PreprintPDF Available

A level of self-directed learning among employees and their perception of the company as a learning organisation

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract and Figures

The main motivation of this work is to analyse current findings on learning organisation and self-directed learning and deepen my understanding of these two concepts by conducting a research to illustrate the importance of self-directed learning in corporate culture and suggest how future research can extend our understanding of SDL in the context of HRD. #self-directed learning #learning organisation #corporate learning
Content may be subject to copyright.
A level of self-directed learning among
employees and their perception of the
company as a learning organisation.
Author:
Anna Listova
Supervisors:
Raphaël Grasset
Nicolas de Chanaud
A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science, AIRE (Interdisciplinary Approaches to
Research and Education) - Learning Sciences
in the
Center for Research and Interdisciplinarity (CRI)
Université de Paris
15 June, 2020
Contents
1. Introduction 4
1.1. Literature review……………………………………………………………………….. 5
1.1.1. Self-directed learning…………………………………………………. 5
1.1.2 Learning Organisation……………………………………………….... 6
1.1.3. Self-directed learning and the learning organisation………………. 7
2. Method 9
2.1. Research question and hypotheses……………………………………………. 9
2.2. Participants………………………………………………………………………..10
2.2.1. Settings………………………………………………………………….10
2.1.2. Population……………………………………………………………… 10
2.3. Measurement……………………………………………………………………..10
2.3.1. SRSSDL………………………………………………………………...11
2.3.2. Questionnaire to measure learning organisation…………………...12
2.3.3. Data collection settings………………………………………………..12
2.3.4. Statistical data………………………………………………………….13
3. Results 14
3.1. Descriptive data…………………………………………………………………..14
3.1.1. Gender and age……………………………………………………….. 14
3.1.2. Level of studies………………………………………………………... 15
3.1.3. Work sector, job position and work experience……………………. 15
3.2. Results: SRSSDL and employees' perception of a company as a learning
organisation. Primary hypothesis…………………………………………………….17
3.2.1. An impact of gender on SDL and employees' perception of a
company as a learning organisation…………………………………………19
3.3. First secondary hypothesis: an impact of the work sector on employees’
SDL……………………………………………………………………………………...20
3.3.1. Results of SDRSSL’s subtests for the work sector…………………22
3.4. Second secondary hypothesis: an impact of the work experience on SDL
and employees’ perception of a company as a learning organisation…………...24
2
3.5. Supplementary results…………………………………………………………...25
3.5.1. An impact of age on SDL, SRSDDL’s subtest and employees'
perception of a company as a learning organisation………………………25
3.5.1.1. Correlation between age and SDL…………………………26
3.5.1.2. Correlation between age and SRDSSL’s subtests……….26
3.5.1.3. Correlation between age and employees’ perception of a
company as a learning organisation…………………………………27
3.5.1.4 Level of studies………………………………………………..28
4. Discussion 29
4.1. Key results……………………………………………………………………….. 30
4.2. Limitation ………………………………………………………………………….31
Bibliography
Annexe
3
1. Introduction
Motivation.
The main motivation of this work is to analyse current findings on
learning organisation and self-directed learning and deepen my understanding of these
two concepts by conducting a research to illustrate the importance of self-directed
learning in corporate culture and suggest how future research can extend our
understanding of SDL in the context of HRD.
Importance.
During the last decade, the contemporary work environment
became more competitive than ever. The main reason for this shift lies in globalisation,
technological breakthroughs and the emergence of a knowledge-based economy. To
cope with challenges and fast-generating changes, organisations started testing and
applying new strategies and initiatives to support their employees. It is widely
acknowledged that an organization’s ability to innovate, improve operating efficiencies,
and create value for customers and shareholders is largely dependent upon its ability to
learn (Daley, 1984). Thus, there is a common trend that in order to stay more efficient
and effective organisations need to become more responsive in addressing learning
needs and adopt more flexible approaches (Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 2001;
Guglielmino & Murdick, 1997). Self-directed learning (SDL) has been an influential adult
learning concept within the field of adult education for more than three decades.
However, only recently it has gained its popularity in the context of workplace learning
and its connection to a learning organisation. This work addresses the paucity of
research that investigates the connections between SDL and the learning organization
and that specifically examines the importance of employees' perception of a company
as a learning organisation and its influence on their self-directed learning.
Purpose. The purpose of this work is to find out if the perception of the company
as a learning organisation is linked to a high level of self-directed learning among
employees.
Feasibility. A better understanding of the connection between self-learning and
learning organisation as an environment for learning can enhance human resource
development (HRD) research and practice.
4
1.1 Literature review
1.1.2. Self-directed learning
These days self-directed learning has been seen as a fundamental competence
for adults to efficiently live in the rapidly changing world (Morris, 2019). Self-directed
learning can be identified as a process where learners take responsibility to control their
learning objectives so that they will reach their personal or professional goals. That is
why the interest in self-directed learning is rising not only among educators, teachers
but also HRD, L&D specialists and trainers. Even though the studies around adult
learning started emerging almost a century ago, yet, there is still a debate around the
prefect model or a theory to determine how adults learn more successfully (Ellinger,
2004; Merriam, 2001).
The first author who started analyzing the way adults learn was Eduard
Lindeman. In his work 'The Meaning of Adult Education' (Lindeman, 1926) he
mentioned four principles of adults learning: (1) adults need self-direction in learning on
the psychological level; (2) adult learning is individual – life-centred – and individuality
increases with age; (3) adult learning is based on their own experience (4) the main
motivation for adults to learn is to connect the knowledge to their personal needs and
interests. Later one, Lindeman's mentee Knowles has been inspired by adult education
and based on these principles and his own research he has formed a proper scientific
concept.
Thus, Malcolm Knowles introduced the concept of andragogy with the purpose to
differentiate adult-learning from pedagogy by presenting a set of assumptions definitive
to the adult learner (Knowles, 1975).
Essentially, Knowles (1980) characterised the adult learner as someone who (a),
is mature enough to develop the skill of self-direction in learning,
(b) has a life experience that becomes a great learning resource in the classroom; (c) is
involved in learning to improve his social status, (d) is willing to apply new knowledge
directly to his context, and (e) has an intrinsic motivation.
Apart from conceptualising adult learning Knowles (1975) also determined SDL
as a “process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in
diagnosing their learning needs, formulating their own goals, identifying human and
material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning
strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes” (Knowles, 1975, p. 18).
In 1978 Allain Tough declared that self-directed learners are in charge of setting
most of the learning routines up, including the decisions they make concerning what
they learn, how they learn and in what rhythm they learn (Tough, 1978, p. 250).
5
Knowles and Tough assumed that self-direction in learning is a more individual
trait, however, Candy (1991) believed that self-direction in learning is a result of the
interaction between a person and the environment. He described self-directed learners
as people who identify, assess, and select appropriate learning resources; who can
choose criteria for assessing their learning progress; who adapt the environment to
make the most out of his learning experience; who accept different points of view, and
who can assess their own learning capabilities prudently.
Garrison pressed as well for the impact of the environment in forming
self-direction of the learner. According to Garrison, educators should seek to create
learning environments and conditions that facilitate learners’ self-direction (Garrison,
1997). Kerka also mentioned that much SDL occurs within a social context (Kerka,
1999). In Merriam's literature review she/he listed three goals of SDL, where the last
one stated that SDL should aim to promote emancipatory learning and social action,
meaning that SDL is faced more to the social action that individual learning (Merriam,
2001).
1.1.2 Learning Organisation
Individual learning has been a major focus in HRD literate and practice for
decades, however, only in the 1990s learning at the workplace received great attention
from corporate educators and HRD professionals (Swanson and Holton, 2009). Before
analysing the possible connection between SDL and learning organisation, it is
important to first differentiate learning organization from organizational learning.
Organisational learning is, therefore, based on corporate knowledge. Thus, knowledge
management is a solid basis for the organization because it builds the company's
norms, values, and culture. So that is why organisational learning can be also seen as a
transformation of individual knowledge into collective knowledge through collective
interpretation and usage for the sake of the company's success. (Confessore, 1998).
Organizational learning is a process by which information, determined by the
collective as meaningful, is communicated by and throughout the collective (Dixon,
1994). For Hedberg (1981) organizational learning is a social process, where the
contextual factors such as the organization structure, information, communication and
control processes, influence the way individuals learn (Hedberg, 1981). Shrivastava
(1981) identified organisational learning as (1) adaptation, (2) jointly held assumptions,
(3) the development of a knowledge base, and (4) organizational experience.
The learning organization may be described as an environment in which
organizational learning is structured so that teamwork, collaboration, creativity, and
knowledge processes have a collective meaning and value (SharonJ and al, 1998).
6
According to Marquardt (1996) the learning organization: “an organization which learns
powerfully and collectively and is continually transforming itself to better collect,
manage, and use knowledge for corporate success” (p. 19). Moreover, such
organisations stimulate employees to learn in the flow of work, where technology is
used to boost both learning and efficiency (Marquardt, 1996). Sun compared learning
organisation with ''living organisation'' because of it [learning organisation] continues
transformation (Sun, 2003, p. 160). Furthermore, a learning organisation can be viewed
as a climate, culture, or a powerful learning environment that “inspires, facilitates and
empowers the learning of its members so as to enhance its capacity for change,
adaptability, improvement and competition” (Sun, 2003, p. 160). Senge (1990)
described the learning organization as a free environment in the context of a company
where individuals work together to solve problems and to create innovative solutions.
He also identified 5 disciplines that build a learning organisation: (1) systems thinking,
(2) personal mastery, (3) mental models, (4) a shared vision, and (5) team acquisition of
knowledge. According to Senge the organisation's success is based on common
understanding and usage of these disciplines to boost knowledge management in the
organisation. So what characterises the learning organisation the best is the ability of its
collaborators to find the way to learn from any possible situations, resources or even
fails and what is more important is to convert the key learnings of each member into
organizational knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
1.1.3. Self-directed learning and the learning organisation
The research findings on SDL and learning organisations identified several
assumptions that underline the connection between these two concepts. To be more
precise, they acknowledge the facts that when the company is a learning organisation,
then it creates an environment in which SDL will flourish. Contrarily, when SDL plays a
substantial role in the organization, it is more likely that the company has characteristics
of a learning organization.
For example, Knowles (1975, 1980) emphasises the importance of setting a
climate for learning, and Spear and Mocker (1984) assumed that the environment,
which they described as the “organizing circumstance,” impacts significantly the type of
SDL projects undertaken. Confessore and Kops (1998) have made parallels between
SDl and learning organisation: first, they pointed out that the context plays an important
role both in developing a learning organisation and also SDL; second, they confirmed
that constant and rapid changes in a work environment equally build a learning
organization and promote SDL. Supporting the link between SDL and learning
organisation Cho (2002) pressed that self-directed learners are more likely to interact
with other colleagues and their environment rather than learn on their own. According to
7
Guglielmino and Guglielmino's (2008) findings, the connection between SDL and
workplace environment can be described as following: "self-directed learners are the
lifeblood of the learning organization” (p. 293). In addition, Ellinger (2004) considers
SDL as a fundamental characteristic of the learning organisation.
To conclude, the connection between SDL and the learning organisation can be
viewed as a "symbiosis". Company's performance goals, values, and work environment
influence directly the SDL's level of presence within the organisation. Moreover, the
promotion of SDL in the companies have its benefit: "there is considerable commercial
value in encouraging employees to become effective self-directed learners such that
they can develop and pursue their learning goals and outcomes that contribute to
competitiveness without the need for all learning to occur when there is direct training
by an instructor (p. 111, Smith (2002)).
8
2. Method
2.1. Research question and hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to understand the connection between
self-directed learning and a company as a learning organisation. I wanted to know if the
way employees perceive their company can be linked to what extent they are
self-directed in their learning. Thus, this work was guided by the following research
question:
How employees’ perception of the company as a learning organisation is linked
to the level of self-direction in learning?
This question is based on the assumption that every learner has their own
experience that may have an impact on the way they organise their learning. However,
learning can drastically depend on the environment as well as through interacting with
other learners. In the present study, the connection between level of self-direction in
learning and the perception of the company as a learning organization was examined,
as well as the connection between SDL and demographic characteristics. Following this
logic these hypotheses were formulated:
Primary hypotheses:
Employees with a higher level of self-directed learning will more likely perceive
their company as a learning organisation. Meaning that the correlation between
the employees with a high level of self-directed learning and their perception of
the company as a learning organisation is expected to be high.
Secondary hypotheses:
Employees who work in the sector of education and training will have higher level
of self-directed learning than employees of other sectors;
Employees with longer working experience will more likely perceive their
company as a learning organisation.
The correlation between employee’s age and his perception of the company as a
learning organisation is expected to be high.
9
2.2. Participants
2.2.1. Settings
Location: As a main researcher of this study I worked on it in Paris, France.
However, the participants may have been located anywhere in France;
Periods: A literature search was started in the mid-February and continued until
the end of April. Data collection was planned to start at the beginning of April but
due to coronavirus, it was postponed until mid-April. Data analysis proceeded at
the end of May.
2.1.2. Population
Characteristics
:to participate in the survey were invited men and women
currently working as full-time employees in France;
Size: 109 participants that corresponds to the inclusions criteria;
Recruitment: In order to receive 109 answers, three mine directions were
identified: 1) use of the professional network in Linkedin; 2) access to the
university's community; 3) support of the colleagues and their professional
networks;
Inclusion criteria: The criteria used to select 106 participants for the study
included: (1) be age 18 and older, (2) be a full-time employee, and (3) work in a
company based in France. The participants selected represent diversity of age,
gender, race, education, and socio-economic status;
Exclusion criteria: there were three main exclusion criterias (1) be
self-employed and (2) not working in France and (3) work remotely.
2.3. Measurement
The main focus of this study was on the following variables: a) readiness of
self-directed learning; b) age c) gender; d) work-experience in this particular company;
e) current post; f) level of studies; g) industry; h) employees’ perception of the company
as a learning organisation (teamwork, creative mindset, use of innovations, tolerance to
errors, support of experimentation, learning initiatives, collaboration). To collect data
about these variables the socio-demographic questionnaire was used, as well as
SRSSDL (for measuring a level of self-directed learning) and a questionnaire to
measure the level of a learning organisation.
10
2.3.1. SRSSDL
In order to assess readiness of self-directed learning Williams’s SRSSDL was
used (William, 2004). The questionnaire was translated from English to French with the
help of three bilingual persons to guarantee direct translation.The SRSSDL comprised
of 60 items categorised under five broad areas of self-directed learning:
Awareness: Twelve items relating to learners' understanding of the factors
contributing to becoming self-directed learners.
Learning strategies: Twelve items explaining the various strategies self-directed
learners should adopt in order to become self-directed in their learning
processes.
Learning activities: Twelve items specifying the requisite learning activities
learners should actively engage in order to become self-directed in their learning
processes.
Evaluation: Twelve items revealing learners' specific attributes in order to help
monitor their learning activities.
Interpersonal skills: Twelve Items relating to learners' skills in interpersonal
relationships, which are prerequisite to their becoming self-directed learners.
Responses for each item are rated by using a five-point scale: 5 = always: 4 =
often: 3 = sometimes: 2 = seldom: 1 = never. Thus, the maximum and the minimum
possible scores of the SRSSDL were 300 and 60 respectively.
Table 1
SRSSDL: Scoring range
Scoring range
Level of
self-directed
learning
Interpretation
60-140
Low
Guidance is needed from the coach/manager.
Any specific changes necessary for
improvement must be identified and a possible
re-structuring of the methods of learning
identified.
141-220
Moderate
This is halfway to becoming a self-directed
learner. Areas for improvement must be
identified and evaluated, and a strategy adopted
11
with coach/manager’s guidance when
necessary.
221-300
High
This indicates effective self-directed learning.
The goal is to maintain progress by identifying
strengths and methods for consolidation of the
students' effective self-directed learning.
2.3.2. Questionnaire to measure the level of learning organisation
The questionnaire was created based on the main characteristics of the learning
organisation that were identified by Peter Senge (Senge, 1990). First, the main
characteristics were written down in English then rephrased into 9 questions. Second,
the questions were twice reworked in order to avoid any biases. Third, the questionnaire
was translated from English to French and reviewed by three native french speakers.
Respondents were asked how likely these characteristics are presented in their
companies. The questionnaire consisted of 9 questions. Responses for each item are
rated by using a five-point scale: 5 = strongly agree; 4 = agree; 3 = neither agree nor
disagree; 2 = disagree; 1 = strongly disagree. Thus, the maximum and the minimum
possible scores of the were 45 and 9 respectively.
2.3.3. Data collection settings
Format (electronic, software, paper…): Both questionnaires were transferred
to google forms to simplify its use for the participants.
Delivery and collect method (postal, interview, telephone, internet-based):
the main source of recruitment of the participants were made through Linkedin
professional network and Facebook. All the messages and blog posts included
inclusion criteria. During the period of data collection (from mid-April to mid-Mai) I
have sent: 20 messages on Facebook, 16 Linkedin.
2.3.4. Statistical data
Reliability of work results is provided by application of scientifically grounded
methods of research, sufficient sample volume and adequate methods of data
interpretation and statistical processing. The processing of the results was carried out
using the computer software Jamovie (2020). The statistical t-criterion was used to
12
establish the reliability of differences between groups. The relationship between level of
self-direction in learning and perception of the company as a learning organisation was
investigated using Pearson's and Kendall’s rank correlation method. The one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the non-parametric one-way analysis (ANOVA,
Kruskal-Wallis) was used to determine whether there are any statistically significant
differences between the means of two or more independent (unrelated) groups.
13
3. Results
3.1.Descriptive data
3.1.1. Gender and age
In the study participated 109 female and male respondents from 21 years old to
66 years old (Tab. 2).
Table 2
Descriptive data: gender and age
Gender
M(±σ)
Median
Min
N=106
Women (n=65)
33,1
30
21
Men (n=44)
34,5
31,5
22
The test for normality showed that the variable of age is not normally distributed
(p < .001) Fig. 2.
Figure 1
Descriptive data: gender
Figure 2
Distribution: age
14
3.1.2. Level of studies
The vast majority of participants (77,1%) at the moment of study obtained a
Master degree. Almost the same number of participants answered “other degree”
(8,3%) or “PhD” (9,2%). The majority had only a school degree (5,5%), (Fig. 3).
Figure 3
Level of studies
3.1.3. Work sector, job position and work experience
All respondents at the moment of the study worked full-time in France.
Participants presented 12 working sectors (Fig. 5) and 13 job positions (Fig. 6). The
36,5% of participants worked less than 1 year, 25,5% have 1-3 years of work
experience, 23,6% of participants worked more than 5 years and 14,2% have work
experience from 3-5 years (Fig. 4).
Table 3
Descriptive data: work experience
Work Experience
N=109
< 1 year
1 - 3 years
3 - 5 years
> 5 years
40
29
15
25
15
Figure 4
Work experience
Figure 5
Work sector
As the majority of the participants presented the educational sector (schools,
training centres, universities, EdTech startups etc) (Fig.5), it became more feasible to
divide the sectors in the educational sector (EduSector) and non-educational sector
(non-EduSector). Thus, further comparisons of the work sectors would be made
between these two groups.
16
Figure 6
Descriptive data: job position
3.2. Results: SRSSDL and employees' perception of a company as a learning
organisation. Primary hypothesis.
Figure 4
SDL and employees’ perception of a company as a learning organisation
Test
Mean
Median
Min
Max
Shapiro-Wilk p
SDL
229
227
172
289
0,641
Learning
organisation
34,8
35
10
45
<0,001*
Note: p < 0.05*
Figure 7
Self-directed learning’s distribution score
Figure 7.1
Learning organisation’s distribution score
17
The primary hypothesis of this study was meant to find out if the correlation
between the employees with a high level of self-directed learning (score: 221-300) and
their perception of the company as a learning organisation is high (score: 30-45). We
run the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality to see if null hypotheses are right for the SDL
variable and the variable that illustrates the employees’ perception of the company as a
learning organisation. The normal distribution was found for SDL variable (p=0,641)
(Fig. 7), whereas the variable for the employees’ perception of the company as a
learning organisation was not normally distributed (p<0,001), (Tab. 4, Fig. 7.1).
Thus, based on our results the Kendall’s correlation between these two concepts
is moderate
(tau = 0.190; p = 0,004), Fig. 6.
Figure 8
Correlation between SDL and
employees’ perception of the company as a learning
organisation
3.2.1. An impact of gender on SDL and employees' perception of a
company as a learning organisation
Additionally, we run a test to see if there is an impact of gender on SDL and
employees' perception of a company as a learning organisation. First, the Shapiro-Wilk
test for normality was run and showed: 1) the null hypothesis is possible for the variable
that illustrates the level of self-directed learning (SDL) and that this variable is normally
distributed (Tab.5, Fig. 8) 2) the null hypothesis is wrong for the variable that illustrates
the employees’ perception of the company as a learning organisation and that this
variable is not normally distributed (Tab.5, Fig. 8.1); that means that the t-test can be
run. However, in Fig. 8.1, men’s chart can be seen that the distribution has two peaks.
18
Table 5
Distribution scores for variables: SDL and
employees' perception of a company as a
learning organisation
SDL
Learning organisation
Test
Mean
Min
Max
Shapiro-Wilk
p
Mean
Min
Max
Shapiro-Wilk
p
Woman
(n=65)
228
189
283
0,715
34,2
14
45
0,025*
Man (n=44)
230
172
289
0,447
35,7
10
45
0,004*
Note: p < 0.05*
Figure 8
Distribution score for SDL (women and
men)
Figure 8.1
Distribution score for learning
organisation (women and men)
In the Tab. 6 are presented results of t-test for SDL in two groups (woman and
man) as there is a normal distribution for this variable. Thus, there is no significant
difference (p=0,573) in the level of SDL between women and men, and both genders
have a high level of SDL.
19
Table 6
Difference in SDL between female and male employees
Woman (n=50)
Man (n=56)
Test
Mean ± Sd
Mean ± Sd
p-value
SDL
227,8 ± 19,59
230,0 ± 24,7
0,573
3.3.
First secondary hypothesis: an impact of the work sector on employees’ SDL.
The first secondary hypothesis
was to see if the employees from the
educational sector have a higher level of self-directed learning than employees from
other sectors. The normality test was run in order to check the null hypothesis. As can
be seen in Tab. 7 and Chart 9 the distribution of the SDL variable is normal which gives
us a right to run t-test.
Table 7
Distribution score for variables: SDL and employees' perception of a company as a
learning organisation sorted by the work sector
SDL
Mean
Max
Shapiro-Wilk p
EduSector
(n=50)
229
289
0,091
Non-edu
Sector (n=59)
228
270
0,316
20
Figure 9
Normal distribution: SDL (education work sector and non-educational work sector)
Thus, the t-test analysis showed that there is no significant difference (p=0,834)
in the level of self-directed learning (SDL) between employees who work in the
educational sector and employees from non-educational sectors Tab.8.
Table 8
Difference in SDL between employees from educational and non-educational sectors
EduSector (n=50)
Non-EduSector (n=59)
Test
Mean ± Sd
Mean ± Sd
p-value
SDL
229±23,5
228±20,2
0,834
3.3.1. Results of SRSSDL’s subtests for the work sector.
In order to see if there are differences in SRSSDL’s subtests between employees
from educational and non-educational sectors, the statistical tests were run. First, the
null hypothesis was checked for each subtest of SDRRSL and it showed that each
subtest is normally distributed (Tab. 9, Fig. 10 - 10.4).
21
Table 9
Distribution score for SDRRSL’s subtests
Mean
Max
Shapiro-Wilk p
Awareness
45,7
59
0,548
Learning
strategies
46,0
59
0,647
Learning
activities
44,6
60
0,372
Interpersonal
skills
46,9
60
0,174
Evaluation
45,3
61
0,383
Figure 10
Awareness
Figure 10.1
Learning strategies
Figure 10.2
Learning activities
22
Figure 10.3
Interpersonal skills
Figure 10.4
Evaluation
The t-test was run to see if there are any major differences among the tests
between the employees from the educational sector and non-educational sector. Thus,
the t-test showed a potential difference (p-value = 0,05) in the choice of learning
activities that employees from the educational sector are more likely to choose (Tab.10).
Table 10
Difference in SDL’s five subtests between employees from educational sector and
non-educational sector
EduSector (n=50)
Non-EduSector (n=56)
Test
Mean ± Sd
Mean ± Sd
p-value
Awareness
45,8±5,16
45,7±5,12
0,900
Learning strategies
46,2±6,32
46,0± 4,62
0,826
Learning activities
45,8±5,64
43,6±5,50
0,050
Interpersonal skills
47,1±5,58
45,8±5,58
0,812
Evaluation
44,1±7,71
46,4±6,21
0,101
23
3.4.
Second secondary hypothesis: an impact of the work experience on SDL and
employees’ perception of a company as a learning organisation.
The second secondary hypothesis was dedicated to finding out if employees
with longer working experience have a higher level of SDL and more likely perceive
their company as a learning organisation.
As the variable of SDL is normally distributed, the one-way ANOVA analysis was
made and it showed that there is no significant difference (p = 0,482) in the level of SDL
between employees with different work experience.
The variable of employees’ perception of a company as a learning organisation is
not normally distributed that is why instead of one-way-ANOVA analysis, the
non-parametric one-way-ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis) was run and it showed that there is
no significant difference (p = 0,312) in the employees’ perception of a company as a
learning organisation between employees with different work experience.
Table 11
Group descriptives: difference in SDL and employees’ perception of a company as a
learning organisation between employees with different work experience
Experience
<1 year
1-3 years
3-5 years
5>years
Learning
organisation
36,9±5,39
33,2±7,86
33,7±8,36
34,0±9,04
SDL
228,3±19,95
228,0±22,18
221,8±22,28
233,6±23,44
Mean ± Sd
24
Figure 11
SDL and work experience
Figure 11.1
Learning organisation and work
experience
In the Tab. 11 based on the group descriptives can be seen that the mean value
of the perception of the company as a learning organisation among employees who
worked in the company less than one year is slightly higher in comparison with the
employees who worked longer at this company; 2) the mean value of the level of SDL
among employee who worked more than 5 years is slightly higher in comparison to
employees who have shorter work experience in the company.
3.5. Supplementary results
3.5.1. An impact of age on SDL, SRSDDL’s subtests and employees' perception of
a company as a learning organisation
In order to see if there is an impact of the age on SDL, SRSDDL’s subtests and
employees' perception of a company as a learning organisation, the statistical tests
were run. As was written before the test for normality showed that the variable of age is
not normally distributed. It means that the correlation between variables should be
tested with the use of Kendall’s coefficient.
25
3.5.1.1. Correlation between age and SDL
First, the correlation between the age and a level of self-directing learning was
tested.The test showed no significant correlation (r = 0,034, p=0,605) between the age
of participants and their level of self-directed learning (SDL), Fig.12.
Figure 12
Correlation between age and SDL
3.5.1.2. Correlation between age and SRDSSL’s subtests
Second, the correlation between the age and SRDSSL’s subtests was tested.
The test showed no significant correlation between the subtest: Awareness, Learning
strategies and Interpersonal skills. Meanwhile, there is a negative correlation between
Evaluation and age. Also, there can be seen a correlation between the age and
Learning activities Tab. 12. (Descriptive plots in the Annexe)
Table 12
Correlation between age and SRSSDL’s subtests
Awarenes
s
Learning
activities
Interpersonal
skills
Evaluation
Age
0,049
0,468
0,157*
0,021
0,016
0,817
-0,056
0,409
Note: *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
26
3.5.1.3. Correlation between age and employees’ perception of a company as a
learning organisation.
Third, the correlation between age and employees’ perception of a company as a
learning organisation was tested. The test showed a negative correlation (r = -0,60,
p=0,378) between the age and employees’ perception of a company as a learning
organisation, Fig. 13.
Figure 13
Correlation between age and learning organisation
3.5.1.4 Level of studies
As the variable of SDL is normally distributed, the one-way ANOVA analysis was
made and it showed that there is no significant difference (p=0,735) between the level of
SDL and levels of studies.
As mentioned above the variable of employees’ perception of a company as a
learning organisation is not normally distributed that is why instead of one-way-ANOVA
analysis, the non-parametric one-way-ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis) was run and it showed
that there is no significant difference (p = 0,358) in the employees’ perception of a
company as a learning organisation and levels of studies.
27
Table 13
Difference in SDL and employees’ perception of a company as a learning organisation
between employees with different level of studies
Level of studies
School degree
Master
PhD
Other degree
Learning
organisation
35,7±5,24
35,4±6,98
32,7±11,83
31,2±7,98
SDL
230±17,57
229,4±21,66
226,8±29,20
222,2±18,10
Mean ± Sd
Figure 14
SDL and level of studies
Figure 14.1
Learning organisation and level of studies
However, on the Tab. 13 and Fig. 14 -14.1. Can be seen that 1) the mean value
of the perception of the company as a learning organisation among employees who has
a school degree is slightly higher in comparison with the employees who has a master
degree, PhD or other degrees; 2) the mean value of the level of SDL among employees
who has a schools degree is slightly higher in comparison to employees who have a
master degree, PhD or other degrees.
28
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Key results
A central finding of this research is that employees with a high level of
self-direction in learning tend to perceive their company as a learning organisation, a
place where collaboration, teamwork, innovation and risk-taking is appreciated (Senge,
1990). This finding highlights the connection between the concept of self-directed
learning and learning organisation which is aligned with other works in this field
(Confessore and Kops, 1998; Cho, 2002; Guglielmino and Guglielmino, 2008). The
explanation for this finding can lay in a certain mindset of people who have a high level
of self-direction in learning. It means that such employees are seeking for new
opportunities to develop their learning skills in the environment that they are currently
placed in. That is why they view their company as a possible space where their
personal growth meets the right conditions.
Additionally, the impact of gender on the level of self-direction in learning and the
way men or women employees perceive their company as a learning organisation was
tested. The results showed that there is no major difference between men and women
in the level of SDL or tendency to perceive their company as a learning organisation.
However, the previous research showed that female learners are more likely to have a
higher level of self-directed learning than male learners (Guglielmino et al., 1987;Slater
et al., 2017).
Also, the results revealed that employees from the educational work sector
(schools, universities, training centres etc) do not have a higher level of self-direction in
learning than employees' from other sectors. It means that the first secondary
hypothesis has not been confirmed. Perhaps, the hypothesis failed because we did not
have enough data to see the possible difference. However, analysing the current result
we may assume that the work sectors that are promoting the solutions for learning like
training centres, schools, universities etc do not necessarily invest more in their
resources on knowledge management and learning & development departments.
Furthermore, there were not any major differences between employees from the
education work sector and non-educational work sector in the SRDSSL subtests, except
for the "Learning activities" where the p-value indicates a slight difference. Based on
this we can assume that employees who work in education are more likely to engage in
learning activities that foster their self-directedness while they learn.
The work experience does not influence the level of self-direction in learning and
employees' perception of a company as a learning organisation. It means that the
second secondary hypothesis has not been confirmed either. However, the descriptive
characteristics showed that employees with more than 5 years of experience are more
29
likely to be more self-directed in their learning than employees with shorter work
experience. Perhaps, employees with a longer experience have gained certain
expertise and autonomy at their workplace that results in a higher direction in learning.
Besides, employees with short work experience (less than a year) will more often
categorise their company as a learning organisation than employees who have been
working in the company for more than one year. Possibly, one reason for such results is
a novelty effect. Meaning that employees with short work experience in the company
are more likely to perceive its more positively without noticing potential drawbacks. So
in the context of a learning organisation, employees may believe that their current
company fosters teamwork, innovation and collaboration more than it actually does.
The results also showed that there is no connection between the age of
participants and their level of self-directed learning. The same results were found in Heo
and Han study where the sample was presented by online learners (Han, 2017). This
means that the assumption that older people are more self-directed in learning is wrong.
However, by testing the correlation between SDRSSL's subtest the positive connection
was found between "learning activities" and the age of participants. Thus, older people
tend to choose more proficient learning activities that help them to become more
self-directed in learning. Perhaps, a larger sample would have allowed seeing a more
significant interconnection between these subtests.
Level of studies does not impact employees' level of self-direction in learning and
the way they perceive their company as a learning organisation. However, based on the
descriptive characteristics of employees with an only school degree are more likely
viewing their company as a learning organisation, they also have a higher level of
self-directed learning than employees who obtain Master, PhD or others degrees.
Again, possibly, if the sample had been bigger the representation would have been
stronger between the variables. Perhaps, the employees with an only school degree
may feel pressured by their colleagues with the higher degrees. Thus, in order to be
more competitive in the workplace, they are becoming more self-directed to fill the
possible gaps in knowledge and also to seek the opportunity for growth in their own
company.
The influence of the job position could not be measured because of the variety of
posts and the lack of data to make a reasonable analysis. However, in other research
papers the revealed a significant constitution between job position and the level of
self-directed learning (Raemdonck, 2014).
30
4.2. Limitation
The first limitation of this study is the lack of variance of the data that was
collected. As for the level of self-directing learning, the majority of the results that were
received, the score was high and a minor part of it was moderate. It means that there
were not any results where a score was low. Perhaps, the subject of the questionnaire
interests people who are by default well-self-directed in their learning. Almost the same
bias was with the data about the employees' perception of a company as a learning
organisation, where the majority of results were high scores, then a bit less moderate
scores and the minority of low scores. The explanation for this would be 1) the test
composition that is not reliable; 2) the unconscious willingness to show the company
better than it is.
The second limitation of this study is the relative homogeneity of the work sectors
that were presented in this study. The major part of the work sector consisted of the
companies, institutions etc from the educational sector, whereas the rest is presented of
other sectors. It means that the applicability of the results across an even wider set of
enterprises would need to be tested. The source of this bias could be the wrong
recruitment strategy of participants.
The third limitation of this work is an excessive choice of categories in the work
sector and job position. The results were not very descriptive because of the lack of
data in each category.
31
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning
. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[2] Confessore, S. J., & Kops, W. J. (1998). Self-directed learning and the learning
organization: Examining the connection between the individual and the learning
environment.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), 365-375.
[3] Confessore, S. J., & Kops, W. J. (1998). Self-directed learning and the learning
organization: Examining the connection between the individual and the learning
environment. Human Resource Development Quarterly
, 9
(4), 365-375.
[4] Cho, D. (2002). The connection between self-directed learning and the learning
organization.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(4), 467-470.
[5] Dailey, N. (1984, Dec.). Adult learning and organizations. Training and Development
Journal, pp. 64-68.
[6] Dixon, N. M. (1994). Organizational learning: A
review of the literature with
implications for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3
(1),29-49.
[7] Ellinger, A. D. (2004). Self-directed learning and implications for human resource
development.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 158-177.
[8] Garrison, D.R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model
. Adult
Education Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 18-33.
[9] Guglielmino, L.M. and Guglielmino, P.J. (2008). Productivity in the workplace: The
role of self-directed learning and the implications for human resource management.
International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 8 No.
4, pp. 293-305.
[10] Guglielmino, P. J., Guglielmino, L. M., and Long, H. B. (1987). Self-directed
learning readiness and performance in the workplace-implications for business, industry
and higher education
. High. Educ. 16, 303–317. doi: 10.1007/BF00148972
[11] Hun S., Heo J., (2018). Effects of motivation, academic stress and age in predicting
self-directed learning readiness (SDLR): Focused on online college students.
Education
and Information Technologies, pp. 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9585-2
32
[12] Hedberg, B. (1981). How Organisations Learn and Unlearn. Handbook of
Organisational Design, Volume 1: Adapting Organisations to Their Environment, pp.
3–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[13] Kerka, S. (1999), Self-Directed Learning. Myths and Realities No. 3, ERIC,
Columbus, OH.
[14] Knowles. M. S (1975). Self-directed learning:
A
guide for learners and teachers.
River Grove, IL: Fol- lett Press.
[15] Lindeman,E.C.(1926).The meaning of adult education
. NewYork: NewRepublic.
[16] Marquardt, M.J. (1996). Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach
to Quantum Improvement and Global Success
. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
[17] Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult
learning theory. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory (pp.
3-13). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 89. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
[18] Morris, T. H. (2018). Vocational education of young adults in England: A systemic
analysis of teaching - learning transactions that facilitate self-directed learning
. Journal
of Vocational Education/Training, 70(4), 619-643. doi:10.1080/13636820.2018.1463280
[19] Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company
. New York:
Oxford University Press.
[20] Raemdonck, I., Gijbels, D. and van Groen, W. (2014), "The influence of job
characteristics and selfdirected learning orientation on workplace learning", International
Journal of Training and Development, No. 18 No. 3, pp. 188-203.
[21] Senge, P. M. (1990). Thefifth discipline: The art and practice ofthe learning
organization. New York:Doubleday.
[22] Sharon J. Confessore, William J. Kops (1998). Self-Directed Learning and the
Learning Organization: Examining the Connection Between the Individual and the
Learning Environment
. Human Resources Development Quarterly. Vol. 9,no. 4.
Jossey-BassPublishers
33
[23] Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems.
Journal of
Management Studies, 20, 7-28,
[24] Slater, C. E., Cusick, A., and Louie, J. C. Y. (2017). Explaining variance in
self-directed learning readiness of first year students in health professional programs.
BMC Med. Educ. 17:207. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1043-8
[25] Smith, P. J. (2002). Modern learning methods: Rhetoric and reality. Personnel
Review, 31(1), 103-113.
[26] Spear, G. E., & Mocker, D. W. (1984). The organizing circumstance: Environmental
determinants in self-directed learning.
Adult Education Quarterly, 35, 119-130.
[27] Sun, H.C. (2003). Conceptual clarifications for “organizational learning”, “learning
organization” and “a learning organization”
. Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 153–166.
[28] Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F. (2009). Foundations of Human Resource
Development (2nd ed.)
. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
[29] Tough, A. (1978). Major learning efforts: Recent research and future directions.
Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 250-263.
[30] Williams B. (2004). Self-direction in a problem-based learning programme. Nurse
Education Today. 24, 4, 277-28
34
ANNEXE
Figure 15
Correlation between age and awareness
Figure 15.1
Correlation between age and learning
strategies
Figure 15.2
Correlation between age and learning
activities
Figure 15.3
Correlation between age and
interpersonal skills
35
Figure 15.4
Correlation between age and evaluation
SRSSDL _ ENG
Response Key: 5 = Always 4 = Often 3 = Sometimes 2 =Seldom; 1 = Never
№
Awareness
Score
1.1
Identify my own learning need
5
4
3
2
1
1.2
I am able to select the best method for my own learning
5
4
3
2
1
1.3
I consider my managers as facilitators of learning rather
than providing information only
5
4
3
2
1
1.4
I keep up to date on different learning resources available
5
4
3
2
1
1.5
I am responsible for my own learning
5
4
3
2
1
1.6
I am responsible for identifying my areas of deficit
5
4
3
2
1
1.7
I am able to maintain self-motivation
5
4
3
2
1
1.8
I am able to plan and set my learning goals
5
4
3
2
1
1.9
I have a break during long periods of work
5
4
3
2
1
1.10
I need to keep my learning routine separate from my other
5
4
3
2
1
36
commitments
1.11
I relate my experience with new information
5
4
3
2
1
1.12
I feel that I am learning despite not being instructed by my
manager or anybody else
5
4
3
2
1
1.13
Any other
5
4
3
2
1
2.
Learning Strategies
Score
2.1
I participate in group discussions
5
4
3
2
1
2.2
I find peer coaching effective
5
4
3
2
1
2.3
I find 'role play' is a useful method for complex learning
5
4
3
2
1
2.4
I find interactive learning sessions more effective than just
listening to lectures
5
4
3
2
1
2.5
I find simulation in learning useful
5
4
3
2
1
2.6
I find learning from case studies useful
5
4
3
2
1
2.7
My inner drive directs me towards further development
and improvement in my learning
5
4
3
2
1
2.8
I regard problems as challenges
5
4
3
2
1
2.9
l arrange my self-learning routine in such a way that it
helps develop a permanent learning culture in my life
5
4
3
2
1
2.10
I find concept mapping is an effective method of learning
5
4
3
2
1
2.11
I find new interactive learning tools enhances my learning
process
5
4
3
2
1
2.12
I am able to decide my own learning strategy
5
4
3
2
1
2.13
Any other
5
4
3
2
1
3
Learning activities
Score
3.1
I rehearse and revise new information that I have learnt
5
4
3
2
1
3.2
I identify the important points when reading a chapter or
an article
5
4
3
2
1
3.3
I use concept mapping/outlining as a useful method of
comprehending a wide range of information
5
4
3
2
1
37
3.4
I am able to use information technology effectively
5
4
3
2
1
3.5
My concentration intensifies and I become more attentive
when I read a complex study content
5
4
3
2
1
3.6
I keep annotated notes or a summary of all my ideas,
reflections and new learning
5
4
3
2
1
3.7
I enjoy exploring information beyond the prescribed course
objectives
5
4
3
2
1
3.8
I am able to relate knowledge with practice
5
4
3
2
1
3.9
I raise relevant question{s) in trainings
5
4
3
2
1
3.10
I am able to analyse and critically reflect on new ideas,
information or any learning experiences
5
4
3
2
1
3.11
I keep an open mind to others' point of view
5
4
3
2
1
3.12
I prefer to take any break in between any learning tasks
5
4
3
2
1
3.13
Any other
5
4
3
2
1
4
Evaluation
Score
4.1
I self-assess before I get feedback from my manager or an
expert of the company
5
4
3
2
1
4.2
I Identify the areas for further development in whatever I
have accomplished
5
4
3
2
1
4.3
I am able to monitor my learning progress
5
4
3
2
1
4.4
I am able to identify my areas of strength and weakness
5
4
3
2
1
4.5
I appreciate when my work can be peer reviewed
5
4
3
2
1
4.6
I find both success and failure inspire me to further
learning
5
4
3
2
1
4.7
I value criticism as the basis of bringing improvement to
my learning
5
4
3
2
1
4.8
I monitor whether 1 have accomplished my learning goals
5
4
3
2
1
4.9
I check my portfolio to review my progress
5
4
3
2
1
4.10
I review and reflect on my learning activities
5
4
3
2
1
4.11
I find new learning challenging
5
4
3
2
1
38
4.12
I am inspired by others' success
5
4
3
2
1
4.13
Any other
5
4
3
2
1
5
Interpersonal skills
Score
5.1
I intend to learn more about other cultures and languages I
am frequently exposed to
5
4
3
2
1
5.2
I am able to identify my role within a group
5
4
3
2
1
5.3
My interaction with others helps me to develop the insight
to plan for further learning
5
4
3
2
1
5.4
I make use of any opportunities I come across
5
4
3
2
1
5.5
I need to share information with others
5
4
3
2
1
5.6
I maintain good interpersonal relationships with others
5
4
3
2
1
5.7
I find easy to work in collaboration with other
5
4
3
2
1
5.8
I am successful in communicating verbally
5
4
3
2
1
5.9
I identify the need for interdisciplinary links for maintaining
social harmony
5
4
3
2
1
5.10
I am able to express my ideas effectively in writing
5
4
3
2
1
5.11
I am able to express my views freely
5
4
3
2
1
5.12
I find it challenging to pursue learning in a culturally
diverse milieu
5
4
3
2
1
5.13
Any other
5
4
3
2
1
This response sheet is to try to identify the employees’ perception of their company as a
learning organisation. Please read and encircle the most appropriate response for each
statement indicating the level at which you rate yourself. Please note that your first reaction
to the statement is the most accurate response; therefore, do not spend too long a time on    
one item. Your responses will be kept confidential, so please feel free to respond.
Response Key: 5 = Extremely 4 = Very 3 = Moderately 2 =Slightly; 1 = Not at all
№
Questions
Score
1.1
My company provides every employee an opportunity for
learning on his/her own
5
4
3
2
1
39
1.2
Collaboration is encouraged in my company
5
4
3
2
1
1.3
Teamwork is encouraged in my company
5
4
3
2
1
1.4
My company gives support for learning initiatives that are
linked to the organization’s goals and values
5
4
3
2
1
1.5
The use of participative leadership style and delegation of
responsibility to organizational members are practiced in
my company
5
4
3
2
1
1.6
Employees can find support to experiment and take a risk
at his/her workplace from the company
5
4
3
2
1
1.7
Creativity is encouraged in my company
5
4
3
2
1
1.8
Innovations is encouraged in my company
5
4
3
2
1
1.9
My company is tolerant for errors
5
4
3
2
1
SRSSDL_FR
5 = Toujour 4 = Souvent 3 = Parfois 2 = Rarement 1 = Jamais 
№
Sensibilisation
Score
1.1
Je peux identifier mes propres besoins
d'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
1.2
Je suis capable de choisir la meilleure méthode
pour mon apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
1.3
Je considère mes managers comme des facilitateurs de
l'apprentissage plutôt que de fournir uniquement des
informations
5
4
3
2
1
1.4
Je me tiens au courant des différentes ressources
d'apprentissage disponibles
5
4
3
2
1
1.5
Je suis responsable de mon apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
1.6
Je suis capable d'identifier mes domaines de
faiblesse
5
4
3
2
1
1.7
Je suis capable de maintenir ma motivation
5
4
3
2
1
1.8
Je suis capable de planifier et de fixer mes objectifs
d'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
1.9
Je fais une pause pendant les longues périodes de travail
5
4
3
2
1
40
1.10
J'ai besoin de garder ma routine d'apprentissage    
séparée de mes autres engagements
5
4
3
2
1
1.11
J’explique mon expérience avec de nouvelles informations
5
4
3
2
1
1.12
J'ai l'impression d'apprendre même si je n'ai pas reçu
d'instructions de mon manager ou de quelqu'un d'autre
5
4
3
2
1
1.13
Autres
5
4
3
2
1
2.
Stratégies d'apprentissage
Score
2.1
Je participe à des discussions de groupe
5
4
3
2
1
2.2
Je trouve le coaching par les pairs efficaces
5
4
3
2
1
2.3
Je trouve que le "jeu de rôle" est une méthode utile pour
les apprentissages complexes
5
4
3
2
1
2.4
Je trouve les sessions d'apprentissage interactives plus
efficaces que d'écouter des conférences
5
4
3
2
1
2.5
Je trouve utile la simulation dans l'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
2.6
Je trouve utile d'apprendre à partir d'études de cas
5
4
3
2
1
2.7
Ma motivation intérieure m'oriente vers le développement
et l'amélioration de mon apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
2.8
Je considère les problèmes comme des défis
5
4
3
2
1
2.9
J'organise ma routine d'auto-apprentissage de manière à
ce qu'elle contribue à développer une culture
d'apprentissage permanente dans ma vie
5
4
3
2
1
2.10
Je trouve que la méthode de cartographie (le mapping) est
une méthode efficace d'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
2.11
Je trouve que les nouveaux outils d'apprentissage
interactifs améliorent mon processus d'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
2.12
Je suis capable de décider de ma stratégie d'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
2.13
Autres
5
4
3
2
1
3
Activités d'apprentissage
Score
3.1
Je répète et je révise les nouvelles connaissances que  
j’ai apprises
5
4
3
2
1
3.2
J'identifie les points importants lors de la lecture d'un
5
4
3
2
1
41
chapitre ou d'un article
3.3
J'utilise le concept de mapping comme une méthode utile
pour comprendre un large éventail d'informations
5
4
3
2
1
3.4
Je suis capable d'utiliser efficacement les technologies de
l'information
5
4
3
2
1
3.5
Ma concentration s'intensifie et je deviens plus attentif
lorsque je lis un contenu d'étude complexe
5
4
3
2
1
3.6
Je garde des notes ou un résumé de toutes mes idées,
réflexions et nouveaux apprentissages
5
4
3
2
1
3.7
J'aime explorer l'information au-delà des objectifs de
formation prescrits
5
4
3
2
1
3.8
Je suis capable de relier la connaissance à la pratique
5
4
3
2
1
3.9
Je soulève des questions pertinentes dans les formations
5
4
3
2
1
3.10
Je suis capable d'analyser et de réfléchir de manière
critique à de nouvelles idées, informations ou expériences
d'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
3.11
Je reste ouvert au point de vue des autres
5
4
3
2
1
3.12
Je préfère faire une pause entre chaque tâche
d'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
3.13
Autres
5
4
3
2
1
4
Évaluation
Score
4.1
Je m'auto-évalue avant de recevoir un retour d'information
de mon directeur ou d'un expert de l'entreprise
5
4
3
2
1
4.2
J'identifie les domaines à développer dans tout ce que j'ai
accompli
5
4
3
2
1
4.3
Je suis en mesure de suivre mes progrès en matière
d'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
4.4
Je suis capable d'identifier mes points forts et mes points
faibles
5
4
3
2
1
4.5
J'apprécie que mon travail puisse être évalué par des pairs
5
4
3
2
1
4.6
Je trouve que le succès et l'échec m'incitent à continuer à
apprendre
5
4
3
2
1
42
4.7
J'apprécie la critique comme base pour améliorer mon
apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
4.8
Je vérifie si j'ai atteint mes objectifs d'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
4.9
Je fais le point sur mes progrès dans ma trajectoire
d’apprentissage 
5
4
3
2
1
4.10
Je passe en revue et je réfléchis à mes activités
d'apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
4.11
Je trouve les nouveaux apprentissages stimulants
5
4
3
2
1
4.12
Je suis inspiré(e) par le succès des autres
5
4
3
2
1
4.13
Autres
5
4
3
2
1
5
Compétences interpersonnelles
Score
5.1
J'ai l'intention d'en apprendre davantage sur les autres
cultures et langues auxquelles je suis fréquemment
exposé(e)
5
4
3
2
1
5.2
Je suis capable d'identifier mon rôle au sein d'un groupe
5
4
3
2
1
5.3
Mon interaction avec les autres m'aide à développer la
perspicacité nécessaire pour planifier la poursuite de mon
apprentissage
5
4
3
2
1
5.4
Je profite de toutes les opportunités que je rencontre
5
4
3
2
1
5.5
J'ai besoin de partager des informations avec les autres
5
4
3
2
1
5.6
J'entretiens de bonnes relations avec les autres
5
4
3
2
1
5.7
Je trouve facile de travailler en collaboration avec les autres
5
4
3
2
1
5.8
Je réussis à communiquer verbalement
5
4
3
2
1
5.9
J'identifie le besoin de liens interdisciplinaires pour
maintenir l'harmonie sociale
5
4
3
2
1
5.10
Je suis capable d'exprimer mes idées efficacement par
écrit
5
4
3
2
1
5.11
Je suis en mesure d'exprimer librement mes opinions
5
4
3
2
1
5.12
Je trouve difficile de poursuivre mon apprentissage dans
un milieu culturellement diversifié
5
4
3
2
1
5.13
Autres
5
4
3
2
1
43
Cette fiche de réponse vise à identifier la perception qu'ont les salariés de leur entreprise en
tant qu'organisation apprenante. Veuillez lire et choisir la réponse la plus appropriée pour
chaque affirmation en indiquant le niveau auquel vous vous évaluez. Veuillez noter que votre
première réaction à la déclaration est la réponse la plus précise ; par conséquent, ne passez      
pas trop de temps sur un point. Vos réponses resteront confidentielles, n'hésitez donc pas à
répondre.
5 = Tout à fait d’accord  4 = D'accord  3 = Ni désaccord ni d'accord 2 = pas d'accord;
1 = Pas du tout d'accord
№
Questions
Score
1.1
Mon entreprise offre à chaque employé la possibilité
d'apprendre par lui-même
5
4
3
2
1
1.2
La collaboration est encouragée dans mon entreprise
5
4
3
2
1
1.3
Le travail d'équipe est encouragé dans mon entreprise
5
4
3
2
1
1.4
Mon entreprise soutient les initiatives d'apprentissage qui
sont liées aux objectifs et aux valeurs de l'organisation
5
4
3
2
1
1.5
L'utilisation d'un style de leadership participatif et la
délégation de responsabilités aux membres de
l'organisation sont pratiquées dans mon entreprise
5
4
3
2
1
1.6
Les employés peuvent trouver auprès de l'entreprise un
soutien pour expérimenter et prendre un risque sur leur
lieu de travail
5
4
3
2
1
1.7
La créativité est encouragée dans mon entreprise
5
4
3
2
1
1.8
L'innovation est encouragée dans mon entreprise
5
4
3
2
1
1.9
Ma société est tolérante aux erreurs
5
4
3
2
1
44
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Abstract: Fostering the skills necessary for self-directed learning is an important endeavour of vocational education and training in many contexts internationally. However, there is a distinct lack of studies that investigate the extent to which facilitation of self-directed learning is present within vocational education and training in different contexts. An exploratory thematic qualitative analysis of inspectors’ comments within general Further Education college Ofsted inspection reports was conducted to investigate the balance of control of the learning process between teacher and learner within vocational education and training of young adults in England. A clear difference between outstanding and inadequate provision is reported. Inadequate provision was overwhelmingly teacher-directed. Outstanding provision reflected a collaborative relationship between teacher and learner in directing the learning process, despite the Ofsted framework not explicitly identifying the need for learner involvement in directing the learning process. The present paper offers insight into the understanding of how an effective balance of control of learning between teacher and learner may be realised in vocational education and training settings and highlights the need to consider the modulating role of contextual factors.
Article
Full-text available
Background Self-directed learning (SDL) is expected of health science graduates; it is thus a learning outcome in many pre-certification programs. Previous research identified age, gender, discipline and prior education as associated with variations in students’ self-directed learning readiness (SDLR). Studies in other fields also propose personality as influential. Method This study investigated relationships between SDLR and age, gender, discipline, previous education, and personality traits. The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale and the 50-item ‘big five’ personality trait inventory were administered to 584 first-year undergraduate students (n = 312 female) enrolled in a first-session undergraduate interprofessional health sciences subject. ResultsStudents were from health promotion, health services management, therapeutic recreation, sports and exercise science, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and podiatry. Four hundred and seven responses (n = 230 females) were complete. SDLR was significantly higher in females and students in occupational therapy and physiotherapy. SDLR increased with age and higher levels of previous education. It was also significantly associated with ‘big five’ personality trait scores. Regression analysis revealed 52.9% of variance was accounted for by personality factors, discipline and prior experience of tertiary education. Conclusion Demographic, discipline and personality factors are associated with SDLR in the first year of study. Teachers need to be alert to individual student variation in SDLR.
Article
Full-text available
Given the increasing importance of learning at work, we set out to examine the factors which influence workplace learning behaviour. The study investigated the influence of the job characteristics from Karasek's Job Demand Control Support model and the personal characteristic self-directed learning orientation on workplace learning. A total of 837 workers, aged between 18 and 65, from different sectors and with different educational levels completed a paper questionnaire. Analysis revealed that job demands and self-directed learning orientation constitute significant and positive predictors of workplace learning behaviour. The study can help organizations to create job structures that promote workplace learning.
Article
Full-text available
Self-directed learning is a core theoretical construct distinguishing adult education as a field of study. Most of the concept's emphasis has been on the external control and management of learning tasks. In an attempt to expand the scope of self-directed learning, this paper presents a comprehensive theoretical model. The proposed model integrates self-management (contextual control), self-monitoring (cognitive responsibility), and motivational (entering and task) dimensions to reflect a meaningful and worthwhile approach to self-directed learning. Explicating the cognitive and motivational dimensions of self-directed learning is identified as an area requiring further research.
Article
Ikujiro Nonaka e Hirotaka Takeuchi establecen una vinculación del desempeño de las empresas japonesas con su capacidad para crear conocimiento y emplearlo en la producción de productos y tecnologías exitosas en el mercado. Los autores explican que hay dos tipos de conocimiento: el explícito, contenido en manuales y procedimientos, y el tácito, aprendido mediante la experiencia y comunicado, de manera indirecta, en forma de metáforas y analogías. Mientras los administradores estadounidenses se concentran en el conocimiento explícito, los japoneses lo hacen en el tácito y la clave de su éxito estriba en que han aprendido a convertir el conocimiento tácito en explícito. Finalmente, muestran que el mejor estilo administrativo para crear conocimiento es el que ellos denominan centro-arriba-abajo, en el que los gerentes de niveles intermedios son un puente entre los ideales de la alta dirección y la realidad caótica de los niveles inferiores.
Following a review of studies linking the readiness for self‐directed learning to workplace performance, the attainment of leadership positions in organisations and the characteristics sought after in today's business leaders, the authors present the implications for Human Resource Management (HRM). They assert that individual self‐directed learners are the lifeblood of the learning organisation and offer five guidelines for creating a culture of learning to firmly integrate self‐directed learning into an organisation.
Article
This study reports a qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with 78 self-directed learners with less than high school completion and who were currently engaged in a learning project. The analysis focused on how and why learners chose particular resources or made other decisions when early analysis failed to detect evidence of conscious pre-planning. Kurt Lewin's view, that to understand human behavior the proper area for study is the individual's life space of field, led the investigators in determining that the structure and direction of learning projects derive from the resources available and apparent to the learner in the environment. The concept of the Organizing Circumstance is formulated and four categories of environmental structuring of learning are identified.
Article
The problem and the solution. Learners are increasingly being challenged to assume more responsibility for their own learning and development in work organizations. Although the concept of self-directed learning (SDL) has a rich history of research and practice in the adult education field, it has not received considerable attention in the context of HRD. Therefore, this article will introduce SDL and overview its various conceptualizations, examine approaches and techniques that can be used in HRD practice, and suggest how future research can extend our understanding of SDL in the context of HRD.