Is it Time to Move On? Reflections on a Research Agenda for Self-Directed Learning in the 21st Century-猫眼课题宝

是时候继续前进了吗？

DOI：

发表时间：

2000

期刊：

影响因子：

通讯作者：

中科院分区：

文献类型：

作者：

Ralph G. Brockett

在过去的三十年里，自主学习一直是成人教育中研究最多的领域之一。我们需要更多的研究，从新的角度来探索这个话题，而不是放弃这条调查路线。在20世纪的最后30年里，很少有课题比自主学习（SDL）更能主导研究议程。这些研究遵循了几种方法，包括学习项目研究，通过使用标准化工具测量自我指导和相关结构，以及广泛的定性方法。此外，许多书籍从非常不同的角度对SDL进行了研究，在过去的13年里，一年一度的国际自主学习研讨会发表了一系列会议记录。然而，近年来，整个领域对SDL的兴趣水平似乎有所下降。最近对1980年至1998年间14种成人教育和培训期刊的内容分析显示，这些期刊上发表了122篇关于SDL的文章（Brockett, Stockdale, Fogerson, Cox, Canipe, Chuprina, Donaghy, & Chadwell, 2000）。关于自我指导的文章数量最多的期刊是《成人教育季刊》、《护理继续教育杂志》和《成人教育研究会议年会论文集》。这些出版物中关于SDL的文章的“全盛时期”是在20世纪80年代中后期和90年代头两年。然而，在过去的2-3年里，这些出版物中关于自我指导的文章数量在某些年份已经下降到零。我们可能会认为SDL已经“风光不再”，是时候转向新的研究领域了。当许多研究的重点从对成人学习者个体的理解转向主要从建构主义、批判主义和后现代观点出发的成人教育的社会政治背景时，不难认为SDL有些脱离实际。然而，成人教育研究的一个历史性问题是，研究人员倾向于对变化的趋势作出反应，同时放弃那些尚未充分挖掘的探究线。虽然有人可能会说，30年后，我们对自我指导的了解已经达到了我们需要知道的程度，但另一种观点认为，在这一领域工作的人面临的真正挑战是如何将自我指导的研究提升到一个新的水平。如何做到这一点呢？在这次讨论中，我想简要地强调未来研究议程的四个方向。首先，有必要对我们已经了解的SDL进行评估。虽然有各种各样的努力来综合和分类这些文献，一个更新是需要的。田纳西大学的SDL研究小组最近报告了上述内容分析的初步结果（Brockett, et al., 2000）。其他正在进行的研究(1)检查14卷国际自主学习研讨会论文集，(2)从内容分析中确定的122篇文章中收集对未来研究的建议。涉及特定专业领域，特别是北美以外期刊的文献的类似研究，可以扩大我们对现有文献整体的理解。其次，我们需要考虑开发新的方法来衡量自我导向。自主学习准备量表（Guglielmino，引用于Brockett & Hiemstra， 1991）至今已有20多年的历史。虽然SDLRS有时存在争议，但它对我们理解自我导向准备做出了宝贵的贡献。然而，在未来，我建议我们需要考虑开发新的衡量标准，以更清楚地反映自SDLRS发展以来在SDL理论和研究方面的发展。第三，需要从自然主义的角度对SDL进行进一步的研究。正如内容分析所揭示的（Brockett, et al., 2000），相当大比例的关于自我指导的研究文章使用了定性设计；然而，我相信，如果我们真的要进入理解自我指导的“下一个层次”，就有必要提出关于自我指导的局限性的问题，以及自我指导如何与各种实践环境中的权力和冲突问题相结合。定性设计可能最适合这种类型的调查。最后，我认为保持整个战场上的对话是至关重要的。虽然有一群核心学者致力于自我指导，并在一个专门指定的论坛上分享他们的研究成果，但与更大领域的思想交流是有限的。同样，许多成人教育学者似乎倾向于忽视我们从SDL研究中学到的东西。我们有必要努力营造一种氛围，让(1)那些研究SDL的人对这个领域的局限性的挑战和问题持开放态度，(2)那些倾向于摒弃SDL研究的人对从三十年的学术研究中可以学到的东西保持开放态度。最后，最近针对SDL研究的许多批评都是基于误解和误解。与此同时，那些学习SDL的人需要对自我指导的局限性进行批判性的检查。对我来说，“是时候向前看了吗？”这个问题的答案是响亮的“是的！”但是，与其离开这条探究路线，更重要的是走得更远。如果在这一领域工作的研究人员愿意从更广泛的理论和方法角度寻找新的方法来研究这一现象，那么自我导向研究的未来前景广阔。因此，我认为，“前进”意味着，作为一个领域，我们需要超越当前研究的局限，才能更充分地拓展SDL的版图。参考文献Brockett， r.g.和Hiemstra， R.（1991）。成人学习中的自我指导：理论、研究与实践的视角。伦敦和纽约：劳特利奇出版社。布罗克特，r.g.，斯托克代尔，s.l.，福格森，d.l.，考克斯，b.f., Canipe, j.b.，丘普拉纳，洛杉矶，Donaghy, r.c.，和查德威尔，N.E.（2000年2月）。关于SDL的二十年文献：内容分析。论文发表于第14届国际SDL研讨会，博因顿海滩，

Self-directed learning has been one of the most studied areas of adult education over the past three decades. Instead of abandoning this line of inquiry, more research is needed that explores the topic from new perspectives. Few topics dominated the research agenda of the last three decades of the 20 century more than selfdirected learning (SDL). These studies have followed several approaches, including learning projects research, the measurement of self-directedness and related constructs through the use of standardized instruments, and a wide range of qualitative approaches. In addition, a number of books have examined SDL from very different perspectives and the annual International Symposium on SelfDirected Learning has published a set of proceedings for the past 13 years. In recent years, however, the level of interest in SDL across the field as a whole seems to have diminished. A recent content analysis of 14 periodicals in adult education and training between 1980 and 1998 revealed that 122 articles on SDL were published in these periodicals (Brockett, Stockdale, Fogerson, Cox, Canipe, Chuprina, Donaghy, & Chadwell, 2000). Among the periodicals with the largest number of articles on self-direction were Adult Education Quarterly , Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, and the annual proceedings of the Adult Education Research Conference. The “heyday” for articles on SDL in these publications was in the mid-late 1980s and the first two years of the 1990s. In the past 2-3 years, however, the number of articles on self-direction in these publications has dropped to as few as zero in some years. It is possible to take the view that SDL “had its day” and that it is time to move on to new areas of inquiry. At a time when the emphasis of much research is shifting away from understanding the individual adult learner toward looking at the sociopolitical context of adult education drawing largely from constructivist, critical, and postmodern perspectives, it is not difficult to think that SDL is somewhat out of touch. Yet, one of the historic problems with adult education research has been the tendency of researchers to respond to shifting trends while abandoning lines of inquiry that have not been adequately mined. While it might be argued that after 30 years, we know as much about selfdirection as we need to know, another view is that the real challenge facing those working in this area is how to take the study of self-direction to a new level. How might this be accomplished? In this discussion, I would like to briefly highlight four directions for a future research agenda. First, there is a need to take stock of what we already know about SDL. While there have been various efforts to synthesize and categorize this literature, an update is needed. The SDL research group at the University of Tennessee recently reported the preliminary findings of the content analysis mentioned above (Brockett, et al., 2000). Other studies in progress (1) examine the 14 volumes of the International Self-Directed Learning Symposium proceedings and (2) glean recommendations for future research from the 122 articles identified in the content analysis. Similar studies involving literature from specific professional fields and, especially, from periodicals outside of North America, could expand our understanding of the total body of literature that already exists. Second, we need to consider developing new ways to measure self-directedness. The SelfDirected Learning Readiness Scale (Guglielmino, cited in Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991) is now over 20 years old. While the SDLRS has sometimes been controversial, it has nonetheless made an invaluable contribution to our understanding of self-directed readiness. In the future, however, I would suggest that we need to consider the development of new measures that more clearly reflect developments in theory and research on SDL that have occurred since the development of the SDLRS. Third, there is a need for further research that explores SDL from a naturalistic perspective. As the content analysis revealed (Brockett, et al., 2000), a fairly substantial percentage of research articles on self-direction utilized qualitative de- signs; yet, I believe that if we are truly to go to the “next level” of understanding self-direction, it will be necessary to raise questions about the limits of self-direction, and how self-direction interfaces with issues of power and conflict in various practice settings. Qualitative designs are probably best suited for this type of inquiry. Finally, I believe it is crucial to keep the dia- logue alive across the field. While there is a core of scholars working in self-direction and sharing their work in a specifically-designated forum for doing so, the exchange of ideas with the larger field is limited. Similarly, many scholars in adult education seem to be inclined to dismiss what we have learned from SDL research. There is a need to work toward building a climate where (1) those who study SDL are open to challenges and questions about the limits of this area, and (2) those who have been inclined to dismiss SDL research remain open to the potential of what can be learned from three decades of scholarship. In closing, many of the recent criticisms leveled at SDL research are based on misconceptions and misunderstandings. At the same time, those who study SDL need to be open to critical examination of the limits of self-direction. For me, the answer to the question “Is it time to move on?” is a resound- ing “Yes!”. But rather than move away from this line of inquiry, it is important to go even further. The future of research on self-direction holds much promise, if researchers who work in this area are willing to identify new ways to examine the phe- nomenon, from a broader range of theoretical and methodological perspectives. Therefore, I believe that “moving on” means that, as a field, we need to move beyond the limits of current research in order to more fully expand the map of SDL. References Brockett, R.G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Selfdirection in adult learning: Perspectives on the- ory, research, and practice. London and New York: Routledge. Brockett, R.G., Stockdale, S.L., Fogerson, D.L., Cox, B.F., Canipe, J.B., Chuprina, L.A., Donaghy, R.C., & Chadwell, N.E. (2000, Febru- ary). Two decades of literature on SDL: A con- tent analysis. Paper presented at the 14 International SDL Symposium, Boynton Beach,

Is it Time to Move On? Reflections on a Research Agenda for Self-Directed Learning in the 21st Century

是时候继续前进了吗？

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献