Journal of Research on Christian Education

ISSN: 1065-6219 (Print) 1934-4945 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urce20

The Term “Self-Directed Learning”—Back to

Knowles, or Another Way to Forge Ahead?

Johannes L. van der Walt

To cite this article: Johannes L. van der Walt (2019) The Term “Self-Directed Learning”—Back
to Knowles, or Another Way to Forge Ahead?, Journal of Research on Christian Education, 28:1,
1-20, DOI: 10.1080/10656219.2019.1593265

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10656219.2019.1593265

Published online: 10 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 143

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urce20
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 28, NO. 1, 1–20
https://doi.org/10.1080/10656219.2019.1593265

THEORY BUILDING

The Term “Self-Directed Learning”—Back to Knowles,

or Another Way to Forge Ahead?
Johannes L. van der Walt
Faculty of Education, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The term self-directed learning has since its seminal definition Educational foundations;
in 1975 by Malcolm S. Knowles acquired a range of meanings, Learning theories; Teaching
which has led to communication difficulties about this subject. approaches; Self-directed
learning; Effective
Examination of self-directed learning from a biblical ontologi- instruction
cal–anthropological perspective reveals that, although the
notion of self-directed learning as a mechanistic or determinis-
tic process should be questioned, Knowles and colleagues
were correct in ameliorating the “process part” of the defin-
ition of self-directed learning by emphasizing the freedom and
agency of the learner as steward of creation. Researchers
wishing to deviate from the approach by Knowles and col-
leagues are compelled to explain what the term designates in
their particular project.

Introduction and problem statement

During a recent discussion in our South African research group on self-
directed learning and what we should understand under the term self-
directed learning1 we concluded that a degree of terminological confusion
remained among scholars about to what the term in essence referred. Our
conclusion echoed observations made decades ago by authors such as Jarvis
(1992, p. 13–131) who saw self-directed learning as an amorphous term that
lacked precise definition, Candy (1991, p. 411) who referred to the term as
a versatile concept, co-opted to every purpose that adult educators pursued,
Oddi (1987, p. 21) who listed it as one of a plethora of terms, and Brockett
and Hiemstra (1991) who claimed that the definition of self-directed learn-
ing varied with individual writers and also with the same writer over time.
Hiemstra (1994/2006, pp. 3, 7) claimed that the coining of the term self-
directed learning had created some confusion in that many related concepts
were often used interchangeably or in similar ways.
De Beer and Gravett (2016, p. 37) also observed that the term has so far
been used “in conceptually confusing ways,” and Van Wyk (2017, p. 5)

CONTACT Johannes L. van der Walt hannesv290@gmail.com Faculty of Education, North-West University-
Faculty of Education Hoffman St, Potchefstroom, North-West 0020, South Africa.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis and Andrews University
2 J. L. VAN DER WALT

refers to it as an “overarching concept.” The degree of confusion that cur-

rently still prevails in this research area has recently been starkly illustrated
by Arkan, Elif, and Hatice (2016, p. 514) who not only attempted to circum-
vent the necessity of defining the concept self-directed learning but went on
to use the term to refer to a goal of education, a learning goal, a learning
skill, a skill to be mastered—all part of a learning process. Another illustra-
tion of the confusion is provided by Avdal (2013, p. 838) who, on the first
page of the article refers to self-directed learning as a learning method, a pro-
cess, self-planning of work, and the knowledge to understand what, when,
and how (presumably to learn). Van Wyk (2017, p. 5), in turn, emphasizes
that learners should possess the required personal attributes (such as motiv-
ation for taking responsibility for own learning and for using the appropriate
cognitive strategies) before engaging in an “autonomous learning process.”
Alharbi (2018, pp. 231, 234) seems to regard self-directed learning as a num-
ber of skills to be mastered by learners, including time management, stress
management, assignment preparation, examination preparation, note-taking,
problem-solving, decision-making, critical thinking, clinical judgment (in
the case of nursing students), and knowledge acquisition.
Our conclusion in 2017 also dovetailed with that of Knowles, Holton, and
Swanson (2012, p. 64) regarding a persistent terminological confusion sur-
rounding the term (Makonye, 2016, p. 191–192; Buthelezi & Phahamane,
2016, p. 246–248). In the opinion of Knowles et al., questions remain as to
whether self-directed learning is a characteristic of learners or whether it
should be regarded as a goal of educators to help learners become self-
directed. According to these researchers, much of the confusion surrounding
the “SDL assumption” stems from conceptual confusion about the meaning
of self-directed learning (Knowles et al., 2012, p. 183–184).
It comes as no surprise, then, that De Beer and Gravett (2016, p. 37)
suggested using self-directed learning as an “encompassing concept” that
can be applied in many different ways. By making this point they reaf-
firmed the recommendation by Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) that “self-dir-
ection in learning” be used as an umbrella definition recognizing those
external factors facilitating adults taking primary responsibility for learning
and those internal factors or personality characteristics that incline one
toward accepting such responsibility.
Some of the researchers in our group suggested that the problem be
solved by urging all researchers in the field to simply revert to the defin-
ition that Knowles had attached to self-directed learning back in
1975, namely:
In its broadest meaning, self-directed learning describes a process in which
individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their
learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 3

for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and

evaluating learning outcomes (. p. 18).

Adoption of this definition will preempt terminological confusion, the

researchers in our group contended.
Others in the group argued that terminological confusion was already at
such an advanced stage that it would be difficult—if not impossible—to
revert back to Knowles’s initial definition. To avoid further confusion, each
researcher is therefore compelled as a first methodological step to explicate
and define what he or she understands the term self-directed learning to
mean in their work. The purpose of the research reported in this article
was to examine the various meanings so far attached to the term self-
directed learning, including that of Knowles, for the purpose of gaining
greater depth of understanding of self-directed learning, both as a term and
as a teaching–learning occurrence or event.
Questions such as the following guided the investigation: Was Knowles
correct in seeing self-directed learning as a process? What did Knowles
make of the learner, as steward of creation and therefore as a free and
responsible agent (according to biblical precepts) in the process of self-
directed learning? What other meanings, apart from viewing self-directed
learning as a learning process, have since 1975 been attached to the term
self-directed learning and how should these meanings be adjudged from a
biblical ontological–anthropological perspective? What definition of self-
directed learning should be the guiding light in future research?

Method of investigation
The first step in finding answers to these questions was to analyze—to the
point of data saturation—publications that examine the concept/term self-
directed learning. The initial focus was on the contribution of Knowles
(1975), the person who provided foundational definitions and assumptions
that guided much research during the past four decades. Subsequent inter-
pretivist–(non-radical) constructivist reflection (Onwuegbuzie, Johnson, &
Collins, 2009, p. 125; Merriam, 2009, p. 8–9) on possible meanings of the
term based on a biblical ontology and anthropology revealed to what extent
the various meanings complied with biblical perspectives regarding reality
and the human being. The evaluation of meanings assigned to the term
self-directed learning in the following discussion is based on these points: a
biblical understanding of personhood; God’s relationship with the person;
His revelatory roles; His purposes for creation and for those created in His
image (Barnes, 2018, p. 285); and the role of the individual in seeking the
fulfillment of His purposes. The notion of stewardship of creation flows
from this perspective: the Creator commanded people to be fruitful and to
4 J. L. VAN DER WALT

multiply, to replenish the earth, and to subdue it (Gen. 1.28). The Lord
God placed the human being in the Garden of Eden to preserve and
develop it (Gen. 2.25). Humankind has been charged with the task of not
only taking care of creation but also to attempt to delve into the depths of
meaning with which He has endowed creation.
While it is true that human beings construct knowledge, the (radical)
constructivist view that the origin and the forming of knowledge are within
us or is ours to create and own is questioned. Radical constructivism is
contrary to the biblical understanding that God has assigned meaning to
everything in His creation and that human beings are called to discover
that meaning, to understand and formulate it. The truth created into cre-
ation always remains God’s truth, owned and purposed by Him
(Augustine, Confessiones, 426/7, Book XIII, Section 31), and it is the task of
human beings to discover that truth (Greek, aletheia, meaning the state of
not being hidden, of being evident), and to glorify Him for His wisdom as
expressed in creation.
These biblical perspectives cast light on how self-directed learning should
be understood and defined, namely as an attempt at acquiring deeper
insight into and understanding of (aspects of) creation through examin-
ation, observation, and learning from other people, and to employ such
knowledge in ways that would promote in the learner an ever stronger
sense of self-direction as responsible steward in and of God’s creation.
This article addresses these key analyses and presents an understanding
of the exercise.

Meanings thus far attached to the term self-directed learning

Hiemstra (1994/2006, p. 2–3) traces contributions about the notion of self-
directed learning from the ancient Greek philosophers to the work of Craik
(1840s), Houle (1961), Guglielmino (1978) and Knowles (1975, p. 18) who
launched a more concentrated discourse regarding self-directed learning
(mainly focused on adult learning (andragogy); Cosnefroy & Carre, 2014,
pp. 2, 7, 9) around four decades ago. As mentioned, Knowles defined self-
directed learning as follows:
In its broadest meaning, self-directed learning describes a process in which
individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their
learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources
for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and
evaluating learning outcomes.

In a book (Knowles, 1973/1978) published in the 1970s, Knowles does

not attempt to delineate the term self-directed learning in more precise
terms. Instead, he discusses the attributes and learning needs of adult
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 5

learners as part of his andragogy, in the process referring to the issue of

self-directedness/direction. It is possible, however, to deduce from his
remarks about the learning needs and processes of adult learners how he
seems to conceptualize the idea of self-directed learning. Knowles does not
support a mechanistic or transmission-type of learning theory; instead, he
proposes a more dynamic approach in which the learner takes center-stage
and the teacher a supportive role. According to Knowles (Knowles, 1973/
1978, p. 31), learners have a need to be self-directing; therefore, the role of
the teacher is to engage in a process of mutual enquiry with them rather
than to transmit the teacher’s own knowledge to the learners and then
evaluate the learner’s conformity to the knowledge.
In some instances, Knowles regards (self-directed) learning as a process
that deals with the needs and capacities of the learner: Self-directed learning
is “a lifelong process related at all points to the life experiences of the indi-
vidual, a process full of meaning and reality to the learner, a process in
which the student is active participant rather than passive recipient”
(Knowles, 1973/1978, p. 33). He approvingly quotes James Earl Russell,
Dean Emeritus, Teachers College, Columbia University, who wrote:
“Teachers may help define procedure, collect equipment, indicate the most
propitious routes, but the climber must use his own head and legs if he
would reach the mountaintop” (Knowles, 1973/1978, p. 34, 52). In
“climbing”, some learners tend to be goal-oriented, others activity-oriented,
and still others learning-oriented (Knowles, 1973/1978, p. 44–45). Self-
directedness in learning finds expression in the learner having a sense of
ownership of the objectives he or she will pursue, in choosing the structure
for his or her learning and taking responsibility in evaluating the learning
outcomes (Knowles, 1973/1978, pp. 127, 128).
Knowles also approvingly quotes authors who state,
as an individual matures, his need and capacity to be self-directing, to utilize his
experience in learning, to identify his own readiness to learn, and to organize his
learning around life problems, increases steadily from infancy to pre-adolescence,
and then increases rapidly during adolescence” (Knowles, 1973/1978, p. 54).

Learners become more problem-centered in their learning and their ego-

involvement increases (Knowles, 1973/1978, pp. 58, 59). Their mastering of
the capacity to be self-directed learners finds expression in their ability to
perceive the goals of a learning experience to be their personal goals as
well; they accept a share of the responsibility for planning and operating a
learning experience, and therefore have a feeling of commitment toward it;
they participate actively in the learning process; they harness their own
experience when learning, and they have a sense of progress toward their
goals (Knowles, 1973/1978, p. 78–79). Elsewhere, Knowles connects self-
directedness/direction to a need of the learner. The practice of assigning
6 J. L. VAN DER WALT

the planning of the teaching–learning situation to an authority figure such

as a teacher “is … glaringly in conflict with the (adult) learner’s need to
be self-directing” (Knowles, 1973/1978, p. 115).
Eighteen years later since 1973, Long (1991, p. 15) concurred with
Knowles’ emphasis on the agency of the learner in the learning process,
stating: “I define self-directed learning as a personally directed purposive
mental process usually accompanied by behavioral activities involved in the
identification and searching out of information.” These relatively early defi-
nitions of self-directed learning aimed at describing the various dimensions
of independent agentic management of the learner’s learning efforts; self-
directed learning involves active engagement and goal-directed behavior,
and particularly addresses issues of responsibility and control in learning.
The self-directed learner controls the learning trajectory as a whole and
hence tends to be an autonomous learner (Cosnefroy & Carre, 2014, p. 3).
Although Knowles died in 1997, his ideas regarding self-directed learning
lived on, among others in a book published in 2012 by Holton and
Swanson in which they recognized Knowles as first author. In this book,
the authors (2012, p. 64) refer to Knowles (1975) in connection with learn-
ers’ experiences when transitioning from dependent learning to self-
directed learning.
Interestingly, however, Holton and Swanson now also mention the ter-
minological confusion regarding the meaning of self-directed learning that
has emerged in this research arena since Knowles made his seminal contri-
bution. According to these researchers, questions remain as to whether
self-directed learning is a characteristic of learners or whether it should be
regarded as a goal of educators to help all learners to become self-directed
(they focus particularly on adult learners). It is also interesting to note that
these authors, with Knowles as virtual coauthor, now add to the list of pos-
sible meanings of self-directed learning the idea of self-directed learning as
an “assumption” (Knowles et al., 2012, p. 183–184).
The following paragraphs in this section contain a brief outline of some
of the meanings that researchers have been attaching to self-directed learn-
ing during the past four decades. As mentioned, some researchers regard
self-directed learning as “an umbrella term for various processes” (De Beer
& Gravett, 2016, p. 46; cf. Abraham, Upadhya, & Ramnarayan, 2005). De
Beer and Gravett seem to assume that, apart from referring to various
processes in teaching and learning, the term has no standard meaning that
would be acceptable to all researchers in the field; therefore its meaning
and usage have to be explained by every researcher. It could be a process
that all researchers in the field understand in relatively similar terms: par-
ticular conditions should exist for the process to begin; the process has a
particular aim; and a number of steps have to be followed for the process
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 7

to be concluded successfully. Researchers in the field could therefore

develop a relatively common understanding of the various aspects of
the process.
For other authors, self-directed learning could be a concept referring to a
particular state of affairs. Van der Walt (2016, p. 3) seems to follow this
route by referring to self-directed learning as a “notion” and then immedi-
ately follows this up by stating that self-direction seems to be the ability to
take charge of one’s own learning. Elsewhere (Van der Walt, 2016, p. 12),
Van der Walt refers to it as a concept referring to conscious processes
and abilities.
Apart from the various other views that De Beer and Gravett attach to
the term self-direction in learning, De Beer and Gravett (2016, p. 46) seem
to view it as a phenomenon (an onticity that “appears” or “reveals itself” to
the investigator) in that they refer to the “different components of self-
directed learning” (Van der Walt, 2016, p. 3–4; Van Wyk, 2017, p. 5). This
impression is confirmed when these researchers also refer to “five broad
areas of self-directed learning.” (What the areas entail can be left by the
wayside for purposes of this article.)
As alluded, some scholars, referred to in following text, contend that
the term self-directed learning refers to a trait or ability of a learner, in
other words to a capability or ability in a human being, a personal attri-
bute that some people might possess. As capability or trait, it has to be
discovered in learners and further developed in order to ensure effective
learning. In this case, the capability of self-directedness in learning has to
be distinguished from the capabilities of self-regulation in learning and
self-determination in learning. Because all three of these capabilities are
those of a living person, they have to be seen as closely related. An
example of this view is that of Balfour (2016, p. xxx) who states that
self-direction implies not only a sense of self but also an understanding
of what motivates the learner to desire self-direction (that characteristic
referred to as self-determination). According to Balfour (2016, p. xxv),
self-direction is an ability that can be achieved through, for example,
scaffolding. After having occasionally referred to self-directed learning as
a term, concept, and process, the line of argumentation by Van der Walt
(2016, p. 17) seems to culminate in the idea that self-direction or
–directedness is in essence an ability or capability that a person possesses
or that can be fostered in learners. Van der Walt (Van der Walt, 2016,
p. 3–4) draws attention to the three “aspects” of self-directed learning,
namely self, directedness/direction and learning. He seems to view self-
directed learning not only as a process and a phenomenon, but also as a
personal attribute that has to play a part in this process. In Van der
Walt’s own words: “it could be said that self-directedness is a personal
8 J. L. VAN DER WALT

attribute that can be considered along the dimensions of a cognitive and

motivational process.” (Van der Walt, 2016, p. 5). De Beer and Gravett
(2016, p. 36) also refer to “aspects” of self-directed learning.
In addition, self-directed learning might also refer to a theory covering a
repertoire of motivational processes. Van der Walt (2016, p. 7) refers to it
as a “rudimentary theory” based on his investigations. He bases his conclu-
sion that self-directed learning has not yet evolved into a fully-fledged the-
ory on an examination of its theoretical and pre-theoretical foundations. In
concluding thus, he agrees with both Candy (1991) and Hiemstra (1994/
2006) about its theoretical status, although on different grounds. (This issue
is another that can be left by the wayside in view of the aim of this article;
Hiemstra [1994/2006, p. 5] attempts to work towards a theory of self-
directed learning).
For others, the term self-directed learning refers to a pedagogical–didac-
tical aim, a goal, purpose, or intention that teachers (educators) wish to
foster in their learners as a life-long capability. Agran, Blanchard, and
Wehmeyer (2000, p. 361) view it as a goal to be attained through self-
determination. Balfour (2016, p. xxiv) also seems to favor this approach
(combined with self-direction as ability, as previously discussed) when he
concludes that it has become possible to “truly enable” learners to
become self-directed. In view of this, Balfour emphasizes, “learner agency
as it relates to self-directed learning” as well as learners’ abilities to dis-
cern their own learning needs and outcomes (Balfour, 2016, p. xxiv). In
addition to viewing self-directed learning as “an encompassing concept,”
De Beer and Gravett (2016, pp. 37, 40, 50) contend that self-direction
can be fostered in learners. In the process, a number of essential skills
have to be brought home in the learner (De Beer & Gravett, 2016,
p. 65).
Self-directed learning has occasionally also been referred to as a teachin-
g–learning method or approach (Van der Walt, 2016, p. 6; Fisher, King, &
Tague, 2001, p. 516; Long, 2000, p. 11). Merriam (2001, p. 8) sees it as a
form of study or a type of learning, and Blumberg (2000, p. 199) regards it
as a model of learning. De Beer and Gravett (2016, p. 37) follow Candy
(1991, p. 312) in viewing self-direction in learning not as a fixed quality
that exists in an individual or the situation independently. They concur
with Candy’s point that self-direction is a result of an interaction between
a person and a situation; it is a person–situation variable; that is, it is nei-
ther a quality that inheres in the person independent of the situation nor
in the situation independent of the person. Finally, the author Grow (as
quoted in Knowles et al., 2012, p. 184) likewise suggested that self-directed
learning is situational (the conditional knowledge that the learner has to
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 9

take into account) and that it is the teacher’s job to match styles with
the student.
Self-directed learning could also be seen as a theoretical construct, in
other words, a mental structure that gives expression to an abstract notion
or idea. A mental or theoretical construct as an expression of “something”
abstract (i.e., that is not directly observable or tangible) has to be opera-
tionalized; in other words, the person who conceives the construct has to
explain in more tangible and measurable terms what the construct actually
means and embodies. The multi-dimensional models of self-directed learn-
ing proposed by Mocker and Spear (1982) and Garrison (1997) could argu-
ably be regarded as such mental or theoretical constructs. Garrison
proposes a model based on three core components: self-management or
control (locus of control in self-directed learners is largely internal), motiv-
ation (entering the task) and self-monitoring (responsibility). The third
component is the cognitive learning processes as well as metacognitive
skills a person needs to engage in self-directed learning. Knowles et al.
(2012, p. 187) refer to Garrison’s approach as a contingency model of self-
directedness in terms of which learners weigh many factors in choosing
whether to behave in a self-directed way. These include their own learning
styles, their previous experiences with the subject matter, their social orien-
tation, their own learning efficiency, their previous learning socialization,
and their personal locus of control.
According to Knowles et al. (2012, p. 184), two conceptions of self-
directed learning are prevalent in the literature. First, self-directed learning
is seen as self-teaching, whereby learners are capable of taking control of
the mechanics and techniques of teaching themselves in a particular sub-
ject. Second, self-directed learning is conceived of as personal autonomy,
occasionally referred to as autodidaxy (Long, 2000, p. 11). Autonomy
means taking control of the goals and purposes of learning and assuming
ownership of learning. This approach leads to an internal change of con-
sciousness in which the learner sees knowledge as contextual and freely
questions what is learned. These two dimensions of self-directed learning
are relatively independent, although they may overlap.
The assumption that all adults have full capacity for self-teaching and
personal autonomy in every learning situation is generally not accepted.
Any particular learner in a particular learning situation is likely to exhibit
different capabilities and preferences (Knowles et al., 2012, p. 184).

Discussion
The overview in the previous section illustrated that a variety of meanings
has thus far been attached to the term self-directed learning. It has variously
10 J. L. VAN DER WALT

been described as a process; a capacity or personal attribute; a characteristic;

a trait of ability of the learner; a set of skills; the ability to take charge of
own learning; a feeling of commitment; and an ability and preference that
requires ego-involvement on the part of the learner; also this learning has
been described as an assumption; a learner’s need; a phenomenon; a state of
affairs; an aspect or component of learning; a goal/aim/purpose or intention
of the educator; a theory; a theoretical construct; a method or approach; an
action that is situational, contextualized, and contingent; and a model. The
purpose of what now follows is to sift through all these meanings on the
basis of logic, interpretation, and a biblical ontology and anthropology to
discover which of all these meanings attached to self-directed learning could
be retained as the basis of future research on this subject.

Self-directed learning as a concept

To begin with, self-directed learning is a concept. The word concept is
derived from the infinitive to conceive (Latin, concipere, from com, meaning
together, plus capere, meaning to take), to form or devise a plan or an idea
in the mind. As illustrated in the previous section, Knowles and others
formed the concept and worked with it.

Self-directed learning as a term

Self-directed learning is also a term (Latin, terminus, meaning end, bound-
ary, limit), in other words, a word or a phrase used as the name of the
concept self-directed learning, a linguistic label denoting the concept for the
purpose of demarcating (delimiting) the meaning thereof. We use the term
self-directed learning to linguistically label or delineate the concept that has
been mentally conceived. To name or to label something is, according to
Packard (2017, p. 536) and Chapman (2017, p. 3), a function of interpreti-
vism due to its rootedness in nominalism. In the case of self-directed learn-
ing, the name or label could be augmented by invoking realism: by
examining actual flesh and blood learners we discover that God has
endowed human beings with the capabilities of selfness, directedness/direc-
tion and learning that enable them to learn in a self-directed manner. In
mastering the intricacies of an aspect of creation through learning and
knowing, they answer His call to discover meaning in creation.

Self-directed learning as a theoretical construct

The phrase in the mind used previously leads to the conclusion that the
term self-directed learning also refers to a mental or theoretical construct,
in other words an explanatory thought-form intended to portray in more
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 11

accessible form an onticity that is not directly observable. In the words of

Elbanna, Eid, and Kamel (2015, p. 106): A theoretical construct provides
“researchers and practitioners with a set of items to measure a critical con-
cept.” One could argue that the mental or theoretical construct self-directed
learning was conceived by harnessing three other mental or theoretical con-
structs, namely self, directedness/direction, and learning, none of which is
directly observable and therefore has to be made theoretically and mentally
accessible by contemplatively and reflectively casting them in theoretical or
mental construct form. Self, directedness/direction, and learning are basic
mental or theoretical constructs that combine to form the more compre-
hensive construct labeled self-directed learning. As time passed, researchers
began contributing further anthropological constructs to form the rich
mental or theoretical construct self-directed learning that we operate with
today. Such subconstructs that come to mind are: the learner’s characteris-
tics, capacities, abilities, traits, skills, attributes, needs, commitment, motiv-
ation, ego-involvement, feelings, and preferences.
The need to create a mental or theoretical construct of self-directed
learning arose because of the fact that self-directed learning is not directly
observable and only exists in abstract form, among others in the abstract-
ness of the three subconstructs that it embraces to form a more complex
and comprehensive construct. This point is not to imply, however, that the
three sub-constructs subsumed in the construct self-directed learning (self,
directedness/direction, and learning) do not possess ontic status; they are
discernible “actualities” or “realities” created by God as part of creation,
pertaining particularly to human beings and their (co-)existence. They do
exist in real life, albeit in abstract form. As in the case of love, care, educa-
tion, and other abstract “creations,” we are able to observe behavior that
could be construed as expressions of selfness, directedness/direction, and
learning. We are able, for example, to observe how a person masters a cer-
tain skill or chunk of knowledge, and then conclude that learning has
indeed taken place. As in the case of all mental or theoretical constructs,
the subconstructs of selfness, directedness/direction, and learning have to
be operationalized (concretized, made observable and measurable) for
research purposes.

Self-directed learning as a theory

If all of these mental or theoretical constructs are brought together and
logically connected and combined for the purpose of creating a hypothet-
ical explanation of what occurs when learners learn in a self-directed man-
ner, we could say that a theory regarding self-directed learning has
emerged. A well-developed theory about self-directed learning enables us to
12 J. L. VAN DER WALT

describe and to predict the kind of awareness or state of enhanced knowing

the student–learner can experience regarding self-directedness/direction in
learning; it also enables us to participate in a discourse about what we
observed regarding self-directedness/direction in learning; it furthermore
enables us to make inferences about what we observed regarding self-
directedness/direction in learning and about our reflections regarding what
we observed; and finally it enables us to apply in practice what we found
to be applicable and laudable about self-directed learning (Halverson, 2002,
p. 245). (According to its exponents, this level of development has been
already achieved by self-determination theory. Niemer and Ryan (2009, p.
134) refer to this theory as a macro-theory of human motivation, and Reve
(2012, p. 149) states that this macro-theory is comprised of five interrelated
mini-theories: basic needs theory, organismic integration theory, goal con-
tents theory, cognitive evaluation theory, and causality orientations theory.)

Self-directed learning as a model

On the basis of self-directed learning theory, in so far as it has developed
into a theory, we can then create a model of self-directedness/direction in
learning (Garrison, 1997). This approach would involve, among others,
graphically portraying in two or three dimensions what we assume each of
the subconstructs and other related constructs mentioned previously to
mean or involve and to show their interrelatedness and coherence in form-
ing the comprehensive construct self-directed learning.

Self-directed learning as an assumption

The notion of self-directed learning as an assumption can be questioned.
An assumption is akin to a supposition or the acceptance of “something”
as true or certain, without proof, and has the same semantic and epistemo-
logical status as belief, conjecture, or speculation. Research has shown that
self-directed learning is more than an assumption or belief; learners can
respond in practice to questionnaires and self-rating scales of self-directed
learning, thereby demonstrating their ability to progress towards higher lev-
els of self-directed learning (Havenga, 2016, p. 83–85).

Self-directed learning as a process that involves human agency and

stewardship
A view of self-regulated learning as a self-contained mechanistic, determin-
istic, technical, or automatic process should be discounted on the basis of a
biblical anthropology. Although educators (teachers) might employ teachin-
g–learning techniques in helping learners become more self-directed, the
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 13

learning behavior of the learners and the teaching behavior of the educator
remain subject to the human ability and freedom to choose (I Sam 15:11;
Jer 3:7, 3:19-20, Is 5:1-5; Leach, 2000, p. 241–244). Human beings are free
agents entrusted with stewardship in and of creation (Fowler, Van
Brummelen, & Van Dyk, 1993, p. 85), and therefore are free to choose
their own actions and behavior (Ezek 18:20b; Rom 1: 24-32; 8:5-7), with
full responsibility and accountability to God, their fellow human beings,
and themselves for their actions and behavior (Isa 30: 21; Gal 6:17; Jam
4:17; Heb 3:13). Learning as an autonomous, automatic, deterministic, and
technical process that does not also take into account the learner’s freedom
of agency therefore has no place in a biblical anthropology. However, view-
ing self-directed learning as a process, literally as “a way of proceeding”
(Latin processus, meaning progression or course), in which both the learner
and the teacher are seen as free agents exercising their stewardship func-
tions in creation and who possess the freedom to choose (Leach, 2000,
p. 244) can be justified in terms of a biblical anthropology.
While much of the early research and seminal thinking about self-
directed learning focused on the process orientation, recent research has
contributed to a better understanding of the personal or personality charac-
teristics of successful self-directed learners. Researchers gradually came to
the insight that learner self-direction refers to those individual characteris-
tics that lead to taking primary responsibility for personal learning
(Hiemstra, 1994/2006, p. 5). The view by Knowles and colleagues of self-
directed learning arguably conforms to the anthropological norm stated
previously in that they take pains to describe self-directed learning not as a
self-contained, mechanistic, automatic, technical, and deterministic process
but as one in which human beings take the initiative, with or without the
help of others (Leach, 2000, p. 239, 247), in diagnosing their learning
needs; formulating learning goals; identifying human and material resour-
ces for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies;
and evaluating learning outcomes. Knowles and colleagues also emphasize
the attributes and learning needs of learners. Hiemstra (1994/2006, p. 5)
also emphasizes that learners have choices about the directions they pursue
in learning. Along with this approach goes responsibility for accepting any
consequences of their thoughts and actions as learners. Strods (2012, p.
396; 2014:13) concurs by concluding that most definitions of self-directed
learning “characterize the self-directed learner as responsible for his or her
own learning and organization of the learning process.”
Learners, particularly adult learners, access, use, and recraft resources via
multiple sources and methods to facilitate their learning goals without
much involvement of formal education institutions (Morrison & Seaton,
2014, p. 3). In the process, they demonstrate personal autonomy, the ability
14 J. L. VAN DER WALT

to overall manage the learning endeavors, and the independent pursuit of

learning and control (Candy, 1991). They show initiative and persistence in
learning, a high degree of curiosity and viewing problems as challenges
when interpreting and understanding the nature of a particular learning
context (Guglielmino, 1978, p. 121). In brief, self-directed learners self-
manage and self-plan their learning (Strods, 2014, p. 16).
Knowles and colleagues clearly do not support a mechanistic, determinis-
tic, automatic transmission-type of learning theory; instead, they propound
a dynamic approach in which the learner as agent takes center-stage and
the teacher a supportive role. This view does not fully chime with a biblical
anthropology. The latter embraces the perspective that human beings are
created in the image of their Maker (Gen 1:26-27; Matt 5:48; Col 3:10), and
thus they find themselves involved in at least four relationships: (1) with
God as their Creator, either in a sinful or apostate relationship or in a
redeemed relationship through Jesus Christ (i.e., in an anastate/anastatic
relationship) (Deut 32:6; Ps 121:2; Eccles 12:6; Isa 17:7; cf. Van Huyssteen,
2006, p. 96); (2) with other people (Philem 1:16; Jam 2:8), including in
teaching–learning relationships; (3) with themselves (Lev 19:34; Matt 19:19;
Jam 2:8), which explains the “self” in mental or theoretical constructs such
as self-consciousness, self-regulation, self-determination, self-directedness/
direction, self-judgment, and self-image (cf. Long, 2000, p. 13), and, finally,
(4) in a relationship with the rest of creation (Ps 8:6; Mrk 16:5; Rom 8:21,
23), including nature (which in principle should be a caring and steward-
ship relationship).
To possess the potential or need to learn in a self-directed, self-regulated,
and/or self-determined manner (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 143; Panadero &
Alonso-Tapia, 2014, p. 451; Gonzalez, 2013, p. 8; Labuhn, Zimmerman, &
Hasselhorn, 2010, p. 174) is a capacity, a personal attribute, a characteristic,
ability, a possible preference and even a commitment in learners. Self-
directed learning can be promoted by harnessing learners’ reflective skills
and metacognitive development, by making use of their positive inter-
dependence, individual accountability, responsibility, and promotive inter-
action as well as of their social skills and group consciousness (De Beer &
Gravett, 2016, p. 65). Further, Visser, Mentz, and Petersen (2016, p.
125–127) add the abilities of taking initiative when diagnosing own learn-
ing needs, of formulating learning goals, identifying resources for learning,
among others seeing peers as resources. Guglielmino (2013, p. 10) adds to
this list the potential possession of the skills and attitudes supportive of
self-directed learning.
It is clear from this list of human attributes, abilities and capacities
regarding self-directed learning that self-directed learning refers to an essen-
tially anthropological mental or theoretical construct (Van der Walt &
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 15

Potgieter, 2012, p. 225–226), and that all other meanings attached to the
concept or term should be regarded as peripheral to this core meaning. A
caveat regarding another issue regarding this outline of self-directed learn-
ing has to be added. The notions of ego-involvement, autonomy, and of
the learner taking center-stage are not compatible with a biblical anthropol-
ogy because they seem to assign greater importance to the learner than to
the Creator. Christian scholars and educators should therefore reconceptu-
alize each aspect so that it remains true to biblical precepts. Learner auton-
omy should not be conceptualized as “the learner is a law unto him- or
herself” (the literal meaning of autonomy), but rather as the ideal of the
learner deciding for him- or herself how, what, when, and where to learn.
By the same token, ego-involvement and the learner being center stage in
the learning process should not be construed as ego-centeredness but rather
as the learner being assigned a proper place in the learning process
(learner, the learning process, teacher/educator, learning material, learning
outcome). A biblical theory of self-directed learning will benefit from the
development of terminology that is more in line with a biblical ontology
and anthropology.

The role of the educator in self-directed learning

The term self-directed learning also encapsulates the notion of educator
involvement as part of the learning process. The potential to become a self-
directed learner has to be developed through the agency, stewardship, and
caring guidance of more mature and experienced people in the persons of
educators such as teachers (Guglielmino, 2008, p. 4; De Muynck,
Vermeulen, & Kunz, 2017, p. 43). As literature shows, the promotion of
self-directed learning can be a goal, aim, purpose, or intention of educators
(teachers). The aim, goal, or purpose of education (in the form of teaching)
is to develop and unfold the characteristics of a self-directed learner,
among others their potential independence and persistence in learning and
their responsibility for their own learning (Fisher et al., 2001, p. 516). They
should also be guided to view problems as challenges rather than as
obstacles, to develop self-discipline, curiosity, and the ability to use basic
study skills and organize time effectively. They need guidance to devise a
plan for completing work, enjoy learning and have a tendency to be goal-
oriented, to show an improved ability to use and apply conceptual know-
ledge in an integrated way and to develop the ability to demonstrate the
use of analytical, reflective thinking, and metacognitive skills (De Beer &
Gravett, 2016, p. 66–67). Havenga (2016, p. 73–74) adds to this list the
need to develop a learner’s ability of setting personal goals, making
informed decisions, applying appropriate skills and strategies, reflecting
16 J. L. VAN DER WALT

about own learning, and assessing predetermined goals with the purpose of
nurturing deep lifelong learning. Teachers should also take pains in assist-
ing them to take initiative, show persistence in learning, and accept respon-
sibility for own learning. They should also be guided in developing an
appropriate goal orientation, in harnessing the ability to learn independ-
ently, develop self-discipline, a love of learning, and curiosity.
It is probably in view of these points that authors such as English (2000,
p. 32–34) regard self-directed learning as a method or approach that could
be followed by educators. The final purpose of self-directed learning is to
assist the learner to become an independent learner, although not in isola-
tion from other learners and teachers (Hiemstra, 1994/2006, p. 1). (The
confusion highlighted in the problem statement of this article is supported
by the fact that authors such as Arkan et al. (2016, p. 514) contradict
Hiemstra’s view by maintaining that “self-directed learning is the skill of
learning individually.”)

Concluding remark
The analyses undertaken for purposes of writing this article revealed that
researchers in the field of self-directed learning have two options. They
could, in one approach, opt for a continuation of the terminological confu-
sion regarding self-directed learning by defining what they understand their
personal, unique, or idiosyncratic mental or theoretical conception (theoret-
ical construct) referred to as self-directed learning means and entails. They
could, in another approach, depart in their research from the original def-
inition of self-directed learning provided by Knowles and colleagues,
namely that it is a dynamic, non-deterministic process in which learners
and teachers are intrinsically involved as responsible and accountable free
agents — entrusted with, could be added from a biblical perspective
—stewardship of creation by their Creator. This second option challenges
researchers to discover and develop new perspectives regarding self-directed
learning, particularly pertaining to the roles of learners and teachers, within
the parameters of the definition by Knowles and colleagues. Researchers
opting for the second approach find themselves faced with the task of
expanding, on the basis of and within the theoretical strictures of the defin-
ition by Knowles and colleagues, the mental or theoretical construct self-
directed learning into a fully-fledged theory of self-direction in learning.
Some researchers might feel this approach to be constrictive; others might
regard it as a scholarly challenge.
As an overall strategy when researching self-directed learning we should
accept the unavailability of complete consensus about what exactly self-
directed learning entails, and work toward creating an optimally coherent,
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 17

communal framework or wide reflective equilibrium of thought and action

regarding self-directed learning (research). This goal is, as Van Huyssteen
(2006, p. 33) correctly remarked, “what true coherence [in science and
scholarship] is about — a coherence where dissensus and a variety of opin-
ion provide for creative enhancement rather than impoverishment of our
intellectual culture.”

Note
1. Johannes Lodewicus Van der Walt is a member of a research focus group on self-
directed learning in the Faculty of Education, North-West University, South Africa.
The author is one of the researchers charged with the task of reflecting on the
meaning of self-directed learning and about how it should be applied in the project.

Biographical note
Johannes Lodewicus van der Walt is Professor Emeritus and former Dean of the Faculty
of Education at the Potchefstroom University in South Africa, now known as the North-
West University. Since taking early retirement he has been involved as a Specialist
Researcher at this university and has published widely on philosophical issues in education,
religion and education, and citizenship education. He also facilitates staff capacity building
seminars at tertiary education institutions.

Acknowledgement
The author hereby gratefully acknowledges the advice given by Professors Elsa Mentz and
Charlene duToit-Brits as this article unfolded.

References
Abraham, R. R., Upadhya, S., & Ramnarayan, K. (2005). Self-directed learning. Advances in
Physiology Education, 29(2), 135–136.
Agran, M., Blanchard, C., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2000). Promoting transition goals and self-
determination through student self-directed learning: The self-determined learning model
of instruction. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 35(4), 351–364.
Alharbi, H. A. (2018). Readiness for self-directed learning: How bridging and traditional
students differs (sic)? Nurse Education Today, 61, 231–234.
Arkan, B., Elif, U. A., & Hatice, Y. S. (2016). Locus of control and self-directed learning
relation on Nursing students. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 9(2), 514–519.
Avdal, E. U. (2013). The effect of self-directed learning abilities of student nurses on suc-
cess in Turkey. Nurse Education Today, 33(8), 838–841.
Balfour, R. (2016). Foreword. In E. Mentz & I. J. Oosthuizen (Eds.), Self-directed learning
research (pp. xxiii–xxv). Durbanville, South Africa: AOSIS Books.
Barnes, L. P. (2018). Religious education in Northern Ireland: Conflict, curriculum and
criticism. In P. Sivasubramaniam & R. Hayhoe (Eds.), Religion and education (pp.
273–288). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
18 J. L. VAN DER WALT

Blumberg, P. (2000). Evaluating the evidence that problem-based learners are self-directed
learners. A review of literature. In D. H. Evenson & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.) Problem-based
learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 199–226). Mahwah, NJ:
Laurence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in learning. Perspectives in theory,
research and practice. London, UK: Routledge.
Buthelezi, T., & Phahamane, P. (2016). Academic writing supported by digital technologies
and the INcwadi-Mkaphi (book-guide) in isiZulu folk-poetry education. In E. Mentz &
I. J. Oosthuizen (Eds.), Self-directed learning research (pp. 239–269). Durbanville, South
Africa: AOSIS Books.
Candy, P. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and
practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chapman, C. S. (2017). Commentary: Interpretive methodological expertise and editorial
board composition. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. Vol. 51. Retrieved from http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.10.007
Cosnefroy, L., & Carre, P. (2014). Self-regulated and self-directed learning: Why don’t
some neighbours communicate? International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 11(2),
1–12.
Craik, G. L. (1840). Pursuit of knowledge under difficulties: Its pleasures and rewards. New
York, USA: Harper & Brothers.
De Beer, J., & Gravett, S. (2016). The affordances of case-based teaching for self-directed
learning: A case study with first year student teachers. In E. Mentz & I. J. Oosthuizen
(Eds.), Self-directed learning research (pp. 35–70). Durbanville, South Africa: AOSIS
Books.
De Muynck, A., Vermeulen, H., & Kunz, B. (2017). Essenties van christelijk leraarschap.
(The essentials of teaching in a Christian manner.) Alblasserdam, Netherlands: Verloop
Drukkerij/Driestar-educatief.
Elbanna, S., Eid, R., & Kamel, H. (2015). Measuring hotel performance using the balanced
scorecard: A theoretical construct development and its empirical evaluation.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 105–114.
English, L. M. (2000). Spiritual dimensions of informal learning. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 85, 29–38.
Fisher, M., King, J., & Tague, C. (2001). Development of a self-directed learning readiness
scale for nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 21(7), 516–525.
Fowler, S., Van Brummelen, H. W., & Van Dyk, J. (1993). Christian schooling: Education
for freedom. Potchefstroom, South Africa: Institute for Christian Studies.
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult
Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18–33. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.nwulib.
nwu.ac.za/eds/detail/detail?vid¼4&sid¼7e9bf1f8-71f4-4cfa-86d0-d114eee65754%40pdc-v-
sessmgr01&bdata¼JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN¼1998-00433-002&db¼psyh
Gonzalez, A. M. (2013). Six principles of self-regulated learning: Developing self-regulated
language learners (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/
4052
Guglielmino, L. M. (1978). Development of the self-directed learning readiness sale (Doctoral
thesis). University of Georgia. Dissertation abstracts international 38:646A.
Guglielmino, L. M. (2008). Why self-directed learning? International Journal of Self-
Directed Learning, 5(1), 1–14.
Guglielmino, L. M. (2013). The case for promoting self-directed learning in formal educa-
tional institutions. SA-eDuc Journal, 10(2), 1–18.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 19

Halverson, C. A. (2002). Activity theory and distributed cognition: Or what does CSCW
need to do with theories? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(1–2), 243–267.
Havenga, M. (2016). Students’ accountability and responsibility in problem-based learning:
Enhancing self-directed learning. In E. Mentz & I. J. Oosthuizen (Eds.) Self-directed
learning research (pp. 72–98). Durbanville, South Africa: AOSIS Books.
Hiemstra, R. (1994/2006). Self-directed learning. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite
(Eds.), The International Encyclopaedia of Education (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK:
Pergamon Press. Republished as: http://home.twcny.rr.com/hiemstra/sdlhdbk.html(1of
11)5/31/2006
Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Knowles, M. S. (1973/1978). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing Company.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. A guide for Learners and Teachers. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2012). The adult learner. London, UK:
Routledge.
Labuhn, A. S., Zimmerman, B. J., & Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Enhancing students’ self-regula-
tion and mathematics performance: The influence of feedback and self-evaluative stand-
ards. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 173–194.
Leach, L. (2000). Self-directed learning: Theory and practice (D.Phil. Thesis). University of
Technology, Sydney.
Long, H. B. (1991). Challenges in the study of self-directed learning. In: H. B. Long &
Associates (Ed.), Self-directed learning: consensus and conflict (pp. 11–28). Norman, OK:
Oklahoma Research Centre for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.
Long, H. B. (2000). Understanding self-direction in education. In H. B. Long and
Associates (Ed.), Practice and theory in self-directed learning (pp. 11–24). Schaumberg,
Germany: Motorola University Press.
Makonye, J. P. (2016). The enactment of problem-based approaches in pre-service mathem-
atics and the levels of performance of teacher students in problem projects. In E. Mentz
& I. J. Oosthuizen (Eds.), Self-directed learning research (pp. 184–211). Durbanville,
South Africa: AOSIS.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning the-
ory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3–14.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mocker, D. W., & Spear, G. E. (1982). Lifelong learning: Formal, non-formal, informal and
self-directed. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational
Education.
Morrison, D., & Seaton, J. X. (2014). Exploring self-directed learning in an online “do-it-
yourself” forum. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 11(2), 29–45.
Niemer, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the class-
room. Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research
in Education, 7(2), 133–144.
Oddi, L. F. (1987). Perspectives on self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 38(1),
21–31.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Collins, K. M. T. (2009). Call for mixed analysis: A
philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.
International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(2), 114–139.
20 J. L. VAN DER WALT

Packard, M. D. (2017). Where did interpretivism go in the theory of entrepreneurship?

Journal of Business Venturing, 32(5), 536–549.
Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate? Review of
Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Annals of Psychology, 30(2),
450–462.
Reve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In L.
Christensen (Ed.), Handbook on research on student engagement (pp. 149–172).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Strods, G. (2012). Promotion of student self-direction in cooperative learning in
university.Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 2012, 396–414. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2012vol1.60
Strods, G. (2014). Promotion of student self-direction through cooperative learning in
teacher training. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 11(2), 13–28.
Van der Walt, J. L. (2016). The feasibility of grafting self-directed learning theory onto the
capability theory. In E. Mentz & I. J. Oosthuizen (Eds.), Self-directed learning research
(pp. 1–33). Durbanville, South Africa: AOSIS Books.
Van der Walt, J. L., & Potgieter, F. J. (2012). Research method in education: The frame by
which the picture hangs. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3),
220–232.
Van Huyssteen, J. W. (2006). Alone in the world? Human uniqueness in science and the-
ology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Van Wyk, M. M. (2017). Exploring student teachers’ views on E-portfolios as an empower-
ing tool to enhance self-directed learning in an online teacher education course.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(6), 1–21.
Visser, A., Mentz, E., & Petersen, N. (2016). Student support through cooperative base
groups and its contribution to the development of self-directed learning skills. In E.
Mentz & I. J. Oosthuizen (Eds.), Self-directed learning research (pp. 99–127). Durbanville,
South Africa: AOSIS Books.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.