SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL

By D.R. GARRISON

D.R. GARRISON is Professor at University of Alberta This article was accepted for publication under prior
editorship.

ABSTRACT

Self-directed learning is a core theoretical construct distinguishing adult education as a field of study. Most
of the concept's emphasis teas been on the external control and management of learning tasks. In an attempt
to expand the scope of self-directed learning, this paper presents a comprehensive theoretical model. The
proposed model integrates self-management (contextual control), self-monitoring (cognitive responsibility),
and motivational (entering and task) dimensions to reflect a meaningful and worthwhile approach to self-
directed learning. Explicating the cognitive and motivational dimensions of self-directed learning is
identified as an area requiring further research.

Self-directed learning is a central concept in the study and practice of adult education. While it has a rich
history and is central to the field, the concept, nevertheless, carries considerable confusion and
misunderstanding (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Candy, 1991). Until recently, the overriding theme of self-
directed learning has been the external management of the learning process. In this conception, the learner
exercises a great deal of independence in deciding what is worthwhile to learn and how to approach the
learning task, regardless of entering competencies and contextual contingencies. In this regard, Candy (1991)
argued that the "ideology of autonomy" surrounding self-directed learning has restricted its
conceptualization and created imbalances when implementing it in an educational setting.

As important as the construct is to adult education, little attention has been directed to the learning process
itself--the cognitive and motivational dimensions of learning. Without this perspective, self-directed
learning lacks the comprehensiveness of a foundational concept. To address these concerns, a model of self-
directed learning is proposed which integrates external management (contextual control), internal
monitoring (cognitive responsibility), and motivational (entering and task) issues associated with learning in
an educational context. As such, self-directed learning is defined here as an approach where learners are
motivated to assume personal responsibility and collaborative control of the cognitive (self-monitoring) and
contextual (self-management) processes in constructing and confirming meaningful and worthwhile learning
outcomes.

Self-directed learning is viewed from a "collaborative constructivist" perspective. A collaborative

constructivist perspective of learning is intended to be positioned between the more extreme radical and
social constructivist positions. A collaborative perspective has the individual taking responsibility for
constructing meaning while including the participation of others in confirming worthwhile knowledge.
Meaningfulness and worthwhileness reflect the cognitive and social perspectives of an educational
experience. Therefore, meaning and knowledge are both personally and socially constructed. This balanced
integration of cognitive and collaborative learning processes, therefore, defines learning outcomes as both
personally meaningful and socially worthwhile. The integration and coordination of cognitive and social
concerns is seen by Dewey (1969) to be the ultimate challenge in designing an educational experience.

It is this challenge of integrating the cognitive-motivational and social dimensions of self-directed learning
in an educational setting that is the focus of this paper. My purpose here is to expand conceptual foundations
by including contextual (management), cognitive (monitoring), and conative (motivational) dimensions. The
need for a comprehensive model of self-directed learning is assessed in the next section.

The Concept of Self-Directed Learning

Self-directed learning may well be the most prominent and well researched topic in the field of adult
education (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Long & Redding, 1991). While the reasons for this are surely
complex, one important reason has to be the intuitively appealing desire to be in control of deciding what to
learn and how to learn it. It also fits with the desire and need felt by most adults to continue to learn. These
innately human characteristics are inherent in the concept of self-directed learning. As Knowles (1975)
stated, self-directed learning is not an educational fad, but a "basic human competence--the ability to learn
on one's own" (p. 17).

The apparent need to "ream on one's own" has been a persistent theme in self-directed reaming. For this
reason, it is not surprising to find that self-directed learning has its genesis in independent and informal adult
reaming contexts (Tough, 1971). As such, writers have largely focused on external issues of control
(Brookfield, 1986; Garrison, 1993). An important fuming point in conceptualizing the construct occurred with
the recognition that it lacked a cognitive perspective (Mezirow, 1985). Mezirow suggested that a critical
awareness of meaning and self-knowledge is a key dimension to self-directedness. Similarly, Brookfield
(1985, 1986) argued that the full adult form of self-directed reaming is realized when external activities and
internal reflective dimensions are fused.

Long (1989) identified three dimensions of self-directed reaming: the sociological, pedagogical, and
psychological. Long contended that much of the discussion around self-directed reaming has focused on the
sociological (independent task management) and pedagogical (application in educational contexts) issues. He
expressed amazement at the fact that the psychological (cognitive) dimension had been generally ignored,
stating that the "critical dimension in self-directed learning is not the sociological variable, nor is it the
pedagogical factor. The main distinction is the psychological variable" (Long, 1989, p. 3).

While the social context for reaming has been and should remain a significant factor, the lack of a specific
psychological or cognitive dimension has been somewhat ironic, considering the humanistic origins of the
concept. Rogers (1969), for example, used the concept in terms of both a cognitive and affective perspective.
For Rogers, self-direction was largely about taking responsibility for the internal cognitive and motivational
aspects of learning. The emphasis was on cognitive freedom and the ultimate goal was to learn how to learn.

The phrase "self-directed learning" invokes both social and cognitive issues--that is, issues of "self-
direction" and "learning," respectively. In adult education, however, most of the focus has been on self-
direction (i.e., self-management of learning tasks). As such, the construct has been largely defined in terms of
external control and facilitation, rather than internal cognitive processing and learning. Long's (1989)
position was that, without the psychological or cognitive dimension, the focus is on teaching not learning. He
argued that: "Pedagogical procedures whether imposed by a teacher or freely chosen by the learner remain
pedagogical or 'teaching' activities. Hence we have other-teaching or perhaps self-teaching but not self-
learning" (p. 5). This distinction between external control and internal cognitive responsibility is the basis for
the self-directed learning framework and model presented here.

More recently, Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) have proposed an interesting framework by expanding the self-
directed learning construct to include a personality disposition. Their framework is based on the "distinction
between the process of self-directed learning and the notion of self-direction as a personality construct" (p.
23). The two dimensions in the framework correspond to transactional or instructional methods and learner
personality characteristics. This distinction between process and personality evolved largely from the work of
Oddi (1987), and lies at the heart of Brockett and Hiemstra's model.

While the latter model is clearly a positive development, the psychological dimension appears limited by the
fact that it represents only a personality factor or disposition to be self-directed. In fact, it is suggested that
personality factors, as defined by the Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory (Odd), 1986), may be better
interpreted as motivational dispositions (which will be discussed). In their model, cognitive and
metacognitive issues related to the process of learning are addressed only tangentially. While they believe
that critical reflection is an important element of "learner self-direction," it is unclear how this is a personality
characteristic. The challenge is to take a more comprehensive perspective and integrate cognitive and
metacognitive processes in self-directed learning.
Hammond and Collins (1991) assumed a more comprehensive perspective by including critical awareness.
They described a critical self-directed learning process that goes beyond "narrowly defined personal
learning needs" to include a larger social and emancipatory perspective (i.e., critical awareness and social
action). They advocated challenging reamer beliefs and assumptions largely through reflective activities.
Considerable emphasis is given to the intellectual climate along with the social climate. While briefly
describing a critical framework, much of their work is devoted to the critical practice of self-directed
learning.

More recently, this author explored the links between self-directed learning and critical thinking (Garrison,
1992). In essence, this was an attempt to integrate external control and internal reaming responsibilities.
Based on the recognition of self-directed reaming and critical thinking as two dominant constructs in adult
education, it was suggested that they reflected complementary perspectives of the reaming process. Self-
directed learning centered around the control of reaming activities, while critical thinking reflected the
cognitive aspects of the learning process. Moreover, the critical thinking construct reflected the complex
cognitive processes associated with constructing personal meaning and worthwhile knowledge developed
through consensual understanding.

Meaningful and worthwhile reaming must view external task control and cognitive responsibility concerns as
integral and reciprocal constructs. Self-direction that is simply focused on task control neglects the critical
issues of setting goals that are relevant and meaningful, cognitive strategies, and opportunities to question
accepted orthodoxies. An adult learner who is fully self-directed has moved beyond simple task control and
has learned to think critically and construct meaning in ill-defined and complex content areas. To be
theoretically useful, self-directed reaming must go beyond task control and include the process of accepting
responsibility to construct meaning and to cognitively monitor the learning process itself (i.e., metacognitive
awareness). Furthermore, motivational states should be included, given their mediating effect on both task
management and cognitive monitoring.

A Comprehensive Model

The self-directed reaming model described here includes three overlapping dimensions: self-management
(task control), self-monitoring (cognitive responsibility), and motivation (entering and task) (Figure 1). While
each dimension is discussed separately, in practice, they are intimately connected. This creates special
problems with ordering the discussion. It is very difficult to discuss one dimension without concurrently
considering the others. However, the complexity of an integrated approach would defeat the goal of a
parsimonious explication of each dimension. Therefore, since self-directed reaming has traditionally
emphasized task management and external control, we begin with the more familiar concept of self-
management, that is, the transactional (collaborative) control of external tasks and activities. This dimension
encompasses the sociological and pedagogical issues that Long (1989) earlier identified.

Self-Management

Self-management is concerned with task control issues. It focuses on the social and behavioral
implementation of learning intentions, that is, the external activities associated with the learning process.
This dimension concerns the enactment of learning goals and the management of learning resources and
support. Questions of goal management, learning methods, support, and outcomes are collaboratively and
continuously assessed and negotiated. For example, learners should be provided with choices of how they
wish to proactively carry out the learning process. Material resources should be available, approaches
suggested, flexible pacing accommodated, and questioning and feedback provided when needed. In this way,
self-management of the learning process will facilitate and energize meaningful and continuous learning.

The term "self-management" is used here to indicate an aspect of external task control specific to the
management of learning activities, which are intimately linked with goal setting and metacognitive strategies.
However, this is not a common term. The essence of the concept can be found in the self-regulated
motivational literature (Corno, 1994; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). While, in practice, self-management cannot
be separated from cognitive (self-monitoring) and conative (motivation and volition) control strategies, it is
intended to reflect the social setting (resource management) and what learners do during the learning process.

Consistent with a collaborative constructivist view of learning, the individual does not construct meaning in
isolation from the shared world. This is particularly true of self-directed learning in an educational context.
Increased learner control affects the transactional balance between teacher and learner. From an adult
education perspective, Candy states "increasing learner-control demands a negotiated consensus between the
parties involved" (1991,p. 243), that is, the control over management of learning tasks is realized in a
collaborative relationship between teacher and learner. The teacher assumes considerable responsibility in
determining and maintaining an appropriate dynamic balance of external control.

Self-management involves shaping the contextual conditions in the performance of goal-directed actions.
While it is possible for some mature learners to rise above a learning context where they have little control, a
collaborative learning environment where a learner's input can shape goals and activities is more conducive
to constructing meaningful knowledge (Prawat, 1992; Resnick, 1991). In an educational context, self-
management does not mean students are independent and isolated learners. Facilitators provide the support,
direction and standards necessary for a successful educational outcome. Therefore, in what might seem a
paradox, self-management of learning in an educational context is properly a collaborative experience.

Management control of learning activities depends upon a complex array of variables. However, in essence,
external management dynamics (task control) are determined by balancing the factors of proficiency,
resources, and interdependence (Garrison, 1993). Proficiency represents the abilities and skills of the
facilitator and learner. Resources encompasses a range of support and assistance available in the educational
setting. Finally, interdependence reflects institutional or subject norms and standards as well as learner
integrity and choice. Sustained collaborative consideration of the many variables associated with these factors
will help determine the appropriate degree of learner self-management.

Control does not translate into social independence or freedom from influence. Educational self-management
concerns the use of learning materials within a context where there is an opportunity for sustained
communication. Self-management of learning in an educational context must consider the opportunity to test
and confirm understanding collaboratively. This is an important aspect of knowledge development. Issues of
control must balance educational norms and standards (e.g., what counts as worthwhile knowledge) with
student choice and the responsibility for constructing personal meaning. Participants must feel comfortable
with the degree of perceived and negotiated control of learning tasks and activities. Thus, considerable
importance is placed on communication capabilities and opportunities in determining the appropriate balance
of control and degree of reamer self-management.

Increased learner control through self-management brings with it increased responsibilities, particularly with
regard to the learning process itself and the construction of meaning. Perhaps the immediate benefit of
increased self-management is increased awareness of the need to make learning more meaningful, that is, to
take greater responsibility in the monitoring of the reaming process itself. As will be argued, it is very
difficult to get reamers to accept responsibility for meaningful learning outcomes when they have little
control of, and input into, the learning process.

To this point, in describing the proposed model, we have identified the transactional or andragogical aspects
of self-directed learning in adult education (e.g., the organization and implementation of the educational
experience). The next two dimensions of the model--self-monitoring and motivation--represent the cognitive
dimensions of self-directed learning. These recognize perceived cognitive abilities and the importance of
learners assuming responsibility for monitoring their motivational and cognitive strategies.

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring addresses cognitive and metacognitive processes: monitoring the repertoire of learning
strategies as well as an awareness of and an ability to think about our thinking (plan and modify thinking
according to the learning task/goal). Self-monitoring is the process whereby the learner takes responsibility
for the construction of personal meaning (i.e., integrating new ideas and concepts with previous knowledge).
Responsibility for self-monitoring reflects a commitment and obligation to construct meaning through critical
reflection and collaborative confirmation. To self-monitor the reaming process is to ensure that new and
existing knowledge structures are integrated in a meaningful manner and learning goals are being met. It is
central to assessing the quality of learning outcomes and to shaping strategies for further learning activities.

Self-monitoring is synonymous with responsibility to construct meaning. This may mean adding to and
enriching existing knowledge structures or modifying and developing new knowledge. Responsibility in
reaming is interpreted as a commitment to construct meaning by assimilating and accommodating new
concepts with previous knowledge. To be responsible for one's own learning necessitates a willingness and
ability to self-monitor the learning process. Responsibility for self-monitoring, however, is not independent
of contextual influences surrounding control of the educational transaction. Self-monitoring is dependent
upon both internal and external feedback.

Internally, cognitive and metacognitive processes are involved with self-monitoring the construction of
meaning. Cognitive ability is a core variable in self-directed learning. Learners will not succeed and persist
in their learning without cognitive abilities and available strategies. The degree of self-direction will depend
very much upon the learner's proficiency (abilities and strategies) in conjunction with contextual and
epistemological demands. Bandura (1986) suggests that there are three self-regulated learning processes:
self-observation, self-judgement, and self-reaction. That is, during the learning process students self-monitor
their progress by observing, judging, and reacting to their tasks and activities. Further investigation has
revealed fourteen self-regulated learning strategies consistent with this and other research (Zimmerman,
1989). Other cognitive skills and strategies related to self-regulation are examined by Winne (1995).

Metacognitive proficiency is very much associated with the ability to be reflective and think critically.
Reflective learning encourages the learner to relive the experience in order to "develop learners who are
capable of monitoring themselves in a variety of situations" (Candy, Harri-Augstein, &Thomas, 1985, p. 115).
Self-monitoring facilitates a metacognitive perspective on learning and a generalized ability to learn. Models
of critical thinking not only help describe the metacognitive processes associated with self-directed learning,
but can be of great assistance in helping students become metacognitively responsible for their learning
(Garrison, 1992) For example, learners must understand whether the requirements of the task are to assess the
state of current knowledge, search for additional information, explore new conceptualizations. or confirm new
meaning through discourse or action. To assume cognitive responsibility is to self-monitor the reaming
process, assess outcomes. and develop new strategies to achieve intended outcomes.

Internal feedback alone, however. may lack accuracy and explicitness (Butler & Winne, 1995). The
possibility and value of incidental feedback from serendipitous experience in an educational setting
notwithstanding, it is the teacher who can provide efficient and effective feedback for purposes of self-
monitoring the quality (meaning and validity) of the learning outcome. The challenge is for the learner to
integrate this external feedback with his or her own internal meaning assessment. To be aware of this internal
and external input, and to use it to construct meaning and shape strategies is to self-monitor learning
cognitively and metacognitively.

Self-monitoring is intimately linked to the external management of reaming tasks and activities. An
interesting and important issue arises with regard to responsibility (self-monitoring) and control (self-
management). The dilemma is whether responsibility must precede control or vice versa. Although
theoretically they go hand in hand, it is very difficult for learners to assume responsibility for their own
learning without feeling they have some control over the educational transaction. When the teacher controls
goals and activities, students are placed in the position of being responsible for decisions made by the teacher.
Without choice and collaboration, it may well be unrealistic to expect students to assume responsibility for
their learning.

Unfortunately, the reality in many formal educational institutions is that control is concentrated in the hands
of teachers and administrator. This is changing. however, with the increasing demand for lifelong learning
(learning how to learn) and network learning (e.g., the Internet) opportunities. These trends toward
meaningful and relevant learning goals are shifting the balance of control from teacher to learner

While it is argued that perceived control should precede responsibility. absolute learner control may adversely
affect or reduce the efficiency of achieving quality learning outcomes. There is evidence that collaborative
control results in more effective self-monitoring and, therefore. improved performance (Butler & Winne,
1995). At the same time, self-directed learning tends to be fortuitiously shaped by the environment-what
Spear & Mocker (1984) call organizing circumstance. Sharing control of learning activities and tasks
provides opportunities for instructional support while encouraging students to assume cognitive
responsibility. Finally, it is possible that absolute learner control may reduce persistence' a point addressed
below.

The inseparability of monitoring and managing the learning process is further complicated by motivational
concerns. Motivation is a pivotal issue in self-directed learning. It has an enormous influence on learners
assuming responsibility and control of the learning process. When considering motivational influences on
learning, there is a need to include both a pre-implementation or planning phase and an implementation or
action phase.

Motivation

Motivation plays a very significant role in the initiation and maintenance of effort toward learning and the
achievement of cognitive goals. Our limited understanding of the link between motivation and cognition
notwithstanding, "we do know quite enough to be certain that motivational factors have enormous practical
influences on the kinds of cognitive activities that underlie human learning" (Howe, 1987, p. 145).
Motivation reflects perceived value and anticipated success of learning goals at the time learning is initiated
and mediates between context (control) and cognition (responsibility) during the learning process.

To begin to understand the pervasive influence of motivational factors, we need to distinguish between the
process of deciding to participate (entering motivation) and the effort required to stay on task and persist (task
motivation). Since entering motivation directly influences effort expended on learning tasks' it is important to
appreciate how entering motivational states are established. Entering motivation establishes commitment to a
particular goal and the intent to act.

Task motivation is the tendency to focus on and persist in learning activities and goals. As Corno (1989)
suggests, "Motivational factors . . . shape intentions and fuel task involvement" (pp. 114-115).

The process of selecting goals and intentions and deciding to participate establishes the student's entering
motivational state. In a sense, this is the motivational reserve or fuel which the student possesses when
initiating a learning experience. Although much can happen to influence motivation during the learning
process, effort and persistence will be greatly influenced by the entering motivational state. The theoretical
challenge is to define the variables that influence the decisional process leading to a goal commitment. The
decisional process to participate in a learning experience described here is based upon the work of Vroom
(1964) and Pintrich (1989) and was influenced by Rubenson's expectancy-valence paradigm for recruitment
(Garrison, 1990). The relevance of this theoretical framework arises not only from its extensive research base,
but, more importantly, because of Rubenson's work on participation and recruitment in adult education and
my own explication of the framework's decision-making process using the concept of control.

A student's entering motivational state results from rational intentions with regard to selecting learning goals.
This is not to say that decisions are entirely free or voluntary (Stalker, 1993). As we shall see, contextual
contingencies very much shape our choice of goals and decision to participate. Notwithstanding this caveat,
establishing the entering motivational state is concerned with choosing goals. It is hypothesized that entering
motivation is largely determined by valence and expectancy (Figure 2). Students will have a higher entering
motivational state if they perceive that learning goals will meet their needs and are achievable. Entering
motivation can be perceived as "commitment--the coming together of attitudes, feelings, and goals"
(Thompson, 1992, p. 103). In a learning context, valence reflects the attraction to particular learning goals.
The factors that determine valence are personal needs (values) and affective states (preferences). Personal
need reflects the importance or worth of particular learning goals. Needs and values reflect the reasons for
persisting in a learning task. Closely associated with needs are affective states. This set of variables is
composed of attitudes toward self (e.g., self-esteem), task (e.g., anxiety), and goal preference.

Expectancy in a learning context refers to the belief that a desired outcome can be achieved. This factor is
composed of personal and contextual characteristics that influence goal achievement. Personal characteristics
(competency) reflect the perceived skills, ability and knowledge of the individual while assessing goals.
Perceptions of ability or self-efficacy affect the decision to participate as well as the choice of goals and
learning environments. Contextual characteristics (contingency) reflect perceived institutional resources or
barriers as well as ideological and socioeconomic constraints. Together, competency and contingency
assessments represent the mediating construct of "anticipated control."

Anticipated control is an important perception when assessing expectancy of success and making decisions
regarding goal-directed behavior. It is believed that control expectations "influence the direction of much of
our behavior; they help to determine where we invest our achievement energies" (Weisz, 1983, p. 234).
Anticipated control reflects the perceived ability and opportunity to exercise control over the learning
process. If students are to have an expectation of control, they must have some choice over their educational
goals. Providing opportunities for control and choice from the beginning can significantly strengthen the
entering motivational state, which subsequently influences whether students will become self-directed and
persist in their learning tasks.

Maintenance of intention during the learning process brings into focus the second motivational phase--tasks
motivation. To direct and sustain motivation students must become active learners. Task motivation is
integrally connected to task control and self-management. In addition, task motivation is conceived as being
closely associated with the issue of volition. Volition is concerned with sustaining intentional effort or
diligence, which influences persistence and task performance. In the "context of learning, volition refers to
bringing discordant affective and executional preferences in line with one's task goals" (Kanfer, 1989, p. 381).
Corno (1993) argues that volition is a key aptitude for educational success.

Its function is metamotivational in directing and sustaining effort toward learning goals. This
metamotivational mechanism is necessary if learners are to assume responsibility for the achievement of
desired educational outcomes, and represents a direct link to the self-monitoring dimension of self-directed
learning. Moreover, in adult education, it has been shown that volition or persistence also reflects broader
issues around the integration of educational and social (e.g., family) responsibilities (Garrison, 1987;
Thompson, 1992).

Motivation to assume responsibility in learning is influenced by external conditions and internal states. While
extrinsic motivation may well complement and enhance intrinsic motivation, externally imposed tasks and
criteria can also reduce willingness to assume responsibility for learning. The challenge is to have students
internalize external goals and rewards which are often more dominant during the entering stages of learning.
To encourage intrinsically motivated learning, students must see opportunities to share control and to
collaborate in the planning and implementation of the learning process. For example, students should be
provided, at the very least, with an opportunity to understand why specific objectives are worthwhile, if not to
select relevant objectives from among several options, shape approaches, and select appropriate learning
tasks.

Intrinsic motivation is essential for meaningful and worthwhile learning, that is, achieving quality
educational outcomes. Entwistle (1981) states that "interest and intrinsic motivation are likely to foster a deep
approach, and an active search for personal meaning" (p. 259). Intrinsic motivation leads to responsible and
continuous learning. If these are the worthy aims of education, it is imperative that we create conditions
where students become increasingly motivated by authentic interest and desire to construct personal meaning
and shared understanding (worthwhile knowledge). Understanding these conditions is, in essence, what the
exploration of self-directed learning is about. Authentic self-directed learning becomes self-reinforcing and
intrinsically motivating.

Motivation and responsibility are reciprocally related and both are facilitated by collaborative control of the
educational transaction. Issues of motivation, responsibility and control are central to a comprehensive
concept of self-directed learning. Moreover, it is also suggested that self-direction may be the only approach
to facilitate "deep" or meaningful learning outcomes. Learners are intrinsically motivated to assume
responsibility for constructing meaning and understanding when they have some control over the reaming
experience. In terms of long range educational goals, self-directed learning is also a necessity if students are
to learn how to learn and become continuous learners.

Discussion

The self-directed learning model described here attempts to integrate contextual, cognitive, and motivational
dimensions of the educational experience. The fundamental argument for understanding and facilitating self-
direction is its potential to improve the quality of learning outcomes in the short and long terms.

Self-direction is contradictory to the transmission of the text from teacher to students without interpretation
and construction of deep meaning. As seen here, self-directed learning is consistent with a collaborative
constructivist view of learning that encourages students to approach learning in a deep and meaningful
manner. Meaningful learning outcomes would be very difficult to achieve if students were not self-directed
in their learning. Taking responsibility to construct personal meaning is the essence of self-directed
learning. At the same time, taking responsibility for one's own learning does not mean making decisions in
isolation. The challenge for teachers is to create the educational conditions that will facilitate self-direction.
As Thomas and Harri-Augstein (1985) state, "If they do not negotiate a shared purpose, the learner and the
teacher are each likely to draw different inferences about the learning that has, or has not, been achieved" (p.
309). Moreover, with shared purpose, there is a concomitant increase in entering motivation which is likely to
sustain learning activities.

During the learning process consideration needs to be given to transactional (task control) issues and to
sustaining motivation. Corno (1994) suggests that "effort is a function of person-situation interaction, and
occurs when available external and internal resources combine" (p. 232). These resources include teachers
and materials as well as the cognitive abilities and motivation of students. The challenge for teachers is to
create the conditions where "mindful investment of effort" is realized by students. Through collaboration and
control students learn to monitor and manage their thoughts and behavior. It appears that shared control leads
to intrinsic motivation and then to responsibility.

Much work remains to further our understanding of self-directed learning. A particular challenge is to
explore in greater detail the cognitive and motivational dimensions. One line of research that may prove
fruitful is to explore the links between self-direction and critical thinking. Critical thinking has been identified
as an important area of study for adult education (Brookfield, 1990). Models of critical and reflective thinking
have been proposed for the field (Brookfield, 1988; Garrison, 1991; Mezirow, 1990). These models serve two
purposes. First, they provide a comprehensive perspective of the thinking-reaming cycle which can be used
to help students metacognitively monitor their learning. Second, they can be used to identify specific
cognitive strategies associated with various phases of the thinking-learning process.

To be a self-directed learner is to be a critical thinker. As Mezirow (1985) stated, "Becoming critically aware
of what has been taken for granted about one's own reaming is the key to self-directedness" (p. 17).
Brookfield (1985) also argued for the inclusion of critical and reflective thinking in his redefinition of self-
directed learning: a "fully adult form of self-directed learning is evident when the techniques of self-
direction [management] are married to a critical scrutiny [monitoring] of existing values, beliefs and social
forms . . . involving an internal change of consciousness" (p. 63). Consistent with these views, the cognitive
development literature may further enhance our understanding of the learning process. For example, King
and Kitchener (1994) have provided empirical data supporting a developmental framework of critical and
reflective thinking in ill-structured knowledge domains.
More specifically, some research directions would be: explore the theoretical connections between self-
direction and critical thinking; map the relationship between responsibility (mentoring) and control
(management) factors with regard to cognitive development; articulate specific strategies associated with
management and monitoring issues; understand the influence of excessive workload, prescribed content and
evaluation on self-direction and critical thinking; and, study the effect of mediated learning networks on self-
direction and critical thinking. These are but a few possibilities among many worthwhile research initiatives.

Another area of research that may prove valuable in understanding the cognitive and motivational dimensions
of self-directed learning is the literature on self-regulated learning. Self-regulated learning has emerged
over the last two decades as a result of social learning research initiatives (Zimmerman, 1989). In contrast to
self-directed learning, self-regulated learning emerged from research on self-efficacy (perceived
proficiency) and motivation. The current emphasis of self-regulated learning on cognitive and motivation
strategies (Winne, 1995) makes it a potential resource for the development of the psychological dimensions of
self-directed learning. Furthermore, it has been argued that self-regulation has a beneficial effect on
academic outcomes (Winne, 1995; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994).

In conclusion, self-direction is seen as a necessary process for achieving worthwhile and meaningful
educational outcomes. It is associated with initiating learning goals, maintaining intention, and striving for
quality outcomes. Self-direction is seen as essential if students are to achieve Dewey's (1916) ultimate
educational goal of becoming continuous learners and possessing the capacity for further education&l growth.
Learning interest and opportunities for control promote self-direction and continued learning. Opportunities
for self-directed learning, in turn, enhance metacognitive awareness and create the conditions where students
learn how to learn. Adult educators interested in expanding their theoretical perspective and practice of
facilitating learning might reflect upon the self-directed learning model proposed here.

DIAGRAM: Figure 1: Dimensions of Self-Directed Learning

DIAGRAM: Figure 2: Entering Motivational Factors

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation, of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspective, on theory, research, and
practice. New York: Routledge.

Brookfield, S. (1985). ADalyziDg a critical paradigm of self-directed learning: A response. Adult Education
Quarterly, 36, 60-64.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (1988). Conceptual, methodological and practical ambiguities in self-directed learning. In

H. B. Long (Ed.), Self-directed learning: Application & theory (pp. 1-10). Athens, GA: Adult Education
Department, University of Georgia.

Brookfield, S. D. (1990). Passion, purity and pillage: Critic&l thinking about critical thinking. Adult
Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 25-30). Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review
of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Candy, P., Harri-Augstein, S., & Thomas, L. (1985). Reflection and the self-organized learner: A model of
learning organizations. In D. Boud, R. Keough, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into
learning (pp. 100-116). London: Kogan Page.

Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.),
Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 111-141). New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational
Researcher, 22(2), 14-22.

Corno, L. (1994). Student volition and education: Outcomes, influences, and practices. In D.H. Schunk & B.J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp.
229-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education (4th printing, 1964). New York: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1969). Plan of organization of the university primary school. In J.A. Boydsto (Ed.), John Dewey:
The early works, 1882-1898 Vol. 5 (pp. 224-243). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original
work published 1895)

Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching. Toronto: John Wiley.

Garrison, D. R. (1987). Dropout prediction within a broad psychosocial context: An analysis of Boshier's
congruence model. Adult Education Quarterly, 37, 212-222.

Garrison, D. R. (1990). Perceived control and the decision-making process to participate in adult education:
An explication of Rubenson's recruitment paradigm. Adult Education Research Conference Proceeding/,
Athens, GA.

Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model for developing critical
thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10, 287-303.

Garrison, D. R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: An analysis of
responsibility and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 136-148.

Garrison, D. R. (1993). AD analysis of the control construct in self-directed learning. In H.B. Long (Ed.),
Emerging perspectives of self-directed learning (pp. 27-44). Norman, OK: Research Center for Continuing
Professional and Higher Education of the University of Oklahoma.

Hammond, M., & Collins, R. (1991). Self-directed learning: Critical practice. London: Kogan Page

Howe, M. I. A. (1987). Motivation, cognition, and individual achievements. In E. de Corte, H. Lodewijis, R.

Parmentier & P. Span (Eds.), Learning and instruction: Volume I (pp. 133-146). Oxford: Pergamon.

Kanfer, R. (1989). Conative processes, dispositions, and behavior: Connecting the dots within and across
paradigms. In R. Kanfer, P. L. Ackerman & R. Cudeck (Eds.), Abilities, motivation, and methodology (pp.
375-388). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York: Association Press.

Long, H. B. (1989). Self-directed learning: Merging theory and practice. In H.B. Long (Ed.), Self-directed
learning Merging theory and practice (pp. 1-12). Norma, OK: Research Center for Continuing Professional
and Higher Education of the University of Oklahoma.

Long, H. B., & Redding, T. R. (1991). Self-directed learning dissertation abstracts 1966-1991. Norman, OK:
Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education of the University of Oklahoma.

Mezirow, J. (1985). A critical theory of self-directed learning. In S. Brookfield (Ed.), Self-directed

learning: From theory to practice (pp. 17-30). New Directions for Continuing Education, #25. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In I. Mezirow (Ed.), Fostering
critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 1-20). San
Francisco: Jossey-Basr.

Oddi, L. F. (1986). Development and validation of an instrument to identify self-directed continuing learners.
Adult Education Quarterly, 36, 97-107.

Oddi, L. F. (1987). Perspectives on self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 38, 21-31.

Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In
M. L. Marhr & C. Ames (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Motivation Enhancing
Environments (pp. 117-160). Greenwich, CT: jai Press.

Pintrich, P. R., & DoGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American
Journal of Education, 100, 354-395.

Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D.
Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Richardson, V. (1994). Constructivist leaching: Theory and practice. Teaching Thinking and Problem
Solving, 16(6), 1,3-7.

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Stalker, I. (1993). Voluntary participation: Deconstructing the myth. Adult Education Quarterly, 43, 63-75.

Thomas, L. F., &Harri-Augstein, I. (1985). Self-organized learning: Foundations of a conversational science

for psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Thompson, D. (1992). Beyond motivation: Nurses' participation and persistence in baccalaureate nursing
programs. Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 94-105.

Tough, A. (1971). The adult's learning projects. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.

Weiez, J. R. (1983). Can I control it?: The pursuit of veridical answers across the life-span. In P.B. Baltes &
O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (pp. 233-300). New York: Academic Press.

Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173187.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment.
American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862.