From behaviorism to humanism: Incorporating self-direction
in learning concepts into the instructional design process. In H. B. Long
& Associates, New ideas about self-directed learning. Norman,
OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education,
University of Oklahoma, 1994 (Roger Hiemstra & Ralph Brockett) [figure
no. shown does not reflect the actual publication]
Roger Hiemstra and Ralph G. Brockett[1]
Throughout our professional careers we have attempted to "practice
what we preach" in terms of the way we work with adult learners. This
has involved the incorporation of self-directed learning principles into
our teaching, training, and volunteer work in various ways. Two of our basic
premises are that (a) it is important to empower adults to take personal
responsibility for their own learning, and (b) instructional activities
should be based on learners' perceived needs. We recognize there are various
levels of perceived needs ranging from felt needs or wants where the highest
internal control may be possible to prescribed or externally mandated requirements
where little internal control often is possible. However, it is our contention
that even in situations where prescribed learning is the ultimate goal,
the learning process will be enhanced if learners can perceive corresponding
instruction as meeting individual needs or they can at least take some responsibility
for aspects of the process.
We also have written about self-direction in learning and how what is known
about this topic can be used to individualize the instructional process
(Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990). In addition,
a number of our students have completed doctoral dissertations that have
in some way focussed on efforts to understand the value of adults taking
more responsibility for directing their own learning efforts.
However, we have found that many of our beliefs and actions run counter
to the "expert" or directed instruction role assumed by some teachers,
trainers, and administrators who work with adult learners. It is our observation
that many people have difficulty accepting some of the humanistic philosophical
underpinnings crucial for self-directed learning success. They may even
accept certain humanistic beliefs but feel compelled to employ a more directed
instructional approach because of organizational or traditional expectations
about the teaching and learning process.
Regardless of who is involved or the philosophical framework at work, the
design of instruction for adults normally involves an analysis of learning
needs and goals and subsequent development of a delivery system or approach
for meeting such needs. It includes such activities as developing learning
materials, designing instructional activities, determining techniques for
involving learners, facilitating learning activities, and carrying out some
evaluation efforts.
However, to illustrate how the same instructional functions can be conceived
of quite differently, two separate disciplines, adult education and instructional
design, will be examined. Adult educators and instructional designers in
university graduate training programs usually are in separate departments;
but they often have many of the same goals, such as helping students become
more adept for work in business and industry as training/HRD specialists.
For example, currently at Syracuse University more than one-third of those
students concentrating on graduate adult education are already trainers
or will go into training/HRD positions. That percentage is above 50% for
those students focussing solely on graduate work in instructional design.
Similarly, at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, a large percentage
of adult education graduate students are employed (or aspire to be employed)
in training settings. Many of these students work with faculty in both Adult
Education and Industrial Training; in fact, at Tennessee these two programs
are even housed in the same department.
In both the institutions noted above (our respective institutions), faculty
in the mentioned programs or departments are engaged in the design of instruction
on almost a daily basis. Many students take courses in both areas and faculty
often serve together
on dissertation committees. Yet, there often are real differences between
these two groups in the way the instructional process is viewed.
It appears that many adult educators today, especially those recognizing
the value of self-direction in learning, operate primarily from humanist
beliefs and considerable attention is given to maximizing the value of previous
experience and the input learners can have in the instructional process.
It should be noted, however, that much of adult education research in the
1960's and 70's was based on positivist paradigms and quantitative or scientific
research methods (Merriam, 1991). Only during the past fifteen to twenty
years has a more interpretive paradigm derived from humanism and phenomenology
been used increasingly by adult educators where interactive instructional
approaches and more qualitative research methods are employed (Marsick,
1988).
It also has been our observation that some instructional designers (and
many other educators) seem to have difficulty accepting or incorporating
humanist beliefs and instead appear guided primarily by behaviorist or neobehaviorist
beliefs and paradigms based primarily on logical positivism, although cognitive
psychology is increasingly informing the instructional design field. Some
may accept many humanistic beliefs but work for organizations that require
the employment of training approaches that are primarily behavioristic in
nature. They often have strong technical capabilities in implementing instructional
design models but many may not have adequate grounding in adult learning
theory or knowledge. Instructional design writings pertaining to learning
theory contain a body of literature that grows primarily from behavioral
and cognitive psychology. Many such authors seem unaware of or unwilling
to incorporate knowledge related to humanistic psychology and adult development,
although in reality much of their focus is on educating youth or traditional
undergraduate students.
To carry this illustration further, instructional design as a separate discipline,
has developed from several forms of inquiry: (a) research pertaining to
media usage and communications theory; (b) general systems theory and development;
and (c) psychological and learning theory. Reigeluth (1983) suggests that
the three theorists most responsible for the current development of instructional
design knowledge include B. F. Skinner (1954), David Ausubel (1968), and
Jerome Bruner (1966). Skinner is identified because of his work with behaviorism
and Bruner and Ausubel are recognized because of their contributions to
cognitive psychology. Reigeluth (1987) has also compiled information on
several other authors, theories, and models he believes important to the
development of instructional design as a profession. Gagne (1985), Piaget
(1966), and Thorndike (and colleagues) (1928) are other scholars frequently
cited as foundational for much of today's thinking about instructional design.
Adult education as a separate discipline or field of study also has developed
from several lines of inquiry. For example, Merriam and Caffarella (1991)
suggest that theory development pertaining to adult learning stems from
considerable research on why adults participate in learning, general knowledge
about the adult learner, and self-direction in learning (Cross, 1981; Tough,
1979). The body of research on adult characteristics, popular ideas pertaining
to what Knowles (1980) calls andragogy, theories based on an adult's life
situation, and theories pertaining to changes in consciousness or perspective
(Mezirow, 1991) combine to provide the field's basis for designing instructional
efforts.
We consider it important to understand why some of the philosophical differences
between the two disciplines exist. Obviously, there is much adult educators
can learn by reading instructional design and HRD literature, but the reverse
is true, too. As Hollis (1991) notes, "traditionally, instructional
technologists have largely ignored the humanists' ideas among all the available
theories from which to draw upon and incorporate into their schemes. Theoretically,
instructional technology has been based on research in human learning and
communications theories. In reality, more borrowing of ideas is needed,
especially from the ranks of the humanists" (p. 51). We suggest there
is tremendous potential in meshing the two somewhat different philosophical
points of view that appear to undergird the separate fields.
For example, we think instructional designers can become more effective
in training trainers by increased understanding of what adult educators
have to say on facilitating adult learning processes. We also believe that
adult educators can learn much about the micro-design of instruction by
becoming more familiar with instructional design approaches.
Furthermore, we anticipate that business and industry trainers will need
to depend increasingly on self-directed involvement by employees in the
future because of declining dollars available for training. The enhanced
understanding of self-directed learning principles that has been garnered
from research reported in various sources (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991;
Candy, 1991; Confessore & Long, 1992; Long & Associates, 1987, 1989,
1990, 1991, 1992; Long & Confessore, 1992; Long & Redding, 1991)
and the impact of an annual International Symposium on Self-Directed Learning
has very real implications for the way educators should work with adults.
This means that the self-directed learning knowledge emanating primarily
from adult educators during the past two decades has considerable potential
in the future design of instructional efforts.
Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to promote a better understanding of
why some educators and trainers of adults do not incorporate self-directed
learning concepts in their practice. We expect that such understanding will
help adult educators be more convincing in promoting self-direction in learning
and corresponding implementation recommendations.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF HUMANIST THOUGHT
As we noted above, our conceptions of self-direction in adult learning are
derived largely from a foundation of humanism. The roots of modern humanist
thought can be traced to the ideas of such individuals as the Chinese philosopher
Confucius, Greek philosophers such as Progagoras and Aristotle, Erasmus
and Montaigne from the Renaissance period, and the Dutch philosopher Spinoza
from the seventeenth century (Elias & Merriam, 1980; Lamont, 1965).
Humanism generally is associated with beliefs about freedom and autonomy
and notions that "human beings are capable of making significant personal
choices within the constraints imposed by heredity, personal history, and
environment" (Elias & Merriam, 1980, p. 118). Humanist principles
stress the importance of the individual and specific human needs. Among
the major assumptions underlying humanism are the following: (a) human nature
is inherently good; (b) individuals are free and autonomous, thus they are
capable of making major personal choices; (c) human potential for growth
and development is virtually unlimited; (d) self-concept plays an important
role in growth and development; (e) individuals have an urge toward self-actualization;
(f) reality is defined by each person; and (g) individuals have responsibility
to both themselves and to others (Elias & Merriam, 1980).
Principles of humanist thought have served as a foundation for major developments
in both psychology and education. In psychology, the humanist paradigm emerged
as a response to both the determinism inherent in Freudian psychoanalysis
and the limited place of affect and free will found in behaviorism. While
many individuals have made important contributions to humanistic psychology,
two of the most noteworthy contributors were Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers.
Maslow (1970) discussed the concept of "self-actualization," which
he described as "the full use and exploitation of talents, capacities,
potentialities, etc." (p. 150). He identified a number of characteristics
of self-actualizing people, three of which are tolerance for ambiguity,
acceptance of self and others, and "peak experiences" that lead
to personal transformation through new insights. Rogers (1961), through
the approach he referred to as "client-centered therapy," noted
that the major goal of therapy is to help clients foster greater self-direction.
According to Rogers, self-direction "means that one chooses - and then
learns from the consequences" (p. 171).
Humanistic education is based on similar ideas. Patterson (1973) has stated
that "the purpose of education is to develop self-actualizing persons"
(p. 22). According to Valett (1977), humanistic education is a lifelong
process, the purpose of which "is to develop individuals who will be
able to live joyous, humane, and meaningful lives" (p. 12). Priorities
of humanistic education should include "[t]he development of emotive
abilities, the shaping of affective desires, the fullest expression of aesthetic
qualities, and the enhancement of powers of self-direction and control
(emphasis added)" (p. 12). Essential characteristics of the humanistic
educator are empathic understanding, respect or acceptance, and genuineness
or authenticity (Patterson, 1973; Rogers, 1983).
Humanism is not without its critics. One of the most frequent criticisms,
usually emanating from fundamentalists on the religious right, is that humanism
runs contrary to basic tenets of Christian and other theological orientations.
In fact, humanism does emphasize the "here and now" and
frequently is viewed as denying existence of the supernatural, although
as Elias and Merriam (1980) point out not all humanists see incompatibility
between affirming autonomy and existence of a god. As Lamont puts it, "[h]umanism
is the view-point that men [sic] have but one life to lead and should make
the most of it in terms of creative work and happiness; . . . that in any
case, the supernatural, usually conceived of in the form of heavenly gods
or immortal heavens, does not exist" (1965, p. 14). While this assumption
may dissuade some individuals from fully embracing humanism, we believe
that teachers, trainers, or administrators do not have to abandon traditional
theologies in order celebrate the good of humanity and to engage in practices
designed to facilitate self-direction.
A second criticism is that humanism is sometimes believed to be a highly
self-centered, or selfish, approach to life. Typically, the argument goes
something like this: "If an individual is concerned primarily with
personal growth and development, how can that person truly be concerned
with what is good for all of society?" Humanists are quick to refute
this misunderstanding. Lamont (1965), for instance, states that the individual
can find one's "highest good in working for the good of all" (p.
15). Similarly, one of the characteristics of self-actualizers discussed
by Maslow (1970) is the tendency for individuals to focus on problems that
lie outside of themselves. Within the realm of adult education, one of the
most powerful reflections of how humanists look at the relationship between
individual and social concerns is offered in this observation made by Lindeman
in 1926: "Adult education will become an agency of progress if its
short-time goal of self-improvement can be made compatible with a long-time,
experimental but resolute policy of changing the social order" (Lindeman,
1988, p. 105).
COMPARING THE TWO PHILOSOPHIES
We reviewed several sources, including our own previous work (Brockett &
Hiemstra, 1991) and that of Merriam and Caffarella (1991), to make some
comparisons between the philosophical beliefs of and instructional procedures
used by adult educators and instructional designers. In some ways the results
represent a continuum between humanist and behaviorist views. We cover an
extensive time range, too, starting from Plato and Aristotle and continuing
forward until very recent attempts at research on adult learning and cognitive
psychology. Figure 1 displays the comparative information.
FIGURE 1
COMPARISON OF KEY DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS
AND APPROACHES BETWEEN ADULT EDUCATION
AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN?
Adult Education Humanism Views -vs- Instructional Design Behaviorism
Views
Plato -vs- Aristotle
Rationalism/emotionalism -vs- Empiricism
Reflection -vs- Sensory impression
Gestalt psychology -vs- Behavioral psychology
Search for whole patterns -vs- Search for single events or parts
Information processing -vs- Information acquisition
Separation of mind and body -vs- Innate mental abilities
Right brain hemisphere -vs- Left brain hemisphere
Memory -vs- Accumulation of knowledge
Learning how to learn -vs- Acquiring knowledge
Learning as a process -vs- Learning as an end product
Instruction as a process -vs- Instruction broken into manageable parts
Meaningful learning -vs- Rote learning
S - O - R (O = human organism) -vs- S - R
Dynamic view -vs- Mechanistic view
Perceptions -vs- Observable behavior
Internal thoughts -vs- Behavioral change
Liberal studies for adults -vs- Programmed learning
Maslow/Rogers -vs- Skinner/Thorndike
Cross/Knowles/Mezirow/Tough -vs- Ausubel/Bruner/Gagne/Piaget
Individual determines learning -vs- Environment shapes learning
Individual locus of control -vs- External locus of control
Personal control and evaluation -vs- Imitating and observing others
Role of experience -vs- Reinforcement/operant conditioning
Interactive needs assessment -vs- Task analysis
Facilitator -vs- Trainer
Qualitative methods predominate -vs- Quantitative methods predominate
Process evaluation -vs- Product evaluation
Goal free evaluation -vs- Criterion/normative/goal referenced evaluation
Learner controlled verification -vs- External testing
Affective learning -vs- Cognitive/mechanistic/psychomotor learning
Individuals control own destiny -vs- Predetermination
Andragogy -vs- Pedagogy
Self-directed learning -vs- Expert directs learning/expert models
Crystallized intelligence -vs- Fluid intelligence
Internal motivation -vs- External motivation
Relative ends -vs- Fixed ends
Presenting comparisons in a dichotomous manner is always difficult
because ideas, attitudes, and movements seldom fall neatly into an either-or
configuration. There usually are various ways ideas or statements can be
viewed and the interpretations we have made regarding the views of others
may not reflect their reality. Establishing one side or view of the world
versus another side or view can create unexpected or undesired emotions,
too.
It is even difficult to say that many of the items presented in the comparison
are "absolutely" attached to one side or the other. There is some
overlap, some items may fit both sides, and some comparisons may be better
understood as representations of representations of continua rather than
dichotomies. There is even considerable debate in the literature as to how
definitive the related research and thinking has been on some of the items.
For example, right -vs- left brain hemispheric and crystallized -vs- fluid
intelligence research both have been discussed and critiqued in various
ways. So, Figure 1 should be viewed in light of these possible limits.
The instructional design field during the past decade also has become increasingly
involved with cognitive science and psychology, producing considerable information
on learning analysis and cognitive strategies (Gagne, Briggs, & Wager,
1992). Many researchers in cognition have sought to move beyond the strictures
of any behaviorist schools of thought in various ways: (a) attempting to
understand the physical makeup of human memory; (b) trying to discern the
way information is stored, coded, and utilized by the human brain; (c) researching
properties of short term memory; and (d) considering the needs, desires,
emotions, attitudes, motivations, and values of learners in terms of cognitive
change. Some scholars refer to instructional design based on cognitive assumptions
and the structuring of knowledge as second generation instructional design
theory (Merrill, 1991), although Duffy and Jonassen (1991) suggest that
both behaviorism and cognitive psychology are girded by objectivist epistemologies
where structured knowledge rather than a learner's experience or need is
a basis for instruction.
Some of the current instructional design theories reflect changing views
of how to work with learners most effectively. For example, Merrill's (1983)
component display theory draws from the multiple perspectives of behavioral,
cognitive, and humanistic beliefs. Likewise, Reigeluth's (1987) elaboration
theory of instruction incorporates a great deal of learner control into
the instructional design process.
Currently, debates within the instructional design field are also going
on pertaining to the desires of some to recast the field in terms of constructionist
views. Constructivism makes a decidedly different set of assumptions about
learning and corresponding instruction. It is concerned with the way people
construct knowledge based on experiences, mental structures, and beliefs
(Jonassen, 1991). In essence, this means learners build their own meaning
from new knowledge rather than having that meaning built by someone else.
Instruction is then based on past experience and aims to develop a learner's
skill at constructing meaning from new knowledge and experiences. Both the
May and September, 1991, issues of Educational Technology are devoted
to pro and con discussions of constructivism.
Thus, the complementary roles of experience, feeling, and cognition in learning
are impacting on the ways instructional designers think about their tasks.
Many of the views may no longer fit neatly into Figure 1's right column
descriptors
Adult education, too, has undergone several changes in the past two decades
in addition to considerable scholarship on adult learning, self-direction,
and instruction described earlier. Brookfield (1989) and Mezirow (1991;
Mezirow & Associates, 1991) have been two of the scholars helping the
field become more aware of critical thinking, transformative dimensions
of adult learning, and emancipatory learning. Jarvis (1985) has encouraged
adult educators to better understand sociological perspectives pertaining
to the teaching and learning process. Smith (1982; Smith & Associates,
1990) has been instrumental in helping educators of adults understand more
about learning how to learn concepts. Peters, Jarvis, and Associates (1991)
even describe how the field's development in the past two decades has been
informed by various interdisciplinary dimensions. All of these changes do
not always fit neatly within the humanistic side of the comparison figure.
However, we have initiated this comparison as a mechanism to suggest that
many adult educators and instructional designers (and even educators who
devote most of their research and energy toward the education of youth)
have been approaching several of the problems pertaining to learning and
instruction from different ideological points of view and often different
research methodologies. It is our contention that many of the tenets, beliefs,
and views of the world that may appear to fit when dealing with youth or
young adults with few life experiences may not work well for educators working
with adults as learners.
HUMANIZING THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS: APPLYING SELF-DIRECTION IN LEARNING
PRINCIPLES
In the previous section, we made some general comparisons between what is
often found in the fields of adult education and instructional development.
Our intent was not to dichotomize the two fields into a right -vs- wrong
status, nor did we intend to enter into what Tobias (1991) calls a perennial
controversy between advocates of tailoring instruction to learners' unique
attributes versus instruction that steers learners toward certain curricular
standards. Rather, our goals was to show that although there are differences
in the concepts and people representing the two fields, there is nonetheless
much potential for exchange. There are several shared elements between the
humanist orientation and the behaviorist paradigm:
1. Learning should focus on practical problem solving.
2. Learners enter a teaching-learning setting with a wide range of skills,
abilities, and attitudes, and these need to be considered in the instructional
planning process.
3. The learning environment should allow each learner to proceed at a pace
best suited to the individual.
4. It is important to help learners continuously assess their progress and
make feedback a part of the learning process.
5. The learner's previous experience is an invaluable resource for future
learning and thus enhancing the value of advanced organizers or making clear
the role for mastery of necessary prerequisites.
Several years ago, Miller and Hotes (1982) presented a series of strategies
for humanizing the systems approach to individual instruction. While stressing
the use of "accurate measurable behavioral objectives," "appropriate
practice opportunities," and "task analysis," Miller and
Hotes pointed out that one way to humanize the system "is to make it
responsive to the needs of the individual student" (p. 22). They believe
the three strategies that can be useful are learning by example (modeling),
learning by doing, and positive reinforcement. We believe there is considerable
value in examining the ways humanist and behaviorist approaches to adult
learning might be linked.
In our own work on self-direction in learning, we have presented a framework
for understanding key dimensions of the concept (Brockett & Hiemstra,
1991). We developed what we call the Personal Responsibility Orientation
(PRO) model. This model starts with the notion of personal responsibility,
in which "individuals assume ownership for their own thoughts and actions"
(p. 26). This, we believe, is central to an understanding of self-direction
in learning, especially when working with adults as learners. We assert
that only by assuming primary responsibility for personal learning is it
possible for an adult to take a proactive approach to the teaching-learning
process. Obviously, we believe that an adult learner's proactivity is desirous
because from our experiences the ability to be self-directed regarding learning
pursuits benefits everyone. Further, personal responsibility is not an either/or
characteristic; rather it exists within each of us to a greater or lesser
degree.
In essence, we suggest that a humanistic orientation to the instructional
process can help learners increase their levels of responsibility. We do
recognize there may be times when self-directed opportunities are minimal,
such as when involved in collaborative learning or when learning entirely
new content, but believe that the assumption of personal responsibility
is possible in ways not tied to the type of learning or content. We also
recognize that various social, political, and organizational factors may
inhibit the employment of humanistic techniques, but urge that as much attention
as possible be given to the potential of learners taking charge of their
own learning.
For example, in the PRO model, we make an important distinction between
"learner self-direction" and "self-directed learning."
Learner self-direction refers to those characteristics within an individual
"that predispose one toward taking primary responsibility for personal
learning endeavors" (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991, p. 29). It is probably
best understood in terms of personality. To a great extent, the characteristics
of learner self-direction are found in basic tenets of humanistic philosophy
and psychology, such as those described earlier in this chapter.
Self-directed learning, in the PRO model, refers specifically to the teaching-learning
process, and centers on the planning, implementation, and evaluation of
learning activities where learners assume primary responsibility for the
process. For purposes of the current discussion, we would like to elaborate
a bit on this notion, as this is where it is possible for educators and
trainers to actively implement strategies that will allow them to humanize
the instructional process.
Both Patterson (1973) and Valett (1977) present a host of useful strategies
designed to humanize education. While many of their ideas can be adapted
to adult learning settings, these works tend to stress elementary and secondary
education. More recently, Hiemstra and Sisco (1990) have presented an approach
to individualizing instruction derived from principles of humanism and designed
specifically for working with adult learners. The individualizing instruction
(II) process model consists of six steps, which are related to each other
in a circular rather than linear format. The six steps are: (a) activities
prior to the first session (e.g., developing a rationale, preplanning);
(b) creating a positive learning environment (physical, social, and psychological);
(c) developing the instructional plan (with active involvement of participants
in assessing personal and relevant group needs, ascertaining the relevance
of past experience, and prioritizing knowledge areas to be covered); (d)
identifying the learning activities (determining learning activities and
techniques); (e) putting learning into action and monitoring progress (formative
evaluation); and (f) evaluating individual learning outcomes (matching learning
objectives to mastery). In the II process, the instructor's role is to manage
and facilitate the learning process; "optimum learning is the result
of careful interactive planning between the instructor and the individual
learners" (pp. 47-48).
In examining the II process model, it is not difficult to see some links
between this humanist-derived approach and behaviorist-oriented models of
systematic instructional design, stemming initially from Tyler (1950) and
appearing in some aspects of several instructional theories portrayed by
Reigeluth (1987) and his colleagues. For example, both the II model and
most systematic or prescriptive instructional development models use an
organized and deliberate design. Most stress the importance of the learning
environment and all emphasize the need to evaluate learning.
At the same time, there are some very important differences between humanist
and more behavioral approaches. For instance, an instructor in the II process
serves more as a facilitator, while an instructor operating within a behavioral
framework is more a manager or director of the process and delivery system.
In addition, the II model places great importance on affective aspects of
the teaching-learning transaction. Concern for interpersonal relationships
and active involvement of learners in determining both process and content
of the learning experience are two examples. Furthermore, while behaviorist
models tend to focus on the outcomes of learning, the II approach also places
great importance on "the process that enables mastery to occur"
(Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990, p. 48).
One final element of the PRO model needs to be discussed. In the model,
we stress the need to recognize the social and political context in which
learning takes place. For example, while we believe that self-direction
is vital to the teaching-learning process, we also recognize that the individualized
emphasis of this approach may run contrary to values held in some cultural
settings. In addition, there are times when the pragmatic requirements of
a given training need may prevent learners from taking much or even any
personal responsibility.
We do not wish to "impose" our approach on individuals or groups
whose perceptions of reality (particularly with regard to individuality,
autonomy, and personal responsibility) run contrary to ours; at the same
time, we do feel obligated to share our views with such people to promote
awareness of alternative ways of thinking and acting. It also is not our
wish to seem like evangelists trying to convert others to a particular way
of thinking. Rather, based on our experiences and knowledge bases, we believe
in promoting learner self-direction as the most appropriate instructional
approach when working with adults as learners.
UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER
How do we move from ideas to action? It is our hope that this Chapter presents
some ideas that will lead to discussion on how to help those from behaviorist
or "teacher as expert" views see the humanist point of view and
vice versa. As educators who have worked with colleagues from both the behaviorist
and humanist perspectives, we believe that our backgrounds have been greatly
enriched by exposure to both emphases. Yet, we are troubled by a perception
that educators and trainers from both camps have limited exposure to each
other's ideas. Our purpose in writing this chapter has been to share what
we believe the humanist orientation has to offer educators and trainers
who adhere to a more behaviorist orientation. At the same time, we believe
it is equally important for educators who adhere primarily to behavioral
or prescriptive learning views to share their own ideas on how to help humanist-oriented
educators broaden their understanding.
Within the example of the two disciplines presented in this chapter, for
example, we hope this will mean that adult education and instructional design
faculty can dialogue with each other more frequently. In essence, we hope
our message will help each side better understand and contribute to the
other side so that our overall understanding about self-direction in learning
and its role in the education of adults will be enhanced. For example, the
micro-instruction skills of most instructional designers related to such
activities as task analysis, media selection, and determining strategies
for teaching certain knowledge components, can be very instrumental in helping
the self-directed learner make effective use of study time. A recent merger
of adult education and instructional design at Syracuse University is one
illustration of how such understanding may lead to a blending of the best
of both disciplines into some type of new whole.
We also are trying to find ways for better making the humanist case so those
who believe primarily in behaviorism don't discount humanism. We feel very
strongly that self-direction in learning, or the creation of self-directed
learners as perhaps a better way of putting it, will be crucial for meeting
many of the future training and continuing education needs. In fact, much
of the literature pertaining to self-directed learning has demonstrated
that adults prefer to take responsibility for their own learning if given
appropriate opportunities (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991). The increasing
use of computer technology for individualized instruction and for distance
learning is further reason for humanists, constructionists, and behaviorists
to learn from each other (Hollis, 1991; Rieber, 1992). At Syracuse University,
for example, humanistic, self-directed learning activities are important
components of many of our computer mediated conferencing distance education
courses (Hiemstra, in press). As humanism, in our view, undergirds much
of the understanding about self-direction, it is important that such a case
be made.
Here are some initial ideas for those adhering to humanist views on how
to promote a better understanding:
1. Engage in dialogue with those not understanding or even dismissing humanist
views through articles, papers, books, and even co-authored writing.
2. Model effective adult instruction that is grounded in humanistic views.
3. Recruit instructional design students into adult education courses where
humanistic views are described and employed in the instructional process.
4. Encourage adult education students with a humanistic orientation to learn
about behaviorist or cognitive models of instructional development and to
become able to analyze and, where appropriate, adapt elements from such
models into their own practices.
5. Determine or explore various ways that instructional design theories
and approaches can better inform self-directed learning practices.
6. Encourage all educators of adults to explicate their personal instructional
philosophy, delineate their actual beliefs in terms of a humanist to behaviorist
continuum, and determine how such beliefs inform their instructional efforts.
(Hiemstra, 1988)
We take great pride in the humanist foundation that undergirds the way in
which we practice. Humanism embraces the goodness of humanity and the virtual
limitlessness of human potential. Self-direction is one of many ideas from
educational practice that is tied to these basic values. We hope this chapter
will prompt many readers to critically examine the ideas presented in light
of their own philosophical underpinnings. We hope, too, that others will
engage in dialogue through their own scholarship to help us move forward
even further in pushing back the limits of knowledge in this vital area.
REFERENCES
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in learning:
Perspectives on theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.
Brookfield, S. D. (1989). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults
to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: W.
W. Norton.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Confessore, G. J., & Long, H. B. (1992). Abstracts of literature
in self-directed learning: 1983-1991. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research
Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.
Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as Learners: Increasing Participation and
Facilitating Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications
for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31(5),
7-12.
Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. (1980). Philosophical foundations of
adult education. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th Edition). New York:
Hold, Rinehart & Winston.
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of
instructional design (4th Edition). San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, and
Jovanovich.
Hiemstra, R. (1988). Translating personal values and philosophy into practical
action. In R. G. Brockett (Ed.), Ethical issues in adult education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Hiemstra, R. (in press). Computerized distance education: The role for facilitators.
In M. Mulder, W. J. Nihof, & R. O. Brinkerhoff (Eds.), Corporate
training for effective performance. Enschede, the Netherlands: University
of Twente.
Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction for
adult learners: Making learning personal, powerful, and successful.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hollis, W. F. (1991). Humanistic learning theory and instructional technology:
Is reconciliation possible? Educational Technology, 31(11),
49-53.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational
Technology, 31(9), 28-33.
Jarvis, P. (1985). The sociology of adult & continuing education.
London: Croom Helm.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education (revised
and updated). Chicago: Association Press (originally published in 1970).
Lamont, C. (1965). The philosophy of humanism (5th Edition). New
York: Frederick Unger Publishing Co.
Lindeman, E. C. (1988). The meaning of adult education. Norman, OK:
Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education
(originally published in 1926).
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1987). Self-directed learning: Application
& theory. Athens, GA: Adult Education Department, University of
Georgia.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1989). Self-directed learning: Emerging
theory & practice. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing
Professional and Higher Education.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1990). Advances in research and practice
in self-directed learning. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for
Continuing Professional and Higher Education.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1991). Self-directed learning: Consensus
& conflict. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing
Professional and Higher Education.
Long, H. B., & Associates. (1992). Self-directed learning: Application
and research. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional
and Higher Education.
Long, H. B., & Confessore, G. J. (1992). Abstracts of literature
in self-directed learning: 1966-1982. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research
Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.
Long, H. B., & Redding, T. R. (1991). Self-directed learning dissertation
abstracts: 1966-1991. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing
Professional and Higher Education.
Marsick, V. J. (1988). Learning in the workplace: The case for reflectivity
and critical reflectivity. Adult Education Quarterly, 38,
187-198.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd Edition). New
York: Harper & Row.
Merriam, S. B. (1991). How research produces knowledge. In J. M. Peters,
P. Jarvis, & Associates, Adult education: Evolution and achievements
in a developing field of study. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in adulthood:
A comprehensive Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current
status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational
Technology, 31(5), 45-53.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J., & Associates. (1991). Fostering critical reflection
in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, B. W., & Hotes, R. W. (1982). Almost everything you always wanted
to know about individualized instruction. Lifelong Learning: The Adult
Years, 5(9), 20-23.
Patterson, C. H. (1973). Humanistic education. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Piaget, J. (1966). Psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield,
Adams.
Peters, J. M., Jarvis, P., & Associates. (1991). Adult education:
Evolution and achievements in a developing field of study. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism
and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development,
40, (1), 93-106.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional-design theories and models:
An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1987). Instructional theories in action: Lessons
illustrating selected theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80's. Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching.
Harvard Educational Review, 24(2), 86-97.
Smith, R. M. (1982). Learning how to learn: Applied theory for adults.
Chicago: Follett Publishing Company.
Smith, R. M., & Associates. (1990). Learning to learn across the
life span. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thorndike, E. L., Bregman, E. O., Tilton, J. W., & Woodyard, E. (1928).
Adult learning. New York: Macmillan.
Tobias, S. (1991). An eclectic examination of some issues in the constructivist-ISD
controversy. Educational Technology, 31(9), 41-43.
Tough, A. M. (1979). The adult's learning projects (2nd ed.). Austin,
Texas: Learning Concepts.
Tyler, R. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Valett, R. E. (1977). Humanistic education: Developing the total person.
St. Louis: C.V. Mosby.
-- Return to guide to SDL papers
page 
-- Return to SDL home
page