Perhaps the idea seems more than reasonable when explained to you in theory. However, like many things, implementation of the concept often falls rather short of the ideal.
Self-directed learning is broken down on Waterloo’s Centre for Teaching Excellence’s webpage as a four-step process— being ready to learn, setting learning goals, engaging in the learning process, and evaluating the learning. Immediately, we can recognize that this includes two more steps than what is normal for a student engaging in traditional learning environments. While every student needs to prepare for the lessons and, of course, engage in them, typically the designation of learning goals and evaluation of the learning are tasked to the course instructor, professor, or teacher. This includes the designation and development of curriculum, as well as proper testing/evaluation.
Traditionally, these steps are tasked to professors and professionals who are better versed in the realm of teaching who are more familiar with common pitfalls and important points that should be covered in a course. These are people who are knowledgeable in their field, and competent enough to know what materials need to be emphasized, what subjects are common trouble areas, and what subject matter is (typically) not useful in further studies. By tasking a student with these responsibilities it becomes far easier to make mistakes in the planning of the curriculum, such as focusing on unimportant ideas, spending too much or too little time on specific subjects, and overlooking important matters entirely.
By engaging in self-directed learning, a student effectively removes themselves from the experience and wisdom that comes with a well practiced professor or lecturer. Every student is quite painfully aware of how expensive university is, and some consider their tuition very larger as money that goes into the salaries of well-versed professors that teach, lecture, and assist along the entire learning process, not for very, very expensive and glorified babysitters.
Self-directed learning is intended to promote individuality, leadership, self-motivation and determination into its students. However, most most students develop these skills in traditional learning environments more than well enough. Ask any student who had to deal with multiple assignments, laboratories, essays or examinations scheduled in the same week— university already emphasizes the importance of time management and motivation without the added work of self-directed learning. Adding more unnecessary stressors that do not enhance the course material or assist in some subject matter is not in any way a wise decision.
The real focus of self-directed learning seems to be the development of good teaching skills, and not good learning skills. Developing a curriculum and creating evaluations are tasks that a professional educator normally tasks themselves with— and while these are not by any means useless skills, they are less applicable for students who are not intending to lecture or teach professionally. Taking time away from learning more subject matter to learn about the qualities of a good teacher can hardly be considered sound reasoning.
University learning is, at is core, a service, and its clients are the students who pay very well for the service. While seeking to improve the methods and capabilities of the ‘knowledge distribution service’ is an admirable goal, self-directed learning is a far cry from what is needed. If a non-traditional learning environment is needed, then the university should look into other potential solutions; classrooms and lectures with conversation-based methods, improved layouts of lecture halls, and more varied styles of lectures for each subject. Don’t get stuck on one solution— try it, see if it works – and move on if it doesn’t.
Leave a Reply