Table of Contents

  back  next pfeilw.jpg (3927 Byte)

Gerald A. Straka
Self-Directed Learning in Germany: From Instruction to Learning in the Process of Work

1. Historical Contexts of Self-Directed Learning

In German-speaking countries, self-determination, liberty, emancipation, autonomy, rational thinking and independence are important elements in the philosphy of educational theory (Klafki, 1991). This concept of education and its interpretation as 'allgemeine Bildung' which distinguishes it from 'Vocational Education' can be traced back to the 18th century. The main focus of the reflections made in this connection is an up-to-date interpretation of the concept 'allgemeine Bildung'. The consequence is that on the one hand, learning as a skill, a method or strategy etc. leads a rather shadowy existence. On the other hand, in the theory and practice of vocational training, the 'Four-Steps Method' and other stepped approaches (such as the 'Seven-Steps' or 'Rodenstock Method' (Hintermaier & Wagner, 1980)), are awarded more prestige. The philosophy of a stepped approach has a certain tradition as the famous educationalist Herbart (1806), for example, and his followers Ziller (1856) and Rein (1902) shaped the didactic discussion in Germany for a long period with their 'formal steps' ('Formalstufen').

1.1 Vocational Training after 1945 in Western Germany

It can be drawn from papers on didactic and methodology in vocational training that the 'Four-Steps Method' as 'Training Within Industry' (TWI) method was made known by the occupying forces from the USA in post-war, Germany (Hintermaier & Wagner, 1980). Its forerunner was Allen´s (1945) 'Four-Steps Method' of 'show, tell, do and check'. Allen was the head of the training programme of the Emergency Fleet Corporation of the United Shipping Board that was set up on the 12th September, 1917. This programme was established to cover the enormous requirement for qualified worker which arose for a short time after the USA entered World War I (Miller, 1987).

The same situation arose as the USA entered World War II in December 1941. "The wartime trainers suddenly needed to move vast numbers of people through orientations, attitude building and technical instruction. ... The actual training of supervisors to become job instructors was developed to classic simplicity by the Training Within Industry (TWI) Service which was established in August 1940 by the National Defense Advisory Commission. ... By the time TWI ceased operations in 1945, it had been instrumental in training 23,000 persons as instructors, and had awarded nearly two million certificates to supervisors who had gone through TWI programmes in more than 16,000 plants, services and unions" (Miller, 1987, 11f.).

1.2 The 'Four-Steps Method'

In the 'Four-Steps Method', an introductory preparation for the trainee (step no. 1: Preparation) is followed by the instructor demonstrating the training phases, central points and explanations (step no. 2: Demonstration). This stage leads to a trainee control stage (step no. 3: Comprehension), which is followed by the concluding or practice step (step no. 4: Conclusion/Practice). This exposition of the various stages of instruction shows that this form of instruction is relatively rigid and it is basically suited for the conveying of work skills for which a demonstration is sufficient for learning the job (Schelten, 1995).

Technically organised change, flexible production, job diversification, the control and maintenance of installations etc. have contributed to the loss in significance of simple manual semi-skilled jobs. The reorganization of careers in industrial metalworking (15.1.1987) and careers in industrial electronics (1.8.1987) led to the goal of 'independent planning, execution and controlling' and to training regulations being set down for the first time. This prescript meant that other forms of instruction other than the 'Four-Steps Method' are necessary. One of which is the 'Leittextmethode' ('‘Leittextmethode’'). This is very much present in the current didactic discussion on vocational training in Germany.

1.3 The 'Leittextmethode'

The formation of the 'Leittextmethode' was not realized in one single step. Rather it was the result of a long process of development which was nudged on by practice itself. It all began in the middle of the 1970s as the project method for metal working was developed further in the Daimler Benz AG´s Gaggenau plant. Within the framework of the project training, it came to light that the trainees learnt at a different pace and carried out different tasks at different points in time. It was no longer appropriate to instruct all the trainees at the same time with the same material. The trainees had to instruct themselves at the appropriate point in time. For this purpose, the instructors wrote down their instructions as a tape show on which the trainees could fall back. In order to guarantee that the trainees really had understood the material they had to answer control questions. These were checked over, corrected and, if necessary, supplemented by the instructors before the trainees could carry out the corresponding practical task. In this respect, these control questions were the forerunner of the ‘Leittextmethode’. (Rottluff, 1992).

These didactic considerations were taken up and developed further by the Ford plants in Cologne and the steelworks in Salzgitter. The Voith works in Heidenheim, German Railways, Hoesch Steel in Dortmund and other companies followed (Rottluff, 1992). The Federal Institute for Vocational Education (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung) supported the development and dissemination of this approach with further experiments. On the 16th June, 1998 the concept and practice of the ‘Leittextmethode’ were presented to the professional world (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung, 1988). In the meantime, the ‘Leittextmethode’ had spread far beyond career training in industrial metalworking and electronics and is now an established method in vocational training in Germany (cf. Pätzold, 1993; Kaiser & Kamisky, 1994; Friede, 1988, Bauer, 1989).

However, the dissemination of this approach has also led to the fact that, in the meantime, different understandings and realities exist, and in the real sense of the word there is no one particular ‘Leittextmethode’. However, in spite of all the differences, the further developments can basically be traced back to Pampus (1987), Bockelbrink, Jungnickel & Koch (1988) and Koch & Selka (1991) who showed that the model of complete action is a ‘brand’ of the ‘Leittextmethode’ (Bockelbrink, Jungnickel & Koch, 1988).

1.3.1 The Model of 'Complete Action'

With reference to Hacker (1978) and Volpert (1983), 'complete action' constitutes a theoretical central element in explaining the ‘Leittextmethode’ (Koch & Selka, 1991, 41f.). "Those actions which are described as complete actions not only include the execution of a task but also the planning and control of this task" (Bockelbrink, Jungnickel & Koch, 1988, 58). This complete action is depicted in the diagram below as a circle of rules which include the following six phases: inform, plan, decide, execute, control and evaluate. Specific questions are formulated to each of these six phases as they are shown in the following simplified diagram taken from Pampus (1987, 15) and Bockelbrink, Jungnickel & Koch (1988, 59):

Fig. 1: Elements of the ‘Leittextmethode’ and their structure

There are also voices which criticize the ‘Leittextmethode’ (eg. DFG-Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1990). Koch, as one of the method´s founders, responded to these critics by saying that "the psychology of learning stood in the foreground" (Koch, 1992, 31). Its validity shall now be examined in the following section taking Roth´s learning steps as an example.

1.3.2 Roth´s Six Learning Steps

In Roth´s opinion, an educational theory which is pedagogically orientated has to set itself the task "of discovering the links which can be controlled within the learning process, showing them to the instructor and putting them at his disposal" (Roth 1973, 179). With this in mind, he reviewed the available findings in educational theory which for the most part came from the USA and which had been published before 1957 (year of publication of Roth’s first edition). He summarized these findings in three types of learning: Incidental learning, intentional learning and learning under the condition of instruction (originally: learning through teacher´s impetus). At the same time, Roth took the view that six learning steps are common to these different types of learning, explaining that "summarized in a few key words, we can maintain that the following are all included in the process of learning: an impetus (motivation step), a resisting object as a task in a learning situation (difficulty step), an insight into a suitable method of working and solving the task (solution step), an action which verifies this method as the right one (perform and execute step), a reinforcement of what has been learnt (remembering and practising step) and a provision of what has been learnt for similar tasks and situations in the future through confirming and retaining once again what has been learnt (step of provision, application and integration of what has been learnt)" (Roth, 1973, 226).

1.3.3 Comparison between Complete Action and Roth´s Learning Steps

In order to compare the two approaches the phases are juxtaposed as follows:

 

Complete Action Learning Steps
1. Inform 1. Motivate
2. Plan 2. Difficulity
3. Decide 3. Solution
4. Execute 4. Perform and execute
5. Control 5. Remember and Practice
6. Evaluate

6. Provision, application and integration of what has been learnt

 

The differentiation into six phases is common to both models. However, differences can already be seen in the first phases. Roth begins with 'motivation', the complete action model begins with 'inform'. These differences are a result of the different perspectives of the two approaches. Roth´s model focuses on the teacher who wishes to encourage the learner. In this context, the pupil’s motivation to learn plays, as research and experience show, an important role (Straka et al., 1996). Action forms the basis of the ‘Leittextmethode’ as in Hacker´s and Volpert´s deliberations on action theory. As they put it, for example: "we understand 'action' as the smallest psychological entity of an activity which is controlled by will. The definition of this action is effected through the conscious aim which depicts the anticipation of the result connected with a motive" (Hacker, 1978, 62f.) and the "... (work) activity is a functional entitiy comprised of motivational, volitive, cognitive (perceptive, mnestic, intellectual) and motoric events" (Hacker, 1978, 58). Seen under this perspective, motivation is a fixed component of an action and in this respect it is only logically consistent when 'motivation' is not listed as an independant phase of an action. However, it must be taken into consideration that at least gradual differences can be seen in motivation since the motivation for action must not necessarily include the motivation to learn from this action. Motivation for an action can consist in completing a complex task simply, in so far as the actor has the necessary knowledge and skills at his disposal. "If the action goes off smoothly, .. then no learning really takes place apart from adapting present abilities to a new situation" (Roth, 1973, 223). If the task is new and the necessary knowledge and skills are lacking, then a problem exists. In this case, motivation can be limited to solving the problem and going consciously, or rather, uncounsciously through the phases of complete action and nothing else. In this case, the constituent aim of an action includes not the intention to learn from solving a problem.

Roth´s step 'difficulty' could be surmounted by the activities in the phases 'inform' and 'plan'.  Common features can also be seen in phase three. Roth calls this phase 'solution' and writes: "A new way of solving a problem in order to complete an action or solve a task can be discovered through adaption, trying or insight" and "the teacher shows how to solve the problem or he asks to find the way oneself" (Roth, 1973, 224). For the third phase of a complete action we found as follows: "In this step, the planning suggestions should be discussed  with the instructor in in-depth discussions. The advantages and disadvantages in the different plan of action should be discussed. Above all, mistakes have to be recognized and corrected before the decision is made which method of production is to be entered upon, which tools or method are to be used and which interim controls are to take place. The permission to deal with the task is to be given by the instructor in order to avoid expensive mistakes in production" (Pampus, 1987, 16).

Roth´s 'perform and execute' could also comprise the phases 'execute', 'control' and 'evaluate' in the complete action concept. 'Evaluate' could result in what has to be 'remembered and practised'. This aspect, however, is not explicitly mentioned in the complete action concept and the aspects 'provision, application and integration of what has been learnt' could also appear during 'evaluation' as one of the objectives. The fundamental difference between the perspectives in acting and learning can be seen clearly here. Learning is either a by-product of acting or it is implied that action inevitably leads to learning. From the perspective of learning theory, however, action is a necessary but by no means a sufficient condition (Straka & Macke, 1979). The action theorist Volpert (1985) also confirms this point of view thus: ".. but the essential characteristics of learning cannot be derived from a pure model of action. They are supplementary, ..." (Volpert, 1985, 111). This 'supplement' is, according to our hypothesis - listed as 'remember and practice' or rather 'provision, application and integration of what has been learnt' by Roth. To this extent, the ‘Leittextmethode’ with its basis on the theory of action is also based on a necessary but by no means sufficient condition for learning which means that the when discussing the ‘Leittextmethode’, we cannot mean a 'learning-teaching theory'.

1.4 Other Threads in the Discussion

Other considerations have also been included into the more recent theoretical discussion and practical exposition of self-directed learning in vocational training in Germany. Among others are: learning-teaching theoretical approaches, studies on the significance of learning in practical non-instructional settings and measures or experiments which deal with the initiation and fostering of autodidactic learning above and beyond the ‘Leittextmethode’.

1.4.1 Learning-Teaching-Theoretical Roots

At the end of the seventies and at the beginning of the eighties, the academic discussion on self-directed learning reach its first climax: among which are the following examples:

·        The reader on self-directed learning edited by Neber, Wagner and Einsiedler (1978) which, however, principally refers to general education, as well as a further fundamental article on self-directed learning (Neber, 1982).

·        Weltner´s approach (1978) to 'autonomous learning' which, however, deals mainly with learning in higher education.

·        Stiefel´s thoughts (1978) on autonomous learning which adapted Tough´s (1967, 1971) and Knowles (1975) concepts on the further education of managers.

·        Tietgen´s concept (1980) of 'participant orientation' which had a large resonance in adult education in Germany.

·        The issue of the periodical ‘Unterrichtswissenschaft’ which was edited by Mandl and Weinert in 1982 with the topic 'Self-Directed Learning' in which an attempt was made to describe this form of learning (Weinert, 1982) and in which different measures for promoting it were presented (Mandl & Fischer, 1982; Wang, 1982).

After these publications appeared, all was calm again in self-directed learning which, however, does not mean that this form of learning under other names was not pursued elsewhere.

1.4.2 Studies on the Significance of Self-Directed Learning

The studies carried out by the Federal Institute for Vocational Training can be seen within this context. They attempt to determine those actitivities which qualified employees undertake after having finished their apprenticeship or primary vocational training in order to obtain further qualifications. One of the main results is that learning from colleagues and autodidactic learning at work is one of the most important forms of further qualification for young professional employees in their first years of employment after training (Kloas, 1988). With employees in industry, wholesale and foreign trade as well as banks these studies were continued (Kloas & Neumann, 1991; Hupfer & Puhlmann, 1991; Neumann & Spree, 1991). These studies confirm that autodidactic learning at work as well as educational support from colleagues or superiors represent the most important forms of further education after completing primary vocational training (Kloas & Neumann, 1991).

Studies on self-organized job-related learning must also be seen in this context. The main result was that according to their own estimation about a third of the office employees interviewed replied that their present competence within their chosen career was acquired through self-organized learning. From the fifteen forms of self-organized learning, the following were named in this order: first reflection, followed by asking colleagues, purposeful trials, books at the workplace, etc. (Straka, Stöckl & Kleinmann, 1992; Straka, Kleinmann & Stöckl, 1994).

1.4.2 Projects with an Experimental Character

Finally, the extensive representative surveys within the framework of FORCE (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung, 1995) as well as the Report System Further Education should be mentioned. This report carries out surveys every three years on how Germans between the ages of 19 and 64 behave as far as further education is concerned. The report which was published in 1996 with the first results from the survey in 1994 showed that 'self-organized learning at the workplace' or 'informal vocational further education' were stated by 52% of those interviewed. Furthermore, 27% of those interwieved named this form of further education as the most important form of obtaining knowledge for the professional activity of employees in Germany. This rate reaches 33% when new machines or systems are introduced (Kuwan, 1996b). In keeping with the trend, these proportions tally with those of the Report System Further Education no. V from 1991 (Kuwan, 1996a).

Literature on human resource development and vocational training report on measures and experiments which are related to self-direction in learning in the in the broadest sense of the word. The following list, which is by no means complete, is for further reference:

In addition, further results can be found in articles and reports from empirical accompaniment to model experiments and practical projects:

A good example is the trial test 'Autonomes Selbstgesteuertes Lernen (ASL)' (Deitering, Kurtz & Geilhardt, 1991) which gives a brief account of autonomous self-directed learning in training schemes for insurance agents. Numerous methods and instruments such as educational lectures, teaching projects and the ‘Leittextmethode’, partner learning and group learning, self-evaluation, outside evaluation and group evaluation, coaching, educational resources´ pool and trainees´ groups were all employed in order to support this kind of learning.

The high level of acceptance of autonomous self-directed learning among the trainees was one of the most striking results. However, the desired success of these measures was impaired:

·        by the lack of a training environment in the company;

·        by the difficulties the individual trainees had with the large scope of action they had;

·        by the training treaty which the trainees found artificial and complicated;

·        by the problems which resulted from the short-term organization of the educational resources´ pool, and

·        by the instructors reservedness or even reluctance (Deitering, Kurtz & Geilhardt, 1991).

Even if these reports tend to present success stories, critical views on autodidactic learning are an exception (Heid, 1991; Reischmann, in print). Although there are hardly any evaluations which are based on the metholodical standards of empirical research, we can summarize that:

·        Supporting self-directed learning is, on the whole possible. However, learners with above-average qualifications profit more from self-directed learning than learners with below-average qualifications (Dubs, 1993; Friedrich & Mandl, 1995; Straka, Kleinmann & Will, 1994).

·        Training which employs isolated strategies or educational methods seldom leads to a fundamental alignment to self-directed learning (cf. Friedrich & Mandl, 1995 for a summary).

·        Room for scope which is objectively available is a necessary condition for self-directed learning, but it is by no means a sufficient condition for practising self-directed learning. If and how a learner uses this scope plays a more decisive role.

2 Self-Direction in Learning since 1990

The discussion on self-directed learning in the nineties has, once again, set off on a broad scale. The issue of the periodical Unterrichtswissenchaft edited by Prenzel with the topic 'autodidactical learning', Hofer and Niegemann´s article 'interactive media in company training' (Hofer & Niegemann, 1990), Simon´s framework model on autodictactic learning (1992), Deitering´s monography on self-directed learning (1995) and the handbook 'Selbstorganisiertes Lernen' (self-organized learning) (Greif & Kurtz, 1996) should be mentioned here. Theoretical basics, central topics and special features, techniques and tools as well as concepts for everyday practice and examples for application which can be connected with self-directed learning in the broadest meaning of the term are all described in Greif and Kurtz´s handbook (cf. the review published by Straka & Brede, 1996).

Although self-directed learning is, in Germany, being discussed and practised on a broad front since the beginning of the nineties, the most differing concepts are dealt with under this umbrella. One example is the workshop 'self-organized learning' which took place at the Second Forum of the Berufsbildungsforschungs-Netz (Vocational Training Research Net) in Berlin in September 1995. One participant summarized at the end of a discussion on the topic of 'self-organized learning' which went on for two days that 'he is still confused, but it is a high level confusion' (Straka, 1996, 57). As far as the measures for supporting self-directed learning are concerned, they extend from the ‘Leittextmethode’ to the provision of educational strategies to ‘criteria-lead reflexion on individual action and learning with and without instruction’ (Straka, 1995).

2.1 The German Research Council´s Programme 'Teaching-and-Learning-
      Processes in Primary Commercial Education'

Deficiencies in theoretical and empirical aspects in vocational education caused the German Research Council´s (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) to set up the programme 'Teaching-Learning-Processes in Primary Commercial Education' (1994-1999). Seven questions which refer to self-directed learning are investigated in 11 reserch projects: ‘Instructional help-systems for interactive self-regulated learning processes and development of a new method for knowledge assessment’ (Hofer et al, 1996); ‘Learning with interest and self-determination in vocational education’ (Prenzel et al, 1996), ‘Motivated Self-Directed Learning for primary vocational and business training - developing and validating a two-shells-model’ (Straka et al, 1996a), ‘Self-organized learning’; ‘Complex learning in basic business training: cognitive and motivational aspects’ (Stark et al, in print[1]), ‘Learning motivation in primary vocational education’ (Wild & Krapp, 1996), ‘Motivation and learning’ (Hardt et al., 1996).

2.2 A Concept for Self-Directed Learning

The project 'Motivated Self-Directed Learning for primary vocational and business training - developing and validating a two-shells-model' is introduced as an example (Straka et al, 1996a; Nenniger et al, 1996). The project assumes that learning is a dynamic interplay of interest, motivation, knowledge and skill. According to this thesis, a person who learns in a motivated, self-directed manner is someone who has a corresponding basic knowledge and is willing and able to plan, organize, apply, control and evaluate her/his learning process independently and self-responsibly, be it in co-operation with others or as an individual.

These ideas have been brought together to form a model for motivated, self-directed learning whose elements form theoretical constructs originally conceived on the basis of results and traditions of adjacent research fields. These include, among others: studies in the theories of interest (Deci, 1975; Prenzel, 1986), performance motivation (Heckhausen & Rheinberg, 1980), attribution (Weiner, 1986), learning (Straka & Macke, 1979, Straka et al., 1996) and studies of action control (Brown, 1984) - and were then integrated into superordinate concepts.

In this model the two correlated diffuse shells are depicted separately for analytical purposes. With them the corresponding processes are described which can form the components of an action or learning episode. From the perspective of the general behaviourial model, such episodes are embedded in the external conditions (e.g., structure of tasks, availability of resources, social climate at the workplace) and internal conditions (e.g., motives, capabilities, skills, declarative and procedural knowledge). (cf. Fig. 2).

The model itself contains the concept 'interest' in its outer shell which the constructs contentual interest and procedural interest are assigned to (Straka & Nenniger, 1995). The concepts 'stragegies' and 'control' are located in the inner shell. The concept 'strategies' comprises the constructs resource management, sequencing and implementation, whereas the concepts cognitive control, metacognitive control and motivational control are assigned to the concept 'control'. The diagnostic and attributive constructs are constituted by the concept 'evaluation'.

Thus, motivated self-directed learning can be described with the aid of the four concepts 'interests', 'strategies', 'control' and 'evaluation', to which specific constructs are assigned (cf. Fig. 3).

 

Fig. 2: Two-shells-model of motivated Self-Directed Learning

Fig. 3: Concepts and constructs

As the indicating arrows show, the constructs were made operational by means of items which form components of dimensional scales (cf. Straka et al. 1996).

These abstract and conceptual remarks are to be illustrated by means of the following example: imagine a person with a certain interest in contents and procedure has decided to aquire a command of the word-processing programme largely on his/her own. Firstly, he/she plans her further steps. He/She keeps half an hour a day free (sequencing (time planning): high) and works in a concentrated manner through several fundamental chapters of the handbook at the staff’s disposal (cognitive control: high). He/She sets herself the goal of at least learning the software (motivational control). He/She thus writes down the main commands and shortcuts and makes a mental note of them (implementation: high). When difficulties come up, he/she wonders if he/she should ask another colleague for help, but finally decides against it (resource mangement: low). When the person reflects on his/her learning progress after a good two weeks, he/she arrives at the subjective assessment that in the meanwhile, he/she masters some of the fundamentals of the word-processing programme. On the whole, he/she views the learning process as satisfactory (diagnosis: medium). Above all, he/she attributes this to the fact that he/she has directed this process largely on his/her own (attribution: personal).

On the basis of the aforementioned concepts discussed in the preceding sections, the following relations in a two-shell model for motivated, self-directed learning can be postulated: (cf. Fig. 4).

The relations on the concept level of this model may be hypothized: 'Interests' in the outer shell effects the interacting concepts 'strategies' and 'action control' in the inner shell. These concepts, in turn, have an effect on the concept 'evaluation'. The latter functions as the connecting link between the inner and outer shells by its effect on certain 'interests' in the outer shell of the model. Primary empirical results on the basis of samples of trainees for business administration and controlling tend to confirm the two-shell model postulated in figure 3 (Straka et al., 1996; Nenniger et al., 1996).

Fig. 4: Postulated two-shell model of motivated, self-directed learning

3 Towards Learning in the Process of Work

Technical and organisational change, flexible and global production mean that a corresponding continuous further qualification of the work-force is more essential than ever. Institutionalised and instructional training does not seem to cover the growing demand. In this respect, it is not surprising when high expectations are placed on-the-job training in vocational training and further education. The results of empirical surveys which have already been mentioned speak in favour of this point of view. These surveys indicate that learning beyond instruction is much more important than was previously supposed. The issue also has to be seen from the point of view of human resources management and in this context with working conditions in connection with the willingness and ability for self-directed learning in on-the-job learning as well as personal prerequisites.

These working conditions or external conditions in the notion of educational theory vary from job to job. Ever since Hawthorne, we know that these are not the 'objective' but individually perceived working conditions which influence actions and learning. Therefore, working conditions could be regarded from a constructivistic point of view. With reference to Deci & Ryan (1985), three central aspects which may influence motivation and action are:

1.   The degree of experienced autonomy. An employee feels autonomous when he/she has the impression that he/she has scope for action or can carry out his/her task according to his/her own plans.

2.   The degree of experienced competence. The employee is aware of his/her competence as soon as he/she has the impression that he/she can carry out his/her tasks expertly, successfully and effectively.

3.   The degree of experienced social integration. An employee feels socially integrated at work when his/her job is recognised by superiors and colleagues and the employee associates him/herself with the corporate identity.

Pilot studies of the research group 'Learning, Organized and Self-Directed' (LOS) indicate that these three experiences have a distinct impact on the willingness of business employees for self-directed learning which is directly connected to their task (Kleinmann & Straka, 1996, Straka, 1996). Within the framework of another pilot study, significant relations between experienced autonomy, competence and social integration could be established on the basis of self-ratings given by business employees. Significant relations could also be ascertained for an interest in self-directed learning as well as competences in strategy, control and evaluation in the two-shell model under working conditions (Straka, in print). Without wanting to over-exaggerate the importance of these findings, they do, however, indicate that the readiness and ability for self-directed learning in an on-the-job learning process does seem to be connected with specific qualities experienced at work. Should these findings be confirmed in varied analyses with other and larger samples, then varied working conditions for self-directed learning in an on-the-job learning process could be specified as a component of a made-to-measure personal and organisational development for companies for the coming millennium.

References

[1] This project joined the German Research Council's programme in 1996.