Have you heard of, participated in, or facilitated a “flipped classroom”? A flipped classroom, sometimes called an “inverted classroom”, is a relatively new instructional model that has been gaining traction. In a flipped classroom, we flip the traditional “sage on the stage” model on its head. Traditionally, the common model of instruction saw a professor/teacher/instructor at the front of the class lecturing to a classroom/amphitheater full of students listening and taking notes. This model can often yield a passive type of learning and there is a good chance that students’ minds will wander and there may be very little interaction between the teacher and the students, and between student peers. We’ve all experienced this type of class.
In the traditional model, students most often listen to a lecture and then leave class to complete problems, practice skills, and do various types of projects on their own. In the flipped classroom, focus is shifted from the instructor to the students during the classroom time. Students do their homework up front, prior to class, with this pre-work focusing on what would have traditionally been the lecture. The lecture content is presented to the students prior to coming to the classroom. Students normally watch a video of the lecture and/or interact with other digital content. All students must complete this work to be prepared for what will take place in the classroom afterwards.
The classroom time is then devoted to active learning, most often targeting the higher cognitive levels of learning objectives such as applying, analyzing or synthesizing. Activities can include collaborative group work based on the new content learned, instructors mentoring students working through problems or scenarios together, group discussions, and hands-on practice for skills. In short, instructors/professors turn into facilitators and, for the students, passive listeners turn into active learners during the scheduled class time.
Research Related to the Flipped Classroom Model
There has been much research done on the effectiveness of this model, across many subject domains. Beyond effectiveness, research has also looked into aspects such as student and teacher satisfaction with this model, the advantages and challenges of this model, and the variety of activities and digital tools being used to support this model.
A meta-analysis of 71 research articles, dated from 2000 to 2016, related to the flipped classroom was completed by Akçayır & Akçayır (2018). In their overview of the findings of this meta-analysis, they found that “In general, the flipped model in education yields positive results” (p. 343) and that the most frequently reported advantage was an improvement in student learning performance.
Common advantages and challenges reviewed in their 71 research studies were listed. In terms of advantages, the areas highlighted included: 1) learner outcomes e.g., improved performance, satisfaction, engagement, and motivation; 2) pedagogical contributions e.g., flexible learning, individualized learning, enhanced enjoyment, better preparation, and fostered autonomy; 3) time efficiency e.g., more efficient class time & more time for practice; 4) dispositions (i.e. attitudes towards) e.g., positive feedback, attitudes, perceptions from students and teachers; and 5) interactions e.g., student to instructor & student to peers.
In terms of challenges, the areas highlighted included: 1) pedagogical e.g., limited student preparation prior to class, students need guidelines while at home, students were unable to get help while on their own, & the inability of teachers to know if the students completed their pre-class work; 2) students’ perspectives e.g., time-consuming & increased workload; 3) teachers’ perspectives e.g., time consuming, higher workload; and 4) technological e.g., quality of videos, inequality of technological accessibility/competency, the requirement for infrastructure such as Internet in remote areas.
They also listed the main activities that they saw being used prior to class and in-class in the flipped classroom model. Some of the most common activities prior to class included: videos, readings, quizzes, asynchronous discussions, and PowerPoint presentations. Some of the most common activities in-class included: group discussions, small group activities, feedback, problem solving, questions & answers, case studies, hands-on experiments, and learning games.
In a more recent meta-analysis, completed by Roehling & Bredow (2021), they found that students in flipped classrooms reported greater satisfaction than those in lecture-based courses. They also found that flipped classrooms produced the greatest academic benefits in courses such as language, technology, and health-science, over, for example, mathematics and engineering courses. Their research also suggested that partially flipped courses can be more effective if, for example, the instructor/developer considers which content/activities lend themselves well to the flipped model and which don’t.
One particle study (Nouri, 2016), noted some additional interesting findings. The study (n = 240 students) showed that 75% of the students left the course with a positive attitude towards flipped classrooms. The research also showed that there was a general appreciation by students on the use of video lectures prior to class. On a Likert scale of 1-5, students found it useful to be able to: 1) pause the video lectures (mean of 4.52); 2) rewind the video lectures (mean of 4.48), 3) fast-forward the video lectures (mean of 4.04); and 4) watch video lectures in a mobile way (mean of 3.98) such as on the bus. All of this facilitates the student’s ability to reflect and learn at their own pace. The study also showed that there was a perceived increased learning greater amongst the lower achieving students than the higher achieving students. Nouri posited that lower achievers may appreciate more the ability to learn at their own pace through the use of lecture videos, rather than keeping up with a fast-paced classroom lecture.
Reflections
Since COVID lock-downs, we have seen schoolhouse closings and the many benefits of distance learning. Could you imagine integrating the flipped classroom solely at a distance. Students, for example, could complete their pre-class work of watching video lectures and interacting with digital content prior to attending a virtual classroom for group discussions, break-out group work, working through scenarios together, and playing group online quizzes such as Kahoot. Assuming all students and the instructor have the required technology, reliable Internet, and sufficient technological competencies, this could increase distance learning student engagement, improve interpersonal & collaborative skills amongst students, and also make effective use of the instructor and student’s time during the scheduled virtual class.
As an instructor or learning developer, could you imagine giving this model of delivery a try? Although there is work up-front (e.g., to develop video lectures), there could be a big pay-off in terms of student learning performance and satisfaction. As a student, how would you feel about participating in this model? I would be happy to hear your thoughts and experiences related to the flipped classroom.
References
Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
Campillo-Ferrer, J.M., & Miralles-Martínez, P. (2021). Effectiveness of the flipped classroom model on students’ self-reported motivation and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00860-4
Nouri, J. (2016). The Flipped Classroom: For Active, Effective and Increased Learning – Especially for Low Achievers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13, 1–10.
As I have in previous blog articles, I will share here a small section of my doctoral research on the topic of satisfaction with distance learning (DL) experiences in the CAF. Specifically, I will share some quantitative data on CAF members’ satisfaction with various DL course quality variables. This research, which was defended in 2020, included a sample of 368 CAF members who had graduated from CAF Professional Military Education programs between the dates of January, 2015 and March, 2018.
So, to start – I am sure you can relate with some of the following lines, as we have all been there. You finish an online course by successfully passing a final quiz and happily close your laptop with a sign of relief. Sometimes you think about how the course was such a worthwhile and enjoyable learning experience. Other times, however, after many long and grueling pages of content and confusing quiz questions that you complete in total isolation “as a solo endeavor” (Jones, 2020, p. 149), your computer freezes, your final test score didn’t register, you search endlessly for the help line number to find out how to print a certificate, and you finally end your day by slamming down your laptop cover so hard that it makes a sad and somewhat concerning sound. Then, of course, you go on Twitter to complain about the whole experience with your virtual comrades… who can easily empathize 😉
So, what differentiates good e-learning from bad e-learning? Admittedly, I have described the two extremes of potential outcomes here. During my research on CAF member satisfaction with Distance Learning, I did heard a wide range of feedback that included similar scenarios that I have explained to you. Some feedback was positive and some was negative. As is often the case, the majority of experiences fell somewhere between these two extremes.
I started my research with a literature review to try to identify the different variables of course quality that could make a difference in the student’s experience, and in a larger sense, the success of the course.
During the literature review various questionnaires were explored, including Aman’s (2009) Learner Satisfaction Questionnaire that was later also used by Simpson and Benson (2013), in order to consider what should be included in the instruments for my research. Many of the variables that I used for course quality were inspired by the quality factor questions used by Aman (2009).
Participants, in my survey, were asked to rate their level of satisfaction, on a scale of 1 to 5 (or N/A) where one (1) was “very dissatisfied” and five (5) was “very satisfied”, with the 13 following items related to course quality:
clear learning objectives
effective communications with instructor
interactions with classmates
feeling of being part of a learning community
collaborative group work with classmates
engaging course content
easily accessible required course materials
clearly described course assessment
constructive feedback from instructors on assignments and assessments
timely feedback from instructors on assignments and assessments
effective course technology (e.g. in the CAF context – the Defence Learning Network (DLN))
course materials provided that helped to reach course objectives
course technology that helped to reach course objectives
Findings
Full results can be found in my dissertation, but here are some of the highlights regarding the course quality variables in relation to CAF member satisfaction.
In combining “somewhat satisfied” and “very satisfied” together, the three variables that ranked the highest for DL course quality satisfaction, in descending order, are as follows: 1) clear learning objectives (88.3%); 2) clearly described course assessments (83.1%); and 3) course materials provided that helped to reach course objectives (80.3%). This is positive and great to see!
On the other hand, combining responses of “somewhat dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” together, the three factors that ranked the highest for DL course quality dissatisfaction, in descending order, are as follows: 1) feelings of being part of a learning community (23.4%); 2) collaborative group work with classmates (23.0%); and 3) effective course technology (21.3%). With the fact that the CAF Junior Officer Development program has become self study with no peer or instructor interactions, the first two on this list are not surprising.
Interesting, in terms of correlations, all of these variables were found to be positively related to course satisfaction overall.
Correlations of Satisfaction with Course Quality Variables with Overall DL Satisfaction
Variables
n
Overall DL Satisfaction
Clear Learning Objectives
367
.523**
Effective Communications with Instructor
317
.441**
Interactions with Classmates
303
.546**
Feelings of Being Part of a Learning Community
342
.579**
Collaborative Group Work with Classmates
293
.553**
Engaging Course Content
364
.529**
Easily Accessible Required Course Materials
363
.409**
Clearly Described Course Assessments
360
.392**
Constructive Feedback from Instructors on Assignments and Assessments
320
.444**
Timely Feedback from Instructors on Assignments and Assessments
315
.439**
Effective Course Technology (e.g. DLN)
364
.549**
Course Materials Provided that Helped to Reach Course Objectives
364
.472**
Course Technology that Helped to Reach Course Objectives
365
.557**
** p < .01 (two-tailed); N/A answers have been treated as missing values.
After exploratory factor analyses and multiple regression analyses, I found that all three factors that were identified with these variables were significant predictors of overall DL satisfactions. Specific variables within the three factors that were created were shown to have significant influence on overall DL satisfaction and included variables related to technology; feeling part of a learning community; and effective communications with instructors. (Note: details of these analyses can be found in the full dissertation at reference).
Student satisfaction is important in terms of important organizational outcomes such as readiness to transfer learning, levels of absenteeism, retention, and students’ intention to recommend the training to others (Jones, 2020, p. 11-16). As these variables have been been found to be positively related to student satisfaction and in some cases, even predictive of satisfaction, it is important to make sure that we are working to improve upon these in our online learning development and delivery.
One way to ensure quality in our e-learning would be to implement a course quality rubric that all courses must pass through in order to be launched in the organization. This could potentially be based on an existing and already validated rubric standard (such as is available by the Quality Matters Organization) or built taking into consideration the organization’s specific context and requirements. A standard minimum score could be adopted, and each course would be evaluated by a group of training/ Quality Assurance experts, prior to the DL course being used launched to the training audience.
On a somewhat positive note, 73.6% of participants (n=359) in my research responded that they agreed with the statement that the quality of DL in the CAF has increased over the past ten years. We must always strive to improve, though, and impress upon the other 26.4% that DL in the CAF is keeping up with the standards seen in academia and industry. For my Defence Team colleagues, who mainly include CAF Training Development Officers, CAF and civilian course designers, developers, and facilitators, as well as our e-learning technologists, we must take note of all of these important variables of course quality, continue to improve our skills and keep an eye open to potential technical and methodological advances, and always, always embrace continual improvement.
As I have in some of my previous blog articles, I will share here a small section of my doctoral research on the topic of satisfaction with distance learning (DL) experiences in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Specifically, I will share some quantitative and qualitative findings on CAF members’ perceptions related to work/life balance and their Chain of Command [employer] support in relation to their DL efforts. This research, which was defended in 2020, surveyed a sample of 368 CAF members, with 12 follow-on interviews. These participants had graduated from CAF Professional Military Education programs, both for Officers and Non-Commissioned Members, between the dates of January, 2015 and March, 2018. While CAF members represent a unique population within a unique employment context, I would venture to guess that some of these findings may be relatable in other fields where employees are either obliged or choose to shoulder the burden of continuing with their professional development while being employed full-time.
One issue related to DL satisfaction that emerged strongly in the research data was work/life balance, including DL’s effect on family and personal time, support from the Chain of Command and, specifically, the amount of time that was provided by the Chain of Command for DL studies. For example, when asked about members’ satisfaction with the support they received from the Chain of Command, 71.7% of respondents answered that they were either somewhat or very satisfied, which is quite positive. It must be noted, however, that another 15.8% reported that they were either somewhat or very dissatisfied (n = 358). In response to the following statement: “CAF members who are DL learners are often required to complete their studies while continuing to be responsible for their normal position workload” (n = 368), responses showed high levels of agreement (92.1% agreed, 72.3% strongly agreed).
Further, some members reported not being permitted to use working hours at all for DL or, in other cases, not personally being able to divorce themselves from their heavy workloads to focus on their DL. In response to a question that asked members to comment on the amount of time they were given during working hours for their DL program/course, the top three responses, based on a coding frequency analysis were: 1) time as available; 2) one day per week; and 3) no time at all. This shows that there was a range of realities for members in terms of time provided, but the concerns of those who received “no time” or not enough time, were very pronounced in the qualitative findings. These members who had to, or in some cases, chose to complete their DL on their personal time, sometimes faced difficulties that included physical or mental health issues and distress, and issues with balancing their family responsibilities. They shared with me, as responses to open-ended survey questions and interviews, their various challenges in juggling their workload, their DL studies, and their personal and family life.
This issue was illustrated by a code frequency analysis in response to a question asking members to identify their greatest dissatisfiers with DL. The 3rd most frequent response was balancing their job with DL, and the 5th most frequent response was work/life balance, including family issues. (Of additional interest, other top dissatisfiers identified included: lack of meaningful interactions, technological issues, and issues with the quality of the course design). Further, 36.9% of respondents (n = 363) either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “DL increases the chance of burn-out for CAF members.” This may indicate that some members perceive that DL can cause work/life balance issues, potentially through the difficulties that arise from juggling their work, professional development, and other life and family responsibilities. These findings were corroborated by the qualitative data, in that the phrase “burnout” and related discussions arose numerous times.
Correlation analyses between support from the Chain of Command, family, and coworkers with overall DL satisfaction indicated that support from the Chain of Command was significantly correlated with overall DL satisfaction (rs(358) = .294, p < .01). Multiple regression analysis of the support factor, which included support from the Chain of Command, family, and co-workers combined, was shown to have a significant association with overall DL satisfaction. When these three variables were separated out (i.e. support from Chain of Command, family, and coworkers), support from the Chain of Command was found to be the most significant support predictor of overall DL satisfaction.
Presently, some members make agreements with their Chain of Command prior to starting their courses regarding the time they will use during working hours to complete their DL. This could be a helpful strategy, given that 68.5% of respondents (n = 368) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “Establishing Learning Contracts to be signed by CAF members and their supervisors assigning permitted hours per week for the DL course should be a requirement for all learners of DL courses.”
The qualitative data supported the quantitative findings in that some members shared their stories of working long hours between their heavy workplace commitments and DL course loads. Others shared their stories of trying to juggle their work and DL commitments and how this caused strain on their family situations. Still others suggested that perhaps time away from work duties should be a mandatory requirement to allow members to have a more focused and valuable learning experience. Further, some members suggested that if the CAF were to ensure further availability of quiet work-spaces or computer labs on all bases, away from the regular workplace, it could be beneficial and allow members to better concentrate on DL courses with fewer interruptions.
Recommendations
Mandating an amount of time to CAF students, outside of the normal workplace and in line with the time required for effective learning to take place during DL, could be considered for all mandatory training and education. Ensuring that the Chain of Command is made aware that a certain amount of time is required, that regular tasks may need to be delayed or be reassigned, and that it is their responsibility to encourage members to take the time required and prioritize their learning appropriately could increase student satisfaction and positive learning outcomes within DL experiences.
Reflections
Balancing a full workload with various training and educational pursuits can be challenging, both in the CAF and, I suspect, in any workplace. Frank, open discussions between employee and employers and re-prioritization of time and tasks can sometimes help alleviate issues related to a heavy workload. As one research participant stated, “You can’t burn the candle at both ends.” Indeed! You may try, for a time (as I have!), but it tends not to be a sustainable way of living in the long run.
If you would like to see further details on my research, such as research methodology and full findings, please see the link below.
Once again, thank you to the survey and interview participants who took part in this research.
Prior to discussing andragogy, it would be worthwhile to define it. According to Merriam-Webster, andragogy is “the art or science of teaching adults” (n.d.). This is, of course, linked to the more commonly used word “pedagogy,” which is a more general term and often used in reference to teaching children. In Greek, these terms could be translated as man-leading, versus child-leading.
There has been much discussion in the field about how andragogy, or adult education, differentiates itself from pedagogy. Interestingly, this was the central point of debate all the way back in 1957 during a gathering of Adult Education professors from the United States and Canada. Abbott Kaplan started the debate off with a key question. He asked his fellow professors, “What is the content, the essential ingredient of adult education, that marks it off from other fields or disciplines?” (Commission of Professors of Adult Education meeting, 1957, p. 16). An interesting discussion followed and yielded valuable consensus regarding how to define adult education.
Adult Education has had many names as, indeed, it has existed as long as humans have been learning. Originating from the word “Andragogik,” Alexander Kapp, a German high school teacher, seems to have first used this word in 1833. He used it to explain adult education and that “learning not only happens through teachers, but also through self-reflection and life experience” (Reischmann, 2005, p. 59). These ideas about andragogy have resurfaced again and again in the history of adult education. Malcolm Knowles, a name well-known in the field of adult education, also used the word andragogy. In fact, he wrote an early article on the subject named, “Andragogy, Not Pedagogy” (1968). In it, he showed his strong views that Adult Education must be considered as separate and different than education for children and youths” (Reischmann, 2005, p. 60).
This leads us to the obvious question, what are the differences between education for adults and education for children? Four main points are outlined by Eduard Lindeman, which were more recently expanded upon by Stewart (1987). These four points of difference are common ones that Adult Educators have discussed and debated for many years. Lindeman outlined these points in 1926 and many of the same points were brought up in the Commission of Professors of Adult Education meeting which was held on April 26, 1957.
Point 1: Adult Education Continues Through the Life Span
The first point that Lindeman made, in differentiating adult education, was that “Education is life – not a mere preparation for an unknown kind of future living” (Stewart, 1987, p. 103). For Lindeman, it was important to understand that education is not simply something that one does in order to prepare for life. Education is something that continues throughout the life span. It seems that the attendees at the 1957 meeting mainly agreed with him as various definitions of Adult Education that were listed in the commission’s report include references to Adult Education as a life-long pursuit. One of those definitions says, “Adulthood involves a large part of life; therefore, adult education includes the larger portion of life-long learning” (Commission of Professors of Adult Education meeting, 1957, p. 61). In short, education is for life, and not simply something that one does in preparation for life.
Point 2: Adult Learning Goes Beyond Vocational and Academic
The second point of Lindeman, as described by Stewart (1987), was that “adult education revolves around nonvocational ideals” (p. 103). Lindeman felt that there was a lot of pressure for young adults to learn a vocation to fit into a certain job that needed to be filled. He believed that Adult Education was not education that was centered on vocations but education that went beyond that; it was education that gave meaning to the person’s life (Stewart, 1987, p. 106). He believed that it was a real threat that “the unbalanced application of vocational education [would] produce generations of empty people” (Stewart, 1987, p. 106). Stewart built on this statement by adding that “adult education revolves around nonvocational and nonacademic ideals” (p. 111). Adult Education can happen in places beyond institutions, both beyond academic and vocational institutions.
Other professors of Adult Education agreed with Lindeman and Stewart on this point. A definition from the report by the Commission of Professors of Adult Education meeting stated that adult education is “not usually a part of a predetermined sequence of requirements,” and that it is, “focused upon the learner’s changing interests and problems” (1957, p. 62). Another definition from that meeting points out that adult education can be in the community and include, “all those organized and/or directed educational activities in which adults engage” (p. 61).
Point 3: Adult Educational is Rooted in Real-Life Situations
The third point made by Lindeman was that “the approach to adult education will be via the route of situations, not subjects” (Stewart, 1987, p. 103). As children in the formal schooling system are taught by subjects, Adult Education would not necessarily fit into this type of model. Adult education would be based upon real-life situations and real-life needs for learning. A strict curriculum would do nothing to aid an adult learner. The curriculum should be life, and adult education, “derives its contents from individual and group needs” (Stewart,1987, p. 107).
Malcolm Knowles posited, during the meeting of 1957: “Isn’t this basic difference [between andragogy and pedagogy] the setting in which adults learn and this setting for adult learning is not typically the classroom but some life process they are going through – and this requires a different methodology” (Commission of Professors of Adult Education meeting, 1957, p. 21). This point was a strong point in the debate and it supported the idea that a unique theory was, indeed, necessary for Adult Education. Adults learn in many types of broader situations, other than the traditional classroom situation in which confined subjects are taught.
Point 4: Adult Education is Experience-Based
The fourth and final point about Adult Education by Lindeman is that “the resource of highest value in Adult Education is the learner’s experience” (Stewart, 1987, p. 103). This is a very important aspect of Adult Education and, according to some, sets Adult Education apart from education for children. All adults have their own unique life experiences from which they have learned and which can also inform their future learning. Lindeman states that experience is, in fact, “the adult learner’s living textbook” (as cited in Stewart, 1987, p. 108). The adult learner’s past experiences need to be taken into consideration when new situations present themselves and it is through new experiences that many adults learn the most. I know that this has often been the case for me!
In a debate during the 1957 Commission of Professors of Adult Education meeting, this point came up as another way to differentiate andragogy from pedagogy. In speaking about Adult Education, Hendrickson told his colleagues to consider, “the ways in which you can capitalize on adult experience. This is something you can’t do with children; they just haven’t lived enough” (Commission of Professors of Adult Education meeting, 1957, p. 19). Kreitlow, however, disagreed and replied that, “the use of experience is something you start in kindergarten” (p. 20). They did, however, agree that the degree of experiences that one could draw on was very different and so, therefore, this is a significant difference between adult education and child education. Lindeman also made the point that the adult learner and the instructor/facilitator are both learning from the experience of Adult Education. He reminds us that teachers are those, “who are also searchers after wisdom and not oracles” (as cited in Stewart, 1987, p. 108). Indeed, that is a great line for instructors to reflect upon.
Knowles’ Six Assumptions about Adult Learning
Malcolm Knowles, who worked under Lindeman in his earlier days and whose name is now often associated with Andragogy, continued on this important work in the years following the decisive meeting in 1957. Knowles worked to develop a theory of adult learning and further refined the particularities of Adult Education into six main assumptions, as quoted from Chan (2010), p. 27-28:
Self-Concept: Adult learners are self-directed, autonomous, and independent.
Role of Experience: Repository of an adult’s experience is a rich resource for learning. Adults tend to learn by drawing from their previous experiences.
Readiness to Learn: Adults tend to be ready to learn what they believe they need to know.
Orientation to Learning: Adults learn for immediate applications rather than for future uses. Their learning orientation is problem-centered, task-oriented, and life-focused.
Internal Motivation: Adults are more internally motivated than externally.
Need to Know: Adults need to know the value of learning and why they need to learn.
Reflection
Based on the definitions of Adult Education described at the 1957 Commission of Professors of Adult Education meeting, and then further refined by Malcolm Knowles, do these particularities of Andragogy ring true to you in relation to your experiences as an adult learner? If you are an instructor, are you, indeed, engaging in andragogy with your adult learners? As an educator or designer/developer, are you taking into consideration and incorporating Malcolm Knowles’ six main assumptions of andragogy in your efforts to facilitate effective adult learning?
Commission of Professors of Adult Education meeting, April 26, 1957, in Malcolm Knowles Papers, CPAE, box 18, October 1957, Syracuse University Archives.
Reischmann, J. (2005). Andragogy. In L. English (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Adult Education (pp.58-63). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stewart, D. (1987). What adult education means: Discovering and rediscovering the concept of andragogy. In D. Stewart, Adult learning in America: Eduard Lindeman and his agenda for lifelong education (pp. 103-112). Malabar, Florida: Robert Krieger Publishing.
As many before me have, after reaching a certain age or a certain level of success, I’ve been contemplating the term, “self-actualization.” We often associate this elusive state with Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I, as many others, learned about this psychological developmental level in Psych 101 at ~ the age of 19. As I age, this lofty goal of reaching self-actualization has often left me wondering: “Am I there yet?” If I’m not, how and when will I achieve this Nirvana? What will self-actualization look like for me and would I recognize it if I was there? Is it even possible to attain?
Let me remind you of the theory behind self-actualization since Psych 101, for many of us, was a relatively long time ago!
Self-actualization is a term that has been raised in philosophical and psychological discussions for millennia. It has had different names over history but the general idea behind it has remained the same. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines self-actualization as, “to realize fully one’s potential” (2022). What it means to “realize fully one’s potential,” and how one goes about achieving this level in development are two questions that have surely been explored during many philosophical and psychological discussions throughout history. William Sahakian (1975) claims that the idea of self-actualization can be found all the way back in Aristotle’s teachings and that Aristotle is, in fact, the founder of this important theory.
I will trace for you the theory of self-actualization from Aristotle who believed that self-actualization is found in goodness, to Immanuel Kant who believed that self-actualization is found through moral virtue, to William James who believed that that self-actualization is found through fulfilling our three different selves (material, social, and spiritual) and finally, to Abraham Maslow who believed that self-actualization is found through first satisfying each of the lower levels of needs, as shown in the well-known hierarchy of needs below. We will see that each of these great thinkers strove to understand how one can reach their fullest potential and how the idea of self-actualization was shaped and presented over history.
Aristotle’s eudaimonia(which roughly translates to self-actualization)
Aristotle (384-322 BC) believed that self-actualization is sought out by the soul and if the individual does not reach self-actualization, “frustration or misery results” (Sahakian, 1975, p. 9). Aristotle believed that it was in man’s nature to seek out pleasure but that, in doing so, man should seek out good. Good, in the end, is what makes a man most happy and fulfilled. All pleasure must be sought after in moderation since it is often the nature of man to overindulge and this does not lead to goodness and virtue. Humans, Aristotle pointed out, have a capacity to reason and logic unequaled by other animals. The development of this aptitude is one way in which we can further seek the good and further fulfill our desires towards self-actualization (Viney & King, 1998).
For Aristotle, it was clear that good is what all humans should want and it is that which will make each person feel the most fulfilled. We, as humans, therefore, all start as children who work through years of development aiming and striving towards perfection and that which will make us feel most self-actualized. Aristotle pointed out four factors that could contribute to this achievement, which he called eudaimonia, which in Greek means a sense of flourishing or a sense of well-being, or, for the sake of comparison, self-actualization. These four are: 1) habit, 2) social supports, 3) freedom of choice, and 4) individual differences (Viney & King, 1998). Aristotle believed that creating good and ethical habits could in fact contribute to our happiness in life, and therefore self-actualization. A famous quote by Aristotle states that, “Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.” (as cited in Johnson, 2004, p.51). Such a great and powerful line to take to heart!
Social supports are also important to Aristotle in contributing to a person’s happiness. He stated that one is more likely to be happy if one has children, family and/or friends around them. Also, those who have a higher level of freedom of choice will be free to make decisions about their own lives and this raises the chance of each person making decisions that can lead them towards their own happiness. Individual differences are also important in the drive towards self-actualization. Some people are naturally more apt to choose moderation in their actions while others will always go to extremes, not taking deliberate decisions. The individual differences that vary one person to the next will influence their likely level of happiness in life, and therefore, their level of self-actualization (Viney & King, 1998).
Kant’s View of Self-Actualization
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) also presented his views of the subject of self-actualization, although his views were quite different. For Kant, the idea of moral virtue was more important than happiness. When an individual denies his own natural selfishness and weaknesses, and follows the moral duties that he knows are right, then he will feel free, and this freedom will lead to self-actualization. Duty and selflessness without any expectation of a reward are necessary for moral virtue. Denying one’s own personal desires in order to serve others is necessary for the fulfillment of an individual and is necessary for one to reach their true potential. Seeking out one’s own happiness, in fact, achieves the opposite effect (Younkins,1998). “Virtue is some sort of excellence of the soul” (Johnson, 2004) and when one reaches this excellence of the soul, one can be said to be self-actualized.
Living a moral life and following the duties that are categorical imperatives in our society is the key, according to Kant, as to how we can feel more fulfilled and reach the highest levels of self-actualization in our lives. Searching out happiness for ourselves will never lead to self-actualization since we must put society and the good of others ahead of ourselves in order to achieve moral virtue and to achieve true satisfaction within.
James’ Interpretation of Self-Actualization
Williams James (1842-1910) also spoke of self-actualization in his theories. James believed that there were three levels of human needs. These levels, he hypothesized, were material needs, social needs, and spiritual needs (Huitt, 2004). Material needs of the person include clothes, shelter, and safety. The social needs we experience include recognition, esteem, and belonging. Spiritual needs are not necessarily related to religion and could be considered as psychological needs. The spiritual needs are personal and intimate where the material and social needs are outward (Viney & King, 1998).
There are often conflicts between the three selves, James concluded. Often decisions have to be made as to where our energies will be focused as we attempt to achieve our potential selves. Our potential selves are different to each person, for example, one person may wish to achieve their potential in terms of wealth, fitness, or intelligence. One may not be able to achieve all of these potential selves and, therefore, will have to make decisions as to which potential self the person will achieve and which they will leave behind, balancing between a dream and what can be a reality. Reaching self-actualization in one of these areas may come at the expense of another area (Viney & King, 1998). The person, therefore, can seek to fulfill the potential of the selves, whether it is the material self, the social self, or the spiritual self, depending on where the individual decides to put their focus and energy (Viney & King, 1998).
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, including Self-Actualization as the Pinnacle
Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) is probably the psychologist best known for his theories regarding self-actualization. Maslow’s theory of motivation, which is known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, is well known and is commonly referred to. Maslow believed that people are basically good and that we all are strive to be healthy, happy individuals and that our nature is to continually attempt to reach our potential. Therapy was one way that an individual who was having problems reaching their potential could find help and this was, in his opinion, the main reason why therapy exists.
Maslow began to contemplate a hierarchy of needs while he was studying monkeys. He saw that the monkeys would act on the most pressing and urgent needs before other needs. For example, the monkey would act on getting water before he would act on getting food. Water is, of course, a more pressing need than food since one can not exist without water for more than a few days but may be able to exist for weeks without food. If oxygen was suddenly taken away, the entire animal’s focus would shift towards this and away from the effort to get food or water. Maslow realized that some needs have priority over others, whether we are discussing monkeys or humans (Boeree, 1998). These ideas led Maslow to come up with his theory of the hierarchy of needs.
In Maslow’s hierarchy, there are five levels of needs. Each level must be satisfied before the individual will shift their attention to the next level and attempt to fulfill it. The first and most basic level of needs is the physiological level. In this level, the individual seeks to fulfill basic physiological needs such as water, food, sleep, and a proper temperature. These needs must be met and, until they are, the further steps are of little concern to the person (Boeree, 1998).
The next level in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is for safety-related needs. The individual who has fulfilled the first level will next try to fulfill the needs of safety, security, and stability. One will look to have a safe place to live, money in the bank for emergencies, and a secure job. These needs must be met, or mostly met, before the individual will typically focus on attaining the needs found in the third level, which includes the needs of belonging (Boeree, 1998).
The belonging level includes such things as love, affection and social ties to others. These needs may show themselves through family, friends, coworkers, or a spouse. Maslow contends that when one is starving or dying of thirst, love and marriage are not often on the individual’s mind (Boeree, 1998). On the other hand, one “may forget that once, when he was hungry, he sneered at love as unreal or unnecessary or unimportant” (Maslow, 1954, p. 89). When these needs for belonging are met, the individual will look towards the next level of needs, the esteem needs.
The esteem needs are the next level on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This level includes things such as a feeling of worth, self-respect and competence. Maslow believed that this level had two versions, a higher and a lower version of esteem needs. The lower version is the need for respect from others, which comes through fame or status or recognition or attention. The higher version is the need for self-respect. This is the higher version because when one achieves self-respect, the individual is more likely to keep it while respect from others can come and go (Boeree, 1998).
The top level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs brings us back to the topic of self-actualization. When all of the other levels of needs are sufficiently taken care of, Maslow believed that an individual will feel a desire to become more, to reach their full potential. This, of course, means different things for different individuals depending on what that individual is capable of doing and capable of being. According to Maslow, self-actualization is, “the intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately, of what the organism is” (Maslow, 1954). In other words, one may be self-actualized by being a dancer, by being a philosopher, by being an artist, by being a scientist, or by reaching one’s full potential in any area. These levels of self-actualization, do not normally show themselves until the first four levels of needs have been met (Viney & King, 1998).
Maslow put much thought into what a self-actualized person would be like, what qualities they would have, and what would differentiate them from others. He even made a list of people he knew and people who were famous, both alive and deceased, that he would consider self-actualized. William James, who was discussed earlier, was one of the people that Maslow believed had probably reached self-actualization. Other notable people that he mentioned that were probably self-actualized individuals were Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington (Viney & King, 1998).
Some of the qualities that self-actualized people had, according to Maslow, were that they were realistic, they accepted themselves as they were, they were problem-centered, they were spontaneous, they were autonomous, they could be alone and not be lonely, they were creative, they were aware of their imperfections, they had a fresh appreciation of people and things, they had values, and they had gone through “peak experiences.” These “peak experiences” were moments when that person had “feelings of limitless horizons… so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences” (Maslow, 1970, p.164). Maslow did not feel that people who had reached the level of self-actualization were perfect. He, in fact, even made a list of the imperfections that could be seen in those of whom he considered self-actualized. Some of these imperfect traits that he noticed were absentmindedness, coldness, and suffering from guilt (Viney & King, 1998).
One popular criticism of Maslow’s theories about self-actualization is that it makes an individual’s fulfillment dependent on their self-centeredness. One must turn inward and focus on themselves to be self-actualized instead of focusing on the common good. This opposes the road to self-actualization that was described earlier as was taught by Immanuel Kant who said that self-actualization comes through focusing on the common good, or on moral virtue. Maslow, however, saw no reason why one could not be both self-actualized and value the common good (or not!) (Viney & King, 1998).
Reflections
I invite you to reflect: Is seeking the common good, finding happiness in life, and fulfilling our desires required for self-actualization, as Aristotle posited? Is social duty, moral virtue, selflessness, and an “excellence of the soul” required to achieve self-actualization, as Kant believed? Do we need to choose where to put our energy to further either material, social, or spiritual self-actualization, as considered by James? Must we achieve all four of the more base levels of needs (physiological, safety, belonging, and esteem) prior to achieving self-actualization, as theorized by Maslow?
Where are you on this theoretical road to self-actualization? What does that look like for you? Some may strive towards self-actualization through their work, through their studies, through their art, or through attaining gray-haired wisdom. We have seen some who excelled in their careers who then turned to philanthropy who seem to be further searching for self-actualization.
When I was young and starting out in the world, the basics such as food and rent had to be met and that consumed much of my energy and attention. Today, I have reached certain career, family, and academic goals, but I believe I am still on my path towards self-actualization. I am unsure of where and when I will find it, or if it is actually an end-point at all. To all of you who, like me, are still questioning and striving, strive on! Question, evaluate, and periodically re-evaluate your path, and rest assured, you are not alone. I wish you all the best on your journey to self-actualization – whatever that means for you.
Photo: MCpl Krista Blizzard, 5 Wing Public Affairs GB2016-10-215
Some years back, I read a report out of the Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press that really impacted me and has lingered in my mind ever since. Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession, published in 2015 and written by Dr Leonard Wong and Dr Stephen Gerras, is a frank account of how members can become ethically numb, and, therefore, react dishonestly in the face of ever-growing and cumulative loads placed on the forces. These overwhelming workloads can include things like mandatory training, reporting requirements, data requests, compliance checks, personnel evaluation reporting, and the list can go on and on.
Although this report focused on the United States Army and gathered qualitative data from its members, I suggest that my Canadian colleagues reflect on the points presented in this blog article, and then perhaps read the full report, to see if any of these points are relatable in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) context. If so, what should/could be done about a culture of dishonesty?
Truth as an Important Aspect of our CAF Ethos
Military professionals will most often consider themselves to be truthful and honest. Our military ethos calls for it. In the summary of Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada(2003), it states that integrity, “calls for honesty, truthfulness, uprightness, the avoidance of deception…” (p. 17). In the new Canadian Armed Forces Ethos: Trusted to Serve (2022), it points out that “a person with integrity is truthful, strong of character and reliable,” (p. 25) and that integrity requires, “pursuing truth regardless of personal consequences” (p. 24). Our professed value in the truth is even shown in the motto of the Royal Military College: “Truth– Duty- Valour.”
The reality that was shown through this qualitative research with the US Army, which can be hard to hear or accept, is that impossible deadlines, the deluge of reporting requirements, the inundation of directives from above, and so much mandatory training is often difficult, if not impossible, to fit into the schedule. These examples can sometimes lead to, what members may tell ourselves, are white lies for the greater good. Add in a culture of “Yes, Sir!”, “Yes, Ma’am!” and “no-fail” and it can be the perfect set-up for dishonesty to become the norm and, therefore, for members to constantly have to choose between lying or standing out from the crowd to be truthful. This, in the military culture, can lead to scorn from their colleagues and supervisors and potentially hurt their advancement (e.g. being the only one who is unable to report 100% compliance in X,Y,or Z).
Examples
Some applicable key words found in the report, that may or may not ring a bell, include: “hand-waving”, “fudging the numbers”, “massaging the truth”, “checking the box’, “pencil-whipping it,” “bending the truth, “giving them [leaders] what they want”. One member stated that “You gotta make priorities, we met the intent, or we got creative” (Wong & Gerras, 2015, p. 8). In “feeding the beast” with inaccurate statistics, in reporting 100% compliance when 85% would be more accurate, when signing that a personnel briefing took place when it did not, when reporting that unit members have completed mandatory training when, actually, time did not allow, when filling in colorful PowerPoint slides with questionable numbers, many lead to members experiencing “ethical fading.” Ethical fading occurs when the “moral colors of an ethical decision fade into bleached hues that are void of moral implications. Ethical fading allows us to convince ourselves that considerations of right or wrong are not applicable to decisions that in any other circumstances would be ethical dilemmas” (Wong & Gerras, 2015, p. 17). This can lead to ethical numbness and then, at that point, we must question whether dishonesty will grow beyond trivial small “numbers fudging” to more monumentally dishonest acts.
The report lists various examples related to training, compliance, finances, and actions taken during operations related to reporting. Being a Training Development Officer (TDO), I was reminded of the dishonesty of acquiring a course certificate from merely flipping through e-learning pages and not applying oneself to actually learning the content. The report shared a situation where one of the “smart” members sat down at a computer and quickly completed the course and printed the certificate for all nine section members. Another example included a Sergeant printing off course completion certificates for the whole team, knowing full well that the training had not been given.
As I am presently working at the Chief, Professional Conduct & Culture, I am especially disturbed by the following example:
“One captain spoke of trying to complete mandatory Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program (SHARP) training:
We needed to get SHARP training done and reported to higher headquarters, so we called the platoons and told them to gather the boys around the radio and we said, ‘Don’t touch girls.’ That was our quarterly SHARP training.” (Wong & Gerras, 2015, p. 13)
Again, this example took place in the US Army, but it is worth reflecting on. In a situation where mandatory training requirements are so heavy that there is physically not enough time in the day to complete them, along with the avalanche of other administrative responsibilities that are continually passed down from the highest levels, is this example a common result? “It [the US Army] is excessively permissive in allowing the creation of new requirements, but it is also amazingly reluctant to discard old demands” (Wong & Gerras, 2015, p. 18). This may or not be relatable to the CAF context but, in my opinion, it is worth some consideration.
What Can Be Done?
So, how do the authors of this report suggest moving beyond dishonesty in the profession?
1) Acknowledge the Problem– We should discuss these things openly and honestly without fear of reprisal. Leaders should lead the discussion. They should admit that they know these things happen at all levels from their own experiences.
2) Exercise Restraint– Restraint must be given towards the number of no-fail tasks and #1 priorities. Workload must actually be accomplish-able. Mandatory training and new directives can come from all directions at all different levels and leaders must “shoulder the burden of prioritizing” (Wong & Gerras, 2015, p. 30). Leaders must also consider what is actually required and valuable in terms of reporting and, then, prioritize appropriately. If everything is vital, then nothing is. Perhaps 100% compliance, for example, is not realistic in a given context and 85% compliance could actually be an acceptable risk. If a legacy requirement is no longer important, consider getting rid of it. Also, if the requirement is important, ensure that the member providing information, completing the training, or checking whatever box, understands why it is important. If the importance is understood, it should decrease dishonest reporting or the fudging of numbers.
3) Lead Truthfully – Leading truthfully could include “speaking truth to power” while insisting that training module X,Y, or Z is not worth being mandatory training for the whole organization. Leading truthfully informs subordinates that accurate reporting is more important that achieving 100%.
Reflections
In terms of reflections, do we, in the CAF, condone dishonesty or perhaps even expect dishonesty in some circumstances/situations? Are we generally overwhelmed with the deluge of requirements that seem impossible to meet? Do our members and leaders sometimes face the feeling of dissonance that comes with needing to “feed the beast” bogus &/or inaccurate information in a time crunch, all the while feeling the need to maintain a self-identity of “a person with integrity [who] is truthful, strong of character and reliable,” (DND, 2022, p. 25) as required by our CAF Ethos. Does this report describe merely a problem within the US Army, or are there aspects of this report that ring true and relatable for you within the CAF context?
I hope I have given you some good food for thought and that I have done justice in summarizing this excellent report. If you have found this topic interesting, I highly recommend that you take the time to read and reflect on the full report: Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession
Have you ever tried to complete a Distance Learning (DL) course when the technology became your focus, either because of the slowness or crashing of the system, the non user-friendly design of the interface, or the timing-out of a quiz where you lost all of your work? Me too! On the other hand, have you ever completed a learning experience at a distance where the technology was seamless and really seemed to enhance the learning experience? Me too! Let’s have a look at what some Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members had to say about their satisfaction (or lack thereof) with technology as an aspect of course quality.
As I have in previous blog articles, I will share here a small portion of my doctoral research on the topic of satisfaction with DL experiences in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Specifically, I will share some of my quantitative and qualitative findings related to technology, as a course quality consideration related to CAF member DL satisfaction. This research, which was defended in 2020, included a sample of 368 CAF members who had graduated from CAF Professional Military Education programs between the dates of January, 2015 and March, 2018. The data was gathered from surveys, as well as 12 follow-on interviews.
Technology was a subject that arose frequently in both the quantitative and qualitative research data, both as responses to direct questions as well as spontaneous comments in relation to satisfaction and ways to improve DL. For example, when asked about satisfaction with “effective course technology (e.g. DLN),” 66.4% of respondents (n=366) said that they were somewhat or very satisfied, while 21.3% of respondents said that they were somewhat or very dissatisfied. In response to the perception statement, “The CAF has good technical support systems in place to help should any technical problems arise during DL courses,” 41.3% of respondents (n=363) either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, while 27.0% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. The responses to these two questions indicate that a portion of CAF members have negative perceptions regarding DL technologies and technical support in CAF DL. This supports earlier findings from the DND “Your Say” survey research (Budgell, Butler, & Eren, 2013), that found that only 45% of respondents, from a sample of 1730 CAF members, agreed that the CAF makes good use of technology in courses. This, of course, begs the question of what the other 55% of CAF members think we could be doing better in relation to technology use within DL courses.
In the correlation analyses for course quality variables, it is noteworthy that all course quality variables that were measured (e.g. timely instructor feedback, clear learning objectives, easily accessible course materials, etc.) had a positive significant correlations with overall satisfaction. Two of the strongest significant positive correlations with overall DL satisfaction involved the satisfaction with course technology, specifically: 1) course technology that helped to reach course objectives (rs (365) = .557, p < .01); and 2) effective course technology (e.g. DLN) (rs (364) = .557, p < .01). Both of these would be considered of moderate strength. With the multiple regression analyses that were completed, both “Effective course technology” and “Course technology that helped to reach objectives” were shown to be significant predictors of DL overall satisfaction.
The qualitative data supported the quantitative findings that the topic of technology was relevant to CAF DL satisfaction. Technolgy was so prevalent in the qualitative data that it emerged as a theme unto itself. The technology theme included the following four categories: 1) accessibility; 2) usability of technologies supporting DL; 3) learning management systems (LMS); and 4) perceptions regarding DL technology in the CAF. Although some members indicated that the technology to support CAF DL had improved over the years, fewer positive sentiments and experiences concerning CAF DL technologies were shared.
Within the category of accessibility, there were many comments regarding difficulties experienced with DL technology including issues of connectivity and bandwidth. Connectivity was brought up for both office and home settings, but also in operational settings such as on ships and on overseas deployments. Members did mention that they liked the fact that they could access their DL from their homes, outside of their workplace computer. One member said, “the system is very user-friendly because it exists outside of the DWAN [Defence Wide Area Network] system, very easy to use, home computer, home-based internet.” One liked that the technology exists so that they can do DL, “anywhere, anytime.” Another member, however, stated, “I do not have access to reliable internet from my home and must conduct the course at work.” Indeed, Internet bandwidth and reliability in the more rural areas can still be an issue. Other members stated that they had issues with connectivity while trying to do their DL in the office. One member said that “the servers themselves need desperately to be updated. The system struggles greatly with large courses.” Another member commented that the “intranet at work is dead slow.” These issues, one member stated, “often result in complete loss of connection” and that sometimes the system, “does not save the work that was already completed.”
Within the category of usability, items such as the following were brought up: members’ comfort level with the DL technology, DL technology support available (including from a help desk), firewall issues, members’ requirement to use external technology to support their course, and issues encountered such as with the DND search engine, inactivity time-outs, the inability to print courseware, and a vast array of “technical hiccups.” In relation to comfort levels, one member stated that “although I am older, my computer skills and comfort level with software systems are good. I never had any issues with that part of the DL.” On the other hand, one stated that, “regardless of age, not everyone is computer savvy (i.e. a digital native). There needs to be training available that is aimed at every type of learner.” In terms of ease of searching for references on the DWAN Intranet, one member stated that it “was of no use when trying to find reference material.” Another suggested that the DND/CAF should, “invest in upgrading the DND/DWAN to have better browsers and access for research.”
Regarding the Learning Management Systems (LMS), participants discussed the Defence Learning Network 2.0 and/or Moodle, which is being used by the Royal Military Colleges of Canada (RMCC) and the Canadian Forces College (CFC), dependent on the program they had completed. There was a range of satisfaction with these tools. One Junior Officer who was interviewed stated that the DLN is “easy to use,” “very user-friendly,” and that “anybody could do it.” Other members felt that the DLN, however, left some things to be desired. One Senior Non-Commissioned Member (NCM) who I interviewed about their Senior Leadership Program (SLP) experience, for example, stated that the LMS affected the interactions between students in their forum discussions. They stated that “because of the software of DLN… it wasn’t a flow,” adding that “it wasn’t very intuitive or well laid out… it was very cumbersome.”
Another member stated that the DLN, “is a very difficult program to work with… navigating the DLN is terrible and something needs to be changed…. It… creates needless frustration.” Another stated that it creates “stress for no reason trying to navigate it.” Another member commented that the “DLN is very clunky and difficult to find courses and is not very user friendly.” A Senior Officer, who had completed the Junior Command and Staff Programme (JCSP)- DL version, said of the LMS used by CFC, “it was okay, I guess. I’ve seen better, but I’ve seen worse.” Another member said, “I would complete more DL courses if the system was easier to work with.” One Senior NCM suggested, “improving the platform to enable students who are working on that theory portion of the DL so they can actually collaboratively work together if that’s what’s required. So be it from smartphones, from tablets, from work, traveling on the train, traveling in a car, whatever.”
Perceptions related to DL in the CAF, as the fourth category, were quite varied and included members’ general levels of satisfaction and expressions of frustration. Related to satisfaction, one member said the “technology was decent,” and another stated that “as a whole I think that it is getting better.” Some expressions of frustration with the technology, however, were also shared. One Intermediate Leadership Program (ILP) graduate stated, for example, that “the technical hiccups were very distracting and at times infuriating.”
As illustrated in the comments from these CAF members, the various technology components related to DL, as a course quality consideration, can have a positive or negative effect on the DL satisfaction and learning experience of students. To optimize the learning experience of CAF members, we must always strive to improve upon what we have and trial courses on various platforms and browsers prior to launch. Issues found, as well as student feedback, must be addressed. It should be noted that the technology of DL is always evolving and we must strive to keep pace. The DND/CAF is currently in the process of upgrading to a newer version of our Saba Learning Management System in the cloud, known as the Defence Learning Network (DLN) 3.0. I look forward to learning more about the benefits of this new DLN iteration, including its new functionalities. This is a great step forward, as is the availability of the new DLN 3.0 virtual classroom and MS Teams for synchronous group discussions. I look forward to see what future technologies in this space will provide in order to further improve upon the student learning experience.
I would like to thank the CAF members who took part in the surveys and/or interviews in support of this research.
Reference
Budgell, G., Butler, A., & Eren, E. (2013). Task # 138: Regular Force Your-Say Survey: Spring2012 Focus Selection Results. DRDC-RDDC-2015-C102.
Photo credit: MCpl Kathryn Poudrier, Defence Public Affairs Learning Centre, Copyright 2012 DND-MDN Canada
Self-directed learning is not a new learning strategy as people have been engaging in self-directed learning throughout history. Learning does not necessarily need to take place inside the rigid walls of an institution. There exists a whole continuum of worthwhile structures that can enable learning, ranging from an instructor-led classroom setting to autonomous independent studies where individuals take control of their own learning. Formal classroom learning, for most adult learners, is merely the tip of the iceberg. Informal learning, which is usually self-directed as an individual or within groups, is the larger & often undetected mass of the iceberg that is underneath the water. As the British historian, writer and Member of Parliament, Edward Gibbon (1796), pointed out, “every man [person] who rises above the common level has received two educations: the first from his teachers; the second, more personal and important, from himself [themselves]” (as cited in Candy, 1991, p.14). Indeed, this has been the case for me.
Self-directed learning, both integrated into formal and non-formal settings, has an important part to play in learning. I will share here the definitions of self-directed learning, both in method and in goal, in order to dismiss any confusion over its meanings. I will also present six main reasons why self-directed learning has become a predominant type of learning today around the world.
Canadian Armed Forces Professional Development Framework (2018). Government of Canada.
Defining Self-Directed Learning
Within my work present context, within the Canadian Armed Forces, self-directed learning aligns well as an aspect within the Self-Development Pillar of the Canadian Armed Forces Professional Development Framework (as illustrated above). This pillar is defined as, “self-initiated training and/or education that refines or further develops an individual’s body of knowledge, intellectual and/or professional skill sets, and attitudes that leads to improving the level of a desired competency or competencies. Self-development is normally done outside of formal professional development activities” (Government of Canada, 2018).
The term “self-directed learning” has been used to describe different things. Some use the term to describe a method of learning while others use it to mean a goal of someone who is able to learn autonomously without direction. Under the heading of method, two sub-meanings come into play. Many see the method of self-directed learning to be a type of formal education where the learner has more control over the learning, such as in university individual study courses, while others see it as a type of learning outside the formal educational setting where a learner can learn on their own in any kind of social setting.
Self-directed learning, as a goal, is also broken down into two sub-meanings. The first meaning says that the person has a quality that allows them to learn autonomously. The second sub-meaning says that the goal achieved is the management of oneself along with the ability and willingness to conduct one’s own education (Candy, 1991). Although these definitions of self-directed learning are different, they are also connected. These ideas have all been a very popular topic in recent history for research and discussion amongst Adult Educators.
Reasons Why Self-Directed Learning Has Become a Predominant Learning Strategy
There are six main reasons, as identified by P. Candy (1991) in his book Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice, to explain why the idea of self-directed learning has come to the forefront. These six reasons show us why adults and adult educators alike are supporting and encouraging more and more learner-centered and controlled education.
The first reason, as identified by Candy (1991), for the growing interest in self-directed learning is that it fits well within the democratic ideal that our society holds dear. Within self-directed learning, the learner has more control over what he/she learns and how he/she learns it. Self-directed learning is not authoritarian in that the learner must follow the orders of a teacher in a rigid structure. In self-directed learning, the student participates in all aspects of the course structure and learning process. Naisbitt (1984) points out that the Western society believes more and more that, “people whose lives are affected by a decision must be a part of the process of arriving at that decision” (as cited in Candy, p. 33). Teachers often consider themselves more as facilitators than instructors and are more likely to give up some degree of control over course material and learning methods to create more of a democratic learning environment. You may have heard the reference that it is preferable for facilitators to be more of the “guide on the side than the sage on the stage.”
Another reason, according to Candy, for the growing interest in self-directed learning is the growing ideology within society of individualism. Some cultures see this as a positive thing and some as a negative thing (Leach, 1995, p. 568). Individualism, where one is more focused on the self and autonomy, can easily be seen in Western cultures. Although some cultures and ethnic groups continue to focus more on community and group achievements than others, in many cultures today, Keddie (1980) points out, “high status is obtained by competitive individual achievements” (as cited in Candy, p. 35). The fact that achievement is seen as an individual accomplishment rather than a family or community accomplishment and the fact that the benefits tend to stay at the individual level, leads us towards this ever-increasing ideology of individualism. This can easily be seen in the way that people are learning. Less sharing in the learning experience is seen and more self-directed learning, often alone, and at home away from the classroom setting, is becoming more and more common.
The third reason that Candy states that self-directed learning is becoming more popular is the concept of egalitarianism. Within this idea, teacher and students are considered equals. The teacher may have some extra information regarding a certain subject but both parties can equally contribute to the learning experience. Lawson (1979, p. 19) points out that teachers and school organizers with egalitarianism in mind, “ought not to impose their own educational and curricular values if they can avoid doing so” (as cited in Candy, p. 37). From an egalitarianism point of view, all learners should be considered equal; all should have the same learning possibilities and possible benefits. Self-directed learning fits nicely into this concept since, theoretically, all learners can participate and benefit from self-directed learning. While this is true in theory, in the modern age, however, unequal access to Internet can cause inequalities in accessing the Information Highway that is often used as a conduit to gaining new and up-to-date knowledge.
A fourth reason that self-directed learning has been becoming more popular, according to Candy, is subjective or relativistic epistemology. In this concept, knowledge is relative. Knowledge can be different to different people and so, therefore, one instructor can not be said to have the correct or true facts in which they will impart to the students. What is correct or true for one is not always exactly correct or true to another. In this view, “the ideal teacher-student relationship bears no resemblance to that of master and apprentice” (Candy, p. 39). A teacher should act more as a facilitator or a resource person, according to Candy, since knowledge is relative and dependent on the individual and the circumstances and society that surround it. Within this view, knowledge, in relation to the facilitator/participant relationship, should more be co-constructed. This concept of knowledge being subjective and relative fits well into the idea of self-directed learning. One who sets out down a path of self-directed learning finds and molds their own truths and their own forms of knowledge.
The fifth reason, as Candy states, for the increasing attention and support that self-directed learning is receiving is humanism. Humanism is a word that has become very popular in psychology as well as in education. Many equate humanism with Maslow’s self-actualization theory. Education often acts as a means towards a person reaching the highest levels of needs fulfillment, that level called self-actualization. When Maslow looked at those individuals who had achieved self-actualization, a quality that he found was autonomy and independence. Autonomy and independence, in terms of education, can inspire self-directed learning. As a means to help an individual realize their highest potential, self-directed learning is humanistic in its basic levels. Adult development through self-directed learning is just one of the measures that adults can use to achieve self-actualization. According to Maslow, all persons are “striving towards health, individual identity and integrity, and autonomy” (as cited in Candy, p. 40). These humanistic ideas are very prevalent in the goals of self-directed learning.
The final reason that Candy mentions that leads to the popularity of self-directed learning in research and practice in recent history is the construct of adulthood. In his book, he discusses at what point someone is considered an adult. Is one an adult when they reach a certain age? Is the psychological level or level of ability to be autonomous how we decide when one can be considered an adult? The discussion of whether or not a child can take part in self-directed learning has also been brought forward. Joblin (1988) points out that, “the myth persists that children must be taught, whereas adults can learn for themselves” (as cited in Candy, p.44). Whether this would be true or false, these discussions and research around these topics within the field of Adult Education has brought the subject of self-directed learning to the forefront of topics within the field.
These six reasons, as presented by Candy, have caused the topic of self-directed learning to be on the tongues of adult educators and learners alike. Teachers, or facilitators as many call themselves, are encouraging and creating more and more opportunities for self-directed learning. Learners have been stirred by these six reasons to seek out a kind of learning where they can have more control over the curriculum and structure of learning. Today, the opportunities for this, both in formal and in informal settings, abound.
Concluding Thoughts
Malcolm Knowles, in his assumptions regarding andragogy (aka. adult education) and self-directed learning, said that adults have an, “innate psychological need to be self-directed” (as cited in Leach, 2005, p. 565) and this is one reason for the certain future of self-directed learning. As Combs (1972) states so well, “The world we live in demands self-starting, self-directing citizens capable of independent action. The world is changing so fast we cannot hope to teach each person what he/she will need to know in twenty years. Our only hope to meet the demands of the future is the production of intelligent, independent people” (as cited in Candy, p. 47). Although this quote is now 50 years old, it still rings true and perhaps even more so today. We all must practice our intellectual muscles to know where and how to find and use the information we need to keep pace with the ever-growing complexity of our world and of our workplace. These requirements of our modern world can assure us that self-directed learning, and the skills required to successfully learn on our own, will forever hold an important place in life-long learning methods.
Candy, P. (1991). Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning: A Comprehensive Guide toTheory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leach, L. (2005). “Self-Directed Learning”. In L. English, (Ed.) InternationalEncyclopaedia of Adult Education (pp. 565-569). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Myself, Major Kim Jones, at my previous rank in 2012. MCpl Kathryn Poudrier, Defence Public Affairs Learning Centre, Copyright 2012 DND-MDN Canada
Throughout my time as a Training Development Officer in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), as well as during my studies in the domain of education, I have been asked many times which is better, more effective, and/or more satisfying: distance learning (DL) or traditional classroom-based learning? What does the research say?
The answer is “It depends!” I have experienced excellent examples of DL, as well as poor examples, and I have experienced excellent examples of classroom learning, as well as poor examples. Chances are that you have too! Variables such as the quality of the course design, the effectiveness of the technology and the learning environment, as well as the incorporation of (or lack thereof) quality interactions with instructors and peers all affect the quality of the course, whether it be delivered via DL, face-to-face in the classroom, or in some blended format. So, let’s have a look at what the research has to say.
There have been many studies over the years comparing DL with traditional classroom-based courses, both for effectiveness and learner satisfaction. A well-known historical theoretical debate took place during the 1980s and 1990s between Richard Clark and Robert Kozma concerning training delivery systems. On one hand, Clark (1983, 1994) stated that the medium was a neutral carrier of the course content and method, and that the important aspect that could affect the outcome of learning, positively or negatively, was the instructional method. Kozma (1994), on the other hand, argued that as DL technologies evolved, Clark’s (1983) earlier assertion was just not enough as, “a medium’s capabilities enable methods” (Kozma, 1994, p. 20). Newer interactive technologies, for example, that enable such things as collaborative learning, can, indeed, influence learner outcomes.
Generally speaking, though, research has found that there is no significant difference in learner outcomes or satisfaction between DL and classroom-based instruction. Indeed, an entire website is dedicated to supporting this conclusion (nosignificantdifference.org). Numerous meta-analyses over nearly two decades have led to this conclusion. Russell (1999) reported, using a meta-analysis of 355 studies, that there was no significant difference in learning outcomes (i.e., effectiveness) based on the mode of education delivery (traditional classroom versus DL) alone. Several meta-analyses have also looked at learner satisfaction comparing distance education and the traditional classroom. For example, Allen, Bourhis, Burrell, and Mabry (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies with a total sample of 3822 learners (after removing three outlier studies). These 22 studies compared learner satisfaction for distance education to the traditional classroom in higher education. The meta-analysis concluded that learners found distance education as satisfying as traditional classroom study.
Within my own doctoral research (2020), I delved into CAF members’ DL satisfaction with a sample of 368 CAF members who had graduated from CAF Professional Military Education programs between the dates of January, 2015 and March, 2018. While I didn’t compare DL to classroom learning, it is interesting to note that 78% of survey participants reported that they were somewhat or very satisfied with their DL experiences and 16% reported that they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with their DL experiences.
Although this sounds rather positive for CAF DL, it is also very interesting to consider that when asked, with all thing being equal (e.g. time required), which mode of delivery members prefer, classroom or DL, 71.7% said that they would choose classroom learning and 28.3% said that they would choose DL. There are multiple reasons why this could be and some could be CAF-specific, such as high operational tempo, technology issues, etc. I did find, however, that course quality and design variables, such as instructional methods, course materials, technology effectiveness, and interactions with peers and instructors were all predictive of DL satisfaction. Additionally, as some members reported having difficulty juggling their work and home life with their DL, support from the Chain of Command (often in terms of hours provided to devote to DL) was also a significant predictor of DL satisfaction.
As DL tools continue to evolve, we now have new ways to interact with learners at a distance. While we continue to improve upon our DL offerings, one thing is shown over and over in the research. There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of learning, depending solely on whether the learning is in the classroom or via DL. The differences are most often found in the quality of the design, development, and delivery of training & education. Effective technology, fulsome and valued interactions by a skilled facilitator (either synchronously in a virtual classroom or asynchronously in a discussion forum), and high quality design should equate to effective learning with satisfied learners regardless of delivery method.
I propose that we put this decades-old debate to sleep and focus our energy on making all of our training & educational offerings the best learning experiences possible, regardless if the delivery is through distance learning, within a traditional classroom, or some mixture of both.
References
Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing learner satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83-97.
Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of EducationalResearch, 53(4), 445-459.
Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, (2), 21-29.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.
Russell, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: as reported in 355 researchreports, summaries and papers: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
As I have in previous blog articles, I will share here a small section of my doctoral research on the topic of satisfaction with distance learning (DL) experiences in the CAF. Specifically, I will share some qualitative data on CAF members’ general perceptions, both positive and negative, related to DL, as well as perceptions related to the direction the CAF is going with DL use, CAF cultural aspects related to DL, and considerations related to generational differences and individual learning preferences. This research, which was defended in 2020, included a sample of 368 CAF members who had graduated from CAF Professional Military Education programs between the dates of January, 2015 and March, 2018.
There was a wide variety of responses regarding overall satisfaction with DL. One Senior Non-Commissioned Member (NCM), for example, spoke positively about his experience and, in rating his overall experience from 1 to 10, stated, “I would say about 9.” An Officer Cadet, who had completed the Primary Leadership Qualification (PLQ) as a Junior NCM, rated his experiences as “6, 7 out of 10.” A Senior Officer shared that “on a scale of 1 to 10, 5.” General comments regarding CAF DL satisfaction, ranging widely from positive comments to more negative sentiments included, “best learning experience,” “various degrees of positive,” “globally it’s great,” “pretty good,” “pleased,” “quite favourable,” “satisfied,” “fine,” “mixed emotions,” “strongly dislike,” and “painful to get through.” One member even stated, “I cannot convey the depth of my dissatisfaction.” As we can see, generally speaking, the range of perceptions was vast.
Many members shared their perceptions concerning the direction the CAF was taking with the use of DL. Generally, I found that those members who were positive about their DL experiences felt that the CAF was moving in a good direction in increasing the use of DL and improving upon current offerings. Some of the comments included that the CAF was making “incredible strides,” and that “it’s a great way to go.” One member said that he was “impressed that we are going this way,” and another stated that “the CAF should continue to move in the way we are.” Additional positive comments included that “DL is a vital tool in contemporary learning and the CAF should continue to embrace it,” and that “DL is a great capability that should be explored and leveraged as much as possible.”
On the other hand, members who were more negative about their DL experiences shared that they believed the CAF was relying too heavily on the use of DL and should minimize its use. Often members made the comment that we would need to ensure that we are choosing the right balance between the use of DL and classroom. One Senior NCM stated that “we’re starting to do too much by DL, simply because there’s a cost savings factor.” An Advanced Leadership Programme (ALP) graduate suggested that the CAF should, “arrêter d’augmenter le nombre de cours donner en AD [stop increasing the number of courses given by DL].” Another member stated, “I’m just concerned that we put too many eggs in the same basket there for the DL,” and yet another stated that “the CAF needs to stop ‘pushing the easy button’ on DL courses in general”. Again, these perceptions ranged from very positive to very negative on the use of DL in the CAF.
Some comments seemed to be CAF- or military-specific cultural perceptions regarding DL. Although these quotes represent individual beliefs and could potentially be just one person’s view, they seemed valuable to consider. One Canadian Armed Forces Junior Officer Development (CAFJOD) graduate stated that operations and workload must take priority and that professional development courses are, “known as selfish career climbing initiatives.” A Senior Appointment Programme (SAP) graduate stated that “if a course is taught by a person or in class it is assumed that the lesson is important. When course materials are covered by DL, the mentality is that ‘it’s the less important stuff.’” One Primary Leadership Qualification (PLQ) graduate shared his opinion that, “In my mind, there’s no room for DL in the Army. It’s been my experience that most folks didn’t join the army because they were academics. DL courses are designed for academic oriented people, not for the typical blue collar.”
Regarding members using work time for DL, some members shared their perceptions that it would be seen negatively if they were to take this time. One member stated that they did all the DL on their own time due to, “not wanting to be judged for taking time off.” A CAFJOD graduate said that supervisors say that “professional development through courses, especially DL, are a “personal responsibility” and should “not take work time” to complete them.” These are all noteworthy individual perspectives/opinions to contemplate.
Some members shared a perception that DL was less favourable for older members and more favourable for younger members. Some members shared their opinion that there are no real differences between the generations in their affinity and satisfaction with the use of DL. One member, for example, stated that “as an older member of the CAF the greatest beginning difficulty was the technology of the computers and navigation of a DL course.” Another stated that “when it comes to the younger generation, they are probably more comfortable doing stuff online…. we older [members] have to get used to it.” Another member stated that “some of the senior NCMs… may not be as comfortable with computers…. so maybe they wouldn’t be as positive… using such a tool.” Another shared, “maybe I’m becoming one of those old guys I don’t know, but I’m reluctant, or hesitant to invest myself too much into DL.” On the other hand, one member stated that “particularly for the younger generation that’s starting to come through now, they’re so used to technology and so used to the resources and being able to find things online and that kind of thing.” Another member stated that “maybe the new generation responds better to DLN as they are less likely to want to leave “home” for a course and are more reliant on networking with “friends” they’ve never met.”
Not everyone, however, saw generational considerations having a real effect on DL satisfaction. One Senior Officer shared his opinion that we tend to think of DL as, “generational, like all the young folks like it, the older people don’t. I think that might be a bit of a misnomer or a fallacy because it just depends.” A Senior NCM stated, “I certainly think that across-the-board of generations -so whether you’re 19 years old or whether you’re 55 years old… DL is a very good mechanism.” As one 52-year-old member with 35 years of service in the CAF stated, “even us old guys can do it!” One 53-year-old member with 28 years of service made the point that even the older CAF members have been in a “technology powered workplace” for a long time now. “We may not be Digital Natives,” he stated, “but we should be just about out of web-illiterates [in the CAF].” Personally, I would tend to agree with this point. As someone who advances beyond middle-age, even I had a Commodore VIC-20 growing up and I would not necessarily consider myself a “digital immigrant”.
One CAFJOD graduate shared that “everyone learns differently, DL may work for some but it does not work for me.” One member suggested that the CAF should, “have some options for people. Some like DL… many, like myself, hate it. Basically stop looking for “one” solution because it will never work for everyone.” Another member stated that “not everyone is computer savvy (i.e. a digital native). There needs to be training available that is aimed at every type of learner.” Another stated that “we’re getting better with identifying people with… how they learn, and just try[ing] to adapt to it whenever we can…. otherwise we’ll always be leaving someone behind.” A CAFJOD graduate stated that “many people learn in different ways, some prefer classroom instruction and some prefer DL and some prefer hands-on courses. We should be helping people learn according to their strengths and not forcing everyone to supposedly “learn” in exactly the same way.” Some good food for thought regarding members’ perception related to learning preferences and the value of providing options.
For further details related to this research, the methodology used and fulsome findings, please feel free to refer to the link below. There have been some exciting advancements in CAF DL in the years since this research took place including the introduction of the new DLN 3.0 and more widely used videoconferencing/virtual classrooms for synchronous DL, which may influence CAF members’ perceptions of DL today.
Thanks so much to the CAF members who offered their time to answer the open-ended survey questions and who participated in interviews for this research. Their voices have added so much to the quantitative numerical data collected.
