Key Factors in Adolescent Distributed Learning.

Abstract

The paper examines work regarding adolescent self-esteem, self-efficacy, perceived control, self-determination and self-regulation, and argues for their importance in constructing adolescent distributed learning environments. These interrelated factors are considered critical in adolescent development; therefore, they require support for student success. The paper applies the concepts of self-determination and its value as derived from studies of adolescents with learning disabilities. The author also examines and applies study findings implicating that failure and other deviant behaviors are motivated by self-esteem considerations. The paper concludes with recommendations for fostering self-directed adolescent learners in distributed learning environments.

Introduction

While the human condition may be universal, special considerations may be given to the condition of students entering particular phases of development. During the period of adolescence, a student enters the phase where he or she is making strides toward adulthood. The concepts of self-direction, self-determination, or self-regulation are central to the achievement of adult status in western societies. This development is greatly affected by a student's level of self-esteem, self-efficacy, perceived control, and actual autonomy. The relationship between these factors is dynamic rather than static.

The learning environment and interactions with it have been shown to contribute significantly to this phase of student development, especially for adolescents. Ultimately, it is in the distributed learning environment where an adolescent will experience the greatest pressure for the development and attainment of self-direction. An adolescent student in such an environment experiences a much higher level of autonomy than afforded in a "traditional" classroom, but will only be effective if he or she can manage it.

This situation is further complicated by the implementation of distance or web-based education models that do not structure frequent and continual contact between the student and instructor critical to the early phases of self-direction. The physical modeling possible in a student's quiet classroom observance of the teacher is unavailable. Historically, this has created a situation for self-selection of adolescents with above average levels of self-direction for distributed learning experiences, but conditions are changing rapidly. Increasing numbers of students are turning to this mode of education, and the Information Age is increasing the demand for self-directed adults. Teachers and schools should concern themselves with the creation of learning environments and instructional strategies to foster these traits in all students.

Adolescent students desire a greater deal of autonomy, and for that reason, whether possessing the necessary knowledge and skill set to successfully navigate through distributed learning, they will increasingly be drawn to it. Teachers and schools must be prepared to aid these young adults to realizing their potential for self-direction so they may go on to become successful, self-directed adults. The greater the efforts of teachers and schools toward enhancing student aspects of self-esteem, perceived control, tree autonomy, and self-efficacy, the closer students will approach the target of self-directed learning.

   For a discussion of Adolescent Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, Perceived
   Control and Autonomy see issue's website
   http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/sump.htm

Self-Determined/Self-Regulated/Self-Directed Learners

Clearly, it is evident that the experience of autonomy yields positive results for adolescents and that it is critical to their development into adulthood. It enhances their self-esteem and intrinsic motivation, and there is evidence that students' perceptions of self-direction at school promote academic achievement (Owens, et al., 1996). Self-determination, self-direction, and self-regulation are different names for similar concepts. The models of self-determination arose in the United States in the early 1990's as a model for instructing students with disabilities. It was created to foster self-directed, self-actualizing individuals.

Sharon Field (1996) reviews the various versions of the self-determination model. In the Wehmeyer model, the essential components to instruction are: choice making, decision making, problem solving, goal setting and attainment, self-observation skills, self-evaluation skills, self-reinforcement skills, internal locus of control, positive attribution of efficacy and outcome expectancy, self-awareness, and self-knowledge. Abery's model separates the necessary components into three bases: the skills base, the knowledge base, and the motivational base. Abery acknowledges the impact of environment with an ecosystems approach centered on the self-determination process. Abery's motivational component includes self-efficacy, locus of control, and attributions for success or failure. Field notes this model for its emphasis of the motivational base. The Field and Hoffman model created in 1994 is composed of five parts: Know Yourself, Value Yourself, Plan, Act, Experience Outcomes, and Learn. What is significant about the Field and Hoffman model is its inclusion of celebrating successes and reviewing efforts to enhance the skills and knowledge necessary for self-determination.

Lewis, Mirowsky, and Ross (1999) discuss a slightly different self-determination model, the Mithaug, Campeau and Wolman model. In this model, the gains made toward goal attainment are explained by four factors: past gain, expectations of additional gain, choices producing additional gain, and responses to choices. When all four factors are at the optimal level, goal attainment will be maximized.

Self-determination by another name is self-regulation. The similarities are clear in the Zimmerman theory of self-regulation discussed by Shepard, Fasko Jr., and Osborne (1999). Like self-determination, Zimmerman is concerned with the level to which students take an active role in their own learning, metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally. The theory stresses goal setting, strategic learning, self-monitoring of progress, self-reinforcement, and a high value on learning with self-efficacy as a critical factor (Shepard, et al., 1999). Self-regulation theory examines the interactions of people and environments in terms of goal and choice contingencies. In a goal contingency, a person establishes what s/he has to accomplish, while choice contingency is a person's action plan to achieve the goal (Field, 1996). The result of employing the components of self-regulation and self-determination in a learning environment are better learning and increased perception of efficacy (Jacobsen, 1998) through self-directed learning.

When learners are self-directed, they are involved in learning, learn the material, know it, seek feedback, and revise or redo activities as necessary for increased learning (Wilson, 1997). Wilson (1997) discusses Zimmerman's findings that these types of learners self-evaluate, organize themselves, transform themselves, set goals, make plans, seek information, keep records, monitor themselves, structure the environment to suit themselves, give themselves consequences, rehearse, memorize, seek social assistance when necessary, and review. Furthermore, when self-regulated (self-directed) learners encountered obstacles to their learning such as inappropriate environmental conditions, incomprehensible instructors, or confusing/obfuscating texts, they manage to work through or around such obstacles and persevere to learn. Wilson (1997) juxtaposes the Zimmerman findings with those of Lidner and Hams who reduce the aspects to six areas: epistemological beliefs, motivation, metacognition, learning strategies, contextual awareness, and environmental utilization/control.

Paul Bouchard (1996), in his study of adults, noted the personality characteristics of self-directed professionals of high attainment. He discovered they shared the following traits: creativity, optimism, a high capacity for learning, and curiosity. He also discovered that their environment shared stimulating situations where an authority generally pushed them to new responsibilities that required learning. Bouchard (1996) further discovered that in their self-directed learning process they shared fairly clear objectives, unusual learning strategies and actions that forced them to learn on their own.

The Non-Regulated, Non-Directed Learner

Diane Kaplan's work, "Structural relations model of self-rejection, disposition to deviance and academic failure" (1994) cites strong research results that support the position that academic failure is in part a motivated behavior (after adjusting for intellectual and cultural limitations and other associated factors) and as such can be seen as an adaptation to previous experiences that were detrimental to self-esteem and self-efficacy. She argues that failure is a proactive attempt by students to preserve vulnerable self-esteem. Sharon Field (1996) noted similar experiences among students with learning disabilities. She discovered that when students repeatedly experience failure and therefore expect it to continue, the result was

   ... devastating effects on their self-esteem, willingness to take risks,
   and motivate about school. They come to attribute their failures to a lack
   of ability (internalizing the negative labels that the environment
   communicates) and to attribute their successes to luck, the ease of the
   task, or the fact that someone else gave them the answers [external locus
   of control] (Field, 1996).

Kaplan (1994) supports a similar script for failure among the general adolescent population: failure initiates a vicious cycle of self-rejection, deviant behavior, and continued academic failure. Part of the theoretical work of this study was founded on Kaplan's previous work in 1980, which found that

   ... a history of context specific devaluing experiences that individuals
   are unable to defend against will lead to their association of that context
   with their negative self-feelings and consequently such persons will become
   increasingly inclined to deviate from the normative expectancies of the
   social context or membership group that is perceived to be the source of
   their negative self-feelings or self-attitudes (Kaplan, 1994).

The environment in such a case becomes problematic. Here the individual chooses deviant behavior and unwittingly cuts him/herself off from the group. According to Wong and Wiest (1999) groups provide performance-enhancing support to individuals when the individuals follow the group norms. Clearly, deviant behavior will sever such performance-enhancing relationships. Kaplan (1994) states that deviant behavior may manifest itself in numerous ways: withdrawal of effort; questioning the validity of evaluation standards; assumption of self-handicapping roles such as underachiever, non-participation, and procrastination. Other deviant behaviors are aggressive misbehavior and shy withdrawal (Scott, et al., 1996). Kaplan (1994) identifies the motivation for deviant behavior as related to issues of self-esteem and control:

   Such behavior forestalls feelings of self-derogation on the part of
   students (i.e., They protect their self-esteem) by enabling students to
   attribute their school failure to their own lack of effort, over which they
   feel they have some power or control, rather than have to attribute it to
   their lack of ability, over which they feel they have no control (Kaplan,
   1994).

This would be entirely consistent with the critical importance of control and autonomy in adolescence and their dynamic relationship with self-esteem and self-direction. The good news, according to Jacobsen (1998) is that there are ways that these students can learn to help themselves:

   An instructor who is aware of the effects of academic self-perception can
   enhance student performance by modeling a variety of appropriate learning
   strategies. Strategy use in turn increases self-regulation within the
   student, which will result in improved performance and enhanced
   self-concept (Jacobsen, 1998).

Fostering Self-Directed Adolescent Learners

The Teacher as Model

The role of school experience is a critical factor in the movement of adolescents toward adulthood---the ultimate self-directed state. Although the impact of the family environment is the greatest, school is a "significant determinant of a student's sense of self. It affects self-concept, values and subsequent self-esteem" (Scott, et al., 1996). Furthermore, Scott, Murray, Mertens, and Dunstin (1996) state that modeling is one of the most overlooked methods of fostering self-esteem and that "the importance of modeling cannot be overstated." They suggest that school personnel should clearly and deliberately model their own high self-esteem. Field's (1996) study supports this position; moreover, she cites the availability of role models as a critical factor in the learning environment. However, Scott, Murray, Mertens, and Dunstin (1996), and Field (1996) overlook the role modeling done by peers within the learning environment. Quite often students view peer attainments as being more within their proximal zone of development and will often look to each other to determine the norms and behavior of the learning community.

Beyond modeling, the interactions between teacher and student convey a complex array of perceptions about student abilities. Sharon Field (1996) notes that teacher/staff response types are crucial to students in self-directed learning environments. The messages flow from two levels a la Bandura: general teaching efficacy and personal teaching efficacy. General teaching efficiency refers to a teacher's belief that teaching can have an impact on students' learning. A teacher with a positive general teaching efficacy would believe "students can learn regardless of their capabilities or home and peer influences" (Weasmer, 1998). All their actions would naturally flow from and reflect this position. In contrast, a teacher with a low sense of general teaching efficacy will believe that "students cannot or will not learn regardless of the influences exerted by schools" (Weasmer, 1998). Such beliefs will permeate the environment of the classroom, whether through conscious or subconscious responses.

Personal teaching efficacy refers to an individual teachers belief that s/he can teach in an effective manner. A teacher with a high personal teaching efficacy will select challenging lessons, but a teacher with low personal teaching efficacy will refrain from challenging students in the belief that s/he is incapable of teaching them to the necessary level (Weasmer, 1998). Such messages are conveyed in the subtext of the classroom and are observable through language, interactions, assignments, etc. General outcome expectancy in teaching and views of personal teaching efficacy will determine the level of autonomy students will be allowed. Support for this position is found in the work of Scott, Murray, Mertens, and Dunstin (1996): they cite Ryan and Grolnich who in 1986 discovered that students invested a great deal of meaning in whether the teacher allowed them autonomy or not--with autonomy, came perceptions of higher self-esteem. Scott, Murray, Mertens, and Dunstin (1996) also cite a study by Nelson in 1984, which found a positive correlation between teacher involvement, support, order, organization, innovation, and student self-esteem. Clearly teacher perceptions and student perceptions are dynamically linked.

Beyond Modeling

For learning environments, Owens, Mortimer, and Finch (1996) advocate a participatory experience that employs shared decision-making, the use of reason, and the view of adults as providers of information rather than custodians of adolescents. Over time, students would take on an increasingly self-directed role. Field (1996) suggests that this be a graduated process where "control is gradually relaxed during adolescence." Such an environment can be fostered through humanistic principles with democratic control and an appreciation of creativity.

With autonomy comes choice, another critical aspect of a self-directed learning environment (Field, 1996). A positive self-directed learning environment would encourage student choices and by extension, self-direction, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and an internal locus of control. Once again the work of Scott, Murray, Mertens, and Dunstin (1996) illuminates findings supporting this position: Deibert and Hoy's findings that students who attended schools with humanistic climates manifested higher self-actualization than those in custodial schools; Ryan and Grolnick's findings that an increased student perception of autonomy in school climate corresponded with an increase in student initiative and self-esteem.

In establishing a positive self-directed learning environment, curriculum variables are crucial. In keeping with the humanistic principles, the curriculum should be more reflective of student participation and choice. More focus should be put on the processes involved in self-determination and self-regulation models discussed earlier. This runs contrary to some distance education institutions' strict adherence to "canned courses." "Canned courses" could be used, however, in an environment supervised by a professional teacher capable of negotiating content and assignments with students that could assure necessary learning outcomes.

Self-directed curricula might also include Abery's eight steps to choice making: awareness of preferences, appreciation of possible choices, recognition of decision-making opportunities, definition of choice and decision, setting personal outcome standards, generating alternative choices, evaluating alternatives, and selecting the alternative most appropriate to the personal goal (Field, 1996). This would be particularly appropriate with learners who have experienced difficulties with self-directed programs in the past that did not provided direct teaching/modeling of self-directed strategies.

Field (1996) states "the role of the service provider in self-determination is to provide service and specialized expertise to individuals so they can make decisions about matters that are important to them." The role of the teacher in a self-directed classroom should parallel Field's vision: the teacher would be a service provider, consultant, facilitator, and partner. This view is supported by Rebecca Jacobsen (1998) who believes the student-teacher relationship is an apprenticeship with the gradual removal of direct instruction as student proficiency increases. This follows the method suggested by Field (1996) for the general shift from control to autonomy.

Field (1996) suggests that additional instructional strategies for the self-determined (self-directed) environment would involve attribution retraining, and appropriate behavioral strategies. In attribution retraining, students would focus on the task and their actual performance and improvements. The teacher would teach effective learning and academic strategies, and reinforce students for attaining them. Teachers would teach students to analyze learning tasks and discuss the factors that contributed to student achievement. Behavioral strategies would include students in defining desired behaviors. Reinforcements would be used for motivation, appropriate risk-taking, self-esteem, creativity, internalization of control locus, and approximations of appropriate behaviors. From Field's descriptions, it is evident that problem-based/project-based learning as well as discovery learning would also be appropriate instructional strategies in this environment.

In the case of students that have experienced repeated failure, Kaplan (1994) states that one of the most important aims should be early intervention before students "begin to define the school context as a major source of their self-rejecting feelings and subsequent devalue or attack on that context to mitigate their feelings of self-rejection." She suggests these programs would provide numerous opportunities to participate in "self-enhancing experiences" and decrease those that were "self-devaluing." Through such a program, these students would learn to be less defensive in an environment they had previously held to be hostile to their self-esteem (Kaplan, 1994).

Challenges for the Distributed Learning Environment

As Field's (1996) criteria for self-determination are extended to the self-directed distributed learning environment, there are clear challenges. Distributed learning lends itself to a certain level of student autonomy, but it will be important for a teacher to foster greater levels of autonomy via assignments and personal student interests. The teacher should also be prepared to negotiate the standards within the learning group. This would permit a democratic, humanistic environment for learning. However, in the case of distributed learning at a distance, the very distance that engenders autonomy is an obstacle to modeling.

In common practice, distributed learning teachers who function at a distance have taken a "hands-off" approach. This could be seen as a "self-directed immersion" or "sink-or-swim" approach. Ultimately, this leaves students with few self-directed learning skills to flounder while the more mature students flourish. This is educationally irresponsible. Such an approach allows a teacher to abdicate responsibility for fostering self-directed learning skills when working with a general adolescent population. This denies the adolescent's need for modeling or cognitive apprenticeship. The self-directed experience should' assume a greater deal of teacher involvement, direct contact, modeling, and control at the outset, with a gradual relaxation of teacher intervention as the student proves ready to assume control.

Student support is an additional problem of distributed learning at a distance. Student support is one of the remaining environmental elements for self-determination cited by Sharon Field (1996) and by extension, a remaining environmental element for successful self-directed learning. A support network consists of more than teachers and peers. It includes people unrelated to the particular school environment, additional materials, and connections with other institutions. Clearly the active and continual contact with the teacher would provide a certain degree of support; however, this is not sufficient for success.

Students must be able to network with peers for support. This is what Wong and Wiest (1999) refer to when they comment on the performance-enhancing support that is provided by a group to individuals who behave according to the group norms. Furthermore, because of its perceived attainability and vicinity to proximal zone of development, students are more likely to respond to peer modeling. Therefore, the establishment of a peer network is critical to the success of adolescents in distributed learning--especially in the distance model where the teacher cannot depend on physical proximity for networking. The teacher should establish peer groups at the outset of the program. If the instructor waits, there is the danger that the students will fall into the vicious cycle delineated by Diane Kaplan (1994) earlier in this paper. As time passes, and much in accordance with the transformation of control and instruction advocated for adolescents, the peer groups would gradually move from teacher-constructed to student-constructed.

The ability to achieve this transformation would be addressed via curriculum. Distributed learning programs, especially those conducted at a distance, should create and employ a curriculum emphasizing the skills, knowledge, and motivation necessary for students to generate a personal support network spanning individuals, materials, and other institutions. As students demonstrate their ability to construct their own networks, the teacher would fade his/her involvement. Furthermore, as instruction moves to a more constructivist approach, distributed learning programs will be unable to predict the exact people or resources necessary to aid students and should empower students to form their own support networks.

At the beginning of the adolescent's path to self-direction, the program should be prepared to provide support for research, technical problems, and any other matters related to student expectations. Toward this end, distributed learning programs should maintain a student accessible database of people, supplementary resources, and institutions for student support. In web-based environments, this would be provided as a searchable portal site linked to a database, which would include natural language and Boolean search functions. Even in a web-based environment, it would also be important to maintain a telephone link for those students who encounter technical difficulties or who are making the transition to web-based education. As education makes the transition to the Information Age and adapts itself to the principles of constructivism, distributed learning will be an increasingly important vehicle for adolescents to assume greater control over their education and approach the state of self-direction and self-determination that is adulthood.

References

Bouchard, Paul. (1996) Abstract: A study of self-directed professionals of high attainment. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from ERIC database, ED436654, on the World Wide Web: http://ericae.net/

Field, Sharon. (1996) Self-determination instructional strategies for youth with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(1), 40-52. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from Electric Library Canada, on the World Wide Web: http://www.elibrary.ca

Jacobsen, Rebecca. (1998, June 22) Teachers improving learning using metacognition with self-monitoring learning strategies. Education, 118, 579-591. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from Electric Library Canada, on the World Wide Web: http://www.elibrary.ca

Kaplan, Diane S., Peck, B. Mitchell, et al. (1994, February 1) Structural relations model of self-rejection, disposition to deviance, and academic failure. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 166+. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from Electric Library Canada, on the World Wide Web: http://www.elibrary.ca

Lewis, Susan, Ross, Catherine E., & Mirowsky, John. (1999, June 1) Establishing a sense of personal control in the transition to adulthood. Social Forces, 77. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from Electric Library Canada, on the World Wide Web: http://www.elibrary.ca

Owens, Timothy J., Mortimer, Jeylan T., & Finch, Michael D. (1996, June 1) Self-determination as a source of self-esteem in adolescence. Social Forces, 74, 1377-1405. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from Electric Library Canada, on the World Wide Web: http://www.elibrary.ca

Scott, Cynthia G., Murray, Gerald, Mertens, Carol & Dunstin, E. Richard. (1996, June 1) Student self-esteem and the school system: Perceptions and implications. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 286+. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from Electric Library Canada, on the World Wide Web: http://www.elibrary.ca

Shepard, Richard, Fasko Jr., Daniel, & Osborne, Francis H. (1999, July 15) Intrapersonal intelligence: Affective factors in thinking. Education, 119n. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from Electric Library Canada, on the World Wide Web: http://www.elibrary.ca

Weasmer, Jerie. (1998, March 13) I think I can: The role of personal teaching efficacy in bringing about change. The Clearing House, 71,245-248. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from Electric Library Canada, on the World Wide Web: http://www.elibrary.ca

Wilson, Jay. (1997, June) Self regulated learners and distance education theory. Retrieved November 20, 2000 on the World Wide Web: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/wilson/wilson.PDF

Wong, Eugene, & Wiest, Dudley J. (1999, July 15) Adolescent depression: Links to academic coping and perceived autonomy support. Education, 119n. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from Electric Library Canada, on the World Wide Web: http://www.elibrary.ca

Julia E.W. Hengstler, Royal Roads University, Canada

Julia E. W. Hengstler is a graduate student in the MA Distributed Learning program at Royal Roads University, teacher of distributed learning and Spanish (Gulf Islands Secondary School, Saltspring Is., BC) and an executive member of Educators for Distributed Learning, Provincial Specialist Association, BCTF.