Experience with teaching course on World Issues in Education - automatically assumed they were issues concerning adults, received prev. course package - all about children. p. 3

otentially innovative research into the nature and application of self-regulated learning strategies is conspicuously lacking in information about learning processes that do not occur inside traditional classrooms. Recent works by Pintrich (1995), Zimmerman (1990) and Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons (1988) limit themselves to studying the ways in which students integrate course materials in high school and junior college. p. 3

Paradoxically, a strong case can be made for the contribution of adult learners to that particular area of study. It can be argued that as research problems go, self-regulation would benefit greatly from the qualitatively rich contributions of articulate, self-reflective adult informants. That contention is supported by researchers who admit having found no better means for uncovering the internal processes of learning than to ask learners what they are doing when engaged in their activities (Hrimech, 1996). p. 4

Another problem with conducting research from the “top down” (i.e. by formulating a theory, and then verifying it) is that the process is vulnerable to the “self-fulfilling prophecy” syndrome. If we believe a priori that monitoring time or comprehension of reading are the central determinants of learning effectiveness, no effort will be spent looking for less predictable behaviors or cognitive/emotive strategies that might have an effect on the outcomes of the learning process. Not surprisingly, the more predictable the strategy is at the outset, the .more likely it is to be found effective. Such conceptual hurdles are typical of the methodological choices that were made by researchers in the past. This is the crux of what could be called the “case for grounded theory research” in the area of self-regulated learning processes. p. 4

previous research has concentrated on curriculum-based instruction, as if no other basis for learning existed; it has tended to measure learning effectiveness in terms of how well it conformed to a predetermined, linear progression of concept acquisition; and it has assumed that the outcome of any learning activity is necessarily (or at least hopefully) identical to the instructor's prescription. Obviously, these assumptions were never reviewed in the light o f classic findings in the area of adult self-directed learning (otherwise, provision would have been made for such anomalies as the “analgorythmic” progression of the learning process (Danis and Tremblay, 1986). p. 5

One way to bypass the limitations of experimental hypothesis testing for the study of learning strategies is to collect and analyze self-reported learning stories. p. 5

Furthermore, the data collected in this fashion is learner-specific, which means that any ulterior gen.:. eralization will have to agree with, or at least take into account each informant's intimate experience of the learning process. This reduces considerably the threat to the study's reliability. p. 5

self-reported learning stories as a research method have shortcomings of their own. For example, informants are not usually prepared to make scientific generalizations about their learning processes, or at the very least, there is a chance that they do not share the researcher's theoretical framework. It cannot even be assumed that they agree on the general meaning of the concept, “learning.” Furthermore, there is no particular reason to believe that metacognition, or the ability to consciously analyze one's own learning processes, is something that all ·adults can do with the same level ofcompetence. p. 5

The overarching rationale is that learning strategies are things that learners do to make their learning more effective. Therefore, the strategies are by definition manifest in the learner's behavior. However, behavioral strategies can have good, bad , or no effects at all depending on who performs them and why. For example, jotting down notes or using a highlighter pen, while potentially beneficial tec@.iques for some, can be futile activities for persons who have not mastered the complex art of synthesizing information. In this sense, a learning strategy starts out as an intention, and can only be identified ex postfacto in terms of how effective it was in the context of the learner's original intention. p. 6

During their self-directed learning projects, 'learners typically perform a good number of actions or tasks that are, in other settings, only performed by a teacher or instructor. For example in a school or college environment, instructors are responsible for preparing course outlines, selecting appropriate readings or other resources, planning and supervising the sequence and pacing of learning events, and administering evaluations. In distance and computer assisted environments, the teaching tasks are passed on to an instructor-system, but they still essentially remain outside the learner's control. In effect, in formal environments, learners are responsible for a surprisingly small number of tasks involved in reaching their goals, while a large proportion remains the sole propriety of the instructor or instructor-system.· p. 6

most past research on. self-regulatory strategies has been conducted in schoolor college-based environments. It focused primarily on typical “learning tasks” performed by learners in formal (i.e. instructor-mediated) environments. This leaves a serious gap in our knowledge of learning strategies that are used by self-directed learners in non-formal environments, who p. 6

presumably are responsible also for performing the “teaching tasks” required by their project, however. p. 7

A multitude o f factors can influence the outcomes o f the teaching tasks, for example making decisions about which learning goals to pursue, what methods to use, or which activities should be modified or abandoned along the way. The learners' previous knowledge, their learning style preferences, the specific needs that are behind each learning goal, etc. are among the factors that determine which choices will be made and in what order of priority. These factors need to be identified and evaluated by the person in control of the teaching tasks, in this case the learner. Again, this underscores the importance of grounding our research in the informants' own perception and experience, not only by asking questions like, “What works for you?”, but perhaps more importantly, “Can you explain why?” p. 7

As part of a 3-credit course in adult education, a group of 15 adult graduate students were asked to complete and analyze an independent self-directed learning project, and to document the process in a series of a four-installment “learning journal.” p. 7

participants were given a list of suggested readings to consult during their SDL project, as an ongoing parallel activity. The readings covered several concepts related to self-directed learning, metacognition, learning styles, learning strategies, and self-regulation. Some sources were identified with the help of the first Delphi Study by Confessore & Confessore (1992). The intention was to provide students with a common conceptual framework to discuss their inner learning processes. Weekly meetings were scheduled for discussing and establishing links between the theory and the practice of self-directed learning. p. 8

The re:..submitted journals were then read and annotated by a team of researchers composed of myself and four research assistants. Our goal was to uncover specific proc- .esses, events, or dispositions that either helped or hindered selfdirected learning. p. 8

Interestingly, the difficulties were not experienced as mainly procedural in nature, for example dealing with technical problems such as time, proximity of . resources, etc. It seems that the teaching task (at this stage, selecting a learning goal) was considered a very personal challenge, in which the learners invested much of their self-concept. Typical remarks were, “Will this be too difficult for me? How do I know that I can learn this?” p. 9

who “breezed through” the goal-setting process ended up with expectations that were either too low (lacking in challenge), or that were set unreasonably high. p. 10

two types of approaches to goalsetting. One of them was more or less linear, with a three-step sequence clearly outlined: (1) select and formulate a learning goal; (2) find appropriate resources; (3) use the resources to gain knowledge. The other was more organically linked':-to the learners' environment and circumstances, and took into consideration a set of interrelated factors: (1) the resources that were available in the learner's environment; (2) the learner's own wishes, desires and aspirations; (3) the direction in which other learning goals are likely to develop as a consequence of this particular learning project. The second approach allowed more flexibility, and was more successful both in terms of learning effectiveness and learner satisfaction. p. 10

Breaking big goal into more achievable (and measureable) sub-goals p. 10

Eventually, the project yielded some unforeseen goals, quite different in scope from those formulated at the outset or from their ·detailed subgoals. For example, “maintaining a disciplined rehearsal schedule” and “appreciating beautiful melodies” represent wide-ranging transferable skills rather than specific measurable behaviors. Developing the ability to identify and appreciate “spinoff goals” seems to have been one of the most important metacognitive benefits derived from the goal-setting process. p. 10

It appears that initially at least, SDL was construed widely as a solitary pursuit that entailed some measure of loneliness and unaccompanied hardship. Grammatically speaking, the emphasis spontaneously fell on the noun “self' and the predicate “learning” rather than on the central copula, “directed.” It almost seemed as though the participants · were so thoroughly engaged in playing the self-directed “game” that they internalized an unstated rule, namely that they avoid seeking assistance from another person. p. 11

After a few weeks however, our discussion group came to the realization that by voluntarily relinquishing a portion of their learning autonomy (e.g., by asking someone to help them learn), the learners in no way diminished the degree to which their project remained under their direction. After that point, participants not only felt free to seek outside help, but for some reason did so with a vengeance. p. 11

It would seem that SDL presented the advantage, for that learner, of allowing her to “choose” her teachers. p. 11

some of them forming a “learning group” in order to pursue a common goal (“learning to use the internet”). p. 11

None of them sought the collaboration of experts outside their immediate social circle. p. 12

'~Where do I go from here?”. The journals at this point suggest an attitude of moderate disorientation, as the learners realize that they must also learn to make choices about the organization of their learning activities. p. 12

In order to give structure to the learning project, the self-directed learner must (1) look back at previous learning and analyze the sequence and pacing of the learning events; (2) evaluate the appropriateness of that organization in terms of their individual learning styles and preferences. It seems that after going over their previous learning · experiences, learners felt more confident with their responsibility as designers of their learning project. Furthermore, several participants mentioned the fact that because of this insight, they were not only better able to structure their project, but also became sensitized to the importance ofreflecting on their own learning process. p. 12

One issue that came up in the group discussions and in the journals was the issue o f transferability o f newly acquired skills. When a person “learns how to learn” one thing, does that mean they will be better prepared to learn something entirely different? In light of the participants' experience, the answer to that question seems to be yes and no. Yes, an improved understanding of the learning process can be transferred to other situations i f selfreflection is pursued seriously and with sufficient depth, independently of what was learned. And no, metacognition is contentspecific in the sense that you have to be learning something in order to analyze the process; inevitably, some aspects of that process are going to be limited to the specific subject matter. p. 12

several participants came to very similar conclusions about the nature of learning, and about the process of developing metacognitive awareness, although they were pursuing a range of learning goals as disparate as becoming a warmer, more empathic professional, to acquiring a functional mastery of the Woiflanguage. p. 13

Following the typology put forth by Long (1989), the learners achieved outcomes that can be grouped under two subheadings, namely control over the “psychological” dimensions, and the “pedagogical” dimensions ofthe learning process. p. 13

It seems that although they were asked to identify what they would want to learn, several students still needed to know what they should be learning. The implication is that somehow the learners had acquired a dependency on external control agents for selecting p. 13

Pedagogical control refers to the decisions that are typically made by an instructor regarding the organization of the learning activities. What should be learned first? Second? What are the resources that would be the most useful in the circumstances? Should they be selected on the basis of availability, or should some added effort be deployed to secure quality resources? How fast should the · learning sequence be completed? These aspects of the self-directed learning process seems to be the one that the learners touched on the least. After they had more or less decided on what they wanted to learn, it seems that how they would go about learning it was left ·largely to chance. Typically, the learners sought the assistance of a person in their immediate entourage who already “possessed” the knowledge that they sought. As a rule, these helpers were chosen in the learners' immediate social environment and little attention was given to other potential resources such as librarians, or other unfamiliar professionals. The pacing and sequence of learning events were also left more or less to fortuitous circumstance. Most of those pedagogical “decisions” were made on the basis of convenience and were left generally unplanned. This led to several “dead ends,” for example when learners, having completed a first part of their project, were left without any idea of what the subsequent learning steps should be. p. 14

REFERENCES p. 16

Confessore & Confessore. (1992). Selecting the key literature in self-directed learning. In Confessore, G., & Confessore, S., Guideposts to self-directed learning. King of Prussia, PA: Organization Design and Development, Inc: · p. 16