The determinants of self-directed learning (SDL) among professionals of high attainment were examined through open-ended, semidirect~d interviews with a purposeful s~rnpl( of eight professional men and women who have acquired identifiable, high-level professional knowledge/skills typically taught in postsecondary learning institutions without ever having enrolled in postsecondary programs in their field. The informants were recognized professionals in the following fields: computer analysis, structural engineering, media technology, accounting, training, journalism, computer research systems, and management/new media. An analysis of the informants' comments revealed three main elements of the SDL process: (1) emergent goal structure (a fairly clear set of professional objectives from the outset) ; (2) unusual learning strategies (including hiring consultants on a one-time-only basis, delegating research tasks to employees, validating new knowledge by discussing business with competitors, and modifying learning objectives to match available resources); and (3) “autodidactic leap” (learners took actions that literally forced them to learn on their own, often under considerable pressure) . The interviews also established that successful SDL is determined by a combination of personality traits (includin3 creativity, optimism, high capacity for learning, and curiosity) and environmental factors (including particularly stimulating episodes on the job and a boss's or colleague's suggestion that the informant assume new functions or responsibilities) . p. 1

Indeed, the question, “What makes self-directed learning happen?” remains for the most part intact. p. 2

One of the first insights into that problem was an indirect outcome of Allen Tough's seminal work, “Learning Without a Teacher” (1967). In his study, Tough found that many adults display a considerable propensity for autonomous learning. But interestingly, the subjects in Tough's study were mostly people of relatively high educational attainment (Brookfield, 1985). Beyond Tough's oversight in convening his sample, it could be inferred from that observation that college-educated people could indeed possess more developed skills when it comes to self-directed learning. It can be further implied that academic learning, with its emphasis on formally set objectives, carefully designed learning activities, and expert-selected resources, induces learners to internalize the principles of instructional methodology to the point where eventually, they become competent to accomplish not only the learning tasks necessary to acquire new knowledge and skills, but also in conducting the teaching tasks involved in planning, designing, and carrying out their own instruction. It is in this sense that the subjects of Tough's initial study were able to “Learn Without a p. 2

her”: they were capable of taking on the instructional role, and thereby of being, in fact, their own “teacher”. p. 3

A second explanation for the occurrence of self-directed learning is simply that some people just are really good at learning, i.e. they can assimilate whatever infonnation they choose quickly and efficiently. One consequence of that explanation is that proficient learners should feel comfortable in many situations, whether each situation is to a degree self-directed, or other-directed. This ability for learning, in itself, does not point to a specific set of competencies for selfdirection. The difference between learning in either selfor other-directed mode will be largely the result of the specific contingencies of each situation, and not of any inner predisposition for autonomous learning in particular. ln many cases fo~ example, people become self-directed learners “by default” since there are no formal alternatives for achieving their goals. They do not learn because oftheir inner propensity for self-direction, but in spite ofthe non-availability of alternatives in formal settings. p. 3

A third explanation of “Why self-directed learning occurs” is that in certain circumstances, people will be more likely to acquire knowledge and skills autonomously. Organizational researchers have been particularly attracted to that model because it offers potential for creating learning environments. Exactly what those circumstances are has not been explored in detail, but Spear & Mocker ( 1984) offer a typology based on three polarized dimensions, namely whether the learning is “anticipated” or “unanticipated”, whether the learning episodes represent “single” or “multiple” events, and whether the (multiple) learning events are “related” or “unrelated'. Interestingly, of the three “elements” used by Spear & Mocker to derive their analysis (learner expectations, Ieamer skills, available resources), only one has to do with the world external to the learners themselves: the resources available in their environment. p. 3

three sets of explanations for the existence of self-directed learning, namely that SDL is a function of (1) the individual's self-instructional proficiency; (2) the Ieamer's builtin personality characteristics; and (3) fortuitous occurrences in the inunediate environment. p. 3

these explanations fall short of “explaining” the occurrence of self-directed learning since each of the antecedents, taken individually, do not offer a satisfactory causal chain. For example, two people with similar personalities, similar levels of formal education, and in similar circumstances, may or may not learn, or learn autonomously, or even share a similar approach to learning. Our hope in conducting this study has been that by looking at these three sets of factors together, and by examining the relationships between them, it would be possible to produce a wider view of what could be called the etiological foundations of self-directed learning for professional development. p. 3

Note that he specifically talks about SDL for professional development, not for interest p. 3

etiology - manner, causation (from medicine) p. 3

The assumptions were: (1) that as a learning mode, SDL is a tangible phenomenon; (2) that it leads to desirable consequences; and (3) that as a concept it is distinct from “other-directed learning”. p. 4

leanling projects were sought out according to the following criteria: they should be directly related to professional development (tangibility); they should have led to some significant achlevement (desirability); and the possibility ofpursuing the same learning in a “formal” setting should have been present, therefore confirming our inf01mants' preference for self-directed learning over fonnal alternatives (distinctness). p. 4

The problem of distinctness can be better understood by considering that in some cases, selfdirected learning occurs because it is the only means available to attain one's objectives. For example, a parent living in a remote area decides to learn about childhood development through reading. In such a case, self-directed learning cannot be presented as a distinct mode of learning that can be opposed to other modes. Learners merely learn “on their own” because there is no other way to achieve their goals. Inversely, many professionals are required to obtain their qualifications exclusively through the fonnal schooling system. Again, it caP..not be said that choose formal over self-directed learning. In both situations, it is irrelevant to ask why self-directed learning occurred or did not occur. p. 4

Eight professional men and women of high achievement, possessing no post-secondary schooling in their field p. 4

If the assumption is tme that self-directed learners manage their own teaching tasks, an important part of the SDL process, it would be interesting to find out just what those tasks are from their own point ofview. The infmmants were asked to talk about WHAT they did when they learned on their own. Three main elements were found, namely an emergent goal structure; a set of specific learning strategies; and the ”autodidactic leap”. p. 5

At the outset, the learners typically had a fairly clear set of professional objectives. However, their goals had little in common with those usually formulated by educators in the guise of “anticipated learning outcomes”. From the self-directed learners' point ofview, the real learning outcomes were not so much the knowledge and skills acquired through p. 5

ing, but the actual effects that these new skills would hav~ on their lives. p. 7

Dubin (1990) has referred to the “valence” of the learning activity as the basis for the learner's decision to engage in the learning process. In ·.our study, the actual learning goals were not identified by the learners before starting their learrung process, but they were rather constructed heuristically throt;.ghout their progression toward their professional goals. In this way, learners were able to adapt to the particular contingencies of the moment, without losing sight oftheir overall intent. This finding confirms the prevalence ofa non-linear, or emergent, goal structure in self-directed learning. p. 7

Unusual/earning strategies. Learning strategies employed by the learners were as diverse as they were creative. Some of the most unusual strategies encountered were: hiring consultants on a one-time-only basis; delegating research tasks to employees; validating new knowledge by discussing with business competitors; modifying learning objectives to match the available resources (rather than the other way around). Not much time was spent learning in an “academic” mode, i.e. by synthesizing information from theoretical treatises. p. 7

The autodidactic leap. One of the most prominent features common to all projects was the initial leap taken by each learner at the outset of their project. The “autodidactic leap” can be characterized as an action taken by the learners, beyond which they had no other choice but to learn on their own, often under considerable pressure. This point-of-no-return left the learners virtually “flying without a net”. In each case, although the actions taken were different, theresults vvere strikingly similar. One informar,t, early in his career, actually falsified his qualifications in order to get a job. He then had to lea1 n very quickly indeed when, to his dismay, he was hired on the spot as a computer programmer. A journalist quit her well-paying job in order to travel full-time to become “more knowledgeable about the world”. Upon her Ieturn, she made a reputation as one ofthe best qualified writers 'Jl1 international affairs. San1, an engineer without a high-school degree, admits that he still takes the occasional leap. At the time of the interview, he was preparing a bid for rebuuilding saltwater piers for the port authority. “I have never built anything like this, he says. The technology is brand new. I collected just enough documentation to make the tender; ifmy bid wins, then there will be time to develop the expertise.” In all cases, the autodida,ctic leap represents one of the most prominent features of the process of selfdirected learning for professional development. p. 7

Personal evaluation of personal traits: strong confidence in self-learning skills, and low confidence in 'other-directed learning' situations (formal) p. 8

A number of these “personal theories” had to do with the perceived shortcomings of formal education. Others involved the need for upgrading work skills, and for greater initiative on the part of individuals in society. p. 8

their generalized aversion lor formal schooling was attributed to their own personal shortcomings, rather than to a belief that formal schooling could be an inappropriate way of learning for others as well. p. 8

The most important external influences for the informants were related to their work environment. For some, the trigger was a particularly successful or stimulating episode on the job. For others, motivation was reinforced by a boss or a colleague who suggested they take on new functions or responsibilities. These experiences seem to have played a major role in building the learners' self-confidence in preparation for the “autodidactic leap”. p. 8

One infom1ant realized that he was capable of learning on his OW11 when an apathetic teacher failed to provide suitable instruction in an introductory statistics course. The fact that he learned despite that shortcoming reinforced his belief in himself as an independent learner. p. 9

Many of the factors could just have well have "gone the other way" - sole caretaker of young child, unhappy school experiences. p. 9

a tentative pattern emerges (see fig. 2). The individuals' self-perceived characteristics intersect with their need for professional development. Because of environmental pressures and opportunities, the “autodidactic leap” is made. The learners, rather than engage in a carefully plam1ed learning program, instead p. 9

it advantageous to identify opportunities to learn within their environment. In this sense. self-directed learning as a process is more akin to creative entrepreneurship than to programmed lcaming. p. 10

To summarize, our model of self-directed professional development incorporates the following elements: 1. A strongly felt need for self-development; 2. Asetofself-ascribedvalues,characteristics,andbeliefs; 3. The autodidactic leap , a phenomenon described by all subjects; 4. Environmental factors that are identified as “opportunities to learn'”; 5. An unfolding o f successive learning objectives that are linked to the learners· growing awareness of their professional fteld. p. 10

First, the literature raises the conjecture that formal education actually improves skills for autonomous lcaming. In the past, “learning to learn” has often been touted as the ultimate purpose of fOrmal education. lf it is true that formal schooling represents a credible venue for developing such skills, then surely this is one of the most important achievements of the educational system. By taking a closer look at the processes through which highly proficient leamers acquire their skills, perhaps it would be possible to develop a curriculc..li that addresses that issue. · However. if self-directed learning skills are acquired “by default”' and more or less universally through higher learning, it has not been shown that these skills cannot be acquired otherwise. Among th!;;) informants in our sample, some had very little fonnal education, while nevertheless exhibiting a remarkable capacity tbr self-directed !canting. Several other studies support the notion that self-directed learning, in fact, occurs in every stratum of society, and in populations with extremely diverse educational backgrounds (Armstrong. 1971; Brookticld, 1982; Kondani, 1982; Serre. 1977). l-Ienee. i f tbrmallearning represents one path for acquiring the skills for selfdirected learning, it is certainly not th!.! only one. Oue implication for future research is that some generic experiences could lead to an incrca'lcd capacity for self-directed learning. p. 12

One conclusion that can be derived from the now-famous (and exceedingly entmtaining) exchange surrounding that issue in the journal Adult Education Quarterly a fev\' years ago (Field. 1989; Bonham, 1991; Field, 1991; Guglielmino, 1989; Long, 1989;), and more recently in the works of G. Straka (1995) is that the belief in either the specificity or non- p. 12

specificity of SOL as a learner characteristic is largely, to this day, a matter of opinion. p. 13

In fact, it was discovered that self-directed learning often occurs as a response to an zdverse, rather than a propitious contingency. p. 13

Our observation was that the informants perceived leaming as a very real means to solve very real problems, and that hostile conditions only seemed to streng:hen their resolve to succeed. It is this “problem-solving” quality that makes self-directed learning, in the context of professional development, mo1·e likely (and not, as was expected, less likely) to occur in conditions marked by a prevalence of opposing factors. p. 13

REFERE:\'CES p. 13