SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING WITHOUT KNOWING COMPLETELY 

                                           OF WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT 

                                                    Submitted by Clif DeWitt 

 
"Self-Directed Learning” (“SDL”) is one of several currently-used theories of how adults learn and how to leverage such knowledge to best assist adults to succeed in the learning process.  The Teal Center (“Adult Learning Theories”) article featured in the course module “Adult-Learning:  Self-Directed, Competent, and Connected” (upon which this short discussion is based) quotes Malcolm Knowles in defining SDL: 

 

 

 

 

It is also suggested that the Instructor assist the learner to “conduct a self-assessment  (again italics mine) of skill levels and needs to determine appropriate learning objectives” and, among other suggestions, “negotiate a learning contract (ibid to above) that sets learning goals, strategies, and evaluation criteria.” 

 

I have chosen the portions of the definition of the theory that raises issues of concern upon my initial consideration. It is clear as established through articles such as the one consulted in this discussion, course evaluations, and my own in-person experience as a course facilitator that the time has long passed (if it was ever here at all) where captive students bereft of input in their education process is force-fed knowledge by droning professors in a “Paper Chase” scenario who apparently drone to listen to themselves drone, stroking their own egos with little thought if students are benefiting and/or inspired by what they are droning on about. 

 

However, I have the following concerns about the definitions and suggestions presented above. In no particular order of importance (all roughly equal in raising concerns from my perspective): 

 

        2.  Students without prior knowledge or experience in a discipline do not have the needed  

             qualifications to effectively determine their own learning goals and specific methods to 

             obtain such. In my discipline of Economics, all learning is cumulative; each subject and  

             skill has as a foundation the subject and skill previously considered.  One a basic  

             fundamental general understanding is attained, then the door opens up with the  

             student having a sufficient skill set to gravitate to specific interests within the 
             discipline. 

 

       3.  Again, acknowledging the benefit of giving the student input and a relative measure of  

            choice in the progression of the course (the focus upon the individual), the article, as far              as I could see, gave little or no emphasis in the importance of working in teams, where  

            The team is itself accountable to meet assigned tasks AND the individual within the  

            team works under a dual accountability, both collectively as a team member to the  

            party issuing the task to the team, and to the team itself in shared responsibility for the 

            team meeting the assigned tasks. 

 

         4.  And finally, the student “negotiating a learning contract with the Instructor” implies an                 equal standing between student and that does not and should not exist in a classroom                 setting and again does not prepare students for what they will be meeting in their                         future professional life.  Any professional Supervisor worth their position of oversight  

               will be open to and will welcome suggestions and feedback in the goal of improving   

               employee morale, which will lead to more efficient and successful production. A  

               productive employee’s suggestion will carry weight; it may even incrementally adjust 

               processes and procedures. However, such rarely or ever set organizational policy. 

To my way of thinking, the student is automatically covered by as learning contract in  

the form of the course syllabus. If it can be made better from the individual’s  

perspective without adversely impacting the class collectively, any suggestion from  

the individual will be given due consideration. IF the course procedure and standards  

as specified in the syllabus are unacceptable to a student, they are free to choose a  

course with standards and procedures more to their liking. 

 

These, as stated at the beginning of the discussion, constitute my initial reactions to what I have read in the TEAL Center article. I look forward to seeing if my understanding and/or opinions adjust over the progression of the course. 

 

   https://padlet.com/message/teachingtakeways