1. Introduction
Since the inception of the faculty of International Social Sciences from AY2016 at Gakushuin University, Self-Directed Learning has been a required course in for first year students in the Faculty of International Social Sciences （Gakushuin University Faculty of International Social Sciences, n.d.）. It signals how Self-directed learning is being recog-nized as an important skill within the Japanese educational context, making it important for readers to understand what self-directed learning is, its history, its benefits and short-comings, and recent technological developments that have contributed to self-directed learning. In section 2, self-directed learning will be defined and the history of significant research will be traced. This will be followed by an analysis on the benefits and shortcom-ings of the self-directed learning approach in section 3. Finally, in section 4, technological developments that have contributed to self-directed learning as a process will be covered.
2. Definition and History of Self-Directed Learning
One component of self-directed learning is planning. For example, Tough （1967/1971） provided the first comprehensive description of self-directed learning, which he termed self-planned learning. Another component of self-directed learning is deliberate effort to learn （Tough, 1971）. Historically, scholars have initiated debate about what goals of self-directed learning should be in the 1980s and 1990s （Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Brook-field, 1986; Collins, 1988; Mezirow, 1985） and started to explore personal characteristics and attributes of those who are self-directed learners （Candy, 1991; Chene, 1983; Oddi, 1986）. One of the goals is to improve the ability of adults to be self-directed in their learn-ing, which would require educators to help learners not only to plan and carry out their own learning but also to evaluate their own learning, and it is grounded in humanistic philosophy （Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007）. For example, Brockett and
Hiem-Self-Directed Learning: History, Benefits and Shortcomings,
and Recent Technological Developments
stra （1991） point out that human nature is basically good and individuals possess virtually unlimited potential for growth. Another goal is to foster transformational learning （Mezirow, 1985; Brookfield, 1986）. This transformation involves reflecting critically.
Ac-cording to Brookfield （1986），“the most complete form of self-directed learning occurs when process and reflection are married in the adultʼs pursuit of meaning”（p. 108）. Yet another goal is enhancing the ability of individual learners to be more self-directed in their learning （Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007）. According to Knowles （1970/1980）, one of the main assumptions of adult learning is that learners become increasingly self-di-rected as they mature.
Next, specific models of self-directed learning will be discussed to better trace the his-tory of self-directed learning, starting with early models. The early models of self-directed learning were proposed by Tough （1971） and Knowles （1975） and were linear in nature. In particular, as briefly mentioned in the previous paragraph, Tough （1971） proposed the first comprehensive description of self-directed learning, drawing on a study of learning projects of 66 people from Ontario, Canada, finding that 70 percent of all learning projects were planned by the learners themselves. A learning project was defined as a highly de-liberate effort to gain and retain certain definite knowledge and or skill, and a series of re-lated learning sessions must add up to at least seven hours. It was found that learners used 13 steps in self-planned learning projects, representing key decision-making points about choosing what, where, and when to learn along with deciding on resources for learning and detecting possible barriers to learning （Tough, 1978）. Also, Knowles （1975） describes six major steps as part of self-directed learning including:（1） climate setting, （2） diagnosing learning needs, （3） formulating learning goals, （4） identifying human and material resources for learning, （5） choosing and implementing appropriate learning strat-egies, and （6） evaluating learning outcomes. In the early models that Tough （1971） and Knowles （1975） offered, learners moved through a series of steps to reach their learning goals.
Later on, in the 1980s and 1990s, models of self-directed learning shifted to interactive models that described self-directed learning as not well planned or linear but rather em-phasized two or more factors including but not limited to:（1） opportunities people find in their own environments, （2） the personality characteristics of learners, （3） cognitive pro-cesses, and （4） the context of learning, as represented in models by Spear （1988）,
Brock-opportunities people find in their own environments, （2） past or new knowledge, and （3） chance occurrences. Furthermore, Spear （1988） concluded that self-directed learning proj-ects generally do not occur in a linear fashion, but rather, a successful self-directed learn-ing project is one in which a person can engage in a sufficient number of relevant clusters of learning activities and then assemble the clusters into a coherent whole. In support of this, Danis and Tremblay （1988） who studied 10 long-term adult learners found that their respondents were able to specify learning goals only when they had mastered certain knowledge or skills, and in general, these learners used multiple approaches instead of one approach. Furthermore, learners took advantage of random events that stood out as opportunities.
A second model appears in the early 1990s. Brockett and Hiemstra （1991） provided a Personal Responsibility Orientation or the PRO model, which emphasizes self-direction in learning that consists of both instructional method processes of self-directed learning as well as personality characteristics of the individual learner or self direction. With the in-structional methods component, instructors need to have the skills necessary to help learners do needs assessments, locate learning resources, and choose instructional meth-ods and evaluation strategies. As for the personality characteristics of learners, individual desire or preference are regarded as key concepts that relate to being responsible for oneʼs own learning. Related to the PRO model, Stockdaleʼs （2003）35-item Personal Re-sponsibility Orientation to Self-Direction in Learning Scale or PRO-SDLS was found to be reliable with the sample of graduate and undergraduate education students, and Fogersonʼs （2005） study confirmed the reliability of PRO-SDLS.
A third and most recent model is Garrisonʼs （1997） model, which is multidimentional and interactive, in which the model integrates （1） self-management, （2） self-monitoring, and （3） motivational dimensions in order for self-directed learning to be meaningful. First, self-management involves the use of learning materials in an educational context, and the educational context needs to consider the opportunity to test and confirm understanding collaboratively for there to be increased responsibility on the part of the learner. Second, self-monitoring has to do with the ability of learners to monitor both their cognitive and metacognitive processes and use a wide variety of learning strategies to think about their learning. Finally, the motivational dimension has to do with what influences people receive to participate in self-directed learning.
3. Benefits and Shortcomings
One of the shortcomings for self-directed learning, particularly for the goal of enhanc-ing the ability of individual learners to be more self-directed is that the goal is too narrow with the focus of that being primarily instrumental learning and assisting individual learn-ers （Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007）. Specifically, they are viewed as a way to condition the individual into taken for granted acceptance of what is offered （Collins, 1996）. In order to overcome such shortcomings, there is an emphasis on focusing on emancipation as a core concern （Collins, 1996）. For instance, research conducted by An-druske （2000） investigating self-directed learning projects and welfare found that women became political change agents as they attempted to control and initiate change in their everyday worlds in response to oppressive external structures. Political change agents would mean shifting from acting based on improvement that can be criticized as self-centered or egotistical to focusing on the benefits of the society as a whole. However, Brookfield （1993） points out that changing the political culture of institutions can be diffi-cult where the diffi-culture itself is highly controlling.
One of the benefits of self-directed learning as an instructional approach is its capaci-ty to develop learners into life-long learners, as with the development of technology, knowledge is accumulating quickly and one needs to continue to learn to be effective （Williams, 2001）. Dunlap and Grabinger （2003） point out that in order to prepare students in higher education to be lifelong learners, educators need to develop their capacity for self-direction, metacognitive awareness, and a disposition toward learning. Guglielmino and Guglielmino （2005） claim that by encouraging employees to be self-directed, they can contribute to competitiveness without needing an instructor all the time. As Cho （2002） points out and as major models of Self-Directed learning reviewed in the first section sug-gest, although the primary purpose of self-directed learning has been personal growth, in-teraction and collaboration with others are also important.
4. Technological Developments
learn-2003）. Pachnowski and Jurczyk （2000） found that self-directedness is not a good indicator of success measured by grades in web-based courses but this may have been due to the very low participation rate, and more research remains to be done in this area. However, review of dissertations between 1980 and 2002（Canipe & Fogerson, 2004） and analysis of ERIC documents between 1993 and 2003（Canipe, Fogerson, & Duffley-Renow, 2005） sug-gest a steady interest and research on self-directed learning, so more research is likely to be conducted in the future. However, Merriam, Rosemary, and Baumgartner （2007） point out that fresh questions and ideas are still needed such as developing new ways to mea-sure self-directedness, not just widely used instruments such as （1） the Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory and （2） the Self-Directed Readiness Learning Scale, and the need to ask questions such as how contextual and cultural factors shape self-directed learning.
5. Conclusion
With the recognition of self-directed learning being an important skill to be acquired within the Japanese educational context, its history, benefits and shortcomings, and recent technological developments that have contributed to self-directed learning were discussed. In section 2, self-directed learning were defined and the history of significant research were traced as well. It was argued that self-directed learning had several key elements such as: planning, exerting effort, and evaluating oneʼs own learning. Furthermore, com-pared to when self-directed learning was first defined in the 1960s, from the 1980s, there was more emphasis on opportunities people find in their own environments, the person-ality characteristics of learners, cognitive processes, and the context of learning. In section 3, an analysis on the benefits and shortcomings of the self-directed learning approach was made. It was argued that the major benefit of the self-directed learning approach is the ability for learners to become life-long learners which can enable them to adapt to chang-ing environments in and outside of work. On the other hand, a major shortcomchang-ing is its emphasis on primarily being self-serving, although one can argue that through self-im-provement, one can develop a greater capacity to assist others. Finally, in section 4, tech-nological developments that have contributed to self-directed learning as a process were covered. Specifically, distance learning programs as well as online platforms created by teachers in regular classrooms can promote discussion and reflection that can assist with oneʼs self-directed learning. Given the contextual and personal elements to self-directed learning, teacher researchers conducting action research is likely to improve the quality
of teaching in his or her own classroom. Furthermore, action research conducted by those teacher researchers may help other teachers supporting their students to become effec-tive self-directed learners provide better support, as a result of reflection from reading and applying key learning points to his or her own classroom.
References
Andruske, C. L. （2000）. Self-directed learning as a political act: Learning projects of women on
welfare. In T. Sork, V. Chapman, R. St. Clair （Eds.）, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Adult
Education Research Conference （pp. 11-15）. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. （1991）. Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory,
re-search, and practice. New York: Routledge.
Brookfield, S. （1986）. Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. （1993）. Self-directed learning, political clarity, and the critical practice of adult
edu-cation. Adult Education Quarterly, 43（4）, 227-242.
Candy, P. C. （1991）. Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carnipe, J. B., & Fogerson, D. L. （2004, February）. The literature on self-directed learning:
Dis-sertations. Paper presented at the meeting of the 18th International Self-Directed Learning
Symposium, Cocoa Beach, FL.
Carnipe, J. B., & Fogerson, D. L., & Duffley-Renow, P. （2005, February）. A content analysis of ar-ticles on self-directed learning in ERIC: 1993-2003. Paper presented at the meeting of the
19th International Self-Directed Learning Symposium, Cocoa Beach, FL.
Chene, A. （1983）. The concept of autonomy: A philosophical discussion. Adult Education Quar-terly, 34, 38-47.
Cho, D. （2002）. The connection between self-directed learning and the learning organization. Hu-man Resource Development Quarterly, 13（4）, 467-470.
Collins, M. （1988）. Self-directed learning or an emancipatory practice of adult education:
Re-thinking the role of the adult educator. In C. Warren （Ed.）, Proceedings of the 29th Annual
Adult Education Research Conference （pp. 97-102）. Knoxville: University of Tennessee. Collins, M. （1996）. On contemporary practice and research: Self-directed learning to critical
theo-ry. In R. Edwards, A. Hanson, & P. Raggatt （Eds.）, Boundaries of adult learning: Adult learners, education and training （pp. 109-127）. New York: Routledge.
Danis, C., & Tremblay, N. A. （1988）. Autodidactic learning experiences: Questioning established adult learning principles. In H. B. Long & others, Self-directed learning: Application and the-ory （pp. 171-197）. Athens: Adult Education Department, University of Georgia.
Dunlap, J., & Grabinger, S. （2003）. Preparing students for lifelong learning: A review of instruc-tional features and teaching methodologies. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16（2）, 6-25.
17（3）, 4-19.
Gakushuin University Faculty of International Social Sciences. （n.d.）. Course Details. Retrieved from http://www.univ.gakushuin.ac.jp/iss/en/program/registration_detail.html#A100-4 Garrison, D. R. （1997）. Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education
Quarterly, 48（1）, 18-33.
Guglielmino, P. J., & Guglielmino, L. M. （2005）. The relationship of self-directed learning readi-ness, culture, productivity and income in seven countries. Paper presented at the meeting of the Self-Directed Learning Conference, Jupiter, FL.
Houle, C. O. （1988）. The inquiring mind （2nd ed.）. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press &
Norman: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education. Knowles, M. S. （1970）. The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. New
York: Cambridge Books.
Knowles, M. S. （1975）. Self-directed learning. New York: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. （1980）. The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy （2nd
ed.）. New York: Cambridge Books.
Merriam, S., Caffarella, R., & Baumgartner, L. （2006）. Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide （3rd ed.）. California: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Mezirow, J. （1985）. A critical theory of self-directed learning. In S. Brookfield （Ed.）, Self-directed learning: From theory to practice （pp. 17-30）. New Directions for Continuing Education, No. 25. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oddi, L. F. （1986）. Development and validation of an instrument to identify self-directed continu-ing learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 362）, 97-107.
Pachnowski, L. M., & Jurczyk, J. P. （2000）. Correlating self-directed learning with distance learn-ing success. Paper presented at the annual meetlearn-ing of the Eastern Educational Research As-sociation, Clearwater, FL.
Roberson, D. N. （2003）. How older adults utilize self-directed learning in late life adjustments. Un-published doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Spear, G. E. （1988）. Beyond the organizing circumstance: A search for methodology for the study of self-directed learning. In H. B. Long & others, Self-directed learning: Application and theory. Athens: Department of Adult Education, University of Georgia.
Stockdale, S. L. （2003）. Development of an instrument to measure self-directedness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Tough, A. （1967）. Learning without a teacher. Educational Research Series, No. 3. Toronto: On-tario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tough, A. （1971）. The adultʼs learning projects: A fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tough, A. （1978）. Major learning efforts: Recent research and future directions. Adult Educa-tion, 28（4）, 250-263.
Valente, J. （2005）. The role of self-directed learning in older adultʼs healthcare. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Williams, B. （2001）. The theoretical links between problem-based learning and self-directed learning for continuing professional nursing education. Teaching in Higher Education, 6（1）, 85-98.
