1
Name of Theory
Theoretical constructs of self-directed learning
Theorists
Donn Randy Garrison
Ralph G. Brockett
Roger Hiemstra
Phillip Candy
Biographies of Theorists
D. Randy Garrison is the Director of the Teaching and Learning Centre and a professor at
the University of Calgary (http://tlc.ucalgary.ca/information/directory/dr_randy_garrison). Prior
to his current position, Dr. Garrison was a professor and Dean and the University of Alberta. He
has co-authored over 70 articles and three books. He holds an Ed.D. in adult education, a M.Ed.
in computer applications in education, and a B.Ed. in mathematics
(http://tlc.ucalgary.ca/documents/garrison_cv.pdf).
Ralph G. Brockett holds a Ph.D. in adult education from Syracuse University. He has a
B.A. and a M.Ed. from the University of Toledo. He is a professor in adult education at the
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Brockett served as President of the Commission of
Professors in Adult Education. He has numerous publications to his credit and served as senior
editor of New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education for a number of years (Brockett &
Heimstra, 1991, ¶ 4).
Roger Hiemstra is Professor and Chair, Adult Education, Elmira College. He was
inducted into the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame in 2000 (Brockett
& Hiemstra, 1991, ¶ 5). Hiemstra held various positions with Syracuse University for 10 years.
2
Previously, he held various positions at several universities in the mid-west. He holds a Ph.D. in
adult education, a M.S. in extension education, and a B.S. in rural sociology (http://wwwdistance.syr.edu/resume.html).
Phillip C. Candy is the Academic Vice-President at the University of Ballarat in
Australia. He previously served as associate professor and director at the Queensland
University of Technology in Brisbane (Candy, 1991). Candy holds “undergraduate degrees in
accounting, economics, commercial law, geography and history, and postgraduate degrees in
education and adult education from universities in Australia, England and Canada”
(http://lifelonglearning.cqu.edu.au/2000/candy.htm). His research interests lie in theoretical and
conceptual aspects of adult education (Candy).
Description of Models of Self-Directed Learning
Grounded in a collaborative constructivist perspective, Garrison’s (1997) theoretical
model of self-directed learning (Figure 1) “integrates self-management (contextual control), selfmonitoring (cognitive responsibility), and motivational (entering and task) dimensions” (p. 18).
Self-management focuses on goal setting, use of resources, and external support for learning.
Garrison contends that the learner “does not construct meaning in isolation from the shared
world” (p. 23). Learning occurs through a collaborative relationship between the learner and the
teacher. “Increased learner control affects the transactional balance between the teacher and the
learner” (p. 23).
Self-monitoring refers to the ability of learners to monitor both their cognitive and
metacognitive processes. Students have the ability to employ their own learning strategies and to
think about what they are thinking (Garrison, 1997; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). The learners
can “plan and modify thinking according to the learning task/goal” (Garrison, p. 24). Learners
3
engage in critical reflection, assimilating new knowledge with existing knowledge. To promote
self-monitoring, learners integrate external feedback with their own self-reflection as a form of
collaborative confirmation of learning (Garrison).
According to Garrison (1997), “motivation plays a significant role in the initiation and
maintenance of effort toward learning and the achievement of cognitive goals” (p. 26). In this
model, motivation has two dimensions: entering motivation and task motivation. Entering
motivation is what compels the learner to participate in the learning process whereas the task
motivation is what keeps the learner on task and persisting in the learning process (Garrison).
From the collaborative constructivist perspective, self-directed learning “encourages students to
approach learning in a deep and meaningful manner (p. 30).
Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) created a model of Personal Responsibility Orientation
(PRO) in self-directed learning (Figure 2). This model depicts personal responsibility in the
teaching-learning process and in one’s own thoughts and actions. Brockett and Hiemstra
contend that people have control over their response to a situation even if they do not have
control over the actual circumstances. Personal responsibility is viewed as the “cornerstone of
self-direction in learning” (p. 27). “Learners have choices about the directions they pursue as
learners. Along with this goes a responsibility for accepting the consequences of one’s thoughts
and actions as a learner” (p. 28).
Process orientation refers to the external factors that contribute to self-directed learning
such as planning, implementation, and evaluation. Personal orientation refers to the internal
characteristics that “predispose one toward accepting responsibility for one’s thoughts and
actions as a learner” (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991, p. 29). The PRO model shows self-directed
learning and learner self-direction as two dimensions. Personal responsibility provides the link
4
between the external and internal characteristics. Brockett and Hiemstra emphasize that
individuals do not learn in isolation so that the social aspects of learning are important as well.
Candy (1991) proposed a model of two interacting domains of self-directed learning.
According to Candy, one dimension of self-directed learning is the amount of control within an
institutional setting. At one end of the continuum, the teacher has total control over what is to be
studied, how the content is to be presented, and what outcomes are expected. The opposite end
of this continuum represents a state in which the learner has total control over the learning
experience.
The second aspect of self-directed learning is learner control in situations outside of the
formal institutional setting or “autodidaxy”. In this dimension, the learner makes the decisions
about learning, including what was to be learned, how learning activities would occur, when
learning would take place, where learning activities would be conducted, and how learning
outcomes would be evaluated. The continuum of autodidactic domain represents the amount of
assistance the learner has in making decisions about the learning experience, if any (Candy,
1991). Candy contends that
Self-direction actually embraces dimensions of process and product, and that it refers to
four distinct (but related) phenomena: ‘self-direction’ as a personal attribute (personal
autonomy); ‘self-direction’ as the willingness and capacity to conduct one’s own
education (self-management); ‘self-direction’ as a mode of organizing instruction in
formal settings (learner-control); and ‘self-direction’ as the individual, noninstructional
pursuit of learning opportunities in the ‘natural societal setting’ (autodidaxy) ( pp. 22-23).
In Candy’s (1991) model, the continuums are not actually linear in nature. Rather, the
two dimensions interact in a “laminated or layered” fashion. Figure 3 illustrates the relationship
5
between institutional control of learning and autodidaxy. “Both ownership and control are
vested in the learner from the outset, and the only question is the amount and type of assistance
obtained” (p. 18).
“While not proposing a ‘theory’ of learning, Brookfield’s characterization of adult
learning as a ‘transactional encounter’ seems to share the orientation of theorist [of adult
learning] (Merriam, 1987, p. 196). Brookfield (1986) asserted that self-directed learning was the
assimilation of the learning process and reflection created by an internal change of consciousness
as a part of learning. “This consciousness involves an appreciation of the contextuality of
knowledge and an awareness of the culturally constructed form of the value frameworks, belief
systems, and moral codes that influence behavior and the creation of social structures” (p. 58).
Learning is more than acquiring technical skills. Self-directed learning involves “critical
reflection on the contingent aspects of reality, the exploration of alternative perspectives and
meaning systems, and the alteration of personal and social circumstances” (pp. 58-59). It is this
combination of the external management and the internal reflection of learning that constitutes
self-directed learning in the “fully adult form” (p. 59).
Instruments/Measurement Tools
A review of the literature reveals the availability of multiple instruments for measuring
various dimensions of self-directed learning. The Learning Preference Assessment, formerly
called the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale, and the Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory
“have played an instrumental role in making self-direction one of them most extensivelyresearched areas in adult education during the decade of the 1980s” (Brockett & Hiemstra,
1991).
6
Developed by Guglielmino (1977), the Learning Preference Assessment is a 58-item fivepoint Likert scale designed to measure readiness for self-directed learning (Brockett & Hiemstra,
1991). Chapter Four (Brockett & Hiemstra) provides an overview of research studies using the
Learning Preference Assessment. This instrument may be purchased from Guglielmino and
Associates, 7339 Reserve Creek Drive, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986; telephone 772-429-2425;
E-mail: guglielmino@racketmail.com; Web: guglielmino734.com (Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements).
The Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory (OCLI) is a 24-item instrument, using a sevenpoint Likert scale (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991). “Items for the instrument were developed
around three theoretical formulations describing the motivational, affective, and cognitive
attributes of the self-directed continuing learner’s personality: Proactive Drive versus Reactive
Drive, Commitment to Learning versus Apathy/Aversion to Learning, and Cognitive Openness
versus Defensiveness” (Oddi, Ellis, & Roberson, 1990). For an overview of research studies
using OCLI, refer to Chapter Four of Brockett and Hiemstra. Additional information about the
OCLI is discussed in the original article by Oddi (1986).
Report Prepared By
Bethene Fahnestock
References
Brockett, R. G. & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives in theory,
research, and practice. New York: Routledge. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from
http://www-distance.syr.edu/sdlindex.html
Brookfield, S.D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers.
7
Buros Institute of Mental Measurements (nd). Test in Print. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from
EBSCO – Test in Print.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and
practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. Retrieved September 16, 2008,
from ProQuest Dissertation/Theses database.
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult
Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from SAGE Social
Science Collections.
Merriam, S. B. (1987). Adult learning and theory building: A review. Adult Education
Quarterly, 37(4), 187-198.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Oddi, L. F. (1986). Development and validation of an instrument to identify self-directed
continuing learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 36(2), 97-107.
Oddi, L. F., Ellis, A. J., Roberson, J. E. A. (1990). Construct validation of the Oddi Continuing
Learning Inventory. Adult Education Quarterly, 40(3) 139-145.
8
Figure 1
Dimensions in Self-Directed Learning
Motivation
(Entering/Task)
Self-monitoring
(responsibility)
Self-management
(control)
Self-directed
learning
Source: Garrison, 1997, p. 22
9
Figure 2
Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) Model
Source: Brockett, G. and Hiemstra, R. (1991) p. 25
10
Figure 3
Learner-Control and Autodidaxy as “Laminated” Domain
Source: Candy, P.C. (1991) p. 18