Self-Directed Learning to Support Part-Time FYS Instructors: A Proposed Model

Self-Directed Learning to Support Part-Time FYS Instructors: A Proposed Model

Lydia Laucella

Assistant Director for the Center of Innovative Teaching and Engaged Learning, Assistant Professor of Education and Instructional Design

Reinhardt University

First-year seminars (FYS) set the foundation for students to take ownership of their learning in college. A sampling of literature puts scholarly focus on the importance of developing self-directed learning (SDL) practices for both students and teachers (Garrison, 1997; Grow, 1991; Loyens, Magda, & Rikers, 2008; Silén & Uhlin, 2008), the benefits of which position students to develop an understanding of their strengths and weaknesses as learners. In turn, this understanding helps students focus their learning and helps teachers target their instruction. Most first-year students, however, are more familiar with direct instruction content delivery or teacher-centered pedagogies than with SDL behaviors. As SDL is typically a new approach for students, faculty modeling of these behaviors becomes imperative in helping students succeed in FYS and other first-year courses.

Even as the ability to translate SDL behaviors into everyday classroom practice grows in importance, colleges increasingly rely on adjunct faculty to teach first-year courses. As an example, in Fall 2018, Kennesaw State University (KSU) offered 145 FYS sections, according to Nirmal Trivedi, director of the First-Year and Transition Studies Department (N. Trivedi, personal communication, n.d.). Roughly 32% of those were taught by adjunct faculty members, with another 4% taught by instructors who worked full-time in other departments. Although these part-time faculty hold valuable real-world knowledge, they often are not provided adequate teacher training, so they can lack pedagogical expertise necessary to develop SDL behaviors in first-year students.

Supporting Part-time Faculty

Garrison (1997) defines SDL as “an approach where learners are motivated to assume personal responsibility and collaborative control of the cognitive [self-monitoring] and contextual [self-management] processes in constructing and confirming meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes” (p. 18). Garrison suggests that self-monitoring and self-management are represented by a student’s ability to set learning goals and become responsible for creating personal meaning. In a first-year classroom, students demonstrating SDL are likely to seek help after observing gaps in their learning and monitor their progress in collaboration with their instructor or classmates.

Drawing on my own experiences as a part-time instructor of education in KSU’s First-Year and Transition Studies Department and on Shea, Li, and Pickett’s (2006) direct-instruction feedback loop, I developed a Model of Faculty Modeling-SDL, which can be used to support part-time FYS instructors. The model (see Figure 1) includes three stages, or steps, that instructors can implement at various points during the semester: (a) Faculty Modeling of I Do, Structured We Do, and You Do. This model can be applied to instructional activities that support learning and content delivery, while guiding students toward engagement in SDL practices.

Figure 1. Proposed Model of Faculty Modeling-SDL.

Faculty Modeling of I Do: Setting the Instructional Tone and Setting a Baseline for SDL

The first step in this model is Faculty Modeling of I Do, which sets the instructional tone as well as a baseline for SDL and features learning opportunities that require participation in and recognition of SDL behaviors. Carefully crafted, interactive and collaborative activities, including icebreakers (e.g., the Human Machine, the Fallout Shelter), Think– Pair–Share, and team-building exercises, can help students identify the instructional tone of the class. Such targeted activities can make clear the need for students to think critically about their own decision making while also instilling the idea that they drive conversations and learning experiences in the course. This idea sanctions students to “assume personal responsibility” for their learning outcomes (Garrison, 1997, p. 18).

After setting the instructional tone, a class should establish a baseline for SDL understanding. For first-year students engaging in SDL, it is imperative to reflect on how their prior learning experiences impact their current ones, and how college expectations differ from those past experiences. Think–Pair–Share requires students to reflect on previous learning experiences in juxtaposition with college expectations, and students often discover that they share many common learning experiences defined by teachercentered pedagogies. Allowing students to reflect on the prior learning experiences with others allows them to build a conversation around these events. This, in turn, leads to a new dialogue and a baseline understanding of expectations for SDL practices in college. It also enables students to engage in collaborative control of cognitive self-monitoring (Garrison, 1997).

The Next Stage: Structured We Do

The next step of the model is Structured We Do, composed of short, structured SDL activities that complement FYS content delivery. One example is the Real World activity, in which the instructor provides structure with a mini-lesson on FYS content (e.g., motivation, goal setting). After the lesson, the instructor plays a song (or two) to the class and completes a free-write on how their chosen music relates to the FYS content. Then, students are asked to choose their own songs and complete the activity as it pertains to them. The activity ends with students sharing their songs and free-writing with one another.

Since these targeted activities focus on developing SDL practices with the premise that learning stems from intrinsic motivation, assignments should not be collected at the end of the lesson. Rather, they should be assessed as either a participation grade or as a compilation of work that students include in a portfolio graded at the semester midpoint or endpoint. Faculty should consider student accountability by providing a rubric for completing these activities. Such reflective and interactive exercises can ignite student motivation, allowing for “constructing and confirming meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes” (Garrison, 1997, p. 18) and eventually leading to SDL practices.

The Final Stage: You Do

After repeated practice and reflection on what students have learned through the targeted Structured We Do activities comes the opportunity to progress toward full SDL practices: You Do. Because we have gradually built up to SDL practices, students should be ready to replicate these learning behaviors. In my FYS sections for Fall 2018, I asked students to demonstrate SDL practices through their final project. Students should have ample creative space and time to complete the project, and they are encouraged to do so with minimal intervention by the instructor. Afterward, it is useful for students to reflect on their experiences engaging in SDL behaviors. Following is an excerpt from a student who demonstrated self-monitoring by acknowledging both her growth as a learner and the need to develop better communication and time management skills to complete the project:

"On my own, I have learned to time-manage in order to effectively complete my projects or role in a project. I found that communication is key in order to understand each other’s responsibilities in order to get tasks done. Meeting up will also help in finding out how each [party] is progressing as deadlines approach."

Another student demonstrated self-management, wherein he recognized the value of collaboration and idea exploration through completing the final project and achieving his groups’ learning outcomes. He also realized the importance of planning and organization for future tasks:

"In future assignments, I would come up with a plan ahead of time to know when we would do what, and when. I feel that would possibly give us a better run at it, if we could space out and plan what we would do each day so that we would not run out of ideas. I also feel that the natural compatibility we had as a group worked well, so that we could shoot out ideas and work on the assignment while also enjoying ourselves and not feeling bored or washed out."

Next Steps

As institutions continue to rely more on part-time faculty to teach first-year students, instructors must instill confidence in those students to look inward for their learning experiences. Providing safe, interactive experiences for engaging in SDL behaviors requires faculty modeling. The benefit of the proposed Model of Faculty Modeling-SDL is that it can support part-time faculty who work with these students. Through faculty modeling in application with course-specific activities similar to those mentioned previously, institutions can provide a pedagogical approach to developing SDL behaviors. The model, which incorporates Shea and colleagues’ (2006) I Do, We Do, You Do structure, can also be applied to other first-year courses.

References

Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.

Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly¸ 41(3), 125-149.

Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problembased learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411-427.

Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.

Silén, C., & Uhlin, L. (2008). Self-directed learning—a learning issue for students and faculty! Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 461-475.

Contact

Lydia Laucella Lydia.laucella@reinhardt.edu