Findings from different areas of research about the conditions of self-directed learning are rather ambiguous. From a phenomenographic view this situation is not surprising. We may even assume that different modes of self-directed learning might contribute to specific learning processes and outcomes and that for a more adequate explanation we rather need a differential than a general approach to self-direction.

In this poster results from current research are presented which are based on a merge of theoretical concepts related to “Approaches to Learning” and selected models of “Self-Directed or Self-Regulated Learning”.  

For this purpose elements from the respective concepts (with special focus on cognition, motivation, and emotion) have been identified and placed within the intersection of both concepts. The elaborated theoretical result is regarded as a foundation of the future differential concept which is currently submitted to a number of empirical studies and from which a sketch of the elaborated theoretical foundations are presented as well as first results of their empirical validation, originating from current and modified versions of existing instruments.

Although there is consensus about the efficiency of learning environments promoting self-direction in learning, findings from different areas of research are rather ambiguous and refer to multiple theories of self-directed or self-regulated learning (cf. Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Boekarts & Corno, 2005; Nenniger, 2005). Furthermore, studies about academic learning as well as research from the rather neglected area of vocational training demonstrate that analogous environments can lead to contradictory effects on the students’ acquiring abilities. From a phenomenographic view, this situation may underline that different modes of self-directed learning differentially contribute to the efficiency of learning processes as well as to the success of learning outcomes. It might be therefore argued that we rather need a differential than a general approach to self-direction for a more adequate explanation of the various effects on learning.

One solution might emerge from a combination of theories related to the concepts of “Approaches to Learning” (e.g. in Biggs, 1979; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Marton & Säljö, 1976; Säljö, 1979) with selected models of “Self-Directed or Self-Regulated Learning” (cf. Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000), where “Self-Direction in Learning” could be transformed into “Differential Approaches to Self-Direction”. In detail: With respect to the different concepts of “Self-Directed Learning“ or “Self-Regulated Learning” we already can detect common areas which have one origin in the description of motivated learning activity by Kuhl & Heckhausen (1996). Related to their “Rubicon model”, self-directed learning starts with a motivational phase that leads to the decision to plan and execute learning activity. It is followed by a volitional phase where the ongoing processes are described by dynamic interactions between motivational, emotional and cognitive elements and it concludes in a motivational phase that is characterised by evaluation and attribution of the learning episode. Another root can be found in the cyclic components of Boekaerts’ (1993) model of self-regulated learning respectively Nenniger’s (1999) model of motivated self-directed learning. With respect to the cyclic components in the course of learning, processes described in the Rubicon model are embedded in several cycles that may – recursively defined – evolve into a spiral course of learning where the initial state will be gradually unfolded up to a higher level.

Regarding self-directed learning as a phenomenon with the above characteristics, we can describe the motivational and volitional phases during the course of learning as well as the run through different cycles within the spiral course of learning as elements related to the different approaches to learning. Concepts like “Deep, Surface, Achieving/Strategic or Intermediate Approach to Learning” may serve to describe more detailed the ongoing processes and their characteristics and properties contributing to self-direction (cf. van den Brink, 2006). For this reason these descriptive elements may be used as refining complements in the description of self-direction in learning and be combined in order to elaborate a more differential concept of self-direction in learning.

In this poster the following results of multi-methods research will be presented:

(1) Results of a phenomenologically inspired inspection of the described characteristics from reports of research as well as from categorisations of instruments aiming at detecting their essence as the “Differential Approaches to Learning” within the “Self-direction in Learning”.

For this purpose, in a first step, elements from theories of learning, motivation, emotion and instruction have been identified and examined with respect to their specific contributions and relevance for concepts of “Self-Directed Learning” as well as for concepts of “Approaches to Learning”. In a second step these elements have been analysed in a way that identifies intersections of both concepts and serves as a foundation of an extended theory explaining self-direction in learning in a more differential way.

(2) Results of empirical studies starting from an elaboration of assessment tools based on the theoretical outcomes of phenomenological research.

For this purpose, in a first step, items of comparable categories of existing instruments assessing self-regulated learning and approaches to learning are selected with respect to their contribution to self-direction in learning, reformulated in direction of their self-regulatory dynamics and systematically combined in a new instrument representing a number of components of “self-direction in learning”. In a second step, different versions of the new instrument are submitted to student groups enrolled in courses with different subjects. In the third step analyses of the answers of the different student groups are performed in order to determine the internal structure of self-direction in learning as well as possible content- and environment sensitive structural variations.

The poster concludes with a discussion of the results of the ongoing research described in (1) and (2) and with a sketch of the way of scaffolding the intended theory about the dynamics of self-direction in learning together with first ideas about its further external validation in view of assessment and analysis of potentials for self-directed learning.

References

Biggs, J.B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381-394.

Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 149-167.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Boekaerts, M., Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 155-185.

Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom-Helm.

Kuhl, J. & Heckhausen, H. (1996). Motivation, Volition und Handlung. Goettingen: Hogrefe.

Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I - Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

Säljö, R. (1979). Learning about learning. Higher Education, 1979,14, 443-451.

Nenniger, P. (1999). On the role of motivation in self-directed learning. The 'Two-Shells-Model of motivated self-directed learning' as a structural explanatory concept. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14 (1), 71-86.

Nenniger, P. (2005). Commentary on self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 239-244.

Van den Brink, K. (2006). Conceptual relations between ‘Self-regulated Learning’ and ‘Approaches to Learning’. A Cross-Cultural Research with Portuguese and German Computer Science Students. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Koblenz-Landau. Landau.