Applying Self-Directed Learning and Transformational Learning - Article Example

Applying Self-Directed Learning and Transformational Learning Introduction Much literatures have been devoted to adult education – for example, the theory and practice of adult education (Jarvis, 2004; Merriam & Brockett, 2007; Brookfield, 1996), understanding the adult learner (Fenwick & Tennant, 2004; Wodlinger 2007), defining key concepts in adult education (Tight 1996), and more dealing with specific adult education and learning practices (Mezirow, 2009; Beard & Wilson, 2006; Merriam, 2011). But despite this plethora of literatures, various issues pertaining to adult education remain controversial – For example, Brookfield (1996) noted the lack of a unified understanding on the process of adult learning, asserting that attempts to establish a theory exclusive for adult learning are practically futile, as he (1992) argued earlier that there is no indisputable theoretical basis from which a theory in adult learning can be developed and that myths regarding adult learning are deeply engraved into adult educators’ consciousness, impeding theory development in adult learning (p. 375); while Titmus (1996) expounded the seemingly irresoluble problem of achieving a common definition of the adult learner, which he attributed on varying bases and standards used by different societies in defining the adult learner (p. 11); whereas Rubenson (2011) discussed the continuing debate on the definition, scope and boundaries of adult education even as it has dramatically evolved into a distinct field (p. 4). Nonetheless, these contending issues, though they seem irreconcilable, are in fact rich explorations of adult education, bringing forth a rich body of ideas and practices that could guide adult educators today, especially those in the higher education, as adult learners today have been increasingly filling-up college campuses either as fulltime or part time students in degree credit courses (Slotnick, Pelton, Fuller & Tabor, 1993, p. ix). It is actually this section of adult learners and site of adult learning that this research paper deals with, as the dramatic increase of adult learners in higher education has resulted to the greater demand for a greater quality of higher education teaching. Of which Nesbit, Leach and Foley (2004) described these non-traditional adult students are less likely to be easily satisfied and more opinionated than their younger counterparts, that demand for better quality university provision is seen vital (p. 90). Specifically, this paper focuses on the application of three concepts: self-directed learning, transformational learning, and experiential learning, that for years, have been consistently acknowledged relevant to adult education. Adult Learning in College In the past, adult learning usually takes place in informal and non-formal settings. An adult, which may not have been able to finish high school or which may have failed to enter or finish college, sees the need to augment this educational deficiency with non-formal vocational education in order to gain skills necessary for employment. However today, “the increasing demands for professional services of high quality” (Marsick 1998, p. 119) rendered earlier adult learning insufficient, causing an increasing number of adults going through formal college education. As Jarvis (1995) rightly observed: “Because change is so rapid, it is necessary for individuals to keep learning, so that they should not become alienated from the culture that engulfs them” (p. 3). To be more concrete, “Individuals in the workforce are expected to keep abreast with all the technological changes that occur in their place of work” (Jarvis, 2004, pp. 13-14). This increasing adult participation in colleges has dramatically altered higher education institutions in terms of organization, program offerings and curricula, that adult education today is taking much academic interest, particularly in terms of adult learning. As Slotnick, et al. (1993) suspected in their study, some college professors seem not to realize the educational implications of having adult learners in their classes that they fail to give sufficient attention to adult learners’ needs (p. 4). Since, what differentiates adult education from general education is the adult learner; then it is necessary to arrive at a common ground in perceiving what an adult learner is to which the concepts of self-directed, experiential and transformational learning are to be applied. As stated earlier, defining the adult learner is among the contentious issues in adult education. But since this paper focuses only on adult learning in college, the difficulty in defining an adult learner might be lessened, especially so that imbedded in the school system are the long-held norms and standards by which to identify the traditional college students vis-à-vis what Jarvis (2002) referred to as the adult and ‘non-traditional’ learners (as cited in (Nesbit, Leach & Foley, 2004, p. 90). One common gauge is the age, though agreeably this is too superficial, because there is more to maturation than with age. Yet undeniably, too, various theories on human growth and development, though differ in perspective, have similarly shown predictable patterns of human behavior distinct at each stage of human growth and development – each stage of human growth is characterized by certain level of maturation physiologically and psychologically. It is based on this that oftentimes some adults are perceived to be childish or immature once they fail to act accordingly, because certain behaviors are expected at each stage of life. So characterizing adulthood could be a safe take-off point in defining the adult learner. Following Knowles (1980) and Legge’s (1982) characterization, adulthood would pertain more on the individual’s social maturity (cited in Jarvis, 2004, p. 45), especially so that all learning, Illeris (2007) explained, is acquired through two different yet complementary processes: the interactive process in which the learner interacts with the environment and the internal mental acquisition and processing through which the learner’s experiences in interacting with the environment are filtered, processed and integrated with prior learning (p. 28). As such, Knowles’ (1968) andragogy, although have been criticized for its validity as an adult learning theory (Davenport and Davenport 1985; Hartree 1984; 1989) and for the certainty of its assumptions to be characteristics distinct to adult learners (Merriam, Mott and Lee, 1996; Hanson 1996) (as cited in Merriam, 2001, p. 5), remains a useful guide in having a general understanding of the adult learner: (a) with independent self-concept thus capable of self-direction, (b) experienced, (c) ready to learn because of social role, (d) more problem-centered rather than subject-centered related (Knowles, 1980), (e) best motivation is internal than external, and (f) needs explanation/justification for the necessity of learning something (Knowles et al., 1984) (as cited in Merriam, 2011, pp. 29-30). Yet, while Knowle’s remains a useful guide in understanding adult learners, Merriam (2011) is correct to note that both the learner and learning that occur should be understood to be “shaped by the person’s history and culture in conjunction with the institutional context where it occurs” (p. 30). Such consideration fits well with adult learners, especially so that institutional barriers – established norms, practices, and policies against adult learning – are among the three major barriers to adult learning – The other two are situational barriers – specific life conditions that impede adult learning, for example poverty, inadequate support structure, and the like – and dispositional barriers – ‘attitudes, values and self-perceptions about abilities to learn’ (Cross, 1982, as cited in Wodlinger, 2007, p. 20). Thus both the adult learner – given the adult’s expected social roles and developmental tasks – and adult learning – given its nuances and complexities – should not be understood apart from the super-imposed socio-economic structures that in effect determine knowledge and thus, learning, especially in an institutionalized setting – adult learning in colleges. As Kerr, et al. (1973) asserted: Higher education is actually part of the social superstructure, because higher education are made to produce human resources the economy needs (as cited in Jarvis, 2004, p. 13). Rightly so today, adult learners enroll in colleges, because they have to remain employable in a highly competitive globalized world. It is based on this framework and assumptions that the three enduring concepts of adult learning shall be analyzed. Self-Directed Learning (SDL) Self-directed learning as a concept in adult learning can find its root from early scholarly works (Houle, 1961; Tough,1967; 1979; Knowles 1975), which describes SDL as a concept of . learning in which “the learner chooses to assume responsibility for planning, carrying out, and evaluating those learning experiences” (Caffarella, 1993, p. 28, emphasis in original, as cited in Merriam & Brockett, 2007, p. 5). Today, SDL is considered one of the ‘pillars of adult learning theory’ (Merriam, 2001, p. 3). It commonly associated with the terms personal responsibility (Tough, 1966, 1967, as cited in Brookfield, 1994, p. 40; Hiemstra, 1996, p. 430), self-initiative (Knowles, 1975, Moore, 1980, Penland, 1977, as cited in Brookfield, 1994, p. 40), and independence (Guglielmino, 1977, as cited in Brookfield, 1994, p. 40). Though these terms agreeably promote self-directedness, the way by which they are used to define SDL fails to capture its essence, because as Brookfield (1994) critically observed, they only focus on externally observable behaviors instead of internal, mental dispositions, which is the heart of SDL (p. 40). Thus he clarified that SDL in adult learning “is not merely learning how to apply techniques of resource location or instructional design… [but] rather, a matter of learning how to change our perspectives, shift our paradigms, and replace one way of interpreting the world by another.”( p. 19). As such the following are the goals of SDL as perceived from different philosophical point of view. First goal is to capacitate the learner to become self-directed; second is to promote transformational learning; and third is to ‘promote learning that emancipates and calls for social action’. (Merriam, 2001, p. 9) In short, SDL could be understood as “learning to learn,” which applied to adult education Smith (1990) defined as “the knowledge, processes and procedures that people acquire through assistance to make appropriate educational decisions and carry out instrumental tasks associated with successful lifelong learning” (as cited in Mackeracher, 1996, p. 447) Although the concept of SDL started out superficially – it was simply understood as the number of hours spent a day allotted to learning regardless of the quality and it was arbitrarily advanced as the defining feature of adult learning – and despite it being criticized as an adult learning concept due to its inadequate theoretical base (Brookfield, 1988) and dwindled research interest (Candy, 1991) (as cited in Hiemstra 1996, p. 431), the fact that it actually works in fostering adult learning in varied settings (distance learning, open university, online learning) only proves its relevance to adult learning and education. Perhaps it is more relevant today, because information age essentially promotes self-directedness. As the essence of SDL essentially pertains to capacitating the adult learner to learn to learn in order to empower him/her with his/her learning decisions as he/she confronts the daily challenges of life, makes it very much relevant to adult learning in college, because what is being developed in college are higher order skills. Carl Roger’s humanistic non-directive approach is very much applicable for SDL of adult learning in college. However, the imposing structures and organizations of college institutions and the system of higher education as a whole runs in contrary to this approach, that SDL may not be able to get out from what Brookfield criticized as external concerns, which may later blur the concept. Transformational Learning In her discussion, Baumgartner defined transformational learning vis-à-vis informational learning by focusing on their distinct contributions. The difference of these two learning concepts lies on the nature of knowledge, that each seeks to change – If informational learning changes ‘what we know’, transformational learning changes ‘how we know’ (Kegan, 2000, as cited in Baumgartner, 2001, p. 16, emphasis in the original). Transformational learning theory can be understood from four perspectives. Freire’s (2000) emancipatory education (social-justice oriented approach), also known for ‘debanking’ education, deals with the raising of the consciousness of learners through the process of ‘conscientization’ for them to see life’s reality from a perspective that challenges the norms. Its aim is to empower learners with a new perspective that could make them act to transform the world into a better place. Mezirow’s (1991; 1996; 2000) cognitive-rational approach, like Freire, aims for adult learners’ empowerment and takes a constructivist approach, which holds that knowledge is not preformed; it is socially constructed by interpreting and reinterpreting new experiences. This Mezirow (1990) calls ‘perspective transformation’. New to Mezirow’s (1991) concept of transformative learning are the terms “disorienting dilemma” – the start of the process of transformation, as this would bring one to deep rethinking that would lead to the questioning of long-held beliefs – “reflective discourse” – obtaining consensual validation by discussing one’s new perspective with others – and action on the new perspective, which he believes to be imperative; without action, transformation will not be achieved. Daloz’s developmental approach, which makes use of narrative approach, humanizes the transformational learning process. It perceives meaning-making to be fundamentally human and that this could not be achieved alone by the learner but with the help of a mentor. Lastly, Dirkx and Healy’s spiritual-integrative approach link between spirituality and learning. They assert that transformation is more than a rational process; it involves various aspects of one’s self, particularly the spiritual aspect. (as cited in Baumgartner, 2001, pp. 16-18) From these four lenses, of which Mezirow’s theory gained much empirical research, transformative learning could be understood according to Taylor’s (2000) review: first, it is a “complex process involving thoughts and feelings;” second, the disorienting dilemma could be a “long cumulative process” than thought; third it is “not an independent act but an interdependent relationship built on trust,” and third, “personal contextual factors” affect people’s inclination to transformational learning (as cited in Baumgartner, 2001, pp. 18-19). Thus transformational learning involves change in thought (change in perspective), in heart (desire for change), and in action (courage to enact change). Following, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, this learning concept approximates Maslow’s self-actualization. Learning is no longer simply confined to self-interest, but it is an altruistic act. Given the above discussion on transformational learning, I could say that this adult learning concept is the most challenging, as Marsick (1998) emphasized, transformation cannot simply be equated with acquiring new ways of thinking; it requires more because change is not always easy, especially when the target is a well-entrenched system (p. 119) – for example the system of higher education. Among the three learning concepts, transformational learning is also the most comprehensive, as it promotes both experiential learning and self-directed learning. Furthermore, it is the most revolutionary, because it is grounded on questioning existing norms and order. And since it involves critical reflection in order to arrive at a perspective transformation, it could also be said that this learning concept is distinctively adult. Empirical studies in developmental psychology have proven the capability of adults for this level of learning (Brookfield, 1996, p. 376). Given the different barriers to adult learning, especially the institutional barriers, transformational learning should be applied to adult learning in college, to make it more meaningful and purposeful. What is more purposeful than challenging the well-entrenched system of higher education which instead of liberating the human spirit is engulfing it with the demands of the capital? Experiential Learning Experiential learning, according to Beard and Wilson (2006), “is the sense-making of active engagement between the inner world of the person and the outer world of the environment” (p. 4). This concept of learning is believed to be the defining feature of adult learning, as rich experience is easily associated with adulthood due to the length of time they have spent on this world. Such belief was best expressed in Lindeman’s (1926) dictum: “[E]xperience is the adult learner’s living textbook,” thus adult education is see as the continuous process of evaluating adult learners real life experiences (Brookfield, 1996 p. 377). According to Paul (1996) experiential learning takes its root from the traditional apprentice model in response to the wide demand in the 19th century to incorporate practical learning in formal education, which was dominated then by abstract learning. The importance of integrating experience in learning is greatly influenced by John Dewey in the US. This has practically gained its impetus after WWII, with the returning US war veterans’ desire to pursue their education which was interfered by the war. Then, being the central principle of lifelong learning, experiential learning has been widely accepted. Following Kolb’s (1984) model for experiential learning – personal experience, re-examination/reflection over the experience, abstractions and generalizations, testing the new concept – its difference from traditional learning models is its starting point. If traditional learning models start with abstractions (ideas, concepts, theories), experiential model starts with the learner’s personal experience. (p. 394) The rich experiences of adult learners can be rich learning resources in adult learning in colleges, but experiential learning can be truly a defining feature of adult learning, if learning does not sole rely on this, but instead makes use of this in combination with the other two learning concepts. As such, adult learner’s experiences would be understood to be value laden that reflecting on it could bring the adult learner to a deeper understanding of his/her life experience. In other words, it could be best used as jumping board for more reflective learning. Conclusion Adult learning is truly complex, not only because of the adult learner, but because of the social structures that impede the real purpose of education and learning. There are available learning models that genuinely seek to bring about purposeful adult learning in colleges, like Carl Rogers’, Paulo Freire’s, and others, yet they are rendered ineffective by the very bureaucratic and highly structured system of higher education. Against this difficulty, self-direction and autonomy can still be nurtured in adult learners even when adult learning in college is being done within the constricting framework of the higher educational system. First, colleges could reorganize and re-plan their programs, restate their policies by attuning them to the recent development in adult learning; second, adult learners should be treated like adult learners; thus they should be made to participate in redefining the college’s adult education program; and the three adult learning concepts should be used to complement each other, as they are complementary. References Baumgartner, L. M. (2001). An update on transformational learning. In S.B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory: New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 15-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass:. Beard, C. M. and Wilson, J. P. (2006). Experiential learning: A best practice handbook for educators and trainers (2nd ed.). UK: Kogan Page Publishers. Brookfield, S.D. (1994). Understanding and facilitating adult learning: A comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Brookfield, S. D. (1996). Adult learning: An overview. In A. C. Tuijnman (Ed.), International encyclopedia of adult education and training (pp. 375-381). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon. Fenwick, T. and Tennant, M. (2004). Understanding adult learners. In G. Foley (Ed.), Dimensions of adult learning: Adult education and training in a global era (pp. 55-73). Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin. Hiemstra, R. (1996). Self-directed learning. In A. C. Tuijnman (Ed), International encyclopedia of adult education (pp. 427-435). Tarrytown, New York: Pergamon. Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Oxon, OX: Taylor & Francis. Jarvis, P. (1995). Adult education and continuing education: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice (3rd ed.) London: Routledge Falmer. Mackeracher, D. and Tuijnman, A. C. (1996). The implications for educators. In A. C. Tuijnman (Ed.), International encyclopedia of adult education (pp. 443-450). Tarrytown, New York: Pergamon. Marsick, V. J. (1998). Transformative learning from experience in the knowledge era. Daedalus 127 (4), 119+. Merriam, S.B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. In S.B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory: New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 3-13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S.B. Adult learning. (2011). In K. Rubenson (Ed.), Adult learning and education (pp. 29-34). UK: Elsevier. Merriam, S. B. and Brockett, R. G. (2007). The profession and practice of adult education: An introduction. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons. Mezirow, J. (2009). An overview on transformative learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.). Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists… in their own words (pp. 90-105). Oxon, OX: Taylor & Francis. Nesbit, T., Leach, L. and Foley, G. (2004). Teaching adults. In G. Foley (Ed.), Dimensions of adult learning: Adult education and training in a global era (pp. 74-95). Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin. Paul, R. H. (1996). Experiential and open learning. In A. C. Tuijnman (Ed), International encyclopedia of adult education (pp. 393-396). Tarrytown, New York: Pergamon. Rubenson, K. (2011). The field of adult education: An overview. In K. Rubenson (Ed.), Adult learning and education (pp. 3-13). UK: Elsevier. Slotnick, H. B., Pelton, M. H., Fuller, M. L., and Tabor, L. (1993). Adult learners on campus. Great Britain: Burgess Science Press. Tight, M. (2002). Key concepts in adult education and training (2nd ed.). Routledge: London, USA and Canada. Titmus, C. J. (1996). Adult education: Concepts and principles. In A. C. Tuijnman (Ed.), International encyclopedia of adult education and training (pp. 9-17). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon. Wodlinger, M. (2007). Adult education: Understanding the adult learner. USA: Xulon Press. Read More