Applying Learning Theory to Student Work Experiences
Ari Senghor Rosner-Salazar
EDHE 673 Student Development Theory
November 5, 2008
Introduction
Student workers play a critical role in helping to run institutions of higher education, including community colleges. The labor that students provide can shore up staffing levels in departments facing periodic surges in customer volume and personnel cuts that threaten service levels. Unfortunately, institutions facing such pressures may tend to focus too much on departments’ needs. Student affairs professionals unaccustomed to the pedagogical and assessment concerns related to traditional classroom teaching may overlook the learning opportunities in student employment. Others, including some faculty, may assert that learning is the sole responsibility of faculty in an academic course setting.
How can learning theory inform this topic? In order to analyze what constitutes learning, I will discuss the definitions of formal, nonformal, and informal learning. I will then explore the theory of the learning organization and the concept of the learning paradigm. Finally, I will outline some recommendations for organizations to support student affairs professionals in the design of workplace learning environments based on learning objectives and the assessment of learning.
Literature Review & Analysis
Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) provided an excellent discussion of the various ways adults learn, using Coomb’s (1985) model: formal, non-formal, and informal settings. In regard to formal education, the authors wrote: “For most people, learning in adulthood brings to mind classroom settings… Formal education is highly institutionalized, bureaucratic, curriculum driven, and formally recognized with grades, diplomas or certificates.” (p. 29). As the authors described, many individuals think of the classroom, curriculum, and diplomas when they think about learning in college. This conceptualization does a disservice to the holistic concept of learning because learning can occur in other contexts. The authors defined nonformal education as “organized learning opportunities outside the formal educational system.” (p. 30). Unlike formal learning, nonformal learning tended to be community-based. Like formal learning, nonformal educational options had a curriculum and usually a facilitator: “Instructors… emphasized the informality, compressed time, and hands-on interactive nature of the learning in which the needs and interests of the participants are paramount in the encounter.” (p. 30). An example of nonformal learning would be a person learning how to use concrete during a class at a hardware store. The authors described informal learning as the most ubiquitous form of learning but also the least recognition: “Embedded as it is in our everyday activities, whether we are at work, at home, or in the community, and lacking institutional sponsorship, adults rarely label these activities as learning.” (p. 35). The authors cited studies that estimated more than 90% of adults participating in informal learning (especially self-directed learning) and 70% of learning in the workplace being classified as informal. (p. 35).
So how do such theories apply in a community college setting? The concept of the learning organization is critical in this regard.
Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) invoked the work of several theorists in order to better define the learning organization:
Senge defined it as ‘a place where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to act together’ (p. 3). (p. 43).
In using Senge’s quote, the authors revealed the important facets of the learning organization: empowered employees, new thinking, support for learning, and free-sharing of information. According to the authors’ discussion of Marsick and Watkins (2005), learning organizations supported employees’ efforts to continually improve themselves: “The first imperative is to create continuous learning opportunities at all levels of the organization…. With the goal that learning becomes an integral part of the everyday work life.” (p. 44). By empowering employees to become learners for the organization, the organization’s goals are further advanced.
Barr and Tagg (1995) introduced the concept of the “Learning” paradigm in opposition to the “Instruction” paradigm. In doing so, they revealed an early conception of the learning organization: “In other words, the Learning Paradigm envisions the institution itself as a learner--over time, it continuously learns how to produce more learning with each graduating class, each entering student.” (first section, seventh paragraph). How do these concepts specifically relate to the student worker at a community college? Barr and Tagg asserted that lecturing, a staple of the Instruction paradigm, did not necessarily produce student learning. They argued that institutions should shift to the Learning paradigm, as when institutions focused on student learning, the classroom lecture would no longer be the only method for producing learning. In this regard, Barr and Tagg intersected with Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner’s (2007) concept of informal learning.
By decoupling learning from an exclusive connection with the classroom (and faculty), institutions can provide student affairs professionals with the opportunity to develop learning experiences for student workers. Barr and Tagg (1995) supported this concept:
In the Instruction Paradigm, teaching is judged on its own terms; in the Learning Paradigm, the power of an environment or approach is judged in terms of its impact on learning. If learning occurs, then the environment has power. If students learn more in environment A than in environment B, then A is more powerful than B. To know this in the Learning Paradigm we would assess student learning routinely and constantly…. While teachers will have designed the learning experiences and environments students use—often through teamwork with each other and other staff—they need not be present for or participate in every structured learning activity. (Criteria for success section, fifth paragraph)
The previous quote even accepts that faculty do not have to be present for learning to take place so long as they have collaborated on its design. Many student affairs professionals could benefit from professional development and faculty mentorship on learning outcomes and assessment in the educational workplace. Barr and Tagg advocated for an outwardly growing scope of such assessment and alluded to non-academic departments:
The place to start the assessment of learning outcomes is in the conventional classroom; from there, let the practice grow to the program and institutional levels. (Meeting the challenge section, eleventh paragraph)
As discussed at the end of the above quote, Barr and Tagg recommended a clear focus on student learning as measured by proper assessment, even outside of the classroom. By focusing on results, the authors argued that institutions would be more willing to innovate to improve learning: “You are free to organize the environment in any way you like. The only thing you are required to do is to produce the desired result--student learning.” Barr and Tagg (Meeting the challenge section, thirteenth paragraph). By focusing on results, student affairs professionals have the opportunity to complement the work of faculty with increased student learning in the academic workplace.
Other theorists discussed student learning outside of the classroom. Lewis (2008) studied five areas of learning among student workers: leadership, career development, civic engagement, ethics and values development, and responsible independence. In interviewing both students and their supervisors, he found, “The results showed that both student employees and their supervisors believed that work tasks and behavioral components encountered during the students’ jobs produced learning in those five key areas.” (p. A56). Lewis recommended that supervisors provide planned and structured learning opportunities for students in the work environment. He advocated for the pairing of faculty and staff members in “learning-focused research teams,” to encourage learning experiences in the workplace (p. A56).
Bonfiglio, Hanson, Fried, et al. (2006) discussed the readiness of specific institutions to include non-academic learning environments and student affairs professionals in a culture of assessment: “Some of the work of the division was already oriented toward student learning…. It also identified a number of areas where the staff felt it was deficient…” (p. 45). The results indicated more work needed to be done to promote the following: (a) collaboration between faculty and student affairs members, (b) engagement of student affairs professionals in research on learning outcomes, (c) inclusion of student affairs-specific research priorities in institutional research, (d) regular communication of research implications to student affairs professionals, (e) staff development programs, (f) staff involvement in professional associations, and (g) involvement of other divisions in student affairs meetings to discuss campus issues. The language used in the case institute’s new mission and vision statements indicated a shift to Barr and Tagg’s (1995) learning paradigm in the student work environment:
Students will take full advantage of the opportunities both inside and outside of the classroom to learn from every member of the campus community.” (Bonfiglio, Hanson, Fried, et al., 2006, p. 47).
The authors discussed the centrality of learning as a measurement of institutional productivity, even when assessing non-academic units:
The authors of the Student Learning Imperative stated, ‘…if learning is the primary measure of institutional productivity by which the quality of undergraduate education is determined, what and how much students learn also must be the criterion by which the value of student affairs is judged.’ (American College Personnel Association, 1994, p. 2). (Bonfiglio, Hanson, Fried, et al., 2006, p. 48
As a result of this divisional assessment, the student affairs professionals committed to identifying learning outcomes, collaborating outside the division, and investigating assessment instruments to measure learning.
In regard to such collaborations, Steffes and Keeling (2006) discussed the importance of institution-wide reconceptualization of learning a joint faculty and student affairs venture that includes learning outside of the classroom setting:
Given our current understanding of learning, collaboration between faculty and student affairs educators is not simply an intelligent option; it is a core requirement for the effective development and achievement of desired student learning outcomes (see Kellogg, 1999)…. Both the unconscious processing of new material and the intentional or happenstance application and testing of knowledge will, more likely than not, occur outside the classroom and laboratory, in the active context of students’ lives. Thinking separately of curriculum and co-curriculum has only administrative value; it is, in fact, counterproductive to continue working with those terms and the assumptions that underlie them.
Specific to student employment, Dungy and Keeling (2006) revealed a University of North Dakota program that trained staff on how to better assess student learning on the job. Through its actions, UND appeared to have championed learning organization culture:
The course also benefits staff members by helping them to better understand what a learning outcomes-based environment is and how students can benefit from this type of experience and provides staff with supervisory techniques that they can use to help students learn and develop beyond the practical aspects of their jobs. (p. 77).
UND modeled the learning organization by training on learning outcomes design.
In this paper, I have applied learning theory to the domain of the student worker. By employing a more sophisticated definition of learning (formal, informal, and nonformal), I expanded the more traditional understanding of learning as a classroom-only activity. I supported this analysis by discussing the learning paradigm and discussed ways that learning organizations can better prepare student affairs professionals to contribute to student learning.
References
Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning--a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27, 12-25. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ516385) Retrieved November 2, 2008, from ERIC database.
Bonfiglio, Hansen & Fried (2006). Assessing internal environments. In Keeling, R. P. & Associates. Eds. Learning reconsidered 2: a practical guide to implementing a campus wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers—International, Association of College Unions—International, National Academic Advisors Association, national Associatino for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association.
Dungy and Keeling (2006). Implementing promising practices. In Keeling, R. P. & Associates. Eds. Learning reconsidered 2: a practical guide to implementing a campus wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers—International, Association of College Unions—International, National Academic Advisors Association, national Associatino for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association.
Lewis, J. S. (2008). Student workers can learn more on the job. Chronicle of higher education. 54(41), A56. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ803908) Retrieved November 2, 2008, from ERIC database.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, (2007). L. M. Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide. 3rd ed. San Francisco
Steffes, J. & Keeling, R. P. (2006). Creating strategies for collaboration. In Keeling, R. P. & Associates. Eds. Learning reconsidered 2: a practical guide to implementing a campus wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers—International, Association of College Unions—International, National Academic Advisors Association, national Associatino for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association.
No comments:
Post a Comment