rice spearman dissertation

8/20/2019 Rice Spearman Dissertation

1/102

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING READINESS IN CLINICAL LABORATORY

SCIENTISTS:

DEVELOPING SKILLS FOR PRACTICE

by:

LORI RICE-SPEARMAN, B.S., M.S.

A DISSERTATION

IN

FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES EDUCATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirement for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

Karen Alexander

Chairperson of the Committee

Sue Couch

Robin Satterwhite

LesLee Taylor

Fred Hartmeister, Dean of the Graduate School

August 2010


2/102

Copyright 2010

Lori Rice-Spearman


3/102

Lori Rice-Spearman, August, 2010

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Gratitude is extended to the members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Sue Couch,

Dr. Robin Satterwhite, and Dr. LesLee Taylor for their advisement, encouragement, and

friendship throughout my doctoral studies and preparation of this document. Sincere

appreciation is expressed to Dr. Karen Alexander, chair of my committee, who has been

instrumental in shaping my progress throughout my doctoral program and helpful in

providing insight and guidance. I would also like to sincerely thank Dr. Virginia

Felstehausen for helping me begin this path. Her wisdom and kindness will never be

forgotten.

Acknowledgement and appreciation are extended to Dr. Lucy Guglielmino and

Dr. Allison Meshbane who permitted me to use the instrument and provided assistance

with the statistical portion of this study. I am grateful to Dean Paul Brooke for his

support and encouragement throughout this journey. Special gratitude is expressed to Dr.

Hal Larsen who saw something in me before I could see it in myself and who never let

me give up on my dream.

I am blessed to be part of an extraordinary team. Dr. Joel Hubbard, Dr. Barbara

Sawyer, Dr. Tootie Tatum, Wade Redman, Ericka Hendrix, Jacquie Chestnutt, Dr. Katie

Bennett, and Brooke Stewart-Israel, thank you for your feedback, encouragement, and

support. Jenny Bonner and Dina Barhorst, thank you both for your support and

encouragement and taking time out of your very busy lives to provide assistance

throughout my doctoral work and this study.


4/102


iii

Tish Nash, Deborah Finlayson, Cray Pickering, Melanie Ragain, and Debbie

Scioli, you have supported me, encouraged me, and celebrated with me every step of the

way.

To my family, incredible sacrifices were made so that I could have this

opportunity to fulfill my dream. Mom you have been my “prayer warrior” and a source of

strength throughout this process and my life. You showed me how to be a daughter,

mother, wife, sister, and friend. Dad you are my rock. You would never let me give up

and you helped me to keep the doctoral process in perspective. Sammy you continued to

love me and support me even on the worst of days. I am blessed to have been raised in a

Christian home surrounded by a loving family.

Craig Allan, Kyle Samuel, and Kacy Lauren, your love, support, and

encouragement never wavered. Because of your great sacrifice and understanding, I must

share the credit for this endeavor with each of you. Last, but certainly not least, I am

grateful to my husband Doug – you have been with me every step of the way. I wonder if

you had any idea what you were getting into with me when we did our Chemistry

homework together in 1983 – a marriage, three beautiful children, and a lifetime of

memories.

Without my family, friends, and colleagues, I would not have completed my

doctoral education. I am blessed.


5/102


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1

Background ............................................................................................1

Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................4

Research Questions ................................................................................5

Hypotheses .............................................................................................6

Assumptions ...........................................................................................6

Limitations .............................................................................................7

Definition of Terms................................................................................7

Summary ................................................................................................9

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..............................................................10

Conceptual Framework for Understanding

Self-direction in Learning ..............................................................10

Candy’s Learner-control Continuum .............................................13

Personal Responsibility Orientation Model ...................................14


6/102


v

Garrison’s Three Dimensional Model .................................................16

Self-directed Learning in Health Professions Education .....................17

Nursing ...........................................................................................17

Medicine ........................................................................................19

Dentistry .........................................................................................19

Pharmacy........................................................................................20

Summary ..............................................................................................21

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ..............................23

Introduction ..........................................................................................23

Research Design...................................................................................23

Instrument ............................................................................................23

Considerations and Limitations ...........................................................25

Sample..................................................................................................26

COHORT #1 ..................................................................................26

COHORT #2 ..................................................................................27

Treatment ................................................................................27

Protection of Rights of Human Subjects ..............................................30

Data Collection Procedures ..................................................................31

Data Analysis .......................................................................................31


7/102


vi

IV. RESULTS ...........................................................................................33

Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................33

COHORT #1 ........................................................................................33

COHORT #2 ........................................................................................34

Hypothesis Testing.........................................................................36

Hypothesis I ..............................................................................37

Hypothesis II .............................................................................38

Summary ..............................................................................................38

V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS .......................40

Background ..........................................................................................40

Summary of the Study .........................................................................41

Conclusions and Discussion ................................................................43

Limitations ...........................................................................................46

Future Implications for Practice ...........................................................46

Recommendations for Future Research ...............................................49

Conclusions ..........................................................................................50

LIST OF REFERENCES .......................................................................................52

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................57


8/102


vii

ABSTRACT

The dynamic environment in health care, increasing body of knowledge, and

complexity of practice make it vital that clinical laboratory scientists maintain

competency by continuing to learn throughout their careers. The ability of clinical

laboratory scientists to become self-directed learners is one way of ensuring continued

competence in knowledge and skills in the clinical laboratory.

Self-directed learners are individuals who take the initiative for their learning;

diagnose their learning needs; formulate learning goals; identify human and material

resources; choose and implement learning strategies; and assess learning outcomes

(Knowles, 1975). The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey (also known as the

Learning Preference Assessment-LPA) can be used by students and educators to assess a

learner’s attitudes, skills, and behavior toward taking responsibility for their own

learning.

The purpose of this study was to examine the self-directed learning readiness of

baccalaureate students at the beginning and at the end of one year in a clinical laboratory

science program that deliberately introduced self-directed learning (SDL) activities into

the curricula. The SDL activities included (1) a unit of study in the first semester that

introduced the concept of self-directed learning, strategies for success, and resources; (2)

a self assessment of learning style; (3) scheduled, focused meetings with a faculty advisor

that included questions regarding development of appropriate learning strategies, setting


9/102


viii

goals, and analysis of current learning processes that may not be successful thus far for

the student; and (4) weekly formative assessments that were focused on an integrative

and cumulative approach to learning within the clinical laboratory science curriculum.

Clinical Laboratory Science students (n=50) participated in this study. Cohort #1

was the comparison group (n=25) and Cohort #2 received the treatment (n=25). Before

treatment, both cohorts were similar demographically and had similar overall grade

point averages.

Data were analyzed using independent t-tests and findings demonstrated that

statistically significant differences did not exist between Cohort #1 post-test SDLR

scores and Cohort #2 post-test SDLRS scores after treatment. A statistically significant

difference did exist related to GPA for students enrolled in the clinical laboratory

science program who experienced self-directed learning activities compared to the GPA

of students who did not experience self-directed learning activities. The GPA for

students enrolled in the Clinical Laboratory Science program who experienced self-

directed learning activities was higher than those students who did not receive the

treatment.

This study and its analysis of self-directed learning as a teaching method and

recognition of learner self-direction as characteristics of the learner has practical

applications for educators. Self-directed learning methods can be effective teaching

strategies to use within and outside the classroom to enhance self-direction in learning.


10/102


ix

There is evidence of using SDL in Clinical Laboratory Science education

curricula as a tool for developing critical thinking skills necessary for expert performers

as they develop as students and professionally in the years after graduation.


11/102


x

LIST OF TABLES

2.1. Perspectives on Self-directed Learning .....................................................17

4.1. Breakdown of Cohorts ...............................................................................33

4.2. Summary Pretest SDLRS for Cohorts .......................................................35

4.3. Summary Pretest and Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1 ..............................35

4.4. Summary Pretest and Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #2 ..............................36

4.5. Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 ..........................................37

4.6. GPA Comparison for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 ........................................38


12/102


xi

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Candy’s Learner Control Continuum...............................................................14

2. Personal Responsibility Orientation Model .....................................................15


13/102


xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

A. Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey .................................................58

B. Self-Directed Learning Module .................................................................63

C. VARK ........................................................................................................71

D. Advising Syllabus ......................................................................................76

E. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center InstitutionalReview Board Approval ............................................................................85

F. Consent to Participate ................................................................................87


14/102


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The dynamic environment in health care, increasing body of knowledge, and

complexity of practice make it vital that clinical laboratory scientists maintain

competency by continuing to learn throughout their careers. Estimates show that the

knowledge base in the clinical sciences doubles approximately every four years (Mertz,

2007). The ability of clinical laboratory scientists to become self-directed learners is one

way of ensuring continued competence in knowledge and skills in the clinical laboratory.

The National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Scientists Standards for

Clinical Laboratory Science Education requires programs to include in their curricula

exposure to continued learning in the profession; few programs, however, have indicated

how the curricula assist the students to achieve this outcome and the skills required for

the undergraduate clinical laboratory science student to develop into a self-directed

learner.

Background

Individuals entering an undergraduate program in clinical laboratory science are

university students who have spent their prior years completing core curriculum

coursework and prerequisite coursework on a general academic campus to prepare for the

program in clinical laboratory science. The nature of the core curriculum coursework and

prerequisite coursework is one that does not develop learning skills focused on


15/102


2

competency in cumulative knowledge and skills. The student completes a checklist of

coursework and has little opportunity in the formal education setting to seek independent

learning experiences outside the prescribed coursework. About 90% of all adults conduct

at least one self-directed learning project per year. Typical learners engage in five

projects, spending an average of 100 hours on each project (Tough, 1978).

It is suggested that individuals engaged in learning in the formal educational

setting are less likely to engage in self-directed learning experiences outside of the formal

setting. The origins of self-directed learning (SDL) can be traced to John Dewey who

cautioned that the teacher should be the one who guides but does not interfere with or

control the process of learning (Dewey, 1938). Dewey's theory is that experience arises

from the interaction of two principles-- continuity and interaction. Continuity is that each

experience a person has will influence his/her future, for better or for worse. Interaction

refers to the situational influence on one's experience. A learner’s present experience is a

function of the interaction between one's past experiences and the present situation. The

value of the experience is to be judged by the effect that experience has on the

individual's present, their future, and the extent to which the individual is able to

contribute to society (Dewey, 1938). Throughout, there is a strong emphasis on the

subjective quality of a student's experience and the necessity for the teacher to understand

the student’s past experiences in order to effectively design a sequence of educational

experiences to allow the learner to fulfill his/her learning objectives. SDL is the ability to

direct and regulate one’s own learning experience (Brookfield, 1993).


16/102


3

Experiential learning or learning based on student experiences is the foundation of

the concept that one is able to take responsibility for one’s own learning - the foundation

of self-directed learning. Experiential learning is a term used to describe two types of

learning – self-teaching and experiential education. Self-teaching is learning that comes

about through reflection on everyday experiences and is organized by learners themselves

(Smith, 2003). Experiential education is learning through programs and activities

structured by others. An experiential educator's role is to organize and facilitate

experiences under the assumption that this will lead to genuine (meaningful and long-

lasting) learning.

Contemporary adult learning theorists recommend that adult learning experiences

include active learner involvement, collaborative faculty-student relationships and

facilitation of SDL (Brockett & Heimstra, 1991; Knowles, 1975). Knowles describes

activities associated with SDL as “a process in which individuals take the initiative, with

or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning

goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing

appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes”(Knowles, 1975, p. 18).

When traditional university students enter an undergraduate preprofessional

program in clinical laboratory science, there is usually a period of transition to adapt to

the health professions education environment. The student is required to maintain

acceptable attendance in the classroom and laboratory, begin the process of developing

professional skills, assimilate large volumes of information, form study habits that ensure


17/102


4

cumulative comprehension of knowledge and skills, and develop self-directed learning

(SDL) techniques that enable the student to succeed within the clinical laboratory science

program and in the practice of the profession. Knowles (1975) states that the goal of

education is to teach the student how to learn on his/her own. This should be a goal in

pre-professional schools, such as allied health, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, and

medicine. These learners must develop the attitudes and skills required for continued

professional learning using the SDL mode, if they choose to use that learning mode

(Wiley, 1982). Lowery (2003) asserts that adult educators have found that some adults

are incapable of engaging in self-directed learning because they lack independence,

confidence, or resources. Increasingly, health professions programs in medicine, nursing,

dentistry, and pharmacy are attempting to examine SDL readiness of their students and

related activities within their curricula to determine the value and appropriateness of SDL

in the health professions. These examinations will be addressed more fully in Chapter II,

Review of Literature.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to examine the self-directed

learning readiness of baccalaureate students at the beginning and at the end of one year in

a clinical laboratory science program that has deliberately introduced SDL activities into

the curricula. The SDL activities included the following:

1. a unit of study in the first semester that introduces the concept of self-directed

learning, strategies for success, and resources;


18/102


5

2. a self assessment of learning style;

3. scheduled, focused meetings with a faculty advisor that include questions

regarding development of appropriate learning strategies, setting goals, and

analysis of current learning processes that may not be successful thus far for

the student; and

4. weekly formative assessment that is focused on an integrative and cumulative

approach to learning within the clinical laboratory science curriculum.

The self-directed learning readiness (SDLR) survey assesses a learner’s attitudes, skills,

and behavior toward taking responsibility for their own learning. The SDLR score and

GPA were compared at the end of the year to determine if SDLR was linked to academic

success in the clinical laboratory science program.

Research Questions

1. Do self-directed learning readiness scores differ for undergraduate students

transitioning from a traditional academic environment into a pre-professional

program of study when they are deliberately exposed to self-directed learning

activities in the clinical laboratory science curriculum when compared to the

scores of undergraduate students transitioning from a traditional academic

environment into a pre-professional program of study who have not been

exposed to self-directed learning activities?

2. Do self-directed learning activities impact grade point average (GPA) in

students enrolled in clinical laboratory science curricula?


19/102


6

Hypotheses

The following two null hypotheses were tested in the study:

1. No statistically significant differences exist in self-directed learning readiness

scores for undergraduate students transitioning from a traditional academic

environment into a pre-professional program of study when they are

deliberately exposed to self-directed learning activities in the clinical

laboratory science curriculum when compared to the scores of undergraduate

students transitioning from a traditional academic environment into a pre-

professional program of study who have not been exposed to self-directed

learning activities.

2. No statistically significant differences exist in GPA for students enrolled in

the clinical laboratory science program who experienced self-directed learning

activities compared to the GPA of students who did not experience self-

directed learning activities.

Assumptions

The following assumptions were made for this study:

1. An individual’s readiness for self-directed learning can be determined

through the use of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale

questionnaire (Guglielmino, 1977).

2. Participants will respond truthfully on the questionnaire.


20/102


7

3. Entering grade point averages (GPA) are relatively the same for each

Cohort.

Limitations

The following limitations to the generalizability of the study were identified:

1. The sample was comprised of clinical laboratory science students at one

university. The sample was a sample of convenience, not selected to be

representative of students across the nation.

2. The sample utilized self-reported data; therefore, accuracy depended upon

the honesty of the respondents.

3. The research design was subject to pretest sensitization where the threat of

improved performance on a post-test was a result of having taken a pretest

(Gay, 2006).

Definition of Terms

The following definitions were used for the purposes of this study:

Autodidaxy: The learner conceives, plans and executes learning projects outside

the formal educational setting (Candy, 1991).

Comprehensive Knowledge: Comprehensive knowledge is an understanding and

application of an entire field of study.

Critical Thinking: A disciplined process, by the learner, of actively and skillfully

conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information


21/102


8

gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or

communication , as a guide to belief and action (Scriven & Paul, 2004).

Education: A process for managing external conditions that facilitate learning

(Boshier, 1983).

Experiential Learning: A term used to describe two types of learning – self-

teaching and experiential education (Smith, 2003).

Guided Discovery: Guided discovery nurtures students’ mental processes of

constructing their own understanding of a subject (Clark, 1999).

Integrative Curriculum: An integrative curriculum organizational approach is one

which cuts across subject-matter lines to focus upon comprehensive life problems or

broad-based areas of study that bring together the various segments of the curriculum into

meaningful association (Good, 1973).

Learning: An internal change process (Boshier, 1983).

Self-directed Learning (SDL): Self-direction in learning is a combination of

forces both within and outside the individual that stress the learner accepting ever-

increasing responsibility for decisions associated with the learning process (Brockett &

Hiemstra, 1991). Self-directed learning is a personal process of learning how to learn,

how to change, and how to adapt (Rogers, 1983).

Self-regulated Learning: Self-regulated learning involves the active process of

goal-directed, self-control of behavior, motivation and cognition for academic tasks by an

individual student (Pintrich, 1995).


22/102


9

Summary

The research problem of this study was to investigate the efficacy of deliberately

introducing tools associated with learner self-direction as a teaching method for preparing

clinical laboratory science students for entry-level practice. Essential for development of

learner self-direction is active learner involvement and collaborative faculty-student

relationships. The focus of this study was to examine self-directed learning readiness

between students who experience a traditional CLS curriculum and students who

experience a curriculum adjusted to deliberately introduce self-directed learning

concepts.


23/102


10

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature for this study was focused on research from primary

sources in the field of adult education, specifically self-directed learning. A review of the

conceptual framework for understanding self-direction in adult learning was conducted

with an emphasis in three areas: establishing the knowledge base in self-direction;

quantitative approaches to studying self-direction; and expanding the knowledge base

through qualitative approaches. Further inspection was focused on the process of

facilitating self-directed learning and enhancing learner self-direction. A secondary focus

of the review of literature was on the research based literature primarily associated with

the analysis and application of self-directed learning concepts in health professions

education.

Conceptual Framework for Understanding Self-direction in Learning

Chickering (1964) presented and discussed five characteristics identified by the

faculty at Goddard College as the characteristics that would describe an independent

(self-directed) learner:

1. Interdependent: Is attuned to the whole; is amiable and peace loving; relates to

others but does not depend on them; recognizes responsibilities.

2. Venturesome: Confronts questions and problems willingly; is open to

experience; is self-starting; is able to disagree; discovers new possibilities.


24/102


11

3. Resourceful: Knows how to use resources for learning; recognizes when help

is needed; digs up material; is able to organize.

4. Persistent: Can stick to a position; is working for his/her own satisfaction; has

the energy and determination to keep at a job; has quiet self-confidence.

5. Reflective: Has a sense of what is important; has direction; knows his own

strengths and weaknesses; discovers through investigation; is flexible in view

of new evidence. (p. 39)

Self-direction in learning from the life-long learning perspective of Kidd (1973)

emphasizes that the purpose of adult education is to make the subject a continuing, inner-

directed self-operating learner. Knowles (1975) stressed the phases of a learning process

and provided a broad definition of self-directed learning as a process in which individuals

take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs,

formulating learning goals, identifying human material resources for learning, choosing

and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes.

Guglielmino (1977) concluded that a self-directed learner is:

One who exhibits initiative, independence, and persistence in learning;

one who accepts responsibility for his/her own learning and viewsproblems as challenges and not obstacles; one who is capable of self-

discipline and has a high degree of curiosity; who has a strong desire to

learn or change and is self-confident; who is able to use basic study skills,organize his/her time and set an appropriate pace for learning, and to

develop a plan for completing work; one who enjoys learning and has atendency to be goal-oriented. (p. 73)

The learning process perspective introduced by Tough (1979) focused on the

learning process in which the learner assumes primary control. His research emphasized


25/102


12

the concept of self-planned learning. Mocker and Spear (1982) introduced a different

construct by suggesting that self-directed learning is a function of learners’ perceived

control versus institution control over the purposes and processes of learning. Mocker

and Spear included self-directed learning in a descriptive model of lifelong learning

based entirely on the locus of control for decision making about the objectives and means

of learning. The model suggested a two-by-two matrix of learner and institution; the self-

directed learning situation occurs when learners, not the institution, control both the

learning objectives and the means of learning. The following situations occupy the other

cells of the matrix: (1) formal learning, in which institutions, not learners, control

objectives and the means of learning; (2) nonformal learning, in which learners control

the objectives and institutions control the means; and (3) informal learning, in which

institutions control the objectives but learners control the means of learning. Gibbons

and Phillips (1982) offered a different view in which self-education could only occur

outside of formal institutions, not inside them. They offered that true self-education

could only occur when the learner is not compelled to learn and others are not compelled

to teach them.

An ongoing debate within the literature is the discussion of self-directed learning

as an instructional method or personality characteristic. As discussed earlier, self-

direction in learning has a strong foundation as an instructional process in which the

learner assumes a primary role in planning, implementing, and evaluating the experience.

This research approach operationalizes self-directed learning as an instructional process.


26/102


13

Fellenz (1985) attempted to introduce the concept that self-direction could be viewed in

two ways - the first is that self-direction is adopted during the process of learning; the

second is that self-direction is a psychological state attained by an individual in the

personal development process. Oddi (1987) further distinguished between the process

perspective and the personality perspective with development of the Continuing Learning

Inventory in an effort to develop a theoretical framework for understanding personality

characteristics of self-directed continuing learners.

Candy’s Learner Control Continuum

Candy (1988) offered further support for distinction between the two concepts

through a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of research findings in self-

direction. His findings revealed that self –direction has a foundation as a personal quality

or attribute and as the independent pursuit of learning outside formal instructional

settings. Candy goes further to suggest a third construct of learner control or self-

direction as a way of organizing instruction. Candy asserts that the phrase “self-

direction” referenced in the literature can be narrowed down to four ideas. The first and

second focus on self-direction as a method or process: (1) the level of control the learner

has over the mode or style of the instruction; (2) autodidaxy (“teach-yourself, or the

independent/self-guided pursuit of learning). The third and fourth are focused on self-

direction as an outcome: (3) the goal of self-management of learning or taking

responsibility for his/her own learning; (4) self-determination of his/her destiny. Figure 1

illustrates Candy’s Learner Control Continuum (Jennings, 2007, p. 518).


27/102


14

Figure 1. Candy’s Learner Control Continuum

Personal Responsibility Orientation Model

Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) suggest a model in which self-direction in learning

is viewed as being comprised of both instructional method processes (self-directed

learning) and personality characteristics (learner self-direction). The Personal

Responsibility Orientation (PRO) model of self-direction in adult learning is designed to

recognize both. Figure 2 illustrates Brockett & Hiemstra’s PRO model (Brockett &

Hiemstra, 1991, p. 25).

The foundation of the model is based in personal responsibility in which the

learner assumes ownership for their own thoughts and actions. Within the context of

learning, it is the ability and/or willingness of individuals to take control of their own

learning that determines their potential for self-direction. Brockett & Hiemstra assert that

the term self-direction in learning is a broad concept that includes both self-directed

learning and learner self-direction. Self-directed learning is the external factors that


28/102


15

Figure 2. Personal Responsibility Orientation Model

facilitate the learner taking primary responsibility for planning, implementing, and

evaluating his/her own learning. Learner self-direction is the internal factors or

personality characteristics that predispose the learner toward accepting responsibility for

his/her thoughts and actions as a learner. Brockett & Hiemstra (1991) assert that learners

have choices about the direction he/she pursues as a learner and responsibility for

accepting the consequences of the actions as a learner are linked to these choices. The

PRO model serves as a construct for further understanding of self-direction and serves as

a framework for theory, research, and practice.


29/102


16

Garrison’s Three Dimensional Model

Garrison's Three Dimensional model of SDL also includes the perspectives of SDL as

a personal attribute as well as a learning process. According to Garrison (1997), SDL is

accomplished by three dimensions interacting with each other: self-management, self-

monitoring, and motivation. In educational settings, self-management involves the learner

assessing available resources and determining their own needs. Garrison explained

resources as tools accessible to the learner that facilitate learner understanding. Self-

monitoring involves the learner assessing their progress and achievement towards

meeting his/her learning goals. The motivation dimension relates to the external and

internal forces that impact the learner’s desire to obtain his/her learning goals. The focus

of Garrison’s (1997) model is on resource use, learning strategies use, and motivation to

learn. Table 2.1 is a summation of the perspectives associated with self-directed learning

(Song & Hall, 2007, p. 28). Garrison further explained that learner control did not mean

independence, but rather collaboration with other people within the context. Like Candy

(1988), as well as Brockett and Hiemstra (1991), Garrison (1997) also recognized the context

factor in his model in that he specified self-management of resources in a given context.


30/102


17

Table 2.1. Perspectives on Self-directed Learning

Perspectives Description Candy (1991) Brockett &

Hiemstra (1991)

Garrison (1997)

Personal

Attribute

Moral, emotional,

and intellectual

management

Personal

Autonomy

Self-management

Goal Orientation

(personal attribute)

Self-management

(use of resources)

Motivation

Process Learner

autonomy over

instruction

Learner Control

Autodidaxy

Process Orientation

(learner control)

Self-monitoring

Context Environment

where learningtakes place

Self-direction is

context bound

Social Context: role

of institutions andpolicies

Self-directed Learning in Health Professions Education

Self-directed learning readiness (SDLR) has been studied across a broad spectrum

of adult groups within health professions education, including nursing, medicine,

pharmacy, and dentistry all of which have licensure requirements that mandate

continuing education in the profession.

Nursing

The earliest investigation with nurses was a diagnostic study by Savoie (1980)

utilizing the self-directed learning readiness score to predict success in continuing

education courses for nurses where learners were expected to assume a high degree of

self-direction. This study found a positive relationship between SDLRS scores and

course grades. Box (1983) investigated the difference among first-level students, second-

level students, and graduates of an associate degree nursing program and found that

SDLRS scores correlated to grade-point average. There were no significant differences


31/102


18

in SDLRS scores among the three groups. Box also noted a positive correlation between

SDLRS scores and grade point average. Wiley (1982) investigated the effects of a

process-oriented, self-directed learning project and the personal preference for structure

on self-directed learning readiness among 104 undergraduate nursing students aged 20-21

years old. Wiley noted that SDLRS scores did not increase from pretest to post-test for

this group of undergraduate students. Crook (1985) examined the predictive validity of

the SDLRS to predict success in the undergraduate nursing classroom. There was a

significant correlation found between SDLRS score and peer nomination (fellow

classmates who identified a member as “self-directed”) and end of year grades. Murray

(1988) utilized a pretest post-test design to determine the effects of participation of

undergraduate nursing students in a clinical internship on SDL. It was found that the

experimental group who participated in the clinical internship differed significantly

between the pretest and post-test SDLRS scores. In addition it was noted that the SDLRS

scores were related to GPA and a desire for advanced education in nursing. Palumbo

(1989) utilized a pretest post-test design to measure change in SDLRS scores of

undergraduate nurses over time (1.5 years). There was a significant change in the SDLR

scores. Fisher, King, and Tague (2001) attempted to develop a SDLRS specific to

nursing practice utilizing the Delphi technique used by Guglielmino. Williams (2004)

utilized the SDLRS scores to examine the effect on nursing students exposed to a

problem based learning program on self-directed learning. No significant findings were

reported.


32/102


19

Medicine

Frisby (1991) conducted one of the earliest studies investigating self-directed

learning readiness in medical students among two groups: the independent study students

and the lecture-discussion students. Frisby found no difference among the two groups.

Shokar, Shokar, Romero, and Bulik (2002) examined SDLRS scores and outcomes

among medical students at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. The

mean SDLRS score of the 182 medical students tested was 235.81, well into the above-

average range for the SDLRS and significantly higher than the mean of the general

population ,214, established by Guglielmino. Their scores also correlated positively with

their final clerkship grades and their clinical preceptor scores.

Dentistry

Hendricson (2006), as a member of the American Dental Education Association

Commission on Changes and Innovation in Dental Education, examined the development

of problem-solving, critical thinking, and self-directed learning in dental education

programs. One of the objectives of the Commission was to provide guidance to dental

schools related to curriculum design. The Commission issued a white paper summarizing

the evidence related to educational best practices for helping dental students acquire the

capacity to function as an entry-level general dentist or to be a better candidate to begin

advanced studies. Three issues were addressed, with special emphasis on the third: 1)

What constitutes expertise, and when does an individual become an expert? 2) What are

the differences between novice and expert thinking? and 3) What educational best


33/102


20

practices can help our students acquire mental capacities associated with expert function,

including critical thinking and self-directed learning? The purpose of the review was to

provide a benchmark that faculty and academic planners could use to assess the degree to

which their curricula included learning experiences associated with development of

problem-solving, critical thinking, self-directed learning, and other cognitive skills

necessary for dental school graduates to ultimately become expert performers as they

develop professionally in the years after graduation. The Commission asserted that the

capacity for self-directed learning is required to implement the reflective judgment

process and underlies many of the dispositions needed for critical thinking. SDL is the

ability to direct and regulate one’s own learning experience (Brookfield, 1993).

Essentially the same educational strategies have been proposed to develop critical

thinking and self-directed learning. These best practices include providing students with

frequent opportunities to use the reflective judgment process to analyze problems

presented in case scenarios. The data seeking and analysis required to accomplish the

reflective judgment process are thought to help students acquire SDL skills in a “learn by

doing” approach, and there is evidence that students who routinely use this process to

explore problems develop more sophisticated SDL than do students in lecture-based

curricula (Blumberg, 2000).

Pharmacy

Finally, Huynh et al. (2007) studied the predictors of readiness for self-directed

learning among third and fourth year pharmacists. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy


34/102


21

Education Standards requires schools and colleges of pharmacy to support the

development of self-directed lifelong learners. The objective of this study was to

characterize the self-directedness of third and fourth year student pharmacists and to

identify characteristics that are associated with readiness for self-directed learning. The

Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale was administered to third and fourth year student

pharmacists. A total of 77 (67.0%) third-year student pharmacists and 100 (84.7%) fourth

year student pharmacists completed the questionnaire. No significant difference was

found between the mean scores on SDLRS for third (157 ± 21) and fourth (154 ± 20)

year student pharmacists (p = 0.39). Huynh asserts that readiness for self-directed

learning may be an intrinsic characteristic that is relatively stable and not readily

influenced by external factors.

At the time of this project, no study has been identified involving the analysis of

self-directed learning readiness among clinical laboratory science students, nor has the

impact of deliberate inclusion of self-directed learning activities in clinical laboratory

science curricula been examined.

Summary

Candy (1991), Brockett and Heimstra (1991), and Garrison (1997) have

established a theoretical framework for investigating both instructional method processes

(self-directed learning) and personality characteristics (learner self-direction). This is

evident in the broad context of adult education and the more specific examination of self-

directed learning and learner self-direction in health care professions education. Studies


35/102


22

have been conducted that have examined the effects of self-directed learning as a learning

process (Savoie, 1980; Box, 1984; Frisby, 1991; and Hendricson, 2006) and examination

of developing attributes or characteristics that lead to learner self-direction (Wiley, 1982;

Murray, 1988; and Palumbo, 1989). Finally, there is evidence of using SDL in health care

education curricula as a tool for developing critical thinking skills necessary for expert

performers as they develop as students and professionally in the years after graduation.


36/102


23

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to examine the self-directed

learning readiness of baccalaureate students at the beginning and at the end of one year in

a clinical laboratory science program that has deliberate self-directed learning activities

incorporated into the curricula.

Research Design

For this research project pretest scores and post-test scores of two cohorts were

compared. Cohort #1 was the control group which did not receive the treatment. Cohort

#2 did receive the treatment. The independent variable in this study was the treatment,

which was the exposure to deliberate self-directed learning activities incorporated into

the curricula. The dependent variable was the post-test SDLRS of the students.

Instrument

With the influences of Cyril Houle and Allen Tough, Lucy Guglielmino, (1977)

developed the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey (also known as the Learning

Preference Assessment-LPA) to assess a learner’s attitudes, skills, and behavior toward

taking responsibility for their own learning. This affective instrument was designed as a

self-report survey that focuses on eight areas related to self-directed learning: love of

learning, life-long learning, self-concept, self-understanding, tolerance of ambiguity in


37/102


24

learning experiences, responsibility related to learning, initiative to organize learning

activities, and creative approaches to learning activities. The self-directed learning

readiness scale (SDLRS) is a self report questionnaire with 58 likert type items (1=almost

never true of me; I hardly ever feel this way to 5=almost always true of me; there are very

few times when I don’t feel this way) designed to determine the extent to which

individuals perceive themselves as possessing the skills and attitudes associated with

SDL (Guglielmino, 1977) (Appendix A). The SDLRS test results are an overall score of

self-directed learning readiness which ranges from a low of 58 (indicating a low level of

ability to direct one’s own learning) to a high of 290 (indicating a high level of ability to

direct one’s own learning). The average score for adults completing the SDLRS is 214

(Guglielmino, 1977).

This Likert–type response survey was developed from a three round Delphi study

that included fourteen identified experts in the field of self-directed learning and adult

learning. The first instrument was field tested on 307 individuals in Georgia, Canada,

and Virginia. To estimate internal reliability, Guglielmino used the Cronbach-Alpha

procedure on the obtained scores. The reliability estimate was 0.87. Guglielmino

identified eight independent factors through factor analysis. Some items were added and

restructured, and the second sampling was over 3,151 individuals. The reliability

estimate was determined to be 0.94 (McCune, Guglielmino, & Garcia, 1990). Most

published studies on populations over twenty years of age report similar reliability figures

that fall within a range of 0.72 – 0.96. In addition, to internal reliability estimates,


38/102


25

Finestone (1984) and Wiley (1982) reported test-retest reliability coefficients of 0.82 and

0.79. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) and Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner (2007)

reviewed studies that examined the validity and reliability of the instrument. They

concluded that the SDLRS was the most appropriate tool for measuring learner beliefs,

values, attitudes, and behaviors related to self-directed learning. Delahaye and Choy

(2000) conducted a comprehensive review of the SDLRS and examined content,

construct, and criterion validity along with stability (test-retest) and internal consistency.

Delahaye and Choy found the instrument to be valid and reliable for the assessment of

learner self-perception of self-directed learning.

Considerations and Limitations

Delahaye and Choy (2000) asserted that the weaknesses of the survey were the

self-report aspect that has the potential to lead to biases such as “telling the researcher

what they want to know,” inconsistent self concept, and pretest post-test effect if used in

that manner. Gay (2006) asserts that testing is more likely to be threatened when the time

between the pretest and post-test is short and the information for testing is factual. For

this study, the pretest and post-test were administered approximately 10 months apart.

The information related to the survey is not fact based. The participant is self-reporting

their self-directed learning skills and attitudes. Despite these concerns, the SDLRS is

considered the most widely used instrument in evaluating learning self-direction. It has

been translated into more than 20 languages and applied internationally.


39/102


26

Sample

The convenience sample consisted of all the Clinical Laboratory Science students

enrolled in the first year of the undergraduate baccalaureate Clinical Laboratory Science

program within the School of Allied Health Sciences at the Texas Tech University Health

Sciences Center Lubbock campus. The inclusion criteria were students who met the

requirements for admission to the Clinical Laboratory Science program which included

the following:

1. a minimum cumulative and science GPA of 2.5,

2. completion of prerequisite coursework,

3. completion of an application that includes an essay, and

4. participation in a structured interview conducted by members of the Clinical

Laboratory Science admissions committee.

COHORT #1

Students in the first cohort (comparison group) were administered the (pretest)

Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey the first day of class, August 2007. The first

cohort did not participate in a curriculum that included deliberate self-directed learning

activities. The curriculum experienced by Cohort #1 was the traditional CLS curriculum

utilized by university-based CLS programs in the U.S. The (post-test) Self-Directed

Learning Readiness Survey was administered again to the first cohort at the completion

of one year (two semesters) of the CLS curriculum. The sample size was 29 students.

Four participants did not complete the post-test. One student withdrew from the program


40/102


27

and three students were dismissed due to poor academic performance. The final sample

for Cohort #1 was 25 students.

COHORT #2

Students in the second cohort were administered the (pretest) Self-Directed

Learning Readiness Survey the first day of class, August 2008. The second cohort

participated in a curriculum designed to improve self-directed learning readiness by

incorporating self-directed learning activities (treatment).

Treatment

The treatment included SDL activities comprised of a learning module in the first

semester that introduced the concept of self-directed learning (Appendix B); a self

assessment of learning style using the VARK (Appendix C); an Advising Syllabus that

provided a structured advising schedule led by an assigned faculty member (Appendix

D); and weekly formative assessments that were structured to develop cumulative

learning within the clinical laboratory science curriculum.

1. A learning module on the SDL process was prepared for implementation of

the treatment. Preparation of the module began with a review of the linear

model of the SDL process developed by Knox (1973) that identified five

components: (1) identification of needs, (2) awareness of the facilitators and

barriers to learning, (3) selection of objectives, (4) selection of learning

activities, and (5) evaluation of learning. In addition, Brockett & Heimstra


41/102


28

(1985) identified strategies that educators can use to facilitate self-directed

learning: (1) help the learner identify a starting point for the project, (2) create

a partnership with the learner, (3) make the learner aware of objectives,

learning strategies, and resources, (4) teach inquiry skills, decision making,

personal development, and self-assessment, and (5) create an environment of

openness and trust. The learning module to introduce the concept of SDL

consisted of objectives, content, and resources and was presented to Cohort #2

early in the fall semester.

2. The VARK is a self assessment tool to determine a student’s learning

preference. The acronym VARK stands for Visual, Aural, Read/write, and

Kinesthetic sensory modalities that are utilized by the learner for gathering

and processing information. Fleming and Mills (1992) suggested the four

categories that seemed to reflect the experiences of the students in the process

of learning. Each category is defined as follows:

a. Visual (V): This is a preference for information to be presented in

map, diagram, or chart form rather than in words or lecture form.

b. Aural/Auditory (A): This is a preference for information that is “heard

or spoken”. Lectures, tutorials, group discussion, and email are

effective tools for learning.

c. Read/write (R): This preference is for information displayed as words

with an emphasis on text-based input and output, reading, and writing


42/102


29

in all its forms. PowerPoint, Internet, and dictionaries are effective

tools for learning.

d. Kinesthetic (K): This preference refers to the use of experiences and

practice (simulated and real) to understand information. Case studies,

videos, and laboratory sessions are effective tools for learning.

For the purposes of this study, the VARK was used in one-to-one student

counseling with a faculty advisor. Each student completed the questionnaire

and was advised he/she could select more than one option for any question. If

the student determined all of the options were appropriate, he/she were asked

to indicate what their first preference might be. Most of the students

completed the questionnaire in four to six minutes. After the questionnaire

was completed each student was asked to sum the occurrences of his/her

preferences for each mode. This procedure resulted in four scores, one for

each modal preference. Students could select more than one option for each

question and omit questions. The sum of the four preference scores on the

questionnaire varied among individual students. The scores were then perused

by the student and advisor and a modal preference was determined based on a

simple numerical dominance of one mode over others.

3. The Advising Syllabus (Appendix D) is a structured advising schedule led by

an assigned faculty member. Preparation of the Advising Syllabus began with

a review of instructional methods that facilitate development of self-directed


43/102


30

learning. After the Advising Syllabus was prepared, it was given to two

experienced advisors for review. The advisors made a few suggestions for

revision, and those suggestions were incorporated into the final draft. Prior to

the implementation of the Advising Syllabus, faculty were trained in a 4 hour

workshop that addressed topics on how to conduct focused meetings that

include questions regarding development of appropriate learning strategies,

setting goals, and analysis of current learning processes that may not have

been successful for the student.

4. Weekly cumulative, formative assessments were developed to promote

cumulative learning within the clinical laboratory science curriculum for each

semester (fall and spring).

The (post-test) Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey was administered again

to the second cohort at the completion of one year (two semesters) of the CLS curriculum

(May 2009). The sample size was 27 students. Two participants did not complete the

post-test. Both withdrew from the program due to personal reasons. No students were

dismissed due to poor academic performance. The final sample size for Cohort #2 was

25 students.

Protection of Rights of Human Subjects

University procedures were followed by requesting permission to pursue research

involving human subjects. This study qualified for expedited review at Texas Tech


44/102


31

University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC). Permission from the Institutional Review

Board was granted for data collection (IRB# L09-043) (Appendix E).

Data Collection Procedures

The SDLR questionnaire (pretest) was administered by the researcher during

orientation (fall term) for Cohort #1 and Cohort# 2. The students were informed of their

choice to voluntarily participate and consent to participate was obtained (Appendix F).

After completion of two semesters (fall and spring terms) the SDLRS questionnaire

(post-test) was administered by the researcher at the end of the spring term.

Data Analysis

Statistical package GraphPad InStat, version 3, is a statistical tool to help

researchers calculate frequently used statistical tests efficiently. The following two null

hypotheses were tested in the study:

1. No statistically significant differences exist in self-directed learning readiness

scores for undergraduate students transitioning from a traditional academic

environment into a pre-professional program of study when they are

deliberately exposed to self-directed learning activities in the clinical

laboratory science curriculum when compared to the scores of undergraduate

students transitioning from a traditional academic environment into a pre-

professional program of study who have not been exposed to self-directed

learning activities.


45/102


32

Biographical data (gender, entering GPA, and exit GPA) were analyzed by computing

measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion. These were utilized to

determine homogeneity of Cohort #1 (comparison group) and Cohort #2 (treatment

group). To test the hypothesis the pretest SDLRS scores for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2

were analyzed by conducting independent samples t-tests to determine if the cohorts are

equivalent at the start of the study. Levene's test was calculated to determine

homogeneity of variance. In addition, t-test (0.05 level of significance) was computed to

compare post-test SDLRS test scores. Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 were determined to be

equivalent on the pretest scores.

2. No statistically significant differences exist in GPA for students enrolled in

the clinical laboratory science program who experienced self-directed learning

activities compared to the GPA of students who did not experience self-


To test the hypothesis the GPA at the end of one year (two semesters) for students in

Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 were analyzed. The t-test (one tailed at .05 level of

significance) was computed.

The analysis of the post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 provided data to

determine if self-directed learning activities incorporated into the curricula of clinical

laboratory science programs had an effect on self-directed learning readiness. The

analysis of the GPA for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 provided data for analysis to determine


46/102


33

if self-directed learning activities were related to the grade point average of the study

participants.


47/102


34

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter reports the findings of the study that investigated the effects of

incorporating self-directed learning activities on the SDLR scores and grade point

average (GPA) of clinical laboratory science students. The chapter identifies each of the

hypotheses posed in the study, describes how the data were analyzed, and explains the

results. Statistical analysis, including descriptive statistics, the Self-Directed Learning

Readiness Survey, GPA, and t-tests were used to answer the two hypotheses identified in

Chapter 1.

Descriptive Statistics

Students enrolled in the Clinical Laboratory Science program participated in this

study. Table 4.1 provides a breakdown of the students in Cohort #1 and Cohort #2. All

50 students signed consent forms to participate in the study.

Table 4.1. Breakdown of Cohorts.

Cohort #1 Cohort #2

Female 15 19

Male 10 6

Total Number of Students 25 25

Mean Entering GPA 3.31 3.30

COHORT #1

Students in the first cohort (comparison group) were administered the (pretest)

Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey the first day of class, August 2007. The first


48/102


35

cohort did not participate in a curriculum that included deliberate self-directed learning

activities. The curriculum experienced by Cohort #1 was the traditional CLS curriculum

utilized by university-based CLS programs in the U.S. The (post-test) Self-Directed

Learning Readiness Survey was administered again to the first cohort at the completion

of one year (two semesters) of the CLS curriculum. The sample size was 29 students.

Four participants did not complete the post-test. The final sample for Cohort #1 was 25

students. The mean entering grade point average (GPA) for Cohort #1 was 3.31. The

entering GPA for each student was calculated based on prerequisite coursework required

for admission into the CLS program.

COHORT #2

Students in the second cohort were administered the (pretest) Self-Directed

Learning Readiness Survey the first day of class, August 2008. The second cohort

participated in a curriculum designed to improve self-directed learning readiness by

incorporating self-directed learning activities (treatment). The mean entering GPA for

Cohort #2 was 3.30. The entering GPA for each student was calculated based on

prerequisite coursework required for admission into the CLS program.

The self-directed learning readiness scale (SDLRS) is a self report questionnaire

with 58 likert type items (1=almost never true of me; I hardly ever feel this way to

5=almost always true of me; there are very few times when I don’t feel this way)

designed to determine the extent to which individuals perceive themselves as possessing

the skills and attitudes associated with SDL (Guglielmino, 1977/1978). The SDLRS was


49/102


36

administered to Cohort #1 and Cohort #2 at orientation August 2008 and August 2009

respectively. Table 4.2 provides a summary of data of the pretest SDLRS for Cohort #1

and Cohort #2.

Table 4.2. Summary Pretest SDLRS for Cohorts.

Parameter Cohort #1 Pretest Cohort #2 Pretest

Mean 236.76 221.12

Number of Participants 25 25

Standard Deviation 19.197 20.397

Standard Error 3.839 4.079

Minimum Score 188.00 172.00

Maximum Score 277.00 256.00

Median 236.00 224.00

Lower 95% Confidence Interval 228.84 212.70

Upper 95% Confidence Interval 244.68 229.54

Cohort #1 did not participate in a curriculum that included deliberate self-directed

learning activities. The curriculum experienced by Cohort #1 was the traditional CLS

curriculum utilized by university-based CLS programs in the U.S. Table 4.3 provides a

summary of data of the pretest and post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1.

Table 4.3. Summary Pretest and Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1.

Parameter Cohort #1 Pretest Cohort #1 Post-test

Mean 236.76 228.40




Minimum Score 188.00 175.00Maximum Score 277.00 270.00

Median 236.00 230.00




50/102


37

The pretest and post-test scores for Cohort #1 were compared using the paired t-test. The

two-tailed P value at 0.05 level of significance was 0.0158. The t = 2.599 with 24

degrees of freedom. The statistical difference between the means is considered

significant.

Cohort #2 participated in a curriculum designed to enhance self-directed learning

readiness by incorporating self-directed learning activities (treatment) into the CLS

curriculum. Table 4.4 provides a summary of data of the pretest and post-test SDLRS for

Cohort #2.

Table 4.4. Summary Pretest and Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #2.

Parameter Cohort #2 Pretest Cohort #2 Post-test

Mean 221.12 226.32






Median 224.00 229.00



The pretest and post-test scores for Cohort #2 were compared using the paired t-test. The

two-tailed P value at 0.05 level of significance was 0.1708. The t = 1.412 with 24

degrees of freedom. The statistical difference between the means is not considered

significant.


51/102


38

Hypothesis Testing

The hypotheses for this study were designed to examine if including deliberate

self-directed learning activities into the CLS curriculum would affect the extent to which

individuals perceive themselves as possessing the skills and attitudes associated with

SDL. Two null hypotheses were addressed. Results were identified as being statistically

significant at or beyond the 0.05 level.

Hypothesis I

No statistically significant differences exist in self-directed learning readiness

scores for undergraduate students transitioning from a traditional academic environment

into a pre-professional program of study when they are deliberately exposed to self-

directed learning activities in the clinical laboratory science curriculum when compared

to the scores of undergraduate students transitioning from a traditional academic

environment into a pre-professional program of study who have not been exposed to self-


The independent samples t-test was calculated to compare the post-test SDLRS

for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2. Table 4.5 provides calculation details. The two-tailed p

value at 0.05 level of significance was calculated 0.7314 with tcv = 0.3453 with 48

degrees of freedom. The calculated value did not exceed the critical value at a level of

significance at 0.05; therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected.


52/102


39

Table 4.5. Post-test SDLRS for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2.

Parameter Cohort #1 Post-test Cohort #2 Post-test

Mean 228.40 226.32






Median 230.00 229.00



Hypothesis II

No statistically significant differences exist in GPA for students enrolled in the

clinical laboratory science program who experienced self-directed learning activities

compared to the GPA of students who did not experience self-directed learning activities.

The independent samples t-test was calculated to compare the GPAs at the

conclusion of one year (two semesters) for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2. Table 4.6 provides

calculation details. The one-tailed p value at 0.05 level of significance was 0.0334 with

tcv = 1.875 with 48 degrees of freedom. The calculated value did exceed the critical

value at a level of significance at 0.05; therefore the null hypothesis was rejected.


53/102


40

Table 4.6. GPA Comparisons for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2.

Parameter Cohort #1 GPA Cohort #2 GPA

Mean 3.2868 3.5332




Minimum GPA 2.160 2.900

Maximum GPA 4.000 4.000

Median GPA 3.440 3.510



Summary

This chapter presented the findings of the study that investigated the effects of

incorporating self-directed learning activities on the SDLR scores and grade point

average (GPA) of clinical laboratory science students. Fifty students from the Clinical

Laboratory Science Program participated in the study. Students completed a pretest and

post-test SDLRS that were used in the data analysis. In addition, entering GPA and

concluding GPA (after two semesters) was collected and used in the data analysis.

Hypothesis I was not rejected and Hypothesis II was rejected.


54/102


41

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter presents a summary of the study, including the problems, purpose, findings,

implications, and conclusions based on the analysis of the data. Limitations and

recommendations for future research are also presented.

Background

A goal of health care education is to develop curricula that promote critical

thinking skills necessary for expert performers as they develop as students and

professionally in the years after graduation. The dynamic environment in health care,

increasing body of knowledge, and complexity of practice make it vital that clinical

laboratory scientists maintain competency by continuing to learn throughout their careers.

The ability of clinical laboratory scientists to become self-directed learners is one way of

ensuring continued competence in knowledge and skills in the clinical laboratory.

Guglielmino (1977) found that a variety of attitudes, habits, knowledge, and skills are

involved in readiness for self-directed learning. The Self-Directed Learning Readiness

Survey (also known as the Learning Preference Assessment-LPA) can be used by

students and educators to assess a learner’s attitudes, skills, and behavior toward taking

responsibility for their own learning.


55/102


42

Summary of the Study

This study identified as its purpose to examine the self-directed learning readiness

of baccalaureate students at the beginning and at the end of one year in a clinical

laboratory science program that deliberately introduced SDL activities into the curricula.

The SDL activities included (1) a unit of study in the first semester that introduces the

concept of self-directed learning, strategies for success, and resources; (2) a self

assessment of learning style; (3) scheduled, focused meetings with a faculty advisor that

include questions regarding development of appropriate learning strategies, setting goals,

and analysis of current learning processes that may not be successful thus far for the

student; and (4) weekly formative assessment that is focused on an integrative and

cumulative approach to learning within the clinical laboratory science curriculum. The

self-directed learning readiness (SDLR) score was utilized to assess the learner’s

attitudes, skills, and behavior toward taking responsibility for their own learning. GPA at

the end of the year was used to determine if SDL activities was linked to academic

success in the clinical laboratory science program.

Clinical Laboratory Science students (n=50) participated in this study. Cohort #1

was the comparison group (n=25) and Cohort #2 received the treatment (n=25). Before

treatment, both cohorts were similar demographically and had similar overall grade point

averages.

Hypothesis I stated that no statistically significant differences exist in self-

directed learning readiness scores for undergraduate students transitioning from a


56/102


43

traditional academic environment into a pre-professional program of study when they are

deliberately exposed to self-directed learning activities in the clinical laboratory science

curriculum when compared to the scores of undergraduate students transitioning from a

traditional academic environment into a pre-professional program of study who have not

been exposed to self-directed learning activities.

Data were analyzed using the independent t test and findings demonstrated that

statistically significant differences did not exist between Cohort #1 post-test SDLR scores

and Cohort #2 post-test SDLRS scores after treatment.

Hypothesis II stated that no statistically significant differences exist in GPA for

students enrolled in the clinical laboratory science program who experienced self-directed

learning activities compared to the GPA of students who did not experience self-directed

learning activities. The independent t-test was calculated to compare the GPAs at the

conclusion of one year (two semesters) for Cohort #1 and Cohort #2. A statistically

significant difference did exist related to GPA for students enrolled in the clinical

laboratory science program who experienced self-directed learning activities compared to

the GPA of students who did not experience self-directed learning activities. The finding

supports the idea that students enrolled in the Clinical Laboratory Science program who

experienced self-directed learning activities have a higher GPA than those students who

did not experience self-directed learning activities.


57/102


44

Conclusions and Discussion

Findings related to Hypothesis I showed no statistically significant differences

between Cohort #1 post-test SDLR scores and Cohort #2 post-test SDLR scores after

treatment. This supports the findings of Wiley (1982) who investigated the effects of a

process-oriented, self-directed learning project and the personal preference for structure

on self-directed learning readiness among 104 undergraduate student aged 20-21 years

old. Wiley noted that SDLR scores did not increase from pretest to post-test for this

group of undergraduate students. Williams (2004) utilized the SDLRS to examine the

effect on nursing students exposed to a problem based learning program of self-directed

learning for one year. No significant findings were reported. In similar studies

examining the change in SDLR scores related to exposure to alternate self-directed

learning activities, Frisby (1991) investigated self-directed learning readiness in medical

students among two groups: the independent study students and the lecture-discussion

students. Frisby found no difference in SDLR scores among the two groups. These

findings suggest that exposure to SDL activities does not increase SDL readiness in

students. In contrast, Palumbo (1989) utilized a pretest post-test design to measure

change in SDLR scores of undergraduate nurses over time (1.5 years). There was a

significant change in the SDLR scores. Murray (1998) utilized the pretest post-test design

to determine the effect of participation of undergraduate nursing students in a clinical

internship on SDL. It was reported that the experimental group who participated in the

clinical internship differed significantly between the pretest and post-test SDLR scores.


58/102


45

The findings suggest that the construct of the SDL activities and length of exposure does

matter and that the process for developing SDL activities to enhance SDL is complex.

Hypothesis II showed a statistically significant difference did exist related to GPA

for students enrolled in the clinical laboratory science program who experienced self-

directed learning activities compared to the GPA of students who did not experience self-

directed learning activities. This supports the findings of Murray (1988) who noted

participation in SDL related activities such as a clinical internship were related to GPA.

These finding suggests that assessment and outcomes may drive the self-directed learning

process in formal education settings. Miflin (2000) reported that students base their self-

study decision on what they expected the test to be. Schmidt (2000) noted that

assessment drives student learning in student oriented curricula to the “same extent” as in

conventional curricula. The gain in GPA for Cohort #2, who received the treatment of

exposure to SDL activities, is worth noting and contributes to the knowledge that self-

directed learning as an instructional method does improve student outcomes. In addition,

the weekly cumulative, formative assessments, which were part of the treatment for

Cohort #2, were developed to promote cumulative learning within the clinical laboratory

science curriculum for the fall and spring semesters may also have improved the ending

GPA for Cohort #2.

The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Survey was used to assess the learner’s

attitudes, skills, and behavior toward taking responsibility for their own learning. A

statistically significant difference was identified, specifically there was a drop in mean


59/102


46

SDLR score for the comparison group from 236.76 to 228.40 (8.36 points). The pretest

post-test group mean SDLR scores for Cohort #2 revealed no statistically significant

rice spearman dissertation

Documents