One thing that did catch my eye was in that same article I referenced above, again on p. 127, Grow lists some assumptions. His first is "the goal of the educational process is to produce self-directed, life-long learners. Many current educational practices in public schools and universities, however, do more to perpetuate dependency than to create self-direction." Raising a thirteen-year-old allows me to see the truth behind this statement. His public school is set up not to enforce self-directed learning, but to keep him plodding down a path of dependency. We had an opportunity to send him to a private school that had features that leaned more toward self-directed learning and independent study, and we are looking seriously at making that switch for him as he enters high-school. It's easy to see that he has moved from stage 1 to stage 2 in several of his classes and is in stage 3 for others. His school however does little to support any growth beyond that.
I use the Blanchard Situational Leadership model with all of my direct reports and encourage them to do the same. It's intriguing to see Grow's model in this class and I look forward to using it or something similar in developing our new classes with my organization. When we see students, we see them for one day for the most part. They are all adult learners who come to our organization to get the relevant training that they need for their job. They are being paid by their company to be there, and the company pays for their classes. The company, naturally, only pays for the minimum amount of training possible to maintain profitability. So our window of opportunity to effect change with this group of learners is very short, and the large majority of the learns would most likely be classified as Stage 1 or 2 in Grow's Self-Directed Learning Stages model.
All that being said, I've used Blanchard's Situational Leadership model to great success for many many years. Despite the problems that Grow points ou in his essay in our reading this week called: Teaching Learners to be self-directed (p. 127), I have had nothing but very positive effects through its use. This could be because alternatives are not as easy to follow or use, or there are not as many very well known alternatives, but for the most part, we use it because we see that it tends to work, and why mess with a good thing.
When I look at Grow's model and I see the tie-ins to Situational Leadership I can't help but think that it will work well. I roll with the belief that if the foundation and underpinnings of the model are solid and well built, it has a good chance of being successful. Long and short, I look forward to using it, like you, but haven't yet.

































