IDENTIFYING “SUCCESS” CHARACTERISTICS IN SELF-DIRECTED ADULT LEARNERS

Roger Hiemstra

Robert Judd

Adult and Extension Education

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

1978

 

[The research reported in this paper was made possible by a mini-grant awarded by the University of Mid-America (UMA), Central Office, Lincoln, NE.]

 

 

TOPICS COVERED IN THIS PAPER

 

INTRODUCTION

Background

Statement of the Problem

Limitations of the Study

Significance of the Study

Objective of the Study

Definition of Critical Concepts

METHOD OF THE STUDY

Phase 1 – Literature Review

Phase 2 – Determination of Success Criteria

Phase 3 – Analysis of Data

Phase 4 – Development of a Research Framework

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

General Literature on the Adult as Learner

Self-Directed Learning

SUCCESS CRITERIA

ANALYSIS OF DATA

IMPLICATIONS

NEEDED RESEARCH

Defining Framework Terms

Basic Research About Adult Students

Basic Research Regarding Adult Educators/Researchers

Basic Research on Adult Education Institutions

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX A: IMPLICATIONS SUGGESTED IN THE LITERATURE

APPENDIX B: REPORT FOR UMA STUDENTS

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Background

 

Are we a self-directed learning society? The "discovery” in the past few years of the vast amount of learning by adults that takes place each year outside of the formal classroom would lead one to believe that we all are living in a self-directed learning society. Tough's (1971) seminal research on adult's learning projects increased our awareness of the enormity of self-directed learning. Subsequent research on learning projects by many individuals has provided indications that the high level of invo1vement by adults in self-directed learning activity is fairly consistent across populations and even societies irrespective of such variables as location, amount of education, age, economic status, and occupational history. Indeed, the entire non-traditional education movement and the evolvement of institutions like UMA are related at least in part to this desire by adults to be engaged in self-directed learning.

 

It may well be that adults always have been heavily engaged in numerous learning endeavors, much of which has been self-directed in nature. Indeed, before there were many institutionalized means for adult classes there were libraries, study groups, discussion clubs, and “Abraham Lincoln's” study by the light from the fireplace; American pioneers learning about traveling, survival, and agriculture in new lands through observation, experimentation, and experience; vast numbers of newly arrived United States residents learning English in self-study groups; and many other forms of self-directed adult learning. However, the research described above, the increasing pressure by adults for more learning opportunities and the awareness of diminishing national resources with related future implications for less travel to classroom settings are some of the pressures forcing more attention on self-directed learning. Subsequently, there is a real need for educators in higher education, adult education, and non-traditional education to respond in some real ways.

 

Statement of the Problem

 

As described above and as will be detailed in a later section, a great deal is known about the self-directed learner. Indeed, much of the development and success of the entire non-traditional education movement has been predicated on the notion that adults crave opportunities for learning that can exist outside the bureaucratic framework of traditional schools and institutions of higher education. However, very little is known regarding what characteristics of "success" are related to self-directed learning. Finding some answers to this question should enable educators to be more successful, themselves, as they strive to focus their planning and course development efforts in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.

 

Therefore, the specific problem under investigation in this study is to develop some understanding of what it means to be a "successful" adult learner and, more precisely, to identify some characteristics of success that are related to non-traditional or self-directed learning. Available data on self-directed learning will be reexamined in terms of some of the identified success characteristics.

 

Limitations of the Study

 

An obvious limitation is the difficulty in defining the term "success" and in finding means of measuring success. The literature reviewed provided only limited help as will be seen because the term is utilized in many different ways. However, as this study is developmental in nature it will provide a basis for future research and clarification of the term.

 

Another limiting factor is the fact that new data were not gathered to answer questions raised by the research problem. Time and resource constraints necessitated the analysis and reexamination of already available data. It is expected that the data utilized still will provide some insight regarding the relationships between successful adult learning and self-directed learning.

 

A final limitation stems from not knowing what direct relevance the study will have for such non-traditional education endeavors as course development, resource identification, and student facilitation. Therefore, the report contains an implication section, a suggested model for analyzing research needs, and a set of research questions. It is hoped that future resources will be made available to allow further study and to promote better understanding of both success and self-directed learning.

 

Significance of the Study

 

The results of this study should be useful in a variety of ways. It has been an effort to better understand the evolving theory area of and concepts related to self-directed learning. Indeed, it is believed that the entire effort by institutions of higher education and other organizations to serve learners outside of the formal classroom setting will be greatly enhanced by research efforts of the nature of this study.

 

In the final analysis this and following studies should be useful in at least the following ways:

 

  1. Developing a theoretical framework for better understanding self-directed learning, non-traditional education, and the relation between the two areas.
  2. Promoting a better understanding of the concept "success" as it relates to the adult learner.
  3. Enhancing the knowledge base regarding adult learner needs within the context of self-directed learning.
  4. Providing a basis for further research, related discussion, and learning facilitation.

 

Objective of the Study

 

The primary objective of the study is to obtain a more thorough understanding of the meaning of "success" as it relates to both self-directed learning and non-traditional education. Self-directed learning will be the primary focal point for study and from that study implications for non-traditional education will be drawn. The following questions served as the basis for the study:

 

  1. What theory, research, and literature on "success" in relationship to adult learning are available?
  2. How might some of the available data on self-directed learning be analyzed in terms of "success" criteria?
  3. What contributions can such findings make to future research and development in non-traditional and adult education?

 

Definition of Critical Concepts

 

The key concepts used in this study and some suggested definitions are outlined in the following sub-groups.

 

Adult learning. There may be as many unique definitions of adult learning as there are writers of the term. Each word in the two word concept elicits numerous definitional variations. Adult usually refers to a person who has reached some maturity level or responsibility for se1f and/or others. A related concept, adult education, usually refers to some relationship between this adult and some learning specialist or resource in an endeavor to learn something new. Learning, is generally accepted as the acquisition of knowledge, attitudes, and skills, usually resulting in some individual behavioral change. Thus, in this study adult learning refers to the process of information acquisition during adulthood made by individuals depending on needs, interests, learning skills, and resource availability.

Learning projects. The primary definitional basis for this term comes from the seminal work of Tough (1971). It refers to a series of clearly related learning efforts adding up to at least seven hours of effort within a six month period. Much of the current attention to self-directed learning stems from Tough's initial work.

Non-traditional education. Non-traditional education is a recognition that education should be measured by what the learner knows rather than by an educational process or institution. Therefore, non-traditional education is based on the premise that opportunity for learning should be equal for all who wish to learn, that learning is truly lifelong in nature., and that learning cannot be confined to one's youth or to formal classroom settings (Cross, 1975, p. 1).

Self-directed learning. "In its broadest meaning, self-directed learning describes a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes" (Knowles, 1975, p. 18). Such learning frequently is self-initiated and carried out alone.

Self-fulfillment learning activity. There are several subject matter groupings that have been utilized to classify the contents of learning projects. One such area, self-fulfillment, includes efforts at learning for leisure, arts and crafts, hobbies, and recreation. Thus, most learning efforts of a very personal nature can be considered, including study related to such areas as music, art, dance, theatre, religion, ethics, or moral behavior (Hiemstra, 1975, p. 5).

Success. To succeed according to the Random House dictionary, is to accomplish what is attempted or intended. In terms of self-directed learning and non-traditional education, success will imply satisfaction of accomplishment or in the participation act, itself, relative to the learning activity. The concept of success as discussed in the literature reviewed for this study will be described in considerable detail in a later section.

Type of learning planner. Key to understanding the concepts of self-directed learning and learning projects is the acceptance of the fact that the planning and facilitation of learning by adults can be quite varied. Several researchers who have examined the "learning projects" area have analyzed the type of planner used by adults for assistance in learning in the following categories: The learner himself or herself; a group or its leader/instructor; one person in a one-to-one situation; a non-human or material resource; and a "mixed" category where no dominant type of planner can be identified.

 

METHOD OF THE STUDY

 

The method followed in this study involved four different phases:

 

  • Phase 1-- Literature Review
  • Phase 2 -- Determination of "Success" Criteria
  • Phase 3 -- Analysis of Data
  • Phase 4 -- Development of a Research Framework.

 

Phase 1- Literature Review

 

As would be expected, the literature directly or indirectly related to success in learning, self-directed learning, and non-traditional education is immense. A decision was made very quickly because of limited time and resources to limit the review to the following types of sources:

 

  1. General (overview-type) literature on self-directed learning and non-traditional education, usually in book form.
  2. Learning projects studies.
  3. The journal, Adult Education.
  4. UMA sponsored or coordinated studies.
  5. Selected adult education related studies, reports, and books.

 

Obviously, much more literature still needs to be located and reviewed. One noticeable gap is literature of a psychological or sociological nature related to the "success" concept. In addition, numerous journals on such topics as educational gerontology, non-traditional education, and international adult education research contain relevant information waiting to be gleaned. Hopefully, subsequent research can include a review of some of these suggested literature sources.

 

Phase 2 - Determination of Success Criteria

 

The original intent and expectation was that obvious "success" criteria related to adult learning would be easily found. However, this was not the case in the literature reviewed. Subsequently, some synthesizing, conclusion drawing, and theoretical suggesting were necessary. Basically, success is looked at within the context of the individual learner and his or her learning activity.

 

Phase 3 - Analysis of Data

 

There are three sources of data utilized in this study: the original learning projects data displayed or described by Tough (1971); the study of older adults' learning projects in Nebraska (Hiemstra, 1975); and a study of learning projects carried out by professional adult educators in Nebraska (Zangari, 1978). The choice of the original conceptualizing work by Tough and the two Nebraska studies should provide considerable relevant information for future use by UMA program planners and researchers in the Great Plains area.

 

The success criteria determined in Phase 2 will be examined where possible by a display of data from the original studies. In some cases the data has been reexamined and displayed in new tables. In some instances, the criteria are examined without available data but by suggesting how the known findings are related. In all cases, some explanation and discussion is included.

 

Phase 4 - Development of a Research Framework

 

One of the main products of the research effort was the realization that many more questions were being raised than were being answered. Correspondingly, the need arose to organize these questions in some useful way. Thus, a conceptual framework was conceived for categorizing the various questions. It is hoped that the framework and research suggestions will be a meaningful by-product in terms of future efforts by others to increase knowledge regarding all the areas studied.

 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 

General Literature on the Adult as Learner

 

Considerable research and writing about adult learning has been carried out during the past several years. This development has reached a level of sophistication such that there now exists a fairly sizable body of tested knowledge on adult learning and achievement. However, the purpose of this section will not be to outline that body of knowledge. Knox (1977a, 1977b) and Knox and Others (1968) do an excellent job of presenting such information. What this section will contain is a description of some of what is known about the adult as a participant in learning activities. Hopefully, such a picture will set the stage for understanding the self-directed adult and for examining such a learner in terms of several success criteria.

 

The adult as a participant in both formal and informal learning settings has been studied by several researchers. Boshier (1977) summarized considerable research on participation over several years with a factor analysis study. He suggests, for example, that young adults are more inclined to enroll for what he calls "External Expectations." Those who could be considered high in the amount of participation seem more inclined to be enrolled for escape or stimulation reason. He reports a variety of similar type of conclusions in the article.

 

Sharon (1971) found that a strong positive relationship existed between the previous amount of education and academic involvement. This was supported by Dickinson's (1971) findings. Cross (1975) found that the reasons adult learners gave for participation included such goals as gaining new knowledge, job advancement possibilities, becoming a happier person, and meeting new people.

 

The above researchers are cited only as examples of the wealth of literature available on the adult learner as a participant. Hiemstra (1976) summarizes some of these findings by suggesting that the adult participant tends to be younger, highly educated, highly motivated to learn, and highly skilled in social relationships (pp. 84-85). Other findings of this nature, a discussion of the adult drop-out, and a description of some barriers to participation are also included in the 1976 source.

 

Satisfaction and level of achievement also have been examined by several researchers. McLoughlin (1971) found that adult participation in course planning did not affect achievement but it did improve attitudes about the learning experience. Cole and Glass (1977) found that participation improved both achievement and attitude but it did not affect the retention of knowledge. Knox and Others (1968) determined that prior participation in adult education was associated with learning effectiveness. White and Hansen (1976) looked at means of increasing participant satisfaction and suggest several things the facilitator should consider. Again, the sources cited in this paragraph are only intended to provide the reader with a sense of the type of literature that is available.

 

One other area, because it is relatively new and gaining in attention by researchers, needs to be mentioned. Andrulis and Bush (1977) suggest that it is important adult learners be examined in terms of their cognitive styles. Meierhenry (1978), too, shows the need to examine cognitive styles in terms of their relationships to adult learning and other areas of research related to adults. Cross (1977) even suggests how certain cognitive styles may favor or be related to self-directed learning. This area of research has potential for understanding considerably more about the adult as learner and participant in adult or non-traditional higher education programs.

 

Self-Directed Learning

 

Considerable credit must be given to Baghi (1979) for the material contained in this section. The notion of self-directed learning is not a recent phenomenon. Tough (1967) and Kulich (1970) describe the emphasis on self-education throughout history. This concept emerged in adult education as self autonomous learning, self-directed learning, and self-planned learning in the 1960's. In theoretical terms, the work of Malcolm Knowles (1973, 1975) in self-directed learning is helpful.

 

Knowles refers to self-directed learning as "a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning outcome" (1975, p. 18). He further suggests that other labels found in the literature to describe this process are "self-planned learning", "inquiry method", "independent learning", "self-direction", "self-instruction" and "autonomous learning." But the different labels are often mistakenly associated with the belief that learning is in isolation and the learner does all his/her activity on an entirely independent basis.

 

Tough (1971) in his explanation of self-planned learning points out that different labels such as self-education, self-instruction, self-teaching, independent study, self-directed learning, and individual 1earning "are somewhat similar to self-planned learning projects, but not identical" (1971, p. 42). He agrees that even though the learner may obtain help from a variety of human and material resources, the key to being a self-planned learner is carrying on the responsibility for the detailed decisions and arrangements associated with the learning activities. Hiemstra defines self-planned learning as "a learning activity that is self-directed, self-initiated and frequently carried out alone" (1976, p. 39).

 

Smith (1976) describes self-directed learning as having a special orientation to learning that "emphasizes the learner establishing and maintaining the major share of the responsibility for initiative and motivation in planning and carrying out his own learning activities" (1976, p. 3). The process includes diagnosing needs, formulating goals and choosing resources and methods. He further states that when the learner accepts this responsibility, the major consequences for him will be learning how to learn on his own or with a little assistance from others.

 

Knox (1973) suggests that a self-directed learner is the person who continues his learning "reflected in his selection of objectives that have high priority, followed by his selection from a range of learning activities that are most appropriate for the specific circumstances he confronts." For self-directed learning he suggests the following resources: Printed media, electronic media, informal groups, formal groups, and tutorial schedules.

 

The nature of self-planned learning is consistent with a basic characteristic of adults as self-directing human beings. Nevertheless, as Knowles (1975) points out, adults are not adequately prepared for this type of learning. Then he cites Kidd and suggests that the purpose of education should be producing "a continuing, inner-directed, self-operating learner" (Kidd, 1975, p. 47). The phenomenon of self-directed learning which has been explained by Tough (1967, 1971) and supported by many researchers who replicated his efforts started with an examination of the "learning project" or "a major learning effort." He defines the learning project as “a series of related episodes, adding up to at least seven hours within a consecutive 6-month period. In each episode, more than half of the person's total motivation is to gain and retain certain fairly clear knowledge and skills, or to produce some other lasting change in himself. For convenience the short hand label 'learning project' has been adapted to refer to this series of related episodes: a sustained, highly deliberate effort to learn" (1971, p. 6).

 

The focus of this learning project phenomenon includes the following basic components:

 

  1. The entire range of deliberate learning efforts -- in the learning project any method can be used if the person's purpose in learning was to gain and retain certain knowledge and skills.
  2. The major planner of a learning effort from one session to the next session can be the learner himself, a group, an individual, or a nonhuman resource.
  3. Noncredit learning and learning for a degree or certificate is another component of the learning project.
  4. Most common motivation and less common motivation for learning is another component of a learning project. In addition to the basic component of learning projects, various aspects related to learning projects have been explored by many researchers. These aspects include resources used, obstacles to learning, subject matter, areas of the learning project, reasons for beginning and continuing the learning project (Tough, 1967, 1971), the learner planning the task (Tough, 1971), and who helped with the self-planned learning project (Luikart, 1975).

 

Tough and his associates (1971) conducted a survey of learning projects 66 persons selected from seven populations: social science professors, municipal politicians, lower-class white-collar men, blue collar factory workers, lower-class white-collar women, beginning elementary school teachers, upper-middle class women with preschool children.

 

The findings are summarized as follows:

 

  1. "Almost everyone undertakes at least one or two major learning efforts a year and some individuals undertake as many as 15 to 20. The median is eight learning projects a year, involving eight distinct areas of knowledge and skill" (1971, p. 1).
  2. The typical range of time that the learners spend on learning activities is from 8 to 16 hours. Some individuals indicated that they spent more than 2,000 hours in learning projects in the preceding six months.
  3. Tough found that the most common motivation for learning was application of a particular knowledge or skill. Usually the learners anticipated some outcome from their learning activities. Basically, adults conducted learning projects which were related to their occupations.
  4. This research also identified the major source of planning for learning projects. Tough (1978) suggests that in approximately 75 percent of the learning projects the major responsibility for planning lies with the learner himself or herself.

 

The above research has also revealed that a large proportion of adults are engaged in highly deliberate learning efforts outside of educational institutions. Such a finding has a direct relationship to the non-traditional education movement. The many subsequent research efforts are detailed very highly in the following paragraphs.

 

McCatty (1973) studied learning projects of 54 randomly selected professional persons (engineering, law, education, medicine, architecture and science) in Ontario, Canada. The average professional person conducted 11.1 learning projects per year and spent 1,244 hours on the learning projects. Seventy-six percent of the learning projects were self-planned.

 

Johns (1973) studied the learning projects of 39 pharmacists from Atlanta, Georgia. He found that the average pharmacist had conducted 8.4 learning projects in the twelve months prior to the interview. The average number of hours spent on the projects was 1,046; 56% of the total learning projects were self-planned; 16% were group planned; 9% were one-to-one methods; 19% were resource planned. This study reported that only 5% of the total learning projects were for credit.

 

In another study Fair (1973) examined the learning projects conducted by 35 first year elementary school teachers who were selected randomly from two school districts in Ontario, Canada. Fair discovered that the teachers conducted an average of 8.8 learning projects during the 26 weeks preceding the interview. Each project lasted for approximately 57 hours. Ninety-seven percent of these learning projects were self-planned. Less than one percent of the projects were for credit applied toward a degree or certificate.

 

Allerton (1974) studied the learning projects of 12 parish ministers in the Louisville, Kentucky metropolitan area. The research period was six months. Each minister kept learning diaries during the six month period. Eleven ministers in the sample conducted self-planned learning projects. The total number of projects conducted during the six months was 106, an average of 9.6 per person. The mean number of hours for each project was 52.6. These ministers devoted 65% of their time to vocational duties, 16% to hobbies and recreation, 8% to home and family life and the remaining 14% to other various interests.

 

Miller and Botsman (1975) studied the continuing education activity of Cooperative Extension agents. It was found that the average number of learning projects per agent was 12. Forty percent of these learning projects were self-planned. More than half of their learning was planned by experts and through workshops.

 

Kelly (1976) studied the learning projects of two groups of secondary teachers from Cortland County, New York. Group one consisted of 20 teachers with one or two years experience in teaching. Group two also consisted of twenty teachers, but with 10 to 15 years experience in teaching. She found that the average teacher had conducted 7.9 learning projects in the year prior to the interview. The total number of learning projects undertaken by the teachers ranged from 2 to 17. Kelly found that 68% of the projects were planned by the teacher himself/herself, 17% were planned by a group, 7% were planned by individuals in one-to-one relationships with learners, 0.3% were material resources planned and 7.9% were mixed planned. The mean number of self-planned projects per person was 5.4.

 

McCatty (1976) investigated the patterns of learning projects among physical and health education teachers. He found that the learning efforts of those teachers were largely self-planned and not for credit.

 

Miller (1977) identified the nature and extent of self-directed learning undertaken by teachers and non-teaching professionals in a single school district in upstate New York. She selected randomly a sample of 60 elementary and secondary school teachers and non-teaching faculty. Major findings in this survey report were that faculty members conducted an average of five learning projects each and spent an average of 136 hours on a learning project over the six month period. Eighty-nine percent of the faculty members' learning projects were self-planned. In this study, one-fourth of the projects were motivated by self-fulfillment needs.

 

Benson (1974) studied the learning projects of fifty randomly selected college and university administrators in Tennessee. He found that the administrators undertook an average of 4.5 learning projects over a one-year period before the interview. Administrators spent an average of 269 hours on their learning projects in one year. This study reports that 75% of the administrators planned their own projects and 25% were group planned.

 

Zangari (1978) studied the learning projects conducted over a one year period by 45 adult educators in post-secondary institutions in Nebraska. The data in this research show that adult educators undertook an average of 7.19 projects. They spent a mean of 583.20 hours on those projects. Approximately 72 percent of the learning projects were self-planned. Fifteen percent of their learning activities were group-planned. The remaining 13% were implemented through use of tutors or programmed materials.

 

Armstrong (1971) found a significant number of learning projects among adults of low educational attainment in Toronto, Canada. The Tough instrument was applied to those who were identified as potential subjects by at least two instructors. High attainment learners averaged 5.7 credit oriented learning projects during the year. They spent 1,340 hours on their learning projects. Low educational attainment adults averaged 5.5 projects and spent 1,117 hours on them. For the non-credit purpose high attainment learners averaged 13.9 projects. They spent 1,121 hours on them. The average low educational attainment adults conducted 3.4 projects in a year. They spent 100 hours on their projects.

 

Johnson (1973) investigated the learning projects of 40 adults who had just completed their senior high school examinations in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The average number of learning projects for adults was 14.4. The range was 6-29. Adults averaged 3.4 "credit" learning projects and 10.9 non-credit learning projects. They spent the average of 876.8 hours on the learning projects. Fifty percent of all the projects were planned by the learner.

 

Coolican (1973) studied the learning project of 48 Syracuse, New York mothers of pre-school age children. It was found that young mothers conducted an average of 5.8 learning projects. The mean length per project was 43 hours. Sixty-six percent of learning projects were learner planned, 16% were group planned.

 

Hiemstra (1975) studied the learning project activity of 214 adults (age 55 and older) in Nebraska. The data show that older adults each undertook an average of 3.3 learning projects. They spent an average of 324 hours on their learning projects. Fifty-five percent of the projects were self-planned, 20% were group planned, 10% were planned on a one-to-one basis and 10% had no dominant type of planner. Fifty-four percent of their learning projects were self-fulfillment, which includes arts, crafts, recreation and religion.

 

Peters and Gordon (1974) studied the learning projects of 466 adults in urban and rural Tennessee. About 91% of the adults conducted at least one learning project during a year. Adults conducted an average of 3.9 learning projects and spent an average of 155.5 hours on these projects. Seventy-six percent of the projects were planned by the learner, 11% were group-planned, 6% were planned on one-to-one basis, 1% was resource planned, and 5% were planned through other means.

 

Umoren (1978) explored the learning activities of 50 adults randomly selected from a socio-economic group in two neighborhoods in Lincoln, Nebraska. Thirty-eight of the adults in the sample were identified as low income people and twenty-two were middle or high income people. Adults conducted an average of 4.7 projects in the twelve months before the interview. They spent a mean of 554.5 hours on those projects. Approximately 40% of the learning projects were learner-planned.

 

Denys (1973) studied the learning efforts of 40 randomly selected professionals (20 were secondary school teachers, 20 were store managers) in Ghana. It was found that adults undertook an average of 4.0 learning projects during one year prior to the interview. They spent a mean of 92 hours per project. Seventy-five percent of the learning projects were self-planned, 11% were group-planned, 6% were planned on a one-to-one basis, and 4% were resource planned.

 

Field (1977) studied the learning efforts of 85 adults of low literacy attainment in the Brownstown area in Jamaica. He found that adults conducted a mean of 4.2 learning projects each. They spent a mean of 504.3 hours per person in their learning activities during a one year period. The mean length of time of a learning project was 142.8 hours. Approximately 25% of the planners are individual and about 20% of the learning projects were planned by the learner himself. More than 50% of the planners were group leaders because so many learning projects focused on literacy training and religion, two areas which seem to rely on group leaders.

 

The combination of the findings of all these studies shows that the differences among several populations are not great. The findings in each study are roughly similar with findings in other studies. The large differences are not among populations; they are within the given populations. The findings which have been summarized by Tough (1977) are as follows:

 

  1. Ninety percent of adults conduct at least one major learning effort during the year before the interview.
  2. The average learner conducts five distinct learning projects in one year.
  3. The person spends an average of 100 hours per learning effort, a total of 500 hours a year.
  4. Seventy-five percent of the learning projects are motivated by some anticipated use of the knowledge and skill; 20% of all learning projects are motivated by curiosity or puzzlement; 5% are motivated by credit toward a certificate, degree, etc.
  5. Who plans the learning efforts is fairly standard for "every study of adults finds a similar pattern, although the exact figures vary a little" (Tough, 1977, p. 6).

 

Looking at the above composite findings, Tough (1978) argues that until recently researchers looked only at the tip of the iceberg. In adult education the visible portion of the iceberg is primarily learning in classrooms, workshops, auditoriums, or conferences, tutorial or correspondence study, and programmed instruction. But what has been unnoticed until fairly recently, the invisible portion of the iceberg, is self-planned learning. Looking at adult education efforts in terms of the whole body of the iceberg, the conclusion can be made that adult education institutions could not possibly meet all the learning needs of adults through their traditional programming services. Therefore, adult and non-traditional education professionals must develop efficient and effective approaches for assisting adults with their deliberate self-planned learning efforts outside the traditional realm.

 

SUCCESS CRITERIA

 

Is there even such a phenomenon as self-directed learning? The previous section reviewed all available literature on learning projects research. Certainly, the research reveals a high level of learning activity by adults. Gooler (1975) suggests that to determine success one must decide what criteria to use, gather related evidence through some measure, and compare the evidence against the criterion standard. Although the above literature citations do not specifically spell out success criteria in terms of learning projects, the excitement generated by the research implies that some important information is emerging. Thus, in this ex post facto comparison of available data a success criterion is offered as an initial means for evaluating the learning projects research data:

 

·        To what extent are adults engaged in learning?

 

Directly related to the above statement and of primary importance to this study is the nature of the involvement by individuals in learning. For example, Zahn (1967) provides some evidence to suggest that highly rated, self-sufficient adults tend to be well educated, from upper middle class families, cosmopolitan in nature, and more job-oriented then family oriented. Hiemstra (1976) reviewed the literature on adult education participation and summarized the findings on active participants by noting they tended to be younger, highly educated, middle class, and urban in terms of their place of residence. Thus, another success criterion is offered as follows:

 

·        To what extent do the participants in Learning Projects differ from each other in terms of the amount of 1earning undertaken?

 

Another obvious success screen through which the learning projects data must be examined is the nature of the planning activity prior to and during learning. For example, do adults prefer learning in groups or by themselves? Tough (1971, p. 93) suggests that the self-reliant, independent type of person is likely to prefer self-planning as the primary learning mode. Therefore, the following criterion is offered:

 

·        To what extent do adults select themselves as the primary planner in carrying out learning projects?

 

Means for examining the actual success of individual, self-directed adult learners can be extracted from the suggestions of several authors. For example, Knowles (1975) suggests that self-directed learners are motivated by internal incentives such as a need for self-esteem, a desire to achieve, and the satisfaction that will come from accomplishing something. Tough (1971) suggests something similar in his list of reasons as to why self-planned learning is popular and why it is selected by certain individuals:

 

  1. Efficiency
  2. Confidence in individual ability
  3. Freedom to pursue learning at own pace
  4. Reliance on self as a resource
  5. Ability to find resources
  6. Insight into personal learning abilities
  7. Self-reliance and independence
  8. Proud of individual accomplishment (pp. 92-93).

 

Guglielmino (1977) has developed a self-directed learning readiness scale. Through a factor analysis procedure she isolated eight factors in self-directed learning:

 

  1. Openness to learning opportunities
  2. Self-concept as an effective learner
  3. Initiative and independence in learning
  4. Informed acceptance of responsibility for one's own learning.
  5. Love of learning
  6. Creativity
  7. Future orientation
  8. Ability to use basic study skills and problem solving.

 

A success criterion offered to examine this concept is as follows:

 

·        To what extent do self-directed learners carry out learning projects of a self-fulfillment nature?

 

Another means for examining success can be extracted from discussion about resources utilized for the learning endeavor. Zangari (1978), for example, found that reading material was the most utilized resource for learning. Tough suggests that one of the reasons certain learners select self-planned learning as their approach is because of their ability to locate and utilize printed materials. Meierhenry (1977), too, urges that more be understood about the ability of field independent learners to place structure and organization on learning resources. Therefore, another criterion is offered:

 

·        To what extent do self-directed learners utilize printed and other non-human resources in their learning endeavors?

 

This study represents only a first step in conceptualizing the notion of "success" in adult learning and in drawing some comparisons between success and self-directed learning. Much work and research remains to be completed if the research direction is to aid program planners, adult education teachers, and non-traditional education administrators. There are many more success criteria to be developed and tested. However, it is expected that this study will provide a basis for further research and examination.

 

ANALYSIS OF DATA

 

The first criterion asks the question, to what extent are adults engaged in learning. The seminal research by Tough (1971) and subsequent work by many have revealed that a heavy involvement in learning by most adults is taking place. Specifically for this section, the work by Tough, Hiemstra (1975), and Zangari (1978) will be examined.

 

Table 1 shows the comparison between these three studies on several basic areas of study. In addition, a composite picture offered by Tough (1977) is provided. Generally, the data reveal that adults are heavily engaged in learning, perhaps spending an average of 500 hours a year in learning. Note, too, the heavy reliance on self as a planner in the learning activity. (The self as planner will be examined in greater detail later in this section.) Therefore, in terms of this success criterion, the heavy involvement of most adults in learning can be verified.

 

Table 1. A Comparison of Summary Data from the Hiemstra, Tough, and Zangari Studies.

 

Data Description

Hiemstraa

Toughb

 

Zangaric

Composited

Number of Learning Projects:

 

 

 

 

Mean

03.3

08.3

07.2

05.0

Median

03.0

08.0

07.0

n.a.

Range

1-9

0-20

2-21

0-35

Percent of Participation in Learning Project Activity:

84%

98%

100%

90%

Number of Hours of Participation:

 

 

 

 

Mean

325

816

583

500

Median

237

687

445

n.a.

Range

12-2300

0-251

129-2830

0-6200

Current Status of Projects:

 

 

 

 

Active

75%

66%

75%

70%

Inactive/Completed

25%

34%

25%

30%

Credit Status of Projects:

 

 

 

 

Credit

04%

01%

03%

05%

Non-Credit

96%

99%

97%

95%

Planner Type:

 

 

 

 

Self-planned

55%

68%

72%

73%

Group planned

20%

12%

15%

14%

One-to-one

10%

08%

08%

10%

Resource Planned

04%

03%

02%

03%

Mixed

10%

09%

03%

n.a.

aHiemstra (1975), older adults, N = 214.

bTough (1971), seven different adult populations, N = 66.

cZangari (1978), adult educators, N = 45.

dComposite, Tough (1977)’s approximated figures from all studies or approximations by examining all the data.

 

However, are there differences among adults in the amount of learning undertaken (criterion two)? Table 2 compares those engaged in one or more learning .projects each year. Generally, it can be suggested that the more educated, higher social class, younger, and urban located individuals appear to be the most heavily engaged in learning. Although only the Hiemstra (1975) data are displayed the Tough (1971) and Zangari (1978) findings tend to support those shown in the table. In addition, the literature cited earlier agrees with the findings. Thus, from the standpoint of the success criterion, differences can be found and in the predictable directions.

 

Table 2. Crossbreak Comparisons of Selected Study Demographic Variables with the Level of Learning Project Activity.a

 

Comparison Variables

No Learning Projects

Number

No Learning Projects

Percent

One or More Projects Number

One or More Projects Percent

Gender:

 

 

 

 

Female

026

061.9

125

058.4

Male

016

038.1

038

041.6

χ2 = 0.06; Sig. = N.S.

 

 

 

 

Race:

 

 

 

 

White American

042

100.0

185

086.4

Other

000

000.0

029

013.6

χ2 = 5.14; Sig. = < .05

 

 

 

 

Marital Status:

 

 

 

 

Married

022

052.4

140

065.4

Widowed

014

033.3

051

023.8

Single/Divorced

006

014.3

023

010.7

χ2 = 2.58; Sig. = N.S.

 

 

 

 

Years of Education:

 

 

 

 

Less than 8th Grade

002

004.8

022

010.3

8th – 11th Grade

017

040.5

045

021.1

High School Graduate

017

040.5

065

030.5

Some College

004

009.5

033

015.5

College Graduate

001

002.4

024

011.3

Graduate Training

001

002.4

024

011.3

χ2 = 14.15; Sig. = < .05

 

 

 

 

Community:

 

 

 

 

Urban

019

045.2

126

058.9

Rural

002

004.8

036

016.8

Small Town

021

050.0

052

024.3

χ2 = 12.73; Sig. = < .01

 

 

 

 

Age:

 

 

 

 

55-64

010

023.8

091

042.5

65 and older

032

076.2

123

057.5

χ2 = 5.14; Sig. = < .05

 

 

 

 

Social Class:

 

 

 

 

Lower

001

002.4

014

006.5

Lower Middle

031

073.8

085

039.7

Upper Middle

008

019.0

101

047.2

Upper

002

004.8

014

006.5

χ2 = 16.75; Sig. = < .01

 

 

 

 

Living Arrangement:

 

 

 

 

Apartment

004

009.5

028

013.1

House

034

081.0

159

074.3

Other

004

009.5

027

012.6

χ2 = 5.14; Sig. = N.S.

 

 

 

 

aSource: Hiemstra (1975). The source contains an explanation of terms and category combinations.

 

The third criterion calls for an examination of the learning project data in terms of the type of planner selected. As tables 3a, 3b, and 4 show, the learner himself or herself is the overwhelming choice as the primary planner. As a success criterion, this intense involvement of self as the primary planner indicates that the notion of self-directed learning is a real phenomenon. In addition, it can be noted that little differences in the amount of self-directedness is observable between various demographic sub-categories.

 

Table 3a. Types of Planners Involved in All Learning Projects.a

 

Planner

Number

Percent

The Learner Himself/Herself

234

72

A Group or its Leader/Instructor

048

15

One Person in a One-To-One Situation

027

08

A Non-Human Resource

006

02

Mixed (No Dominant Type of Planner)

009

03

aSource: Zangari (1978).

 

Table 3b. Frequency of Type of Primary Planners of Learning Projects.a

 

Primary Planner of Project

Number With At Least One Project

Average Number With Planner

Tough Data

A Group or its Leader/Instructor

086

1.69

32

One Person in One-To-One Situation

048

1.52

31

Material/Non-Human Resource

022

1.27

08

The Learner Himself or Herself

183

2.14

63

Mixed (No Dominant Type)

046

1.57

26

aSources: Hiemstra (1975) and Tough (1971).

 

Table 4. Crossbreak Comparisons of Selected Demographic Variables with the Amount of Self-Directedness.a

 

Comparison Variables

High Self-Directedness No.b

High Self-Directedness %

Low Self-Directedness No.

Low Self-Directedness %

Gender:

 

 

 

 

Female

060

48.0

065

52.0

Male

052

58.4

037

41.6

χ2 = 1.87; Sig. = N.S.

 

 

 

 

Race:

 

 

 

 

White American

102

55.1

083

44.9

Other

010

35.7

019

64.3

χ2 = 4.78; Sig. = N.S.

 

 

 

 

Marital Status:

 

 

 

 

Married

077

55.0

063

45.0

Widowed

026

51.0

025

49.0

Single

008

50.0

008

50.0

Divorced/Separated

001

14.3

006

85.7

χ2 = 4.53; Sig. = N.S.

 

 

 

 

Years of Education:

 

 

 

 

Less than 8th Grade

005

22.7

017

77.3

8th – 11th Grade

029

64.4

016

35.6

High School Graduate

038

58.5

027

41.5

Some College

019

57.6

014

42.4

College Graduate

013

54.2

011

45.8

Graduate Training

007

29.2

017

70.8

χ2 = 16.90; Sig. = < .01

 

 

 

 

Community:

 

 

 

 

Urban

064

50.8

062

49.2

Rural

027

75.0

009

25.0

Small Town

021

40.4

031

59.6

χ2 = 10.51; Sig. = < .01

 

 

 

 

Age:

 

 

 

 

55-64

043

38.4

048

47.1

65 and older

069

61.6

054

52.9

χ2 = 1.93; Sig. = N.S.

 

 

 

 

Social Class:

 

 

 

 

Lower

007

50.0

007

50.0

Lower Middle

045

52.9

040

47.1

Upper Middle

053

52.5

048

47.5

Upper

007

50.0

007

50.0

χ2 = .07; Sig. = N.S.

 

 

 

 

Living Arrangement:

 

 

 

 

Apartment

011

39.3

017

60.7

House

090

56.6

069

43.4

Institution

008

44.4

010

55.6

Other

003

33.3

006

66.7

χ2 = 4.8; Sig. = N.S.

 

 

 

 

aSource: Hiemstra (1975).

bThose individuals with more selections of “self” as primary planner than the overall mean number of “self” selections.

 

Future research and program planning must deal with this phenomenon. Most importantly, the fact that success may be tied to self-initiated and self-planned learning and much less tied to say the teacher as instructor or to the use of something like a televised lesson (non-human resource) indicates that adult and non-traditional educators may need to go "back to the drawing board."

 

The fourth criterion calls for an examination of the learning projects in terms of the nature of their content. Obviously, in an ex post facto examination some conceptual liberties are taken because such measures as self-concept or satisfaction were not precisely measured. However, as Table 5 shows, there was a heavy overall preference for "self-fulfillment." Table 6 also reveals that there are some differences in the -amount of "self-fulfillment" involvement among different demographic groupings.

 

Table 5. Comparison of Subject Matter Area By Various Demographic Variables.a

 

Comparison Variables

Occupational/

Vocational No.

Occupational/

Vocational

%

Personal/

Family No.

Personal/

Family %

Social/

Civic No.

Social/

Civic %

Self-Fulfillment

No.

Self-Fulfillment %

Age:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55-64

085

27.33

072

23.15

023

07.40

131

42.12

65 and older

030

07.50

072

18.00

044

11.00

254

63.50

χ2 = 62.01; Sig. = < .001b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lincoln

080

18.48

095

21.94

047

10.85

211

48.73

Rural/Non-Town

022

16.42

025

18.66

008

05.97

079

58.96

Rural/Small Town

013

09.03

024

16.67

012

08.33

095

65.97

χ2 = 13.60; Sig. = < .01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male

076

26.86

050

17.67

020

07.07

137

48.41

Female

039

09.11

094

21.96

047

10.98

248

57.94

χ2 = 40.34; Sig. = < .01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Race:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

White American

110

18.12

109

17.96

064

10.54

324

53.38

Black American

000

00.00

003

100.00

000

00.00

000

00.00

Mexican American

005

04.95

032

31.68

003

02.97

061

60.40

χ2 = 26.52; Sig. = < .001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Class:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lower

004

10.53

008

21.06

000

00.00

026

68.42

Lower Middle

032

12.90

061

24.60

021

08.47

134

54.03

Upper Middle

062

17.82

061

17.53

030

08.62

195

56.03

Upper

017

22.08

014

18.18

016

20.78

030

38.96

χ2 = 9.93; Sig. = < .05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Living Arrangement:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apartment

023

12.07

022

19.82

017

15.32

049

44.14

Home

087

11.76

104

21.05

036

07.29

267

54.05

Institution

000

00.00

008

11.10

014

19.18

051

69.86

Other

005

15.15

010

30.30

000

00.00

018

54.55

χ2 = 14.70; Sig. = < .01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marriage Status:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Married

085

18.44

087

18.87

026

05.64

263

57.05

Widowed

015

08.98

043

25.75

025

14.97

084

50.30

Single

007

10.94

008

12.50

013

20.31

036

56.25

Divorced/Separated

008

42.11

006

31.58

003

15.79

002

10.53

χ2 = 11.64; Sig. = < .01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less than 8th Grade

002

02.90

021

30.43

001

01.45

045

65.22

8-11th Grade

011

10.00

020

18.18

013

11.82

066

60.00

High School Grad.

026

12.68

043

20.98

022

10.73

114

55.61

Some College

024

17.65

023

16.91

011

08.09

078

56.35

College Graduate

016

17.98

019

21.35

012

13.48

042

47.19

Graduate Training

036

35.64

018

17.82

008

07.92

039

38.61

χ2 = 26.59; Sig. = < .001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Occupation:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highest Professional

013

27.08

006

12.50

006

12.50

023

47.92

Lower Professional

040

26.14

029

18.95

012

07.84

072

47.06

Administrative Pers.

024

37.50

012

18.75

004

06.25

024

37.50

Homemaker

009

04.23

051

23.94

022

10.33

131

61.50

Clerical/Sales/Tech.

010