A head full of acronyms.

This week we appear to be filling our heads with acronyms - PBL, SDL, SRL and all the models, factors for success, theories, and positions that go along with them. It is challenging to absorb so much new information week after week and still remember what I've read well enough to refer back to it or to use it to synthesize new content... Nonetheless, I'll try!

I found all the articles on this week's list incredibly interesting (if slow reading - sometimes the same paragraph three or four times until it sunk in) and yet I find myself with more questions than answers...

- Aha, a problem. Could this be a deliberate circumstance? Is this part of the plan for this course in  Adult Education I wonder? Are we in fact following a loosely constructed problem based learning model while at the same time becoming self-directed learners as a result of participating in this course? I'm thinking that the answer might just be a "yes". Particularly after having read the Loyens & Rikers and the Silén & Uhlin articles. While we do not actually begin with a problem (we begin with readings); I suspect that one purpose of blogging is to provide a platform for questioning, thinking, and expanding our suppositions.  As per Loyens, we begin with limited prior knowledge, any discussion we have, either self-reflectively, with you Laura, or in the class discussions, leads us to formulate issues for further self-directed learning. In my case, I chose to look further into theories of motivation by reading articles by Garrison, Whitfield & Eccles, as well as Deci for further illumination (again, I have more questions than answers!) Therefore, if blogging serves as a spring board for SDL, the readings themselves provide much needed background information. During the online component, we are stimulated to inquire further into our learning and we engage in group work which "is a means of inquiring into the situation". One aspect of synchronous learning that I believe poses a significant challenge to the success of a PBL model is that of developing fully functional, collaborative groups. "In a group that functions well, each individual student can use the group to develop her/his own learning process as well as contributing to the common goals of the tutorial" (Silén, 2008, p. 469). In synchronous learning, students do not (I believe) have the opportunity to form meaningful working relationships that build the type of trust that I think would be required for an open exchange of "ideas, beliefs, and experiences concerning the [learning] situation"(Silén, 2008, p. 465).

I have not delved deeper into the impact of online learning to PBL models of teaching, however I suspect that I might be at least a little bit right... One reason for this belief is that it is during small group work (tutorials) that the students begin to take control over their learning process. As well, according to Silén, it is during these times that the tutor must observe and challenge the students' thinking and, above all, avoid superficial brainstorming behaviours that do not lend themselves to deeper inquiry. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult that would be for any professor, facilitator, or tutor in an online learning environment. Laura I admire you!

Fun intermission drive in footage from the '50s.
Irrelevant but more interesting than my blog!

Another online difficulty that I suspect with SDL or PBL models of learning is that of control and politics. The Brookfield article actually left me wondering why anyone would even bother to try to adhere to SDL at all. I understand and celebrate Gelpi's view that "self-directed learning by individuals and of groups is a danger for every repressive force, and it is upon this self-direction that we must insist .... radical change in social, moral, aesthetic and political affairs is often the outcome of a process of self-directed learning in opposition to the educational message imposed from without. (Gelpi in Brookfield, 1993, p. 229). However realizing SD teaching methods seems practically impossible, or at least fraught with roadblocks and tempting or invisible wrong turns. Why? Because on the one side you have the educator for whom is it "quite possible to advocate self-directed approaches in good conscience, only to discover later that our efforts have served to bolster the oppressive structures that we thought we were opposing. It is possible, too, to have a good heart, boundless energy, and a deep well of compassion, but to lack political clarity." (Brookfield, 1993, p. 229). Or consider "from a critical perspective, the co-opting of the early free spirit of self-direction into a masked form of repressive practice can be seen as yet one more example of the infinite flexibility of hegemony, of the workings of a coldly efficient repressive tolerance" (Brookfield, 1993, p. 228). So it would seem that from the point of view of the teacher or the institution, try as one might to give control to the learner, to be free from bias, to respect the learner's dignity and experiences, and to break from authoritarian forms of education, it is not a simple task at all. We naturally fall into the comfortable slots carved out for us by whatever culture we inhabit, often unaware of that "coldly efficient repressive tolerance". Scary.

Now the point of view of the learner. For a learner to be genuinely self-directed, she must be in control of her access to resources, to all educational decisions, to everything that relates in any way to her educational goal. This doesn't sound terribly difficult. However, I think it is! Brookfield points out that it is not so easy to exercise authentic control in a culture which is itself highly controlling. If the educator sets out course readings then we are controlled. We are not clean slates, free from cultural influences, neither are we autonomous or innocent. "The most critically sophisticated and reflective adults cannot escape their own biographies"(Brookfield, 1993, p. 236). The author offers many more examples but the key issue is this: "A fully developed self-directed learning project would have at its centre an alertness to the possibility of hegemony." (Brookfield, 1993, p. 234). This to me reeks of paranoia.

Nonetheless, it would appear that galloping to the rescue comes the practice of reflection! This makes sense of course since reflection provides the opportunity for the learner to critically review who she is and how her biases may cause "knee-jerk" reactions. Reflecting then, may lead to better, more balanced choices.

What I appreciated most about this article was the way that Brookfield clarified for me Bullock's statement regarding collective action. He said that "many SDL theorists suggest that SDL experiences should include some sort of reflection by learners on the socio-political structures in which their learning occurs and the SD experiences should lead to collective action." This left me needing more. On the surface I found the statement ridiculous. After all, how would self-directedness lead to collectiveness? Brookfield discusses the difference between learning for short-term personal gain and for long-term structural change. In other words, when exploring options for and making choices in a learning project, the students might choose to use her power differently. Rather than focusing on her own success, what if she looks at the bigger picture. In doing so, she may well discover that her problem is a large-scale problem shared by a collective. "In focusing our self-directed learning efforts on our own long term best inerests, we would realize that these lay in collective action." Brookfield, 2008, p. 235).