Knowles (1975:18 as cited by Yuan et al. 2012:427) defines self-directed learning as a process in which individuals take the initiative with or without the help of others to diagnose their learning needs, formulate learning goals, identify human and material resources for learning, choose and implement strategies and evaluate learning outcomes. Montin and Koivisto (2015:1) emphasise that self-directed learning is under control by the individual self. The definition by Knowles comprises actions that are associated with the domains of volition, motivation, self-management, self-monitoring, (Yuan et al. 2012:427). Shen et al. (2014:2) added communication as a construct of a lifelong learning process for nurses. Synonyms for self-directed learning are lifelong learning, active or independent learning, and student-centred education (Cadorin et al. 2012:153; Kocaman, Dicle & Ugur 2009:286). For the purpose of this article, self-directed learning will comprise four constructs, namely learning motivation, planning and implementing, self-monitoring and interpersonal communication. These constructs are explained in the discussion section of this article.

The value of this study is that nurses, midwives and nurse educators may recognise the paramount importance of self-directed learning for healthcare professionals, recognise the typical manifestations of low levels of self-directed learning and realise the implications of such behaviour. It further provides some food for thought with regard to one’s own readiness to engage in self-directed learning.

Educational trends have moved from passive learning to active learning, from superficial to deep learning, and from teacher-dependent learning to self-directed learning. An individual’s inclination towards self-directed learning may vary on this continuum of learning according to his or her interest, curiosity, self-concept as an effective student, future orientation, openness to learning opportunities, and acceptance of responsibility for meeting his or her own learning needs (Klunklin et al. 2010:177; Shen et al. 2014:1). Someone who is not interested in the topic or field will exhibit low self-directed learning in that specific field. However, a person who is interested in the topic will typically want to know more and therefore read more than the minimum prescribed works and will explore the topic in greater depth. Such people become autonomous in creating knowledge, perform academically better, are intrinsically motivated, gain confidence, have higher levels of personal and job satisfaction, are more resilient and open to change (Ali & Sebai 2010:189; Guglielmino & Toffler 2013:7-10; Montin & Koivisto 2015:1; O’Shea 2003; Shen et al. 2014:1; Yuan et al. 2012:427; Zhang et al. 2012:570).

O’Shea (2003:67) found that although educators are generally supportive of self-directed learning they doubted their ability to implement the processes and skills to attain these in a curriculum. Abraham et al. (2011:395) support O’Shea’s finding by concluding that, whilst nurse educators may have a strong desire to learn and be able to identify their learning needs they may face challenges regarding identifying the most relevant sources and how to manage their time and strategies. One of the tenets of constructivism that underpins self-directed learning is that learning is a social process. Williamson (2007:68) supports O’Shea (2003:67) on the viewpoint that self-directed learning is a collaborative process between the learning facilitator and the student. Teaching and learning strategies that support the development of identifying learning needs, managing resources and time, and monitoring own learning are: student-centred approaches, small group learning (Yuan et al. 2012:428), problem-based learning (Ali & Sebai 2010:188), computer-mediated learning, learning contract, independent learning projects (Guglielmino & Toffler 2013:7), distant education and teleconferencing (O’Shea 2003:64). These strategies are more appropriate for students that are registered in formal educational programmes than when one is mainly self-responsible for one’s daily activities such as nurse educators. Williamson (2007:68) emphasises the important role and responsibility that the nurse educator has in guiding a student to develop a lifelong learning approach.

An instrumental case study design is used to gain insight into (Crowe et al. 2011) the manifestations and implications of self-directed learning of nurse educators. Baxter and Jack (2008:544) define a case as a ‘phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context’ which makes case studies ideal to explore or describe a phenomenon in context. In this study the case is built around the feedback by programme participants and the educators’ responses as detailed in the case provided below (see Box 1).

The role of the case is supportive and of secondary interest because it serves as a scenario in the exploration of manifestations and implications of self-directedness or the lack of self-directedness of nurse educators. The propositions of the case are that:

The impetus to learn must come from the individual (Cadorin et al. 2012:154; Chen et al. 2012:143; Yuan et al. 2012:429).

Based on the critical incident technique, data from various incidents over the past years were used to construct a fictitious case study. An incident is regarded as critical if it makes a significant contribution to the general aim of the activity, or in this case a phenomenon. Qualitative health researchers regard the critical incident as a well-proven approach that offers a practical step-by-step way to collecting and analysing information relating to human actions and its significance to the people involved (Hudges 2007).

Various critical incidents during the authors’ experiences as educators provided authentic foci which promoted an understanding of the phenomenon of self-directed learning. Both authors involved in constructing the case had real-life experiences similar to the scenario which added richness and depth to the fictitious case presented below Specific information from critical incidents were purposively selected to construct the fictitious case. In constructing the fictitious case the authors used reflection as a way to explore, explain, consider, justify and learn from the specific incidents that occurred in their practice. The feedback comments, as well as the responses of the educators as depicted in the case, are real.

The authors deductively analysed the case by using the literature on self-directed learning readiness as departure point. The three propositions (learning motivation, planning and implementing, self-monitoring) have been confirmed in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of various self-directed learning readiness questionnaires (Cheng et al. 2010:1152; Fisher & King 2010:46-47; Shen et al. 2014:4; Williams & Brown 2013:430; Yuan et al. 2012:429). The authors’ interpretation of the programme participants’ feedback and comments was that the programme presenters were not keeping abreast with the developments within the field of student support. Subsequently, the presenters exhibited low self-directed learning which was confirmed by some remarks in the discussion on the participants’ comments. The analysis process followed the steps of deductive reasoning as described in Bruce, Klopper and Mellish (2011:162), namely to start with the theory of self-directed learning as defined by Knowles (1975), state a hypothesis and to confirm the hypothesis through observation and other sources of evidence. With the deductive approach used in this article, instead of confirming an hypothesis, the propositions were the elements that were examined within the scope of the study (Yin 2014:30). Furthermore, the analysis was an iterative process (Baxter & Jack 2008:548) because the authors interpreted the statements in the case and categorised it as a self-directed learning domain. The statements or questions in the validated questionnaires were then read to check if the interpretation fitted the tested domain items. Through discussion the authors reached consensus on the item that best suited the case statement and only then finalised the categorisation of the comments.

The context is of educators at a nursing department within a higher education institution in Sub-Saharan Africa because the authors experienced the scenario depicted in the case in a number of countries in the region and in different nursing departments.

Learning motivation refers to the inner drive of the individual as well as external factors that motivate learning and stimulate a sense of responsibility for one’s own learning. The educators in the fictitious case study opposed the practice of evaluating programmes as they saw it as an opportunity for students to complain anonymously. They were not able to identify their shortcomings in what they needed to learn. A self-directed individual would have acknowledged the value of such a comment as it could be regarded as a motivation to improve in their learning. Facing some difficulty, such as having to respond to an anonymous evaluation, should not hinder the motivation to learn. Character traits of self-directed educators include having an internal locus of control, hence achieving desired goals through their own efforts (Chen et al. 2012:142). In the case provided the educators were not able to reflect on the comments and apply them consciously to identify their learning needs to decide on their own growth and development.

A response that shows readiness to self-directed learning would have included the acknowledgement that the practice of evaluating programmes is an opportunity to serve as pointers and drivers to persist, despite some difficulties, and to find solutions to challenges and concerns. It creates prospects of assessing what learning shortcomings exist and the effectiveness of one’s learning processes.

The ability to plan and implement learning methods, learning strategies and skills is necessary to effectively implement the process of self-directed learning (Shen et al. 2014:6). The educators in the scenario could not understand the need to plan their professional development because they saw it as being the employers’ responsibility. They felt that the programme coordinator should have arranged for them to attend a capacity building workshop. A self-directed learner can pro-actively establish his or her learning goals and set priorities that will be followed and controlled based on own needs (Fisher & King 2010:47).

Persons with self-directed learning readiness would have responded by acknowledging that they should set priorities to reach self-identified goals to improve on the shortcomings identified in their learning. They should then determine the specific type of capacity building session, time and resources needed to reach the learning goals. Cheng et al. (2010:1153) describe this construct as ‘self-management’ in diagnosing learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning and choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies.

Self-monitoring entails learning evaluation by assessing one’s learning outcomes (Cheng et al. 2010:1153). The responses of the educators in the scenario clearly indicated that they regard the evaluation of their performance and strengths and weaknesses as unjustified complaints. They could also not understand the need to plan one’s own professional development because they saw it as being the employers’ responsibility. They were not able to identify the need to connect knowledge and personal experience with their strengths and weaknesses, which in turn serves as evaluation of learning outcomes.

The response that would have been expected by a self-directed learner should have included an acknowledgement that the evaluation serves as an additional way of identifying their strengths and weaknesses in monitoring their learning progress. The experience of going through an evaluation should, or could, also serve as a personal developmental experience that could be linked to an understanding of their level of knowledge (Shen et al. 2014:4).

Communication is a key to successful education. Imparting knowledge entails two-way communication. The interaction with students helps educators to plan for own further learning to ensure effective teaching through both the spoken word and through role modelling and interaction. By opposing the practice of evaluating programmes as they perceived it as an opportunity for students to complain anonymously, the value of communication is disregarded. By interacting with others, one is able to identify shortcomings and plan for one’s further learning. Through the process of two-way communication the educators in the case provided could also have obtained a better understanding of the specific needs of the students.

The appropriate response by self-directed learners would have been to acknowledge the willingness and openness of the students to openly communicate their concerns related to the programme and to regard the feedback as constructive and guiding criticism.

Most articles reviewed are about the self-directed learning readiness of students with only a few focusing on the self-directed learning readiness of practicing healthcare professionals. A verbatim transcription of a similar real-life experience as the fictitious case may have added to the authenticity of the case. However, the fictitious case was built on real-life experiences of the authors. The focus was therefore not on one real-life incident but rather extracted information from various critical incidents.

Recommendations on how educators could promote self-directed learning readiness during the training and practice of nurses and midwives are listed below.

Nurse and midwifery educators should:

Foster an appreciative approach to self-directed learning by creating innovative ways of celebrating self-directedness. Celebrate progress and recognise success.