Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 995 – 999

2nd World Conference on Educational Technology Researches – WCETR2012

A Validation of a Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale among

Preliminary Schoolteachers in Esfahan
Nasim Torabia *, Bijan Abdollahib, Gholamreza Aslani c, AzarBahrami d
a
MA of Educational Management,bahare3 bahar st, mohammade bagher street, besat blv, esfahan Postcode 8193879158, Iran
b
Department of Education , Dezful branch, Islamic Azad University,Dezful, Iran
c
MA of Educational Management,bahare3 bahar st, mohammade bagher street, besat blv, esfahan Postcode 8193879158, Iran

Abstract

The current research is a descriptive survey with the goal of evaluation of the reliability and validity of Fisher, King and Tague
(2001) self-directed learning scale. Its statistical population comprised all preliminary schoolteachers of Esfahan, Iran, in the
academic year 2010–2011.the reliability coefficient was calculated via Cronbach’s α (0.88). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was used in order to evaluate the validity; according to the results, and taking into account the index of fit, the model proved to
be approximately fit. Finally, this scale can be used in order to evaluate self-directed learning among teachers in various
researches.

Selection
© 2013 The and peer review
Authors. under
Published by responsibility of Prof.
Elsevier Ltd. Open accessDr. Hafize
under Keser. license.
CC BY-NC-ND
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey

Keywords: self-directed learning, self-management, self-adjustment, learning readiness

1. Introduction

To be an effective teacher, one needs various skills, knowledge, and attitudes a great part of which is to
understand the mechanism of effective learning in adults (Kaveh, 2009). An effective teacher never stops learning
and continuously revises their experiences and knowledge. Such a teacher monitors their learning process (which is
a permanent process) in a self-directed manner. Long (2005) asserts that self-directed learning is a process wherein
the learner is responsible for the beginning, planning, implementation, and monitoring their own learning.
Self-directed learning is a permanent approach which can take place in any situation and allows the individuals to
determine their own learning goals and personal approach (Abdollahi, 2009).
The basic point in self-directed learning is that during the process of learning, the learner is actively involved in
goal setting, planning, information processing, acquiring new knowledge, controlling the progress of self-learning,
correcting oneself based in feedbacks, controlling the learning environment for more effective learning, and
selecting and changing approaches to learning. In self-directed learning, the learner systematically and intentionally
exploits learning strategies such as re-resenting and re-constructing in order to increase the learning output (Mock et

*. Corresponding Author: Nasim TorabiTel.: +989139033568

Email:[email protected]

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.185
996 Nasim Torabi et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 995 – 999

al, 2005). Self-directed learners are active, spontaneous individuals who, instead of passively waiting for reactive
learning, take the initiative in meaningful and purposeful learning which will be continuous (Williamson, 2007).
Behaviorism and neobehaviorism also support self-directed learning. Behaviorists believe that learning happens
when the individual responds to a stimulus and receives positive or negative enhancement. Neobehaviorists have
proposed internalized enhancement which contains internal reward (Nadi and Kazemi, 2003).
Self-directed learning can occur in one or several way for each person: personal development, personal self-
awareness, and self-actualization, self-motivation due to the control of learning variables, giving opportunity and
incentive for success, self-worth, self-confidence, and sense of attachment to organization (James et al, 2003).
If more opportunities are provided for the staff for self-directed learning, most probably they will acquire more
skills required by self-directed learning; therefore, it is better that the environment also emphasize on self-directed
learning.
In order to use self-directed methods in teaching, the learner’s level of readiness for self-directed learning should
be measured. This readiness means to what extent the individual has the attitudes, aptitudes, and personal
characteristics required for self-directed learning (Wiley, 1983). There are several suppositions in this definition of
readiness for self-directed learning: 1) adult students are intrinsically self-directed; 2) the aptitudes required for self-
directedness can be acquired, and the best way is to have a self-autonomous behavior; and 3) the abilities of
autonomous learning in one situation can be generalized into other situations (Candy, 1991; Guglielmino, 1989).
Various studies have reported that learners experience anxiety at the beginning of their self-directed learning and
then express that they need official teaching (Gordanshekan and Yousofi, 2010). Now with regard to the role of
schools and their education in learners’ self-directed learning, and with regard to the discreteness of self-directed
learning compared with other types of learning (official, non-official, and incidental learning), it is necessary to
change the educational role of schools; in addition, teachers enjoying a self-directed, permanent educational
background are needed so that they can meet the needs of both themselves and their students. This should be taken
systematically into consideration in education (Salsabili, 1992).

2. M ethodology

This research is a descriptive survey, the population of which contains all elementary school teachers of five
districts of Esfahan, Iran, including 3463 individuals (2875 female and 588 male teachers). Upon the estimation of
sample volume with the aid of Morgan table, 400 individuals were selected through stratified sampling method. The
sample volume in each stratum was also determined, and then the questionnaires were delivered to the teachers in
appropriate times so that it might not interfere with their class times.
The data collection tool was Fischer, king and Tague’s self-directed learning readiness scale. In order to
determine the validity and reliability of the research, the construct validity method with confirmative factor analysis
and Cronbach alpha coefficient were used. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated for both the whole
research and its subscales: 0.88 for the whole self-directedness questionnaire, and 0.77, 0.66, and 0.74 for the
subscales of self-management, self-regulation, and willingness for learning, respectively.
Fischer et al (2001) have devised the self-directed learning scale to measure those individuals who have
cognitively developed abstract thinking; therefore, no explanation is needed while implementing the survey, and the
questionnaire is handed to the teachers to study and select choices as a self-report.
This test is categorized into three areas of self-directed learning:
2.1. Self-management: Self-directed learners are able to identify what they need during the learning process, to
set learning goals, to control their energy and time during learning, and to arrange work feedbacks.
2.2. Willingness to learn: Such individuals have a strong motivation for acquiring knowledge.
2.3. Self-regulatory abilities: Self-directed learners are completely independent people who can analyze, plan,
implement, and assess their leering activities independently.
Nasim Torabi et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 995 – 999 997

Findings

For the purpose of confirmative factor analysis of the questionnaire, the Amos 16 software program was
used. The results showed that the statements had a significant factor loading on subscales, and the model can be said
to be fit, according to the fitness indices shown in Table 1 below. Factor loadings and the prepared model are
presented in Table 2 and Figure 1 below:
Table 1. table fitness indices of the model

Chi square GFI AGFI RMSEA CFI Chi square / degree of freedom
2686.671 0.697 0.731 0.091 0.531 4.292
Since for a model to be fit the RMSEA should be below 0.08, and chi square on degree of freedom lower
than 4, and the closer the indices of GFI, AGF and CFI are, the fitter the model is, therefore, the model is fit. The
factor loadings in Table 2, which are mostly greater than 3, confirm this idea. Except for statements 17 and 18 in the
subscale of self-regulatory abilities, the rest of the statements have meaningful factor loadings.

Table 2: Factor loadings

Statement Subscale Loading Statement Subscale Loading

factor factor
Q1 Self-management 0.377 Q4 Self-regulatory ability 0.369
Q3 Self-management 0.623 Q6 Self-regulatory ability 0.473
Q5 Self-management 0.511 Q9 Self-regulatory ability 0.419
Q7 Self-management 0.384 Q 11 Self-regulatory ability 0.470
Q8 Self-management 0.302 Q 14 Self-regulatory ability 0.387
Q 12 Self-management 0.440 Q 17 Self-regulatory ability 0.082
Q 15 Self-management 0.671 Q 18 Self-regulatory ability 0.164
Q 19 Self-management 0.271 Q 24 Self-regulatory ability 0.347
Q 20 Self-management 0.403 Q 34 Self-regulatory ability 0.254
Q 27 Self-management 0.384 Q 35 Self-regulatory ability 0.384
Q 28 Self-management 0.604 Q 36 Self-regulatory ability 0.569
Q 30 Self-management 0.552 Q 37 Self-regulatory ability 0.570
Q 31 Self-management 0.584 Q 38 Self-regulatory ability 0.227
Q 32 Self-management 0.360
Q 10 Willingness for learning 0.448
Q 13 Willingness for learning 0.518
Q 16 Willingness for learning 0.507
Q 21 Willingness for learning 0.485
Q 23 Willingness for learning 0.288
Q 25 Willingness for learning 0.623
Q 26 Willingness for learning 0.556
Q 29 Willingness for learning 0.548
Q 33 Willingness for learning 0.535
Q 40 Willingness for learning 0.410

For the purpose of confirmatory factor analysis of the questionnaire by AMOS, as shown in figure 1 above,
the observed questions of each subscale (shown as rectangles in AMOS output) have been connected to latent
variables or subscales (shown as ovals). The subscale of self-management had 14 questions, willingness foe learning
10 questions, and self-regulation 13 questions.
The model represented above indicates that the factor loadings have been meaningful in the three subscales
because all the loadings are meaningful and greater than 3, except for statements 17 and 18 in the subscale of self-
regulation, whose factor loadings are below 3. As a result, taking into account the figure and two tables, the
questionnaire has a suitable validity.
998 Nasim Torabi et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 995 – 999

q1 q1 q
q

q1 q
q2 .3 .6 q
.5
q2 q
.3
.3
q2 .5 .4
.4 q1
.5 .6
q1
q2 .4 Self-management .2
.2
.4 q1
.6
q2 .5 .3
.6 q2
.5 .9 .5
q3
.5 .5 q2
Willingness for
.3 q2
Learning
.8
.4
q3

q4 .9 q3

q3
.3

.4 .4 .4 .3
.1 .0 .3
q2
.2
.2 .5 .5 .3

q1 q1 q1 q q q
q1

q3
q3 q3 q3 q3
Nasim Torabi et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 (2013) 995 – 999 999

Discussion and Conclusion

Examining the autonomous characteristics of learners in order to choose specific styles, models, and
strategies for teaching is one of the problems in the educational system of each country. Awareness of cognitive
abilities and characteristics of learners allows teachers to determine the amount of independence to be given to them
according to these characteristics. Standardization of a tool capable of measuring such a trait regardless of gender,
race, and social status is one of the necessities of a reformist and innovatory educational system which tries to shift
from teacher-centered styles of teaching into individual-centered ones.
The self-directed learning readiness scale is comprised of 40 valid and homogenous statements; the factor
analysis performed in this study shows that this scale is suitable. This scale can be used for various populations of
teachers. This, in turn, would improve educational environments, and through promoting the principles of learning
would gradually improve autonomy and mutual responsibility for learning in a non-threatening environment and
reduce learners’ stress. Furthermore, with such a tool in hand, valuable data about planning effective curricula for
groups with norms and culture would be obtained. On the other hand, after examining teachers’ self-directed traits,
these traits can be improved through presenting specialist and short-term courses.
In many developing countries, including Iran, the most important factor which prevents people from
furthering their education is the education expenses; self-directed learning will reduce the need for many educational
institutes, hence reducing concerns about further education of teachers and the youth (Nadi and Kazemi, 2003).
Moreover, applying self-directed learning on teachers will change their teaching style in classes.

R eferences

Candy P. C. (1991). “Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning”. A Comparative Guide to Theory and Practice.
Fisher, King and Tague (2001) “ Development of self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education”. Nurse education today.vol 21:
526-516.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1989). Guglielmino responds to Field’s investigation Adult Education Quarterly. 39(4):235-240.
James, Gordon and Bal (2003) “ The emerging Self-directed learning methods for design engineers”. The learning organization. Vol 10, number
1: 63-69.
Long, Huey, Ji Woong Cheong and Chija Kim Cheong (2005) Korean Professors “ Perceptions of Important Teaching and Learning Tasks”.
International Journal Of Self-Directed Learning. Vol 2, number 2: 24-38.
Mok, Magdalena Mo Ching, Shing On Leung and Peter Wen-jing Shan. (2005) “A Comparative Study of the Self-Directed Learning of Primary
Students in Hong Kong and Macau”. Internatonal Journal of Self-Directed Learning. Vol 2, number 2: 39-54
Wiley, K. (1983) “ Effects of a self-directed learning project and preference for structure on self-directed learning readiness”. Nursing Research.
32(3): 181-185.
Williamson SN (2007). “ Development of a self-rating scale of self-directed learning. Nurse Res. 14(2): 66-83.