning more agency to individuals in contrast to lifelong education’s
thrust on structures and institutions” (p. 4). The recognition of the need for individuals
to assume more responsibility for their own learning is even more pronounced in the
work of the European Union (European Commission, 2006) and is more explicitly
linked to economic well-being. In 2006, they expanded their emphasis on learning to

30
learn, initiative, and entrepreneurship and produced a later document (European
Commission on Education and Training, 2007) detailing the key competences for
lifelong learning that need to be developed and renewed at every level of education and
training: “the knowledge, skills and attitudes…which all individuals need for personal
fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment” (p. 3).
Learning to learn and sense of initiative and entrepreneurship constitute two of the
eight competences and are described as equally as important as basic skills such as
communication, mathematical competence, and the like.
The recommendations of these international bodies are aligned with the
comments and findings of a number of prominent authors, who suggest that self-directed
learning is increasingly viewed as a favored educational and training paradigm in post-
modern economies (e.g., Bedard, 1997; Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Candy, 1991; Carré,
1997; Costa & Liebmann, 1997; Figueiredo, 2001; Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 2006,
2008; Hiemstra, 1996; Long, 1999; Oliveira & Simões, 2006; Papert, 2001; Pink, 2009;
Straka, 1997, Zomorrodian, 1998).
While there are numerous studies linking readiness for self-directed learning to
positive personal characteristics, individual achievement, and satisfaction, this paper
focuses on relationships to cultural dimensions and country economic indicators. This
line of research was suggested by a number of prior research findings. Several studies
found positive links between self-directed learning readiness and workplace performance
(for example, Durr, 1992; Guglielmino, 1996; Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 1983, 1994;
Guglielmino & Klatt, 1994; Oliveira, Silva, Guglielmino, & Guglielmino, 2010;
Roberts, 1986). Studies in many different countries have reported cultural differences in
self-directed learning readiness among samples drawn from business or students
preparing for business careers; for example, Beitler, Mitlacher, and Faller (2005) found
differences in SDLRS means in German and U.S. college business students; and an
analysis of data from business samples in China, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Lithuania, and
the U.S. found that the mean SDLRS differences by country are strongly correlated with
Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions of Individualism (positively) and Power
Dominance (negatively). The self-directed learning readiness means of the country
samples also were found to have a very strong positive correlation (above .90) with the
gross national income per capita (GNIPC) of the countries (Guglielmino and
Guglielmino, 2006).
The prior research suggests that some cultural values may support self-directed
learning while others discourage it, and that there is a strong relationship between the
SDL readiness of country business samples and the per capita income of the country. As
the relationships were quite strong in the five countries examined previously, it appeared
valuable to explore these relationships across an expanded sample and to explore
possible relationships with another economic indicator, country productivity (GDDPC).
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the self-directed learning
readiness of country samples could be predicted by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
scores for power distance (PD) or individualism (IN) or by the economic indicators of

31
gross national income per capita (GNIPC) or gross domestic product per capita
(GDPPC).
This study of samples from 17 countries from Asia, Latin and Central America,
North America, and Europe examines the culture of these countries based upon
Hofstede’s (2011) cultural dimensions as well as their readiness for self-directed
learning as measured by Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale
(SDLRS). In addition, the study examines the standard of living of these countries as
measured by gross national income per capita (GNIPC) as well as gross domestic
product per capita (GDPPC).
Research Questions
Two research questions guided this study:
1. Can self-directed learning readiness of a country sample as measured by the
SDLRS be predicted by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions scores for Individualism,
Power Distance, or a combination of the two?
2. Can self-directed learning readiness of a country sample as measured by the
SDLRS be predicted by the economic indicators gross national income per capita
(GNIPC) or gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC) or a combination of the
two?
Method
Instruments and Assessments
Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Cultures. Hofstede, a social psychologist,
began his comparison of nations in 1965, while employed as a travelling international
staff member of IBM and later as a visiting professor at an international business school
in Switzerland. In Culture's Consequences (Hofstede, 1980), he presented his cultural
dimensions drawn from answers to attitude survey questions by (a) matched employee
samples from 40 different countries and (b) his executive students, who represented 15
countries and a variety of companies and industries. Systematic differences between
nations were found for questions dealing with values. His research has continued and
expanded, now representing two additional dimensions and 76 countries (Hofstede,
2010). This study examined the first two dimensions in relation to self-directed learning
readiness.
The values that distinguished countries (rather than individuals) from each other
grouped statistically into four clusters. These became the Hofstede dimensions of
national culture: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism versus
Collectivism, and Masculinity versus Femininity. Between 1990 and 2002, these
dimensions were largely replicated in six other cross-national studies on very
different populations from consumers to airline pilots. (Hofstede, 2011, p.1)
Because of significant relationships in prior studies, the variables examined in
this analysis were Power Distance and Individualism. Descriptions of the two
dimensions, adapted from Hofstede (2011) follow:

32
Power Distance. Power distance refers to the extent to which the less powerful
members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed
unequally. In cultures with a high level of power distance, the society's level of
inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders.
Individualism. Individualism and its opposite, collectivism, represent the degree
to which individuals are integrated into groups. In highly individualist societies the ties
between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after her/himself and her/his
immediate family. In collectivist societies, people are integrated from birth into strong,
cohesive in-groups, often extended families that protect them in exchange for
unquestioning loyalty. Collectivism in this dimension refers to the group, not the state;
it has no political meaning.
The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS). Developed by L.
Guglielmino (1978), the SDLRS is a 58-item, Likert-type instrument designed to assess
individual attitudes, values, skills, and personality characteristics supportive of self-
direction in learning. The self-scoring form is called the Learning Preference
Assessment (Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 1991). Expert judgment was used to ensure
the content and construct validity of the instrument. A Delphi panel of 14 experts in the
field of self-directed learning (including Malcolm Knowles and Allen Tough, among
others) were involved in a three-stage process to develop a list of characteristics of
individuals with high levels of readiness for self-direction in learning. The panel arrived
at consensus on the characteristics they deemed important for self-direction in learning,
including attitudes, values, abilities, and personality characteristics.
Reported reliability figures (Cronbach alpha) range from .72 to .94. Finestone
(1984) and Wiley (1981) reported test-retest reliability coefficients of .82 and .79
respectively. Based on a population of 3,151 individuals from the United States and
Canada, a split-half Pearson product moment correlation with a Spearman-Brown
correction produced a reliability figure of .94 (Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 1991).
There have been some criticisms of the SDLRS (Brockett, 1985; Field, 1989), which
have been responded to by Long (1989), McCune (1989), and Guglielmino (1989). The
vast majority of studies have supported the reliability and validity of the instrument (See,
for example, Delahaye & Smith, 1995; Durr, 1992; Finestone, 1984; Graeve, 1987;
Hassan, 1981; Long & Agyekum, 1984; McCune & Guglielmino, 1991; Posner, 1990,
1991; Russell, 1988). The SDLRS is the most widely-used quantitative instrument in the
study of self-directed learning (Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner, 2007). It has
been translated into 20 languages and used in research in more than 40 countries.
Thorough overviews of research using the instrument can be found in Brockett and
Hiemstra (1991), Guglielmino (1997), Merriam and Caffarella (1999) and Delahaye and
Choy (2000).
Data Sources
SDLRS mean scores were obtained from studies previously conducted in 17
countries. The original researchers collected data from 7,355 individuals. All of the
subjects were adults in educational settings or in the workplace. Most of the samples
were convenience samples taken from the SDLRS database, with the exception being a
small portion of the U.S. sample, specifically the study of top U. S. entrepreneurs

33
(Guglielmino & Klatt, 1994, N = 162). The list of top entrepreneurs came from Inc.
magazine’s Inc. 500 listing (1994).
Quantitative representations of the cultural dimensions of the various countries
examined in this study (Power Distance, Individualism) were obtained from Hofstede’s
(1980, 2011) seminal work. Economic data for the countries were retrieved from
national and international indices. GDPPC data were obtained from The World
Factbook (CIA, 2009) using the 2009 estimates. GNIPC data came from the World Bank
(2011), again using the 2009 estimates (Note: Both of these economic data sources are
updated and altered slightly from time to time.). The data are displayed in Table 1.
Limitations of the study include the diversity of sample size and the fact that the data
were collected at different times. Because of these limitations, this study must be
considered exploratory.
Table 1. SDLRS Mean Scores, Economic Indicators, and Hofstede’s Cultural
Dimension Indicators of Power Distance (PD) and Individualism (ID) for 17 Countries
______________________________________________________________
Country N SDLRS GDPPC a
GNIPC b
PDc
INc
____________________________________________________________________
Australia 172 221 $ 40,000 $ 43,770 36 90
Canada 214 225 38,500 41,980 39 80
China 273 189 6,900 3,650 80 20
Germany 393 217 34,500 42,450 35 67
Guatemala 178 187 5,100 2,620 95 6
Honduras 70 187 4,200 1,820 80 20
Hong Kong 655 219 43,200 31,420 68 25
India 300 210 3,200 1,180 77 48
Ireland 358 207 38,000 44,280 28 70
Japan 921 187 32,600 41,858 54 46
Latvia 133 202 14,600 12,390
Lithuania 628 205 15,700 11,410
Portugal 384 216 22,800 21,910 60 21
Singapore 289 207 54,800 40070 74 20
U.K. 79 216 34,600 41,370 35 89
U.S. 1706 238 46,400 46,360 40 91
Total 6753
Note: Hofstede’s cultural indices are not available for Latvia or Lithuania.
a
Data from CIA (2009). The world factbook.
b
Data from World Bank (2011). GNI per capita, Atlas method (2009 data).
c
Data from Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensions of national culture.
Data Analysis
The relationships of the variables were analyzed using linear regressions. First,
because visual examination of the goodness of fit was desired, each variable was
considered separately as a predictor of self-directed learning readiness as measured by
the SDLRS using the SPSS statistical package. Then two stepwise linear regressions
with SDLRS scores as the criterion variable were conducted to determine whether

34
adding one cultural variable to the other or one economic variable to the other made a
significant contribution to the prediction. For Research Question 1, Individualism and
Power Distance, respectively, were the predictor variables. For Research Question 2,
GNIPC and GDPPC, respectively, were the predictor variables. The PASW Statistics 18
Release 18.0.0 (July 30, 2009) was used for the stepwise regressions.
Results
Self-Directed Learning Readiness and Individualism
Hofstede’s Individualism scores significantly predicted the SDLRS mean scores,
β = .69, t(13) = 3.42, p < .004. Higher Individualism scores were positively associated
with SDLRS scores. Using the formula , the effect size is .92. Cohen (1992)
lists .02, .15, and .35, respectively, as small, medium, and large effect sizes for f2
;
therefore, this effect size is large. Individualism explained 48% of the variance in self-
directed learning readiness scores [R = .69; R2
= .48, F(1, 13) = 11.75, p < .004]. The
scatterplot of the linear relationship constitutes Figure 1.
Figure 1. Scatterplot of linear relationship between SDLRS and Individualism.

35
Self-Directed Learning Readiness and Power Distance
Hofstede’s Power Distance scores significantly predicted the SDLRS mean
scores, β = -.66, t(13) = -3.04, p < .009. Based on Cohen’s (1992) effect size indices,
the f2
of .72 is a large effect. Higher Power Distance scores were associated with lower
SDLRS scores. Power Distance scores also explained 42% of the variance in self-
directed learning readiness scores [R = .65; R2
= .42, F(1, 13) = 9.25, p < .009]. The
scatterplot of the linear relationship constitutes Figure 2.
Figure 2. Scatterplot of linear relationship between SDLRS and Power Distance.
Predicting Self-Directed Learning Readiness from Individualism and Power
Distance
Although Individualism and Power Distance, individually, were significantly
correlated with SDLRS mean scores, adding Power Distance to the model predicting
SDLRS scores from Individualism did not make a significant contribution, β = -.15,
t(13) = - 0.32, p = .75. Power Distance accounted for no additional variance in SDLRS
scores beyond the 48% accounted for by Individualism. The lack of a significant
difference in variance accounted for when adding GDPPC to the model predicting
SDLRS scores from GNIPC can be attributed to the strong correlation between them (r =
.89).
Self-Directed Learning Readiness and Income

36
Gross national income per capita (GNIPC) of the countries significantly
predicted the SDLRS mean scores of the country samples, β = .55, t(15) = 2.57 p < .02.
The f2
of .42 is a large effect (Cohen, 1992). Higher GNIPC figures were positively and
strongly associated with SDLRS scores. GNIPC explained 30% of the variance in self-
directed learning readiness scores, a significant portion [R = .55; R2
= .30, F(1, 15) =
6.59, p < .02]. The scatterplot of the linear relationship constitutes Figure 3.
Figure 3. Scatterplot of linear relationship between SDLRS and GNIPC.
Self-Directed Learning Readiness and Productivity
Gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC) of the countries significantly
predicted the SDLRS mean scores of the country samples, β = .59, t(15) = 2.80, p < .01,
with a large effect size ( f2
= .51) (Cohen, 1992). A strong positive relationship was
found between GDPPC figures and SDLRS scores. GDPPC explained 34% of the
variance in self-directed learning readiness scores [ R = .59; R2
= .34, F(1, 15) = 7.85, p
< .01]. The scatterplot of the linear relationship constitutes Figure 4.

37
Figure 4. Scatterplot of linear relationship between SDLRS and GDPPC.
Predicting Self-Directed Learning Readiness from GNIPC and GDPPC
Although GNIPC and GDPPC, individually, were significantly correlated with
SDLRS mean scores, adding GDPPC to the model predicting SDLRS scores from
GNIPC did not make a significant contribution, β = .387, t(15) = .732, p = .476.
GDPPC accounted for only an additional 3% of the variance in SDLRS scores beyond
the 30.6% accounted for by GNIPC, raising the total variance accounted for to 33.6%
(rounded to 34%). The lack of a significant difference in variance accounted for when
considering both variables can be attributed to the strong correlation between them (r =
.91).
Conclusions and Discussion
Cultural Dimensions and Self-Directed Learning Readiness
Based on the samples studied, there are significant predictive relationships
between the cultural dimensions of Individualism and Power Distance and readiness for
self-directed learning. As one might logically predict, countries with higher scores for
Individualism have higher mean scores for self-directed learning readiness. It is natural
that when individuals take the responsibility for providing for themselves and their

38
immediate families and do not have a strong expectation that a larger reference group
will aid and protect them, they are more likely to exhibit the characteristics associated
with a high level of self-directed learning readiness. It follows that they would be
motivated to recognize learning needs and take the initiative to seek out new knowledge,
adapt to change, and solve problems in order to meet their needs and the needs of their
families. Hofstede’s (2011) Individualism scores accounted for more than 48% of the
variance in self-directed learning readiness mean scores (R = .69, R2
= .58). This effect
size is categorized by Cohen (1992) as large.
Based on Hofstede’s definitions, Individualism should not be seen as a selfish
focus on oneself and one’s family at the expense of others; rather, high Individualism
scores reflect an acceptance of responsibility for providing for oneself and one’s family
without the expectation that some larger entity will provide support in return for
allegiance. In fact, some of the individuals and groups with the highest recorded SDLRS
scores are in positions devoted to helping others, as documented in Liddell’s (2007)
research with heads of charitable foundations; Hillard’s (2005) case study of exemplary
elementary school principals recognized for raising achievement levels at their schools;
and Phares’ study of volunteer leaders of community organizations (Phares &
Guglielmino, 2010). The acceptance of responsibility for one’s own learning and for
providing for oneself and one’s family does not exclude concern for and assistance to
others. Further evidence emerged from a study of prominent current and historical
figures whose work had a major impact on society; the researchers found that “a strong
sense of social responsibility and desire to contribute to the well-being of others … drove many
of their self-directed learning efforts” (Guglielmino, et al., 2009, p.11).
In contrast to the strong positive relationship with Individualism, in countries in
which there is a large discrepancy in the power of various levels of society and those
who are at lower levels accept and expect these power differences, the levels of
readiness for self-directed learning are lower. It appears logical that if large portions of
the population see themselves as having less power or status than others and either
accept this unequal balance of power as the natural order of things that will never change
or believe that they are unable to change it, regardless of the effort expended; their
independent thought, initiative, and the drive for independent learning would be
lessened. They do not see themselves as free to or capable of exercising individual
power to “shed the shackles of history and circumstance in pursuit of learning" (Pratt,
1993, p. 22). Again, the effect size of the inverse relationship between self-directed
learning readiness and Power Distance (R2
= .42) is notable (Cohen, 1992).
Since there was a strong significant relationship (negative) between Power
Distance and Individualism (r = -.89), it is not surprising that adding Power Distance as
a predictor did not significantly increase the variance explained beyond the 48%
accounted for by Individualism.
Although the limitations of sample sizes, non-randomness, and differing time
frames for data collection must be kept in mind, these data offer a compelling argument
for a strong cultural relationship with readiness for self-directed learning. While it is not
possible to determine causality among the variables or to ascertain whether some other
variable may be affecting both, it is clear that the relationship is a powerful one.

39
Economic Indicators and Self-Directed Learning Readiness
The predictive power of GNIPC and GDPPC for self-directed learning readiness
in the samples studied was also strong, with Betas of .55 and .59 respectively. Based on
the data examined, samples from countries with higher individual incomes and higher
productivity can be expected to have higher levels of readiness for self-directed learning
than samples from countries where these economic indicators are lower. Since levels of
readiness for SDL have been found in previous studies to correlate with workplace
performance (Durr, 1992; Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 1983, 2008; Hillard &
Guglielmino, 2007; Oliveira, et al., 2010; Roberts, 1986, Zsiga, 2007) and higher levels
of management (Durr, 1992; Liddell, 2007; Roberts, 1986) and two of the samples with
the highest levels of readiness for SDL were top U.S. entrepreneurs (Guglielmino &
Klatt, 1994) and top female corporate executives (Guglielmino, L., 1996), the strong
relationship between self-directed learning readiness of country samples and economic
indicators of those countries is not surprising. The research data cited support the
concept that creative, entrepreneurial men and women are likely to be highly self-
directed in their learning. The proclivity of highly self-directed learners to take
responsibility for their own learning, to view problems as challenges, to exhibit
independence and initiative in learning, and to seek out needed resources instead of
waiting for someone to hand them materials or tell them what to learn or what to do
would appear to provide strong support for the intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship
that can fuel productivity and boost income at an individual level, organizational level,
or national level. Despite the limitations of this study, the strength of the relationships
between self-directed learning readiness and country economic indicators has important
implications.
Summary
In an increasingly global and technological world, those individuals who can
identify their own learning needs, who are self-directed in their ability to find out what
they need to know and devise a way to address those learning needs, will not only be
able to adapt to change and address challenges in their personal lives; in the world of
work they will be in critical demand. Rapid innovation in education, medicine,
engineering, the law, manufacturing, financial services, construction, and computer
technologies requires men and women who can manage their own learning. They are the
people that can make a major difference in the long-term health of their organizations
and their countries. The findings of this exploratory study suggest that cultures with
values that support and encourage self-directed learning may realize benefits in terms of
productivity and individual income, impacting the living standards of their people. While
recognizing the limitations of the study, the robust relationships with Power Distance
(negative) and Individualism, GNIPC, and GDPPC (all positive) cannot be ignored.

40
Suggestions for Further Research
In a time of worldwide economic crisis and expanding international trade, national
leaders are seeking answers and solutions. Research is needed to further explore the
relationships between self-directed learning readiness and cultural dimensions,
productivity and income. The evidence so far indicates that societies whose populations
have higher self-directed learning readiness have more productive economies and also
have higher incomes. Large power distances and acceptances of those inequalities are
associated with lower levels of self-directed learning readiness, while acceptance of the
responsibility for providing for oneself and one’s immediate family (individualism) is
associated with acceptance of responsibility for one’s own learning, a central
characteristic assessed by the SDLRS.
Ideally, larger samples of country data need to be collected within a rather narrow
timeframe in order to verify these findings. In addition, it would be valuable to
determine if these relationships hold in other countries. Research to address the
following question also appears to be merited: In countries where a national effort is
currently being made to promote self-directed learning, such as Malaysia and Korea, can
long-term changes in self-directed learning readiness of country samples, cultural values,
or economic indicators be documented?
While further research is needed, the available evidence strongly supports the
contention that self-directed learning readiness is higher in cultures that provide the
opportunity for individuals to learn and grow to reach their fullest potential. In addition,
higher levels of self-directed learning readiness are not only associated with positive
personal characteristics or conditions such as life satisfaction (Brockett, 1982),
flexibility and creativity (Torrance & Mourad, 1978a, 1978b), emotional intelligence
(Muller, 2007); on a country level, they are also very closely associated with higher
levels of income and productivity. For individuals, organizations, and cultures, self-
directed learning readiness appears to be a key to adaptation, survival and quality of life.
Malcolm Knowles (1975) presciently observed more than 30 years ago:
The “why” of self-directed learning is survival—your own survival as an
individual, and also the survival of the human race. Clearly, we are not
talking here about something that would be nice or desirable….We are
talking about a basic human competence—the ability to learn on one’s
own—that has suddenly become a prerequisite for living in this new
world. (pp. 16-17)
The research increasingly supports his contention.

41
References
Bedard, R. (1997). Self-directed learning in the next century: What should the
orientation be? In H. B. Long & Associates (Eds.), Expanding horizons in self-
directed learning (pp. 281-292). Norman, OK: Public Managers Center, College
of Education, University of Oklahoma.
Beitler, M., Mitlacher, L., & Faller, M. (2005, February). The relationship between self-
directed learning readiness and team work effectiveness: An international study.
Paper presented at the 19th International Self-Directed Learning Symposium,
Cocoa Beach, FL.
Brockett, R. G. (1982). Self-directed learning readiness and life satisfaction among
older adults. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 42A.
Brockett, R. G. (1985). Methodological and substantive issues in the measurement of
self-directed learning readiness. Adult Education Quarterly, 36(1), 15-24.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on
theory, research and practice. London, England: Routledge.
CIA. (2009). The world factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Carré, P. (1997). Self (-directed) learning in France. In G. A. Straka (Ed.), European
views of self-directed learning: Historical, conceptional, empirical, practical,
vocational (pp. 26-38). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Costa, A. L., & Liebmann, R. M. (Eds.). (1997). Supporting the spirit of learning: When
process is content. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Delahaye, B. L., & Choy, S. (2000). The Learning Preference Assessment (Self-Directed
Learning Readiness Scale). Review of the Learning Preference Assessment
(LPA). In J. Maltby, C. A. Lewis, & A. Hill (Eds.). The handbook of
psychological tests. Wales, U.K.: Edwin Mellen Press.
Delahaye, B. L., & Smith. H. (1995). The validity of the Learning Preference
Assessment. Adult Education Quarterly, 45(3), 159-173.
Durr, R. E. (1992). An examination of readiness for self-directed learning and selected
personnel variables at a large Midwestern electronics development and
manufacturing corporation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1825.
European Commission. (2006). Adult learning: It is never too late to learn. Brussels,
Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.
European Commission on Education and Training. (2007). Key competences for lifelong
learning: European reference framework. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu
/dgs/education_culture/documents/publications/keycomp_lifetime_en.pdf
Field, L. (1989). An investigation into the structure, validity and reliability of
Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Readiness Scale. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(4),
235-245.

42
Figueiredo, A. D. (2001). Novos media e nova aprendizagem. In A. D. Carvalho &
Colaboradores, Novo conhecimento, nova aprendizagem (pp. 71-81). Lisboa,
Portugal: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Finestone, P. (1984). A construct validation of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness
Scale with labour education participants. Dissertation Abstracts International,
46, 5A.
Graeve, E. A. (1987). Patterns of self-directed learning of registered nurses. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 48, 820.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1978). Development of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 38 (11A), 6467 (University Microfilms No.
AAC78-06004).
Guglielmino, L. M. (1989). Guglielmino’s response to Field’s investigation. Adult
Education Quarterly, 39, 235-240.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1996). An examination of self-directed learning readiness and
selected demographic variables of top female executives. In H. B. Long &
Associates (Eds.), Current developments in self-directed learning (pp. 11-22).
Norman, OK: Public Managers Center, College of Education, University of
Oklahoma.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1997). Reliability and validity of the Self-Directed Learning
Readiness Scale and the Learning Preference Assessment. In H. B. Long &
Associates (Eds.), Expanding horizons in self-directed learning (pp. 209-222).
Norman, OK: Public Managers Center, College of Education, University of
Oklahoma.
Guglielmino, L. M., Gray, E., Arvary, K., Asen, J., Goldstein, D., Kamin, F., . .
.Snowberger, D. (2009). Self-directed learners change our world: Self-directed
learning as a force for innovation, discovery, and social change. International
Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 6 (1), 11-31.
Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P. J. (1991). The Learning Preference Assessment
facilitator guide. King of Prussia, PA: Organization Design and Development,
Inc.
Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P. J. (1994). Self-directed learning readiness and
job performance at Motorola. In R. Hiemstra & R. Brockett, Overcoming
resistance to self-direction in adult learning (pp. 39-46) (New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, no. 64). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P. J. (2008). Productivity in the workplace: The
role of self-directed learning and the implications for HRM. International
Journal of Human Resource Development and Management, 8(4), 293-305.
Guglielmino, P. J., & Guglielmino, L. M. (1983). An examination of the relationship
between self-directed learning readiness and job performance in a major utility.
Boca Raton, FL: Guglielmino & Associates.
Guglielmino, P. J., & Guglielmino, L. M. (2006). Culture, self-directed learner
readiness, and per capita income in five countries. SAM Advanced Management
Journal, 71(2), 21-28, 57.
Guglielmino, P. J., & Klatt, L. A. (1994). Self-directed learning readiness as a
characteristic of the entrepreneur. In H. B. Long & Associates (Eds.), New ideas

43
about self-directed learning (pp. 161-174). Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research
Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education, University of
Oklahoma.
Hassan, A. J. (1981). An investigation of the learning projects of adults of high and low
readiness for self-direction in learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42,
3838A-3839A.
Hiemstra, R. (1996). Self-directed learning. In A. C. Tuijnman (Ed.), International
encyclopedia of adult education and training (pp. 427-433). Oxford, England:
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Hillard, L. C. (2005). The elementary principal’s role in leading reading improvement.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.
Hillard, L. C., & Guglielmino, L. M. (2007). Promoting reading improvement: A case
study of exemplary elementary principals. ERS Spectrum, 25(2), 13-23.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensions of national culture. Retrieved from http://geert-
hofstede.com/countries.html
Inc. (1990). The 500, 71-106.
Liddell, T. N. (2007). Learning and leading: Approaches to leadership self-development
of women executives of philanthropic organizations (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT
3269545)
Long, H. B. (1989). Some additional criticisms of Field's investigation. Adult Education
Quarterly, 39, 240-243.
Long, H. B. (1999). Some provocative comments concerning self-directed learning. In
H. B. Long & Associates (Eds.), Contemporary ideas and practices in self-
directed learning (pp. 1-16). Norman, OK: Public Managers Center, College of
Education, University of Oklahoma.
Long, H. B., & Agyekum, S. K. (1984). Teacher ratings in the validation of
Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Higher Education, 13,
709-715.
McCune, S. K. (1989). A statistical critique of Field's investigation. Adult Education
Quarterly, 39, 243-246.
McCune, S. K., & Guglielmino, L. M. (1991). The validity generalization of
Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. In H. B. Long &
Associates (Eds.), Self-directed learning: Consensus and conflict (pp. 147-154).
Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and
Higher Education, University of Oklahoma.
Medel-Añonuevo, C., Ohsako, T., & Mauch, W. (2001). Revisiting lifelong learning for
the 21st
century. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Education.
Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/uie/pdf/revisitingLLL.pdf

44
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood (3rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Muller, K. (2007). Emotional intelligence and self-directed learning readiness among
healthcare managers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (AAT
3266421)
Oliveira, A. L., & Simões, A. (2006). Impact of socio-demographic and psychological
variables on the self-directedness of higher education students. International
Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 3 (1).
Oliveira, A., Silva, J., Guglielmino, L., & Guglielmino, P. (2010). A cross-cultural study
of self-directed learning readiness, performance, creativity, and problem-solving
in a sample from Portugal. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(1),
45-59.
Papert, S. (2001). Change and resistance to change in education: Taking a deeper look at
why school hasn’t changed. In A. D. Carvalho & Colaboradores, Novo
conhecimento, nova aprendizagem (pp. 61-70). Lisboa, Portugal: Fundação
Calouste Gulbenkian.
Phares, L. & Guglielmino, L. (2010). Self-directed learning of community leaders.
International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(2), 35-53.
Pink, D. (2009). DRiVE: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY:
Riverhead Books.
Posner, F. G. (1990). A study of self-directed learning, perceived competence and
personal orientation among students in an open alternative high school.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 813.
Posner, F. G. (1991). Self-directed learning: The missing ingredient for school reform.
Changing Schools, 19 (1), 1-4 & 8.
Pratt, D. D. (1993). Andragogy after twenty-five years. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), Update
on adult learning theory. (New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
no. 57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, D. G. (1986). A study of the use of the Self-Directed learning Readiness Scale
as related to selected organizational variables. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47, 1218A, 1986.
Russell, J. W. (1988). Learner preference for structure, self-directed learning readiness
and instructional methods. Dissertation Abstracts International,49, 1689.
Straka, G. A. (1997). Self-directed learning in Germany: From instruction to learning in
the process of work. In G. A. Straka (Ed.), European views of self-directed
learning: Historical, conceptional, empirical, practical, vocational (pp. 129-
152). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Torrance, E. P. & Mourad, S. (1978a). Some creativity and style of learning and thinking
correlates of Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale.
Psychological Reports, 43, 1167-1171.
Torrance, E. P., & Mourad, S. (1978b). Self-directed learning readiness skills of gifted
students and their relationships to thinking creatively about the future. The Gifted
Child Quarterly, 22, 180-186.

45
Wiley, K. (1981). Effects of a self-directed learning project and preference for structure
on self-directed learning readiness of baccalaureate nursing students.
World Bank (2011). GNI per capita, Atlas method (2009 data). Retrieved from
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD
Zomorrodian, A. (1998). Self-directed learning: An emerging paradigm in higher and
professional education, theoretical foundation. In H. B. Long & Associates
(Eds.), Developing paradigms for self-directed learning (pp. 225-238). Norman,
OK: Public Managers Center, College of Education, University of Oklahoma.
Zsiga, P. L. (2007). Self-directed learning readiness, strategic thinking, and leader
effectiveness in directors of a national nonprofit organization. Doctoral
dissertation, Florida Atlantic University.
Paul J. Guglielmino (guglielmino@rocketmail.com), is retired from the College of
Business at Florida Atlantic University, where he was named University Distinguished
Professor in 1998. He won the Coleman Award for Research Excellence in
Entrepreneurial Education in 1993. Paul serves on the Board of Directors of the
International Society for Self-Directed Learning and has received the Malcolm Knowles
Award for significant lifelong contributions to the field of self-directed learning. His
primary research interests are self-directed learning in the workplace and across cultures.
Lucy M. Guglielmino (lguglielmino@rocketmail.com) retired as a professor at Florida
Atlantic University in 2011. In 2010, she received the Career Achievement Award from
the Commission of Professors of Adult Education of the American Association for Adult
and Continuing Education, primarily for her research in the area of self-directed
learning. She chairs the Board of Directors of the International Society for Self-Directed
Learning and has received the Malcolm Knowles Award for significant lifelong
contributions to the field of self-directed learning.

Self-Directed Learning—Doing It Wrong!
46
Self-Directed Learning:
Individualizing Instruction– Most Still Do It Wrong!
Roger Hiemstra
During the first International Self-directed Learning Symposium in 1986 I
described a teaching and learning process called individualizing
instruction. I had experienced the viability of the process then and still do
based on the past nearly four decades of developing and using it.
However, I have observed that many teachers of adults today, even given
all the self-directed learning knowledge that has developed, do not
employ aspects of the process. Many appear to fall back on teaching that
was modeled by their own teachers. The intent of article is to describe
this situation, detail what still needs to be done in promoting instruction
that helps learners take increased responsibility for their own learning,
and challenge readers to help make use of individualizing instruction
more widespread.
From Past to Present
I was fortunate enough to present at the inaugural self-directed learning (SDL)
symposium held in 1986 in which several people provided their views on SDL’s state of
the art. My presentation, Self-Directed Learning: Individualizing Instruction, appeared
as a chapter (Hiemstra, 1988a) in the resulting book (Long & Associates, 1988). In this
work I set out what I called the individualizing instruction approach to SDL. I was
urging fellow teachers of adults to allow the maximization of adult learner potential. I
hoped to reach not only professors working with graduate students, but also professional
trainers and even facilitators of adult learning in the myriad of non-credit experiences
that happen daily.
I meant then and today that if adults can be helped to take increasing
responsibility for their own learning, as opposed to a teacher’s or institution’s version of
what that learning should be, their potential for success and resulting ability to become
skilled lifelong learners will be greatly enhanced. These beliefs and the corresponding
instructional methodology I espoused in that 1986 presentation became the foundation of
Individualizing Instruction (Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990) and Self-Direction in Adult
Learning (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991).
Alas, I fear that the clarion call made 25 years ago has not been very well
believed, heeded, or, perhaps, understood. As could be expected, the tremendous amount
of research on SDL since then has branched into a number of streams. That is obviously
very positive, and professionals in the field can only be pleased with the tremendous

47
expansion of SDL knowledge during the past four decades. However, I contend that we
must do a better job of applying what we know about SDL in our own work as
facilitators, professors, teachers, and trainers.
In this article, I will:
1. Describe how I became involved with SDL and developed my views about adults
taking increasing responsibility for their own learning.
2. Summarize what I said in the 1986 symposium with a few elaborations based on
my work after then.
3. Summarize selected pieces of literature that help make my point about the nature
of related research and applications related to individualizing instruction.
4. Provide suggestions on where we go from here in terms of practice and future
research.
How I Got From There To Here
My professional beginning was as a County Cooperative Extension Agent in
Iowa. Although I was initially designated to work with youth primarily through 4-H,
music, summer camps, and county fairs, a supplemental part of my responsibilities
involved training the many adults who volunteered for these various activities. Having
been heavily involved with 4-H youth programs during my formative years, somewhat to
my surprise I quickly found more enjoyment working with adults than with youth. In
essence, like many others, I entered the adult education field through the back door.
Although not formally trained to work with adults, I think being the oldest of six
children with much responsibility for helping with the family farm provided intuitive
experience and opportunities for working with adult audiences. I also quickly learned
that the parents and community leaders whom I began introducing to various 4-H
projects easily mastered the content. Although I did not really recognize it then, I was
obtaining an understanding of how many adults eagerly assume responsibility for their
own learning when given the opportunity. In addition, as I look back on those initial
training experiences, I was building an understanding of what eventually would work for
me as a college professor.
After two years of valuable experience as an Extension Agent, I began pursuing a
Master’s degree in Extension Education at Iowa State University. When my major
advisor convinced me to pursue a doctoral degree, I was fortunate to obtain a fellowship
toward a PhD in Adult Education at the University of Michigan (Hiemstra, 2007). I had
every intention of returning to Iowa upon completion of the doctorate and working as an
administrator in the Extension Service’s state office.
In the fall of 1967 I began working with one of the early leaders in Adult
Education, Howard McClusky (Hiemstra, 2002). His masterful teaching and valuable
mentorship quickly convinced me to pursue the professoriate rather than administration.
Although there were no formal courses or experiences related to college teaching in my
program other than co-teaching a graduate course with Howard my last year in Ann
Arbor, I did complete three courses related to adult learning, psychology, and television
production. I also began consciously observing the various teaching styles and

48
approaches of my professors; some of them, like Howard’s, were outstanding and
uplifting; while I knew I would not want to emulate the styles of others. However, when
I arrived in Lincoln, Nebraska, in the fall of 1970 as a new assistant professor I was
fairly unprepared for college teaching, especially when in that first semester of teaching
two graduate courses I faced a total of 48 adults, only two of whom were younger than
me. I was nervous and simply fell back on following the preset syllabi handed me, did
lots of lecturing, administered fairly standard types of exams, and graded on a curve. In
essence, I was modeling most of the approaches I had experienced as either an
undergraduate or graduate student. I tried to incorporate a few of the techniques I had
experienced with Howard but did not have the confidence to follow most of what he
used. I believe that many if not most professors today rely a great deal on modeling what
their prior teachers did, whether such styles do or do not work well with adult learners.
Fortunately for me, in 1972 two things happened that changed both my teaching
approach and research directions. I attended the annual conference of the Adult
Education Associaton of the United States of America and heard Allen Tough give a
conference presentation related to his work with adults’ learning projects (Tough, 1971).
That same year Malcolm Knowles came to the University of Nebraska campus to talk
about his work with andragogy (Knowles, 1970). Because of my limited television
production experience during my doctoral work, I was asked to work with Malcolm and
the Nebraska Educational Television system to produce a 30-minute video in which I
interviewed him about his development of the andragogical concepts (Hiemstra &
Knowles, 1972). Because of both experiences I slowly began using an andragogical
approach in my instructional efforts and initiated what has been nearly four decades of
SDL research.
The 1986 Presentation On Individualizing Instruction
The notion of adults having a deep need or at least desire to be self-directing,
even if they are not always conscious of it, and the corresponding teacher roles were
important to my contentions that day. After summarizing some of Knowles’
andragogical notions, I referred to his observation that an essential aspect of the
maturation process is an adult’s ability to take increasing responsibility for life
(Knowles, 1975).
After talking about some research related to SDL and instruction, I laid out the
individualized teaching-learning process based on what I had experienced and developed
since 1972. This process facilitates adult learners’ growth in making many of their own
decisions as they move toward the accomplishment of personal goals. In terms of
university teaching, obviously some learning goals need to be set by an instructor or are
established by standardized curricular decisions; however, decision-making by adults
toward their own specific learning needs should be the goal. Such goals can range from
needing to meet several course requirements to a desire for meeting various personal
needs. The rate at which such goals are determined will vary from learner to learner, but
the point in helping such adults take increasing responsibility for their own learning is to
allow differing rates to take place.

49
In essence the individualized instruction process is based on a notion that all
adults are indeed capable of self-directed learning involvement and choice making when
given the opportunity. It remains my contention that when such decisions are left to
instructors, administrators, or pre-determined curricula, opportunities for adults to take
increasing responsibility for learning are greatly limited.
It has been my experience that some adult learners will quickly take to the notion
of making their own learning decisions, while others will be more hesitant because of
prior experiences with instructors and courses. Thus, the individualizing process and the
use of learning contracts (Knowles, 1986), allows an instructor to provide more guidance
and support to those who most need it, while allowing early decision-makers or adults
confident with their own self-direction to move forward more quickly. My observation
over the years is that very few adults reject or withdraw from the individualizing
processes, especially when they understand that their own learning needs within the
parameters of a course structure can be focused on and accomplished. In reality, many, if
not most, adult learners not only thrive within such an environment, they also carry the
resulting personal empowerment feelings forward into other learning experiences.
I also have been involved with considerable online teaching during the past
twenty-five years. The individualized instruction process has worked well for me in that
environment, and I have received corresponding positive responses from learners.
Because online adult learners usually must be more self-directed than when they are in
face-to-face courses, creating an environment where they can take initiative and make
more of their own learning decisions has been relatively easy to accomplish. Even in a
few instances when others prepared the online syllabus, I was able to include several
individualizing opportunities that appeared to help adults go beyond the predesigned
requirements and create final products tailored to more specific needs.
The results of my instructional approach over the years, such as teaching awards,
considerable related scholarship, and overwhelmingly positive feedback from adult
learners, plus my increasing knowledge of SDL, continue my contentions that such
learners are capable of and typically really appreciate being given increased
responsibility for their own learning. Here are just a few comments from past course
evaluations that seem to accurately represent how adult learners feel about the
individualized instruction process.
I love the learning contract concept. I was happy to see it at the graduate level.
Rog did a great job balancing the need for structure with my own goals and
desires for my professional development and learning
This was my first time dealing with a learning contract. I definitely found it
helpful to make this course more individualized.
The syllabus was overwhelming and daunting at first, but proved to be an
absolutely invaluable resource as I worked independently.

50
Allowing us to individualize our work and focus on things of interest to us is
what makes this course work. My most challenging, and one of the most
rewarding courses to date.
Usually I can sail right through my courses, but this course forced me to go out
and do real work, which therefore helped me to learn.
I believe that my utilizing the individualized instruction process with several
hundred adults over the past 35 years has helped many learners and future instructors
move toward notions of learning involving increased personal responsibility. One of the
reasons for this article, however, is my belief that many college instructors continue to
utilize more teacher-directed approaches; even in light of our ever-increasing body of
knowledge about SDL. In addition, I have observed the teaching approaches of many
fellow professors over the years and seldom see them using learning contracts,
individualized learning techniques, or the encouragement of learners taking increased
responsibility.
For some instructors the efforts of moving toward an individualizing instruction
approach can be difficult. It will mean giving up on several personal beliefs about
teaching and learning. It often will necessitate reevaluating past learning experiences. It
will most likely mean acknowledging that many such experiences with teaching need to
be reexamined. It definitely will mean assessing personal philosophical beliefs about the
teaching process and “doing some real soul searching as to whether or not some of the
assumptions about humans that underlie the process are acceptable” (Hiemstra, 1988a, p.
104). My assumption is that few college professors, for example, take the time to
construct a personal teaching philosophy statement or think about how such a
philosophy, even if unrecognized, impacts their teaching (Brockett & Hiemstra, 2004;
Hiemstra, 1988b; Zinn, 1990).
Specific Instructional Roles
The purpose of this section is to describe briefly some of the roles in the
individualized instruction process that an instructor plays in helping adults assume more
responsibility for their own learning. For additional detail see such resources as Brockett
(1998), Brockett and Hiemstra (1991), Hiemstra (1988a, 1998, 2000), Hiemstra and
Brockett (1994), Hiemstra and Sisco (1990), and Sisco (1998). In the Brockett and
Hiemstra book is a description of the PRO (personal responsibility orientation) model in
which we provide a framework for better understanding SDL that also has served as a
basis for additional research (Banz, 2009; Fogerson, 2005; Newell, 1995; Stockdale,
2003).
Five years after that initial symposium, I presented another symposium paper based
on examining the SDL literature from 1971-1991 (Hiemstra, 1992). From that effort I
drew five conclusions related to self-direction and assuming personal responsibility for
learning. They are abbreviated below:
1. All adults are capable of self-directed involvement in, personal commitment to,
and responsibility for learning.

51
2. Adult learners are capable of taking personal responsibility for their own learning
and assuming an increasingly larger role in the instructional process.
3. Linking the instructional process with learner inputs, involvement, and decision
making is crucial.
4. There are various links between an adult learner’s propensity to be self-directed
and several personal attributes or characteristics.
5. Self-direction in learning can take place in any location.
I then described the individualized process:
The individualizing process includes six steps in which the facilitator becomes
involved with instructional activities before any initial contact with learners
occurs and the involvement continues through the final evaluation. Step one
involves several activities prior to meeting with any competencies or
requirements, acquiring learning support materials, and preparing study guides.
Step two involves paying attention to physical, emotional, and social
environmental needs (Hiemstra, 1991). Step three requires that some initial time
be spent clarifying probable educational needs and focal points. Step four
necessitates the identification of various ways learners [via learning contracts]
can build knowledge or increase competencies through reading, writing,
discussion, and design activities related to the needs they identified earlier. Step
five in the process begins to parallel traditional instruction. It consists of
monitoring and contributing to the progress of the initial planning efforts. Step
six entails facilitating learners in self, teacher, and course evaluation efforts. The
individualizing instruction process works because it helps adults take
responsibility for their own learning. It does not work equally well in every
teaching situation, but its foundation in the belief that all people are capable of
self-directed involvement with learning makes it a process that should be studied,
understood, and tried. (Hiemstra, 1992, p. 335)
From this work over the years have emerged six instructional roles that I believe provide
the foundation for promoting personal responsibility among adult learners:
1. Content resource—Sharing expertise and knowledge with learners through
written material, web pages, presentations, face to face or online discussions, and
some one-on-one advising, conversations, counseling, and coaching (Posner,
2009).
2. Resource locator—Locating and sharing various learning resources to meet needs
identified and emerging during a learning experience. These can be written
materials, Internet resources, and facilitating people-oriented experiences such as
agency audits or visits, mini-internships, and talking with topic specialists.
3. Interest stimulator—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, guest
presenters, and humorous PPT presentations.

52
4. Positive attitude generator—Helping learners via constructive feedback, personal
encouragement, positive reinforcement, and extensive critique of written
material.
5. Creativity and critical thinking stimulator—Stimulating a learner's creative and
critical thinking skills through discussions (face-to-face or online), face-to-face
or electronic study groups, journal writing, interactive reading logs, role playing,
and simulation of real-life experiences. Additional means include helping
learners develop web pages, blogs, and wikis as a means of sharing what they
have developed.
6. Evaluation stimulator—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.
Have We Progressed Much In 25 Years?
I am still surprised when I ask adults in all of my courses how many have
experienced the learning contract approach. It is very rare that anyone says yes unless
they have had a course with me before. I wonder, then, how much influence my work
and the work of leaders like Grow (1991), Guglielmino (1978, 2008), Knowles (1970,
1975, 1980, 1984, & 1986), Long (2000, 2002), Tough (1971), and others have had on
instructional approaches? It has been my observation that very few of my colleagues
utilize learning contracts or individualized approaches. Why is this? Is it too easy to fall
back on modeling from prior years as a learner? Are they unwilling to trust that the
individualizing approach will work? Has SDL research failed to have lasting impact on
instruction and instructors? Are too many instructors required to follow preset curricula
or institutional expectations? Are today’s university-required evaluation rubrics tied only
to teacher-directed philosophies?
I do recognize that I may be overzealous in promoting my view of implementing
what we know about SDL in terms of instruction. There is, of course, some SDL
literature that supports or relates to my contentions. Bulik (2009) urges that we “build in
an opportunity for learner control of the environment” (p. 57) in our instructional efforts.
Bulik and Frye (2004), however, note how many faculty still
hold beliefs about teaching and learning that are strongly associated with the
traditional notions of course and content delivery that are undergoing such
radical change. How can faculty beliefs about the traditional teaching-learning
interaction be changed? Even more important: Are continuing education (faculty
development) workshops providing a venue for faculty to address long-held
traditional beliefs about their teaching? (p. 70)
Coe (2009) also talks about facilitating self-directed learning: “For the
autonomous learner who is resourceful, the classroom is only one source of information
to choose from among many. Students frequently use the Internet for research and seek

53
out other students to further their learning” (p. 145). Grow (1991) “proposes a way
teachers can be vigorously influential while empowering students towards greater
autonomy” (p. 128). Knox (1986) talked about helping adult learners assume
responsibility for their own learning:
What attention do you give to helping participants learn how to learn, explore,
and assume responsibility for direction of their learning activities? Most
instructors want participants to be interested in learning and able to learn
independently after the program. What assistance do you provide to make this
likely? (p. 47)
Long and Agyekum (2003) posit that
effective classroom learning is in reality a result of greater self-direction rather
than dependence upon the instructor. If this is the case, student perceptions of
important learning tasks vis-à-vis perceptions of important instructor tasks should
be helpful in linking self-direction in classroom learning. (p. 143)
Boyer and Maher (2005) describe some of the angst an instructor will experience in
sharing power with learners: “The departure from traditional learning models can create
discomfort for faculty as power and control become shared. A collaborative process and
increased time are necessary for facilitation of individual and group learning contracts,
content design, and basic structural frameworks” (p. 78). Boucouvalas (2009) describes
what can happen for a learner encouraged to grow:
We have the ability, as demonstrated over the years, to develop an autonomous
aspect of selfhood that enables us to: (a) take initiative and responsibility for
learning, (b) understand ourselves as learners, and (c) maintain our self-direction,
even when in other-directed environments; however, as individuals we are also
embedded in relationships, groups, communities and cultures, nations, and
society-at-large. As well, beyond these affiliations, the entire human species
shares a global identity as citizens of planet earth. (pp. 3-4)
Ponton (2009) suggests,
instructors can help students to interpret arousals [physiological and affective] as
indicants of expanding, rather than limited, capabilities. Armed with strong
beliefs in personal efficacy, the self-directed learner is better able to reject
disconfirming evidence of capability while selectively highlighting successful
endeavors, thereby feeling empowered to influence personal life trajectories via
SDL activities. (p. 73)
Guglielmino (2008) makes a viable argument in support of the growing need for self-
directed learning in at least three areas: (a) SDL in formal learning settings, (b) SDL in
the workplace, and (c) SDL for personal effectiveness and satisfaction. Zsiga and
Webster (2007) make a strong case for needing SDL in secondary education settings.

54
Finally, Brockett (2006) is concerned that with the growing amount of information
facing people today there is a need to help all adult learners deal with the “ever-
exploding range of choices they are likely to face: (a) helping self-directed learners make
good decisions; and (b) recognizing that there are [even] times when choosing not to
learn is a viable option” (p. 31).
There are, of course, those who have critiqued, dismissed, or discounted aspects
of self-directed learning, and not only those in adult education. A few of them are
presented here. As an example, Brookfield (1995), an adult educator trained in England
but who has worked in the United States for most of his career, has raised a loud and
influential voice in opposition to some of the points I made: “An example of a causal
assumption is that if we use learning contracts, this will increase students’ self-
directedness” (p. 3). However, later he talks about a potential fallacy in this assumption:
“Unless the ground for learning contracts has been well prepared and a detailed case for
them has been built, students may interpret their use as evidence of a teacher’s laziness
or of a laissez-faire intellectual relativism” (p. 5). It has been my experience that adult
learners will question, consider, and interpret learning contracts in ways that make sense
to them, especially if you provide adequate descriptions and examples at the beginning
of a learning experience.
Eneau (2008), a French adult educator, cautions that autonomy and self-directed
learning must be considered in relation to societal as well as an individual’s needs:
To help an adult to be autonomous, to recognize and support autonomy (to
become a person), is then to help the other find a rightful place in the
construction of a communal society, and therefore to question one’s own place
and one’s responsibility as an educator to help build a new model of how we are
to live together. (p. 246)
Darbyshire (1993), from the nursing field, critiqued notions of andragogy and self-
directed learning. Field (1989), an Australian educator, raised his concerns about the
SDLRS as a valid and reliable measure of self-directed learning readiness. Baveye
(2003), a faculty member in environmental engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, believes we need means other than the SDLRS to quantify self-directed
learning preparedness. Jones (1996), a Physical Sciences professor at Emporia State
University provided several criticisms of self-directed learning for both learners and
instructors.
Finally, the PRO model (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991) has not escaped its critics.
Flannery (1993), for example, in a review of the book, expressed the belief that we
minimized cultural and sociological issues. Newell (1995), an adult learner who had
worked with Hiemstra and used the PRO model in her medical-related research, urged
not only an expansion of social aspects of the model, but also more thought about such
dimensions as political and economic aspects. Garrison (1997) believed the PRO model
was somewhat limited because it did not thoroughly examine psychological dimensions
of SDL. Kohns (2006) believed that personal responsibility should be separated more
from various learner characteristics. Such criticisms have been valuable, as we have now
reconceptualized the model and refer to it as the Person-Process-Context (PPC) mode

55
where social contexts are seen in dynamic interrelationships with personal components
and instructional processes (Brockett & Hiemstra, 2010). We hope that the revised
model will serve to stimulate additional research, thought, and critique.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Given that there are mixed views of SDL but with my strong belief in individualized
instruction’s value, where do we go from here? Here are my initial ideas of what to do
next, and I welcome dialogue from readers of this article:
• An obvious suggestion is to note that we need more research on teaching in
relation to SDL. The annual International Self-Directed Learning Symposium
and the International Journal of Self-Directed Learning have been venues for
presenting such research. However, it is my hope that this article will stimulate
additional thinking, research, and scholarship, even in other venues, related to
individualizing the instruction process.
• I encourage every person who already teaches or plans to teach adults to develop
a statement of personal philosophy if they have not already done so. In addition
to the references noted earlier pertaining to the process of doing this, several
examples of such statements can be found at: http://www-distance.syr.
edu/ethics.html.
• I encourage authors and presenters at the International Self-Directed learning
Symposium and other research reporting venues who are doing SDL research to
think about and include within their work various implications for teaching that
emanate from their research.
• I encourage professors teaching adult learners to find ways of including aspects
of SDL and individualizing the instruction process within their teaching efforts.
• Finally, I encourage those who have ideas about instruction counter to what I
have presented to share their ideas in journals, online publications, and at future
national and international meetings so we can have more debate and dialogue on
this topic.
Francom (2010) provides four principles for helping adults better transition to taking
on more responsibility for their own learning that provide an appropriate ending for this
article. They are as follows:
1. Match the level of self-directed learning required in learning activities to
student readiness.
2. Progress from teacher to student direction of learning over time.
3. Support the acquisition of subject matter knowledge and self-directed
learning skills together.
4. Have adults practice self-directed learning in the context of learning tasks.
(pp. 33-36)

56
In essence, faculty who desire to enhance the abilities of their adult learners to take
increasing responsibility of and for their own learning have the skill to create an
effective environment in which this can happen. In the long run they will help to foster
adults who are better able to make choices, develop improved learning skills, and
become more effective lifelong learners.
References
Banz, R. N. (2009). Exploring the Personal Responsibility Orientation Model: Self-
Directed learning within museum education (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3374451)
Baveye, P. (2003). Refocusing the self-directed learning debate. Family Medicine, 35,
445-446.
Boucouvalas, M. (2009). Revisiting the concept of self in self-directed learning: Toward
a more robust construct for research and practice in a global context.
International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 6(1), 1-10.
Boyer, N., & Maher, P. (2005). From spoon-fed to student-led: Fostering an atmosphere
for web-based transformational learning. International Journal of Self-Directed
Learning, 2(2), 66-80.
Brockett, R. G. (1998.). Humanism as an instructional paradigm In C. R. Dills & A. J.
Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 245-256).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Retrieved from
http://www-distance.syr.edu/romira1&.html
Brockett, R. G. (2006). Self-directed learning and the paradox of choice. International
Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 3(2), 27-33.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning. New York, NY:
Routledge. Retrieved from http://www-distance.syr.edu/sdlindex.html
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (2004). Toward ethical practice. Malabar, FL: Krieger
Publishing.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (2010, February). The PRO Model after two decades:
Bringing the model into the 21st century. Paper presented at the 24th
International Self-Directed Learning Symposium, Cocoa Beach, FL. Abstracted
information retrieved from http://sdlearning.pbworks.com/w/page/1899143/SDL-
Emerging-Trends-and-Themes
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bulik, R. J. (2009). Reconsidering the metaphor for teaching in the age of the self-
directed learner. In M. G. Derrick & M. K. Ponton, (Eds.), Emerging directions
in self-directed learning (pp. 51-64). Chicago, IL: Discovery Association
Publishing House.
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.

57
Coe, J. G. (2009). Constructing a facilitation of self-directed learning. In M. G. Derrick
& M. K. Ponton, (Eds.), Emerging directions in self-directed learning (pp 137-
151). Chicago, IL: Discovery Association Publishing House.
Darbyshire, P. (1993). In defence of pedagogy: A critique of the notion of andragogy.
Nurse Education Today, 5, 328-35.
Eneau, J. (2008). From autonomy to reciprocity, or vice versa? French personalism’s
contribution to a new perspective on self-directed learning. Adult Education
Quarterly, 59, 229-248. doi: 10.1177/0741713608314135
Field, L. (1989). An investigation into the structure, validity, and reliability of
Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Adult Education
Quarterly, 39, 125-139.
Flannery, D. D. (1993). [Review of the book Self-Direction in adult learning:
Perspectives on theory, research, and practice, by R. G. Brockett & R.
Hiemstra]. Adult Education Quarterly, 43(2), 110-112.
Fogerson, D. L. (2005). Readiness factors contributing to participant satisfaction in
online higher education courses (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3188873)
Francom, G. M. (2010). Teach me how to learn: Principles for fostering students' self-
directed learning skills. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(1),
29-44.
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult
Education Quarterly, 48, 18-33.
Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly,
41(3), 125-149.
Guglielmino, L M. (1978). Development of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale.
Guglielmino, L. M. (2008). Why self-directed learning? International Journal of Self-
Directed Learning, 5(1), 1-14.
Hiemstra, R. (1988a). Self-Directed learning: Individualizing instruction. In H. B. Long
& Associates, Self-directed learning: Application & theory (pp. 99-124). Athens,
GA: Department of Adult Education, University of Georgia.
Hiemstra, R. (1988b). Translating personal values and philosophy into practical actions
In R. G. Brockett (Ed.), Ethical issues in adult education (pp. 178-194). New
York: Teachers College Press. Retrieved (updated and edited version) from
http://www-distance.syr.edu/philchap.html
Hiemstra, R. (1991). Creating environments for effective adult learning (New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 50), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Retrieved from http://www-distance.syr.edu/leindex.html
Hiemstra, R. (1992). Individualizing the instructional process: What we have learned
from two decades of research on self-direction in learning. In H. B. Long &
Associates, Self-Directed learning: Application and research (pp. 323-344).
Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and
Higher Education, University of Oklahoma.
Hiemstra, R. (1998). Applying the individualizing instruction model with adult learners.
In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms

58
(pp. 555-570). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Retrieved from http://www-distance.syr.edu/romiro1&.html
Hiemstra, R. (2000). Self-Directed learning: The personal responsibility model. In G. A.
Straka, Ed., Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptional
considerations (93-108). New York, NY: Waxmann.
Hiemstra, R. (2002). Howard McClusky. Retrieved from http://www-distance.
syr.edu/hymvita.html
Hiemstra, R. (2007). Roger Hiemstra: An adult educator from Kalamazoo. In K. B.
Armstrong, L. W. Nabb, & A. P. Czech (Eds.), North American adult educators
(pp. 145-151). Chicago, IL: Discovery Association Publishing House.
Hiemstra, R., & Brockett, R. G. (Eds.). (1994). Overcoming resistance to self-direction
in adult learning (New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 64),
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http:// www-distance.syr.
edu/ndacesdindex.html
Hiemstra, R., & Knowles, M. S. (1972). Andragogy: A discussion about a new concept
in adult education. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Education Television Council for
Higher Education (a 30 minute television program).
Hiemstra, R. & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass. Retrieved from http://www-distance.syr.edu/iiindex.html
Jones, R. (1996). Criticism of self-directed learning. American Journal of Physics, 64,
109.
Knowles, M. S. (1970). Modern practice of adult education. New York, NY:
Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-Directed learning. New York, NY: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education (Revised and Updated).
Chicago, IL: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Knowles, M. S. (1986). Using learning contracts. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Knox, A. B. (1986). Helping adults learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kohns, J. W. (2006). The measurement of an adult’s perceptions of personal
responsibility in self-directed learning (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3214731)
Long, H. B. (2000). What we think we know about self-directed learning. In H. B. Long
& Associates (Eds.), Practice & theory in self-directed learning (pp. 11-24).
Schaumberg, IL: Motorola University Press.
Long, H. B. (2002). Teaching for learning. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.
Long, H. B., & Agyekum, S. K. (2003). Adult student perceptions of instructor/learner
tasks. In H. B. Long & Associates, Current developments in e-learning & self-
directed learning (pp. 141-161). Boynton Beach, FL: Motorola University.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1988). Self-Directed learning: Application and research.
Athens, GA: Department of Adult Education, University of Georgia.
Newell, L. T. (1995). How family physicians learn a new medical procedure: Case
investigations using the Personal Responsibility Orientation Model (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order
No. 9625870)

59
Ponton, M. K. (2009). An agentic perspective contrasting autonomous learning with self-
directed learning. In M. G. Derrick & M. K. Ponton (Eds.), Emerging directions
in self-directed learning (pp. 65-76). Chicago, IL: Discovery Association
Publishing House.
Posner, R. (2009). Lives of passion, school of hope. Boulder, CO: Sentient Publications.
Sisco, B. (1998). The individualizing instruction model. In C. R. Dills & A. J.
Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 391-400).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Retrieved from
http://www-distance.syr.edu/romib1&.html
Stockdale, S. L. (2003). Development of an instrument to measure self-directedness
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (Order No. 3092836)
Francom, G. M. (2010). Teach me how to learn: Principles for fostering students’ self-
directed learning skills. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(1), 1-
16.
Tough, A. M. (1971). The adult's learning projects. Toronto: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.
Zinn, L. M. (1990). Identifying your personal orientation. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.),
Adult learning methods (pp. 39-77). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.
Zsiga, P. L., & Webster, M. (2007). Why should secondary educators be interested in
self-directed learning? International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 4(2), 58-
68.
Roger Hiemstra (rogerhiemstra@gmail.com) is Professor Emeritus, Syracuse University,
and an adjunct professor with several universities. His research interests include self-
directed learning and instruction, older adults as learners, and ethical practices for adult
educators. He manages an adult education resource web page at http://www-
distance.syr.edu/distancenew.html

Knowless self directed 3

More Related Content

What's hot (11)

Similar to Knowless self directed 3 (20)

More from syazalinah (15)

Recently uploaded (20)

Knowless self directed 3