development of the self-directed learning perception scale … · 2010-02-08 · abstract...
TRANSCRIPT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING PERCEPTION SCALE
JANE PILLING-CORMICK
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education University of Toronto
@ Copyright by Jane ~ i l l i n g - c o n n i c k (1996)
National Library of Canada
Bibliothique nationale du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services sewices bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON Kt A O N 4 OtbwaON KIA ON4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a now L'auteur a accorde me licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pernettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, preter, distxibuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette tbese sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent &e imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.
ABSTRACT
Development of the Self-Directed Learning Perception Scale Jane Filling-Cormick, Ph-D.
Graduate Department of Theory and policy Studies in Education University of Toronto, 1996
The purpose of this study was to: a) describe theoretical
foundations for the construct of the self-directed process (SDL);
b) develop an instrument to provide a description of what helps
students with the SDL process; and c) to conduct an investigation
to validate the instrument.
The literature review identified characteristics in the SDL
literature that help students with the SDL process. The resulting
profile of an SDL environment included factors relatingto physical
aspects of the institution, physical aspects of the classroom, how
the institution functions, how the course functions and providing
a supportive climate for building relationships. Contextual issues
become the focus with an emphasis on processes which occur in the
SDL process. The SDLP model provided a basis for creating an
instrument to study students' perceptions of the helpfulness of the
identified characteristics.
By using the logical construction method, a theoretical chart
emerged based on the factors identified in the SDLP model. The key
features of the model were addressed in the questionnaire items of
Self-Directed Learning Perception Scale (SDLPS). The instrument
was reviewed in a prepilot study, tried out in a pilot study,
ii
revised and tested again in a field study. Findings indicated how
one group of students responded to the helpfulness of the five
categories of the SDL environment.
By providing a model of SDL, this study should provide a framework
to help researchers further explore dimensions such as student and
educator characteristics. By studying these other dimensions, a
more complete picture of what SDL involves can emerge. There is a
need for an instrument which can be used by planning committees,
provide help to curriculum writers, and suggest possible reasons
for students' problems with SDL-
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is with sincere appreciation that I acknowledge the assistance
of the many individuals who have provided support during this
research project. ~irst, I must thank George Geis, chairperson of
my committee, for his continued encouragement throughout the
dissertation process. Both Patricia Cranton and Allen Tough,
members of my committee, provided invaluable suggestions, guidance
and support especially through the period of model and instrument
development. A special thank you to Roger Hiemstra , my external
examiner, for the time and effort he put into providing invaluable
comments and support.
My parents, Graham and Mary Jane, have always encouraged me to
follow my dreams and 1 would like to thank them for their
understanding and patience. Most of all, I am indebted to my
husband, Harold who has encouraged and faithfully assisted me
throughout.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
LIST OF TABLES ............................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. xi LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................... xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem ................................. 1 Purpose .................................................. 1 Significance of the Study ................................ 1 Definition of Terms ...................................... 2 ~ssumptions and Limitations .............................. 3 Organization of the Research ............................. 4
C W T E R TWO: LITERATURE: REVIEW
SDL Defined ..............e............................... 6 Personal Attribute or Instructional Method .......... 6 Formal or Informal Education ........................ 8 ~ssumptions Underlying the Definition for ........... 9 this Study
Working Definition of SDL .......................... 10 The Research Approach Defined ........................... 10
Paradigms in the SDL Literature .................... 11 Positivist Paradigm ........................... 11 Constructivist Paradigm ................... .... 14 Critical Paradigm ............................. 17 .......... Implications for a Context-Based Research 19
Approach .... Assumptions Underlying the Research Approach in 20 this Study
Working Research Approach ...................... .... 21 ........ Concerns about Instruments in the SDL Literature 21 Self-Defining ...................................... 21 Linearity in the SDL Process ....................... 22 Individual Differences ............................. 22 Situational Differences ............................ 22 Technical Planning ................................. 23 Observer Bias ...................................... 24 Cultural Differences ............................... 24 ....... Considerations for Developing Instruments for SDL 25
Summary ................................................. 26
CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTER THRFZ: DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEW-DIRECTED LEARNING PROCESS MODEL
Description of the SDI;P Model ........................... 28 ........... Interaction Between Educator and Student 28 Encompassing Role of Control ....................... 29 Dimensions Influencimg the Interaction ............. 29
Components of the SDLP Model ............................ 32 Control ............................................ 32 ....... Models of Control in the SDL Literature 33 ....... ~imensions of Control in the SDLP Model 35
Student Characteristics .................. 35 Level of Comfort .................... 36 Skills .............................. 36 Preference for Directed ............. 37
Instruction Learned Helplessness ................ 37 Development of Personal Learning .... 38 Myths
Adapting to Instructional . ,......... 38 Situations
Educator Characteristics ................. 39 Personal Beliefs .................... 40 Forms of Control .................... 40 Lack of Skills for Sharing .......... 41 Authority
~nvironmental Characteristics ............ 42 Physical Aspects of the ............. 43
Institution Physical Aspects of the Classroom ... 44 Supportive Climate for Building ..... 44
Relationships Student's Progress .................. 45 How the Course Functions ............ 46 How the Institution Functions ....... 46
Social Constraints ....................... 48 Culture ............................. 48 Politics ............................ 49
Learning and Facilitating Processes ................ 50 Learning ...................................... 51
Learning in the SDL Literature ........... 51 Internal Process .................... 51 Process of Change ................... 52 Forms of Learning ..,................ 53 Series of Stages ..................... 55 Taxonomy Approach ................... 56
Approach to Learning in the SDLP Model ... 58 Deciding to Investigate ............. 59 Reflecting on Learning .............. 61 Reaching an Outcome ................. 62 Considering Future Learning ......... 63
CONTENTS (Continued)
........ Summary of Learning as Defined in 64 the SDLP Model
Facilitating .................................. 64 ....... Facilitating in the SDL Literature 65 Instructor Involvement .............. 65
..................... Educatorfs Role 66 Helping Aspect ................. 66 Promoting or Stimulating ....... 69 Aspect
Steps for the Educator to Follow .... 69 Developmental Process ............... 70 Deep-level Processing Approach ...... 71
Approach to Facilitating in the SDLP ..... 71 Model
Provide Content Resources ........... 72 Promote Motivation .................. 72 Encourage Development of a .......... 72 Positive Attitude Toward SDL
Promote Reflection .................. 73 Provide Instructional Planning ...... 73 .................. Provide Assistance 74 Be a Co-Learner ..................... 74 ..................... Be an Evaluator 75
Summary of Facilitating As Defined in .... 75 the SDLP Model
Bow the SDLP Model is Different ......................... 75 Process-Orientation ................................ 76 Dynamic Nature .................................o... 76 Multiple Variables 76 Relationship Between ~acilitating and Learning ..... 77 Contextual Issues .................................. 77 Dimensions of Control .............................. 78 Resistance to SDL .................................. 78
Summary ...............,.....m............m.............. 78
CHAPTER FOUR: CONSTRUCTION OF THE SDLPS
Research Procedures Used to Develop the SDLPS ........... 79 Guidelines for Developing the SDLPS ..................... 79 Construction of the First Draft ......................... 82
Three Forms ......................................... 82 Items ............................................... 83 Scale ............................................... 83 Subheadings ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
re pilot Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .m.. . . . .m..m... . . . . . . . 84 ........................ Panel of ~ypical ~espondents 84 ........................................ Versions 84 .................................... Item Wording 85
vii
CONTENTS (Continued)
Panel of Experts .................................... 85 Versions ........................................ 85 Item Wording .................................... 85 ................................. Number of Items 86 Purpose of the Instrument ....................--. 87
........................................... Scale 88 Instructions to the Student ..................... 88
Summary ................................................. 89
CHAPTER FIVE : PILOT STUDY AND FIELD TEST
................................ ~dministration Procedure 90 Characteristics of the Sample Form ................. 90 .............................. Student Feedback Form 90 Instructor Feedback Form ........................... 91 ....................... Procedure for ~dministration 91- .............................. Sample and Population 92
Pilot Study ......................................... 92 Data Analysis ...................................... 93 Results ............................................ 93 Findings .......................................... 94
................. Modifications from the Pilot Study 94 Specific ~nstructions for Items that Do ....... 95 Not Apply
Emphasizing the Instrument is Not a Course .... 96 Evaluation
Mismatch Between Items and the Scale .......... 97 Use of the Word "Course" ...................... 97 First Person Reference ........................ 98 Clarity of the Question ....................... 99
Field Test ............................................. 101 Data Analysis ..................................... 102 Results ...............................I.......... 102
Analysis of the Categories ................... 102 .......... Physical Aspects of the School 102 Physical Aspects of the Classroom ....... 103 ........... How the ~nstitution Functions 103 ................ How the Course unctions 104 ......... Supportive Climate for Building 104 Elelationships
Scale Analysis ............................... 105 Rankings ..................................... 106
Helpful Items ........................... 106 .................. Slightly Helpful Items 107 ............ Items Not Affecting Learning 107 Summary ...................................... 108
viii
CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION. CONCLUSIONS. AND IMPLICATIONS
.................. Characteristics in the SDL Literature 109 Development of a Model ................................. 109 Creation of the SDLPS .................................. 110 ~esting Out the Instrument ............................. 110
Findings about SDL .....................am....m.... 110 Helpful Factors .............................. 111 Resistance ................................... 111
Findings about the SDLPS .......................... 111 Clarity of Purpose ........................... 112 Confusion Concerning ~irections fo r the ...... 112
Instructor Item Redundancy .............................. 115 Item ~pplicability ........................... 116
Implications f o r Practice .............................. 117 Implications f o r Research .............................. 119 Summary ................................................ 122
REFERENCES .................................................. 123
Table
LIST OF TABLES
Paqe
.................. Instruments Identified as ~ssessing SDL 13
............. Major Qualitative Studies in t h e Area of SDL 16
.......... Interests. Knowledge and Related Aspects of SDL 20
Considerations in Developing Instruments t o Study SDL .... 25 ............ Definitions of Learning Stressing an In te rna l 52
Component
............ Guidelines f o r Developing Items for the SDLPS 81
Standard Procedures for Communicating with Instructors ... 92
Fiqure
LIST OF FIGURES
Paqe
Interaction Between Educator and Student ................. 29 Dimensions Affecting Control ............................. 30
........ Examples of the Four Dimensions Affecting Control 31
SDL Process Model ........................................ 31 Stages Presented in Developmental Models of Learning ..... 57 Reflective Processes ..................................... 58 Context-Based Learning in SDL ............................ 60 Research Procedures Used to Develop the SDLPS ............ 80
LIST OF APPENDICES
AFPENDIX A: SDL FACTORS APPEARING I N THE LITERATURE ,.. 138
APPENDIX B: MATERIALS PERTAINING TO TEE PREPILOT PHASE ..... 150 APPENDIX C: FORMS USED IN ADMINISTRATION . - . . o , . . o - . - . . - . . . . 180
APPENDIX D: PILOT STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS FROM . - . . o 185 THE PILOT
APPENDIX E: FIELD TEST QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS FROM . . - - . . 204 THE FIELD TEST
APPENDIX F: LARGE SCALE DATA . ~ o o w . . w . . o . . . . . . . o . . . . . . o ~ . o ~ , 223
x i i
CHAPTEIR ONE
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Many educators endorse self-directed learning (SDL) and interest in
it seems to be growing. Educators need information about what
students perceive to be conducive to, or supportive of, SDL.
Instruments to provide such information need to be developed
(Brockett & Hiemstra, 199 1) . This research involves developing
such an instrument.
Purpose
The present study seeks to:
I. Describe theoretical foundations for the construct of
the SDL process.
2. Develop an instrument to provide a description
of what helps students with the SDL process.
3 . Conduct preliminary tryouts of the instrument.
Significance of the Study
The present study will make a contribution to the existing
knowledge about SDL by developing a construct of the SDL process
and an instrument to provide descriptions of that construct. Data
obtained from the instrument will be useful for educators in many
ways including suggesting possible reasons for students' problems
with SDL, being used by planning committees, and helping curriculum
2
writers. The issue of validity of the instrument is, of course, of
importance. Some preliminary attempts at validating have been
undertaken as part of this research: correspondence has been
established between items in the questionnaire and statements of
characteristics of SDL in the literature; experts in the field have
reviewed and commented upon the items and the instrument as a
whole. But further validation studies must follow to demonstrate
that the instrument is workable and reliable.
Def in i t ion of Terms
An adult is an individual who possesses the self-concept of being
responsible for his or her life. Adults are self-directed. In
this study all the participants are adults.
Self-directed learning (SDL) is an approach to learning in which
individuals determine their priorities and choose from various
resources available, They play an active role in developing a
system of meanings to interpret events, ideas or circumstances.
Learnincr Process is the active process of constructing a system of
meanings and then using them to construe or interpret events, ideas
and circumstances (Candy, 1991). It is the active process of
students acquiring and determining what information they need to
develop.
3
Facilitatincr Process is the interaction or relationship with others
that promotes the SDL process.
Teachinq in this study is synonymous with facilitating because this
term more accurately reflects the helping aspect. But since the
SDL literature refers to teaching, the term is retained as defined
in that literature when referencing particular pieces of work using
the term.
Control results from people maki-ng decisions in the interaction
between the facilitating and learning processes. social
constraints, student, educator and institutional characteristics
influence control.
Instrument refers to a written questionnaire to which students
respond.
Assumptions and imitations
The following assumptions apply to this study.
1. Instruments can measure perceptions of SDL.
2. Instructors can facilitate SDL to some degree.
3. The logical construction method of developing a
noncognitive instrument is a theoretically sound choice
for an instrument development technique (Mehrens &
Lehmann, 1987) .
4
4. Affective measures, such as students' perceptions,
provide useful information to the educator (Mehrens &
Lehmann, 1987)-
Limitations of the study include the drawbacks commonly noted when
using a self-report instrument (Mehrens h Lehmann, 1987)- Ways to
decrease problems of definition, response set, faking reliability
and validity are identified. The small size of the sample is a
further limitation as a larger sample may affect the results
obtained- A discussion of the effect of these limitations is found
later in this thesis.
Organization of the Research
There are six chapters in the dissertation. Chapter One includes
the problem statement, assumptions, limitations and definition of
terms.
Chapter Two consists of a review of pertinent literature divided
into three parts. The first part provides an overview of how the
literature defines "self-directed learning" and the way this study
uses the term, The second section reviews the three research
approaches including how they specifically apply to the study of
SDL along with assumptions of the research approach adopted in this
dissertation. Concerns in the SDL literature about using
instruments is the focus of the third section.
5
Chapter Three describes the development of the S D L P model including
an overview of how the SDLP model differs from other models of SDL,
and an elaboration on the components of control, learning and
facilitating. Ways in which the model leads to the development of
a new instrument are presented.
Chapter Four includes an overview of research procedures used to
create the Self-Directed Learning Perception Scale (SDLPS). The
logical construction method used in Chapter Three to develop
constructs provides the basis for developing items for the SDLPS.
Content vafidation by typical respondents and a panel of experts is
discussed in Chapter Four along with modifications made to the
instrument from the results of these two phases.
Chapter Five outlines the pilot study. Data analysis based on the
findings from the feedback forms and statistics appear along with
further modifications made to the instrument. The procedure used
in the field test phase to administer the revised instrument to a
larger population and a summary of the results are outlined.
Chapter Six contains a discussion of the findings, limitations,
implications for future research, practice and instrument
development.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter Two presents issues arising when defining SDL and provides
the definition used in this study. A review of the implications of
using various research approaches for studying this phenomenon
leads to an overview of assumptions underlying the approach adopted
for this study. An awareness of concerns about using instruments
to study SDL becomes the basis for a list of specific
recommendations to consider when developing an instrument.
SDL Defined *
The term SDL has various meanings - a possible source of confusion (Candy, 1990; Bonham, 1989; Long, 1992). As both educators and
students study and develop their understanding of SDL, continuous
modifications take place, There are so many uses for the
expression that the phrase is a "labyrinth of confusion and
contradiction and has been rendered normatively and functionally
ambiguous" (Gerstner, 1992:86). A thorough investigation into the
assumptions underlying the definition used in the study forms the
basis for the development of a working definition.
Personal ~ttribute or Instructional Method
SDL is generally defined in terms of either a personal attribute of
students or as an instructional method (Hiemstra, 1992; Brockett &
Hiemstra, 1991; Candy, 1991; Caffarella & OrDonnell, 1989). There
7
is a definite relationship between the two; a comprehensive
definition should acknowledge both.
In their Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) model, Brockett
& Hiemstra (1991) use the term "self-direction in learning" to
include the two concepts of "self-directed learning" and "learner
self-direction." They clarify the distinction between the two
terms by defining "self-directed learningw as characteristics of
the teaching-learning transaction and "learner self-direction" as
characteristics of the student. There is acknowledgment of the
part personal characteristics plays in influencing the process
while still emphasizing the process itself. Educators should
clearly state whether they are stressing learner self-direction or
SDL
Candy (1991) describes SDL as a process or goal but further
subdivides the definition into four distinct, but related
phenomenon: personal autonomy, self-management, autodidaxy, and
learner-control. The first two stress personal attributes while
the latter two focus on learning activities. From a personal
autonomous view, a person becomes self-directed if he or she fits
into a composite definition of being autonomous. Self-management,
another personal attribute related to self-direction, implies that
specific skills can be identified and enhanced by educational
intervention* In his latter two approaches, Candy defines SDL as
taking place outside a formal institution (autodidaxy) or within
8
the forms and limits of a formal institution (learner-control) . gain, research can focus on one area without excluding the others
depending on the dimension being explored.
In this study the process of SDL is emphasized. The definition of
SDL acknowledges studentsr personality characteristics as having an
effect, but does not include them in the definition.
Formal or Informal Education
~etermining if models of the SDL process are applicable to both
formal and informal education settings is an unresolved issue in
the literature. According to Garrison (1993), there are problems
with Candy's (1991) claim that true ownership learning can only
occur in an autodidactic domain. Garrison claims that assuming
responsibility to construct meaning in any situation is to assume
ownership. If students develop meanings for themselves, ownership
then becomes possible in both formal or informal education
settings.
Within an educational institution, Jarvis (1992) similarly claims
it is difficult for "genuine SDL" to take place, even if there is
a democratic relationship with the educator. According to Jarvis
(1992:139), when a student participates in the selection of
content, self-selection is possible "only when the learner has
remained outside the educational institution and is learning for
learning's sake." From outside the educational institution,
9
students are more likely to choose their aims and objectives. Yet
some students outside an institution may not even be aware of
setting aims and objectives. Conversely, students who in other
circumstances do not consider these aspects, actually might do so
when they are in a formal course.
In this study, SDL is seen as being possible in many formal
educational situations. ~ifficulties exist, as outlined by Candy
(1991) and Jarvis (1992), but these vary according to the context
in which SDL is taking place. SDL does not always happen, but
there is the potential for it to occur depending on the
institution, instructor and other factors.
~ssumptions Underlyins the Definition for this Study
There are various dimensions of the SDL process such as situational
characteristics that influence assumptions made when defining the
term. For instance, researchers in the context of industrial
training stress different areas than those in formal educational
settings. The following fundamental assumptions represent a
distillation of the literature, discussed further in Chapter Three.
1. The definition of SDL is continually developing.
2. Characteristics of the teacher-learning transaction define SDL (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991).
3 . Personality characteristics may influence the SDL process.
4. The planning of learning events is only part of the SDL process.
5 0
6 .
7.
8.
9.
10
11.
SDL
SDL gives students the opportunity to play an active role in developing a system of meanings to interpret events, ideas or circumstances.
Interaction and negotiations between students and educators are part of the facilitating process in SDLo
SDL is not suitable for all learners and situations. A "modified" SDL approach is more appropriate in some situations.
Students are not given full control over all decisions.
SDL is variable and does not follow a uniform pattern for each individual student.
SDL is possible in many formal educational settings.
The opportunity for educators and students to reflect on their learning is a requirement of the SDL process.
workins Definition of SDL
is a process where students have the opportunity to play an
active role in developing a system of meanings to interpret events,
ideas or circumstances. They determine their priorities, choose
methods and various available resources to carry out the learning.
This process reflects both characteristics of the learning and
facilitating processes and the influence of control.
The Research Approach Defined
Debates concerning the use of the "correct" research methodology to
study education are entering the field of SDLo When considering a
study of SDL, investigating the various forms of research in the
SDL literature is necessary in order to create a list of
assumptions for the current study. The methodological
"correctness" should not be the major concern, but the reasoned
ideological argument that underlies the adoption of one paradigm
11
over another should be (Jennings, 1985) Critics of approaches
(Candy, 1989, 1991; ~ezirow, 1981; Brookfield, 1986; Collins, 1991)
look at the assumptions underlying the paradigms used to study
social science; educators need to find ways these paradigms can
work together to develop a stronger research base and knowledge of
the phenomenon labelled SDL,
Paradiqms in the SDL Literature
The structure Burrell f Morgan (1979) use to describe the
positivist, constructivist and critical paradigms is used in this
study for providing an overail picture of what these paradigms
represent and how they are used to study SDL. Additional
information about relationships come from the Carr h Kemmis (1985)
discussion. Investigation of each paradigm presents an overview of
the methodology and review of several studies in the field of SDL
which focus on that paradigm.
Positivist Pasadism
There is strong representation of the positivist paradigm in the
adult educational literature. In this paradigm, law-like
relationships and regularities similar to those of the "natural"
sciences are assumed to characterize educational phenomena (Candy,
1988).
Methodolow. The emphasis in this paradigm is on quantitative
methods. Characteristics of quantitative studies (Candy, 1991)
include :
12
* specifying hypotheses at the start of the research
* attempting to remain objective and detached from the area of
study
* searching for invariant causal relationships
* attempting to reduce findings to a quantified form.
The researcher is merely an instrument. Be is an objective and
disinterested observer (Cars & K e d s , 1985). The common belief is
that educational research should be based on the aims and methods
of established science (Candy, 1988).
Examples of posithist studies in SDL. In studying SDL, this
f o m of research is responsible for moving the understanding' beyond
description to a larger understanding of how variables relate to
one another (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991). Several studies in this
area have attempted to measure the individual's level of self-
directedness.
Since the focus of this study is the development of an instrument,
this section specifically addresses quantitative studies using
instruments purported to study some area of SDL. A search of the
literature identifies 17 instruments (Table 1). Most of the cited
studies involved the development of instruments in order to carry
out positivistic studies in the SDL area. Of these, 12 require the
student to respond to questions or statements, two assess
educators' SDL behaviour, two study studentsr SDL behaviour from
the educator's or trainer's viewpoint, and one rates according to
a set of criteria the degree to which programs are self-directed.
Table 1, Instruments Identified As ~ssessing SDL
Instrument ~esearcher Year
S e l f -Directed Rating Sca le (SDRS)
Self-Directed Behaviour Rat ing Sca l e (SDBRS)
se l f -Di rec ted earning ~ e a d i n e s s Sca le (SDLRS)
Autonomous Learner ~ndex (A=
Self-Directed Learning s i t u a t i o n Reaction Ins t rument (SDLSRI)
Self -Directed Learning p a r t i c i p a t i o n Index ( SDLPI )
Self-Directed ~ c t i v i t y Survey (SDAS)
Learning Plan Format Follow-up Survey (LPFFS)
se l f -Di rec ted Learning Competencies Se l f - ~ p p r a i s a l Form (SDLCSF)
oddi cont inuing earning Inventory ( OCLI )
Self-Directed Learning Test (SDLT)
Teacher-Orien t ed
Teacher F a c i l i t a t i o n of se l f -Di rec ted Inventory (TFSDI )
p r i n c i p l e s of Adult Learning Scale (PALS)
Classroom earning Scale (CLS 1
program-oriented
~ a t i n g Form t o ~ e s c r i b e Degree t o which a' Program F o s t e r s SDL (Rating Form)
M c C u r d y
wood
~ u g l i e l m i n o
F e r r e l l
Kratz
Fi she r
skaggs
C a f f arella
c a f f a r e l l a
oddi
P i l l i n g
smith
Source: Adapted f r o m Pill ing-Connick (1995)
14
Emphasis is on instruments focusing on the student rather than on
the educator or program, revealing the student's interpretation of
various parts of SDL. The small amount of interest in the educator
or program may be a reflection of educators being hesitant t o use
instruments (Pilling-Cormick, 1994). There appears to currently be
no measure of how individuals perceive the process of becoming
self-directed. This review of existing instruments leads to the
development of a list of specific guidelines for constructing new
instruments (Table 6) which appears in Chapter Four of this study
and factors to consider when developing instruments to study SDL
found in Chapter Two able-
Constructivist Paradigm
There are suggestions t h a t
appropriate for studying SDL
states in her discussion of
the constructivist paradigm is more
(Candy, 1989, 1991). As Bonham (1995)
constructivism and SDL, every person
defines reality differently because of differences in experiences
and t h e process of making sense of experiences. Yet there is a
concern that consideration of the interaction with others may be
lacking when using this approach. As Candy (1989) claims, the
constructivist approach is only exploring with the students their
personal constructions of autonomy.
Researchers may lose sight of the wider social and cultural issues
(Candy, 1991) that influence the individual's perception.
Emphasizing the subjective meanings of action implies that social
15
reality for the individual is nothing other than the way people
perceive themselves ( C a r r & K e d s , 1985). Yet individuals do not
exist in isolation. There are constraints such as institutional
procedures that greatly affect the way a person's self-directed
process develops, Assuming people are free to think what they like
and to subsequently act according to their thinking seems naive and
idealistic (Candy, 1989 . Methodolocnr. When using the constructivist paradigm, the
emphasis is on qualitative research methods. There has been a
decrease in the prominence of the positivist, natural science
paradigm in North American adult education since the early 1980s
with more recognition being given to qualitative studies (Collins,
1991). Like the positivist approach, research is a systematic
inquiry. But, the goal of the inquiry is understanding meaning
rather than establishing causality (Mezirow, 1981). Researchers
adopt a position to acquire a "vantage-point" from which the events
can be reconstructed and interpreted (Carr & R e d s , 1985).
Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) provide a list of characteristics of
qualitative studies based on Bogdan & Biklen's (1982) work.
Qualitative studies:
* study the phenomena in natural settings
* collect descriptive data, usually not analyzed through
statistical methods
* focus on process as well as outcomes
* use inductive data analysis
16
* emphasize the importance of "meanings" participants attach
to their experiences.
Summarv of aualitative studies in SDL. As Merriam (1989)
states, inductive analysis-of data usually results in explanatory
themes, concepts and working hypotheses. Hence, this approach can
lead to the development of models that can help explain the
contexts and meanings of SDL from these methods (Brockett &
Hiemstra, 199 1 ) . An overview of major qualitative research studies in the area of SDL (Table 2) reveals various areas studied such as
Table 2 . Major Qual i ta t ive Studies i n the Area of SDL
Researcher Year Description of Methodology
Tough
~ibbons
1968 study of independent learning projects
1980 search for commonalities in the biographies of 20 acknowledged experts which may suggest ways people become self-directed
Brookf ield
Leean & Sisco
Spear ti Mocker
Candy
Cavaliere
1981 study of 25 independent students in England
18-month study (including case study phase)
1984 analyzed 78 self-directed students using an . open-ended probing interview to determine how and why students chose resources and made other decisions
in-depth, semi-structured interviews with seven students
critical analysis of the literature which provides overview of the major issues in recent SDL literature
comparison of adult learning principles with actual learning experiences of 10 self-directed students who are experts in their areas of self-instruction
1990 case study to analyze the behavioral and learning process employed by the Wright brothers
Source: Confessore, G.J. & Long, H.B. (1992)
17
determining how and why students choose resources and investigating
the learning process of specific individuals. AS shown,
descriptive data is prominent in the list and collecting this type
of data can provide information about the SDL process that might
not otherwise be collected.
Critical Paradim
The critical research paradigm looks beyond the perceptions of
individuals to factors that influence those perceptions (Candy,
1991) . The paradigm does more than describe; it states what ought to be done through the "udasking and analysis of contradictions
within the existing social structures" (Collins, 1991:36). The
paradigm not only reveals misconceptions, but identifies and
criticizes the contradictions in people's life experience (Candy,
1991). The impact of political factors on SDL appears when people
are unaware of pressures and influences that shape their attitudes
and perceptions (Candy, 1988). Jennings (1985) indicates this
political aspect when he claims SDL is an attempt to free people
from oppression by others and from the subtle forces that operate
within institutions and ourselves. This approach also encourages
students to look critically at their learning by going beyond a
mere description to an analysis,
Methodolow. The emphasis in this paradigm is on critical
research techniques. These methods draw on the methodology of
psychoanalysis and can be characterized by the following list (Carr
& Kemmis, 1985). With critical research methods
18
* there is involvement of the process of reflection which
requires the participation of the researcher
* participants become researchers
* objective researchers of natural science and observation
of interpretive science may help in the organization of
self-reflection, but are outsiders.
Candy ( 1988 ) cites ~ullivan ( 1984) to state these approaches
explore how social relations have developed historically and how
individual people's interpretations may be distorted by ideological
convictions.
Summary of critical research studies in SDL. Using the
critical approach to study SDL would be useful when looking at
certain situations where a process which actively involves students
would be helpful, but is not perceived by the students to be so.
As Collins (1991) states, there is the opportunity for genuine
participatory democratic action with both research and practice
meaningfully participating. Opinions about the process may change
greatly and resistance decrease.
In the area of SDL and adult education, several researchers
recommend this approach (Griffin, 1983, 1987; Collins, 1988, 1991;
Mezirow, 1991; Jarvis, 1987, 1992). Research from the critical
view is somewhat new and is developing. Accounts of these research
techniques do not lend themselves to the formats of the major
research journals (Collins, 1991) . This may be the reason for the
19
somewhat low number of studies appearing in the literature; "loww
when compared to studies representing the other two paradigms.
~mplications for a Context-Based Research Approach
Each research approach can be of value as each in fact addresses
different dimensions of SDL. Applying each research approach to
the focus in this study from the perspective of student interests
produces Table 3. It shows how each of the three research
approaches can contribute to the research plan. Each paradigm
provides -a way of gaining insights into the SDL process and will
allow for studying the phenomenon from various perspectives. The
different paradigms look at different kinds of questions about the
SDL process and have different focuses. They do not represent
different strategies for the same questions because the questions
diSfer. For example, how students interact is different from
determining what areas they can influence. Within this context-
based approach to research, instruxnents can be used to collect
information about the role students play in the process and how
students interact and reflect upon their learning (Pilling-Cormick,
1996a). Concerns about using instruments to study SDL and further
investigation of ways to use instruments are dealt with later in
this chapter.
Table 3 . Interests, Knowledge and Related Aspect8 of SDL
INTERESTS AND CORRESPONDING VIEWS OF KNOWLEDGE
REZATED ASPECTS OF SDL
APPROPRIXTE RESEARCH PARADIGM
Technical Student's Influence on Directing the Process
~nfoxmation about -DO student decisions cause cause and effect changes to course objectives? relationships in -Do marking schemes change as a the environment function of student input?
Prac t i ca l How Students Interact Constructivist
understanding what -HOW do students and others mean educator come to a
mutual unde~standing? -What are the social norms of the classroom? -What processes .are taking place? -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emancipatolry Student ' s ~ e f lection Critical
Critical. self -ref 1
-Why is SDL important anyway? -What are the premises of self-directed learning?
-Why do we believe SDL is better?
Source: ~dapted from ~illing-cormick (1996a)
Assumptions Underlyinq the Research Approach in this Study
Fundamental assumptions underlying the research approach in this
study evolve from the preceding review.
1. The three research paradigms speak to different dimensions of SDL .
2. E a c h research paradigm is a valid approach for studying specific dimensions of SDL.
3. The nature of these dimensions of SDL is suitable for instrument use.
4. There is a need for perceptions of the process from the student's viewpoint.
5. Perceptions of the SDL process vary from individual to individual.
Workins Research Approach
By incorporating the above assumptions, an instrument was developed
to gather feedback about students' views of the SDL process. The
instrument provides information which can contribute to research
problems posed in terms of positivist, constructivist, or critical
research approaches.
Concerns About Instruments in the SDL Literature
Several researchers (Brookf ield, 19 8 6 ; Candy, 19 8 8, 199 1 ; and
Collins, 1991) raise questions about the appropriateness of
instruments. When creating a new instrument, consideration of
these concerns becomes necessary.
Self-Defininq
Brookfield (1986) notes that an instrument becomes self-defining.
For example, students may unconsciously concentrate on recalling
events that appear to meet the interviewer's idea of what SDL is.
If students with limited experience use such investigative
hardware, they may become uncomfortable. Brookfield further claims
instruments typically request information about the number of hours
spent but nothing about the quality or effectiveness of that
learning. Consideration of these factors should take place when
developing a new instrument.
22
ine ear it^ in the SDL Process
Researchers using instruments commonly assume a linearity in the
SDL process and base the research approaches they use on this
assumption (Candy, 1991). Some researchers (Grow, 1991; Hiemstra
& Sisco, 1990; Hammond & Collins, 1991) propose models which imply
stages for students. Yet the stages in these models may not be
sequential. Some instruments are designed without a commitment to
a linear pattern and seek to determine if such a pattern exists,
Individual Differences
Self-direction has repeatedly been shown to be highly
individualistic (Candy, 1991). According to Candy, stressing
similarities submerges individual differences. Some instruments
may ask general questions that would encourage these similarities.
However, the content of the items can be developed in ways that
will encourage individual differences to appear. The lack of
agreement among respondents on a particular item would give support
to those dimensions that do have an individualistic characteristic.
There are character-istics of self-direction that appear to show
predictable patterns and instruments can indicate what those
patterns are.
Situational Differences
Context is vital and Candy (1991) claims using instruments ignores
situational differences and alienates subjects fromtheir contexts.
Artificial ways of compartmentalizing their experiences and
23
perspectives results (Candy, 1988). Yet, many instruments are
designed for a specific application and are not to be used with all
students. The findings are not necessarily meant to be "carried
over" into another learning situation.
Another claim by Candy (1991) is that students appear to pay
attention to different features of each learning situation when
determining their level and direction of personal autonomy. In his
opinion, researchers assume criteria of autonomy to be external and
publicly observed features. Candy is assuming the word "autonomyw
is synonymous with the term "sel£-direction" which is questionable.
Still, the assumptions underlying the particular instrument need to
be investigated before a statement about criteria can be made
because some instruments do not list criteria and are open-ended.
Technical Planninq
The transformation of adult education into the technical planning
of instruction gets in the way of students' abilities to think
critically and to evaluate everyday experiences on their own
(Collins, 1991). But instruments can help students evaluate their
learning by asking questions which would be stimuli for further
reflection. Some instruments do emphasize planning, others do not.
Some students do plan their instruction and information about the
ways this planning is done would be helpful. The design of the
instrument should insure that the individualistic characteristic of
24
this planning be maintained and that planning is not assumed to be
unif om.
Observer Bias
The developer of the instrument influences the way questions are
posed. As Jarvis (1993) claims, instruments are artificial because
once you ask a question, you create a new learning experience which
inadvertently affects the way the subject responds. Similarly,
Candy (1989:104) indicates data collected by observation techniques
is "distorted through the construct system of the ~bserver.~' The
act of posing questions at all assumes that the subject can
articulate his or her understandings and intentions and that he or
she uses words to mean the same as the researcher (Candy, 1989) . Yet as Candy (1989: 105) indicates as he quotes Argyris & Schon
( 1974 ) , whenever and however a question is asked, there is the possibility of obtaining the student's "espoused" rather than
"theory-in-use" (Candy, 1989). The researcher must be careful to
consider these influences.
Cultural Differences
The effects of cultural differences is very real, especially if the
culture of the respondents is different from that of the
researcher. Jarvis (1992) indicates that the authors of
instruments may not consider cultural differences of students.
Instruments can shed light on some of these differences. Phrasing
items t o ask how different cultures view the process and including
questions about prior education become important.
Considerations for Developing Instruments for SDL
Many concerns raised about instruments used for SDL research are
common to all self-report instruments, and are not specific to
research about SDL. Criticisms about one instrument may not apply
to another. Nevertheless, anyone developing a self-report
instrument for SDL research should be aware of the concerns raised
in the literature. These concerns are summarized in Table 4 .
Table 4. Considerations in ~e~eloping Instruments to Study SDL
When developing a new instrument, consideration should be given to existing instruments purporting to study SDL, The original developmental research should include detailed descriptions of instruments, development and rationale, Earlier work involving the instrument should be referenced accordingly. A cleax discussion of assumptions underlying the definition of SDL used in the development is necessary, The original developmental study should discuss validity, even though validity develops over time. The structure of an appropriate instrument must take into account the flexible nature of the SDL process. using instruments can determine similarities and differences among students. The content and structure of items can encourage individual differences. Item structure can determine how students construe events and construct structures of meanings. Instruments need not assume students follow a linear pattern of learning and can determine if a pattern in this learning exists. They can be flexible enough to incorporate the development of new learning skills and the possibility of change. Identification of the context to which an instrument applies is possible. An instrument can account for changes in context by including items generic enough to be applicable to different situations. ~n instrument can incorporate political and social constraints, Instruments can help students reflect upon their learning by asking questions which would stimulate further reflection. Instruments can involve quality as well as quantity issues. Distortion of the construct system, response bias, and cultural influences can be recognized. Efforts can be taken to decrease their effects. An instrument can be used to gather perceptions of the SDL process,
s-rJI
Chapter Two outlines difficulties that arise when defining SDL. A
working definition of SDL for use in this study is provided. A
review of SDL studies using the positivist, constructivist and
critical research paradigms follows. An approach to research for
this study is then described along with the assumptions underlying
it, A review of concerns about using instruments in the SDL
literature appears.
CHAPTER THREE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING PROCESS MODEL
Expansion and elaboration of identified concepts in Chapter Ruo
leads to the development of a more flexible model of SDL. Previous
models emphasize SDL as a personal attribute or instructional
method with less emphasis on the process of SDL. As Long (1996:5)
states, "given the possibility that SDL may be affected by elements
in the external world, we need to be able to identify them and to
determine their significance. " A more dynamic model is needed
which recognizes the contextual characteristics of the process by
acknowledging the varying content, student, educator, and
institutional characteristics A new model would outline the
flexible nature of SDL and how the process of SDL can be made
easier for both the educator and student, The model needs to
suggest strategies and naturally lead to the development of an
instrument to monitor the effectiveness of these strategies. The
facilitating and environmental characteristics of a new model could
provide the basis for the development of an instrument to determine
what helps learners. A new model of SDL could then become a
structure for facilitation based on the SDL literature and a basis
for instrument development. Chapter Three includes an overview of
a new model, a description of control, learning and facilitating
components and a review of ways the SDLP model differs from other
models of SDL.
28
Description of the SDLP Model
The SDLP model d e p i c t s the process of SDL as the i n t e r a c t i o n
between s tuden t and educa tor t ak ing p l a c e within t h e varying
con tex t of con t ro l . There are basically t h r e e components t o t h e
model: a) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e educa tor and s tuden t ; b) t h e
encompassing r o l e of c o n t r o l and c ) dimensions which i n f l u e n c e t h e
i n t e r a c t i o n ,
I n t e r a c t i o n Between Educator and S tuden t
The SDL process revolves around t h e s tuden t and educa to r - Because
of t h e i r c e n t r a l role i n t h e process, these two can be described as
major p a r t i c i p a n t s - I n t h e SDLP model, s t u d e n t and educator are
represen ted by two circles i n t h e c e n t e r of t h e diagram t o depict
t h a t they are a t the core of the process,
The educator and s tuden t do no t a c t independent ly du r ing t h e SDL
process I n t h e SDLP model, i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e two i s
l a b e l l e d t h e f a c i l i t a t i n g and l ea rn ing processes . Double-ended
arrows r ep resen t t h e s e processes and i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i n t e r a c t i o n
goes both ways (F igure 1) . That i s , t h e s t u d e n t and educator are
simultaneously involved wi th l ea rn ing and f a c i l i t a t i n g .
Figure I. Interaction Between Educator and Student,
- --
Encompassins Role of Control
Control, the extent to which students can direct their learning, is
a key characteristic of the SDL process. Because control is such
an important characteristic, it is represented by a circle in the
SDLP model indicating that the extent to which students direct
their learning is encompassing as it affects all aspects of
learning and facilitating. These processes do not take place in
isolation. By placing the process within a circle, the SDLP model
indicates that their operation is limited by the degree to which
students are able to direct their learning.
Dimensions Xnfluencins the Interaction
Four dimensions affect the amount of control students have. These
dimensions will differ according to variations in the learning
situations and allow the description of SDL to be flexible. These
dimensions include social constraints, environmental
characteristics, student characteristics, and educator
characteristics (Figure 2). In the SDLP model, the dimensions are
30
located inside the circle of control because they all fall under
the umbrella of control which in turn influences learning and
facilitating. They influence how students and educators make
decisions about learning and facilitating.
Figure 2. ~imensions Affecting Control.
Characteristics
The complexity of these dimensions is illustrated with further
explanation in Figure 3. These dimensions vary from one learning
situation to another and they a£ fect each other. For example,
personal beliefs of educators vary. Level of comfort students
experience with the concept of SDL differ. These variations will
lead to a changing contextual view of SDL illustrated by these
varying dimensions affecting control. When the interaction between
the educator and student (Figure 1) is inserted within the four
dimensions affecting control (Figure 2) , an overall view of the SDL
process emerges. Figure 4 summarizes the resulting SDLP model.
Figure 3. ~xnmples of the Four � is lens ions Affecting Control.
Social Constraints * Culture * Politics
Educator Characteristics * Personal beliefs * Forms of control * Lack of skills for sharing authority
Figure 4. The SDLP Model
Environmental Characteristics * Physical aspects of the institution
* Physical aspects of the classroom
* Supportive climate for building relationships
* Student's progress * How the course functions * How the institution functions
-------------------w------w--w
] Student Characteristics f * Level of comfort
* Skills * Preference for directed instruction
* Learned helplessness * Development of personal
learning myths * Adapting to instructional
situations
Social Constraints Characteristics
Student Educator
32
Components of the SDLP Model
The SDLP model incorporates three components: control, learning and
facilitating processes. SDL, as defined with the SDLP model,
includes two component processes: learning and facilitating. These
processes are seen within the larger context of control with the
way people exert control influencing both these processes (Figure
4 ) Comprising control itself are four dimensions: student
characteristics, educator characteristics, environmental
characteristics, and social. constraints.
Control
Brookfield (1993) notes the importance, in many definitions of SDL,
of students exercising control over all educational decisions.
Long (1990b) also indicates SDL can only occur when the student
primarily controls the learning process. But this is not always
possible or desirable. Furthermore, Cheren (1983:29) claims the
term SDL suggests such an extreme reformulation of traditional
control by instructors that "many educators roll over and play dead
when they are asked to facilitate SDL." Alternatively, using the
term "self-direction in learning" implies students are not "doing
their own thing. " Garrison (1993: 30) states, full or total control
by either the educator or student is not "philosophically
acceptable or meaningful in an educational context.''
The amount of student control varies from situation to situation,
Pratt (1988) indicates this variation when he states that
3 3
cond i t ions e x i s t which cannot be considered t o be personal ,
psychological , o r a t t r i b u t e s of t h e student o r educator- Control
i s t h e e x t e n t t o which s tuden t s can d i r e c t t h e i r l e a r n i n g and i s
s i t u a t i o n a l . The more c o n t r o l t h e s tudent has i n t h e s i t u a t i o n ,
t h e more t h e s tudent d i r e c t s t h e learning. Candy (1991) similarly
states t h a t t h e degree of s tuden t con t ro l can be p laced on a
continuum and var ious i n s t r u c t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s can be placed along
t h a t continuum.
Models of Control i n t h e SDL L i t e r a t u r e
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of models i n t h e SDL l i t e r a t u r e stressing con t ro l
vary (Long, 1989; P r a t t , 1988; Candy, 1991; Garrison, 1993; Jarvis,
1992). Some models r e f l e c t t h e complex na ture of t h e SDL process
whi le o t h e r s present a more s impl i f i ed approach. Some r e sea rche r s
p r e s e n t t h r e e dimensions, o t h e r s two, while s t i l l o t h e r s t a k e a
s t e p approach t o l ea rn ing and incorporate c o n t s o l i n t o t h i s
approach. Despite t h e s e v a r i a t i o n s , a l l t h e models p resen t a
structure where t h e s tuden t s " f a l l " i n t o pos i t ions which depend on
t h e s i t u a t i o n and ind iv idua l s involved-
Long (1989) and P r a t t (1988) descr ibe c o n t r o l i n terms of
quadrants , each r e f l e c t i n g t h e degree t o which a person i s s e l f -
d i r e c t e d . I n both models two dimensions determine t h e pos i t ion :
psychological and pedagogical c o n t r o l i n one and support and
d i r e c t i o n i n t h e o the r . These quadrants are u s e f u l f o r
i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between these dimensions.
34
Models of SDL offered by Candy (1991) and Garrison (1993) present
SDL as having three dimensions. Candy ( 19 9 1 ) indicates students
vary in terms of competence, rights, and resources according to a
three dimensional cube. Garrison terms similar concepts to be
proficiency, interdependence, and resources. He presents his model
as a triangle and stresses the concept of "shared control."
Garrison claims his model is more dynamic than Candy's because he
stresses communication. He illustrates additional elements such as
the educator and curricula in the diagram of the model. However,
the way these "additional elements" actually affect the basic three
dimensions is not clear. Determining if the boxes for educator arid
student specifically represent. characteristics of the student or
educator is difficult. Nevertheless, both these models are more
complex than many others and more accurately reflect the nature of
the SDL process.
Jarvis ( 1992 : 135) includes control as he describes "a model of SDL"
based on a learning sequence. This model describes SDL as a
progression through what appear to be stages. Jarvis identifies
nine major elements: disjuncture, decision to learn, type of
participation, aims and objectives, content, method,
thought/language, assessment and action/outcome. For each element,
he describes control as either self-directed, other-directed or
somewhere in between. This model includes the possibility of
varying levels of control. However, it differs from the previous
35
models because it corresponds to a sequence or set of stages
learners are assumed to follow-
Dimensions of Control in the SDLP Model
The SDLP model includes the three areas Candy (1991) and Garrison
( 1993 ) stress but goes further to identify environmental
characteristics as a separate dimension. The four resulting
dimensions are social constraints, student, educator and
environmental characteristics. Control is the result of people
making decisions about the interaction between the facilitating and
learning processes. The .four dimensions influence this control.
Student characteristics. The SDLP model includes personal
characteristics of students which are purported to make them better
self-directed learners. Items discussed in the student
characteristics dimension appear under differing titles. Long
(1989) discusses "psychological control", Candy (1991) "personal
autonomy". and Garrison (1993) "responsibility for learning."
Despite the variation in terminology, the focus is on personal
characteristics of the learner.
Candy (1991) identifies four reasons for differing abilities with
regard to SDL: a preference for directed instruction, learned
helplessness, development of personal learning myths, and
deliberately adapting to the instructional situation. Two
additional reasons might be added: how comfortable students are
directing their learning and identifying skills to specifically
36
help students. These six reasons explain why students may respond
negatively to taking control of any part of t h e i r learning and in
turn, toward SDL.
1. Level of comfort. ~ndividuals vary in terms of how comfortable
they are directing their learning which is not surprising since .
students have a range of educational backgrounds with various
experiences. How prepared the students are to operate as self-
directed Learners is a factor (Gillen, 1991). People come to
learning situations with differences in prior knowledge,
- experiences, commitment and self-confidence (Pratt, 1988). As
students take greater responsibility and control over their
learning, they need to work consciously and deliberately at
developing internal capacities to replace external supports often
relied upon (Cheren, 1983). There are many changes students face
when obtaining more control of their learning. Some students
naturally avoid change more than others and consider anything new
to be a challenge to their well-being (Galbraith, 1991)- It
becomes a challenge for students to establish a personal level of
comfort in a self-directed environment.
2. Skills. Skills identified with SDL affect the way students
take control. Candy (1991) reviews 20 authors to compile a list of
attributes and competencies desirable for self-directed learners.
Long (1994) lists six kinds of cognitive skills for SDL including
goal setting, information processing skills, other cognitive skills
37
(sensory, elaboration, memory, and problem-solving), executive
skills, deep processing skills, content competence, and decision
making skills. Specifically, he states students may not have
developed the cognitive ability to identify problems. He also
claims some students have limited observational skills that inhibit
their ability to determine what is important in their learning
environments. Students possess these attributes to varying degrees
which in turn affects the control they have over their learning.
3 . Preference for directed instruction. Some students prefer to
be "taught" and may resist taking control of their learning. For
whatever reasons, they do not want to take control. As Candy
(1991) states, educators should respect this right of students
wanting to be taught in a certain way in a particular situation.
While - recognizing a preference for directed instmction as
influencing the amount of control a student wants to undertake,
educators should still make efforts to show these students the
benefits of directing one's learning.
4. Learned helplessness. Students may have learned their
preference for traditional patterns of instruction. Candy
(1991:136) argues "years of passivity in educational settings
deprive people of confidence to take charge." There is an
assumption that those who want more direction are "victims of an
educational system that has systematically deprived them of the
opportunity to be self-directed" (Candy, 1991:375). As Candy
38
states, this is not surprising when one considers the predominant
methods of instruction found in much formal instruction. Learned
helplessness influences the amount of control students want to
have over their learning.
5. Development of personal learning myths. Students develop
beliefs about the learning, the subject, or about themselves not
all of which may be true. ~ccording to Candy (1991), students may
treat these myths as if they were true which affects behaviour. As
Cheren (1983) indicates, the strength of the connection between
control over one's life and learning may not be obvious to many
people. Yet the more students believe they are not capable of
taking control, the less they take control.
6. Adapting to instructional situations. What really counts for
many students is getting the highest mark possible and they adapt
to the situation in order to reach this one goal. They do not
receive a reward for taking control of their learning. Instead,
these students learn what the educator actually "marks" and do the
minimal requirements in the shortest time possible. Taking control
could be time consuming and students do not want to "waste" time.
Candy (1991) identifies this disjuncture between apparent
requirements and those that actually count. He quotes Wight
(1970:236): the "teacher may ask for active involvement...but his
or her actions, methods used, and rewards are for passive
39
activities. " This is often the premise of the "game" of formal.
education.
Students use negotiation to adapt to learning situations. Garrison
(1993:34) uses the term **responsibility for learning" to refer to
the way students adapt. According to Garrison, learning has two
components: the cognitive process of construing meaning and the
attitude of or predisposition to assuming responsibility. The
internal process of constructing meaning must be a private process
and t h e responsibility of the student. The learning process is
then not negotiable butthe predisposition for responsible learning
can be. Long ( N9Ob) also supports the . idea of negotiation by
claiming the educator's control of pedagogical activities can be
negotiated
Educator characteristics. Determining the role of the adult
educator becomes difficult because there is not a commonly agreed
upon conception of SDL (Schuttenberg & Tracy, 1987). If the
definition of SDL is ambiguous, then the role of the educator
w i t h i n that process will be . Many educators actually label
themselves "facilitatorsw to avoid t h e terms "instructors' and
"teacher" which indicate educator control (Cranton, 1992). Because
educators are individuals, the way they approach SDL and control
vary in three ways: in terms of personal beliefs, the form control
takes, and skills for sharing authority.
40
1. Personal beliefs. The beliefs of the educator in part
determine the amount of control a student undertakes- Faculty must
give up time from research, scholarly pursuits, and publishing to
develop a self-directed program (Brookfield, 1986). SDL is a time
consuming process and if educators do not believe in the importance
of SDL, there will be less time committed to the process.
Educator's beliefs are also influenced by the educator's. past
experience. Students may be seen as being in class in order to be
"filled" with knowledge by the teacher- Student teachers in
- faculties of education often believe that is what their teaching
. job will be like. They are comfortable with this approach and do
not want to threaten this role (Pilling-Cormick, 1994 ) . Boice
(1991) indicates that new faculty teach as they were taught which
.may reflect situations where teachers were in control. Using a
self-directed approach may be easier for beginning instructors who
can quickly recall their experiences as students and remember their
feelings of anxiety and frustration (Sisco & Eiemstra, 1991).
These instructors are in turn more open to learning new ways of
improving their instructional approach.
2 . Forms of control. The form of control the educator adopts in
the SDL process can differ. One form more traditionally found in
formal educational situations is what Heron (1990) refers to as
cognitive control. Educators have "mastered some body of knowledge
and skill and can pass this effectively on to others" (Heron,
41
1990:17). Traditionally, educators have had this form of control
and in the modern, new style of teaching, educators still have
cognitive authority.
~arvis (1992) identifies an additional form of control which he
' calls delegated. When control is delegated, SDL becomes a teaching
technique rather than a learning strategy. Students have a
responsibility to those who have delegated the control. This
delegated control -is similar to Heron's (1990) cognitive control
because both imply control by the educator.
In the SDL process, the educator's control is transformed from "the
teacher exercising command over the learning of the studentsw
(Heron, 1990: 17) to the instructor instead choosing the appropriate
decision-mode for the students depending on the course or other
characteristics of the educational process. Collins (1992:32)
similarly claims educators have this form of control; he states the
word "facilitator" leads adults to believe they are making free
choices when they' are really being "manipulated by pedagogic
techniques into an accommodation within institutionalized and
professionalised interests." The way educators perceive their
political role will influence control in the SDL process.
3 . Lack of skills for sharing authority. Specific educator skills
are identified as easing the sharing of authority. Pratt (1988)
correctly points out that many educators have had little experience
42
or training to prepare them for sharing authority. Romanini &
Higgs (1991:43) review the work of Knowles (1980), Knowles &
~ssociates (1984), Knox (1977), Bagnall (1978) and Mezirow (1981)
to identify conditions which facilitate adult learning and in turn,
these conditions require certain skills. These studies stress the
learning behaviours of problem solving, interaction with educators
and other students, experiential learning, self-correction, active
involvement in learning, reciprocal learning, progressive mastery,
active seeking of meaning, and individual pacing. As Romanini &
Higgs state, educators can promote effective learning by acting as
managers in learning programs and play a key role in the
development of these skills in students. But to be able to do
this, the educators themselves must possess the skills to be able
to share authority.
Other skills identified include being co-diagnostician, negotiators
(Cheren, 1983) and having a wcommand of the content area and the
ability to question, challenge and model a critical
thinking/learning approach" (Garrison, 1993:33). Not all educators
may feel comfortable in this role or have the skills to encourage
the development of the identified skills for students.
~nvironmental characteristics. In Hiemlich and Norland's
( 1994 ) discussion of the environment, they identify physical
components (elements that can be perceived by sight, hearing,
taste, touch and smell) and affective components (elements that
include individual's feelings and emotions toward their cognitive
43
interpretations or perceptions of the physical environment). Parts
of both these components which are particularly relevant to SDL are
included in the SDLP model.
Two physical aspects identified are physical aspects of the
institution and classroom. Moos' (1979) framework is used to
describe three affective aspects of the environment: relationships,
personal growth, classroom maintenance. A fourth affective aspect,
how the institution functions, is added in the SDLP model. The
resulting six aspects which are -especially pertinent in a SDL
environment are physical aspects of the institution, physical
aspects of the. classroom, providing a supportive climate for
building relationships, student's progress, how the course
functions, and how the institution functions.
1. Physical aspects of the institution. Students and educators
must interact with the institution and physical characteristics of
the institution affect this interaction. Not having resources
available influences the student's search for materials- These
resources may be books in the library, videotapes, CD-ROMs or any
other physical equipment which the student may need access to.
Many researchers have identified physical aspects of the
institution as being vital (Appendix A) including the availability
of equipment and having access to that equipment. The educator
should be aware of the physical constraints students face and the
ways in which the institution "physicallyw limits students.
44
2. Physical aspects of the classroom. Researchers indicate
physical aspects of the classroom which help learning (Appendix A).
For example, having an effective room arrangement (Hiemstra &
Sisco, 1990 ) , a physical climate that encourages eye contact .
(Hammond & Collins, 1991), and appropriate classroom size and
lighting (Cranton, 1989) become important. The instructor should
be aware of how the physical characteristics of that classroom
hinder or help learning.
3. Supportive climate for building relationships. Students, some
more than others, interact with people and resources both inside
and outside the formal structure and hours of the class. It
becomes important to provide a supportive climate for building
relationships. As Collins (1992:32) states, while learning is by
definition self-directed, it cannot take place in a vacuum. A11
participants should be seen as students, including the instructor
(Hammond & Collins, 1991; Hiemstra, 1988). There then must be
interaction with something or someone in the environment and
providing a climate to encourage this interaction would be
beneficial.
3arvis (1992) claims good relationships are crucial to the process
of teaching and learning since all learning stems from experience.
He identifies relationships as having two modes: primary and
secondary. Both should be considered in the SDL process. He
claims (1992:244) "all relationships have a primary mode - people
45
interacting with people." When conversing, people have a "direct
experience of interacting with each other" ( 19 92 : 65 ) . In teaching, there is a secondary experience which he refers to as communicative
interaction because it is "gained as a result of the information,
knowledge and so on acquired in the interaction" (1992:65).
Jarvis states that much of the information transmitted during the
teaching and learning transaction is transmitted linguistically.
Students consequently have experiences in both modes simultaneously
and learn from both types of experience. It becomes important to
consider both modes when creating a supportive climate for building
relationships.
4. Studentrs progress. Students progress through the SDL process
in various ways; trying to pinpoint one way of progression is
impossible. Models of progression do suggest areas where students
need help. Taylor (1987) proposes one such model with eight
critical points of student progression: four (disorientation,
exploration, reorientation and equilibrium) as stages and four
(naming the problem, reflection, sharing the discovery and
disconfirmation) as transition phases between the stages. For each
of these critical points, she describes difficulties students
experience. There are certain parts of the process where students
need specific types of assistance. When considering facilitation,
these are directly related with the way in which individuals
interact with the environment. The educator should know what type
of things students need help with, for example; time management,
46
locating resources, asking questions, planning, or dealing with
resistance to the SDL process.
5, How the course functions, The SDLP model uses Moos' dimension
to represent the environmental aspects of the course. MOOS '
original "system maintenance" dimension appears to be specifically
applying to the classroom and since he developed his dimensions
based on secondary schools, he probably is concentrating on that.
The term "how the course functions" is adopted in the SDLP model
because it more accurately represents the SDL process by not being
restricted to aspects directly related to the classroom.
Classes behave in various ways and items concerning how the course
functions involve administrative details taking place within the
walls of the class (Appendix A). The course outline should be
conducive to giving students the freedom to choose what they want
to learn (Hammond & Collins, 1991) and class activities should
promote SDL (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991). For many students, small
group activities are especially helpful. Ways the course
encourages students to participate in activities that specifically
help them with SDL need to be determined. Educators then can have
an idea of how they, as instructors, can structure the course or
create a climate which would be helpful.
6. How the institution functions. The SDLP model allows for
variations among formal institutions by incorporating a section for
47
"institutional characteristics" which becomes a separate dimension
of control not stressed by Moos. This category is similar to
Merriam and Caffarella's (1991) "structural institutional
characteristics" dimension. In their discussion, they treat the
institution as a separate category, but physical facilities of the
institution are combined with other institutional concerns such as
grading policies. In comparison, the "how the institution
functionst' category in the SDLP model concerns operating procedures
of the institution and how these procedures affect the SDL process.
Students and educators must interact with not just the physical
resources, but with the processes operating within that
institution. Scheduling and school evaluation policies affect the
student. The instructor should know to what extent these factors
are helpful or detrimental. Support services such as computer
resources often operate on limited "f ull-time1' hours which can
severely affect a part-time student's learning. Many school
policies require students to be "in class" when they may learn
more efficiently without this constraint. Institutions' policies
often form the basis for students' perceptions of the institution.
An institution with an image of being self-directed can influence
whether a student also tries to be so. Or the characteristics of
the institution may not be supportive of increased learner control
(Candy, 1991). Institutional procedures may constrain the freedom
of instructors. For example, if the institution requires every
instructor to set a written mid-term examination using a standard
48
format, it becomes difficult for both the student and educator to
have control over this part of the evaluation process. Being aware
of these student perceptions can help instructors promote a SDL
process.
Social constraints. Social constraints greatly influence the
process of SDL. Existing models do recognize societal influences,
but not as clearly as they could. The SDLP model specifically
addresses the effects of culture and politics on the SDL process.
1. Culture. Brookfield (1993) poses the question of how control
can be exercised authentically in a culture which is highly
controlling. The "self" is culturally formed and bound. Self-
direction has a "hegemonic" aspect. Ideas, structures and actions
become natural and beyond question or challenge. Many adult
students have been raised in an education system which is teacher-
oriented and do not even question this style of learning and
teaching. If the culture continues to be this way, this type of
learning will continue unchallenged.
Heron (1990) presents a similar concern as he states that the
modern revolution in education has not come to grips with the many
subtle and changing ways of distributing power between educators
and students throughout the educational process. There is a need
for a reflective awareness of how one's desires and needs have been
culturally formed and the ways in which cultural factors can
influence students to pursue learning activities that are against
49
their best interests. Brookfield ( 1993 ) cites Candy ( 1988, 199 1) , Jarvis (1987), Chene (1983) and Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) as also
being interested in these aspects.
2. ~olitics. Politics plays a role by determining what one
teaches. As Brookfield (1990) states, political changes have an
effect on the classroom. "What one is allowed to teach and how one
is allowed to teach it are matters over which college teachers are
often the last to exert any control" (Brookfield, 1990:179). For
example, if the government decides that. some subjects are of
greater importance to economic growth or ideological socialization,
these subjects will receive preferential funding.
Having access to resources is another way in which the process of
SDL becomes political. SDL implies that students have access to
the resources they need to act on their decisions. But as students
become. aware that a differential distribution of resources is
necessary to carry out the SDL process, SDL may become political
(Brookfield, 1993). That is, blocked access to resources becomes
a problem of structural constraints "through which wealth, power
and resources remain the preserve of an unrepresentative minority1'
br rook field, 1993:238). In reality, this political aspect does not
always occur but the possibility should be incorporated into the
understanding of the SDL process. Resources are limited,
especially in times of a recession, and this limitation influences
control.
5 0
Learnincr and ~ a c i l i t a t i n c r Processes
The SDLP model incorpora tes t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between models of
l e a r n i n g and f a c i l i t a t i n g i n t h e SDL l i t e r a t u r e (Figure 1). Both
l e a r n i n g and f a c i l i t a t i n g are processes. That is, they are ongoing
and change during t h e educa t iona l experience. But they are no t
s e p a r a t e or d i s t i n c t . One in f luences t h e o t h e r and they do n o t
o p e r a t e i n i so la t ion . Hence, t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e
two and t h e arrows i n Figure 1 represent t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n .
The r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a r n i n g and f a c i l i t a t i n g provided by
Cranton (1992) is similar and y e t different from t h a t used i n t h e
SDLP model. Cranton (1992:21) descr ibes t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between
t h e t w o by expanding the l e a r n i n g process i n t o what she terms t h e
" l e a r n e r and educative processes ." She claims that both educator
and s tuden t go through t h e same process d u r i n g SDL bu t wi th
d i f f e r e n t types of involvement. Both take on r o l e s and a c t i v i t i e s ,
engage i n r e f l e c t i o n , change and grow. The educator process
emphasizes the method, materials and techniques whi le t h e l e a r n e r
process addresses evaluat ion. The approach i n t h e SDLP model
d i f f e r s s ince t h e l ea rn ing process i s p resen ted as a set of
component processes with f a c i l i t a t i n g being d e f i n e d as ways t o make
the component processes easier. F a c i l i t a t i n g i s then a s e p a r a t e
process i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h t h e l e a r n i n g process.
51
Learninq
One's definition of learning depends largely upon the philosophical
position one holds . Chene ( 1983: 4 1 ) indicates that humanistic
adult educators see learning as an "internal process, self-
initiated and intrinsically motivated." On the other hand, some
psychologists would describe learning as "a process of need-meeting
and goal-striving by the learner" (Chene, 1983:41). Some describe
learning as a process while others see learning as a product
(Gerstner, 1992). Several elements of a definition of learning
were extracted during a review of the SDL literature.
Learnins in the SDL literature. Five themes emerge about
learning in the SDL literature: learning as an internal process, a
process of change, involving different forms, as a series of
stages, and as a developmental process. These themes collectively
influence the approach to learning in the SDLP model.
1. Internal process. A common characteristic of many definitions
of learning (Table 5) is the emphasis on what Chene ( 1983) calls an
internal process. "Giving meaning to" (Jarvis, 1992), "seeking to
understand" (Jarvis, 1992), "using thought processes" (Mezirow,
1991), "applying knowledge" (Mezirow, 1991) and "constructing a
system of meanings" (Candy, 1991) all reflect the internal
characteristics of the process.
Table 5. Definitions of Learning stressing an In terna l component
Researcher Def in i t ion
Mezirow (1991:ll)
candy ( 19 9 1 )
Using a meaning t h a t we a l ready have made t o guide t h e way w e th ink, ac t , o r f e e l about what w e are cu r r en t ly experiencing.
us ing thought processes t o make or r ev i se an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n new context , applying t h e knowledge r e s u l t i n g from pr io r thought andfor p r i o r t a c i t l ea rn ing t o cons t rue meaning i n a new encounter.
Continuing process of making sense of everyday experience.. a process of g iv ing meaning t o , o r seeking t o understand l i f e experiences.
More than merely r eac t i ng t o t he se experiences. . bu t seeking t o c r e a t e exper iences and t o discover from them new knowledge, skills, attitudes.
Active process of cons t ruc t ing a system of meanings and then using them t o cons t rue o r i n t e r p r e t even ts , ideas, circumstances.
-- - -
"Using meaning we already have" (Mezirow, 199 1: 11) is also inteznal
because only students know the meaning that they already possess.
The way learning becomes meaningful for students describes this
internal component. Students can integrate what they have learned
in the past with what they are presently learning.
2. Process of change. Learning involves some form of change, but
does not always result in an observable change. Cranton (1992:3)
defines learning as "any sustained change in thinking, values, or
behaviour that is brought about by an experience." She then states
that adult education is the "set of activities or experiences
53
engaged in by adultsw which leads to changes in the thinking,
values or behaviour. Garrison (1993:55) similarly stresses change
by defining learning as a "broad psychological construct implying
internal cognition and behavioral changes."
Conversely, Gerstner (1992) identifies the emphasis on change as a
difficulty with many learning definitions. She claims learning is
often presumed to have taken place when change is manifested.
According to her, change may be an external measure of learning and
not a condition of internal learning. Instead, the suggestion is
that a common factor among kinds of learning is a "heightened
awareness and knowledgeability" (Gerstner, 1992:85) which is not
always visible. There is still change from one level of awareness
to another.
3. Forms of learning. Researchers apply various adjectives to the
term implying different types of learning. These extensions
represent forms of learning which may or may not be present in the
SDL process. Three forms are identified in the literature:
content-oriented, learner-oriented and assumption-oriented.
Content-oriented. A common assumption is that this form of
learning is what learning is all about. The purpose of learning is
to acquire a new skill or develop content expertise. Students use
content-learning early in their formal educational experience. For
instance, when learning the multiplication table. Students
54
memorize the content and develop ways to "produce the correct
response . "
Content-oriented learning is similar to instrumental learning,
which according to Mezirow ( 1994 ) , is prominent in adult education. Cranton (1994:9) describes Mezirow's (1991) instrumental learning
as the "gaining of technical knowledgew which involves "determining
cause-effect relationships and learning through task-oriented
problem solvingw (Mezirow, 1991:73). ~nst~umental learning is
similar to content-oriented learning because of the emphasis on
acquiring new information.
Learner-oriented. In learner-oriented learning, the student
may determine needs which become shaped through communication. How
the learning fits in with the outside world and communicating with
others becomeissues. Communicatingcantake place in instrumental
learning and communication between educator and student may be a
part of content-oriented learning. But with learner-oriented
learning, the focus is on what others think and how the learning
can be used in relation to others. As seen earlier, learning
multiplication tables is very much content-oriented. How those
multiplication tables can be put to further use becomes a part of
learner-oriented learning. Emphasis is on the role of others which
is often stressed in SDL.
Assumption-oriented. Assumption-oriented learning goes beyond
reflecting on knowledge to include the possibility of assumption
modification. Emancipatory learning involving critical reflection
55
is one way of describing assumption-oriented learning (Mezirow,
1991). Emancipation refers to "freedom from libidinal, linguistic,
epistemic, institutional, and environmental forces that limit our
options and our control over our lives" (Mezirow, 1991:98).
Mezirow (1991) states that there is the possibility of involvement
of emancipatory reflective learning with instrumental and
communicative learning, but it has broader implications than
communicative. The emphasis in assumption-oriented learning is on
examining beliefs and possibly making changes to these beliefs.
4 . Series of stages; Presenting learning as a series of steps or
phases which the student progresses through (Figure 5) is
reflective in nature and does not indicate a course or path.
Instead, the focus is on processes that can take place during
learning which more accurately represent the SDL process. The
approaches presented vary, but do illustrate three important
considerations: characteristics of the students, changing needs,
and the varying amount of direction required.
Characteristics of students. In their series of stages, Grow
(1991), Taylor (1987) and Cranton (1992) describe characteristics
of students such as students being interested, disoriented or
confused. On the other hand, Pratt ( 1988) outlines requirements of
students at each stage such as direction and support. Despite
these differences, all four models reflect learning as a series of
steps implying that students progress toward SDL.
56
Changing needs of students. Cranton ( 1992) and Taylor ( 1987)
both show the changing needs of the student. Cranton (1992)
expands upon Taylor's suggestions to include a variety of possible
paths which students may follow. She indicates common and
alternate paths along with emphasizing students' emotional
reactions (~igure 5). Taylor (1987) presents a different form of
model by including transition periods between the four stages.
Taylor ( 1987 ) and Cranton ( 1992 ) indicate reactions of students,
but do not outline varying processes by which students learn. All
four models suggest that the needs of the changing student must be
recognized and' a model of learning must be flexible enough to
incorporate such changes.
Amount of direction. Pratt (1988) and Grow (1991) focus on
the varying amount of direction needed at each stage. Studentsf
skills are reflected rather than focusing on their emotional
reactions as Cranton does. Pratt claims students lack competen.cee
relevant knowledge, skills, experience or motivation to pursue
educational goals during the first quadrant while Grow similarly
states students may lack the knowledge and confidence to be more
self-directed in stage one of his model. Both suggest students
need direction initially and that the need for this direction
varies as students progress through the SDL process.
5. Taxonomy approach. Taxonomies may be useful in describing SDL
because they are systems of classifying rather than prescribed
stages of progression. Baskett's (1991:251) study is an example of
57
a n approach t o SDL t h z t provides poss ib le processes but does n o t
p resen t them as a path or series of stages (F igure 6 ) . H i s
approach does not imply there i s only one way of l e a r n i n g with one
way of progressing. The focus i s t o determine "the experiences of
the l e a r n e r s as they go through this l earn ing journey." H e admits
t h a t o t h e r processes may be involved and not i d e n t i f i e d . But the
ob jektive i s t o por t r ay "those processes e i t h e r perceived d i r e c t l y
by the participants o r t h o s e which appeared t o t h e investigators t o
Figure 5 . Stages Presented i n Developmental Models of earning
pedagogical and mdragogical elations ships (Pratt, 1 9 8 8 )
Requirements of students
direction and support
support but are reasonably self- directed
moderately capable of providing their own direction and support
dependent
- -
Staged SDL ~ o d e l ( G ~ O W , 1991)
--------------- involved
--------------- self-directed
~haracteristics of students
earning Process Sequence (Taylor, 1987)
-
( disconf irmation) disorientation (naming the problem)
Process of working Toward SDL (cranton, 1992)
------------------- exploration
(reflection)
-
reorientation
(sharing the discovery)
( ) = transition phase
curiosity, disorientation, confusion, anxiety fear, resentment, testing boundaries -------------------- exploration, reflection, turning to others, interest excitement -------------------- reorientation, equilibrium, possible advocacy
be operating" (Baskett , 1991:252). These processes are similar t o
what Cranton (1994) calls " r e f l e c t i o n and exp lo ra t ion" i n her
series of stages. Baskett does not stress r e a c t i o n s as Cranton
58
(1992) does. Similarly, skills are not s t r e s s e d as P r a t t (1983)
and Grow (1991) do when they present learning as a series of
stages. Instead, Baskett's approach goes further to look at how
students think about t h e i r learning.
Figure 6 . ~eflective.~rocesses
Reflective Processes
- ..
verbalizing
objectifying
Connecting
Conceptualizing
Constructing
Testing
Clarifying
Idling
Freeing Up
self -Affirmation
Re-Valuing
Putting meaningful labels on experiences
Reflection involving "getting out of oneselfa
Linking one idea with another to create a new one
organizing ideas and placing a meaningful label on them
constructing one's own knowledge
Bouncing ideas off of other individuals or situations
Deepening or sharpening issues
Insights occurring when not consciously thinking about an issue
struggling to find time and energy
validating oneself as a learner
~e-valuing old behaviours or attitudes
Source: Baskett (1991)
Approach to learnincr i n the SDLP model. The approach t o
learning i n the SDLP model does not r i g i d l y f o l l o w a set of
predetermined s teps that are ident i ca l i n all learning s i t u a t i o n s .
Searching for generic s tages t o describe a learning process
(Cranton, 1994:64) and a s tage a p p r o a c h i s not an advisable way t o
describe SDL where student-educator in terac t ion and flexibility are
e s p e c i a l l y important. Instead, a taxonomy approach i s used w h i c h
59
c l a s s i f i e s component processes t h a t can become p a r t of learning:
deciding t o inves t iga t e , r e f l e c t i n g on t h e i r l ea rn ing , reaching an
outcome and consider ing future learning. These processes d i f f e r
according t o t h e context (F igure 7 ) and incorpora te t h e t h r e e forms
of l ea rn ing discussed i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . The c o n t e x t determines i f
conten t , l ea rne r or assumption-oriented l e a r n i n g i s t a k i n g place.
Once t h e o r i e n t a t i o n or form of l e a r n i n g i s determined,
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the component processes involved wi th in that
o r i e n t a t i o n can be examined.
1. Deciding to investigate. hi^ component process r e f e r s t o t h e
i n i t i a l po in t of deciding t o e n t e r a l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n o r t o
s i t u a t i o n s where s tudents dec ide t o "branch out" i n t o a t o t a l l y new
a r e a of inves t iga t ion . Obviously t h e " t r i g g e r " for l ea rn ing does
no t always occur at t h e beginning of t h e i n i t i a l l e a r n i n g
experience bu t can occur throughout t h e experience. Refer r ing t o
t h i s process as "deciding t o inves t iga t e" implies a cont inu i ty .
Other models o f t e n miss t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of t h e process occurr ing
more than once i n an educa t iona l i n t e rac t ion .
A s t imu la t ing event o r s i t u a t i o n (Cranton, 1 9 9 4 ) i s another way of
descr ib ing t h e beginning of a learn ing experience. Cranton
(1994:72) descr ibes t h i s process as " s e l f - a n a l y s i s o r self-
examination, perhaps accompanied by emotional responses such as
f r u s t r a t i o n , anxiety, excitement." Regardless of t h e t y p e of
l ea rn ing engaged i n , s t u d e n t s have a reason fo r p a r t i c i p a t i n g . I n
60
order for both student and educator to understand the learning
process more fully, possible reasons for the learning occurring
should be determined. We must determine what trigger events are,
from the student's perspective (Cranton, 1994).
~igure 7 . Context-Based earning in SDL.
COMPONENT
PROCESSES
~ e c iding to investigate
~eflecting on Learning
- -
Reaching an
Outcome
- - -
considering Future Learning
-
content- oriented earning
consider content
Mastering the Task
- --
Future ~pplications
C O N T E X T S
Learner - oriented earning
~etermine or modify needs
-------c------
premise ~eflection
student s Needs Met
-------m------
Future Needs
AS sumption- oriented - Learning
~nvestigate assumptions
Revision of
Assumptions ----------c--
Future Assumptions
The form of learning influences decisions to investigate. In
content-oriented learning, content is stressed and what stimulates
the student about that content. Why students decide to pursue a
certain area of a subject and become interested in that area
becomes important. ~etermining what one knows or does not at any
point in the SDL process is a form of self-analysis of the
student's content knowledge. In learner-oriented learning,
emphasis is on how students determine or modify their needs. What
stimulates students to begin to investigate assumptions is
61
addressed in assumption-oriented learning. Determining why
students decide to even consider looking at beliefs and values
becomes an issue.
2. Reflecting on learning. Researchers discuss different kinds of
reflection which do not necessarily take place in all learning
situations. According to Cranton (1994:72) "we must determine why
some events initiate reflection for some people in some situations
and not in others." Cranton (1994) in reviewing several authors
reveals that all, despite their particular focus (e. g. critical
thinking, SDL), note the key role of reflection in the process of
learning. As with stimulation, students can reflect at various
times during a learning experience depending upon the learning
situation and whether the student is task-oriented, problem-
solving, understanding what someone else means, or understanding
the self (Mezirow, 1991). Cranton (1994) also distinguishes
between various types of reflection and relates them to learning
perspectives and to forms of learning.
Content-oriented learning. Cranton ( 1994 : 49 ) makes reference
to Mezirow (1991:104) to describe reflection as an "examination of
content or description of the problem." When learning how to use
a fax machine, students would have to determine what they already
know about faxes to begin to make meaning out of the learning and
to determine what content is still needed. When the learning is
content-oriented, content reflection is most likely to take place.
62
Learner-oriented learning. Premise reflection (Mezirow, 1991 )
is summarized by Cranton (1994) as involving reflecting on the
problem itself, including %nvestigating why the problem is
important enough to be addressed and determining how learning fits
in w i t h the outside world. premise reflection enables the student
to investigate the problem and how it relates to his or her needs.
As with content reflection, there is a direct connection with the
"problem" or "content."
Assumption-oriented learning. This f o m of learning involves
both premise and content reflection, depending on the context.
There are similarities between the processes of transformative
learning and SDL (Pilling-Cormick, 1996b) . When discussing
transformative learning Cranton (1994) refers to both process and
premise reflection. These forms of reflection similarly apply to
the SDLP model. The SDLP model does differ from the process of
working toward transformation as described by Cranton (1994) by
treating process reflection as part of the facilitating process.
Process reflection is checking the problem-solving stratesies used
(Cranton, 1994:49) and becomes part of the facilitating process in
the SDLP model. Yet premise reflection still becomes a possibility
in the SDL process since consideration is given to the student's
beliefs . Reflection in assumption-oriented learning involves
content and possibly premise reflection, depending on the context.
3. Reaching an outcome. There are various outcomes resulting from
the three forms of learning (Figure 7). All students somehow reach
63
an outcome, even if it is to give up learning. The outcomes
presented are possibilities and different combinations may result.
Yet there are outcomes that typically result from the three forms
of learning. When students engage in content learning, the result
is either mastering the task at hand or not. There is the
possibility that as students reflect upon content, they may decide
to reconsider their needs before accomplishing the task. Students
may neverengage in the task because they decide to investigate an
entirely different area. Students alternatively may master the
task they set out to accomplish. In learner-oriented learning,
needs determined by students may be met. Students play a part in
determining their needs; outcomes are reached when those needs are
met from the student's point of view. ~evision of assumptions is
not necessarily part of the learning process, but is a possible
result in assumption-oriented learning.
4 . Considering future learning. The process of learning is not
complete without consideration of future learning. Yet some
students do not consider the long-term effects and do not pa~take
in this component process. Students whose sole purpose for
enroling in a physics class is to pass t h e final exam w i l l likely
never consider using the content again once the exam is passed. On
the other hand, students who enrol in the same physics class with
the purpose of becoming engineers in physics are more likely to
figure out future uses for the information learned.
64
Possible plans for the future vary according to the form of
learning. For example, when using content-oriented learning, if
the student participates in this future planning process, future
application of the content learned is an issue. In learner-
oriented learning, future planning includes considering future
student needs . ~ssumption-oriented learning addresses the
possibility of further exploration of assumptions.
Summary of learnins as defined in the SDLP model. In the SDLP
model, learning is an internal process. Students decide what is
meaningful and what will be internally processed as part of their
learning. Learning involves both external and internal changes.
Change is not always the ultimate goal or indicator that learning
has occurred and does not have to be externally visible. In the
SDL process, learning takes on different forms depending upon the
context of the educational situation. There are several component
processes, not occurring in a prescribed order.
Facilitating plays a major role in the SDL process and is
characterized as making the learning process easier. An overview
of the way facilitating is presented in the SDL literature leads to
themes which become an integral part of defining facilitating in
the SDLP model.
65
~acilitatinq in the SDL literature. Five themes about
facilitating appear in the SDL literature: instructor involvement,
roles an educator should possess, a step approach to facilitating,
a developmental approach, and a deep-level processing approach.
1. Instructor involvement. One myth about SDL is that there is no
room for the educator. Yet involvement with an instructor is a
necessary characteristic of facilitating when using the SDL
approach (Chene, 1983 ; Ericksen, 1984 ; Hiemstra, 1988 ; ~rookf i e l d ,
1990; Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990; Candy, 1991; Collins, 1991;
Galbraith, 1991). There is a "teaching processw occurring,
although its characteristics may vary.
Hiemstra & S i s c o (1990) quote Ericksen (1984:4) as defining
teaching to be "the interaction between two persons: the instructor
and the learner. " Hiemstra ( 1988) further echoes the importance of
a relationship between students and educators by stating that a
"learning partnership" between the student and educator is
necessary. He emphasizes that individualizing the teaching process
does not mean that "every learner gets to go off freely on a self-
determined path" (Hiemstra, 1988:122). Instead, because of the
participation of an educator, there must be two-way involvement in
the learning partnership. This relationship allows students to
become aware of what they know; students must test their knowledge
against somebody else.
66
According to Galbraith (1991), interaction with an instructor
occurs because a transactional process takes place when educators
and students engage in an active,, challenging, collaborative,
critically reflective, transforming educational encounter.
Students interact with the educator, other students, educational
content, materials, ideas, values, and knowledge bases. As he
claims, there is no magic formula or guarantee that each
educational encounter results in - a rewarding, meaningful
facilitating and learning interaction. Yet the characteristics
that comprise an effective teaching and learning transactional
process must be understood.
2. Educator's role. Learner's roles could also be argued to be
part of facilitating or making the learning easier. But since
facilitating in the SDL literature is often used synonymously with
teaching, roles of the educator became the focus of this review of
the SDL literature. Several researchers (Knowles, 1980;
Schuttenberg & Tracy, 1987; Hiemstra, 1988; Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990;
Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Galbraith, 1991; Cranton, 1992) propose
roles for the educator. Endorsing a single set of roles as
appropriate is difficult because there are many variables. Still,
themes appear in the SDL literature. and provide a starting point
from which to build a description of what facilitating in SDL is.
Helping aspect. An educator can .be defined as someone who
"makes learning easier" (Cranton, 1992:76). Tough (19791, Candy
(1991), Tremblay (1983), Brockett & Hiemstra (1991), and Galbraith
67
(1991) also discuss helping, referring to it in slightly different
ways. The focus on helping reflects the complex nature of the
educator's role. Managing, responding to learner's needs,
assisting with decision making, and recognizing the role of
counselling are all ways educators can help.
a) Managing. Helping often involves assisting learners with
managing their learning. As Cranton (1994) notes, the role of the
educator is sometimes synonymous with "resource-person", but
different concepts are represented. There is more interaction
between student and educator and there is an element of the manager
role in SDL. Brockett & Hiemstra ( 1991) similarly include managing
the learning process. Candy (1991) also stresses the work of
Tremblay (1983) which indicates students need help with planning,
organizing and evaluating their learning projects . Larisey ( 1994 )
indicates, some students need help in making connections.
b) Responding to learner's needs. Being responsive to
learner's needs is also part of the educator's helping role.
Knowles (1980) outlines the educator's part in the process as
helper, guide, encourager and consultant. Similarly, Candy ( 199 1 )
claims educators should have some subject matter expertise but more
importantly, should have a genuine responsiveness to the student's
needs. Candy includes characteristics of warmth, empathy,
authenticity and interpersonal contact as part of helping.
c) Assisting with decision making. Part of the helping
aspect includes assisting students with making decisions.
According to Candy (1991), Tough (1979) emphasizes that the
68
function of the teacher is to provide information, advice and
reasons that help the student make a decision and to understand
reasons for making it.
d) ~ e c o g n i z i n g the role of counselling for SDL. while
authors in the SDL literature (Taylor, 1987; Gibbons, 1990;
Knowles, 1990; Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990; i rook field, 1990; Galbraith
1991; DeJoy h Hermann, 1993) refer to.counselling, there is limited .
research specifically addressing helping for self-directed
learning. Brockett (1983) uses Egan's (1975) helping model to
outline core characteristics of the helper for SDL. The model does
assume that both respect and genuineness must be present for there
to be an effective helping relationship. Egan (1986) outlines four
basic communication skills for the helping process: attending,
active listening, empathy and probing. Consideration of this
helping model for the SDL environment is an excellent beginning,
but further critiques of models are not evident in the literature.
Areas missing from the SDL literature include understanding the
role of the instructor and developing a clear counselling component
for the SDL educator. Future research needs include determining
the major responsibilities of the educator (Brockett h Hiemstra,
1991). Once acknowledgment of counselling skills as a necessary
part of the educator's role takes place, researchers need to
examine the strategies helpers use to meet students' needs (Candy,
1991). Researchers can then provide guidelines and resources that
encourage educators to develop a helping style.
69
Promoting or s t i m u l a t i n g a s p e c t . Any educator should promote
learning, but with SDL, encouragement from an educator would likely
increase students becoming interested in trying and eventually
adopting the SDL process. Hiernstra (1988) identifies eight
educator roles in which he repeatedly makes reference to the words
wstimulator" or "prompter." Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) similarly
propose that the educator should help students develop an attitude
about learning that fosters independence and helps develop a
positive attitude toward learning and self-direction. Hiemstra &
Sisco (1990) also recommend being aware of techniques for
stimulating and motivating students. The aspect of stimulating or
motivating students to be self-directed is part of the educator's
role .
3 . Steps for t h e educator to follow. Knowles (1980), Hammond &
Collins (1991), and Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) provide steps for
educators to follow when implementing a SDL process. While there
are common elements to these lists of steps such as setting a
climate for learning (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Hammond &
Collins, 1991), teaching or facilitating is not the same for every
learning situation. For a large number of SDL situations, the
teaching process needs to be flexible.
Hiemstra & Sisco ( 1990) and Brockett & Hiemstra ( 1991) present more
flexible approaches to facilitating. Hiemstra & Sisco (1990)
propose a six step model for individualizing instruction with each
70
step involving ongoing planning, analyzing and decision making by
the instructor. But the process is to be used only as a guide or
framework upon which to build. Content mastery is important, but
the focus is on the process that enables mastery to occur. Their
model emphasizes process management. Brockett & Hiemstra (1991)
acknowledge flexibility by stating that appropriate adjustments
need to be made to the facilitating process to fit the personality
of the educator, preferred teaching techniques and organizational
requirements. They describe an interactive teaching and learning
process which is the "SDL" side of their Personal ~esponsibility
Orientation model.
4. Developmental process. Facilitation can be considered to be a
set of strategies that correspond to stages of student development.
Strategies are proposed which can be adjusted to meet the stage at
which students are at. By focusing on students and their
everchanging needs, instructors are encouraged to see facilitating
as a way of meeting continually changing conditions. Grow (1991)
outlines characteristics of the student at each stage and suggests
what a good educator would do at each stage. Instead of presenting
student characteristics, Cranton (1992) identifies intellectual and
emotional needs for the early, middle and later stages of the SDL
process along with a list of educator skills for each intellectual
and emotional need listed. Both researchers address the
developmental view of SDL, but present facilitation strategies
which look at differing dimensions of development.
71
5 . Deep-level processing approach. Approaches that stress steps
for educators to follow assume that students learn in a rational
manner and the conventional approach to facilitation is to give
studgnts "control over certain relevant aspects of the
instructional situationw (Candy, 1991:322). Instead, Candy (1991)
proposes an approach that stresses deep-level processing. He
presents a list of strategies that have the potential to encourage
&elf-direction: making use of studentsf existing knowledge,
encouraging deep-level learning, increasing question asking by
students, developing critical thinking, enhancing reading skills,
improving comprehension monitoring, and creating a supportive
climate for learning. Presenting strategies emphasizes ways the
educator can make the SDL process easier for the student rather
than concentrating on instructional steps to give. the student more
control. At the same time, the approach to facilitation is
flexible because students are not assumed to follow a rational
approach to learning.
Approach to facilitatinq in the SDLP model. Instead of
focusing on facilitating as a set of roles, steps, or developmental
phases, the facilitating component in the SDLP model concentrates
on eight ways to make learning easier as presented in the SDL
literature . This is a more flexible approach and can be
incorporated easily with the context-based model of learning used
in the SDLP model. Outlining ways to help learners with the
component learning processes are presented: providing content
resources, promoting motivation, encouraging the development of a
72
positive attitude toward SDL, promoting reflection, providing
instructional planning, providing assistance, being a co-learner,
and, being an evaluator.
1. Provide content resources. Many descriptions of "facilitator"
correctly include the task of content resource person which becomes
part of the facilitation process. Schuttenberg & Tracy (1987)
state an educator's expertise should be imparted selectively at the
student's request. People need to be available as content resource
people, but the way of sharing this content should be conducive to
the SDL process.
2. Promote motivation. Encouraging the motivation of students is
an essential part of the facilitating process for SDL. Galbraith
(1990) identifies a knowledge of motivational strategy skills as
important. Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) also stress stimulating
interest in the learning experience by promoting discussion,
raising questions and using small group activities. Hiemstra &
Sisco (1990) claim educators should be aware of techniques for
stimulating and motivating students to all reach their potential.
3 . Encourage development of a positive attitude toward SDL.
Promoting positive attitudes toward SDL most definitely should be
part of the facilitation process and was identified in the earlier
review of the SDL literature. Brockett & ~iemstra (1991) claim
part of the educator's role is helping to develop a positive
73
attitude toward SDL. Biemstra & Sisco (1990) similarly identify
the importance of helping students develop positive attitudes and
feelings about their ability to be independent.
4 . Promote reflection . Reflection is part of the process
mentioned quite often in the literature. rookf field (1986:15)
identifies "alternating and continuous engagements by teachers and
learners in exploration, action and reflection" as central to adult
learning. Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) claim part of the educator's
role is determining whether or not students are reflecting on their
learning. Hiemstra (1988) suggests that being a critical thinking
stimulator is important. That is, helping students to develop the
ability to ask why questions. To effectively reflect, critical
thinking skills are essential. t
5. Provide instructional planning. Some degree of planning is
always necessary, even if only to reserve the room where the class
is to meet. Tough (1979) and Knowles (1980) both consider
organizing the planning to be a major part of the educator's role
and part of the facilitating process. Planning involves carrying
out a needs assessment, context analysis, setting objectives,
organizing activities, selecting learning methods and evaluation
(Galbraith, 1991). Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) include assisting
students to assess needs, giving feedback on successive drafts,
managing the learning process, and being a validator or evaluator.
Hiemstra & Sisco ( 1990 ) similarly describe taking responsibility
74
for managing the process of assessing students' needs, evaluating
student achievements in various ways and stimulating types of self-
evaluation . Hiemstra (1988) also claims the educator should
stimulate and motivate students to determine initial needs, plan
appropriate learning activities, and carry out such activities.
6. Provide assistance. Assisting students is an important part of
facilitating. All educators and students should be "helping."
Tremblay ( 1 9 8 3 ) , Galbraith ( 1991) and Tough ( 1979 ) specifically use
the term "helper" in their descriptions of the educators' role.
7 . Be a co-learner. As described earlier, instructor involvement
is an important part of facilitating which becomes more apparent
when educators consider themselves learners in an educational
transaction. Learning does not necessarily mean discovering new
content, but may be developing a new technique of facilitating.
Students in every situation are different and bring various
experiences from which educators can learn. Schuttenberg & Tracy
(1987) stress modelling in their description of the "colleague"
role. They cite Galbraith (1991) as presenting the educator as a
role model. Students usually come to a learning situation with
respect for the educator. Even though the educator may attempt to
promote an informal atmosphere in the classroom, there is still
that image of the "teacher." By becoming a co-learner and
participating in the learning, the educator is sending a strong,
promotional message to the student.
8 . Be an evaluator. Brockett & Eiernstra (1991) state that the
educator should serve as validator or evaluator a£ student
accomplishment both throughout and at the end of a learning
experience. The educator should evaluate student achievements in
various ways, and should encourage the development of types of
self-evaluation (Hiemstra, 1988; Biemstra & Sisco. 1990).
Summary of f a d l i t a t i n s as. defined in the SDLP model. The
facilitating process in the SDLP model is the interaction or
relationship between student and educator. Specifically, the
facilitating process is a group of strategies to make learning
easier including: providing content resources, promoting
motivation, encouraging the development of a positive attitude
toward SDL, promoting reflection, providing instructional planning,
providing assistance, being a co-learner and an evaluator. Instead
of adopting an approach which narrowly defines facilitating as a
series of steps or roles, the approach stresses various ways that
the S D L process can be made easier for both the student and
educator .
How the SDLP Model is Different
The unique characteristics of the SDLP model include having a
process-orientation, dynamic nature, multiple variables, a
relationship between facilitating and learning, contextual issues,
dimensions of control, and recognition of resistance to S D L .
7 6
process-orientation
As Garrison (1993) states, there is a need to concentrate on the
specific internal and external process issues. Similarly, Chene
(1983) states that a more process-oriented model should replace the
static view of self-management in learning. Internal and external
structures can change in response to the student's needs and
priorities which the SDLP model takes into account by combining the
two processes of facilitating and learning with control.
Dvnamic Nature
~ncorporating a dynamic aspect is not entirely new. For example,
Garrison's (1993:33) model is not static-due to the recognition of
"the dynamic nature of control through the circle of
communication-" Pratt ( 1988) includes - a dynamic nature by
incorporating situational characteristics and claiming that the
student's dependency is momentary and situationally specific. As
Figure 4 shows, control and the facilitating and learning processes
all involve change- The learning process in the SDLP model is
flexible for different situations, but at the same time, includes
those characteristics of the process which are proposed to be
important parts of SDL itself.
Multiple Variables
Criticisms of existing models of SDL include not being "robust"
(Long, 1990a:4). Long requests a theory which would address the
relative contributions of environmental, personal and social
variables to the learning process and the degree to which learning
activities can be characterized as being self-directed. The SDLP
model may not specifically show the relative contributions of each
variable, but the model does acknowledge environmental, personal
and social variables in its control construct, There is t h e
possibility of learning activities not being totally self-directed
which is seen in the stage development model when o t h e r - d i r e c t e d
learning experiences are clearly identified. As Long (199Oa:4)
requests, the SDLP model considers a more "inclusive concept that
may be contingent upon the interaction of several variables."
Relationship Between Facilitatinq and Learninq
There is a facilitating and a learning process occurring in many
learning situations and t h e r e is a relationship between them. The
SDLP model (Figure 4) includes an arrow joining the two processes
to indicate that relationship,
Contextual Issues
The SDL process is not identical for every situation. Subject
content, student, educator, and institutional characteristics may
vary. By incorporating these variations, the SDLP model reflects
t h e contextual characteristic of the process. As Garrison
(1993:42) states, "SDL cannot be seen as only a psychological
attribute but must include management and contextual issues" and
the SDLP model allows for such variations.
78
~imensions of Control
Control does influence both learning and facilitating and the SDLP
model includes the relationship among the three. The SDL process
should not only provide the students with more control over
decisions affecting their learning, but also as in the SDLP model,
consider control from both the student's and educator's
perspectives. In the SDLP model, control includes four dimensions
whereas previous models stress three (Candy, 1991; Garrison, 1993) .
Resistance to SDL
xis sting models of SDL do not strongly represent resistance toward
SDL by students and educators (Pilling-Cormick, 1994 ) . Some
students are outwardly hostile toward an instructor because they do
not like or feel threatened by SDL. The SDLP Model acknowledges
possible resistance in student and educator characteristics of
control,
Summary
Chapter Three provides reasons for developing a new model and
illustrates how the SDLP model meets the needs proposed. A review
of the concepts of control, learning and facilitating in the SDL
literature is presented along with descriptions of how each is used
in the SDLP model. A description of how the SDLP model becomes the
basis for a new instrument is.presented. The development of that
instrument is described in Chapter Four.
CHAPTER FOUR
There i s a need for further research about the process of SDL*
Existing instruments do not focus on the process-orientation. The
SDLP model can be used as a b a s i s for developing a process-oriented
instrument. Chapter Four describes the development of such an
instrument and the research approach used to do so. The chapter
includes specific guidelines for developing the SDLPS, a
description of the prepilot phase and steps used to develop the
instrument for the pilot test phase.
. Research Procedures U s e d to Develop the SDLPS
An overview of t h e research procedures (~igure 8) provides a
summary of t h e approach and rationale for each stage of the
instrument development.
Guidelines for Developing the SDLPS
The SDLP model clearly descr ibes SDL and defines elements of the
process. By using the logical construct ion method, elements f r o m
the SDLP model became the basis for item development. Establishing
a list of guidelines (Table 6) for developing i t e m s helps to avoid
some concerns about instrument development.
Figure 8. Research Procedures Used to Develop the SDLPS
procedure
Literature Review
Development of the SDLP Model
(Chapter Three ) ------------- ~ i r s t Draft
(chapter Four)
(chapter Four )
Pilot Study and ~ i e l d Test
( Chapter Five )
outline of the procedure
Review of SDL literature related to using instruments
organizing findings from the literature review into a model to describe factors in the SDL process
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Translate key features of model into questionnaire items. Logical construction method to develop a draft instrument with 64 items and three forma.
Draft instrument with 64 items and three forms was reviewed by a representative pample of 8 and the Dissertation committee, Revisions made.
Draft instrument with one form and 58 items piloted with 52 students along with student feedback forms Revisions made, Revised instrument with 57 .
items along with student feedback forms to 110 respondents from four different groups.
Reason for Use
provide a basic understanding of the role instruments play in the field of SDL and to identify problems to avoid when developing a new instrument ............................... Provide a model to be the basis for developing a new instrument
provide an easily understood instrument. Revise early drafts on basis of feedback.
Ensure purpose of instrument was understandable and items easy to respond to.
------------------------------- Ensure instrument understandable and identify necessary changes.
collect opinions of students concerning what helped their learning and to begin determining reliablity and validity of the instrument.
Table 6 . ~uidelines for Developing It- for the SDLPS
The instrument is designed for administration to students in a credit, adult course.
~dministration is to take place during the course or at the end depending upon how the instructor plans to use the feedback. Collecting information from students while the course is in progress had advantages, but instructors needed to judge for themselves the value of periodic feedback (~ailey, 1983). The responses generated by the instrument represent studentsr opinions at the time of administration.
The instrument is self-report and collects perceptions on the personal significance of an event for the person experiencing it (combs, ~vila, & Purkey, 1978). In the context of SDL, the perception becomes the personal significance of events occurring in connection with courses identified as self- directed.
The theoretical SDLP model based on the literature is used for developing items (Nunnally, 1978). A detailed definition of the nature and meaning of the characteristic being measured is included as recommended by walsh & Betz (1985).
In developing items, attempts are made to avoid: * Leading questions (Cohen & Manion, 1989; Borg & Gall,
1989) * Technical words (cohen & Manion, 1989; Borg ti G a l l , 1989) * complex questions (cohen & anion, 1989) * ~rritating questions (cohen & Manion, 1989) * Questions using negatives (cohen & ~ d o n , 1989;
Borg & Gall, 1989) * Open-ended questions (cohen & anion, 1989) * words lacking clarity such as several, most, usually
which have no precise meaning (Borg & Gall, 1989) * Long items (Borg & Gall, 1989) * wDouble-barreledw items - two ideas with one answer
(Borg & Gall, 1989) * Items that did not take into account the flexible nature
of S D L . * Items that did not encourage individual differences.
A sufficiently large number of items was originally created so that some items could be deleted (~unnally, 1978).
Concept stem clustering, as supported by ~ailey (1983), was used so that questions related to major areas in the environmental factor of SDL were together.
General principles, as suggested by ~ailey (1983) for student feedback instruments, were adopted.
A Likert scale with a continuum stem was used. There were five response categories-
Construction of the First D r a f t
Four dimensions of control in the SDLP model included social
constraints, student characteristics, educator characteristics
and environmental characteristics. The environmental
characteristics dimension was used for developing the instrument.
The five environmental characteristics from the SDLP model
(physical aspects of the institution, physical aspects of the
classroom, how the institution functions, how the course
functions, and supportive climate for building relationships)
became the basis for a theoretical chart (~ppendix A). The sixth
aspect, learnerfs progress, was identified originally as part of
the environment in the early development of the SDLP model.
Here, learnerfs progress is treated as more an aspect of
learner's characteristics than an environmental influence and
consequently does not appear in the construction of the
theoretical chart.
Using the guidelines (Table 6) and the theoretical chart, a first
draft was created (~ppendix B, Table 1) with the following
characteristics:
Three Forms
There were originally three versions of the instrument
corresponding to the three types of learning (content, learner or
assumption-oriented) that could be present in the SDL process.
The intention was that instructors and students would choose the
83
version according to the form of learning believed to be taking
place in their particular courses.
Items
here were 64 items on each form of the instrument in the first
draft. Each item corresponded to a factor in the theory chart
with the content describing aspects of the environment that are
important to the SDL process. Item wording reflected the factor
according to the type of learning taking place. For instance,
item wording on Form B considered how the student's needs were
being met.
Scale
The scale on the first draft was a five point L i k e r t scale. The
descriptions asked respondents to choose "NO!" (1 on the scale),
"YESI" (5 on the scale) or some point in between. The one line
description of what the numbers on the scale represented appeared
only on the first page of the instrument.
Subheadinas
The first draft included headings to match the sections of the
theory sheet from which the items were developed. These headings
made responding easier because items dealing with one aspect were
grouped together.
84
Prepilot Phase
Content validation was sought to determine if the items clearly
reflected aspects of SDL as indicated in the theoretical chart
and to identify areas where respondents typical of those
responding to the instrument could have problems. A panel of
typical respondents was first approached and then a panel of
experts. Their comments led to the development of the second
draft for use in the pilot phase (Appendix D, Table 1).
Panel of Tvpical Respondents
The sample included two college students, two secondary school
adult students, and four graduate level students. These were
representative of the various levels of possible respondents.
Students were given all three forms (Appendix B, Table 1) of the
instrument. They were asked to indicate any items which were
difficult to respond to and to write an explanation beside the
item. When the completed copies were returned, each comment was
recorded along with the item number. A pattern began to appear
with certain items being mentioned more often in the comments
(Appendix B, Table 3). Changes were then carried out as follows.
Versions
Respondents could easily respond to Version A which was based on
instrumental learning. However, Version B (needs-oriented
learning) and Version C (assumption-oriented learning) appeared
85
confusing. Consideration was given to the possibility of using
only one version.
Item Wordinq
Concerns about item wording were of both a general (Appendix B,
Table 2) and specific (Appendix B, Table 3) nature.
Modifications were made based on these comments.
Panel of Experts
The same three versions were given to three experts in adult
education. As a result, the following mddifications were made.
Versions
One expert expressed a concern similar to that of the panel of
typical respondents, suggesting that one version might be used.
If only one form of the instrument were used, it was suggested
that the instructions to the student acknowledge the three
possible types of learning and the student could decide which one
was the basis for the answers. The modified instructions state
"In this course, you are trying to learn various sorts of
knowledge, information, skills, or ideas." By including this
statement, the instrument is generic enough to be completed by
individuals in different learning contexts.
Item Wordinq
Two experts suggested rewording items in complete sentences so
86
the items would be clearer and easier for the students. The
researcher's thinking about each item would also be clarified
because these changes would allow for pinpointing exactly what
was to be measured. In addition, the modifications would
decrease the possibility of respondent distraction by making the
structure or format of each item consistent. Efforts were made
to ensure that items were modified accordingly.
There was an additional concern that some items addressed
learning in general while others reflected learning in the
course. To avoid confusion, the instructions were modified to
specifically request that responses refer to learning in the
course .
Since the instrument is designed to be administered at any time
during the course, items needed to be worded in the present
tense; necessary modifications were made.
Number of Items
Some items appeared to be asking similar types of questions. To
avoid repetition, items were carefully compared to the theory
chart and some were eliminated resulting in a revised theory
chart (Appendix B, Table 4). As a result, the second draft of
the instrument to be used in the pilot study contained 58 items
(Appendix D, Table 1).
87
Purpose of the Instrument
There was confusion about the purpose of the instrument. Some of
the items appeared to stress facilitation of SDL while others
stressed factors that would indicate how self-directed the course
was, Items were reworded specifically to reflect the
facilitation aspect.
The self-directed component in a course can vary and there was a
concern that students would be unsure as to what component their
responses should be based upon. When instructors agreed to
administer the instrument, their courses were assumed to have
some component in which students were given the opportunity to
deternine priorities for their learning and to choose methods and
resources to help carry out this learning. The instructions were
modified to include the possibility that not all characteristics
are present from the student's point of view. Examples of how
respondents should go about answering the questions were also
included .
One expert suggested removing the subheadings from the
instrument. This modification was carried out based on the
assumption that the headings were for the conceptualizing or
organizing done by the researcher and were not designed for the
student.
88
Scale
For the pilot study version (Appendix D, Table l), the scale was
changed to a scale which stresses how helpful each factor is to
the student. Insertion of an explanation above the scale
provides further explanation of what the scale measures. The
scale for the pilot study uses five points with t h e points from
1 to 4 ranging from "this does not help my learning at all" to
"this is extremely helpful to my learning." Having four
responses to reflect the degree of helpfulness avoids the use of
a neutral or undecided choice. A " O w column was added in the
answer space for the factor not being present. Confusion between
the degree of helplessness of the factor (1-4) and its perceived
absence is then eliminated. To make responding easier, the scale
is repeated at the top of each page. What each point represents
should then be easier to recall.
Instructions to the Student
The instructions at the beginning of the instrument were
expanded. One expert suggested that t h e instruction paragraph be
divided into smaller paragraphs. This change was made based on
the belief that people tend not to read long paragraphs. By
shortening the instructions and inserting white space, t h e task
of actually reading the instructions should be made much easier.
8 9
s-rp
Chapter Four summarizes the research approach used to develop the
SDLPS. Factors to be considered when developing an instrument
are presented along with the criteria used for creating the first
draft of the SDLPS, results from the prep i lo t phase and
modifications made to the instrument for the upcoming pilot phase
described in Chapter Five.
CBAPTER FIVE
PILOT STUDY AND FIELD TEST
Chapter Five includes a description of the sample used, feedback
forms and administration procedures. An analysis of the data is
presented, along with modifications made based on results from
the analysis-
Administration Procedure
To revise and improve the administration procedure, two feedback
f oms were created: the student and instructor feedback f oms.
These required written comments which made for "easy and systematic
reference in revising the questionnaire" (Converse & Presser,
1986:72). The researcher could then determine confusing areas of
the assessment process and modify the instructions for use in
future administrations of the scale.
Characteristics of the Sample Form
- To facilitate the collection of information about the sample, a standard form including a detailed background about the sample was
created for instructors to complete when returning their completed
instruments (Appendix C, Table 1).
Student Feedback Form
The student feedback form (Appendix C, Table 2) gathered
information about specific questions causing difficulties for the
9 1
respondent. To facilitate completion of the f o m , students were
asked to write the number of any items that caused any of the
effects listed. Confusion and discomfort were specific concerns
that the researcher wanted to ensure were dealt with. An open-
ended section at the bottom provided an opportunity for any
additional comments.
The feedback form was administered concurrently with the instrument
to encourage students to take the time to respond. Had this form
been distributed after the student had completed the instrument,
the student might not have taken the time to give accurate
feedback.
Instructor Feedback Form
Information about how the instructor felt about the administration
was vital. The instructor feedback form (~ppendix C, Table 3) was
designed to facilitate the gathering of this information. There
were two parts to the form: administration and communication with
the researcher. Any necessary modifications to both these areas
could be made before the larger administration of the instrument.
Procedure for Administration
A standardized procedure for communicating with participating
instructors was followed (Table 7). A list of detailed steps
(Appendix C, Table 4) encouraged instructors to follow a standard
procedure for the administration.
Sample and Population
To accurately reflect the population for whom the S D L P S was
created, samples consisted of adult students enroled i n formal
courses leading to creditation.
Table 7 . Standard Procedures for Communicating With Instructors ~ u r i n g the P i l o t and Data Collection Phases
- - -- - - -
1. contact was made with identified instructors outlining the purpose of the sDLPS, what was involved in administering the instrument to the class, and what feedback would be provided, and seeking permission to administer the instrument.
2. The number of copies required by each instructor was determined.
3. A package of materials for administration was given to the instructor. The package included:
* one copy of wInst~ctions for Administrationw * one wCharacteristics of the samplew form * one copy of the wInstructor Feedbacku form * sufficient copies of the SDLPS forms * sufficient copies of the "Student ~eedback" form * one self-addressed envelope for returning copies
4. Instructors were given specific instructions of how to administer the sDLPS and were asked to read only those instructions to the class.
5. students were asked to return the completed instrument and feedback forms to an envelope which the instructor had.
6. The instructor sealed the envelope and the envelope was returned to the researcher.
Pilot Study
For the pilot study, the size of the sample (N=52) was between the
25 to 75 respondents recommended by Converse and Presser (1986).
The sample consisted of adult students enroled in an upgrading
course for teachers in the area of English as a Second Language at
the university level. The administration took place during July
93
1995. The data collection sessions were held during the day
classes and took place at a location which was off campus.
Data Analvsis
Two kinds of ififormation were gathered and analyzed during the
pilot study: information from the student feedback forms and the
responses on the questionnaire.
Results
The responses from the student feedback forms were organized by
categories on the student feedback form (Appendix D, Table 5), by
specific open comments about individual items (~ppendix D, Table 6)
and general suggestions for improvement (Appendix D, Table 7).
This feedback allowed for identification of items appearing to pose .
problems and gave an overall impression of how students felt about
the instrument.
Frequency distributions of questionnaire responses were determined,
including the mean, mode and standard deviation (Appendix D, Table
2). An item mean of more than 3 indicated that the characteristic
referred to in the item was helpful to learning. Item means close
to 1 indicated a high degree of consensus that the characteristic
was not helpful to learning. Item means close to 0 indicated a
high consensus that these characteristics do not happen. Items
with a mean close to 2 were reviewed to make sure that ambiguous
wording was not the cause of the ranking.
A Cronbach-alpha coefficient was calculated t o indicate the
internal consistency of items and the amount of reliability between
items and the scale overall ( ~ p p e n d i x D, Table 4). The Cronbach-
alpha was used because it is generally the most appropriate type of
reliability for survey research where there is a range of possible
answers for each item (McMillan & Schumacher, 1984) . A Cronbach-
alpha correlation above .8 for the category indicated that items i n
the category appeared to be measuring the same thing. Correlations
between items within a category below . 3 identified items that
might not be consistently measuring the same thing as other items
in the category. These specific items were reviewed t o determine
if t h e wording was appropriate.
Findinqs
Of the 52 respondents, 47 feedback f oms were completed. O f the 52
respondents, 32 forms were useable for statistical purposes. Foms
were discarded if one of the 58 items was omitted. In general,
students appeared to be resistant toward the instrument. Student
feedback responses were categorized into general concerns ;
problems with the scale; not applicable; request f o r open-ended
questions; confusion about the instructions; and a category for
miscellaneous comments. There w e r e a few positive comments and
these are presented separately (Appendix D, Table 7).
Modifications from the Pilot Study
Patterns in the comments and statistical evidence were used to make
revisions with
in an effort
95
reference being made back to the theoretical chart
to simplify the items and still maintain their
original intent. Revisions were made on the basis of multiple
inputs. For example, when one or two student comments were
reinforced by the comment of an expert, a change would likely have
occurred. Since there were many changes and often they were quite
trivial, it is not feasible to discuss the decision process for
each. But all were based upon information from at least two
different sources.
Specific Instructions for Items That do not Apply
Sixteen respondents indicated the instrument was not applicable to
their situation. None of the items had a mean close to 0 which
could indicate that respondents are not sure whether this
characteristic was present in this course. This finding was
surprising because one would expect the mean for some items to be
close to 0 since so many indicated the items were not appropriate.
Instructions were modified to emphasize that respondents should
choose 0 for items if the item did not apply. That is, the item is
not important in this particular learning situation. This does not
mean it is or is not present since the instrument is not measuring
that. The wording of the definition of 0 used in the pilot
version, "this does not happenw, was modified to read "this does
not affect my learning" for the field test version.
96
~mphasizins the Instrument is not a Course Evaluation
On the 20 incomplete forms, the following five items were missed
more than six times.
The school office is open for long hours (Item 6).
Different registration procedures for part-time students
(Item 14).
The school limits what I can choose to learn (Item 16).
Being aware that other courses encourage students to
direct their learning (Item 19) . Resistance to directing my own learning is recognized
(1tem 41).
Of these f i v e items, four had a mean close to two indicating a
possible reluctance to identify factors that do not help learning.
Forty two items had a mean close to 3 (this is helpful to my
learning) while only 10 items had a mean close to 2 (this slightly
helps my learning). Students may have experienced problems
identifying what does not help their learning or were reluctant to
do so, fearing the instrument was a reflection of the teacher. The
instructor indicated that some students were hesitant about
responding because they believed this instrument to be an
evaluation of the instructor and the course. Possible wording
modifications to the general instructions were considered such as
"this is not a course evaluation." Another option was to have a
student administer and return the forms to the researcher.
97
Mismatch Between Items and the Scale
Specific claims were that it was difficult to say if the items
helped or harmed learning. The items were also believed to be too
vague to elicit such specific answers. The wording of items so
identified by students or omitted by students was checked for
ambiguity. After examining these items, it appeared that students
were confused between what is happening and what helps learning.
For example, "The course outline reflects what t h e course is like"
(Item 18) refers to the course outline reflecting what the course
is like. This would probably help most students learn and would
lead to a response of 3 or 4. I f the outline does not reflect -what
t h e course is like but would still help a learner, the respondent
was in a difficult position. The wording of the scale and items
did not easily indicate both what was happening and what helped
learning. The form of the verb in items was consistently changed
to the present participle form by adding -ing to reflect what helps
learning. Words such as "being encouraged to" were deleted because
feedback from the entire instrument indicates what factors need to
be encouraged. The resulting feedback then tells instructors what
helps their students.
Use of the Word "Course"
Two respondents did not know if they sh ould b e answering based on
the course or education in general. The words "in this course"
appeared on every page, yet confusion still existed. To avoid
f u r t h e r confusion, the words "in this course" were underlined in
98
t h e instructions appearing on the top of each page for the field
study version. References to the word "course" were deleted from
the following i t e m s because the entire instrument was based on the
specific course. Having some i t e m s refer specifically to the
could result in confusion.
The course encourages me to evaluate the way I learn
(Item 20)
The course encourages me to evaluate what I learn
(Item 23).
The course begins by encouraging me t o review what I
already know ( I t e m 24 ) . The course encourages me to consider why I am assessing
my learning (Item 25).
The course allows me t o develop m y own approach to
learning ( I t e m 34).
The course balances small and large group activities
(Item 36).
The course provides refreshment breaks as a way for me
to share new ideas (Item 37).
First Person Reference
To simplify items, the first person references were removed from
items 3, 21, 26, 28, 32, 33, 35 , 38 , 39, 40 , 4 3 , 4 4 , 46 , 4 7 , 48 ,
4 9 , and 51.
C l a r i t y of the Ouestion
The "how the course functions" and "supportive climate for building
relationships" categories showed the highest Cronbach-alpha
correlation coefficients. These categories had more items than the
"physical aspects of the institution", "physical aspects of the
classroom", and "how the institution functions" categories and that
may have contributed to higher reliability scores.
The low Cronbach-alpha score of .7155 in the "how the institution
functions" section indicated problems with the section. The
possibility that students were not used to answering questions that
make reference to the institution was considered as a reason for
the low correlation.
Eight items were specifically identified on the feedback forms and
were rewritten to simplify and improve clarity.
1. "The school has up-to-date equipment for learning" (Item
4) appeared to be redundant since "The school requires that
resources be shared" (Item 5) was referring to the same concept on
the theoretical chart (Appendix A). Thus, the item was deleted.
2. As found in Appendix D, Table 8, six people omitted "The
school office is open for long hours" (Item 6). One person claimed
the item was confusing which may be because the connection between
the office being open and the student's learning was not obvious.
To enable students to respond when they feel such a connection does
100
not exist, the scale was modified to claim "this does not affect my
learning" for 0 in the field test version.
3 . T h e words wschool examination requirements" in item 15
were changed to "having mandatory examinations" for the field test
version which should be a statement students can more e a s i l y
understand.
4. Seven respondents did not complete i t e m 16 T h e school
limits what I can choose to learn" (Appendix D, Table 8 ) . One
person claimed the item made him or her uncomfortable while another
stated he or she did not know what the question meant (Appendix D,
Table 6). The word "courses" was added for the field test version
to make the item more specific.
5. Four people omitted i t e m 26 "I can ask for help to
determine when I have successfully learned" (Appendix D, Table 8) . There were two specific comments that this item was ambiguous and
could not be answered according to the scale (Appendix D, Table 6).
The item was made more compatible with the scale by stressing the
word "requesting" in the field test version and eliminating the
reference to being able to ask for help found in the pilot version.
6. Item 30, "The location of the institution", was identified
as being too vague which is a similar problem to those items
addressing physical aspects. A f t e r careful review, it was decided
that the item was actually concerned w i t h a physical characteristic
and was moved to that section and became item 6 on the field test
version.
101
7. Seven respondents specifically identified "Resistance to
directing my own learning is recognized" (Item 41) as confusing.
One stated the item made him or her uncomfortable, and three did
not know what the question meant. One stated that the item could
not be answered with the scale. Six students not responding to the
item indicated that they may have been uncomfortable with the item.
Upon careful review of the theoretical chart, item 41 appeared to
be unnecessary because information in the item was covered by other
items and was replaced by an item emphasizing the helpfulness of
learners determining needs.
8. The words "further explore" in "I am encouraged to further
explore what 1 am learning" (Item 48) appeared to be causing
confusion. These words were changedto "continually exploring" for
the field test version in an attempt to simplify the item.
Field Test
The revised form of the instrument was used in the field test
(Appendix E, Table 1). The sample chosen consisted of courses in
which the instructor felt a self-directed component existed. Four
university classes were involved with 17, 31, 34, and 28 students
totalling 110 students. The students in the four groups were
qualified teachers enroled in an upgrading university level course.
The procedure for administering t h e field test was the same as the
pilot study (Appendix C) and took place in December, 1995. The
data collection sessions were held during the evening and took
place at a location which was off the campus.
102
Data ~nalvsis
As in the pilot study, student feedback forms and frequency
distributions were used to identify problem items. Item means,
modes, standard deviations and standard error of the mean (Appendix
E, Table 2) were calculated. Cronbach-alpha reliability
coefficients were calculated for each category (~ppendix E , Table
3) and the overall instrument (Appendix E, Table 4). Student
feedback f oms were organized according to types of comments
(Appendix E, Table 5).
Results
Return rates of completed instruments for the four groups were 94%,
58%, 79%, 39%, a total of 65% for the entire group. The percent of
completed student feedback forms was 82%, 90%, 478, and 29%
respectively. The findings for each of the categories and an
analysis of the entire instrument are discussed followed by a
discussion of the rankings.
Analvsis of the Cateqories
Results for the five categories indicate which items and individual
categories were rated as helpful. The reliability of the
categories was also addressed.
Physical aspects of the school. The correlation coefficients
between items in this section were above - 3 (Appendix E, Table 3).
According to McMillan & Schumacher (1984), correlations as low as
- 3 are useful for investigating relationships, but not for
103
estimating reliability. The questions within this category then
appeared to be measuring the same characteristic. These findings
would suggest that students are aware of physical aspects of the
school, but of these factors indicated as being helpful, not one is
from this category. "Having a variety of school resources" (Item
1) is negatively skewed suggesting that having sources available is
important while the positive skew in "Providing a list of the
location of school resources" (Item 2) concerning the location is
surprising because one would expect that providing a way of
locating resources would be helpful.
~hvsical aspects of' the classroom. This section has
correlation coefficients between items above . 3 (Appendix E, Table
3) which indicates the items appear to be measuring the same
general characteristic,
How the institution functions. Correlation coefficients in
this category are not unanimously strong indicating that items may
not be measuring a single characteristic. Specifically, "Being
required to attend all classes" (Item 17) is negatively correlated
with three items while "Having mandatory examinations " ( Item 15 )
shows correlations below .2 for "The number of people in a course"
(Item 11) , "The time period between classesw (Item 131, and "Having different registration procedures for part-time students" (Item
14). These low correlations suggest the items may have to be
altered or perhaps refer to things that are not relevant to helping
the SDL process. "Having different registration procedures for
part-time students" (Item 14), "The school limiting what courses I
104
can take" (Item 16), and "Students directing their learning in
other courses" (Item 19) have a median and mode of 0 suggesting
that students may not see how these factors relate to S D L
How the course functions, Correlation coefficients between
"Sharing new ideas during refreshment breaks" (Item 37) and the six
other items were below .15 indicating that students may not be
aware of the possibility of using refreshment breaks for sharing
ideas about what is being learned. "Developing my own approach to
learning" (Item 34) showed correlation coefficients below -15 for
four items. Rewording of these two items may be necessary.
"Helping to develop the marking scheme" (Item 21) , "Requesting help to determine when I have successfully learned" (Item 26), and "The
teacher giving me ideas about how to manage my time" (Item 39) were
positively skewed which may suggest students are not used to
requesting help with such aspects as managing time and determining
when learning has occurred.
Sup~oxtive climate for buildins relationships, Most
correlation coefficients were above . 3 . "The teacher helping me to
develop a positive attitude toward directing my own learning" (Item
40) is positively skewed while "Considering the usefulness of what
I am learning" (Item 4 3 ) , "Receiving help with my questioning
skills" (Item 4 4 ) , "Knowing my comments and requests are being
taken seriously" (Item 4 5 ) , and "Working with other students rather
than competing with them" (Item 46) are negatively skewed. There
is a strong correlation between " F o d n g learning partnerships"
(Item 52) and "Students helping each other" (Item 53). Both items
105
appear t o be s t r e s s i n g working with o t h e r classmates. Forming
l e a r n i n g par tnersh ips and s tuden t s helping each o t h e r focus on t h i s
t y p e of i n t e r a c t i o n .
Scale Analvsis
The s tandard error of t h e mean is
(Appendix E , Table 2 ) . A s a r e s u l
error i n us ing t h e means c a l c u l a t e d
population.
low ranging f r o m .099 t o .201
t, t h e r e w i l l be less sampling
t o r e f l e c t means of t h e l a r g e r
Overa l l , t h e i n t e r - i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e two s t r o n g c a t e g o r i e s
(how t h e course func t ions , support ive climate f o r bu i ld ing
r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) which d e s c r i b e aspec ts t h a t he lp s tuden t s wi th the
SDL process- ino or modif icat ions need t o be made t o o t h e r
c a t e g o r i e s (phys ica l a s p e c t s of t h e school, physical aspec t s of t h e
c lassroom). One category ( h o w t h e i n s t i t u t i o n func t ions ) shows no
c o n s i s t e n t pattern of r e l a t i o n s h i p s making t h e ca tegory u n r e l i a b l e
because it is not i n t e r n a l l y cons i s t en t . The v a l i d i t y of t h e scale
cannot be determined from the present study.
The c a t e g o r i e s a r e strong according t o the Cronbach-alpha
r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s (Appendix E, Table 4 ) . These c o e f f i c i e n t s
i n d i c a t e s t r eng ths and poss ib le areas where changes may be
requi red . The category "how t h e course func t ions" i s the s t r o n g e s t
section with a score of ,9111 The "how t h e i n s t i t u t i o n func t ions"
ca tegory had t h e lowest c o e f f i c i e n t of - 7 4 9 3 which suggests more
106
questions may be needed to evaluate effectively the impact of how
the institution functions. The coefficients for the other
categories were acceptable ranging from -8061 to -9001. The
overall reliability coefficient is .9268 which indicates that the
SDLPS is a reliable instrument.
Rankinqs
F r o m t h e analysis of the entire instrument, certain items appeared
to be either helpful, slightly helpful or did not affect learning.
Helpful items - Fif teen ( 5 2 % ) of the 29 factors rated as being
helpful were from the "supportive' climate for building
relationships" category. Of the top 10 most helpful factors, eight
(80%) were from this category. This finding suggests that
providing a supportive climate for SDL could be most helpful for
students.
Eight (27%) of the 29 factors identified as being helpful came from
"how the course functions" category. This may indicate that how
the course operates is important for helping learning, but not as
vital as providing a supportive climate.
Most of the 29 items identified as helpful were on the last two
pages of the questionnaire form which suggests these factors were
important. It would be interesting to see if the same responses
would appear if these items were placed at the beginning of the
instrument. There is always the possibility that students may have
107
become tired and responded with 3 in order to finish quickly.
Sliqhtlv helpful items. Eleven (48%) of the 23 items rated as
slightly helpful, came from the "how the course functions"
category. This finding suggests those ways in which the course
functions that have been identified as being helpful in the SDL
literature are, indeed, helpful to students. But again, these ways
are not as helpful as some other categories. Of these 11 items,
"Helping to make decisions about the course" (Item 32), "Developing
my own approach to learning" (Item 3 4 ) , "Learning something
different from what other students in the course are learning"
( Item 35) , "sharing new ideas during refreshment breaks" (Item 37 ) , "Receiving help to plan my learningw (Item 38), and "The teacher
helping m e to develop a positive attitude toward directing my own
learning" (Item 40) specifically address aspects that are clearly
characteristic of the SDL process and this rather low rating may
indicate that students do not view directing their learning as
important or are not given the opportunity to do so.
Five of the six items of the "physical aspects of the classroom"
were rated as being slightly heLpfu1 (Appendix F, Table 1) which
could suggest that this category is not as helpful as other
categories. Yet these items do play a role because they are
identified as being helpful in some way.
Items not aff ectincr learninq. Four (80%) of the five items in
the "how the institution functions" category (Appendix F, Table 1)
were identified as not affecting learning. Respondents did not
108
feel these institutional characteristics helped learning, despite
the importance placed on these characteristics in the literature.
And one would expect these factors to be influential with this
group of respondents who were all off-site and part-time. Students
may not be comfortable or used to answering questions about factors
such as institution policies. Another possible explanation is that
these factors may not be important to students using a SDL process.
Items in this category need to be carefully reviewed.
Summary
The purpose of Chapter Five is to present and discuss the results'
of the pilot and field test phases. The methodology and analytical
procedures used are discussed. The description includes an
overview of the samples, feedback forms used, the administration
procedure, and the statistical analysis used. Findings from the
student feedback forms and statistical analysis from the pilot
study were used to make further modifications to the instrument.
The modified instrument was then used in the field test. Data
analysis from the field test for the individual categories and the
instrument as a whole follow. Chapter S i x will discuss the
findings, limitations and offer suggestions for further study.
CHAPTER SIX
DISCUSSION, CoNausIom, AND IMPLICATIONS
This research involved several stages: (1) identifying
characteristics in the SDL literature that help students with the
SDL process; (2) developing a model as the basis for an instrument
revealing studentsf perceptions of the helpfulness of these
characteristics; (3) designing a version of that instrument, the
SDLPS; (4 ) testing the instrument to determine its soundness and to
obtain an indication of characteristics that appear to be helpful
from students' perspectives; firially, (5) generating suggestions
for future development of the SDLPS.
Characteristics in the SDL Literature
A profile of an SDL environment can be constructed from the factors
identified in the SDL literature. his profile includes factors
relating to physical aspects of the institution, physical aspects
of the classroom, how the institution functions, how the course
functions, and providing a supportive climate for building
relationships.
Development of a Model
The characteristics identified in the SDL literature then form the
basis for the SDLP model. Contextual issues become the focus with
an emphasis on processes which occur in the SDL process. The model
presents various characteristics of control. The SDLP model
110
provides a basis for creating an instrument to study studentst
perceptions of the helpfulness of the identified characteristics.
Creation of the SDLPS
The study provides a preliminary version of the SDLPS. By using
the logical construction method, a theoretical chart (Appendix A)
emerges based on factors identified in the SDLP model. This chart
f o m e d the basis for items in the new instrument - The key features
of the model were addressed in the questionnaire i t e m s . Criteria
were created for developing items based on information from the
literature review. The instrument was reviewed by a representative
sample and t h e Dissertation Committee. T h i s ensured the purpose of
the instrument was understandable and items easy to respond to.
Testing Out the Instrument
The instrument was tried out in a pilot study, revised and tested
again in a field study. The following observations emerge from the
tryouts .
Findinss About SDL
The findings indicated certain factors appeared to be especially
helpful to students. The results provide an indication of how one
group of students responded to t h e helpfulness of the five
categories of the SDL environment.
111
Helpful Factors
The category "supportive climate for building relationships" was
strongest accounting for 52% of the 29 items rated as being
helpful. This finding suggests that relationships with others is
important to students and ensuring such an atmosphere exists
becomes a consideration. The category "how the course functions"
accounted for 48% of the 23 items rated as slightly helpful
indicating that factors concerned with the functioning of the
course are important, but not as crucial as providing a supportive
climate for building relationships. Results suggest that the
category "how the institution functions" refers to matters that do
not affect students at all, whereas the physical aspects of the
school and classroom are slightly helpful.
Resistance
There appears to be general resistance to SDL by some students and
this may be reflected in students' reluctance to view their
learning in self-directed terms. No items showed a mean close to
0 (does not affect my learning) or close to 4 (extremely helpful)
which is surprising since with the number of people claiming the
items were not applicable, one would expect to see some means close
to 0 . The comment of "does not apply" may appear because students
are unclear about the purpose.
Findinss About the SDLPS
Comments from the feedback forms along with findings from the
112
results indicate four areas of concern: clarity of purpose,
con£ usion concerning directions for the instructor, item redundancy
and item applicability. These areas should be addressed for future
instrument development.
Clarity of the ~nstructions
There is the possibility that students may have based ratings on
the whole course, including those parts which were not self-
directed. Despite asking students in the instructions to ind ica te
what helps them direct t h e i r learning in the course, a number
seemed to respond in terms of learning in general. The intent of
the instrument is, then, to determine students' perceptions about
what helps them with the supposedly self-directed component. The
items are worded to specifically ask about a self-directed
environment and responding becomes difficult if the participants,
for example, do not perceive the course as self-directed or do not
focus on the self -directed portion of the course. An introduction
might be provided, to be read aloud by instructors before
participants begin to respond. This introduction would indicate
that the particular class had been chosen to complete the
instrument because, from the instructor's viewpoint, SDL was
believed to be taking place to some extent.
Confusion Concernins Directions for the Instructor
Control by the researcher over the administration was minimal.
There appeared to be some confusion concerning t h e purpose of the
113
instrument which may have inadvertently been passed from the
instructors to the students.
~espite instructions for administering, which each instructor had
a copy of, there was some confusion. One instructor indicated the
time required to complete the instrument was 10 to 15 minutes.
~dministration in this class took place near the beginning of the
class time. When administration similarly took place at the
beginning of the class for another group, the instructor reported
no problems with the instructions for administration. For these
two groups, the number of students completing the instrument was
relatively high as was the number of feedback forms returned
indicating the time when administration takes place may be a factor
in how accurate responses to the items will be.
One instructor did not complete the characteristics of the sample
form or the instructor feedback form. The responses in the
envelope were returned in an unorganized fashion indicating that
the administration in this case may have differed from the other
two groups.
Other observations indicate that in some classes the instrument may
have been distributed at the end of the class and not in a
favourable way. One student feedback form from this group stated
that if the researcher cared about the answers, then students
should take the instrument home since it had been a long day.
1 1 4
mother student reported irritation with the instrument because of
fatigue. In future administrations, the importance of distributing
the instrument at the beginning of the class period should be
emphasized.
One instructor did not complete the instructor feedback form. That
instructor also informed the researcher that he had not read the
instructions and had told the students to take the instrument home.
This form of administration was clearly not intended and may have
affected the results. The return of completed instruments was
lower than the other two groups. These 11 responses took two weeks
to be collected.
The researcher was aware of the possibility of these types of
problems and had volunteered to administer the instrument, but the
instructor in charge of the program felt that would not be
necessary. The confusion about the instructions for administration
concerned the researcher because to date, all instructors claimed
the instructions were easy to follow and no suggestions for
improvement were given. Still, this problem indicates the need for
ensuring the instructor of each group is aware of all instructions
for administration before administering the instrument.
Distributing the instructions prior to the class or personally
contacting the instructor to explain the procedures for
administration are possible ways of ensuring these problems do not
reoccur.
115
One purpose of a field test is to reveal how the "product"
functions in a real environment without intervention by the
researcher/developer. It was riskier to entrust administration to
the course instructors than to the researcher. However as noted
earlier, the intention of this work is to develop an instrument
which can be used, without outside assistance, by any instructor.
Consequently a proper testing of the instrument required that it be
tested under these conditions. While the poorly managed
administration for two of the groups might cause them to be dropped
in a traditional experimental design, they were recognized here
because the results for these two groups did not differ
significantly from the other groups.
Item Redundancv
For the instrument to be practically useful, the number of items
may need to be reduced. According to instructors, the current
instrument takes approximately 15 minutes to complete which is not
an extremely long period of time. However, the length of the form
may discourage people, leading them to respond in ways that are not
accurate. One student indicated that items 13 and 31 both discuss
flexibility and that the instrument was too long. These two items
were designed to address different aspects, but the subtle
differences that the researcher is a w a r e of may not be obvious to
the student. Hence, some items may need to be eliminated. If
items appear to be redundant, there is the chance that students can
become frustrated which also affects the accuracy of the results.
116
One way of determining if items overlap is to identify inter-item
correlations (Appendix E, Table 3) of more than .6 to investigate
the possibility of creating one item to address the same aspect
(Long, Convey and Chwalek, 1985) . For example, the correlation
between items 27 and 28 is extremely high at .9l7Z. These items
deal with the teacher telling t h e students how they are doing, and,
with receiving feedback throughout the course. These could be
combined into one item since the focus of the two is similar. Each
item was derived directly from a review of t h e literature, so care
must be taken that elimination or item editing does not jeopardize
the content validity.
Item Applicability
Some students indicated that the first two pages of the instrument
were confusing whereas the last two pages were relevant to
learning. The physical aspect questions which students appear to
have problems responding to, were at the beginning. One
possibility is to switch the sections around so that the initial
items (addressing more familiar aspects) would then become easier
to respond to. When students reach the other sections, resistance
may not be so high because the "stage is set" for thinking about
their learning in a self-directed way. One student reported
experiencing no problems answering questions because most were
irrelevant to her or his learning style. He or she does not learn
in a classroom setting, but instead in solitude with written
material. This response was surprising since learning in solitude
117
would imply SDL. Because the instrument is based on what makes SDL
easier, one would assume that some of the factors represented by
these items would somehow help that person's learning.
Implications for Practice
The intent of t h i s study w a s t o develop an instrument which would
be practical for educators attempting to use the SDL process in
their courses, This new instrument adds to the "toolbox" approach
to instrumentation proposed by various researchers (Hiemstra, 1995;
Conf essore, 1995 ) . The SDLPS gives educators the opportunity to
discover what students feel helps or does not help their learning.
As Bedard (1996) implies, an instrument investigating the learning
situation may be of value. Most instruments to date have been
based on learner characteristics while the SDLPS is based on the
process of SDL.
In£ ormation gathered can be used to modify facilitating strategies.
For instance, having eye contact may be extremely helpful to
students and by receiving feedback, the educator can then ensure
that the physical layout of the classroom provides for this.
Discovering new techniques for helping learners with SDL is another
practical use of the SDLPS. Educators may not be aware of
techniques for encouraging more participation from students. If
students request more feedback, then the educator may need to
develop new ways of providing that feedback. The SDLPS would be
118
the stimulus for educators to explore new techniques which would be
beneficial to students,
The SDLPS allows educators to ensure that they are providing help
for students. For example, educators may spend a lot of time
developing lists of possible resources for student use. By using
t h e SDLPS, educators can determine how helpful t h i s list actually
is to the students.
Discrepancies between students' and educators' perceptions can be
determined, for instance', if the educator feels that the course is
self-directed and the students claim none of the items pertain to
them.
Determining if there is resistance toward the process is another
use for t h e instrument. If respondents state that the instrument
is not applicable to their learning, then there is the possibility
that they do not see or view their learning as self-directed.
The SDLPS has the potent ia l for being a guide for educators
involved in curriculum planning and revisions. If the program
being offered has a self -directed component, feedback from this
instrument would give educators the opportunity to discover what
seems to be working for the students. Educators may believe that
the curriculum is not suited to t h e SDL process w h i l e students may
have the opposite perception. The course of study may need to be
119
revised to allow for implementation of a more self-directed
approach .
Staff development is another area in which the SDLPS can be
helpful. If instructors are experiencing difficulties with the SDL
process, the instrument can reveal areas that can be addressed.
For example, if the instructor does not give enough student
feedback, the SDLPS can indicate this and some form of staff
development can focus on this aspect.
The instrument is practical to administer since the instructions
for administration are simple, the time required is approximately
15 minutes and after further modifications to the administration
procedure, educators should be able to carry out the
administration.
Implications for Research
The SDLP model presents many aspects of t h e process which can be
further investigated in future studies. As Long (1996) claims, the
hypothesis that SDL is situational or variable has not been
sufficiently examined. Researchers will now have a framework to
further explore dimensions such as student and educator
characteristics. The SDLP model allows for this further
investigation. The SDLPS is based on the environmental
characteristics identified in the SDLP model and the facilitating
aspects of these factors. Studies could determine if student
120
characteristics identified in the model, such as preference for
directed instruction and learned helplessness, are perceived to be
important from t h e learner's point of view. Determining if lack of
skills for sharing authority is a concern for educators would be
helpful. Future studies could explore these dimensions and a more
complete picture of what SDL involves can emerge.
A profile for providing feedback to instructors should be developed
based on t h e stmcture of the instrument, For the instrument to be
useful to instructors. t h i s step must be taken. Similarlyr a
scoring system is needed so that scores for the t o t a l instrument
and categories within the instrument can be compared.
The conditions which would make the use of the SDLPS appropriate
need to be spelled out which would avoid having instructors
administering the instrument if they are not committed to the
administration. If students are aware of these conditions, they
are able to realize their class has been identified as one in which
some component is self-directed by the instructor. This
realization may decrease the number who feel the instrument does
not apply to them.
The small size of t h e sample may have affected the results. A
larger sample w i t h a varied population is necessary before
generalizations can be made based on t h e SDLPS. ~ncluding
respondents who are taking a course on campus is another
12 1
possibility. Specific sample characteristics should be asked for
on the sample form or the instrument itself allowing for a more
detailed description of the sample.
Future studies should include samples of students who are not
taking a self-directed course to determine if there is a difference
in the way students respond. Items on the SDLPS are presented in
the literature as helping individuals learn in a self-directed
setting. If a course is clearly other-directed, one would not
expect the same items to be as helpful. Determining if these
differences actually exist would be interesting.
The current study is the first to use the SDLPS. As with all new
instruments, further research is needed to continue to test the
reliability and validity of the instrument. using a test-retest
method for reliability is one such option. Factor analysis can be
used to provide further validity of the theoretical groupings
within the instrument. A multitrait-rnultimethod analysis is
another way of showing further validity in future studies.
The SDLPS gathers information about what helps students learn from
the students' point of view. An interesting point for further
research would be determining if educators' views are similar.
Modifications could be made to this instrument or an additional
instrument created to determine if these factors are present from
122
the educator's view. Alternatively, educators could complete the
SDLPS and their responses compared to those of students.
Summary
This study develops a model for SDL and provides a preliminary
version of an instrument to investigate environmental
characteristics which help students with the SDL process. Results
* from this study indicate that providing a supportive climate for
building relationships and considering how the course functions are
especially important. Factors concerning how the institution
functions do not appear to affect students whereas physical aspects
of the school and classroom are slightly helpful. By providing a
model of SDL, this study should provide a framework to help
researchers further explore dimensions such as student and educator
characteristics. By studying these other dimensions, a more
complete picture of what SDL involves can emerge. There is a need
for an instrument which can be used by planning committees, provide
help to curriculum writers and suggest possible reasons for
students' problems with SDL. The SDLPS is one such instrument.
REFERENCES
~rgyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theorv in practice: Increasinq
professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Sass.
Bagnall, R. G. (1978). Principles of adult education in the
design and management of instruction. Australian Journal
of Adult Education, 28, 19-27.
B a i l e y , G. D. (1983). Teacher-desisned student feedback.
Washington: National Education Association.
Baskett, H. K. (1991). Processes involved with developing
autonomous learning competencies. In H. B. Long &
Associates Self-directed learninq consensus. andconflict
(pp. 245-272) . Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for
Continuing Professional and Higher Education, University of
Oklahoma . s
Bedard, R. (1996). Risks and dangers in the measurement of the
self-directed learner. In H. B. Long t Associates Current
developments in self-directed learninq (pp. 203-211).
Norman, OK: Public Managers Center, College of Education,
University of Oklahoma.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theorv and methods. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Boice, R. (1991). New faculty as teachers. Journal of Hiqher
h ducat ion, 62, 150-173.
124
Bonham, L. A. (1989). Self-directed orientation toward learning: A
learning style? In 8. B. Long h Associates Self-directed
learnincl: Emerqinq theom and practice (pp. 13-42). Norman,
OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing ~rofessional and
Higher Education, University of Oklahoma.
Bonham, L. A. ( 19 95 ) . Self -directed learning versus constructivist learning: Candy revisited. In H. B. Long & Associates New
dimensions in self-directed learninq (pp. 159-163). Norman,
OK: ~ducational Leadership and Policy Studies Department,
university of Oklahoma.
Borg, W., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: 'An
introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Brockett, R. (1983). Facilitator roles and skills. Lifelonq
Learning: The Adult Years, 6 (z), 7-9. Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, Re (1991). Self-direction in adult
learnins: Perspectives on theorv, research, and practice. New
York: Routledge.
Brookfield, S. (1981). Independent adult learning. Studies in
Adult Education, l3, 15-27.
Brookfield, S. (1986). Understandins and facilitatinq adult
1earninq:San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. (1990). The skillful teacher. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass . Brookfield, S. (1993). Self-directed learning, political clarity,
and the critical practice of adult education. Adult Education
guarterlv, 43 ( 4 ) , 227-242.
125
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). ~ociolosical paradims and
orqanisational analysis: Elements of the sociolosv of
corporate life. London: Heinemann.
Caffarella, R. S., & OrDonnell, 3- (1989). Self-directed learninq.
~ottingham, England: Department of Adult Education,
University of Nottingham.
Caff arella, R. S . ( 1982) . The learning plan format: A technique for incorporating the concept of learning how to learn into formal
courses or workshops. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Lifelong
Learning Research Conference, 45-49.
Caffarella, R. S . (1983). ~ostering self-directed learning in
post-secondary education: The use of learning contracts.
Lifelons Learninq, 1 ( 3 ) , 7-10, 25-26.
Candy, P. (1988). Key issues for research in self-directed
learning. Studies in Continuins Education, 10 (21, 104-124.
Candy, P. ( 1989 ) . Constructivism and the study of self-direction in adult learning. Studies in the Education of Adults, 21,
95-116 . Candy, P. (1990). The transition from learner-control to
autodidaxy: More than meets the eye. In H. B. Long &
Associates Advances in research and practice of self-directed
learninq (pp. 9-46) . Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education, University of
Oklahoma . Candy, P. (1991). Self-direction for lifelonq learninq. San
~rancisco: Jossey-Bass.
126
Carr, W., & K e d s , S. (1985). Becornins critical: Knowinq throuqh
action research. Philadelphia: Palmer Press.
Cavaliere, L. A. (1990). The role and relation of goal setting,
feedback and motivation during the process of self-directed
learning. In H. B. Long & Associates Advances in research
and practice in self-directed learninq (pp. 221-234).
Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing
Professional and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma.
Chene, A. (1983). The concept of autonomy in adult education: a
philosophical discussion. Adult Education Ouarterly, a (I), 38-47 .
Cheren, M. (1983). Helping learners achieve greater self-
direction. In R. M. Smith (Ed.), elp pins adults learn how to
learn (New Directions for Continuing Education, Number 19,
pp. 23-38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1989). Research methods in education (3rd
ed.). New York: Routledge.
Collins, M. (1988). Prison education: A substantial metaphor for a
adult education practice. Adult Education Ouarterlv, 38 ( 2 ) ,
101-110 . Collins, Me (1991). Adult Education As Vocation. New York:
Routledge.
Combs, A. W., Avila, D. L., & Purkey, W. (1978). Helpinq
relationships: Basic concepts for the helpins professions
(2nd ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Confessore, Go J. (1995). West Palm Beach, ~lorida: Palm Beach
Atlantic College. Personal Communication.
Confessore, G. J., & Long, H o B. (1992). Abstracts of literature in
self-directed learnins 1983-1991- Norman, OK:
Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing ~rofessional
and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma.
Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survev cruestions:
Handcraftins the standardized auestionnaire. Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications.
Conti, G. J o (1979, April). principles of adult learninq scale.
Paper presented at the 20th Annual Adult Education Research
Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Cranton, P. (1989). Plannins instruction for adult learners.
Toronto: Wall & Thompson,
Cranton, P. (1992). Workins with adult learners. Toronto: Wall &
Emerson.
Cranton, P. (1994). Understandins and promotins transformative
learninq. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Danis, C., & Tremblay, N. A. (1988). Autodidactic learning
experiences: Questioning established adult learning
principles. In H- B. Long & ~ssociates Self-directed learninq:
Application and theorv (pp.171-198). Athens, Georgia:
University of Georgia, Adult Education Department.
128
DeJoy, 3. K., & Hermann, R. (1993). Counselling adults for
academic and technological self-directed learning: Emotional
dimensions. In Long, H. Bo & Associates Emerqinq ~erspectives
of self-directed learninq (pp, 161-174). Norman, OK:
Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and
Higher ducati ion, University of Oklahoma.
Egan, G. ( 1975 ) . The skilled helper: A model for systematic helpinq and interpersonal relatinq. Monterey, California:
Brooks/Cole.
Egan, Go (1986). The skilled h e h e r (3rd ed.). Monterey,
California: ~rooks- ole . Ericksen-, S. C. (1984). -The essence of qood teachincr: Helpinq
students learn and remember what they learn. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ferrell, B. (1978). Attitudes toward learning styles and self-
direction of ADN students, Journal of Nursinq Education,
17 (2), 19-22. - Fisher, Jo (1979). Educational attainment, anomia, life
satisfaction and situational variables as predictors of
participation in educational activities by active older
adults (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee, 1979). Dissertation Abstract International,
Galbraith, M. W. ( 1991) . The adult learning transactional process. In Mo W. Galbraith (Ed.), Facilitatinq adult learninq. A
transactional process ( pp . 1-3 2 ) . ~alabar ,- Florida: Robert E . Krieger .
129
~arrison, D. R. (1993). An analysis of the control construct in
self-directed learning. In H. B. Long & ~ssociates Self-
directed learnins: Emerqinq perspectives (pp. 27-43).
Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing
~rofessional and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma.
Gerstner, L. S. (1992). What's in a name. In H, B. Long
& Associates. Self-directed learnina: Application and
research (pp. 73-96) . Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education, University of
Oklahoma.
Gibbons, M. (1990). A working model of the learning-how-to-learn
process. In R. M. Smith & Associates Learninq to learn across
the lifespan (pp. 64-97), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gibbons, Me, & others. (1980). Toward a theory of self-directed
learning: A study of experts without formal training. Journal
of Humanistic Psvcholow, 20 ( 2 ) , 41-56.
Gillen, MI A- (1991). The development of self-directed learning
capacities: Instrumentation as one possible means. Canadian
Journal of University Continuinq Education, 17 (2), 7-20.
Griffin, C - (1983). Curriculum theory in adult and lifelonq
education. London: Croom Helm.
Griffin, C. (1987). Adult education: As social policy. New York:
Croom Helm,
130
Grow, G. 0. (1991). The staged self-directed learning model. In
He B. Long & Associates. Self-directedlearnins: Consensus and
conflict (pp. 199-226). Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center
for Continuing ~rofessional and Higher ducati ion, University
of Oklahoma.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the self-directed
learning readiness scale (Doctoraldissertation, University of
Georgia, 1977). ~issertation Abstracts ~nternational, 38,
6467A.
Hammond, M., & Collins, Re ( 199 1) , Self -directed learnins: Critical
practice. New York: Nichols/GP Publishing.
Harris, R. (1989). ~eflections on self-directed adult learning:
Some implications for educators of adults. Studies in
Continuinq Education, 11 (2), 102-116.
Heron, J. (1990). A new look at the teacher's authority.
Transition from education throuqh employment, 90 ( 2 ) , 17-19.
Hiemlich, 5. E. & Norland, E m (1994). Developinq teachinq style
in adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hiemstra, Re (1988). Self-directed learning: Individualizing
instruction. In H. B. Long & Associates Self-directed
learnins: Application and theory (pp. 99-124). Athens,
Georgia: University of Georgia, Adult Education Department.
Hiemstra, R. (1992). Individualizing the instructional
What we have learned from two decades of research
direction in learning. In H. B. Long & Associates
131
process :
on self-
Self - directed learnins: Application and research (pp. 323-344) .
Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing
Professional and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma.
Hiemstra, R. (1995). West Palm Beach, Florida: Palm Beach Atlantic
College. Personal Communication.
Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizina instruction:
Making learninq personal, empowerinq, and successful. San
Francisco : ~ossey-Bass . Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learnins in the social context. London:
Croom Helm.
Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learnins: On becornins an
individual in society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jarvis, P. (1993). Guildford, England: University of Surrey.
Personal Communication.
Jennings, L. E. (1985). Paradigmatic choices in adult education:
From the empirical to the critical. Australian Journd of
Adult Education, 25 (21, 3-7.
Kasworm, C. E. (1988). Self-directed learning in institutional
contexts: An exploratory study of adult self-directedlearners
in higher education. In H. B. Long & ~ssociates Self-directed
learnins: Application and theow (pp. 65-97). Athens, Georgia:
University of Georgia, Adult Education ~epartment.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education.
New York: Association Press.
Knowles, M. (1990). Fostering competence in self-directed
learning. In R. M. Smith & Associates ~earnina to learn
across the lifespan (pp. 123-136) . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Knowles, M., & Associates (1984). Andrasocw in action: Ap~lvinq
modern principles of adult learninq. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Knox, A. B. (1977). Adult development and learninq. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Larisey, M. M. (1994). Student self-assessment: A tool for
learning. Adult Learninq, 5 (6), 9-10.
Leean, C., & Sisco, B. R. (1981). Learnins projects and self-
planned learninq efforts amonq undereducated adults in
rural Vermont. (Final Report No. 99-1051). washington, D.C.:
National Institute of ducati ion.
Long, H. B. (1989). Self-directed learning: Emerging theory and
practice. In H. B. Long & Associates Self-directed
learnina: Emerqinq theorv and practice (pp. 1-11) . Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and
Higher Education, University of Oklahoma.
Long, H. B. (1990a). Changing concepts of self-direction in
learning. In H. B. Long & Associates Self-directed
learninq: Advances in research and practice (pp. 1-7).
Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for continuing
Professional and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma.
133
Long, 8. B. (1990b). Psychological control in self-directed
learning. International ~ournal of Lifelons Education, 9 ( 4 ) ,
331-338,
Long, 8 . B. (1992). Learning about self-directed learning. In H. B.
Long & Associates Self-directed learnins: Application
and research (pp. 1-8 ) . Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center
for Continuing Professional and Higher Education, University
of Oklahoma.
Long, 8. B. (1994, February). Skills for self-directed learninq.
Presentation at the 8th International Symposium on Self-
~irected Learning, West Palm Beach, ~lorida.
Long, He B. (1996). Self-directed learning: Challenges and
opportunities. In H. B. Long & ~ssociates Current developments
in self-directed learninq (pp. 1-10). Norman, OK: Public
Managers Center, College of Education, University of Oklahoma.
Long, T. J., Convey, J. J., & Chwalek, A. R. (1985). Completinq
dissertations in the behavioral sciences and education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McCurdy, D. W. (1973). An analysis of qualities of self-
directedness as related to selected characteristics of
I.S.C.S. students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 092 355).
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1984). Research in education:
A conceptual introduction- Toronto: Little, Brown and
Company.
134
Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. J. (1987). Usins standardized tests
in education. New York: Longman.
Merriam, S. (1989). Contributions of qualitative research to adult
education. Adult ducati ion Ouarterlv, 39 ( 3 ) , 161-168-
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R, S. (1991). Learninq in adulthood.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1981)- A critical theory of adult learning and
education. Adult Education, 32 (I), 3-24.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learninq.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult
Education Ouarterlv, 44 (4), 222-232.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluatins educational environments, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psvchometric theow (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Oddi, L. F. (1984). Development of an instrument to measure
self-directed continuing learning (Doctoral dissertation,
Northern Illinois University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 46, 49A.
Pilling, J. (1991). The assessment of self-directed learninq
among pre-service students in an Ontario Faculty of Education.
Unpublished master's thesis, Brock University, St. Catharines.
135
~illing-Cormick, J, (1994). Resistance by educators to using a
self-directed learning perception scale. In R. Hiemstra &
R. G o Brockett (Eds. ) , Overcomina resistance to self -direction in adult learninq (New ~irections for Adult and Continuing
Education, Number 64, pp. 63-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pilling-Cormick, J. (1995). Existing measures in the self-
directed learning literature. In 8. B. Long & Associates
New dimensions in self-directed learninq (pp. 49-60).
Norman, OK: Educational Leadership-and Policy Studies
Department, University of Oklahoma.
Pilling-Cormick, J. (1996a). A framework for using instruments in
self-directed learning research. In H. B. Long & ~ssociates
Current developments in self-directed learninq (pp. 81-91).
Norman, OK: Public Managers Center, College of Education,
University of Oklahoma.
Pilling-Cormick, J. (1996b, March). The link between self-directed
and transformative learninq. Presentation at the 10th
International Symposium on Self-Directed Learning, West Palm
Beach, ~lorida.
P r a t t , D. D. (1988). Andragogy as a relational construct. Adult
Education Ouarterlv, 38 ( 3 ) , 160-181.
Romanini, J. & Higgs, J. (1991). The teacher as manager in
continuing professional education. Studies in Continuinq
Education, IJ (I), 41-52.
136
Schuttenberg, E. M., h Tracy, S. J o (1987). The role of the adult
educator in fostering self-directed learning. Lifelonq
Learnina: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 10 ( 5 ) , 4-9.
Sisco, B., h Hiemstra, R. (1991). ~ndividualizing the teaching and
learning process. In Galbraith, M. W. (Ed.), ~acilitatinq
adult learninq (pp. 57-73). Malabar: ~rieger.
Six, J. E. ( 1987) . Measuring the performance properties of the Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory (Doctoral dissertation,
Syracuse University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 49, 701A.
Skaggs, B. J. (1981). The relationships between involvement of
professional nurses in self-directed learning activities, loci ,
of control, and readiness for self-directed learning measures
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1981).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 , 1906A.
Smith, M. L. H. (1968). The facilitation of student self-directed
learning as perceived by teachers with high and low levels of
self-actualization and dogmatism (Doctoral dissertation,
Pennsylvania State University, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 29, -1467A.
Spear, G. E., & Mocker, D o W. ( 1984 ) . The organizing circumstance: Environmental determinants in self-directed learning. Adult
Education Quarterly, 35, 1-10.
Sullivan, E m V. (1984). A critical psvcholosv: Interpretation of
the personal world. New York: Plenum.
137
Taylor, M. (1987). Self-directed learning: more than meets the
observerfs eye. In D. Boud & V. Griffin (Eds.), A~~reciatinq
adult learninv From the learners' perspective (pp- 179-196).
London: Kogan Page-
Tough, A. (1968). Why adults learn: A studv of the major reasons
for beqinninq and continuins a learninq proiect. Toronto:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tough, A. (1979). The adult's learninq projects: A fresh approach
to theorv and practice in adult learninq (2nd ed.). Toronto:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tremblay, N. (1983). Lfaide a l'apprentissage chez les
autodidactes. (Help with autodidactic learning). Proceedinas
of 24th Annual Adult Education Research Conference, 231-236.
Walsh, W. B., & Betz, N. E. (1985). Tests and assessment.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Wight, A. R. (1970). Participative education and the inevitable
revolution. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 4 ( 4 ) , 234-282.
Wood, F. H. (1975). Self-direction and achievement: Are they
related? The Eish School Journal. January, 161-169.
APPENDIX A
SDL FACTORS APPEARING IN THE L I T E R A T m
Profile of an SDL environment which promotes SDL. The numbers appearing in brackets refer to t h e instrument item numbers.
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE INSTITUTION
Provide A c c e s s to Institutional Resources
Brookfield (1993)
Candy (1991)
-availability of resources and equipment
-need access to resources to act on these decisions (resources unavailable because of structural constraints)
-information location and retrieval
Provide a List of Resources
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990)
t o H e l p Students Locate Resources
-content resource, arranging and employing resources
Tough (July 1993) -annotated bibliography
Consider the Effects of the Location of the Institution
Rogers (1992) ( 4 )
-distance from learner's base and how easily learner can reach the course
Availability of Q u i e t Working Environments
Cranton (1989:128) -quiet working environment (5) -library resources
Consider Suitability of School Equipment
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -financial constraints-outdated (6) -outdated equipment and sharing
equipment
Consider L i m i t s on School Equipment
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -financial constraints-large groups, (7) restrictions on materials and
photocopying
Consider Effect of Suitable O f f i c e Hours
-inappropriate office hours for support services
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE CLASSROOM
H a v e Sui tab le Room Arrangement
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -proper room arrangement
Hammond & Col'lins ( 1991) -"physical climate" - arrange venue (9) to encourage open communication (10) and equality of consideration in (11) the group
-encourage eye contact
Appropriate Classroom S i z e
Cranton (1988:199) (12)
-room s i z e
Personal C o m f o r t
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -monitoring personal comfort of individual learners
-furniture, lighting, room temperature
HOW THE INSTITUTION FUNCTIONS
Consider the Impact of Scheduling
Cranton (1992) -scheduling, multi-section courses
Cross (1981) -avoid inconvenient schedules or locations
(quoted by Brockett & Hiemstra (1991)
Consider the Tmpact of Registration Procedures (part-time vs full-time)
Cranton (1992) -registration procedures'
Cross (1981) -full-time fees for part-time (quoted by Brockett
& Hiemstra ( 1991)
Consider Effects of School Evaluation Policies
Cranton (1992) -institutional evaluation policy (20) (format, length, style of exams)
-grading distributions, deadlines
Brockett & Hiemstra -policies preventing independent (1991) decision-making about needs, goals, (21) content, evaluation approach
Consider the Effects of Attendance P o l i c i e s
Cranton (1992) -institutional policies-attendance as (22) an administrative constraint
Include Appropriate Courses of Study
Hiemstra St Sisco (1990) -standardized syllabus formats
Cross (1981) -avoid inappropriate courses of study (quoted by Brockett
& Hiemstra (1991))
Hammond & Collins (1991) -course documentation reflects the (23 ) "spirit" of the learning climate
Consider the Perception of the School
Henry & Basile ( 1994) -perception of institution
Pilling-Cormick -other courses using this method ( 2 4 )
BOW THE COURSE FUNCTIONS
Consider Process Evaluation
Cranton & others (25)
-importance of evaluating process
Ensure Evaluation Supports the Type of Learning
-does evaluation support the type of learning
Encourage Self- valuation
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -all stress self-evaluation or Hiemstra (1988), "self-assessment" Boud (1991, 1994), Larisey (1994)
Candy (1991)
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) (28)
-comprehensive monitoring and self-evaluation
-instructor stimulates types of self-evaluation
Deterrmine I f L e a r n e r s Begin With Self-Evaluation
-indication that learners begin with self-evaluation
Provide Opportunities for Developing a Rationale
Larisey (1994) ( 3 0 )
-some need help drawing connections while others have difficulty trying to understand what the self-assessment activity has to do with the subject area they are studying
Recognize L e a r n e r s May Need H e l p Determining Criteria f o r Successful Learning
Tremblay (1981,1983) (31)
-learners need help evaluating their learning
Considers the Instructor to be an Evaluator of the Learner
Brockett & Hiemstra ( 1991) (32) -educator should be validator or (33) evaluator of learner
Consider the Frequency of Feedback
Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) ( 3 4 ) -feedback on successive drafts
accomplishment throughout and at end of learning experience
Ensure Instructor Availability
Hammond & Collins (1991) (35) -available for individual
discussions and consultations
Provide a Course Structure that Allows Integration of New Ideas
Hammond & Collins (1991) ( 3 6 ) -design of course is flexible so
new ideas can easily be incorporated
Allow Student Input When Making D e c i s i o n s
Hammond & Collins (1991) -proposals are opened for (37) discussion and democratic
decision-making by participants onegotiate with participants about administrative decisions when feasible
-negotiate with learners about curriculum decisions when feasible
Allow Students Freedom to Choose What to Learn
Tough (July 1993) ( 3 8 )
-freedom to choose what to learn, within the general boundaries of the course
Give S t u d e n t s Freedom to Choose How to Learn
Tough (July 1993)
(39)
-freedom to choose how learn from day to day -student feels freedom or hemmed in
Allow for Differences in Knowledge or Skills Addressed
Tough (July 1993) ( 4 0 ) -knowledge and skills student is
learning are different from other students
Balance Class Activities
Hammond & Collins (1991) -balance between individual, small group, large group-give
(41) opportunities for new relationships to be started, to meet individuals, small group and communal learning needs
Provide R e f r e s h m e n t Breaks a s A Means for Students to Share Ideas
Tough (1983) ( 4 2 ) -discover appropriate resources
among class members during coffee breaks
Realize Help W i t h Planning M a y Be Necessary
Knowles (1975), Tough (1979), -following a linear process Spear & Mocker (1984) -is planning important (when, how ( 4 3 ) and where they learn new concepts) ( 4 4
Galbraith (1991) -needs assessment, context analysis, setting objectives, organizing activities, selecting learning methods and evaluation
Candy (1991) -goal setting
Brockett & ~iemstra (1991) -providing some structure and suggestions for planning
Tremblay (1981, 1983) -learners need help with planning, organizing
W o r k on Time Management
Candy (1991) ( 4 5 ( 4 6 )
-time management
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -taking responsibility for managing the process of assessing learner ' s needs
Brookfield (1993) -need adequate time to make reflectively informed decisions
SUPPORTIVE CLIMATE FOR BUILDING REZlATIONSHIPS
Stimulate Interest and Positive A t t i t u d e Toward SD1;
Hiemstra (1988) -stimulate SDL
Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) - develop a positive attitude toward SDL and to promote it -help learners develop attitude about learning that fosters independence
Recognize Resistance to SDL is Possible
Hiemstra ( 1988 )
-resistance should be discovered and acknowledged
-stimulate and motivate learners to determine initial needs, plan appropriate learning activities, carry out such activities
Use Class D i s c u s s i o n s t o Raise Questions About Learning
Hammond & Collins ( 1991) - questioning and challenging encouraged
Brockett & H i e m s t r a (1991) - raising questions
Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) -stimulating interest-promoting discussion, raising questions and using small group activity to stimulate interest in learning experience
P r o v i d e Opportunities for Students to R e f l e c t
Eammond & Collins ( 1991) ( 5 0 - structured opportunities to
reflect on experiences and make personal meaning
Candy (1991) - critical thinking -question-asking behaviour
Encourages Expression of A Need for H e l p Developing Q u e s t i o n s
Hiemstra (1988) (51)
-ability to ask questions
Ensure Studentsg Camments Taken Seriously
Hammond & Collins (1991) (52) -take feelings and requests
seriously
Candy (1991)
Candy (1991) (53)
Chene (1983)
Egan (1986) ( 5 4 )
-respect for ideas and opinions of others
Encourage Students Working T o g e t h e r
-collaboration rather than competition
Using O t h e r s t o T e s t Progress
-learners must test their knowledge against somebody else
-relationship with another - essential to establish quality of
learning (allows them to become aware of what they know)
Allow for Probing
-basic communication skills- attending, active listening, empathy, probing
Build Self-confidence
Hammond & Collins (1991) -building self-confidence by (55) providing opportunities to succeed
when possible
Encourage a Low Threat Atmosphere
Candy (1991) (56) - low threat climate
-comfort, attractive, conducive to working, sharing and relaxing
Invite Student Participation
Larisey ( 1994 )
Hammond & Collins (1991)
-climate conducive to student participation '
-opportunities for sharing ideas
Encourage the D e v e l o p m e n t of Learning Partnerships
Hammond & Collins (1991) ( 5 8 ) -encourage learning partnerships
Tough (1983) -encourage students to discuss their interests with others with similar ones in the class
Provide O p p o r t u n i t i e s for Students t o Help Each O t h e r
Hammond & Collins ( 1991) (59) -opportunities for helping each
other and working together
R e c o g n i z e Reading and Writing a s Forms of N o n p e r s o n a l Interaction
-2 modes to the relationship ( 2 experiences ) - 1) people interacting with
people 2) comunicative interaction
(secondary experience-do learners have to be face to face? )
Emphasize Interaction Outside the Classroom
Hammond & Collins ( 1991) -remain open to new ideas , responsive to feedback and suggestions from learners
-importance of others besides the instructor
Acknowledge All Are Learners in a SDL elations ship
Hiemstra (1988) -2-way involvement in learning partnership (items to see i f it i s actually 2 way)
Hammond & Collins (1991) (63)
-openly acknowledge ignorance instead of "expert" -emphasize all are learners and educators together
-instructor participates as equal i n group discussions and small group work whenever possible and appropriate
Instructor Imparts Knowledge Upon R e g u e s t
Scuttenberg & Tracy ( 1987 ) -is educator's expertise imparted ( 6 4 ) s e l e c t i v e l y at learner's request
APPENDIX B
MATERIALS PERTAINING TO THE PREPLLOT PHASE
Table 1. Forms of the ot Instrument
INSTRUCTIONS: This form Is desfgned to galher informatianabout what helps you with your leamlng. Please read each item and,dde the response that most closely describes your feelings. No names please.
NO1 no yesano yes YES1 PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE SCHOOL
1. I use resources from outside the school. 1 2 3 4 5
2- Resources I need for learning are limited. 1 2 3 4 5
3. A list of available resources helps my learning. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Difficulties reaching the course limits the time I have 1 2 3 4 5 to look for resources.
5. Lack of quiet working places at the school harms my learning. I 2 3 4 5
6. Outdated equipment slows my learning. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Time limits on school resources slow my learning. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Limited office hours restrict my learning. I 2 3 4 5
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE CLASSROOM
9. The room arrangement encourages me to discuss 1 2 3 4 5 what I am learning-
10. Having eye contact with others is important for me to learn. 1 2 3 4 5
1 I. I feel relaxed enough to share ideas with others. 1 2 3 4 5
12. The classroom is too small for me to learn new ideas. I 2 3 4 5
13. More comfortable furniture would help my learning- 1 2 3 4 5
14. The room is too cold for me to be comfortab[e. 1 2 3 4 5
15. A brighter room would help me participate. 1 2 3 4 5
- . . 0 1995. Jane PiMngCormick
Table 1- Forms of t h e Prepilot Instrument
HOW THE INSTITUTION FUNCTIONS
16. There are too many people In the course for me to receive 1 effective comments.
17. The course is too short for me to receive enough comments. 1
18. 1 would learn more with a shorter time between classes. 1
19. I feel I am being penalized for being a part-time student. 1
20. The fomat of school evaluation procedures supports 1 my learning.
21. The school limits what topics I can choose. 1
22, Being required to attend all classes helps me learn. 1
23. The course outline reflects what the course is like. 1
24. Other courses focusing on content encourage me to do so. 1
HOW THE COURSE FUNCTIONS
25. It is important for me to spend time considering what helps me learn.
26. 1 help develop the marking scheme for this course. 1
27. The teacher determines due dates. 1
28. Being encouraged to evaluate my knowledge helps me. 1
29. 1 begin by reviewing what 1 already know about the subject. 1
30. I need to know why I am assessing my own learning. 1
31. 1 need help determining criteria for successful learning. 1
32. 1 need the teacher to tell me how I am doing. 1
33. Discussing my learning allows me to find out if I am being successful.
Table 1. Forms of the P r e ~ i l o t Instrument
The comments 1 receive are frequent enough.
The teacher being available for individual discussions helps.
Course requirements are flexible enough,
1 help make decisions about the course.
I am free to choose what I want to learn.
I feel constrained and hemmed in when learning.
What I am learning is different from what other students are learning.
More small group activites would help.
Refreshment breaks are a good time for me to get information.
I need to plan how I go about learning.
It is difficult for me to figure out what topics to learn.
Managing my time is difficult.
I need more time to decide what to learn.
SUPPORTIVE CLIMATE FOR BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS
47. The way the teacher introduced the course makes me want to use this method.
48. At first I resisted learning in this way.
49. Oiscussions lead me to raise questions about topics.
50. I am given the opportunity to think about how the new information is important to me.
51. Developing questions about content is hard.
52. My comments about my learning are seriousIy considered.
Table 1. Forms of the P r e p i l o t Instrument
53. 1 em able to work with fellow students rather than compete 1 2 with them.
54. 1 need others to help me probe into learning topics. 1 2
55. There are times when I feel I have successfutly taken a step. 1 2
56. There are opportunities for me to share ideas. 1 2
57. 1 don? feel afraid to share my ideas. 1 2
58. Spending time meeting new learners helps me locate 1 2 others looking at simitar topics.
- 59. Assisting other students helps me.
60. 1 learn a lot by reading.
61. Wfitten comments on my work supports my learning. I 2
62. Discussion from others outside dass is helpful. 1 2
63. Students and the teacher are learners together. 1 2
64. When I need information, my teacher is an available source. 1 2
O 1995. Jane PillingComkk
INSTRUCTIONS: This fonn is deslgned to gather informalionabout what helps you with your leamlng. Please read each Item and drde the response that most dosely describes your feelings. No names please.
NO! no yes&no yes YES! PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE SCHOOL
I I use resources outside the school when evaluating my needs. I 2 3 4
2. Resources for needs I identify are hard to find, ? 2 3 4
3. A list of resources helps me evaluate my needs. 1 2 3 4
4. Difficulties reaching the school limits my search for resources. 1 2 3 4
5. Lack of quiet work places prevents me from fully internalizing I 2 3 4 what I want to learn.
6. Outdated equipment limits me from investigating my needs. 1 2 3 4
7. Time limits on school resources prevent me from investigating what is important to me.
8- Limited office hours pose a problem for me. 1 2 3 4
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE CLASSROOM
9. The room arrangement encourages me to participate in discussions.
10- Eye contact helps me discuss what is useful to me.
11. I feel relaxed enough to share my ideas-
12. The classroom is too small for me to participate in activities that involve my needs.
13. More comfortable furniture would help my learning.
14. The room is too cold for me to be comfortable.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
a 1995. Jane PUIingCormlck
Table 1. Foxme of the PreailoC Instrument
15. A darker room would help my learning. 1 2
HOW THE INSTITUTION FUNCTIONS
16. The class size prevents me from receiving appropriate 1 2 comments about my needs.
17. The course is tong enough for me to receive comments I 2 on my chosen goals.
18. 1 could better look at my needs with a shorter time 1 2 between classes.
19. 1 feel I am being penalized for being a part-time student. 1 2
20. The format of school evaluation procedures prevents me 1 2 from evaluating my goals.
21. The school prevents me from making decisions about I 2 what I want to learn.
22- Being forced to attend all classes prevents me from I 2 learning useful information.
23- The course outline accurately reflects what the course is like. 1 2
24. Other courses stressing the development of goals 1 2 encourages me to do so.
HOW THE COURSE FUNCTIONS
25. It is important for me to spend time figuring out what helps 1 2 me evaluate my needs.
26. The marking scheme is based on whether my needs 1 2 have been met.
27. The teacher delemines deadlines. 1 2
28. Being encouraged lo evaluate my own learning hetps me. 1 2
29. 1 begin by writing down a list of my needs related to 1 2 the problem.
30. 1 need to know why I am determining needs In this way. 1 2
31. 1 need help determining when I am successfully I 2 meeting my goals.
32. I need the teacher to tell me how I am doing. 1 2
33. Oiscussing my goals with others helps me dedde 1 2 if I am meeting them.
34. The frequency of comments is enough for me to look 1 2 at my learning goaIs.
35. Individual discussions with the teacher help me look 1 2 at my goals.
36. Course requirements are flexible enough to respond 1 2 to my changing needs,
37. I help make decisions that affect my needs. 1 2
38. 1 can choose what my learning goals are. -I 2
39. Rarely have I experienced so much freedom to explore 1 2 my needs-
40. The needs I am addressing are different from those 1 2 of other students.
41. More small group aclivities would help me. 1 2
42. Refreshment breaks are an excellent time for me to 1 2 get information.
43. 1 need to plan how I will figure out what to learn. 1 2
44. Determining what I should learn is difficult for me. 1 2
45, Managing time to investigate my goals is hard. 1 2
46. More time would help me figure out my needs. 1 2
Table I. F o m s of the P r e p i l o t ~n&rument
SUPPORTIVE CLIMATE FOR BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS
47. The way the teacher introduced the course made me want 1 2 to focus on what I want to leam.
48. Overcoming initial concerns about this process is part of 1 2 my learning.
49. I question what I want to learn during discussions. 1 2
50. Spending time discovering how meeting my learning needs 1 2 can help is important
51. Developing questions about what I want to learn is difficult. 1 2
52. My comments about my needs are seriously considered. 1 2
53. Working with others instead of competing helps me meet 1 2 my needs.
54. 1 need others to help me probe into my needs. 1 2
55. There are times when I feel I have successfully taken a step. 1 2
56. 1 actively discuss what I want to learn in dass. 1 2
57. The dass doesn't make me afraid to discuss my needs. 1 2
58. Spending time connecting with learners helps me identify I 2 others with similar needs.
59. Assisting other students with their needs helps me. 1 2
60. 1 learn a lot about my needs from reading. 1 2
61. Written comments help me find my needs. 1 2
62. 1 need discussion outside the classroom to figure 1 2 out what I want to learn.
63. In the classroom, students and teachers both consider 1 2 their needs.
64. When I need assistance, my teacher helps me evaluate I 2 my goals.
O 1995. Jane PllfingGormkk
-1. oof t h e P r e ~ i l o t Instrument I I FORM C I
INSTRUCTIONS: Thls form is designed to gather informationabout what helps you with your leamlng. Please read each Item and drde the response that most dosely describes your feelings. No names please.
NO! no yes&no yes YES! PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE SCHOOL
1. I use information outside the school when exploring my ideas. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Resources for looking at my needs are difficult to find. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Being given a list of possible sources helps. 1 2 3 4 5
4, Being a distance from the school prevents me from fully 1 2 3 4 5 exploring my points of view.
5. 1 need more quiet places at scf~ool to think. I 2 3 4 5
6. Outdated school equipment slows the investigation of 1 2 3 4 5 my beliefs.
7. Constraints on school resources limits the exploration of 1 2 3 4 5 my beliefs.
8. limited office hours prevent me from fully investigating 1 2 3 4 5 issues related to my point of view.
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE CLASSROOM
9. The room arrangement encourages me to share ideas 1 2 3 4 5 about my opinions.
10. Eye contact helps me discuss my beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I feel relaxed enough to be able to explore my point of view. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Including my views in activities would be easier i f the I 2 3 4 5 classroom was larger.
Table 1. Forme of the P r e ~ f i o t Instrument
13. More comfortable furniture would help my leamlng. 1 2
14. The room is too cold for me to be comfortable. I 2
15. A darker room wou(d help my [earning. 1 2
HOW THE INSTITUTION FUNCTIONS
16. The dass size restrids the time available for receiving 1 2 comments on my point of view.
17. 1 could better explore my beliefs with a shorter time 1 2 between dasses.
18. The course is long enough for me to receive enough 1 2 comments about beliefs.
19. 1 feel I am being penalized for being a part-time student, 1 2
20. The format of school evaluation procedures discourages 1 2 me from thinking about my opinions.
21. The school prevents me from fully investigating my stance. 1 2
22. Required attendance limits evaluation of my way of thinking, 1 2
23. The course outline reflects what the course is like. I 2
24. Other courses stressing students' beliefs helps me to see 1 2 the value in looking at mine.
SOLPS-C
3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
HOW THE COURSE FUNCTIONS
25. It is important for me to spend time discussing what hetps 1 2 3 4 5 me evaluate my opinions.
26. I have had input into developing the marking scheme for 1 2 3 4 5 successfully exploring my way of thinking.
27. The teacher determines due dates. 1 2 3 4 5
28. Being encouraged to evaluated my own beliefs helps me. 1 2 3 4 5
0 1995. Janc PillingCormkk
Table 1. Fdrme of the Pre~ilot Instrument
look at my opinions by determining what they are and then considering their validity.
need to know why I am exploring my attitudes.
need help determining when I am successfulIy modifying my conclusions.
32. 1 need the teacher to tell me if I am being successful.
33. Discussing my points of view helps me decide how successful my investigation is.
34. The frequency of comments received from outside the classroom is enough for me to examine my beliefs.
35. Contacting the teacher individually helps me investigate my ways of thinking.
36. Course requirements support me thinking about my views.
37. 1 help make decisions that will affect my beliefs.
38. I can choose which beliefs to investigate.
39. Rarely have I experienced the freedom to address my needs. 1
40. The views I am investigating are different from those of 1 other students.
41. More small group activities would help me. 1
42. Refreshment breaks are a time for me to share ideas about 1 my ways of thinking.
43, Planning is essential for me to figure out my stance. 1
44. It is difficult for me to identify my beliefs. 1
45. I run out of time to investigate my ways of thinking. 1
46. Lack of time prevents me from evaluating my opinions. 1
O 1995. Jane PiUingCormkk
Fable I . Forms of the P r e ~ f l o t Instnrment
SUPPORTIVE CLIMATE FOR BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS
47. The way the teacher introduced the course made me want to consider exploring my point of view.
48. Overcoming concerns about the process of evaluating my point of vIew is pad of my learning.
49. Discussions help me question my beliefs.
50. Thinking about my conclusions in class helps me.
51. Developing questions about opinions is difficult
52. My comments about my beliefs are seriously considered.
53. Promoting working together helps me to look at my stance.
54. I need others to help me probe into my values.
55. There are times when I feel I have progressed.
56. Opportunities for me to share my ways of thinking help me.
57. The class doesn't make me afraid to share my beliefs.
58. Spending time meeting new learners helps me find others with similar points of view.
59. Helping others look at their opinions helps me.
60. 1 learn alot about my beliefs by reading.
61. Written comments help me to critique my point of view.
62. 1 need discussion outside the classroom to examine my stance.
63. 1 help the teacher with values.
64. When I need it, my teacher helps me question my opinions.
Table 2 . General Concerns about a l l Forms
Concern
Confusion over the instruct ion concerning no names
The t i t l e "supportive climate"
Scale not repeated on each page
If s tar t ing a n e w page while i n a section, should repeat the subheading on the next Page
Chancre
T h e d i rec t ion w a s expanded i n order to be more e a s i l y understood.
This was expanded to read how t h e course provides a supportive climate for bui ld ing re lat ionships
Orphan lines
Table 3: S p e c i f i c Concerns on Each Form
FORM A
I t e m No. Problem
1 word l'resources"-what i s it?
1 d e f i n e "resources1' o r give examples
meaning-availabil i ty of o r 1 don ' t need a l o t of resources
2 wording suggestion
4 commuting? "reaching t h e course"
4 n o t sure of t h e meaning
4 are you r e f e r r i n g t o d i s t ance only o r o t h e r f a c t o r s
meaning i s not clear
"reaching t h e coursew-what does t h i s mean?
f o r m e t o l e a r n "having eye contac t" o r f o r "learningt8
spacing after period
t h e s i z e of t h e classroom may l i m i t new ideas
make reference t o temperature i n s t e a d of " too cold"
what i f it i s too hot
"brighterm-would c o s i e r be b e t t e r
what is important here-par t ic ipa t ing o r learn ing? ( o r darker)
wording suggestion
l' format" -what does it mean?
remove t h e words l' f ormat of1'
wi th in t h e course o r school?
Table 3 (Continued)
24
24
24
24
26
30
31
34
39
39
39
47
47
47
48
48
54
5 4
55
5 8
5 8
FORM B
2
5
c
To do what
"to do so" is vague
confusing
confusing (change "do sow to "the same")
helped or help
"assessing" what does it mean
"criteria" what does it mean
wording suggestion
"hemmed inw-what does it mean
"hemkd inw
"hemmed int' (this duplicates constrained)
"this method" is vague
wording suggestion
what method??
meaning
what way
What does "probe" mean
"learning topicsw-noun or verb
wording suggestion
Wording suggestion
meaning
Meaning
"internalizingw-what does it mean?
"internalizingw-meaning
Table 3 (Continued)
5 "internalizingw-meaning
6 wold " needs
18 space after period
19 Wording suggestion
20 "formatw- what does it mean?
45 change "hard" to "difficultw
50 wording suggestion
50 awkward
50 confusing question
54 "probew- what does it mean
55 wording suggestion
58 "connectingw-will students relate to this term
58 wording suggestion
59 wording suggestion
61 wording suggestion
64 wording suggestion
FORM C 4 what does being far from the
school have to do with your point of view?
4 "being a distance"
4 "being a distance" -living far?
10 wording suggestion
12 wording suggestion
Table 3 (Continued)
19 wording suggestion
21 "my stancew stands out
21 "my stance"
21 "stanceu
22 why does attendance affect way of thinking?
22 "evaluation of my way of thinking'' is confusing
24 "beliefsw-would this be applicable to all courses
26 difficult to understand
28 change "evaluatedw to "evaluatew
36 difficult to understand
40 wording suggestion
43 "stancew stands out
"stance"
" stance"
" overcoming"
by whom
"stance"
"stance"
'I stance"
"probe "
55 wording suggestion
58 wording suggestion
59 wording suggestion
60 spelling of "alotW
Table 3 (Continued)
62 "stance"
62 "stance"
63 would t h e word westablishingw before values help
63 meaning?
63 marks or morals?
64 what is "it"?
Table 4: Revised Theory Chart
Profile of an SDL environment which promotes SDL- The numbers appearing in brackets refer to the instrument item numbers.
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE IEISTITUTION
Provide A c c e s s t o Institutional R e s o u r c e s
Cranton (1992) (1)
-availability of resources and equipment
Brookfield (1993) -need access to resources to act on these decisions (resources unavailable because of structural constraints)
Candy (1991) -information location and retrieval
P r o v i d e a list of Resources t o H e l p S t u d e n t s L o c a t e Resources
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -content resource, arranging and employing resources
Tough (July 1993) -annotated bibliography
Availability of Quiet Working E n v i r o n m e n t s
Cranton (1989:128) -quiet working environment ( 3 ) -library resources
Consider Suitability of S c h o o l Equ ipment
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -financial constraints-outdated ( 4 ) -outdated equipment and sharing
equipment
Table 4 (Continued)
Consider Zimits on School Equipment
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -financial constraints-large groups, (5 ) sestrictions on materials and
photocopying
Consider Effect of Suitable Office Hours
-inappropriate office hours for support services
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF TBE CIASSROOM
H a v e Suitable Room Arrangement
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -proper room arrangement
Hammond & Collins ( 1991) -"physical climatew - arrange venue (7) to encourage open communication
and equality of consideration in the group -encourage eye contact
Appropriate Classroom Size
Cranton (1988:199) (8)
-room s i z e
Personal Comfort
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -monitoring personal comfort of individual learners
Cranton (1988:199) ( 9 ) (10)
-furniture, lighting, room temperature
Table 4 (Continued)
HOW THE INSTITUTION FUNCTIONS
Consider the Impact of Scheduling
Cranton (1992)
Cross (1981)
-scheduling, multi-section courses
-avoid inconvenient schedules or locations
(quoted by Brockett & Hiemstra (1991)
Consider the Ihpact of Registration Procedures (part-time vs full-time)
Cranton (1992) -registration procedures
Cross (1981) -full-time fees for part-time (quoted by Brockett
& Hiemstra (19911)
Consider Effects of School Evaluation Policies
Cranton (1992) (15)
-institutional evaluation policy (format, length, style of exams) -grading distributions, deadlines
Brockett & Hiemstra -policies preventing independent (1991) decision-making about needs, goals, (16) content, evaluation approach
Consider the Effects of Attendance Policies
Cranton (1992) (17)
-institutional policies-attendance as an administrative constraint
Table 4 (Continued)
Include Appropriate Courses of Study
Hiemstra h Sisco (1990) -standardized syllabus formats
Cross (1981) -avoid inappropriate courses of study (quoted by Brockett
& Hiemstra (1991))
Hammond & Collins (1991) -course documentation reflects the (18) "spirit" of the learning climate
Consider the Perception of the School
Henry & Basile (1994) -perception of institution
Pilling-Cormick -other courses using this method (19)
HOW THE COURSE FUNCTIONS
Cranton & others ( 2 0 )
Consider Process E v a l u a t i o n
-importance of evaluating process
Ensure Evaluation Supports the Type of Learn ing
-does evaluation support the type of learning
Encourage Self-Evaluation
~iemstra & Sisco (1990) -all stress self-evaluation or Hiemstra (1988), "self-assessment" Boud (1991, 1994), Larisey (1994)
Candy (1991) -comprehensive monitoring and self-evaluation
~iemstra & Sisco (1990) -instructor stimulates types of (23 self-evaluation
Table 4 (Continued)
Determine If Learners Begin With Self-Evaluation
-indication that learners begin with self-evaluation
P r o v i d e Opportunit ies for Developing a Rationale
Larisey (1994) (25)
-some need help drawing connections while others have difficulty trying to understand what the self-assessment activity has to do with the subject area they are studying
Recognize Learners May Need Help Detenttining Criteria for Successful Learning
Tremblay (1981,1983) -learners need help evaluating (26) their learning
Considers the Instructor t o be an E v a l u a t o r of the Learner
Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) (27) -educator should be validator or
evaluator of learner
Consider the Frequency of Feedback
Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) (28) -feedback on successive drafts
accomplishment throughout and at end of learning experience
Ensure l n s t ~ c t o r Availability
Hammond ti Collins ( 199 1) (29) -available for individual
discussions and consultations
Consider the Effects o f the Location of the Institution
-distance from learner's base and how easily learner can reach the course
Table 4 (Continued)
Provide a C o u r s e Structure that Allows Integration of New Ideas
Hammond & Collins (1991) (31) -design of course is flexible so
new ideas can easily be incorporated
Allow Student Input When Making Decisions
Hammond & Collins (1991) -proposals are opened for discussion and democratic decision-making by participants -negotiate with participants about administrative decisions when feasible
onegotiate with learners about curriculum decisions when feasible
Al low Students Freedom t o C h o o s e W h a t t o Learn
Tough (July 1993) ( 3 3
-freedom to choose what to learn, within the general boundaries of the course
Give Students Freedom to Choose How to Learn
Tough (July 1993)
( 3 4
-freedom to choose how learn from day to day -student feels freedom or hemmed in
Allow for Differences in Knowledge or S k i l l s Addressed
Tough (July 1993) (35 -knowledge and skills student is
learning are different from other students
B a l a n c e Class Activities
Hammond & Collins (1991) -balance between individual, small group, large group-give
( 3 6 ) opportunities for new relationships to be started, to meet individuals, small group and communal learning needs
Table 4 (Continued)
Provide Refreshment Breaks as A Means for Students to Share Ideas
Tough (1983) (37 -discover appropriate resources
among class members during coffee breaks
Real i ze Help W i t h Planning May Be Necessary
Knowles (1975), Tough (1979), -following a linear process Spear & Mocker (1984) -is planning important (when, how (38) and where they learn new concepts)
Galbraith (1991) -needs assessment, context analysis. setting objectives, organizing activities, selecting .
learning methods and evaluation
Candy (1991) -goal setting
Bxockett & Hiemstra (1991) -providing some structure and suggestions for planning
Tremblay (1981, 1983) -learners need help with planning, organizing
W o r k on T i m e Management
Candy (1991) (39)
-time management
Hiemstra & Sisco (1990) -taking responsibility for managing the process of assessing learner's needs
Brookfield (1993) -need adequate time to make reflectively informed decisions
Table 4 (Continued)
SUPPORTIVE CLIMATE FOR BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS
Stimulate Interest and Positive Attitude Toward SDL
Hiemstra (1988) -stimulate SDL
Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) - develop a positive attitude toward SDL and to promote it -help learners develop attitude about learning that fosters independence
Recognize Resistance to SDL is Possible
Hiemstra (1988)
-resistance should be discovered and acknowledged
-stimulate and motivate learners to determine initial needs, plan appropriate learning activities, carry out such activities
U s e Class Discussions to R a i s e Questions About Learnin9
Hammond & Collins (1991) - questioning and challenging encouraged
Brockett & Hiernstra (1991) - raising questions
Brockett & Hiernstra (1991) -stimulating interest-promoting discussion, raising questions and using small group activity to stimulate interest in learning experience
Table 4 Kontinued)
Provide opportunities for Students t o Reflect
Hammond & Collins (1991) (43) - structured opportunities to
reflect on experiences and make personal meaning
Candy (1991) - critical thinking -question-asking behaviour
Encourages Expression of A Need for Help Developing Questions
Hiemstra (1988) (44)
-ability to ask questions
Ensure Students' Comarents Taken Seriously
Bammond & Collins (1991) ( 4 5 ) -take feelings and requests
seriously
Candy (1991)
Candy (1991) (46)
Chene (1983) ( 4 7 )
Egan (1986) ( 4 8 )
-respect for ideas and opinions of others
Encourage Students Working Together
-collaboration rather than competition
U s i n g Others to T e s t Progres s
-learners must test their knowledge against somebody else -relationship with another essential to establish quality of learning (allows them to become aware of what they know)
Allow for Probing
-basic communication skills- attending, active listening, empathy, probing
Table 4 (Continued)
Build Self-Confidence
Hammond & C o l l i n s (1991) -building sel f -conf idence by ( 4 9 ) providing o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o succeed
when poss ib le
Encourage a Low Threat Atmosphere
Candy (1991) - low t h r e a t climate
-comfort, a t t r a c t i v e , conducive t o working, shar ing and r e l a x i n g
Invite Student Par t i c ipa t ion
Lar i sey (1994) -cl imate conducive t o s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n
Hammond & C o l l i n s (1991) -opportuni t ies f o r sha r ing ideas
Encourage the Development of Learning Partnerships
Hammond & C o l l i n s (1991) (52) -encourage l e a r n i n g pa r tne r sh ips
Tough (1983) -encourage students to discuss t h e i r i n t e r e s t s w i th o t h e r s with s i m i l a r ones i n the class
Provide Opportunities for Students t o Help Each O t h e r
Hammond & C o l l i n s (1991) (53) -opportuni t ies f o r he lp ing each
o t h e r and working t o g e t h e r
Recognize Reading and Writing a s Forms of Nonpersonal Interaction
-2 modes t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p ( 2 experiences)
1) people i n t e r a c t i n g wi th people
2 ) communicative i n t e r a c t i o n (secondary experience-do l e a r n e r s have t o be f a c e to face?) *
Table 4 (Continued)
Rmphasize Interact ion Outside the Classroom
Hammond & Collins (1991) -remain open t o new ideas, responsive to feedback and suggestions from learners
-importance of others besides the instructor
Acknowledge All Are L e a r n e r s in a SDL Relationship
Hiemstra (1988)
Hammond & Collins (1991) - (57)
-2-way involvement in learning partnership (items to see if it i s actually 2 way)
-openly acknowledge ignorance .instead of "expert" -emphasize all are learners and educators together
-instructor participates as equal in group discussions and small group work whenever possible and appropriate
Instructor Imparts Knowledge Upon Request
Scuttenberg & Tracy (1987) -is educator's expertise imparted (58) selectively at learner's request
APPENDIX C Forms Used in Administration
Table 1. Characteristics of the Sample Form
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE USING THE INSTRUMENT
General Characteristics
Instructor:
Institution:
Number of Students in theclass:
Selection Process: (eg. how were students chosen for the course)
Course:
Level of Course: (eg. first year)
Lengthofcourse:
Administration Characteristics
Date of Administration:
Problems encountered: (which may affect results)
Time of day when Administered:
Number of completed forms:
Table 2. Student Feedback Form
STUDENT FEEDBACK ABOUT THE INSTRUMENT
Your input is important. The researcher would like to know how you felt about the assessment you have just completed, Your feedback will be valuable for future versions of the Instrument. While completing the instrument, please take a few minutes to indicate items you had difficulty answering. Write the item numbers beIow the appropriate statement below.
1. The question made me uncomfortable.
2. The question was confusing.
3. 1 did not know what the question meant.
4. i wanted to say more.
Additional comments:
Table 3. Instructor Feedback Form
L
INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK AFTER ADMINISTERING THE INSTRUMENT
Administration
1. Were the instructions for administration clear? If not, in what ways could they be improved?
2. Did the students have enough time to complete the Instrument? If not, what length of time would be appropriate?
Communication with the Reseacher
1. Was the correspondence from the researcher adequate? If not, how could it be improved?
Table 4, Administrative S t e ~ s
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE INSTRUMENT
_j
To provide consistency across samples and allow meaningful interpretation of the results, please follow the steps listed below.
CAUTION: Do not define terms or give additional instructions beyond those listed below.
Administrative Steps
1. Complete the "Characteristics of the Sample using the Instrument" form to provide accurate information about your class.
2. Hand out copies of the Instrument along with the Student Feedback form.
3. Instruct students to look at the Student Feedback form at the same time as they are filling out the Instrument.
4. When students have finished, collect all copies,
5. Place all completed forms in the self-addressed envelope provided, Your envelope should contain:
+ Characteristics of the Sample form + Completed copies of the Instrument + Student Feedback forms + Instructor Feedback form
6. Seal the envelope and return it to the researcher.
O Jane PilUnnCamkk
APPENDIX D p i l o t Study Instrument and Results from t h e P i l o t Study
Table 1. Form of the Pilot Instrument
FACTORS THAT HELP MY LEARNING IN THIS COURSE
In this course, you are trying to learn various sorts of knowledge, information, skills, or ideas. What types of things are especially helpful for your learning and what are not? As you go through the following list of factors, please take a moment to think about how much each factor helps your learninq in this course. Then circle the number that comes closest to your own experience.
For example, if your experience in this course is that having the teacher set due dates for assignments helps your learning occasionally (but not more than that), then circle the number 2. If this is hardly ever helpful, or if the teacher does not even set due dates, then circle the number 1. The focus is on how much each factor helps your Learning; there are no right or wrong answers.
Please do not write your name on the form.
Indicate how much each factor helps you in this course by circling the response that corresponds to your experience.
0 = This 1 = This does NOT 2 = This SLIGHTLY 3 = This Is HELPFUL 4 = This is EXTREMELY does not HELP my HELPS my to my Iearning HELPFUL to my happen learning at all learning loarning
L
The s c h o o l p r o v i d e s a v a r i e t y o f r e s o u r c e s f o r 0 1 2 3 4 l e a r n i n g .
T h e s c h o o l p r o v i d e s a list o f p o s s i b l e r e s o u r c e s . 0 1 2 3 4
I could f i n d a q u i e t w o r k i n g area i n t h e s c h o o l - 0 1 2 3 4
T h e s c h o o l h a s up - to -da te equ ipmen t f o r l e a r n i n g - 0 1 2 3 4
The s c h o o l r e q u i r e s t h a t r e s o u r c e s b e s h a r e d , 0 1 2 3 4
The s c h o o l o f f i c e i s o p e n f o r l o n g hour s . 0 1 2 3 4
The c l a s s r o o m a r r a n g e m e n t a l l o w s f o r eye c o n t a c t . 0 1 2 3 4
The s i z e o f t h e c l a s s r o o m . 0 1 2 3 4
The l i g h t i n g i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . 0 1 2 3 4
10- The t e m p e r a t u r e i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . 0 1 2 3 4
0 Janc Palling-Cotmkk
Table 1. fcont'dl
I Indicate how much each factor helps you in this course by circling the response that corresponds to your experience.
0 = Thls 1 = This does NOT 2 = Thls 3UGHTl.Y 3 = Thls Is HELPFUL 4 = Thls Is EXTREMELY does not HELP my HELPS my to my learnlng HELPFUL to my happen leamlng at all learning barntng
The number o f people i n t h e course. 0 3 4
12. The l e n g t h of t h e course . 0
13. The t i m e p e r i o d between classes. 0
14. D i f f e r e n t r e g i s t r a t i o n p rocedures for part-time 0 s t u d e n t s .
15. S c h o o l examina t ion requ i rement s . 0
16- The s c h o o l limits what I c a n choose t o l e a r n . 0
1 7 . The r e q u i r e m e n t t o a t t e n d a l l c l a s s e s . 0
18. The c o u r s e o u t l i n e r e f l e c t s what t h e c o u r s e i s 0 l i k e .
19. Be ing aware t h a t o t h e r c o u r s e s encourage s t u d e n t s 0 to d i r e c t t h e i r l e a r n i n g .
20. The c o u r s e encourages m e t o e v a l u a t e t h e way I 0 l e a r n .
21- I h e l p d e v e l o p t h e marking scheme. 0
22. The t e a c h e r sets d u e d a t e s . 0
23. The c o u r s e encourages m e t o e v a l u a t e w h a t I l e a r n . 0
24. The c o u r s e b e g i n s by encourag ing m e t o r e v i e w 0 what I already know.
25. The c o u r s e encourages m e to c o n s i d e r why I a m 0 a s s e s s i n g m y l e a r n i n g .
26. I c a n a s k f o r h e l p t o d e t e r m i n e when I h a v e 0 s u c c e s s f u l l y l e a r n e d .
O lane PillingCormick
Fable 1- ( c o n t ' d ) : > ..
Indicate how much each factor.helps you in thiscourse by circling the response.that corresponds to your experience.
0 = Thls 1 = This does NOT 2 = Thts SUGHTLY 3 = This ts HELPFUL 4 = This Is EXTREMELY doos not HELP my HELPS my to my teaming HELPFUL to my happen leamlng at ell learning leamlng
- - - --
27. The t e a c h e r t e l l s m e how I a m d o i n g .
28. I receive feedback t h r o u g h o u t the c o u r s e - 0 L 2 3 4
29. The t e a c h e r i s available f o r i n d i v i d u a l d i s c u s e i o n e a b o u t my l e a r n i n g .
30. The Location of t h e institution. 0 1 2 3 4
31. The c o u r s e d e s i g n is f l e x i b l e enough to a l l o w me 0 1 2 3 4 t o i n t e g r a t e new ideas,
32. I h e l p make d e c i s i o n s a b o u t the c o u r s e . 0 1 2 3 4
33- W i t h i n t h e bounda r i e s o f the c o u r s e I c a n c h o o s e 0 I 2 3 4 w h a t I want t o l e a r n -
34. The c o u r s e a l l o w s m e t o d e v e l o p my own a p p r o a c h 0 1 2 3 4 to l e a r n i n g .
35- I h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to l e a r n s o m e t h i n g 0 1 2 3 4 d i f f e r e n t from what o t h e r s t u d e n t s i n t h e c o u r s e are l eatn ing-
36- The c o u r s e b a l a n c e s s m a l l a n d l a r g e g r o u p a c t i v i t i e s .
37. The c o u r s e p r o v i d e s r e f r e s h m e n t b r e a k s as a way 0 f o r m e t o share new i d e a s .
38. I r e c e i v e h e l p p l a n n i n g my l e a r n i n g - 0
39- I r e c e i v e h e l p managing m y t i m e . 0
4 0 - I a m encouraged t o d e v e l o p a positive a t t i t u d e 0 t o w a r d d i r e c t i n g my own l e a r n i n g -
4 1 . Resistance t o d i r e c t i n g my own learning i s 0 r e c o g n i z e d .
Table 1 - I c o n t o d l I - . - . .. .
I indicate how much each factor helps.youin this course by circling the response ,that corresponds to your experfence.
0 = Thls 1 = This does NOT 2 - This SLIGHTLY 3 = Thls IS HELPFUL 4 9 Thls Is EXTREMELY does not HELP my HECPSmy lo my barntng HELPFUL to my happen learning at el1 learning lvamlng
42, Class d i s c u s s i o n s encourage me to raise q u e s t i o n s , 0
43. I a m able to c o n s i d e r t h e usefulness of what I a m l e a r n i n g .
44. I r e c e i v e h e l p with m y q u e s t i o n i n g skills.
45. M y comments are taken s e r i o u s l y by others in the c o u r s e .
4 6 . I work w i t h o t h e r s t u d e n t s rather than compete with them-
47. I test m y knowledge against o t h e r s .
48. I a m encouraged to f u r t h e r e x p l o r e what I a m l e a r n i n g .
49. I a m a b l e t o recognize when I have p r o g r e s s e d .
50. T h e r e i s a r e l a x e d a tmosphere for sharing my i d e a s .
51. 1 am a b l e t o share i d e a s .
52- Forming Learning p a r t n e r s h i p s is e n c o u r a g e d .
53. O p p o r t u n i t i e s for students to help each o t h e r .
5 4 . Reading to o b t a i n new i n f o r m a t i o n .
55. Communicating t h rough w r i t i n g -
56. I n t e r a c t i o n w i t h others outside the c l a s s r o o m .
57 - S t u d e n t s a n d t h e teacher being l e a r n e r s together-
58. The t e a c h e r b e i n g a v a i l a b l e to s h a r e his o r her knowledge upon r e q u e s t -
0 Janc Pdling-Cormick
190
Table 2 -
CENTRAL TENDENCY AND VARIABILITY PER ITEM FOR THE PILOT STUDY
M e d i a n Mean M o d e
3.000
2-000
3,000
3,000
2 , 000
1,000
4,000
3.000
4,000
1,000
3,000
4,000
3,000
2.000
2 . 000 2 . 000 4,000
4.000
3.000
4.000
4,000
- - -
Std Deviation
Variance
(continued)
T a b l e 2 - (cont'dl
Questior
422
423
Q24
425
426
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
Q3 1
432
Q33
434
435
436
Q37
Q38
439
Q40
4 4 1
Q42
Q4 3
Median
3.000
3.000
3,000
3 -000
3,000
3.000
3,000
3,500
3,000
3.000
2.000
3,000
3,000
3,000
4,000
2.500
2wooo
2,000
3.000
2,000
3.000
4.000
Mean
3,000
3,250
3 - 1 2 5
2.906
2.906
2.688
2,844
3 * 375
2,813
3,219
2,469
2,688
2.594
2 ,781
3,313
2 - 2 1 9
2.125
1.719
3.031
1 - 9 3 7
3 - 2 8 1
3,281
Mode
4 -000
3 -000
4,000
3,000
3 000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4.000
3.000
2 -000
2,000
3.000
3.000
4.000
3,000
3,000
2,000
3,000
2 -000
4,000
4 -000
Std ~eviation
Variance
1.226
,581
,952
-797
1.120
2,093
2.136
,565
1 - 7 7 0
,499
1,676
1.254
1,475
1 - 4 0 2
,867
1,725
1,468
1 - 1 7 6
,741
1- 544
,596
-918
(continued)
Table 2, (cont'd)
Q u e s t i o n Median
2,000
3,000
3,500
2,500
3,000
3 , 000
4,000
4.000
3-000
3-000
3,000
3,000
3,000
4.000
4.000
Mean
2,125
3,188
3,375
2,156
3,250
3.188
3.438
3.406
3 , 063
3,281
3,313
3,000
2 . 875 3.344
3,500
Mode Std Deviation
Variance
2,629
,802
,500
1,555
.710
,673
,448
,572
1.028
,596
,480
839
1.726
,620
,452
T a b l e 3 ,
Interitem Correlations between Categories of the Pilot Test
Physical Aspects of the School
Correlation of question 1 - question 6
Phvsical Aspects of the Classroom
Correlation of question 7 - question 10
How t h e ~nstitution Functions
Correlation of question 11 - question 19
( c o n t i n u e d )
T a b l e 3 - (cont'd)
How the Course Functions
Correlation of question 20 - question 39
,1694 ,2659 ,2777 ,0671 ,2431 ,1677
-, 0346 ,1757 ,1595 ,0148
( con t inued)
Table 3 , (cont'd)
Supportive Climate for Buildina Relationships
C o r r e l a t i o n of question 40 - question 58
Table 3 , (cont 'dl
Table 4: Reliabilitv Coefficients from the Pilot Study
Reliabilitv coefficients
Physical Aspects of t h e school Physical Aspects of t h e classroom How the Institution Functions How the Course Functions Supportive Climate for Building Relationships
T a b l e 5: Feedback on S p e c i f i c Items from the Pilot Studv -
Quest ion Made M e Uncomfortable
Item No. 21
Quest ion Was Confusincr
Item No. 3
Frequency 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Frequency 1
Did Not Know What the Ques t ion Meant
Item 14 I6 19 25 33 41 52
Wanted t o Say More
Frequency 1 1 2 1 1 3 1
Frequency
Table 6: S p e c i f i c Comments about Items from the Pilot Study
Specific Comments About Items
Item Comment
39, 41 These questions were a bit odd. Managing your time is your responsibility and very personal.
41 Why would I resist-very negative
Questions often ambiguous and not able to be answered with the scale
Not very clear and the parameters do not suit the statement
Another answer option needed (not applicable in this situation)
Table 7: Suaqestions/Comments for Improvement from the Pilot Studv
P r o b l e m s W i t h the Scale
1 found it hard to answer because the numbers do not represent good answers for the questions.
Some of the wording of the questions does not seem to match the wording of the scale.
Sometimes questions did not lend themselves to be answered using key well-
Scale is not effective eg. question 11, number of people in the course-could put 4 (that the number of people is extremely helpful) to my learning, but there were too many people so 1 it doesn't help my learning.
For some of the questions it is hard to say if they help or harm learning,
Questions were ambiguous and very vague for such specific answers requested.
Not Applicable
Too much about self-evaluation because we are only here for four weeks during the summer, many questions did not relate to us and we had to use a "what if,." situation.
Difficult to fill out in our situation here at this school for such a short time and a "false" set up.
Given the amount of time this is not applicable.
Some questions w e r e not applicable to this course situation.
Many of the questions were not really relevant to this course (summer) . Some of the questions did not really apply to summer school.
Some of the questions had no bearing with this course or school.
Some questions w e r e difficult to answer because they do not necessarily reflect or apply to me directly.
Some of the questions were not relevant to my 'situation.
Some questions did not apply.
Table 7 [Continued)
Many questions are inapplicable.
Irrelevant to this particular course and situation.
Found the instrument easy to follow, but not aware of some answers as we were only here for one month in the summer (eg. registration, office hours etc.)
Some questions did not apply to our situation.
Most of it didn't apply to me.
Some questions didn't apply because I did not (use) the service (i.e. school office).
Many questions did not apply to this course.
Request for Open-Ended Questions
Sometimes difficult to answer as there was no room for comments.
Felt a section was needed for additional comments.
Too long. Wanted to say more.
Confusion About the Instructions
Did not know whether my answers should be about myself or the course.
Instruction unclear as to whether to answer questions based on the specific course I was taking or being educated in general.
Miscellaneous Comments
I don't like evaluation forms.
Some are confusing and seem to be repetitive.
Vague at times . Not necessary. The course outline, instructors are important, not the setup of the classroom.
his was handed out at the wrong time. I was excited about getting our marks and couldn't concentrate on this. Too many questions to handle in a short time.
Table 7 (Continued)
No questions on sanitation (poorly stocked bathrooms), not enough desks, not enough parking.
Very ambiguous and confusing questions.
V e r y , very confusing and difficult to answer questions.
Difficult to answer-too many variables.
positive Comments Test was fair. It did not throw out any surprise questions.
Questions were just fine. They did not take a lot of time to figure out. They were clear and understandable (comprehensible).
I understood the questions.
The questions were fine.
T a b l e 8 : Fresuencv Missed fo r the Pilot Study
Item No. 4 5 6 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 22 23 25 26 31 32 33 34 35 38 39 4 0 4 1 48 54 55 56 57
Frequency Missed 4 2 6 1 8 4 7 3 7 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 3 3 3 3 3
APPENDIX E
FIELD TEST INSTRUMENT AND RESULTS FROM THE FIELD TEST
Table I. Form of the Instrument for the Field Test
FACTORS THAT HELP MY LEARNING IN THIS COURSE
In this course, you are trying to learn various sorts of knowledge, information, skills, or ideas. What types of things are especially helpful for your learning and what are not? As you go through the following list of factors, please take a moment to think about how much each factor helps vour leaminq in this course. Then circle the number that comes closest to your own experience.
For example, i f your experience in this course is that having the teacher set due dates for assignments helps your learning occasionally (but not more than that), circle the number 2- If this is hardly ever helpful, circle the number I. If the item does not apply circle 0. The focus is on how much each factor helps vour learning; this is not an evaluation of the teacher and there are no right or wrong answers-
Phase do not write your name on the form.
Indicate how much each factor helps you in this course by circling the response that corresponds to your experience.
0 = This doos NOT 1 = This does NOT 2 = This SUGHTLY 3 = This is HELPFUL 4 = This is EXTREMELY AFFECT my HELP my HELPS my to my learning HELPFUL to my my learning learnlng at all IoatnIng learning
1. Having a variety o f s c h o o l r e s o u r c e s .
2 . Providing a l is t of the Locat ion of s c h o o l r e s o u r c e s -
3 . F i n d i n g a q u i e t working area a t t h e s c h o o l .
4 . The s c h o o l requ ir ing t h a t r e s o u r c e s be shared.
5 . The s c h o o l office b e i n g open f o r l o n g hours .
6 . The s c h o o l l o c a t i o n .
7. T h e c l a s s r o o m arrangement a l l o w i n g f o r eye c o n t a c t .
8 . The size o f the classroom.
9. The l i g h t i n g i n the c l a s s r o o m .
Table I. fcontmd)
Indicate how much each factor helps you in this course by circling the response that corresponds to your experience.
0 = Thls does NOT 1 = Thls does NOT 2 a This SUGHTLY 3 = Thls Is HELPFUL 4 a Thls ls EXTREMELY AFFECT my HELP my HELPS my to my leamlng HELPFUL to my my learning leamlng at ell leamlng learning
The classroom temperature.
The number of people in a course-
The length of the course.
The time period between classes.
Having different registration procedures for part-time students . Having mandatory examinations.
The school limiting what courses I can take.
Being required to attend all classes.
Having a flexible course outline.
Students directing their learning in other courses.
Evaluating my method of learning.
Helpin9 to develop the marking scheme.
The teacher setting due dates.
Evaluating what 1 learn.
Beginning by reviewing what I already know.
Considering why I am assessing my learning.
Requesting help to deternine when I have successfully learned.
0 Jane PiflingGorrnkk
Table 1- Icont'dl
Indicate how much each factor helps youin this course by circling the response.that corresponds to your experience.
0 = Thls does NOT 1 = Thls does NOT 2 - This SLIGHTLY 3 = Thls Is HELPFUL 4 = Thts fs EXTREMELY AFFECT my HELP my HELPS my to my learning HELPFUL to my my Jeamlng Ieamlng at all leamlng learning
The teacher telling me how I am doing. 0
Receiving feedback throughout the course. 0
The teacher being available for individual 0 discussions about my learning.
The course design being flexible enough to allow 0 me to integrate new ideas.
Helping to make decisions about the course. 0
Choosing what I want to learn within the 0 boundaries of the course.
Developing my own approach to learning* 0
Learning something different from what other 0 students in the course are learning*
Balancing small and large group activities in 0 class.
Sharing new ideas during refreshment breaks. 0
Receiving help to plan my learning. 0
The teacher giving me ideas about how to manage 0 my time.
The teacher helping me to develop a positive 0 attitude toward directing my own learning.
Determining my own learning needs. 0
0 Jane Ping-Cormkk
Table 1. (contld)
Indicate how much each factor heips you in this course by circling the.response.that corresponds to your experience.
0 = Thls does NOT 1 = Thls does NOT 2 = Thls SUGHTLY 3 .I This Is HELPFUL 4 a Thls ls EXTREMELY AFFECT my HELP my HELPS my to my leamlng HELPFUL to my my learning learning at all kerning leernlng
Raising questions about my learning during class discussions.
Considering the usefulness of what I am learning.
Receiving help with my questioning skills.
nowi in^ my comments and requests are being taken seriously.
Working with other students rather than competing with them.
Testing my knowledge against others.
Continually exploring what I am learning.
Recognizing when I have progressed-
Having a relaxed atmosphere for sharing my ideas.
Being invited to share ideas.
Forming learning partnerships.
Students helping each other.
Reading to obtain new information.
Receiving written feedback.
Interacting with others outside the classroom.
Students and the teacher being learners together.
The teacher being available to share his or her knowledge upon request.
63 J a m P%ing-Cormkk
Table 2 .
CENTRAL TENDENCY AND VARIABILITY PER
Mean Median
3,000
2,000
2 0 000
1.500
, 000
3,000
3 - 000 3.000
3,000
3,000
3.000
3,000
1.000
, 000
1,000
, 000
2.000
3,000
, 000
2 000
2,000
Mode
4.000
.000
* 000
,000
,000
4,000
3,000
3.000
4.000
3,000
4,000
3.000
. 000 , 000
,000
, 000
2,000
3,000
, 000
3,000
, 000
ITEM FOR THE FIELD TEST
Std E r r of Mean
Std Deviation
Variance
(cont inued)
Table 2. (cont'd)
Question
422
423
Q24
425
426
Q27
428
Q29
4 3 1
Q32
433
Q34
Q35
Q36
Q37
4 3 8
43 9
Q4O
Q4 1
442
44 3
444
Mean Median Mode Std E r r of Mean
Std Deviation
Variance
(continued)
T a b l e 2. (cont'd)
Question
44 5
44 6
Q4 7
44 8
Q4 9
Q50
QS 1
452
453
Q54
455
45 6
457
Q58
- --
Mean Median
3,000
3,000
2 a 000
3.000
3,000
4.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3 . 000 3.000
3.000
3.500
Mode
-- 4.000
4.000
2.000
3.000
3.000
4.000
4.000
3.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
3.000
3.000
4.000
Std E r r of Mean
Std Deviation
Variance
1.004
1.181
1.878
1.229
1.266
.816
. 948 1.458
-986
0939
-873
1.908
1.430
-709
Table 3 ,
Interitem Correlations between Categories of the Field Test
Phvsical Aspects of the School
Correlation of question 1 - question 6
Phvsical Aspects of the School
Correlation of question 7 - question 10
How the Institution Functions
correlation of question 11 - question 19
(continued)
Table 3 - (cont'd)
How the Course Functions
Correlation of question 20 - question 39
-4798 ,1388 -2470 -3898
( cont inued )
Table 3, Icont'd)
Supportive C l i m a t e for ~ u i l d i n q elations ships
Correlation of question 40 - question 58
3222 -2877 -4899 -2947 -4474 ,4472 - 3647 - 4 4 2 4 - 3736
(continued)
T a b l e 3 - (cont'd)
Table 4: Reliability coefficients for the Field Test
Reliability Coefficients
Overall ~eliability Coefficient
Physical Aspects of the School
Physical Aspects of the Classroom
How the Institution Functions
How the Course Functions
Supportive Climate for Building elations ships
Table 5: Feedback on Specific Items for the Field T e s t
Ques t ion Made Me Uncomfortable
Item No. 1
Question Was Confusinq
Item No. 1
Frequency 2 1 3 1 2 2 1
Table 5 (Continuedl
Did Not Know What t h e Question Meant
Item No. 7 9
1 9 2 0 23 25 26 40 4 1 4 2 45 47 48 52
Wanted to Say More
Item No. 2 7 8 9 10 11 18 4 0 4 1
Frequency 1 1 8 2 I 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
Frequency 1 1 1 1 1
Table 6: Specific Comments About Items for the Field Test
Item First two pages
Comment Confusing
1-9 Not relevant to me in this co mrse No relevance to part time students
In relation to this course barely apply
No relevance to part time students
Last page was relevant to my learning -good statements
Why should the school location affect my learning?
With other students or the teacher?
Quality of light?
The method was the same. Thank goodness I have a touch tone phone.
Made me uncomfortable because the school shouldn't limit learning in any way
Flexible course outline - if I am unable to meet a deadline would not like to have marks deducted. As adults, we should be given more freedom. However, having a guideline keeps adults on track.
Not applicable or difficult to understand Isn't that the teacher's job?
Not applicable or difficult to understand
How can this be determined? Not applicable or difficult to understand. If I have learned something, why do I need to have someone else tell me I have learned?
Isn't that the teacher's job? If I am doing the course, it is because I need it.
Table 6 (Continued)
If I am doing the course, it is because I need it.
Table 7 : Suqqestions/~omments for Improvement for the Field Test
Not Applicable
Very few really apply to our course.
I ' m not sure if any of the factors affect my learning as a teacher taking a ministry course.
Obviously, some (many) questions did not relate at all to this ESL class. I found some questions redundant. Are we clients?
his questionnaire did not really correspond to the type of course w e are doing. I do not really think the questions were valid.
So much of the question was not appropriate to the course.
Questionnaire did not have much relevance to m y course or m y involvement in it.
Too many questions had nothing to do with this course.
Most questions did not apply to this particular course.
Questions were straight forward. Unfortunately, a lot did not apply to me and the course 1% taking.
Questions with 0 were not applicable.
Many did not apply to this course.
I feel this questionnaire is not suitable for adults taking an evening course (eg. Questions 39, 4 0 ) .
Problems w i t h Instructions
I needed further explanation on how to complete this questionnaire (I did not know whether you meant the time during my night school course or my time during day at school.
Table 7 (ContinuedL
Frustrating, confusing, not sure of how to answer, purpose of questionnaire was unclear.
Very frustrating, unclear expectations. I had no idea most of the time what the questions were asking. They were ambiguous. Was I answering them as a student taking this course? If so, many of the questions did not pertain.
It was confusing to decide whether these questions applied to the course classroom or our perspective ESL classrooms.
Very confusing. Instructions very unclear.
Initial question was confusing in that even though I know that I read "this courset', I couldn't help but translate this into the idealized course.
we know so much about learning methods. I kept wondering about the motive of the questionnaire and questioning my answers as a particular learner in light of the questionnaire (what's this getting at? purpose?)
The instrument's instructions and the key was extremely confusing.
Questions were hard to answer because of confusion of wording in t h e instructions. Please change instructions to "affects my learningt'-either positively or negatively and how much.
Questions were Vague
Very ambiguous questionnaire, lacked clarity.
Many questions overlap and aren't very specific in what they ask.
I dislike the use of sentence fragments, although I know they are used in education now. Any reason why this has to be called an "instrument" instead of a "survey"? Some wording was vague.
Questions were sometimes quite vague. Therefore, I rapidly went through them as I found I got frustrated. The last half was clearer . Open-Ended Questions
I could have expanded on those questions that were helpful to me.
Maybe a comment box at the end to state what I think or to help form questions that could be asked in the future.
Table 7 (Continued)
I wanted to say more about the questions.
Redundant Q u e s t i o n s
Items 18 and 31 discuss flexibility.
Some questions were repetitive/redundant.
Miscellaneous
If you care about the answers, we should take them home. It's been a long day. The questions made me irritable.
I had no difficulty answering any questions. Most were irrelevant to my learning style. I do not learn in a classroom setting. I learn best in solitude with written material.
I hope I hear the feedback from the survey - andy what you will do with it.
Straight forward.
I think the questionnaire is excellent. It covered practically every topic I could think of.
Many questions on page 2 relate to individualized instruction. While I would like to have more say in course design, whether I do or not does not affect my ability to learn. I am able to learn in many situations and in a variety of course structures.
Too idealistic.
APPENDIX F LARGE SCALE DATA
Table 1: Ratins of Items for the Field Test
H e b f ul Factors
Item Number Item & Rated as
3 or 4
Having a relaxed atmosphere for sharing my ideas. The teacher being available to share his or her knowledge upon request. Students helping each other. Receiving written feedback. Knowing my comments and requests are being taken seriously. Reading to obtain new information. Working with other students rather than competing with them. Being invited to share ideas. The course design being flexible enough to allow me to integrate new ideas. The teacher telling me how I am doing. Receiving feedback throughout the course. Forming learning partnerships. Students and the teacher being learners together. Recognizing when I have progressed. The teacher being available for individual Continually exploring what I am learning. Considering the usefulness of what I am learning. The classroom arrangement allowing for eye con tac t . The lighting i n the classroom. The classroom temperature. The number of people in a course. Having a flexible course outline. The teacher setting due' dates. Interacting with others outside the classroom. Choosing what I want to learn w i t h i n the boundaries of the course. The size of the classroom. Determining my own learning needs. Evaluating what I learn. discussions about my learning. ~ a l a n c i n g small and large group activities -
in class.
Table 1 (Continued)
Sliqhtly Helpful Factors.
Item Number Item
Helping to develop the marking scheme . Beginning by reviewing what I already know. Raising questions about my learning during class discussions. ~ e i n g required to attend all classes. Considering why I am assessing my learning. Learning something different from what other students in the course are learning. Testing my knowledge against others. Sharing new ideas during refreshment breaks. Receiving help with my questioning skills. Evaluating my method of learning. Requesting help to determine when I have successfully learned. Helping to make decisions about the course. Developing my own approach to learning. Receiving help to plan my learning. The teacher giving me ideas about how to manage my time. The school location. The length of the course. The time period between classes. Providing a list of the location of school resources. Finding a quiet working area at the school. The school requiring that resources be shared. Having a variety of school resources. The teacher helping me to develop a positive attitude toward directing my own learning.
% Rated as 2
27.8 1.421
Table 1 (Continued)
F a c t o r s N o t Affectina Learnins
Item Number - I t e m % Rated as 0
14. Having different r e g i s t r a t i o n 54-2 1.387 procedures for part-time students.
16. Schoo l limiting what courses I can take. 52 .8 -971 19. Students d i r e c t i n g their learning i n other 52-8 1.411
courses . 5 . School office being open l o n g hours. 5 1 . 4 1.437 15. Baving mandatory examinat ions . 4 4 . 4 1 .296