Vertex

John Dewey claimed the “goal of education” should be helping students become “independent, autonomous learners who assume responsibility for their own learning” (Shapiro & Levine, 1999, p. 15). Allowing students the freedom to direct their own learning and make their own meaning of concepts can be unsettling, particularly when weighed against the traditional teaching methods whereby learning is directed toward teacher-centered objectives (Pratt, 2002). Yet, when students become responsible for their understanding of ideas, content becomes relevant. The Constructivist perspective, suggesting that people construct meaning contextually, “makes content much more the means to knowledge than the end of it” (Weimer, p. 12).

In a learner-centered classroom, content is provided in relevant context. The student is encouraged to actively seek new information and integrate that information with previously held notions (Cranton, 1996; Weimer, 2002). Feedback provided by instructor and student is essential to that learning process (Huba & Freed, 2000; Shapiro & Levine; 1999). Stepping aside and sharing the reigns of instruction and assessment with the students invites self-direction and empowers the student to fully guide his or her education (Brookfield, 1995; Cranton, 1996; Huba & Freed, 2000; Weimer, 2002). The process edifies both student and instructor in myriad ways. A class study describes two parallel examples of such collaborative self-direction.

As instructor of a course on evaluation and assessment of student learning in higher education, I designed a syllabus to encourage students to select relevant learning projects. Twenty-seven nontraditional doctoral students, themselves instructors in higher education, enrolled in the class. The syllabus allowed each student to autonomously conduct an empirical research project on an assessment instrument of his or her choice. Groups would critically review their findings and present them in a capstone panel discussion format open to higher education instructors. Toward fostering a self-directed, learner-centered environment and a flexible definition of relevant projects, I suggested we could modify the syllabus. My invitation gained an unanticipated response.

“Can we modify it entirely? Can we start over with a new syllabus?” The simple request led to nine students finding relevance in working together to redesign the course as a self-directed, collaborative project: investigating effective assessment of one mathematics course. The nine would serve as Consultants for the mathematics instructor and design assessment techniques for the course. What motivated me to agree?

Candy (1991) and Cranton (1996) suggest that it is autonomy and autodidaxy that lead to self-directed learning and transformative processes. “The main characteristic of autonomy as an approach to learning is that students take some significant responsibility for their own learning over and above responding to instruction” (Boud, 1981, p. 23). I intentionally stepped aside, creating the opening for autonomy and relevant, self-directed learning. This was an opportunity for the students to exercise relevant, self-direction and for me to demonstrate learner-centered teaching. Emancipatory perspectives allow us to question our teaching and learning and to modify our approaches (Cranton, 1996). I chose to be as flexible as I had suggested, and to seize the opportunity to observe two side-by-side approaches to collaborative self-directed learning.

Boud (1981) cautions, “Opportunities for students to exercise discretion over what and how they learn should not be confused with ambiguity and uncertainty about what are the requirements of learning tasks or assessments” (p. 35). I continued to require that the institutional course objectives would be satisfied: meet at the regular class time, provide a midterm status report, submit a critical reflective paper on their course process at course end, and participate in the course capstone panel discussion with the Traditionals. The Consultants’ process would be their own.

Providing opportunities such as the collaborative self-directed groups described allows students the autonomy to address relevant problems (Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Observing such groups can shed light on what it means to be a self-directed learner in a collaborative learning community. Shapiro and Levine specifically suggest, “Classroom-specific research projects … present a rich, descriptive picture of teaching and learning in learning communities” (p. 159).

One reason for analyzing the outcomes of the collaborative study was to describe the relationship between self-direction and self-assessment, as perceived by the nontraditional students in two parallel sections of an adult education course on evaluation and assessment. As reported elsewhere (Scott, 2004), the study findings suggest that self-assessment can and should guide self-directed learning. While that relationship is important, Wiggins (1997) claims, “Self-assessment is not the goal. Self-adjustment is the goal” (p. 35). In other words, the critical element remains the motivation for students to adjust or self-direct learning in ways and contents that are personally relevant. Therefore, the second reason for analyzing the outcomes was to compare the two self-direct approaches of the Traditionals and the Consultants.

Each Traditional, encouraged by instructor and the syllabus, applied a self-assessment technique four or five times in either a high education course he or she was currently teaching, or another purposefully-selected course. Then each Traditional convened a focus group of four or five student volunteers in those courses to identify strengths and weakness of the assessment technique and to suggest technique improvements. Most Traditionals investigated Angelo and Cross (1993) classroom assessment techniques, such as The Minute Paper, designed for anonymous feedback:

1. What was the most important thing you learned during this class?

2. What important question remains unanswered? (Angelo & Cross, p. 148).

Some Traditionals investigated Brookfield’s (1995) Critical Incident Questionnaire, designed for continuous quality improvement, and other Traditionals investigated rubrics modeled after Huba and Freed (2000) examples. Self-assessment techniques are intended to be learner-centered, providing prompt response to the learner as a mid-course adjustment. The focus groups commented on perceived effectiveness of the techniques.

Traditionals analyzed their data, verified findings through member checks with focus group participants, and wrote reports. Collaborative groups of Traditionals critically reflected upon their findings and prepared panels to discuss applications, strengths, and weaknesses of selected techniques in the capstone forum. In addition, the Traditionals assisted one another in integrating assessment into high education course syllabi for which they are the instructors.

Together, the nine Consultants conducted a collaborative exploration of assessment and applied techniques to one mathematics course. Each Consultant shared a project that investigated an aspect of assessment to contribute individually relevant understandings to their shared project. Two Consultants, high school teachers, investigated and shared portfolios as an assessment instrument. They applied five classroom assessment techniques in a class they taught. They combined assessments in individual portfolios and shared each for student feedback. Both found their students readily adjusted their learning based on self-assessments and on the compilation of assessed assignments in their portfolios. Two Consultants, a university extension instructor who conducts community education courses and a seminar speaker, shared feedback assessment techniques for speakers to quickly determine comprehension.

As Consultants to the mathematics instructor, each member was responsible for an area of expertise. One Consultant, an Education instructor who places student teachers, investigated epistemological beliefs and learning dispositions in a mathematics classroom. Another Consultant, a university English instructor, attended the American Association for Higher Education Conference on Assessment, gaining a rich understanding of assessment augmented by many resources. A third consultant, a university literacy instructor, modeled the Consultant definition of assessment. These resources were made available on the Consultant website.

Following the course, students suggested that their self-directed experience be studied. Regarding existing literature concerning the impact of learning communities on student experience, Shapiro and Levine (1999) suggest that “much of this evidence comes from how students describe their participation in learning communities, their reasons for joining, and the benefits of participation” (p. 171). Therefore, both groups were invited to participate in a comparative study utilizing reflective papers each individual submitted as primary data. Nine Consultants and 16 Traditionals consented to participate via their reflective papers. Quotations are attributed as either Consultant or Traditional. Both groups verified the findings. As we compare and contrast findings of two different approaches to self-directed learning, we will consider what self-directedness means to these self-directed learners.

Allowing the students to pursue their own goals and to assess and adjust their learning direction created an ecology of authenticity and integrity (Cranton, 1996). Traditionals described their experience as having created a learning community valuing the opportunity for individual self-directed empirical research to directly benefit their own courses and students. The Consultants created a self-directed learning community valuing the deep sense of community, shared learning, and co-ownership as consultants.

The course culminated in a capstone panel discussion open to the public, which focused on the strengths and weaknesses of studied assessment techniques. Four panels of Traditionals presented the findings of their empirical research on a variety of assessment techniques. All nine Consultants as one panel presented their assessment website, then focused their presentation on the value of their self-directed learning community as a transformational learning experience. The Traditionals asked the Consultants to discuss their learning relative to assessment techniques. The Consultants referred the Traditionals to their website for assessment information, reiterating that their transformational experience was attributed to their learning community.

The Traditionals left the forum perceiving that the Consultants had not described assessment learning. A Traditional stated, “We wanted them to give us more information about what they had done and not a defense on how much better their learning experience was than ours.” The Consultants perceived that the Traditionals disregarded the Consultants’ transformational experience, preferring to hear about the content learned. A Consultant mused, “We tried to give them the spirit, the excitement of our learning experience and they just wanted to see what we did for [the mathematics instructor].” One might view a competition between communities of how much was learned. The situation might better be viewed as what was learned. A Traditional suggested that the two self-directed approaches could be likened to two kinds of passengers on a train.

Figure 1. Traditionals’ perspectives on their self-direction within a learning community.

For one group of passengers who are intent on observing the world … content has value in its application—it leads to something concrete (opportunity to use the assignments to directly meet students’ own course needs). For the second group of passengers who glance at the scenery as they go by, but are more focused on the quality of the conversation, the ride is the focus. Both kinds of passengers can say they had a great trip … Who’s to say which ones valued the trip the most?

The course ended with much learned about self-direction and self-assessment in both groups. Yet, between the groups there was misunderstanding and miscommunication of what specifically was learned and valued in each self-directed learning community. Analyzing the reflective papers from the students of both groups yields seven trends from each data set. Figure 1 describes the Traditionals’ perspective on their self-direction.

Figure 2. Consultants’ perspectives on their self-direction within a learning community.

The Consultants’ self-directed approach is described in Figure 2. We will compare and contrast the Consultants’ perspectives with the Traditionals’ perspectives in order to identify the similarities and differences.

What Does It Mean to Be a Self-Directed Learner?

Item 1 summarizes perspectives on the course. The Traditionals broadly suggest that both groups enjoyed a learner-centered experience, while the Consultants emphasized their opportunity for autonomy. One Consultant stated, “Being given the opportunity to create our own course of study has been a learning adventure for which I am very grateful.” The notion of self-directed learning enjoys popularity among adult educators, and yet connotations of the notion’s meaning span Candy’s (1991) learner-control continuum from some teacher control to independent study (pp. 10-11). Autonomy is often included in the definition (Boud, 1981; Candy, 1991; Cranton, 1996). Boud claims that research indicates that deep approaches to learning … where students are taking responsibility for their learning and are making decisions about what they are learning … are closely related to the notion of autonomous learning (p. 34). Let us look at decisions regarding self-direction in this study.

Reasons for Joining a Self-Directing Learning Community

Item 2 provides students’ reasons for joining their group. Consultants chose their group for three primary reasons. They were curious what the group might offer; they desired a nontraditional learning experience; and they expected greater benefit forging a new direction, despite possible greater effort. One Consultant admitted, “I was … led by my curiosity about how this might work (if it would work).” Another explained, “I made the choice to move with the group that would re-create their own boundaries, boundaries that would most likely require more effort and investment and thereby ownership than was being offered in the original syllabus.”

Students chose to remain with the Traditional community for three reasons surprisingly similar to those of the Consultants. First, they could not decide, so stayed. Second, they expected greater effort in the Consultant group and lacked time. Third, they perceived benefit for their courses in the original syllabus. One Traditional stated, “I saw an opportunity to use these assignments to directly meet my own needs.” Essentially the two communities made their choices by selecting opposite sides of three coins.

In Item 4, both Traditionals and Consultants linked ownership to autonomous self-direction. A Traditional stated that conducting research on a chosen assessment technique, “allowed the students the freedom to do work that was individually meaningful.” A Consultant mused, “What I found most enjoyable was the freedom to pursue the areas of assessment that were important to me and yet see how they fit into benefiting what we were doing as a group.”

Perceptions of Self-Directing in a Learning Community

Item 3 distinguishes perspectives on self-directing within learning communities. One Traditional commented, “Discussion was thought provoking, engaging, sharing ideas, and lifting each other up. We felt a part of a community of learners.” A Consultant claimed, “We know that there is a communal bond, a bond of learning, one of knowing and understanding something together.”

Item 5 addresses the communities’ conclusions. The Traditionals described a relationship between self-directed learning and self-assessment, “An understanding of assessment tools has … helped me to achieve a much deeper understanding of the concept of tying assessment to learning objectives to view a clear picture of my students’ progress, as well as my own.” Another Traditional concluded, “I feel strongly that I need to have the students self-reflect and self-evaluate,” in order for students “to have ownership for their own learning.” The Consultants also concluded that assessment promotes self-directed learning. A Consultant suggested that instructors should, “use assessments as a way of helping students to build self-efficacy, motivation and self-assessment skills as we encourage them to reach their learning potential.”

Perceived Benefits from Self-Directing in Learning Community

Finally, Item 6 addresses the benefit of self-directing within a learning community. A Traditional claimed, “Assignments built upon each other and allowed the students the freedom to do work that was individually meaningful.” Another stated, I can now improve and apply what I learned to benefit not only my teaching, but most importantly, my students’ learning.” While Traditionals found benefit in autonomous, relevant research, Consultants emphasize their transformational shared ownership in a learning community, “I realized that a truly learner-centered experience is not about what I learned – it’s about what we learned. And what we learned, I almost hold sacred.”

Conclusions

Traditionals and Consultants joined their respective communities for different reasons, and pursued divergent self-directed approaches. Both Traditionals and Consultants valued their learning communities; Consultants emphasized their community as “transformative.” Both communities concluded that self-assessment promotes self-directed learning. Each community claimed a transformational experience (individual or group), for which ownership in the enterprise was key. Cranton (1996) claims, “It is in the area of personal autonomy … where becoming a self-directed learner of educational practice is most likely to be a transformative process” (p. 111). Certainly the findings of this study support that position and challenge adult educators to step to the side and invite opportunities for fostering increased content relevance and increased student ownership in their learning enterprise.

Stepping aside to facilitate a learning-centered approach continues to have transformative influences on my teaching philosophy and practice. I regularly step aside and encourage students to claim ownership of their learning. Many times students resist ownership, preferring the instructor to simply transmit the knowledge (Pratt, 1998). That reluctance to take responsibility for learning is influenced by the instructor. As instructors, Weimer (2002) claims, “We are not, and never can be … responsible for student learning” (p. 102). She goes on to say, “We do have an obligation to show (not tell) students the value and necessity of learning. We have an obligation to make our content relevant” (p. 103). That obligation extends to all teachers of adults whether in higher education, Adult Basic Education, English as a Second Language, or community education. In 1926, adult learning pioneer, Eduard Lindeman advanced five foundational assumptions of adult learning theory, later substantiated through research. Lindeman’s first assumption is “Adults are motivated to learn as they experience needs and interests that learning will satisfy; therefore, these are the appropriate starting points for organizing adult learning activities” (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998, p. 40). Eighteen months after course end, students of both approaches continue to remark upon the changes they made to their teaching practices having participated in a learner-centered experience, where personal relevance and self-directed learning were fostered. I will continue encouraging students toward content of personal relevance, toward self-assessing and self-directing learning, and toward ownership in their learning enterprise.

References

Boud, D. (1988). Moving towards autonomy. In D. Boud (Ed.), Developing student autonomy in learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 17-39). New York: Nichols Publishing Company.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton, P. (1996). Professional development as transformative learning: New perspectives for teachers of adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F. III, & Swanson, R. A. (1998).The adult learner (5th ed.). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pratt, D. D. (2002). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Scott, K. W. (2004). Self-assessment as a compass for self-directed learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wiggins, G. (1997). Feedback: How learning occurs. In Assessing impact: Evidence and action (pp. 31-39). Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education.