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

net/publication/254075067

Critical Thinking and Self-Directed Learning in Adult

Education: An Analysis of Responsibility and Control
Issues

Article  in  Adult Education Quarterly · January 1992

DOI: 10.1177/074171369204200302

CITATIONS READS

209 4,295

1 author:

D. Randy Garrison
The University of Calgary
119 PUBLICATIONS   23,561 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice (3rd
Edition). London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by D. Randy Garrison on 10 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Adult Education
Quarterly http://aeq.sagepub.com/

Critical Thinking and Self-Directed Learning in Adult Education: An

Analysis of Responsibility and Control Issues
D. R. Garrison
Adult Education Quarterly 1992 42: 136
DOI: 10.1177/074171369204200302

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://aeq.sagepub.com/content/42/3/136

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association for Adult and Continuing Education

Additional services and information for Adult Education Quarterly can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://aeq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://aeq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 1992

What is This?

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

ADULT EDUCATION QUARTERLY
Volume 42, Number 3, Spring, 1992, 136-148

CRITICAL THINKING AND SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING IN

ADULT EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF RESPONSIBILITY
AND CONTROL ISSUES

D. R GARRISON

ABSTRACT
Two dominant theoretical framcworks in adult education are critical thinking and selfdirected
learning. This article is an analysis of the fundamental premises of these constructs in an attempt to
link these t ~ frameworks
o in a more integrative and explanatory view of adult education than is
possible through each individual concept. The article argues that responsibility and control issues are
fundamental to both critical thinking and selfdirected learning. T h e discussion is intended to con-
tribute to our understanding of the premises and essence of adult learning and education, and to
stimulate further reflection on critical thinking and selfdirected learning.

The search for a unique framework or theory upon which to base the study
and practice of adult education has been a persistent challenge. To date, agree-
ment on such a framework has eluded adult educators. In the previous two
decades, self-directed learning was often the identifying framework of adult
education. It was to be both the goal and process of adult education. However,
with closer examination, the validity of this conjoint view of adult education
began to be questioned (Brookfield, 1988). More recently, critical thinking has
been touted “as the best chance for adult education to define itself as a distinct
domain of research theory and practice” (Brookfield, 1990, p.25).
But how do we interpret such statements? Should we be ready to accept a
paradigm shift in favour of critical thinking and leave behind the concept of self-
directed learning? Or should we approach this problem with the intent of unify-
ing these frameworks or paradigms? Unless thc new paradigm is obviously supe-
rior and clearly demonstrates the inadequacies of the original paradigm, a
paradigm shift is not warranted. Self-directed learning and critical thinking are
both worthwhile frameworks. There is no readily apparent superiority of one over
the other. They simply apply to different domains of the adult education
enterprise. Therefore, it would appear prudent to attempt to unify or integrate
the two frameworks for a more comprehensive and coherent understanding and
explanation of the adult education enterprise.
Thc position of this paper is that the search for a framework of adult educa-
tion should begin by identifying the fundamental concepts and issues of its two
pre-eminent theoretical frameworks. It is difficult to convey the essence of and to
identify with a field of study and practice that is as fragmented and confusing in
terms of its theoretical foundations as is adult education. What is required, and
not unreasonable to expect or achieve, is a coherent framework that provides a

D.R GARRISON is a professor and associate dean in the faculty of Continuing Education at the
University of Calgary.

136
Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014
 CRITICAL THINKING & S E L F - D I R E a E D LEARNING / 137
basis to guide and interpret practice in a wide range of contexts. Instead of frag-
menting the theoretical basis of the field of adult education, we should be explor-
ing ways of unifying our two dominant frameworks.
Self-direction has been largely associated with an external management func-
tion. O n the other hand, critical thinking has often been considered an internal
cognitive process. The linkage of these two frameworks is established here
through a discussion of the concepts of control and responsibility. The concern is
not to compare and contrast the frameworks of critical thinking and self-directed
learning but rather: 1) to analyze them for their underlying premises and meaning,
and 2) to assess the emergent concepts for their potential in defining the essential
nature of adult education.
However, due to the theoretical nature of the paper, some of the fundamental
assumptions that shape the views expressed here need to be addressed. First, the
discussion is limited to learning in an educational setting, although much of what
is advocated could well apply to other learning environments. Second, the pur-
pose of this discussion is to distill the fundamental ideas associated with critical
thinking and self-directed learning and is not meant to provide an epistemological
discourse. At the same time it should bc stated that the philosophical orientation
of this paper is consistent with Habermas’ (1984) theory of communicative action.
The attractiveness of the notion of communicative action is that meaning emerges
interactively (Young, 1988). In this context, the ideal educational interaction is a
communication community that “serves to reconstruct an undamaged intersubjec-
tivity that allows both for unconstrained mutual understanding among individuals
and for the identities of individuals who come to an Unconstrained undcrstanding
with themselves” (Habermas, 1984, p. 2). As such, knowledge is created by com-
municative action that recognizes both the private and shared worlds of the in-
dividual.
Through a discussion of critical thinking and self-directed learning it will be
shown that there is an inherent emphasis on either internal or external issues. Few
models in either of these areas provide an integrated perspective on internal
processing of information (i.e., responsibility for constructing meaning) and the
external management of the educational process (i.e., control). From this discus-
sion the concepts of responsibility and control are explored within the context of
an educational setting. Finally, the article turns to a discussion of the integration
of critical thinking and self-directed learning, using as linkages the notion of
private and shared worlds and the concepts of responsibility and control.

CRITICAL THINKING
Thinking is a complex internal process in which the individual detaches from
the external world to engage in an inner “dialogue” and contemplation of ideas
and abstract concepts. While this thinking or reflection may be purposeful it is not
necessarily critical. As McPeck (1981) suggests, “perhaps the most notable char-
acteristic of critical thought is that it involves a certain skepticism, argument or
suspension of assent, towards a given statement, established norm or mode of
doing things” (p. 6). The individual must explore ways to reduce dissonance, con-

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

138 / GARRISON
sider alternative possibilities, or attain a more satisfactory understanding of a
situation or experience. Such an approach demands a proactive form of thinking
and acceptance of responsibility for interpreting experience.
But this is not to say that critical thinking is purely a cognitive or reflective
process. While thinking may be a little understood internal process, the use of
the adjective ‘‘critical” changes the meaning of the process considerably. Critical
means to judge and not take things for granted. Peters (1972) believes that
criticism is essential to reason. To escape from arbitrariness there must be agree-
ment in judgments by means of procedures for confirmation (testing). This effec-
tively moves the critical thinking process into the shared world.
While thinking or reflecting may be represented as an internal dialogue, it
does not occur without content or a problem arising out of previous experience.
McPeck (1990) suggests that critical thinking or rational inquiry involves analysis
of premises, arguments, and evidence. Simply analyzing the validity of an argu-
ment is not equivalent to critical thinking. We must considcr evidence found in
the shared world of our experiences. Unfortunately the view that critical thinking
is simply argument analysis, and is independent of context and content, is com-
mon in the literature. McPeck believes that critical thinking demands that we
comprehend complex issues and information associated with such problems.
Critical thinking is not a generalized ability or skill. It is a process of making
sense (internal cognitive process) of external experiences through analysis of is-
sues and information.
Dewey (1933) also considered thinking as both an internal and external
process. He viewed reflective thinking (ie., critical thinking) as relating abstract
ideas to external things themselves. Dewey (1933) proposed five phases of reflec-
tive thought which were a generalization of the scientific process. The last phase
was to test the hypothesis or understanding. The use of the term hypothesis
reflects the tentative nature Dewey held of knowledge. Dewey placed consider-
able emphasis on both experience and reflection. Knowledge resulted from the
constant interplay between internal and external processes and was constantly
evolving.
In the context of adult education, Brookfield (1987) suggests a five-phase
model of critical thinking not unlike Dewey’s. The phases are a triggering event,
an appraisal of the situation, an exploration to explain anomalies, development of
alternative perspectives, and integration of perspectives into the fabric of living.
This model begins and ends in the external world. In the middle are three reflec-
tive phases. During the integration phase individuals act upon their perspectives
by sharing and interacting with others. Thus, it is in the shared world that true
meaning is achieved. While constructing meaning is a personal responsibility, the
process of critical thinking also includes the application of meaning structures to
the specifics of the context. That is, if meaning is to be. more than belief it must
go beyond simply internal reflection. The truth of concepts is determined through
collaborative action which necessitates sharing control of the process.
Mezirow (1990) has written extensively on reflective learning, which he uses
synonymously with critical thinking. According to Mezirow, critical reflection al-
ways involves learning. In turn, learning is “defined as the process of making a
Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014
 CRITICAL THINKING & SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING / 139
new or revised interpretation of the meaning of an experience, which guides sub-
sequent understanding, appreciation, and action” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 1).Accord-
ing to this line of reasoning, learning is inherent to critical thinking/reflection and
learning brings together reflection and experience. Mezirow (1991) states that
“Meaning is always an interpretation from a contextually defined perspective” (p,
191). Meaning is about one’s experience, which guides further action and the
revision of meaning schemes. Focusing on communicative learningbowledge
(i.e., norm-governed concepts, judgments, propositions, beliefs, or feelings),
Mezkow (1988) states:
the condition under which the assertion is =lid is established through discourse with
others who are informed, objective and rational in which we assess evidence and arguments
and consensually amve at a provisional best judgment about the justifiability of the idea. It
is through this process of crilical &course that contested meanings are confirmed or
negated. (p. 225)

From the previous discussion of criticalhflective learning we see the interac-

tion between the internal and external worlds of the adult learner. Meaning
developed in isolation does not meet the criteria of critical or reflective learning.
Critical discourse is essential for worthwhile and valid knowledge. The learner has
the dual responsibility to construct meaning and to justify that meaning through
critical discourse with informed others. This latter process necessitates shared
control of the learning process. When negotiating meaning, control cannot exist in
one individual. Such a situation can only encourage indoctrination.
Another critical thinking model proposed by Garrison (1991) assumes a holistic
view of the thinkinflearning process by integrating reflective and communicative
action phases. The model is based on a cognitive and constructive view of the
thinkindearning process, reflecting the neccssity of the individual taking respon-
sibility to create meaning, and through communicative action, to validate that
meaning. One of the key features of the model is an attempt to distinguish the
private (internal) and shared (external) worlds of the individual. Consideration is
given to the internal thinking process while recognizing that thinking is initiated
and integrated through external influences.
Critical thinking may be precipitated by a problem or disorienting event; how-
ever, it is the responsibility of the individual to make sense of the situation by
integrating new ideas with previous knowledge and experience. At the same time,
critical self-reflection is not sufficient to generate knowledge. True integration of
new perspectives and eventual knowledge development requires that we act upon
them and share our understanding with others. There must be iteration between
collaboration (shared world) and reflection (private world) for the purpose of
confirming new ideas and perspectives through experience. The issue of control
arises with regard to collaboration, while reflection necessitates that the individual
take responsibility for constructing meaning.
While thinking is an inner “dialogue” where each individual must accept
responsibiIity for meaning, the process is often initiated and influenced by exter-
nal sources. The critical thinking models discussed previously include both the
private and shared worlds and those processes that predominate in each. Ac-

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

140 / GARRISON
tivities in the shared world require relinquishing a degree of control as part of
living with others. However, if in the private world exploration of new perspec-
tives is to occur, then the individual must accept responsibility to interpret ex-
perienccs in the shared world. To accept responsibility for meaning and
knowledge development is also to accept a degree of control, but not so much
control that the individual becomes a closed and isolated system. Critical think-
ingearning must be seen as an open system where input from external sources is
necessary and external control is shared.
Critical thinking is a useful and powerful construct in adult education with
which to understand learning and knowledge development. The issues of respon-
sibility for constructing meaning and sharing control of the process of validating
knowledge are evident in the constructs of critical thinking. It will be shown that
responsibility and control issues are also evident in the self-directed learning
literature.

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING
There is no area of research in adult education that has received as much
attention and has as many proponents as self-directed learning (SDL). Sisco
(1988) states that “of the most persistent shibboleths in the discipline of adult
education is the promotion of self-directed learning. Nearly every introductory
text in the field pays homage to the concept as the ideal form of learning” (p.
125). Similarly, Candy (1990) has stated that “the notion of self-direction has
attained something of a cult status in the literature of adult education. It has
been (and is) claimed as central in both the theory and practice of almost every
imaginable form of educational endeavour” (p. 9). However, notwithstanding the
popularity of the notion, conceptual ambiguities do exist.
After a thorough review of the literature on self-directed learning, Candy
(198%) concluded that the literature is extensive but confusing and that the “lack
of internal consistency precludes the possibility of developing a coherent theory
of self-direction” (p. 379). One of the reasons for this confusion is that the term
self-direction at various times may refer to an independent pursuit of learning, a
way of organizing instruction, or a personal attribute (Candy, 198%). Further-
more, Long (1990) believes that it is a mistake to see SDL as an all-or-nothing
phenomenon. Doing so effcctively makes it an extra-institutional phenomenon
and thus risks isolation, which can only be detrimental to a successful learning
experience.
What appears to be common to most conceptualizations of SDL is the notion
of some personal control over either or both the planning (goals) and manage-
ment (support) of the learning experience. At the same time, we should not as-
sume that the ultimate goal of SDL is fully autonomous learning. As has been
noted previously, self-direction is a matter of degree. Brookfield (1988) states, “If
self-direction is held to mean that the learner has complete control over the
choice of learning content, purposes, evaluative criteria and methods, then the
educator ceases to be an educator in any meaningful sense” (p. 35). Garrison
(1989b) has argued that self-direction depends upon both the opportunity and

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

 CRITICAL THINKING & SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING / 141
ability to make learning decisions (i.e., control) and, therefore, SDL should be
seen as a collaborative process between teacher and learner. The degree of self-
diectedness should be negotiated with an awareness that a range of contingencies
and competencies exist.
While most conceptualizations of SDL are preoccupied with external control
issues, this is an incomplete view of the learning process. To argue that the pur-
pose of increased control in learning is to achieve greater independence makes
little sense. We live interdependently and knowledge is socially determined. The
real purpose of increased control is to achieve a deeper understanding of content
and the opportunity to confirm knowledge objectively. This suggests a symbiotic
relationship between external control concerns and internal responsibility issues.
Perhaps one reason why we seem to have made so little progress in understanding
SDL is that we have taken a fragmented view of learning and inappropriately
extolled the virtues of independence. Neither encourages the development of con-
sensual or validated knowledge.
This distinction between responsibility and control for learning is similar to a
distinction made by Brookfield (1988), in which he divides learning into external
learning activities and internal change of consciousness. Brookfield (1986) sug-
gested that self-direction “is usually defined in terms of externally observable
learning activities or behaviour” (p. 40) and later stated that “self-directed and
other-directed are terms which make sense only if we are talking about who has
control over various decisions to do with educational tasks and activities” (Brook-
field, 1988, p. 19). He goes on to suggest that these educational activities “have
nothing to do with the internal change of consciousness which results from par-
ticipation in these acts” (p. 19). Begging the question of the influence of educa-
tional activities on change of consciousness for the moment, the implication ap-
pears to be that internal change of consciousness has little to do with SDL as it is
usually defined. However, since internal change of consciousness is ultimately the
responsibility of the learner, does this mean that SDL is only concerned with ex-
ternal control and not with the individual’s responsibility to provide meaning?
This is all a bit perplexing because this internal change (k, meaning construc-
tion) is usually triggered in the external world and is eventually validated in this
world. While internal change may be indirectly influenced by others through dis-
cussion and experience, the learner must ultimately assume responsibility to in-
tegrate such learning.
Self-directed learning should be concerned with both internal and external
processes and activities. Externally, control may be shared, while internally self-
directedness in terms of constructing meaning is absolute. Long (1989) comes
close to this position when he argues that psychological self-directedness “is the
necessary and sufficient cause for self-directed learning” (p. 4). That is, Iearners
must take responsibility for critically assessing content and it is only when the
learner assumes responsibility for these cognitive processes that SDL becomes
possible. Long believes that one may learn in a passive way where the learner is
not actively in control of the learning process and, therefore, is not self-directed
psychologically. However, an individual can only learn if he or she actively makes
that decision, either voIuntarily or through coercion. Less active or coercive Iearn-

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

142/ GARRISON
ing may result in superficially acquired information that may not have a lasting
presence or may deter further learning. That is, the individual has not taken
responsibility for constructing meaning. On the other hand, if learning is to be
meaningful and lasting, then the individual must be actively responsible for what
is learned. In short, all learning must ultimately be the responsibility of the
learner, but that does not guarantee that it will result in valid knowledge (Jarvis,
1988).
Candy (1987a) has stated that “I am frrmly convinced that adults are respon-
sible for their own learning, but what I have come to reconsider is whether all
should be responsible for their own teaching” (p. 173). This is the exact distinc-
tion made here. To paraphrase Candy, it could be said that we are responsible
for our own learning but we must consider whether we should be in control of
our own teaching. In another article on self-directed learning, Candy (1983) sug-
gests “that knowledge cannot be taught but only learned” (p. 107). In this view,
knowledge would be the result of the learner’s integrating new ideas, perspec-
tives, and values into existing cognitive structures and collaboratively justifying
the resulting understanding. Teaching is a matter of negotiating meaning and not
of transmitting ready-made knowledge. The responsibility for knowledge acquisi-
tion can be shared by accepting the guidance and support of others; but, again, it
is ultimately the responsibility of the learner to make sense of new information
and develop knowledge structures.
Another concept worth exploring briefly in relation to SDL is learning-to-
learn. Learning-to-learn is an overarching metacognitive concept which includes
SDL. In fact, Smith (1990) states that “becoming self-directed in learning has
often been endorsed as the central task of learning-to-learn” (p. 21). He suggests
that learning-to-learn takes many forms, including increasing self-awareness and
self-monitoring, as well as becoming a more active learner and assuming “an ap-
propriate amount of control of learning-related activity” (Smith, 1990, p. 4).
Smith goes on to say that, as a process, learning-to-learn consists of a set of
interrelated intrapersonal and interpersonal processes and activities. Although
the language is somewhat different, it s e e m that learning-to-learn is clearly
linked to the idea of learners’ assuming responsibility for learning through self-
monitoring (intrapersonal) and sharing control of learning activities (interper-
sonal). It is interesting to note with regard to control of learning that Smith
(1990) believes “many situations offer little room for learner control, nor is it
always desirable to retain control” (p. 21). The art of learning-to-learn is in
recognizing such situations and the reasons for them.
At this point we need to emphasize that we have only considered SDL from a
process perspective. That is, self-direction here has not been considered as a
pcrsonality attribute or construct. Long (1990) believes we should disregard this
possibility, concluding that SDL “is a process and to imply that it is a noun or
consequence only muddles the concept” (p. 3). We suggest that self-direction as
a noun simply becomes whatever a particular construct seems to measure and so
could be construed as any number of psychological attributes. Similarly, self-
direction should not be viewed as the ultimate goal or state of an adult learner
(i.e., independence). This may risk confining the individual to isolated forms of

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

 CRITICAL THINKING & SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING / 143
learning. To argue against possible isolation in learning, we must further clarify
the relationship between the concepts of responsibility and control.

RESPONSIBILITY AND CONTROL IN EDUCATION

It has been argued that the educational process can be Conceptualized as
learners’ assuming responsibility for learning and creating meaning while m n c u -
rently sharing control of learning activities through communicative actions in a
supportive and collaborative setting. As used here, responsibility for learning sug-
gests an obligation for purposeful unconstrained participation in order that the
individual may create meaning through the integration of new ideas/values. On
the other hand, control includes the opportunity and ability to make decisions
concerning the goals and management of learning. It is not associated with power
over others. In an educational setting, control is inherentIy a colIaborative
process. However, we must not only understand these internal and external
processes but we must also appreciate how to integrate these processes and ac-
tivities. Learners’ willingness to accept responsibility is very much dependent
upon a sense of their being able to influence or have some control of the learning
process.
The reality is that many, if not a majority of adults have not learned or been
successful in accepting responsibility for their learning (Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990).
For whatever reason, it is certainly not appropriate to demand that the learner act
in an independent manner. The difficulty is that while a degree of independence
is required to develop personal responsibility along with a sense of success and a
positive self-appraisal, a learner may be ready to accept responsibility for learning
but be incapable of proceeding due to a lack of resources or difficulty with the
subject matter. A successful learning experience will normally require more than
personal responsibility and independence. A totally unstructured environment
provides little information and feedback regarding learning activities and, conse-
quently, a positive appraisal of conceptual development and knowledge validation
is difficult. Students need to become critically aware of what they are being asked
to learn, and this may require considerable support as well as questioning of as-
sumptions. The challenge for adult educators is to develop personal responsibility
while maximizing individual control.
The issue is not whether there should be collaboration but the degree to which
the learner should assume control of the planning and management of the learn-
ing process. It is not contradictoiy for the learner to assume responsibility for
learning and still rely on an outside person for support, access to information, and
guidance. Collins (1987) states that mediation is inevitable and “there is no con-
tradiction in the notion that learners do their learning on their own and their
Wing taught by a teacher” (p. SO). The roIe of the facilitator is to develop and
encourage the learner’s sense of responsibility and regulatory behaviour. Support,
however, must not undermine or subvert the learner from assuming responsibility
in the pursuit of understanding and developing new meaning perspectives.
One of the most fundamental debates in education has been marked by dis-
agreement as to the balance and integration of perspectives concerning develop-

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

144 / GARRISON
ment from within and formation from without (Dewey, 1938). To put it another
way, how does the learner assume responsibility for learning while accepting sup-
port and direction (i.e., control) from without? The difficulty regarding this
dynamic between a learner and facilitator is that the specific implications of
learning theory “to be translated into instructional procedures for use in a par-
ticular situation are usually stated in very vague terms” (Shuell, 1980, p. 279).
.While external conditions have a profound effect on learning, it is no longer
adequate to assume a behaviouristicview of learning where context is everything.
We must also consider and integrate contextual and cognitive factors in under-
standing the educational process. Contextual concerns cannot discount the will-
ingness of learners to engage or not to engage in a learning endeavour. Without
some minimal initial motivation and an attempt to maintain this interest, it is
unlikely the learner will continue to take responsibility and persist. The real chal-
lenge is to understand the impact of these external conditions and influences on
internal cognitive changes. Since no learning theory exists that can explain and
predict how these external conditions influence learning, perhaps the best advice
is to advocate and adopt sustained communication between learner and
facilitator.
Only through continuous and critical dialogue between learner and facilitator
can a dynamic and optimal balance of control be realized. The balance of control
will properly shift depending upon the context and the proficiency of the learner.
However, through sharing control there is an increased probability of students
reaching desired and worthwhile learning goals which, in turn, would result in
improved intrinsic motivation, ability to learn, and self-directedness. If self-
directed learning only suggcsts freedom from influence, then it is an empty con-
cept not worthy of serious consideration. On the other hand, if we recognize
individual responsibility together with legitimate external control dynamics, then
we will go a long way in understanding the complexity of the educational process.
Given the essential meaning of responsibility and control as described pre-
viously, it should be clear that meaning is ultimately the responsibility of each
individual but knowledge is created in collaboration with others. Knowledge is a
result of action by the learner to construct meaning’and have it validated.
Knowledge is not passively absorbed. Ultimately, learning must be the respon-
sibility of each individual learner, but knowledge is gained through interacting
with the external world through direct experience and critical dialogue; therefore,
this process must inherently be collaborative. The learner is neither independent
or dependent -the learner is interdependent with facilitators and fellow learners.
The nature of this interdependence is what we need to understand and the fact
that the balance of interdependence will dynamically shift from one circumstance
to another. Self-direction, unfortunately, often implies a false and misleading
form of independence.
Sclf-determining or directing behaviour is dependent upon a sense of personal
control. Interestingly, a sense of self-direction may be damaged if the learner
incorrectly perceives a sense of personal control which docs not exist. Paradoxi-
cally, developing a sense of self-direction may depend upon external support to
increase personal control in the long term. As Deci and Ryan (1985) state, self-

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

 CRITICAL THINKING & SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING / 145
determination “may also involve choosing to give up control” (p. 38). The crucial
point is that individuals have the freedom to make decisions without cocrcion
(Deci & Ryan, 1985). Control that is truly self-directional must include both the
opportunity and ability to make decisions. One without the other will not lead to
self-determined or directed learning.
In this section we have explored the interface between external learning condi-
tions and their influence on internal cognitive change. With the preceding discus-
sion as background we return to the concepts of critical thinking and self-directed
learning to explore their relationship and our understanding of them for the pur-
poses of adult education.

AN INTEGRATIVE VIEW
That there is a relationship between critical thinking and self-directed learning
is apparent in the work of authors writing on these topics. In attempting to define
critical thinking, Paul (1990) suggests it is “disciplined self-directed thinking.”
Further, he suggests that “education implies a self-motivated action upon our
thinking,’ (Paul, 1990, p. 50). Mezirow (1985) states that “Becoming critically
aware of what has been taken for granted about one’s own learning is the key to
self-directedness” (p. 17). From these Views, it would appear that there is an in-
timate relationship between self-directed learning and critical thinking, although
not clearly explicated. To be a critical thinker, one needs to be self-directed; and
conversely, to be a self-directed learner, one needs to be a critical thinker.
The key to understanding the relationship between self-directed learning and
critical thinking is the internal and external focus of the learning process. Self-
direction demands that the learner have full responsibility for the internal cogni-
tive process while sharing control of the external goals and activities. There is no
contradiction between sharing control and self-direction in learning (Garrison,
1989b). Control is realized through the collaboration of the facilitator and learner.
If in a teaching-learning transaction participants are to bc respected, then they
should be given the opportunity to influence (is., control) educational decisions
in a way, and to an extent, that depends upon the ability and knowledge (is.,
proficiency) of both the learner and facilitator, the availability and necessity of
learning resources (is., support), as well as the appropriateness of selecting
learning goals (i.e., independence) (Garrison, 1989a). This control triad (k.,
proficiency, support, independence) reflects external learning issues but does not
prescribe an explicit understanding of responsibility for internal cognitive change.
To assume full autonomy for one’s learning is to encourage adoption of unex-
amined and narrow perspectives. For most learners to break free from long-held
beliefs and assumptions requires an objective and external perspective. It is
through interacting with the external world that broader and more worthwhile
learning perspectives develop. As Mezirow (1990) states, it “is through dialogue
that we attempt to understand-to learn-what is valid in the assertions made by
others and attempt to achieve consensual validation for our own assertions” (p.
354). Although we should not accept wholeheartedly and unquestioningly what
others suggest, we should at least be encouraged to consider that our beliefs and

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

146 / GARRISON
assumptions may not be justifiable in a larger context. Such processes are the
hallmark of critical thinking.
To have any meaning, self-direction, like critical thinking, must include being
responsible for relating new ideas and experience to previous knowledge as well
as actively sharing that new understanding in order to justify and validate it. A
more complete view of self-directed learners is.that they are critically reflective,
and interact and share their thinking with others. According to Megrow (1985)
there “is probably no such thing as a self-directed learner, except in the sense
that there is a learner who can participate fully and freely in the dialogue through
which we test interests and perspectives against those of others and accordingly
modify them and our learning goals” (p. 27). Any other kind of learning runs a
very high risk of being biased, ideological, or lacking pcrsonal meaning. Self-
directed learning, if it is to be for the purpose of knowledge development, is
critical learning and must therefore integrate both the private and shared worlds
of the learner.
From the perspcctive of critical thinking, the process begins with a self-
directed learner who, in struggling to understand an anomalous situation,
generates insight and possible alternatives, as well as justifying and confirming
new perspectives. It is not sufficient simply to self-reflect critically on an ex-
perience or idea. One must integrate and confirm (is., justify) that knowledge by
acting upon it and sharing it with others through discourse. The development of
knowledge, as opposed to acquiring information, ideology, or belief, must “not
only have meaning but it must bc verifiable” (Jarvis, 1988, p. 166). It is not a
contradiction to take responsibility to search for meaning and confirm this mean-
ing with others. Through the rational process of reflection and discourse (is.,
critical thinking) we assess the validity of our ideas. Further, such “rational
thought and action are the cardinal goals of adult education” (Mezirow, 1990, p.
354).
Adult education has simultaneously been promoted as a collaborative process
and as a self-directed learning process. Too often, however, these processes are
not discussed in the same context. What is argued here is that they are, in fact,
aspects of the larger educational process. Self-directed learning as an
autonomous and isolated activity does not, or should not, exist in adult education;
nor should collaborative learning that does not include learners who have taken
responsibility for constructing their own meaning. Collaboration and self-direc-
tion are necessary aspects of a critical thinkinflearning process.

CONCLUSION
The context and catalyst for this paper derive from the theoretical frameworks
of critical thinking and self-directed learning. Two underlying concepts, respon-
sibility and control, emerged from an analysis of these frameworks. It has been
suggested that there is no inherent contradiction between self-directed learning
and critical thinking. Further, it is not paradoxical to suggest that the only
reasonable conceptualization of self-directed learning or critical thinking must
involve learners’ assuming responsibility for meaning while sharing control of the

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

 CRITICAL THINKING & SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING / 147
cducational process. Taking responsibility for learning is a core element of critical
thinking and is a precondition to understanding and knowledge development.
Sharing control through discourse provides the learner with guidance and a way
of confirming meaning/knowledge.
Recognizing the role of internal and external processes and activities leads to
the realization that responsibility and control for learning are two complementary
aspects of the learning experience. From a cognitive perspective, responsibility for
learning may be a necessary precondition, but knowledge is a social artifact and,
therefore, control must be actualized in a collaborative or shared world. Relin-
quishing control with awareness and choice does not imply that a learner enters a
controlling or hegemonical relationship. In exercising choice the learner may
maintain responsibility for learning while willingly sharing control.
A meaningful or emancipatory learning experience must not deny the integrity
and freedom of the individual. At the same time, adult educators must not ignore
the potential of others to support the individual in acquiring and applying useful
and worthwhile knowledge. The challenge is to integrate individual responsibility
and shared control in the learning process. Consideration should be given to
developing integrative models based upon fundamental concepts such as respon-
sibility and control in order to define the essential nature of adult education. To
think in terms of a paradigm shift is premature in a field which does not possess a
recognizable and generally accepted paradigm. As such, the search for a coherent
framework in adult education should consider an approach that attempts to unify
existing frameworks. An approach advocated here is to develop a critical think-
inflearning model that incorporates the concept of self-directed learning.

REFERENCES
Brookfield, S.D. (1986). Vnhrundingand facilitating adufflearning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S.D. (1987). Lhefopingcnticafthinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S.D. (1988). Conceptual, methodological and practical ambiguities in self-directed leam-
ing. In H.B. Long (Ed.), Sefj-directed learning Application CG theory (pp 1-10). Athens, Georgia:
Adult Education Department, University of Georgia.
Brookfield, S.D. (1990). Passion, purity and pillage: Critical thinking about critical thinking. Aduff
Education Resenrch Conference Proceedings (pp. 25-30). Athens, Georgia: The University of
Georgia.
Candy, P.C. (1987a). Evolution, revolution or devolution: Increasing learner-control in the instruction
setting. In D. Boud & V. Griffin (Eds.),Appreciafingaduffsfeurning From fhe fearner'spenpec-
dve. (pp. 159-178). London: Kogan Page.
Candy, P.C. (198%). Reframing research info "sefj-direcrion"in aduh education: A conrmictivisr
perspeche. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Candy, P.C (1989). Constructivism and the study of selfdirection in adult learning. Srudies fhe
Educorion ofAduh, 21,95-116.
Candy, P.C. (1990). The transition from learner-control to autodidaxy More than meets the eye. In
H.B. Long (Ed.), Advances in research andpractice in self-directedlearning (pp. 946). Norman,
Oklahoma: Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education of the Univer-
sity of Oklahoma.
Collins, M. (1987). Self-directed learning and the misappropriation of adult education practice.
CanadinnAssockion for the Study of Adult Education ConfmenceProceedings (pp. 68-85). No=
Scotia: St. Francis Xavier University.
Deci, EL, & Ryan, R M . (1985). Intrinric morirmion and self-derminnfionin hcunan behaviour. New
York: Plenum Prcss.

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

148 / GARRISON
Dewey, J. (1933). How we h h k . Boston: D.C. IIeath.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience education. New York: Collier.
Gamson D.R (1989a). Understanding disrunce education: A framework for the future. New York:
Routledge.
Gamson, D.R (1989b). Facilitating selfdirected learning: Not a contradiction in terms. In H.B.
Long (Ed.), Self-directedlearning Emerging theory andpractice (pp. 53-62). Norman, Oklahoma:
Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education of the University of
Oklahoma.
Gamson, D.R (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model for developing
critical thinLing in adult learners. Intemationul J o m a l oJLifeIong Education, 10,287-303.
Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative ocfion, Volume 2: Lijiworld and vsfem. Boston:
Beacon Press.
IIiemstra, R, & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing hfrucrion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jarvis, P. (1988). Knowledge and learning in adult education. A& Educafion Raearcb Confirerice
Proceedings (pp. 163-168). Calgary, Alberta: The University of Calgary.
Long, H.B. (1989). Selfdirected learning. Merging theory and practice. In 1I.B. Long (Ed.), SeIJ-
directed learning Emerging theory andpractice (pp. 1-12). Norman, Oklahoma: Research Center
for Continuing Professional and Higher Education of the University of ONahoma.
Long, 1I.B. (1990). Changing concepts of selfdirection in learning. 1nJI.B. Long (Ed.), Advances in
research midprucficein self-dirccted Ieaming (pp. 1-8). Noman, ONahoma: Research Center for
Continuing Professional and IIigher Education of the University of ONahoma.
hicPeck, J.E. (1981). Criticalthinking and educafion. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
McPeck, J.E. (1990). Teaching critical rllinking. London: Routledge.
hiezirow, J. (1985). A critical theory of selfdirected learning. In S . D. Brookfield (Ed.), Self-directed
learning From Illeory topracrice (pp.17-30). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
hiezirow, J. (1988). Transformation theory. Adult Edtrcation Research Conference Rocee&ngs (pp.
223-227). Calgary, Alberta: The University of Calgary.
Mezirow, J. (Ed.) (1990). Fosferhg critical reflection in adulrhood. A guide to rransformurite and
mnc@ntory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformation theory and cultural context: A reply to Clark and Wilson. Adult
Education Quarterly, 41,188-192.
Paul, R (1990). Critical thinking. Rohnert Park, California: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral
Critique, Sonoma State University.
Peters, RS. (1972). On teaching to be critical. In ER Dearden, D.11. IIirst, & RS. Peters (Eds.),
Education and the development ofreuson (pp. 209-229).London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Shuell, TJ. (1980). Learning theory, instructional theory, and adaptation. In RE. Snow, P.A.
Federico, & \V.E Montague (Eds.), Apfitude, learning and insfnicfion,Volunie 2: Copitiir
process and unahses of leuming and problem sohing (pp. 277-302). IIillsdale, New Jersey:
Laurence Erlbaum. .
Sisco, B.R (1988). A study of the teaching strategies used to promote selfdirected learning among
graduate students in adult education. Adult Education Raearch Confirence Proceeding @p.
276-281). Calgary, Alberta: The University of Calgary.
Smith, RM. (1990). The promise of learning to learn. In RM. Smith (Ed.), Leumhg lo learn across
the fifepan (pp.3-29).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Young, RE. (1988). Critical teaching and learning. Educational Theory, 38,4769.

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on September 8, 2014

View publication stats