Teacher ratings in the validation of Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale

Abstract

The complexity of life and the increasing importance of learning across the lifespan puts an added emphasis on self-direction in learning. Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) is one of the most frequently reported instruments designed to measure self-directed learning readiness. Therefore, the validity of the instrument is an important topic. This is the second study by the authors that is designed to contribute to knowledge of the validity of the SDLRS. In the first study, the authors concluded that general findings support the validity of the instrument. Questions generated by the lack of association between faculty ratings on self-direction and student scores on the SDLRS, however, needed further study.The second study, reported here, was specifically designed to examine the effects of two teacher rating scales as used in the two investigations. The extremely low (0.03) correlation between faculty ratings and the SDLRS scores noted in the first study is compared to the findings in the second study. A correlation of 0.20, significant at the 0.056 level, was noted in this study. It is concluded, therefore, that the rating scale as used in the first study may have been seriously flawed. A persistent tendency of the faculty to rate black students lower in self-direction and older students higher in self-direction raises additional questions concerning faculty rating procedures. Other findings reported in this study are similar to those reported in the earlier study In a previous study (Long and Agyekum, 1983) designed to determine the validity of Guglielmino's (1977) Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS), teacher ratings (of self-direction in learning) failed to be associated with scores on the SDLRS and other independent variables such as (a) age, (b) educational level (c) dogmatism, (d) educational level (e) race and (f) sex. The kinds of correlations among the other variables identified in the previous study raised some questions concerning the validity of the SDLRS even though it was concluded that the findings generally supported the validity of the instrument. Additional study was encouraged. This investigation was designed to answer some of the questions raised by the findings reported in 1983.

Augmented Advising

“…For this inquiry, employment experience was added as a factor to already high self-directed learning readiness scores. Although differences among examined characteristics did not reach levels of statistical significance in this research, the mixed results comport with those related to similar demographic variables, such as age, education, and ethnicity, found in other studies (e.g., Long & Agyekum, 1984).…”

“…The challenges to the SDLRS and OCLI have been sufficiently refuted, and the main body of well-established research supports the validity and reliability of these selfdirected learning readiness measurement scales (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991;Delahaye & Choy, 2000;Long, 1991;Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Specifically, Guglielmino (1977) reported a Cronbach's alpha value of .87 for the SDLRS, and a meta-analysis of 29 studies (McCune, 1989) provided further evidence for the validity of the instrument (Guglielmino, 1989;Long & Agyekum, 1984).…”

Improving Task Performance: The Relationship Between Morningness and Proactive Thinking1

“…More importantly, they tend to perform well in relatively independent learning settings, such as university courses (Guglielmino, 1977). SDLR was assessed using six items, which were rated on a 5-point scale on which higher scores indicate higher SDLR (Long & Agyekum, 1984).…”

Self‐directed Learning Readiness Among Engineering Undergraduate Students

“…Some of the evidence cited in the review of the instrument include the following. • Construct Validity: Significant convergent and divergent validity found in five different studies [17][18][19][20][21].…”