Entry
Two:
Quote:
|
|||
Section:
|
Myths
of Self Directed Learning
|
Ch. 4
|
Self
Directed Learning
|
Objective:
In this section of the text, we are learning the
ideas of Self Directed Learning. Although something that has been around a long
time, research on this subject did not actually start until the 1960s by
researchers like Tough, and Houle. As 90% of adults are in engaged in some type
of SDL, I thought it would be an interesting section to explore. I concentrated
on the Myths that are associated with SDL. In particular, the third myth:
“Self directed learning is the best approach for
adults, can cause problems if the unique needs and goals of learners are not
taken into account when structuring learning activities.”[2]
This chapter also looks at the goals of SDL, the
process, personal attributes, and even ODDI Continuing Learning Inventory and
Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Many instructors favor the approach of
lecturing the first three levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (knowledge, comprehension,
and application). However, the inverted classroom concept, suggests this a poor
use of the student’s time in the class, and suggest that the trainer
concentrate on the three upper levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Evolution,
Synthesis, and Analysis), as this is better suited to the trainer’s
occupational competence.
Reflective:
Again, this was a fairly
natural choice in so much as all of the learners in the 3100 course of the PIDP
through VCC are taking some form of SDL (I being one of them). This quote was
interesting, because there is a large management drive in my college for
strictly SDL in the adult learning courses we offer. The idea is that it is the
best option for the target market we have. That being First Nations learners in
remote locations. Although a good option in many cases, it does not look at
some of the unique learning needs of these students specific to their
situation, and thus it falls short of being an effective strategy. One has to remember
with FN learners, they are coming from a history of Residential Schools, and
government programs that “knew” best for the communities. I was lucky enough to
work for the First Nations Technology Council prior to my present employment,
which understood, that there was a need for a blended approach for these
communities, based on some of their unique needs and situations.
Interpretive:
One of the
problems that we have with the perpetuation of these myths is that the
understanding of self-directed learning is not always fully understood. If we
look at Brockett & Hiemstra’s PRO model, which has been around since 1991.
Although a very good model for defining SDL. It does not signify that it is the
only option for mature learners. This may seem to be contradictory until we
look at the other models of SDL. Candy (1991) suggests that personal autonomy,
self-management, independent pursuit of learning, and learner-control of
instruction also play a role in SDL. Without one of these four, would hinder
the use of SDL[3]. In fact, Brockett & Hiemstra
(2012) go on to conclude in their updated SDL Pro model that not all adult
learners are suitable candidates for SDL, because each learner’s needs are
unique.[4]
There are many options for learning, and a blending of SDL and Trainer led
learning may be needed.
Decisional:
In this case, learning needs analysis should be
pursued with respect to mature learners. Some may require special
considerations in their learning plan. Although it is the ultimate goal to have
mature students partake in SDL, it may take some steps to get there, or it may
not be appropriate for others. Our college utilizes skills assessments and
Learning Needs Analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment