See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233338900

Self-directed learning - A learning issue for students and

faculty!

Article  in  Teaching in Higher Education · August 2008

DOI: 10.1080/13562510802169756

CITATIONS READS

83 4,239

2 authors:

Charlotte Silén Lars Uhlin

Karolinska Institutet Linköping University
50 PUBLICATIONS   586 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   120 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Charlotte Silén on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Teaching in Higher Education
Vol. 13, No. 4, August 2008, 461
475

Self-directed learning
Charlotte Siléna* and Lars Uhlinb

a learning issue for students and faculty!

a
Centre for Teaching and Learning (CUL), Department of Learning Informatics, Management and
Ethics, LIME Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; bCentre for Educational Development and
Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden

Self-directed learning (SDL), is an essential concept in problem-based learning (PBL),

and, in a broader sense, student-centred learning. Considering the complex nature
of SDL, it has been taken for granted and given a shallow meaning, i.e. self-study. In
order to develop a deeper understanding and make use of the potential in SDL, this
paper discusses and puts forward a more profound meaning. The importance of
regarding becoming a self-directed learner as a learning process, and the need for
teachers to take part in the learning, is crucial. Two ‘thinking models’, one concerning
the PBL tutorial work and one the relationship between tutorial work and self-study, are
introduced. The unifying idea behind the reasoning is to emphasise the essence of
providing opportunities for, as well as stimulating, the students’ inquiring approach and
responsibility.
Keywords: self-directed learning; problem-based learning; inquiry; tutorial session;
information literacy; self study

Introduction
Self-directed learning (SDL), is considered to be a core concept in problem-based learning
(PBL). We will argue that the students’ development as self-directed learners has been
neglected and treated in an instrumental way within the discourse of PBL. In this article, a
more profound meaning of SDL is discussed ending up with the description of some
implications intended to improve practice in PBL curricula.
Three main sources form the basis for the reasoning and advanced ideas of practical
implementation in this article: (i) research that explores the concept of self-directed
learning, the meaning of autonomy and empirical studies focusing on the students’
experiences of PBL has been conducted by the first author (Ljungman and Silén 2008;
Silén 2001, 2003); (ii) both authors have worked intensively with teaching and educational
development connected to PBL and student-centred learning for 20 years; (iii) both
authors have long experiences of faculty development concerning higher education. Our
observations, studies, discussions with teachers and analysis all point in the same direction.
If the intention is to enhance the students’ ability to become self-directed learners, and
prepare for life long learning in their professions, it is essential to recognise that students
becoming responsible and independent is a learning process in its own right.
Research conducted by Silén (2000, 2001, 2003) indicates that also the following two
factors are very important in the development of self-directedness in learning:

*Corresponding author. Email: charlotte.silen@ki.se

ISSN 1356-2517 print/ISSN 1470-1294 online

# 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13562510802169756
http://www.informaworld.com
462 C. Silén and L. Uhlin

. The students’ feelings of being in charge and having a genuine impact on the
learning situations are crucial for their desire to take responsibility.
. Feelings of being in charge are connected to understanding the demands of the
learning context, experiences of managing and getting feedback.
The students need challenges, support and feedback in their struggle to become self-
directed learners and thus require ongoing attention from faculty. Candy (1991) points out
that sometimes SDL has become synonymous with self-study, meaning that the student is
on her/his own and does not bother anybody. The same issue has also been discussed by
Miflin (2004), who deconstructs the connections between adult learning, self-directed
learning and PBL. She demonstrates that SDL, especially in medical education, has in
many cases been interpreted as self-teaching.
In order to support and enhance the students’ learning process in becoming self-
directed, the authors have defined a need to develop ‘thinking models’ to introduce new
perspectives in the practice of PBL. Both the teachers and the students are supposed to use
and discuss the models. In contrast to the seven steps (Schmidt 1993) or other descriptions
for tutorial work in PBL, these models are presented as means for reflection and not as
instructions for how to carry out the tutorial work.

Theoretical framework
The literature shows that the concept of SDL embodies many crucial factors connected to
students’ responsibility and independence in learning. SDL as a concept was born
(Knowles 1975), and has been more thoroughly examined, within the tradition of adult
education (i.e. Brockett and Hiemstra 1991; Caffarella and O’Donnell 1988; Candy 1991;
Long 1989; Mezirow 1985). Studies of the use of SDL in adult education and PBL reveal
that the meaning of the concept has more or less been taken for granted for many years
(Silén 2001). One reason for the stagnation could be that the meaning of the concept, after
the initial introduction, has been addressed as a general skill, separated from context and
defined as individual characteristics. In addition, the relations between SDL as a method
of and goal for education have not been analysed, resulting in a circular definition of SDL

to become self-directed the student needs to be self-directed (Candy 1991). An uncritical
approach to the interpretation of SDL was also found by Miflin (2004) in a review of the
use in medical education. For some decades, much research has focused on measuring the
students’ ability to be self-directed. The notion of self and management of the learning
situation have been stressed and not much attention has been paid to the internal processes
of learning involving responsibility and independence.
There are still lingering ideas that address SDL as a general skill emphasising
management. In a review article on self-directed learning in nurse education (O’Shea 2003),
a fair number of recent studies can be found (e.g. Kell and Van Deursen 2000; Nolan and
Nolan 1997; Thompson and Sheckley 1997) that have dealt with self-directed learning in
this way. Lately, an interest in exploring and broadening the dimensions and including
internal processes in the concept of SDL has appeared. Garrison (1997) describes a model
with the dimensions self-management (contextual control), self-monitoring (cognitive
responsibility) and a motivational factor (entering and task). Patterson, Crooks, and
Lunyk-Child (2002) from McMaster University, School of Nursing, describe six
competencies required to become self-directed in the context of PBL. These competencies
are: self-assessment of learning gaps, evaluation of self and others, reflection, information
 Teaching in Higher Education 463

management, critical thinking and critical appraisal. They also put forward the idea of
SDL as a developing competence and describe the intended progression during education.
Within cognitive psychology, students’ independence in learning has been investigated
and designated as self-regulated learning (e.g. Boekaerts 1997; Boekaerts, Pintrich, and
Zeifner 2000; Schunk and Zimmerman 1994). Of special interest in this research is a meta-
cognitive aspect, described as a part of self-regulation in the learning process (Flavell
1987). Boekaerts (1997) claims that in order to become self-regulated, the learner needs to
be aware of a meta-level concerning the core content and the values within the domain
studied. This means that also within this research, the relation to context is emphasised.
Boekaerts also considered a meta-level to be necessary for the students’ awareness of
effective strategies for learning and the influence of their own concerns and interests. In
relation to PBL, a meta-level in the tutorial process and the tutor role had already been
identified by Barrows (1988). In a study (Silén 1996) carried out at our faculty, 295
students, first and third year, from six educational programmes (Nursing, Occupational
Therapy, Medicine, Physiotherapy, Biomedicine and Social Care) and 58 tutors answered
questionnaires about the tutor’s functioning in the tutorial groups. A significant finding
was that considerable time and effort were spent on specific content of the courses and that
tutors did not focus on the meta-cognitive level of the students’ learning processes.
In relation to self-directed learning, Silén (2000, 2001, 2003) reveals two dialectic
relationships, which are created when students are challenged to take responsibility for
their own learning.1 One relationship that emerges refers to the students fluctuating
between chaos (frustration, disorientation) and cosmos2 (structures they themselves
constructed) when they have to make their own choices and decisions about their studies
(Silén 2001). The second dialectic relationship (Figure 1) that emerges concerns the
students’ handling as regards their own independence, vis-à-vis dependence, related to the

Figure 1. A dialectic relationship, which influences students’ responsibility and independence (Silén
2003, 255).
464 C. Silén and L. Uhlin

tension between the prerequisites provided by the educational framework and the students’
interpretation of and ability to use them (Silén 2003).
The relationship between chaos and cosmos creates a driving force that makes the
students consider and try to handle questions similar to the teachers’ traditional
educational questions: what is to be learned, how should it be learned, why should the
students learn certain things, and what are the objectives of the learning process and how
are they attained? As a result of the challenge of taking responsibility, the students become
agents in the learning situation, considering their own needs and interest in learning a
special content in relation to the framework of the educational programme. Feedback and
the experiences of managing are crucial for the students’ ability to perceive cosmos.
The second relationship described (Figure 1) points to the students’ need for
collaboration with faculty in their process of becoming self-directed. The educational
framework and the way teachers choose to interpret and implement it determine the
opportunities for the students to influence their studies. These opportunities concern all
the central educational questions: what, how, why, the objectives and how they are
assessed. Offering prerequisites for the students to handle the educational questions was
found to be insufficient for the students to be able to take on and handle responsibility in
their learning. They need to develop competencies for using their freedom and under-
standing what the opportunities mean in relation to choices and decisions made on their
own. If the students get the impression that they can influence their learning situation and
gain the competence to do so, they take responsibility and make their own decisions. If
they feel abandoned and left alone, unable to manage, their behaviour will instead be
characterised by dependence, looking for strategies to survive, ‘right answers’ and cue
seeking (cf. Miller and Parlett 1974).
Since this research was carried out, the dialectic relationships described have been
presented and scrutinised in relation to several other PBL programmes. They have been
found valid and useful for describing the processes of becoming self-directed, from both
the perspective of PBL students and faculty involved.

PBL context
PBL has been implemented in full in all the programmes at our faculty since 1986, meaning
that the whole curriculum in each programme is based on assumptions underpinning PBL.
The educational programmes are Medical Biology, Medicine, Nursing, Occupational
Therapy, Public Health, Physiotherapy and Speech Pathology Language Therapy.
PBL was primarily modelled on the curriculum at McMaster University, Hamilton and
Limburg University, Maastricht. Their curriculum was based on Knowles’ (1975) theories
about androgogy and self-directed learning, and the ideas for the application of PBL
presented by Barrows and Tamblyn (1980). Since the start in 1986, a broader theoretical
base concerning student-centred learning forms the foundation for the development of
PBL at the faculty. The assumptions underpinning PBL in the educational developmental
work are now based on pragmatism, meaningful learning, cognitive psychology and social
constructivism. Many medical programmes using PBL have limited understanding of PBL
related to cognitive psychology. Broadening the theoretical basis has been found to be very
productive.
All students begin their studies by attending a common course where PBL is introduced
as the principal pedagogical philosophy and method of learning. The students work with
reality-based situations in small groups, 6
9 students and one tutor. Other strategies and
forums for learning, such as resource sessions, seminars, lectures, skills training, practice in
 Teaching in Higher Education 465

the professional domain and studies involving different resources are regarded as parts of
the PBL approach.

Thinking models
Based on research and experiences of tutorial work, the authors have developed two
thinking models aiming at promoting the students’ learning process in becoming self-
directed. Model A: ‘Inquiry in the tutorial session’ (Figure 2) stresses different inquiry
processes going on in the tutorial session. Model B: ‘Relationship between tutorial sessions
and self-study’ (Figure 3) illuminates the students’ ongoing self-directed learning process,
connecting the inquiry in the tutorials and the students engaging in studies.
A reality-based situation described in Figure 4 provides an example used in a tutorial in
a PBL nursing programme. This example will be used along with the reasoning aiming to
provide a concrete illustration of the meaning of the models.

A thinking model for inquiry in the tutorial session

Model A describes what (or what we would like to promote) goes on in the tutorial session
(Figure 2). The reality-based situation presented in the group is the core of the inquiring
processes.
In the tutorial session, it is important to investigate all four areas in the model

problem processing, the learning process, the group process and a meta-cognitive level.
They are all intertwined and interact. The processes all have their roots in, and evolve
according to, the approach to the reality-based situation adopted by the students. The
situation forms the concrete and meaningful basis and the context of the subsequent
interpretation and analysis made by the students.

Inquiring into the reality-based situation

When the students start their problem processing and inquire into the situation, they have
opportunities to express their ideas, beliefs and experiences concerning the situation. It is
crucial that they express their own conceptions and assumptions concerning the situation
(Figure 5).
All issues that are raised need to be thoroughly examined, discussed and problemised
and finally formulated, for example, as significant problem areas and question/s according
to the inquiry. A platform for visualisation and formulation of individual and common
understanding is established (Figure 6).
This platform formed by the students is the basis of the students’ control over and
ownership of their own learning processes. The tutor needs to be active, observing
and challenging the students to really get a grip on the situation from their point of view
and not end up with stereotype behaviour. We have found that many groups ‘brainstorm’
words about their ideas related to the reality-based situation and categorise these ideas into
problem areas without any deeper inquiry. Often, the formulated problem areas become
very alike even if the situations vary, e.g. in cases involving patients, problem areas are
instrumentally labelled as aetiology, pathophysiology, treatment and caring. If the students
are allowed to get into instrumental ways of handling the situations, their ownership of
their learning is immediately jeopardised. Their own understanding of the reality-based
situation has not been made visible.
466 C. Silén and L. Uhlin

Figure 2. Inquiring processes in the small group tutorial.

Inquiring into the learning process

Based on the students’ interpretation of the situation, e.g. formulated as problem areas, a
process of critical reflection on their previous learning and the need for further learning
can be initiated. This process is meant to be an inquiry aimed at making the students
reflect on and formulate both what they already think they know and understand, and
what they need to learn for a better understanding and ability to handle the situation.
In this process, they need to appraise and then decide what their assumptions are based
on, how this is related to their experiences of other situations and previous learning, the
relevance of the knowledge they will look for, the nature of knowledge from different
disciplines that is needed and how they think they can learn what is required. The process
is supposed to end up with the students being able to formulate well-grounded learning
needs, which constitute the basis of the self-directed learning process to be continued
outside the group.
Formulating learning needs is a recognised part of the tutorial work in PBL, but our
observations indicate that this process is often superficial and limited. Once more, it is
important to point out the importance of this process not becoming instrumentally
directed by underlying meanings such as: what do they want us to study now
fractures,
painkillers?
In the model presented, we want to emphasise the importance of a thorough inquiry
using the concrete platform the students have created and formulated on the basis of their
 Teaching in Higher Education 467

Figure 3. The relation between tutorial work and self-study.

understanding of the situation. This is a unique opportunity in the tutorial work in PBL.
The students are able to be very concrete about their learning when it is connected to a
situation that is known and analysed together in the group (Figure 7).

Figure 4. A reality-based situation in a PBL nursing programme.

468 C. Silén and L. Uhlin

Figure 5. Inquiry into the situation
questions, assumptions, reasoning.

If they have thoroughly considered their thoughts about learning, the formulated
learning needs can be very useful for guiding the students’ self-directed learning process.
Based on the formulated learning needs, they can consider suitable learning resources, and
in this way they have started to prepare their self-studies with the help of the group (cf.
Model B, Figure 3). Formulating and expressing their learning is also valuable in the

Figure 6. Problem areas and learning goals.

 Teaching in Higher Education 469

Figure 7. Learning needs.

development of their ability to appraise and assess progression in learning and exchange
this with peers and faculty. The tutors have a great responsibility to stimulate and ensure
that the students inquire into their learning thoroughly.

Working together
The intertwined inquiry into the content of the situation and the learning process is
deliberately carried out in a group with the group dynamics influencing the processes and
outcome. The cooperation in the group is meant to support and challenge the individual
student in his/her learning (Barrows 1988; Boud, Cohen, and Sampson 2001). An inquiry
into the group dynamics makes it possible to understand what the group has created
together
how it came about, the influences of individuals, the communication, choices
and decisions (Figure 8).
Group work is a means of inquiring into the situation, but understanding group
dynamics and developing group skills is also a goal. According to our observations, the
discussions about the group work and the development of skills usually work well. If the
group do not consider their work and formulate the premises for the tutorials, the quality
of the inquiries into the situation and the learning process will suffer. 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.

Inquiring into thoughts, feelings and actions

As mentioned in the Introduction, we believe there is a need to emphasise a meta-cognitive
level in the tutorials. The fourth field in the model illustrates the position of that process,
showing that it embraces all the others. A meta-cognitive level includes inquiry into the
470 C. Silén and L. Uhlin

Figure 8. Evaluating the group work.

thoughts, feelings and actions that have occurred in the group activity. The students need
to position themselves ‘above’ the actual events and reflect on problem processing, the
learning process and the group dynamics (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Meta-cognitive considerations.

 Teaching in Higher Education 471

In cognitive psychology, a meta-cognitive aspect is described as being a part of self-

regulation in the learning process (e.g. Boekaerts, Pintrich, and Zeitner 2000). In order to
become self-regulated, the learner needs to be aware of a meta-level of the core content and
the values in the domain studied. A meta-level is also necessary for the awareness of
effective strategies for learning and the influence of the students’ own concerns and
interests (Barrows 1988; Silén 2006).
These kinds of discussions seem to be a difficult part of the tutorial work. The students
are anxious to get along with their studies and they often feel that discussing their learning
is a waste of time. It takes great awareness on the part of the tutor to support the students’
interest and create a situation where the students feel that they are learning something from
these discussions. If the group is able to hold such discussions, the students become able to
transfer their knowledge both about the content, their own learning process and the group
dynamics to other situations. In other words, they are on their way to getting hold of
‘thinking tools’ enabling them to develop as self-directed learners.

A thinking model integrating the small group tutorial and self-study

The ability to search and make choices from the huge amount of information at hand is
crucial for taking responsibility in the learning process. It also includes the ability to
scrutinise, judge and assess relevance. Model B (Figure 3) is introduced to address the
relation between the small group tutorial, the students’ self-study and the role of
information literacy. An important part of the students’ self-study is the development of
information literacy. The information explosion and the development of student-centred
approaches to education have placed new demands on a shift in the role of libraries and the
librarian in higher education. Achieving information literacy has been increasingly
regarded as a learning process (Bruce 1997, 2004; Johnston and Webber 2003; Kuhlthau
2004; Limberg 1999). The research field of librarianship has developed alongside
educational research. This field of research has opened up new perspectives and the
authors consider it important to integrate the knowledge gained in this research in order to
improve the daily practice of PBL.

Tutorial work and self-study

In a small group tutorial session, when the students inquire into a new reality-based
situation, they do so with ‘the eyes’, the pre-understanding, they had before studies of that
particular situation. The students’ work in the group, described above, generates learning
issues. This is the first opportunity to pay attention to the students’ developing information
literacy. The quality of students’ formulation of common and individual learning needs is
crucial for what their self-studies will generate. This also relates to the quality of all the
inquiry processes in the base group and it is essential to highlight a discussion about what
kind of learning resources might be appropriate to meet their learning needs. Earlier
experiences of searching for and making choices of relevant learning resources are other
areas for the students to scrutinise and reflect on in order to improve the skills needed to
develop information literacy.
Between the group sessions, the students encounter many different learning resources
they need to be able to use. This is where students are usually left alone to seek and process
information. Numerous questions need to be addressed: How to prepare the search? How
to carry out the search for and the sorting and assessing of information? How to handle the
472 C. Silén and L. Uhlin

relationship between the systematic structures of subjects and their own problem-based
questions?
As mentioned earlier, SDL in PBL has been taken for granted and has been regarded as
a matter for the student to deal with alone
i.e. self-study, the student’s own concern. The
very meaning of being responsible and independent has been defined as the student’s own
handling of issues related to information literature. We would argue that it is necessary to
give the students the freedom to search and make choices about what to read, but this is
not enough. The students need challenges, support and feedback to develop information
literacy. Librarians, whose knowledge is often underestimated in higher education, are very
important in this phase of the students’ self-directed learning. The relationship between
education and the library and librarians needs to be developed. Being experts on
information literacy, it is essential for the students’ development that librarians use the
same facilitating approach as the tutors are supposed to employ in the small group
tutorials. Lectures, other experts and clinicians are also very important in the students’
development of information literacy. They can all challenge the students’ views on the
information needed and support them by initiating reflections and modelling their own
choices.
When the students return to the tutorial session, they will have acquired new ‘informed
eyes’ to inquire into the problem. Initiating the processes described above (Figure 2) once
more gives the students the opportunity to pay attention to and reflect on their experience
of self-study. It is also possible for the students to notice the differences in what they know
now and how they perceived the reality-based situation before their studies. When applying
their studies to the situation again, they might find other questions and judge the situation
in a different way (Figure 10).
Silén (2001) found that the most difficult questions to handle when it came to the
students taking responsibility for their learning were to assess what they have learned,
whether it is relevant and deep enough. Thorough inquiry in the base group would help the
students to tackle these difficult questions. It is important to discuss not only the outcome
of the self-studies but also to reflect on experiences and appraise the whole search process
from formulation of learning needs to the application of new knowledge.

Closing comments
We would argue that there is a need to advance the practice of PBL especially in relation to
self-directed learning. In this paper, we present two ‘thinking models’, which we believe
make the inherent assumptions about learning within the concept of PBL visible and
operational.
The unifying idea behind the reasoning is to emphasise the essence of providing
opportunities for, as well as stimulating, the students’ inquiring approach and responsi-
bility. A key issue is the use of reflection (Mezirow 1998). In relation to the learning
situation, the students are encouraged to make choices and decisions, take up positions,
appraise, judge and plan. The tutor is supposed to challenge students’ critical awareness in
their interaction with the people involved, the subject matter and the actual learning
environment. Teachers are needed to challenge and support the students’ struggle between
chaos and cosmos, not to take it away (Silén 2001, 2003).
Promoting active work and reflection related to the reality-based situation, the learning
process, the group work and a meta-cognitive level in the base group is an essential
cornerstone of the students’ ownership in learning. Instrumental and stereotype handling
of the work in the base groups jeopardises the whole idea of student-centred learning,
 Teaching in Higher Education 473

Figure 10. Problem areas identified when the situation is analysed ‘with new eyes’.

which could instead turn into behaviourism and students looking for the ‘right answers’.
The tutor’s own understanding of PBL influences his/her readiness to intervene and
facilitate these processes (Silén 2006).
Recognition of the intensive attention that is needed to enhance the students’ ability
concerning information literacy is another crucial factor for the development of PBL
practice. PBL curricula provide good opportunities for making information literacy a
natural part of the learning process. Tutors need to acknowledge information literacy in
the base groups and librarians need to adopt more of a facilitator’s role when meeting
students in the library. Collaboration between faculty and librarians is important when it
comes to improving students’ possibilities to become information literate and self-directed.
Finally, we want to emphasise the importance of collaboration between students and
teachers in the process of students becoming self-directed learners and proficient as life
long learners.

Notes
1. The empirical study carried out aimed to try to understand the culture of student-centred learning
from the students’ perspective within PBL curricula (Silén 2000). The study had a discovery
approach, in this case, ethnography, and the field studied was one semester in the PBL nursing
programme at the faculty. Observations and dialogues were the main methods for collecting data
while in the field. Scheduled activities such as lectures, seminars, tutorial sessions and information
meetings, as well as breaks, the students work in the library and their clinical practice period were
studied.
2. Cosmos The beautiful order.

References
Barrows, H. 1988. The tutorial process. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of
Medicine.
Barrows, H., and R. Tamblyn. 1980. Problem-based learning. An approach to medical education. New
York: Springer.
474 C. Silén and L. Uhlin

Boekaerts, M. 1997. Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers,
educators, teachers and students. Learning and Instruction 7, no. 2: 161
86.
Boekaerts, M., P. Pintrich, and M. Zeitner. 2000. Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Boud, D., R. Cohen, and J. Sampson, eds. 2001. Peer learning in higher education: Learning from &
with each other. London: Kogan Page.
Brockett, R., and R. Hiemstra. 1991. Self-direction in adult learning. Perspectives on theory research
and practice. London, Routledge.
Bruce, C. 1997. Seven faces of information literacy. Blackwood: AUSLIB Press.
***. 2004. Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: A background paper. In
Lifelong learning: Whose responsibility and what is your contribution? ed. P. A. Danaher. Papers
from the 3rd international lifelong learning conference, 8
19. Rockhampton, Qld.: Central
Queensland University Press.
Caffarella, R., and J.M. O’Donnell. 1988. Research in self-directed learning: Past, present and future
trends. In Self-directed learning: Application and theory, ed. H.B Long et al. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia, Adult Education Department.
Candy, P. 1991. Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Flavell, J.H. 1987. Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In Metacogni-
tion, motivation and understanding, ed. F.E. Weinert & R.H Kluwe, 21
9. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garrison, D.R. 1997. Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education
Quarterly 48, no. 1: 18
33.
Johnston, B., and S. Webber. 2003. Information literacy in higher education: A review and a case
study. Studies in Higher Education 28, no. 3: 335
52.
Kell, C., and R. Van Deursen. 2000. Student learning preferences reflects curricular change. Medical
Teacher 24: 32
40.
Knowles, M. 1975. Self-directed Learning. A guide for teachers and learners. Chicago: Follett.
Kuhlthau, C. 2004. Seeking meaning. A process approach to library and information services. 2nd ed.
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Limberg, L. (1999). Experiencing information seeking and learning: A study of the interaction
between two phenomena. Information Research 5, no. 1, http://informationr.net/ir/5-1/pa-
per68.html (accessed 19 October 1999)
Ljungman, A., and C. Silén. 2008. Examination involving students as peer examiners. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 33, no. 3: 289
300.
Long, H.B. 1989. Theoretical foundations for self-directed learning. In Self-directed learning:
Emerging theory and practice, ed. H.B. Long et al. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Centre for
Continuing Professional and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma.
Mezirow, J. 1985. A critical theory of self-directed learning. In Self-directed learning: From theory to
practice, ed. S.D. Brookfield, 17
30. New directions for teaching and learning, no. 25. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
***. 1998. On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly 48, no. 3: 185
98.
Miflin, B. 2004. Adult learning, self-directed learning and problem based learning: Deconstructing
the connections. Teaching in Higher Education 9, no. 1: 43
53.
Miller, C., and M. Parlett. 1974. Up to the mark. A study of the examination game. London: Society
for Research into Higher Education.
Nolan, J., and M. Nolan. 1997. Self-directed learning and student-centred learning in nurse
education: 1. British Journal of Nursing 6: 51
5.
O’Shea, E. 2003. Self-directed learning in nurse education: A review of the literature. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 43, no. 1: 62
70.
Patterson, C., D. Crooks, and O. Lunyk-Child. 2002. A new perspective on competences for self-
directed learning. Journal of Nursing Education 41, no. 1: 25
31.
Schmidt, H.G. 1993. Problem-based learning: rationale and description. Medical Education 17: 11

16.
Schunk, D.H., and B.J. Zimmerman. eds. 1994. Self-regulation of learning and performance. Issues and
educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Silén, C. 1996. Ledsaga lärande-om handledarfunktionen i PBI [Assisting learning
the tutor’s role in
PBL]. Licentiate thesis n 195, Department of Behavioural Science, Linköping University.
 Teaching in Higher Education 475

***. 2000. Mellan kaos och kosmos-om eget ansvar och självständighet i lärande [Between chaos
and cosmos
a driving force for responsibility and independence in learning]. Doctoral thesis n 73,
Department of Behavioural Sciences, Linköping University.
***. 2001. Between chaos and cosmos
a driving force for responsibility and independence in
learning. The power of problem based learning, PROBLARC, The 3rd Asia Pacific conference on
PBL, December 9
12, in The University of Newcastle, Australia.
***. 2003. Responsibility and independence in learning
what is the role of the educators and the
framework of the educational programme. In Improving student learning
theory, research and
practice, ed. C. Rust, 249
62. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
***. 2006. The tutor’s approach in base groups (PBL). Higher Education 51: 373
85.
Thompson, C., and B. Sheckley. 1997. Differences in classroom teaching preferences between
traditional and adult BSN students. Journal of Nursing Education 36: 163
70.

View publication stats