Activity 6.4 Self-Regulation and Meta Cognition, Post 2

We read Hamlet’s Blackberry in a course that I took in the Instructional Systems Design program last fall.  Although obviously the book hasn’t changed since the first time I read it, viewing it through a different lens (learning and cognition vs. the use of technology), and pairing it with Keegan’s discussion of self-regulation in terms of the expectation of self-directedness for adult learners, lends a different perspective to this work.  Although I immediately identified with Power’s sense of hyper-connectivity, I was surrounded by “techies” and many of my classmates were very excited about all the ways that we connect in society today.  The prevailing sentiment in the group seemed to be one of comfort with multiple layers of contact and instant accessibility to others and from others.  The few of us who were not sure we wanted to be accessible at all times, and who did not spend much time “facebooking” or “skyping”, were older than the other students.  I interpreted this as a generational phenomenon, and thought that my age explained my preferences.  Perhaps it still does, but when the discussion is extended to one of self-regulation in general, it becomes more apparent to me that I am making assumptions that are probably not accurate. 

I asked my son, who will soon be nineteen, how he felt about connectivity and communication through technology.  He spends time on Facebook, and texts his friends regularly, and does not mind being accessible via his phone.  However, he doesn’t keep his phone with him at all times and fairly regularly leaves home without it.  We also talked about his job search.  He is very frustrated that 95% of the applications he completes are completed online, and even when he goes to potential employment sites to follow up on an application he has submitted, he is told that he cannot see or talk with anyone.  So obviously this desire to regulate the amount of communication and interaction that occurs through technology is not purely a generational phenomenon.

In Keegan’s chapter 8 excerpt he describes the typical goals of adult learners who are returning to school, “Only a fraction of the adults entering school programs do so with the hope or intention of personally growing from being in school.  Most have what they (and we?) would consider far more practical goals, such as getting ahead in their work lives.” (Keegan, 1994, p. 293). Once an adult learner enters the typical college environment they are required to be self-directed and Keegan notes that the literature tells us that there is a good deal of frustration on the part of educators who find that many adults are not capable of becoming truly self-directed learners.  I would argue that an adult who is able to assess their life (their goals, their environment, their accomplishments, their level of satisfaction, etc.), make a decision that a college education would offer greater opportunities, expand their horizons, improve their abilities, or in some other way enhance their present condition, then make all of the changes, decisions, and preparations necessary to re-enter the college environment, is already self-directed to some extent.  Learning to be thoughtful, analytic, reflective, creative, and to demonstrate individual initiative can certainly be challenging.  In Gerald Grow’s summary of the characteristics of the self-directed learner he describes such as individual as one who is “both able and willing to take responsibility for their learning, direction, and productivity.” (Keegan, 1994, p. 274).  Perhaps not all adult learners who return to college have moved from the third to the fourth order; but they are responsible in part for their learning just by virtue of the fact that they are there.