Building Sdl Skills in the Adolescent Learner in Prep for Workplace 1

BUILDING SDL SKILLS IN THE ADOLESCENT LEARNER IN PREP FOR WORKPLACE 1

Building Self-Directed Learning Skills in the Adolescent Learner

In Preparation for Success in the Work Place

Gayle B. Fisher

EHRD-630-700, Dr. D. Chlup

Texas A&M University

Not only is building Self-Directed Learning (SDL) skills in the adolescent (and emerging andragogy) learner essential for success in the working world, but these same constructed SDL skills can be acquired by the learning-delayed learner (LDL) if the same building components are present. The building components for SDL as represented in the literature are (but are not limited to) : self-motivation, metacognition, personality traits, and core social skills. The learning-delayed learner (LDL) would include (but not be limted to) those with developmental delays due to sensory-integration problems, language delays, autism, apraxia, being socially at-risk or economically at-risk, orwith chromosomal abnormalities. The LDL may be either neuro-typical or not.

Self-Directed Learning (SDL) as a learning style has been established as one of the six characteristics of andragogy (Knowles, 1975). Recently, increasingly, subject-matter experts (SMEs) are saying that SDL can also be a part of adolescent learning (Merriam,Caffarella and Baumgartner, 2007, p. 407; Zemke and Zemke, 1996, p. 40). This paper attempts to explore SDL inadolescent learning, and how this contributes to preparing young learners for work place simulations (WPS). Jossberger, Brand-Gruwel, Boshuizen and Wiel (2010) discuss SDL, self-regulated learning (SRL) and workplace simulations (WPS), and includeconstructive implications to students as they transition through vocational training. Jossberger, et al., (2010) resoundingly recommends that vocational students “acquire SDL and SRL skills” so that they can learn and work effectively in WPS in preparation for the actual workspace. They also differentiate between SDL as both a personality/learning characteristic and a learning environment compared to self-regulated learning (SRL) as solely a personality/learning characteristic. This clarification of SDL and SRL is needed, they say, due to the “confusion” caused by Knowles’ definition of SDL (as not being specific enough to differentiate it from SRL; in all fairness to Knowles, the comparison did not exist in 1975). Jossberger, et al.’s thorough report continues with the concept of “authentic setting”, which is also taught by Clark and Mayer (2008). Authentic setting and authentic practice integrate SDL, andragogy and educational technology’s best practices. “Integrating theory and practice seems especially relevant for vocational education” (Jossberger, et al., 2010), p. 426. These are indeed exciting school-to-work concepts being implemented in vocational schools: authentic practice, authentic setting, far-transfer, adaptive learning, workplace simulations, macro-level learning trajectory (SDL), micro-level learning trajectory (SRL), individual initiative, personal responsibility orientation, self-regulated learning activities, and self-direction in learning, all of which are covered in published, peer-reviewed research, and some of which will be covered within the constraints of this paper.

We will discuss how SDL compares and contrasts with Self-Regulated Learning (SRL). We willexamine building SDL in adolescent learning (emerging andragogy), relating to: 1) problem-based learning (PBL), 2)motivation, 3) metacognition 4) social skills, 5) creativity, 6) personality traits, and 7) the “sensemaking” paradox (lacking domain knowledge, yet expected to make good choices in self-direction). Also, we will briefly introduce the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) and its modifications as useful diagnostic tools to help sort and prepare adolescent learners for the workplace.

Background

Purposeful SDL, or SDL built on purpose, can be used to assist young people improve their working futures. When purposeful SDL is in process, then mentors, activators, teachers, and facilitators can improve the prospects of incoming highly-motivated young non-disabled learnersbefore they transition to the workplace. Further, the same purposeful building of SDL skills can also be utilized by highly-motivated learning-delayed learners (LDLs) as they prepare to becomefirst-time workers. So, to begin, a literature search was performed using the library databases at Texas A&M University, using key words “school-to-work”, “transition”, “creativity”, “SDL”, “adaptation”, “disabilities” and “urgency”. There were easily enough peer-reviewed, journal-published articles to support this paper, especially when limiting the target learners to neuro-typical (meaning, the brain responds to incoming messages with typical responses). There is published research to also include special-needs, at-risk, and learning-delayed learners. Middle-school students in North Carolina with “moderate intellectual disabilities” taught themselves to self-direct their learning activities in chemistry and physical science by using 15-step KWHL charts. They have helped to change the game on how special education has historically been teacher-directed. Their success with KWHL charts (“know”, “want”, “how”, and “learned”) improved hope for more inclusion education, which increases neuro-typical peer modeling opportunities.(Jimenez, Browder, and Courtade, 2009). In fact, the research for SDL and disabilities gloriously extends past the constraints on this specific paper. Therefore, we can say that there is already extensive peer-reviewed research ongoing in the field of SDL and adolescent learners with learning disabilities, emerging into the world of andragogy, with specific applications into workplace transitions (WPS) and school-to-work transitions (SWT), awaiting final implementation in the actual workplace.

Surprisingly, countries besides the U.S. have said emerging first-time workers lack the basic skills to succeed or to provide the job skills required by businesses within those countries (Jossberger, et al, 2010, pg. 415, citing Achtenhagen and Oldenburger, 1996). Conversely, there is great hope gleaned from the literature, for there are programs continually and increasingly implemented to lift our young emerging workers into the learned habits of SDL (and all that encompasses), into a win-win for workers and national economies as a whole.

A passion for the at-risk, special-needs, and learning-delayed emerging worker fuels my stretchto include them in this paper. They are entitled to their personal and unique life-long journey of learning, creating a fulfilling adulthood, by whatever definition they call happiness, be it Western or Non-Western, be it Native American, Confucian, African Liberation, Buddhist, or African Indigenous definitions(Merriam, et al., 2007). The LDLs, once buoyed up by purposeful SDL skills, could become stable and valued employees, able to live independently by putting macro-SDL into practice. This authentic and life-long practice will require their personal motivation and determination to overcome their personal obstacles. The stretch of this paper is the application of all being said in the literature about SDL could also be specifically attributed to the learning-delayed learner (LDL), assuming that metacognition, motivation, learner self-interest and core social skills are all in place. To complicate this stretch,Loyens, Magda, and Rikers, (2008), pp. 416-417, use the general phrase “active engagement in one’s learning process”. This characteristic of “active engagement” could be difficult but essential to master for the learning-delayed learner (LDL), due to sensory integration or social/communication deficiencies (as in the autistic spectrum or with apraxia). Secondly, for the LDL who is lacking some self-awareness, or is unable to prove with expressive language back out to the world that he or she is truly self-aware (as an example, a non-verbal learner in the autistic spectrum or a non-verbal or pre-verbal learner with apraxia), the proof of metacognition could be a higher hurdle to overcome, compared to that of a neuro-typical learner.

SDL, Self-Regulated Learning (SRL), Metacognition, and Motivation

The terms “SDL” and “self-regulated learning”(SRL) are described in the literature as SDL being the overarching concept, and SRL as being a subset of SDL. Sometimes the two terms are used interchangeable, but this is misleading, for there are similarities and differences between the two terms. In short, SDL and SRL are both characteristics of learners. SDL is a learning environment; SRL is not a learning environment.

Loyens, et al, (2008), on p. 417, talk about SRL operating within the “biological, developmental, contextual and individual boundaries of the learner”, and that “students can be trained to extend their metacognitive knowledge base”, becoming “more effective SRLs”. In other words, there is a wide door beckoning to emerging SDLs (from pedagogy into andragogy) who are motivated to want such “training”. Loyens, et al., on p. 417 describe SRL processes via “metacognition and intrinsic motivation”, citing Zimmerman’s 1989 definition of SRLs: students described as “self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process. The learner’s choice of goals is an important determiner of SRL.” (Loyens, et al, (2008), p. 417. This supports that to be a SRL, you need metacognition, intrinsic motivation, and learner self-interest.

There are differences between SDL and SRL, as cited by Loyens, et al., (2008), pp. 417-418, who say that SDL pertains to “both the design of the learning environment and describing learner characteristics (activities or processes that the learner substantiates)”, and that SRL describes the learner characteristics. SDL can be used anywhere in life, even outside school. In contrast, SRL is “within school learning”.

Metacognition and motivation areboth core concepts of SDL and SRL. SDL and SRL are “similar in that they both activate metacognitive skills”, and that “metacognitive awareness is involved in all steps that precede the actual study activities and the evaluation of those activities afterward”. So, metacognition is described as being aware of one’s thinking, or thinking about one’s thinking before the learning, during the learning, and after the learning.

Motivation is described in connection with a learner having control over their learning, able to direct their individual cognition (Loyens, et al., (2008), p. 417). Another study, Rozendaal, Minnaert and Boekaerts (2002), p. 275, discusses students who study their subjects deeply, how they are therefore “likely to find the material more interesting and easier to understand” (because they studied the subjects deeply), and then howthose long hours of study “are not a hardship” because they wanted to study the subjects deeply for many hours (Rozendaal, et al., 2002, citing Entwistle, 1981). This example helps us understand how motivation and cognition are related and even co-mingled (Rozendaal, et al., 2002, p. 275).

Also, motivation and learner self-interest are part of self-regulated learning (SRL), Rozendaal, Minnaert, and Boekaerts(2002), p. 275 discuss some “visible and important indicators of motivation”, and include interest and persistence. Interest is the “personal meaning” of the assignments, of the learning to be done. Persistence is the determination to “continue with the task until it is completed”. A student can be persistent even if the subject is of little interest, because it is the learning, the conquering that matters, not the specific topic.

SDL and Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

Since its introduction and development in the mid-1960s, PBL has been a “useful instructional alternative to conventional teaching” (Loyens, S. M.M., Magda, J., and Rikers, R.M.J.P., 2008, p. 412). In PBL, small groups of students critically evaluate and try to solve ill-fitting problems, mostly using their own prior knowledge and creativity. “Problems are the starting point of the learning process” (Loyens, et al., 2008, p. 413). This means, ideally, that students already have the prior knowledge, the prerequisite problem-solving skills in their pockets, ready for use. We as the educators might have to fill in some of the holes, to properly prepare students for thriving in PBL. This preparation will be worth the effort, for one of the goals of PBL is “fostering students intrinsic motivation to learn”. PBL “fosters” and enables SDL(Loyens, et al, 2008, pp. 413, 421). PBL usually occurs within a group of students, each of whom have (ideally) some characteristics of SDL already in place. PBL is a group activity, with the learner as the initiator of the learning task. By contrast, in self-regulated learning (SRL), the learning task can be teacher-generated. In other words, SDL refers to the “preparedness of a student to engage in learning activities defined by him- or herself”, not by the teacher (Loyens, et al., 2008, p. 414, citing Schmidt, 2000, p. 243). By purposefully building SDL habits that support PBL into adolescent learners, SDL becomes linked to “lifelong learning” (Loyens, et al., 2008, p. 416, citing Miflin et al., 2000). The powerful influence of feedback to learners is also key in PBL, especially in the novice stage. Appropriate feedback gives the emerging SDLs small corrections to keep them headed in the right direction(s). This feedback is identified as a highly powerful influence on both learning and achievement (Clark and Mayer, 2008; Jossberger, et al., 2010; citing Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Feedback is also provided in a transition into PBL called Case-Oriented Problem-Stimulated learning, which we will examine next.

There is a hybrid version of PBL called “Case-Oriented Problem-Stimulated” (COPS) which had a positive effect on learning, in a study with Canadian medical students. This hybrid learning environment used assistance provided by the teacher, based on the premise that not all students are totally able initially to be SDLs, that instead a gentle tutorship with appropriate nudges helped give them training wheels in what SDL was and the self-confidence to get successfully jump-started (Lee, Mann and Frank (2010). In this published study, the students had in-place self-awareness of their existing skills; but they had little prior knowledge of small group dynamics, for from the population (n=118), 82 responded that their experience with small group learning was “none” or “a little”. They were also able to define the deficiencies in their personal knowledge (what as missing), to assess the effectiveness of their on-going learning, and to be responsible for their own learning (Lee, et al, 2010, pp. 430-431). Group social dynamics also greatly affected their SDL, revealing the need for core social skills and group communication skills to be in place for best success in small-group case-based learning. The teacher would fade her prompts, moving from activator to tutor to finally facilitator. (Lee, et al., 2010, p. 432-433; Jossberger, et al., 2010). To recap so far, the building blocks of SDL are documented in the literature to include: self-regulated learning (SRL),metacognition, motivation, and PBL. Additionally, personality traits also can provide some building blocks for SDL.

SDL and Personality Traits

As a personality trait, SDL is “relatively enduring over time and across situations for individuals”, on a “continuum ranging from low to high”, and is a characteristic that exists to some degree in each of us and in each potential learning opportunity (Lounsbury, Levy, Park, Gibson and Smith, 2009, p. 411, citing Brockett and Hiemstra, 1991, and Hiemstra, 1991). For example, SDL as a personality trait would be a skill or talent a student “just had” as a child, within the pedagogical world. As the student matured into andragogy, that personality trait would blossom, shining continually brighter. Lounsbury, et al., (2009),p. 412, elaborates on this as related to two characteristic of the Myer-Briggs personality test: Extraversion and Intuition. As a personality trait that you may or may not be born with,any trait could still be continually cultivated if you were motivated, just as you could work at improving your GPA, if you desired that goal (Lounsbury, et al., (2009), p. 412).

The literature made additional but lesser correlations with SDL and personality traits of work drive, optimism, sense of identity, career decidedness, self-actualization, low anxiety, and Myer-Brigg’s intuition, and suggested further research, as cited inLounsbury, et al., (2009), p. 415. Jossberger, et al, (2010) mentions persistence, self-control and self-monitoring.

SDL and Social Skills

As a pre-requisite for almost every interaction in life, social skills can be learned by modeling, and sometimes must be purposefully taught. Social skills can also be required to prepare for any group or team at the workplace. Young, Mann and Frank (2010), p. 425, discusses how peer awareness, peer expectations and the dynamics of small groups were shown to be “important factors influencing SDL”.

Some factors today erode effective social skills. Too much internet, too much pretense via avatars, and too little face-to-face practice with real people can poorly prepare young neuro-typical digital learners for the social interactions their working world will require of them. Even a life as a programmer involves interfacing with people. The better we are with other people, the happier and better connected our personal social lives will be. Some lucky people are born intuitive, gregarious, and inter-dependent. Others can benefit from purposeful learning of nuanced social skills. Since each person is unique in their outgoing social messages, effectively “reading” people is not a cookie-cutter skill. Group dynamics can be complicated, especially when wrestling with ill-fitting problems. Learning-delayed, at-risk, and special-needs learners need extra help in navigating social waters. Effectively presenting personal opinions in a group setting can be daunting. Everyone wants to be respected and listened-to. To properly support the learning of SDL, the essential social skills should be in prior knowledge prior to group dynamics of PBL. Rozendaal, et al., 2002, p. 278, says that “learning in interactive learning groups is in line with social constructivism”. In other words, interactive social learning is constructed and built on prior social learning experience, constructing new learning as you go on. Jossberger, et al., (2010) cites the social concepts of “reciprocal interactions among personal, behavioral and environmental influences” (citing Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 2004) as part of SRL at the micro-level (as compared to SDL at the macro-level). There is concensus that basic social skills are at the core of small-group PBL within SRL and SDL. Jimenez, et al., (2009) tells us that the middle-schoolers from North Carolina, the learners who self-directed their scientific learning with KWHL charts, who had “moderate intellectual disabilities” were in a mainstream science class, as much for the core social skills as the science content they were learning.